Faith + Science

[krebscout]

Partially inspired by a discussion in Sunday School this week, partially inspired by some of the threads going on up in the Reader Response section, I was hoping to get some insight from you smart folks...

I believe that God "uses science" (to put it crudely) to perform His work. The Creation, miracles, angels and light and refined matter, even the sensation of the Spirit - I believe that these can all be explained through physics, chemistry, and biology...though perhaps with more advanced science than that to which we currently have access. He can manipulate it because he understands it, and he works within the framework he created.

This is my belief. The problem is that I'm pretty uneducated about science as whole (as if it could be lumped together so easily), and I'm sure this isn't an original idea. Does anybody have any insights? While it's not essential to my salvation, I do believe in reconciling correct worldly knowledge with faith-based knowledge, and having a respectable base of knowledge when such a topic comes up in discussion. Are there any resources out there for me that say why this is right or wrong? Any books, theories, GA quotes, notable debates, sources outside the Church?

[wired]

I present the life and work of B.H. Robert and James E. Talmage as examples of why you are right.

[Dragon Lady]

I don't know of any evidence. But I do want to say that I agree with you. I believe God works with science. I'd even go so far to say that some laws of the universe were in place before God was God and even He has to obey them. (I won't go so far as to name specifics, though.)

[krebscout]

Thanks, guys. That is helpful already.

I guess what I should be asking...if Marduk and Tao have rubbed off on me at all...is, "What does the evidence say about faith + science?", not "Can you show me things that support my existing beliefs about faith + science?"

So I'm just throwing that out there, too.

[NerdGirl]

I believe God works with science. I'd even go so far to say that some laws of the universe were in place before God was God and even He has to obey them. (I won't go so far as to name specifics, though.)

This is exactly what I think. The only evidence I have is all of the evidence that supports various scientific theories, and if I believe that God exists, then it's logical to believe that He works using the observable laws of the universe (and other laws that we don't yet know about).

[Whistler]

I don't see how God could work outside of the natural laws He created.

Most LDS people believe spirit is matter, thus we can be described as materialists in a philosophical sense. Most scientists are also materialists. So there is one similarity...

[Dragon Lady]

I don't see how God could work outside of the natural laws He created.

Fair enough. But what I was saying is that I believe that there were natural laws before God was God that even He has to follow as well. That He didn't create every natural law.

[Digit]

If God exists, I'd love to one day hear how the physics-related issues here are answered.

[Tao]

If God exists, I'd love to one day hear how the physics-related issues here are answered.

heh.

...
3. In order for god to directly cause the Big Bang, he must have a lower entropy (S-a, where a is positive, real number).
4. The probability of the Big Bang coming from a higher state of entropy (S+b, where b is a positive, real number) approaches P=1, normalizing over the condition of many opportunities for the Big Bang to happen.
...

(Forgive my cut; points 1&2 are set up, and 5-8 are re-wording of 4, and conclusions thereof.) They use the 2nd law to assert that entropy must always increase to establish that any cause of the universe (in the case of point 3, God) must be more ordered than the primordial universe, then go on to claim in point 4 that the universe came from a less ordered state, so God doesn't exist.

One need not be a physicist nor even a theist to see how flawed that particular argument is. Allow me one contradiction and I can prove anything you would like to hear.

[Digit]

I thought the style of reasoning used there was along the lines of modus tollens as in:

If P, then Q
Not Q
------------
Therefore, not P

Where P is "God exists," Q is "The universe came from a more ordered state," and "Not Q" was reached through their understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, mathematical probability, and the "infinite regress" problem when the question is asked where God came from.

I agree it would be contradictory to start with a premise P and arrive at a conclusion not P, or to have both Q and not Q as premises, but it is logically consistent to have the two premises [P->Q] and [not Q] and the one conclusion [not P]. I hope I correctly identified where you perceived contradiction.

Of course "Not Q" is not something they can definitively say. A fuzzy logic version of modus tollens may be more applicable, making:

If P is True, then Q is True
Q approaches False
--------------------
Therefore P approaches False

But I don't know enough to say if modus tollens works that way in a fuzzy logic framework.

[Marduk]

The first one is deductive logic, the second inductive. The first, if both are true, means the conclusion cannot possibly be false. The second, if both premises are true, merely increases the likelihood, but does not guarantee that the conclusion is true.

I don't know much about the big bang theory and thermodynamics, but I know about logic, and the logical structure of their argument is indeed very weak.

