Science is a tool that can be abused!

[_spotlight]

SEE http://eom.BYU.edu/index.php/Science_and_Religion
SEE http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... tml?pg=all
SEE http://geology.BYU.edu/museum/

____________________________________________________

The revelations to Joseph Smith of an Abrahamic astronomy and three creation accounts, having some variation, have also stimulated positive interest in astronomical and cosmological issues. In particular, these revelations affirmed the plurality of worlds and heliocentrism in the scriptural writings of ancient prophets.

No they did not as they are not ancient scriptures to begin with. They have been shown to be the fabrications of Joseph Smith and that they had nothing to do with the so called translation of the papyri.

Plurality of worlds and heliocentrism were known in Joseph Smith's day.

Conceptions of scientific knowledge have changed many times since Greek antiquity.

Real science is a modern endeavour. It really did not exist since Greek antiquity.

Science itself continues in a state of constant flux, so that the total collection of scientific ideas at any point in time could never be considered final truth. Consequently, scientific theories are forever tentative and are not likely to be fully compatible with revealed religion at any particular time.

The scriptural account if taken literally is a flat earth description of creation. Please stop with the idea that further discoveries in science will one day reconcile science with religion. That will never happen.
The same is true with evolution. That will never be overthrown by future science. The same is true with neuroscience. The existence of a soul will never be established by future science. These things are as settled now as is heliocentrism.

Latter-day Saints assume that ultimate truths about religious matters and about God's creations can never be in conflict, as God is the author of both.

An honest statement. LDS assume, albeit incorrectly.

They look forward to a time when more complete knowledge in both areas will transcend all present perceptions of conflict.

And they look in vain. There cannot be an overthrow of current science that will bring present data and facts in line with LDS theology. It cannot even be imagined. If that is a false statement please present your hypothetical model. You need not present any supporting evidence. Simply assume that such will materialize at some future day and make up what ever you like that will reconcile science with religion. It can't be done.

____________________________________________________

There is no conflict between science and religion.

What a crock. Elder Nelson does not even accept evolution!

Conflict only arises from an incomplete knowledge of either science or religion, or both,” Elder Russell M. Nelson

He got this exactly backwards.
Resolution between the two only arises from an incomplete knowledge of either or both.

Whether truth comes from a scientific laboratory or by revelation from the Lord, it is compatible.

He is lying or else he is ignorant or maybe he is stupid.

Of his early days of research into the workings of the human heart, he spoke of how crucial it was to combine the knowledge he had, with personal revelation — providing the undergirding foundation to his work.

Note to self. If I need a heart surgeon find someone other than Nelson.

____________________________________________________

Your last link does nothing to resolve the inconsistencies between science and LDS theology. There are more LDS who think that the earth was fabricated from the remains of other worlds than there are those who accept geology.

Pretending that science can be reconciled with LDS theology just makes you look ignorant of science or LDS theology or both. Is this the extent of your effort at reconciling LDS theology with science? You find a few links on the topic that really do nothing to actually resolve the difficulties and think to yourself, "gee somebody's thinking about this, no problemo."

[_Gorman]

We have at some point in time say two possible models that fit current data. That means that there is data and that data supports both of these models. It does not mean that either of these models is the supported scientific model. When we collect enough further data to falsify one of the models then we are at the point of having a scientific model that explains the data, not before.

We always have competing theories for every single accepted theory. Generally, I would say a more accurate number is that for every currently accepted theory in science, there are somewhere between thousands and gazillions of other theories that could fit the data. We just follow Occam and choose the one that looks simplest. Of course, we have no guarantees that what looks simplest is actually the simplest, or that choosing the simplest is even the correct choice, but hey, we have to choose something.

And unlike in science where we build upon the past discoveries your religion is "revealing" new doctrines that otherthrow previous doctrines rather than build on top of them by adding to them.

Science completely overthrows its theories all the time, generationally speaking. Last I checked, no one is preaching Newton's theories, even if we still use a lot of his mathematical tricks. And I'm pretty certain no one will be preaching dark energy or dark matter 100 years from now. The whole reason we call it 'dark' is because we don't know what it is. When we find out, we'll change all the theories.

After perusing some of this thread, let me have a stab at what the believers are trying to say about science:

Sometimes we hear the following, "Hey! If prophets and apostles were wrong in the past, what's to say they aren't wrong today?" This is part of growing up. The things we thought were nigh-perfect actually aren't. Does it mean we should reject everything we ever learned about religion and God? I would say absolutely not, but I recognize many here would disagree on that point.

The same can be said about many people's experience with science. "Hey! If scientists and theories were wrong in the past, what's to say they aren't wrong today?" This is part of maturing in science. Does this mean we must reject everything we ever learned about science? I would say absolutely not, but there do exist some people who would disagree with me on that point.

