Fair warning: I’m a scientist

[Anonymous]

What branch of science are you in?

I have heard one scientist say science is the how and religion the why. What do you think of that?

[Anonymous]

science_saint wrote:

– Seriously messed-up scriptures and stories

Hi, science_saint – I’m glad you’re here. A whole new world has opened up now that I’ve bought some study Bibles. It’s comforting to see how others have grappled with the Old Testament, for instance. And they’ve been at it a long time. I’m also really enjoying Mormon Sunday School podcasts because he (Jared Anderson) has long lists of recommended reading, lots of links, etc. There’s also a book on the O.T. from a scholarly LDS perspective by David Bokovoy coming out soon. I don’t really have the background to judge either of these scholar’s efforts, but all I know is that Sunday School isn’t cutting it for me anymore.

Good luck with all your questions. And being on the same page with your wife is a blessing, I’d say.

[Anonymous]

WOW! I am so excited to have gotten so much support. I’m not one for participating terribly regularly in online forums, I’ve had my nose in books and journal articles too much over the past decade post-mission.

If I flub a bit in forum etiquette, I apologize ahead of time.

It feels so validating to find a community of individuals who find safety in the the Savior’s message while also remaining open to the possibility that other paths are possible.

To answer some of the questions:

SamBee wrote:

What branch of science are you in?

I am a neuroscientist, but have a background in molecular techniques and genetics.

Roy wrote:

“When science fails you, the solution is more science not less.”

Such a good quote. I feel, if nothing else, that Alma 32 largely redeems the Book of Mormon and that more formal training in the “how” of cultivating evidence-based testimonies would save our Church. It is so hard to push against the willful ignorance that plagues believers – Mormon or otherwise. I suppose the truth, given cognitive neuroscience and psychology, is that willful ignorance is a human trait, regardless of background.

DontKnow wrote:

Well, if it’s even possible for them to reconcile.

As I see it, the Church and Science are on two different trajectories: If no new knowledge comes to the Church, no progress, then the Church will only have a diluted portion of truth each successive generation. As with Science, no matter how little knowledge it begins with, it is always an upward path and if religion does not keep pace, science will ultimately discover the origin and mechanisms of morality and will engineer a higher morality than religion can even conceive. Ultimately, religion’s methods are in peril of failure without “grafting in” evidence on a continuous basis. I hope to be apart of the grafting crew.

Curtis wrote:

We need scientists to stay in the church and help educate our membership against the tide of stupidity that is flooding at them from secular sources (and older / former church leader quotes).

That’s a tall order, and requires a lot of participation and “thought sharing”. I wish I could effectively advocate for a forum – perhaps similar to the ARP – where members of all stripes could open a dialog on any topic under the sun, without fear of reprisals. Someday.

Forgotten_Charity wrote:

As an adult I rarely express different thoughts out loud because growing up I had various thoughts I expressed out loud that brought wrath and anger for asking and seeking questions like expressing different possibilities for things instead of staying inside the box.

There are some scholarly comparisons about atheism and/or freethought and “romantic rejection” that explain some of this. The basic concept is that believers espousing a view of God is like a friend trying to get you to go on a blind date with their friend (God). When you fail to find their description of their friend believable, you have not rejected their friend, merely their description of their friend. Free thinkers do not reject God, but rather the ideas other try to use to describe him. Even so, the same emotions as romantic rejection are experienced. A neat concept, especially since it reflects the notion that one’s perception of God comes the themselves, and so when their version of God is rejected, they feel rejected.

Forgotten_Charity wrote:

It’s out there for study. Now that’s its available we should and it is out obligation to take it seriously and adjust accordingly and reevaluate some of them. Not just in the church but in the nations and businesses and military in general.

Yes! This is the point – there’s no secret devilish plot here. It’s all out in the open (unlike some of our teachings) and anyone can use their own hands/minds to confirm or reject the data. There’s no need to fear it, it’s just knowledge.

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

have heard one scientist say science is the how and religion the why. What do you think of that?

