Science and the Gospel

[Anonymous]

To be perfectly fair to science, I think the reverse direction also displays a strong trend. When we use religious sources to explain “the truth” of the natural world, we run into problems and tend to be disappointed in the long run. I am talking about the earth being 6,000 years old, a total earth flood happening during that period killing the dinosaurs, etc… That is how it is written in the Bible (or other holy book), so we have to cram the evidence into the container of scripture, somehow.

The matches seem to slip off track over time as one field of human knowledge and experience advances faster than the other.

[Anonymous]

Valoel wrote:

The matches seem to slip off track over time as one field of human knowledge and experience advances faster than the other.

Wow! So true!

Of course, it may be an inevitable trend as one side, by rule, seeks truth without claiming entrenched definitives and the other seeks to only defend entrenched definitives it claims is truth. Although, there has been dislocations in the “Gospel” model, in part attempting to re-direct more towards the “science” track when the gap in knowledge and experience becomes so glaringly large (Christ, St. Augustine, Prophet Mohammed, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith?, etc.).

Maybe that’s a reach, but those dislocations happen for a reason and that seems to be a logical conclusion. SSA is a great example of this right now. Human knowledge and experience has arrived on one side of the ledger and is waiting, not so patiently, for the other side to catch up.

Though the Episcopalians this week did catch up:

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50992

[Anonymous]

Valoel wrote:

To be perfectly fair to science, I think the reverse direction also displays a strong trend. When we use religious sources to explain “the truth” of the natural world, we run into problems and tend to be disappointed in the long run. I am talking about the earth being 6,000 years old, a total earth flood happening during that period killing the dinosaurs, etc… That is how it is written in the Bible (or other holy book), so we have to cram the evidence into the container of scripture, somehow.

Yeah, one problem in this area is that people often think that science will never touch some area previously only governed by religion, but then it does. Then heads roll, and observation meets prophecy. Observation generally wins (but usually after they excommunicate or behead the truth bearer).

My point is that it’s very hard to tell what science will discover. Right now we think science will never prove God’s existence (or lack thereof), or prove that man came from a single organism billions of years ago. And maybe that is the case. But I wouldn’t proclaim it too loudly, just like I won’t proclaim too loudly that there definitively is a God, or that man didn’t come from a single organism billions of years ago.

Valoel wrote:

The matches seem to slip off track over time as one field of human knowledge and experience advances faster than the other.

Now this statement really is intriguing to me. What do you mean when you say “advances faster than the other”? I read this as science has advanced faster than religion recently. If this is correct, then why is it advancing faster? Also why would religion be advancing more slowly. To me, this might have something to do with the mechanisms of determining their “truth.” That is to say, science relies upon being able to demonstrate in repeatable, reliable tests that some hypothesis is true. Everyone in science sort of just agrees to this mechanism. Hence the collective wisdom of science is aggregated. If another hypothesis comes along challenging the agreed upon truth, it better be able to better demonstrate that it is true. I don’t really see that there is such a mechanism in religion.

I suppose that within each religion there is a little more of this, but not in the general religion sense. What some prophet receives as “revelation” could totally contradict another’s, but who is to say which one is right? There is no way of demonstrating it, hence one hypothesis is as good as another. Take, for example, the nature of God and the Godhead. We often appeal to the scriptures, but they are full of seemingly contradictory statements on the issue. Within Mormonism it is slightly more clear as we have leaders to do our interpreting for us. This, however, does not represent the collective wisdom of the group. There is no mechanism for aggregating all the opinions of the church members.

Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Well, I can see the necessity of science advancing faster than religion. Here’s my theory:

There’s something in JS theology regarding the plan of our earth becoming exalted, like the sun and greater stars in the hierarchy of the heavens. It is said once this is achieved, Jesus will present the earth to God, the earth will become exalted and some type of crystallization will occur, making the earth a great urim and thummim and advancing in its planetary hierarchy. But in order for this all to happen, the temple work must be completed, which I guess means all earthly souls must be sealed and endowed ect….But this may also apply to knowledge, which Smith placed a great spiritual value on- souls being made of light/matter/pure knowledge. Following this idea, I can see that science is the brother of spiritual progression, and if mankind must continue to climb spiritually in God’s plan, so must we climb in our earthly knowledge. Science is playing catchup.

