The Origin Of (Our) Species

[Rob Osborn]

But, that is why supernatural is not a good word for what Mormons or other flavors of Transhumanists for that matter believe.  Mormons do not believe in the supernatural according to that definition. We believe what Richard Dawkins said, and that is essentially this.  Whatever there is outside of the realm of science is so because it cannot be detected and studied directly.  When it is detected, it is welcomed as part of science.  Just because God has revealed things that are outside of science because of the limitations of current science doesn't make those things supernatural.  Its just that, through the spiritual senses, these things are detected which are not supernatural but real and physical.  When science has the technology, they will be detected and known.  Until then, they are in the realm of religion, but they are real, not supernatural.

Take it one step farther- we shall find ultimately that all scientific truth traces back to God himself and is thus "religion". We shall find that even the power of why our cells work is the very power of God. We shall indeed find out that God is the very definition of "law" and "science". One aspect to all of this that we tend to neglect in light of the discussion is the principle of "intelligence" and how it applies in science and yet is wholly unexplainable by science at this point by mans feeble understanding even though we detect it, measure it, and observe it, are part of it, etc. Its proof to me that we no so very little about scientific laws and thus- no very little about God himself who is science.

[pogi]

Its proof to me that we no so very little about scientific laws and thus- no very little about God himself who is science.

 

If God is science, then one should be able to harness the power of God through science instead of through ordination and endowment (D&C 90:11 and 105:11).  So science is your new priesthood?  It is your new light of Christ?  Are you going to ordain your sons to the office of high scientist?

 

Again, science is a useful tool to understand natural phenomenon, it is not so useful in becoming endowed and utilizing the power of God.  

 

We hold and utilize the power of God as holders of the priesthood not as practitioners of science.  Science will become obsolete when you can harness the powers of endowment.  No scientific method required.  

Edited March 13, 2015 by pogi

[DragonLancer]

Take it one step farther- we shall find ultimately that all scientific truth traces back to God himself and is thus "religion". We shall find that even the power of why our cells work is the very power of God. We shall indeed find out that God is the very definition of "law" and "science". One aspect to all of this that we tend to neglect in light of the discussion is the principle of "intelligence" and how it applies in science and yet is wholly unexplainable by science at this point by mans feeble understanding even though we detect it, measure it, and observe it, are part of it, etc. Its proof to me that we no so very little about scientific laws and thus- no very little about God himself who is science.

 

I disagree.  Because science is the systematic discovery of truth inside a certain box with well-defined rules.  Anything that is outside of that box is not science, but religion or belief.  Even when those things are detectable, the "system" of science will not be religion.  Its just that the system of science at that point will no longer be impeded by the inability to detect things.  It will never be the same as religion.  The two systems will never merge in the way you describe, even though the data available to both will indeed merge.

[pogi]

The two systems will never merge in the way you describe, even though the data available to both will indeed merge.

 

I agree.  But I highly doubt that the data will merge through the use of the scientific method, instead it will merge on principles of endowment through righteousness.  Knowledge endowed line upon line rather than discovered through double blind study upon double blind study.  The scientific method will indeed become obsolete in light of pure knowledge and omniscience. 

Edited March 13, 2015 by pogi

[DragonLancer]

I agree.  But I highly doubt that the data will merge through the use of the scientific method, instead it will merge on principles of endowment through righteousness.  Knowledge endowed line upon line rather than discovered through double blind study upon double blind study.  The scientific method will indeed become obsolete in light of pure knowledge and omniscience. 

 

Yes, but that is why science itself will go away in the eternal world because religion will be perfect and knowledge will become complete.  Science will be a system that exalted people will know about among all the other knowledge that they have, and in eternities to come, even though its "practice" will no longer be "practical."  They will reveal it over time to their spirit children on worlds without number where it will be practical.  So, while science will cease in the eternal worlds, it will never cease in the mortal worlds that will always be around, and it will never merge with religion, because it will always be science.