Science is just a word we’ve come up to describe systematic, (occasionally) quantitative, and experimental testing of the nature of reality. I think religion is supposed to be the same thing, even if the tools are currently different. If truth is all the same, regardless of source, then our exploration of what is true and real will eventually yield the same result. 2 = 2 and 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of whether Thomas S Monson, Jesus, Buddha, even Hitler says it. Just as righteousness is no guarantee of truthfulness, so immorality is no guarantee of falsehood. The key to truth is testing. This is why I like Alma 32 so much: even if you start out with a bad seed, testing will reveal it to be so.

Ann wrote:

And being on the same page with your wife is a blessing, I’d say.

Definitely helpful to have a safety net. We may not have much, but we’ve got each other and no doctrine or council can take that from us.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

I believe science has done more for the salvation of man than any one individual. Welcome!!!

That needs to be Doctrine. So very much.

[Anonymous]

I’m glad you came back. Would you care to share which GA talk, or at least the subject matter, you disagree with? I promise you won’t be attacked here, but I think if it’s such a strong disagreement that your calling or TR or whatever are in danger it’s probably worth discussing here – or perhaps in its own thread.

[Anonymous]

science_saint wrote:

I am a neuroscientist, but have a background in molecular techniques and genetics. … Ultimately, religion’s methods are in peril of failure without “grafting in” evidence on a continuous basis. I hope to be apart of the grafting crew. … there’s no secret devilish plot here. It’s all out in the open (unlike some of our teachings) and anyone can use their own hands/minds to confirm or reject the data. There’s no need to fear it, it’s just knowledge.

Neuroscientist! How exciting! I believe that your field is going to be one of the big areas of discovery in this century. So many thoughts are going through my mind, I don’t know where to start. I hesitate to share this in an open forum, since many people instinctively think of the crazies, but it will eventually come out anyway so what the heck … but I have experienced what the Church would call spiritual gifts or manifestations–and I’m not the only one, though mine are more obvious–and these phenomena are definitely neurological in nature. They have no parallel in the official LDS version of Joseph Smith’s spiritual experiences, but I also cannot find anything like it in the literature of psychology. Having a background in humanities, I am educated enough to be resourceful but have no technical background in understanding of the brain.

I remember so vividly that first week of April 2006 when I called a good friend who was a PhD candidate in biology. I remember driving in the rain to the apartment that he shared with his wife. We talked for at least an hour about what I had just experienced a few days earlier. He said he had read something about this kind of phenomenon as described in the literature of mysticism (he was real big on the study of mystical spirituality in history) but had never actually seen an example. He talked about branches of neurons long cut off, firing again. By this time in my life, I had deconstructed myth concepts, so I was comfortable with his non-theistic language.

Later I shared my biology friend’s insights with a TBM friend, who became very offended at the thought that there is an organic explanation. He said what I’d experienced was beamed into me from outside. I replied that that was not the case; it was not external. I remember my TBM friend said “no, that’s not true!” and began to cry. He knew me well and knew I wasn’t deluded, but he couldn’t take the idea that there wasn’t some kind of externality like the 1st Vision. I backed off rather than cause any psychological harm.

I have spent the last eight years struggling with what to do with this knowledge and the continued phenomena. No one is offended by its mere existence–everyone I have told believes it and is respectful. That’s not the problem. The problem is that we’ve been taught and had it drilled into us that we have to keep these things “sacred”. Which means bury them. That is not possible. If not me, someone else one day will experience these things clearly and distinctly enough to talk about them. At least I have a testimony of the Church and its unique role in the world. Another person might not be so loyal. But make no mistake about it, all these things will be studied and they will be made known through science.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I’m glad you came back. Would you care to share which GA talk, or at least the subject matter, you disagree with? I promise you won’t be attacked here, but I think if it’s such a strong disagreement that your calling or TR or whatever are in danger it’s probably worth discussing here – or perhaps in its own thread.

No problem; I have to begin by admitting that my mistake was to share with “friends” on Facebook what is probably reserved for Friends in private. That was my mistake and I’m willing to accept it.

