I consider myself relatively well educated. I enjoyed learning, be it from books or from experiments. One of my early goals in life was to read every book in the non-fiction section of the library. I did not accomplish this goal, but I did learn much including the fact that most books on the same subject hold the same information (there's only so many ways you can say that sharks are endangered or what the boiling point of water is). Almost all the things I learned, however, I had to take in faith. I have never touched the sun, but I can read that the surface temperature is around 5500°C. How can I learn this if I've never seen the test done? By trusting that the scientists who have done it wouldn't lie to the world. Furthering this dilemma, how can those scientists know that the test was successful? It's not as if they can verify it completely without a bit of doubt. They can only repeat the test enough times that the law of large numbers comes into effect. This is the way science works, because otherwise it would only be guessing perpetually without any facts to build and work on.
Many people partially apply principles of science to religion. They want some sort of proof, be it a sign or evidence in the world that there is a god, just like scientists are required to cite their reproducible experiments. A common response is that "all things denote there is a God" (
Alma 30:44) but this is not good enough for them. They want a proof that these things denote God, or some thing they can test themselves. This is where they tend to stop applying science, giving up on understanding instead of finding a test they can do. They then hide behind the idea of science, when they haven't even followed through! This frustrates me to no end.
 |
| Gravity in action. |
For example, do you know exactly why gravity works? You can research and learn from experts and get a good idea, but you can't do the same experiments unless you have the same equipment laying about (one
test included 4 atomic clocks on 2 plane rides.
Another measured Mercury's apparent shift in orbit by a few inches). You can do simple tests, such as dropping a tennis ball and a bowling ball, and find the results are consistent with the experts' opinions, but rarely will you be able to do the same tests. Since you are being a scientist, you accept this limitation and use the experts' published facts.
The same should be done with religion. You can research from the experts by reading
scriptures and
modern-day revelation, understanding what it is about and how you can apply it to your life, but you won't have the same experiences since you probably don't have the full measure of faith or responsibility they have. You can, however, try out the simple
tests that are available to you and decide based on your personal results what to believe. Just as you wouldn't say gravity is a lie because you don't know the full truth, the same should be true of religion. And just as you can know for yourself if gravity affects your daily life, the same happens to be true of religion. So, are you going to be a scientist to the end and base your opinions on your results, or hide behind somebody's opinion instead of forming your own?
