Blog Post: The Splitters Always Win (Or How Finer Distinctions can Bring us Together Rather Than Divide Us)

A few years ago, I was listening on the radio to an interview where a physician-researcher was speaking on the topic of chronic Lyme disease (CLD). CLD has been defined as a series of chronic health issues that appear to occur among individuals who have contracted or have been assumed to have contracted Lyme disease. The named symptoms and manifestations are somewhat wide and varied, but include fatigue, sleep impairment, joint pain, muscle aches, pain, depression, cognitive impairment, neuropathy, headaches, and even heart problems. The bundling of these health issues and labeling them as CLD helps distinguish them from the very acute symptoms immediately after contracting Lyme disease. There is much controversy around this topic which I will not delve into in here. However, one thing the interviewer said on the topic stuck with me. He talked about the controversy over whether CLD was one single disease or a set of diseases bundled into one category. His opinion was that further research would refine CLD into more definitive categories. He said that in the end, “The splitters always win.”

 

In essence, what he was saying was that when faced with the option of bundling everything together into one category, or subdividing into more distinct categories, the finer distinctions almost always prevail. He saw this as the case with CLD, where having a single broad category such as CLD was not likely to be as helpful as understanding the finer nature and subcategory of an individual's disease.

 

As a scientist in the pharmaceutical field, I've come to appreciate this truth as it pertains to disease. Occasionally, I'll hear or read comments about “the cure for cancer.” My first thought is “which one?” Cancer occurs in different parts of the body, and we label cancers as lung cancer, brain cancer, breast cancer, etc. But even within each organ there are a variety of subtypes of cancer manifestations: Hodgkins vs non-Hodgkins, squamous cell vs non-squamous cell, HER-2 positive vs negative. If you want further details on the variegated nature of cancer, just visit breastcancer.org and go to types of cancer. You'll begin to see why a single homogeneous 'cure' is not likely.

 

As human beings, our brains crave order and organization in a complex and multi-faceted universe. We look for and build patterns in our minds. We create labels for objects, activities, and people. This labeling and classification is the basis for our use of language and our ability to communicate and operate in the world. Classification enables us to start to gather and organize facts and build bodies of knowledge and prediction in an otherwise unpredictable world.

 

However, many times, our classifications fail us. We strive to push everything into a particular category and then find that not everything neatly fits into the categories we've created. And then come the disagreements.

 

Consider Pluto, my favorite ex-planet. In August 2006, the International Astronomical Union declared officially that Pluto was officially a dwarf planet rather than a bona fide planet. That classification created quite the stir of controversy at the time—even leading to the term 'Plutoed' (to be demoted or devalued) to enter the general vernacular. And the controversy continues today.

 

I had a discussion the other day with my children about Pluto and they shared some of the arguments about Pluto being a dwarf planet, most of them falling in line with the newer scientific arguments about Pluto. At the end of the discussions I asked, “But has the nature of Pluto itself changed? Or will it change depending on what we earthlings call it?” The truth is, Pluto is Pluto. Its orbit, composition, shape, and size are unchanged whether it's a Full Planet, Dwarf Planet, Ex-Planet, or A Big Ball of Frozen Stuff.

 

But the pull of categorization is strong, and often emotional. Just try starting up a dinner conversation about whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable, or about how a watermelon is a berry, but a strawberry isn't. Or talk to a biologist about the definition of a species. In fact, it isn't difficult to find in most professions some type of controversy or argument over how to classify or categorize something.

Why does classifying bring out such strong emotions? Our classifications enable us to simplify the world and take a new thing and place it into an organized category with defined properties. It helps us make sense of things. Thus, when concepts begin to cross boundaries, our world stops making sense in certain ways, and we don't like it! A berry topping makes sense when a berry is a small round piece of fruit. Our conception falls apart if a watermelon gets added to the mix. A solar system makes sense when it has the nine planets you learned about in elementary school. When someone challenges that list, your education feels challenged.

 

This wouldn't be much more than an academic problem, however, if it didn't extend into human relations. But unfortunately our propensity and passion for classification and categorization spill over into many human endeavors, often to negative consequences.

