In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on October 14, 2012, Martin Tanner discusses our pursuit of truth and the way in which science and religion both help us in this pursuit.
This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.
Podcast: Download (9.1MB)
“One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may,” (Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 199)
In order to approach the scriptures from a realistic perspective we need to take a side trip into the secular world of science and scholarship. Wise and informed Latter-day Saints recognize that truth is truth regardless the source. The very fact that Joseph Smith admonished his followers to receive truth from all sources acknowledges that not all truth comes through spiritual mediations. In reality, the majority of truth comes through secular sources (perhaps sparked—even if unconsciously—from divine inspiration).
Although religion can open our hearts to receive the most important truths, the percentage of truths we learn from religion is miniscule compared to the truths that are discovered by secular means. Without secular truths we wouldn’t have cars, medications, clothes, computers, or sports. We are privileged to live in a world where science has made tremendous leaps in our understanding of nature, history, medicine, and technology.
In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.
“Each of us,” said Elder Boyd K. Packer, “must accommodate the mixture of reason and revelation in our lives. The gospel not only permits it, but requires it.”[i] The Lord has instructed us to “seek learning even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118), and we are counseled to not only learn gospel principles, but secular theories in astronomy, history, geology, archaeology, and politics (v. 79).
Science, however, does not know everything and sometimes gets things wrong. In a way, I hate to make such claims and I’ll explain why below. It is a fact, however, that despite great advances in scientific acumen, we are a long way from knowing everything about the human body, the heavens, the earth, or our earthly co-inhabitants. I have the utmost respect for science and scholarship and have faith (no pun intended) that science will eventually arrive at all possible temporal truths. For the foreseeable future, however, there are many areas of science that reside in a state of flux, are hindered by un-resolvable variant interpretations, are un-knowable with current scientific tools.
Unfortunately, too many Latter-day Saints (as well as members of other religions) retreat into anti-science and anti-intellectual positions when they think that their doctrines (which are typically assumptions rather than doctrines) are challenged by science or secular scholarship. The claim that “science doesn’t know everything,” is the frequent leitmotif of those who are anti-science.
A related problem is the “God-of-the-Gaps” fallacy. Some claim that if science cannot explain a thing then the gap is filled by the workings of God (or is even proof of God). Isaac Newton, for example, recognized that there had to be some degree of gravitational interaction between Earth and Mars as they passed each other in their individual orbits. Newton believed that this interaction could be devastating to the solar system if not for God’s intervention. He was also unable to see any reason why most of the planets circled the Sun on a similar plane and in the same direction other than by divine decree. Since there appeared to be no scientific explanation for what he observed (a “gap” in the available knowledge) Newton attributed the actions to God.
The problem with such an approach is that these gaps are often closed with increased scientific knowledge. There is a difference between recognizing that science doesn’t have all the answers and claiming that where science is silent, we see proof of God.
There’s an interesting parallel to the God-of-the-Gaps problem in science, however. Since the general scientific paradigm is one that deals exclusively with what can be known empirically (there by excluding by default anything supernatural—and therefore God), all gaps in scientific knowledge are confidently seen as questions that can one day be answered by science (and not by religion).
While science is not infallible we need to be careful not to simply brush all conflicting information under the rug of “science-could-be-wrong.” Generally speaking the more established the scientific theories the more likely they are to be confirmed by various disciples of science—in a convergence of evidence—that not only depend on, but support the original theory.
The wonderful thing about science is that it is self-correcting. Some erroneous ideas or false assumptions take longer to fall than others, but with continued rigor the scientific community in general has demonstrated that mistakes, over-sights, and all other errors will eventually be replaced with superior, more adequate, and more accurate information.
It’s also important, however, to realize that “science” is not a single discipline that can be measured equally and with the same methods to check for accuracy and verisimilitude. There are “hard” sciences and “soft” sciences. Hard sciences are thenatural sciences and typically include fields like math, chemistry, and physics, whereas soft sciences are the social sciences such as psychology, history, archaeology, and anthropology.
As explained on Wikipedia: “The hard sciences are characterized as relying on quantifiable empirical data, relying on the scientific method, and focusing on accuracy and objectivity.” The soft sciences are more prone to conclusions based on interpretation.
