A Cardinal on Science

  • Thread starter Thread starter harinkj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
harinkj said:
“A Vatican cardinal said Thursday the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into “fundamentalism” if it ignores scientific reason.”
Click to expand...

Well, there is a fresh breath of reason!

Nohome
 
It is such an interesting story though, isn’t it?
  • Kathie :bowdown:
 
This same cardinal ALSO said, in the same press release, that science divorced from faith has produced atomic death. The Catholic Church is not afraid of reason. Most ‘scientists’ today seem to be terrified of religion.

The progress in the study of physics from Newton to now demonstrates increasing separation of ‘reason’ from ‘faith’, with the consequence that ultimately reason is abandoned (one need only read some nobel prize winning physicists comments on ‘time’ to see this!!!). Some theories in physics over the last hundred years are patently absurd.

As the cardinal aptly pointed out, divorced from each other both lose.
 
40.png
thomist:
Most ‘scientists’ today seem to be terrified of religion.
Click to expand...
Give us an example? As a mathematician, I work with a lot of scientists and I think they are terrified by the irrationality of some religious people, but most just ignore regliion. I am not too sure that they are concerned about Catholics who respect science. They primarily dislike people who support totally bogus concepts such as Intelligent Design.

There are a lot of engineers, or people with scientific degrees who actually practice engineering, who are very religious. This could be because engineering is the acceptance of priciples, formuale, et cetera, and applying them, without questioning them. That is in fact very similar to religion.
The progress in the study of physics from Newton to now demonstrates increasing separation of ‘reason’ from ‘faith’, with the consequence that ultimately reason is abandoned (one need only read some nobel prize winning physicists comments on ‘time’ to see this!!!).
Click to expand...
Give us an example, this would be interesting.
Some theories in physics over the last hundred years are patently absurd.
Click to expand...
Are these mainstream theories which have been peer reviewed? If so, what are they? If they are not, then they don’t deserve any status until they have been peer reviewed.

Science is simply the application of the scientific method, which is the approach to determining the truth by examining data, publishing one’s results, and having others repeat one’s experiments to verify the results.

Again, scientists are not terrified of religion, they are disgusted with a stampede of stupidity where people get on their knees, squint their eyes, and believe some concept that is contradicted, or unsupported, by facts.

If anything, religionists are terrified of science because science discovers evidence that contradicts “beliefs.”

There are scientists who do believe in god, but not in the micromanaging god that fundamentlists believe exists.
  • Kathie :bowdown:
 
It seems that science can tell you a lot, but it really misses what most people consider the most important things in life.
With that note in mind, who can describe a rose better a botanist or a poet? What can science tell us about a father holding his daughter in his hands for the first time? What can science tell us about watching your father being buried at a funeral?

The sad thing is that science really doesn’t have to destroy religious beliefs for science dares not go where religion goes. Well more like it restricts itself from going there and only keeps itself on a materialist plane.

It all seems like a vicious circle down, as the scientist seperate themselves more from religion, fundamentalist will seperate themselves more from science, then scientist will seperate more from religion. I can say thank goodness for the Catholic Church.
 
40.png
jman507:
It seems that science can tell you a lot, but it really misses what most people consider the most important things in life.
With that note in mind, who can describe a rose better a botanist or a poet?
Click to expand...
Clearly the botanist is more accurate, but the poet invokes words that stimulate our emotions.
What can science tell us about a father holding his daughter in his hands for the first time? What can science tell us about watching your father being buried at a funeral?
Click to expand...
The scientist would respond that what you have described is the fact that certain situations, such as the ones you describe above, cause a biological release of chemicals in the human body such as endoprhins, which lead to good feelings, and that these good feelings are states that evolved over the years as an aid to survival, just as pain is an aid to survival.

