LDS don’t believe in the global, catastrophic flood because of a few verses in Genesis. We believe in the global, catastrophic flood because it has been consistently taught by modern prophets and apostles from the pulpit, and in official lesson manuals and publications for the last 178 years. If there is ambiguity, I wish President Richards had let his fellow apostles know and didn’t confine his statement to a group of college students. It would also be awesome if his letter got more play in lesson manuals and Ensign articles.

Your issue about artificial vs. natural things simply moves the issue to the nature of the creator (man or God). If the creative ability of man (or God) is simply the result of natural laws, then it’s still naturalism — all the way down. You don’t seem to be advocating for this, but this is certainly the approach of MOST scientists (recognizing, of course, that ID is not exactly in the scientific mainstream). And if it is NOT natural laws all the way down, that we are talking about a “science” that is quite different than the science I know of.

“What if Hebrew prophets, conversant with only a small fraction of the surface of the earth, thinking and writing in terms of their own limited geography and tribal relations did interpret [God] in terms of a tribal king and so limit His personality and the laws of the universe under His control to the dominion with which they were familiar? Can any interpreter, even though he be inspired, present an interpretation and conception in terms other than those with which he has had experience and acquaintance? Even under the assumption that Divinity may manifest to the prophet higher and more exalted truths than he has ever before known and unfold to his spiritual eyes visions of the past, forecasts of the future and circumstances of the utmost novelty, how will the inspired man interpret? Manifestly, I think, in the language he knows and in the terms of expression with which his knowledge and experience have made him familiar. So is it not therefore ungenerous, unfair and unreasonable to impugn the validity and the whole worth of the Bible merely because of the limited knowledge of astronomy and geography that its writers possessed?

“(Stephen L Richards, “An Open Letter to College Students,” Improvement Era 36:451-453, 484-485. June 1933.)”

I think this is relevant to my hypothesis.

Now, almost everything said about anything is figurative to some extent (e.g. #68 cinepro’s “their heads will explode”). (I once was assigned to interview an Air Force pilot who was a witness in an investigation, but he was incapable of speaking except in figurative language, e.g. “Behind the power curve.”) Clearly, though, the dichotomy between literal and figurative speech is not only a misrepresentation of real speech, it is also a false dichotomy, because there are other dimensions of language, a major one being the fact that, as President Richards points out, we speak in the context of an existing world view shared by the speaker and the listener.

Computer scientists thought it would be easy to create artificial intelligence (AI), but then they realized that every sentence we say is meaningful only in the context of everything we have said and heard before, as well as what we have seen and felt. Some computer scientists have tried to actually create a file of “common sense” so that AIs can understand the context and referants of ordinary speech. A simple sentence like “Come in and sit down” does not tell us that we should NOT sit down on the speaker’s lap, or on the floor (if there is a chair), or in a location in the room that is far away from the speaker or not facing the speaker.

Terms we use casually as synonyms can vary widely in meaning, such as “earth,” “world”, “land”. We might ordinarily say “earth” and “world” are synonymous, but while we say “in the world but not of the world” it would usually be silly to say “in the earth but not of the earth.”

The words “all” or “whole” are implicitly describing ratios; note that Sesame Street teaches “all” in connection with the word “some”. They relate to how much of the numerator (the subject of our sentence) compares to the denominator (what could be perceived as the potential limit of the subject matter’s volume). The numerator is often before us, while the denominator is only perceived fully in our heads. How big the numerator has to be to be perceived by us as “all” depends on our concept of how big the denominator is. If we can conceive only of land that is within a couple hours walk of our home, what is required to constitute “all” of that land is far less than if we conceive of the land in an entire state, or a country, or a continent, or a planet. Without knowing the speaker’s knowledge of the limits and size of the world, we can’t tell how much “all” of the world actually was meant to be. If Noah has only a limited grasp of the size of the world as a whole, “all the earth” can be quite literal but still be far more limited in scope than what a modern person thinks, who has model globes on his desk and has seen photos of the earth taken from the moon. But again, it would be quite literal from the speaker’s perspective.