I personally don't take much stock in what science says about God or souls. Those topics are too far away from science's "home-field" of study and probably too ill-defined anyway.

Conversely, we may probably don't have to take too much stock in what one prophet or apostle says about a speculative pet-theory on the periphery of core theology. Speculation about theological topics too far from the "core" without corroboration by other apostles or scripture is more likely to be wrong. And most of the time, the periphery doesn't matter that much anyway.

Of course, there are some topics between religion and science where the overlap is much greater (evolution might be one of these). For these topics, you must either be willing to stretch the religious assumptions close to the breaking point or be willing to stretch the scientific theories close to the breaking point. Mostly, this exercise just reveals our own personal bias to one or the other. I personally have no problem stretching scientific assumptions more than religious ones, but my degree is in space physics. That field has historically been shafted by the scientific community quite often, so it's possible I've been trained to be just a little bit bitter toward the general scientific consensus.

[_SteelHead]

Gorman,
Newtons theories and laws are still used, taught and preached every day. Methinks you never took a physics class. Newtonian motion is the basis for classical physics.


Wait ...

Aren't you a physicists?

[_Themis]

Sometimes we hear the following, "Hey! If prophets and apostles were wrong in the past, what's to say they aren't wrong today?" This is part of growing up. The things we thought were nigh-perfect actually aren't. Does it mean we should reject everything we ever learned about religion and God? I would say absolutely not, but I recognize many here would disagree on that point.

Or we could look at the facts which show someone like Joseph is a fraud, liar, womanizer, etc as reasonable reasons to conclude his divine claims are also made up. We could also look at the fact we have no evidence for most biblical characters actually existing as good reasons to ignore what the text claims about the divine.

Science completely overthrows its theories all the time, generationally speaking. Last I checked, no one is preaching Newton's theories, even if we still use a lot of his mathematical tricks. And I'm pretty certain no one will be preaching dark energy or dark matter 100 years from now. The whole reason we call it 'dark' is because we don't know what it is. When we find out, we'll change all the theories.

I wont repeat Steelhead's great points, but if we look at the history of science we might see modern scientific understanding has a foundation of past scientific work.

[_spotlight]

Gorman,

I used two to keep the point simple.

The whole reason we call it 'dark' is because we don't know what it is.

Actually we call it dark because it doesn't react with baryonic matter or with electromagnetic radiation except gravitationally which will continue to be the case even after we learn what it is.

my degree is in space physics

The study of plasmas in earth's upper atmosphere? Or did you mean astronomy, astrophysics, or cosmology?

Science completely overthrows its theories all the time, generationally speaking.

Heliocentrism is overdue to be overthrown then don't you think?

Actually as pointed out by Steelhead and Themis science is not being overthrown. Electric fields were discovered. Magnetic fields were discovered. When they were combined together neither was overthrown. When it was discovered that light and electromagnetism were the same thing neither were overthrown. When it was further discovered that electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are the same at high enough energies that did not overthrow anything previously known. And if we can get to high enough energies to include gravity that will not overthrow gravity either. Science builds upon previous knowledge, it does not overthrow previous knowledge.

Did algebra overthrow arithmatic or calculus algebra? That's as silly as what you are saying about science. Each provides a foundation to build upon for that which follows. QM still reduces to Newtonian physics at a large scale. QFT reduces to QM at low energy and where particle numbers are conserved.

Where multiple possible theories might be entertained they get weeded out over time as further constraints upon acceptable models are discovered.

Compare this with religion, especially the LDS religion. There is Brigham's blood atonement and Adam God doctrine that were overthrown. There is dark skin color as a curse taught by Spencer Kimball that was overthrown. Rather than building upon itself over time current religion overthrows past religion and literally changes itself and its story. Central core issues also change given enough time. Unlike in science there is no evidence backing up anything in religion. People show up on the scene and declare themselves to be prophets. Some are naïve enough to believe them.

Of course, there are some topics between religion and science where the overlap is much greater (evolution might be one of these). For these topics, you must either be willing to stretch the religious assumptions close to the breaking point or be willing to stretch the scientific theories close to the breaking point. Mostly, this exercise just reveals our own personal bias to one or the other.

Nonsense. Evolution is not a theory based upon bias. It is not amenable to other interpretations. Common ancestry is the strongest established fact in science today. It is backed by more evidence than one can peruse in a single lifetime. Religion is not backed by any evidence and to suggest that it is on an equal standing with science is a nonsensical conclusion based upon post modernism.

