Robert F. Smith Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 What is ironic is the Big Bang will probably turn out to be a false theory. This theory has the ring of truth. http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.htmlSo, although some have claimed that the Big Bang disproves religion, and others have thought that it is proof positive of religion, we now may have to switch to a universe without a beginning? What will that prove?
Robert F. Smith Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 I love this quote from Elder Nelson from a Pew Forum interview:...................................................................... I would love to start a Kickstarter campaign for a huge sign with that last sentence on it for the entrance of the Life Sciences building at BYU. It would be awesome for all those teachers and students to have to walk by this everyday: "To think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible. Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It’s just the way genetics works. - Elder Russell M. Nelson"He clearly rejects biological evolution. However, that does not mean that he is anti-science. 1
Tacenda Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 I love this quote from Elder Nelson from a Pew Forum interview:I would love to start a Kickstarter campaign for a huge sign with that last sentence on it for the entrance of the Life Sciences building at BYU. It would be awesome for all those teachers and students to have to walk by this everyday:"To think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible. Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It’s just the way genetics works.- Elder Russell M. Nelson"I hope someone see's the light and does as you suggest!!
Popular Post Wiki Wonka Posted May 2, 2015 Popular Post Posted May 2, 2015 To be accurate, the full quote should be used: "There is no conflict between science and religion. Conflict only arises from an incomplete knowledge of either science or religion, or both" Oddly, I don't find that particularly ironic. I'm sure, however, that you'll explain it to us. Henry Eyring (father of Henry B. Eyring), developer of the Absolute Rate Theory of chemical reactions, which is one of the most important developments of 20th-century chemistry: "Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men." (Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983), 2.) 6
Teancum Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 (edited) Circular reasoning.I gather you believe in pre-Adamites (also a matter of faith). If so, do you believe that in our time, science has things nailed down so completely that we cannot doubt the conclusions of scientists?If you do believe that (again, a matter of faith), then consider Elder Nelson's full quote in the context of alchemy, phrenology, and AGW.How is a belief that there were pre Adamites a matter of faith? The evidence that Homo Sapiens and other human like creatures (Neanderthals) have been around for a few hundred thousand years is pretty clear. Edited May 2, 2015 by Teancum
jwhitlock Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 How is a belief that there were pre Adamites a matter of faith? The evidence that Homo Sapiens and other human like creatures (Neanderthals) have been around for a few hundred thousand years is pretty clear. How is a belief in God a matter of faith? The evidence that His hand has been active in the lives of millions of people is pretty clear. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 (edited) I think In a fight God could take out science.Well, God would have to show up.You and Nehor may hold tongue in cheek on that matter, but the supposed fight would be an imaginary jousting at windmills, since LDS theology posits that God obeys natural law and is master of it. Some non-Mormons have a better understanding of that principle than the Mormons themselves. For example, Carl Mosser has perceptively noted that "in the discipline of the philosophy of religion Latter-day Saints are presenting arguments for their unique understanding of God as an embodied being, literally an exalted man’s design in the universe, They are trying to exploit the advantages of their finite theism to account for the problem of evil, Hume’s argument against design, and the conceptual and logical difficulties that attend absolutist and Trinitarian conceptions of God. In so doing, they are both doing original work and drawing off of the work of process theologians; proponents of the 'Open View of God'; social Trinitarians; and historic finite theists like John Stuart Mill, William James, and Edgar Sheffield Brightman. In addition, their materialistic ontology and optimistic religious humanism are presented as attractive alternatives for the modern person living in a scientific age." --from Beckwith, Mosser, and Owen, eds., The New Mormon Challenge (Zondervan, 2002), online at https://books.google.com/books?id=MLrugt3clU4C&pg=PT67&lpg=PT67&dq=CARL+MOSSER,+saints+go+marching+on&source=bl&ots=7F1lJHmWzq&sig=hDAcw4_ZlSk1WU36UEsuHFHv3TA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rDpEVe3GLonNoASos4GQCA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=CARL%20MOSSER%2C%20saints%20go%20marching%20on&f=false . Edited May 2, 2015 by Robert F. Smith 2
cinepro Posted May 2, 2015 Author Posted May 2, 2015 How is a belief in God a matter of faith? The evidence that His hand has been active in the lives of millions of people is pretty clear. Unfortunately for those millions, it isn't exactly clear which God has been active in their lives.
