Before I launch into the first of my discussions about science and religion, let me speak about Nibley. His death and the controversy about his daughter’s book have clearly been the topic of the week. Dave suggested that we perhaps make Nibley a topic of our posts this week. That’s a little harder for me, since I’m supposed to be talking about science. Nibley definitely discussed science in several of his essays. His discussions, however, were typically things he’d picked up from popularizations of science (i.e., books about some scientific topic written for non-scientists). Unfortunately, as often as not he misunderstood the topic, at least from a scientist’s point of view.

That’s a common result with popularizations of difficult topics like quantum mechanics or thermodynamics. One can give the non-scientist a taste of the topic, but it is hard to truly understand it without going through the science itself in a careful fashion. That’s why I always caution people who read such books to not think they understand the topic. Think of it like watching a half-hour travel show: It doesn’t mean you really understand the culture of the country you are learning about.

For a certain period in the ’70s Nibley was very infatuated with the laws of thermodynamics. He mentioned them a lot. Unfortunately, I don’t think he really applied them correctly, so I’d be a little careful with his discussion of thermodynamics. Of course, thermodynamics is one of those topics that non-scientists often invoke in a fashion that makes physicists cringe (especially when used as a metaphor). Now thermodynamics proper is a fairly difficult subject. It is one of the more difficult classes a physicist takes as an undergraduate because it is so abstract and mathematical. So it’s not surprising that it is probably more misapplied than any other principle of science. But still, it is probably wise to urge a bit of caution when reading Nibley on this topic.

Yet having said that, I will add that one of Nibley’s more important essays does cut to the heart of some of the controversies concerning evolution. It is a surprisingly old paper that asks about Adam and who was around before Adam. At one time it was one of the most popular papers downloaded from FARMS. Before Adam is definitely one of his better essays. Despite all the suggested Nibley writings going around this week, this is one that I think you should check out. It really is worth reading and has stood the passage of time surprisingly well:

I am often asked by students: What about those people that lived thousands of years before Adam? They usually ask after class and expect me to give a definitive answer before leaving the room. Why don’t I bring up the subject in class? I did for twenty years, and then gave it up—it was a waste of time.

Nibley then decides to tell the story, the basic idea being that neither most religion nor science can give a plot to the narrative of history. I should add that in terms of science the essay is fairly dated. So you kind of have to overlook a lot (as is common with some of Nibley’s writings). But if you’re giving it to a scriptural literalist, their science is already far worse than Nibley’s so it can only be a step up. The important point that Nibley brings up is about giving meaning. He argues that the uniquely LDS creation accounts describe a natural (Darwinistic) process which is given meaning by blessing it. He also emphasizes strongly that all such scriptural accounts are perspectivist in nature. That is, these accounts have someone seeing events and communicating what these experiences mean to them.

One of the big reasons I bring up this essay is that, regardless of his many weaknesses, I think Nibley sets out the basic approach to theology within Mormonism. Unlike medieval theology, Descartes, Leibniz or others, we don’t focus on the absolute or the metaphysical, as such. Rather, we focus on a person within a world trying to make sense of that world and give it meaning. It is primarily an anthropology and not an ontology or even a science. When we consider creation in this fashion it radically shifts what we consider important as well as how we read scripture (or perhaps how we ought read it). In a way, Nibley sets the tone for how we ought consider the relationship between science and religion.