Churches rejecting science altogether

[abucs]

I’ve found that Christians who deny science are ignorant of science. I also find that atheists who support science for their cause are ignorant of science… I find no conflict [between religion and science].

Faulty human reasoning of scientific findings is the issue. Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe and is provisional. Much of today’s science pronouncements are philosophical. This is the area where there is contention, rightly so.

I would agree with both of these statements. As someone with a science degree and recently a Masters in Teaching i am looking forward to starting a new career in teaching children science at Catholic schools. I think any student coming out of Catholic schools should be able to wipe the floor with any atheist regarding science.

Perhaps the reason why some Christians are reluctant to get involved with science has been the successful but misleading media campaign which associates atheism with science. I have to say that this misconception and flat out lie was a big reason in my deciding to change careers. I hope i am one of many who decide the same thing.

In this way perhaps we should be thankful for the media which largely portrays religion as unscientific as our ‘next generations’ always seem to be enthused by discovering truthful causes that have been maligned by society.

 

[kbachler]

Here are some of the problems with science today:

1. Everyone reading this began life as a human embryo. Observable? Yes. This life can be aborted on demand.

But this is not a science issue. Why do you see it as such? A legal/social issue, maybe.

1. Animal behavior is being used to justify some human behavior. Do animals have human cognition? No.

While animals do not have human cognition, we are learning that animals in many cases have greater cognition than we previously believed. We are also learning that there are true, physiological (animal) reasons for some of the ways we act. This doesn’t EXCUSE or CONDONE such behavior. It does EDUCATE us about the behavior.

Again, that is not a science issue.

I think you are confusing “science” with a lot of other things.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

But this is not a science issue. Why do you see it as such? A legal/social issue, maybe.

1. Animal behavior is being used to justify some human behavior. Do animals have human cognition? No.

While animals do not have human cognition, we are learning that animals in many cases have greater cognition than we previously believed. We are also learning that there are true, physiological (animal) reasons for some of the ways we act. This doesn’t EXCUSE or CONDONE such behavior. It does EDUCATE us about the behavior.

Again, that is not a science issue.

I think you are confusing “science” with a lot of other things.

Peace,
Ed

---

I am definitely not confusing science with anything else.

Abortion is not a social issue, it is a life and death issue. One way to convince women to abort their child is to comvince them “it’s just a blob of tissue.” I suggest you read the following:

aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

Gay behavior is argued as being something animals do. Human beings are considered to be just another animal.

Look up some recent court cases. Science, sometimes grossly misused, justifies otherwise obviously wrong things.

Peace,
Ed

 

[kbachler]

I am definitely not confusing science with anything else.

The more I read from you, the more I disagree with the above.

Abortion is not a social issue, it is a life and death issue.

The decision of whether or not to allow abortions in our society is a social/legal issue.

One way to convince women to abort their child is to comvince them “it’s just a blob of tissue.”

And at some point, that’s true, and at some point its less true. For example, the first day, there’s no systems of kind. That’s scientific fact. That’s reality.

But that’s not the point. Aborting those cells doesn’t make it right or wrong. THAT is NOT a science issue.

The issue is whether it is morally right to terminate the existence of a potential human being, and if so, within what limits? Viability of the cells isn’t the issue, and that’s a bad part of the argument, because the issue was never about viability.

I believe that the answer is that within a very short period of time after conception, forced termination is morally wrong. Once you clearly have independent human systems developing, its an issue.

Prior to that, which is not that long, I think we should treat the fetus respectfully, giving it the benefit of the doubt.

I suggest you read the following:

aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

Read it, and don’t see how its relevant to the argument you are trying to make. First, the particular piece doesn’t actually offer any scientific evidence.

But ignoring that, the author actually says that scientific evidence is being ignored by by doctors (and other groups.) That scientific evidence is being ignored IS NOT THE FAULT OF SCIENCE. It’s the fault of the ones doing the ignoring. Science here is your potential helper, and yet you are denigrating it.

