Science And Scripture. Can They Coexist?

[Bikeemikey]

Agreed; and would add that we know very little about God and science.

Yay!

[Freedom]

You missed my point. What I tried to say, in effect, is that I have perfect confidence one day God will reveal that science and religion are fully related and integrated disciplines and that they are, in fact, one and the same thing. 

I disagree. Religion is not about science, it is about righteous living. The scriptures do not present a scientifically accurate portrayal of reality. They contain metaphors, parables, and allegories. Discovering that Gods ways are consistent with the laws of physics is different than trying to fit the religions narrative of the scriptures into the bounds of science. You will have as much success as fitting Harry Potter into the same jug. As I have stated many times, science tells us how, religion tells us why. 

[BCSpace]

But is god not omnipotent and omniscient and can see through the curtain of time? Cause that's what I remember learning in seminary and church before I left. So either doctrine has changed or my teachers were teaching false doctrine. Not to mention simple deductive logic and religion/god don't have the best track record of getting along.

 

I view it as God being omniscient and omnipotent relative to us.  I agree with Rob in that God does not know precisely who will make it and who will not but He can predict with a high degree of accuracy.

[thesometimesaint]

I view it as God being omniscient and omnipotent relative to us.  I agree with Rob in that God does not know precisely who will make it and who will not but He can predict with a high degree of accuracy.

 

I'm just glad the he allows me at least a small glimpse into how he does things.

[jaxenro]

I view it as God being omniscient and omnipotent relative to us. I agree with Rob in that God does not know precisely who will make it and who will not but He can predict with a high degree of accuracy.

If you view time as not being linear I suppose all who will make it already have

Science may theorize time isn't linear God may already live it. It is, I think, a distinction

[teddyaware]

I disagree. Religion is not about science, it is about righteous living. The scriptures do not present a scientifically accurate portrayal of reality. They contain metaphors, parables, and allegories. Discovering that Gods ways are consistent with the laws of physics is different than trying to fit the religions narrative of the scriptures into the bounds of science. You will have as much success as fitting Harry Potter into the same jug. As I have stated many times, science tells us how, religion tells us why.

My belief in the very close relationship between the LDS religion science has been informed by the thinking of many LDS Church leaders, some of whom I quote below: 

The study of science is the study of something eternal. If we study astronomy, we study the works of God. If we study chemistry, geology, optics, or any other branch of science, every new truth we come to the understanding of is eternal; it is a part of the great system of universal truth. It is truth that exists throughout universal nature; and God is the dispenser of all truth. [Orson Pratt]

Every discovery in science and art, that is really true and useful to mankind, has been given by direct revelation from God, though but few acknowledge it. It has been given with a view to prepare the way for the ultimate triumph of truth, and the redemption of the earth from the power of sin and Satan. [brigham Young]

Our religion embraces chemistry; it embraces all the knowledge of the geologist, and then it goes a little further than their systems of argument, for the Lord almighty, its author, is the greatest chemist there is. [brigham Young].

But science, dominated by the spirit of religion is the key to progress and the hope of the future.[David O. McKay]

We may go further. Every person born into the earth has claim upon the assistance of the Spirit of God. That is a species of revelation. Consequently, all good achievements of man, in science, literature, or art, are the product of revelation. The knowledge and wisdom of earth have so come. [John A. Widtsoe]

The Church, the custodian of the gospel on earth, looks with full favor upon the attempts of men to search out the facts and laws of nature. It believes that men of science, seekers after truth, are often assisted by the Spirit of the Lord in such researches. It holds further that every scientific discovery may be incorporated into the gospel, and that, therefore there can be no conflict between true religion and correct science. The Church teaches that the laws of nature are but the immutable laws of the Creator of the universe. [John A. Widtsoe]

As science advances and increases, as new discoveries are made, as more complete command is obtained over the forces of nature, the more necessary it becomes that we have a religion to guide us in employing these discoveries. [John A. Widtsoe]

Religion and science have sometimes been in apparent conflict. Yet the conflict should only be apparent, not real for science should seek truth, and true religion is truth. There can never be conflict between revealed religion and scientific fact. That they have often occupied different fields of truth is a mere detail. The gospel accepts and embraces all truth.[Ezra Taft Benson]

Edited March 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[Freedom]

Religion and the nature of God and the eternities are not related in my opinion. Religion is how we behave, not how the wonders of the universe function. Religion is about becoming better people, not about understanding the physics behind how a spirit is sanctified. Religion is to science what poetry is to books. Yes, poetry is found in books, but the poetry does not attempt to explain how the poem was printed on the page. Religion is the poem. It is a social science. 