Dennis (#67), has listed one of the mainstream science assumptions as “naturalism”, but the fact is that this assumption is not used in certain fields of science where the question whether something is artificial or natural is precisely the interesting question. For example, archeology is often concerned with whether an interesting piece of rock was created by random forces or by the intention of a craftsman, an intelligent creator. Forensic science is focused on determining whether an event that harmed someone was a true accident caused by random forces, or was the result of intent or at least negligent action or unlawful inaction by a person accountable under the law. Breaking codes, both genetic and military, is a pursuit in which many lives are at stake, and the first step is sifting the wheat of meaningful transmission from the chaff of noise. And the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence requires us to be prepared to sort out intelligent messages from the radio waves generated randomly by stars and large planets like Jupiter.

There has been a controversy over whether the particular microscopic formations on part of the “Mars meteor” that was found in Antarctica were created by living things or by simple chemistry. Asking this kind of question–What is the cause of this aspect of reality–is the duty of scientists, rather than precluding inquiry by saying “I don’t want to know that there is evidence that this was alive once” or “I don’t want to know that this piece of rock was shaped by human intelligence.”

If humans can leave traces of their action in the rocks, why can’t God? And why can’t such traces be discoverable by scientific instruments and reason? The main hypothesis advanced by scientists advocating Intelligent Design (ID) is that it should be possible for us to detect evidence of intelligent action in nature and its laws, including in the design and operation of life. The ID critique of evolution suggests that the scientific tools we use to answer other questions also can tell us that there is evidence of intelligence that is not human, and may in fact be divine.

So just as scientific tools can point logically from the mundane to the divine, what we know that is communicated from the divine (e.g. scripture) can point to scientific conclusions. We can unify our knowledge gained through revelation with our knowledge gained by accumulation of scientific study. There can be a fruitful interaction between the knowledge we get, however limited it is on both sides, from both science and revelation, contrary to the mutual exclusiveness that Stephen Jay Gould tried to promote with his idea of “non-overlapping magisteria”. We can avoid the a priori rejection of science by young earth creationists, and the arbitrary exclusion of scripture as truth by materialists like Richard Dawkins. Starting from an acknowledgement that we don’t know everything in either science or the gospel, we can use ALL of our knowledge in both areas to try to understand the ways in which scripture can coincide with science.

And thus, my hypothesis about Noah and the nature of his voyage on the flood.

As it is, the only way LDS members of a certain scientific education or rational thought process can keep their heads from exploding is to create some alternate reality where the Church doesn’t teach as doctrine (or revealed truth) that Adam and Eve were literally the first and only mortal humans at the time of the fall (not to mention plants or animals), or that Noah’s flood covered the entire Earth and killed all but 8 humans less than 6,000 years ago. They have to believe that the “reality” of these doctrines (teachings? opinions?) are periphery to the LDS experience, and open to drastic re framing to fit the scientific evidence.

There won’t be a Letter from the First Presidency or anything. The manuals will eventually updated, and there will be less emphasis on the “literal” nature of these stories. Quotes from past Church leaders supporting a literal view will be classified as “opinion” or a “mistaken assumption”. Most new leaders will be careful that they don’t refer to the stories as actual history, but rather as inspired allegory. It won’t be quick, but it won’t be too painful either. The new, allegorical understanding will evolve over time, with some help from apologists of course.

I’d like to continue this conversation about the assumptions of science and other things such as nonlinear time. You bring up some good points, but it has become clear to me that we are not on the same wavelength. Thus, much more groundwork is necessary to have an intelligent conversation without us simply caricaturing each other’s arguments. To keep us from threadjacking more on this post, I am going to write a post on my own blog and I welcome you to join me in the discussion there.

I will simply say that I have been largely misunderstood on this blog, and that is my own fault. I have underestimated how I represent a camp that is not at all represented by the Times and Seasons readership (or at least by those who have commented on this post). I am not at all an island, however; my perspective is largely informed by a broad philosophy of science approach, but which is specialized in psychology. It is particularly informed by a relational (not relativist) ontology and hermeneutic epistemology.

Here are some of the claims I wish to make (but which here are simply assertions):

1. Latter-day Saints (ex-nihilo-creation rejection notwithstanding) do not have to accept that laws are fundamental, or even AS fundamental as God (as Clark has claimed). Rather, the simultaneous relationship between matter and intelligences can be seen as fundamental, while “laws” would be secondary and thus not timeless, objective, or universal. The danger occurs when these laws are reified — made AS real as matter and intelligence. However, even IF laws are fundamental, this says absolutely nothing about natural laws as they are presently understood.

