Quantcast
Faith

Defending the Faith: Henry Eyring exemplified both science and faith

Comments

Return To Article
  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Nov. 12, 2013 11:52 a.m.

    sharrona,

    Christians therefore believe in One God in three divine persons, great is the mystery of this unity. Its beyond unity, its more higher than what we can conceive as unity.
    ______________________________

    That’s not history, sharrona. In the fourth century, the trinity was a contentious issue in a Church that after three centuries was still debating the divinity of Jesus. The trinity is a mystery only for those who find believing in mystery more palatable than the alternative of acknowledging a metaphysical absurdity.

    The trinity is not a mystery. We know how the concept came into being because we can trace its development from the time of Jesus until it became the fourth century compromise to a dilemma the Church didn’t know how else to resolve.

    You are right about being it being the accepted belief of mainstream Christianity. That's no surprise. Never underestimate the power of seventeen centuries of enforced dogma.

  • Glotof Huntsville, AL
    Nov. 11, 2013 10:35 a.m.

    Oh, Harvey Fletcher, where's the love? . . .

  • Semi-Strong Louisville, KY
    Nov. 9, 2013 9:53 p.m.

    Sharrona,

    The Westiminster Confession of Faith may be more far ranging than the Articles of Faith - but they serve a different purpose (and only really do so if you are associated with the Church of England).

    You had criticized the Articles of Faith and suggested the Apostles Creed and then the Athanasian Creed as superior. I was just pointing out two things:

    First, that the Articles of Faith were much more far ranging than the Apostles Creed or the Athanasian Creed.

    Second, that some of the issues you brought up about the Articles of Faith were due to referencing incorrect documents.

    As to your translation issues. We have covered most if not all of these before.

    The "evil" vs. "evil one" is something shown as an alternative translation in the NIV.

    As to 1 John 5:7 - it is referenced by very early Christian sources (including Athanasius).

    As to John 7:53-8:11 - not all scholars agree it should be excised from the Bible. There are very early references to it.

    But, you apparently agree that the Bible is "the word of God as far as it is translated correctly".

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Nov. 9, 2013 7:22 p.m.

    Semi-Strong, “the Articles of Faith”are more far ranging. Check the Westminister confessions of faith or Augsburg confessions book of concord. No secrets.

    Currrent A of F #8 as “translated correctly”? In 3 Nephi 13:12, (Jesus)“ deliver us from evil”(KJV). Did Jesus teach the Nephites an abstract prayer in 34 A.D.?

    The correct translation, Mt 6:13 NIV is “deliver us from “the evil one”( Satan G,= tou ponerou).

    LDS William Hamblin, understood by modern Christians as protection from evil in an Abstract(JS). But in its 1stt c context, “The evil one”=Satan,.

    (*1John 5:7,8 KJV & JST,(1 John 5:7) is reproduced in 3 Nephi 11:27,36).
    *Modern Bible translations footnote, Not found in Greek MS before the 16th Century.

    Or, the earliest and most reliable MS and do not have John 7:53-8:11. Yet some LDS authorities were fooled. Modern Christian scholarship(lower criticism)has nothing to hide.

    .. Over 26,000 N.T. quotes from(2nd c) disciples and early church fathers can reconstruct the N.T. less 11 verses. Last post, 4 per rules.

  • Semi-Strong Louisville, KY
    Nov. 8, 2013 10:01 p.m.

    Sharrona,

    Thank you but no, it does not help me. I have tried to understand Trinitarianism for decades but it has always just seemed to me (like the Athanasian Creed) a way of just saying that three is one and one is three. Sorry. But I do appreciate your sun example.

    Note that you had offered Joe5 the Athanasian Creed because he found the Apostles Creed short on detail. Above you indicate that you also find the Athanasian Creed to be short on at least the range of detail in that it really only addresses one subject (the Trinity), correct? Note that the Articles of Faith is far more wide ranging.

