Catholicism and Science

[Samwise21]

I guess what I’m really hoping for is a sort of mental reconciliation. I’m constantly being set upon by doubt and questions about life, science, morality, mortality. The kind everyone ends up going through. And a big one, THE big one I should think, is the issue of science against faith. A lot of atheists seem to think of it as faith against rationality and reason, but I reject such assertions.

It’s mind boggling, the huge debate of science vs religion, where there’s the camp who says that neither side can ever find common ground and just shut each other away. I can’t reject science. It’s almost impossible. At the same time, I don’t want it to get in the way of my faith, which is still there but hanging on.

It’s a contradiction. At once you have all these people going on about how science is a god, all knowing, indifferent and destroys the supernatural, makes the idea of spiritualism obsolete. But then you have things like accounts of demonic possession, the Miracle of the Sun, historical proof of the existence of Jesus, the Dead Sea Scrolls. And I keep trying to wrap my head around it and whenever there’s a moment where the water feels calm it it always comes back.

I feel sick when I find stuff like what Jerry Coyne keeps pushing forward:

Let us face facts: evolution that is guided by God or planned by God is not ascientific view of evolution. Nor is evolution that makes humans uniqueby virtue of an indefinable soul, or the possession of only a single pair of individualancestors. The Vatican’sview of evolution is in fact a bastard offspring of Biblical creationism and modern evolutionary theory. And even many of Francis’s*own flock don’t buy it:*27 percent of American Catholics completely reject evolution in favor of special creation.

The Catholic Church is in a tough spot, straddling an equipoise between modern science and antiscientific medieval theology. When it jettisons the idea of the soul, of God’s intervention in the Big Bang and human evolution, and the notion of Adam and Eve as our historical ancestors, then Catholicism*will be compatible with evolution. But then it would not be Catholicism.

And there is always that ‘stinger’ where Catholics are nothing more than praddlers of medieval superstition.

Where does it end? Why can’t I find reliance both in the Bible for spiritual and philosophical truths, and a science textbook for truths about stuff like space-time continuum, atoms, germs and such?

Why must this be so damn hard?

 

[grannymh]

From Humani Generis in post 33. Thank you Ed.
37.
“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.”

The above is the flat out truth of the position of the Catholic Church.

The “liberty” refers to the evolution base of the Science of Human Evolution which declares that the human species is the result of indiscriminate random breeding large humanizing populations often in the thousands over time. These
operating populations (plural intended) began with the Homo/Pan Split aka a speciation event.

Catholics apparently are not sure what polygenism (Humani Generis) proposes.

Actually, the word polygenism refers to polygenesis meaning development from more than one source. (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition) In the Garden of Eden there would be a crowd of happy hominins having a delightful time with anyone who is appealing and immediately available. Practically speaking, which hominin (term for developing humans) would be original enough to commit the Original Sin? How could any scientist determine the exact Adam hominin going thousands of years backwards and covering every part of earth – skipping the oceans, waterfalls, etc.

Pope Pius XII made it simple for Catholics to find the real Original Sin by eliminating the "polygenism/polygenesis doctrine of the Science of Human Evolution.

Catholics need to remember that the real Original Sin made the real Incarnation necessary. The real Incarnation is not subject to modern Arianism.

To be continued.

 

[Rau]

From Humani Generis in post 33. Thank you Ed.
37.
“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.”

The above is the flat out truth of the position of the Catholic Church.

The “liberty” refers to the evolution base of the Science of Human Evolution which declares that the human species is the result of indiscriminate random breeding large humanizing populations often in the thousands over time. These
operating populations (plural intended) began with the Homo/Pan Split aka a speciation event.

Catholics apparently are not sure what polygenism (Humani Generis) proposes.

Actually, the word polygenism refers to polygenesis meaning development from more than one source. (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition) In the Garden of Eden there would be a crowd of happy hominins having a delightful time with anyone who is appealing and immediately available. Practically speaking, which hominin (term for developing humans) would be original enough to commit the Original Sin? How could any scientist determine the exact Adam hominin going thousands of years backwards and covering every part of earth – skipping the oceans, waterfalls, etc.

Pope Pius XII made it simple for Catholics to find the real Original Sin by eliminating the "polygenism/polygenesis doctrine of the Science of Human Evolution.

