Science sometimes contradicts the Gospel

[mfbukowski]

On 2/17/2018 at 6:09 AM, Anijen said:

Any chance the Hebrew words period of time could have been substitututed to the word day? Boy that could make a weekend even longer and connect science and religion too.

 

Call me crazy, but when I read in the Bible how the sun stopped rotating around the earth or when a donkey talked or when the earth stood still for three days, it made me go hmmm perhaps there is a translation problem (or some type of goof here).  Science and religion has its nexus we just haven't discovered it yet.

 

Besides the earth has been having plagues well before overpopulation of cities etc.  I have lived in a very populated city and a very small town if I compare the two; the small town still gets hit with the flu just as bad (percentage wise) as the bigger cities, but the righteousness (translated from google as crime rate) in a small town is much better. Heck I don't even remove my keys from my car or lock my doors. Love, love, love living in a small town (we don't even have a Wallmart, yep that small)

Where do you live? I need to do some car shopping.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

49 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Hopefully with your new insights from Lanza you Now understand that there is no conflict between science and religion because each one of them is talking about something different, from different perspectives.

There is a conflict because our perception of reality may be completely wrong. That is why I only get my truth from the scriptures.

For me God is the only one that knows the truth. My perception of reality doesn't really mean anything, that is why I put all of my trust in God.

[Marginal Gains]

On 23/02/2018 at 5:53 AM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

True. God told us to multiply because there is no overpopulation problem. If God can fit thousands of animals in the ark, he can also fit billions and billions of people on the Earth.  But false doctrines are now trending on Youtube. For Gates the middle class needs to have less children.

 

 

You believe in a literal ark too? This is worse than I thought....

[Calm]

Nvm

Edited March 8, 2018 by Calm

[SamuelTheLamanite]

17 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

You believe in a literal ark too? This is worse than I thought....

I am not ashamed to be a Christian. I believe in the resurrection of Jesus, the creation, and miracles.

[Marginal Gains]

59 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I am not ashamed to be a Christian. I believe in the resurrection of Jesus, the creation, and miracles.

What arguments would you make against the Earth being flat?

[DJBrown]

On 2/9/2018 at 1:56 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I believe Evolution, overpopulation, and other scientific theories do contradict the gospel of Jesus Christ. I agree with my friend JLHPROF when he said, "But I consider the term overpopulation, as in too many people on earth, to be contrary to gospel doctrine"

Scientists believe the world is dangerously overpopulated. "There's a strong correlation between the risk of pandemic and human population density. We've done the math and we've proved it," said Peter Daszak, a disease ecologist.  Scientists think they proved overpopulation can be very dangerous,, but our inspired leaders teach the planet is not dangerously overpopulated. 

As an apostle our prophet Elder Nelson taught, "Arguments swirl around that the earth is dangerously overpopulated and that couples should restrict the number of their children. … I adjure you to believe the Lord, who said that ‘the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare’ [D&C 104:17].”"   

In General Conference president Nelson (apostle then) taught "Many in developing nations unknowingly ascribe their lack of prosperity to overpopulation. While they grovel in ignorance of God and his commandments, they may worship objects of their own creation (or nothing at all), while unsuccessfully attempting to limit their population by the rampant practice of abortion. They live in squalor, oblivious to the divine teaching—stated in the scriptures not once, but thirty-four times—that people will prosper in the land only if they obey the commandments of God"   

Church manuals teach "The commandment to multiply and replenish the earth is a vital part of Heavenly Father's eternal plan and remains in force today"

So yes, it is clear science can contradict religion. God wouldn't tell us to "multiply and replenish" the Earth had it been dangerous. There can't be direct consequences for obeying the commandments of God. I  believe the larger the population gets the more blessed we will be.