    I hope my post did clear up your issues with the Wentworth Letter and the Articles of Faith. It appears that the problem is that you may be referencing materials that are not actually the source documents and that is why you are getting bad/confusing information. The source documents are all available online and I would suggest you access them directly.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 7:21 p.m.

    RE: Semi-Strong, "The Athanasian creed, it is detailed about only one subject - the nature of the Trinity." True,

    This is the catholic=(katholikos,G. universal) faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

    The Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one (*heis=#1) these three agree as one(**en/preposition=unity),different Greek words (1John 5:7,8 KJV translation & JST)also(1 John 5:7) is reproduced in 3 Nephi 11:27,36)JS on the trinity.

    An example would be the Sun. The one Sun shows itself as triune, sunlight and heat yet one substance or essence, as its splendid in its unity and oneness. How much more the Creator of the sun is splendid and One in his unity and oneness in his triune being.

    Christians therefore believe in One God in three divine persons, great is the mystery of this unity. Its beyond unity, its more higher than what we can conceive as unity.

    But as Saint Augustine says, if we could fully understand God he would cease to be GOD.

    I hope that helps.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    Nov. 8, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    I'm unconvinced that ancient texts such as Genesis and (for Mormons) the Book of Abraham are attempting to be scientific in any meaningful sense. My view is that they are highly symbolic attempts to situate the relationship between God and His children. "Worlds without number" coincides with and seems supported by exciting discoveries for astronomers, but the emphasis is on the grandeur and achievements of our Creator. Likewise I'm unimpressed by any attempt to shoehorn light from planets into a current scientific theory or wield it as a cudgel against religion, when it seems (at least to me) to have deeper symbolic relevance.

    Where religion has erred, and done so badly, has been in losing sight of that and trying to use these texts as some sort of scientific tool. And that overstepping of its bounds has resulted in inevitable secular pushback, much of it deserved. Not to mention it has some of my more rigidly orthodox relatives convinced of my apostasy for believing in evolution, climate change, etc. Can we not admit to our mistake and see scientific knowledge as unthreatening to those who are willing to embrace all of God's truths?

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 1:20 p.m.

    @Cletus from Coalville

    That is no where to be found in ACTAYL Book of Abraham, the ACTUAL scriptures.

    and as description to facsimile, "Barrow light" is quite open to interpretation.

    @Tyler D

    Well.. show the science, so far all you have done is made an unasubstantiated claim.

    And more to the point, water does not need light to exist, water exists in dark places and on planet far far away from any useful light, water needs elements, needs matter.

    God himself is light.

    Creating a sun or star is just creating s local light source for earth, not for him doing his work.

    By the way 'creation' is the interpretation of the Hebrew word for 'organize'.

    And according to the more complete version of creation as revealed in the book of Abraham,

    the Gods organized existing matter which must include water to "organize" a lifeless earth, then local light source was created before life was created.

    According Abraham it was not created from nothing, therefore no light source needed to "organize" water and earth.

    While not a scientific manual there is no contradiction.

    Everything is in logical and scientific order

  • maclouie Falconer, NY
    Nov. 8, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    JoeBlow:

    "I am quite confident that the poster would have no problem questioning the first and
    absolutely no need or desire to question the second."

    How and why would I question the first? However, questioning the second may lead to further insights. Obviously, something that is not always sought for. And, obviously, you are wrong on both counts.

  • Cletus from Coalville Coalville, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    the truth said...

    "The Pearl of Great Price DOES NOT CLAIM that the Sun borrows its light from another planet...That is your interpretation…and it is wrong"

    The Pearl of Great Price claims...

    "...this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash...This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es...receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob." (Book of Abraham, Facsimile 2, Figure #5 explanation.)

    I'm not quite sure how "the truth" missed the truth on this one, unless the truth didn't read the passage truthfully.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Nov. 8, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    "Nuclear fusion = man's explanation
    Borrowing light from another planet = God's explanation. We just don't understand this yet."

    This wraps it up in a nutshell.

    I am quite confident that the poster would have no problem questioning the first and
    absolutely no need or desire to question the second.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Nov. 8, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    @the truth – “But the scriptures are quite clear where the truth lies.”

