Why Science?

[Traveler]

Besides the fact that science has improved economy, provided work for millions, increased the standard of living as well as health; science has improved the understanding of religious principles. Science has done more to dispel false notions of G-d and the misleading understandings of his creations and methods than any other single study – including centuries of biblical studies. I would submit that science has done more to frustrate the false notions of the trinity and open minds to the restoration of correct understanding of the G-d head as 3 separate and distinct individuals united in a common cause.

I would also submit that science goes hand in hand with spiritual enlightenment – That as G-d opens the heavens to spiritual enlightenment that science and knowledge of scientific principles likewise also increases and vice versa. The love of science easily bleeds over to love of true religion and correct divine principles and likewise the love of truth in science easily bleeds over to love of divine orders, principles and understanding. That nothing inspires false science and scientific notions more than the pursuit of false religions and that there is no greater indication of false precepts of religion than a disavowal of correct scientific principles.

Truth is so intertwined with itself as well as falsehoods intertwined with itself that it is impossible for true religion to exist without true science and vice versa – that the study of science will complement the study of religion more than any other wisdom discipline. Likewise the pursuit of flawed understands will - without exception corrupt both science and religion.

Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork.

Psalms 50:6 And the heavens shall declare his righteousness

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

Truth is so intertwined with itself as well as falsehoods intertwined with itself that it is impossible for true religion to exist without true science and vice versa –

Please expound on what you mean by true science and true religion, so that I better understand why one cannot exist without the other in your mind.

To elaborate my thoughts, did true religion, as to my understanding of true religion exist in the City of Enoch? Yes.

However, according to record we are not provided any understanding that they had of true science.

Yet, which life, if I had a choice to live in, would I choose to live in - to live with those in the City of Enoch, or to live with all the advances science has provided us.

I would choose to live in the City of Enoch where pure and true religion has not met another match since Enoch.

I provided my thoughts in hopes that you better understand my current thoughts in relation to your post.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Anddenex

[THIRDpersonviewer]

Science is the process that man uses to seek truth.

Religion is the process we use to seek truth and receive the answer from God.

Elder Scott gave a talk and mentioned that the 2 limitations on scinece is you cannot know for 100% sure that what you found is the truth. The reason is because a scientist has a hypothesis and they test something else to determine whether their hypothesis is wrong. I.E. if the test passes then the hypothesis doesn't work and thus thought or idea and we know it is not the truth. In other words we can never know what the truth is because the hypothesis cannot be tested itself. This is to avoid bias.

The 2nd is it cannot test spiritual truths. I.E Does God exist? Is the Book of Mormon true? Etc. It can test things like artifacts, or other historical things to assist in demonstrating the past a bit. Though I don't consider that important or pushes our knowledge of God. However, in studies like physics, biology, chemistry, and math, our understanding of who God is grows when we see the order, the laws by which these things are governed, which helps us better protect and strengthen our bodies. Take care of our stewardships and gifts that God has given, and so forth. In other words, we can figure out some applications for spiritual truths through science, but we cannot determine doctrinal truths from science.

Therefore if it is true science, then the attempt and goal is to find truth. It has to be coupled with religion to find the proper context and use of the findings in a spiritual and uplifting manner. True religion is the teachings of Christ to purify our lives to be like our Heavenly Father and live with Him. Unlike the 2 inhibitions of above. Religion can discover what the truth is and we can get the spiritual truths that are necessary to give us the purpose and perspective of this life and after and before this life.

Just think, science allows us to use construction equipment to build temples. Science builds our computers for family history. Science allows for quicker transportation and thus missionary work goes farther and faster. Science is coupled with God at the root of these innovations.

To speak to what you were saying Anddenex, I feel that pure science and pure religion are more of things in the heart. Yes there is outward manifestation, but my heart grows spiritually as I seek truth from God, and science improves my ability to act in more effective ways. Both are a way of life to find truth and use it. That is pure science

We see the fruits of science in our day, and Enoch's people saw the fruits of the teachings of Christ in their day. We still see those fruits today but it happens on an individual basis. It did for them too, but they all were in tune and became how they needed to be to have such a blessed society. We haven't all become like that but that doesnt mean pure religion is not among us.

Hopefully that helps.:)

[Guest gopecon]

I think the point of using the term "true" science and "true" religion is the honesty with which they are studied. A true scientist's work is a search for truth in his realm. The politics of the global warming debate are one example of corrupted science where numbers have been rigged to produce "evidence".

Likewise true religious study should not selectively edit parts of scripture that do not agree with preconceived opinions/beliefs. The quest should be for what is God's will, not what sounds good compared to how I understand things.

