One cannot study science and derive the fundamental principles of salvation. I LOVE science. But, science has significant limits. Its messages CANNOT carry its followers past the veil. Passage beyond the veil into the presence of God requires something else. Messages of true salvation are contained in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the temple, and in the words of modern authorized prophets and apostles.
Science encompasses a mechanistic philosophy called naturalism. Naturalism is the view that the universe operates lawfully in a self-sustaining manner. Some scientists, like Richard Dawkins, take this philosophy a step farther to argue that the laws of nature are self-existent, independent of any higher order intelligence, such as God. This step, however, is a leap of skepticism that merely impedes further knowledge.
Latter-day Saint scientists, like all others, wish to examine the lawfulness of nature. Adoption of that philosophy, however, does not imply that God is a fiction. Instead, our LDS religion teaches that the universe is dependent upon God as the creator and organizer that establishes and works within natural principles. Such a view is well articulated in a 1980 Ensign article entitled: "The Gospel and the Scientific View:
How Earth Came to Be," by F. Kent Nielsen. I do not agree with aspects of Brother Nielsen's account of earth origins, but I do agree with his religious embrace of science.
The mission or charge of science is to observe, identify, and translate the laws of nature. Some of the steps of any scientific approach include:
1) Making systematic and detailed observations of nature, such as identifying and measuring characteristics or behaviors that appear lawful;
2) Learning to control the operations of nature by making systematic changes in the environmental variables that are related to those operations;
3) Building models of nature that account for one's systematic observations and measurements.
As grand as science is, it is a limited system. It does not explain all things. It may even be invasive. That is, it is possible that we change the universe by the mere act of observing it. (Such a possibility falls out of quantum mechanics).
If God could be known merely by doing empirical science, then there would be no need for scripture. Instead, scripture contains ideas that surpass science.
How can we come to know God? Two verses of scripture come to mind:
Jeremiah 29:13
13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
Alma 43: 26-27
26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.
27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
Scientists who have given up their search for God will not find Him. Instead, they must open their minds (and hearts), seek with diligence, and exercise the smallest particles of faith. Indeed, they must experiment upon the words given to them from scripture and priesthood leaders.
Science is a beautiful thing. I am a practitioner of it. I believe in basic geology, dating methods, evolution, genetics, physics, and so on. Those disciplines never subtract from my fundamental belief in God.
To me, God is nature, even more than nature.
Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
10 comments:
I enjoyed your post on scientific naturalism, an issue that interests me.
In Truth and Science: An LDS Perspective I point out that there are theological assumptions underlying naturalism that are at odds with church doctrine. One must dig down to the philosophical level to discover those inconsistencies. What this means to me is that science is not a perfect endeavor. It is a human endeavor and humans are imperfect. I still like and follow the naturalistic model of science.
I like your comments on how it is faith, and not so much empiricism and rationalism, that brings us to a knowledge of spiritual truths. It is sad that so many scholars are stuck in the naturalism way of knowing that they never explore non-naturalistic epistemologies such as faith. They've gathered a lot of empirical and rational knowledge, yet they lack the most important knowledge of all - that God lives and Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. These are they whom the apostle Paul spoke of 2000 years ago. They are ever learning without coming to a knowledge of the Truth.
(I hope your classes are going well.)
Dave C:
Thanks for your comments.
You and I argue about the little things, but I think we see eye-to-eye on the big things. Actually, I am pretty confident about that.
I DO like to think of myself as a naturalist. There is little (or maybe nothing) about naturalism to which I would object.
Maybe the inconsistencies to which you refer have to do with our religious belief that God listens to prayers and intervenes on occasion.
My conception of God involves a being that works within natural principles, because He Himself is a natural being (not a magical or mystical one).
One aspect that I enjoy about Mormonism is its very concrete conception of God.
On this blog I have cryptically written about several extraordinary experiences that I have had, and that I never expected to have. All of those experiences could be interpreted from a naturalistic perspective. Even so, I know where those experiences came from.
If push ever came to shove (and I don't think it ever would), and I was forced to choose between science and my religion, then I know with certainty how I would choose. I seek first God, and science comes well down the list. Fortunately, that statement is JUST a hypothetical.
Best wishes...
In my opinion one need only peer through a well pointed telescope and have a smidgen of knowledge of what you are seeing to bring a cross section of the spiritual and naturalistic Universe into sharp relief.
Or maybe for you S.Faux, a microscope. =:)
A scientific mind is one that doesn't deal with things that can't be observed or tested. Dawkins is completely right that there is no evidence that anything exists beyond nature.
Science deals with facts that can be seen in some manner, tested and repeated reliably. One might argue that there are facts that can't be seen like gravity and time, but those things can still be tested.
Philosophies on the other hand, other than logic, can't be tested, they are ideas that exist only in the mind. You can't show someone exactly how you feel about things in a reliable fashion, especially if they have never felt the same way.
The only way philosophies can be proven wrong or right is when they make claims about things we can test.
Consider the idea of omnipotence and omniscience. Those things can be tested with logic. Omnipotence is self contradictory, and omniscience is contradictory in a being that can make decisions.
The idea of an afterlife can't be disproved though because as far as anyone can tell, it is merely a concept in the mind. This is not scientific. It can't be because it can't be tested and people have to decide to believe it or not based only on the words of others and a feeling.
Essentially what I am trying to say is that science and religion are to very separate things. They work on contradictory principles, and should not be compared. Science works on things we know and religion works on things we don't know. The problem with religion is that science often finds ways to show that assertions made by religion were incorrect, but religion can't do the same to science.
Godlessons:
Thanks for your comment. You make a lot of good points, and I agree with some of them. I especially appreciate the civil manner of your expressions. You are welcome back on this site anytime.
To me, science is neutral on the issue of God and most aspects of religion (not all). Consequently, I don't think science can appropriately make statements about the existence or nonexistence of God.
I love Dawkins, except for his attempt to make atheistic conclusions from evolution.
I am a Darwinian evolutionist and a religionist. True, they are separate realms. However, I know many such scientists. (I know atheistic ones as well, and we get along).
For a listing of my essays on evolution, click on the provided link. (This semester I am teaching a course on human evolution, without theology, of course).
Anyway, I appreciate your comments, and I hope you will make future ones. Civil disagreement is a good thing.
Godlessons,
Re: "Science works on things we know and religion works on things we don't know."
An equivalent statement is that "Scientific empiricism refers to things we can know and religious faith refers to things we can't know."
I wish to point out that there are multiple ways of knowing truth. Empiricism and deductive logic are legitimate and popular sources of truth. But many Christians will tell you that faith is an equally powerful and real source of truth. I have had powerful faith-based experiences that have led me to truth of which I was very certain of. Sometimes the certainty of faith experiences is stronger than empirical experiences. I have found that my memory and certainty of empirical-based experiences tends to fade over time while my spiritual experiences are vivid.
We are dual entity creatures - we have our physical and spiritual. Each domain is capable of providing truth. Don't neglect the spiritual - it is how you learned before coming to earth for what was likely a long time.
As I see it, the essential difference between science and religion is that the former provides us with knowledge about the natural world and the latter provides us with religious/spiritual knowledge. I cannot separate the two as easily as you because in my opinion empirical and spiritual truths overlap in many places.
I wish to point out that there are multiple ways of knowing truth. Empiricism and deductive logic are legitimate and popular sources of truth. But many Christians will tell you that faith is an equally powerful and real source of truth.
I understand that. Sam Harris recently published some research that shows that people of faith believe in God in the exact same way people believe in what we all can agree is real.
