Second, claiming that miracles like the resurrection of Jesus and Lazarus and the many, many miracles of the restoration are really instances of a higher law being invoked undermines science in a much more powerful way than just admitting divine intervention in some cases.

I think the wiser answer is to simply say it is the application of understanding we don’t have. i.e. advanced technology using law.

Yes property dualism is absolutely correct ( see David Chalmers) as is a form of ontological dualism ( see Angus Menuge ).

I think we ought avoid too many philosophical assumptions. Even if we think some kind of dualism is correct I don’t think it follows that such is necessary for our theology.

I think that those who try to say that Mormonism is committed to “materialism” are trying to solve a problem with a stipulative definition which is not to me a sound way of arguing. Not all things are material e.g. the power of the priesthood. If we understand matter in terms of our common use of the term then spirit is not matter as we use the term and as science uses it.

I don’t see how that follows. Almost certainly if we talk about matter in ancient Palestine it means simply the kind of phenomena usually encountered. What Paul meant by spirit isn’t clear (I favor a more Stoic reading but I think we ought leave the issue as open as possible). I think however it is anachronistic to read either in terms of modern physics. After all it’s very possible Paul would say that plasmas or air aren’t matter. Yet modern science would say both are matter.

Turning to Joseph we have his comments that spirit is matter, only much finer. It’s pretty near impossible to guess what he meant. Some (Quinn) have suggested a connection to perhaps neoPlatonism. I think that might be more problematic for various reasons, although it’s intriguing to ask how we might consider the issue done from an idealist framework’s conception of matter.

In any case I think at best we can say spirit is more matter like than what say Catholicism taught (minus Bonaventure and company of course). But trying to correlate it with any particular phenomena is dangerous. Personally I think it matter of the sort science can deal with. But I think when considering doctrine we ought be as open as possible given the ambiguity of the relevant texts.

Adam and Eve were not the product of evolution. Their bodies were if one accepts 3 as I am inclined to do.

This is, of course, what I meant. It’s pretty difficult to be a believing Latter-day Saint without accepting a pre-mortal existence for human beings as children of God. I don’t think anyone here is arguing against that. My 1-to-4 list, above, was describing the creation of man’s bodies only.

I think that those who try to say that Mormonism is committed to “materialism” are trying to solve a problem with a stipulative definition which is not to me a sound way of arguing. Not all things are material e.g. the power of the priesthood. If we understand matter in terms of our common use of the term then spirit is not matter as we use the term and as science uses it. Paul says quite clearly in I Cor. 15 that resurrected bodies are spiritual bodies, not material bodies as we understand matter. e.g. “flesh and blood” cannot inherent the kingdom of God” appealing to a mysterious “matter” which is radically unlike what we undersrand as matter solves no problems.

I curious to know how you can argue this around D&C 131:7–8.

2 responses to other comments. I think that those who try to say that Mormonism is committed to “materialism” are trying to solve a problem with a stipulative definition which is not to me a sound way of arguing. Not all things are material e.g. the power of the priesthood. If we understand matter in terms of our common use of the term then spirit is not matter as we use the term and as science uses it. Paul says quite clearly in I Cor. 15 that resurrected bodies are spiritual bodies, not material bodies as we understand matter. e.g. “flesh and blood” cannot inherent the kingdom of God” appealing to a mysterious “matter” which is radically unlike what we undersrand as matter solves no problems. Actually there is a solid emerging body of research by very good scientists supporting spirit matter dualism.

Second, claiming that miracles like the resurrection of Jesus and Lazarus and the many, many miracles of the restoration are really instances of a higher law being invoked undermines science in a much more powerful way than just admitting divine intervention in some cases. If there really are a set of laws that describe a causal structure leading to miracles. Then you have adopted a position that I think leads to the conclusion that we do not know very much at all about the world around us. That our understanding of weather, health, life, death and thousands of other things is puny. Since I accept miracles as divine interventions I would prefer to say that we know a very great deal about disease and health, for example. I want to say that science is real and valuable, not a puny imitation of the real causal structure of reality.

The FAIR approach is generally to support those things that have clearly been revealed, and to offer a range of acceptable beliefs when revelation is silent.

This approach defers to revelation, which is clear on certain points: God is the Creator; men and women are His children; there is a divine plan for all of us that includes a sinful, mortal experience that can be overcome by the atonement of Jesus Christ. None of these things are random.

