To say there is a grand purpose to life implies there is a grand design. Our Mormon religion explicitly teaches that God created "worlds without number" for his "own purpose" (Moses 1: 33), and "there is no end" to these physical works because they are necessary "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" and woman (Moses 1: 37-39). This is a profound conclusion that modern science cannot teach.
Does this theological teaching mean that we Mormons are obligated to jump on the "Intelligent Design" bandwagon and believe in "special creation?" No. Let's keep in mind that correlations in words do NOT amount to correlations in meaning. Latter-day Saints have NO obligation to believe in bad science or bad theology.
Even so, I find it interesting that science and the first chapter of Genesis agree on many essential points. For example:
(1) The universe sprang into being (Big Bang).
(2) The earth began as a sterile and uninhabitable planet.
(3) Life proceeded on earth in a sequence of stages.
(4) All humans descended from a common ancestry. Ancestors matter.
(5) All living beings die. Death is a natural outcome to our mortal life.
It seems to me that nature in its lawful order simply carries out God's purposes. Therefore, I have NO need to conceptualize God as operating some magical control panel. For me, there is NO need for the supernatural, because God is a scientist. He is my Father and my colleague.
Have I turned God into nature and become a pantheist? I don't think so, but nonetheless, there is an intimate connection between God and nature. However, scriptures inform us that we live in a fallen universe, which is an imperfect reflection of heaven.
In a previous essay, I described my conception of the nature of God. I wondered the following: If God is light, then perhaps God is both particle (physical) and wavelength (spirit)? Scripture equates God with light numerous times. Thus, forgive me in my search for how to correlate my religion with physical reality.
I do NOT know how Adam & Eve fit into the history of the earth. It is clear to me, however, that Adam & Eve are necessary, even if most of their morality story is symbolic.
My oldest son recently taught an LDS Institute class on "The Fall of Adam & Eve." (I am VERY proud of my son). He emailed to me a summary of his lesson, from which I paraphrase:
Key issues:
(1) If there had been no Fall, then there would be NO need for the redemption and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
(2) The Fall resulted in humans becoming like God, knowing good from evil. The initial stage was set for exaltation (e.g., see: Genesis 3: 22; Romans 8: 16-17).
(3) A temporary separation from God (spiritual death) was necessary for personal growth. We can compare this separation with that experienced by Jesus on the cross. Even so, we are never separated from the love of God (Romans 8: 38-39).
(4) Adam and Eve were not naïve about the plan of redemption and the consequences of the fall (e.g., Alma 12: 32). They made a choice that they knew would result in suffering, mortality, and the need for redemption. The choice transgressed a commandment for the sake of obedience to a higher one.
We can conclude that Adam & Eve while on earth laid the groundwork (pun) for our purpose. Ancestors matter.
Science cannot teach us the lessons of Adam & Eve. We must have higher sources to obtain such lessons.
I do NOT think that all Mormons have to be evolutionists. I just know that I have to be. But, I also know that my religion provides a rationale and a purpose to life that cannot be found in other venues of knowledge.
I cannot open a science textbook and read anything like the following:
Alma 30:44
All things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.
From my religion I know there is an underlying purpose to natural events. Even so, I believe that the evolutionary events of the universe are lawful. The laws are simple, beautiful, mechanical, and mathematical.
Religion is central to my being, but so is SCIENCE!! I choose to not have one without the other.
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.
82 comments:
I only have one real issue with LDS who also believe in evolution. That issue is explaining where exactly the Creator fits in scientifically. I have asked others (like Steve P.) and it seems that they are content in believeing that God is somehow separate from natural law and that natural law on its own (without God) is somehow capable of producing life. So, it seems then that an attitude of just saying nature can explain it all is like replacing God himself with nature.
To me that is a paramount paradox for LDS evolutionists. How can you guys believe in a Creator who must have obviously did something scientifically with their two hands to bring about life in a planned order, but at that same time not place him anywhere near your god of "nature" and what you suppose it can do on its own. Its funny because LDS doctrine completely and wholly supports Intelligent Design in every definition (and yes, ID does support evolution, albeit "guided" evolution) and yet you refuse it based off of reasons completely political.
Not wanting to sound harsh here, just looking for answers in to how you guys can support a Creator and still believe ina godless darwinian evolution model.
rob osborn
rob:
I don't have all the theological answers you are seeking.
As a scientist, I have a moral commitment to describe nature precisely how I find it in existence. If the universe reveals itself to be billions upon billions of years old, then my job is NOT to hedge.
I like orthodox science, its critical methods, and its findings.
So, when I die, I will ask God: "Since the universe operates on natural principles, where and how did you intervene?"
When I know that answer, I will be sure to share it with you. But, you will have to be patient, because I have to die first. I hope to live another 30 years. God may have other plans & purposes.
So basically you are saying that "God isn't needed" for you right now to explain the complexities of life or "how or why" it exists. How does that view support orthodox LDS beliefs?
My theology teaches me that God IS NEEDED!!!!! Sorry, I don't know how. Do you?????
I think huge problems start when scriptural literalists think of the creation stories as natural history.
Instead, I think such stories were intended to teach FAR more important theological topics, such as the need for an atonement.
S.Faux,
Very good post like always.
Rob,
I understand there is always a temptation to try to extract the mysteries of Godliness from your fellow brethren even in venues like the public internet. However, as Brigham used to say over the pulpit: God does not reveal His mysteries to tattle tales.
If you are concerned about how to get all truth to be circumscribed into one great whole I suggest you do two things: First, study all that we know to be true about the gospel as well as science. (And like the promise of the Book of Mormon, if you don't study science with real intent it is pointless for God will not be mocked.) Second, go to the temple where the greatest mysteries about the Creation, Fall and Atonement can be procured always remembering the promise; Ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened.
I know if you study both religion and science with real intent the mysteries of Godliness, and especially those relating to the Creation, Fall and Atonement, will be unfolded and there will be no need to try to understand the greatest mysteries of the eternities from comment section on public blogs.
Just some advice. But again, let there be *no* confusion: all truth can and will be circumscribed into one great whole and if we fail to discover how basic truths of the gospel and science fit together when we did not follow receipts like the one above the Lord will not feel sorry for us. These are His mysteries, not mine, or S. Faux or anyone else's on the internet and so go to the proper places dedicated to the Lord for revealing such things with real intent or otherwise be prepared to be disappointed.
I will also remind you that Adam was required to sacrifice "for many days" before he received answers so be prepared for that.
Also, a very important quote from Joseph: "because the things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out." (Teachings, p. 137.)
I always remember this when I need a reminding that understanding how all truth fits together requires a lot out of me.
Good luck. By the way, S. Faux can tell you about evolution but let me know if you need resources for basic facts about cosmology and I can help out.
.
To: Joseph Smidt and S.Faux
Re: Circumscribing all truth into one perfect whole
In a story found in the June 1980 Ensign, ultimate truth is represented by an elephant and mankind is represented by six blind men. Each of the blind men inspects the elephant and perceives part of it a leg, the trunk, the tail, a side, or a tusk. As a result, each of them concludes the elephant must be like a tree, a hose, a rope, a wall, and so forth. And each is partially correct, yet no one of them perceives the elephant as a whole.
