Stone holm Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 Mormon theology is not exactly clear on the ultimate Creator or first cause. It is clear on our creation, meaning this Earth and countless earths like it. It is, in my opinion, fairly clear by implication that Our Heavenly Father, is not the only heavenly father. It is clear that the intelligences, such as ourselves, are eternal and were not created. We are co-eternal with Our Heavenly Father. It is therefore clear under Mormon theology that Our Heavenly Father did not create everything including in our most fundamental element (as an intelligence) ourselves. He did, however, take unorganized matter and organize it into worlds, and He and one or more Heavenly Mothers did beget Spirit bodies which our intelligences inhabitated, and He and one of our Heavenly Mothers did beget Adam and Eve in an unmortal state, and therefore He became the Creator of the human race. So it depends on your definition of Creation as to whether He is part of it or not.
Rodeo Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 Yes you are wrong. Where I really stand is that I'm so ignorant of so much that it is like comparing my thimbles worth of knowledge to the vast oceans of my ignorance. Science is a limited way of looking at our world/universe. That means we purposefully limit our explanations to what is observable. IOW controlling all the variables. God and/or Godlike forces are outside of our ability to control for in science. That is why I continually use the example from math. Because God in omnipotent there is no way to determine what 2+2+God equals. 2+2 would still equal 4 whether there is a God or not. Just answer- simple yes or no to this question Do you believe the emergence of life on this planet was because of Gods actions?
ERayR Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 Science is a limited way of looking at our world/universe. That means we purposefully limit our explanations to what is observable. IOW controlling all the variables.God and/or Godlike forces are outside of our ability to control for in science. That is why I continually use the example from math. Because God in omnipotent there is no way to determine what 2+2+God equals. 2+2 would still equal 4 whether there is a God or not. The problem is the high priests of science as written the parameters of science so as to ban any discussion of one source of viable alternatives. True there are some utterly ridiculous ideas but they are present in both areas. It does not help to tie plausible explanations to a ridiculous one to try and discredit it.
Stone holm Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 The problem is the high priests of science as written the parameters of science so as to ban any discussion of one source of viable alternatives. True there are some utterly ridiculous ideas but they are present in both areas. It does not help to tie plausible explanations to a ridiculous one to try and discredit it.The other problem is that we Mormons from time to time incorporate Protestant and Catholic dogma based on Greek philosophy into our concept of God which makes religion and science even more difficult to reconcile given from time to time GAs go off on anti intellectual rants.
thesometimesaint Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 You can choose to believe the scriptures or deny them. We can decide where and from what we establish our belief system. The Book of Mormon is one of the most correct truthful books on the earth. I choose to believe the Scriptures as far as they are translated correctly. I'm under no obligation to believe anything that isn't correct. The Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth(In its Theology). How God did it is not part of LDS Theology.
thesometimesaint Posted September 10, 2014 Posted September 10, 2014 The problem is the high priests of science as written the parameters of science so as to ban any discussion of one source of viable alternatives. True there are some utterly ridiculous ideas but they are present in both areas. It does not help to tie plausible explanations to a ridiculous one to try and discredit it. Unlike religion science doesn't have High Priests. There are parameters to everything. IE; If we're talking about a population of female blue eyed blonds in show business. That isn't within that parameter to include Morgan Freeman, an otherwise worthy actor. Any posit of any God or Godlike force onto science makes hash out of God and science. Really? Do you really expect NASA to accept Astrology as a viable alternative? So called Intelligent Design is not a plausible explanation of any scientific value. In fact it makes hash out of God and science.
MormonFreeThinker Posted September 13, 2014 Posted September 13, 2014 (edited) It seems so many atheists are well educated and intelligent in science and academics. Even Stephen Hawking is an atheist. Why is that? I'm not calling believers uneducated, I'm just saying a lot of atheists are very well educated. Because most of them didn't have a religious experience, and because of the bad intelligent design arguments out there. Yes, Stephen Hawking is well educated and intelligent in science . Edited September 13, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
bcuzbcuz Posted September 13, 2014 Posted September 13, 2014 The problem is the high priests of science as written the parameters of science so as to ban any discussion of one source of viable alternatives. True there are some utterly ridiculous ideas but they are present in both areas. It does not help to tie plausible explanations to a ridiculous one to try and discredit it."High priests of science?" Name one or two of them for me.. (of course, a high priest of science, would need to acknowledge his own high priest´hoodship´ or that other scientists recognize him or her as a high priest) but never mind that.. I´ve met a large number of scientists in my day, none of whom so far try to portray themselves as a "High priest" but never mind.
