Churches rejecting science altogether

[kbachler]

Catholicism takes a positive approach to human nature which is why it will object to certain tenets of science.

From my perspective, there could not be a more self-contradictory sentence.

 

[kbachler]

kbachler,

Phfft.

I"m not mentioning the development of classification in biology: I’m refering to the origin of that classification; to wit, the skeleton, or format if you will, of all subsequent development. All that subsequent development is built on the error that the original classification presented by terming humans as animal. That’s my point.

Buffalo has asked you, granny has asked you and I have asked you to name those people who originally drew up the table of classification in the Nineteenth Century. Your refusal to do so greatly reduces your credibility with me.

People get their choice of who to let have authority over them and what to let guide their minds. It doesn’t have to be science nor any branch of science. That seems the bone that some science types choke on.

Anyway, I’m reiterating that the label “animal” both offends some church people and its continual use blocks any hope of meaningful communication.
I doesn’t make sense to keep on irritating a person when they tell you that your are. And, saying that you aren’t irritating them when they tell you that you are, only irritates people more.
Unless of course, communicating isn’t the goal.

God loves you,
Don
P.S.
I’ll be back tomorrow, it’s past my bedtime.
dds

Classifying humans as an animal is not an error. If it is, please state how humans do not meet the definition of animal.

I’m sorry, allowing ignorance is a bigger sin than irritating someone who has told me that I’m irritating them.

 

[Peter_John]

Ah, one says. With a twist of a single word like corrupt, human nature is demoted.

As I said at the bottom of post 456, “To find a solution to problems caused by churches rejecting science, one not only has to understand science in general, one has to understand Catholic doctrine in particular.” In the same post I made a brief reference to the Catholic teaching regarding a “fallen” human nature. The* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraph 405 addresses the concept of corrupted which does not apply to Catholic teaching.

Paragraph 405 demonstrates why Catholicism does not believe that “we are a corrupt and regressive race” as was commented.
Paragraph 406 explains what was taught by some of the first Protestant reformers which is in contrast to actual Catholic doctrines dating to the Second Council of Orange and the Council of Trent.

Catholicism takes a positive approach to human nature which is why it will object to certain tenets of science.

Blessings,
granny

THE HOLY EUCHARIST
IS THE LIGHT, STRENGTH, AND LIFE OF OUR SOULS.

.

So you believ it consistent that we are sanctified without Christ, despite all the Bible and Catechism say about the consequences of the fall od Adam, Original Sin, and the implications of Christ’s Incarnation for the rest of Humanity. I included the Catechism references in a later post. Baptism makes us children of God, “new creatures”, not the same creatures we already are. Adam was created perfect, failed to trust God, and we are now bor into corruption, to use St. Paul’s word for it.

 

[Peter_John]

From my perspective, there could not be a more self-contradictory sentence.

I agree. For some reason many faithful consider that those who base their concept of humanity on science think something less of humanity.Lacking knowledge of the complexity of life perceived through science, and the beauty experiencing Creation through it (even if not acknowledging it as literal Creation) they cannot understand how glorious science recognizes humanity to be. They think that considering man an Animal alone means something bad, even though the Boble affirms that after everything God created he said, “It is good.”

They think that because Adam was created in Glorious perfection, we all are, despite the doctrine of original sin, and the Fall of Adam. They do not realize that it better reflects Greek philosophy, “Man is the measure of all things,” than Biblical doctrine that Christ is the measure of all things, and we can share in his glory – but we do not have that glory by our nature. We have to become a new creature.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Catholicism takes a positive approach to human nature which is why it will object to certain tenets of science.

From my perspective, there could not be a more self-contradictory sentence.

Will you be answering my original request?
“Would you kindly explain how we have a special relationship with God beyond that of mere animals so that people would not have a reason to reject science.”

Regarding this post.
In the future I may take it to the Back Fence Forum because both Catholicism and Science say quite a bit about human origin. For now, I will simply let my statement
“Catholicism takes a positive approach to human nature which is why it will object to certain tenets of science.” stand as is.

