Catholicism and Science

[Bradski]

So are you guys pretty much saying believing in both Catholicism and science is impossible

You can be a Catholic and believe much of what science has discovered. But to be a Catholic in the strict sense of the term, you have to reject at least some of the most basic and fundamental aspects of science.

Teleology being perhaps the most basic.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

So are you guys pretty much saying believing in both Catholicism and science is impossible

No , I am saying you can be Catholic and be a scientist too. Pope Francis is both.

Science isn’t something to believe in.

Science is a discipline, many different hypotheses and theories exist within the discipline of Science.

Many areas of expertise exist within science.

Medical
Astronomy
Physics
Earth science
Food science
Marine science
Biostatistics
Mettulurgy
Computer science
Veterinary science
Agricultural science
Chemistry
Pharmacy
Dentistry
Defence science under DARPA

The list goes on

The premise

‘Believe in science’

Is in error.

We take small aspects of science and discuss and examine those

Let’s pray scientists find a cure for cancer

 

[Rau]

The scientific view is that there is no purpose to us being here. We simply won the evolutionary lottery.

The question I can’t answer (nor science I think) is why is there anything at all to evolve?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Do you want to claim that God was made for a purpose? I’m going to presume no. And it’s mankind about which I am talking.

The scientific view is that there is no purpose to us being here. We simply won the evolutionary lottery.

Your view is that we ARE here for a purpose and that were created specifically by God.

Those two views are incompatible. Indeed, the very basis on which we make the most basic assumptions about the universe are completely different from a scientific viewpoint and a theological one.

I don’t claim God was made.

Why on earth do you think I claimed that.

God said

’ I Am’

Please don’t preach a scientific view of God to a scientist.

That’s totally inane, trying to generalise and claim the scientific view of God is x, y or z.

Show me peer reviewed research on the scientific view of God if you wish to go down this path.

But do remember, Pope Francis is also one of us scientists.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

For anyone who wants to claim a polarisation of Catholicism and Science

Start here and explain this

vofoundation.org/

vaticanobservatory.va/content/specolavaticana/en.html

""I am honored and humbled that Pope Francis has appointed me to this position. I can only look in awe at the wonderful things previous directors have accomplished, especially the two Jesuits who have been my directors, Fr. George Coyne, SJ and Fr. José Funes, SJ. I have seen first hand how the Holy Spirit has guided their talents to let us understand all the more intimately this amazing universe.
And I am equally humbled by the continued support of the Holy See for our work in Astronomy, ever since the Observatory was first founded by Pope Leo XIII in 1891. It is important to remember that this Observatory was a Pope’s idea, not ours!
But we do this work not just because a Pope wants us to do it. All the science we do, and all the outreach we do, reflects a quality that motivates everything we do in astronomy: a sense of joy. The stars are glorious, and it’s a treat to be engaged in their study. Their glory proclaims the Glory of their Creator!

 Br. Guy Consolmagno, SJ
 Director ""

 

[grannymh]

Easy to find the negation of God, look around !

And why should the science of evolution be separated in categories. We , as are bears, as are Angels, are God’s creatures.

I asked you once if you truly understood the theory of evolution. I can’t remember your answer.

When Darwin put forward a theory of evolution, everyone believed, erroneously, Darwin was saying humans evolved from apes.

So tell me why God can’t experiment with trilobites , dinosaurs, primates etc?

Step one is to recognize the dramatic leap from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 27.

Step two is to recognize that what Darwin and others were saying is that animals, species in general, evolved from a previous ancestor. In the early days of the theory of evolution, the brow ridge in fossils often determined the stage of human evolution by random breeding.

Step three is to know the difference between the material world and the spiritual world.

Step four is to decide if buffalo and bats are part of Genesis 1: 27

 

[grannymh]

So are you guys pretty much saying believing in both Catholicism and science is impossible

No. Read my lips.

 

[grannymh]

Is it really possible that no one on this thread can examine and compare the basic understanding of moral theology with basic evolution theory?

Perhaps the best thing for me to do is to take a break from posting so that CAF participants can do some research.

 

[Samwise21]

I’m starting to feel like a chump here.

 

[grannymh]

I’m starting to feel like a chump here.

Your questions are proper.

The problem is the difficulty in accepting correct answers and the difficulty of knowing which answers are correct.

Have a good day!

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Step two is to recognize that what Darwin and others were saying is that animals, species in general, evolved from a previous ancestor. In the early days of the theory of evolution, the brow ridge in fossils often determined the stage of human evolution by random breeding.

Can you please qualify this.

1. Darwin and which others?
2. Which animals evolved from which previous ancestor specifically?
3. What was the theory of evolution in the early days?
4. Please define the period of early days you refer to
5. You said “” the brow ridge in fossils often determined the stage of human evolution by random breeding. “”

Provide literature for this and explain what you, and this means.

I never believe you answered if you understood the theory of evolution.

What is moral theology?

 

[grannymh]

Can you please qualify this.

1. Darwin and which others?
2. Which animals evolved from which previous ancestor specifically?
3. What was the theory of evolution in the early days?
4. Please define the period of early days you refer to
5. You said “” the brow ridge in fossils often determined the stage of human evolution by random breeding. “”

Provide literature for this and explain what you, and this means.

I never believe you answered if you understood the theory of evolution.

What is moral theology?

Have a good day!

 

[Roseeurekacross]

So how in the heck do people keep thinking that these two can’t ever be incompatible?

Sam you may need to broaden your people to the point you are getting balance.

