Science Approaching Theology

[ether-ore]

In my estimation, science, according to what is being said in the youtube video posted below, is beginning to approach ideas expressed in the theology revealed to Joseph Smith back in June of 1830.

In the Pearl of Great Price; the book of Moses 1:35-39 we find this: (God is speaking to Moses)
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.

37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.

38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.

39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

I have for some time considered that science could not be ignored on this issue and neither could the revealed word of God. There must be some way in which they are both looking at the same truth.

I believe that God exists and occupies a particular space. His influence is everywhere felt, but He, Himself has a discrete location. The universe in which He resides is eternal and infinite (without entropy). Within that universe are pockets or bubbles (or heavens)where entropy does exist. As the scripture states, these heavens are innumerable and can be created by God at will. The creation of such a bubble could be perceived by us a big bang. This heaven and this earth will pass away, but our selves will survive its ending and go on to wherever God places us. It is said that the righteous will inherit the earth in its Celestialized state. Which means that the earth will physically emerge into the eternal universe but with a change of state.

It also seems likely to me that these bubbles I'm referring to are not opaque to the eternal universe. I think that is what we see when we look at the night sky. It seems possible to me that the illusion of red shift is because of the lens effect of the wall of the bubble. Of course I'm extrapolating, but then that's what thinking is for.

Matter can neither be created or destroyed. It can only change state.

 

[Laika]

Whilst it remains a 'god of the gaps', the big bang is really important for its potentially theological interpreations given that it is the scientific consensus. it is a very serious challange to philosophical materialism (and its particular form of Atheism). Science, as it stands, cannot rule out a god of the gaps.

[Edit: thanks for the video btw. ]

 

[jojom]

In my estimation, science, according to what is being said in the youtube video posted below, is beginning to approach ideas expressed in the theology revealed to Joseph Smith back in June of 1830.

Just what is this theology that was revealed to Joseph Smith? And, I highly doubt that whatever it is, it isn't science that is approaching it, but the views of a few scientists. Enormous difference.


.

 

[ether-ore]

Just what is this theology that was revealed to Joseph Smith? And, I highly doubt that whatever it is, it isn't science that is approaching it, but the views of a few scientists. Enormous difference.


.

So you consider that the scientists in the video are not reputable? Science doesn't invent itself. It comes from scientists who presumably are accepted in that community as having legitimacy and worthy reputations.

The theology (which is a study of God and things that pertain to Him) is that God revealed to Joseph Smith what He had previously revealed to Moses and was lost from the record; that being that multiple heavens exist as subsets of a larger (infinite) universe.

 

[jojom]

So you consider that the scientists in the video are not reputable?

Do you not understand the difference between science and those who "do" science: scientists? Saying that science believes X, Y, and Z implies that this is the overwhelming conclusion of all those scientists knowledgeable in the particular field involving X, Y, and Z.

The theology (which is a study of God and things that pertain to Him) is that God revealed to Joseph Smith . . . .

LDS theology, to be clear here.

. . .what He had previously revealed to Moses and was lost from the record; that being that multiple heavens exist as subsets of a larger (infinite) universe.

As the video plainly shows, it isn't heavens the scientists are talking about but universes, unless, that is, you're simply using "heavens" as a synonym for universes. Moreover, the the theory of multiple universes is but one of the many theories put forth. Science has in no way settled on it as thee explanation.


.

 

[jojom]

Whilst it remains a 'god of the gaps', the big bang is really important for its potentially theological interpreations given that it is the scientific consensus. it is a very serious challange to philosophical materialism (and its particular form of Atheism). Science, as it stands, cannot rule out a god of the gaps.

Sure it can, and does. Science doesn't deal in religious explanations.

.​

 

[Laika]

Sure it can, and does. Science doesn't deal in religious explanations.

.​

Science as it is currently understood is based on methodological naturalism;

"Methodological naturalism is said to be concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what nature is. It is claimed to be strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events, though by definition it adopts a bias against the supernatural by ruling out such possibilities in advance. The genesis of nature (for example, by an act of God) is not addressed. This second sense of naturalism seeks only to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature.This does not deny or exclude the possibility of supernatural explanations whilst having a naturalistic bias. However, metaphysical naturalism (more commonly known as 'scientific materialism') does exclude that possibility."

