The Warfare of Science with Theology by A. D. White

[_Themis]

Ask the source.

I take that as you don't know. Not surprised since I have been where you are.

[_The CCC]

I take that as you don't know. Not surprised since I have been where you are.

Speculative. When I want to know the things about inorganic chemistry I go to the source. The chemicals themselves. When I want to know the things about God I go to the source; God.

I've been an active committed member for over 45 years now. I intend to remain such for the rest of my life.

[_Themis]

I take that as you don't know. Not surprised since I have been where you are.

Speculative. When I want to know the things about inorganic chemistry I go to the source. The chemicals themselves. When I want to know the things about God I go to the source; God.

I've been an active committed member for over 45 years now. I intend to remain such for the rest of my life.

But you cannot explain how you know you are communicating with God. If you get your university chemistry textbook, it will give you more then answers. It will tell you why they think they are right and how one can test those answers. You cannot do the same with claimed revelations. This is why you will continue to avoid the issue. All we will see from you is unsupported assertion.

[_The CCC]

My personal prayers. Exactly how it works is something I don't know. Much like Newton not knowing how all the planets kept in their elliptical orbits.

Will it help me to pass an inorganic chemistry test by answering questions with facts about the American Revolutionary War?

[_Maksutov]

CCC, do you see these as non-overlapping magisteria?

[_Themis]

My personal prayers. Exactly how it works is something I don't know. Much like Newton not knowing how all the planets kept in their elliptical orbits.

Which means you do not know if the source is divine or that your interpretations are accurate. They are after all based mostly on vague sensations with no meaning until you give them meaning.

Will it help me to pass an inorganic chemistry test by answering questions with facts about the American Revolutionary War?

The answers to an inorganic chemistry test are available to all as well as why they are accurate. It's the why that is important. Religious claims have no such methods on how one knows the answers are accurate. They are just interpretations given them by their religious tribe. In fact you cannot memorize answers to most chemistry or physics questions. You have to learn the how it works and the math behind it to figure out the answer since it is easy to have an infinite different questions.

[_The CCC]

I never claimed my interpretation is accurate is a scientific sense of the word. If my atheistic friends are correct and it is just this life, then the Abyss. None of us will know any differently anyway. But my beliefs help motivate me to be a better person. So it works for me. I accept chemistry and history, but answering one doesn't constitute answering the other. by the way I was a chemist long before I joined the Church.
SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... technology

[_huckelberry]

My personal prayers. Exactly how it works is something I don't know. Much like Newton not knowing how all the planets kept in their elliptical orbits.

Which means you do not know if the source is divine or that your interpretations are accurate. They are after all based mostly on vague sensations with no meaning until you give them meaning.

Themis,
If I consider my own prayer experience I can relate to the observation that it does not produce certainty. With prayer I maintain limitations in my understanding. I should remain aware of the fact that I could be wrong.

That comment contains some agreement with you but from there I do not find myself relating to the idea that prayer has to do with vague sensations with no meaning. My relationship with prayer is that it may help my understanding process, I do not see a place where vague sensations are more than incidentally involved. They are usually not involved at all.

[_The CCC]

CCC, do you see these as non-overlapping magisteria?

Broadly speaking yes. Facts are just that. I'm more interested in the interpretation(Theory) behind those facts.

[_Themis]

I never claimed my interpretation is accurate is a scientific sense of the word. If my atheistic friends are correct and it is just this life, then the Abyss. None of us will know any differently anyway. But my beliefs help motivate me to be a better person. So it works for me. I accept chemistry and history, but answering one doesn't constitute answering the other. by the way I was a chemist long before I joined the Church.
SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... technology

I can respect honesty in that you admit you do not know. The issue is not about chemistry and history cannot answer the other as though science cannot answer religious claims. They may if the religious claim is specific enough. The Book of Mormon is a story of a real people is a specific enough claim. Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth can be answered by science. God exists is not.

by the way I consider myself to be more agnostic then atheist. Many cannot be comfortable with I don't know.