[Digit]

If to you anything not absolute is "very weak," then I'd go ahead and agree with you, Marduk.

But I'm just thinking to myself: as the chance for all the matter in the universe to be collected in a volume smaller than an atom is extremely low (which lottery we "won," as Stephen Jay Gould would say), the chance of there being something more organized than that is only lower, and the chance of there being something more organized than that (to have made the thing that made the universe) is still lower, and so on forever.

Which is why if God exists, I'd very much like to know how the infinite regression of complexity is resolved.

[Marduk]

No, that's not why it is very weak, it is very weak because it requires multiple unspoken premises, each which reduce the probability beyond what is stated. For example, for the second law to apply, the universe must be a closed system. Another unspoken premise is that it has to require no additional energy to be added from outside the system. Another is that God is within the system. Yet another is that the laws of physics apply always in every part of the universe, a theory which some parts of string theory refute. Again, the science isn't my strong suit, but when you have dozens of unspoken premises, it makes an inductive argument very weak.

[Marduk]

Back to the original question, Krebscout, Bruce R. McConkie (whose name may be a byword in certain circles) said, in Seven Deadly Heresies "May I say that all truth is in agreement, that true religion and true science bear the same witness, and that in the true and full sense, true science is part of true religion."

The way I see it is this. God has certain purposes. These purposes must be brought about in a given fashion. There is no special pill or magic wand; everything is done in a given procedure. In other words, by very definition when one thing causes another there is a perceptible causal relationship. God is not "supernatural" nor does he do anything that is "supernatural" specifically by Him doing it, it becomes the proscribed procedure. It is therefore "natural" by definition.

Science is simply observing and understanding these methods. This doesn't take any power away from God; when my disease is cured by my body's own natural defense systems, it is by divine design, since who designed my body? It is said that miracles are simply natural occurrences functioning by laws we don't yet understand. Given this premise, faith isn't so much a belief in the supernatural powers of an unknown being, to "magically" bring things to pass, rather, it is the acknowledgement of one's own lack of understanding, and a reliance on those things outside of our control to function in a specific and consistent pattern.

[krebscout]

Again, I'm unqualified to contribute much to this discussion, and I'm very glad all of you have chimed in who have something intelligent to say. One thing I will add in possible response (and I've used this quote a dozen times on the Board):

Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unaswerable. How many hours are there in a mile? Is yellow square or round? Probably half the questions we ask - half our great theological and metaphysical problems - are like that.

C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed

I do understand the "winning the lottery" concept, but I'm not sure why it wouldn't be possible to use the same thing as an argument for a highly improbable God. But then probabilities seem kind of ridiculous if there is a God. And I've never understood why things have become more organized with evolution, all the way to making some very complex life forms, instead of breaking down into chaos like Physical Science told me it should. Can you help me understand a scientist's perspective on that?

[krebscout]

Thanks, Marduk. You always have a great way of putting things.

Speaking of which, I'm going to drag something here from the Polygamy thread:

If it were possible to prove God's existence it would not be necessary to exercise faith in Him.

So...and this is something I've always had a hard time understanding, despite having several good discussions about it...why faith? Why is it so important that we have faith? I think parents and children are a great parallel of our relationship with God, but one big difference is that our parents are (ideally) physically present. Children can still choose to obey their parents or not, they still have agency and trials and temptations and all the things that are so important to our mortal experience. But they can't have faith (in that sense of the word. There are other definitions of faith which I feel I understand a little better that will still come in to play), because they have a sure knowledge of their parents' existence.

Why is faith, why is not knowing, such a virtue?

[Digit]

And I've never understood why things have become more organized with evolution, all the way to making some very complex life forms, instead of breaking down into chaos like Physical Science told me it should.

My understanding is that you can decrease the entropy of a system, such as the biosphere, by putting energy into it, such as the energy which comes from the sun. I know that's a gross oversimplification.

This is an example I thought of, which may have (read: probably has) errors, seeing as I'm just a computer engineer:

An endothermic chemical reaction, where the reactant(s) take in energy (the system's energy goes up) and entropy lowers. For example, putting energy into carbon dioxide and water (simpler molecules with higher entropy) and making a hydrocarbon (a more complex molecule with lower entropy) and some oxygen gas. Note: I'm pretty sure we don't know how to accomplish this in practice on the scale of moles, but I think the idea is still valid.

