Now I’m confused. Are you suggesting that there’s some “Catechism of Physical Science” where some singular authoritative body of scientists has pronounced that material science explains the spiritual soul (or that the spiritual soul doesn’t exist)?
I would answer yes that there is some “Catechism of Physical Science” which is known as the Inductive Scientific Method of reasoning with nature as the authority. It is the material physical nature of the human anatomy which is being considered as the natural source of the “experience” of what some people call a spiritual soul. As long as nature is named as the authority, one could possibly conclude that the spiritual soul is really a natural emergence of the natural human anatomy.
What I am saying is that there is a need to catch up with how natural science is being used in the 21st century.
This is all so vague. We must make distinctions about definitions whenever we talk about “evolution” and “science” and “scientists,” because people mean them in many different ways.
I agree. Simply because people are finding it difficult to understand how natural science operates in the 21st century.
Physical science (as opposed to philosophical, metaphysical, or theological science), being limited to the study of physical (material) things, cannot possibly make any statement regarding non-physical things like souls or reasons for existence or pre-material existence or meaning.
I am sorry, I do not mean to be rude, but in many sections of the globe, this is not what is happening in the trenches. Because non-physical things like the spiritual soul which animates the human body (
CCC, 364-366) is not part of the realm of science, scientists, who see the effects of a spiritual animating principle, look to the authority of nature for an explanation.
The moment people try to extrapolate data and theories into those realms, they leave physical science and postulate theories more properly belonging to philosophy and theology.
What is important to recognize, is that some people do not consider philosophy and theology as having anything to do with human nature. That is the real life we live in.
Yes, JPII denied those philosophical extrapolations that erroneously drew conclusions on human souls. He did, however, express support for the theories describing physical processes, kept within the proper scope of their discipline.
My apology, but “emergence” and “epiphenomenon” solutions to humans feeling some kind of spirituality are not philosophical extrapolations. Years ago, I was in a discussion on a published research paper. The general intent of the research was to locate free will as a function of the material brain. This was by observation during awake brain surgery. The methods and materials used to provide data were definitely not philosophical. My discussion partner and I examined the written report which included actual discussions between surgeon and patient in addition to the data from the use of a type of electrode. Science itself is in the material/physical world. One needs to examine the physical evidence per se. Our discussion on this particular paper concluded that the methods and materials used to determine where free will was anatomically located did not meet the Catholic standards for true free will. Therefore, an extrapolation to a physical [Catholic] free will location was not warranted by the presented evidence.
Natural science is a gift from God which benefits society especially in the medical arena. It is important to understand the scientific limitations when it comes to the real existence of two sole founders of humankind. We need to hone in on the methods and materials used in science in the same open manner as in the above example.
Obviously, we need to know the Catholic standards for true human nature which Adam and Eve had. And we have to affirm that God created all nature. When there is an intersection of science and Catholic teachings –
Divine Revelation trumps!
