Catholic Traditon vs Science - are we looking deep enough

[drpmjhess]

Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede (#15), Dec. 8, 1892: “Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions…”

Leo XIII is way out of date. Try Nostra Aetate:

“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.”

“The Church therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.”

 

[buffalo]

Way of topic. Let’s quit posting comments to get reactions and stick to the subject at hand.

Are we looking deep enough?

 

[drpmjhess]

Way of topic. Let’s quit posting comments to get reactions and stick to the subject at hand.

Are we looking deep enough?

Buffalo, an excellent contribution to this question is John Haught’s Deeper than Darwin. He looks at precisely the question you raise, taking to task both facile Dawkinsian atheism and the non-scientific creationism of “Intelligent Design.”

 

[The_Barbarian]

And without “evolution”, there can be no atheism.

You think there weren’t any atheists until Darwin? Seriously? :dts:

Evolution is man’s attempt to explain himself without need of God.

Odd then, that Darwin, in “The Origin of Species” attributed the origin of life to God.

Dawkins afterall is an evolutionist.

So is Pope Benedict XVI. Don’t see a connection there.

 

[jcrichton]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcrichton
…again, I’ve sinned… please forgive me… I should have included “Traditon” in my response…Maran atha!
Angel

Here’s the original post:

Quote:
Exactly what I said but in different words–what you are suggesting is more of a philosophy thread than a Catholic vs. Science; but you do not need to change venue on my account.
“Catholic vs. Science”? I didn’t know they stood in opposition. That would certainly be news to the many Catholic scientists with whom I work.

Petrus

…as you can see you seem to have misread the title of this thread “Re: Catholic Traditon vs Science - are we looking deep enough”

I was making a reference of the title to the previous person and to expedite I shortened the title… since you seemed to be interested in correcting the spelling/grammar in my posts I thought that you were asking me to include “Traditon” in “Catholic vs Science.”

If you seek clarification on the issue of “Catholic Traditon vs Science” you should take it up with the OP’s author.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[drpmjhess]

OK – thanks.

Petrus

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, an excellent contribution to this question is John Haught’s Deeper than Darwin. He looks at precisely the question you raise, taking to task both facile Dawkinsian atheism and the non-scientific creationism of “Intelligent Design.”

What is his conclusion?

 

[mulligan59]

Leo XIII is way out of date. Try Nostra Aetate:

Yes Professor I know…the shepard has been struck and the sheep scattered.

 

[Janet_S]

I’ve read stuff from both. I mentioned earlier in this thread that I disagree with C.S. Lewis on his Natural Law points in Mere Christianity, for example.

Fr Thomas Dubay has just finished taping a new series (on EWTN) about atheism. Atheism is a philosophy, not a scientific fact, and it is bad philosophy at that. The idea that the universe could have materialized and evolved by random chance is an impossible assumption, unsupported by scientific evidence and the laws of probability.

His series will be starting next season, so stay tuned. He was a guest on EWTN live this week (4/9).

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=6695&T1=ewtn+live

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Fr Thomas Dubay has just finished taping a new series (on EWTN) about atheism. Atheism is a philosophy, not a scientific fact, and it is bad philosophy at that. The idea that the universe could have materialized and evolved by random chance is an impossible assumption, unsupported by scientific evidence and the laws of probability.

His series will be starting next season, so stay tuned. He was a guest on EWTN live this week (4/9).

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=6695&T1=ewtn+live

There is little point in trying to debate whether atheism vs God can be proven. All rational folks have long ago realized that there can be no proof either way. That is why it’s called faith after all. If it were proveable either way, then of course, most of us wouldn’t be talking about the subject at all. I am concerned that Catholics fall for the idea that somehow we can disprove atheism. It is sad anybody is wasting time worrying about atheists. Nobody else much does, and I think that’s a good thing.