Gay behavior is argued as being something animals do. Human beings are considered to be just another animal.

Animals also masturbate, eat their young, cannabalize, etc. This is not a science issue. It’s a MORAL issue.

Look up some recent court cases. Science, sometimes grossly misused, justifies otherwise obviously wrong things.

If science is being misused, its not science’s fault.

Science gives us tools, power (energy), medicines, knowledge about the real world. So far, I haven’t seen science as being the culprit in any number of issues that you raised.

You seem to have “them” syndrome. You’ve picked someone to be the bad guy, and named them science.

 

[edwest2]

Today, Christians and non-Christians are being lied to. Science is being used to modify reality. Just as it was used to modify reality about The Pill - to convince women to use it.

Please don’t use the science is neutral argument. Just like the Supreme Court used scientific arguments to allow the forcible sterilization of some Americans when eugenics was all the rage.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Today, Christians and non-Christians are being lied to. Science is being used to modify reality. Just as it was used to modify reality about The Pill - to convince women to use it.

Please don’t use the science is neutral argument. Just like the Supreme Court used scientific arguments to allow the forcible sterilization of some Americans when eugenics was all the rage.

Today, Christians and non-Christians are being lied to. The Church is being used to modify reality. Just as it was used to modify history to convince men to use it.

Please don’t use the Church is good argument. Just like the Church used religious arguments to allow the forcible maimings and tortures and deaths when the Inquisition was all the rage.

Just sayin’…Someone could easily com back with that. Have you read what Eusebius said about his Church history? It wasn’t uncommon.

 

[davidv]

Today, Christians and non-Christians are being lied to. The Church is being used to modify reality. Just as it was used to modify history to convince men to use it.

Please don’t use the Church is good argument. Just like the Church used religious arguments to allow the forcible maimings and tortures and deaths when the Inquisition was all the rage.

Just sayin’…Someone could easily com back with that. Have you read what Eusebius said about his Church history? It wasn’t uncommon.

Highlighted above grossly untrue and a red herring with regard to the tread topic.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Highlighted above grossly untrue and a red herring with regard to the tread topic.

Actually just cautionary a mirroring of EdWest2’s statement. Have you read an unbowdlerized history of the early Church, or Eusebius statement as to how he selected and presented his “facts?” Or about literary ethics of that time? Just asking… I don’t care if you have or not, but it sure makes some interesting reading. And please, that’s not an attack on your faith or your Church, just a suggested history lesson. Accuracy bears its own authority, yes?

 

[donsnow]

But this is not a science issue. Why do you see it as such? A legal/social issue, maybe.

1. Animal behavior is being used to justify some human behavior. Do animals have human cognition? No.

While animals do not have human cognition, we are learning that animals in many cases have greater cognition than we previously believed. We are also learning that there are true, physiological (animal) reasons for some of the ways we act. This doesn’t EXCUSE or CONDONE such behavior. It does EDUCATE us about the behavior.

Again, that is not a science issue.

I think you are confusing “science” with a lot of other things.

Peace,
Ed

Hi, kbachlr,

Well, as long as the medical arts are called medical science, then the abuse of the emergency medical procedure of abortion has become a science issue.

Also, as long as biology is called science and biologists study animal behavior, then, this is a science issue.

Science remains an organized study of the natural world and the beings in it. It may not be science’s fault that lay people pull it into this field or that, but once people tug science into an issue, that issue becomes a science site. Good or bad.
That’s what science gets for vaunting itself ever since the 1950’s on TV and in different media.

God loves you,
Don

 

[kbachler]

Hi, kbachlr,

Well, as long as the medical arts are called medical science, then the abuse of the emergency medical procedure of abortion has become a science issue.

Sorry, different “science”. You’re equivocating on that one.

Also, as long as biology is called science and biologists study animal behavior, then, this is a science issue.

Sorry, deciding what to do with what they learn, IS NOT a science issue.

