DiscussMormonism.com

An article from Saturday's Deseret News on how believers (apparently Christians based on the people interviewed) are finding science to be less in conflict with religion than is often thought. In particular when it comes to astronomy:
Science and Religion: How Believers View Latest Space Developments

While religious believers once felt threatened by science that changed their understanding of the world around them, or even its shape, experts say that's changing. Most believers are becoming more comfortable with science, especially as it relates to space exploration.

Having read the article, I almost thought the Onion had managed to sneak in the final few paragraphs.

LeClaire said believers find confidence in the universe, at least for now. When you look at other planets – like Mars, a planet that some scientists believe once housed life — it can’t all be random and for nothing, she said.

“This wasn’t an accident,” she said. “This wasn’t some Big Bang. This wasn’t some afterthought. It was deliberately conceived. This was hand-crafted in a way that God intended.”

She said God has given humans the tools — like intelligence, will and knowledge — to study the universe. This led to the creation of rocket ships, telescopes and the other tools to look at the galaxy, she said. Studying about the universe, planets and Earth is a part of God's plan, she said.

The universe is so chaotic and scattered that it can’t just be happening without some sort of guidance, she said.

“It’s proof that God exists,” LeClaire said. “It’s so perfect. It’s so ordered so perfectly. What’s to keep it from melting and coming down? God.”


OK.

“This wasn’t an accident,” she said. “This wasn’t some Big Bang. This wasn’t some afterthought. It was deliberately conceived. This was hand-crafted in a way that God intended.”

There is nothing about the Big Bang Theory that precludes it as part of the creative process God used.

The universe is so chaotic and scattered that it can’t just be happening without some sort of guidance, she said.

Priceless.

The universe is so chaotic and scattered that it can’t just be happening without some sort of guidance, she said.

If this one sentence oxymoron reflects how well the poor woman thinks, she could find God anywhere (or everywhere - and no doubt does).

Problem is, she is not alone in applying this kind of logic when it comes to religion. In fact, in the US she may well be in the majority.

Scary thought.

bcspace wrote:

“This wasn’t an accident,” she said. “This wasn’t some Big Bang. This wasn’t some afterthought. It was deliberately conceived. This was hand-crafted in a way that God intended.”

There is nothing about the Big Bang Theory that precludes it as part of the creative process God used.

What?

Really?

So, where was the Mormon Man-God of flesh and bone hanging out during cosmological inflation and the subsequent hundreds of millions of years before the elements necessary to make up his physical body even existed?

Before you answer, please remember that the materials from which the Mormon Man-God is made did not even exist in the universe until hundreds of millions or billions of years after the Big Bang. The stellar nucleogenic processes that result in life-essential heavier elements such as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and on up to iron did not even exist in the universe until after the first stars ran through their life cycles.

Given that both time and space in this universe started with the Big Bang singularity and cosmological inflation, I think you would have a pretty hard time convincing any professional scientist that the Mormon Man-God was responsible for the Big Bang.

Of course, what really matters is that you yourself are convinced.

Right?

Personally, I would rate your statement as reflecting a greater degree of confusion and scientific ignorance than those of the poor lady quoted in the OP. And that is saying a lot.

But here's the problem.

Mormonism believes God was just a man who lived on a planet similar to earth who did rather well for himself.
So who created the planet on which God dwelt when he was just a man?

Bazooka wrote:But here's the problem.

Mormonism believes God was just a man who lived on a planet similar to earth who did rather well for himself.
So who created the planet on which God dwelt when he was just a man?

Another alien god - who was once a man.

You know, the old "turtles all the way down" ...



Super-turtle! To avoid an infinite regress (the bottomless tower of turtles) one might consider a levitating superturtle, which is self-explaining and self-supporting. Theologians call this “a necessary being,” and some have tried to prove that such a being exists.

The Mormon definition of god doesn't explain anything, only delays the explanation.

ludwigm wrote:

Bazooka wrote:But here's the problem.

Mormonism believes God was just a man who lived on a planet similar to earth who did rather well for himself.
So who created the planet on which God dwelt when he was just a man?

Another alien god - who was once a man.

You know, the old "turtles all the way down" ...



Super-turtle! To avoid an infinite regress (the bottomless tower of turtles) one might consider a levitating superturtle, which is self-explaining and self-supporting. Theologians call this “a necessary being,” and some have tried to prove that such a being exists.

The Mormon definition of god doesn't explain anything, only delays the explanation.

Right you are, Ludwig. The "necessary being", or "prime mover" or "first cause" argument that some theologians and lay religionists try to use as evidence for (or even proof of) the existence of a supernatural creator god is, nowadays, DOA (Dead on Arrival).

This is an old (St. Thomas Aquinas), or even ancient (Aristotle) argument that arose from philosophy alone, as practiced without he benefit of science.

In the face of modern cosmology and astronomy, the argument now appears as a useless relic. Adopting the "first cause" argument as a cosmological theory would be about as useful to cosmologists as replacing the Periodic Table with Aristotle's Earth, Air, Water, and Fire would be to chemists.
__________________________

The conflation of "prime mover" or "unmoved mover" with "first cause", as listed above, is not of my doing. Such misattribution and confusion is rampant among religionists, however, as can be readily seen on any number of fundamentalist Christian websites or heard on their religious broadcasts. Perhaps they know even less about philosophy than they do about science.

bcspace wrote:

“This wasn’t an accident,” she said. “This wasn’t some Big Bang. This wasn’t some afterthought. It was deliberately conceived. This was hand-crafted in a way that God intended.”

There is nothing about the Big Bang Theory that precludes it as part of the creative process God used.

i think a believer need not have any conflict with science, so long as they make their religious beliefs completely subordinate to prevailing scientific theories in every field of study and in every last detail. it's a good strategy for believers to avoid a lot of heartache and embarassment. i recommend it, and it seems bcspace also endorses it to some extent.

palerobber wrote:

bcspace wrote:
There is nothing about the Big Bang Theory that precludes it as part of the creative process God used.

i think a believer need not have any conflict with science, so long as they make their religious beliefs completely subordinate to prevailing scientific theories in every field of study and in every last detail. it's a good strategy for believers to avoid a lot of heartache and embarrassment. i recommend it, and it seems bcspace also endorses it to some extent.

BCSpace may well endorse such a view. But, more often than not, his statements in this regard demonstrate that, when it comes to implementation, he doesn't seem to have a clue. His statement quoted above is but one example of his exceedingly poor understanding or appreciation of science.