Catholicism and Science

[reggieM]

well except if you just found, through scientific research, and extensive study on the nature of a particular virus, or disease, a wonderful cure.

or perhaps a bacterial cleanup for an oil spill, lead contamination remediation, wireless WiFi.

Science cannot tell us that something is good or bad.

In order to do that, you would have to find the concept “good” somewhere and put it under a microscope and measure it.

No, philosophy and theology tell us what is good. Science only measures things. It cannot define what the purpose and meaning of human life is.

Is it good for all humanity to be wiped out by disease?

Science does not know the answer to that. There is nothing in chemistry, biology or physics that can determine that.

 

[reggieM]

the absolute beauty of science as a discipline is that it assumes nothing. It observes, forms hypotheses, tests them. .

Science assumes that the only things that can be observed or measured or experienced are within the physical realm.

Or let’s say - science limits itself to what can be observed as physical or material entities.

People then draw the false conclusion that only the physical/material world exists.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Science cannot tell us that something is good or bad.

In order to do that, you would have to find the concept “good” somewhere and put it under a microscope and measure it.

No, philosophy and theology tell us what is good. Science only measures things. It cannot define what the purpose and meaning of human life is.

Is it good for all humanity to be wiped out by disease?

Science does not know the answer to that. There is nothing in chemistry, biology or physics that can determine that.

i did not say science can tell us if something is good. but let us explore this.

Look at some of the wonderful discoveries of science, wonderful because they solve problems, yield cures, fix issues. Look at that English baby in the news.There are people, even medicos, arguing they have a treatment that might help. If this baby had a shot at it, and was helped, surely that is science saying yep , this is a good treatment.

there is a cancer treatment, a cutting edge one, still in trial, in USA. An Aussie woman was dying of cancer, discovered this treatment, went over, joined the trial. Got into remission due to this treatment, came home. Science is telling us, this is a good treatment, worth pursuing, in these preliminary trials. All her doctors had given her zero chance of survival.

science doesnt just measure. measuring is a byproduct of research

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Science assumes that the only things that can be observed or measured or experienced are within the physical realm.

Or let’s say - science limits itself to what can be observed as physical or material entities.

People then draw the false conclusion that only the physical/material world exists.

and how does science, only being concerned with the physical world, cause it to be incompatible with God? Or the Church?

people are going to be stupid enough to think lots of things. they read great literature and believe man and dinosaurs co existed, volcanoes will erupt and drown NY , giant man eating pigs haunt the outback

remember the broadcast War of the world?

 

[reggieM]

Look at some of the wonderful discoveries of science, wonderful because they solve problems, yield cures, fix issues. Look at that English baby in the news.There are people, even medicos, arguing they have a treatment that might help. If this baby had a shot at it, and was helped, surely that is science saying yep , this is a good treatment.

Science can only generate data. Even the analysis has to be done against something that does not come from science.
Science cannot tell us whether something should be cured or not. It just shows that a thing exists and has these characteristics and may be like this or that in the future.
Science cannot tell us, for example, that cancer is bad. Science cannot tell us that death is bad. We tell science that death is bad and that cancer is bad - because we have beliefs that come from somewhere other than science.

Can science tell us that cloning a human being is a good thing to do?
Can it tell us that in-vitro fertilization is good?
Can science tell us that abortion is a good thing to do?

The answer is no to all the above. It cannot say that any of that is good or bad.

 

[reggieM]

and how does science, only being concerned with the physical world, cause it to be incompatible with God? Or the Church?

Science does not need to be incompatible with God or the Church.

But science is defined by the people who control science. They can make science become incompatible with God.

But we can also say “that is an abuse of science”.

It comes down to “who owns the definition of science”?

We don’t have an answer to that.

 

[edwest2]

Science, like most human endeavors, can be used for good or bad. Those who fund scientific research are in a position to own and use the results or, in some cases, it can be patented and the entity who sponsored the research can license it, or, it gets classified.

As far as science being compatible with religion, there are those who say it can’t be but it is sometimes used to deny, say, Catholic beliefs. So, when I see a scientist on TV who refers to certain events in the Bible and say they never happened, some percentage of those viewing will consider it true.

Ed

 

[Rau]

Science cannot tell us that something is good or bad.