 

Recent news about the unjustified death of George Floyd have sparked protests across the United States. Reading news headlines shows how categorization and labeling come out in full force.

 

Black. White. Police. Citizen. Republican. Democrat. Protester. Rioter. Criminal.

 

This is one issue of our day, but on another news cycle we can find different sets of labels.

 

Hispanic. Immigrant. Citizen. Native. Illegal. Law and Order. Bleeding Heart. Gay. Straight. Business. Artist. Rural. Urban. Suburban. Corporate. Private. Public. Government.

 

Categories help us understand the world, but most of the time we stop with overly broad categories. Typically, we stop once we can come up with the two most basic categories of human social distinction: Us and Them.

Us is the familiar, the regular, the normal. Them is the unusual, the different, the odd. Us is the good guys. Them is the bad guys, or at least the 'other' guys. We feel comfortable if we can put people in categories, define behaviors, and get a sense of who's on our team and who's on the other team.

 

"Intelligence is the ability to make finer distinctions."

—Robert Kiyosaki

 

However, as intelligent beings, we can make better choices and come to a better understanding when we allow ourselves to more distinctly discern differences. As author Robert Kiyosaki puts it, “Intelligence is the ability to make finer distinctions.” Once we recognize that we increase our intelligence when we make finer distinctions, we find a key to understanding the universe, understanding others, and understanding ourselves.

 

"Treat people as they are."

—Brigham Young

When we deal with others, we have to recognize that we can make finer distinctions down to an individual level. As Brigham Young said of people, “There is a great variety. Treat people as they are.” In another place he recommended:

 

“Make sure the path for your own feet to walk to eternal life, and take as many with you as you can. Take them as they are, understand them as they are, and deal with them as they are; look at them as God looks at them.”

 

It is enlightening to look at how Jesus understood and interacted with people. He certainly recognized and utilized the labels and concepts of his day. Jew. Gentile. Roman. Israelite. Samaritan. Soldier. Pharisee. Scribe. Sadducee. Publican. All these categories had meaning and utility to him. But he also had the ability to make finer distinctions when he interacted with individuals.

 

When Jesus interacted with the Roman centurion, he knew exactly what kind of man he was and where his faith was. He knew he had faith to have his faithful servant healed.

 

When Jesus found the woman taken in adultery, he knew she was a 'sinner' but also knew she had potential to change and knew she had been used and abused as a pawn of those trying to entrap Jesus. He treated her accordingly.

 

One woman who begged a miracle for her daughter was a 'Gentile' and a 'woman of Canaan.' Jesus recognized these categories and told of his specific mission to the house of Israel. But he also recognized a special need and a special faith and provided a special miracle.

 

The woman at the well had several labels. She was a 'Samaritan' to Jesus' disciples. She was 'the woman who's had five husbands' to those in her town. She was all those things to Jesus, but she was also someone who would listen to him and open the door to teaching and ministering in her town.

 

The woman with an issue of blood was a 'person in the crowd' grabbing at Jesus—part of the living throng. But Jesus recognized her individual needs and individual faith and blessed her with an individual blessing.

Zacchaeus was a 'publican' and a 'sinner', but Jesus found time to visit him in his home and minister to him.

 

How often do we stop at the category level when learning about a person? How often do we delve in to find out more deeply and specifically about an individual? How often do we allow our conceptions about categories to change?

 

Don't get me wrong—we need categories. Our mind can't operate without them. We can't even speak without creating categories. Our scientific knowledge is based on being able to categorize and apply principles to categories. However, our intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual growth stops when we stop allowing our categories to be refined. So don't let the categories become static. Let them be dynamic and change. Let them get detailed and refined. 

When it comes to people, it might seem that the more categories we make and the more we refine our definitions, the more divided we'll be. However, I think it's the opposite. It's the broad category of Us and Them that is the most divisive. When we keep digging down until we reach the Me and You (and You and You and You), we actually find out we have more in common with people than we have different. As we keep making finer distinctions, we get past the common and easy labels and recognize all people as individuals with unique stories, experiences, and a rich offering to the world. At this point, another person stops being an outsider, because it turns out we're all outsiders. Or rather, we find out that we're all insiders in God's family as unique individuals with limitless potential.

