Faith and Logic in Science and Religion

I enjoy practicing logic and logical reasoning. Maybe that's why I enjoy math and science (even though it took me several tries to get algebra down pat). If a=b and b=c then we can deduce that a=c. Nowhere in that set of equations does it say that a=d or any other letter equals any other letter. To think that because the first three letters of the alphabet in this situation are equal then there are others that are equal would be a false assumption on my part. There might be others, but I'd have no proof or evidence of this. 

I took statistics from an energetic professor and he would scream enthusiastically at our class to not extrapolate beyond the data. If there is a trend, there is no reason to assume that trend will continue. And then he'd give examples of markets or bacterial cultures that looked like they'd take off exponentially higher, but then given the data, they actually fall in half and move in a linear fashion. Seems like an obvious principle but we ignore it, all the time. 

The other subject that would work him up is the idea that "correlation does not imply causation." This means that just because as one thing increases the same rate as another does not mean one causes the other or that they are even connected at all. We all do this too. If you did a study of fires of all kinds across the country you'd find that the fires that cost the most in damages are the ones where the most firemen show up to fight it. Thus, you might assume, logically, that it is the firemen that cause all the excess damage!! That would be silly to think this.

A group called the Pastafarians started up a website and a movement around the time that Intelligent Design was circulating the news. This group of people were probably "scientifically minded" trying to take shots at foolish religious peoples. They created a religion that worshipped the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) who was invisible and touched people with his noodly appendages and his most devout followers were pirates. They used a graph that showed a correlation between the increase in global warming with the decrease of pirates, thus global warming was caused by the killing off of FSM's chosen people. A point was made, good laughs were had, and I'm sure some people felt smart for participating in such an intelligent joke against those less-intelligent than themselves. 

They themselves make the false assumption that because they've learned a few things about the universe they assume they know what's not there or how things didn't happen. Truth be told, evolution occurs and is occuring through various breeding and natural processes. Truth be told, ALL the evidence points at an earth that has circled the Sun about 4.6 billion times and has progressed through various stages of environment and dominating forms of life. Truth be told, no one was there to watch this happening. All our evidence points at it, but no one was there to see it actually happen. We have to assume many things (and checking our answers through multiple checks, this is probably how at least most of it happened) but to assume everything fits into our proposed timeline would be just as unscientific as believing global warming is really caused by a lack of pirates. 

This universe is a great big place and reality is not everything it is cracked up to be. Our senses are all easily fooled. Our perception is limited, and our sense of matter and energy are incomplete. If I were an ant in the middle of the most remote sand dune of the sahara and had never seen trace or sign of humanity I might think when I got to the top of the dune that because I could see so much, I could see all. Two hundred years ago, humanity had barely scratched the surface of the field of electronics. 250 years ago, electricity was unheard of, yet the reality of this cosmic force had played obvious parts in human development and life on this planet for billions of years and our awereness of it has changed humanity forever. Just because we can see so much more than we could see before does not mean we can see all. 

The flaw of assuming happens in religion, too. But before I get into that, I must say that religion and science are the same principles applied to different fields of learning. In science, not everyone can see the data, or the results of the study, but we trust in the journal publishing it that those close to it are correct and they relay the message to the rest of us. We take it on their word that the discovered law of physics is good in that situation. Others take courage and replicate the experiment (just to check) and if they come up with the same results then it's more weight to the claim. If they come up with different results, it doesn't necessarily mean anything but that the subject needs further study.

In religion, we meet people who have had some sort of spiritual experience and we take their word for it (or don't). Some of us are in a position to replicate their experiment by living life or acting the way they did and trying to obtain a similar or the same result as them. If our own experiment confirms it, we put more credence to the notion. If we are not able to obtain the desired results, it doesn't prove anything except that it needs to be studied further (perhaps our methodology is off). There are some spiritual experiences that we will never be able to replicate because those experiences were "given" to that person by someone else, and since we are not in charge of the giving of these experiences we must wait and if nothing else, test the validity of their purported experience through indirect methods and see if "the fruit is good." 

Some assume that because they received an experience confirming the reality of Christ, that their entire view of Christ is the correct one, when all they really found out is that Christ is their savior, and learned nothing more. If others obtain an experience confirming their nothingness in this universe and yet their supreme importance to the fabric of space, they have learned that and nothing more. True, learning one fact can allow certain logical assumptions when due. If we learn that a=b and later learn that b=c, then it is safe for us to assume that a must also equal c. 

One beautiful thing I've learned from experience is that those who have spiritual experiences will cling to the truths obtained from it for as long as their memory of it holds or as long as their percieved value of the truth is worth holding onto (unfortunately many will toss aside profound truths to achieve shallower and more immediate accomplishments). But to those who've had spiritual experiences and refresh their memory of it regularly, there is nothing else in their perception that can shake them of the reality of the experience. Eyes can be tricked, touch can be fooled, hearing can be uncertain, but the validity of that experience is rock solid in their mind and unquestionable in it's reality, regardless of their education--whether it be a PhD in nuclear physics or a GED. In other words, there is something more real to the spirit than anything else our minds can handle. 

It takes a great deal of energy and time to invest in spiritual things and most people don't percieve it as worth pursuing, or some have become pleased and complacent with what they've learned and settle for meager amounts of knowledge and assume that what they haven't learned must be wrong (often, they misuse this knowledge by wrongly applying it or they forget pieces of it through neglect). Others use the reality of spirit to obtain their selfish desires by taking advantage of others with lies and half-truths. These are the reasons for the tremendous spiritual turmoil throughout society. Others, to the benefit of society, are always pursuing further light and knowledge and the world is made better for it. 

My suggestion to anyone who happens to read this far is to pursue knowledge and never attack anyone else's pursuit of the same. We all live in the same space in various circumstances and individual brains built on a collective tapestry of personal experience. The best thing would be to politely correct any flaws in logical reasoning that we are not aware of and leave it up to us to deal with it.

If anyone is curious as to what I've learned, I've learned that the human body is more amazing than I will ever understand in this life even if granted the chance to study it full-time for the next eighty years, the universe is bigger and more complicated than it will ever be in man's power alone to understand, that there is a God in a place called Heaven who has a son we call Jesus Christ (who can also be referred to as God) and a side-kick called the Holy Ghost (who is so God-like that it is perfectly respectful to think of him as God, too). They care about us and want us to be happy whether we live in concentration camps or the Pacific Palisades and give us the freedom to achieve it in either setting. They have spoken to mankind at various places and to various peoples and collective experiences of God dealing with people have been written and are continually being written. The spiritual experiences that I have had that are more real than anything else, have taught me that the Book of Mormon is true, the Bible (as we have it) is excellent, and that God has given certain groups of people his authority to act in his name and this is known as the Holy Priesthood After the Order of the Son of God-- more commonly called the Melchizedek Priesthood-- and that I am fortunate enough to hold it and be a part of its organization in the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This is the limit of my sure knowledge. It is not very much, but it's specific and I appreciate it.

This amount of knowledge opens a wealth of doors to explore and a tremendous amount of potential happiness. If you want to obtain the same knowledge, I would be happy to help. If you have knowledge you would like to share, I'd enjoy hearing it.