Follow us @WheatnTweet!
Science & Religion #6: Outside In Paradigm
By: Mike S
This is the last of the introductory posts in this series.  So far, we’ve talked about why to even talk about science and religion, how to find scientific truth, how to find religious truth (kind of), and an Inside Out paradigm.As briefly talked about in the last post, the Inside-Out paradigm consists of reading a religious text, determining what it means scientifically, and making science fit.  This was used for thousands of years when most texts were religious, but it has proven to not be a very robust method for addressing science and religion.
For the rest of the series, I propose instead using an Outside-In paradigm.  According to this, for each topic from here on out, I’ll follow this format:
- Introduce a topic
- Tell what we know about it from a scientific point-of-view
- Tell what we know about it from a religious point-of-view
- See how these may or may not reconcile
So, why is this a “better” paradigm than Inside-Out.  There are several reasons:
1) Religious texts were written for religious reasons. They weren’t necessarily meant to teach science.  Using a religious text to determine what someone “should” find in the world around them can be problematic.  At times, it requires increasingly complex add-ons to maintain the original theory when perhaps Occam’s razor should be applied.
2) Prophets, not scientists.  Like our prophets today, ancient prophets were necessarily influenced by the culture in which they lived.  They incorporated their then-current views of the world.  If Brigham Young’s statements about the inhabitants of the moon were incorporated into scripture, would someone 2000 years from his time be obligated to accept them?
3) Nature of “truth”. As we discussed a few posts ago, scientific information is more concrete while religious “truth” is more open to interpretation.  Even within the Mormon family of Churches, there are wide interpretations of things.  But this can be an asset for our purpose.  It is easier to find an interpretation of religious truth that fits more concrete scientific facts than to try to fit scientific facts into a one particular interpretation of a religious document.
4) Babies and bath water. There are inevitably going to be conflicts between what was once accepted and what new evidence points towards.  For example, people clung to a static continent idea for years until the evidence for continental drift became overwhelming.  Since the idea for static continents came from the scientific world, this represented a change in theory, but it didn’t affect anyone’s religious beliefs.  Conversely, if the idea for a static continent came from someone’s interpretation of what HAD to be from a religious text, when it was shown to be wrong, it could cause people to cast out the entire text.
Therefore, we’ll follow an Outside-In paradigm for all of the remaining posts in this series.  Once the post is done, the fun begins – discussion.  There are vast quantities of information on these subjects, in books, scientific articles, religious commentaries, online sites, etc.  There is going to be A LOT that I don’t cover.  There are going to be things I hadn’t thought of, or that I had thought off but my way of thinking was flawed.  Make corrections, suggestions, comments, etc.  I hope to introduce new topics to some of you and perhaps to introduce new ways of thinking about old topics to others.  I also look forward to being introduced to new ways of thinking from you as well.  It stretches my brain in a good way.
Be forewarned, some of the ideas will be pretty “out there” and fairly speculative.  There will be things upon which we never agree.  There will be things which people may feel just “can’t be”.  You may think I’m out in left field.  That’s fine.  I only ask that if you disagree that you explain WHY you disagree, and perhaps suggest a better explanation.  We all learn from that.
So, that’s where we’re going.  Next week’s post, appropriately enough, is about “In The Beginning…”
Questions:
- Is the Outside-In paradigm better or worse than the Inside-Out paradigm?
- Why is it better or worse?
- I have a list of about 30-40 posts in various levels of development, but are there any specific topics that you might find interesting to discuss?
- As science progresses and perhaps conflicts with what a previous prophet or apostle taught on that subject, how do you resolve that? Â And how does the claim that what a prophet says on any subject should be considered as the truth fit into that?
- Thread-jack: UofU, BYU or Who-Cares?
BYU – DUH!
Oh, and I agree with everything you wrote here.
I go with science, every time (given that the science is good). I assume that the prophet/apostle had limited knowledge and probably should have kept quiet on an issue about which he had no business speaking. Additionally, I look to the spiritual principles or doctrine that caused the leader to say that, and try to determine whether that doctrine is wrong, or was just poorly interpreted. Ultimately, I think it’s foolish for prophets themselves (and us) to believe the 14 fundamentals as taught to us recently. Being a prophet may entitle him to speak on any subject (since the prophet says so), but he’d be an idiot to do so. And I suspect that our current set of leaders would agree completely with that. I think they are much much more careful about what they say these days precisely because history has demonstrated how often prophets are wrong when they speak out of turn.