So make finer and finer distinctions. Because in the end, “The splitters always win.”

Imagination and Reality

Despite having a lifelong interest in science fiction and fantasy, there was a stage in my life when I despised  'imagination.' Let me explain.

It came about as I started growing into my scientific boots in high school. Progressing through the educational system I heard the common educational platitudes like "Imagination unlocks the world" or "Your imagination releases you from your limitations" or the plain old "Use your imagination." However, as I started learning about the real laws and real constraints of the physical world, not to mention experiencing real life disappointments and setbacks, I felt a bit disillusioned by imagination. After all, I couldn't spend the rest of my life imagining I had magical powers that would let me walk through walls or that my best friend was an invisible unicorn that could fly. Sure, imagination was a part of childhood development, and it could still provide some entertainment, but unless you were a fantasy novel author or in the movie business, imagination was bit overhyped.

"When I became a man, I put away childish things..."

—Paul, 1st Corinthians 13

Moreover, as I increased in my faith and religious knowledge, I found I didn't want to exist in a world of childhood imaginations, I wanted to see things as they really were. As Paul said, when I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

It was clearly time in my life to start putting away childish imaginations, and start focusing on reality. Admittedly, there was still room in my life for fun and imagination, good old-fashioned creativity, entertainment (like reading all the Harry Potter books), but those were just sideshows to the real virtues of reason, logic, diligence, hard work, and the pursuit of truth.

This approach worked well through my high school and into my college experience. I had opportunities of learning and understanding many of the great discoveries of the scientific world. I also pursued the study of my faith, learning diligently about God and my relationship to him and the universe.

However, I ultimately found that after studying and learning all I could from experts at universities and from books, I reached a place at the limit of understanding. If the world's knowledge of truth were a city, I had found some of its outer limits. I had always known such a place existed, but for years I had spent so much time learning the known streets and roads of various parts of the city, it didn't seem like I would ever come upon the limits. But it turns out they come pretty fast.

In graduate school, I was instructed that my work was not to just continue and learn what others had discovered, although that would continue. My main work and path to graduation—would be to forge a path into the territory of the unknown, to discover and learn things that no one else in the world knew about. 

At this point, I began to understand better the importance of imagination. To progress beyond the limits of current knowledge requires hypothesizing about possibilities that do not yet exist. I came to appreciate that many advances in knowledge are often made by the younger practitioners, not so much because they have an extra degree of wisdom or experience or special insights, but often because they have not yet failed enough to stifle their imagination. I learned about some of the famous scientists that relied on imagination to guide their discoveries. Albert Einstein used a Gedankenexerpimente (thought experiment) to imagine riding on a light beam. String theorists imagined a world with 11 dimensions of space and time. Stephen Hawking imagined what happens on the edge of the event horizon of a black hole. And nearly every other prosaic or grand advancement in science started with a 'what-if' hypothesis.

As the famous quote from Einstein says: 

"I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."

—Albert Einstein

Similarly, in religious, faith-filled thought, imagination is needed to live by faith. For the faithful, there is a limit to what one knows about God and eternity in this life. Study and learning and understanding can fill some gaps, but ultimately for those who walk by faith, it requires imagination to think of what might exist beyond this life. It is the "hope" of Christ that propels us on.

Without imagination, faith and hope are concepts that are not possible. How can we look forward to life with our Heavenly Father unless we can imagine things that do not exist on this earth? How can we look to be better and follow the Savior if we cannot imagine him in our place and think about what he would do in our shoes? How can we fully repent unless we can imagine ourselves as a better person?

"Can you imagine to yourselves that ye hear the voice of the Lord, saying...Come unto me ye blessed"

—Alma, Book of Mormon

In the Book of Mormon, Alma writes of imagining a future state of being. He writes "Do ye exercise faith in the redemption of him who created you? Do you look forward with an eye of faith, and view this mortal body raised in immortality, and this corruption raised in incorruption, to stand before God to be judged according to the deeds which have been done in the mortal body? I say unto you, can you imagine to yourselves that ye hear the voice of the Lord, saying unto you, in that day: Come unto me ye blessed, for behold, your works have been the works of righteousness upon the face of the earth?"