In order to do that, you would have to find the concept “good” somewhere and put it under a microscope and measure it.

No, philosophy and theology tell us what is good. Science only measures things. It cannot define what the purpose and meaning of human life is.

Is it good for all humanity to be wiped out by disease?

Science does not know the answer to that. There is nothing in chemistry, biology or physics that can determine that.

All fields have a scope. They are not condemned because their scope is not something different. I might remark that plumbing can’t power my TV. Is this a valid criticism of the plumbing trade or of plumbers?

 

[mathematoons]

All fields have a scope. They are not condemned because their scope is not something different. I might remark that plumbing can’t power my TV. Is this a valid criticism of the plumbing trade or of plumbers?

I think that misses the point, which is that science claims to have all the answers, the way Protestants claim Sola Scriptura. Just as Protestants say, “X isn’t in the Bible, so God has nothing to say on the matter, and neither do we,” scientists say, “X can’t be proven scientifically, so science has nothing to say on the matter, so neither do we.” There’s a complete absence of God in science, and hence science assumes a kind of atheism. Science can’t explain miracles, and therefore assumes that they are false or have natural explanations; science can never say, “X happened because God made it so.”

As for the so-called benefits of science, let’s go back to my dog analogy. If dogs could open doors, many would use that ability to escape their homes to pursue prey or mates, and many would expose themselves to dangers that are beyond a dog’s capacity to understand, such as cars, electric wires, and industrial machinery. Yes, dogs could use that ability to save their masters in an emergency. But given canine nature, we would see a lot of dead dogs in the streets and wonder if their knowing how to open doors is such a good thing. “Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.”

It is not medical science that saves our lives, it is God. He uses medical science to do so, but He could still keep us alive if we had no machines.

 

[Rau]

I think that misses the point, which is that science claims to have all the answers…

Which theory or proof claims that? Are you confusing Science with certain scientists?

 

[Rau]

…There’s a complete absence of God in science, and hence science assumes a kind of atheism.

And I should add, a complete absence of electricity in plumbing. It works better that way.

 

[Wesrock]

I think science and faith are incompatible, because they teach two opposing worldviews. Science admits nothing that cannot be proven with the scientific method (except the scientific method itself), so God and morality get thrown out; science keeps changing its mind on just about everything, so there’s nothing to trust. Faith, on the other hand, teaches that God is supreme and His truth can never be changed. “What fellowship hath light with darkness?”

The scientific method is a tool. It’s limited to the quantifiable and measurable. The issue isn’t with the tool, but with those who have abandoned all other tools. Science provides data. It cannot by itself measure value, ethics, meaning, or purpose.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Research generates data, researchers interpret data.

With respect, are any of you scientists? Have you worked on scientific research, or are you jumping on the big bad science tells the world what to, and what not to believe, bandwagon.

Research tells us what is good to use. And what is bad. That’s science.

You guys are only on the internet because of scientific research.

My goodness the science bashing on CAF is steeped in the polarised and erroneous view that God and science can not exist. Let’s forget God created Science.

Are we going to bash tax accountants because there is a % that are heathen?

 

[reggieM]

All fields have a scope. They are not condemned because their scope is not something different. I might remark that plumbing can’t power my TV. Is this a valid criticism of the plumbing trade or of plumbers?

The concepts of “field” and “scope” are established by people not by science.
Those definitions can shift and change.
If plumbers decided that they’re going to get involved in the energy business and then power tv’s – why can’t they then say “plumbing includes sourcing energy”?
There’s nothing absolute about the definition of the field of science.

 

[Rau]

The concepts of “field” and “scope” are established by people not by science.
Those definitions can shift and change.
If plumbers decided that they’re going to get involved in the energy business and then power tv’s – why can’t they then say “plumbing includes sourcing energy”?
There’s nothing absolute about the definition of the field of science.

When plumbers secure an electrician’s license, they can address the supply of electricity with some credibility. And analogously for scientists - why would I listen to an astronomer “teach” morality, or a priest “teach” actuarial science?

If the scope of science can change arbitrarily, then so can that of religion. Such a consideration isn’t helpful, is it.

 

[reggieM]

When plumbers secure an electrician’s license, they can address the supply of electricity with some credibility. And analogously for scientists - why would I listen to an astronomer “teach” morality, or a priest “teach” actuarial science?