[Rob Osborn]

Do we believe in a God that just sits on a throne and causes everything into existence because he speaks, or do we believe in a hands on God who uses scientific means and work to bring everything to pass?

[DragonLancer]

Do we believe in a God that just sits on a throne and causes everything into existence because he speaks, or do we believe in a hands on God who uses scientific means and work to bring everything to pass?

 

(1) We believe in power. (D&C 93:26)

(2) We do not have a scientific explanation for power.  We only know it exists.  We see its effects.  It is called "light of truth" or "spirit."

(3) This power is the driver of matter and energy, which somehow it "obeys" it.  It also acts as a communication system that is instantaneous regardless of distance, comparable to quantum teleportation of information.  It is also a system of travel, that is instantaneous, from one part of the universe to another, regardless of distance.

(4) This power is carefully regulated and wielded by powerful, exalted beings in the universe that are fully-matured human beings in their ultimate state.

(5) The hope of these beings is to help their fellow beings qualify themselves and mold themselves to become like the others who regulate and wield this power. (D&C 93:28)

(6) Those beings make sure that beings that abuse the rules do not have access to it.  And so, those beings like Satan must resort to use negative energies that are still subject to being overridden by this ultimate power called "light of truth." (D&C 29:36; Luke 4:6)

(7) Christ is one of these exalted personages that presides over a measure of this power, giving it to all who enter the world, thus it is called the Light of Christ.

(8 ) The Holy Ghost is another one of those personages as well that presides over a greater measure of this power given to those who receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and by this power, they can know truth, receive guidance and companionship.

(9) There are various parts or aspects to this power that cannot be separated from each other that work together to allow one to channel and command the power, and for one's soul to become a storehouse of this power.

(10) One aspect of this power is "faith," which is the mental driver or generator of it.  The faith is directed by pure will, and therefore, is linked to the words spoken.

(11) Satan seeks to rob us of faith, because he knows that if he robs us of faith, he also robs us of the ability within ourselves to generate and wield power.  Those that think that they can merely be social Mormons that are basically just unbelievers have been deceived and robbed of the core of their power generating ability, because they refuse to choose to believe.  The whole reason the Lord wants us to have faith is to learn to wield and generate power with our intent, because it is this mental ability that is the core of the use of this power.  And so, no wonder Satan wants to rob us of faith. (D&C 93:39)

(12) Another aspect of this power is "priesthood power," which is inherent in the being of a person, that grows stronger and stronger as one magnifies priesthood through service, and through obedience to law.  Someone can channel this power from outside himself, but can also become a storehouse of power themselves, and it becomes brighter and brighter in them little by little.

(13) Then there is priesthood authority, which is license to use it given by the regulators of the power.

(14) Since there are gatekeepers, or keepers of the way (key holders), they ensure that order is followed in the use of the power and authority.  And so, in order to exercise the power and authority in ordinances and so-forth, one must have clearance from these keepers of the way.

 

So no, we do not believe in someone just merely speaking, and then magically, something happens.  We believe in a process whereby real power that controls matter, elements and outcome of events is driven by the intent of the mind, and this intent can be verbalized.

 

When the physical laws behind this can be understood by science, this will become scientific.

 

God does not use science because he does not practice it to discover new laws.  It is known, but inactive with him.  If we ask, "Does God use technology?"  I think that is an open question.  He uses "devices" like the Urim and Thummim or Seer Stones.  But does that really make those things technological?  Maybe in some sense.  But why would God use "technology" in the mortal sense of computers, machines and so forth when he has all power?  He has no need for light bulbs because he has his glory.  He has no need of cars or planes or spacecraft because he moves with the Spirit.  He has no need of supercomputers because his mind exceeds anything that could be invented.  He needs no TV sets or monitors because of his mind.  He needs no phone or communication system because he uses the spirit for instant communication.  Its difficult for me to believe that technology in any meaningful sense the way we have it in mortality is useful to an exalted being.  It seems to me that we have technology because of our mortal limitations that is like a crutch for us here.  To me, technology, like science, is not practical to an exalted being with all power.  Its usefulness is no longer useful.  Even a seer stone to an exalted being is unnecessary (even though everyone has one there), like it was not all that useful to Joseph Smith after his mind had been trained in his later years.