A related aspect of the hard versus soft distinction has to do with the ease of drawing strong conclusions. In soft sciences, there are often numerous variables that might have an influence on some variable of interest, and many of those variables either may be non-quantifiable or may be quantifiable but difficult to obtain data on; but further, even with plentiful data, it may be difficult to disentangle the effects of such a large number of variables. In contrast, typically in the hard sciences there are only a few, readily identified, causative variables, making it easier to infer specific causative effects.[ii]
With the exception of “miracles” and currently un-measureable issues such as the existence of God, nearly all Mormon-related issues with which skeptics have problems, have to do with the subjectively-interpretive soft sciences rather than hard sciences.
If truth is really truth, in the end all truths in our world must harmonize. LDS scientist Henry Eyring once wrote: “Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men.”[iii] When it comes to a conflict between what we have learned from religion and science we must step back and take a look at what the conflict is actually about. If the conflict is over core doctrines, science and scholarship can offer opinions, suggestions, and even evidence, but it cannot unseat true doctrines.
More often, however, science conflicts with our weak and often naive assumptions of history, scripture, or things which are peripheral to actual doctrines. When this happens, it is wise for us to reexamine our assumptions in light of scientific knowledge. If we do, we will generally find that we can embrace the secular scientific and scholarly teachings without abandoning the saving doctrines that have been confirmed by the Spirit.
[i] Boyd K. Packer, “I Say Unto You, Be One” (BYU Devotional, 12 February 1991)(accessed 25 April 2013).
[ii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science (accessed 18 December 2012).
The Book of Abraham continues to be a hotly debated book. Critics of and apologists for the Book of Abraham continue to sound forth their judgments on the fraudulence or authenticity of this controversial scriptural work. There does not seem to be any end in sight for this controversy. With the survival of some of Joseph Smith’s Egyptian papyri – ostensibly the source of the Book of Abraham – critics have, in the words of Hugh Nibley, been “endlessly dinning into the ears of the public that what was written on that small and battered strip of papyrus prove[s] beyond a doubt that Joseph Smith [is] a fraud because he thought it contained the Book of Abraham, whereas it contains nothing of the sort.”[1] The most recent salvo aimed at thrashing Joseph Smith’s interpretation of these documents comes in the form of a respected Egyptologist publishing his highly critical material with a press known for being, at times, extremely hostile towards Mormon orthodoxy. This Egyptologist’s conclusion? “Except for those willfully blind… the case is closed.”[2]
That seems to be it for the poor Mormons.
Well, maybe not.
I had a chance to share few thoughts about the current status of DNA research in the Americas at the recent FAIR LDS conference in Sandy, Utah. The title of my presentation was “Book of Mormon Genetics: A Reappraisal” and it began with a slide showing a quote that appeared in the June 2012 issue of Sunstone magazine:
“Unfortunately, Vinson has not kept up with advances in population genetics, where scientists like Theodore Schurr (University of Pennsylvania) now utilize nuclear DNA (SNPs), which no longer leave open a possibility that a small, successful and genetically unique group could be introduced into a larger population without detection. According to the scientists, Native Americans are exclusively Siberian. There is no longer anywhere for a successful population of Middle-easterners to hide in the Native American family tree. (Zegura et al., ‘High-Resolution SNPs,’ Molecular Biology and Evolution, 2004.)”
The purpose of this blog post is to provide a written source of what I said at the beginning of my presentation pertaining to this quote. My goal is not to attack anyone in particular, but to promote greater awareness about poorly developed statements that may have the appearance of being professional and objective, but in reality are loaded with errors and biased misconceptions. Read the rest of this entry »
Review of No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues
Edited by Robert L. Millett
Published by BYU Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2011
Rather than focusing primarily on the methods commonly used by critics as other recent books of this genre do (such as Michael Ash’s Shaken Faith Syndrome, which I also highly recommend), this book contains essays that address some of the most common issues that are used to attack the faith of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is intended to help the reader gain a better understanding of these topics in a faith-promoting, but scholarly and honest environment, against the flood of misinformation available online today. Indeed, the editor notes that “The Internet is filled with thousands of pages of anti-Mormon polemic, and it is extremely difficult for people to receive an honest and fair appraisal of Mormonism without significant effort on their part” (page viii).
