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

[Morley]

I don't think I can document it. It is more of a hunch. If two entities are in a changing environment and one of them has built into the hierarchy a way to adapt, it would seem like all other things being equal, it would be better at adapting. Usually when we use the term "all other things being equal" it isn't actually the case, so I could certainly be surprised here. I'm not sure how one would go about measuring this apart from looking at history, which wouldn't be easy to show.

Not that you're doing this, but sometimes those in the hard sciences have a tendency to think that social science is all hunches and intuition.

Perhaps having a prophet--one who will always pass on the will and musings of The Almighty--actually makes us Mormons less likely to adopt a scientific mindset. For example, we might deduce that if God wanted us to believe in biological evolution, he certainly would have told us about it from the beginning. And if God delays in telling us to care about civil rights, and that our Black brothers and sisters weren't sinners in the pre-existence, then it must not be all that important to consider them to be social and intellectual equals. Is it possible that having a sure-fire conduit to God may, in fact, actually be detrimental to us developing our own sense of morality?

[Fence Sitter]

Mormonism and science are on friendly terms for a variety of reasons, none of which actually can be used as evidence of Mormonism.

Yeah, when we start using science as evidence for our theology, that is when we run into a lot of the problems you describe. It is a difficult thing. We as humans like to have reasons for what we do and believe. It is even better if these reasons are obvious to everyone. However, we as humans should balance that desire with the fact that some important things we do in life just don't have clear reasons for doing them. I personally try to find balance between making sure my decisions are well thought out while not being paralyzed when I need to make a decision for which things aren't entirely clear.

There is no dichotomy here between science and religion, with regards to making decisions. We all make decisions without good reasons, sometimes important decisions. Where the problem with religion comes in is when it contradicts what science tells us. That isn't an instance of not enough information, rather it is one where science tells you one thing and religion the other, and in those cases, religion has a dismal track record, Mormon prophets especially. Joseph Smith spent less than twenty years "restoring" the true gospel, and the prophets from BY on have been dismantling it piece by piece in response to science.

[Dr Exiled]

It seems to me that if Mormon God were to be really friendly with science, the Mormon God would be inspiring his people to invent something that would simultaneously benefit society while affording an income sufficient for the Church's needs. Sure tithing is a religious tax that allows the faithful to show fealty to the master church. But, it seems contrary to what parents want to do for their children. Parents don't tax their children, but provide a way to have their children succeed, if possible.

Additionally, Mormon scientists aren't any better than other scientists. The Mormon god isn't "inspiring" them any more than any one else. Where are the Mormon nobel prize winners? They should be winning the prize every year, showing how great the Mormon god is. When I was young, I can't remember how many times the old would get up in testimony meeting or speak in sacrament meeting about how since the restoration, the Mormon god inspired inventions to aid in the work. They would talk about Farnsworth and the Television and Eyring and how great a scientist he was, as well as Widsow and Talmage. However, Mormons aren't any better at science than anyone else. It's as if there really isn't a Mormon god out there, except in the minds of the Mormon magicians who lead the church and hide the money.

My understanding of Latter-day Saint Theology is that God doesn't only bless his own people. There is a scripture somewhere that says rain comes on both members and non-members. This comes from the fact that everyone is a child of God. If God wants to bless his children and make their lives better through some invention, he doesn't restrict himself to just using members of the church. This explanation may not be satisfying, but that is what I was always taught.

Or perhaps He isn't involved at all in science matters or anything for that matter? He who lets it rain on both the wicked and righteous acts as if He isn't there at all.

[Rivendale]

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.

I don't understand anything you say in regards to religion vs science. You seem to hide behind NOMA all the time. Give concrete examples that absolve human emotions .

[Moksha]

President Nelson has publically said he does not believe in human evolution. Does anyone know if similar statements exist in Scientology or the snake handlers so we can make a substantive comparison?

Mormons could say quite truthfully that they have not heard anything from God concerning evolution, the age of the earth, weather patterns, thermodynamics, or the location of lost keys, but they seem to equivocate concerning this lack of communication.

[malkie]

JohnW, nice to see you again.

Chronologically, the Book of Mormon begins at the post-flood and immediately post-tower period.

How do you see modern revelation adjusting to scientific knowledge about these two Biblical events? Is there a reasonable way for the Book of Mormon to survive the scientific consensus that neither Noah's Flood nor the confounding of the languages a few hundred years later has a scientific basis? Are you ready to jettison the historicity of the Book of Jared, and all that is later implied? Will church leaders follow the implications, and reveal ... what?

