Comments about ‘LDS scientist learns by study and by faith’

This is a refreshing article. Learning is the key to both science and religion. Neither have all the answers.

It appears that the Church is trying to gain ground on the science front. Here is the problem, science isn't an ideology - it's a method. Religion and science are not compatible because religion intentionally distances itself from the grasp of scientific scrutiny. History has shown that generally when religion steps into testable ground, it ultimately comes back dissappointed.

I am so thrilled to see this article. This is my previous bishop, and he is
brilliant! Since he moved, we have missed him sorely as a bishop. If you all only knew him they way we (his ward members) know him, you would not be the least surprized at his attitude about faith and science. He has an incredible insight into the scriptures and the church's doctrine, and he is such an amazing scientist. We miss you Bishop Bradshaw!

There are always things that science comes up with that don't mesh with religion. So the question is, who knows more? Well, since I believe in God and that he created this earth and has a perfect knowledge, then I also believe that his science skills and knowledge far exceed what scientists know and understand here. They do not have all the knowledge and laws that God has, it would be like five year old child learning to do scales on the piano trying to think that they are equal to a concert pianist that has been performing for 20 years. Like the ad of the little boy sneaking up to the grand piano on stage and playing Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, and the pro comes behind him and says, keep playing, and he takes the simple notes and turns it into a very grand performance. We have come a long way in our knowledge, skills and technology, but we by no means have the ability to create an earth or man. If we can't do this, then we can't have the perfect understanding that God has, we understand more, but not all.

Scientific testing reflects current techniques and practices of discerning reality but those "truths" change over time as old protocols and techniques give way to changing information and accepted technologies. To place ultimate trust in current knowledge can be considered more naive than faith based hope in a deity. It depends on your perspective. Stay open to the possibilities whether it come from science or spiritual sources. I think God is a master of the truths of the universe.

I accept that there may be things far grander and more incomprehensible than we can possibly imagine instead of relying on ancient explanations from a time of ignorance. Too many people including this scientist simply say "God did it" and proceeds to fit it into his science. To me, the right approach is to say we are profoundly ignorant of these matters. We need to work on them. But to suddenly say the answer is God--it's that that seems to me to close off the discussion with theists. Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific credibility. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about. Science often begins where religion ends. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.

some of the comments on this board show that no matter what approach taken, there are those who will still find a way not to believe. Our Father in Heaven is the author of all things in the Heavens or the Earth. No limits are placed on our ability to learn and progress. Those who are "open minded" know this.

A huge question about this trust and faith issue ... is whom do we have trust in? ... what do we trust? I remember Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Do we really have faith in a divine overcar... those from on high? Or is it "trust in mammon." I have learned only through experience that when the chips are down and there is no more money-comfort-blanket to rely on, that still, Father and his helpers will provide. the biggest lessons have been that i can learn to trust and rely on Him in all things, not just 'when needed.'

@Cats

It could be that Our Father in Heaven is not the entity you assume from religious texts. Since you acknowledge that we have an ability to learn and progress.....I propose an alternative to your religious text based definition of God. My God would not be based on any religion. There is no reason not to think that the Universe is God, but is a non-interactive entity. If God is our creator than it is very possible that God IS the Universe. If you can't grasp that....than it is you who has found a way not to believe. I opened my mind to your version of God.....found it lacking in credibility and probability...so I opened my mind further and decided to acknowledge the question of God....has not been answered yet except thorough the rose-colored glasses of faith. So....you see...I do accept a version of God.....just not YOUR version. Instead of pointing backwards to ancient myths and outdated rules, it is science that progresses us....not religion or the many beliefs and rituals that accompany it. God and nature are one! There is no guy in the sky!

I am reminded of a quote by the late great scientist Henry Eyring: "Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men."
Life's journey is to use our agancy to choose, even what we believe. Faith in God is a key principle in discerning truth, as this article stated. I think that one day the gap of our understanding will be closed and we will understand that science and God's plan are harmonious.
In the mean time, we may struggle with our ideas, but living by faith points us in the right direction.

Man can totally exist and manage without religion in his life, but he must have some use of science to survive.

President Eyring a prominent scientist in his own right and a believer in evolution has restated basically what his father believed in science. As the Book of Mormon so clearly states: Everything we see testifies that there is a God.

As Joseph Smith so readily stated: "That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were createde, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters of God." Science is finally starting to understand that there are more worlds out there that probably have life on them. There is no such thing as coincidences. Nothing doesn't just happen. If you believe it does then you are quite naive. Everything anyone has is given to him or her by the Lord who created them. Just too many fail to understand this. Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. This is the great plan of happiness each of us agreed to before coming here. Science is only proving that it is true. As many great scientists have stated, "Science only proves the scriptures, not vice versa."