Besides those by the editor, Robert L. Millett, the book contains contributions by Daniel L. Belnap, J. Spencer Fluhman, Steven C. Harper, Brian M. Hauglid, Daniel K. Judd, Kerry Muhlestein, Ugo A. Perego, Brent L. Top, and John W. Welch. They are split into four categories: Restored Christianity, Latter-day Saint Church History, Scriptural Perspectives, and Doctrinal Teachings. The topics include what it means to be a Christian, the various accounts of the First Vision, the Smiths’ involvement in money-digging and the supernatural, the Kinderhook plates, Joseph Smith’s youngest plural wife, DNA and the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, and Jesus Christ and salvation, among many others. Many of the topics are written by experts in the area – for example, a population geneticist discusses DNA and the Book of Mormon, two Egyptologists discuss the Book of Abraham, and an editor of the Joseph Smith Papers tackles the subject of multiple versions of the First Vision. I would like to concentrate on a few topics of particular interest to me in order to give an idea of the overall book.
Kent P. Jackson’s cleverly titled “Are Christians Christians?” discusses what it means to be a Christian from the point of view of mainstream Christianity and where it came from. He examines statements from the Presbyterian and Methodist churches that declare us to be unchristian. He explains why their definition is unbiblical, and happily admits that we should not be included in it. “We, of all people, should not be offended that other churches consider our baptisms invalid and do not recognize the authority of our priesthood holders to officiate in their ordinances. Since the first days of our church’s history, we have denied the validity of the authority and ordinances of all other churches (see D&C 22). We concede that we are not members of the historic Christian church that includes our Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant brothers and sisters. But to consider us not Christians on issues of belief is another matter” (page 55). He then goes on to explain that our definition of the word Christian is scriptural (although we have no official statement of such), and that by that definition we would also include those of other faiths previously mentioned.
Steven C. Harper, an editor of the Joseph Smith Papers, wrote about the accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, saying it “may be the best documented theophany (vision of God) in history.” He finds the five different known accounts in eight statements (plus contemporary hearsay) to be “rich documentation” and “a good reason to believe him” rather than being evidence of an inconsistent and evolving story as others contend. (Page 63.) He describes how Fawn Brodie and Wesley Walters shaped the criticisms that are popular today, and did not reconsider their interpretations even when new evidence against them came to light. He points out that “those who share the skeptics’ assumptions will likely arrive at the same conclusions as the skeptics. But those who are open to the possibility that Joseph told the truth can discover other meanings from the same facts” (page 71).
Ugo A. Perego, who holds a PhD in genetics and biomolecular sciences, handles the question of whether DNA proves or disproves the Book of Mormon. He goes into great detail explaining how DNA is used in research, the current theories about migrations into the Americas, and describes the various theories for and against the Book of Mormon based on available DNA evidence. He points out the problems with each of these theories (such as evidence showing up in the wrong time period, wrong assumptions being used, and misunderstandings of the limitations of DNA research) and arrives at the conclusion that DNA evidence can neither be used to prove nor disprove that the people in the Book of Mormon actually existed. (In fact, he points out that it can’t even be used to prove that Jesus existed.) He says that “I find no difficulties in reconciling my scientific passion about Native American history with my religious beliefs. I am not looking for a personal testimony of the Book of Mormon in the double helix. …Anyone using DNA to ascertain the accuracy of historical events of a religious nature – which require instead a component of faith – will be sorely disappointed” (page 208).
One of the essays on the Book of Abraham is by Kerry Muhlestein, who has a PhD in Egyptology from UCLA. He begins by explaining how he got interested in the Book of Abraham, and why Egyptologists outside the church dismiss it. He also found that many members of the church who struggle with the issues involved with the Book of Abraham aren’t looking for an excuse to leave the church, but have “encountered well-written (though not necessarily well-documented or researched) arguments…and did not know how to answer the questions posed by these arguments.” He found that those publishing critical information are generally unaware that it is “based on incorrect information and bad assumptions. They are misled by the mistakes, lies, and trash put out by a few, and they unwittingly pass the information along without really looking into their sources” (page 219).
He then goes on to debunk some of the misinformation, such as the idea that there was no human sacrifice in ancient Egypt. He also found that one of the words supposedly made up by Joseph Smith (Olishem) has been discovered in two ancient texts. He discovered that Egyptians had access to biblical stories by 200 BC (which was the right time period for the papyri), and were particularly interested in Abraham. He presented this information to a conference put on by the Russian Academy of Science and received positive reviews. He talks about evidence that what we actually have possession of today was a very small part of what Joseph had, and gives reasons why it likely was not the source of the Book of Abraham, other than Facsimile 1. He also briefly discusses the mystery of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, which were not likely to have been used in the translation process, as some critics have claimed. Another important point he makes is that “written by his own hand, upon papyrus” does not mean that the actual papyrus we have was written by the hand of Abraham, but that it is a copy of the original that Abraham would have written on much earlier. He also devotes several pages to Facsimile 1, pointing out many evidences (and some possible theories) for the authenticity of the interpretations provided by Joseph Smith.