Here is the Deseret News editorial debunking overpopulation alarmism.   "Overpopulation isn't the world's concern — the problem is too few births" https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865604167/Overpopulation-isnt-the-worlds-concern-2-the-problem-is-too-few-births.html

and church article proves "the problems of overpopulation may be exaggerated"  https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/05/realities-of-the-population-explosion?lang=eng

 

 

 

 

 

Yes- science does contradict religion at times.  But then again, science contradicts itself even more frequently.  I think it is wise to recognize that.

I think a significant amount of the energy behind the campaign to limit population has its roots in politics.  And that is always a messy combination.

[Marginal Gains]

56 minutes ago, DJBrown said:

 

Yes- science does contradict religion at times.  But then again, science contradicts itself even more frequently.  I think it is wise to recognize that.

I think a significant amount of the energy behind the campaign to limit population has its roots in politics.  And that is always a messy combination.

Science corrects itself, constantly, based on new discovery. It’s a constantly iterative process that is encouraged.

How has Mormonism demonstrated a similar embracing of its ideas being subjected to challenge and iteration?

[DJBrown]

44 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Science corrects itself, constantly, based on new discovery. It’s a constantly iterative process that is encouraged.

How has Mormonism demonstrated a similar embracing of its ideas being subjected to challenge and iteration?

Sometimes it takes "science" decades or even centuries to correct itself.  The field of nutrition science as an example is in the process of almost completely reversing long-held beliefs and guidelines.  We have had bad science in this field for 50 years.

As far as LDS beliefs, look no further than the Book of Mormon.  It took time and very close examination of the text to refine our understanding of the geographic claims of the book.  The movement from a hemispheric model to a limited geographic model is the result of actually paying attention to the text and examining some fundamental assumptions.  

But in general, just look at how much has changed in the church over the last 188 years.  The mechanism of change may be different than the scientific method.  But it does happen.

[Sevenbak]

2 hours ago, DJBrown said:

As far as LDS beliefs, look no further than the Book of Mormon.  It took time and very close examination of the text to refine our understanding of the geographic claims of the book.  The movement from a hemispheric model to a limited geographic model is the result of actually paying attention to the text and examining some fundamental assumptions.  

Are you trying to state that the church has adopted an official (or unofficial) limited geography model?

Edited March 9, 2018 by Sevenbak

[Freedom]

On 2/23/2018 at 2:00 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

There is a conflict because our perception of reality may be completely wrong. That is why I only get my truth from the scriptures.

For me God is the only one that knows the truth. My perception of reality doesn't really mean anything, that is why I put all of my trust in God.

But what if your 'truth' from the scriptures is based on a misunderstanding of what the ancient author was trying to say. Are you reading Genesis from the perspective of a 21st reader or from the perspective of ancient Israel? If I were to say "the apple of my eye has skeletons in her closet" you would not imagine apples and bones, but rather consider that my daughter has made a lot of bad choices. 5000 years from now, I can just imaging what the anthropologists would be trying to make of such a statement. What was the apple? perhaps the apple is the head and the closet is the skull? Ancient writers used abstract poetry to express gospel concepts but I am wondering if those who assume our perception is wrong or that science is mistaken are assuming the message is using concrete expository language.  

[Teancum]

On 2/9/2018 at 3:56 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I believe Evolution, overpopulation, and other scientific theories do contradict the gospel of Jesus Christ. I agree with my friend JLHPROF when he said, "But I consider the term overpopulation, as in too many people on earth, to be contrary to gospel doctrine"

Scientists believe the world is dangerously overpopulated. "There's a strong correlation between the risk of pandemic and human population density. We've done the math and we've proved it," said Peter Daszak, a disease ecologist.  Scientists think they proved overpopulation can be very dangerous,, but our inspired leaders teach the planet is not dangerously overpopulated. 

As an apostle our prophet Elder Nelson taught, "Arguments swirl around that the earth is dangerously overpopulated and that couples should restrict the number of their children. … I adjure you to believe the Lord, who said that ‘the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare’ [D&C 104:17].”"   