Edited March 14, 2015 by DragonLancer

[Rob Osborn]

(1) We believe in power. (D&C 93:26)

(2) We do not have a scientific explanation for power.  We only know it exists.  We see its effects.  It is called "light of truth" or "spirit."

(3) This power is the driver of matter and energy, which somehow it "obeys" it.  It also acts as a communication system that is instantaneous regardless of distance, comparable to quantum teleportation of information.  It is also a system of travel, that is instantaneous, from one part of the universe to another, regardless of distance.

(4) This power is carefully regulated and wielded by powerful, exalted beings in the universe that are fully-matured human beings in their ultimate state.

(5) The hope of these beings is to help their fellow beings qualify themselves and mold themselves to become like the others who regulate and wield this power. (D&C 93:28)

(6) Those beings make sure that beings that abuse the rules do not have access to it.  And so, those beings like Satan must resort to use negative energies that are still subject to being overridden by this ultimate power called "light of truth." (D&C 29:36; Luke 4:6)

(7) Christ is one of these exalted personages that presides over a measure of this power, giving it to all who enter the world, thus it is called the Light of Christ.

(8 ) The Holy Ghost is another one of those personages as well that presides over a greater measure of this power given to those who receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and by this power, they can know truth, receive guidance and companionship.

(9) There are various parts or aspects to this power that cannot be separated from each other that work together to allow one to channel and command the power, and for one's soul to become a storehouse of this power.

(10) One aspect of this power is "faith," which is the mental driver or generator of it.  The faith is directed by pure will, and therefore, is linked to the words spoken.

(11) Satan seeks to rob us of faith, because he knows that if he robs us of faith, he also robs us of the ability within ourselves to generate and wield power.  Those that think that they can merely be social Mormons that are basically just unbelievers have been deceived and robbed of the core of their power generating ability, because they refuse to choose to believe.  The whole reason the Lord wants us to have faith is to learn to wield and generate power with our intent, because it is this mental ability that is the core of the use of this power.  And so, no wonder Satan wants to rob us of faith. (D&C 93:39)

(12) Another aspect of this power is "priesthood power," which is inherent in the being of a person, that grows stronger and stronger as one magnifies priesthood through service, and through obedience to law.  Someone can channel this power from outside himself, but can also become a storehouse of power themselves, and it becomes brighter and brighter in them little by little.

(13) Then there is priesthood authority, which is license to use it given by the regulators of the power.

(14) Since there are gatekeepers, or keepers of the way (key holders), they ensure that order is followed in the use of the power and authority.  And so, in order to exercise the power and authority in ordinances and so-forth, one must have clearance from these keepers of the way.

 

So no, we do not believe in someone just merely speaking, and then magically, something happens.  We believe in a process whereby real power that controls matter, elements and outcome of events is driven by the intent of the mind, and this intent can be verbalized.

 

When the physical laws behind this can be understood by science, this will become scientific.

 

God does not use science because he does not practice it to discover new laws.  If we ask, "Does God use technology?"  I think that is an open question.  He uses "devices" like the Urim and Thummim or Seer Stones.  But does that really make those things technological?  Maybe in some sense.  But why would God use "technology" in the mortal sense of computers, machines and so forth when he has all power?  He has no need for light bulbs because he has his glory.  He has no need of cars or planes or spacecraft because he moves with the Spirit.  He has no need of supercomputers because his mind exceeds anything that could be invented.  He needs no TV sets or monitors because of his mind.  Its difficult for me to believe that technology in any meaningful sense the way we have it in mortality is useful to an exalted being.  It seems to me that we have technology because of our mortal limitations that is like a crutch for us here.  To me, technology, like science, is not practical to an exalted being with all power.  Its usefulness is no longer useful.  Even a seer stone to an exalted being is unnecessary (even though everyone has one there), like it was not all that useful to Joseph Smith after his mind had been trained in his later years.