Overall, I thought the book was quite good, although some essays were better than others. Some of the more doctrinal ones, in particular, presented a few points as given that not all members would agree on. But such is the nature of Mormonism. The book could be used to answer questions for oneself, to help a member friend or an investigator, or for inoculation against misinformation and half-truths encountered in a hostile environment. It would be useful reading for those preparing to serve a mission, for families, and for any individual interested in learning more about these issues or defending the church.
This book is available at the FAIR bookstore here.
I went to see John Carter of Mars last night (bear with me… this is actually NOT off-topic from apologetics), and the theater was gracious enough to give me a (virtually) private screening in 3D. 
Loved the movie (although apparently no one else does, and my teenage kids refused to come with me, saying all their friends hated it…).
But (believe it or not) I actually mentioned this movie in my home teaching message earlier this month about prophets, and the role of prophets.
Why?
Well John Carter is really over-the-top fantasy. Mars does not look like this, as we all know. But we need to remember that the first John Carter story was written 100 years ago. This was only 20 years or so after an Italian astronomer looked through a telescope at Mars and thought he saw canali (it means channels, but it got translated into English as canals). Everyone thought that he had seen signs of civilization on Mars. This included Percival Lowell, the top astronomer in the United States at that time. So when Edgar Rice Burroughs took to his typewriter a few years later to write fantasy tales about this Mars, he was building off of the best scientific evidence of the day. It was not utter fantasy, in other words.
And this is decades AFTER Brigham Young had speculated about men on the moon or men on the sun. So while BY may look foolish today, and generates reams of hilarity penned by the antis, he would not have looked foolish in his own day (and in fact in all the anti-Mormon hysteria generated in those days, nobody ever remarked on Brigham Young’s silly non-scientific ideas), and not for a generation or two afterward either.
I brought all this up to my home teaching families. Prophets are not supposed to be super-scientists. But I said the antis will object anyway, saying that prophets cannot make scientific mistakes like that, even if the world does not know better, because God would tell them how the universe really works.
But would He really, I asked. Did God tell Isaiah that you cannot stop the sun and make it go backward 15 degrees? Did God tell Moses and Abraham about quantum theory? Or disabuse them of the notion that the Heavens are a dome over the world? Well, if not, what DOES he tell prophets? The short answer is that He tells prophets how to guide the people through the perils of the day. Specifically, I mentioned the Church Presidency message on lds.org that changes several times a week, with messages on such topics as civility in politics, or generosity and moderation in dealing with immigration.
Surely this is more important than knowing whether there really are canals on Mars, and populated by beautiful Martian princesses waiting to be saved by dashing Confederate cavalry officers…
David Farnsworth
Tigard OR 97224
Here’s part two of the Steven L. Peck interview on “FAIR Conversations” (check part one here). Peck is associate professor of biology at Brigham Young University. Peck has interacted with many students who begin to experience difficulties in reconciling their faith with what they learn in biology classes about the origins of human life. Various LDS Church leaders have expressed a variety of opinions on the topic of organic evolution. In part two, Peck discusses the historical situation in which early LDS debates on evolution took place. He also talks about multiple live options Latter-day Saints can embrace in good faith without doing away with belief in God or the scriptures. We also discuss the problem of natural evil, suffering, and a loving God’s involvement in the world.
Incidentally, Peck also recently published a great fictional book called The Scholar of Moab. It can be purchased at Amazon.com.
Note: This episode has a few technical glitches, you will hear some light pops and skips through the beginning of the interview. Questions or comments about this episode can be sent to podcast@fairlds.org. Or, join the conversation in the comments here at fairblog.org.
Additional Links:
Gary James Bergera, “The 1911 Evolution Controversy at Brigham Young University,” (from the volume, Search for Harmony: Essays on Science and Mormonism, eds. Gene A. Sessions and Craig J. Oberg, Signature Books, 1993).
James M. McLachlan, “W.H. Chamberlin and the Quest for a Mormon Theology,” Dialogue 29, no. 4 (Winter 1996)
Duane E. Jeffery, “Seers, Savants, and Evolution: The Uncomfortable Interface,” Dialogue 34, no. 1 (Spring 2001). This is an updated version of the original article, which was published in Dialogue 8, no. 3/4 (Autumn/Winter 1974).
