"Science and Mormonism have nearly always been on very friendly terms"

[Marcus]

Oh please.

A new item has gone up on the website of the Interpreter Foundation: Conference Talks: “Notes from Stephen H. Webb,“ which was presented on behalf of the then recently deceased Stephen H. Webb at the 2016 Second Interpreter Science & Mormonism Symposium: Body, Brain, Mind, and Spirit on Saturday, 12 March 2016:

Science and Mormonism have nearly always been on very friendly terms, with Church members sharing the deep conviction that, as expressed by former scientist and apostle Elder James E. Talmage, “within the gospel of Jesus Christ there is room and place for every truth thus far learned by man, or yet to be made known.”

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... -leaf.html

[Everybody Wang Chung]

What in the world has DCP been putting on his beef pizza? Yes, science and Mormonism are so compatible. Let's see:

-- Global Flood
-- Nephites
-- Tower of Babel
-- Lamanites
-- Mulekites
-- Jaredites
-- Adam and Eve
-- Kolob
-- Book of Abraham
-- Golden Plates
-- Seer Stones
-- DNA
-- Dowsing
-- Steel Swords/Horses/Elephants/etc.

[drumdude]

I’m friendly with people who believe Trump won the 2020 election. With people who think Bush planned 9/11. And with people who believe Hebrews built a hidden civilization in the jungle of Guatemala.

Friendliness is a low bar for a relationship.

[Gadianton]

It's more accurate to say that Mormon culture has long believed itself to be well-supported by science, and that it has a long tradition of speculation.

Flat earthers also believe themselves to be on friendly terms with science. Anything they don't like isn't science as wrong per se, but the institution is wrong. Same with DCP. The institution just doesn't know how to do science right, otherwise NDEs would be proven, abiogensis unthinkable, and Book of Mormon geography proven 1 with 92 zeroes to one.

I've actually never encountered anyone who believes themselves not to be on friendly terms with science, as long as you don't mean science as the establishment.

[drumdude]

If every piece of Mormonism were somehow evaporated tomorrow, and we were left with a world where Mormonism never existed, you could not re-discover Mormonism. There is no evidence of Hebrews in the Americas. There is nothing about the Mormon priesthood, or temple ceremonies, or sacrament prayer that is written into the fabric of the Universe for anyone to discover.

Science, however, is able to be reconstructed. Because it is designed to be merely a reflection of the Universe around us. No matter how long it takes, gravity is there waiting to be rediscovered. The fundamental constants are there waiting to be found.

Mormonism is like the works of Shakespeare. Even as impressive as DCP finds them to be, at the end of the day they are just a story created by Man. That is why so many people balk at the aspects of Mormonism that are at odds with science. Science would have to be completely wrong about huge swaths of it’s hard won truths in order for Mormonism’s truth claims to be valid.

You don’t have to worship science to realize that it’s a superior way to find your truth in the universe compared to reading a story from some gold plates.

[Chap]

If every piece of Mormonism were somehow evaporated tomorrow, and we were left with a world where Mormonism never existed, you could not re-discover Mormonism. [...]

Science, however, is able to be reconstructed. Because it is designed to be merely a reflection of the Universe around us. No matter how long it takes, gravity is there waiting to be rediscovered. The fundamental constants are there waiting to be found.

[...]

You don’t have to worship science to realize that it’s a superior way to find your truth in the universe compared to reading a story from some gold plates.

Of course. But the great disadvantage of science compared with gold plates is that you have to learn a lot of maths and stuff before you get anywhere near feeling any warm fuzzies (although they do come in the end, trust me on that), whereas gold plates can give you an instant rush without all the boring hard stuff. It's smoking crack vs. regular hard workouts and careful eating: for some people, the choice is all too obvious.

[drumdude]

Science vindicates Mormonism, specifically the destruction in 3rd Nephi:

Scientists have identified a striking correlation between global seismic activity – earthquakes, to be precise – and changes in the intensity of cosmic radiation measured on Earth’s surface. This correlation, they say, could aid in earthquake prediction.

https://www.earth.com/news/breakthrough ... rthquakes/


Clearly Heavenly Father killed all those innocent people in the earthquakes after Christ’s death with cosmic radiation from Kolob. I can’t wait for Interpreter’s analysis of how this new discovery vindicates the close friendship of science and Mormonism (and the death of millions of innocent native Americans because Christ was killed by the Jews.)

[Gadianton]

Clearly Heavenly Father killed all those innocent people in the earthquakes after Christ’s death with cosmic radiation from Kolob.

Mainly for "proof" that the Book of Mormon is true. OMG.

[JohnW]

I don't post on the various Daniel Peterson threads, but I thought we might be able to get a good discussion out of this one.

I have thought a lot about the relationship between science and religion. With regards to Latter-day Saint theology, I agree that using the term "very friendly" is a stretch. What he might be intending to say is that LDS theology is friendlier to science than mainstream Christian religions. I think I would be willing to argue that position (I don't know if I would argue that position for some other religions). One argument that comes to mind is that with modern revelation, we can adjust to any new scientific discovery. Not only that, but it is in our psyche to accept new scientific discovery. I think that is what the James E. Talmage quote is trying to get at. I would caveat that statement with the fact that we have a mixed track record with actually accepting scientific discoveries quickly. That might imply it isn't as much a part of our psyche as we would like to think.

On this topic, one thing that tends to make me perturbed is when we religious people use science to try to support or prove theology. I've found that is largely a fool's errand. On the flip side, I personally think science can and should be used to evaluate religious beliefs to some limited threshold. Where we place that threshold is probably the biggest point of contention.

I know this topic has been discussed quite a few times here, so if people are tired of the subject we can move along to something else.

[Marcus]

I don't post on the various Daniel Peterson threads, but I thought we might be able to get a good discussion out of this one.

I have thought a lot about the relationship between science and religion. With regards to Latter-day Saint theology, I agree that using the term "very friendly" is a stretch. What he might be intending to say is that LDS theology is friendlier to science than mainstream Christian religions.

No, I disagree.

I think I would be willing to argue that position (I don't know if I would argue that position for some other religions). One argument that comes to mind is that with modern revelation, we can adjust to any new scientific discovery. Not only that, but it is in our psyche to accept new scientific discovery. I think that is what the James E. Talmage quote is trying to get at. I would caveat that statement with the fact that we have a mixed track record with actually accepting scientific discoveries quickly. That might imply it isn't as much a part of our psyche as we would like to think.

What. The. Hell??'

On this topic, one thing that tends to make me perturbed is when we religious people use science to try to support or prove theology. I've found that is largely a fool's errand. On the flip side, I personally think science can and should be used to evaluate religious beliefs to some limited threshold. Where we place that threshold is probably the biggest point of contention.

ok. Again, what. The. Hell????

I know this topic has been discussed quite a few times here, so if people are tired of the subject we can move along to something else.

If you can't support your point, then sure, let's move on.