So it is with all of us humans. Most of the time, we really only have a partial understanding of truth because each of us has limited vision. And indeed, scripture confirms there are some things which simply cannot be completely understood by mortal men. D&C 101:32 assures us that when the Lord comes, "he shall reveal all things." But until then, "man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend" (Mosiah 4:9).
Lowell L. Bennion, for many years director of the Salt Lake Institute of Religion, once said this:
-------------- quote --------------
"There is a great difference between a truth and our understanding of that truth.... God is what He is. But what God is and my conception of what God is are two different things. My knowledge of God is partial and limited, and so is yours." (Joseph Smith Memorial, 12/5/1948, p.51.)
-------------- end quote --------------
If each blind man insists that the other five are wrong, a more complete understanding of the elephant is out of reach for them, even as a group. However, by discussing their individual experiences in an atmosphere of tolerance and trust, the blind men will be able to gain a more complete and more accurate mental picture of the elephant.
It is clear to me that S.Faux and Joseph Smidt perceive some parts of the perfect whole having been nailed down by science. On the other hand, many of us believe that God, who DOES comprehend the perfect whole, has revealed some parts of it to his apostles and prophets. In the occasional case where scientific truth appears to contradict revealed truth, what should we do?
Here's what I think:
Nobody can conclude from empirical data whether God was involved in anything. God is (by definition) excluded from scientific inquiry. And yet the scientist and religionist are both working on the same puzzle and neither one has an advance copy of the completed picture. Someday, when all of the pieces are finally on the table, we will see how they work together. I'm sure most of the science pieces will eventually fit even though right now I can't see how. The reverse is also true. The religion pieces, drawn from scripture and the prophets, are an important part of the puzzle and my approach is to fit pieces together outward from there. Sometimes I become a bit testy about keeping the religion pieces in play. But, in the meantime (borrowing the words of President Hinckley), "I stand in respect, almost reverence, for the men and women of science who have made life better for each of us."
I am always excited when we can discuss our individual perceptions in an atmosphere of tolerance and trust. And S.Faux, I agree with Joseph Smidt, "Very good post like always."
Rob,
Thank you for you comment as it was most insightful and filled with some great quotes. I agree with the elephant analogy and also agree by arguing we are no better of. As is famously said, contention is of the devil.
Rob, my view is we really are all on the same team as we are anxiously engaged in building up the kingdom of God and the establishment of Zion. I honestly do appreciate your thoughts.
I actually have a question for you. (Again, I stand by my statement that many mysteries are sacred enough that they aren't going to be understood while blogging). Here is my question:
You run a blog called "No Death Before The Fall" so I assume you subscribe to that idea. Now let me ask you this: would it make sense to have a blog entitled "No forgiveness of sin before the Atonement."?
Here is what I mean: the atonement transcends time so that its effects were felt *even before* Christ actually went through it. Given the fall was in some sense the "inverse" of the atonement, can it possibly be the case that the effects of the fall similarly transcend time such that death could exist because of the Fall but before Adam actually fell in as much as people felt the atonement of the savior even before he actually performed it?
Just wondering if you thought such an idea was possible.
Why all the self-flagellation from scientifically minded Mormons? Why all the persistence that it's all a great mystery? Of course it's a mystery. Science readily admits there is lots that we don't know. But there is an incredible amount of knowledge science has shown us that gives more true "light and knowledge" about our creation than the paltry accounts in Genesis, the POGP, or the endowment ceremony give. And when science reveals the real mysteries of the universe or life on earth, it is the religious explanations that slowly change and conform.
What does religion add to the unsolved puzzle? It seems that science is correctly putting the puzzle together (with many pieces still missing), and that when they get a piece right, the picture that is beginning to form is antithetical to the image that religion claimed to have existed in the first place.
Just recently, Stephen Hawking published his new book where he claims that the Big Bang could have happened without requiring a God to start it all off. Darwin showed how God wasn't needed for life to evolve (and especially how evolution is not guided toward human life). So why the need to keep assuming the supernatural exists when a natural explanation of the cosmos works more parsimoniously?
This seems to be the very fair critique that Rob brings up in his first comment. Where is your Creator in all this - if science is showing He isn't needed? An equally fair question could be leveled at Rob: why do we need to assume a Creator at all when natural explanations work fine, without all the extra assumptions?
You see, in my understanding, the universe and intelligent life as we know it did not nor could not have come from "nature" by itself. I see a Creator having an active hands on role in bringing about order in the universe. He thus fits in "scientifically" into why and how we exist.
It appears that you are suggesting that God exists in some supernatural existance where nature and him do not interact and perhaps even- nature is what produced God himself as some sort of natural law.
So, for me looking at you, I see godless darwinian evolution. A mere refusal to allow the Creator into the picture scientifically says to me "godless" motivation. I am sorry I see it that way, I just do. I see you placing nature in fron t of and before god when it comes to why and how we exist. to me that is placing other idol gods before Him (God himself).
Don't get me wrong, I do understand that you have a place for God in your theologic spernatural thinking, just not in your world of reality of what you actually witness. I believe it must be hard for you to allow God into the picture of darwinian evolution, or for that matter, into anything from the big bang onwards. To me....that is defined as a godless promoting and empty paradigm.
R. Gary:
Just know I am a big fan. You know your stuff and you argue your positions well -- so well that sometimes others are irritated. ;) Not me.
One issue that I appreciate about your positions is that you understand that the gospel takes priority.
It is fun to argue evolution (and I do), but in reality our lives must be redeemed by a loving Savior, and that fact overwhelms all others.
So, I agree that there are many issues we do not understand, and I cannot wait to attend Heavenly University to learn all about them. In fact, one aspect of Mormonism that I just love is knowing that we will always be learning -- not for its own sake but for a purpose!!!!!!
Thanks for responding. I am honored when you do, even when you disagree with me. You make me think!!!!!
joshuapackard:
Thanks for you comment. As a scientist, I think science indeed has a considerable knowledge of nature (but that knowledge is hardly complete).
But, my problem with scientists like Hawking and Dawkins is that they build a straw man God and then knock him over. In other words, they are both poor theologians. To rule out God, one must make assumptions about God. Science is not good at that.
Anonymous:
Accusing scientists (like me) of idol worship just does not carry this discussion in a useful direction.
Be assured, I forgive you. Maybe we all could be indicted for worshipping the computer god, given the amount of time we spend in front of the computer. I suppose that syndrome could be called: idle worship.
.
To: Joseph Smidt
Re: "Would it make sense to have a blog entitled "No forgiveness of sin before the Atonement?"
It would make sense to have a blog titled "No forgiveness of sin without the Atonement." But only if a small but well educated minority of Mormons were publishing their reasons for believing the Atonement is not necessary.
Regarding No Death Before the Fall (ndbf.blogspot.com), there IS a small but well educated minority of Mormons claiming that the Church doesn't teach ndbf, which is a gross misrepresentation of what is found over and over in official Church media. Also, the Church is asking its members to use blogs and other electronic media to share "what you know to be true."
P.S. The R in R. Gary doesn't stand for Rob.
S.Faux, Thank you again for your kindness.