In General Conference president Nelson (apostle then) taught "Many in developing nations unknowingly ascribe their lack of prosperity to overpopulation. While they grovel in ignorance of God and his commandments, they may worship objects of their own creation (or nothing at all), while unsuccessfully attempting to limit their population by the rampant practice of abortion. They live in squalor, oblivious to the divine teaching—stated in the scriptures not once, but thirty-four times—that people will prosper in the land only if they obey the commandments of God"   

Church manuals teach "The commandment to multiply and replenish the earth is a vital part of Heavenly Father's eternal plan and remains in force today"

So yes, it is clear science can contradict religion. God wouldn't tell us to "multiply and replenish" the Earth had it been dangerous. There can't be direct consequences for obeying the commandments of God. I  believe the larger the population gets the more blessed we will be.

Here is the Deseret News editorial debunking overpopulation alarmism.   "Overpopulation isn't the world's concern — the problem is too few births" https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865604167/Overpopulation-isnt-the-worlds-concern-2-the-problem-is-too-few-births.html

and church article proves "the problems of overpopulation may be exaggerated"  https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/05/realities-of-the-population-explosion?lang=eng

 

 

 

 

Well, I am not one who argues that people should necessarily restrict family size.  But there is clear evidence that we have, as the species Home Sapiens, achieved in a short period of time on the evolutionary scale, nothing any other species on our planet has done. 

And along the way we have likely impacted the other species as well as our environment more dramatically then any other species.

When Homo Sapiens were hunter gatherers our population was small and would have remained small. Thus the ability to transmit disease among other humans was limited.  And most of the killing diseases that humans have experienced came after the agricultural and animal domestication revolutions our species went through.  This allowed larger populations that lived in close quarters with each other along with the animals we domesticated. Its clear that our species has experienced numerous pandemics in the past 8000 years that have killed significant numbers of humans.  Further as humans in the past 300 years explored the conquerors brought disease to populations that had not been exposed to the bacteria or virus that caused the disease and thus tens of millions in the Americas and Australia died as a result (See Jared Diamond and Guns, Germs and Steel). 

The largest pandemic in the past 100 years happened in the early 20th century. This flu pandemic killed tens of millions. Since that time humans have been able through medical science (not through revelation of self proclaimed prophets) been able to develop the ability to combat diseases that can kill millions.  But now chinks in that armor are showing up.  Bacteria and Viruses are short lived and can evolve rapidly to resist our medications that combat them.

It is only a matter of time till we have another major pandemic.  The fact that there are 7 billion humans who mostly live in heavily populated cities and very close quarters as well as the ease of travels and so on will make this fact happen. That is why when you see a Doctor these days they ask about your travel.

So yes.  Despite your faith in LDS prophets and so on there will be an outbreak. We have had close risks numerous times over the past 25 years but our scientists and medical experts, and not self proclaimed prophets, apostles, popes, ministers, rabbis, imams and so on, have kept us safe from a major outbreak.

 

Again I don't care how many children someone has and I am don't believe any government or other body should impose their will on family size.  But it is clear there is a powder keg of some virus or bacteria that will kill millions upon millions. And so called prophets and apostles of God have no insight or guidance on this.  

 

 

[RevTestament]

On 2/10/2018 at 3:37 PM, mfbukowski said:

Science only contradicts the gospel here, where one is likely to find the philosophies of men mangled by scripture.

Don't you really mean the scriptures mangled by the philosophies of men? Or maybe the philosophies of men mangled with scripture?