Blessings,
granny

Luke 23: 33-43

 

[grannymh]

So you believ it consistent that we are sanctified without Christ, despite all the Bible and Catechism say about the consequences of the fall od Adam, Original Sin, and the implications of Christ’s Incarnation for the rest of Humanity. I included the Catechism references in a later post. Baptism makes us children of God, “new creatures”, not the same creatures we already are. Adam was created perfect, failed to trust God, and we are now bor into corruption, to use St. Paul’s word for it.

For information about Pelagianism, (referred to above) which obviously I wound not accept because I do study Catholicism from its particular position, I suggest studying the Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition, paragraph 406 in conjunction with reading all paragraphs from 355 through 421.

Blessings,
granny

Luke 23: 33-43

 

[Peter_John]

It is from respect for the intelligence of members and guests, that I suggest using the resources of CAF and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

If you will kindly check post 436, you will not come across “a blanket reference of the entire thing.” Rather there is concern about a mixture.

I respect the ability of readers to read for themselves.

Since so many of the posts refer to creatures as part of the science aspect, I will also address the term creatures in reference to the Catholic teachings on human nature.

First, gentle readers,

Do not worry about the enormity of the task Peter John is suggesting regarding the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. In order to reply to Peter John’s question “Does the Catechism deny that we are creatures, or refute it in any way?” one does not have to read every paragraph, including the cross-references which would have to be read individually in the way they support a particular paragraph; the glossary; the footnotes; the introductory documents; and the Index of Citations. One should read the Catechism’s Prologue, especially the sections on the structure of the Catechism and the important practical directions for using the Catechism.

One simply has to realize that the Catholic Church teaches in a positive way.

However, if one is curious about how a particular teaching came to be, including the objections, then one is certainly welcome to check the footnotes and use the Index of Citations, to locate Church documents. The relevant sections of these documents can be found in
The Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, A Compendium of Texts Referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Church ISBN 0-89870-450-2 (HB); ISBN 0-89870-451-0 (PB)

The answer varies according to particular religions. For example, Catholicism treats human nature per se and the contracted state of Original Sin separately even though both involve one person.

Catholicism will use the word “fall” in reference to Adam’s action. It will also refer to a fallen human nature which in Catholic teaching means a wounded or flawed nature which has not been totally corrupted. One of the Protestant traditions is that man was born sinful. Catholics teach that man is inclined to sin. Very big difference.

When I defend the reality of Adam and Eve, I use the argument that we have the same basic human nature as Adam and Eve before the fall. This point is one of the major conflicts between Catholic and scientific definitions of human nature, creatures, animals, and species. It is my observation that Catholics do not have to reject science altogether because when scientific research is analyzed correctly, one discovers that the possibility of real sole parents of humanity is not absolutely ruled out.

Yes, in the primary sense that Christ is the promised Redeemer. This is possible because Christ is one Person two natures. I have noticed some interesting “anti-Catholic” website twistings regarding the Catholic dogma of the Hypostatic Union which is the union of the divine and human natures in the one divine Person, Jesus Christ. As I said in post 435, “A difficulty arises when a post has non-Catholic teaching mixed in with some comments similar to Catholic teaching.”

The real question concerns the scientific definitions of humanity as pointed out in other posts. The various scientific definitions of humanity and how humanity developed need to be challenged from the Catholic position.

The Catechism’s paragraphs 1250 -1252 are good ones to read. The questions are–Why is this possible for human nature? Why should the human person, with a material anatomy, be outside the animal kingdom whose inhabitants also have material anatomies?

I have noticed some confusion about what “In the Image of God” actually means minus all the confusing frills that some authors use. One can start with CCC paragraphs 355-361. To understand the objections to science descriptions of animals, one also needs to look at paragraph 364 and then go back to paragraph 362 and continue reading through paragraph 368. Yes, I like to go beyond cherry picking.

When one reads CCC paragraph 337 plus the following paragraphs through 349, one discovers that a “denial” Genesis question is not necessary.