You bring up a good point. It is entirely possible that much of our "friendliness" toward science comes from what I sometimes hear LDS scientists call the "two-hat" method. They have a science hat and a religion hat. When acting as a scientist, they lean into scientific explanations and when acting in church, they lean into religious explanations. This method has always made me personally uncomfortable, but I probably use it nonetheless. I think it works for most LDS scientists because most of the time science and religion don't overlap all that much. When they do overlap, religion can give way to science when it isn't a central tenant of a person's religion.

I would argue that the above topics you bring up would fall into that category. Floods and Languages aren't central tenants of our beliefs. Does that mean I can jettison them? I don't think I'm quite ready to do that entirely. It works for me personally, because I can just say I'll worry about that later, maybe the type of later that means after death. The way modern revelation adjusts to this is to downplay the importance of these issues, as Fence Sitter mentioned above. Of course, there are issues on which the church may take a stand. I think we see evolution as an example of this. At first, the First Presidency felt strong enough about the topic to send out an official proclamation on Adam and Eve and Evolution. Later prophets may have not emphasized that as much. Although from my viewpoint, the Fall of Adam as a doctrinal concept is still being taught, and it could be argued it is still rather central.

As you might imagine, I find the "two hats" method rather less than satisfying. (Of course, I'm aware that it doesn't have to satisfy me.

The way I see it, it has little or nothing to do with revelation adjusting to scientific knowledge, and it comes nowhere close to "friendliness". In fact, its employment results in the wearer of the religious hat totally ignoring what they claim to believe in when wearing the scientific hat, and vice-versa. And I see your response to the Book of Mormon problems I mention as a good example of that: neither hat dare acknowledge the other, or the attempt at rapprochement immediately falls apart.

As far as the underlying issues of the flood and the tower are concerned, not explicitly counting them as points of doctrine does nothing to resolve the issue that while they are required underpinnings for the view that the Book of Mormon is historical, "science" has clearly demonstrated that they are not "real".

In short,
"Science" == no flood or tower == no historical Book of Mormon

[JohnW]

The original point of the thread was to discuss how friendly Mormonism was to science. There are at least two aspects of that. The theology itself may be friendlier to science and the members themselves may be friendlier to science. I thought it would be fairly easy to argue that the theology is friendlier to science, but the topic seems to keep coming back to whether members themselves are more open to science. Sure, they should be related, but I don't know if I would be willing to argue that second point. There are a whole lot of things we members believe that aren't in accordance with our theology. And frankly, I'm not really that interested in whether Latter-day Saints themselves are friendlier to science than other Mainstream Christians. I don't know what that buys us if we know whether that is true or not. I looks like maybe it was a mistake to try to turn this thread into a good discussion on science and religion.

Maybe we should start another thread on the topic of science and religion without the discussion on measuring the science-friendliness of the members. Like, I guess that could be a data point, but it is only one data point in the larger discussion. A few people have brought up some interesting points that are worth discussing, I'm just not sure this context provides a fair treatment of the topic.

[Marcus]

The original point of the thread was to discuss how friendly Mormonism was to science.

Speaking as the OP, NO IT WASN’T!

Lol.

[Marcus]

The original point of the thread was to discuss how friendly Mormonism was to science. There are at least two aspects of that. The theology itself may be friendlier to science and the members themselves may be friendlier to science. I thought it would be fairly easy to argue that the theology is friendlier to science, but the topic seems to keep coming back to whether members themselves are more open to science.

That's because that was within the scope of the OP topic. That, as part of a larger picture illustrating the tendency by some lds to preach grandiose statements like the OP quote. To me, it's along the lines of the lds statement that the lds church policies constitute "the gold standard" in preventing child abuse. Nothing could have been further from the truth when that statement was made, but the exaggeration of it typifies a propensity seen all too often in lds speech. It's as though crafting and presenting an image takes precedence over truth.

...Maybe we should start another thread on the topic of science and religion without the discussion on measuring the science-friendliness of the members.

Feel free to start one, rather than attempt to derail this one. It's a better strategy than trying to argue that the OP point shouldn't be a point of discussion in that thread.

[Rivendale]

The Mormon/BYU Frankenproffessor. I am almost convinced that John Larsen's characterization of Byu's professors applies to almost all the believing members. If the part of each professor's brain that is used for their respective disciplines were removed and reassembled in another body the result would be a full blown atheist.