S. Faux: you quickly dismiss arguments from Hawking or Dawkins (or any other scientific naturalist, like myself, I guess) - as being theologic straw-man arguments. But how are they? They put forward the God of all monotheistic religion, including Mormonism. Namely a all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving supernatural deity who created the universe and all life on it. So the question (that I'll ask again) is since science shows that it is not necessary to invoke a divine Creator to create both the universe and all life-on it, why do you continue to need this "do nothing" Creator? What exactly was his job if it all works out by natural means?
R. Gary,
Sorry, too many Rs and Robs I got confused. Thanks again for your insights and good luck with your blog.
joshuapackard,
If you think the Mormon God is a "supernatural deity", you would be wrong and so Dawkins God does not apply.
This is the problem with the LDS "natural" God. How did he create all of the universe if he "naturally" exists within it? How do you create something that you exist within? And if He is a natural man (with all the appropriate Homo sapien sapien body parts to match) how did he evolve to look just like we do? Evolution is an unguided process. So how did the same exact result occur on the planet He comes from? Man was not inevitable from the outset. And does God really have a worthless appendix in him like we do? How about toenails - fairly worthless atavistic remnants of our more well-clawed ancestors? Really?
joshuapackard:
I reject your null hypothesis of a "do nothing" God. It is a faulty precept from the start.
Naturalistic science has been around for hundreds of years, and there are MANY scientifically-informed theologians during that time who have written their way past that issue.
On the topic of religion, Hawking and Dawkins have succeeded only in raising OLD issues (by centuries) while trying to REOPEN old wounds.
Sorry, but I am sure I can attend evolutionary science conferences and still believe in God. I do. Further, I can be a Darwinian and still be Mormon. I am proud to be.
The domain of naturalism does NOT extend to theology, nor should it pretend to. Scientists ill-informed about theology are just as dangerous as theologians ill-informed about science.
joshuapackard,
Go read the King Follett Discourse.
S.Faux,
"Scientists ill-informed about theology are just as dangerous as theologians ill-informed about science."
You are too full of great insights!
R. Gary,
"It would make sense to have a blog titled "No forgiveness of sin without the Atonement.""
Okay, so then why isn't your blog called no death without the Fall? The Fall happened as much as the Atonement and I am curious why you thing the Atonement gets to be infinite in its effects in both directions of time but not the fall. The are *so* intimately connected that I find it difficult to understand how the Fall doesn't enjoy this same "eternal in both directions" feature the atonement does.
Joseph Smidt, your view of the Fall and Atonement will be of great interest to me when it has been explained by any member of the First Presidency or the Twelve in any official LDS Church publication.
R. Gary,
" by any member of the First Presidency"
And that is a very wise and respectable position to take. Look, in many ways I do apologize for even bringing up such speculative ideas. I just wanted to ask you specifically of all people that question since I think your take would be interesting.
But alas, I will repent and go back to stickig to that which is less speculative.
Not only does Genesis seem to touch science at the points you stated, but we LDS have increasingly sophisticated creation narratives written as Joseph's own views increased in sophistication. Roughly, I see the movement from more shadow to less as Genesis to Moses to the Endowment to Abraham. I imagine that more revelation would tend to go even farther in this direction, rather than reverting to more purely symbolic and simplistic notions. By the time we get to Abraham we have statements like (not quoting) 'the Gods watched until they saw that they were obeyed', and 'the Spirit brooded over the face of the water.' ~
"But alas, I will repent and go back to stickig to that which is less speculative."
Absolutely. Why ask any questions at all? We know that God is a hard man, reaping where He didn't sow, etc. Wouldn't want to lose our talent. ;>
S. Faux: with what do you reject the null hypothesis with? Again, the question that has gone unanswered twice: What did God do in the Creation of the Universe or Human beings? What support do you have to support your "God Hypothesis" with?
I'm not saying that scientists cannot simultaneously believe in a Creator God. I'm sure you are a good scientist, as well as a good Mormon. But that does not answer my question. If you have found a way to quiet the cognitive dissonance, and perform your mental gymnastics, by juxtaposing your faith and your science, then what is it?
Next, how am I ill informed about theology? How am I dangerous? Ad-hominem attacks are a cheap trick of the apologists. You can do better than that.
Joseph Smidt - I've read the King Follet discourse many times. That is where my questions of a past human God came from. One more atavistic feature of humans that I have a hard time accepting God having - is hair. We are the hairless primate. We have hair on our heads (and on our bodies) as a mostly left-over feature from our past hairy cousins. Yet, apparently God has it - according to Joseph Smith's descriptions of Him. In addition to atavistic hair, does God also share 99% of His DNA with chimpanzees?
" as Joseph's own views increased in sophistication. "
And that's too be expected since this is a living church and Joseph's understanding was increasing. It would be wise for all of us to take the time to take note of how Joseph's knowledge of God was increasing. (And you will find he was indeed moving away from the traditional supernatural Christian God.)
That said, I stick by me original claim (before I went off on my own speculative tangents) that these things about creation, the fall, the atonement and the nature of God are some of the deepest mysteries of the eternities. Mysteries such that God will require us to study out everything in science, religion, philosophy, etc... with real intent and then go to the temple with the understanding that, after sacrificing *many* days, the temple is the place ordained for the deepest mysteries on these subjects to be revealed.
"It would be wise for all of us to take the time to take note of how Joseph's knowledge of God was increasing." Hmmm. Couldn't he also just have been expanding and reinventing His original story through his own rich imagination - all by natural means - without the need to invoke a miracle/revelations? Isn't that more likely than God revealing the "fullness of truth" in a piecemeal fashion to an imaginative youth caught up in the Second Great-Awakening?
If you don't have to invoke a miracle to explain something, then why do it? This is also the key to the Creation conundrum. Why invent a God to do the creating when it can be done by natural means? That's weak theology, and bad science too.
JoshuaPackard:
First, no insult was intended toward you or to anyone. My comment was directed to Dawkins who has done not much more than attack primitive stereotypes of God while knocking over straw men.
Second, there is no definition of God that I can give that will satisfy you. But, maybe I can give a sense of why naturalism has limits.
Much as Godel's theorem argues, I don't think there are any mathematical or scientific propositions that can rule out all possibilities. There are always gaps.
For example, maybe all existence is nothing but a matrix in the mind of God. Maybe, we are all fabrications, but everything is orderly because, after all, nature is in the mind of God. This is not a testable concept (as of now), but as such it cannot be ruled out. What else cannot be ruled out? Notice, in this fictional example: no God = no universe.
All scientific systems must make reasonable suppositions. Fine. Such is the way it should be. Even so, there are always gaps. God exists in the gaps.
God is a concept of faith, not science. I do not teach God in my science courses.
No, I cannot tell you where God was standing during the Big Bang. But, I have no reason to believe God was buried.
The point of my essay was NOT to debate the existence of God. My point is that one can be a believer in God and still be a rigorous naturalist.
Even so, I am willing to grant some latitude to you on the issues you raise. But, don't expect dissertations from me in the comments section. I am lucky to get one essay posted per week these days.
"If you don't have to invoke a miracle to explain something, then why do it? "
Dude! No miracle is being invoked! I'm really surprised you can't see this.
Come back when you have a mature understanding of the kind of being that God is and stop knocking down the phony straw man God Dawkins picks on who doesn't exist.