To sum up. To find a solution to problems caused by churches rejecting science, one not only has to understand science in general, one has to understand Catholic doctrine in particular. Note. I do recognize that in some areas of doctrine and science, Catholicism apparently is willing to stand alone.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1: 1

I will dispense with all of this with four remarks:

1. You affirm that there is something wrong with being a creature, despite the fact that when God created all of them he said, “It is good.”
2. as I red these references I find that you do not take them in context and interpret them in light of a general assumption that they must be interpreted positively as Catholicism is positive. This colors and privatizes the interpretation.
3. As an example you talk about the importance of teachings on our relationship as humans with Adam and eve, but talk as if the consequences of their fall do not affect us. Were this so there would be no Original Sin, so you both interpret and read the Catechism incompletely, as you disregard the parts about Original Sin if they do not suit the purposes of your arguments.
4. The references I provided in a later post perhaps constitute passages you missed with your doctrine of only positive exegesis. Specify which of my claims are non-Catholic.non-Catholic.

One Central Question: Hoiw is it non-Catholic to affirm that we are sanctified through Christ, and without Christ we are damned?

 

[Peter_John]

My apology. But it sounds that you are coming from a world which only deals in the mutually exclusive “or”.

I note that you have yet to respond to the refernces from the Catechism which support what I have written. It says that adam fell from his perfect and glorified state, and we bear consequences of that. The Catechism says we are creatures. The catechism says we have to become new Creatures. it says we become children of God by adoption through baptism, not that we are born children of God. It says that God created Adam in the image he would take upon himself as Christ. it says that humanity is sancitified by God’s become a part of it.

Which of these statements is non-Catholic?

 

[grannymh]

I will dispense with all of this with four remarks:

1. You affirm that there is something wrong with being a creature, despite the fact that when God created all of them he said, “It is good.”
2. as I red these references I find that you do not take them in context and interpret them in light of a general assumption that they must be interpreted positively as Catholicism is positive. This colors and privatizes the interpretation.
3. As an example you talk about the importance of teachings on our relationship as humans with Adam and eve, but talk as if the consequences of their fall do not affect us. Were this so there would be no Original Sin, so you both interpret and read the Catechism incompletely, as you disregard the parts about Original Sin if they do not suit the purposes of your arguments.
4. The references I provided in a later post perhaps constitute passages you missed with your doctrine of only positive exegesis. Specify which of my claims are non-Catholic.non-Catholic.

One Central Question: Hoiw is it non-Catholic to affirm that we are sanctified through Christ, and without Christ we are damned?

Good Grief Charlie Brown.


Note to self: Thank God for my sense of humor in reading posts.

 

[grannymh]

I note that you have yet to respond to the refernces from the Catechism which support what I have written. It says that adam fell from his perfect and glorified state, and we bear consequences of that. The Catechism says we are creatures. The catechism says we have to become new Creatures. it says we become children of God by adoption through baptism, not that we are born children of God. It says that God created Adam in the image he would take upon himself as Christ. it says that humanity is sancitified by God’s become a part of it.

Which of these statements is non-Catholic?

Please note that the grannymh post 464, was edited.

It currently reads:
“For information about Pelagianism, (referred to above) which obviously I wound not accept because I do study Catholicism from its particular position, I suggest studying the Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition, paragraph 406 in conjunction with reading all paragraphs from 355 through 421.”

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Classifying humans as an animal is not an error.

I agree with you. You are correct. The BioProject database replaced the existing Genome Project in 2011. You can see the names of the taxonomic groups shown in the online picture from its website: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomeprj

My last message was to Peter John on page 27 (#391). I think kind readers will have to review that for him/her self. Since my vocation is that of a science researcher, it is very difficult to have a full-blown science dialogue with people that don’t have a strong background in science. Thanks kbachler for doing a super job.

It is very disheartening to see bickering going on about science or religion. I recall Benedict XVI mentioning 'that the greatness of reason and the greatness of love go together, indeed, that great love sees more than reason alone."

Peace and joy to those who desire it. Make it happen!

 

[Peter_John]

I am not familiar with the USCCB site.
Cherry picking is a favorite tool.

As well you demonstrate, since the passages to which you refer take on a more complete meaning when in light opf the clear statements in these. I do not dispute what the other passages say. I dispute your interpretation of them without including these passages.