I think science is a bit subject to the mangling of men as well, even without philosophy. Most of what is commonly accepted as science is in actuality merely theory. While theories are part of the scientific process, there seems to be a tendency of men to accept them as proofs. However, history has shown, especially in the field of archaeology, that theories are sometimes on very dubious footing and are always subject to change. In the field of archaeology new discoveries have changed the prevailing theories many times, and I believe will continue to do so. It is especially hard to "prove" something based on a lack of evidence, and in archaeology there is much we simply do not know. We are merely literally scratching the surface, yet there are archaeologists which conclude for example that there was no "Israel" prior to the 7th or 8th century BC, and that the Israelites merely represent rebellious Canaanites. Even as new discoveries continue to be made, there are still many archaeologists willing to posit such theories based on a lack of evidence. I believe the remarkable thing is how much evidence there is to support Biblical history. Archaeologists haven't seemed to learn. They once laughed at the Biblical record of the Hittites until archaeology uncovered Hattusa, and  even Egyptian history confirmed their existence. Over time more and more evidence has mounted which supports the Bible. I believe the same has happened with the Book of Mormon. Those pointing to missing evidence seem never to be dissuaded, but it certainly is not very reliable grounds on which to reject scripture - including the Book of Mormon.

[Teancum]

On 2/9/2018 at 9:43 PM, JLHPROF said:

Please be careful how you lump me in with your brand of crazy.  I have my own brand of crazy.

True, I don't consider overpopulation a concern, but our ineffective allocation of resources is, and may one day force the saints into living consecration and United Order just to survive.

I also don't consider global warming a concern.  Not because it isn't happening but because I believe it's related to the winding up scene.

Wow. And this is the problem with religion and true believers.  You think global warming is real but you don't give a crap because Jesus is coming soon.

New flash. He has allegedly been coming since he died. Those that lived when he dies thought he was coming in a few years. Jesus thought this. Paul did as well. Its clear from the NT.

Yet here we are 2000 years later. He is not here.  And believers in many generations since have believed he was coming in their lives.

If there is any evidence of a failed prophecy it is when Jesus is coming. 

And yet we have people basing decisions on thinking Jesus is coming soon.

Maybe someday humans will grown up as a species and move beyond their man made myths.  If we survive.

[Teancum]

On 2/10/2018 at 11:20 AM, rpn said:

Samuel, you have it backwards.   The Gospel of Jesus Christ incorporates all truth: science and secular, and religious.    The challenge of today is that we don't actually know what science is full truth  (in my lifetime, many once "scientifically proven" ideas have changed, sometimes even 180 degrees), and we don't even know all things about faith.    Ultimately, though we know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ does fully incorporate all truth in all realms.

No you don't KNOW that what you call the Gospel of Jesus Christ fully incorporates all truth.  You just believe it very strongly.

[Teancum]

On 2/17/2018 at 11:56 AM, theplains said:

If I were to believe in evolution, I could also believe that a tornado blowing through a junk yard could produce a 747
airplane if the parts were all there and the wind blew long enough in the right conditions.

I heard once that all the world's population could fit in the state of Texas if they were to stand side by side.
The world produces enough food to feed the current population. It is only greed and war that is preventing
these supplies from reaching the needy.

Some places in the world are densely overpopulated (per square km), while others are very underpopulated.

The commandment to "multiply and replenish the earth" is not telling a man and wife to have as many children
even if you cannot afford it.

Some ethnic groups have higher birth rates than North American equivalents. For example, Muslims in Europe
I hear are growing faster in population due to higher birth rates than the native Europeans.  

Jim

Ahh the old 747 canard. Its been debunked. Hundreds of times.

[rpn]

22 hours ago, Teancum said:

No you don't KNOW that what you call the Gospel of Jesus Christ fully incorporates all truth.  You just believe it very strongly.

I don't know that any of us can decide what another of us "knows".    Your posts seem very angry, especially about faith.  I'm sorry.

[mfbukowski]

On 3/10/2018 at 11:45 AM, RevTestament said:

Don't you really mean the scriptures mangled by the philosophies of men? Or maybe the philosophies of men mangled with scripture?