    Example:

    Scripture said water was created before light (Genesis 1:1-3)

    Science showed this is impossible.

    Scripture was wrong

    Contradiction – Bronze Age books attempting to explain the natural world vs. Science

    Reached comment limit...

  • Semi-Strong Louisville, KY
    Nov. 8, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    Sharrona,

    This is Twin Lights.

    The Wentworth Letter:
    We believe in the gift of tongues, prophesy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues &c.

    Current Articles of Faith:
    We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

    The text you cite reference the resurrection is not from the Wentworth Letter but from a tract by J.H. Flanigan called Mormonism Triumphant.

    The Athanasian creed is detailed about only one subject - the nature of the Trinity. It is, in fact, the text that turned me away from Trinitarian philosophy.

    Cletus from Coalville,

    Sorry that I missed your point. Mine was simply that statements may be true but not explain things depending on our own understandings. I don't see how that is circular.

    Apocalypse Please,

    My point was not about the Book of Mormon. Rather that the cosmology of the Pearl of Great Price of "worlds without number" was once highly doubtful scientifically and is now proving correct.

    The Scientist,

    I think the importance of Dr. Eyring is simply to show that deep faith and a keen scientific mind can coexist quite easily. There is no need for a war between faith and science.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    @The Scientist

    Exactly how do you express LDS Doctrine through chemistry?

    Eyring so not worry about the things in the scriptures he did not understand, as he stated he believed all those questions would be answered, and that the seeming contradictions would ultimately disappear, truth can NOT contradict truth.

    But I ma sure chemistry has helped show that the word of wisdom is truth, and that even the dietary laws that moses gave held truth, that drunkedness and getting high and other illicit drug use is bad, among other things.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 5:38 a.m.

    Not a single scientific accomplishment by Dr, Eyring contains an expression of his Church's doctrine. He may have been a nice guy (and was quite physically fit), but he is recognized not for replacing any scientific findings with religious "truths", but for contributing to a scientific understanding that continues to supplant and replace religious (mis-)"understanding" with fact, reason, and scientific observation.

    Eyring was a scientist despite his religious ties, not because of them.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 1:38 a.m.

    I don't see how my faith in my religion is any different than my faith in my science classes. I accept certain things I'm told, both from religious leaders and professors alike, without fully understanding. I apply what I'm told, and slowly but surely things start to become more clear. Of course there's a lot of trial and error. But let's be honest, any scientist, if he or she is to ever become great at what he or she does, has to go out on a lot of limbs and has to take a lot of leaps of faith before he or she can ever become a great scientist. Religion is no different.

  • Apocalypse please Bluffdale, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:14 p.m.

    "as we contemplate data now becoming understood regarding the universe we see more and more of the cosmology outlined in the Pearl of Great Price."

    Just like the Smithsonian uses the Book of Mormon to guide archeological efforts in the new world.

  • Semi-Strong Louisville, KY
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:22 p.m.

    Sharrona,

    This is Twin Lights.

    Original text of the Wentworth Letter:
    We believe in the gift of tongues, prophesy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues &c.

    Current text of the Articles of Faith:
    We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

    The text you cite reference the resurrection is not from the Wentworth Letter but from a tract by J.H. Flanigan called “Mormonism Triumphant! Truth Vindicated. Lies Refuted, The Devil Mad, and Priestcraft in Danger!!! Being a Reply to Palmer’s Internal Evidence Against the Book of Mormon”.

    Reference the Athanasian creed, it is detailed about only one subject - the nature of the Trinity. It is, in fact, the text that turned me away from Trinitarian philosophy.

    Cletus from Coalville,

    Sorry that I missed your point. My point was simply that statements may be true but not explain things depending on our own understanding. I don’t see how any of that is circular.

  • Cletus from Coalville Coalville, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 7:08 p.m.

