A Cardinal on Science

[Nohome]

harinkj:

You may be on to something here. Maybe we have created God simply to fill in the void in our understanding. I think you have a good idea here.

Christianity is a revealed religion, that is we believe that God revealed himself to us. In order for science to “replace God” it would have to refute all that we believe was revealed to us. I think science should stick to physics!

Nohome

 

[jman507]

harinkj:

Actually it does. It has to do with the release of endorphins. This is an evolutionary development.

• Kathie :bowdown:

So that is why he feels he must defend his dissertation? That is why you feel you must defend your idea, a release of endorphins? That is why I defend my idea too?

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

“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:

Kreeft and Tacelli in the Handbook of Christian Apologetics provide a brief but precise explanation of fundamentalism in the original, theological context as a reaction to modernism. They state:

“Fundamentalism, which emerged in early in the twentieth century as a reaction against modernism, properly means belief in the five “fundamentals” listed by B.B. Warfield: Christ’s divinity, resurrection, virgin birth, real second coming, and the infallibility of Scripture."

Does Cardinal Poupard have a problem with any of these fundamentals? Is Orthodox Catholicism dangerous fundamentalism?

 

[nico1089]

Science, especially theoretical physics has strengthened my belief in God as being the ‘Prime Mover’.
Also, the theory of evolution, although it is far from complete or acceptable to all sciences, does not conflict with theology. Reason cannot be abandoned. It is a gift from God. Should we discard his gifts? No. That would be akin to not using our talents, like Christ’s parable of the ‘talents’. God gave us intelligence, curiousity, wonder, and free will amongst many other gifts, to explore and learn about this universe and take joy in his creation. By appreciating the gifts, we appreciate the giver. By taking joy in his creation, we marvel at the creator. But we should use the gifts rightly, not selfishly or with arrogance, not glorying in ourselves, but giving the glory to God.–nicolo

 

[harinkj]

jman507:

So that is why he feels he must defend his dissertation? That is why you feel you must defend your idea, a release of endorphins? That is why I defend my idea too?

When we do have this “excitement,” yes that is the biochemical basic for feelings.

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[jman507]

harinkj:

When we do have this “excitement,” yes that is the biochemical basic for feelings.

• Kathie :bowdown:

Thats only a partial answer. It explains much more how than why. Thats like saying my car is in my driveway because there is gas in the gas tank that goes into the engine which helps cause the wheels to move moving it over the road. I guess thats true, but I also thought it was a good place to leave it until the next time I want to drive it.

So why is it exciting? Isn’t there a lot of things exciting? Why did you choose this way off obtaining that excitiment? Why do you even care to be excited, instead of say resting? Do you want to propose that we have no control over any of these chemical reactions, so we really cannot choose, but they all just go their course?

 

[jman507]

Nohome:

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 science could explain everything then there would be no need to understand science.

 

[harinkj]

jman507:

If science could explain everything then there would be no need to understand science.

That statement is a non sequitur.

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[harinkj]

jman507:

Thats only a partial answer. It explains much more how than why. Thats like saying my car is in my driveway because there is gas in the gas tank that goes into the engine which helps cause the wheels to move moving it over the road. I guess thats true, but I also thought it was a good place to leave it until the next time I want to drive it.

Where is the supernatural in this? A car doesn’t need a god to run, neither does a biological entity.

So why is it exciting? Isn’t there a lot of things exciting? Why did you choose this way off obtaining that excitiment? Why do you even care to be excited, instead of say resting?

It is all biochemical. Survival of the fittest. Animals that did not get excited under certain circumstances and rested at the wrong time were eaten and taken out of the gene pool.

Do you want to propose that we have no control over any of these chemical reactions, so we really cannot choose, but they all just go their course?

Actually there is ample scientific evidence that the mind can control various biochemical secretions, hence emotions.

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

harinkj:

Where is the supernatural in this? A car doesn’t need a god to run, neither does a biological entity.

But a car does need a person to flip the ignitition. If we define supernatural by it’s root (beyond nature), the I would say that a car definitely need something beyond the nature of the car to back out of the driveway and go to McD’s for a Big Mac.

It is all biochemical. Survival of the fittest. Animals that did not get excited under certain circumstances and rested at the wrong time were eaten and taken out of the gene pool.

So what’s the biochemical basis for the Declaration of Independence or the Theory of Relativity?

Actually there is ample scientific evidence that the mind can control various biochemical secretions, hence emotions.

• Kathie :bowdown:

Do you mean mind or brain? Or do you believe there is no difference.

 

[harinkj]

Gabriel Gale:

But a car does need a person to flip the ignitition. If we define supernatural by it’s root (beyond nature), the I would say that a car definitely need something beyond the nature of the car to back out of the driveway and go to McD’s for a Big Mac.

What does a car, which is a man made apparatus have aything to do with this science and god discussion?

So what’s the biochemical basis for the Declaration of Independence or the Theory of Relativity?

It didn’t write itself. Biological entities wrote it.

Do you mean mind or brain? Or do you believe there is no difference.

One definition of mind is the emotional, thinking, et cetera portion of the human. The brain is the particular organ in the head that controls most of our actions. Whether the mind is biologically based is a related issue to the one under discussion here.

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[jman507]

harinkj:

That statement is a non sequitur.

• Kathie :bowdown:

Please explain how that is so?