I had read Elder Tad R Callister’s recent talk: The Lord’s Standard of Morality https://www.lds.org/liahona/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.lds.org/liahona/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng. I think it states pretty clearly the Church’s doctrinal stance on chastity, but it goes beyond that in stating that scientists and professionals have essentially no place in defining normative sexual standards or behaviors. Natasha Parker, Mormon sex therapist in the Salt Lake area thought as much and wrote a strongly worded review of the article: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2014/02/morality-we-can-do-much-better-than-this.html” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2014/02/morality-we-can-do-much-better-than-this.html, which I, in turn, shared. The Bishop claims that some parents of the youth (whom I am very close with) were concerned and they and he took umbrage with this article, along with some of my other intellectual posts.

I attempted to convince the Bishop that this did not constitute “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed”, he did not appear convinced. I later spoke with a friend who counseled me that the parents of the youth had a right to decide what their children were and were not exposed to and by whom, so I wrote back to the Bishop informing him that I would be more careful in the future. I also requested that per D&C 42:88, I be permitted to discuss such matters with the aggrieved parties and I am still awaiting his judgement.

Not sure where to cross-post this if it is necessary…

[Anonymous]

We have an active thread about that talk. Nobody here likes it. There are at least 10 serious problems with things he said, in my opinion. I’d rather listen to Pres. Packer talk about sexual matters than hear that one again.

Absolutely don’t let that talk get you in a bind. It actually caused a good firestorm in quite a few circles, and I would be shocked if the top leadership isn’t aware of the problems in it. I’m not happy he gave it, but I’m happy that it got as much backlash as it did.

[Anonymous]

convert1992 wrote:

The problem is that we’ve been taught and had it drilled into us that we have to keep these things “sacred”.

Not to go too far afield, though there is a rich literature describing natural explanations for *myriads* of miraculous experiences, I think the major flaw in our “sacred” thinking is that we fail to take joy in the “merely real“. We learn that a rainbow is the refraction of light through water vapor suspended in the air and become offended that reality is so simple. We read that weather patterns are becoming increasingly predictable (yes Meteorology has vastly improved since its inception as a field of study) and find ourselves incensed that Thor’s wrath is merely an algorithm worked out by electrons and current flows.

I’ll tell you what I find astonishing – that we have discovered the secrets to destructive power beyond what any scripture ascribes to God, the flood included. We have sufficient nuclear weaponry to cover the earth more or less in a blanket of fire, and we have developed the means to predictively communicate with near instantaneity at any distance with an image of ourselves (Skype). Tell me this is not “miraculous” or “sacred”.

So don’t be surprised if there is a naturalistic explanation for everything we hold sacred; doesn’t our cannon declare all things to be the same to God? That He sees no difference between material and spiritual? That there is no such thing as immaterial matter?

[Anonymous]

science_saint wrote:

Not to go too far afield, though there is a rich literature describing natural explanations for *myriads* of miraculous experiences … So don’t be surprised if there is a naturalistic explanation for everything we hold sacred …

I agree with you; there are no miracles in the sense that religious people often imagine. One of the huge problems with the Church today is that most TBMs in America are intellectually products of 20th century scientific civilization. They are often espousing traditional LDS myth while unknowingly applying 20th century skepticism. This is why there is a palpable difference between the way American TBMs talk about BOM/JS stories and the way African TBMs talk about the same thing.

If you can, I’d appreciate it if you can point me in the direction of some literature about these “miraculous experiences.” Some I already know about–like the white light that has been debunked as a near-death experience. I have read very good debunkings of UFO abductions and that sort of ilk. But that is not what I need to read about. The things that concern me are about consciousness or states of consciousness. There are other topics but we have to start somewhere. If you need me to be more specific, I can, I just don’t want to inadvertently attract the kinds of “kooks” that invariably take an interest in anything that sounds mystical or new agey (I’m sure Curtis would be really thrilled with me).

[Anonymous]

Thanks

for your excellent answers, Science Saint. I too would like to see

educated intelligent people stay in the church – it might steer us away

from excess!