You even quoted a doctor, whose perspective you seemed to like, and the doctor said it wasn’t a science issue.

Science remains an organized study of the natural world and the beings in it. It may not be science’s fault that lay people pull it into this field or that, but once people tug science into an issue, that issue becomes a science site. Good or bad.

No, it doesn’t, because science by definition is not concerned with that. YOU may WANT it to be a science issue, but it isn’t. Science may have some responsibility to correct incorrect scientific information in society, but that’s about it.

Scientists, in their roles as people, may have various personal concerns, but that IS NOT a scientific concern.

Science led to discoveries about magnetism and electricity. Is it a science issue if YOU PERSONALLY use too much electricity?? (NOPE!)

That’s what science gets for vaunting itself ever since the 1950’s on TV and in different media.
God loves you,
Don

Sorry, making scientific information available to the public doesn’t change the purpose of science.

Don, you have a choice on this one. You can continue to complain about “them” (and the wrong “them” at that) or you can choose to get a better understanding and perhaps both accomplish something AND feel better.

Good luck!

 

[kbachler]

Today, Christians and non-Christians are being lied to. Science is being used to modify reality. Just as it was used to modify reality about The Pill - to convince women to use it.

Please don’t use the science is neutral argument. Just like the Supreme Court used scientific arguments to allow the forcible sterilization of some Americans when eugenics was all the rage.

Peace,
Ed

Science does not modify reality.

 

[edwest2]

Science is used by people and can be corrupted:

progressivereform.org/BendingScienceBook.cfm

Peace,
Ed

 

[abucs]

Just like the Church used religious arguments to allow the forcible maimings and tortures and deaths when the Inquisition was all the rage.

Factually misleading statement.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Science is used by people and can be corrupted:

progressivereform.org/BendingScienceBook.cfm

Peace,
Ed

Discouraging people from obtaining scientific literacy is hardly going to fix that problem. In fact, I believe that the problem of science abuse can only be addressed in a society where the power of science is actually appreciated. When people treat science as elitist or political they cheapen its results and society is unable to reap the rewards of science-based decisions.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Factually misleading statement.

How? The Inquisition wasn’t conducted by Catholics? Even against St. Teresa? Please explain.

 

[tonyrey]

It is absurd to regard science as intrinsically hostile to religion because it is restricted to the explanation of physical events. It is only when scientists exceed their brief and pontificate about **the nature of reality **and make out that human beings are merely naked apes that they become - like Richard Dawkins - presumptuous, fanatical and a menace to society.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Science is used by people and can be corrupted:

Religion is used by people and can be corrupted: cf histories of any religion.

 

[buffalo]

It is absurd to regard science as intrinsically hostile to religion because it is restricted to the explanation of physical events. It is only when scientists exceed their brief and pontificate about **the nature of reality **and make out that human beings are merely naked apes that they become - like Richard Dawkins - presumptuous, fanatical and a menace to society.

Yes - when they make pronouncements that have crossed the line into philosophy.

 

[Luke_K]

It is absurd to regard science as intrinsically hostile to religion because it is restricted to the explanation of physical events. It is only when scientists exceed their brief and pontificate about **the nature of reality **and make out that human beings are merely naked apes that they become - like Richard Dawkins - presumptuous, fanatical and a menace to society.

Buffalo:

Yes - when they make pronouncements that have crossed the line into philosophy.

So only non-scientists are allowed to speculate about philosophy/the nature of reality? I would think that a person who is the most familiar with a field of natural study would be the more qualified to discuss the philosophical ramifications of it.

But I am a Catholic, so I also recognize that the Church has the final say on the matter.

 

[buffalo]

So only non-scientists are allowed to speculate about philosophy/the nature of reality? I would think that a person who is the most familiar with a field of natural study would be the more qualified to discuss the philosophical ramifications of it.

But I am a Catholic, so I also recognize that the Church has the final say on the matter.

1. Scientists can make philosophical pronouncements, but they should be labeled as such.
2. They should have training in philosophy.