    "...one way of explaining how my car works (since you brought it up) is to say "it gets its energy from animals and plants that lived millions of years ago". Another explanation would be "it gets its energy from the sun". And then there is the one word explanation "fire".

    And don't forget the explanation that petroleum products come from rocks. Rocks exist in the Himalayas. Therefore, the power from your car engine comes from the Himalayas.

    And there you go folks -- it's precisely this type of circular logic that allows such bizarre religious claims to exist even today.

    "I don't get Cletus from Coalville's issue."

    Of course you don't. Perhaps it's because you are stuck in time thinking like the Amish.

  • maclouie Falconer, NY
    Nov. 7, 2013 6:20 p.m.

    Thanks Twin Lights. I don't get Cletus from Coalville's issue. You get it, though.

    I live among the Amish. They are stuck in time (just one way of putting it). Those that think scientific "knowledge" is the end is no different than the Amish way of thinking. Believing the Sun borrows light from a planet does not negate nuclear fusion and the things we think we know now through our discoveries.

    But I wonder when scientists will finally settle Quantum or String, and when they finally agree it won't make it true. And I wonder if Cletus from Coalville even knew the theory of the atom changed a dozen times the last couple hundred years and it is still changing. Whatever scientist agree today about the atom doesn't make it true. Then there is gravity. Do I need to say more?

    So when a Prophet says the Sun Borrows it's light, the least it means is there is more to learn and to stop thinking like an Amish. If one does not believe the scriptures than that is their reality.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 6:04 p.m.

    #Cletus from Coalville

    The Pearl of Great Price DOES NOT CLAIM that the Sun borrows its light from another planet rather than through nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium at its core?

    That is your interpretation, based on limited knowledge and understating (and the assumption nuclear fusion was used, when it may be far advanced of that), and it is wrong.

    There is no contradiction between faith and science.

    We do not yet know all there is to know about light and energy, nor any specific details of creation.

    I am sure any scientific knowledge and methods, technology, and intelligence God has is far beyond what we currently know and have.

    If man now can create human life in test tube within 9 months, then what can a far vastly superior being do?

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 5:53 p.m.

    @Tyler D

    Faith has never tried to do science.

    Religious leaders have tried to do science outside the scope of what the scriptures teach.

    Science is not the best means for all truth.

    It is just A means for some truth specifically about the physical world and the universe, like chemistry and physics, and even then it is limited by the current technologies and knowledge of the day.

    Science can be just as dogmatic as any religion, especially when comes to unproven theories like evolution which it asserts as fact, denies any contrary views and brands them as heresy, even though it is totally and absolutely based on assumption and supposition, then require this unscientific nonsense to be taught to every child.

    AS Eyring states the seeming contradictions will disappear eventually when our learning and knowledge has increased.

    But the scriptures are quite clear where the truth lies.

    Example:

    When men said earth was the center of the universe,

    They use religion to enforce their own views on others.

    Faith, the scriptures never said it was.

    Science showed earth was not the center,

    Men were wrong, faith never was.

    NO contradiction.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 5:12 p.m.

    RE Craig Clark,Catholics Also Lutherans, Methodist, Episcopalians and more.

    The original A of F. #8 We believe in the Word of God recorded in the Bible; we also believe the Word of God recorded in the Book of Mormon, and in all other good books.

    joe5: the apostles creed... very short on detail? Check the Athanasius creed.

    Apostles creed ...”The resurrection of the body”, and the life everlasting.

    Original A of F #11, We believe in the literal “resurrection of the body” and that the dead in Christ will rise first, and that the rest of the dead live not again until the thousand years are expired.
    (In the current edition,) the original A of Faith no. 11, was eliminated, leaving 13 articles out of the original 14.

    RE: Twin Lights, The Original #7, We believe in the powers and gifts of the everlasting Gospel, viz., the gift of faith,discerning of spirits, prophecy, revelation, vision healing, tongues, and the interpretation of tongues, wisdom charity, brotherly love etc.