[THIRDpersonviewer]

No one knows what is in the heart of another....

from another recent thread...

"Science consists of symbols that explain our experiences.

Religion consists of experiences that defy being symbolically represented." - JLT

"experience in general defy being symbolically represented- it's the old problem of describing the sound of a trumpet, the color red, or the taste of salt to someone who has never experienced it using words alone." -

Both science and religion attempt to be verified by "two or three witnesses"...

After all is said and done, we can only know what we have personally experimented with ourselves.

I agree we do not know what is in the heart of another. I meant that the work of pure/true science and religion is a work for the heart. They enhance our ability to grow and become like Christ and they are complementary of one another. That is work that occurs in the heart. I don't know the heart of another.

I agree with the quote, science is measured empirically meaning that it is measureable with numbers and symbols. Religion uses experiences that we have. A spiritual confirmation from God cannot be empirically measured with numbers and symbols. It is an individual experience that is received from God.

The next quote I agree to a degree. This is a challenge of life to attempt to explain our experiences, it happens in religion, what does the Spirit feel like? One of those explanations is peace. It takes experimenting to discover the meaning of that word. But it cannot be symbolically measured with numbers like science is. symbols are the means of communicating experiences but science can use numbers for everything. Religion can only use words. I can explain the color red, and the sound of the trumpet with numbers and probably even the taste of salt with numbers too, but that would be all you hear is numbers that have no meaning unless you experience the taste of salt or see red or hear a trumpet. But spiritual things have no numerical explanation. Just I feel and I know and then the idea is communicated with words. I guess what I am saying then is the only way to have a personal experience something is to go through the same experience. No amount of communication from each other can help. That is why God speaks to us in our own language and tongue because we understand words differently. We can communicate with him perfectly but not with a human being. Communication with God is composed of the throbbing's of the heart, the feelings that we have has we express our desires to God. Not the words. I believe Elder Talmage said something to that effect at the beginning of Jesus The Christ. The thing I dont agree with then is that symbollically representing an experience is just an attempt to communicate an experience and not an attempt to actually cause an experience. That is why it is defied because there is no possible way to perfectly communicate with others, only with God because of the pure direct communication with Him.

I agree with trying to have multiple witnesses.

I agree that we know what we have experienced.

I agree the spiritual process is another showing of the scientific method, illustrating that it is the same process. The difference is in what is analyzed. spiritual or physical, measured symbolically or experiences from God.

So to expand on some things and summarize:

I just want to say there are multiple things that science is. Overall simplified down it is a process to discover truth, true principles. Religion uses a similar, if not the same, overall process. However the difference is what can be tested. Science tests physical, Religion test the spiritual. One is measured symbollically, the other involves experiences that come from God directly. That last part is the key the answers in science come from God, but often indirectly by way of physically testing and inventing. There is a measureable answer that you have to apply to discover its meaning.

In spiritual truths God gives you the answer by a feeling/experience. That cannot be measured empirically.

Science takes time and you receive the answer through testing that gives you a measurable value. Over time you learn the meaning of the symbol by various experiences. Symbols are just the means of communicating the knowledge so that it can be experienced.

I'm sorry if I've not explained clearly, to me there is so much overlap, and it is hard to show the similarities while keeping the difference shown as well. just ask me if something didnt make sense.

[Guest ghostwind]

Science is the process that man uses to seek truth.

Religion is the process we use to seek truth and receive the answer from God. (...)

So far, so good. For me, one of the most interesting sectors of modern science is cosmology. The more important cosmologic questions or phenomenons were thought to be finally answered or solved, the more new questions have risen. Science and cosmologic research will give us new answers, but will we be able to understand them? Will those answers change our fundamental view of the world we live in? And how far will all the new insights influence our religious understanding? Think of the dark matter (and there seems to be much more dark, invisible matter in our universe than normal matter), dark energy, making our mysterious universum expanding faster and faster... I don't know. But I think there is some correlation between religion and science, or to say it more precisely: scientific research and findings may effect religious views or fundamental doctrines. There is no end of wisdom...

Werner Heisenberg, a famous German scientist, once said:

"Der erste Trunk aus dem Becher der Naturwissenschaft macht atheistisch; aber auf dem Grund des Bechers wartet Gott."

For Heisenberg religion and science were not absolutely contradicting.

Edited February 3, 2013 by ghostwind
grammar

[Anddenex]

"Der erste Trunk aus dem Becher der Naturwissenschaft macht atheistisch; aber auf dem Grund des Bechers wartet Gott."