To continue with Paul, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." Uncertainty and a lack of clarity are a part of this life, but we can look forward to seeing clearly in the future.

In a previous post, I discussed the tension that often exists with a limited scope of knowledge. Most religious (and scientific) belief contains some measure of conflicting knowledge and contradicting fact.  The bridge to understanding from contradiction usually involves imagination and hypothesis along the way. It takes imagination to start to hypothesize and understand how contradicting thoughts can be resolved and how seeming inconsistencies can be resolved with a bigger picture.

"Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which are there."

—Richard Feynmann

In contrast with my past self, I now love imagination. I rely on fantasy, imagination, and hypothesis to help me understand the world as it really is, and as it really will be. As Richard Feynmann said, "Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which are there."

I use imagination to picture how my future self would act and behave, and how I can get from my current state to my future state. I use imagination to help myself draw closer to God, to understand the world that he lives in, and how I can learn to be more like him. In short, I've come to understand that imagination is the key to reality.

Handling Criticism

Science requires a critical examination of facts and assumptions. My faith leads me to principles of change, repentance, forgiveness, and continual improvement. When another person applies the principles of critical analysis to me as a person, however, it can be hard to embrace personal criticism while incorporating forgiveness, patience, and change. I'm OK considering ideas that challenge my  understanding of human physiology and microbiology or a concept that reinvents the fundamental building blocks of the universe. But it can be tough to swallow the bitter pill of a close associate criticizing me.

As emotional beings, we have lots of thoughts that go through our head following criticism—defensive, rationalizing, sorrowful, humorous, angry, prideful, self-loathing. I've found I have to accept and recognize the feelings. However, I also have to find a rational way to separate truth, error, and emotion.

Several years ago, following an acute criticism that was festering in my head, I came up with a flow chart to sort through the nuances of the criticism. I've modified that flow chart recently, and I share the results below. Click this link for a zoomable image.

As an example, if my child said "I hate this dinner. You never make good food!" I would say Yes to understanding the criticism. I would say No to them offering appropriate criticism, and Yes to taking a responsibility for my critics actions. We would have an accountability discussion about being respectful to a parent. If I agreed that I made a bad dinner (burnt it...), I would then decide if I could fix the problem. Perhaps we'd be headed out to McDonalds, no hard feelings.

You can run several scenarios through this flowchart. I can't guarantee it will cover every situation perfectly, but it gives you a chance to break away from the emotion of the moment and stop obsessing over the problem. Often a criticism has many layers bundled underneath and this type of thinking can help you work through the criticism without just blaming yourself or getting angry with the other person.

Try it out!

Consistency and Contradiction

Science loves consistency. You might even say that science is the study of finding consistency in the universe via physical and mathematical models. By extension, any truth seeker who wants understanding needs to find consistent facts, explanations, and principles. Truth should always agree with truth.

Spiritual truths are no different. Truths of a spiritual nature can only be true if they uphold the other truths and facts of the universe. However, in the quest for spiritual truths, it is nearly impossible to avoid seeming inconsistencies and conflicts. Examples of apparent conflicts include questions such as:

• How does the notion that God created the world align with a scientific evolutionary model?
• Why does a loving God allow bad things to happen to good people?
• Why do spiritual experiences of other people not always align with my experiences or the experiences of those I trust?
• Why do spiritual writings attributed to or inspired by God (who cannot lie and who knows all) seem to conflict each other?
• Why are there different interpretations or applications of the same truths?
• How can there be the existence of a spiritual world with no detectable evidence in the physical sciences of such a world?

The list could go on. Like any good scientist, I have my hypotheses and explanations for many of these conflicting truths, but I can't pretend that I have the definitive answers. And I'm not going to address any of these particular ideas in this post. However, I have learned that it is OK to live with a certain amount of conflicting thought and inconsistency. I've learned to be comfortable with this, not from faith or spiritual experiences, but from my knowledge of scientific history.

