DigitalShadow

As far as I know, men and women have the same number of ribs, I'm not sure where you heard that but I'm sure a quick trip to wikipedia will clear that up for you. Also we can already create extremely simple forms of life on our own such as viruses and there's no reason to believe we couldn't eventually create more complicated forms of life from scratch with the proper technology. There is also a significant amount of evidence that humans and other species have common ancestors as we share a lot of junk DNA embedded by viruses long ago that can only be passed from mother to child.

First a let me give people who may not have seen my other threads a quick summary of my situation: I am agnostic, my wife (of just over a year) is LDS, I usually go to church with her, and I've been curious about the church. Next, I would like to apologize for brining this up again, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, it's just that this subject is a strong barrier in my acceptance of the gospel and so I figured it would be best to talk to members of the church about it. I've already talked to our Bishop about it, I have a lot of respect for him and enjoy talking with him, but he admittedly has little understanding of scientific principles. Now I would like to present what is troubling me about joining the church: -There is overwhelming scientific evidence not only for evolution, but that evolution is the origin of our species. -The church has not explicitly stated their view on the theory of evolution but the plan of salvation requires the story of Adam and Eve to be accurate. -If evolution is the origin of our species, it would be a slow process over many thousands of years and there wouldn't be a specific point where you could say the first two humans were born. The gene pool of our ancestors would just grow closer and closer to what we see in modern humans. I'm not sure how this can be reconciled with Adam and Eve. The usual answer I get is that God does not reveal everything to us and that I should pray about the matter and it will be resolved. But this has yet to work for me, and I don't know if I could disregard a large amount of scientific evidence to believe something with no evidence. People tell me to have faith, but how can it be anything other the blind faith to believe in something that you've seen evidence to the contrary but never seen or felt evidence for? I also worry that maybe I am just not cut out for religion in general, as other people don't seem to have problems with faith. I never gave my wife the expectation that I would convert, but I know she has the hope that I will and I feel like I'm letting her down since my brain can't seem to accept the church. It's getting to the point where I don't want to go to church with her anymore because I feel hypocritical since she teaches some of the primary kids and I usually sit in with her. I don't think the kids know that I'm not a member, I've never lied to them and said I'm a member but I've never told them I'm not a member as I think it might confuse them and bring up a lot of questions. I don't know what kind of answers I'm looking for here or even if anyone will understand where I'm coming from. Maybe I just needed to get this all out in the open even if it is anonymously through a forum, but I do appreciate that many people of this forum have welcomed me and put up with my ramblings in a civil manner, I think it says a lot about the church.

I would just like to point out that nothing in science claims to be "factual." It is based on observed and testable theories that advance our knowledge. If something claims to be absolute and unquestionable then it is not "science."

I believe that people have a basic sense of right and wrong which is refined and enforced with laws and culture. Just because some places in the world are less "civilized", doesn't mean they have a different basic sense of right and wrong, they have simply justified their actions with necessity. Survival is obviously a stronger human imperitive than altruism, that doesn't mean altruism doesn't exist. Anyone who spends a few seconds pondering morality will realize that if everyone treated others how they would like to be treated the world would be a lot better place. The fact that our country is prosperous and that we don't have to worry about survival or impending invasions means that we are better able to focus on morality, it has little or nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian cultural start. I would also like to clarify something. Believing that there is nothing after death is a belief, just like believing there is something after death. A "non-believer" doesn't have to subscribe to either of those. I admit that I have no idea what happens after I die, and I am OK with that. You say that faith is the absence of fear for a believer, but I tend to think it is more accurately the reliever of fear. Instead of having to deal with the concept of not knowing what happens, a believer puts their faith into a religion and then they no longer have to fear because they "know" what will happen. I don't believe that my good behavior is a spontaneous expression of a universal concept of morality, but I do believe that it has nothing to do with my acceptance/rejecting of God. There are many factors that affect how moral a person is, but in my experience it has little or nothing to do with their religion (or lack there of).