Regarding neuroscience (not you in particular, but the field) – I am

ambivalent about it. (Someone mentioned its great potential above). It

is the perfect example of an area of science which could be used and

abused. I think it will be great when we can “undo” strokes, or prevent

them completely etc on the one hand, but in the abuse stakes I can see a

point in this century when we develop ways of reading thoughts or even

implanting them – that’s got to be ever the dream of every police

state/dictatorship around the world… a nightmare for dissidents.

By the way, I got to see Prof Michael Gazzanigga (sp?) give several lectures a few years ago, talking

about the brain and morality. Absolutely fascinating, and relevant to

religious questions. A charming man, and a good advocate of science.

[Anonymous]

science_saint wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

I’m glad you came back. Would you care to share which GA talk, or at least the subject matter, you disagree with? I promise you won’t be attacked here, but I think if it’s such a strong disagreement that your calling or TR or whatever are in danger it’s probably worth discussing here – or perhaps in its own thread.

No problem; I have to begin by admitting that my mistake was to share with “friends” on Facebook what is probably reserved for Friends in private. That was my mistake and I’m willing to accept it.

I had read Elder Tad R Callister’s recent talk: The Lord’s Standard of Morality https://www.lds.org/liahona/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.lds.org/liahona/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng. I think it states pretty clearly the Church’s doctrinal stance on chastity, but it goes beyond that in stating that scientists and professionals have essentially no place in defining normative sexual standards or behaviors. Natasha Parker, Mormon sex therapist in the Salt Lake area thought as much and wrote a strongly worded review of the article: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2014/02/morality-we-can-do-much-better-than-this.html” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2014/02/morality-we-can-do-much-better-than-this.html, which I, in turn, shared. The Bishop claims that some parents of the youth (whom I am very close with) were concerned and they and he took umbrage with this article, along with some of my other intellectual posts.

I attempted to convince the Bishop that this did not constitute “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed”, he did not appear convinced. I later spoke with a friend who counseled me that the parents of the youth had a right to decide what their children were and were not exposed to and by whom, so I wrote back to the Bishop informing him that I would be more careful in the future. I also requested that per D&C 42:88, I be permitted to discuss such matters with the aggrieved parties and I am still awaiting his judgement.

Not sure where to cross-post this if it is necessary…

As Curtis said, many people here (and not here) had a problem with that article. Here is a link to our thread if you haven’t read it: http://staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5192” class=”bbcode_url”>http://staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5192

I’ve run into that “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed” argument before as well, but I don’t put much stock in it, frankly, and I don’t see how disagreeing with someone is evil. If we follow that logic, Steve Young is therefore evil because he publicly disagrees with several members of the Q15. If he were evil and they thought he was apostate for disagreeing with them they would take action and they haven’t. On the other hand, we do have to be careful what we share and with whom.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I’ve run into that “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed” argument before as well, but I don’t put much stock in it, frankly, and I don’t see how disagreeing with someone is evil. If we follow that logic, Steve Young is therefore evil because he publicly disagrees with several members of the Q15. If he were evil and they thought he was apostate for disagreeing with them they would take action and they haven’t.

Disagreement is not the question, but how the matter is raised. If we are going to disagree, say on something like same-sex marriage, we have to do it in a way that doesn’t call out specific leaders. We have to simply state our position that we believe God is welcoming to all His children and that because they were created this way, we cannot deny them what is the basic and accepted right of everyone that is heterosexual. I have expressed that I don’t believe the prohibition is even supported in our scriptures. But, if I take a specific talk from one of the Church leaders, and renounce it as fear-mongering, close-minded and backward, then nobody will hear any further statement I make. Steve Young has done nothing to attack any particular Church leader, not that I’m aware of anyway.

Put another way, “Jane, you ignorant slut” is not a productive debate tactic.

[Anonymous]

Just so I understand what you’re trying to say, OON, are you saying that the Patheos article is evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed because it specifically points to and/or criticizes Elder Callister?

[Author]

Posts