I have been encountering this one a lot. Science is always changing. It obviously doesn't KNOW that Mormonism is not true, so I can reject whatever contradicts my faith and feel no cog-dis about it whatsoever.

Response?

But its rigorous application results in changes in our understanding of scientific reality.

And if you (Brother or Sister TBM) don't know what the "scientific method" is, look it up in a science book.

If you don't have a science book, check one out at your local library.

If you don't know where your local library is, here's a hint: It ain't your ward library.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2015 01:22PM by steve benson.

I don't know how to answer claims like that because Mormonism has nothing to do with science. Yes, certainly, science has changed. The way science operates and is used is responsive to social, economic, and educational factors. Pseudoscience has been used to justify a lot of horrible things. There are lots of critiques to be made of what scientists study, how studies are conducted, why they are conducted, who is considered 'worthy' of scientific study and who has the privilege to be considered a scientist or work towards that goal.

However, that's got nothing to do with Mormonism because Mormonism is plumb crazy and nonsensical. Science isn't going to 'prove' Mormonism is 'true' any more than it's going to 'prove' that the Wizard of Oz is a historical account of real events.

Science changes and admits it, Mormonism changes and denies it.

This is the perfect answer.

((Hugs))

((Hugs)) for you too! Some days, I just need to hear that I was right about something. Thanks.

Yes, science changes. The earth is no longer flat, nor is it the center of our solar system. Neither is the Mormon church.

I thought it's always been round.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought it's always been round.

Indeed. And there was never any "science" that said otherwise. There were people who, without using science or the scientific method, ignorantly declared it "flat" -- but that's not science changing.

The "answer" is really simple. Science is the best, most reliable method we humans have ever devised for determining facts. Once a fact is determined using the scientific method, it almost never changes. A fact will frequently be better explained, but it won't change.

We use the facts we discover through science to build theories. Theories explain how things work, based on facts. As we learn more/new facts, theories can and do "change." The more facts we have, the better our theories are. But a change in a theory doesn't mean the underlying facts have changed -- it just means we better understand how those facts fit together.

In the case of mormonism, it is a fact that there were no horses, elephants, chariots, steel, etc. in pre-columbian Native American populations. Those facts contradict the BoM. It is a fact that the BoA papyrii do NOT say what Smith claimed they said. That contradicts mormonism. Lots of other facts show the mormon church's claims false. Those facts won't change.

If the scientific method were applied to the mormon church, would it even exist?

Obviously views of religions have changed over the years (100's and 1,000's of years).

I don't know of any religion that reacts to that fact by pretending that they didn't ever say something or teach something when this is demonstrably false--except the mormon church!

Magical thinking at its best!

Once an educated person descends to calling it "sciencism", there is little hope for a continuing dialogue.

I learned that the hard way from my family.

. . . classic anti-science types who let slip their thinly-veiled unease with empirically-grounded evidence by derisively attacking basic methodological investigative tools of science as constituting nothing but "scientism."

There are three basic definitions of "scientism":

First:

"'Scientism,' in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or meaningless. This view seems to have been held by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (1922) when he said such things as 'The totality of true propositions is the whole of natural science . . .' He later repudiated this view."


Second:

"In the weak sense, 'scientism' is the view that the methods of the natural sciences should be applied to any subject matter. This view is summed up nicely by Michael Shermer:

"'Scientism' is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science. (Shermer 2002)".


Third:

"On the other hand, the dictionary definition of 'scientism' is the attitude and method of the typical natural scientist, whoever that might be."

("Scientism," under "From Abracadabra to Zombies," at; http://www.skepdic.com/scientism.html)


Whatever definition that best helps these enemies of science tout their personal pro-magic, religiously-rooted belief systems as being true, they end up attacking unapologetic advocates of the scientific approach of observing, testing, verifiying, replicating and falsifying as being misled apostles of the "religion of scientism" who unnecessarily rely on an evidentiary toolkit for investigating how the world actually works.

One approach, for example, of this anti-science crowd is to champion the nutty notions of weirded-out, so-called "Near-Death Experience" charlatans like Raymond Moody (who claims that one can make literal contact with one's dead relatives by relaxing in front of a mirror, having prepared for the meet-up by first eating fruits and vegetables, followed by taking off all jewelry): and wacked-out Mormon Betty Eadie (who claims to have left her body on the OR table and been transported to heaven where she hugged Jesus before returning to Earth to re-enter her body).

That's just sillyism.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2015 05:16PM by steve benson.

science is a method for determining truth.

What changes is scientific evidence.