    The Current 7 is a sketch of the original.
    l

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Nov. 7, 2013 3:44 p.m.

    sharrona,

    "The Articles of Faith are remarkable for what they fail to say concerning the teachings of the Mormon Church. Although Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy at the time he authored them, he made no reference to the doctrine of plural marriage. He made no mention of his teaching that there are many Gods...."
    ______________________________

    The Articles of Faith or precisely that, articles of faith, not an encyclopedia of Mormon doctrines and practices. They are essentially Mormonism's equivalent of the apostle's creed which Catholics recite each Mass. The later makes no mention of papal infallibility, priestly celibacy, etc. Why would you expect greater detail of Mormonism's basic creed?

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 3:31 p.m.

    I was a Mormon missionary in West Virginia in 1957. One of my investigators was secretary of the local American Chemical Society group. He told me of a visit by Dr. Henry Eyring to speak to the local ACS members. The secretary was asked to host Dr. Eyring for the afternoon before the evening meeting. He asked Dr. Eyring what he would like to see, expecting him to want to visit some of the chemical research projects that proliferated the Charleston area. Dr. Eyring replied that he would like to visit the state capitol building to learn about the people of that area. Dr. Eyring was a great chemist, but, more importantly, he was a great person who was interested in others.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 3:22 p.m.

    Sharonna: Have you ever read the apostles creed? Or the subsequent creeds of Christian religions? They are also very short on detail.

    The purpose behind a credal statement or a set of Articles of Faith. The intent is not to be comprehensive but to outline a reasonably short set of basic principles. Interestingly there were several attempts to develop Articles of Faith in the early days of the church. List ranged from nine statement of belief to eighteen. Not all were done by Joseph Smith. This particular list that ultimately became part of our canon was created in response to a question from an editor of a basic outline of LDS beliefs.

    But this is way off topic for this article and it seems kind of petty for you to ignore the conversation in order to take some shots at the Articles of Faith.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Nov. 7, 2013 2:58 p.m.

    Sharrona,

    A quote from FAIR:

    The Prophet Joseph Smith stated very clearly when he published the Wentworth letter (in which the
    Articles of Faith are first found) that its contents represent only a “sketch of the…faith of the Latter-day Saints.”1 For those anti-Mormons who might be wondering, the word “sketch” is defined in the 1828 edition of An American Dictionary of the English Language as an “outline or general figure of a thing; to make a rough draught” or draft.2

    Hope that helps.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 2:35 p.m.

    RE: joe5: On of the foundational tenets of Mormonism is Article of Faith 9 that says "We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God."

    The Articles of Faith are remarkable for what they fail to say concerning the teachings of the Mormon Church. Although Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy at the time he authored them, he made no reference to the doctrine of plural marriage. He made no mention of his teaching that there are many Gods, that God was once a man or that men can become Gods. The Articles of Faith are completely silent concerning the D& C which contains many of Smith's revelations and distinctive doctrines.

    Re: Louis Midgley,The Articles of Faith are silent on such things as celestial marriage, salvation for the dead, temple work in all its phases, the resurrection, and degrees of glory in the eternal worlds." The Articles of Faith seem to be an attempt to hide almost all of the LDS teachings which separate the Mormon Church from historic Christianity.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Nov. 7, 2013 12:21 p.m.

    Cletus from Coalville

    I really don't have a dog in this fight (this issue gives me no heartburn) but I would just like to point out that one way of explaining how my car works (since you brought it up) is to say "it gets its energy from animals and plants that lived millions of years ago". Another explanation would be “it gets its energy from the sun”. And then there is the one word explanation “fire”.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 12:15 p.m.

    Such a bright guy, he has been quoted as saying, "Everyone should go and get signed up for health care." Granted, he said it decades ago when it was cheap to do so. We need more people like him today.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:47 a.m.

    Craig: On of the foundational tenets of Mormonism is Article of Faith 9 that says "We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God." In the words of Hugh B. Brown: "That is a challenge for the ages."