I think science is a bit subject to the mangling of men as well, even without philosophy. Most of what is commonly accepted as science is in actuality merely theory. While theories are part of the scientific process, there seems to be a tendency of men to accept them as proofs. However, history has shown, especially in the field of archaeology, that theories are sometimes on very dubious footing and are always subject to change. In the field of archaeology new discoveries have changed the prevailing theories many times, and I believe will continue to do so. It is especially hard to "prove" something based on a lack of evidence, and in archaeology there is much we simply do not know. We are merely literally scratching the surface, yet there are archaeologists which conclude for example that there was no "Israel" prior to the 7th or 8th century BC, and that the Israelites merely represent rebellious Canaanites. Even as new discoveries continue to be made, there are still many archaeologists willing to posit such theories based on a lack of evidence. I believe the remarkable thing is how much evidence there is to support Biblical history. Archaeologists haven't seemed to learn. They once laughed at the Biblical record of the Hittites until archaeology uncovered Hattusa, and  even Egyptian history confirmed their existence. Over time more and more evidence has mounted which supports the Bible. I believe the same has happened with the Book of Mormon. Those pointing to missing evidence seem never to be dissuaded, but it certainly is not very reliable grounds on which to reject scripture - including the Book of Mormon.

It works both ways and the notion of objectivity is an illusion so it kind of doesn't matter at least to me.  The scriptures were physically written by human hands with a human brain giving the instructions.  So is philosophy.  Philosophy makes no pretense of being "inspired" so it is allegedly etic, and I suppose one could classify scripture as emic. So philosophy mangles scripture and scripture mangles philosophy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic

If you look for example at the history of philosophy the underlying tendency is to be actually dealing with theology.  All the way through the history of philosophy, the existence of God, creating a definition, showing proofs of denials of proofs for God's existence is a main trend through philosophy for the last 2000 years.  You can't separate philosophy from scripture, regardless of tidy slogans like "philosophy mingled with scripture.  Kant vs Hume is about God.   Existentialism is largely about God.   Plato's whole "philosophical" metaphysics was clearly tied to his conception of God as the Form of Good.   The doctrine of the Trinity and the idea of homoousios is straight Plato/Aristotle.  There is evidence that scriptural authors were influenced by gnosticism and even earlier philosophical ideas derived from Euclid and Pythagoras including coded symbology we simply pass over and never think about.   For example what is the significance in the miracle of the fishes of there being exactly 153 fish?  Why 153?  Why did they let down the nets on the "other side" of the boat as a kind of yin and yang symbol of opposition- and does it have a deeper meaning than that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_catch_of_fish

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesica_piscis

The very symbolism of a circle and a square is related to all this ancient symbology itself, and of its ancient origin in philosophy.

So where does one start and the other end?  It's all human language and human culture and once you see this it can change your entire perception of these issues 

I reject nor accept any scripture except on the grounds found in Moroni and Alma.  For me accepting spiritual advice from any document is based on....... guess what?  Spiritual confirmation. 

And often that includes what some would classify as "philosophy"

[mfbukowski]

On 3/10/2018 at 12:25 PM, Teancum said:

No you don't KNOW that what you call the Gospel of Jesus Christ fully incorporates all truth.  You just believe it very strongly.

What we call "knowledge" is simply psychological certainty.  It's what you are convinced beyond doubt that is "true"

It's what a Magisterium  of folks called "scientists" stamp with their imprimatur, until another paradigm comes along.

Quote

 

According to the deflationary theory of truth, to assert that a statement is true is just to assert the statement itself. For example, to say that ‘snow is white’ is true, or that it is true that snow is white, is equivalent to saying simply that snow is white, and this, according to the deflationary theory, is all that can be said significantly about the truth of ‘snow is white’.

There are many implications of a theory of this sort for philosophical debate about the nature of truth. Philosophers often make suggestions like the following: truth consists in correspondence to the facts; truth consists in coherence with a set of beliefs or propositions; truth is the ideal outcome of rational inquiry. According to the deflationist, however, such suggestions are mistaken, and, moreover, they all share a common mistake. The common mistake is to assume that truth has a nature of the kind that philosophers might find out about and develop theories of. For the deflationist, truth has no nature beyond what is captured in ordinary claims such as that ‘snow is white’ is true just in case snow is white. Philosophers looking for the nature of truth are bound to be frustrated, the deflationist says, because they are looking for something that isn't there.