So, do you think heaven is just an open space in nature with no manmade things like buildings, musical instruments, clothing, etc? What does God, or other immortal beings use their hands for? To they use them to do skills, make things etc?

One would think that if they do indeed have things like pianos in heaven, then someone has to make them and that manufacturing is technology and an understanding of science.

[DragonLancer]

So, do you think heaven is just an open space in nature with no manmade things like buildings, musical instruments, clothing, etc? What does God, or other immortal beings use their hands for? To they use them to do skills, make things etc?

One would think that if they do indeed have things like pianos in heaven, then someone has to make them and that manufacturing is technology and an understanding of science.

 

On these finer points, it is pure speculation of course.  We know there is clothing, because descriptions of exalted beings with clothes on.  We know there are buildings because of descriptions of temples in Heaven, New Jerusalem buildings in heaven, etc.  But if something can be organized by pure will to organize it and it is so, then why manufacture?  Sure.  You could have manufacturing if you WANT it.  But why?  These points on technology have no basis in scripture and so I'm just spewing here.  No good information.  Only guesses.  Jesus made bread and wine appear out of thin air in 3 Nephi.  The bread was not cooked, or prepared from wheat dough, etc.  It was willed into existence, no doubt from raw material, perhaps the particles of air itself were reorganized.  So, yes, an exalted being can do whatever they want.  And certainly, as hobbies or passtimes they could build things the "old fashion" way.

Edited March 14, 2015 by DragonLancer

[MormonFreeThinker]

Its even more interesting that The origin of man

 

What if you are wrong? I could be wrong, I am open to that possibility, what about you?

Edited March 14, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[ERayR]

What if you are wrong? I could be wrong, I am open to that possibility, what about you?

 

Prove that you are open to the possibility that you could be wrong.

[thesometimesaint]

So, anything showing appearance of design or intelligent purpose in nature is not allowed in science? That doesnt make any sense.

 

No! Only that the positing of any Supernatural being or force is not allowed in science. IE; If I as a scientist find a watch on the beach science can't say God put it there. Though as a LDS I certainly am free to believe that he did.

[DragonLancer]

No! Only that the positing of any Supernatural being or force is not allowed in science. IE; If I as a scientist find a watch on the beach science can't say God put it there. Though as a LDS I certainly am free to believe that he did.

 

This is right, although you make it sound a bit like science is atheistic, but I don't know if that is your intent in your words.  Science is not atheistic, nor is it theistic.  It is non-theistic.  He can say God put it there in Church.  He can't say it in the lab, or in a scientific journal.  Like I said, the box that science operates in has certain rules that do not operate on things that are outside the reach of science, and therefore, the conclusions of science are conclusions within that box.  Atheists capitalize on this and make it seem that science agrees with their philosophical conclusions that there is no God.  That is not true at all.  Science just has nothing to say for or against God.  This is why Evolution has nothing to say for or against intelligent design.  Evolution is science, because it is a theory (i.e. not theory the way people usually interpret the word, but the scientific jargon "theory" means that it is proven as far as scientific proof allows, yet science is always self-corrective).  So, the philosophical statement that there is no God made by an Atheist is not supported by science.  The testimony borne by a Mormon about the existence of God is not supported by science.  Yet a Mormon scientist will look at scientific conclusions when operating in his Mormon box on Sunday in Sacrament Meeting and say, wow!  All things do bear testimony that there is a God!  So, people that argue against evolution can do so philosophically or religiously, but not scientifically.  Evolution is proven as far as science is concerned.  Mormons, operating in a Mormon box, can philosophically and religiously reject it.  Mormon scientists must accept it in their field of work as something that is accepted in science, whether they religiously agree with it or not.

