Meridian Magazine :: Articles : Making the Grade: Finding the Path of Truth

Editor’s Note: This is the third of a five-part series that will teach LDS students how to study and learn — from a spiritual perspective. Read the introductory article here.

If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:31-32)

Over the years, as I have taught anthropology and archaeology, many of my students have queried me regarding some of the contradictions between scientific teachings and the religious precepts they have learned at home and in church. The confusion generally results from the dogmatic approach taken by some philosophers and scientists, wherein that which is theorized is repeated often enough to become reality in their minds. Dogmatism, however, really has no place in the fast‑changing theories of science.

The first thing that a student of science history notices is that the science of today is quite different from the science of yesterday. This is because science is continually changing its concepts to fit newly‑discovered facts. It has been said that science is not a set of answers, but a set of questions for which answers are being sought. As time passes, the questions change, as do their tentative answers. They also produce new questions.

In the fields of archaeology and geology, for example, we find ourselves confronted with certain basic observations in the form of artifacts or remains that can be physically examined. Using a set of scientific principles (which also vary with time), we attempt to reconstruct the past. Since no one of us lived on the earth long ago, our reconstructions must be educated guesses. The factor of time — so important in the formulae of the scientific method — cannot apply to geology and archaeology as it does to observable experiments in such sciences as chemistry and physics.

This does not mean that the reconstructions are necessarily wrong, but it does mean that they are based upon a certain amount of guesswork. It also means that they must be subject to reinterpretation if additional discoveries show that the reconstruction is inaccurate and does not explain all of the facts. Reconstruction of the past is, therefore, merely a good (and possibly the best) explanation that man can give, based on the few facts he has before him. It cannot pretend to infallibility.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous sleuth, Sherlock Holmes, performed his work by reconstructive methods. Arriving on the scene of the crime, he would examine all the clues and then “scientifically” deduce what had occurred. Because the great Holmes was extremely competent, he always “got his man.” One wonders how the case would have fared had the bumbling Doctor Watson handled matters. Indeed, Holmes’s conclusions were usually confirmed only because the culprit ultimately confessed. In archaeology and geology, we have no eyewitnesses to interrogate, no perpetrator to apprehend. This is not so in the physical sciences, such as chemistry and physics, where the scientific method can be regularly used.

Contrary to popular belief, the scientific method is not a means of proving a theory. Rather, it is a system whereby experiments can be set up in order to prove that a given theory is untrue. A negative response proves that the theory cannot be true, because it does not meet all of the conditions included in the experiment. A positive response merely means that the theory is workable, but does not in any sense of the word establish the theory as “absolute truth,” for there might remain a large number of factors not included in the experiments to date.

Absolute Truth

Indeed, the term “absolute truth” has no place in science, since the concept is beyond the mind of man, with his limited means of fact‑finding and interpretation. It must lie in the realm of God, whose knowledge alone can comprehend all truth. This being the case, we may assume that any truth coming from God must be absolute and that feeble man cannot argue with it. It should be noted, however, that God has not revealed all truth to man; were it otherwise, our scientific methods would be obsolete and there would be no necessity for continuing revelation. Almost all that has been revealed from heaven is in the realm of “saving knowledge” rather than science‑related knowledge.

Religious truth comes to us in the form of scripture, comprising revelations from God and historical examples of the application of misuse of divine principles. But reading a passage of scripture is oftentimes similar to finding artifacts at an archaeological site. We can see what we’re looking at but, in order to understand what it means, we must interpret it. The apostle Peter warned that “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (1 Peter 1:20). For this reason, we need a qualified individual who, as far as this earth is concerned, has the last say in the interpretation of religious facts placed before us. That individual is God’s chosen prophet.

This is not to say that the prophet has all knowledge, for that would make him equal with God. No prophet has ever pretended to know more than that which God had revealed to him. But the fact that he is in communication with God means that he has access to the absolute truth of the celestial kingdom when necessary, and that he has a responsibility to give us that which God wishes us to have at any given time. This is best expressed in the Ninth Article of Faith: “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

The Factors of Truth

In considering the meaning of truth, we should try to distinguish clearly between the following:

· FACTS. These exist and must therefore be considered absolutely true. However, as important as they are, they have no practical application.

· PRINCIPLES. Like facts, they exist and are hence absolutely true. But, unlike facts, principles have practical application.

· THEORIES. Though they have been the subject of tests that have not proven them false, theories may be true but are not necessarily so.

· HYPOTHESES. Contrasted with theories, we could say that hypotheses are untested. They are proposed because there is some reason to believe in their possibility, usually through the observation of facts. But, again, they may not be true.

· OPINIONS. Some opinions are based on observation, while others are uninformed and hence baseless. There is, however, no way of knowing whether an opinion is true or false unless it has further corroboration.