1.) As the book of Abraham states, there is a wide variety of intelligences, which by the way is an established scientific *fact*! (For instance humans alone have a variation of intelligence among them.)
2.) Now, further as the Book of Abraham states, God is the most intelligent one of them all, and again this must exist by corollary to the above paragraph. Now, if you want to find the true character of tis Supreme Intelligence of the Universe/Multiverse/Whatever, I suggest you study things out with real intent and go to the temple. You just may be surprised and find He has many of the characteristics described in the scriptures.
Knocking down fake Gods doesn't prove *anything*, nor does it look like a very intelligent thing to do.
joshuapackard,
Furthermore, Henry Eyring, great scientist father of President Eyring, had one of the clearest quotes on this who issue. (Lightyears ahead of anything Dawkins has dreamed of, but Dawkins doesn't know a thing about the restoration does he. :))
The only issue I have with the quote is how much people underestimated the size fo the universe in Eyring's day. (And if inflation is correct which I am sure it is then he *really* underestimated the size of the universe/Multiverse) Here is the quote:
"It is natural for me to worship the Supreme Intelligence of the
universe. This Supreme Intelligence necessarily exists since the world
is full of unequally intelligent beings. Harlow Shapley estimates
there are some 10^20 suns having companion satellites analogous to our
earth. Most of these satellites are at such distances from their suns
that they are either too hot or too cold to support life as we know
it. Still others lack life giving water, while others lack the
necessary oxygen. However, after guessing that at least one in ever
10^12 of these planets should be uninhabitable, Professor Shapley is
left with at least 10^8, or 100,000,000 planets on which it is
reasonable to suppose that life could and does exist. (Harlow Shapley,
Of Stars and Men: Beacon Press, Beacon Hill, Boston, 1958; page 74 and
following.)
"It is accordingly natural to conclude that the universe is
flooded with intelligent begins and, presumably, always has been. Any
unfolding of intelligences that may eventuate on this earth only
repeats what has happened previously elsewhere. The biblical account
of an all-wise Providence shaping human destiny is a natural
expectation for me, and this belief is shared by a large fraction of
mankind." (Henry Eyring, Faith of a Scientist, p. 97.)
Come back when you can disprove this God's existence or show one shred of evidence why it is foolish to think such a being exists.
joshuapackard,
Sorry if my tone sounded abrasive. I have writing issues and it wasn't intentional.
S. Faux: the "God in the Gaps" argument has problems with it simply because science keeps explaining those gaps in natural ways. Then the gaps disappears and it seems God is left with nothing do. That is why I think it's dangerous to keep putting God in these gaps. Maybe we were wrong to assume God HAD to create us at all. Our creation myth fits nicely with all the other ancient creation myths that few people are still defending today. I wonder why we continue to insist on defending ours?
Joseph Smidt: It seems I touched a nerve with you. The miracles you reference are revelation (causing the expanding understanding of God by Joseph Smith) and Creation (if God was involved at any time, it is by definition miraculous, is it not?) You also tell me to come back when I have a "mature understanding" of God (I assume this means when I share the same understanding about God that you do? Do you think that maybe you sound just a little bit arrogant here? You have a mature understanding but I don't?
JoshuaPackard:
I am totally unopposed to science making the gaps smaller and smaller. I expect that it will. But, nonetheless, Godel's incompleteness theorem guarantees that there will be remaining questions.
For me, it is religion that lends a higher meaning to life. Science, as great as it is, can only teach me temporal purposes, not eternal ones.
Thanks for your thoughtful questions.
JoshuaPackard,
Thank you for your kind words. However, though it is flattering I do just want to state for the record that the definition of a "mature" understanding of God may not be my own.
But now that we are on the same page I just want to say that at testimony meeting today I was reminded the marvelous work and a wonder nature of this whole thing. Don't worry, not matter what happens this work will move forward and fill the whole Earth. When they killed Joseph the famous New York newspaper read "Thus Ends Mormonism". But since this work is greater than me of him or anyone else, it moves on. Truly: traitors and tyrants will fight him in vein. And so if we get this issue or that issue slightly wrong, it will all work itself out in the end.
I am grateful for your comments brother and have a good day.
One more comment, and I promise I'll stop. You have both been very patient with me barging in on your nice blog. I actually think you are both doing a good thing here - trying to bridge science and religion with a fairly "unscienced" and unwilling membership. I just read a good book called "Science vs. Religion" by Elaine Ecklund about how many scientists also share religious views. I'd recommend the book to both of you. I think it's compatible to bridge the two, but sometimes difficult. I especially think it's difficult in the LDS community because of our unique theology. You both have your work cut out for you. But even in the scientifically minded community, I think many questions and implications go unaddressed. Sorry if I pressed too hard on some of these issues.
To respond to your points:
S. Faux: Godel's theorem is valid and important. We (as scientists) always need to be looking for other explanations, since our's are sometimes incorrect. Science never definitively "proves" something. But it does answer some questions of what is probable. I would just say that I don't think a human bearded God (whether natural or supernatural) is very probable since there is no evidence whatsoever of His existence. Possible - yes. Probable - no.
I agree that having faith in this God is comforting to some people. Marx called religion the "opium of the masses" - meaning life is painful, and people sometimes needs real medicine (he was being empathetic to people who saw religion as soothing). I would say it's wishful thinking. I would further add that the picture of our cosmos being explained by science is full of wonder and amazement and mind-blowing realizations. These discoveries (all made by scientists mind you) is what I think is really amazing and fun to learn about. The temple ceremony, Genesis, Abraham is soporific and not quite as enlightening as what scientists are teaching about our origins - IMHO.
Joseph Smidt: I wouldn't be so confident in Mormonism's "manifest destiny" - filling the entire earth. Our growth rate has decreased of late, Mormons only compose 1.6% of the US population (the same % as atheists), the LDS growth rate in the US has stagnated recently due to competition from other churches, most conversions (80%) come from overseas - but only 1 in 4 remain active. You can say what you wish about our manifest destiny, but the numbers don't look all that great:
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Population_and_growth_rate
joshuapackard,
Thank you also for being patient with us. :) I appreciate the statistics as I think data is important. However, most scientists don't choose biased sources to glean data. :)
Biased nature of the website aside I'm sure there is some truth to it. A few things:
1. Though we believe the church will fill the whole earth, we also believe the saints will represent a population few in number comparatively. (This is scriptural.)
2. The work of filling the earth is definitely in full swing. For example, just a week or two ago China took a major step into allowing the church to be in China. That door will open the gospel to a *huge* number of people.
3. Many years ago President Hinckley was asked interviewed about what he feared most and he said that the church would grow too quickly. Unfortunately I think that comment wasn't pulled out of thin are and in fact the growth was happening a little quicker then we were prepared for. Hence things like a bad retention rate.
4. Because of #3, I've heard many recent returned missionaries from foreign countries tell me they were trained to not baptize people unless they were really really solid, and so that was a major reason why numbers were slowing down. So, the "slowing" has a lot to do with the missionaries being more carful determining who is to be baptized.