Or the opposite, an exothermic chemical reaction, where the reactant(s) release energy and entropy increases. For example, the opposite of the above case where a more complex hydrocarbon molecule with low entropy and some oxygen gas combust, releasing energy (which came from the bonds in the more complex hydrocarbon) and ending up with simpler molecules of carbon dioxide and water, with higher overall entropy.

For example, for the second law to apply, the universe must be a closed system. Another unspoken premise is that it has to require no additional energy to be added from outside the system. Another is that God is within the system. Yet another is that the laws of physics apply always in every part of the universe, a theory which some parts of string theory refute.

Those are interesting points, thank you.

[Marduk]

Why is faith, why is not knowing, such a virtue?

This, my dear, is the crux of the issue. And I think the answer lies within us, not within nature. The entire concept and design of our existence is to change and perfect us, right? Well, I would suggest that there is something fundamentally different about our attitudes and desires when we act out of faith instead of knowledge. It seems that knowledge forces an obligation, faith foments the growth of desire (this is gross oversimplification, but sufficient for our discussion here.) If I know who I am in a divine sense, and faith is not necessary, my actions become obligations and a forgone conclusion. The growth that faith instills, the love, patience, and humility that action on faith makes requisite, are lost.

We need to understand that God does not want a specific outcome in the environment, he wants a specific outcome within us. I would suggest that the humility, love, and patience that are Godly attributes simply cannot grow in a situation where one has a direct knowledge.

[Dragon Lady]

krebscout, as for the faith thing, this is how I understand it. You're an adult now, and still have physical parents. Let's say that you worked with them to create a plan for all of you to go on a tour of Europe. If you did certain things and saved $X per month, which would require some sacrifice, but is definitely doable, your parents would pay for the rest and you could all enjoy a week of bliss. Well, in 3 months when a movie you really, really want to see comes out in the theater and you are just so tired of kids and really just want a real date, but would make the cruise really hard to obtain, would the sure knowledge of your trip to Europe make it easier to say no to the movie in the expensive theater and wait for it to come to the dollar theater or RedBox or Netflix? If you knew without a doubt that by saying no to a movie, you'd get to go to Europe, would you?

Now let's say that instead your sister told you that your parents were gonna do it. But for whatever reason you couldn't actually talk to your parents. Maybe they're on a mission right now where they have no phone service nor internets and mail takes several months to get there. But, your sister has been known to be silly and pull pranks and sometimes get details wrong. But she insists that's what your parents told her, though she admits she has no proof. So you start saving money, just in case, because really. A trip to Europe? What's it gonna hurt to save money just in case? Until whatever strong temptation hits. Real date with fancy restaurant and expensive theater or maybe a new … paint set? Or a nicer car. Or whatever. If you're not really convinced that Europe is a reality, how much harder is it going to be to delay all of the things you really want now for something you really want more, but don't even know if it's a reality?

That's how I see faith vs. knowledge. If I knew for sure that I had to do X, Y, and Z to get into the Celestial kingdom, if I knew for sure all of the benefits and consequences of my actions, I would probably be choosing the better path far more often than I do. But since I only have faith, not knowledge, things that are tempting and immediate too often take precedence over vague and far-off blessings. "Yes, I know I need to read my scriptures daily, but I really, really just want to read my novel right now." "Yes, I know that I should be talking to my non-member neighbor about the gospel because it's essential to his eternal salvation, and I will be held accountable for it, but I'm just so shy and nervous that I'm just never gonna say anything unless they bring it up."

Does that make any sense?

[Tao]

I'm afraid I'm not sure what level of familiarity with math, science, and/or logic you have, so forgive me if I currently refrain from adding to Marduk's comments and merely attempting to clarify the contradiction that I see.

The whole thing is easier to see if you drop names out and only look at causes. Y will be the universe and X will be the cause of the universe, (deity, quantum event, whatever you want.)

Premises:
Y from X if and only if X<Y. (The Universe can only come from something if its entropy is less. [2nd Thermo law])
The probability of Y < X approaches 100%. (Given enough time, the Universe can come from a state of higher entropy. [point 4])

Assuming these premises, the conclusion must follow: not Y from X. Which is the point they were trying to make against deity. The problem arises when you realize that X also fits all causes that obey the second thermodynamic law, so either one of the two premises are wrong or the universe doesn't exist.

Since most rational beings would like to think that the universe does, in fact, exist we must presume one of their premises is wrong.

ah, late for class. I'll revise later if needed.