 

All these alleged distinction between "knowledge" and "belief" really cannot be substantiated when you get into them.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

 

 

[Teancum]

On 3/11/2018 at 2:51 PM, rpn said:

I don't know that any of us can decide what another of us "knows".    Your posts seem very angry, especially about faith.  I'm sorry.

My posts are not angry at all. They just are posts expressing opinion and discussing the topics.  I feel no anger about these issues any more though there was a time I did. 

Can you tell me what about my posts you find particularly angry?  I am honestly puzzled.  Or is perhaps a self reflection because I am challenging a position you hold dear and special?

[Teancum]

On 3/9/2018 at 12:53 PM, DJBrown said:

Sometimes it takes "science" decades or even centuries to correct itself.  The field of nutrition science as an example is in the process of almost completely reversing long-held beliefs and guidelines.  We have had bad science in this field for 50 years.

As far as LDS beliefs, look no further than the Book of Mormon.  It took time and very close examination of the text to refine our understanding of the geographic claims of the book.  The movement from a hemispheric model to a limited geographic model is the result of actually paying attention to the text and examining some fundamental assumptions.  

But in general, just look at how much has changed in the church over the last 188 years.  The mechanism of change may be different than the scientific method.  But it does happen.

Science is certainly not perfect.  You refer to nutrition which has been an area that i have at least read a lot about because I am interested in it for a variety of reasons.  Controlled studies in nutrition are really hard to perform due to a variety of factors.  But science does not claim ultimate truth or revealed knowledge from a higher power that we need to confirm via feelings or some other mystical experience.  Big difference between that and "revealed" religion.

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Science is certainly not perfect.  You refer to nutrition which has been an area that i have at least read a lot about because I am interested in it for a variety of reasons.  Controlled studies in nutrition are really hard to perform due to a variety of factors.  But science does not claim ultimate truth or revealed knowledge from a higher power that we need to confirm via feelings or some other mystical experience.  Big difference between that and "revealed" religion.

Same comment. Truth and knowledge are psychological states for an individual

You will eventually learn that.

Anyone can claim anything. It's up to you to figure out what you find to be true.

It's really odd that you have so much faith that there's hard-and-fast reality beyond our ability to perceive it. You have more faith than I do. What you need is to be more skeptical not less.

Edited March 12, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Marginal Gains]

On 09/03/2018 at 5:53 PM, DJBrown said:

Sometimes it takes "science" decades or even centuries to correct itself.  The field of nutrition science as an example is in the process of almost completely reversing long-held beliefs and guidelines.  We have had bad science in this field for 50 years.

As far as LDS beliefs, look no further than the Book of Mormon.  It took time and very close examination of the text to refine our understanding of the geographic claims of the book.  The movement from a hemispheric model to a limited geographic model is the result of actually paying attention to the text and examining some fundamental assumptions.  

But in general, just look at how much has changed in the church over the last 188 years.  The mechanism of change may be different than the scientific method.  But it does happen.

Can you provide a reference where the Church has acknowledged a shift in official position from hemispheric to limited geography for the Book of Mormon?

Can you cite a specific example(s) of the Church making material doctrinal changes as a result of its own discovery rather than external pressure?

Edited March 13, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Same comment. Truth and knowledge are psychological states for an individual

You will eventually learn that.

Anyone can claim anything. It's up to you to figure out what you find to be true.

It's really odd that you have so much faith that there's hard-and-fast reality beyond our ability to perceive it. You have more faith than I do. What you need is to be more skeptical not less.

More skeptical....   I will work on it.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

More skeptical....   I will work on it.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bad-boy-of-physics-extreme-physics-special/

Search susskindbadboy pdf for full free article 

Edited March 13, 2018 by mfbukowski