2. Some of the major mainstream scientific assumptions (I’ll go ahead and ditch the word “metaphysical,” Clark) with which I will take issue are: dualistic objectivity (there is an objective world outside of interpretation and experience); linear time (change is necessarily sequential, objective, continuous, reductive, and universal); narrow empiricism (sensory experience is all that can be known or all that is important, and this data, at some level, speaks for itself); efficient causation (that cause must precede effect, as opposed to cause and effect being simultaneous); and naturalism (the world can be explained in terms of universal “natural laws”).

3. The “scientific method” is (usually) held up by all of the above assumptions, and such a method should not be seen to be synonymous with reason, rigor, intelligence, evidence, etc.

4. My philosophical positions are not for the purpose of preserving a certain way of seeing the scriptures (e.g., a literalist interpretation); they are convincing to me on multiple levels, primarily in my own work in psychology. Moreover, I am neither defending nor decrying a literal OR figurative interpretation of the scriptures. (I was once asked on my mission if Mormons believe the Bible is figurative or literal. I felt inspired to answer, “We believe the Bible is figurative when it is figurative and literal when it is literal.” I still stand by that answer, and for that reason I try to maintain multiple viable possibilities of interpreting scripture. On this forum, I felt that more-literal interpretations of the Flood were being crowded out as irrational or pseudo-scientific, and so I was simply trying to create more room at the table. I am worried by people who have already decided when and where the scriptures are literal or figurative and so they don’t allow the text to reveal itself. As for me, I feel allegiance to God, the scriptures, my relationships, and the earth. I have no allegiance to the above scientific assumptions.)

So if you’re up for this conversation (anyone), I’d be happy to discuss these things with you on my blog: http://thinkinginamarrowbone.wordpress.com. I’ll leave another comment here when I have something posted — it might be a few days.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, people, but eventually the Church is going to adopt a mythical interpretation of the “Adam and Eve” and “Noah’s Ark” stories. The apologists are already doing their best to hack away at the frustratingly resilient literalist beliefs, but the roots for some beliefs run deep in the Church.

I strongly disagree. There’s a big difference between contrasting traditional readings of a text with more narrow readings and throwing out historicity. Likewise there’s a big difference between saying all the acceptable readings are either ‘literalistic’ (typically meaning conservative Protestant ways of reading) versus allegorical. One can, for instance, accept a basic historicity while noting that the people describing events are not omniscient and can only write from their perspective which is a cultural bound and flawed human perspective. And then noting that there are lots of questions about the transmission of stories.

So there’s a lot of room to work with. The above is just an example of a false dichotomy.

We are quick to accept the assumptions of the linear model without even considering the nonlinear, in spite of the LDS beliefs of eternal and uncreated matter which ultimately make linear dating untenable.

1. Time isn’t linear in physics. It is in Newtonian physics and arguably in most quantum mechanics which are background dependent but not in relativity.

2. Whether time is linear or not says nothing about dating. If you feel it does please be clear how.

3. Even if radioactive decay changes with time (and note that’s different from whether time in linear or not) this wouldn’t change the relative rates. Which is what Young Earth Creationists need.

Science is, after all, a human endeavor, and one that rests entirely on certain metaphysical assumptions. These assumptions can never be proven (at least not by science).

There isn’t a single metaphysics for science. Individual scientists certainly do make metaphysical assumptions. However those arguing for metaphysical assumptions making a particular reading of scripture they choose work and science wrong have the duty to explain how. Science is largely empirical and while that empirical data can be interpreted many ways the data is data and has to be explained. Merely throwing out the ‘metaphysics’ label really doesn’t achieve much.

Dr. Slife’s provocative argument is that if laws are seen as the fundamental guiding force in our lives, not God, then do we put another God (i.e., natural laws) before Him?

