Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.

[The_Phoenix]

The title of the tread “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind”.

is from a quote by Albert Einstein.

How does one balance “faith with science” when they are at odds with one another? Or are they at odds because we lack all the information needed?

[Guest gopecon]

Science and religion are both a search for truth, just with a different emphasis. I think that when they are at odds it is a lack of information on one or both sides. I don't think we will fully understand how they interact/relate until after this life.

[Guest gopecon]

Changed you said - "and we are also told that new worlds are built on the ruins of older worlds (Ether 13:9)"

The actual verse says - "9 And there shall be a new heaven and a new earth; and they shall be like unto the old save the old have passed away, and all things have become new."

Did you mis-cite the verse? I don't get the recycled planet theory out of that verse in Ether. I think that verse is just talking about what will happen to Earth. I don't know enough to dispute the recycled planet idea, but if you are going to use scriptures to support it, they should actually support your idea.

[rameumptom]

We have to be humble enough to realize that even our prophets and scriptures cannot answer all things for us right now. Nor should they be expected to do so. The scriptures were not written as a science text book, and science is not designed to search for God.

In the areas where there are current disagreements, we should cautiously keep an open mind that one or the other, or both could be right or wrong, or partially right or wrong.

We should not think that because we have scripture and prophets, the Lord has revealed exactly how the universe was created. That is not the purpose of scripture and prophets. Each prophet explains things, according to the knowledge and understanding he has. And each prophet interprets the revelations he has according to his weaknesses. Note that Nephi saw the filthiness of the river of water, but Lehi did not, because his mind was caught up on other things. I doubt Moses was pondering quantum mechanics when the Lord showed him the world. And I doubt Moses understood everything scientific going on with the creation, Adam and the Fall, Noah and the Flood, etc. I also doubt Joseph Smith understood the science behind it, when he received the revelation for the Book of Moses.

So, we need to be cautious on using religion to beat up on science, and vice versa.

[Mamas_Girl]

The title of the tread “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind”.

is from a quote by Albert Einstein.

How does one balance “faith with science” when they are at odds with one another? Or are they at odds because we lack all the information needed?

Well, sometimes we just have to admit that we don't know everything. I personally do not believe every word of the Bible to be literal, so what science says doesn't affect me as much as it might some others. Relgion has been forced to change their beliefs before when it was proven that the earth was round and not flat. A lot of people like to base their faith on evidence, but yet the scriptures tell us that "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Science is sense, in other words you can see, feel, touch, smell, and hear things and thus know with a certainty that these things are true. One can travel to Egypt, Rome or the Reed Sea and know that the places are real. Faith on the other hand is a witness of the Holy Ghost in something that can't be seen, and is often seen as illogical by those not of the faith. Take, for example, the miracles performed by Jesus in the Bible. There seems to be enough evidence that a man named Jesus existed, but there is no scientific evidence that he performed the miracles that he's credited with in the Bible. So how do we, as Christians, know that he actually performed them? Or that he was even the Son of God? By faith -- a testimony by the Holy Ghost.

There is overwhelming evidence that the earth is well over 6000 years old, and that man evolved rather than being literally created from the dust of the earth. Does this shake my faith? Not at all. I believe that God wanted the Bible to be more of a story of faith and trust in him, than he did a science manual spelled out to the nth degree. We're told, in fact, to study the sciences and all things in, on and above the earth.

Almost nightly, on the news, we see Darwin's work in effect with how things change to survive. Of course I'm talking about cancer cells and how the news lately has been that some cells have become resistent to treatments and that scientists are working on more aggressive individualized treatments. As man progresses in his understanding of medicine, diseases evolve to resist eradication. I think most religious people would find this use of science to be very beneficial, but if we're going to accept that cells can evolve, then soon we're gonna be forced to accept that species can evolve as well. We cannot use science only when it is convenient to our faith. Just my two cents worth.

[NeuroTypical]

How does one balance “faith with science” when they are at odds with one another?

First, someone would have to show me an example of where they're at odds. I can't find any.

Oh, don't get me wrong, there are lots of things people believe, at odds with science. And there is the occasional theory and hypothesis and attempt to explain things scientifically, at odds with what I believe. But the first is not "faith", and the second is not "science".