Edited March 14, 2015 by DragonLancer

[ERayR]

This is right, although you make it sound a bit like science is atheistic, but I don't know if that is your intent in your words.  Science is not atheistic, nor is it theistic.  It is non-theistic.  He can say God put it there in Church.  He can't say it in the lab, or in a scientific journal.  Like I said, the box that science operates in has certain rules that do not operate on things that are outside the reach of science, and therefore, the conclusions of science are conclusions within that box.  Atheists capitalize on this and make it seem that science agrees with their philosophical conclusions that there is no God.  That is not true at all.  Science just has nothing to say for or against God.  This is why Evolution has nothing to say for or against intelligent design.  Evolution is science, because it is a theory (i.e. not theory the way people usually interpret the word, but the scientific jargon "theory" means that it is proven as far as scientific proof allows, yet science is always self-corrective).  So, the philosophical statement that there is no God made by an Atheist is not supported by science.  The testimony borne by a Mormon about the existence of God is not supported by science.  Yet a Mormon scientist will look at scientific conclusions when operating in his Mormon box on Sunday in Sacrament Meeting and say, wow!  All things do bear testimony that there is a God!  So, people that argue against evolution can do so philosophically or religiously, but not scientifically.  Evolution is proven as far as science is concerned.  Mormons, operating in a Mormon box, can philosophically and religiously reject it.  Mormon scientists must accept it in their field of work as something that is accepted in science, whether they religiously agree with it or not.

 

It is good to some times think outside the box.  That box does protect but it also limits.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Prove that you are open to the possibility that you could be wrong.

 

Our world could be a matrix. 

What about you? are you open to the possibility of being wrong? You never answer my questions. 

[BCSpace]

Well, I guess its all up for interpretation. My only real grunt with it is that both the 1909 statement and the scriptures define Adam as being the literal physical lineage of God.

 

No they don't.  Consider Luke 3:38 and note that the JST corrects it:

 

JST Luke 3:45 … who was formed of God, and the first man upon the earth.

 

In addition, the scriptures say Jesus is the only Begotten Son of the Father, so it is only Christ whose body physically descends from God.

 

Why? Because it was and is necessary for the Gods to procreate Adam and Eve on the earth. The scriptures record the physical lineage of all the great Patriarchs from Moses, through Noah and then to Adam and then from Adam to God himself. We all thus are very seed of God, of royal lineage, and as such entitled to, through obedience, to all that our Father hath. Its a beautiful and true doctrine. We are not the lineage of pre-adamites from the lower orders of animals. We ourselves are not animals, no, we are the very physical sons and daughters of God. His seed abounds and perpetuates through us.

 

That is not doctrine, that Adam and Eve were procreated physcially and directly by the Gods. In addition, because of the 1931 statement, it is indeed possible within the realm of LDS doctrine that the physical bodies of Adam and Eve came from pre Adamite races of man.  There is nothing in the doctrine that precludes Evolution from being part of the physical creation of homo sapiens.

Edited March 15, 2015 by BCSpace

[Robert F. Smith]

Science can not posit any God or Godlike force. I don't know how many times you have to be told this before it sinks in. ..........................

.................................................................

Well, in that case, your argument is with Richard Dawkins and a host of other scientists who accept that advanced sentient beings exist throughout the universe, and whose command of science and technology would be virtually "godlike."

 

You and Rob Osborn are mirror images of one another.  Both of you overstate and falsify -- to a fault -- literally.

[carbon dioxide]

Yep!  I believe in both, and I expect that in the end they will be shown to be fully compatible. 

 

Much of scripture is figurative anyway.  I don't believe that God caused the sun to actually stand still in the sky during that one battle; I believe that it was a figure of speech.  I don't believe that God created Eve by using a rib taken from Adam; I believe this was a figure of speech and a teaching tool.  I might believe that fire from heaven destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, but it's more likely a figure of speech, i.e. it was a small comet or something.  And the earth was not created in 6 24-hour periods.  That was figurative, too.