Science doesn't just change randomly. It grows develops and matures until a plethora of evidence gives us confidence in the theory.

Mormonism and other religions like to cry for mommy because the world isn't how people 200 or 2,000 years ago though it was.

If you've ever had a baby in diapers, you're used to changes.

+1

I guess I would ask if science is moving toward the Mormon positions, or away from them. And is Mormonism changing to adapt to science, or is science moving closer to the "eternal truths" of Mormonism?

Let's take the origin of Native Americans. The LDS Church hasn't fully embraced the conclusions of science, but it did modify the title page of the Book of Mormon in response to scientific evidence.

The other part of the response would be to ask the Mormon to consider that in order for Mormonism (as orthodoxly understood) to be true basic understanding of archaeology, Egyptology, genetics, Mormon history, and a bunch of other fields would have to be completely upended. How likely is that to happen? Can you think of other instances when such a revolution in which the scientific consensus in numerous fields validated a related range of religious beliefs or ancient folk wisdom that were previously contradictory to the scientific consensus? We have to consider how unlikely it is that all these points of damning evidence would be overturned. Not just overturned, but overturned in favor of the LDS position.

It was false in the beginning
It's false now and ever shall be
Amen, Amen

Which is exactly why I prefer science to religion. Change could very well be the only constant in the universe. Why not embrace it?

It never changes in a way that supports the Book of Mormon. Every time some new announcement comes out that might give Mormons hope, it develops to shoot their claims down. Haplogroup X is one example.

Maybe something like this is the best response:

Yes, science changes when presented with new facts that undermine a scientific theory or conclusion. In such event, the theory is modified, or sometimes abandoned altogether. So, what is science's current theory as to the Book of Mormon? It is that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient record, but rather a 19th Century production, and that therefore the claims of Mormonism with respect to the book are false. This conclusion is based upon genetic evidence, historical evidence, archeological evidence, literary evidence, etc., all of which support the scientific claim that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be.

So, what new fact do you think might come forward such as to change the scientific conclusion as to the Book of Mormon? Is there any single fact that could reasonably be expected to be discovered that would erase all of the evidentiary facts that support the scientific conclusion of its falsity? If not, then how many facts are needed? Is it really plausible to expect such a revolution in scientific judgment? Assuming God is in control of what facts come forward on this issue, wouldn't it have been in His best interest to have provided facts that would make such negative scientific conclusions more tentative, or at least soften the overwhelming scientific consensus?

Imagine a jigsaw puzzle, where, say, 25 percent of the pieces are placed in a more or less scattered fashion. One person insists that it is a picture of Abraham Lincoln, but the overwhelming majority of people viewing the incomplete product deny such a conclusion. As more pieces are added, we see partial images of the face, and can compare them to several photographs. We see an ear and it seems too short. An eyebrow appears and it just is not bushy enough. Then, the chin appears at it looks too stubby, and the neck way too thick. Then, low and behold, we get an eye, and it seems to be blue, when Lincoln's eyes were brown.

So, everyone concludes that this is definitely NOT a picture of Lincoln, even though only a small fraction of the face is visible. Nonetheless, the believer continues to insist its Lincoln, with all sorts of theories attempting to explain the evidentiary problems. After all, the puzzle is not yet complete. Maybe its the angle of the picture; or maybe its the lighting; or maybe Lincoln was ill; or maybe it is this or that. Maybe, just maybe, when we see the whole picture it will be Lincoln after all, and it will all come together. But then we realize that the person who provided us with the puzzle chose this picture in order that we would have faith that the picture was in fact of Lincoln. Well, we ask, wouldn't a straightforward picture of Lincoln, with well known features, be preferred by such a person given such an intent?

So, at some point the doubters might ask, what piece of the puzzle do you expect to find that undermines this conclusion? How can such a piece, or pieces, change what we already see and is apparent?

The answer, of course, is that there is no such magic piece. The conclusion is established by the evidence so firmly that too many new pieces of the puzzle would be necessary to "fix" it, and shift perspective; and even then, we would have to explain those stubborn physical impressions that remain just not quite right.

The moral of the story is that although science is inherently tentative, and open to new facts, sometimes what is apparent on the face of the evidence is so compelling that it is hard to imagine just how such a conclusion might be undermined, even if technically "possible" with a great deal of faith and an abundance of imagination.

+1000 Well said.

Science constantly progresses.

Science is open to change, but scientists rarely agree on outcomes or hypotheses.

It evolves, as knowledge increases.

There's scientists who resist change as well. When theories come along to supplant the ones that are, they challenge the status quo.