[LittleWyvern]

The title of the tread “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind”.

is from a quote by Albert Einstein.

How does one balance “faith with science” when they are at odds with one another? Or are they at odds because we lack all the information needed?

I'm actually writing a paper in philosophy right now about this subject. I won't bore you with it, but I think this balance has been found by some people, but is pretty rare. I think if we study the lives of people like Thomas Aquinas and Nicole Oresme, we can see how this balance works.

[The_Phoenix]

one more add - on

I enjoy contemplating the possibility of multiple dims

Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" - YouTube

perhaps Eden is on the earth, but in a different dim? I love science, it does open up interesting new possibilities. If anyone wants to talk dims...

if you want to see in higher dims:

Dimensions Watch E

old post

Thanks, through your link I found this,

[The_Phoenix]

First, someone would have to show me an example of where they're at odds. I can't find any.

Ok let's wade into the shallow water concerning Noah's Ark". That view of Bible vs Science.

[NeuroTypical]

Ok let's wade into the shallow water concerning Noah's Ark". That view of Bible vs Science.

The Bible does not demand belief in a global flood.

As for archaeological discovery, just because we haven't found proof of something in the past, doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you believe the false claim "There is no record of a global flood, therefore there never was one", then you've got problems. But that's not science.

Faith and science are not at odds with each other, regardless of whether you believe in a global flood or not.

[Justice]

changed, I think the word the guy you quote is trying to get at is truth.

Maybe?

[RescueMom]

Heavenly Father is a Scientist, and can use the elements to do what he wants...I mean if us lowly humans can build an atom bomb and figure out dna structure...I bet he can too...

That's how I reconcile science and religion. I really honestly feel if we humans can have our understanding of the way things works, via science, his understand and ability is far beyond ours.

Do I believe he could take a carbon atom and create the entire universe...yes I do. It's that simple for me.

Edited December 9, 2011 by RescueMom

[The_Phoenix]

The Bible does not demand belief in a global flood.

As for archaeological discovery, just because we haven't found proof of something in the past, doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you believe the false claim "There is no record of a global flood, therefore there never was one", then you've got problems. But that's not science.

Faith and science are not at odds with each other, regardless of whether you believe in a global flood or not.

The outcome of the story would suggest otherwise.

[The_Phoenix]

Is this a sticking point for you?

No, just an interesting one.

[unixknight]

Faith is best for some questions, science for others. I wouldn't attempt to find the Gravitational Constant in the Scriptures, and I wouldn't turn to science to become Spiritually uplifted.

You run into trouble when you try to use only one approach or the other to solve EVERYTHING. Science can't be applied to the question of whether God exists (Despite claims to the contrary by some Atheists.) I think people sometimes try that approach when they need validation of what they believe in.

For the really interesting questions, you can combine both. How did this planet come to be? Where did life originate? Science provides us with some information, and Scripture/Faith gives it a context. The trick is not to expect one to conform to the other, but rather to try and see how they harmonize.

[NeuroTypical]

The outcome of the story would suggest otherwise.

"suggesting otherwise" does not a conflict make.

[The_Phoenix]

baptism by water, and baptism by fire. It will be interesting to see what the baptism of fire will be like!

I believe that is supposed to be the gift of the Holy Ghost...but fire "refines".

[The_Phoenix]

"suggesting otherwise" does not a conflict make.

I am not so sure; 7 of every clean beast and two of every unclean beast, on a ship or barge. Noah become the new Adam and the Father of all Nations.

[NeuroTypical]

I am not so sure; 7 of every clean beast and two of every unclean beast, on a ship or barge. Noah become the new Adam and the Father of all Nations.

Again, a literal acceptance is not necessary to believe the Bible to be the word of God.

And even if you do wish a literal translation, "the whole world" could be interpreted through the ancient worldview of those peoples - they might have very well thought that everything in a 100-mi radius around them constituted the entire world. Same for "Father of all nations". "Every beast" could mean "every beast they knew about".

I mean yeah, if you force yourself into one narrow interpreation of the many possibilities, you can find something that conflicts with at least one of science's "suggestions".

So, for your original question: "How does one balance “faith with science” when they are at odds with one another?" I don't know - don't see the reason to force myself to be bound by one narrow interpretation over another. I guess those people have problems.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Seminarysnoozer]

I am not so sure; 7 of every clean beast and two of every unclean beast, on a ship or barge. Noah become the new Adam and the Father of all Nations.