I've also heard your line of thinking before, atheism->immorality. While I'm sure that there are some people who resist religion because of the moral responsibility, I assure you that I am not one of them and I think that anyone who knows me in real life would agree. People have a built in sense of what is right and what is wrong, it doesn't take scripture to realize that you should treat people how you want to be treated. I am a good person because it is the right thing to do, not because I fear punishment or want some reward after I die. Also, the fact that every civilization had a concept of a higher power speaks more to the human desire for there to be one, it would only point to some universal truth if they all independently came up with the same God. I find your last paragraph somewhat ironic because I have always felt that religion can be a cover story for fear, not atheism. People are afraid of not knowing what happens after they die, afraid of going to hell, afraid of what could happen to them with no one looking out for them. Religion provides a convenient security blanket for those people. I'm not saying this is the case for all religious people, just as not all atheists believe that way out of fear. I thank you for your concern, but I'm not "resisting" the acceptance of God, I'm just failing to see evidence of any kind for it. I'm in search of the truth and I'm exploring the possibility of God because religion does a lot of good for a lot of people, including my wife. That is why I come here and ask these questions.

I didn't address the rest of what you wrote as it seemed dependent on a not entirely accurate definition of atheist. I'm sorry if I came off as a bit of a jerk, but I'm used to a lot of hostility and misunderstanding when I mention that I am an atheist. I (along with many other atheists) disagree with the dictionary definition of atheism as there is no "doctrine" for disbelief. It is implying that atheists disbelieve God with the same conviction that theists believe in god, which is entirely untrue in most cases. I simply don't believe that there is enough evidence to decide one way ior the other. I guess the closest dictionary definition to my beliefs would be "agnostic." I probably should have used that word instead for the sake of simplicity and I apologize. I am praying in an attempt to find God, just as I've been instructed by missionaries and our Bishop. How else am I supposed to find the truth of the matter since there is no emperical evidence I can go on? I have a desire to know whether god exists (not just a desire to believe he exists), just as I have the desire to find the truth of any matter. But if you only have a desire to believe something exists untempered by questioning, wouldn't that just be blind faith instead of faith?

I think that maybe you're misunderstanding the word atheist. It has a lot of negative connotations from religious folk so I don't blame you, but really it just literally means not-theist. This is exactly what I meant by not religious. I do not actively deny the possibility of god, I simply don't believe in any of the ones presented to me because there is no evidence. I hope that clears some things up for you.

If anyone is curious about evidence that evolution is the origin of our species, just look up Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs). To me that is the most solid evidence. Essentially there is a class of virus (retrovirus) that embeds its own DNA into the cells it infects. Occasionally it will infect a sperm or egg cell that will then be fertilized and grow up. This animal now has the DNA of the retrovirus embedded in its own DNA and that will be reflected in all its children. It turns out that this happens rather often and around 8% of our DNA is comprised of these virus fragments. They are also the best known way of verifying lineage (over thousands of years) as they can only be transferred from parent to child. You can see that we share many of the same ERVs with chimpanzees as they are our closest relative and we have a common ancestor or there is no way that we would have the same ERVs. I'm not saying that this is "proof" of evolution, but I have yet to hear a religious or scientific explaination that accounts for this besides evolution (I'm open to either). If all species were created directly by God, why would he reuse "junk DNA" with embedded viruses and all?

Now I'm somewhat confused again. If you accept that evolution was the origin of our species, then how can Adam and Eve be anything more than an allegory? Evolution is a slow process, it's not as if all of a sudden 2 humans would be born out of nowhere and converse with each other all alone.

Thank you for answering my question. The only thing that still doesn't make sense to me now is the significance of Adam and Eve. I do attend church most of the time with my wife and from what I've heard, Adam holds a special position. If the story of Adam and Eve was simply an allegory, wouldn't this conflict with some LDS teachings?