Additionally, I don’t think that it makes them any less a prophet. I think it changes how we should interpret their statements, but I can be fully on-board with believing someone is a prophet if they are saying things that give me a spiritual benefit.
Like this comment?
2
u of u – DUH!
mike, i’ve been busy and haven’t been able to follow all your posts, but I like your approach. it is an approach that I like to do as well.
Like this comment?
0
I like this outside-in approach, too. I think the historical difficulty (before Mormonism anyway) has been that science started out as an inside-out approach (e.g. illness is caused by demons), and that created the conflict.
Even if religion wises up (along the lines of jmb’s comment) and quits speaking out of school, there is still a difficulty when religion accidentally backs into science. By that I mean, when religion takes a stand it views as moral (e.g. anti-homosexual behavior), but then science reveals the stance to be based on faulty scientific assumptions that didn’t originate in the religion and have subsequently changed.
Like this comment?
1
I do agree. It seems that our current Church leaders talk a lot less now than they did about people on the moon and Flood geology and things like that. Many of the initial upcoming posts are going to be about things like this.
As hawkgrrrl mentioned, there are moral areas where there is potential conflict. Besides homosexuality, there are others that relate to “science and religion”. Examples:
- Is the Word of Wisdom really a “health code” or has it turned more into an “obedience code”? We’ll examine how it was originally given and lived by JS, how it is currently implemented in the Church, and actual scientific data as it regards to a number of these things.
- Is there a reason based on behavioral science for relying on “faith” as opposed to “knowledge” in mortality?
- Did Adam have a belly button? And what does that mean given the PoF, etc.?
- Depression: natural state of sin, chemical imbalance, both?
- Monogamy/polygamy: are we “wired” for one or another, and how does this relate to LDS history?
- Do morals NECESSARILY come from God, or can there be a scientific explanation? (for example: Sam Harris’ recent book, The Moral Landscape
- Etc
We’ll cover all of these.
Like this comment?
0
Yeah, I think you’re exactly right. I think in this case, I’m willing to accept the moral position of the church as valid for them (even if I don’t agree) if we admit it as a purely religious argument. I would definitely not ever claim that scientific reasons are the only good reasons for believing something, acting a certain way, or having a specific set of moral values.
What has always surprised me is our need to try and validate our religious views by reaching out to other fields for plausible explanations (inside-out approach). We pride ourselves on following the prophet, why not just admit that’s why we believe/think some things? I think in general our scientific culture demands that we believe (even if only subconsciously) that religious reasons for doing things aren’t necessarily the best ones (based on history). So we attempt justification by science.
As an aside, this is why I appreciated the biography of Henry Eyring so much. I learned that one could and should accept scientific claims when the domain is in the realm of science. When the domain is in religion, it’s fine to accept religious claims. When they overlap, science wins. Morality, is a bit of a gray area though.
Like this comment?
0
Oh, and MH, seriously, what kind of Mormon are you? Oh yeah, a heretic!!
Liking Utah as opposed to the Lord’s university is nigh to apostasy. I call you to repentance!
Like this comment?
0
Oh, I wanted to mention this. For a perfect example of Mormon “inside-out” thinking, check this out:
The Kolob Theorem
Also be sure to check out the response by a group of real astronomers here
Like this comment?
0
I actually read the Kolob Theorem a few years ago. It’s very… interesting and, I suppose, one way of looking at the universe.
I’d kicked around a lot these ideas for a few decades, but this “book” (among other things) is what started me down the path that lead to this series. I was actually considering writing a book about it, but it seemed so daunting that I never got around to starting it, but just complied notes, etc.
This (ie. blog) is a great way for me to approach this for a couple of reasons:
1) Bite-sized chunks: It’s much easier to write a post each week than to start on a several hundred page book that no one will buy
2) Smack down: This keeps me from writing something like the Kolob Theorem. When writing a book, you get into your own little universe. There are a lot of smart and well-read people here. If I get too far into left-field, I’ll get smacked down.