Scott Stevenson Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 It seems so many atheists are well educated and intelligent in science and academics. Even Stephen Hawking is an atheist. Why is that? I'm not calling believers uneducated, I'm just saying a lot of atheists are very well educated.Have you read any of their books describing why they don't believe? Christopher Hitchens, "God is not Great"Michael Shermer "Why People Believe Weird Things"Sam Harris "End of Faith"Victor Stenger "God, The Failed Hypothesis"
thesometimesaint Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Have you read any of their books describing why they don't believe? Christopher Hitchens, "God is not Great"Michael Shermer "Why People Believe Weird Things"Sam Harris "End of Faith"Victor Stenger "God, The Failed Hypothesis" About 40% of all US scientists are Theists.
MormonFreeThinker Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 (edited) About 40% of all US scientists are Theists. and about 10% of the US NAS scientists are Theist, but I think it is because secular scientists are more hungry for answers, that explains why they become good scientists. Most of the NAS Secular scientists started as secular students. Edited September 14, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
thesometimesaint Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 If that is the case why isn't 0%?
MormonFreeThinker Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 (edited) If that is the case why isn't 0%? My theory is that secular scientists are very hungry for answers, that is why many of them become leading scientists. Just a theory. Edited September 14, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Scott Stevenson Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 Maybe they're just not sure which God to believe in.
EllenMaksoud Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 It seems so many atheists are well educated and intelligent in science and academics. Even Stephen Hawking is an atheist. Why is that? I'm not calling believers uneducated, I'm just saying a lot of atheists are very well educated.Over the centuries there have been just lots of nutter excesses in the name of God in all churches. Think about the Inquisition, the burnings at the stake, the hateful rulings about who could marry who, and a whole range of forced policies that had nothing to do with the will of God. I've just had a run in with a couple people placed in authority who tried to exercise unrighteous dominion. And, sadly all the good that happens to us can seemingly be erased by one instance of this. Things like the 6,000 year old Earth, and the insistence on a rigid form of Creationism have just made religious people a laughing stock. Personally, I think that faith is a gift from God but first we must demonstrate some humility. 1
EllenMaksoud Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 Because most of them didn't have a religious experience, and because of the bad intelligent design arguments out there. Yes, Stephen Hawking is well educated and intelligent in science . With the hardships that Hawkings has had to endure, I will not judge him.
Stone holm Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 Over the centuries there have been just lots of nutter excesses in the name of God in all churches. Think about the Inquisition, the burnings at the stake, the hateful rulings about who could marry who, and a whole range of forced policies that had nothing to do with the will of God. I've just had a run in with a couple people placed in authority who tried to exercise unrighteous dominion. And, sadly all the good that happens to us can seemingly be erased by one instance of this. Things like the 6,000 year old Earth, and the insistence on a rigid form of Creationism have just made religious people a laughing stock. Personally, I think that faith is a gift from God but first we must demonstrate some humility.I think you are right this is the principal problem, organized religion is not open to new ideas, and when you make religion non doctrinal it loses its appeal and just becomes a Sunday social club with a lot of gossiping people. Trick is to be non judgmental, open to new ideas and still doctrinal. Many educated people just think it is not worth the effort and also tend to not hang with or be associated with people they perceive to be racist or bigots or just really strange. The Church has worked hard at trying to eliminate the perception, and I think they would have been successful had they not got involved in religious based politics. It is going to take awhile to repair that damage.
thesometimesaint Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 My theory is that secular scientists are very hungry for answers, that is why many of them become leading scientists. Just a theory. I'm very curious about our world/universe, and my religion really isn't any impediment to seeking answers. If you've taken an High School or college level Biology class you're probably reading one of Dr. Kenneth Millers books. He's a devote Catholic. The director at the Human Genome Project is a devout Catholic. Philo Farnsworth inventor of the television was a Mormon. Henry Eyring made substantial contributions to Chemistry was a Mormon. Where would we be without Sir Issac Newton the Anglican not to talk about Charles Darwin also an Anglican? To me that speaks to something other than purely secular motivations to become a scientist.