    Further, I have always been taught that revelation comes as the result of questions. We are taught from our primary days that JS's first vision was the result of a question; Moroni's visit was the result of a question; the Aaronic PH was restored because JS had a question about baptism; the vision of the degrees of glory was the result of a question. In fact, many sections of the D&C were the result of a question. From our youngest years, we are taught to ask questions.

    However, we are also taught that not all questions are answered immediately so we need to have faith until they are. This is similar to adhering to a scientific hypothesis while we wait for data to come in to either verify or disprove it.

  • Cletus from Coalville Coalville, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:47 a.m.

    "Nuclear fusion = man's explanation"

    "Borrowing light from another planet = God's explanation. We just don't understand this yet."

    And the latter is correct because someone said that's what God claimed in spite of the evidence to the contrary? Wow, now that's a tough one to swallow for anyone with rudimentary scientific understanding.

    When religious dogma demonstrably clashes with science, it's easy to rely on the old fallback--"we just don’t understand this yet." This is nothing more than a clever dodge designed to keep the "faithful" in check. Granted, such a copout seems to work with apparently intelligent people.

    By the way, accepting the faulty notion that the Sun borrows its light from another planet is tantamount to believing the power from your car engine came from a rock in Himalayas rather than through internal combustion inside the engine.

    Is it any wonder why reason simply gets high jacked by such pious nonsense?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:46 a.m.

    @joe5 – “wouldn't they realize and concede that their faith in the constantly changing God called "Science" is insufficient to explain the universe?”

    Nope… because it’s not about having an explanation for everything – it’s about what is the best method for getting the answers, which I can only assume you agree with when you say, “Invariably in turns out that the matter is not settled at all and further scientific analysis proves it.” Right… it was further explained by science.

    Given religion’s track record at explaining the natural world (vs. science it is abysmal) science is by far the best method we have - but you’re right to say it should not be dogmatic (i.e., stating a matter is settled when there’s still work to be done).

    Conversely, religion should stop trying “fill in the gaps” of what science cannot yet explain.

    @maclouie – “There has not been any discovery without their being faith initially.”

    True… but a red herring, because that is not the kind of faith atheistic scientists argue against, but I’m guessing you already know that.

  • Sensible Scientist Rexburg, ID
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:34 a.m.

    I think Henry Eyring would caution you about the "science is fleeting" argument depending on where you think that would lead. If you have creationism, a young earth, or "evolution is bunk" in mind, he'd chastise you roundly. If, however, you simply have in mind scientific uncertainty, fine.

    Every Mormon should read "Mormon Scientist," published a couple of years ago by Eyring's grandson. It's an eye-opener.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    I was told once upon a time by a very well educated [7 Doctorate Degrees, 3 of them in biology surrounding evolutionary theriy] and religous and failthful LDS Bishop ---

    Science explains HOW God does things,
    Religous explains WHY God does things.

    Those who get confused are the ones attempting to do just the opposite.

    [for example - believeing the Earth was created in 6 (24 hour) days].

    Dr. Eyring

  • Louis Midgley Provo, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    When I arrived at Brown University to begin my doctorate at Brown University, I was escorted by the Chair of Political Science to a to a reception held for new graduate students by Robert Bruce Lindsay, the Dean of the Graduate School. Each new graduate student got perhaps ten seconds. I got perhaps five minutes. The reason was that I got a lecture from Professor Lindsay. When I introduced myself, he asked me if I was Mormon and whether I knew Henry Eyring, whom he described as the greatest human being he had ever met, and also the best scientist then alive. Lindsay admonished me to follow as closely as I could Eyring's example.

    I did not study under Henry Eyring, but that I had heard him lecture and debate. He could hold his own with anyone. Lindsay indicated that Eyring defended his faith with the same passion and precision that he devoted to his science. Lindsay was impressed by both Eyring as a scholar and as a Latter-day Saint. And he urged me to follow in his footsteps. Given my limited gifts, I have striven to be a scholar Saint in the pattern set by Henry Eyring.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Nov. 7, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    The parameters of faith generally encompass sacred tenets that are not to be questioned if faith is to be maintained. Science, on the other hand, exempts nothing from questioning, indeed requires that everything be subject to questioning in seeking truth. These radically different approaches are not easily reconciled.

