mormonsandscience

Two months ago nothing scared my 20 month-old son.  But as his awareness of his surroundings has increased over the last few weeks, he has grown increasingly weary of weird looking things like spiders and strange sounding things like my electric razor.  This change was especially evident during Halloween.  As most parents know, ghosts, ghouls, and goblins elicit some interesting and funny responses from kids.  Sure, we try to comfort and assure them that the ghost is not real, and the older kids seem to get it, but what about the younger kids?  

Studies suggest that toddler-age kids have difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy, notwithstanding assurances from adults.  Belgian developmental psychologist Jean Piaget discovered that many kids have difficulty discerning fantasy from reality before 7 years of age.  I imagine that the younger kids are, the more they struggle with this.  This means that for a 2 year-old child, the ghost hanging above the porch at the neighbor’s house on Halloween night was real, no matter what Mommy said!

Other studies support Piaget’s assertion.  A recent study in the British Journal of Developmental Psychology found that when 3-5 year olds were asked to distinguish real characters such as knights and Michael Jordan from fictional characters such as monsters and dragons, they did so correctly less than 40% of the time.  Their ability to discern real from fictional characters dropped as age decreased.  

All this suggests that younger kids actually see monsters, ghosts, and goblins as being real, but this is only a problem during Halloween, right?  Wrong.  Children are bombarded with fictional content on television that, while innocent to adults, may create dilemmas for younger minds that are unable to discern reality from fiction.  This means that if a 3 year-old sees someone get killed in a movie, he or she may think that it actually happened, regardless of a parent’s assurances.  It is thus important for parents to avoid letting young children watch images on television that may upset their delicate minds, at least until they are able to tell fact from fiction.  Fortunately, most young children 2-5 years-of-age prefer playing to watching grown-up shows.

The counsel to avoid exposing young children to potentially troubling images on television is consistent with the words of Jacob who reminds us that the feelings of our children are “exceedingly tender and chaste and delicate,” and that we should avoid subjecting them to things that may unduly disrupt their delicate minds.

The two pillars of science are empiricism and rationalism.  In the case of empiricism, scientists attempt to observe the natural world in an unbiased and objective manner, and in the case of rationalism, scientists try to think about the natural world in an unbiased and objective manner.  These two pillars, as reliable as they are, are ill-suited for providing us with knowledge about God because knowledge of God is faith-based. 

Faith provides us with spiritual knowledge that transcends the physical and rational.  Faith cannot be manipulated in a randomized controlled trial.  It is not tangible nor can it be measured in any empirical way.  It is even resists operationalization (making intangible things measureable) because its essence is difficult to ascertain.  For instance, shall we measure faith with the number of times someone attends church or the number of prayers said per week?  Or perhaps faith is best measured by how closely we live the 10 commandments.  These operationalizations are a good start, but they hardly capture the essence of faith.   

One thing is clear; faith is not amenable to measurement.

Even if we had the tools to reliably measure faith, understanding faith in a scientific manner would prove elusive because, as the Doctrine and Covenants declares, spiritual matters “can only be perceived by purer eyes” (131:7).  This scripture tells us that spiritual and faith-based knowledge is not discovered through classroom instruction and laboratory research, it is a gift from the Lord.

Faith also escapes the grasp of science because it entails subjective truth.  Subjective truth refers to personal knowledge that is real and meaningful to persons experiencing it.  Given its personal nature, it is not capable of being conveyed to others in an empirical and rational way; therefore it is not capable of being confirmed in a scientific manner.  From a scientific viewpoint, faith in God is an irrational and non-empirical concept.  Explaining faith to a non-believer is a bit like explaining the color red to a blind man – it cannot be done.  Faith and color can only be understood through experience. 

In sum, faith in God is outside the realm of natural, science-based experience; therefore science can neither confirm nor disprove His existence.  Even the late evolutionists and agnostic Stephen Jay Gould conceded this point.  He wrote:

 “Science cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of God’s [existence].  We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.  If some of our crowd [e.g., Richard Dawkins] have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find [my third-grade teacher] Mrs. McInerney and have their knuckles rapped for it…. Science can work only with naturalistic explanations.”

Well said, Mr. Gould. 

The scriptures tell us that in the latter-days, when perilous times come, the righteous need not fear.  Not fearing, however, does not mean ignoring perilous events.  On the contrary, the Lord has instructed the righteous to learn the signs of the times and to look for them, that they may know when the coming of the Lord is nigh at hand.      

One of the signs of the times that may soon come to pass is a sharp increase in disease and pestilence resulting from global warming (regardless of the cause, whether it be greenhouse gas emissions and/or changes in solar activity).  