One should note though that this presupposes a view of Christianity in which there is creation ex nihilo which Joseph Smith formally rejected. The Mormon view, at least as laid out by Joseph Smith, is that matter and intelligence is pre-existent and in some sense eternal. Thus God always already finds himself in an universe. Logically this limits the kind of powers entailed by omnipotence. (Which is one reason why traditional Christians criticize whether the LDS view of God even entails omnipotence)

There are two ways to take this. One is to say that for God to be God in LDS thought there must be pre-existing laws regulating element. The second is to say that law is itself a manifestation of underlying symmetries and thus is always merely a description of the configuration of matter. (That works for thermodynamics but gets a tad trickier with QM)

The point being that God himself being subject to law is a pretty strong position within LDS thought. Arguably it is what Joseph Smith taught although that gets a bit complex.

In any case from a purely logical point of view arguing that God isn’t fundamental to everything else is just a way of restating the rejection of creation ex nihilo. All a Mormon has to say is that law isn’t more fundamental than God. Rather law, element, intelligence and God are all equally fundamental. A choice your Dr. doesn’t allow for.

BTW – a suggestion. Please be clear about what is a metaphysical assumption and what is a physical assumption. Many things you are throwing out as metaphysical assumptions are really physical assumptions which can themselves be tested.

Well said. However, there is a difference between being “tied to the literalness of the Noah narrative” and being willing to entertain the possibility that the Noah narrative is literal. To say that we are certain that the narrative is figurative is contrary to the spirit of taking your “prophecies from the Brethren”. I think the big point I want to make (which I see you as being reluctant to agree with) is that not everyone who believes in the literal account of the flood is necessarily wrong, nor are they necessarily naive, old-fashioned, and/or ignorant.

hbar #59

There are many great scientists, I agree. I must however, disagree that the culture of science in any way NECESSARILY protects itself against unexamined foundations(I don’t believe there are any long-standing conspiracies–this would imply that the scientists actually know that they are covering something up. I think they don’t even realize the assumptions which they are failing to examine) . Certainly there are many honest scientists who have integrity and skill and work hard to gain new understanding. Yet there remain some problematic interpretations of science. For example, you say that, “I\’ve even heard it said by prominent people on the project that the worst possible outcome would be to have our theories proven right.” Yet prominent philosophers of science have understood for years that theories are never “proven right”. Whatever we count as evidence can be gathered, but no scientific theories are ever proven right. This understanding should create a humble science and humble scientists–always looking for more disconfirming evidence AND acknowledging that what they currently “know” and assume could very well be false. Some scientists are humble, but many resist. Yes, many psychologists are among the prideful ones, but there are biologists and members of the other sciences that are also.

Also, I agree that part of our purpose in life is to learn. However, practicing science is not the only means of obtaining learning. Some in this conversation might define science as “any systematic means of obtaining knowledge”, but this is not a terribly defensible (or useful) definition of science. Please do take the evidence against a literal flood seriously, but be like those good humble scientists who acknowledge that they might be wrong and that the flood might, in fact, be literal.

Last, there have been a few arguments against nonlinear time, but they are little more than assertions. I see no reasons to absolutely reject a view of time which is nonlinear–neither spiritual, rational, or experiential. If any of you would care, I’d love to see your arguments against nonlinear time laid out in detail.

My own perception is that the Church has pretty consistently maintained its assertion that the Bible is “the word of God as far as it is translated correctly,” and that Adam and Noah were real actors on the stage of human history, but they refuse to offer any more details about either person than what is in the scriptures, which, as we have discussed here, have their own inherent ambiguity and in certain respects specified figurativeness (such as the creation of Eve). That’s been a pretty straight line over the 58 years of my life, and from what I know of doctrinal developments in the 100 years before that, it’s pretty much the same trajectory since the founding of the Church.

Since a person who was very tied into the literalness of the Noah narrative (such as Dennis, above, seems to be) would not make such a prediction, I assume you are of the opposite mind, and that the change you predict would place the Brethren in line with your own views. As Dana Carvey used to say, “How convenient”. But I, for one, will take my prophecies from the Brethren.

I predict this will happen within the next 50 years, depending on the rapidity of turnover for GA’s and the ability for outstanding men with more scientifically sound understandings of these stories to be called to high positions.

So hang on to your Gospel Doctrine manuals comparing Noah’s ark with other historical ships; it will one day be a collector’s item. Your grandkids might not believe you when you insist there used to be LDS who really thought Noah’s flood covered the whole Earth and Adam and Eve were the first two mortal humans.