I am with you on everything except Sodom being destroyed by a comet. A comet would have produced such a large explosion that it would have killed everyone around it for many miles around.  Lot wife would have been killed regardless of whether she looked back or not.  If God can created black holes, giant stars, ect. why can't he send down literal fire? 

[thesometimesaint]

This is right, although you make it sound a bit like science is atheistic, but I don't know if that is your intent in your words.  Science is not atheistic, nor is it theistic.  It is non-theistic.  He can say God put it there in Church.  He can't say it in the lab, or in a scientific journal.  Like I said, the box that science operates in has certain rules that do not operate on things that are outside the reach of science, and therefore, the conclusions of science are conclusions within that box.  Atheists capitalize on this and make it seem that science agrees with their philosophical conclusions that there is no God.  That is not true at all.  Science just has nothing to say for or against God.  This is why Evolution has nothing to say for or against intelligent design.  Evolution is science, because it is a theory (i.e. not theory the way people usually interpret the word, but the scientific jargon "theory" means that it is proven as far as scientific proof allows, yet science is always self-corrective).  So, the philosophical statement that there is no God made by an Atheist is not supported by science.  The testimony borne by a Mormon about the existence of God is not supported by science.  Yet a Mormon scientist will look at scientific conclusions when operating in his Mormon box on Sunday in Sacrament Meeting and say, wow!  All things do bear testimony that there is a God!  So, people that argue against evolution can do so philosophically or religiously, but not scientifically.  Evolution is proven as far as science is concerned.  Mormons, operating in a Mormon box, can philosophically and religiously reject it.  Mormon scientists must accept it in their field of work as something that is accepted in science, whether they religiously agree with it or not.

 

Science is neither Theistic or Atheistic it is Agnostic. It just doesn't the tools available to it to prove or disprove any God let alone the LDS Christian version of God. Sure; Atheists and Theists have for over 2 millennia claimed science proves God doesn't/does exist. But both are flat out wrong.

 

Intelligent Design is predicated on the supposition that there are established objects, organisms, and/or parts of an organism that are so complex that only God could have made them(Irreducible Complexity). So far EVERY example giving by the  Irreducible Complexity defenders has been falsified. IE; Michael Behe's bacteria flagella. Who knows maybe someday they will finally find such but don't hold your breath.

 

I'm a Mormon scientist so I'm comfortable in both worlds. I'm fine with God using science, including Evolution, in the Creation of us and our universe. By trade I'm a Social Worker(I use a lot of Sociology in my work). So while I do believe in the existence of Gods and Devils it makes no more sense to claim God made me do it than it is to claim the Devil made me do it.

[thesometimesaint]

Well, in that case, your argument is with Richard Dawkins and a host of other scientists who accept that advanced sentient beings exist throughout the universe, and whose command of science and technology would be virtually "godlike."

 

You and Rob Osborn are mirror images of one another.  Both of you overstate and falsify -- to a fault -- literally.

 

My argument with Mr. Dawkins is not on his science. Sure there may be a society so technologically advanced we would consider them a God some where in our vast universe. We just have no physical evidence for such. My argument with Mr. Dawkins is his claim there is no actual God.

 

CFR that I have overstated the claims of science.

[changed]

The fallacy lies within the question - "The origin of our species"???  What origin?  There is no origin - our species is eternal with no beginning and no end. 

 

Do I believe in eternal progression? yes.  Do I believe in physical evolution?  I'm agnostic.

 

As for Eden?  I believe this world is older than 6,000 years.  I believe Eden was another sphere, that Adam and Eve came from another sphere to start a new world, or new age on this planet, simple as that.

[DragonLancer]

Science is neither Theistic or Atheistic it is Agnostic. It just doesn't the tools available to it to prove or disprove any God let alone the LDS Christian version of God. Sure; Atheists and Theists have for over 2 millennia claimed science proves God doesn't/does exist. But both are flat out wrong.