One of the many problems with the post-modern belief set is that there are no contradictions or difficulties with belief sets that need to be addressed because contradictions and inconsistencies are acceptable as there are no objective criteria for thought to satisfy and so there is no need for the formal school system to be developing critical thinking concerning them. Instead there is an exaggerated and harmful accenting of the value of tolerance of all beliefs and beliefs systems. Opinions are not to be distinguished from proven claims, there being no objective knowledge, and every claim is merely opinion. The inherited beliefs and beliefs systems are not examined within the formal educational system as it is infused throughout with post modern relativism.

People want to hold whatever beliefs that they choose to hold and give no account for them other than to assert their right to hold whatever beliefs they choose and to insist that they must be tolerated in doing so by all others.

One of the accepted beliefs is that of tolerance as a value of the highest social importance. Tolerance is a value expounded upon in a post modern culture as supportive of the relativism that is an essential component of the post modern epistemology, metaphysics and ethics. Tolerance is not to be questioned as a value as it is promoted as a cornerstone to a desirable social arrangement.

Yet tolerance itself is a disvalue as post modernists would have promoted it. Tolerance is not respect. To be tolerant is to put up with something. It does not include accepting it or considering it as valuable or worthy. Tolerance of people and beliefs is promoted but it is misguided and harmful whenever to be tolerant of behaviors and ideas would hurt individuals and groups in physical and emotional ways.

Those who advocate tolerance cannot possibly be sincere in doing so.

Post modern pluralists continue to promote tolerance as if it were unqualified for they do not and expect no one else will subject their promotion to critical examination for such an examination would not be popular or “politically correct”. They continue to promote tolerance as if it were unqualified for they do not hold careful and critical thought as being valuable as they believe that such thought challenges relativism. They also mistakenly believe that critical thinking is somehow intolerant of individuals, groups and behaviors and beliefs they wish to have accepted.
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ ... efault.htm

[_The CCC]

Gravity doesn't exist.
SEE http://bigthink.com/videos/gravity-doesnt-exist

[_spotlight]

Gravity doesn't exist.
SEE http://bigthink.com/videos/gravity-doesnt-exist

The title is incorrect, perhaps due to poor understanding on the part of the reporter, or maybe a desire to hook people in to read his article? Verlinde's position is not that gravity does not exist but that it is an emergent entropic force.

For those interested, first a review of the more mainstream view on the subject and why experimental verification is an issue for the physics communiuty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbPWYjnQIO8

Here are some references on Verlinde's idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyomGtZCsmI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_force

And from those references it looks like this criticism pretty much shoots down the possibility of entropic gravity.

Entropic gravity and quantum coherence

Another way of criticism of the entropic gravity is a reason that entropic processes should, as critics argue, break quantum coherence. Recent experiments with ultra-cold neutrons in the gravitational field of Earth are claimed to show that neutrons lie on discrete levels exactly as predicted by Schrödinger equation considering the gravitation to be a conservative potential field without any decoherent factors. Archil Kobakhidze argues that this result disproves entropic gravity.[21][22] Luboš Motl gives popular explanations of this position in his blog.[23][24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity

[_Maksutov]

“I realized early on that it is detailed scientific knowledge which makes certain religious beliefs untenable. A knowledge of the true age of the earth and of the fossil record makes it impossible for any balanced intellect to believe in the literal truth of every part of the Bible in the way that fundamentalists do. And if some of the Bible is manifestly wrong, why should any of the rest of it be accepted automatically? . . . What could be more foolish than to base one's entire view of life on ideas that, however plausible at the time, now appear to be quite erroneous? And what would be more important than to find our true place in the universe by removing one by one these unfortunate vestiges of earlier beliefs?”

—-Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery, 1988

[_LittleNipper]

“I realized early on that it is detailed scientific knowledge which makes certain religious beliefs untenable. A knowledge of the true age of the earth and of the fossil record makes it impossible for any balanced intellect to believe in the literal truth of every part of the Bible in the way that fundamentalists do. And if some of the Bible is manifestly wrong, why should any of the rest of it be accepted automatically? . . . What could be more foolish than to base one's entire view of life on ideas that, however plausible at the time, now appear to be quite erroneous? And what would be more important than to find our true place in the universe by removing one by one these unfortunate vestiges of earlier beliefs?”

—-Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery, 1988

No one knows the true age of the earth or the universe. What is promoted is, if point A is true then point B is possible --- followed by C... There is no way a finite mind can understand the infinite without a revelation.

And I totally agree, it is foolish to base one's view of life on things that are constantly shifting. And Uniformitarianism and evolutionary thought have never remained unchanged. Only the Bible has remained constant.

[_Themis]

Only the Bible has remained constant.

Yes, constantly wrong.