BELIEFS AND STORIES FROM MEMBERS OF
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Personal response by Jack

This is a very good and thought-provoking question. I would imagine that many people, at one time or another, have felt that perhaps there is a major conflict between science and religion. The age of the earth, how it was created, evolution, the dinosaurs, and a host of other seemingly knotty questions seem to preclude having faith in God and accepting evidence gleaned from the scientific method of discovering truth.

I just recently read a most fascinating book that for some reason I had missed over the years that helped me make sense out of this supposed science vs. religion conflict. It is Reflections of a Scientist by Henry Eyring. The book was published in 1983 and may be difficult to find but is well worth reading if you can find it.

Henry Eyring was a world renowned chemist who taught for a number of years at Princeton during the late 30s and through World War II. Albert Einstein was also on the faculty and they shared a number of experiences during those years.

Henry Eyring eventually accepted a job offer at the University of Utah to head their fledgling chemistry department and spent the remainder of his life working at that institution.

I have chosen the following statement as a thread that runs throughout his book: “Some have asked me, “Is there any conflict between science and religion?” There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men. Through the eternities, we are going to get closer and closer to understanding the mind of God; then the conflicts will disappear…. I have trouble understanding why people drift away from [religion]. I’m sure the reasons are different and varied. I can understand if a person wants to misbehave and has to rationalize to himself. He has to think he’s all right. But I also understand that people who think they have to be as smart as the Lord, understand everything, and have no contradictions in their minds may have trouble. There are all kinds of contradictions that I don’t understand, but I find the same kinds of contradictions in science, and I haven’t decided to apostatize from science. In the long run, the truth is its own most powerful advocate.”

In the autumn of 1957 the Welch Foundation invited the world’s most gifted and famous nuclear physicists and chemists to a special awards dinner in Houston, Texas. Henry Eyring, a scientific adviser to the Foundation, was sitting at a table with 12 of these notable scientists. Also sitting at the table was Mr. Malone, trustee of the foundation, who said, “Dr. Eyring, how many of these gentlemen believe in a Supreme Being?” I answered, “I don’t know, but I’ll ask.”

I asked if all were willing to answer the question. All agreed. The question was then formulated precisely: “Which best expresses your point of view: that there is a Supreme Being or that there is not a Supreme Being? So I asked these twelve scientists, and every one said, “I believe.” All of these students of the exact sciences saw in the universal order about them evidence for a Supreme Being. Two of the twelve had the Nobel Prize, and the other ten felt they should have the Nobel Prize too, so it was a very distinguished group.”

Henry Eyring loved science and God, never finding any conflict between true science and true religion. His lifetime quest was to discover truth which he did both as a scientist and as a man of faith. The following incident that took place at the University of Utah on one occasion is typical of the thinking of this great man:

“Once when I was speaking at the University of Utah as part of a panel on man in the cosmos, I built my talk around the famous question of Pontius Pilate, “What is truth?” After my talk, a young man in the audience stood up and said, “Well, Dr. Eyring, they tell me that what you do is put religion in one compartment and your science in another. Isn’t that inconvenient? For instance, I want to propound a question to you. In the Young Women’s Journal, Joseph Smith is reported to have said that people are living on the moon.” He continued, “Now, Dr. Eyring, we know there is no oxygen on the moon, so that couldn’t possibly be true. What do you say to this question?”

“I answered about as follows: “I especially appreciate being asked that question, because it is easy to answer, and I like easy questions better than hard ones. As a Latter-day Saint, like any other honest man, I am obliged to accept only the truth. I simply have to investigate whether men live on the moon. I am reasonably certain they don’t, but we’ll soon know by direct exploration. If we don’t find them there, they don’t live there. As a Latter-day Saint, my problem is as simple as that.”

“Now what about the Prophet Joseph Smith? I don’t know whether or not he said men live on the moon. But whether he did or not troubles me not in the least. A prophet is wonderful because he sometimes speaks for the Lord. This occurs on certain occasions when the Lord wills it. On other occasions, he speaks for himself, and one of the wonderful doctrines of this Church is that we don’t believe in the infallibility of any mortal. If in his speculations the Prophet thought there were people on the moon, this has no effect on my belief that on other occasions, when the Lord willed it, he spoke the ideas that the Lord inspired him to say. It is for these moments of penetrating insight that I honor and follow him.”

Truth should be what we are all searching for, and Truth will always and everlastingly be a part of true science and true religion. There is no conflict between the two!

Tags: Faith, Science, Seeking Truth

This entry was posted on Friday, July 11th, 2008 at 1:59 pm and is filed under Faith, Grace, Mormon Beliefs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.