Given that deists believe that the Lord’s influence in the world following the creation is essentially non existent, it is worthwhile asking why deist scientists choose to believe in God.

Surely some choose to believe because of an inexplicable inner sense that He lives. Other deists take a more rational approach and argue that life, with all its complexities, could not have come about by chance; therefore there must be an intelligent force which started it all. Whatever their reasons for believing, deists are largely concerned about preserving the belief that natural laws are the only forces at work in the world. This belief justifies their focusing solely on natural, law-driven processes, usually to the point of rejecting notions of divine influence. Moreover, many deists believe that because science is able to uncover the laws of nature, and that such laws are the only forces at work in the world, science is therefore the only reliable source of truth. This belief, known as scientism, is sometimes taken to extremes by those who declare that science will one day reveal all there is to know about the world. 

In a way, deism is like having your cake and eating it too. With deism you can believe in God and accept scientism. But as the Savior taught, "No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon" (3rd Nephi 13:24). By accepting scientism and denying divine intervention and revelation, deists are clearly worshiping scientific mammon.  

A redeeming value of deism is that it advocates a belief in divine creation. This positive aspect diminishes, however, when theological implications of deism are taken into consideration. Because of its stance against divine involvement, deism denies the mission of the Jesus Christ, thus rejecting the Savior’s atonement which is central to the Plan of Redemption. Also, if, as deists claim, the creator does not reveal himself to his creations, then it follows that He is unknowable. The belief that He is unknowable has led to some obscure conceptions about the nature of God. According to one deist, the creator is “the ground and source of our sense of wonderment, of power, of powerlessness, of light, of dark, of meaning, and of bafflement. . . . It is the God of mystics of all cultures and creeds. We look out into the sea of mystery and speak his name. His name eludes all creeds and theories of science. He is indeed the ‘dread essence beyond logic.’”  This author’s god exists in the creations and natural events where he eludes reason and science. 

Other deists equate God with nature, a belief known as pantheism. A 17th century scholar who promoted this view was Benedict Spinoza. Spinoza’s phrase “Deus sive Natura,” or “God or Nature”, suggests that the creator is nature, the structure of the cosmic order, operating according to blind universal laws and devoid of divine purpose. “Spinoza’s God . . . [can]not be spoken to, [does] not respond if prayed to, [and is] very much in every particle of the universe.”  Similar pantheistic-style beliefs have been expressed by influential scientists such as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking.  Is it any wonder, then, that deists view the creator as a detached and impersonal entity? How can anyone commune with such a god? 

Another concern with deism is that if the creator does not reveal himself, then humankind cannot know the purpose of creation. To know that this world was created for the purpose of “bring[ing] to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:29) engenders respect for the Lord and enables us to find meaning in His creations. Such sentiments are conspicuously absent in deistic understandings of nature. For example, in Skeptics and True Believers, deist and science author, Chet Raymo, expresses amazement over the Hubble Deep Field photograph which shows over 1500 galaxies in one photo of the night sky. His wonderment stems from being able to witness those galactic structures, knowing what they are, and having some knowledge of the natural processes by which they came into existence. 

I am similarly amazed when I look at the Hubble Deep Field hanging on the door in my office. Yet there is so much more to my amazement when I view the Hubble Deep Field. I also feel immense respect for the greatness and power of God. I am amazed that, notwithstanding His greatness and power, He is merciful, just, and loving (Alma 42:15; 26:37). Furthermore, notwithstanding His innumerable creations, He is keenly aware of each of us and concerned about our well-being (Matthew 7:11; Mosiah 4:21). And I am amazed that He wants to share His creations with us, and have His children partake in similar creations (D&C 98:18; 132:19-20). Such claims would constitute intellectual heresy in the eyes of deists because they do not realize that the Lord’s purpose is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39). 