 

[Janet_S]

There is little point in trying to debate whether atheism vs God can be proven. All rational folks have long ago realized that there can be no proof either way. That is why it’s called faith after all. If it were proveable either way, then of course, most of us wouldn’t be talking about the subject at all. I am concerned that Catholics fall for the idea that somehow we can disprove atheism. It is sad anybody is wasting time worrying about atheists. Nobody else much does, and I think that’s a good thing.

I’m not sure what is sad about it.

Atheists are most definitely worried about believers, and they don’t hesitate to talk about it. Look at the popularity of writers like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins. Should Christians or other believers just clam up?

Philosophy, reason, and science are on our side. I was just pointing out that Fr Dubay will be coming out with a series on EWTN that sheds light on this. There are probably many people reading this thread who would be interested in hearing what he has to say. If you aren’t interested, fine. I’m not looking for another argument with you.

 

[drpmjhess]

What is his conclusion?

Many interesting conclusions. He asks what theology would look like if theologians took science seriously. His book essentially argues that the facile atheism of Dawkins and Dennet does not hold up, but also that the naturalism of Ursula Goodenough is too shallow. If we look at theology in light of evolution, and evolution in light of theology, we see a richness to God’s creation beyond all imagining. It’s a great book – we use it in graduate theology seminars at my university. I highly recommned it, along with Archbishop Josef Zycinski’s God and Evolution (2006).

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

All rational folks have long ago realized that there can be no proof either way. … It is sad anybody is wasting time worrying about atheists. Nobody else much does, and I think that’s a good thing.

Thanks, SpiritMeadow. Yes, there is no rational proof oir disproof of God’s existence. That’s why we as an Easter people live in faith and let our light shine before the world (as you well know).

In my work, however, I do have to counter the new atheism, because there is an alarming aggressiveness to it. Of course it is not convincing to any well-educated person, any more than Young Earth Creationism is. But it must be dealt with just as the latter needs to be. I am paid to help build bridges between atheism and fundamentalism, so I need to know the atheistic arguments. John Haughts’ God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens is a book you might want to announce on your blog, if you haven’t already. I’m writing a review of it for a scholarly journal.

Petrus

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’m not sure what is sad about it.

Atheists are most definitely worried about believers, and they don’t hesitate to talk about it. Look at the popularity of writers like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins. Should Christians or other believers just clam up?

Philosophy, reason, and science are on our side. I was just pointing out that Fr Dubay will be coming out with a series on EWTN that sheds light on this. There are probably many people reading this thread who would be interested in hearing what he has to say. If you aren’t interested, fine. I’m not looking for another argument with you.

LOL. I never heard of any of them until I came here to this forum. I know a lot of atheists, not a one has expressed any worry about me and my faith. People who believe as Dawkins does have a right to enjoy him. Forget about it.

No reason and science and philosophy are not on our side. If that were the case, such a discussion would be obviously silly. As I said the point of faith is faith, not proof. I can appreciate Aquinas and many others who have put forth philosophical arguments for the existence of God. But I don’t confuse that with proof. The obvious answer to you is well so obvious its like an elephant in the room. If God were proveable he would have been proven. He has not. He remains in the realm of faith. To the believer, of course we believe the proofs given are more than adequate but they do not rise to the level of scientifically or philosophically accepted proof, and they never will. I’m not claiming people shouldn’t listen to fine and eloquent rhetoric apologetics. It can be quite illuminating and helpful, but we cannot mistake it for proof of God.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Thanks, SpiritMeadow. Yes, there is no rational proof oir disproof of God’s existence. That’s why we as an Easter people live in faith and let our light shine before the world (as you well know).

In my work, however, I do have to counter the new atheism, because there is an alarming aggressiveness to it. Of course it is not convincing to any well-educated person, any more than Young Earth Creationism is. But it must be dealt with just as the latter needs to be. I am paid to help build bridges between atheism and fundamentalism, so I need to know the atheistic arguments. John Haughts’ God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens is a book you might want to announce on your blog, if you haven’t already. I’m writing a review of it for a scholarly journal.