While the scriptures don't specifically address evolution, they do provide an explanation of how life on earth began and many stories regarding the origin of our species. It's possible to accept that evolution happens while not conflicting with the scriptures, but accepting evolution as the likely origin of our species seems to directly conflict with Genesis. If we evolved, it was a slow progression to humanity and we didn't start as 2 humans directly created by god. I asked this because it has been one of the main sticking points of me joining a Christian religion. There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that not only supports evolution, but that evolution was the origin of every species on the planet, including humans. To me, this doesn't rule out the possibility of God, but it does rule out the possibility of the God described in the Old Testament. I was wondering how this is reconciled with LDS beliefs. Are there any people here that belive evolution was the origin of our species and also hold all the scriptures as true? If so, how do you reconcile Genesis?

That is what I originally assumed, but there are many Mormons who do not dispute evolution. Since Genesis and evolution appear to be mutually exclusive theories, I was just asking for come clarification.

From what I've gathered so far, there are some in the church who are creationists and some who are not. Is there any official church position on the matter? It seems that if the theory of evolution were true, it would conflict with the Old Testament which is still part of the LDS belief system, is it not?

Scientific theories are assumptions that change with evidence. A widely accepted idea can be revised or even thrown out all together depending on what is observed, as you pointed out with your dinosaur example. But I think that faith is entirely different than scientific theory and can't be compared. Are your religious beliefs really as easily changed as your scientific ones? Yes, I think that your church does a lot of good and it's build on soundly moral concepts, which is why I'm investigating it in the first place. However, I've also experienced intolerance and bigotry from many religions, including yours. You can say that these people are not acting in accordance with all your churches teachings, but if you're going to look at the good that a church has inspired, you must also look at the bad that it has inspired whether it was intentional or not. As an atheist moving to Utah, I've faced a bit of intolerance. Most people are polite on the surface, some genuinely mean it, but others immediately assume that I am an immoral heathen simply because I'm not a member and treat me with disdain. I've met a lot of jerks and immoral people and in my experience, what religion they claim to be has nothing to do with it. Judging someone entirely by their stated religion not only seems wrong to me, but seems to go against their own religious philosophy. I would also like to state that all of those good things you mention don't require religion. I enjoy helping other people, I don't do it because I expect to be rewarded in the afterlife, I do it because it is the right thing to do. In my experience, the religious people who do the most good, don't do it for their religion or the perceived rewards, they do it because they are inherently good people and would have done it anyway.

First off, I'd like to thank you for your reply as well, it's nice to find a fellow scientist here. My point with the analysis of your light analogy is that if you define faith that way (as the propensity to act without knowledge and make assumptions based on trends), then I don't see how it applies to religion. I assume that the light switch will turn on the light based on the trend that it almost always turns on the light (unless the light bulb is burnt out), I assume that a religion is true based on the trend ???. There are no direct action to result links that can be made in religion. The only testable conditions a religion provides all happen after you're dead. I also disagree on your gambling point. I don't think people gamble because they have an ignorance of statistics (or common sense for that matter, casinos obviously make lots of money), I think they gamble because they get addicted to the rush they get when they win against the odds and make money off it. They don't have faith (or make an assumtion) that they will make money. I think that a better example is religious fanatic terrorists who have faith that killing for their religion is the right thing to do and they will be rewarded for it. We can say how wrong and evil they are from our point of view, but we also had drastically different upbrinings. If you're raised from birth to believe something is true, chances are you will grow up to have an unshakable belief in it. This is supported by the fact that the majority of people are the same religion as their parents (obviously there are exceptions, I'm just observing the majority). My point is simply that faith can be a dangerous thing and knowing where to place it (if anywhere) is a non-trivial matter to me. I hear people say how strong their faith is and that no matter what is discovered or what evidence comes to light, it would not shake their beliefs, but I don't think I can ever be like that. It seems unscientific to me. There are hunches that you can go on in science, but faced with overwhelming evidence opposing them, I don't see the value in blindly following my original hunch to the exclusion of everything else. I do completely agree with you on prayer though and I wish more people saw it that way. And to clarify, I do believe love goes beyond logic, but it is also something that requires two parties. I love my wife more than anything and she can see that in the things I do, just as I can see it in the things she does. My point is that I don't feel love from a higher power, no matter how much I try to give it. You can say that it's because I don't want it enough, just as I can say that you only feel it because you want it so much. Sorry for the long post, but I really am enjoying this conversation :)

