Catholicism and Science

[reggieM]

I don’t believe there is any de fide teaching of the Church that tells us what the “proper place” for science is or should be.
You have your opinion on that.
I can name you many scientists who disagree with what you think should be the limits of science.
Yes, I’d prefer it if science remained limited to physical observations and theories, but many scientists disagree with me on that - and I’m not part of the scientific community, they are.

 

[Rau]

I don’t believe there is any de fide teaching of the Church that tells us what the “proper place” for science is or should be.

Do you feel such is within the scope of the Church’s competence, or is needed?? Although given your earlier remarks (about why all scientists should be catholic and what should flow from that), I can see why you might think so!

 

[reggieM]

Do you feel such is within the scope of the Church’s competence, or is needed??

That was the authority you referenced with regards to the supposed goodness of evolutionary theory - the teaching of the Church on it.
So now, you are proclaiming what the limits of science should be. You are not a member of the scientific community, to my knowledge.
What other authority are you going to cite to support your opinion on what science should be? I showed you actual scientists - some of the most prominent evolutionists in the world today, that disagree with you.
So, I don’t know what other source you’re going to refer me to, other than the magisterium of the Church - and there we don’t find the Church defining what is scientific and what is not.

 

[Rau]

That was the authority you referenced with regards to the supposed goodness of evolutionary theory - the teaching of the Church on it.

Did I? I don’t believe I’ve referenced any Church teaching on the “supposed goodness of evolution”. I remarked that the Church does not reject theories of evolution (other than particular elements which are at odds with the faith).

You are not a member of the scientific community, to my knowledge.

What merit has that comment Reggie, given you have no knowledge of my profession at all? But even so - must one be an electrician to know that plumbers do not deal in the electrical wiring of houses?? Or that science does not deal in matters beyond the material world?

What other authority are you going to cite to support your opinion on what science should be? I showed you actual scientists - some of the most prominent evolutionists in the world today, that disagree with you.

Speculation is not difficult to recognise Reggie. I did not offer an opinion on what science should be - I made a statement about its scope. You or other are free to disagree.

So, I don’t know what other source you’re going to refer me to, other than the magisterium of the Church - and there we don’t find the Church defining what is scientific and what is not.

You need to get past this idea that the Church is the default authority on all matters. It is not - and does not claim to be.

We certainly have dramatically different views on this topic Reggie. For example: You lamented as follows: "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.”

The above causes you to sneer at or denigrate science, but causes me no grief at all, because for me, it is absurd for science to do other than look for explanations for phenomena within its scope. Science should assume “miracles” don’t happen - because by definition such is outside the scope of science. [Of course, scientists can themselves remain open to whatever possibilities their mind can admit.] But science should properly conclude “we can find no explanation for such and such claimed events…” not that “such and such is a miracle”. To do otherwise is to propose an answer from a domain other than science, and there is nothing wrong with that so long as we see it for what it is.

 

[reggieM]

"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.”

Could you quote the post where I stated that, please?

 

[Rau]

Could you quote the post where I stated that, please?

Sincere apologies Reggie. I was quoting another poster!

 

[reggieM]

Sincere apologies Reggie. I was quoting another poster!

Apology accepted, Rau. With that, I am not “sneering” at science as mentioned below.

The above causes you to sneer at or denigrate science, but causes me no grief at all, because for me, it is absurd for science to do other than look for explanations for phenomena within its scope.

I could agree with you that science should stay within a scope. But the reason I’m arguing with you about it is that scientists refuse to do that. We do hear of evolutionary biologists who state that evolution has falsified theological claims about God’s work in the world. They go beyond this to say that there is no evidence of divine influence (anything non-physical) in the universe. We might argue that only philosophy and theology can discuss such things, but as I said that argument falls on deaf ears within the atheistic-science community (and there is such a community that uses science to support atheism).

Now, since most of my arguments here on this topic on CAF are directed at fellow Catholic believers like yourself, I’m hoping to show that the idea that we don’t need to be concerned about these matters because people are abusing science, is problematic.

