Well it looks like no one wants to talk about Mormomism or the political implications of a Mormom president anymore. Weighing in on the subject of science vs. faith which this thread has become. This subject has come up several times before on D & D and likely will again so pardon me for repeating myself in regard to this. Science and faith are different ways of understanding the world and the means of one shouldn't be mistaken for the means of another. Belief in science isn't an act of faith anymore than expecting my car to start when I turn the key to be an act of faith. The basis of science is doubt which has to be constantly overcome with proof and because of that nothing can ever be truly accepted in science. For instance at one time physics was based upon Newtonian laws and those were widely accepted. Yet along come Einstein whose theories overthrew Newtons laws. If science required a leap of faith then Einstein wouldn't have overthrown Newton as acceptance of Newton would be dependent on belief and not proof. This is not to say that one view is superior to the other and Mad Max's citation regarding the failure of science to greatly better humanity is spot on. The subjects that both deal with are different and I would say its as much of a mistake to rely upon prayer to build an airplane as it is to look to chemistry for moral guidance. Also I don't believe they are in conflict with one another. Whether humanity evolved from apes doesn't change whether we have spirits and a life beyond the physical. As humans we can be both spiritual and rational beings.
That is true that you can never say never in science as science is based on doubt. The same though wouldn't apply to faith though as to maintain it you would have to believe. For instance would you drop your belief in Resurrection if it was proven with a high likelihood of probability that Jesus's tomb had been discovered and there was a body in it? While you can never rule anything out in science you can establish a high degree of probability regarding something. The point is determining whether something is more or less likely to occur, or have occured based upon what proof is there. To apply that to the walking on water story it would seem very unlikely that a man could walk on the surface of liquid water based upon what we know about water, Earth's atmosphere and gravity. Good science would be to say its unlikely that could happen than say its impossible that could happen.
Good Sermon (I think you would make a good pastor if you could get the Jesus part down ) I really do agree with your premise..... But I will confess that I do pray when I ride in airplanes.
This might be simplistic, but here is the concern I have with science. It can tell us what we are or what we will be. otoh, religion tells us what we can be. We have the individual potential to alter events, but now we rely upon inventions and technology to alter ourselves. If I'm fat, it's not my fault...it's my genes or my hormones. If I'm sad, then I must be imbalanced or crazy. People rarely pause and ask where the mindset of normal coming from, and whether we have to step through all of doors science opens. Science has improved the quality of living, but the harder case to make is that is has improved humanity and the way people treat each other. It's not science's fault that widespread brutality and destruction has occurred, but it is faulty for people to think science will one day solve all of humanity's problems.
Sorry, for quoting myself here, but I was really interested to read some opinions on how Smith is thought of outside of the Mormon church. Thanks, KC