Catholics need to remember that the real Original Sin made the real Incarnation necessary. The real Incarnation is not subject to modern Arianism.

To be continued.

I don’t “object” to science favoring polygenism because that is the simpler explanation fitting available data. That doesn’t make polygenism true of course. I trust science will favor an Adam + Eve explanation of mankind if and when available data makes that the more likely scenario. I don’t know whether it will ever be possible for science to conclude that Adam + Eve is the right explanation.

 

[grannymh]

Why must this be so damn hard?

Because you walk past the simplicity of the Science of Human Evolution compared with Humani Generis.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t “object” to science favoring polygenism because that is the simpler explanation fitting available data. That doesn’t make polygenism true of course. I trust science will favor an Adam + Eve explanation of mankind if and when available data makes that the more likely scenario. I don’t know whether it will ever be possible for science to conclude that Adam + Eve is the right explanation.

“Available data” is a nice dream.

The Science of Human Evolution cannot proclaim the universal negative in regard to the two sole founders of the human species. This is because it is not possible for scientists to go thousands of years backwards to examine every geographic location.

The evidence must warrant the conclusion. Therefore, scientists can say that Adam and Eve are not probable; but they cannot conclude that they are not possible.

 

[Bradski]

What are we?

A fortuitous result of unguided forces.There is no ultimate purpose to existence.

Put here by God. We are the ultimate purpose of existence.

As it seems that the most basic of questions imaginable gives two entirely different and contradictory answers, then I think that it is safe to say that the two are incompatible.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I guess what I’m really hoping for is a sort of mental reconciliation. I’m constantly being set upon by doubt and questions about life, science, morality, mortality. The kind everyone ends up going through. And a big one, THE big one I should think, is the issue of science against faith. A lot of atheists seem to think of it as faith against rationality and reason, but I reject such assertions.

It’s mind boggling, the huge debate of science vs religion, where there’s the camp who says that neither side can ever find common ground and just shut each other away. I can’t reject science. It’s almost impossible. At the same time, I don’t want it to get in the way of my faith, which is still there but hanging on.

It’s a contradiction. At once you have all these people going on about how science is a god, all knowing, indifferent and destroys the supernatural, makes the idea of spiritualism obsolete. But then you have things like accounts of demonic possession, the Miracle of the Sun, historical proof of the existence of Jesus, the Dead Sea Scrolls. And I keep trying to wrap my head around it and whenever there’s a moment where the water feels calm it it always comes back.

I feel sick when I find stuff like what Jerry Coyne keeps pushing forward:

And there is always that ‘stinger’ where Catholics are nothing more than praddlers of medieval superstition.

Where does it end? Why can’t I find reliance both in the Bible for spiritual and philosophical truths, and a science textbook for truths about stuff like space-time continuum, atoms, germs and such?

Why must this be so damn hard?

There are plenty of scientists who are also Catholic. In fact our Holy Father, Pope Francis , is a scientist.

It’s not hard. It is all about not falling into that polarised trap, science or religion, evolution or creation, life or death.

If we negate the creation of evolution in God’s plan, we negate God. How exactly did it all work? We don’t have all the answers but God does!

In fact humans are undergoing a spiritual evolution. We, as individuals, enter Heaven once we are purified. We as a peoples, a creature of God, as stated many times in the Bible, are undergoing a collective spiritual evolution. We are collectively working to purify ourselves in order to know God. It’s not going so well at the moment. The world is secular, people have turned away from God.

Moses dealt with this in the desert. He led everyone out of Egypt. They still for the most, tested and rejected God. God responded by smiting some, and the rest of that generation were never to enter Canaan. Even Moses died with Canaan in sight, but not reachable.

Don’t let people try to convince you to polarise the two.

It’s another work of the evil one, trying to convince us God could never create science.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

What are we?

A fortuitous result of unguided forces.There is no ultimate purpose to existence.

Put here by God. We are the ultimate purpose of existence.

As it seems that the most basic of questions imaginable gives two entirely different and contradictory answers, then I think that it is safe to say that the two are incompatible.