MormonFreeThinker Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 (edited) I'm very curious about our world/universe, and my religion really isn't any impediment to seeking answers. If you've taken an High School or college level Biology class you're probably reading one of Dr. Kenneth Millers books. He's a devote Catholic. The director at the Human Genome Project is a devout Catholic. Philo Farnsworth inventor of the television was a Mormon. Henry Eyring made substantial contributions to Chemistry was a Mormon. Where would we be without Sir Issac Newton the Anglican not to talk about Charles Darwin also an Anglican? To me that speaks to something other than purely secular motivations to become a scientist. Religious research scientists of natural science are hungry for answers too, but my theory is that the hungriest group of people are usually secular. What I am saying is that most people that are very interested in natural science and scientific research are secular, that is why 90% of the National Academy of Sciences does not believe in a personal God. I am religious, I am interested in answers, I want science to progress, but most religious people are not interested in finding answers to the big scientific questions. You think most Mormon are interested in finding answers to the big scientific questions?http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-differences-on-the-question-of-evolution/ A good thing is that "In Utah the Mormon population produces more scientists than does the non-Mormon, proportionate to their numbers in Utah" and "As in the other studies of education and church attendance, 88% of the LDS Scientists (94 out of 107) say they are active in church"http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/education-scholarship-and-mormonism but we do not know how many LDS become research scientists of natural science, that is an interesting question, and I do not think the percentage is high . We probably have a high percentage in business. "BYU’s Marriott School of Management was ranked 39th in the nation in US News and World Report and 26th in The Wall Street Journal’s 2003 ranking of top business schools" http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/education-scholarship-and-mormonism Edited September 15, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
thesometimesaint Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 (edited) Lots depends on how the question is framed. See http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/do-scientists-really-reject-god In a recent issue of RNCSE, Larry Witham reported on research he and historian Edward Larson carried out to investigate the religious beliefs of scientists.They had surveyed a sample of 1000 individuals listed in American Men and Women of Science, (AM&WS), using questions originally asked by the Gallup organization in a series of polls of American religious views.The report, entitled "Many scientists see God's hand in evolution", concluded that although scientists were quite different from other Americans in their views of "extreme" positions— such as young earth creationism and atheism—they were very similar to other Americans in the "middle" or "theistic evolution" position.In the table below, the full wording of Gallup's question 1 is, "Humans were created pretty much in their present form about 10 000 years ago." The difference between scientists and other Americans is striking. Scientists also respond quite differently to the third question, "Man evolved over millions of years from less developed forms. God had no part in this process." But scientists' responses to Gallup's "theistic evolution" question—"Man evolved over millions of years from less developed forms of life, but God guided the process, including the creation of Man"—directly mirrors that of the general public. The "middle ground" is apparently equally attractive to scientists as it is to the general public. GALLUP EVOLUTION QUESTIONSQuestion Scientists Public1. Special Creation, 10 000 years 5% 46%2. Evolution, God Guided 40% 40%3. Evolution, God had no part 55% 9% Edited September 15, 2014 by thesometimesaint
MormonFreeThinker Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 (edited) Lots depends on how the question is framed. True, but how many people are interesting in finding answers to the big scientific questions? 1. What caused the Big Bang2. Origin of Life3. Dark Energy Most religious people are not interested in finding answers, some are, including me, but most people are more interested in business. Edited September 15, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
thesometimesaint Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 My professional opinions only concern Social Work. Who knows maybe/hopefully those will be answered in our lifetimes.
VideoGameJunkie Posted September 16, 2014 Author Posted September 16, 2014 Are we due yet for the next step in evolution? Will men grow a 6th finger or something? Shouldn't evolution still be going on?
Tacenda Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 (edited) Are we due yet for the next step in evolution? Will men grow a 6th finger or something? Shouldn't evolution still be going on?People are evolving...have you seen those tiny shoes that pioneers wore, or their outfits? People are practically giants now. Edited September 16, 2014 by Tacenda
wenglund Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 (edited) Geniuses are often hyper-focused on a particular subject matter. Their hyper focus enables them to become leading experts in their respective fields. However, their hyper focus also tends to limit their ability to see much beyond their respective fields. So, if certain brilliant scientist are intensely looking at the earth, they may not see the heavens. Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited September 16, 2014 by wenglund
Recommended Posts