The Search for Harmony: Essays on Science and Mormonism
Sessions, Gene A. 1993. The Search for Harmony: Essays on Science and Mormonism. Signature Books.
Rating:
6
Summary:
engaging despite its faith promoting perspective
The book is a collection of essays, primarily (perhaps entirely, some authors didn’t say) by believing Mormons who feel that their religious and scientific views can be reconciled. Despite arguing for harmony, the authors do a decent job of pointing out many of the ways that religion and science (specifically, evolutionary theory) come into conflict. Though a few scientific concepts in addition to evolution are examined, the majority of the essays focus on evolution.
Also included are several historical essays examining religious and scientific conflicts in the LDS Church. One examines conflict at (the) Brigham Young Academy (now University) around the turn of the 20th century with the hiring and eventual firing or quitting of Joseph and Henry Peterson and Ralph and William Chamberlin who were some of the first individuals with PhDs to be hired by BYU. Another looks at the conflicts among the leadership of the Church, specifically between Brigham H. Roberts and Joseph Fielding Smith, Roberts advocating the acceptance of a divinely modified version of evolution and Smith arguing for a literal interpretation of the Bible. There are also essays examining the personal difficulties reconciling science and religion in the lives of two other notable Mormon scientists, James E. Talmage and Henry Eyring (senior). Both were well-educated (Eyring more so than Talmage) but maintained their faith in religion.
The over-all tone of the book is that, despite a generally negative view of science prevailing among the leadership and general membership of the LDS Church today, the authors of this book believe (and want to encourage other Mormons who are pursuing secular educations) that it is possible to be well-educated and faithful at the same time.
Review:
The introduction by the editors is hands down the best chapter in the book (the chapter examining the conflict at BYU comes in at a close second). It raises far more questions than it attempts to answer, which is closer to where I think this issue ends than many of these essays would have you believe. It also does not try to force a reconciliation between science and religion but rather illustrates why such a reconciliation may be difficult. These two essays alone are worth the price of the book.
One chapter, however, is absolutely not worth reading, “Fossils and the Scriptures.” Perhaps my expectations of the chapter were too high. But even if this was the primary problem, the essay does not present any new ideas or even any interesting information about fossils. Instead it argues, quite apologetically and apathetically that the author has found a way to reconcile science and religion; thus, everyone else should be able to as well. This chapter was an unfortunate inclusion in an otherwise decent book.
There are some other significant problems with the book. First, while it claims to be a thorough discussion of religion and science, it really should be re-titled ‘Mormonism and Evolution: Searching for Harmony,’ as it primarily examines connections between these two and not science in general.
Another significant problem is the not uncommon contradiction between chapters. Some authors claim that the early leadership of the Church embraced science while others claim that they were staunch Biblical literalists who opposed science (maybe it depends on who you choose to cite?). Some authors claim (p. 168) that the LDS Church began to embrace evolution around the turn of the 20th century, but this seems to be refuted by a number of the essays. Finally, some claim that there seems to be a trend toward more openness among the leadership of the LDS Church today, but this also flies in the face of some of the other authors who cite the influence of Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, Boyd K. Packer, and numerous other orthodox leaders and apologists who have pushed the bulk of the Mormon leadership and membership into the anti-intellectual, anti-science, and creationist camps of fundamentalist Christianity (p.xvi & p. 271). Perhaps it was the intent of the editors to illustrate the multiplicity of opinions among the membership of the religion by allowing the authors of the essays to contradict one another, but, in the end, it actually functions to undermine the validity of some of the conclusions.