Lastly, because deists do not believe that the creator is involved in the world, they are unlikely to petition Him for assistance in their scientific endeavors nor will they give thanks to Him for their scientific talents and discoveries. In reference to the sin of ingratitude in scholarly work, Joseph F. Smith said,

In all the great modern discoveries in science, in the arts, in mechanics, and in all material advancement of the age, the world says, "We have done it." The individual says, "I have done it," and he gives no honor or credit to God. Now, I read in the revelations through Joseph Smith, the prophet, that because of this, God is not pleased with the inhabitants of the earth but is angry with them because they will not acknowledge his hand in all things.

We need to give thanks to Heavenly Father for every blessing we receive (D&C 46:32), something which is difficult to do if we do not believe that He grants blessings. Because He is the ultimate source of Light and truth that enlightens mankind, we owe a debt of gratitude to Him for all the scientific and technological discoveries that have enriched and prolonged our lives.

(Source: Truth and Science: An LDS Perspective)
 
 
Canada has socialized medicine and a government run, single payer insurance system.  I work in healthcare in the US and have heard several times that the US can’t go the way of Canada. I have also heard talk radio saying that the Canadian model doesn’t work.

I am writing this post to defend the Canadian healthcare model. Here are 5 positive and 2 negative observations about Canadian healthcare.

Positive.

1. In all my years of growing up in Canada, I have never once had a problem with getting quick primary and catastrophic care in Canada. Whenever I called my primary care physicians, I was in the doctors’ offices within 0-3 days. When a surgeon and I agreed that I needed elective surgery, that surgery was scheduled within 3 weeks. And whenever I went to the ER, I was seen within 1-2 hours, sometimes less.

2. Canadian healthcare is not free. Everyone pays a premium because fair and equitable premiums are automatically deducted from your paycheck. I think this is a good way of ensuring that everyone pays into the system – there are very few freeloaders in Canada. Also, premiums are automatically adjusted based on income, so poor families pay less. Making sure that everyone pays something into the system prevents the “entitlement” mentality (“I deserve care even if I don’t pay for it”).

3. If you get real sick in Canada, you don’t lose your home and risk bankruptcy.

4. If you require catastrophic care in Canada, you get it quickly. Last year my uncle had a massive heart attack. He was flown to Vancouver and in surgery with a specialist the very next day. He had follow up surgeries a few weeks later in a timely fashion. 

5. The story about the Canadian premier from Newfoundland who recently went to Florida for heart surgery that we keep hearing about was not denied heart surgery nor was he placed on a long waiting list in Canada. He was offered surgery in Newfoundland that would have saved his life, but he opted for an alternative, less invasive procedure by a specific physician in Florida who was recommended to him by someone else. So this is not a case of someone not being able to get decent care in Canada. It is a case of a wealthy politician shopping around for a specific doctor and procedure that was more to his liking.

Negative.

1. Last year I attended a healthcare conference where data were presented showing that the cost of healthcare is rising at an alarming rate in nations with socialized care. So Canada’s socialized medicine is not controlling costs very well. Obama’s insurance reforms will not, in all likelihood, bring rising costs under control. I believe that controlling rising costs can be achieved by changing the culture of healthcare delivery.

2. Canada does not have a co-pay system. Absence of co-pays leads to unnecessary visits at primary care and ER facilities. A co-pay is needed in Canada. It would force some Canadians with mild conditions like sore throats and coughs to think twice about whether they need to see a doctor, assuming they tend to run off to the doctor at the first sign of a cold .

So there you have it - one person’s viewpoint. Whether the Canadian model would work in American is unknown, but it works fairly well for Canadians.
 
 
            Following the 16th century scientific revolution, Western Europe entered into a period known as the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment, which lasted for most of the 18th century, gets its name from the fact that people who lived during that era believed that they were living in enlightened times. They believed that they were living in an age that was far more civilized and advanced than previous generations. With respect to science, they were correct; theirs’ was a prosperous time unmatched by the previous millennium. Unfortunately, however, the Enlightenment was un-enlightening in a spiritual sense. It produced a spiritual malaise in science that continues to this day.     