The scientist would not argue that these feelings are bad. Some other feelings may seem nice at the time, but then guilt sets in. For example if a married person goes out on a date with someone other than his or her spouse, he or she will feel guilty the next day or week, ususally. This probably evolved as a means to insure social stability. Of course there are some people with defencts in these areas, i.e. rapist, murderers, et cetera. This may have been a more recent evolution because many other animals mate and move on to another partner. There are variations in this thoroughout all animals.
  • Kathie :bowdown:
 
40.png
thomist:
This same cardinal ALSO said, in the same press release, that science divorced from faith has produced atomic death.
Click to expand...
The same technology that gave us the atomic bomb also gave us nuclear power, nuclear medicine, nondestructive evaluation, the MRI and the smoke detector in your house. Science obviously needs to be guided by ethics and this is a role the Church can fill.
40.png
thomist:
The Catholic Church is not afraid of reason. Most ‘scientists’ today seem to be terrified of religion.
Click to expand...
Actually no. For instance, Albert Einstein was a deeply faithful person. There are many atheists in science, but not all and not even a majority. Most consider science a heuristic device that allows them to better understand God’s creation.
40.png
thomist:
The progress in the study of physics from Newton to now demonstrates increasing separation of ‘reason’ from ‘faith’, with the consequence that ultimately reason is abandoned (one need only read some nobel prize winning physicists comments on ‘time’ to see this!!!). Some theories in physics over the last hundred years are patently absurd.
Click to expand...
The classical physics of Newton is not even on the same plane as modern physics. What physical science understands about distant galaxies all the way down to sub-atomic particles would blow Newton away. Some theories may sound absurd to you, just like so much of what Einstein said sounded absurd. Fortunately, through the scientific method, we have been able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Science theory is so much different than science fact, a difference often lost on the media and general public.
40.png
thomist:
As the cardinal aptly pointed out, divorced from each other both lose.
Click to expand...
I agree and the Catholic Church is much better at working with science than many other Christian denominations. Still, I believe science is not threatened by faith, but not so vice versa. Those who understand science are awed by it and can see God more clearly, those who don’t think it is the work of the devil.

Nohome
 
“We know where scientific reason can end up by itself: the atomic bomb and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link,” he said.
 
40.png
jman507:
It seems that science can tell you a lot, but it really misses what most people consider the most important things in life.
Click to expand...
If I could rephrase your comment to “but it really misses what some people consider the most important things in life” I would agree.

One of the greatest joys in my life is watching a young scientist defend their dissertation in front of the scientific community at a national or international conference. If I had the eloquence of a poet, I could compare it to a father holding a childs hand or a rose or reflections on a lost life. Some will understand this, others won’t. Just like I tilt my head in confusion looking at modern art, some get it, some don’t.
40.png
jman507:
With that note in mind, who can describe a rose better a botanist or a poet?
Click to expand...
This reminds me of an honors course I took in college. It was called “The Human Mind”. It was taught by a biologist, a psychologist and a philosopher. All three brought something different to the class, none of less value than the other.
40.png
jman507:
The sad thing is that science really doesn’t have to destroy religious beliefs for science dares not go where religion goes. Well more like it restricts itself from going there and only keeps itself on a materialist plane.
Click to expand...
You are very right. Science is restricted to fact and religion is bound by faith. Yet a scientist needs to have a little faith in his theory and the faithful are forever looking for “proof” of their religion. Einstein said “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” It seems that this “cardinal of science” is in agreement with this “cardinal of faith”.

Nohome
 
mdzialo1 said:
“We know where scientific reason can end up by itself: the atomic bomb and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link,” he said.
Click to expand...

Science learned the makings of the atomic bomb, but it was political will that funded, developed and ultimately used this weapon.

Cloning will one day make it possible to create an new heart from your own cells to replace the one you clogged with cholesterol. Science won’t pursue creating clonned humans because there is no need. Besides, the old fashioned way is a lot more fun. 🙂

Science depends on ethicists to challenge what they do.

