Dr W please look at Des News article on Science and Religion

[_bcspace]

I skimmed the article a couple days ago. I was rather disppointed that it did not give the LDS view of these various things - evolution, Noah's Ark, etc. Why bother having it in a LDS Church newspaper if it doesn't give the LDS church's viewpoint?

The LDS view of evolution is neutral. It does teach as doctrine the global flood. Anything else?

[_jon]

I skimmed the article a couple days ago. I was rather disppointed that it did not give the LDS view of these various things - evolution, Noah's Ark, etc. Why bother having it in a LDS Church newspaper if it doesn't give the LDS church's viewpoint?

The LDS view of evolution is neutral. It does teach as doctrine the global flood. Anything else?

I agree with bcspace, the Church does stand by a literal Adam and Eve living circa 4,000 bc and a global flood happening circa 2-3,000 bc.

[_Jason Bourne]

What exactly is it about the valid statement that science is based on evidence and religion is based on superstition that makes you uncomfortable?

Short on time right now so more later. Quick answer, I am not uncomfortable with your statement. I am not sure what gave you the impression that I am. More later.

Thanks for your comments.

[_Jason Bourne]

Here we see religion once again evolving in order to appease science. We never see science reacting that way to religion. That, by itself, should tell us something.

This is a valid point.

Any time I hear/read someone saying that god used evolution to do his thing, I always think that they either don't really understand evolution, or they don't think much of god. I can't think of a less efficient way to create species than by creating a single cell and waiting out several billions of years to see what would happen, hoping it would turn out a certain way. How does that make any sense at all? (And that's putting aside poor design, vestigial body parts, etc). Clearly, it's a case of not wanting religion to conflict with science due to the recognition that when in conflict, science wins every time.

Perhaps God is subject to certain laws of the universe as well. LDS teaching certainly proposes that. Perhaps that is the way things are created. Sort of like baking a pie by you or me. There was a star trek NG episode where humans, Vulcan, Klingon, romulans and a few other humanoid species were all in a race to arrive first at a stellar archeological find. When they all arrived almost the same time a hologram of a humanoid type appeared and told them that they had advanced far enough to know about their origins. Apparently 4 billion years before this advanced race of humanoids had come to our galaxy and seeded many planets with the initial stuff to start life rolling. It would evolve from there. All these humanoid races from the various planets were the result. Maybe that is how it all got started :-}

[_The Dude]

Perhaps God is subject to certain laws of the universe as well. LDS teaching certainly proposes that. Perhaps that is the way things are created. Sort of like baking a pie by you or me. There was a star trek NG episode where humans, Vulcan, Klingon, romulans and a few other humanoid species were all in a race to arrive first at a stellar archeological find. When they all arrived almost the same time a hologram of a humanoid type appeared and told them that they had advanced far enough to know about their origins. Apparently 4 billion years before this advanced race of humanoids had come to our galaxy and seeded many planets with the initial stuff to start life rolling. It would evolve from there. All these humanoid races from the various planets were the result. Maybe that is how it all got started :-}

I can totally see a religion like Mormonism devolving into the notion that God is just a powerful alien intelligence or advanced humanoid. But what would you worship that kind of entity? Mormonology?

[_Some Schmo]

Perhaps God is subject to certain laws of the universe as well. LDS teaching certainly proposes that. Perhaps that is the way things are created. Sort of like baking a pie by you or me.

Well, if I had to believe in a god of any sort (short of tangible empirical evidence, of course), this is the only one I could get on board with: kick-starting, non-interventionist, embodied by nature, learning god. I certainly did believe in this sort of god at one point, so I can relate to the sentiment, Jason.

[Guest]

Whether God is subject to the laws of physics or whether galaxies are seeded by aliens begs the question of where God or the aliens came from. Is it matter, energy, space, time, singularities, branes, big bangs, gods and/or galaxy-seeding aliens all the way down? Or, did all of this emerge in an instant from an act of creative will? The answer to the question determines first principles of inquiry. As I've said, science and empirical evidence cannot answer the question. The question of whether God exists properly belongs to philosophy, not to science. That is not to say that the possibility of divine intervention cannot be determined probabilistically. But that is a very different issue from the question of whether God exists at all and created the material cosmos (got the whole ball rolling by creating the first brane, singularity, or whatever) or whether the material cosmos has always just been there eternally in whatever form (cycles of branes, singularities, big bangs, expanding and contracting universes, multiverses, etc). Unless the possibility of God's existence is ruled out philosophically, there will always be grounds for belief, even if it's belief in the non-interventionist deity of Deism or the one pantheistic, consciousness of Eastern religion.

