Can the universe (and everything in it) evolve and develop naturalistically but still have deep purpose and meaning? In a naturalistic universe, what is the role of God? The "new atheists" would argue that modern science teaches us that the role of nature is so complete that there is nothing left for God to do. But, what if nature is what God does?
What if God has placed nature in a sphere to act for itself (cf. D&C 93:30)? What if God acted upon uncreated elements, organized them, and then watched over them (see: Abraham 3:17-22; 4:18). Maybe God's role is obscured by nature because nature is God's product.
LDS scripture appears to describe a God that is above nature and works through nature. If this is the case, then why should Latter-day Saints ever be bothered by repeatedly validated principles of science, even evolution? Why should we ever limit God by assuming his works can be manifest only by direct intervention and invasion?
Currently, there are no effective arguments from nature that clearly demonstrate the existence of God.
William Paley's argument from design was annihilated by Charles Darwin. The argument from irreducible complexity (often based in the anatomy of the eye or some complicated protein) has repeatedly fallen short. In the last few years, a relatively new argument has been constructed: the Anthropic Cosmological Principle. It too has weaknesses.
Daniel Peterson recently employed the Anthropic Principle in a Mormon Times essay entitled "Science shows divine nature of creation." The argument boiled down to this: the physical constants of the universe appear to be finely tuned to allow for the possibility of life as we know it. But, this proclamation begs the question whether there could have been a natural selection of universes? Perhaps many universes have existed (multiverses) with differing physical characteristics, such that life could never be supported in the vast majority. If billions of universes have been created in the past or roughly at the same time as our own, then perhaps our universe is simply the one that won the lottery. Maybe the unusual design of our universe is not the product of a singular creation process. – a one-time Big Bang. Maybe our universe was the outlier, the rare exception of the many creations that could not support living beings.
Should we jump to the conclusion then that the "multiverse" theory is against the gospel? Heavens, no [pun intended].
Notice how the following verses almost sound identical to multiverse theory:
Moses 1: 35-38 [emphasis mine]
35 … For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.
36And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: … tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.
37And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.
38And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.
I love the phrase in v. 35 that says, "all things are numbered unto me." My image of God is that of a scientist who cares about numbers, weights, and measures. The apocryphal work known as the Book of Wisdom 11:21 so much as says: sed omnia mensura et numero et pondere disposuisti, which can be translated as "but thou [God] hast arranged all things in measure, number, and weight."
I think it is a mistake for Latter-day Saints to have preconceptions about how nature should be ordered and arranged. Preconceptions in science have a notoriously bad reputation of leading investigators astray. If we seek truth as it is found in nature, then we are promised:
Moses 6:63 [emphasis mine]
63 … all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.
The verse above is not necessarily a statement of "design." Instead, I think it is stating that God can be found in BOTH science and religion. The verse reflects a broad principle: Nature is orderly because God is orderly. Nature is lawful because God is lawful. But, I think we can only carry this analogy so far. We cannot say nature is cruel because God is cruel. We need to remember that we live in a universe that has fallen well short of the ideals of God's station in heaven.
The Book of Moses reminds us of the following:
Moses 6:48
48 … Because that Adam fell, we are; and by his fall came death; and we are made partakers of misery and woe.
This cited verse is an ancient explanation for why there is death, evil and pain in the universe. The ancient scriptures well recognized that this earth encompassed shortcomings not found in perfected states of existence.
I continue to believe that my life can be enriched by science and religion. For me, there is no fundamental disharmony, even if there is a little bit of noise in the background. I am attracted to the notion of a God who likes measures, numbers and weights.
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.
4 comments:
I agree that preconception is a dangerous thing, as a scientist and devote follower of my religion. I think we should continually question - taking a hard rational look at our held beliefs in the search of truth. As Joseph Smith said, "by proving contraries the truth is made manifest."
Though, I do think that it is a streatch that those scriptures you quote somehome support the multiple universes theory. That God is scientific? Yes.
Thanks, Matt, for your comment. But, I must admit, Moses 1: 35-38 still sounds very multiverse to me.
I think it is difficult to use scripture to support modern scientific theories because of the limited vocabulary available to the individual receiving the scripture.
Joseph received the book of Moses as revelation, which, I believe, means that God communicated the content to him according to his ability to comprehend. I see this as like explaining a complex scientific idea to a child who has no scientific vocabulary.
When Abraham saw the sun, he describes what sounds very much like fusion... but since atoms aren't a concept familiar to him he describes it the best he can.
So what happens when God communicates to Joseph Smith what he communicated to Moses? I think the result is that the general message gets through, but what Moses means by "worlds" or what God means by "worlds" as he speaks to Moses or as he repeats to Joseph Smith in English what he spake to Moses in Hebrew... I think the details are lost because we aren't Moses with his background and vocabulary.
In that context, what "world" means or what it means "to be numbered" or to be "numberless" is muddled. Sure, we could take those words to mean what they do in our modern English and then suppose that they sound multiverse... but they could just as easily support a different scientific theory.
Oh, and one final thing. This is one of the finest blogs I have come across. I am not trying to get into a battle of wits here, just putting in my 2 cents.
Matt:
Your comment is very wise. It is pure trouble to try to make scientific interpretations from scripture. Plus, you are correct that scriptural wording could have a wide variety of meanings. But, in a way, that is my point. Why should we LDS come to believe that our theology is incompatible with particular scientific views? Our scriptures have a lot of latitude and flexibility.
Post a Comment