5. But excuses asaide, the real reason I am not worried is I have a strong testimony of this work. (And we have a rich history of all people predicting Mormonism is coming to an end being wrong. :))
As for science and religion: There is no issue here. It's true many people want to cling to *traditional* religious ideas and reject science or embrace science and reject religion as if it is all these *traditional* ideas. I think Joseph gave us a much different picture of God and the Gospel than comes from traditional Christianity. A Gospel that not only is compatible with science, but compliments it nicely.
joshuapackard ,
Bye the way, I think a better metric to watch than any dealing with the health of the church is the number of temples. This is because this number is correlated with how many members are "devote". I mean, if we have 5 new stakes created and nobody is attending the temple I think there is a major problem as it would imply the devoutness is lacking.
Now this is a difficult number to track since we just went through an explosion of small temples being built as the church transitioned to building small temples in terms of large ones. But once this transition is complete, the number of operating temples to me is the more important number. If we have a church with 500 million members and nobody attends the temple, we have a major problem.
(In fact, Elder Nelson told mision presidents the most important that will say if their missions were successful is not how mant convert baptisms they get but what percentage of the missionaries children would be married in the temple. Something to think about.)
JoshuaPackard:
Yes, I own "Science vs. Religion" by Elaine Ecklund. In fact, I have cited her several times within "Mormon Insights" on several essays.
I am grateful for your reactions, in part because I am preparing a university course on the biology of religion. I plan for students to read "The God Delusion." I also recommend Matt Rossano: "Supernatural Selection: How Religion Evolved."
The literature on the topic is growing so fast that I am having trouble keeping up with it. For example, check out this site on the Evolution of Religion.
My point, however, is that the lawfulness of evolution does not eliminate God or theology. I like Rossano's approach. He says the issue of God is "irresolvable," and therefore we need to get past it. He seems to realize that study of the biological function of religion does NOT depend upon the reality or non-reality of deity. I agree.
S.Faux,
You have talked about this course before and I was wondering if you would be willing to post as a full post, or just a comment (or private email) your full syllabus for this class. I am highly interested in the material you cover as I have a strong belief you would be an awesome person to take such a class from.
The more we discard a need for a Creator in our observances in nature, the more atheistic we will become. There just isn't room for "nature" to explain our existance without God in the Christian belief system. Christianity relies on a "must" for a physical Creator bringing life into existance. To deny that or place the Creator out of his role, is, in my humble opinion, a defiance and rebellion against Christianity.
The "God delusion" by Dawkins is perhaps some of Satan's greatest works. And I am completely serious about that.
Rob Osborn
Joseph:
I would be happy to email you my syllabus when it is complete. I am still working on it. If you have some readings to suggest, I am very open. Just keep in mind that my students are non-LDS.
Rob:
I am NOT a fan of Dawkins' anti-religious philosophy either. But, I cannot be in the business of hiding from opponents. Academics is a battlefield for ideas. Unless we are willing to do battle, then the bad ideas truly do take over like weeds. Thus, I often teach the ideas of those I oppose, but I also try my best to counter.
I have tried hard to present a balance of ideas in my courses. University students are generally pretty good at doing their own sifting, good from bad. Such is the principle of agency, which I respect.
S. Faux,
I do not know all the goals and aims of the course, but if it is what I think it is I would include this on the syllabus: a list of books for recommended reading on the feelings on science and religion from members of the national academy of sciences.
I am the kind of person who thinks when somebody has been an amazing enough scientist to earn a place of membership on the National Academy of Sciences I automatically think their views deserve to be at least referenced to. For example:
1. The Language of God by Francis Collins.
2. Darwin's Gift: to Science and Religion by UC Irvine's own Francisco Ayala.
3. Etc...
I know many scientists have issues with these books, but like I've hinted at, these men have made contributions to science many of their naysayers could only dream of and so I believe their ideas deserve to at least be referenced to.
Plus it shows that people like Dawkins are countered, not only by crackpots, but by some of the greatest scientific minds walking the earth today.
SFaux,
Well, it looks like you've stirred up a spirited discussion. I think it is good to get interested members talking about these issues if they can disagree without being disagreeable. Way to go!
Viewpoints have been adequately represented, so I am just going to sit back and enjoy the ride...uh, I mean discussion.
joshuapackard said:
"Evolution is an unguided process. So how did the same exact result occur on the planet He comes from? Man was not inevitable from the outset. And does God really have a worthless appendix in him like we do? How about toenails - fairly worthless atavistic remnants of our more well-clawed ancestors? Really?"
Good questions that I don't think anybody has attempted to answer. As a believing Mormon evolutionist these are the questions that have me scratching my head at times. S.Faux and Joseph Smidt, any ideas? I suppose questions about internal organs and eternal purpose are impossible to answer, but speculations on what it means to be created in God's image are interesting to me. This post from SteveP was somewhat helpful:
http://bycommonconsent.com/2008/11/07/evolutionist-creationist-smackdown/
"does God really have a worthless appendix... Good questions that I don't think anybody has attempted to answer."
Wherein does "God made man in His image" mean He has an appendix?
1. Yes, just like all intelligent life we know has had to pass through evolutionary processes, I'm sure a Supreme Intelligence of the Universe/Multiverse will have had to as well.
2. The real question is will our species ever live in such a way that we will be able to enjoy the "Celestial" society He enjoys free of death, disease, war, poverty, etc... and ultimately live to have a fullness of Joy as He has.
3. Why this would cause you to think He has an appendix is beyond me.
4. All we know is somehow we are in His image and if we live correctly we will be able to one day inherit the blessings and "Eternal Life"-style He enjoys and if you and joshuapackard think this means He must have an appendix you are free to believe so. (But yes, it would be an evolutionary miracle.)
5. This is what I know: This church is the good ship Zion as Brigham used to say and those who are willing to stay on board will sail into Celestial waters and enjoy the same "Eternal Life" that the Supreme Intelligence in the universe enjoys.
6. Yes, it is that simple. But again, go to the temple.
Anonymous:
Thanks for the link to SteveP's article. He and I agree on most things related to evolution -- at least in a Bloggernacle context.
Natural selection is a non-random "designer." Very little about an organism is random. Nature may be a tinkerer, a compromiser, and sometimes a sloppy engineer, but the functional intricacy of organisms leads to solved problems of reproduction and survival.
Despite all the superficial differences among organisms, nature uses the same basic designs over and over again. Given certain kinds of environments, one should expect organisms with wings, or snouts, or tails, or backbones, etc. Natural selection works around randomness. The result is design.
Study "Galton machines." They illustrate how environments produce order out of randomness. To God, the universe is one big Galton machine. At the moment of the Big Bang, I suspect all was set. Life was going to happen.
S.Faux - thanks.
JS - I never said I thought He must have an appendix. And my questions don't trouble me. But given that the corporeal nature of God is one of the defining doctrines of Mormonism I think these questions are worth exploring. I suppose I take the experience of the prophets at face value when they talk of seeing God and describe him in human terms. That leads me to wonder about the eternal necessity and use of body parts and functions such as fingers, noses, hair, etc, (things that have been described by prophets who have seen God). That naturally leads to questions about internal unseen organs. Perhaps these are just vestiges of His mortal experience. But I tend to think they must serve some etrnal function. But I accept it is likely impossible to come to any kind of rational answer. And if I found out that God's corporeal reality is beyond human comprehension and the prophets have merely seen Him in vision, I'm also fine with that. I was only asking for your thoughts.