You got that wrong. Put here by God, we are not the ultimate purpose of existence, God is still the ultimate purpose of existence.
We, as God’s creatures are here to do the Will of God, nothing more, nothing less. And to Worship God.

Whomever told you the ultimate purpose of the existence of a creature of God was themselves was, quite frankly, talking through their arse.

They did not understand the true purpose of a creature of God.

 

[grannymh]

If we negate the creation of evolution in God’s plan, we negate God.

Would it be too difficult to provide a demonstration of negating God?

I believe that the problem is that one is not separating the evolution of bears, bananas, birds, bacteria, and busy beavers from the Science of Human Evolution.

 

[Rau]

“Available data” is a nice dream.

The Science of Human Evolution cannot proclaim the universal negative in regard to the two sole founders of the human species. This is because it is not possible for scientists to go thousands of years backwards to examine every geographic location.

The evidence must warrant the conclusion. Therefore, scientists can say that Adam and Eve are not probable; but they cannot conclude that they are not possible.

Available data is what it is. And you may be correct that the situation is not so much that there is evidence to support polygenism, but rather there is no evidence to favor Adam + Eve, and the latter is the far more likely scenario absent the divine.

No science can proclaim something did not happen, or cannot happen, only that such is not possible, or unlikely in some degree, given the known laws of the physical world, and/or the available data.

When science speaks, I take that context as a given, because I know that science does not incorporate the divine.

 

[Bradski]

You got that wrong. Put here by God, we are not the ultimate purpose of existence, God is still the ultimate purpose of existence.
We, as God’s creatures are here to do the Will of God, nothing more, nothing less. And to Worship God.

Whomever told you the ultimate purpose of the existence of a creature of God was themselves was, quite frankly, talking through their arse.

They did not understand the true purpose of a creature of God.

OK, let’s be picky.

We are the ultimate purpose of existence (in that we have been put here to do the will of God).

I’m describing two ways of looking at the reason why WE are here, not God. The dichotomy becomes even greater if you want to use God in the two views.

There is a God.

There is no evidence for God.

Either way, whichever way you would prefer to word it, whichever way you want to carve it, the two views are diametrically in opposition to each other and completely irreconcilable.

 

[edwest2]

OK, let’s be picky.

We are the ultimate purpose of existence (in that we have been put here to do the will of God).

I’m describing two ways of looking at the reason why WE are here, not God. The dichotomy becomes even greater if you want to use God in the two views.

There is a God.

There is no evidence for God.

Either way, whichever way you would prefer to word it, whichever way you want to carve it, the two views are diametrically in opposition to each other and completely irreconcilable.

That is the answer. There are spiritual truths revealed by God and tradition. Not to mention angels. The soul cannot be studied by science, so any attempt to shoehorn the “soul” into a picture of what a complete human being is, is beyond the realm of science.

Scientific knowledge, especially the inventions that come from applied science, are usually goods. However, just like man’s ability for doing good or evil, the goal in the applied sciences can be the same. Example, I create an improved solar panel that is available to all. I create a weapon that is designed to kill others, and is only available to a select few by comparison.

I really like science, by the way.

Ed

 

[grannymh]

From Humani Generis in post 33. Thank you Ed.
37.
“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.”

The above is the flat out truth of the position of the Catholic Church.

The “liberty” refers to the evolution base of the Science of Human Evolution which declares that the human species is the result of indiscriminate random breeding large humanizing populations often in the thousands over time. These
operating populations (plural intended) began with the Homo/Pan Split aka a speciation event.

Catholics apparently are not sure what polygenism (Humani Generis) proposes.

Actually, the word polygenism refers to polygenesis meaning development from more than one source. (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition) In the Garden of Eden there would be a crowd of happy hominins having a delightful time with anyone who is appealing and immediately available. Practically speaking, which hominin (term for developing humans) would be original enough to commit the Original Sin? How could any scientist determine the exact Adam hominin going thousands of years backwards and covering every part of earth – skipping the oceans, waterfalls, etc.

Pope Pius XII made it simple for Catholics to find the real Original Sin by eliminating the "polygenism/polygenesis doctrine of the Science of Human Evolution.

Catholics need to remember that the real Original Sin made the real Incarnation necessary. The real Incarnation is not subject to modern Arianism.

To be continued.

Actually, I posted what is essential. There is no need for a continuation.