    That’s not to say that it can’t be done. Henry Eyring is a stellar example of one who was both a man of faith and a man of science. If there is a common ground shared by faith and science, it is that both require enduring patience.

  • maclouie Falconer, NY
    Nov. 7, 2013 10:47 a.m.

    Cletus from Coalville:

    "And how long will it take for science to catch up with the claim in the Pearl of Great Price that the Sun borrows its light from another planet rather than through nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium at its core?"

    Nuclear fusion = man's explanation

    Borrowing light from another planet = God's explanation. We just don't understand this yet.

    There is nothing wrong with utilizing and understanding nuclear fusion with an eye towards knowing there is more to learn.

    Man's criticism towards God's Word is caused by man's inability and impatience to comprehend. As far as statements about "those who lack faith will be damned" is so true no matter how you slice it. There has not been any discovery without their being faith initially. You would not insert you keys in the ignition switch if you did not think the engine would start (or unless you wanted to listen to the radio, but you know what I mean).

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Nov. 7, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    @Twin Lights – “So many discoveries evoke wonder and amazement.”

    Good comments…

    Science (starting with science fiction) has always had that effect on me. By contrast religion almost never has – with the exceptions of examples of pure love and redemption stories (but as a kid the Anakin Skywalker redemption story affected me more than any religious one I heard *haha*).

    Maybe this is just a function of how we’re wired… different strokes.

    I remember watching Cosmos as a kid (it came on in episodes so we had the added effect of anticipation) and was just blown away. The universe Sagan was describing seemed so much larger, mysterious (but potentially knowable), breathtaking and awe inspiring than any stories I heard in Sunday school.

    By the way, I hear Neil Degrasse Tyson is hosting the remake set to come out next year. Given current special effects, that should be amazing – and without the somewhat cheesy (in retrospect) spaceship Carl Sagan was riding around in.

    @Mountanman

    Even though I don’t share your faith I really enjoyed your comment. How often have I ever said that before? haha

    Peace brother…

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    Twin Lights wrote: "I have no problem letting science be science. Nor any fear thereof. I honestly don’t comprehend why folks get all in a knot over it."

    I have no fear of science. My undergrad degree is in electrical engineering and I've made my career in the field of science and technology. However, I do push back on the blind adherents to science that reject any other data or input. I can't even tell you how many times I've heard that "the matter is settled" from those who rely completely on science and reject faith. Invariably in turns out that the matter is not settled at all and further scientific analysis proves it. But these same blind believers then trumpet that the new data means that "the matter is settled." At some point, if they were honest, wouldn't they realize and concede that their faith in the constantly changing God called "Science" is insufficient to explain the universe?

  • BeSmart Cheyenne, WY
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:26 a.m.

    @ Weber State Graduate
    I think if you look at many of the best scientists they believed in a higher power.
    Even when you statistically analyze many of the scientific theories about the creation of the Universe, Earth, and such it is pretty much a statistic impossibility.
    A mathematic representation of the big bang theory actually working and causing the universe we have today (i may be off by a couple zeros)
    1 in 27,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That is for the universe to even exist.
    Having a scientific background and working with scientists I would say most scientists believe there is a higher power whatever it may be that helped in the creation.
    Having a geologic background that I do. The periods of creation actually align very well with science (time differs) but the attributs of the periods are similiar. D&C also talks about the earth "temporal" life being 6,000 years (that is not saying the definite age).
    Saying science and religion destroy eachother is not a great point mathematically. Now the probability of one person being in the exact spot where they are now is that much greater.