Anonymous,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and I appreciate them. Yes, it is worth exploring many ideas. One day we will know for sure. :)
To clarify - I just cut and paste a whole section from one of joshua's comments. I don't actually think whether God has an appendix is a good question. But I think it arises from a vision of God as described by Joseph Smith and the brother of Jared (to name just two) who appears to bare the hallmarks of organic evolution. I think that raises interesting questions about the eternal nature and function of ours and God's physical bodies. I'm likely viewing this a little two dimensional and was just interested in others' perspectives.
Anonymous,
Yes, thank you and I apologize if I puts thoughts in your mouth or was unhelpful. (I promise I am trying to work on that.)
Yes, those are my thoughts. God is not a supernatural being but has had to go through and overcome the same processes we have had to and was intelligent enough to work out His own salvation and come to inherit eternal life. (Which is part of the great secret Joseph refereed to in the King Follet Disourse.)
He now "desires all to receive" and so we should "all arise" and walk down the paths He walked and work out or own salvation as He did so that we may one day obtain Eternal Life. (Or as McConkie would define at this point as the life in which God has the pleasure of enjoying.)
P. Faux: I don't know of Galton's bean machines, which he used to demonstrate ideas about probability and the bell-shaped curve, apply to the evolution of God and man. Evolution doesn't converge towards a human sort of species - but instead diverges to give us the vast variety of all animal, plant, and cellular life on our planet.
The evolution of humans was determined by an immensely large number of random events. These random events include a nearly infinite number of genetic mutations which then interacted in a comparably infinite number of environments and external pressures that "selected" the best phenotypes. The winning genes survived while those unable to reproduce themselves did not. Do we suppose that God's evolution followed an identical evolutionary tree as our own?
The only reason that humans came to be the only truly intelligent species on the planet, capable of pondering their own origins, was that a huge meteor crashed into earth 65 million years ago and destroyed nearly all life on the earth, including the dinosaurs. Had it not been for this random event, dinosaurs likely would have kept on being the dominant animals life forms within the various niches on the planet, and mammals would have been relegated to small rodent like creatures - probably until now. Did a similar meteor hit God's home planet too?
Humans demonstrate our evolutionary past in all of our external and internal characteristics. Consider our homologous limb and facial structure. The fact that nearly all animals share homologous facial features (two eyes, two nostrils, two ears, and a mouth - all adding up to a face) signifies that we all had a common ancestor in our remote past who had two eyes, two nostrils, two ears, and a mouth. This is why it's always strange when pictures and movies show aliens with faces similar to ours. They did not share a common ancestor with us, so why do they share a face that we recognize as such? The same goes with homologous limb structures present in everything from bats to whales to primates and humans. God didn't share a common ancestor with us, so why does he apparently have the same limb structure as we do?
I think this is the most difficult thing to explain about a human, natural God. How did he evolve to be human like us, when the events that led to our features are unique to our earth?
JoshuaPackard:
You are writing to someone who has NOT seen the face of God. Therefore, I am not qualified to do a comparative anatomy.
But, yes, order does come out of randomness, and environments do matter. The Galton machine illustrates those facts.
The designs of organisms solve environmental problems associated with survival and reproduction. There are only so many possible solutions. Thus, it is not surprising to see nature come up with the same basic designs over and over again.
True, ancestry matters, but not always. Convergent evolution illustrates how non-related lineages often come up with similar designs.
I think it is presumptuous to assume that intelligent creatures are mere serendipity due to dinosaur extinction. Intelligence lends considerable advantages, and I would contend that land vertebrates would eventually fill the niche of high IQ.
Good questions. This is the best I can do for now. I have late meetings to attend. Bye.
That's a fair scientific view. Convergent evolution is obviously a fact (ie. sharks and dolphins share similar adaptive features). Yet convergent evolution can't recreate the same species from divergent evolutionary lines. Haven't LDS leaders said that we are the same species as God is? Saying that we are "created in His image", or that Jesus (who was a human) is "the very likeness of the Father" come to mind as examples. Maybe they haven't gotten that specific. But it seems from the descriptions in scripture, from people who HAVE claimed to see the face of God, that He is in every essence, a "perfect exalted man". Or to quote the KIng Follet discourse: "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!"
joshuapackard,
Actually, if M-Theory is true which Hawking is arguing is an attempt to get rid of the need for God, the human species will be recreated in countless varieties.
So, by Hawking's own pet theory (by the way I like M-Theory too and unlike most people you will meet in real life, I have written journal articles referencing string theory. :)) humans are created in every possible way. (Meaning things like in some pocket universes for instance you have brown hair and in other blond etc... )
So, here is the reality:
1. Theories like M-Theory, *or any other known quantum gravity theory* which produce universes "naturally", will produce the human species countless numbers of time in every possible way. Do the math, this is real.
2. If it is mathematically possible *at all* for a human like species to become so intelligent as to cure all sickness, overcome death, end poverty, understand the universe to control it in ways that dwarf our own understanding, such a species will be eventually created just as naturally as anything else.
3. The LDS God is created naturally by the types of theories Hawking and others like to contemplate.
4. In fact, it is only the LDS God that is produced as a God. (Which makes sense since there is only one true gospel.)
So you can't have it both ways:
So, a human looking, "I've even got a human appendix" type human species will be eventually created in every imaginable way given enough time. And unless you can show it is mathematically impossible for one to eventually become like the Mormon God, He becomes produced naturally.
So what exactly is the problem joshuapackard ? You either reject quantum gravity theories because you don't like these above features and fall back on a single universe that appears to be magically fine-tuned for human existence with no reasonable explanation. Or you get a multiverse where the human-like species is created an enumerable number of times in every variety.
And so what do you prefer? And if you don't like either scenario can you point to a single physical theory in the literature where one of the two scenarios don't hold? Either the initial conditions are fine tuned by hand or an infinite number of universes identical to our own are produced?
So if you are unhappy unless God has an appendix and the right finger structure, be happy joshuapackard, you get Him. You eventually get Him as naturally as anything else.
Unless again you reject quantum gravity. But then don't use it to explain the natural existence of the universe like Hawking does. In fact, without quantum gravity I don't think there is a single scientist who can explain why our universe should be created naturally.
Actually, the need for quantum gravity is too strong. All you need is inflation which has a *ton* of experimental evidence. Read any modern cosmology textbook on inflation, and infinite number of pocket universes just like our own are created with an eventual reproduction of a human -like species again and again.
If you need a basic textbook on inflation let me know.
Wow Joseph Smidt just laid an intellectual smackdown. Please respond joshuapackard if you can. What he says makes sense because if our universe comes about from nothing automatically what prevents it coming forth automatically again and again and again. If it came once on its own why wouldn't it come again? This seems to obliterate the idea that humans should only be created once. Or are you going to attack modern science as soon as you see it doesn't support your conclusion.