[erdoch]

Truth 101,

 

Welcome to the forum. I'm relatively new myself - well, been here for a year but am mostly a lurker following people's discussions. 

 

I like where you're coming from and the honesty of your questions. Personally, as a believing member of the Church I see myself as being on a life-long journey of curiosity - trying to understand our place in the universe, embracing truths from all religions, exploring my own faith spiritually and intellectually, and understanding how God works with humanity and myself individually. I think humility is very important and necessary for us to learn - because neither science nor religion has the full picture. We see in part, through a glass darkly. 

 

The Church has not yet fully embraced modernity - we're too conservative as a people - too closely related to most Evangelicals on that score, and too fundamentalist. With Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie having been so influential in defining and laying out church doctrine, we've definitely had our setbacks in updating our religious understanding and assumptions to the modern world. I remember, when I was younger, that any time history books mentioned people living prior to 4000 BC I assumed that those conclusions were based on 'shaky science', that carbon dating was imperfect, and we really couldn't know about things that took place that long ago. Three years ago - when I was 24 and still an undergrad at BYU - I checked out a dozen or so books on the topic of evolution, trying to figure out if there was a possibility that evolution for humans wasn't real - and came away completely convinced that evolution is real and that we're part of it. 

 

Similarly, in the last year or so I've studied up on Biblical archaeology and scholarship and found that the Bible in many instances cannot be viewed as historically correct (though I believe most of it does have a historical grounding or at least a historical core). There is no direct evidence of the Exodus (though there's a definite probability that a much more limited Exodus than the one described in the Bible did take place) and instead evidence that the Israelites descended from the Canaanites that Joshua is said to have conquered (at least that's good for religion as it means that God-sanctioned genocide didn't take place). The Pentateuch dates to no later than the 9th century BC and some of the Biblical laws and stories originate from Babylonian and Sumerian laws and myths (Hammurabi, the story of the Flood, and so on). I've come away with an appreciation for the Bible as a very human record - and with its various different perspectives of God and theology I take it as both a human and an inspired collection of books - and as a result I deplore any ideas of Biblical inerrancy or fundamentalism.

 

I recently read David Bokovoy's "Authoring the Old Testament" Volume 1 - from Greg Kofford Books. I HIGHLY recommend it. His thoughts on how modern Biblical scholarship affects our reading of LDS scripture might answer at least a small part of your overall general question -- you'd have to read the book to get it all, but basically he proposes an understanding of the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham as ahistorical books that reveal inspired spiritual truths (psuedopigraphic literature). In other words, we don't have to believe the Pearl of Great Price as a historical account to see revelation or inspiration from God in it. 

 

That obviously raises some questions for understanding traditional Mormonism. Joseph Smith, while open to revising his understanding of the Bible (see the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible as one example) did work within the overall idea that the Bible was, at its core or at least generally speaking, a historical account - including Genesis. Scripture produced by - or through - Joseph Smith work within that general framework as well. I don't have all the answers, but I am inspired by Bahai's belief that all religions ultimately are from God and that religion is part of the evolution of mankind. In other words, I don't think God only speaks within our religious tradition. I also believe that our understanding of religion SHOULD evolve, just as our understanding of the physical universe evolves. I believe strongly in Joseph Smith's words to the effect that Mormonism should embrace all truth. It's our challenge to update our understanding of God's revelations from the 19th century world to the 21st century. If we're successful in that endeavor (and we're a little behind) we might actually be successful in reaching a more secular and scientific audience in our missionary work as well. 

 

I apologize for being so lengthy here and for seemingly not even answering the question, but my overall point has been to sketch out some of the more specific areas where "science" and "scripture" need to learn to coexist - and that if we let go of the need to see scripture as inerrant and rather see scripture as expressed "after the manner of their language" we might see that God has chosen to reveal Himself within a human world and human understanding rather than remaining entirely apart.

 

Speaking of God... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that the near death experiences you've had are part of the reason that you believe in transcendence since you've likely experienced at least the feeling of a higher power. I don't see that the idea of such a higher power necessarily contradicts the idea of there being a literal Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. LDS members have the idea of "intelligence(s)" from D&C 93 as well as the light of Christ to work with. D&C 88 and 93, for example D&C 88:41, seem (in my reading at least) to point to the possibility of there being more to "God" than what even traditional LDS belief has been about. It may be that we are all a part of God, a principle or higher power that goes even deeper than our spiritual Heavenly Father. A revelation given to Joseph Smith and described by Orson Pratt in Journal of Discourses 2:342 would seem to point toward this as well: 

 

"There is one revelation that this people are not generally acquainted with. I think it has never been published, but probably it will be in the Church History. It is given in questions and answers. The first question is, “What is the name of God in the pure language?” The answer says, “Ahman.” “What is the name of the Son of God?” Answer, “Son Ahman—the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Ahman.” “What is the name of men?” “Sons Ahman,” is the answer. “What is the name of angels in the pure language?” “Anglo-man.” This revelation goes on to say that Sons Ahman are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Son Ahman and Ahman, and that Anglo-man are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Sons Ahman, Son Ahman, and Ahman, showing that the angels are a little lower than man."