I have use that argument many times myself. “Well, he is not speaking scientifically here” and this is an easy way to undercut whatever the person is saying. But after a while, if enough scientists continue to use science to support atheistic ideas (or even theistic ideas), then there is no reason that they cannot simply say “this is the way we do science, and you Catholics simply have a different (discredited by us) way”.
So we end up closed off from the people doing the science. So, instead of that, if we simply take their word for it, then we simply can’t dismiss their view because it is not scientific. We have to look at what the science is actually saying. So, it’s a similar critique but a different target. Show me how science can reduce consciousness to a physical phenomenon alone (you seemed to say it was possible).

Science should assume “miracles” don’t happen - because by definition such is outside the scope of science.

That’s fine and you’re entitled to your opinion. However, I don’t see why a scientist cannot say that "since at this time we don’t have scientific evidnce for how the Miracle of Fatima occurred, the proposal that is was a supernatural phenomnon is worthy of consideration (since we know by faith as believing scientists that such events can occur). That’s what the scientists at Lourdes could do.

But science should properly conclude “we can find no explanation for such and such claimed events…”

Yes, perhaps “properly” in your opinion, but contemporay science never says that.
It begins with the assumption that there is a scientific explanation for every pheneomnon. That’s the foundation of today’s science. So, we never (or extremely rarely and only when nobody is looking) hear scientists say that they can find no explanation. They will always give their “best guess”. They do this for everything - for every miracle the Church approves, for every miracle of the Bible, of the saints - everything has a scientific answer.
Again, we may not like that, but that’s just the reality.
I don’t think it’s good enough to say “well, they’re just abusing science” because we well be ignored anyway - and with enough abuse (we’ve already had it) science becomes this thing that we don’t like any more.
We will end up being the only people saying “that’s not true science”.

So, along with that, most Catholics today, like you, will then just say “evolution is perfectly fine. It could never conflict with faith because science is limited to what it can explain”. But we know that scientists transgress those limits and that leaves us vunerable. Plus, we end up approving evolutionary theory when it is loaded with atheistic assumptions.

So, what happens (and another CAF member did, we end up with a customized evolutionary theory that nobody has heard of and is not published anywhere.
That is the “theistic evolution” theory where, perhaps, God is involved somewhere.
Or failing that, we have God “not intervening” at all in nature - in order to protect modern science which says that everything we observe on earth has a physical explanation.

To do otherwise is to propose an answer from a domain other than science, and there is nothing wrong with that so long as we see it for what it is.

Yes, that assumes that these domains must be separated without overlap and it assumes a certain definition of science that most evolutionists do not accept.

 

[edwest2]

I agree with the above. Science uses “the scientific method,” but what does not get much press are things that really cannot be explained. In South America, a submarine was beginning to surface near the coast and it accidentally struck a Japanese ship on the surface. It was filling with water and the Captain realized that in order to save the most men, he had to close a particular hatch, but the force of the water coming in prevented him. So, he prayed to a saint and then saw a bright light and knew he could close the hatch. And he did. Experts were brought in and studied the sub which was in shallow water. The Naval experts concluded that the amount of water pressure made it impossible to close the hatch but that hatch was closed. No human being could do it. Conclusion: Cause Unknown.

The point of friction is this: “What is the only source of knowledge? Science or the Church?” This is followed by criticisms of the Church that span centuries regarding errors it made regarding scientific matters.

Let’s look at Stephen Jay Gould:

"In a 1997 essay “Non-Overlapping Magisteria”[4] for Natural History magazine, and later in his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as “a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to . . . the supposed conflict between science and religion.”,[1] from his puzzlement over the need and reception of the 1996 address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth”.[5] He draws the term magisterium from Pope Pius XII’s encyclical, Humani generis (1950), and defines it as “a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution”,[1] and describes the NOMA principle as “Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve.”[1] “These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty).”[1]

For those not familiar with him, Stephen Jay Gould was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science.

I submit there is no such thing as an “evolutionary biologist.” Science can only study what exists now.

And science is not as pure as the driven snow either. Most scientific research is related to money and making lots of it, sometimes at a cost to others that should not be.