Danny,
Thanks. Just one thing: the universe doesn't spring into existence from nothing, it comes from quantum fluctuations. (It then becomes an interesting question to ask where these quantum fluctuations come from that just seem to exist with no explanation :))
Ans even without quantum gravity I would like to repeat that inflation alone creates an enumerable number of universes like our own eventually. So you don't even need something as strong as quantum gravity.
joshuapackard,
Thank you for your thoughts. And thank you for making this blog post comment section so interesting.
You bring up good points about the falsibility of string theory etc... In the real world this actually has many physicist a little worried because one thing we have learned from string theory is to incorporate all known laws of physics into a single theory it starts looking like you have to cook up a monster which becomes very hard to falsify.
This has led Hawking to write in his new book "People are still trying to decipher the nature of M-theory, but that may not be possible. It could be that the physicist’s traditional expectation of a single theory of nature is untenable, and there exists no single formulation. It might be that to describe the universe, we have to employ different theories in different situations"
But whether you have M-theory, inflation, whatever I and many others see a pattern. A pattern where eventually our universe gets created. But inaddition you get a whole lot more.
As I look at these theories I can't but help to see myriad's of universes just like our own created. To me this sounds a lot like the Book of Abraham where worlds without number are created with a wide variety of intelligent life.
Now, I can't prove it's true but I do believe it is possible and in line with Joseph's teachings so, even though we may differ, at least you know where I am coming from.
Now you should read The Elegant Universe. It is a good book.
Inflation will *cause* multiple Universes? So there is experimental data supporting inflation and inflation results in multiple Universes? Does this mean by inference there *are* multiple Universes? I thought this was something that was allowed by our understanding of physics and predicted by M-theory (which itself has little direct evidence?), but didn't have any evidence, inferred or otherwise, other than theoretical support.
So you're saying, as a physicist, that there *are* enumerable Universes? There *probably* are?
I've always used a multiverse as an example of how physics can allow for something theoretically but we have no actual evidence for it. I use this to distinguish what we think we know (supported by experimental evidence) and what we think we don't know (pie in the sky theory). Do I need to find another example? Have I been wrong?!?!?!? =:)
Stan,
Good questions. I blogged about this issue here, but I will summarize:
1. Cosmic inflation was proposed as a way to explain why the universe was so homogeneous and isotropic when, for various reasons, this at the time seemed to violate relativity.
2. Several predictions came from this one idea *that were not known at the time*: the universe must be flat, there should be density perturbations in causing the CMB to have anisotropies at on the order of one part in 10^5, the spectral index of the CMB should be nearly scale invariant with a slight red tilt, the density perturbations should be Gaussian, the density perturbations should be adiabatic and there should be peaks in troughs in exact positions in the TT, TE and BB modes of the CMB power spectrum and that there should be B modes produced by gravity waves. (Sorry for all the technical jargon but my point is to illustrate *many* predictions come from inflation.)
3. *Every single prediction* has been verified and Nobel Prizes have been handed out with the one exception: we are still trying to detect B modes from gravity waves. (But this isn't surprising as gravity waves are *really* hard to detect.)
4. But there is one more prediction from all inflationary theories that isn't discussed as much because people don't know what to make of it. (Though they are finding a use for explaining how universes spring into existence.) The prediction is once inflation starts it creates an innumerable number of pocket universes in its wake. Now that this prediction has been around for decades and seems to not go away no matter how hard physicists try, many now take this to be a robust feature of inflation.
5. However, it is debatable whether we can ever verify #4 for reasons I don't want to go into. Suffice it to say it a prediction as much as any other prediction, so you have to ask: What do you do with a theory that makes both testable and untestable predictions see that all the testable predictions are verified with flying colors?
My personal opinion is that if all the predictions that you can measure are verified perfectly then I think it is a good idea to assume the unstable predictions are also probably true. They may not be, but to me it is odd a theory is correct in every measurable way but in the one way it isn't is the one and only place it fails.
By the way, some people think we can test for the existence of a multiverse spring from inflation but I will admit nobody knows for sure.
I had no idea that inflation did or could do that. So with each Universe in a multiverse having different properties, having one with fine tuned properties to support matter and life, like ours, truly is statistically inevitable and not just a theory put forth to explain our random existence without a creator?
I'm reading Hawkins' book (on Chapter 1) and I'm sure he'll say something about this. Though at only 112 pages, I don't know how much he can say.
Sorry. I think I've hijacked this tired thread. At least I didn't join in earlier and begin to fling feces like I usually do. =:)
" truly is statistically inevitable and not just a theory put forth to explain our random existence without a creator? "
Of these theories are correct, yes, it is statistically inevitable. Universes spring naturally from quantum fluctuations and eventually, like rolling the dice, you get what is needed for our existence.
But like I said earlier: where do the quantum fluctuations come from? And even more importantly from my belief perspective: in addition to our earth, you get so many potential earths with every variety of intelligent life that the Supreme Intelligence of this "multiverse" probably surpasses all understanding indeed. It gives new meaning to phrases like "worlds without number" or "there is no end to matter, there is no end to space" or etc...
But again, I think these mysteries can only be fully understood through temple attendance. Just a suggestion...
My previous post keeps disappearing. I'll try one more time and if it disappears, I'll assume it's being deleted :(
You seem to present two choices: (1) either a fine-tuned universe created by a Divine Knob-Turner of sorts, manipulating the natural laws of the universe so that conditions are "just right" for our creation, or (2) infinite possibilities of outcomes via the multiverse theory. Right? I would say that's a false dichotomy.
Here's my problem with both those options. First, if there is a Celestial Knob-Turner that somehow explains the complexity of the universe we exist in, then who dialed in the knobs for the universe He lived in? How do you solve the problem of complexity or improbability by creating something even more improbable? You quickly get into an infinite regress that you can't solve without inventing God to do it. That argument doesn't work.
My problem with M-theory (I admit I don't know much about it) is that (1) it's not yet complete, (2) I don't think it implies that there has to be a God like human out there, and (3) it is a mathematical explanation to explain 1-dimensional slices of a 2-dimensional membrane vibrating in 11-dimensional space. However we are incapable of observing any other dimension other than the 4 we live in (height, width, length, and time). And because we can't observe any higher dimensions, how can we make predictions and test these in the laboratory? We can't. So is M-theory (M standing for membrane, magic, or mystery) science or faith? Maybe the math works out, but if you can't make predictions with it, or gather observable data, then how can you confirm it or falsify it?
I don't think you can falsify it - which is a hallmark of any scientific theory. I might as well speculate (via the multiverse theory) that if every possibility exists out in the universe, that God is not a human-type God, but rather more like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or maybe unicorns really do exist in another universe. Maybe fairies. You can't prove it's false can you? Well, then you can't prove my Flying Spaghetti Monster God false either.
So, sure - if the multiverse theory is true, then perhaps God is just as JS claims He is. But just because you can't prove something false, doesn't mean he necessarily exists either.
OK, now this is a new comment. Joseph Smidt: "But like I said earlier: where do the quantum fluctuations come from?"
I don't know. How did the Big Bang go Bang? What happened before the Big Bang? What's north of the north pole?
There are many mysteries in science, many gaps in our knowledge. But creating a God in these gaps to solve them - actually solves nothing. If you say that God caused quantum fluctuations, then who caused God? Try to answer this without getting into an infinite regress. One mystery does not explain another. If we can assume that God springs into existence, then why not assume the universe can as well?