The corroboration that can demonstrate the truth of an opinion, a hypothesis or a theory must come from the realm of fact or principle. Facts are often — though not always — observable, while principles can be known to us only through revelation from a higher, more knowledgeable, source. One must beware, however, for people often mistake their own perceptions for facts. We should also bear in mind that things are rarely “proven,” only “demonstrated” by evidence.

Spiritual Truth

Sometimes, science comes to the same conclusions that we can glean from religious truths revealed from heaven. As time goes by, we might expect to see an even greater similarity between scientific and religious revelations. In the meanwhile, we should keep in mind that scientific truth typically consists only of tentative theories, which may change tomorrow, while religious truth is everlasting.

Lest we consider the possibility of pitting our knowledge of a few years against that of the Eternal God, we should note his admonition given through the prophet Isaiah:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts (Isaiah 55:8‑9).

There is but one way by which the Latter‑day Saint scholar can proceed in the question of any conflicts between the philosophies of men and the revealed word of God. This is to realize that the truths of the gospel came not by the process of trial and error (man’s thoughts and research), but by revelation from the Spirit, in the form of testimony. The apostle Paul wrote:

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of a man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:11‑14).

Take God with You

To many people, religion is like a garment. They put it on each Sunday morning and remove it for the rest of the week. They meet God in church or even in the home, but when they go to work or to school, they leave him behind. This, of course, leads to a double life, full of hypocrisy and sometimes justification for wrongdoing. It was not meant to be. In the sacramental prayers we hear each Sabbath, we receive a promise that, if we will keep the Lord’s commandments, we will always have his Spirit to be with us (D&C 20:77, 79). How, then, can we leave that Spirit behind in church or in the home?

Religion to the Latter‑day Saint cannot be a Sunday-only affair or even one restricted to a few hours a day devoted to things such as prayer or scripture study. It must be a way of life. But it cannot become a way of life if we do not realize that it was our Heavenly Father who placed us here on the earth and that it was for certain specific goals that he sent us here. Our work, study, recreation, etc. — as much as we may enjoy them — are but part of the whole picture of which God is the artist. To leave him out of most of our daily activities is to deny our reason for coming to the earth and to deny his intense love and interest in us.

Consider the excellent results that come from taking the Spirit of the Lord with us wherever we go. He can keep us from wrongdoing and inspire us in our daily activities. He can encourage honesty in our business dealings and make of us good workers, good students, good friends, good parents, and good citizens.

Neither honesty nor dishonesty is an absolute guarantee of success. There are both honest and dishonest businessmen who have become successful in their chosen fields. The disadvantage, however, is to the dishonest man, for he must cover up his motives and many of his acts and live a double life. The honest man, on the other hand, has nothing to fear, no extra worries, no need to lie, and has an equal chance of success — and a far better chance over the dishonest man who has difficulty hiding his wrongs. Honesty begins in the home and extends into our scholastic activities and our work.

I have noted, through the years, that certain occupations contain almost inherent “hazards” that one who believes in God must avoid. Most — though not all — natural scientists I have known (i.e., those in the physical and biological sciences) have been believers in God. They have usually been able to avoid the religion‑science conflict by remembering two basic facts: (1) the revelations of God contain very sparse scientific information, and (2) scientific theories are tentative, subject to revision as new facts become available.

From my experience, social scientists seem to be less inclined, as a whole, to believe in God. This is particularly true of psychologists and anthropologists I have known, who often tend to be agnostic or atheistic. This is perhaps because they deal so much with humankind from a psychological or behavioral point‑of‑view. The social scientist attempts to describe lifestyles, but most don’t seek to establish a quality of life. There is no concern in the social sciences for eternal truths, nor indeed a concept of such. In fact, there is less general agreement on the theories of social science than on those of physical science, so much so that some refuse to define the former as a “science.”

In the social sciences, everything is considered to be relative, and there is widespread acceptance of the idea of natural evolution (both physical and cultural). Because of this belief in social relativity, anthropologists can generally said to be one of the more tolerant of professionals. This is because of the cardinal anthropological rule to not pass judgment on the culture of other peoples. Nevertheless, I find that anthropologists often tend to be intolerant of “believers” from their own cultural milieu.

The physical anthropologist deals with the human body, but often in its decayed state (excavated graves, etc.). Medical doctors, on the other hand, deal with living human beings and are therefore first‑hand witnesses to the intricacies of God’s handiwork in the human body. Most MDs I have known have been believers in God.

There is nothing inherently wrong with professions in the social sciences, and my generalizations must be understood in the context of my own experience. But it would be well for the student planning to enter this realm of endeavor to remember that he should not be discouraged from his belief in God by seeing the wrongdoings of men or the wide range of human behavior found throughout the world. The injustice of the world is not God’s doing; rather, it is a result of the agency he has given to man. But so, too, are the good things of the world.