It takes baptism for an individual to become a child of God.

We are a different creature without baptism, and one that does not partake of the divine nature.

Christ taking on humanity makes humanity sacred, not the mere fact we exist.

Adam was created in the image of “the New Adam”, Jesus.

I could go on. What have I specifically stated that contradicts Catholic dogma or doctrine?

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Please return to the topic of discussion or this thread will be closed.

Here is the OP for those who are interested in continuing the discussion:

I’ve been a member of the Christian community on another site for ages now and some of their opinions on science have been increasingly worrying me. They seem to believe science to be this vicious evil and that all science is lies from the Devil, etc. This seems to come from a variety of churches, since there’s no predominant denomination among the community. Without any bias, and with no offence intended to those who do this, I have noticed many of them are home-schooled (how relevant this is is obviously debatable).

Maybe this is just because I’m a scientist by nature but surely teaching children this level of complete enmity and disregard for science is unhealthy and detrimental to them. I’ve heard people talk about how scientists are stupid and it’s all ridiculous. I’m all for teaching children a healthy skepticism and there are aspects of mainstream scientific opinion I am very skeptical about myself but there are also incredibly important teachings that science gives us.

To me it seems wrong for parents or pastors or whoever to be teaching children this but I’m curious to see what other people think.

God bless

Rachel

 

[grannymh]

As well you demonstrate, since the passages to which you refer take on a more complete meaning when in light opf the clear statements in these. I do not dispute what the other passages say. I dispute your interpretation of them without including these passages.

It takes baptism for an individual to become a child of God.

We are a different creature without baptism, and one that does not partake of the divine nature.

Christ taking on humanity makes humanity sacred, not the mere fact we exist.

Adam was created in the image of “the New Adam”, Jesus.

I could go on. What have I specifically stated that contradicts Catholic dogma or doctrine?

Common sense woud offer that the best way to discuss specific Catholic teachings would be to post them in their own thread. As we use to say, many decades ago,
run your opinions up a flag pole and see who salutes.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55

 

[buffalo]

I agree with you. You are correct. The BioProject database replaced the existing Genome Project in 2011. You can see the names of the taxonomic groups shown in the online picture from its website: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomeprj

My last message was to Peter John on page 27 (#391). I think kind readers will have to review that for him/her self. Since my vocation is that of a science researcher, it is very difficult to have a full-blown science dialogue with people that don’t have a strong background in science. Thanks kbachler for doing a super job.

It is very disheartening to see bickering going on about science or religion. I recall Benedict XVI mentioning 'that the greatness of reason and the greatness of love go together, indeed, that great love sees more than reason alone."

Peace and joy to those who desire it. Make it happen!

Bickering. Science must be correctly reasoned or it is not helpful to anyone. Agree or disagree? Are you of the position that science cannot be questioned?

When they start analyzing the DNA language and it’s form and function in each of these, do you think it will be the same?

 

[edwest2]

No strawman at all. Many people in this thread dance around scientific knowledge. They do so by confusing actual scientific knowledge with personal belief; they confuse testable theories with opinion. I insist on definition #1 because in a thread about science, one used the scientific definition - as to do otherwise is to DANCE AROUND SCIENCE which is the specific point.

Scientific knowledge is required in today’s world to develop a relationship with one’s fellow man (or woman.) Scientific knowledge is required in today’s world to deal with complex issues that face us all and that we all share a responsibility in addressing. Scientific knowledge is required in today’s world to deal with those who aren’t being truthful. Scientific knowledge is required in today’s world to help share our faith because of the scientific questions and issues that arise.

Jesus told us that one of the two most important commandments was to love God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind. If we can love Him, without understanding the reality of His creation, without understanding ourselves, without understanding the world around us, and honestly say that that is with all our mind, then perhaps I could believe you. BUT, if even an inkling of scientific knowledge among one believer helps to lead even one soul to Christ, and if we don’t have that knowledge, then how can we say that we have loved Him with all our mind.

So, frankly, it may be that you don’t need scientific knowledge to have a relationship with God, but many of the posters here claim to already have that. So then, what is a logical next step?