Another serious problem with the book is the idea that science and creationism can easily be reconciled or at the very least are not strictly oppositional (p. 178). One author takes the approach that “If… they [Biblical authors] made inaccurate allusions to the nature of the universe, of the living things therein, it is of no real importance. Their writings must be evaluated on the basis of their worth to religion or philosophy rather than their worth to modern science” (p. 206). This author echoes the sentiments of many of the authors in the book who want to force the Bible into a religion/science dichotomy, claiming that it is not a book of science but rather a book of religion. As such, they are willing to give it great amounts of leeway in describing scientific phenomena. I take serious issue with this interpretation. This approach does two things that bother me. First, it takes away the falsifiability of the Bible, meaning it cannot be subjected to scientific examination. If you claim that the book never intended to be anything more than a collection of myths with religious and moral implications, then you are reframing it in a way that prevents scholarly examination of its literal claims (e.g., that the creation took place in 6 days, all of life was planted here in its original form by a divine being, The Flood, etc.). Second, the ramifications on religion are particularly interesting. This approach would also allow for God and his prophets to either have been wrong, outright, or intentionally misleading. The authors that advocate this approach claim that the prophets and God were not wrong insomuch as they were using the jargon of the day to express remarkably complex phenomena, the result being super-simplified versions of the more accurate scientific understandings of today (see pp. 254-256). This is absolute hogwash. If God really knew his/her/its stuff, why didn’t he just say it the right way and leave it as a mystery until humanity was ready to understand it? This perspective is forcing religion and its scientific claims into the realm of non-falsifiability, which means it cannot be critically examined. I refuse to allow that to happen. Either God knew his geology and physics and revealed it to his prophets, or he didn’t! Remember, this is an omniscient god we are discussing…
Sprinkled throughout the chapters are a number of additional points I found bothersome. For instance, on p. 220 one author claims that, “All scientific evidence available on man’s physical history indicates that he was on the average less perfect in times past than now.” I found this claim absolutely befuddling. The author provides no measure of ‘perfection,’ and even with one, I am inclined to disbelieve this claim. Complexity does not and has not ever equaled perfection. This is ridiculous. Another author claims that “Latter-day Saints share Elder James E. Talmage’s conviction that “within the gospel of Jesus Christ there is room and place for every truth thus far learned by man, or yet to be made known.”” (pp.223-224). This certainly sounds nice, but is not an accurate representation of all Latter-day Saints. In fact, I would submit that the majority of Latter-day Saints believe just the opposite, that there is not room for every truth thus far learned by man. The majority of Mormons today are creationists (or advocate intelligent design in one form or another) and some Mormon leaders have gone so far as to consider belief or acceptance of evolution as one of the greatest heresies a Mormon can be guilty of committing (Bruce R. McConkie made this claim). Finally, many of the essays use the same quotes over and over again. The impression that results is that there were a few proponents of science in the history of Mormonism and defenders of the faith have turned to them as their primary source of information and set them up as the final authorities on where the Church stands on science. Because so many of the essays use the same quotes it gives the impression that the proponents of a harmony between Mormonism and science were few (probably about 10 notable ones are mentioned in the entire book), which ends up working against the claims of the contributors of the essays in this book that Mormonism is not hostile to religion. The majority of the leadership of the religion over the years and the majority of the membership have been either hostile or indifferent toward science. This doesn’t mean it isn’t possible to find some means of reconciling science and Mormonism, but it does illustrate how this books claims are biased and not particularly representative of the real attitudes among the leadership and members of the religion.
Overall, though I found the book problematic on many levels (including the fact that there were no social science contributors), I would still recommend the book to thinking Mormons who are trying to reconcile their views on evolution with the generally pro-creationist environment of Mormonism. This book illustrates that it is possible to find a reconciliation of these two, but in order to do so you are going to have to change your understanding of scripture. No longer will you be able to see it as literal but instead must view it as a book with good teachings that uses myth to relay philosophical ideas. Ironically, I think Joseph Fielding Smith was at least partially right when he said that the ultimate result of stepping away from a literal interpretation of scripture will be such a drastically altered perspective that you will eventually begin to question every aspect of Mormonism. After all, if the Bible is myth, what’s preventing the Book of Mormon from being seen as myth as well? It’s not a very comfortable path to take, but for the individual that insists on reconciliation, it may very well be a path to internal peace.