Example 1: Light and relativity

In the 19th century, James Clerk Maxwell presented some well-defined laws on electromagnetism (think, light and electricity, and magnetism). One of the derivations of his laws concluded that light has a certain defined speed, namely, ~300,000 km/s. However, Isaac Newton's laws of physics offered a slightly different perspective on the speed of light. This conflicting viewpoint created some consternation in the scientific world. Let me paint a more detailed picture of the conflict.

Here's how it goes in Newtonian physics. Imagine you are riding in a train going 100 miles per hour, and a professional baseball pitcher is on a stationary platform next to the train. As the train passes the pitcher, he throws a fastball going the same direction that the train is going. When you look out the train window, you see the ball going 100 mph right next to the window of the train. Because you are viewing the ball from the frame of reference of the train going 100 mph, you will see a ball that is apparently holding still next to you in the window. Eventually the ball slows down due to air resistance and falls to the ground from gravity, but for a moment, it appears to be hovering next to your window. Both train and ball are whizzing by the surrounding scenery at 100 mph, but relative to each other they are holding still.

Now imagine a related scenario. You are now standing outside the train on the stationary platform, and the pitcher is riding on the inside of the train. He's somewhat anxious to practice his pitch, and decides to practice his fastball on the train. Watching from the outside you see the train going by at 100 mph. Looking through the window, you see the pitcher blast a pitch off from inside the train. From the pitcher's perspective, he's sent off the ball at 100 mph. From your perspective on the ground, the ball is going an amazingly fast 200 mph (100 mph from train + 100 mph from pitch). This is all basic Newtonian physics.

You could then imagine a similar experiment with a light beam. You climb in a rocket ship and blast off near the speed of light. At the same time, a friend on the ground turns on a flashlight and sends out a beam of light. Based on the baseball analogy, you would expect to look out of your rocket ship window and see an apparently still, or at least slower moving, beam of light.

In the related scenario, you are outside on the ground and your friend with the flashlight is on the rocket ship. When your friend turns on the flashlight, you would expect to see the beam of light shoot off at a speed almost twice that of the speed of light (speed of rocket + speed of light from flashlight).

However, back to our contradiction,  neither of these outcomes are what Maxwell's equations would predict! The equations don't specify the speed of light relative to a certain object. They indicate the speed of light is always the same (~300,000 km/s). But how could that be? One person is on a rocket ship going near the speed of light and sees the light going at 300,000 km/s, and another person on the stationary ground sees the same light going at 300,000 km/s. Conflict!

It turns out, this conflict ultimately led to some of the greatest revolutionary truths about space and time. Some careful experiments in the late 1800s (see, for example, the Michelson-Morley experiments) showed that the speed of light is always the same, no matter from what vantage point you're observing or how fast the object that's shooting out the light is already moving. So Maxwell was right, and Newton was wrong?! Or was something more complicated going on?

Albert Einstein and others took to this contradiction and re-worked Newtonian physics for when objects are moving near the speed of light and discovered some new physics. In Einstein's special theory of relativity, incredibly odd things start to happen near the speed of light. Depending on your vantage point, objects going near the speed of light shrink, become more massive, and time slows down. Even stranger, things that occur simultaneously in one vantage point happen at different times in another vantage point. It turns out the misconception was that time is always constant,  when the reality is that it becomes malleable when things are moving near the speed of light. Einstein's later work in his theory of general relativity made some further extensions showing that time and space are interconnected with mass and gravity and acceleration. This theory has explained behaviors of planets, stars, galaxies, black holes, and other secrets of the cosmos with remarkable accuracy.

This is cool science, and an important discovery of the 20th century. However, it's important to point out that while Maxwell and Newton did not paint the full scientific picture, neither is it correct to characterize one of them as "wrong" or "right", or to say that all of physics was overturned. Newton's and Maxwell's theories are in full use today as they were originally formulated. Newtonian physics works well enough for NASA to direct spaceflight within the solar system. The conflict didn't mean everything that was known in the past was wrong; it meant that there were additional truths that needed to be understood. The new truth refined the old understanding and provided a more universal model of the laws of physics.