People here claim that relationship already, and so now they are in the position of the Pharisees who did not believe the blind man: John 9:40: 40 Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, “We are not blind too, are we?” 41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.

When they say they have a relationship already, and when they know a commandment to love God with all their mind, and when let their inability to speak intelligently about scientific matters drive non-believers even further away from the faith because instead of embracing the truth about God’s world they embrace ID, or Velikovsky or whatever the latest fad is to “prove God” then yes, their sin remains.

Scientific knowledge to share our faith? Where?

“Do you know that Jesus Christ died for you because He loves you?” And the scientific part is what? No science there.

Sorry, this is the old “if you don’t embrace science, as commonly understood, then you are spreading falsehoods, and God doesn’t like that.”

It is very clear now that your approach is to staple a science textbook to everyone’s Bible. Because without science, people will be driven away from the faith? Please.

And then we tell them about the Eucharist, and no science book is going to have the necessary description of what that is. Jesus told His disciples to preach the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Nothing about science.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Please return to the topic of discussion or this thread will be closed. This is not a thread about Catholic dogma.

Here is the OP for those who are interested in continuing the discussion:

Quote:
I’ve been a member of the Christian community on another site for ages now and some of their opinions on science have been increasingly worrying me. They seem to believe science to be this vicious evil and that all science is lies from the Devil, etc. This seems to come from a variety of churches, since there’s no predominant denomination among the community. Without any bias, and with no offence intended to those who do this, I have noticed many of them are home-schooled (how relevant this is is obviously debatable).

Maybe this is just because I’m a scientist by nature but surely teaching children this level of complete enmity and disregard for science is unhealthy and detrimental to them. I’ve heard people talk about how scientists are stupid and it’s all ridiculous. I’m all for teaching children a healthy skepticism and there are aspects of mainstream scientific opinion I am very skeptical about myself but there are also incredibly important teachings that science gives us.

To me it seems wrong for parents or pastors or whoever to be teaching children this but I’m curious to see what other people think.

God bless

Rachel

Thank you.
My apology for wandering.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Bickering. Science must be correctly reasoned or it is not helpful to anyone. Agree or disagree? Are you of the position that science cannot be questioned?

When they start analyzing the DNA language and it’s form and function in each of these, do you think it will be the same?

I am definitely pro SCIENCE! Skim through my previous messages and you’ll find answers to your questions. Buffalo, “Intelligent design” creationism is not supported by scientific evidence. You can read all about it from The National Academy of Sciences, which is The Advisors to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine: nationalacademies.org/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html

Here’s another great article to read too from the Christian Monitor. The title of the article is
For Templeton Prize, intelligent design opponent Francisco Ayala csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0325/For-Templeton-Prize-intelligent-design-opponent-Francisco-Ayala It does state at the end of the article, “Ayala says he will donate the $1.42 million prize to charity.” He’s a Catholic.

 

[buffalo]

I am definitely pro SCIENCE! Skim through my previous messages and you’ll find answers to your questions. Buffalo, “Intelligent design” creationism is not supported by scientific evidence. You can read all about it from The National Academy of Sciences, which is The Advisors to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine: nationalacademies.org/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html

Here’s another great article to read too from the Christian Monitor. The title of the article is
For Templeton Prize, intelligent design opponent Francisco Ayala csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0325/For-Templeton-Prize-intelligent-design-opponent-Francisco-Ayala It does state at the end of the article, “Ayala says he will donate the $1.42 million prize to charity.” He’s a Catholic.

And I will give you this one:

Michael Behe Hasn’t Been Refuted on the Flagellum

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Buffalo, I’m not a proponent of the Intelligent Design movement. The website you directed me to is that of Intelligent Design proponents. I’d like to refer readers over to Nick Matzke at Pandors Thumb who has already rebuked Behe: pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/07/current-biology.html#more

The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University has made this statement regarding Michael Behe:

** Department Position on Evolution and “Intelligent Design” **

*The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific. *
lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm

I agree with the OP the ‘disregard for science is unhealthy and detrimental…’