  • IsaacsTM Huntingtown, MD
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    Henry Eyring was my father's mentor at the University of Utah and was a great man. My father taught thermodynamics for many years at the U of U. He is also a faithful member of the church. Many times, he would be inspired in his research and his discoveries. When we put science and religion on separate boxes we miss the opportunities to use our faith to receive inspiration and receive new objective knowledge about the world and how it works.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    @ Craig. Thank you for your astute input. I would only add that it depends on how faith is defined. The scriptures teach, "Faith is the evidence of things not seen that are true". I like that definition very much! Real faith isn't blind, its believing and accepting the evidences. Not everything can be proven, many things require faith. Faith keeps us moving forward in an unproven future. Imagine not moving forward unless the future can be proven.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    Weber State Graduate,

    I cannot speak for others, but in my over 35 years in the church, I do not feel that I have ever been asked to surrender reason. Actually (in terms of actions and consequences) I sometimes see what I might term an over-reliance on reason vs. faith as the motivation for certain religious adherence.

    Tyler D,

    I generally agree. Science is a tool. At one time not that good (due to limited data) now much better. The accusation that science is always changing and incomplete misses the point - of course it is (and always will be).

    I have no problem letting science be science. Nor any fear thereof. I honestly don’t comprehend why folks get all in a knot over it. So many discoveries evoke wonder and amazement. And, if I find in them no proof of my religious views, neither do I find them to be contrary thereto.

    But, then there are the tantalizing discoveries such as the current estimates of how many earth-like planets there may be and that some building blocks for life afloat in space and what all of this means for life in the universe.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    "Science is so fleeting."
    ______________________________

    Science is tentative is how I would put it. It builds of the shoulders of what came before and is forever subject to revision, as any honest scientist will readily admit. Faith, on the other hand can become mired and stagnant in its refusal to reconsider tenets it places beyond human understanding.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    Science is so fleeting. Everything we think we know will eventually be proven to be either wrong or at least very incomplete. As our grandparent's science is to us, so will our science be to our grandchildren. Religion is also very incomplete. I refer you to the 9th Article of Faith. I personally could not belong to any religion that teaches me otherwise.

  • Cletus from Coalville Coalville, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    "As we contemplate data now becoming understood regarding the universe we see more and more of the cosmology outlined in the Pearl of Great Price."

    And how long will it take for science to catch up with the claim in the Pearl of Great Price that the Sun borrows its light from another planet rather than through nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium at its core?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    I think Eyring has the right approach (his “over-belief” notwithstanding) that we should examine the handiwork of creation. I would add that we should do so without bias or presupposition and let the evidence take us wherever it will (i.e., which would not be in the direction of a Creationism Museum).

    @Twin Lights – “Faith and Science are not enemies (unless we seek to make them such).”

    When properly understood, I would agree. The problem comes when Faith tries to do Science (as it has for thousands of years) - when it tries to do so, eventually it (Faith) always loses and with each loss goes more credibility.

    If these areas were parsed and people embraced science (not as having all the answers, but as the best means for obtaining answers about the natural world), faith would stand on much more solid ground… even if that ground seemed to cover far less territory than it did in the past (which perhaps is the main cause of distress for the faithful).

  • Weber State Graduate Clearfield, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:04 a.m.

    "In this church, you only have to believe the truth."

    Therin lies the key...

    I have no problem with those who choose a path of faith...there is great comfort that comes from believing in something beyond oneself. The problem is that some people claim "truth" when they actually mean "belief." Believing in something does not make it true or cause it to be a fact. And the danger with "belief" is it can replace evidence and sidestep the use of our reasoning powers.

    It's frightening to be pushed out of our comfort zone given our powerful inner drive to hold our attitudes and beliefs in harmony. As a result, many scientists have found a way to look past the conflict that exists between science and faith and surrender to their cognitive dissonance.

    However, living an authentic life requires one to bravely make self-honoring choices in both thought and action. Reason can become an enemy of faith to those who demand the acceptance of the supernatural.

    And those demands can become downright repugnant when dogmatist claim non-believers will suffer eternal damnation unless they surrender their reason.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Nov. 7, 2013 7:24 a.m.

    As we contemplate data now becoming understood regarding the universe we see more and more of the cosmology outlined in the Pearl of Great Price.

    Faith and Science are not enemies (unless we seek to make them such).