Example 2: Quantum mechanics

While the understanding of the physics of the cosmos was being revolutionized, another smaller revolution was going on in parallel at the atomic level. The elementary nature of light had been studied for thousands of years, and in the past few hundred years it had begun to be understood as a wave. Like ocean waves and sound waves, it could bend and diffract, interfere with itself, and it possessed an amplitude (intensity) and frequency (wavelength). Back to James Clerk Maxwell, his equations and subsequent experiments revealed that light could mathematically be described as self-propagating waves of electric and magnetic fields, giving light the new title of electromagnetic radiation.

One of the well-known properties of waves was that you could have a continuous range of frequencies and amplitudes. However, some strange things started to happen as scientists began investigating light's interaction with atoms. It had been observed that ultraviolet light hitting a metal plate would cause ejection of electrons, also known as the photoelectric effect. Based on the wave theory of light, the energy of the light was transferring energy to the electrons of the metal and ejecting some of the electrons off the surface. Because the energy of a wave is based on the frequency and amplitude, you should be able to use either of those levers to increase the energy of the wave and the subsequent velocity at which the electrons were ejected. As an analogy, you can increase the energy of waves hitting a ship in the ocean by increasing the frequency with which the waves hit the ship. Or you could keep the frequency constant and instead increase the amplitude of the waves to make some giant waves that would really slam the ship. (As an interesting side read, check out the Wikipedia article on Rogue Waves).

To the dismay of scientists who thought they had things figured out, light in the photoelectric experiments didn't work exactly like other known waves. Increasing the frequency of light would increase the energy with which individual electrons could be ejected from the metal. But turning down the frequency and increasing the amplitude did not create a similar result. Re-enter Albert Einstein. Einstein, building on the work of Max Planck, suggested that light was subdivided at a basic level into particle-like packets of energy called photons, and the energy of a given photon is entirely based on the frequency of light. Amplitude is simply the number of photons in a given light ray. So at the atomic level, you could have many, many low-energy photons knocking into electrons on the surface of a metal plate, but unless the frequency of the individual photons was high enough, none of those low-energy photons could eject an electron with the same velocity (i.e. energy) as a high-frequency photon. And if the frequency was low enough, the light wouldn't be able to eject electrons at all. This seemed to prove conclusively that light had properties of a particle, and wasn't strictly a wave. Contradiction!

Furthermore, some later experiments showed that electrons, which were known to be discrete particles, could behave in a wave-like matter. They could be diffracted and form interference patterns and be described by amplitude and frequency. So a known particle was behaving like a wave in certain circumstances, and a known wave was behaving like a particle in certain circumstances. Double contradiction!

Other experiments and theories on these and other atomic scale quantities ultimately led to the development of quantum mechanics. If you study quantum mechanics, you'll find it chock full of behaviors that seem to contradict known physical phenomenon. The particle-wave duality of microscopic objects is just one of such odd behaviors. It took many experiments and hair-pulling theoretical calculations to fully develop quantum mechanics as a mature physical and mathematical theory. However, this work has paid off in the development of chemistry, optics (think lasers), semiconductors, and many other areas of science that impact our lives today. 

Example 3: Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity—unsolved!

Examples 1 and 2 exhibited scientific breakthroughs that led to a revolution in understanding nature during the 20th century. General relativity opened the doors to understanding the cosmos in ways that shifted the paradigm of science. Quantum mechanics opened the doors to chemistry and physics at the small scale.

Despite these major achievements, all the mysteries of the universe are not yet resolved. When applying the gravitational laws of general relativity on the small scale of quantum mechanics, there are some equations that break down. Unlike other forces in nature, there is no fundamental quantum mechanical understanding of how gravity works. Physicists today are working on resolving that problem experimentally and theoretically. See for example the article Relativity versus quantum mechanics: the battle for the universe.

Does this conflict distress scientists? Perhaps a bit—it would be nice if we could just understand all the basic laws of the universe and then get around to using them to our advantage. But in the spirit of learning and discovery, the conflicts indicate there is new knowledge out there waiting to be uncovered. Quoting John H. Schwarz at Caltech:

"Major advances in understanding of the physical world have been achieved during the past century by focusing on apparent contradictions between well-established theoretical structures. In each case the reconciliation required a better theory, often involving radical new concepts and striking experimental predictions."