The story has to be told within a context that the people receiving the story could relate and gain the intent of the story.

Just as a possible example, lets say Noah was given some Liahona-like device, meaning unknown piece of technology, that allowed him to gather all the genetic codes for every beast in the world both of those that were clean (not many genetic mutations or variations) and those that were way off the original creation, unclean. Possibly some way of storing that genetic code in embryo form on the boat and a reseeding piece of technology after the "flood", that purged all the corruption out of all the other beasts left, including the corrupted human like forms, thus starting over. To summarize such a story in terms understandable to whom the story was given, there could not easily be any description of DNA or genetic code etc. The metaphoric equivalent could have been given instead. Until we have the full story it would be hard to say that science doesn't match up with that story or vice versa.

[JudoMinja]

I am not so sure; 7 of every clean beast and two of every unclean beast, on a ship or barge. Noah become the new Adam and the Father of all Nations.

I'd be more concerned about the brother of Jared's barges that were "tight like unto a dish" being tossed and turned and roiling about on the ocean full of BEES. And their source of light being rocks that were touched by the Savior... How does science explain that?!

But then, I'm with LM. I don't see that science and religion conflict with one another, because I don't limit myself to rigid interpretations or to the belief that I understand everything there is to be understood. I believe that God works within the bounds of science and so a lot of miracles may be able to be explained scientifically, but I also believe that our understanding is limited and that we may find the scientific "laws" we consider to be fact are only limited to our plane of existance, and that God works with a "higher" law that allows him to do things that may seem impossible or contradictory to us. After all, a lot of our science today proves science of the past to be false and a bunch of malarky. In the future, we may come to a better scientific understanding that makes what we believe to be true now appear to be nothing more than malarky.

[The_Phoenix]

I'd be more concerned about the brother of Jared's barges that were "tight like unto a dish" being tossed and turned and roiling about on the ocean full of BEES. And their source of light being rocks that were touched by the Savior... How does science explain that?!

Unless you believe God learns from men and not the other way around. We have such technologies today, I am sure God was aware of how to do it then. I am speaking about the actual physical dimensions of a boat that we are given at the task at hand.

[JudoMinja]

Unless you believe God learns from men and not the other way around. We have such technologies today, I am sure God was aware of how to do it then. I am speaking about the actual physical dimensions of a boat that we are given at the task at hand.

Ah, but see, if you say that Jesus made the rocks glow by technological means that we have today, then you would be saying that he did more than simply "touch" them. You would have to put an interpretation on the written scripture instead of translating it to mean literally exactly what is written. You would be doing the exact same thing we are doing to explain the seeming discrepancy with Noah's ark. If the writer was limited by his knowledge of the world, I don't see it as impossible to believe that when he said "two of every animal" that he meant every kind of animal of which he had knowledge. It's the same kind of explanation you'd be using to explain away that Jesus simply "touched" the stones to make them light.

[The_Phoenix]

Ah, but see, if you say that Jesus made the rocks glow by technological means that we have today, then you would be saying that he did more than simply "touch" them. You would have to put an interpretation on the written scripture instead of translating it to mean literally exactly what is written. You would be doing the exact same thing we are doing to explain the seeming discrepancy with Noah's ark. If the writer was limited by his knowledge of the world, I don't see it as impossible to believe that when he said "two of every animal" that he meant every kind of animal of which he had knowledge. It's the same kind of explanation you'd be using to explain away that Jesus simply "touched" the stones to make them light.

I think mankind has known and lost much, what to us is normal would have seemed supernatural then.

https://www.google.com/search?q=worlds+oldest+computer&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=9GbiTsOUJIfZgAfKkcWWBg&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=854

https://www.google.com/search?q=baghdad+battery&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Yrm&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=uGbiTvSoBMLTgAfjn8z7BQ&ved=0CEAQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=854

[JudoMinja]

I think mankind has known and lost much, what to us is normal would have seemed supernatural then.

I do not disagree, I just think that basically the same argument could be made about the ark. When we remember that the understanding of those who were writing in ancient times was more limited than the understanding we have now, it is easier to take "literal" writings with a grain of salt.