I have been unpleasantly surprised by intellectualizations among some mormon scholars. In the scholarly context, an intellectualization is using excessive reasoning to avoid anxiety that arises from confronting legitimate gospel arguments that challenge one’s secular, scholarly viewpoints.

Intellectualization is alive and well among the scholarly ranks.

Last month I gave a presentation at the Mormon Scholars in the Humanities conference on allowing recognition of God in science. A good article on my presentation appeared in the Deseret News (see previous post).

It seems that some mormon scholars are VERY concerned with what I had to say. In response to the excellent Deseret News article, some have mentioned the limits of including God in science. I wholeheartedly embrace many of their viewpoints (S. Faux’s blog is a good example). Unfortunately, others have overreacted, as evidenced by those who incorrectly assume that I was advocating a god-of-the-gaps or theocratic scientific movement. To these people I say: “You don’t know what you are talking about. You weren’t at my presentation where I clearly pointed out that I was not advocating theocratic science, intelligent design, or creationism.  I am calling for a return to the way things were during the Scientific Revolution. If you don’t know what science was like during this time period, then read some history. Here is a hint – it was largely like science today with one exception, it was acceptable to acknowledge God.”

Those who are guilty of intellectualizing my topic are the conference goers who strongly opposed my presentation.  They were there when I gave my talk, they don’t like what I had to say, and they are coming up with dumb rationalizations to justify their disagreement. Here is an example:

As an active Mormon I am uncomfortable with the thesis proffered by Mr. Collingridge. And from what I understand so were others at the MSH conference. According to my professor who attended the conference, another scholar asked what exactly a God-inclusive scientific discourse would look like to which Mr. Collingridge had no definitive answer, suggesting that it was his role simply to pose the idea and not to come up with examples of science/God discourse. Another scholar asked why Mr. Collingridge's examples of God-in-science discourse were limited strictly to the West given that science is an international discipline and asked if he would be comfortable with a scientist from India introducing Vishnu or Brahma discourse into science to which Mr. Collingridge had no answer other than he would not be comfortable with that. According to my professor, only about half of the audience clapped after his presentation.

Here is why this is an empty rationalization: this person says he is uncomfortable, but fails to provide a rigorous justification for his discomfort. The arguments he gives lack rigor. He attempts to "reason away" his discomfort with a gospel truth that contradicts his secular beliefs about science.

Here is what I mean.

Yes, someone at the conference asked me what a God inclusive science should look like. That person used superconductivity as an example. I replied that I did not know what a God inclusive science in superconductivity should look like – I am not a superconductivity scientist! Superconducting scientists who believe in God should decide for themselves how to recognize the Creator.  Who am I to constrain what they should or should not say about God? I have no problems figuring out how to acknowledge God in my own discipline, namely psychology.

Yes, someone sitting next to me on the panel asked my how I would feel about recognizing gods from eastern religions. I replied that I would not feel comfortable with it. Here is why: I worship the one true God of heaven and earth, not Vishnu or Brahma! I am not completely comfortable with people acknowledging dumb idols and mythical gods. Are you?

Yes, it sounded to me like only half of the people applauded when I sat down. I said in my presentation that several of them would not feel at ease with what I was saying, so their lack of enthusiasm just proves my point, which is that the wave of secularism that has swept over science has succeeded in making us think that science must preclude God. Those who withheld their applause have fallen prey to this grand deception.

What are the sources of these dangerous intellectualizations? Pride in one’s abilities and learning come to mind. The scriptures teach us that to be learned is good, if one hearkens unto the counsels of God.  There were plenty of learned people at the conference. Are they failing to hearken unto the counsel of God to give thanks and recognize His hand in all great blessings by opposing the idea that science should be more God friendly? Just a thought. I am not judging.

We recognize God in government because He gave us the Constitution.  (This recognition does not impede our ability to govern in a rational and sound way.) We recognize God in the legal profession because He gave us our laws. (This recognition does not impede our ability to judge in a rational and sound way.)  Why not more fully recognize God for the great blessings He has given us in science?  (Recognizing deity need not impede our ability to carry out science in a rational and sound way.) 

I believe that we no longer acknowledge God in science because of the “false spirits which have gone forth in the earth, deceiving the world” into believing that science is completely devoid of God.