While we don't know how this will all turn out, we do know that within certain defined parameters, general relativity and quantum mechanics are incredibly useful and accurate theories. And despite some conflicts, scientists have faith that there is a better theory that will reveal even more about the universe.

Conclusion: The spiritual world

I began this post addressing spiritual questions and contradictions. How do quantum mechanics and general relativity relate to spiritual things? Like the examples given above, some profound spiritual truths may appear, even to the brightest minds, to have unresolvable or untenable conflicts and contradictions. Unfortunately, it seems to be a common pattern that when individuals run into unresolvable conflicts in the spiritual world, they feel that they have to choose one idea and abandon another.

What the examples above have taught me is that you can always hold onto the truths you know and wait for further light and knowledge. In the meantime, you don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water. You can typically accept the major tenets of the competing truths, understanding and accepting the assumptions and limitations of each side.  You don't have to choose whether God made man or whether man evolved from various hominid species. Learn all you can from the spiritual world about God's creative processes. Learn all you can about what scientists have learned about the evolution and origins of man. Embrace the truth and acknowledge the assumptions and limitations of knowledge from both sources. Then get excited about the conflict—you can know there is more to learn!

So the next time you run into a conflict or contradiction, remember Einstein, Maxwell, Planck, Newton, and other scientists who struggled to find new meaning with the revelation of new scientific knowledge. Think of the quantum mechanical microelectronics in satellites whizzing around the earth using the theory of relativity to correct for distortions in time and space that allow your smart phone to give you exact GPS coordinates. Amazing!

Embrace the uncertainty along with the certainty. As a scientist who believes in learning and progress beyond this life, I'm excited about all the things I have yet to learn while I'm alive and all the things I will have yet to learn in the world to come.

Intellectual Growth

Ever since I've been married, I've planted a garden of some kind. Unfortunately, many of my garden attempts, especially my earlier ones, have ended in disappointment. My first year of gardening in a garden plot was in Illinois, and that year we called our garden the 'random sampler' because we got only about one or two of each produce item--and all were small. Following my misadventures, I started getting tips from my garden plot neighbor who really seemed to have a green thumb. He had a few tips and also recommended the book "Square Foot Gardening." The book had a listing of the timing for planting of seeds and information about what seeds germinate under what conditions. For example, tomatoes need warm weather to sprout and grow, whereas spinach will not even sprout if temperatures climb about 70-80 F. Important facts if you’re trying to grow both in the same garden!

As I've continued to learn and grown, my garden attempts have yielded better though not perfect results. One important lesson I have learned from my garden experiences is summed up in Doctrine and Covenants 130:20-21, which I will paraphrase slightly:

"There is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven, before the foundation of the world upon which all garden blessings are predicated. And when we obtain any harvest from our gardens, it is by obedience to the laws upon which it is predicated"

I learned that to overcome the challenges of the natural world, I had to understand the laws of nature that govern plant growth and development. While it was easy to criticize the soil, the sun, the insects, the rain, the truth was that the real shortcomings came from my lack of understanding and applying  correct principles.

As it turns out, this lesson applies to all aspects of our lives. How many of us have specific challenges we need to overcome in life? Do we struggle with finances or with school? Do we want a better a job? Do we want to be more spiritual? Do we need to improve relations with our spouse? Do we need to know how to better help our children, our parents, or our siblings? Do we or a loved one struggle with mental illness or addiction?

If so, we need to understand the laws associated with our condition so that we can master our situation.

As Russell M. Nelson testified in his first general conference talk, "The surgeon soon learns the incontrovertibility of divine law. He knows that hopes and wishes are sometimes simply powerless sham. Desired blessings come only by obedience to divine law, and in no other way. My lifetime thus far has been focused on learning those laws. Only as the laws are known, and then obeyed, can the blessings we desire be earned."

This is why intellectual goals are one of the core areas of development in the new children and youth program, and are also necessary for every adult to continue progressing in a manner pleasing to our Heavenly Father.

But how do we know in what areas to grow and develop?

We live in a world saturated with information. Our society invests significantly in schooling and education. We have libraries with thousands of books. We could watch a lifetime of YouTube videos, memorize thousands of sports statistics, and even know the names of all the villains and side characters in the Star Wars films.