So maybe the 2nd coming occurs at a time when science is beginning to break through the veil, our knowledge of space is coming close to discovering the science of the soul, maybe we locate Kolob, and maybe this coincides with all the temple work coming to a close. Weird right?

[Anonymous]

http://mormonmatters.org/2009/07/15/church-doctrine-is-like-the-bloggernacle/

Quote:

I will compare this to doctrines which have been taught in the past and have now fallen out of favor, such as: “The planet Kolob is a planet close to the actual location of the residence of God.”

“Fallen out of favor”? Maybe times are a changing. A big ship takes a long time to turn around, says John Dehlin.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

jmb275: Also not sure about intelligence being light. The whole statement sounds a little mystical to me.

Heh. Most of what Tom and Valoel are saying are indeed mystical. It is mystical because they have had personal experience with transcendent things. Things were observed or experienced that cannot be spoken, not because they were told to shut up about it, but because these things simply do not lend themselves to explication. ‘Ineffible’ would be the word.

I think it might be helpful to just sketch out a little of what Jewish mysticism (none dare call it kabbalah) tells us of things. If you find paradox and contraries in what follows, that’s par for the course. Remember the scene with the Rabbi in “Fiddler on the Roof”:

Quote:

This rabbi in “Fiddler on the Roof” is trying to settle a dispute. He listens to the first man, and says, “You’re right.” Then he hears out the rebuttal, pauses, and says, “You’re right.” When an astonished villager complains, “But rabbi, they can’t both be right!”, he replies, of course, “You’re right.”

Just so.

>>> PRE_MANIFEST “existence” <<<

http://www.joyousworld.com/qabalah/story/treestory/index.html

or here: http://www.yashanet.com/studies/revstudy/rev6.htm

For me, this paradigm has been very helpful in understanding the creation, the Fall, the atonement, and Adam-God concepts that Joseph Smith taught (or, reportedly taught…).

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

HiJolly, I thank you sincerely and warmly for sharing this.

Tom

[Anonymous]

Thanks, HiJolly.

Just as a follow-up, I often have had the experience of the rabbi in the post – where I have to tell people with competing claims that they both are right.

Generally, I am convinced that almost every perspective I have heard in my life is correct – to some degree or another.

It’s being willing to grant that foundational premise and then work through the process of identifying the correct and the incorrect (and, more importantly, the good and the useful among BOTH the correct and incorrect) that I believe finally flips the light switch (enlightens the intelligence and illuminates the truth, if you will). I believe that being exclusively right is FAR less important than being useful.

[Anonymous]

Great post HiJolly, now I need to to rethink “Let there be light”

[Anonymous]

A couple more thoughts. If you look into Kabbalah, it quickly gets kinda weird. If you ask your Jewish friend about Kabbalah, he’s likely to say something like “Uh, well, it’s something about sex and, uh, I don’t know…”

What he’s saying is, he’s heard a lot of really odd and potentially scandalous stuff and is a bit embarassed by it all. I don’t see this as any different that someone looking at you and saying “You mean you’re Mormon?! So, how many wives do *you* have?” You know how it is.

In reality many things with truth in them get corrupted and distorted, for many reasons. So go gently when investigating other traditions and paradigms, and be sure to feel connected with the spirit, or whatever you may use to discern truth from error. I myself am very confident in my ability to do this, and so I roam where many folks really should not. Everyone has to make their own judgement on this, but do be mindful and cautious. I found a really good (but not really ‘safe’) place to help me with my questions in the Yahoo “Mormon-Mystic” group, but I assure you, it’s not for everyone. I am willing to plow through tons of BS to find little gems of truth. If you can’t tell the difference, then that will be a problem.

ANYWAY, going back to concepts of how the universe began, energy, God and such…

So if you look at EIN as ‘nothing’ in relation to the creation, then perhaps the Christian view of creation “Ex Nihlo” may began to look interesting. If the Jewish mystical tradition equates “Ein” with “nothing” and yet it describes the ‘beginning’ and God is involved—- You see, it is a pun. “God” is “nothing”. Yet, He/She is there and is real. They like to say “nothing” because there is simply no way for us to conceive, explain or understand God in that sense. This is the transcendent, unknowable, ineffible God.