            Belief in an active and purposive creator began to wane as Enlightenment scholars downplayed the role of God in the universe. Efforts to minimize the role of deity were largely spearheaded by French thinkers known as philosophes, such as Diderot (1713-1784), Voltaire (1694-1778), and Montesquieu (1689-1755). The philosophes were writers and publicists who read abstruse scientific treatises and books by theistic scientists like Newton and Galileo, and re-wrote them in the vernacular. In these re-writings the philosophes downplayed the role of deity and eliminated references to a higher power while elevating human reason and scientific experimentation as the great arbiters of truth.  As a result, Western European science became prideful of its scientific accomplishments as few scholars were willing to recognize the influence and handiwork of the Almighty.

            One can imagine how the theist pioneers of the scientific revolution might have felt about the secularization of the science they helped build. Science historian Brian Silver gives us some idea. He wrote, "Newton neither foresaw nor intended any of this. He was not the John the Baptist of [i.e., the one who prepared the way for] the Enlightenment, and he would not have been at home with its ideals."  I am certain that the same could be said for Boyle, Descartes, and Galileo.

            As the influence of deity was being removed from science, many scholars began championing a watered down belief system about God known as deism. Bruce R. McConkie described deism as "the partial acceptance of God, that is, deists profess to believe in him as the Creator of the world . . . but they reject the idea that he rules over or guides men during the interval between the creation and the judgment."  In other words, deists believe that the Lord is a disinterested creator whose only involvement with humanity occurred during the creation. They assert that after the creation, He left the world to run on its own according to natural laws that He had established. He is like a watchmaker who, after building a watch and setting it to work on its own, has no continual involvement with its function. Most importantly, as McConkie also pointed out, deism rejects Christianity because the Savior's divine mission of redemption and His earthly miracles violate the deist concept of divine uninvolvement.   

(Source: Truth and Science: An LDS Perspective)
 
 
Picture
“And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams” (Acts 2:17).

During the 19th century, chemists struggled with discovering how identical carbon atoms combined to form different compounds. This mystery was solved in a most wondrous manner by a chemist named Friedrich August Kekule (1829-1896). 

Kekule was returning home late one night after discussing chemistry with his friend, Hugo Muller. While riding home on an open bus through the deserted streets of London, he said:

I fell into a reverie, and lo, the atoms were gamboling before my eyes. . . . I saw how, frequently, two smaller atoms united to form a pair; how a larger one embraced the two smaller ones; how still larger ones kept hold of three or even four of the smaller; whilst the whole kept whirling in a giddy dance. I saw how the larger ones formed a chain, dragging the smaller ones after them but only at the ends of the chain.

Kekule spent much of that night drawing the shapes he saw in his dream. His sketches illustrated how carbon atoms create different substances by forming links and chains. This vision led to Kekule’s theory of organic molecular structure.

Sometime after this discovery Kekule dedicated himself to studying aromatic benzene, a hydrocarbon found in aromatic substances such as scented oils and spices. Benzene does not follow the same rules of organic molecular structuring that Kekule had discovered in his first dream. After laboring for seven years to unlock the secrets of the structure of benzene that accounted for different aromatic properties, Kekule had another revelatory dream. He recalled:

I was sitting writing at my textbook but the work did not progress; my thoughts were elsewhere. I turned my chair to the fire and dozed. Again the atoms were gamboling before my eyes. This time the smaller groups kept modestly in the background. My mental eye, rendered more acute by repeated visions of the kind, could now distinguish larger structures of manifold conformation: long rows, sometimes more closely fitted together all twining and twisting in snake-like motion. But look! What was that? One of the snakes had seized hold of its own tail, and the form whirled mockingly before my eyes. As if by a flash of lightning I awoke; and this time also I spent the rest of the night in working out the consequences of the hypothesis.

This dream led to Kekule’s discovery that carbon atoms also form rings. 