For Heisenberg religion and science were not absolutely contradicting.

I found this for the translation:

The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.

[Guest ghostwind]

I found this for the translation: The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.

Yes, exactly. I think that both science and religion are fundamental characteristics to describe mankind or the human race. And sometimes it seems as if there were all those contradictions between these two faculties, because the one is developping faster than the other. So, if religion will keep pace with profound scientific perceptions, it sometimes has to modify parts of its doctrine. How could anyone still believe that God has created the world (more exactly: our planet Earth) approx. 5,000 years ago? Who would nowadays believe in the Noachian flood and that all species are epigones of the animals and beasts from Noah's Ark?

Today we might better think about the idea of the possibly creation of the whole universe we are a part of instead of the creation of a little planet in a little solar system in an outer area of our home galaxy. I believe that no religious doctrine should ever stay statical, except in its fundamental perspectives, because otherwise it might get into conflics as mentioned above. Heisenberg was certainly talking about deeper insights of scientific research, and he was certainly thinking about those fascinating inexplicable incidents happening in the strange world described by the quantum theory.

But there can never exist the one question without the other, I mean the "how does it work" qestion on the one hand and the "why does it work" on the other hand. Perhaps scientists will find more answers on the "how does it work" question, and the question of "why" or "what's the reason" will never become answered by scientists. Otherwise the religion or faith should not fail to integrate modern knowledge to give more adequate answers on the "why" question...

[Anddenex]

because the one is developping faster than the other. So, if religion will keep pace with profound scientific perceptions, it sometimes has to modify parts of its doctrine.

I am not so sure one is developing faster than the other, although I can understand your point.

Also, this may be a subtle nuance, however doctrine never is in need of modification. Our understanding, correct understanding of doctrine is what needs to be modified.

I believe in an old statement I once read, paraphrasing, the theories of science and the theories of religion contradict. The truth of science and the truth of religion will never contradict. Truth is truth, it never contradicts itself, but our understanding, opinions, theories, conclusions based upon our limited knowledge of doctrine and science will at times contradict.

How could anyone still believe that God has created the world (more exactly: our planet Earth) approx. 5,000 years ago? Who would nowadays believe in the Noachian flood and that all species are epigones of the animals and beasts from Noah's Ark?

There are quite a few Christians who believe the creation of our earth was completed 6,000 years ago, or better said that the fall was complete and the temporal existence of our world begin at the dawn of Adam and Eve removed from the garden.

For example, Joseph Fielding Smith once said,

We have evidence beyond dispute that Adam was driven out of the Garden of Eden about 6,000 years ago, or perhaps a short time less...(Doctrines of Salvation, I,79)

Joseph Fielding Smith further declared,

Creation did not take millions of years...we can hardly be justified in trying to harmonize the days of creation with the extended periods of millions of years according to the reckoning of the so-called scientists. (Doctrines of Salvation, I,80)

He further states, when explaining the timeline of Adam, Noah, Shem, and Abraham

Profane history corroborates the history of Israel and Abraham. So a man is wilfully blind who would push these days back tens of thousands, much less, hundreds of thousands of years. (Doctrines of Salvation, I.81)

So who is right? A man who was once our prophet? Or scientists? Are possibly both wrong?

I personally believe the earth was created in how ever many days our God created. If that was 6000 years ago, then it was 6000 years ago. If this is incorrect, and it was longer, then it was longer.

Remember, God can heal a man such that if a scientist or a doctor, looked at him he would say the man was never sick, diseased, or any problems.

What else does God accomplish, when men apply their own wisdom, that they (men) appear very foolish?

Will a large majority of scientist defining the world's age, appear foolish when they stand before God and he opens up the full knowledge of earth's creation and timeline?

I don't know myself. It will be very interesting to find out though.

because otherwise it might get into conflics as mentioned above.

Conflicts between the theories of men (science) and the theories of religion, will always occur. The real question, what is actually the truth. When truth is truly shown, they will never contradict. Doctrine doesn't need to be modified, our understanding of doctrine may need modification.

But there can never exist the one question without the other, I mean the "how does it work" qestion on the one hand and the "why does it work" on the other hand. Perhaps scientists will find more answers on the "how does it work" question, and the question of "why" or "what's the reason" will never become answered by scientists. Otherwise the religion or faith should not fail to integrate modern knowledge to give more adequate answers on the "why" question...

Agreed.

[Traveler]

I wanted to just even out the tables a little and point out that not everything science has done is good - it has produced pollution, bombs, and unhealthy foods too... half of the illnesses it has "cured" it is responsible for creating. Why are cancer rates, diabetes etc. etc. through the roof? because of the food and chemicals science has exposed us all to.

