I've been asked if I believe the Bible as a literal text. I've also been asked if I believe The Book of Mormon contains literally true stories, or if those stories are of useful value even if not true.
The answer to both questions is yes--I believe they are real stories and I believe there's some value to them even if they weren't real (although that value is quite limited). That doesn't mean, of course, that there aren't figurative passages or symbolism--of course the scriptures are replete with nonliteral literary devices. But LDS believe that Adam and Eve lived, that Noah lived and preached and that there was a Flood, that Jesus Christ lived and lives, etc. There is quite a bit of variation of thought about what was going on before Adam and Eve, whether the Flood was local or global, the age of the earth, among other things. The Church has never claimed it has all information on every subject--quite the contrary, it concerns itself with human improvement and bringing people unto Christ. Issues of evolution vs. creationism, how old the earth is, whether Adam has a belly button, and lots of other issues aren't terribly relevant to bringing people closer to God. They are interesting and worthy of study, but not really the point of Christ's Church. And yet . . .
LDS have a strong philosophical heritage favoring study and learning of all kinds. "And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith. " D&C 88:118. Truth should be sought out in its many forms. Science, math, moral living--everything good. "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." Art. of Faith 13.
Like any community of people, LDS are going to have significant variation in beliefs. I asked a good (LDS) friend the other day why he thinks evolutionary theory (or any variation on it) is wrong. He pointed out some criticisms generally, but I think what I concluded was that it's aesthetically unappealing to him. I told him so--he disagreed at first, but I think he ended up agreeing with me. He's read a lot about it, studied it and generally disfavors it. In fact, I could say he has a degree of disdain for it. I think that his leaning pre-dated his study. I, on the other hand, have always leaned in the other direction--I'm aesthetically drawn to it. And so my studies confirm my biases.
I heard on NPR the other day "fundamentalism" defined as "believing that the scriptures are literal" and "seeing the world in black and white" and "having a clear sense of what's right and wrong." I'm paraphrasing. The gist of it was that they have a narrow view of the world and have greatly reduced the world to simple elements.
It's puzzling to me. Because I believe in right and wrong and believe the events in the scriptures really happened, but I don't see everything in black and white and don't always readily know what the best choice is or see the world as simple. So I'm not sure where I fall. What I do know is that reducing the existence of fossils to "a trick played by the devil to lead us astray" (which I heard once) really offends my sensibilities. I still puzzle over how the geological record is supposed to conflict with the Bible. I just don't tend to see contradiction, because I tend rather to synthesize science and religion.
Here are some quotations that I like (chosen pretty randomly from many of their sort). First, by Brigham Young, second Church president and prophet (mid to late 1800s):
“If, on the Sabbath day, when we are assembled here to worship the Lord, one of the Elders should be prompted to give us a lecture on any branch of education with which he is acquainted, is it outside the pale of our religion? Or if an Elder shall give us a lecture upon astronomy, chemistry, or geology, our religion embraces it all. It matters not what the subject be, if it tends to improve the mind, exalt the feelings, and enlarge the capacity. The truth that is in all the arts and sciences forms a part of our religion. Faith is no more a part of it than any other true principle of philosophy.” Journal of Discourses, v. 1, pp. 334-335.
And Orson Pratt, early apostle (1800s):
“The study of science is the study of something eternal. If we study chemistry, we study the works of God. If we study chemistry, geology, optics, or any other branch of science, every new truth we come to the understanding of is eternal; it is a part of the great system of universal truth. It is truth that exists throughout universal nature; and God is the dispenser of all truth – scientific, religious, and political. Therefore let all classes of citizens and people endeavor to improve their time more than heretofore – to train their minds to that which is best calculated for their good and the good of the society which surrounds them." Journal of Discourses, v. 7, p. 157.
So, in a sense, Mormonism comprises all truth.
I agree emphatically with that perspective. I don't see the need to create a false dichotomy between science and religion, to create an unnecessary conflict. Sure, a religious idea can be erroneous--I'm sure I have some religious opinions that are untempered and wrong. And science is certainly fallible--to the degree that we confuse a methodology with a body of thought, we can run amok. And paradigm shifts (in the Thomas Kuhn sense) suggest that significant changes in how we analyze data and view the world are going to continue forward.
So I believe "good" science and "good" religion. I don't believe every scientific fact or every religious idea. For example, I don't think biological classification is "true" science--it's useful and even cleverly arranged, but how do you classify a platypus? To me, it's not really science, but a good attempt at taxonomy in the most general sense. And, by way of another example, I don't believe in reincarnation. It's a religious principle that I reject.