The only question is how men and women came to exist in the physical sense. As I see it, there are four options available to believing Latter-day Saints:

1. Adam was literally created from the earth, and Eve was literally created from Adam’s rib. (Most LDS leaders have rejected that, with some notable exceptions.)

2. Adam and Eve were born to immortal, exalted Parents and came to be mortal by taking part in the Fall. (This appears to have been Brigham Young’s belief, and it’s been my experience that most Latter-day Saints follow it.)

3. Adam and Eve were the product of evolution, having descended from a common ancestor along with other hominids and primates. (This, I think, is a belief held by many Saints who accept evolution as a true principle of science, but includes at least some element of divine intervention in the evolutionary process.)

4. Statements about Adam and Eve in the scriptures are mythological; they did not actually exist as individuals. (This is certainly a minority viewpoint, but one I think that is acceptable within LDS belief as long as one does not try to advance it publicly.)

Personally I prefer option 3, but I don’t try to push my belief on others. I’d like to think that the gospel is broad enough and uncertain enough to allow all four (and possibly others).

What troubles me about FAIR’s approach is the vague way in which “evolution” is used. If you mean that only, natural, material causes are at work in the natural world and that you can explain the development and diversity of life strictly with reference to random variation , and natural selection, which is what Darwin thought and his followers still think. Then I submit that the Church has always, and must always reject this completely.

But, isn’t this exactly what the wiki says?

“Despite the fact that the Church has no official position on evolution beyond those expressed by the First Presidency (above)…”

http://en.fairmormon.org/Evolution

And, the ABOVE takes you to the three official statements, which make it pretty clear that God was involved in the creation.

If there’s vagueness in the use of the term “evolution” (which, as you point out, could involve or not involve death before the fall, common descent, or a strictly mechanistic world view) that’s a problem of how the Church has typically addressed it. Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith certainly didn’t believe in death before the fall, or common descent.

That is, I think, why the wiki defines the term in reference to the official statements only. We really did try to pitch as large a tent as possible.

===

Some randomness I admit but if you admit that some things have cpome about because of non-random, non-material causes then we agree.

Non-random I would certainly agree with. I’m not sure what a “non-material cause” would look like in LDS doctrine, since we believe in material spirits, etc.

Maybe you have another meaning of “non-material,” like “caused by an intelligent agent” (i.e., God)?

My point is that you cannot believe that only material, natural causes account for events in the world or you have rejected and plausible version of Christianity that includes miracles, and the resurrection.

I think there’s a strong stream in LDS thought that sees miracles not as suspension of natural law, but as merely manifestations of a deeper understanding of natural law.

On that view, there are no “miracles” in the sense of suspending or contravening natural law, but merely various levels of law, some of which appear miraculous because mortals don’t understand them. (A compass might appear miraculous to someone with knowledge of magnetic fields.)

It seems to me, though, that there have been plenty of people who accepted Darwinian evolution who nevertheless continued to believe in miracles. (Miracles, by definition, probably aren’t really amenable to scientific study. How would one prove or disprove the resurrection with science at this point?)

Surveys of biologists seem to suggest that plenty are theists; they don’t seem to draw the conclusion that you feel must follow. Maybe they’re all wrong, but I think I can see how one might embrace Darwinism whole hog as far as life on earth goes (even though I don’t), and still believe in the Christian God (LDS or otherwise).

Can one believe in a strictly mechanistic physics and still be a believer in good standing?

For the record, I believe heartily in both the resurrection and other types of miracles.

Greg

The point being that if agents aren’t fundamental then that radically changes the way materialism is discussed. Yet you may well be taking agents as irreducible as a central and non-negotiable part of Mormon doctrine. In my view though regardless of how one may believe in terms of philosophy the Church has taken no position on the question of whether intelligences are ontologically fundamental or not. So that question is up in the air and people can respectively disagree.

Now if you think agents are irreducible and thus intents are irreducible and thus creatures with intentionality can’t be explained via Evolution that’s fine. I’ll disagree with you but I can at least respect your position. However it seems to me that you don’t want merely to have your view as one possible reading of ambiguous doctrine but as THE MORMON POSITION. Now that I have much more grave difficulty with.

The point being that what you are saying “the Church has always held” seems quite muddled with discussion about physicalism and then questions about the environment within which evolution operates.