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. 

Based on the content of my previous posts dealing with evolution, you can tell I am not a fan.  I like to point out the weaknesses in the evolutionists’ arguments and show everyone that it is not the infallible theory that many would have us believe.  I don’t need to look at the so-called facts to accomplish this; it is done with basic principles in the philosophy of science.  Those principles allow us to ascertain whether some truth claims comprise certain or uncertain knowledge, based on the nature of the evidence.  

My disdain for evolutionary dogma has largely been fueled by atheistic, biological determinists who argue that there is no supreme creator and no spiritual existence; there is only matter-in-motion.  According to these folks, what is real in the world is physical matter that obeys the laws of nature – there is nothing else.  Humanity evolved through random, undirected processes, and because the mounting evidence seems to support the notion of common ancestry, there is no need for God.  They have filled all the gaps (questions) in nature and completely removed God from consideration.  

This sort of doctrine offends my Christian sensitivities.  It goes against what I have been taught and felt about the world for most of my life.  And it does not help that whenever I communicate with these people, I am accused of being an irrational “IDiot” (ID stands for Intelligent Design).  Many of them are so blinded by their dogmatic adherence to evolutionism that they are not willing to consider seriously opposing viewpoints.  Not very scholarly, is it?

Well, it seems as though there is some positive change in the evolutionary community – not a questioning of evolutionary beliefs, but an acceptance of deity.  A few are discovering that there is no joy and happiness in atheistic evolution.  They are longing for something more, something meaningful and lasting.  They are longing for God.  This longing for God among evolutionists has created a new belief system called “Theistic Evolution” or TE, for short.

TE combines belief in an active and caring God (theism) with evolutionary descent from a common ancestor.  One of TE’s biggest advocates is Francis Collins, a leading DNA researcher and former chair of the Human Genome Project.  He accepts the ‘compelling’ evidence for evolution.  Evolution, he believes, was used by God to create humanity.  He also claims that there is compelling evidence to believe in God.  His evidence for God comes from the moral code (Light of Christ) that is in all of us and the universal desire to seek out God.  Because of a recent spiritual experience, he has also come to accept Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.  His is a wonderful story of atheist turned believer.

Despite our vastly different opinions of evolution, I consider Collins and others like him, brothers or sisters in the faith.  I would gladly sit down to lunch with a TE.  I feel the same way toward Latter-day Saints who embrace opinions on creation that differ from mine.  I believe that Mormon evolutionists, LDS creation literalists, and others like me who fall somewhere in between can all enjoy full fellowship with the saints.  This is only possible if we respect each other, notwithstanding our different views.  Respecting each other in spite of our differences is the Christian way.

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?

Imagine, for a moment, living in 1687 when Isaac Newton published The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (or Pincipia, for short).  After the publication of the book, you would have risen in the morning and gone to work never knowing that the most influential scientific book ever written had just been published.  Those living during that time could not have imagined that Principia would revolutionize the world in which we live.

Are there developments in science today that will greatly impact the world hundreds of years from now?  Will people living 300 years into the future (2308) look back on our time and identify developments in science that brought about major change?  Quite possibly.  I can think of at least one positive example and one negative example.

On the positive side there’s the Human Genome Project, a multi-billion dollar effort to map the human genome that was completed in April, 2003.  Because of this Project, science is pursuing genetics research that has the potential to bring about significant change to the well-being of humanity.  People living 300 years from now may look back on our time and wonder if we realized the significance of the Project.  On the morning the project was completed in 2003, we probably woke up and went about our work as if nothing had changed.

Now for the negative.  There is currently a subtle movement in science that is not recognizable to many, yet it has long-term ramifications.  It is changing the goal of science from discovering absolute truth to discovering relative truth. 

Absolute truth refers to universal, necessary, and certain knowledge about the world.  It is the standard to which scientists aspired for generations.  Relative truth, on the other hand, is the idea that truth is context and culturally dependent.  That is, there are different truths for different folks living in different situations.  Now, to a certain extent I accept relative truth.  Even my doctoral dissertation was in the area of phenomenology, a philosophy which basically asserts that truth exists in people’s subjective interpretations of lived experiences.  But relative truth should not be allowed to replace objective truth as the goal of science.  Efforts to promote this change is putting science on the slippery slope of moral relativism

Moral relativism is the belief that what is right or wrong in a moral sense is dependent on contextual circumstances (i.e., social, historical, cultural, and personal circumstances).  Clearly it is important to make moral judgments based on context; for instance, if someone kills another person, it is important to know if that killing took place on the battlefield or in a bank.  But I would argue that each legitimate moral judgment ultimately ends up in an absolute truth (i.e., the soldier is not guilty of murder whereas the back robber is guilty of murder).  Yet when we take away absolute truth and leave only relative truth, everything goes haywire.  Science is not exempt from the resulting confusion.

Science’s rejection of absolute truth has already had unfortunate consequences, especially in psychology.  The oligarchy of psychology, otherwise known as the American Psychological Society (APA), recently sanctioned (in 2001) immoral practices such as gay marriage and other gender bending practices.  What is particularly irksome is that all this happened in the name of scientific progress!  “Progress by what standards?” you may ask.  Progress by the standard of “If it feels good and doesn’t harm anyone else, then do it.” (a.k.a. moral relativism).  In other words, according to the APA, there are no longer any absolute truths about what comprises healthy sexual relationships.  “Anything goes as long as it makes you feel good and it does not hurt others.”

Relativism was once popular among the Sophists in ancient Greece.  We are thus experiencing a return to the old ways, and it feels like a bad dream.  So how did we get to this point?  The answer is simple.  The scientific community has been infiltrated by secular humanists that reject God.  If there is no God, there can be no absolute truth because absolute truth requires a final arbiter of truth.  In other words, without a final arbiter who conveys truth and knowledge of things as they really are, there can be no absolute truth.  The more secular humanists push their atheistic agenda, the more they are driving the final arbiter of truth out of science.  Moral relativism is gaining popularity today because it is filling the void left by the forced exit of the final arbiter of truth from the sciences.

The only antidote I can think of is bringing God back into science, much like existed during the 17th century Scientific Revolution.  (Note that I am not calling for a return of religious influence into science that existed during the Medieval Dark Ages.)  If secular humanism is allowed to proceed unchecked, relativism will grow and the goal of science will look very different 300 years from now.  

If that happens, people living 300 years from now will say, “Gee, I wonder what it was like to live during 2008 when relativism began to replace absolute truth?”  If we could speak, we might say, “I just woke up in the morning and went to work as if nothing had changed.”  If we fail to challenge the rising tide of secular humanism and pretend as though nothing is happening, history could very well turn out this way.