 

D&C 88, 93 and this statement reflect mystical realities that I do not completely understand but which I believe points us towards a deeper understanding of the universe than we've traditionally recognized. Take what you may from this, but I do not see your idea of a higher power as meaning that we do not have Parents that we knew before we came to Earth. 

 

I'd love to see science confirm the existence of the transcendental. But nothing that I know of has confirmed the existence of a soul or of a spiritual universe. The more we learn about the human brain the less room there seems to be for the soul, at least as expressed in a classical Cartesian understanding. I do believe in the existence of the soul/spirit but I don't think I know remotely enough to even ask the right questions, much less get the answers, to what that means and how the spirit and the body interacts. You seem to have thought somewhat about the subject - perhaps you have some ideas? 

 

Anyways, this may all have been a disjointed late night mess of thoughts and ramblings. The questions you ask are important but can hardly even begin to be answered in a forum like this. I'm not at all intelligent enough to answer anything definitively, except to say that I have a lot to learn and that science and scripture are two ways of learning that will eventually find their connections between each other, at least at some point in time. We've evolved a lot since the invention of agriculture but we remain highly limited as a humanity. I personally find comfort in the realities of prayer and the gift of the Holy Ghost, which are very real to me and tell me that the spiritual is real - because it is tangible, not in a scientifically detectable way but in a way that leaves its imprint and conviction on the soul. I constantly have questions - and believe we should hunger and thirst for more understanding. I believe we have much revelation in the Church - I have a testimony of the Priesthood specifically - but I also believe that the very fact that God revealed to us that He would withhold the greater revelations, such as the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon, means that we do not have it all. Not even close. There's much more for us to learn. 

Edited March 15, 2014 by erdoch

[thesometimesaint]

Overall I agree. Though I don't believe there is any scientifically valid reasons for a spirit, I'm comfortable with mine.

[Bikeemikey]

Overall I agree. Though I don't believe there is any scientifically valid reasons for a spirit, I'm comfortable with mine.

Oh, you dualist you!

[thesometimesaint]

Oh, you dualist you!

 

Just part of my cognitive dissonance that makes life interesting.

[Bikeemikey]

Just part of my cognitive dissonance that makes life interesting.

I have realized that my life is almost all dissonance and very little cognitive lately!

[Truth 101]

I wonder, how does the primordial soup idea fit with the idea of entropy? Can the two of them coexist? The hibernation theory doesn't answer the question, it just pushes it back. The alien theory is the one closest to the Mormon ideas about the origin of life IMO, but it doesn't answer the question either. Hence the soul question posed by W. W. Phelps...

 

If you could hie to Kolob

In the twinkling of an eye,

And then continue onward

With that same speed to fly,

Do you think that you could ever,

Through all eternity,

Find out the generation

Where Gods began to be?

 

Also, Mormons dont hold to the Christian Idea that we were created by just one entity. There were at least Elohim, Yahweh, Micheal, and most likely a Maternal Deity as well,(and probably others).

 

 

Do you mean as in the second law of thermodynamics, which states, "order cannot come from disorder"?

 

because when I talk about premordial soup I think of it all being the product of probability. 

Edited March 16, 2014 by Truth 101

[thesometimesaint]

 

I wonder, how does the primordial soup idea fit with the idea of entropy? Can the two of them coexist? The hibernation theory doesn't answer the question, it just pushes it back. The alien theory is the one closest to the Mormon ideas about the origin of life IMO, but it doesn't answer the question either. Hence the soul question posed by W. W. Phelps...

 

If you could hie to Kolob

In the twinkling of an eye,

And then continue onward

With that same speed to fly,

Do you think that you could ever,

Through all eternity,

Find out the generation

Where Gods began to be?

 

Also, Mormons dont hold to the Christian Idea that we were created by just one entity. There were at least Elohim, Yahweh, Micheal, and most likely a Maternal Deity as well,(and probably others).