Steven L. Peck, “Crawling Out of the Primordial Soup: A Step toward the Emergence of an LDS Theology Compatible with Organic Evolution,”Dialogue 43, no. 1 (Spring 2010).
Peck’s blog, “The Mormon Organon: A BYU Biology Professor Looks at Science and the LDS Faith”
Essay by Peck, “Why Mormons Should Embrace Evolution.” (Posted as a guest blogger at Jana Riess’s blog, Flunking Sainthood.)
My book review of a recent book on evolution by the late Howard C. Stutz: “Let the Earth Bring Forth.” A few other sources I drew on to prepare for the podcast include Thomas Dixon’s Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction and Conor Cunningham’s Darwin’s Pious Idea.
(My gratitude to Dan Wotherspoon at mormonmatters.org,who put together this useful collection. Image above from Psychology Today.)
Runtime:
1:02:37
Download:
Podcast: Download (37.5MB)
To download, right click the “Download” link above and select “Save link as…”
You can also download the episode or subscribe to all episodes of the FAIR Podcast in iTunes here.
Support FAIR:
FAIR relies on contributions from readers and listeners. To help support FAIR, make a donation today.
In this episode of “FAIR Conversations,” associate professor of biology Steven L. Peck discusses the relationship between science and religion. Latter-day Saints have long praised the blessings of science, including medical advances and various technological developments. But our relationship with various scientific theories hasn’t invariably been particularly cozy, particularly on the subject of evolution. A 2009 Pew Forum survey asking respondents if evolution is the best explanation for human life discovered that the general American public is evenly divided, with 48% saying it is the best explanation and 45% rejecting that position. Strikingly, only 22% of Mormons say it is the best explanation for human life, with three-in-four (75%) disagreeing. Only Jehovah’s Witnesses rank lower, at 90%.
Although the survey’s phrasing may skew the stats a little, Peck feels that many Latter-day Saints do reject evolution without knowing that Mormons need not do so. In part one of this episode, Peck gives a basic overview of the idea of “science” and how it helps us better understand the world. He also outlines the theory of evolution and describes some of its yet-to-be-solved puzzles. He tackles a few common questions like: “Science has been so wrong in the past, how can we rely on it in the present with any confidence?” and “If evolution is true, why don’t we see half monkey-men walking around today?”
Incidentally, Peck also recently published a great fictional book called The Scholar of Moab. It can be purchased at Amazon.com.
Note: This episode has a few technical glitches, you will hear some light pops and skips through the beginning of the interview. Questions or comments about this episode can be sent to podcast@fairlds.org. Or, join the conversation in the comments here at fairblog.org.
Additional Links:
Gary James Bergera, “The 1911 Evolution Controversy at Brigham Young University,” (from the volume, Search for Harmony: Essays on Science and Mormonism, eds. Gene A. Sessions and Craig J. Oberg, Signature Books, 1993).
James M. McLachlan, “W.H. Chamberlin and the Quest for a Mormon Theology,” Dialogue 29, no. 4 (Winter 1996)
Duane E. Jeffery, “Seers, Savants, and Evolution: The Uncomfortable Interface,” Dialogue 34, no. 1 (Spring 2001). This is an updated version of the original article, which was published in Dialogue 8, no. 3/4 (Autumn/Winter 1974).
Steven L. Peck, “Crawling Out of the Primordial Soup: A Step toward the Emergence of an LDS Theology Compatible with Organic Evolution,” Dialogue 43, no. 1 (Spring 2010).
Peck’s blog, “The Mormon Organon: A BYU Biology Professor Looks at Science and the LDS Faith”
Essay by Peck, “Why Mormons Should Embrace Evolution.” (Posted as a guest blogger at Jana Riess’s blog, Flunking Sainthood.)
My book review of a recent book on evolution by the late Howard C. Stutz: “Let the Earth Bring Forth.” A few other sources I drew on to prepare for the podcast include Thomas Dixon’s Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction and Conor Cunningham’s Darwin’s Pious Idea.
(My gratitude to Dan Wotherspoon at mormonmatters.org,who put together this useful collection.)
Runtime:
46:52
Download:
Podcast: Download (37.5MB)
To download, right click the “Download” link above and select “Save link as…”
You can also download the episode or subscribe to all episodes of the FAIR Podcast in iTunes here.
Support FAIR:
FAIR relies on contributions from readers and listeners. To help support FAIR, make a donation today.