I agree that there may be need to address atheism in some form. I bow to your greater familiarity of the problem in the academic setting. However I feel that there is little point here. Surely a few atheists come here, but just a few it seems and it seems wasteful of our time to spend so much of it worrying about non-believers.

If you would send me a copy of your review, I’ll be happy to include in on my blog. I’m working on a review of Susan Jacoby’s “The Age of American Unreason” now for Pantheon. I’ll let you know when its posted so you can take a look.

 

[drpmjhess]

Yes Professor I know…the shepard has been struck and the sheep scattered.

The shepherd is still herding!

 

[mmortal03]

Humans do kill and commit horrific acts against humans and nature in general but they do it while aware of the moral and social breaches that they are perpetrating–animals do not make that distinction.

Of course animals are not on the same level as we are in these terms. I never said they were. You keep telling me ways in which we are superior to them, and I keep telling you that that isn’t my point. There are basic SIMILARITIES, and that is what matters from my point of view. I am by no means an expert in animal behavior, but from reading and watching media that has included these experts, I have found their discoveries about animal behavior to be enlightening.

 

[mmortal03]

Fr Thomas Dubay has just finished taping a new series (on EWTN) about atheism.

His series will be starting next season, so stay tuned. He was a guest on EWTN live this week (4/9).

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=6695&T1=ewtn+live

Thanks for telling me about this, I’ll keep my eyes peeled for it.

I label myself an agnostic atheist, meaning that I leave open the possibility for some supreme being to exist, but don’t claim to be able to know what that being would be, and thus live my life without theism, and as a skeptic, with there being no empirical evidence of such a being.

Philosophy, reason, and science are on our side. I was just pointing out that Fr Dubay will be coming out with a series on EWTN that sheds light on this.

If you say so. Again, I look forward to checking out what Fr Dubay has to say. From what you seem to imply, it is groundbreaking. (Don’t take that sarcastically. I am not here to berate anyone.)

Atheism is a philosophy, not a scientific fact, and it is bad philosophy at that.

Religion is a philosophy, not a scientific fact, as well, but regarding your claim that it is a bad philosophy, makes it clear to me that you have never deeply investigated it.

The idea that the universe could have materialized and evolved by random chance is an impossible assumption, unsupported by scientific evidence and the laws of probability.

You guys keep repeating this extremely simplistic “random chance” argument, as if you know something I don’t, and you are in the process, trivializing the work of many well-renowned scientists. The scientific theories regarding the beginning of the universe are much more detailed and complex than this, and are not impossible assumptions. They are supported by scientific evidence, and the scientists who have developed them have specifically (obviously) considered probability theory.

 

[mmortal03]

…perhaps I misread some of your statements… I really thought that you had stated something to the fact of having a laxed Catholic upbringing where your parents’ greatest involvement was the basic necessities (marriage, baptism, attending Mass on Sundays) and that you picked up “whatever” as it came along but that you never ever believed in what sparse theology your parents followed. And as your quest for “truth” brought you to atheism you were able to “see the light.”

In general, this is true. However, I must make it clear to you that I actively sought out Catholic scripture and theology, and learned all about that first, and participated in the local Church as a single adult for a while, as well as being a member here for a good amount of time, before I changed my views to where they now stand. As a child, I just picked up whatever that came along (I was placed in CCD for a time). As an adult, I sought out knowledge, and read a lot about Catholicism on my own.

 

[drpmjhess]

If you would send me a copy of your review, I’ll be happy to include in on my blog. I’m working on a review of Susan Jacoby’s “The Age of American Unreason” now for Pantheon. I’ll let you know when its posted so you can take a look.

SpiritMeadow, I’ll send you my review of Haught’s book on atheism when the dust settles after “Expelled” opens on Friday. I fear biology departments are going to be distractingly besieged by Creationists next week.

Petrus