I don't mean to be anti-science, and I agree that it has produced many wonderful things, but I think everyone needs to be very careful not to make science - or scientists - an object of worship. Scientists are just people like everyone else, they can be selfish and evil, or good, but they are just people. I have as much respect for an artist, a teacher, a councilor, and a farmer as I do for a scientist.

If you need a reality check to put scientists in their proper place, read through this:

Scientific misconduct - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, science, when used to things that are good, is wonderful... just making sure no one sees it as something that should be deified. It's always good to look at both sides of the coin.

It is also possible to misuse any discipline and learning construct. One could criticize even the teachings of Christ himself because of the misuse and abuses of those teachings and disciplines by one of his direct and closest "chosen" disciples of his most inter-circle, mainly Judas.

I guess the point I want to make in response to this criticism of science, which comes not from the principles of science but the exact opposite - in other words - the criticism is because of violations of the principles of science.

From an LDS standpoint - We believe that G-d is a G-d of truth. That all truth has G-d as its source and that there is not a truth that comes into the world that dos not come by revelation from that very G-d of truth. from the 13th Article of Faith

We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

It has long been my personal belief to believe in science and religion. I believe science should be taught as a discipline as a requirement in all our schools - both public and private. I also believe that religious principles should be taught in our public and private schools.

I personally believe that problems ensues in those societies that would subvert principles of science or religion with their own interpretations to reconcile the two in a manner that violate the very principles at the foundations of both disciplines.

The Traveler

[Dove]

I don't believe science is "all that and a bag of chips." If I understand correctly, the whole Bible came to be without all the science we have today. In fact, I believe the reason we have progressed so much in scientific fields in the past 200 years is due to God allowing that enlightenment to come to pass. It just doesn't make sense that for thousands of years there was so little progress made and then in these past 200 years so much accelerated growth has occurred in science and technology. I believe it's because the heavens were opened and this knowledge was given to us.

Also, our knowledge in the science fields is always flawed, no matter how progressed we are today. I have seen "science" and it's follies so many times in dealing with medical people, for example. Often at the expense of my own health. Science is always a "hit and miss" in trying to answer the question posed.

It's interesting to me Traveler, that you would say that science should be taught in schools first, rather then religion. I think it is much more important to study the attributes of God first, and then try and understand His handiwork through scientific methodology.

I believe we should be careful of exalting science and/or our own learning to such a degree as to make it equal to coming to Christ and humbly submitting ourselves to His will......Frankly, while science may make our standard of living much higher today and much more comfortable, I don't believe it has done anything more to bring each individual closer to our Creator........A person who was born when there was no science to be had has just as equal of a chance to be exalted as any of us who have been born in this era.

Please don't misunderstand me. I would like to study the sciences more......But, I don't feel my eternal standing with God is necessarily contingent on my doing this, at least in this life....

Dove

[Traveler]

I don't believe science is "all that and a bag of chips." If I understand correctly, the whole Bible came to be without all the science we have today. In fact, I believe the reason we have progressed so much in scientific fields in the past 200 years is due to God allowing that enlightenment to come to pass. It just doesn't make sense that for thousands of years there was so little progress made and then in these past 200 years so much accelerated growth has occurred in science and technology. I believe it's because the heavens were opened and this knowledge was given to us.

Also, our knowledge in the science fields is always flawed, no matter how progressed we are today. I have seen "science" and it's follies so many times in dealing with medical people, for example. Often at the expense of my own health. Science is always a "hit and miss" in trying to answer the question posed.

It's interesting to me Traveler, that you would say that science should be taught in schools first, rather then religion. I think it is much more important to study the attributes of God first, and then try and understand His handiwork through scientific methodology.

I believe we should be careful of exalting science and/or our own learning to such a degree as to make it equal to coming to Christ and humbly submitting ourselves to His will......Frankly, while science may make our standard of living much higher today and much more comfortable, I don't believe it has done anything more to bring each individual closer to our Creator........A person who was born when there was no science to be had has just as equal of a chance to be exalted as any of us who have been born in this era.

Please don't misunderstand me. I would like to study the sciences more......But, I don't feel my eternal standing with God is necessarily contingent on my doing this, at least in this life....

Dove

Thank you Dove.