Next, if energy becomes light, by the power of God’s Word. No explaining ‘how’ this happens, yet the New Age folks have some interesting ideas that also correspond to Kabbalistic though (and LDS thought as well).

It is said that all matter is simply energy vibrating at differing frequencies. Who says this? Well, even scientists (theoretical physicists, for ex.) are saying it. Yet K. was saying it a long time ago. Now it seems really popular to think this way.

If you look at it in terms Joseph Smith used, well, he said “All spirit is matter”(D&C 131). Combine that with what he also said about light, and the interrelationships get really interesting. JS said matter is eternal. We know that E=MC^2 allows for the possibility of sheer energy becoming, or converting to, a physical state. Remember the revelation in D&C 19:

Quote:

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

This points out a kind of new way of looking at all things we find around us in the universe. Christians in general are considered “monotheistic”, even though they believe in 3 Gods in One. Mormons are sometimes considered Henotheists because they allow for the possibility of many gods, though we only worship One. Biblical scholars are discovering that the early Hebrews also believed this.

Mystics have many views, and Kabbalistic mystics often are Panentheistic. Not “Pantheists”, — panENtheists. That is, they believe that ALL THINGS are made or come out of, God. So when God said “let there be light”, where did that light come from? Most Kabbalists believe it came from God Himself. If it eminated from Him, then is it not eternal, since God’s name is “eternal”? Ah.

Did I lose anybody? :geek:

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

hiJolley wrote:

Did I lose anybody?

uh…who we talkin about? …just kidding. Good thoughts.

Let me see if I’m following? There is God…then light and intelligence flow from God to the universe. Right?

Quote:

1 john 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

hiJolly wrote:

Did I lose anybody?

uh…who we talkin about? …just kidding. Good thoughts.

Let me see if I’m following? There is God…then light and intelligence flow from God to the universe. Right?

Quote:

1 john 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Yes. From God into and filling the universe.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

HiJolly, thanks for sharing. I love this kinda stuff.

[Anonymous]

Really great stuff. I can see these views even dipping into greek and roman mythology, where the gods came from chaos; this too I believe works with LDS theology, mysticism and science. JS said that God became a god, He organized the chaotic matter. A novel by Steven Brust To Reign in Hell adopts this idea of reshaping matter, or illiaster, as he calls it, in a similar way and gives an idea of how an intelligent being can come to be.

I also wonder, since we’re dwelling in mysticism, about the Egyptian line of kings and pharaohs. The pharaohs are noted down the line in history until they eventually go to the gods. It is said that, in the beginning, the gods themselves ruled Egypt. I’ve seen this type of historical dating in other cultures as well, placing gods in actual origins of the ruling of a certain people. It makes me wonder what was actually going on back when it was said that giants once dwelt here. Anyways, cool stuff HiJolly

[Anonymous]

I haven’t ready every post of this thread, but I would like to add a few thoughts. To me, science and the gospel are–in the words of Stephen Gould–non-overlapping magisteria. They are different spheres that don’t support each other. I know that plenty of scientists have done a lot to try and advocate the overlap of science and religion, but to me, that is a stretch that can’t be made. At the end of the day, science deals with things that can be tested, and the core issues of religion can not be tested. Believing that science is accurate, and also believing in religion, are possible, but they certainly don’t work together. Some may believe/explain evolution with the idea that God started it, or that God created the spark that started the Big Bang; however, these “theories” aren’t testable. Beliefs of this nature contradict science–they lie in the realm of faith–and they will always be contradictory. Unless we develop a method for testing whether God was involved or not, the two fields won’t ever mesh. I might believe I have a spirit within my body, and at some point that may be testable, but for now it is an untestable theory, and as a result it doesn’t work with science. Once again, this doesn’t mean I can’t completely believe in science and religion, but in doing so I am going to create some cognitive dissonance that can’t be eliminated.

[Author]

Posts