 

[harinkj]

“If science could explain everything then there would be no need to understand science.”

That statement is a non sequitur.

jman507:

Please explain how that is so?

A person would need to understand science to understand how it explains everything. But science doesn’t explain everything now. So even if one understands science as it exists today, a person would not know how eveything works. The scientific method is what mankind uses to gradually understand more and more about the universe that we live in.

When science discovered that the world was not round, people found out more of the truth of our world. People who said that the world was flat because god made it flat were proved wrong.

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

harinkj:

What does a car, which is a man made apparatus have aything to do with this science and god discussion?

A car doesn’t need a god to run, neither does a biological entity.

A discussion about science and God would entail understanding the difference between machines, brute animals, human beings and God. You seemed to equate the first three.

It [Declaration of Independence, Theory of Relativity]didn’t write itself. Biological entities wrote it.

So what are the biochemical basis of these ideas or do you suggest that the basis is ink and paper.

One definition of mind is the emotional, thinking, et cetera portion of the human. The brain is the particular organ in the head that controls most of our actions. Whether the mind is biologically based is a related issue to the one under discussion here.

• Kathie :bowdown:

So my queston stands. What’s yuor answer?

 

[harinkj]

Gabriel Gale:

A discussion about science and God would entail understanding the difference between machines, brute animals, human beings and God. You seemed to equate the first three.

Nope. Machines can not reproduce.

So what are the biochemical basis of these ideas or do you suggest that the basis is ink and paper.

Man came up with the ideas, not ink and paper. Man has a biological brain. Although i don’t think politicians have a logical one. :whacky: Maybe theirs is all bio.

So my queston stands. What’s yuor answer?

I did answer it. :tiphat:

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Nohome:

Well, there is a fresh breath of reason!

Nohome

The men of the cloth should keep their mitts off science - unless they are scientifically qualified, they tend to fall on their faces; just like anyone who doesn’t know about what he pronounces on.​

That apart, the message itself is, if anything, too cautious - it’s impossible to be a good theologian in some respects, if one is ignorant of the sciences. How can we talk about the universe that God has created, if we don’t know about its physical composition and the properties of its parts ? ##

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

harinkj:

Nope. Machines can not reproduce.

That’s the only difference?
Can machines grow?
Can machines think?
Do machines have an appetite for anything?

Man came up with the ideas, not ink and paper. Man has a biological brain. Although i don’t think politicians have a logical one. :whacky: Maybe theirs is all bio.

So, is there any reality to the statement that all men are equal or was Jefferson having a 'biological" eruption, like a belch.

I did answer it. :tiphat:

• Kathie :bowdown:

You may have implied it, but I was unclear. Does Mind=Brain?

 

[harinkj]

Gabriel Gale:

That’s the only difference?
Can machines grow?
Can machines think?
Do machines have an appetite for anything?

What does enumerating the differences between man and machine have to do with the question? These analogies are bogus in this application.

So, is there any reality to the statement that all men are equal or was Jefferson having a 'biological" eruption, like a belch.

When i go outside and see people, they are different; hence, all men were not born equal. i don’t think Jefferson meant that. Also, what does this prove?

You may have implied it, but I was unclear. Does Mind=Brain?

Words are what we define them to be. In some uses the brain might be the same as the mind. In others it is different. The situation and the use of the words determines that.

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

harinkj:

What does enumerating the differences between man and machine have to do with the question?

If we are going to discus science and God, then I must challenge you on these reductionisms to biochemistry.

These analogies are bogus in this application.

Simple questions, not analogies, which you still fail to answer. When I asked whether or not machines grow, think or have an appetite for anything, I was not using these words in a metaphorical or analagous sense.

If you can’t understand the differences between a machine, flower, bee and a man, then discussions about God and science becomes free floating ruminations.

When i go outside and see people, they are different; hence, all men were not born equal. i don’t think Jefferson meant that. Also, what does this prove?

So, what did Jefferson mean and is it based in any sort of reality beyond Jefferson’s brain?

Words are what we define them to be. In some uses the brain might be the same as the mind. In others it is different. The situation and the use of the words determines that.

• Kathie :bowdown:

The situation or the words do not determine whether brains, arms, cars or unicorns actually exist? Reality is independent of our words. So, once again, does the mind exist as an entity separate from the brain or is mind simply another word for brain?

 

[harinkj]

Gabriel Gale:

If we are going to discus science and God, then I must challenge you on these reductionisms to biochemistry.

Simple questions, not analogies, which you still fail to answer. When I asked whether or not machines grow, think or have an appetite for anything, I was not using these words in a metaphorical or analagous sense.

If you can’t understand the differences between a machine, flower, bee and a man, then discussions about God and science becomes free floating ruminations.

I believe that all of the differences between machines and the living things are well understood by both of us. The differences between man and other living things is probably where we do not agree. Correct?

So, what did Jefferson mean and is it based in any sort of reality beyond Jefferson’s brain?

When we settle the above question this will be settled.

The situation or the words do not determine whether brains, arms, cars or unicorns actually exist? Reality is independent of our words. So, once again, does the mind exist as an entity separate from the brain or is mind simply another word for brain?

Neither!!! The mind is not the brain and the mind is not separate from the brain.

The mind is the brain’s activity. :clapping:

• Kathie :bowdown: