When I was growing up and living at home with my parents in the 50s and 60s, the tensions between science and religion were palpable. My childhood home was filled with science books, but there were few texts to represent the gospel. Our primary book representing Mormonism was by Fawn Brodie. We had a Book of Mormon, but its hard cover was gone. It sat on the bookshelf denuded and defaced. I suppose it was better than nothing.
At about the age of ten I joined a book club. Among the books I ordered and read was the King James Bible. I asked my mother to purchase for me a 50-cent paperback of the Book of Mormon, but she refused. Finally, at about the age of 13 or 14 one of my favorite aunts helped me purchase a hardback version of the Book of Mormon, which I kept and read.
Somehow, amidst all the tensions, I attended Church, and fortunately the gospel grew inside me. I have never been inactive (or as we say euphemistically these days "less active"). Fortunately, my mother became active in the Church in the late 70s, well after I had moved out on my own. My father became active in the 90s.
Given such a strange upbringing it is no wonder that I am a bit unorthodox. I have NO desire to turn Darwin into the devil, and I have NO need to turn Joseph Smith into some perfect being.
Science is good. Church is good. Why do some people need to make one or the other into something that is bad???
I hear some Church people refer to science as the "teachings of men." Well, I suppose humans leave their imprint on everything they touch, but I tend to think of science as the "teachings of nature." Science is at its best when we wipe off the human imprint.
Then, occasionally, I hear some scientists with a former LDS background refer to religion as the imaginary product of Joseph Smith that has infected the young and made them diseased. Like science, religion is at its best when we wipe off the human imprint. At its essence, I would argue, our religion boils down to the "teachings of divine nature." The gospel is the cure, not the disease.
For me, both science and religion are evolving enterprises. Both are subject to revision via growth in knowledge. In science we call such growth "research." In Mormonism we call such growth "revelation." The distinction is mostly vocabulary. I have no need for dogma.
Scientific and religious knowledge must be tested. Consequently, I rely upon the principles of reliability and validity. Reliability addresses the repeatability of results. Validity addresses the verifiability of results using independent sources.
For me, the primary difference between science and religion is that science is public and religion is private. I have only two absolutes: 1) there is a God, and 2) I am not God. Such absolutes serve to keep me humble in my pursuit of knowledge. My island of truth is small, but the murky oceans that surround it fascinate me. I expect those waters to clarify over time.
I remain a Latter-day Saint because I am not tied to preconceived creeds that could cripple me. I am able to believe that there are natural operations that were "not created or made" (see D&C 93:29), and that there are independent spheres of natural operation that act lawfully (D&C 93: 30-31).
Latter-day Saintism is often painted in the media as a religion that is tightly bound and constrained. To me, it is the reverse. The LDS philosophy opens the world and my knowledge expands – even scientific knowledge.
Copyright © 2010 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.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
22 comments:
S. Faux,
Like always I enjoyed reading this.
My upbringing was very orthodox. Scriptures every morning, etc... And yet, despite this difference somehow we have converged to a similar page. :)
I also believe everything should be tested. I think the "skeptics" attitude toward science has been very helpful. Demanding testable predictions at every step and then testing those predictions.
Likewise, I find Alma's seed reference helpful as well. With Gospel truths one has to be willing to exercise enough faith to plant and nourish each gospel seed. And if it is good we see growth and enlargement. And might I add that the good seeds have transcended my wildest expectations and I agree that LDS people have doctrines that are more mind expanding that "the world" could ever imagine.
I also really enjoyed your saying science is the "teachings of nature" as that is actually the *most accurate* description in my mind.
Finally, I enjoyed your needing to postulate your #2, lest you ever accidentally forget. :)
Joseph:
Actually, I stole #1 and #2 from the movie "Rudy." See the quote in context in my essay: Prove Me Now Herewith.
Oh yes, "Rudy" is a great movie.
SFaux,
Only a person who is firm in his beliefs would be willing to openly express his inner feelings the way you have. Way to go.
In my professional opinion, your perspective on science and religion is healthy because you are earnestly interested in the truth of things. You might consider adding a third absolute to your set of beliefs: (3) The Book of Mormon is the word of God, but then again, that one wasn't in Rudy ;)
In my view, the historical conflict between science and religion is because both are working from a flawed paradigm. Correct that, and there is no conflict. By replacing the Gradualist or Uniformitarian worldview with that of the Catastrophist, as Joseph Smith did, one's outlook changes for the better. Try it; you'll like it.
Anthony:
Maybe Joseph Smidt will read this and briefly explain why the catastrophe theories have NOT held up to scientific scrutiny. In short, catastrophe theories are a catastrophe. I have to call them as I see them. Sorry.
S. Faux: Good post. I enjoy reading people's views on the science and religion debate. I just wanted to comment on one thing you said:
"For me, both science and religion are evolving enterprises. Both are subject to revision via growth in knowledge. In science we call such growth 'research.' In Mormonism we call such growth 'revelation.'"
My take on revelation is a little different than yours, I suppose. I do see research as an evolving human enterprise. Mistakes are to be expected in human research. The mistakes usually get corrected by other humans. This is to be expected.
However, revelation is not suppose to be such a human endeavor, nor so error prone. It is suppose to be communication from God to a prophet for the world or church. If this is true, then why do prophets seem to teach so many things "from the pulpit" that are incorrect? Why can't they get the message right the first time? Why does it need to be continually revised?
For example, take your favorite subject of biology and evolution. It seems plain, from a clear reading LDS statements on the subject, that they did not accept evolution. At best, they accept some form of "intelligent design" (which is just as scientifically untenable as creationism). I would say that they have also been wrong on a number of other subjects (polygamy, blacks and priesthood, theocracy, gender roles, Prop 8).
So if prophet claim to speak for the Lord, but get it wrong so often, how can we "follow the prophet" with any degree of certainty? Are prophetic pronouncements the same thing as scientific discovery: human in origin, and very likely to become outdated soon?
Josh:
If your view of revelation were correct, then there would be no errors in any scripture. Revelation involves study and human work. Revelation is the human struggle for the truly divine. Read my essay on revelation, and then feel free to get back to me.
To me, both science and my religion teach that we are spoon fed almost nothing.
So my definition of revelation is wrong because there are errors in the revelations? That's faulty logic. We would also expect mistakes if they were purely man made.
People have been claiming to speak for God since before the dawn of civilization. However, they are universally mistaken (sometimes sincerely). It's easy to parse these predictions and prophecies to find something relevant, or to save it somehow. Believers usually do.
I think it becomes difficult, however, when you realize we're not talking about substituting words like "arriven" to "arrived" or "white" to "fair." I'm referencing whole ideas or doctrines such as: anti-evolution teachings, polygamy, racist policies towards blacks, gold plates, or D&C 111 - about finding buried treasures in Salem to solve the church's growing financial problems. Why would God reveal that there was buried gold and silver in Salem, when it wasn't really there? Why would God say polygamy is necessary for salvation, only to reverse his rules 70 years later when the U.S. government put pressure on the LDS? Why would God be for racism at one time, then later be against it?
Revelation seems to be no more reliable than the usual human ideas of the day.
Josh:
Here is what Brigham Young had to say about revelation in 1855:
Journal of Discourses 2: 314
"I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities... ."
Evolution is a gradual process. It is the way the world works. It would be nice if all churches, especially the LDS Church, were on the forefront of all important social issues. Instead, we have to filter out the signal from the noise. We have to keep from throwing the baby Jesus out with the bath water.
We Iowans say, "It is easier to tear down a barn than to build one." As for me, I choose to stick with the Church as a good citizen, ready to disregard bad elements of the past, and ready to build toward a moral future.
If everything had to be perfect before I could participate, then I would be paralyzed for life. For example, I disagree with many major policies in my university. I still think it is better to teach and to protest, than to resign and to be removed from the process.
There is an art to being human, and that art applies to both science and religion. Such is the nature of our life.
S.Faux,
Wow, great quote by Brigham Young!
I would guess we define "revelation" differently. I held it to a higher standard than you do. I am in the Army, and disagree very much with a lot of what we do. But I don't hold them to the same standard. They are men, and are expected to mess up. I hold scientists to a lower standard as well (although I love the scientific method as the best way to acquire knowledge). But if someone says they speak for God, then I hold them to a higher standard - because they claim to speak for God.
I understand that the message could come out a little garbled at first. But even Brigham Young still said "The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle..." But, my point is that the revelations and principles themselves are wrong. I don't know why God couldn't just have told church members from the beginning that racist policies towards blacks was not good, that polygamy was a bad idea, and that evolution was actually true. Seems like they would be pretty easy instructions to give - instead of the contradictory one's we've received through revelation. It just seems more likely to me that they make it up themselves, and then call it "revelation" to lend it more authority in the ears of their followers.
Josh:
You ask great questions, and I do not claim to have all the answers. I do have opinions.
It is an empirical fact that the Bible contains verifiable errors. Latter-day Saints have recognized this fact since the earliest years. Nonetheless, the LDS regard the book as scripture, because its teachings can be validated by a living prophet. The issue is not so much that there is error; the issue is that there is truth, and it is worth seeking.
All human beings struggle for truth, and God does NOT spoon feed it. So, error is part of life. Choice, intelligence, and agency would be diminished if we did not have to struggle, ponder, study, and strain. According to LDS theology, this mortal existence was intended to have those dimensions. The favorite phrase is: "opposition in all things."