Some scientists are terrible at accepting change and new ideas.

But true science is always in flux, and constantly changing.

The Mormon church used to have a pamphlet during the 70's called, "Constancy amid change." Its premise was the world changes, but God never does. I suspect even God is a scientist, since he engineered the Universe. Of all beings, he would be most open to change and growth. The Universe is expanding at a tremendous rate! That doesn't happen from a lack of activity but constant growth aka change.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2015 03:41PM by amyjo.

I think Mormonism changes more than science does:

Joseph Smith changed his first vision story every time he told it.
Polygamy was essential to our eternal salvation. Now you get excommunicated for practicing it.
Brigham Young taught that Adam is the God of this planet. Now he was mistaken.
Brigham Young also taught that some sins required the shedding of blood. Now he was mistaken.
Mormonism claimed that "As man is, God once was ..." Then Gordon B. Hinckley announced to the world that we don't teach that. Now we're teaching that again.
Blacks could not hold the priesthood because they were descendants of Cain, etc. Now blacks can hold the priesthood.
In the everlasting temple ceremony you had to act out your manner of death if you break the oaths. Now you don't. Women had to covenant to obey the law of their husbands too. Now they don't.
Lamanites were the ancestors of Native Americans. Now they are among the ancestors. And they used to turn white when they accepted the gospel, now they don't.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

Science does change, but they admit things changed because the evidence supported something else. Mormonism denies things have changed, and blame their favorite scapegoat Satan and his minions, the apostates and anti-Mormons.

In every war between science and religion, science has always won.

Changes in science are similar to changes in an image taken with a 5 megapixel camera versus a 100 megapixel camera. The more we study and research the universe, the more we learn and the clearer the overall image becomes.

And the clearer the image becomes, the more obvious it is that religion is and has always been full of shit.

One response is "still. we're reasonably sure of some things
at this point. Otherwise cars and planes and phones
wouldn't work. Right?"

If you can't move forward with agreement on this point,
the discussion is over.

Another is "why do you believe Mormonism needs scientific validation?"

A third: "science is indeed constantly advancing,
but con artistry is as old as the hills". That of course
has a much harder edge, you'll have to decide :)

The great thing about science is that it is actually exciting to find out your were wrong about something or that it wasn't exactly what you thought it was. That means you've uncovered even more knowledge. Yay.

Mormonism is the opposite because Mormons cannot and must not be wrong, ever, because they have the truthiest truth out there and God said so or at least Monson said so and that is the same as god so there.

blueorchid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The great thing about science is that it is
> actually exciting to find out your were wrong
> about something or that it wasn't exactly what you
> thought it was. That means you've uncovered even
> more knowledge. Yay.

YES...!!!!!!

There is another thing that I find exciting...

Much of the time (especially in physics, astronomy, and maths, though also in other scientific disciplines as well), advances in scientific knowledge are accompanied by steadily increasing brain changes (the way neurological components act with each other...advances in brain connectivity...and over time, actual, larger, brain component changes like increased size or activity levels), which leads to us getting actually smarter.

To understand the frontiers of science now (just as equivalent advances in past eras did), you have to S-T-R-E-T-C-H many of your brain functions, or your previous levels of brain activity, to understand. There are all kinds of concepts in certain scientific areas that require thinking "in new ways" because the previous ways are suspected of being, or are proven to be, suddenly inadequate.

There are certain books, and certain YouTube presentations, that I do not understand at all---yet I have been TRYING to understand for a number of years now..

In a generation or two, these will all be the commonplace teachings of high school science classes.

Our species (or a sub-set of our species, anyway) is getting smarter...and it is all because of science...

...and it is wonderful!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2015 05:19PM by tevai.

I find it comforting that "science changes" as new information becomes available. It builds on itself. When done correctly, it illuminates our understanding of concrete, testable data. It does NOT try to make the evidence support what the researcher *wishes* was true. It follows the evidence to reach whatever conclusion the data indicates. And of course, that conclusion is subject to change as new information becomes available. Heh- if your Mormon friends want to talk about "eternal progression" this is it. ;-)

I apply new information to my existing beliefs all the time. So, my personal perspective of Mormonism changes and evolves as I come across new information, too. I used to think TSCC was a church. Now I think it's a destructive, culty, scam.

Yes, it changes. Take science's estimate of the speed of light

In 1729 Bradley calculated it at 301000 km/s.

1862 Foucault, 298000±500

1926 Michelson, 299796±4

1972 Evenson, 299792.4562±0.0011

Yes, changing and improving.