Whilst it has a clear bias, it does not exclude the possibility of supernatural explantions as it is primarily concerned with the method of study rather than the nature of what is being studied. Metaphysical naturalism (aka. Scientific Materialism) does deal with such cliams:

"Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and scientific materialism is a worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modelling. In contrast, methodological naturalism is an assumption of naturalism as a methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions."

A varient of the latter was used in the Soviet Union to directly challange the scientific understanding of the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, and the big bang because they had supernatural and theological interpretations. Materialism as a philosophy is rejected however as a dogma in western science because it is not typically subject to scientific proof because it is a philosophy which defines the nature of reality and what therefore can be studied. Consequently, without major philosophical changes in the definition of science, there remains a "gap" for theists to attribute the existence of god.

 

[ether-ore]

Do you not understand the difference between science and those who "do" science: scientists? Saying that science believes X, Y, and Z implies that this is the overwhelming conclusion of all those scientists knowledgeable in the particular field involving X, Y, and Z.

LDS theology, to be clear here.

As the video plainly shows, it isn't heavens the scientists are talking about but universes, unless, that is, you're simply using "heavens" as a synonym for universes. Moreover, the the theory of multiple universes is but one of the many theories put forth. Science has in no way settled on it as thee explanation.


.

It seems to me that you are making an invalid distinction. From my observation, all accepted science begins with a minority view; that is from a source that is not immediately accepted by a majority who do not want their sacred cows disputed. And I believe it to be a fallacy to describe science as an entity divorced from those that "do" science as if science has a mind of its own. The title of my op uses the word 'approaching' which merely suggests that there are some credible scientists that are coming close to what was written by Joseph Smith back in 1830. And yes, it is LDS theology, but I find it significant that the things that were written by Joseph Smith are now finding marginal agreement from some who are in fact knowledgeable in this field and with credentials from the scientific community.

I am using 'heavens' as a synonym for temporal bubbles in the eternal universe. Please recall that one of the scientists used a similar example in talking about bubbles in Swiss chess whereas I had always talked about it in terms of bubbles in an infinite ocean; likened to bubbles rising to the surface and expanding as they rise. In the book of Moses, the heavens are said to contain the earth, the sun, moon and stars. So from that perspective, it could be called a universe, but what those scriptures really suggest is that the heavens are bubbles within a larger system. Whether or not the science is "settled" on this issue is for me, beside the point. It is being considered and that fact alone gives some corroboration to what was revealed to Joseph Smith.

 

[jojom]

It seems to me that you are making an invalid distinction.

Really! here's how I regard the two.

scientist
[sahy-uh n-tist]

noun
1. an expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences.
​

Note the difference between the person, scientist, and what he is an expert in, science.

science
[sahy-uh ns]

noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.
​

Just like one can be a fireman, but not the fire.

​

I find it significant that the things that were written by Joseph Smith are now finding marginal agreement from some who are in fact knowledgeable in this field and with credentials from the scientific community.

I think you're jumping the gun here. I don't recall the video saying that Andrei Linde's cheesy universe theory had any supporters outside his cadre. And just as a reminder, his theory is just one among many.

 

[ether-ore]

Really! here's how I regard the two.

scientist
[sahy-uh n-tist]

noun
1. an expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences.
​

Note the difference between the person, scientist, and what he is an expert in, science.

science
[sahy-uh ns]

noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.
​

Just like one can be a fireman, but not the fire.

​

I think you're jumping the gun here. I don't recall the video saying that Andrei Linde's cheesy universe theory had any supporters outside his cadre. And just as a reminder, his theory is just one among many.

OK, I get it. You're saying that science exists without the scientist; that like a fire, it can experience spontaneously combustion... that is come into being on its own... interesting. Rather than jumping the gun, I would say that I'm gratified that there are several scientists that consider some variation of multiple universes, any of which begins to 'approach' LDS theology.