Returning briefly to the question of whether God is subject to the laws of the universe, that still leaves the question of the origin of matter unanswered. If matter was created ex nihilo, then Mormons are worshipping the wrong god. If matter/branes/singularities have always existed and God is part of and subject to the universe, then it's difficult to see how such a god isn't just a highly-evolved spaceman with mental powers, kind of like Zeus. As well, if it's all just matter and energy out there (including Joseph Smith's refined, more pure spirit matter), then it follows that God is also comprised of matter and energy in some combination. Presumably our thoughts (and God's thoughts, if he is subject to some physical laws and is a resurrected man residing in space somewhere) are comprised of matter and/or energy contained within (or equated with) the electrical impulses moving along our brains' synapses. Can matter and energy be freed from the laws of causation? If not, is free will even possible? How can matter and/or energy become or be self-determining (the only possible way for will to be free)?

[_jon]

I take a more simplistic view of exactly the same thing.

Who is God's dad?

[_DrW]

Whether matter and energy branes are eternal or were created ex nihilo is not a question that science can answer. No amount or kind of verifiable, reproducible data can be collected to answer it. You very properly identified the problem to be metaphysical. Metaphysical issues are philosophically prior. On what grounds does a materialist reduce all of knowledge only to that which is measurable? Unless those grounds are first identified and defended, adopting materialist premises as the first principles of inquiry is also to engage in woo-woo assumption-making.

Sorry - not the case.

Again, and for the last time, science (and, if you must, the materialistic components of science) are based on observable, reproducible physical evidence, which is used to develop and refine theories and laws that (very successfully) allow us to understand and explain how things work.

We have extended this understanding far beyond what can be detected and understood with our unaided senses. With instruments as diverse as atomic force microscopes and high energy particle accelerators on the microscopic end to the Hubble space telescope and any number of space based observatories and sensors for celestial electromagnetic radiation across the spectrum on the other, we know and understand a lot.

We do not have a complete understanding by any means, but to someone who was alive when the myths of the Old Testament were first being assembled, our technology would certainly appear supernatural.

Religion, on the other hand, the basis for your woo-woo assumptions, has no reproducible physical evidence on which to base its claims. These claims emerge from the mind of superstitious humans who cannot, or chose not to, learn and understand how things really work. If these were presented to an individual alive at the time the Old Testament myths were being assembled, this individual would probably recognize them as consistent with his superstition based beliefs.

Bottom line:
Where there is no scientific evidence for the "spiritual" or 'non-material' as a determining factor in how the universe works, none need be assumed. It is as simple as that.

[_Username]

Religion, on the other hand, the basis for your woo-woo assumptions, has no reproducible physical evidence on which to base its claims. These claims emerge from the mind of superstitious humans who cannot, or chose not to, learn and understand how things really work. If these were presented to an individual alive at the time the Old Testament myths were being assembled, this individual would probably recognize them as consistent with his superstition based beliefs.

Bottom line:
Where there is no scientific evidence for the "spiritual" or 'non-material' as a determining factor in how the universe works, none need be assumed. It is as simple as that.

You're going too fast. I'm referring only to the question of whether matter is caused or uncaused (or whether there is a first cause) and on what grounds an answer is derived. Science cannot answer that question. On what grounds do you base your claim that only reproducible physical evidence leads to knowledge? If philosophy says there is a first cause, then there are grounds for belief in a non-material, transcendent something as a causal agent. If there is a first cause or prime mover, then science and reproducible, physical evidence is insufficient to explain how the universe works. I'm not saying there is a first cause. I'm only saying that there are important questions that science cannot answer and the philosophical arguments for a first cause or prime mover are reasonable or at least important to consider.

Science is not the be all, end all you claim it to be, nor can it account for the good, the moral, etc. Reducing knowledge only to what is empirically measurable as hardcore positivists do is an impoverishment of human reason. As I see it, you rely upon implicit materialist first principles, but those first principles are merely assumed on your part and you mock those who don't share those assumptions. Woo woo, and all that.