 

Do you mean as in the second law of thermodynamics, which states, "order cannot come from disorder"?

 

because when I talk about premordial soup I think of it all being the product of probability. 

 

 

Entropy in a closed system can only increase. Life is not a closed system.

[Truth 101]

Either way, if our origins came from primordial soup that just eventually created complex proteins and then created dna, there is nothing that can be done to disprove that theory. But that is just one of many theories of how life on earth came to be.

[jaxenro]

On another thread I expressed the opinion that we don't teach calculus in grade school. From an objective standpoint Genesis mirrors evolutionary pretty well, far more than would be expected if just a myth, but simplified for a more limited understanding. Look at the progression from basic geographical features to plants and animals to man and compare to evolution. Even the scripture about Gods day being 1,000 years, do we really expect God at that time to say each day equalled 963 billion years? Could man at that time comprehend a billion? A million? Or was he dealing with tens and hundreds and thousands and maybe tens of thousands?

[jaxenro]

Either way, if our origins came from primordial soup that just eventually created complex proteins and then created dna, there is nothing that can be done to disprove that theory. But that is just one of many theories of how life on earth came to be.

You mention you believe each of us has a soul. How does evolutionary theory, which is strictly concerned with the physical world, account for the creation of he soul?

[Bikeemikey]

Either way, if our origins came from primordial soup that just eventually created complex proteins and then created dna, there is nothing that can be done to disprove that theory. But that is just one of many theories of how life on earth came to be.

My fav is space aliens put us here.

[thesometimesaint]

Either way, if our origins came from primordial soup that just eventually created complex proteins and then created dna, there is nothing that can be done to disprove that theory. But that is just one of many theories of how life on earth came to be.

 

Sure there is a scientifically valid way to disprove it. The sudden appearance of an advanced life form where it shouldn't be.

[Calm]

"Sure there is a scientifically valid way to disprove it. The sudden appearance of an advanced life form where it shouldn't be."

Like to see an experiment for that.

[thesometimesaint]

I would too. But at least in the imaginary if we burned hydrogen in the presence of oxygen and miniature flying pink elephants popped out. That would disprove it quite convincingly.

[Rob Osborn]

Sure there is a scientifically valid way to disprove it. The sudden appearance of an advanced life form where it shouldn't be.

Kind of like us here on this earth- our sudden appearance in space here on this planet that is just perfect for us....

9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend. (Mosiah 4:9)

[thesometimesaint]

Kind of like us here on this earth- our sudden appearance in space here on this planet that is just perfect for us....

9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend. (Mosiah 4:9)

 

While "sudden" is a relative term. On mortal human time scales 4.5 billions of years is a relatively long time. I'm just glad God lets me know what little I do know about how he did it.

[Truth 101]

I don't know who to quote but here is why I believe in a soul/spirit/whatever you want to call it

 