Thank you for reading.

 

[Rau]

Available data is what it is. And you may be correct that the situation is not so much that there is evidence to support polygenism, but rather there is no evidence to favor Adam + Eve, and the latter is the far more likely scenario absent the divine.

Of course that should read “the latter is the far less likely scenario absent the divine.”

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I guess what I’m really hoping for is a sort of mental reconciliation. I’m constantly being set upon by doubt and questions about life, science, morality, mortality. The kind everyone ends up going through. And a big one, THE big one I should think, is the issue of science against faith. A lot of atheists seem to think of it as faith against rationality and reason, but I reject such assertions.

It’s mind boggling, the huge debate of science vs religion, where there’s the camp who says that neither side can ever find common ground and just shut each other away. I can’t reject science. It’s almost impossible. At the same time, I don’t want it to get in the way of my faith, which is still there but hanging on.

It’s a contradiction. At once you have all these people going on about how science is a god, all knowing, indifferent and destroys the supernatural, makes the idea of spiritualism obsolete. But then you have things like accounts of demonic possession, the Miracle of the Sun, historical proof of the existence of Jesus, the Dead Sea Scrolls. And I keep trying to wrap my head around it and whenever there’s a moment where the water feels calm it it always comes back.

I feel sick when I find stuff like what Jerry Coyne keeps pushing forward:

And there is always that ‘stinger’ where Catholics are nothing more than praddlers of medieval superstition.

Where does it end? Why can’t I find reliance both in the Bible for spiritual and philosophical truths, and a science textbook for truths about stuff like space-time continuum, atoms, germs and such?

Why must this be so damn hard?

There is no reconciliation between science and faith per se. At least not in the sense that I think you mean. Jesus all but said so. ‘Blessed are those who believe without seeing’, I’m paraphrasing there. God will reveal himself in various ways to different people based entirely on His choosing.

If you decide to listen, with equal assent, to anyone who will bend your ear, then you’ll be vey confused. Just by reading what you posted, I can confidently say that Jerry Coyne hasn’t a clue about Catholicism.

You can find spiritual and philosophical truths in the Bible, and science can help you understand the material world. A fuller understanding of both can be had by using them to compliment one another. But, philosophy will not teach you the mass of Jupiter, and science will not teach you why you are asking these questions.

 

[grannymh]

From what I read on CAF, there are a few persons who cannot relate to the principle of polygenesis; thus, the door is opened to the denial of the Incarnation. In some informed geographic locations, this would be known as stealth Arianism.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

OK, let’s be picky.

We are the ultimate purpose of existence (in that we have been put here to do the will of God).

I’m describing two ways of looking at the reason why WE are here, not God. The dichotomy becomes even greater if you want to use God in the two views.

There is a God.

There is no evidence for God.

Either way, whichever way you would prefer to word it, whichever way you want to carve it, the two views are diametrically in opposition to each other and completely irreconcilable.

Yep, let’s get picky!

For those of us who believe in God, we are not the ultimate purpose of existence. We are just God’s creatures, here to do God’s Will. That doesn’t, in any way create an entitlement in us, as God’s creatures as the ultimate purpose of existence. That is only for God. God is the ultimate purpose of existence, not us.

Your dichotomy is incorrect, your polarisation, still incorrect.

You need to adjust it to include true Catholic values. Otherwise state which religion you are polarising with your atheist end.

In the atheist view, yep, that’s it , live die, worm food.

In the Catholic view, live die, eventually Heaven. What do we do in Heaven? Serve and worship our Creator.

I don’t know enough about other religions to know which religion subscribes to your ultimate self importance existence view. Perhaps someone who knows can chime in.

But let me reiterate, the Catholic view is that we are in no way the ultimate purpose of existence. God is the ultimate purpose of existence.

So which religion were you referring to?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Would it be too difficult to provide a demonstration of negating God?

I believe that the problem is that one is not separating the evolution of bears, bananas, birds, bacteria, and busy beavers from the Science of Human Evolution.

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?

 

[Bradski]

But let me reiterate, the Catholic view is that we are in no way the ultimate purpose of existence. God is the ultimate purpose of existence.

So which religion were you referring to?

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.

 

[Samwise21]

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