cinepro Posted May 2, 2015 Author Posted May 2, 2015 He clearly rejects biological evolution. However, that does not mean that he is anti-science. As a medical doctor, I would never accuse him of being "anti-science". It was just the fact that it's the life sciences (i.e. biology and evolutionary biology) building that made me chuckle.
mfbukowski Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 (edited) Elder Nelson dedicates Life Sciences Building: 'There is no conflict between science and religion'Oh my Gosh Not this again. I know this discussion will remind me of an SNL skit about the girl you wish you did not start a conversation with at a party. They do not allow direct links so just google this: "snl girl at a party" Hilarious. Reminds me of this argument. Rorty's wife was raised LDS and Rorty actually had a home teacher as a result For a real summary from a real live IMPORTANT ATHEIST philosopher who agrees with Elder Nelson, here you go: Edited May 2, 2015 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 The Nehor, on 01 May 2015 - 3:18 PM, said:You and Nehor may hold tongue in cheek on that matter, but the supposed fight would be an imaginary jousting at windmills, since LDS theology posits that God obeys natural law and is master of it. Some non-Mormons have a better understanding of that principle than the Mormons themselves. For example, Carl Mosser has perceptively noted that "in the discipline of the philosophy of religion Latter-day Saints are presenting arguments for their unique understanding of God as an embodied being, literally an exalted man’s design in the universe, They are trying to exploit the advantages of their finite theism to account for the problem of evil, Hume’s argument against d and the conceptual and logical difficulties that attend absolutist and Trinitarian conceptions of God. In so doing, they are both doing original work and drawing off of the work of process theologians; proponents of the 'Open View of God'; social Trinitarians; and historic finite theists like John Stuart Mill, William James, and Edgar Sheffield Brightman. In addition, their materialistic ontology and optimistic religious humanism are presented as attractive alternatives for the modern person living in a scientific age." --from Beckwith, Mosser, and Owen, eds., The New Mormon Challenge (Zondervan, 2002), online at https://books.google.com/books?id=MLrugt3clU4C&pg=PT67&lpg=PT67&dq=CARL+MOSSER,+saints+go+marching+on&source=bl&ots=7F1lJHmWzq&sig=hDAcw4_ZlSk1WU36UEsuHFHv3TA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rDpEVe3GLonNoASos4GQCA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=CARL%20MOSSER%2C%20saints%20go%20marching%20on&f=false . As always, an excellent post Rorty of course is in that same pragmatist, process camp. Hope you are doing well Bob. 1
mfbukowski Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 (edited) I love this quote from Elder Nelson from a Pew Forum interview: I would love to start a Kickstarter campaign for a huge sign with that last sentence on it for the entrance of the Life Sciences building at BYU. It would be awesome for all those teachers and students to have to walk by this everyday: "To think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible. Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It’s just the way genetics works. - Elder Russell M. Nelson"So tell me exactly when dogs were not dogs? That is a logical contradiction. We define the word "dog" as being..... a dog. A dog is not a monkey. Look up the word in a dictionary, no where is found the other term for either of those words. I agree with evolution, but it is a category error to say that dogs were ever anything other than dogs. Perhaps one could get the names of what are believed to be intermediate species from an expert, but dogs are dogs. And yes, that IS the way genetics works. A species has a specific (pun) definition in genetics. If it is not that species, it is not that species. Edited May 2, 2015 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 Me too..and you have to admit that sometimes many cannot refute nor actually answer some of his questions..which are good questions. He makes you think..I hope. All of you do. Show me one. 1
mfbukowski Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 (edited) Wouldn't it therefore require a complete knowledge of either science or religion, or both, to know that there is a conflict or not? Is Elder Nelson claiming he has such a knowledge?Certainly not from the quote given- he specifically disavows such knowledge. Evolution is a wonderful paradigm, and it is an excellent explanation for much of the data. That is all science claims to be. I think one of the great problems is that evolution is really so simple it is hard to see how it answers much, It certainly gives us no teleology. It really doesn't explain much. It can be seen as a tautology, "what survives, survives". That's the way Popper saw it for a while It just stands to reason that if the environment changes, the organisms which survive the changes must change. If Florida suddenly became arctic, most of the life would die. It is kind of self evident, and really has nothing to do with theology, which is about why God does what God does, and not how. Whatever survived in an arctic Florida would have to change. One could postulate that God is behind it all or not. Evolution by itself really doesn't explain anything. Edited May 2, 2015 by mfbukowski
The Nehor Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 How is a belief in God a matter of faith? The evidence that His hand has been active in the lives of millions of people is pretty clear. And the evidence of the lack of his hand is also pretty clear. This is not a nice world.
