Science and Religion

[rameumptom]

There is tradition, there is science, and there is the ultimate truth. I believe there was a global flood in a traditional sense. My scientific mind does not necessarily believe the flood was global. And the day will come when the two will come together with the full truth.

That God allows mankind to believe certain traditions that teach us symbolically about his great work can be found in prophecies and parables throughout the scriptures.

I'm not bound to think that religion nor science is perfect. I use both to the best of my ability to improve myself and the world around me. For example, we use Newtonian physics for many things. We also use Quantum Mechanics for developing things relying on the infinitely tiny matter. These theories of Newton and Einstein conflict with each other, and so scientists are seeking some Grand Unifying Theory. Until they find it, they continue using both theories, as they both are useful in their own way.

We would be foolish to toss out Newton and Einstein's theories, simply because they are incomplete or perhaps wrong in certain ways. Why? Because they work. Without Newton's laws, we could not manage in the normal world. Without Einstein's laws, we could not build computers or nuclear reactors.

So it is with religion and science. Both provide me with very valuable information that help me in life. However, neither is complete. I would be foolish to reject one or both of them, simply because they do not provide me with 100% accurate information.

[MarginOfError]

I drafted this last night, but didn't get to finish it, so it might be a little late

Radius of the Earth (R_earth) = 3963.205 miles

Radius of the Earth plus the height of Mt. Everest (R_everest) = 3968.703 miles

Volume of the Earth (V_earth) = (4/3) * pi * R_earth^3 = 260,752,343,761 cubic miles

Volume of the Earth plus Everest (V_everest) = (4/3) * pi * R_everest^3 ~ 261,839,000,000 cubic miles

V_everest - V_earth ~ 1,068,700,869 cubic miles

Volume of water in the Pacific Ocean (V_pacific) = 17,314,294 cubic miles

Number of Pacific Oceans required to cover Mount Everest

V_everest / V_pacific = 1,068,700,859 / 17,314,394 ~ 62 Pacific Oceans

That's an awful lot of water to support the idea of a total world wide flood. Not to mention that no one can breath at that altitude for 40 days.

The Widstoe article is an interesting argument, but I also have very serious doubts. It would take an extremely hard rain to cause the kind of flooding being discussed (a small sheen of water on every land surface). And what of the high altitude areas where it wouldn't be rain, but snow? In the end, it just doesn't add up.

I'm confused about Widstoe's discussion of the possibility of the Flood being along the Mississippi River. If the flood was along that river, how did Noah end up in the Middle East?

I think the teachings from earlier prophets that the Flood was the Earth's baptism are honest, but misguided attempts, at trying to make sense of a world in the absence of better information. I think it is likely that Noah's Flood was a local flood that surpassed all of the cultural memory. It was so epic it became a legend. I think there's great symbolism and lesson to be had in the allegory, but it's probably a bit naive to take the account as literal in any way that has been proposed thus far.

[JosephP]

I am neither an accomplished scientist, nor a learned theologian. I do however have an above average understanding of history. The one thing that history has taught me is that there is nothing in history that does not include many contradictions. It is a widely held assumption among historians that when all the facts lead to only one conclusion, that is evidence that the record has been altered.

In the same way that you no three people observing a car accident will testify in the same way about the actions of the vehicles involved, neither do we expect that the historical record accounts will all agree, often they are outright conflicting.

The fact that the verbal traditions of the ancient Israelites contain contradictions is certainly no evidence of their falseness, it can be argued that it is strong evidence that they are accurate representations of the people reporting them.

To me, it is so much vanity to attempt to align the oral traditions of a nomadic people with current archaeological and scientific understanding. It is wonderful that so much does comply with modern understanding and with the physical evidence, but it is of no consequence that much of it does not.

I guess the way that I look at it would be that when in a ward council meeting we talk about the spiritual needs of a family we get one perception of what the family dynamics are all about. Yet when we physically go to meet the family, to find ways to be of service to them, we often find that the physical realities are quite different from our perception by discussing their spiritual condition.

I have no doubt that when we do ultimately learn the truth of all things, we will simply laugh and say, "of course, it is so obvious, why didn't we see that before."