Nohome
 
40.png
Nohome:
One of the greatest joys in my life is watching a young scientist defend their dissertation in front of the scientific community at a national or international conference. If I had the eloquence of a poet, I could compare it to a father holding a childs hand or a rose or reflections on a lost life. Some will understand this, others won’t. Just like I tilt my head in confusion looking at modern art, some get it, some don’t.

This reminds me of an honors course I took in college. It was called “The Human Mind”. It was taught by a biologist, a psychologist and a philosopher. All three brought something different to the class, none of less value than the other.
Click to expand...
Science does not explain why a young scientist feels the way he does when giving the dissertation. Also science could really care less of the scientist figures out itself. I’m sure the scientist will care, but what in science can explain why the scientist feels the need to figure out science? What is it about this humaness that something like this really matters?
d
Can science really answer why something happens? I know it can help explain how something happens, but here is a diffenation from dictionary.com of why: For what purpose, reason, or cause; with what intention, justification, or motive: Why is the door shut? Why do birds sing?

Lets through out some questions for the scientist, why do fools fall in love? Why do I do the things I don’t want to do and do the things I don’t want to do? You can maybe give a partial answer but it’ll be lacking something.
 
40.png
jman507:
Lets through out some questions for the scientist, why do fools fall in love? Why do I do the things I don’t want to do and do the things I don’t want to do? You can maybe give a partial answer but it’ll be lacking something.
Click to expand...
If science could indeed explain everything, there would be no need for any other academic discipline. In fact, there would be no need for religion or even God for that matter. I for one have faith that science never will answer everything.

If I may quote Einstien again:

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”

Nohome
 
Science is restricted to fact and religion is bound by faith.
Click to expand...
both have their origins in truth. and the author is truth himself -God. so in our pursuit of truth, we will find its end in God.

much of what we know as “fact” is in reality faith based as well. for instance, how many people have actually proven to themselves the theory of relativity? very few i imagine but even fewer argue against it because it is scientific. we have faith that realativity is true because we trust science. the difference between modern science and the catholic faith has little to do with faith vs. fact but in methodology.

we use the scientific method to understand the world around us by taking measurements using our senses. we use our senses and intellect as well in understanding God. both science and faith are based on our intellect. faith presupposes knowledge.

the problem is science tends to use modern science which is based on the fact that we can trust our senses and the universe is ordered and is causual, to disprove that we can trust our senses and that it is casual. by doing so they contradict themselves because thier conclusion is founded on being able to trust their senses.

this is like the contradictory statements: “all generalizations are false”. or, “there is no absolute truth”.
 
40.png
jman507:
Science does not explain why a young scientist feels the way he does when giving the dissertation.
Click to expand...
Actually it does. It has to do with the release of endorphins. This is an evolutionary development.
  • Kathie :bowdown:
 
40.png
Nohome:
If science could indeed explain everything, there would be no need for any other academic discipline.
Click to expand...
You are very correct. Some of these disciplines like psychology will be explained by biochemical reactions.

Medicine is applied biology. Biology is applied chemistry. Chemistry is applied physics. Physics is applied mathematics.
In fact, there would be no need for religion or even God for that matter.
Click to expand...
You may be on to something here. :hmmm: Maybe we have created God simply to fill in the void in our understanding. I think you have a good idea here.
  • Kathie :bowdown:
 
harinkj said:
“A Vatican cardinal said Thursday the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into “fundamentalism” if it ignores scientific reason.”

from:

breitbart.com/news/2005/11/03/D8DL5LTO4.html
  • Kathie :bowdown:
Click to expand...
With all due respect to said Cardinal, I’d say science has turned into “Fundamentalism.” I am alarmed that the official stance of the Catholic Church seems to be standing on the side of “Science.” While I understand what Cardinal Poupard is saying, it seems to me reading his speech and seeing the head of the Vatican Observatory, Monsignor Coyne, on TV recently that both these men seem to enamored of science that they fail to recognize the scientific community’s desire to shut out all discussion of Darwin’s theories.

AJC

Anyone seen my grey Poupard?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top