We can do all this and find that we have been "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" as Paul says (see 2 Tim 3:7), or worse, that as Jacob warned, all our learning has made us think we are wise, and we hearken not to the counsel of God (see 2 Nephi 9:28).

What learning is most essential?

The Lord has commanded in Doctrine and Covenants 88:79 that we are to learn:

"Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations..."

And in one of my personal favorite quotes, Brigham Young (see Journal of Discourses p. 170) taught the Saints the importance of education saying,

"Go to work and start some schools, and instead of going to parties to dance and indulge in this nonsense, go to school and study; have the girls go, and teach them chemistry, so that they can take any of these rocks and analyze them—tell the properties and what they are. I don't suppose there is a man here who can tell these properties. The sciences can be learned without much difficulty. Instead of going 'right and left, balance all, promenade,' go to work and teach yourselves something. Instead of having this folly, I want to have schools and entertain the minds of the people and draw them out to learn the arts and sciences. Send the old children to school and the young ones also; there is nothing I would like better than to learn chemistry, botany, geology, and mineralogy, so that I could tell what I walk on, the properties of the air I breathe, what I drink, &c."

There you have it, an endorsement for chemistry from Brigham Young. And an encouragement for girls to study STEM fields over a hundred years before it was cool to do so.

In addition to formal education, we will find we have other things we need to learn. As with my garden trials, it is often our challenges that give us our curriculum. As we face problems, we have the choice to blame other people or uncontrolled circumstances, or we can recognize that we can partner with God and learn line upon line, precept upon precept until we can know the laws that will enable us to progress and have the same kind of power and mastery that God has.

In Doctrine andCovenants 93 we learned that the mortal Jesus "received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace" and that we are also commanded to grow from "grace to grace."

How does that grace occur? For me, it has often come by learning. In Doctrine and Covenants 88:118 we are instructed to "teach one another words of wisdom." For me, significant learning and growth had occurred from formal teachers and informal mentors. As I have attended classes and had discussions with friends, I have learned things that have changed my life.

In addition, I have found mentors and teachers among the rich and famous, the distant sage, and the dead. How do I get mentors and teachers like this? It is through the miracle of the written word. Thus the Lord also instructs us to "seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom." (see D&C 88:118)

For me, there are many "best books" that have helped me grow and develop in significant ways. Books that have changed my paradigm of myself and the world. There are many books that could help you as you seek to overcome your personal trials and challenges.

Do you or a loved one struggle with depression and the effects it has on limiting the ability to feel the Spirit of the Lord? Try reading or listening to Silent Souls Weeping by Jane Clayson Johnson, who wrote the book to look into the effects of clinical depression on members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Do you struggle with weight? Perhaps The Obesity Code by Jason Fung might help you gain a better understanding of the fundamental causes of weight gain.

Do you wish to better understand how to solve problems with people, be a leader, and be a better friend? Try How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie, or The Third Alternative and The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen R. Covey.

Do you wish to understand how to learn and remember things better and use your mental resources more effectively? Try Brain Rules by John Medina or Smarter, Faster, Better by Charles Duhigg.

Do you feel pulled in many directions, and want to learn how to focus your life on the most important things? Try reading Essentialism, the Disciplined Pursuit of Less by Greg McKeown or Willpower Doesn't Work by Benjamin Hardy.

Do you wish to build greater physical, emotional, and spiritual intimacy with your spouse? Read And They Were not Ashamed by Laura M. Brotherson.

Do you want to know not just why you should share the gospel, but how you can go about doing it better without guilt or fear, try Clayton Christensen's book The Power of Everyday Missionaries.

Do you wish to gain a greater testimony of our Savior Jesus, to have the Spirit of the Lord in your life, and to better understand our role at this critical time in gathering scattered Israel. Read The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

These are only some of the "best books" that are out there. While these books may not be the exact books that you need at this time, and while not all your needed knowledge may be available in books or classes, you can trust that your problems and challenges can be overcome by mastering the pertinent laws and principles. God's grace will lead you to a knowledge of the things you need to know so you can learn and grow in unimaginable ways. 

The choice is yours--what will you learn next?