If the scope of science can change arbitrarily, then so can that of religion. Such a consideration isn’t helpful, is it.

My point is that these things are not absolutes.
There is, what is known as, “the scientific community”. There’s nothing that prevents that group from defining themselves in one way or another – and then calling that “real science”?

Science today, (by whoever defines it as such), claims to use only methodological naturalism as a foundation.

Again, there is nothing absolute about that. Science cannot explain why methodological naturalism is the only foundation that can be used. There could be science done under a different philosophical foundation.

In centuries past, theology was considered a science.

 

[edwest2]

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674047143

Ed

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Picking up where I left off on page 6 and 7 I’ve been busy! I saved a 7 week old kitten who loves my 8 year old Walker Coonhound. Those two girls are precious! I just love them. I’m a Christian I do pray for every living creature. May God bless 'em. Thank you.

I’m picking up on the SCIENCE since I love science:

Max Planck Society

Fossil ape skull confirms African origin of apes and humans
13-million-year-old “Alesi“, a fossil discovered in Kenya, sheds light on ape ancestry
August 09, 2017

The discovery in Kenya of a remarkably complete fossil ape skull reveals what the common ancestor of all living apes and humans may have looked like. The find belongs to an infant which lived about 13 million years ago. The research was done by an international team led by Isaiah Nengo of Stony Brook University-affiliated Turkana Basin Institute and De Anza College, USA. Senior author Fred Spoor of UCL in the UK and of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, was part of the research team.

Humans are most closely related to living ape species, including chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons. Our common ancestor with chimpanzees lived in Africa six to seven million years ago, and many spectacular fossil finds have revealed how humans evolved since then. In contrast, little is known about the evolution of the common ancestors of living apes and humans before ten million years ago. Relevant fossils are scarce, consisting mostly of isolated teeth and partial jaw bones. It has therefore been difficult to find answers to two fundamental questions: did the common ancestor of living apes and humans originate in Africa, and what did these early ancestors look like?
Fossil from the Miocene
Now these questions can be more fully addressed because the newly discovered ape fossil, nicknamed Alesi by its discoverers, and known by its museum number KNM-NP 59050, comes from a critical time period in the African past. In 2014, it was spotted by Kenyan fossil hunter John Ekusi in 13 million year-old rock layers in the Napudet area, west of Lake Turkana in northern Kenya.
The fossil is the skull of an infant, and it is the most complete extinct ape skull known in the fossil record. Many of the most informative parts are preserved inside the fossil, and to make these visible the team used an extremely sensitive form of 3D X-ray imaging at the synchrotron facility in Grenoble, France. “We were able to reveal the brain cavity, the inner ears and the unerupted adult teeth with their daily record of growth lines” says Paul Tafforeau of the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility. “The quality of our images was so good that we could establish from the teeth that the infant was about one year and four months old when it died.”

A new species
The unerupted adult teeth inside the infant ape’s skull also indicate that the specimen belonged to a new species,Nyanzapithecus alesi.
. . .]
The Leakey Foundation, SJ/HR
mpg.de/11423594/alesi-ape-human-ancestor?filter_order=L&research_topic=

 

[reggieM]

Humans are most closely related to living ape species, including chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons.

That is an assumption. The term “related” is used to mean “descended by family ancestry” from - and that has not been proven. Just because fossils look similar does not mean there was ancestry.

Our common ancestor with chimpanzees lived in Africa six to seven million years ago, and many spectacular fossil finds have revealed how humans evolved since then.

That has been falsified by evidence in China and Southeast Asia.

In contrast, little is known about the evolution of the common ancestors of living apes and humans before ten million years ago.

Common ancestry of humans and apes is assumed even though little is known about it.

 

[Rau]

That is an assumption. The term “related” is used to mean “descended by family ancestry” from - and that has not been proven. Just because fossils look similar does not mean there was ancestry.

I detect a degree of pedantry here in focusing on a particular meaning of “related”. There appears to be a great degree of relatedness evident between all members of the animal kingdom (for sake of argument, deemed to include man). This can be observed by noting the extent of shared DNA. We share more DNA with animals more similar to us (in the biological sense).