 

Intelligent Design is predicated on the supposition that there are established objects, organisms, and/or parts of an organism that are so complex that only God could have made them(Irreducible Complexity). So far EVERY example giving by the  Irreducible Complexity defenders has been falsified. IE; Michael Behe's bacteria flagella. Who knows maybe someday they will finally find such but don't hold your breath.

 

I'm a Mormon scientist so I'm comfortable in both worlds. I'm fine with God using science, including Evolution, in the Creation of us and our universe. By trade I'm a Social Worker(I use a lot of Sociology in my work). So while I do believe in the existence of Gods and Devils it makes no more sense to claim God made me do it than it is to claim the Devil made me do it.

 

Congratulations that you are a scientist.  I agree that irreducible complexity has been falsified and so forth.  I never believed in it to begin with, or thought it was a good argument at all.  I too am fine with God using the processes of nature.

 

But again, I draw a line with people saying that God uses science.  I say science is inactive with God, the same as faith is inactive with God.  Perfect knowledge made God's faith dormant, although the power generating capacity of his intent and the power containing capacity of his soul was developed by the use of faith and priesthood and service are still in force.  The faith did its job and now its dormant.  Science is dormant with God, because there are no more principles or laws of nature for him to discover.  He is the God of nature, and now nature serves his will.

 

But, well, here is the problem with what I think about the other part of what you have said.  I don't disagree that it is agnostic in some sense, and it is probably splitting hairs here over the terms agnostic versus non-theistic.  But I believe that there is an important distinction here when I use the term non-theistic versus the term that you choose to use of agnosticisim.  And the difference is this, I think:  proper science philosophy and proper science propriety.

 

It is improper for scientists in scientific settings to engage in religion.  It is improper for scientists in science discussions to engage in philosophical arguments about religion, whether it be yay or nay.  It is the same as the separation of Church and State in my mind.  It is improper for religion to have a place in State, as much as some Christian people and Mormon people may believe the contrary.  Yes, I know we ought to have prayer in the senate and prayer in school.  I know.  I know, and I agree to some degree, as people should be free to do what they want and all that.  But that isn't the point.

 

The science classroom or the science workplace in the performance of science duties, or the science journal in discussing the complexities and details of science are not the place for Intelligent Design philosophizing or discussions about theism versus atheism.  The science classroom is not the place for the philosophical atheism or philosophical theism to even rear its head at all.  It is as improper as spouting off about a weird theory about Kolob in Sunday School.  It is not the place for it.

 

As the late Steven Jay Gould pointed out in his book Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, science and religion can be seen as nonoverlapping . . . [W]hen religion tries to interfere with our understanding of the natural world, it overreaches  . . .  

Science is not about final truth or “facts”; it is only about continually testing and trying to falsify our hypotheses . . . 

Humans have many systems of understanding and explaining the world besides science . . . That's fine, as long as they don't call these ideas “scientific.” . . . 

Ontological or metaphysical naturalism . . . makes the bold claim that the natural is all that exists and that there is no supernatural.  That is an interesting philosophical issue, but that does not reflect what scientists are doing.  Instead, scientists practice methodological naturalism, where they use naturalistic assumptions to understand the world, but make no philosophical commitment as to whether the supernatural exists or not.  Scientists don't exclude God from their hypotheses because they are inherently atheistic or unwilling to consider the existence of God; they simply do not consider supernatural events in their hypotheses.  Why not?  Because, . . . once you introduce the supernatural to a scientific hypothesis, there is no way to falsify or test it.  We might want to say, “It is this way because God willed it so” . . . But scientists are not allowed to do this, because it is completely untestable and therefore outside the realm of science. (Prothero, Donald R., Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters)

 

 

So, for someone to engage in any kind of PHILOSOPHICAL NATURALISM, in a setting, forum or whatever where it is improper, they have committed a sin against science, so to speak.  They have engaged in something unscientific.  In other words, for atheists to do this with science is actually PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC, as much as Intelligent Design "Science" is PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC, when the Creation Institute practices "creation science."  And so, any scientist that does this, either for or against religion in a setting that is improper ought to be fired.  Because anyone that does this has lost sight that his commission as a scientist is to practice methodological naturalism, and leave the philosophical naturalism out of it, regardless of what his position is.  If the atheist scientist wants to go have a beer with his buddies outside the lab after work and gripe about pseudoscientific creation scientists and how they are so stupid for believing in God, that is fine, or even at the "water cooler," I guess, but leave it out of the lab, leave it out of the classroom, and leave it out of the science journals..