Atomic number Element Fraction of mass^{[3][4][5][6][7][8]} Mass (kg)^[9]Atomic percent Positive health role in mammals^[10]Group 8 Oxygen 0.65 43 24 Yes (water, electron acceptor) /No (Reactive Oxygen Species) 16 6 Carbon 0.18 16 12 Yes (organic compounds are hydrocarbon derivatives) 14 1 Hydrogen 0.10 7 62 Yes (e.g. water) 1 7 Nitrogen 0.03 1.8 1.1 Yes (e.g. DNA and amino acids) 15 20 Calcium 0.014 1.0 0.22 Yes (e.g. Calmodulin and Hydroxylapatite in bones) 2 15 Phosphorus 0.011 0.78 0.22 Yes (e.g. DNA and phosphorylation) 15 19 Potassium 2.5×10⁻³ 0.14 0.033 Yes (e.g. Na⁺/K⁺-ATPase) 1 16 Sulfur 2.5×10⁻³ 0.14 0.038 Yes (e.g.Cysteine, Methionine, Biotin, Thiamine) 16 11 Sodium 1.5×10⁻³ 0.10 0.037 Yes (e.g. Na⁺/K⁺-ATPase) 1 17 Chlorine 1.5×10⁻³ 0.095 0.024 Yes (e.g. Cl-transporting ATPase) 17 12 Magnesium 500×10⁻⁶ 0.019 0.0070 Yes (e.g. binding to ATP and other nucleotides) 2 26 Iron* 60×10⁻⁶ 0.0042 0.00067 Yes (e.g. Hemoglobin, Cytochromes) 8 9 Fluorine 37×10⁻⁶ 0.0026 0.0012 Yes/No (topically hardens teeth; toxic in higher amounts) 17 30 Zinc 32×10⁻⁶ 0.0023 0.00031 Yes (e.g. Zinc finger proteins) 12 14 Silicon 20×10⁻⁶ 0.0010 0.0058 Yes (probable) 14 37 Rubidium 4.6×10⁻⁶ 0.00068 0.000033 No (?) 1 38 Strontium 4.6×10⁻⁶ 0.00032 0.000033 No (?) 2 35 Bromine 2.9×10⁻⁶ 0.00026 0.000030 No (?) 17 82 Lead 1.7×10⁻⁶ 0.00012 0.0000045 No (?) (toxic in higher amounts) 14 29 Copper 1×10⁻⁶ 0.000072 0.0000104 Yes (e.g. copper proteins) 11 13 Aluminium 870×10⁻⁹ 0.000060 0.000015 No 13 48 Cadmium 720×10⁻⁹ 0.000050 0.0000045 No(?) (toxic in higher amounts) 12 58 Cerium 570×10⁻⁹ 0.000040   No   56 Barium 310×10⁻⁹ 0.000022 0.0000012 No? (toxic) 2 50 Tin 240×10⁻⁹ 0.000020 6.0e-7 No(?) 14 53 Iodine 160×10⁻⁹ 0.000020 7.5e-7 Yes (e.g. thyroxine, triiodothyronine) 17 22 Titanium 130×10⁻⁹ 0.000020   No 4 5 Boron 690×10⁻⁹ 0.000018 0.0000030 Yes (probable) 13 34 Selenium 190×10⁻⁹ 0.000015 4.5e-8 Yes (toxic in higher amounts) 16 28 Nickel 140×10⁻⁹ 0.000015 0.0000015 Yes (e.g. urease) 10 24 Chromium 24×10⁻⁹ 0.000014 8.9e-8 Yes (not confirmed) 6 25 Manganese 170×10⁻⁹ 0.000012 0.0000015 Yes (e.g. Mn-SOD) 7 33 Arsenic 260×10⁻⁹ 0.000007 8.9e-8 Yes (not confirmed). Toxic in higher amounts 15 3 Lithium 31×10⁻⁹ 0.000007 0.0000015 Yes (not confirmed). Toxic in high amounts. Useful medically (mood stabilizer). 1 80 Mercury 190×10⁻⁹ 0.000006 8.9e-8 No (toxic) 12 55 Caesium 21×10⁻⁹ 0.000006 1.0e-7 No 1 42 Molybdenum 130×10⁻⁹ 0.000005 4.5e-8 Yes (e.g. the molybdenum oxotransferases, Xanthine oxidase and Sulfite oxidase) 6 32 Germanium   5×10⁻⁶   No (?) 14 27 Cobalt 21×10⁻⁹ 0.000003 3.0e-7 Yes (e.g. vitamin B₁₂) 9 51 Antimony 110×10⁻⁹ 0.000002   No (toxic) 15 47 Silver 10×10⁻⁹ 0.000002   No (toxic) 11 41 Niobium 1600×10⁻⁹ 0.0000015   No 5 40 Zirconium 6000×10⁻⁹ 0.000001 3.0e-7 No 4 57 Lanthanum 1370×10⁻⁹ 8e-7   No   52 Tellurium 120×10⁻⁹ 7e-7   No 16 31 Gallium   7e-7   No 13 39 Yttrium   6e-7   No 3 83 Bismuth   5e-7   No 15 81 Thallium   5e-7   No (toxic) 13 49 Indium   4e-7   No 13 79 Gold 140×10⁻⁹ 2e-7 3.0e-7 No 11 21 Scandium   2e-7   No 3 73 Tantalum   2e-7   No 5 23 Vanadium 260×10⁻⁹ 1.1e-7 1.2e-8 Yes (not confirmed) 5 90 Thorium   1e-7   No (toxic)   92 Uranium 1.3×10⁻⁹ 1e-7 3.0e-9 No (toxic)   62 Samarium   5.0e-8   No   74 Tungsten   2.0e-8   No 6 4 Beryllium 50×10⁻¹² 3.6e-8 4.5e-8 No (toxic) 2 88 Radium 1×10⁻¹⁹ 3e-14 1e-17% No (toxic) 2 84 Polonium   6.8e-15^[11]   No (extremely dangerous) 16

*Iron = ~3 g in men, ~2.3 g in women

 

When all this is added up it only accounts for 99.9% of what we are made up of. In my own opinion that last .1%, is the human soul, science just can't explain it (yet) as we've just scratched the surface of what science can teach us.

[jaxenro]

Sounds like a rounding error