Also, I used to be LDS, and neither evolution nor science seemed to be in conflict with what I was taught for the most part. What is at odds with most of the scientific community is the idea that things can be known without empiricism. There is much to be said for the idea since there are things that people believe that are wrong, belief in itself is not enough to demonstrate the existence of a thing, no matter how strong the belief.
All other religions in the world believe what they believe just as strongly as you do, yet you don't believe they have the truth. When this kind of truth is so subjective, it is scientifically impossible to evaluate.
There should be ways to test whether or not some of what religion teaches is true. There have been studies done on prayer, the most recent one published in the American Heart Journal in 2005, show not only that prayer doesn't seem to work, but when people believe they are being prayed for they did worse.
Now, as for NDEs, when people have experiences, they all conform to their particular faith belief. NDEs are hardly scientific, but if they were actual spiritual experiences, they should all be similar in more ways than people saying they had some subjective experience.
Anyway, of those things about God that we can test, all have failed, and everything about it can also be contributed to delusions of individuals of sorts.
Basically what I am saying is that religion should never attempt to use science to prove its existence, and it shouldn't attempt to disprove science merely because it doesn't agree with its dogma.
Thanks, Godlessons.
Referring to other religions, you claim I "don't believe they have the truth." Actually, I believe the major religions of the world carry MANY great truths. I think most Mormons would agree. See my essay, "Mormon must respect interfaith dialogue," for example.
Concerning scientific studies on prayer, it is easy to cite counter studies such as Leibovici L. (2001) that show positive effects of prayer. Even so, I am skeptical overall. Something important about prayer is lost when it is operationally defined in a science study. I would express the same concern about "romance." Science is welcome to study all kinds of complex psychological constructs, but ultimately we must admit science is currently better at studying some psychological constructs more than others.
You are not going to get me to say anything negative about empiricism. I believe in it strongly.
I am NOT a believer in NDEs, at least generally speaking. NDEs are too often associated with wild claims. Further, I believe they are a product of a malfunction in the parietal lobes (and other regions) that produce bodily perceptions.
I obviously disagree that religion has failed the test. Religion clearly has a legitimate place in society, contrary to those who claim that children are abused by religion. Those who claim "abuse" need to come up with REAL data, instead of tossing out unsubstantiated claims.
We live in a diverse society, and religion is part of that diversity. Maybe critics of religion need some sensitivity training. (I am mostly trying to be humorous).
I agree that religion should NOT misuse science to support its claims. When that happens, I am appalled.
Again, thanks for your comments. They cause me to think.
Well, as with all studies I have seen, that one doesn't beat the margin of error. 2.1% margin is not near high enough to be conclusive. The study I cited too doesn't show a difference past the margin of error.
As for Dawkins' accusations of abuse, they are apparently mostly anecdotal or even hypothetical. I have actually researched this though, and I have well over 100 studies showing that sexual abusers are much more likely to have been brought up in strict religious households. They are also much more likely to be currently devout, and the more devout they are, the more likely they are to commit crimes. Victims are also more often than not found to not fight their abusers when they were brought up in religiously strict households.
I wrote about it on my blog a few days ago, but I only put a few of the studies in it. When I was searching for studies though, I grabbed up every single one I could find, and every single one of them showed religious people to be more likely to commit these types of crimes. The studies tend to attribute this to a few things, but can be summed up by saying that when all sex is considered sin, it is less easy to distinguish which is unacceptable by society.
In other words, while Dawkins was making some wild generalizations, he is not exactly wrong.
He was picking on the Catholic church. Catholics by no stretch of the imagination have a monopoly on sexual abuse by clergy.
Anyway, I guess this was way off the topic of the original post, but I don't want anyone to dismiss the reality that religion does seem to create sex offenders.
Godlessons:
One could eliminate religion from the earth, but one would still have sexual abuse. Unfortunately, such behavior is the result of multiple causes, and probably it is just part of our evolutionary make-up. I am not suggesting biological determinism, but I am suggesting that some individuals (males primarily) may be predisposed.
Post a Comment