"But creating a God in these gaps to solve them - actually solves nothing."
I'm very confused why you keep bringing this up. Can you point to one spot where I said since science doesn't know where quantum fluctuations come from and therefore we must create a God?
It's like you have a complex where if somebody points out the current limits of scientific knowledge you immediacy assume they are trying to create a God to fill in gaps. Guess what, honest scientists are honest about the current state of science. This doesn't mean they have a secret agenda to create a god of the gaps. (And if I was a psychologist I think I would conclude creating such gods is something you are prone to do and through projection assume everyone else must be like you.)
I've said repeatedly in this thread God isan't some miraculous god of the gaps type supernatural creature. You can decide for yourself how many times this must be said before this sinks in.
Anyways, I will let you and Dawkins invent fairytales to knock down with the further assumption that somehow those who know God must believe in this fairytale.
Now, I don't mean to be mean, I really don't. I just find it odd you come on a blog post attacking a God who doesn't exists as if this is helpful. I would think a better use of your time would be to learn the true nature of God, then you will have something interesting to contemplate.
One last time joshuapackard: repeat after me: there is no God of the gaps, there is no god of the gaps, there is no god of the gaps.
Okay, we will see if you keep bringing this up or not.
Bye the way, we know where the big bang came from: the inflation found it sill in a flat potential creating an expansion and then at the end of inflation the inflation decayed into the standard model particles heating up the universe in a process called reheating.
See joshuapackard, no god of the gaps needed. :) I think its time to move on to another God to spend all your time thinking about.
As Henry Eyring points out: a "Supreme Intelligence necessarily exists" in the universe/multiverse as a *scientific fact*. I'll let you decide whatever you want about this Being or how much you should or should not have faith in Him. What to do about the Supreme Intelligent Being of the universe would be a much more interesting conversation because we are actually talking about something that exists.
But at this point assuming you need to start being infatuated with a god of the gaps seems to me pointless.
I'll ignore your firey tone and personal accusations about my "complex" "fairytale" or my psychologic "projections". I can almost see your red-face and bulging neck veins when I read your posts :)
When you say "where do the quantum fluctuations come from?" and later you say "I think these mysteries can only be fully understood through temple attendance" (where God is portrayed as the Creator) - sorry, but it seems that you believe in a Creator God. Is that not the case? Do you think our universes spring naturally from quantum fluctuations without invoking a God to do it? It that's the case, then we are finally in agreement about a spontaneously arising universe (no God's required).
If not, then my previous question stands: If God created the universe (by whatever means) then what caused God? And if He doesn't need a cause, then why not just assume the universe doesn't either? It's just a simple question (which you haven't answered yet). Don't take such offense.
Nice try joshuapackard , :)
" Do you think our universes spring naturally from quantum fluctuations "
You know very well I have answered this exact question several times, whether it is me telling you quote "any other known quantum gravity theory* which produce universes "naturally"" or telling Stan "Universes spring naturally from quantum fluctuations and eventually, like rolling the dice, you get what is needed for our existence."
So how in the world is this still a question in your mind?
This appears to be is a classic case of obsession. You found a way to ask the same question *yet again* implicitly relating to a fairytale god of the gaps as if it has not been answered.
And I stand by my quote that the temple is needed to understand the mysteries of God and it is not my fault if you think the Mysteries of God are limited to questions that can be answered by basic science.
"then what caused God? "
Your in a biology field, what caused us? Where do dogs come from? Where do cats and trees come from? Where does all intelligent life come from? It's not that hard man.
So, try for the nth time to understand: no god of the gaps. (Without now trying to find a clever way to ask yet the same question.)
Well, then we're in agreement! Agreed: God had nothing to do with our creation. Our universe and all life in it arose spontaneously, without divine interevention.
That seems like a fairly nontraditional LDS view to take though. And why would the temple shed any light on this if it happened according to fundmental laws of nature that science is currently unfoldling? Joseph Smith borrowed HEAVILY from the Freemasons ceremony,of which Joseph, his family, and most men of Naovoo were intimately familiar with.
correction: Nauvoo
joshuapackard,
Good, I'm glad we are in agreement.
"That seems like a fairly nontraditional LDS view to take though."
I don't now why that would be, it is the view Joseph Smith taught.
"I am going to tell you how God *came* to be God. We have *imagined* and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see... you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves... by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one" (emphasis added.)
It's pretty hard for an intelligent being to learn to become like God if there was no universe for Him to exist in. He has had to become the Supreme Intelligence the same way all intelligent life have to grow. It seems plain to me.
But I'm not going to comment on this specific issue any further as it really is reserved for the temple and at some point you step into the realm of sacred.
" And why would the temple shed any light on this"
In the immortal words of Smashmouth: "You'll never know if you don't go".
I've been hundreds of times. I still don't know what you claim too. And after sharing my "non-mainline" religiouis opinions with my Stake President, he took away my recommend. So I won't be going any time soon. I still have it mostly memorized though. But power to you if you got something out of it that I didn't.
that second sentence should read: "I still don't know what you claim to know." I should re-read before posting.
joshuapackard,
"And after sharing my "non-mainline" religiouis opinions with my Stake President, he took away my recommend."
Well, this suggests to me you are very honest as it is very hard for many people to admit when they don't have a testimony of something for fear of being labeled as un-righteous or an apostate by your fellow brethren.
But best of luck to you joshuapackard. If nothing else just keeping working hard at being a good scientist as all uncovered light and knowledge can only progress the Kingdom of God. (By definition as the glory of God is Intelligence or in other words light and truth.) It is therefore impossible to go wrong.
Thanks for the back-and-forth Joseph Smidt. It's been mentally stimulating. Good luck in your career as well. I'm not sure if I agree that "all uncovered light and truth can only benefit the Kingdom of God." Rather, it seems that religion has to keep changing and reinventing their beliefs after the light of science shines on it(maybe this is what you mean by "benefit" though. But I appreciate the gesture. I also appreciate your views about the origin of the universe. I found them very interesting. I think that eventually, religion may need to separate their belief in God from their belief in God as their Creator. You seem to have done that and yet kept your faith in Him somehow. Best wishes to you.
joshuapackard,
Thank you for the back and forth as well too and especially your patience.
"that religion has to keep changing ... maybe this is what you mean by "benefit" though."
In some cases yes, for instance it has been very important to get rid of the idea that the Sun orbits the earth that many religious people held or that evolution is 100% wrong a view that still others continue have for instance. line upon line, precept upon precept.
I APPRECIATE all the comments, pro & con. It was a great discussion.
But, I think everyone has had a chance to make their say, especially after there has been over 80 comments.
I am still convinced that we believers can be hard scientists as much as anyone. Where we attend worship services on Saturday or Sunday does not affect (or should not affect) our scientific publications.
To me, nature & God are consistent ideas. They are both lawful and inherently knowable, even if some gaps exist in our knowledge.
Not all LDS are pro-science. I have a hard time understanding that position. Some evolutionists attack religion. I am even more disturbed by this.
In a few days I hope to have a guest post from a Native American, who will discuss many of these issues from an alternate perspective. You can always beat up on me (because I deserve it most of the time), but please be extra respectful to my guests.
Post a Comment