A recent article in Scientific American reports that recent global warming will likely lead to an increase in diseases if the warming trend continues.  Researchers expect a rise in diseases caused by pathogens that thrive in warmer climates.  Twelve diseases expected to rise with global warming are: cholera, bird flu, ebola, parasites, lyme disease, plague, red tide (poisonous algae blooms in coastal waters), sleeping sickness, tuberculosis, rift valley fever (a newly emergent, deadly virus carried by mosquitos), babesiosis (a malaria-like disease carried by ticks), and yellow fever.

Now let me offer a non-scientific explanation for why these diseases and pestilences will increase in the earth: the wickedness of humanity.  We were reminded in the last general conference (Oct. 2008) that we are living in times that equal the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah.  The only reason the Lord has not destroyed the wicked today is that He is letting the wheat (righteous) grow up with the tares (wicked).  But the Lord will not allow this situation to go on indefinitely.  

In D&C 38:11-12 the Lord tells us that the heavens and eternity are pained because of the wickedness upon the earth.  At this very moment there are angels waiting for the command from God to unleash destruction upon the face of the earth – destruction that will destroy the wicked.  This destruction will include a sharp increase in disease and pestilence.  

Based on the teachings of Wilford Woodruff, this outpouring of destruction may already be underway.  He wrote, “But I want to tell you now, that those angels have left the portals of heaven, and they stand over this people and this nation now, and are hovering over the earth waiting to pour out the judgments. And from this very day they shall be poured out."

As diseases, pestilences, famines, and natural calamities increase in the world, science will always be there to offer a natural explanation, and it should.  But let's not forget the other explanation for these signs of the times in the latter days – the wickedness of humanity.  

So when a country is ravaged by famine and thousands die, sure, let’s blame changing weather patterns, but let’s not forget the possibility that an utterly corrupt government may have something to do with it.

And when a modern city is destroyed by a massive flood from a hurricane, sure, let’s blame a poorly constructed levy/dike, but let’s not forget the possibility that a city full of black magic and riotous living may have something to do with it.

And when an entire region of the earth witnesses widespread death and destruction from a tsunami, sure let’s blame an earthquake that happened hundreds of miles away in the ocean, but let’s not forget the possibility that wickedness may have something to do with it. 

We cannot be certain that wickedness caused these events; we only know that such events will increase in the last days because of wickedness.  Our responsibility is not to judge. Our responsibility is to be prepared (because wickedness is all around us, similar calamities could occur in our communities), and to know the signs of the times. 

The mind-body problem asks “How can something material interact with something immaterial?”  That is, how can an immaterial mind/spirit influence a material body?  This question has perplexed scholars for ages, and it is a question that I am sure resulted in many sleepless nights for Descartes after he proposed a mind-body dualism.  Descartes’ mind-body dualism was that humans are composed of two distinct realities, the physical and the mind/spiritual.  Sounds good.  The only problem is, how does the mind influence the body, and vice versa?

Descartes solution was that the interaction between mind and body took place in the pineal gland located near the center of the human brain.  This seems like a logical choice (I mean, it is much better than the first joint in the big toe), but he was wrong.  I am sure that Descartes is now aware of fact that the pineal gland is a melatonin-producing endocrine gland, not the center of mind-body interaction.  And if Descartes has been attending the wonderful general conferences that are going on in the spirit world (and listening to great modern-day prophets), he also knows the solution to the mind/spirit-body problem.  The solution is that the spirit is capable of influencing a material body because it too is material, only more refined, a fact that may be self-evident to those living in the spirit world.

As latter-day saints we can put the issue of the mind-body problem to rest, which is good because I would like to move onto a new problem: the intelligence-matter problem.  

The intelligence-matter problem is this: How does a seemingly non-material intelligence interact with physical material? 

Of course, the whole essence of the intelligence-matter problem relies on an accurate understanding of intelligence.  Compared to our knowledge of spirits (which is not extensive), we know very little about intelligences, that primordial essence of humanity.  

Here are a few of my assumptions regarding intelligences.

1. Intelligences are eternal.
2. Intelligence is found in all matter.
3. Intelligence, as the word suggests, has the ability to ‘understand’ God.
4. Intelligence obeys God’s commands (this makes miracles possible, e.g., water to wine)  
5. Intelligence does not posses moral agency, so it cannot intentionally disobey God.
6. Humans once existed as nothing more than intelligence.

The intelligence-matter problem comes into play with #2 and #4.  Intelligence exists in matter and is capable of making its matter act in accordance with God’s will, such as when God searched out matter containing the sort of intelligence needed to create human spirits, and ordered it to form into spirit bodies – the intelligences obeyed and you and I became sentient, spiritual beings. 

I admit that I have characterized the intelligence-matter problem as a sort of “ghost in the machine” problem that led to the mind-body problem, only this time the ‘ghost’ is a seemingly immaterial intelligence and the ‘machine’ is matter.  Yet, if intelligences are in fact physical material, then why do the scriptures make a distinction between “intelligence” and “matter”.

Then again, I may be wrong. 

Any thougths?