 

The problem I have with your use of the word agnosticism here is because it is a philosophical-naturalistic term that is on the atheism-theism scale/spectrum somewhere between atheism and theism.  The word non-theism, on the other hand, is totally outside that scale, and describes the practice of methodological naturalism, which has nothing to do with things on some philosophical naturalism spectrum.  So, this is my problem with your usage of the word "agnostic" when using it to describe science.

Edited March 15, 2015 by DragonLancer

[DragonLancer]

My argument with Mr. Dawkins is not on his science. Sure there may be a society so technologically advanced we would consider them a God some where in our vast universe. We just have no physical evidence for such. My argument with Mr. Dawkins is his claim there is no actual God.

 

CFR that I have overstated the claims of science.

 

What Dawkins describes is the Transhumanist position on what a God would be if there is one.  Mormons actually believe this, and Mormons actually qualify as atheists in the same sense Transhumanists do, because as Dawkins, we decry supernatural gods.  We decry supernaturalism and superstition in all its forms.  Joseph Smith was the most wonderful atheist the world has ever known, because we now have knowledge of the race of beings that we are a part of, that are precisely what Dawkins describes, and that the nonsense out there that is false is pure nonsense.  We are theists in the sense that we know that the nonsense that is not Mormonism in the world is just that, and that we have the truth about what their mythological and superstitious understandings actually are.  We are atheists in the same sense Transhumanists are. The difference between Mormons and Dawkins is that we have knowledge of what he describes, and we use theistic terminology to describe it.  He only has a theory about what a real God would be.  But we also know that the beings out there of the race from whence we sprang have authority over us, and we know that the one that we call Father, that to him we owe our worship and our loyalty.  Atheists would possibly continue to reject that authority and that need of worship, even if they knew of their existence, and that is the difference between us and them.

 

If you truly understood Dawkins, you would understand that his philosophy at its core is against supernatural Gods, and we are against that.  His problem with Mormonism is his conflating the god of Mormonism with supernatural gods of other religions, including apostate Christianity.  The God Delusion is an awesome book, because I can't help but agree with a lot of its core.  I decry supernaturalism in all its forms, with Dawkins.

 

So I guess what I am saying is we are actually atheist in some ways, and theists in other ways, and it actually depends on what words you use to describe what we believe.  We agree with theists on some things, and atheists and Transhumanists on others.

Edited March 15, 2015 by DragonLancer

[Rob Osborn]

No they don't.  Consider Luke 3:38 and note that the JST corrects it:

 

JST Luke 3:45 … who was formed of God, and the first man upon the earth.

 

In addition, the scriptures say Jesus is the only Begotten Son of the Father, so it is only Christ whose body physically descends from God.

 

 

That is not doctrine, that Adam and Eve were procreated physcially and directly by the Gods. In addition, because of the 1931 statement, it is indeed possible within the realm of LDS doctrine that the physical bodies of Adam and Eve came from pre Adamite races of man.  There is nothing in the doctrine that precludes Evolution from being part of the physical creation of homo sapiens.

Interesting that Moses 6:22 reads-

22 And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed.

Your JST reference is an add on, not replacement of words. You add it on after it explains Adam was the son of God.

[Rob Osborn]

What if you are wrong? I could be wrong, I am open to that possibility, what about you?

Its more about- if the church is right or wrong. I am siding with the church on this. So far, it doesnt appear the church is changing its position.