Catholicism and Science

  • Thread starter Thread starter Samwise21
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Samwise21 said:
On the one hand we have articles like this declaring the so called war between two sides a myth

latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1112-barron-religion-scientism-20151112-story.html

And then we have people like Greta Christina.

alternet.org/belief/why-you-cant-reconcile-god-and-evolution
Click to expand...
Both links looked like interesting reading. However, my computer decided to be nasty.

I tried looking for a reference to the Science of Human Evolution. Did I miss that?

Genesis 1: 1 and Genesis 1: 27 and the whole thing about Original Sin are fundamental doctrines of the Catholic Church which are not acceptable by basic evolution theory. As for stuff in the material world, usually science is arguing with science.
 
grannymh said:
Both links looked like interesting reading. However, my computer decided to be nasty.
Click to expand...
Well one is a bishop for the LA Archdiocese and respected evangelist, and the other is a militant atheist advocate.
 
Bradski said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are you saying the it is science or Catholicism that rejects teleology?
  1. The eyes are a sensory organ which allows for sight. (science)
  2. The purpose of the eyes are sight. (Catholicism)
I don’t understand how believing in the purpose of a thing would force one to reject anything else about the thing.
 
Stephen168 said:
Are you saying the it is science or Catholicism that rejects teleology?
  1. The eyes are a sensory organ which allows for sight. (science)
  2. The purpose of the eyes are sight. (Catholicism)
I don’t understand how believing in the purpose of a thing would force one to reject anything else about the thing.
Click to expand...
The thing which is rejected by the Science of Human Evolution is the thing known as Original Sin. The word “Catholicism” is a handy strawman.
 
Stephen168 said:
Are you saying the it is science or Catholicism that rejects teleology?
  1. The eyes are a sensory organ which allows for sight. (science)
  2. The purpose of the eyes are sight. (Catholicism)
I don’t understand how believing in the purpose of a thing would force one to reject anything else about the thing.
Click to expand...
Regarding 2., we don’t need science to tell us the purpose of our eyes is to see.

Ed
 
Bradski said:
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.
Click to expand...
Stephen168 said:
I don’t understand how believing in the purpose of a thing would force one to reject anything else about the thing.
Click to expand...
edwest2 said:
Regarding 2., we don’t need science to tell us the purpose of our eyes is to see.
Click to expand...
You didn’t really address my inquiry. Does #2 conflict with science? Does the knowledge of the purpose of a thing conflict with the knowledge of how it achieves that purpose?
What basic and fundamental aspects of science must a Catholic reject?
 
Samwise21 said:
… This stance gets thrown around by the like (Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris), to the point where it goes beyond scientists addressing …
So how in the heck do people keep thinking that these two can’t ever be incompatible?
Click to expand...
You have, I think, the answer in your OP: only scientists who practice philosophy without a license have difficulty in squaring science with Catholicism.
 
Science assumes purposes and causation so it involves teleology. The heart has the purpose of pumping blood - science uses that and shows it.
Science cannot declare that “there is no purpose to the universe” because science cannot evaluate that.
 
Stephen168 said:
You didn’t really address my inquiry. Does #2 conflict with science? Does the knowledge of the purpose of a thing conflict with the knowledge of how it achieves that purpose?
What basic and fundamental aspects of science must a Catholic reject?
Click to expand...
Question: What basic and fundamental aspects of science must a Catholic reject?

Answer: In regard to the origin of the human species, Catholics correctly reject the fundamental principle that a new species develops from indiscriminate random breeding large polygenesis source populations.
 
grannymh said:
Question: What basic and fundamental aspects of science must a Catholic reject?

Answer: In regard to the origin of the human species, Catholics correctly reject the fundamental principle that a new species develops from indiscriminate random breeding large polygenesis source populations.
Click to expand...
In my view, that is a very particular (specific) assumption (or claim) of a branch of science applied to a particular context (humans); and it is perhaps beyond scientific means to conclude otherwise.

To describe it as a “basic or fundamental aspect of science” is an overstatement in my view, which is not to underrate the news worthiness of any finding of scientific evidence that every human descended from Adam + Eve.
 
Rau said:
In my view, that is a very particular (specific) assumption (or claim) of a branch of science applied to a particular context (humans); and it is perhaps beyond scientific means to conclude otherwise.

To describe it as a “basic or fundamental aspect of science” is an overstatement in my view, which is not to underrate the news worthiness of any finding of scientific evidence that every human descended from Adam + Eve.
Click to expand...
In my geographic area, Darwin’s principles are still active and are a base for the Science of Human Evolution. Is there something which has replaced Darwin’s theory of evolution? Thank you.
 
grannymh said:
In my geographic area, Darwin’s principles are still active and are a base for the Science of Human Evolution. Is there something which has replaced Darwin’s theory of evolution?
Click to expand...
Should there be something different?
 