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

Ed

 

[Rau]

…They go beyond this to say that there is no evidence of divine influence (anything non-physical) in the universe.

Most of us have no personal persuasive experience of “divine influence” on observable events, so this is kind of understandable I think.

That’s fine and you’re entitled to your opinion [that science should assume miracles don’t happen]. However, I don’t see why a scientist cannot say that "-]since /-]at this time we don’t have scientific -]evidnce /-][explanation] for -]how/-] the -]Miracle of Fatima /-][events reported at Fatima].-] occurred, the proposal that is was a supernatural phenomnon is worthy of consideration (since we know by faith as believing scientists that such events can occur). /-]That’s what the scientists at Lourdes could do.

I have no problem with the scientists making a statement such as above (noting the text I amended/added). I see no reason for scientists to speculate about or favour the supernatural, anymore than they should venture the view that the can be no supernaturally driven events.

Yes, perhaps “properly” in your opinion, but contemporay science never says that “we can find no explanation for such and such claimed events…”].

That may be your opinion, but according to edwest2, that’s exactly what happened in the submarine story.

It begins with the assumption that there is a scientific explanation for every pheneomnon. That’s the foundation of today’s science. So, we never (or extremely rarely and only when nobody is looking) hear scientists say that they can find no explanation. They will always give their “best guess”.

Difficult to see how science would have progressed if scientists throughout history favoured a supernatural explanation for every phenomena they did not already understand.

They do this for everything - for every miracle the Church approves, for every miracle of the Bible, of the saints - everything has a scientific answer.

As I understand it, you would require scientists to treat the Church’s decision as definitive. I would expect scientists (at least those not atheists) to take the view that the Church could be right, and to simultaneously keep open the possibility that the events in question have a “scientific” explanation. Unexplained cures come to mind. I’d like scientists to keep looking.

Again, we may not like that, but that’s just the reality.
I don’t think it’s good enough to say “well, they’re just abusing science” because we well be ignored anyway - and with enough abuse (we’ve already had it) science becomes this thing that we don’t like any more.
We will end up being the only people saying “that’s not true science”

There is nothing wrong with scientists doubting claims of miracles. What **is **an abuse of science is to:

• pass off speculative scientific explanations about phenomena as something more solid than speculation;
• pretend it is a requirement (or discovery) of science that there is no God.

So, along with that, most Catholics today, like you, will then just say “evolution is perfectly fine. It could never conflict with faith because science is limited to what it can explain”. But we know that scientists transgress those limits and that leaves us vunerable.

I don’t doubt that in this day and age, where science has understood and explained issues heretofore entirely impenetrable, that it has the potential to be seen as “the full story” and the “solution to every problem”. I don’t doubt that for a moment. It is our job to be grown ups, and to educate our children such that they understand it is not.

Yes, that assumes that these domains must be separated without overlap and it assumes a certain definition of science that most evolutionists do not accept.

I don’t really understand that science. People (Scientists) may be atheists, but that should not be taken to imply there is some finding of science that there is no God.

 

[edwest2]

Oh brother. I guess the merry-go-round ride never ends.

“In science, of course, the very word “sacred” is profane. No ideas, religious or otherwise, get a free pass. The notion that some idea or concept is beyond question or attack is anathema to the entire scientific undertaking. This commitment to open questioning is deeply tied to the fact that science is an atheistic enterprise. “My practice as a scientist is atheistic,” the biologist J.B.S. Haldane wrote, in 1934. “That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career.” It’s ironic, really, that so many people are fixated on the relationship between science and religion: basically, there isn’t one. In my more than thirty years as a practicing physicist, I have never heard the word “God” mentioned in a scientific meeting. Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of nature—just as it’s irrelevant to the question of whether or not citizens are obligated to follow the law.”

There’s more, but that should do.

Ed

 

[Rau]

Oh brother. I guess the merry-go-round ride never ends.

It would help understand what point you seek to make (via a citation such as what follows) if you said something to frame it or connect it to the points actually made by another poster. The above is not helpful.