I don't expect anyone to know everything. I also realize that a person does not need to know everything to have faith, but how do you know where to place your faith? Obviously there is something that you do know that caused the faith in the first place and that's what I'm trying to get at, since I seem to be missing that part. Most people describe it as this overwhelming feeling and that they just "know" but I have never felt that and it confuses me that so many people just "know" these things, but obviously some of them are wrong since the things that they just "know" conflict with each other in many cases, so how can these overwhelming feelings be trusted?

I appreciate all the people who are trying to help me and don't want to sound ungrateful, but I think my questions were straightforward and valid. If they lack clarity, I would be more than happy to clarify, but I would still like answers. What I want is someone on the religious side who has also thought of these questions and maybe has answers or at least a little more insight into them because they are the same questions that prevent me from believing in a religion.

I may be new to these forums, but I assure you that I have been pondering these concepts for well over a decade. I'm here because taking time, listening and praying have failed and I would like other people's input on the matter.

But what is religion if not the pursuit of the truth? I realize there are many benifets for believers, but that is irrelivant to the question of whether it is true or not. For me, finding the truth is more important than receiving possibly false comfort in times of need. When I face adversity, I look to myself and my own problem solving ability to get myself out of it. I do appreciate all of the input and positive sentiment I've received so far. I don't mean to sound hostile, I'm just presenting everyone with arguments that my brain has presented to me in trying to rationalize this thing called religion.

I think it is all a matter of openmindedness. I may not be a member of the church, but I go with my wife on sundays because it is important to her and I am honestly curious about her faith. I ask her questions and she asks me questions. Occasionally we have to agree to disagree but there's no reason that can't be civil. I've never asked her to do anything that goes against her faith and she's never asked me to do anything that goes against my personal beliefs. It's entirely possible for two rational people to come to two different conclusions.

That is the answer I've been given a couple times, and I've tried to follow it with no luck yet. But what bothers me about that method is this: What if the church that is true, is one that I've never heard of? Of the billions of people on this earth, I would think that a significant percentage of them have asked this question in prayer honestly, yet I've never heard of someone being told by God to seek out a church they've never heard of in a country they've never been to. If anyone can honestly ask god what religion is true and get a straight answer of "Religion X is true" then why don't people from all over the world flock to one religion?

So faith is acting on the hope that the gospel is true? That makes sense in a way. However I'm still left wondering which gospel to choose to hope for in the first place. There are a lot of different churches, and plenty that I still don't even know about. Nearly all of them advise to have faith in either their gospel or their interpretation of it. If none of them give empirical evidence of the trueness of their church, how is one to pick a church?

I did read it but I still can't seem to understand it. Defining faith as "hope for things which are not seen, which are true" does not make sense to me no matter how much I look at it. It seems that if something is true, you don't need to hope for it. If it's unseen, then either you believe it on faith because you "feel" that is right, or you don't believe it, where does hope come into this? (I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I honestly want help understanding this)

Faith is not required for the pursuit of greater knowledge, only curiousity. Wondering what else is possible is not faith and certainly not the same faith required to wholly believe in a religion. Faith does not imply hope for things unseen, it implies unquestioning belief in things unseen.

I'm in somewhat of the opposite situation right now. My wife is LDS and I would probably be considered atheist. I love my wife more than anything and support her in whatever she does, including going to church. While I may not agree with all her beliefs, it is her right to have them, just as I'm sure she doesn't agree with my beliefs but still respects that I have them. I'm not sure if this helps or not, but I just wanted to let you know that it is entirely possible to disagree religiously, but still have an otherwise healthy and happy relationship. I wish you guys the best of luck.