Kekule’s dreams of carbon atoms forming chains and rings answered the question of how identical carbon-based compounds produce different substances. This discovery spawned an organic chemistry industry which today provides indispensable coal-tar products such as dyes, plastics, detergents, and drugs. His dreams also unlocked mysteries of life on earth, for all organic life depends on the capacity of carbon atoms to form molecular chains and rings as they did in Kekule’s dreams.

(Source: Truth and Science: An LDS Perspective)
 
 
Picture
Pioneering research on the localization of brain functions by the eminent neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield (1891-1976) provides scientific evidence for the existence of a spirit.

Penfield was attempting to identify the origins of epileptic seizures by stimulating exposed regions of patients’ brains with an electrode. If the initial seizure location could be identified then he would consider removing tissue at the trigger site. By repeatedly stimulating brain regions in conscious patients and noting the effects, Penfield was able to construct a remarkably detailed map of localized functions in the brain. Equally impressive was what he did not find. In all his work on stimulating the human brain, Penfield could not locate the mind.

When Penfield carried out his investigations, patients would report all sorts of sensations, memories, and movements, but the electrode never activated the patients’ mind. He could not stimulate the brain and cause a patient to make a choice, to believe something, or to reason. This discovery led him to conclude that “it will always be quite impossible to explain the mind on the basis of neuronal activity in the brain.”

Penfield noted that throughout his research the mind was manifested in the patients’ reports of what his electrode caused them to do and feel. For example, when the electrode caused a hand to move, the patients did not say, “I wanted to move my hand;” they said, “I didn’t do that, you did.” He concluded that “The patient’s mind, which is considering the situation in such an aloof and critical manner, can only be something quite apart from the neuronal reflex action.”

When Penfield began his studies of the human brain, he had hoped to discover how the brain causes the mind. However, unable to find the physical correlates of the mind in the brain and at the same time ever aware of the presence of mind during his research, Penfield reached an unexpected conclusion. He determined that a human spirit must be the source of the mind. This conclusion brought him great joy. “What a thrill it [was],” he declared, “to discover that the scientist, too, can legitimately believe in the existence of the spirit!”

(Source: an excerpt taken from Truth and Science: An LDS Perspective)
 
 
"The rules and principles [of creation] are in the scriptures. The revelations make it very clear that mankind is the offspring of Heavenly Parents. We have in God our Father and a Heavenly Mother the pattern of our parentage. . . . No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded them in the Creation. They reproduce after their own kind (see Moses 2:12, 24–25). They follow the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that. Every four-year-old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget a reptile. . . .  Each is a child of God. He is not a monkey; neither were his ancestors."

Source: Children of God. www.byub.org/talks/Download.aspx?id=1774&md=pdf

 
 
Statement from Joseph Fielding Smith:

"CANNOT BELIEVE BOTH GOSPEL AND EVOLUTION. I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so."

"If you believe in the doctrine of the evolutionist, then you must accept the view that man has evolved through countless ages from the very lowest forms of life up through various stages of animal life, finally into the human form. The first man, according to this hypothesis known as the "cave man," was a creature absolutely ignorant and devoid of any marked intelligence over the beasts of the field."

Source: Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1
 
 
Evangelical Albert Mohler's comment communicates my thoughts on the matter of Tiger's return to Buddhism very well.

“[T]he statement by Tiger Woods points to the radical distinction between Christianity and Buddhism -- between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the dharma of the Buddha. . . .  [T]he most remarkable aspect of his confession is its Buddhist shape. American Christians should look at those words with care.”

“A Christian looking at those words sees just how distant they are from the Gospel. The distinction between the Christian and Buddhist worldviews is laid bare for all to see. Tiger Woods should be taken at his word when he grounds his apology and confession in Buddhism. . . . Christians should see this as further reason to pray for Tiger Woods. We should respect the integrity and honesty of his statement, but hope and pray that he will one day come to know the salvation and forgiveness of sin that comes only through faith in Christ. We believe that he will not find salvation in renouncing all desire. We would hope instead that he might hear the Gospel and desire Christ.”
 
Google Analytics