"In science, of course, the very word “sacred” is profane. No ideas, religious or otherwise, get a free pass. The notion that some idea or concept is beyond question or attack is anathema to the entire scientific undertaking. This commitment to open questioning is deeply tied to the fact that science is an atheistic enterprise. “My practice as a scientist is atheistic,” the biologist J.B.S. Haldane wrote, in 1934. “That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career.”

What should be different? The concrete point he makes - the bolded point is - entirely reasonable. Do you think on conducting an experiment a reasonable outcome is for the scientist to proclaim, “yes!..a miracle!”?

“In my more than thirty years as a practicing physicist, I have never heard the word “God” mentioned in a scientific meeting. Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of nature—just as it’s irrelevant to the question of whether or not citizens are obligated to follow the law.”

The man is speaking as a physicist. So which part of this (if any) do you find objectionable?

 

[lynnvinc]

There is no problem with science not addressing God, or not acknowledging God. The only problem is when science proposes that there is no God…
Actually science cannot say whether or not there is a God because its limited area in which it operates – the material, empirical world – cannot say anything about the spiritual.

However, there may be scientists and non-scientists who say there is no God. That is their personal belief. Let us hope & pray it doesn’t come to blows between those who believe there is God and those who don’t.

((I do know there are militant atheists out there who go so far as to desecrate the Eucharist. I think the best we can do is be good in our Little Ways of Spiritual Childhood and pray that they see the light. Being an angry Christian is not a good selling point for the faith. The precursor to anger is feeling hurt and sad – at that point we can offer it up to God.))

 

[lynnvinc]

Clarification.
Pope John Paul II did not hold that the Science of Human Evolution to be fact.

This is because the basic evolution model has as its base that a speciation event, (example Homo/Pan split) is a large population arising from a previous large indiscriminate random breeding humanizing population in the hundreds or thousands. Please note that this polygenesis progression works in the material world of bears, bananas, birds, bacteria and busy beavers.

The Catholic Church holds that the human species was originally founded by two
fully-complete humans, Eve and Adam.

If I recall from my physical anthropology classes in the 60s and what I’ve learned since, there was a Homo/Australopithecus split sometime back, and from genetics today we can trace back thru the mitochondrial DNA female line to a very small and narrow group of humans, who became the “parents” of us all. Science can only tell us the population was very small, so that certainly would allow for consideration of 2 original parents for all humans today, an Adam and Eve. Since “higher” animals like apes and even dogs and cats have a good amount of intelligence and emotional feelings, perhaps we can say that small pre-human population was primed for becoming fully human.

And what it takes (according to some evolutionary scholars) for such a population to advance is not blood on tooth and claws “survival of the fittest,” but caring for others in the group (and reproduction)…the better of the human qualities. So that also could mean being aware or wrong-doing and sin.

My personal take is that the world is another Bible which our transcendent God has written directly and scientists are its exegeters (which is perhaps why science arose from Catholic society). And my idea is that our Immanent God is IN the processes of evolution and in all of us and everything.

I’ve always been awe-inspired by evolution and more praising of our good and great God, Who is not a simple David Copperfield magician but has accomplished creation, including us humans, in a truly astounding way, which we human simpletons would never have thought up on our own (see origin mythologies of other ancient religions), but could only discover thru science.

---

The other, more important takeaway from all of us humans originating from a very small population (science), two parents (Bible), and all being very very very closely related – more so than many other species – is that racism is based on very wrong and flawed nonsense non-science. That to me is the more important message from God and from science (which studies God’s creation).

 

[Rau]

Actually science cannot say whether or not there is a God because its limited area in which it operates – the material, empirical world – cannot say anything about the spiritual.

However, there may be scientists and non-scientists who say there is no God. That is their personal belief. Let us hope & pray it doesn’t come to blows between those who believe there is God and those who don’t.

Correct.

 

[lynnvinc]

Be careful with your terms. Neither are Church teaching. They don’t contradict Church teaching and recent Popes may hold them to be true, but they are the realm of science, not faith.

And science comes up with certain “truths” re the material, empirical world, like gravity and climate change – which we are required to believe. Otherwise we are living in lies, with the Father of lies, against God, Who is Truth.