There are a tome of crackpot theories on both sides. From a group claiming that for science to be true, at the very early Adam and Eve, conditions were x,y and z. Unfortunately they didnt think it through scientifically because they were advocating a nuclear explosion with certain activities that expended energy. And for balance a crackpot science group that built a cheap particle type accelerator they believed could get the soul at the moment of death.

The Holy Spirit gifts us with knowledge and good counsel. Use it to question everything and everyone who deviates from the doctrine, dogma and teachings of the Holy See, if you are Catholic.

Ask people to back up what they exclaim as truth.

If their response is reluctance or rejection outright , of backing up their ‘theories’

Well then one has to wonder which group of tome writing personal idealists they subscribe too.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Is it really possible that no one on this thread can examine and compare the basic understanding of moral theology with basic evolution theory?

Perhaps the best thing for me to do is to take a break from posting so that CAF participants can do some research.

Just on moral theology, a specific form of theological science…

Here is a definition provided by St Pope John Paul 11 in his encyclical.

1. The Church’s moral reflection, always conducted in the light of Christ, the “Good Teacher”, has also developed in the specific form of the theological science called "moral theology ", a science which accepts and examines Divine Revelation while at the same time responding to the demands of human reason. Moral theology is a reflection concerned with “morality”, with the good and the evil of human acts and of the person who performs them; in this sense it is accessible to all people. But it is also “theology”, inasmuch as it acknowledges that the origin and end of moral action are found in the One who “alone is good” and who, by giving himself to man in Christ, offers him the happiness of divine life.

From
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

As can be seen by those reading this encyclical on the science of moral theology, its about Divine Revelation and human reason; the good and evil of how we act, and our moral acts.

Its got nought to do with the theory of evolution, chickenpox, cancer destroying nanoparticles or the production of lenses on The Hubble Telescope.

It is quite a beautiful Encyclical and well worth the read.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I hope you all realize that science doesn’t actually “say” anything.

Someone [anyone] can propose any kind of theory.

But then you need data to “prove” it.

But science says nothing.

It’s just about collecting data.

And if you got no data, then you got no science.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I hope you all realize that science doesn’t actually “say” anything.

Someone [anyone] can propose any kind of theory.

But then you need data to “prove” it.

But science says nothing.

It’s just about collecting data.

And if you got no data, then you got no science.

Collecting data is about research. Science starts way before the data collection. Science is not maths, its not accounting, its not number crunching.

Data says something.

For instance, i have x petri dishes full of cholera. ( if you are up to date, you will know there is a massive cholera epidemic in Yemen)
Now I think my you beaut germ killer is going to kill cholera in a living specimen. So i design and undertake testing , statistically relevant testing, and collect data.

I run my data through a you beaut stats program and find a statistically significant cholera kill in my petri dishes.

Of course, i could have also, and have, determined by sight, that my you beaut bug killer made those cholera suckers shrivel up and die.

Hmm guess what, cholera cure and nobel prize on the way! And of course, saving the population of Yemen.

Pray for a cure for cancer. And cholera.

And as St Pope John Paul 11 discusses, there is the Science of Theology.

 

[grannymh]

Is it really possible that no one on this thread can examine and compare the basic understanding of moral theology with basic evolution theory?

Perhaps the best thing for me to do is to take a break from posting so that CAF participants can do some research.

The following hints may help a person who is interested in research.

When we examine and compare moral theology with basic evolution theory, we should start with a list of the science disciplines, anthropology to zoology – looking for the “science” which would intersect with Catholicism. Then, we add the point that Jesus Christ is the Divine Founder of the Catholic Church.

Next, we examine the key issues in the first three real chapters of Genesis. It does not matter where one starts. All paths lead to the fact that Jesus Christ is necessarily Divine. I realize that only a few CAF participants understand modern Arianism. Maybe one is nearby.

I also realize that the above is very difficult. In order not to bother interested persons, I will take a short break from CAF.

Have a good day everyone!

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Do you want to claim that God was made for a purpose? I’m going to presume no. And it’s mankind about which I am talking.

The scientific view is that there is no purpose to us being here. We simply won the evolutionary lottery.

Your view is that we ARE here for a purpose and that were created specifically by God.

Those two views are incompatible. Indeed, the very basis on which we make the most basic assumptions about the universe are completely different from a scientific viewpoint and a theological one.

In the part I bolded, you’re using science and philosophy together much like a string theorist would. “Science” does not offer a viewpoint regarding the purpose of us being here. If you want to offer a conclusion about the purpose of us being here then you have to move from science to theology or philosophy.

In the part I underlined, scientific methods can be used to backup philosophical assumptions. And assumptions of any kind can be used in an unproven scientific theory. The questions that a purely physically scientific assumption are trying to answer are different from the questions that a theological viewpoint is trying to answer. Today, hard and soft scientific data has thus far only scratched the surface regarding the question, ‘How did we get here’, much less make assumptions about why we are here.

You can be a Catholic and believe much of what science has discovered. But to be a Catholic in the strict sense of the term, you have to reject at least some of the most basic and fundamental aspects of science.

Teleology being perhaps the most basic.

Where did you get this idea? Teleology does not try to answer the question of purpose, when the word purpose is used in a philosophical context. Teleology refers to function.

 

[grannymh]

You can be a Catholic and believe much of what science has discovered. But to be a Catholic in the strict sense of the term, you have to reject at least some of the most basic and fundamental aspects of science.

Taking a bit of a break---- You are correct.

Have a good day!

 

[Rau]

Taking a bit of a break---- You are correct.

Only if you think “human evolution theory” is the fundamental tenet of science.