Rau said:
In my view, that is a very particular (specific) assumption (or claim) of a branch of science applied to a particular context (humans); and it is perhaps beyond scientific means to conclude otherwise.

To describe it as a “basic or fundamental aspect of science” is an overstatement in my view, which is not to underrate the news worthiness of any finding of scientific evidence that every human descended from Adam + Eve.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. A very specific hypothesis with a racist history doesn’t really give an example of a “basic and fundamental aspect” of science.
 
I remember getting into a debate with an atheist which was mainly philosophical, but eventually he took it to a scientific discussion and pulled this on me.
Scientifically, there is no evidence for an afterlife. To start, consciousness is a function of the mind/brain. Much like digestion doesn’t continue in an intangible, immaterial body somewhere else, neither does our consciousness. More than that, there are physical, observable neurons that carry our thoughts and consciousness in our brain. To suggest that something that is material either becomes immaterial, or attaches onto something that is immaterial, is preposterous and unprecedented. We do not see that (either the immaterial or any instance of a physical thing attaching to an immaterial thing) anywhere else in studies. So why would our consciousness be the exception?
Click to expand...
The other problem is that quantum mechanics, and physics in general, adequately demonstrates that the immaterial does not, and cannot, exist. Thanks to the Dirac Equation, we would know if there is room for such a concept to exist. For such a concept as life after life to happen, it would require someone demonstrating how the Dirac equation does not work and, in essence, to completely disprove it. That aside, we can see how things interacting in physical world (like photons, which pop into and out of existence with no apparent “cause”) affect other particles around them. If there was such a thing as a soul, we would be able to detect it. If a god interacted with our natural world, we would detect it. But we do not. QFT (quantum field theory) demonstrates that it is, not only unlikely, but highly improbable that any life beyond the one we experience here and now exists.
Click to expand...
We took a recess from trying to outdo each other for a bit after that, mainly because I found myself unable to come up with a decent response. Even though I think Stanley Jaki and Stephen Barr would certainly disagree with him.
 
Samwise21 said:
I remember getting into a debate with an atheist which was mainly philosophical, but eventually he took it to a scientific discussion and pulled this on me.

We took a recess from trying to outdo each other for a bit after that, mainly because I found myself unable to come up with a decent response. Even though I think Stanley Jaki and Stephen Barr would certainly disagree with him.
Click to expand...
I cannot think of one good reason why natural science would consider the existence of a spiritual world. Therefore, in my opinion, a “debate” is one of those “ivory tower” exercises.

Catholicism, with its visible buildings, offers a view of a world which is beyond human conception. Science cannot kill that view because obviously the view does not depend on material physical scientific knowledge.
 
Samwise21 said:
I remember getting into a debate with an atheist which was mainly philosophical, but eventually he took it to a scientific discussion and pulled this on me.
Click to expand...
To start, consciousness is a function of the mind/brain.
Click to expand...
Ok, prove it? There is no evidence that this is the case, and there is counter evidence against it.
Recent CAF thread:
** Little boy born without a brain can now speak, count, and attend school**
Much like digestion doesn’t continue in an intangible, immaterial body somewhere else, neither does our consciousness.
Click to expand...
Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience (2010, 2011); Pim Van Lommel
More than that, there are physical, observable neurons that carry our thoughts and consciousness in our brain.
Click to expand...
Wow - I love that one. We have observed neurons carrying thoughts and consciousness???

Q> How many thoughts can one neuron carry?
A> It depends if they’re heavy thoughts or light ones.
To suggest that something that is material either becomes immaterial, or attaches onto something that is immaterial, is preposterous and unprecedented.
Click to expand...
He’s claiming that thoughts and consciousness are material. Supposedly, there’s some kind of hard-drive in the brain where all thoughts are stored? Through brain surgery, we could unlock that storage? Perhaps before a genius dies, we should download all of that brain-storage.
We do not see that (either the immaterial or any instance of a physical thing attaching to an immaterial thing) anywhere else in studies. So why would our consciousness be the exception?
Click to expand...
Supposedly, there are scientific studies that are looking for immaterial things? If it is observable via science, then it is not immaterial.
The other problem is that quantum mechanics, and physics in general, adequately demonstrates that the immaterial does not, and cannot, exist. Thanks to the Dirac Equation, we would know if there is room for such a concept to exist. For such a concept as life after life to happen, it would require someone demonstrating how the Dirac equation does not work and, in essence, to completely disprove it.
Click to expand...
This is a bluff and he does not know what he is talking about.
If there was such a thing as a soul, we would be able to detect it.
Click to expand...
Prove it.
If a god interacted with our natural world, we would detect it.
Click to expand...
Prove it.
But we do not. QFT (quantum field theory) demonstrates that it is, not only unlikely, but highly improbable that any life beyond the one we experience here and now exists. .
Click to expand...
Thus origin of life from inanimate matter - and that improbability.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top