Not great examples, but I think it illustrates the point that not all that is called science is true and not all that is called religion is true either. But true science and true religion go hand in hand. They are both subsets of the greater field of truth.
So I believe on the one hand that the Bible and The Book of Mormon are real stories about a real God and real people. And, on the other, I believe that the earth is really old, that fossils weren't planted to trick us, that space should be explored and that chemistry is worth knowing. These are all good things. They serve different purposes, but they're good. Understanding astrophysics isn't going to save your soul. And understanding the principles of morality isn't going to solve our fossil fuels problem.
There are certainly plenty of Mormons who are skeptical of some aspects of science. Most aren't, but some are. I suppose you have Mormons of every stripe. But my friend who rejects evolution isn't really rejecting science. I think that he would readily agree that science and religion go hand in hand. But I think first that he thinks evolution isn't all science (and I agree--much of it is not approached scientifically) and second he doesn't like the assumptions that go into it (and I don't fault him there either). For those LDS, and I think they're few, that are derisive of science, I think they are denying their own faith. I hope I don't offend. I think that someone who is LDS and understands the scriptures and the basic tenets of their faith is going to desire all learning out of the best books and seek understanding in all worthy fields. Sure, a certain percentage of scientific "fact" will ultimately be thrown by the wayside as incorrect, but that does not condemn the methodology. For empirically measurably stuff, it's a perfect method. For the non-empirical, it's flawed.
In the end, I'm both a man of faith and a man of science. I can't say that I'm proficient in any remarkable way at either, but what I mean to say is that I value them both and I believe in both. I believe in innovation and progress and I believe in fundamental morality. I believe in learning and understanding all good things and I believe in good and evil. I believe in life after death and I believe in biology and astronomy. I may not be well versed in religion and science, but I have the respect and reverence for both and I'm open to learning new things and using them to improve my life.
And that, to me, is what Mormonism is all about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I love those quotes. A LOT! Thanks.
yeah.
The only reason that religion and science are seen as a dichotomy is that religions and religious believers vastly overstate the scope of their doctrine and scientists greatly overestimate the universality of their methods. That's my take.
[this may be quibbling, but the platypus taxonomy thing was a low blow--and I think pretty outdated. Old-school classification was not really a science, but with genetic markers and gene pool analysis these days it's a sophisticated and profound solid science. Saying "platypuses are monotremes" is a pretty profound statement when you trace our genetic heritage back to monotremes, and especially considering the unique primative intermediate mammilian traits that monotremes have.]
I also have reason to disagree with your assessment that "most" Mormons don't have problems with some aspects of science. But I think we're both basing it on experience and not data so I'll just have to leave it at that.
I have developed very little patience for attitudes like your friend's. It's one thing to say that religion trumps science--I disagree with the premise but it's a totally valid thing to assert. But to claim to STUDY evolution and decide that it (and "any variation of it") is wrong is baffling intellectual dishonesty. There are very few bodies of evidence anywhere in scientific discipline as well-proven and established as evolutinary theory. It is certainly incomplete and not everything that is proclaimed under its banner is true, but only ignorance or deceit can possibly lead someone to declare that it's ALL hogwash. I highly suspect that his "study" included reading these marvelously inane tracts that claim to disprove evolution by asserting ridiculous and commonly debunked lies--like "there are no transitional fossils" and other such rubbish [in the same vein as the death panel people--facts just don't matter]. If not, the guy is not honest with his mind. I don't know him so I can't judge him but it's hard to have tolerance for somebody who lies to himself so easily.
And lest I'm misunderstood:
It doesn't bother me if somebody does not believe in evolution. That's their prerogative. But the conceit of the thought "I've come to the conclusion by scientific means that all of evolution is false" is what I find reprehensible.
Agreed for the most part. I don't think I did my friend's viewpoint justice and I don't think it's fair to say that he analyzed it scientifically. As for the taxonomy thing (as well as the reincarnation thing)--just a hasty example. And taxonomy still has a lot of mush to it, the platypus aside. Even with a genome, you still have to make classification judgment calls.
Anyhow, I value your input. I think you state things with a lot more flair than I do, but I think substantively we're on the same page, although maybe I'm a bit more tolerant of the creationist viewpoint. I don't pretend I'm right, I just have a hard time seeing it the other way.
"I think you state things with a lot more flair than I do"
That's classic. I'm completely perpetually aware of this as I post, and usually quite chagrined by it. It comes out somewhat stronger written than it does spoken... but in my defense, you're one of the most measured, careful, understated, politic, moderate people I know. You might actually not have actual opinions, I don't know...
Post a Comment