And that is why JPII said re evolution, “Truth [God] cannot contradict truth[scientific facts].”

 

[edwest2]

And science comes up with certain “truths” re the material, empirical world, like gravity and climate change – which we are required to believe. Otherwise we are living in lies, with the Father of lies, against God, Who is Truth.

And that is why JPII said re evolution, “Truth [God] cannot contradict truth[scientific facts].”

Misleading.

“64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

Source: Communion and Stewardship

Ed

 

[lynnvinc]

Misleading.

“64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

Source: Communion and Stewardship

Ed

So? I didn’t specify which theory of evolution and I myself accept the Church’s take on it, as evidenced by my other comments. The point is the Church now accepts evolution in general (and has its own take on it), which it did not 100 years ago. That is the main idea.

To dismiss evolution and go for a creationist version – a David Copperfield in the sky version – to me is an insult to God. God is perfectly capable of creating through the process of evolution and is much greater than creationists and other give Him credit for.

For one thing we mere humans could never ever have come up with evolution on our own, but had to discover it. Wow, what a clever and awesome God who created us thru a complex process we never ever would have thought of.

We are not only related to all other life forms, but stardust cruises our veins (as all the elements are created in the belly of stars). We should not be ashamed of that. ALL of God’s creation is good – He said so himself.

 

[lynnvinc]

Let’s also remember that while other animals do not go to heaven and are not made in the image of God and do not have those special qualities that make us human, neither can they sin and go to Hell. I think that is a major point we tend to miss.

When teaching about cultural/societal evolution (which tends to be seen only as a positive), I used to add in how we have advanced so much, from clubs, spears, bow&arrows, to guns and nuclear weapons.

We are just so smart.

Also, while man was made in the image of God, God is not in the image of man, some anthropomorphic David Copperfield magician. St. John of the Cross pointed out (and I paraphrase) if you have some conception of God, you’re wrong.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Picking up where I left off from p.g. 6 #90, p.g. 7 #94, p.g. 12 #174 and now the following:

2017 American Association for the Advancement of Science:

ANIMAL WORLD

**Humans are animals, and from beetles to whales, we are all related. But just how much do we really know about the creatures that share this Earth? New technologies are allowing us to deeply probe the animal mind for the first time, revealing complex behaviors and emotions, while our ever-evolving relationship with these beings is forcing us to confront how we study them and protect them in a changing world. Here we present the latest news and research that is moving us forward in our attempts to better understand our animal relatives, and in so doing, ourselves.
**
David Grimm
David is the Online News Editor of Science.

Sacha Vignieri
Sacha is a senior editor at Science whose areas of expertise include animal behavior, ecology, evolution, and conservation.
[PLEASE BE SURE TO READ THE WHOLE PAGE THAT IS PRESENTED ON SCIENCE MAGAZINE]
sciencemag.org/topic/animal-world

P.S. Whatever it takes to get to HEAVEN I won’t be there without my animals. All of them! That means my cats and dogs TOO!

I’d like to also present:
NCBI (The National Center for Biotechnology Information advances science and health by providing access to biomedical and genomic information.):

Homo sapiens

Taxonomy ID: 9606
Genbank common name: human
Inherited blast name: primates
Rank: species
Genetic code: Translation table 1 (Standard)
Mitochondrial genetic code: Translation table 2 (Vertebrate Mitochondrial)
Other names:
common name: man
authority: Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758
Lineage( full )
cellular organisms; Eukaryota; Opisthokonta; Metazoa; Eumetazoa; Bilateria; Deuterostomia; Chordata; Craniata; Vertebrata; Gnathostomata; Teleostomi; Euteleostomi; Sarcopterygii; Dipnotetrapodomorpha; Tetrapoda; Amniota; Mammalia; Theria; Eutheria; Boreoeutheria; Euarchontoglires; Primates; Haplorrhini; Simiiformes; Catarrhini; Hominoidea; Hominidae; Homininae; Homo

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Info&id=9606&lvl=3&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock

Good thoughts for me and mine and those who love animals. May there be peace on Earth!