3) Input: There are lots of ways of thinking about things. My finite mind hasn’t thought of them all. I really like the ability to get feedback, that you don’t really get from a book.
p.s. The University of Utah was actually started by BY in 1850 as the University of Deseret, so it pretty much IS the Lord’s university. BYU is therefore to the U what Ricks is to BYU. :-)
Besides, it’s nice being fraternity brothers with the likes of Russell M Nelson, M Russell Ballard, David B Haight, Hugh W Pinnock, Theodore M Burton, Jake Garn, Jon Huntsman (both Sr and Jr), etc. The U (and the fraternities there) can’t be that bad.
Like this comment?
0
nice mike. both hinckley and monson are utes as well. it looks like jmb just are on opposite sides of the sports landscape. go buckeyes.
Like this comment?
0
Re Mike S
Ah, feedback! The universal law that keep us all sane (for the most part). BTW, feedback is my bread and butter (though it is of the system variety).
Now look here. Any fool will realize that Utah was the FIRST ATTEMPT, and then the Lord’s University was perfected with try #2. Utah was like an experiment, and BYU is the real deal! Sheesh, I thought everyone knew that! ;-) I mean I heard once that they schedule GC around BYU games, right?
Ah, so we’re throwing names out now huh! Eh-hem…Steve Young, Robbie Bosco, Ty Detmer, Steve Sarkisian, Jim McMahon, Marc Wilson, Paul Boyer, Philo Farnsworth (seriously isn’t this one like the all best alumn ever), 6 apostles (5 current), and 2 RS presidents, and Mack Wilberg.
Re MH
Ah, I see we can no longer be friends MH! Anyone rooting for Utah AND Ohio State is my mortal enemy. I’ll be deleting you from my Facebook friend list tonight. ;-)
…(said with great humility since both of my teams actually SUCK this year)
p.s. sorry for the diversion on a great post!
Like this comment?
0
“Mack Wilberg” I need to get my glasses checked cuz I read that “Mark Wahlberg.” Now that would be remarkable!
Like this comment?
0
JMB, I’m just messing with you. I usually root for the underdog in the OSU-Michigan game so it screws up the BCS. I’m really a Big 10 hater–Northwestern is probably my favorite team because they’re usually the doormat of the league. Now that the Utes are almost in the Pac-10, I’ll have to become a Pac-10 homer I guess.
I really hope that Alabama will beat Auburn and Oregon will lose to Oregon St or Arizona so Boise can play TCU in the title…. Then maybe we’ll get a playoff!
Like this comment?
0
Yeah, I know. Same here (I hope my smileys were used liberally enough to indicate I wasn’t serious). I used to hate Michigan, but I can’t do that anymore since I go there. Also, I’m with you in pretty much hating the BCS. Though the conference I really hate is the SEC. I’m also not a PAC-10 fan (mostly Oregon really ticks me off). I am a huge Boise St. fan and would love to see them play an SEC team in the the title (playing TCU would be okay too, but I think that would result in too many naysayers). Anyway, I’m exited to see how this week plays out (it’s the big rivalry week!).
Like this comment?
0
A few more hours until game time. Go Utes!!! Unfortunately, I’ll be on a plane back from Roger Waters’ concert “The Wall” during most of the game, but let’s hear it for in-flight WiFi.
Sorry Boise State.
Like this comment?
0
I think there is an interesting parallel between depending on the prophets and depending on the scientists for most of us. We depend on our personal experiences and our community to tell us who to believe. Scientists debate within science; theologians debate within theology; denominations debate within other denominations. We have to decide what we trust.
JMB did an interesting series about modeling how this works at an individual level back at Mormon Matters. I find that I have fairly strong personal testimony about certain beliefs, and a very strong confidence in scientific consensus, so when I see a conflict between these two pillars of my world view, I tend to look for a hypothesis that reconciles them; try to keep a balance between prophetic imagination and scientific skepticism.
Like this comment?
0
[...] Science & Religion #6: Outside In Paradigm – This post examines what I propose is a better way of reconciling things. Â It accepts what we see in the world around us, and looks to see how this might work with religious texts. Â It supposes the God reveals many scientific truths through scientific developments as opposed to General Conference. Â It is the general outline used for the rest of the series: [...]
Like this comment?
0
[...] for this post, as per the underlying philosophy behind this series, we will look at what science has to say about how the earth was created, what religion has to say [...]
Like this comment?
0