Sometimes I think that different points of view need not be adversarial - that in truth different points of view should be complementary. I do agree that just like our covenant of marriage that by covenant our pursuit of G-dly things always comes first - just like our love of our spouse always take president. But that does not mean that we do not have loving and compassionate relationships outside of our marriage - but that we honor and keep sacred our marriage in every other relationship we have. It is my belief that we will ruin all our relationships by not honoring and keeping our marriage sacred. I have personally observed this phenomena in my personal life, in the lives of all with whom I associate as well as in historical records. I believe that every abuse that has taken place in the entire history of man kind is because of a breaking down and disrespect of our divine appropriated marriage covenants and relationships.

Likewise, I am convinced that respect of divine spiritual principles is inseparable from the laws and principles that exist naturally in our physical universe. That efforts to separate the two will inevitability result in the abuse and misunderstanding of both to our individual and collective detriment.

The Book of Mormon states over and over again that if we keep and honor our spiritual commitments we will prosper in the land. It is my understanding that this prosperity is not wealth in terms of money but a wealth of understanding and the use of the "scientific" principles that govern our physical environment.

Your idea that a primitive and ignorant individual in a backward social environment can still find G-d and salvation. That the understanding of particle and astrophysics is not necessary for salvation. In a sense I believe that to be true - but with the caveat that when the light of divine understanding shines in the darkness that enlightened science is as inevitable as salvation and is the meaning of righteous prosperity spoken of in scripture.

The error is in loosing focus of the journey thinking only of obtaining the destination. Science is not in knowing but in the discovery - and likewise I believe that our relationship with G-d is not so much in knowing and repeating doctrine as it is in the "child like" journey of discovery of the divinely spiritual.

The Traveler

[Dove]

Thank you Dove.

Sometimes I think that different points of view need not be adversarial - that in truth different points of view should be complementary. I do agree that just like our covenant of marriage that by covenant our pursuit of G-dly things always comes first - just like our love of our spouse always take president. But that does not mean that we do not have loving and compassionate relationships outside of our marriage - but that we honor and keep sacred our marriage in every other relationship we have. It is my belief that we will ruin all our relationships by not honoring and keeping our marriage sacred. I have personally observed this phenomena in my personal life, in the lives of all with whom I associate as well as in historical records. I believe that every abuse that has taken place in the entire history of man kind is because of a breaking down and disrespect of our divine appropriated marriage covenants and relationships.

Likewise, I am convinced that respect of divine spiritual principles is inseparable from the laws and principles that exist naturally in our physical universe. That efforts to separate the two will inevitability result in the abuse and misunderstanding of both to our individual and collective detriment.

The Book of Mormon states over and over again that if we keep and honor our spiritual commitments we will prosper in the land. It is my understanding that this prosperity is not wealth in terms of money but a wealth of understanding and the use of the "scientific" principles that govern our physical environment.

Your idea that a primitive and ignorant individual in a backward social environment can still find G-d and salvation. That the understanding of particle and astrophysics is not necessary for salvation. In a sense I believe that to be true - but with the caveat that when the light of divine understanding shines in the darkness that enlightened science is as inevitable as salvation and is the meaning of righteous prosperity spoken of in scripture.

The error is in loosing focus of the journey thinking only of obtaining the destination. Science is not in knowing but in the discovery - and likewise I believe that our relationship with G-d is not so much in knowing and repeating doctrine as it is in the "child like" journey of discovery of the divinely spiritual.

The Traveler

Hello, Traveler;

I am so sorry if I came off as "adversarial." You are right, we don't need to be this way in discussing various topics, even if we disagree.

Please let me address this. Your first thread sounded to me like you were placing science, or the pursuit of it, equal to pursuing God. It sounded like you were placing this as equal to God. It got my dander up. Again, I apologise. I can certainly learn better to quell my initial negative reactions to things and trust that your intent may be purer then what it may sound like to me.

That being said, I really like the points you made in your response. I've never thought of being enlightened in science as a sign of prosperity, which very well can be interpreted this way. I personally have felt, long before you began this post, that the technological advances we have made have in large part been our undoing. But, the argument can be made that a society often has become more prideful and hard hearted in times of prosperity when it is easy to forget where our blessings come from....

I really like your last paragraph because it resonates with me. In my own pursuit of coming to know God more, I feel He has pointed out to me, in a very deep and poignant way, that it is not mine to know Him as much as it is to acknowledge that He is the one who knows me perfectly.....It's hard to know how to put this in words. He is omniscient, I am ignorant. I need to deeply know this to come to Him appropriately. To realise I am in no way His equal; but, rather as a little child coming to her Father, with all that humility and trust that entails.

Yes, it is important to seek education and knowledge in all fields. But, I personally feel I need to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit as to where to spend my time learning so that I can have His blessing in whatever field(s) I choose to study. Never forgetting my relationship to Him.....

Take Care

Dove