The Nehor Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 Unfortunately he showed up about 1700 years before science. Not much of a "fight" until we can get them in the same room. I don't know. I would call Greek study science. True, they never had the scientific method but their study of the laws of the world was quite extensive. The jump from intuiting the nature of the world from observing it to testing everything was probably only not made because they did not develop the tools to test the laws of the world. 1
mfbukowski Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 An excellent discussion of Popper and his views on evolution and how they changed. http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution Thus we may conclude (as Popper did) that evolutionary theories or historical hypotheses about origins are no different than other scientific theories as far as their logical features are concerned and are just as falsifiable as hypotheses in the form of general laws and theories.
mfbukowski Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 I don't know. I would call Greek study science. True, they never had the scientific method but their study of the laws of the world was quite extensive. The jump from intuiting the nature of the world from observing it to testing everything was probably only not made because they did not develop the tools to test the laws of the world. Democritus, was an influential Ancient Greek pre-Socratic philosopher primarily remembered today for his formulation of an atomic theory of the universe.[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 To be accurate, the full quote should be used: "There is no conflict between science and religion. Conflict only arises from an incomplete knowledge of either science or religion, or both" Oddly, I don't find that particularly ironic. I'm sure, however, that you'll explain it to us. but he also said, “This university is committed to search for truth, and teach the truth,” What does it teach? Evolution, Macro-Evolution, Death before the Fall, Old Earth
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 So tell me exactly when dogs were not dogs? That is a logical contradiction. We define the word "dog" as being..... a dog. A dog is not a monkey. Look up the word in a dictionary, no where is found the other term for either of those words. I agree with evolution, but it is a category error to say that dogs were ever anything other than dogs. Perhaps one could get the names of what are believed to be intermediate species from an expert, but dogs are dogs. And yes, that IS the way genetics works. A species has a specific (pun) definition in genetics. If it is not that species, it is not that species. Brilliant
Teancum Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 How is a belief in God a matter of faith? The evidence that His hand has been active in the lives of millions of people is pretty clear.I did not challenge your premise above. I challenged another one you made and have now dodged.If you want to discuss your premise above on another thread I would be happy to do so. It seems off topic for this thread.
Avatar4321 Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 but he also said, “This university is committed to search for truth, and teach the truth,” What does it teach? Evolution, Macro-Evolution, Death before the Fall, Old EarthSo teaching the current theories doesn't teach us truth?I took a class on Judaism and one on Islam while at byu. Would you consider that teaching truth? I would. Because it's.the truth about what others believe. 2
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 Because it's.the truth about what others believe. Nice try, but that is not how Elder Nelson defines "truth" "Truth is a knowledge of things as they really are, were, and will be."https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/lesson-4-the-commandments?lang=eng
Recommended Posts