Oh, and Josh!! Thank you for your service to our country. My oldest son serves in the Army, and he has been deployed several times. As such, I appreciate the significant sacrifices that individuals make while serving in the military.
Thanks for the dialogue. I really do enjoy your essays and opinions. I hope you don't mind my intrusions sometimes. And I appreciate your gratitude for my military service. I just got back from an "all expense paid trip to the desert" 6 months ago. It wasn't very fun, but it was a learning experience.
I suppose I view my membership in the military the way you view your church membership. For example, I can remain a member of the Army, even though I disagree with many of it's policies and practices (the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, their heavy use of propaganda to shape public opinion, and DADT for starters). I can feel good about what I do (provide medical care for both friendly and enemy combatants during war) without feeling to need to terminate my involvement with the military.
But I hold the church to a higher standard since they claim to speak for God. The military doesn't, so you expect them to screw up a lot. If the church didn't make this claim either, then I wouldn't take such issue with it's history, policies, and doctrine. But they do - and that's the rub.
Josh:
Mormons are not a perfect people; we simply are striving to be better than we are. We are an improvement society. I invite you to listen to LDS General Conference on Oct. 2nd and 3rd. It is available by Internet at www.lds.org. As I listen to the words of the First Presidency and to members of the Quorum of Twelve, I find myself wanting to reach a higher standard. Their words are like a healing shot in the arm every six months.
Josh,
The answer to your concern is found in your own statement: "they claim to speak for God".
That is, prophets (both ancient and modern) claim to speak for God, they do not claim to be God.
You seem to argue that God is expected to give clear, objective, messages to prophets, who then repeat them verbatim with no imprint of their own; that a prophet is expected to be some kind of clone of the divine. Certainly, there are times when God worked in this manner; however, this is not regularly the case. At least, this is not what Latter-day Saints (collectively) teach, or are taught.
God uses fallible, imperfect people to accomplish his purposes -- people whose individual agency can lead to "noise" interfering with the "signal" (to borrow an earlier analogy). God can, and does, reveal Himself to individuals as well for guidance in matters over which they have appropriate authority.
God does speak to us, and command us, based upon our capacity to understand and follow. For example, why the priesthood ban? Perhaps because members of the Church at the time were too racist to accept it any other way -- I don't know. Frankly, I don't think it matters now.
You seem to want revelation all laid out for humanity to soak in, like some kind of celestial buffet. I think God expects us to work for it, and sometimes to work very hard.
Tom O: This is a little of the topic of the post - and a little late as well. But I'll respond to what you said since it was directed at me.
I have never expected for prophets to BE God. But they do claim to give us His will with fairly accurate fidelity. And I haven't ever heard them say that they are so error prone in delivering His will, that they can be completely wrong about major doctrinal and policy issues. They admit to not being perfect people. I never expected then not to. But when they teach a doctrine like polygamy for nearly 100 years, or practice racist black policies for nearly 100 years, then I don't think we're talking about "noise interfering with the signal." I think they're just completely wrong when they are claiming to give us the Lord's will. Can they admit to that?
That the prophets might be completely wrong while claiming to give us God's will is one possibility. Another, is that God's will for people and groups of people does change over time, in which case the prophets could be accurately reflecting God's will.
Examples that spring quickly to mind: Mosaic dietary laws, circumcision, preaching of the of the Gospel to gentiles, all changed by Divine (or not, depending up on your faith or lack thereof) direction in New Testament times by the leaders that followed Jesus Christ's mortal ministry.
If God changes what is "good" or "truth" for different cultures over different times, then that would make Him a "changing God." A changing God is one that is not perfect and all-knowing. And this contradicts the very definition of God.
It also makes God a moral relativist. Moral relativists say that there is no objective morality, and that what is good for one society may not be good for another. When you consider that honor societies throughout the world think it's moral to kill someone who "dishonors" you, some societies think female genital mutilation is moral, or that slavery is still considered OK in some parts of the world (and is defended in the OT, NT, and Koran), then the whole idea of moral relativism becomes perverse.
Josh,
That's like saying the laws of physics are always changing because physicists teach "young people" Newtonian physics, then as they mature say "surprise newtonian physics is wrong and here's quantum physics" and they as they become really advanced try to say "surprise again! the universe is 11 dimensional and made of strings and...." and so on and so forth.
Eternal laws don't change any more then the laws of physics change but that doesn't mean a wise Tutor might not describe those laws differently to different people according to what they are prepared for.
I apologize, but I am halting a renewed conversation on this post. It has been open two weeks. That's enough. Sorry.
Post a Comment