Churches rejecting science altogether

[JDaniel]

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

RF:

He/She has a point. You are a pretty literate bloke. If you will look up the histoire of the Inquisition, you might get a surprise. A good place to start (since we’re on this bent) is: Vox Day’s, The Irrational Atheist, Ch. XII, Hitler, The Inquisition, The Crusades, and Human Sacrifice, pg. 214 ff.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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

RF:

But, we’ll have to admit that it is a much more strenuous effort these days.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Luke:

No one restricts scientists to that extent but perhaps we should. Although it isn’t science, so much, that is the problem, rather it is the scientistic worldview that somehow believes that if that we have understood what something is once we have come to understand how it has come about. Thus, for example, we know what knowledge or pain is, if we have understood their biological functions and thus the advantages they present in evolutionary selection and if we know the physiological processes in the brain that form the infrastructure of these phenomena.

“Science is the inquiry into conditions. It does not ask what something is, but rather what the conditions are under which it comes about. And it asks this because our knowledge of these conditions empowers us even to intervene in the course of things. This type of science is determined by the will to mastery over nature.” - Lecture: Rationality and Faith in God, Robert Spaemann, delivered Dec. 6, 2004 at the Hochschule für Philosophie in Munich.

God bless,
jd

 

[donsnow]

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

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.

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!)

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!

Hi, kbachlr,

Well, I’m certainly no authority on what is a science issue.
And, I haven’t heard any radio, seen any TV or come across any internet or Church authorities announcing that you are the authority on what is not a science issue.

So, you are entitled to your interpretation of the facts to say some things are not science issues and I am entitled to my interpretation of the facts to regard those things as science issues.

In my education and personal life, I am not a science major. I do like some of the fruits of science. I am not science orientated nor do I have to adopt a science orientation to please anybody. It would be neat if the people who “defend” [aka push] science would realize that there isn’t anybody who has to see things from a scientific viewpoint. That is always optional, not mandatory, to each individual.
So, in closing, my feeling good does not depend on any understanding about science.

God loves you,
Don

 

[Ranklyfrank]

RF:

But, we’ll have to admit that it is a much more strenuous effort these days.

God bless,
jd

Do you think human nature has changed that much? I think we have more toys to do that with, but as for motives, what might have changed is the onset of industrial ontology and its twin, the back to Nature/nature, both of which have collapsed creation to the flatness of surfaces, that since the useful but inherently problematic Enlightenment. Religion as publicly know it is insufficient a remedy for that, as it has it’s own similar problems unconsciously developed over a longer period and influenced as well by the industrial paradigm as much as it might speak against it s evils.

 

[edwest2]

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.

Society is already experiencing the results of science based decisions. In some cases, to our peril.

Scientific literacy is not as important as some here make it out to be. Science is controlled by powerful private interests, large corporations and the military.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Society is already experiencing the results of science based decisions. In some cases, to our peril.

Scientific literacy is not as important as some here make it out to be. Science is controlled by powerful private interests, large corporations and the military.

Yes, as Eisenhower warned us. But those are more greed and fear based decisions, as is the new American plutocracy, are they not?

 

[grannymh]

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.

Check out Father Spitzer.

magisreasonfaith.org/

magisreasonfaith.org/library/

 

[kbachler]

Society is already experiencing the results of science based decisions. In some cases, to our peril.

Scientific literacy is not as important as some here make it out to be. Science is controlled by powerful private interests, large corporations and the military.

Peace,
Ed

Let’s consider a few major issues:

Pollution
Energy
Food production
Disease
Pest control
Distribution/Travel mechanisms (new trains, places, etc.)
Communication
Global warming/climate change

Ed, which of the above issues doesn’t require at least some knowledge of science in order to be able to intelligently discuss them?

More than at any other time, an understanding of science is critical in a democracy. How can you vote on something you can’t understand?

Again, you’ve got “THEM” complex. Stop looking to blame everyone else. Start taking some responsibility yourself.

 

[kbachler]

Hi, kbachlr,

Well, I’m certainly no authority on what is a science issue.
And, I haven’t heard any radio, seen any TV or come across any internet or Church authorities announcing that you are the authority on what is not a science issue.

So, you are entitled to your interpretation of the facts to say some things are not science issues and I am entitled to my interpretation of the facts to regard those things as science issues.

In my education and personal life, I am not a science major. I do like some of the fruits of science. I am not science orientated nor do I have to adopt a science orientation to please anybody. It would be neat if the people who “defend” [aka push] science would realize that there isn’t anybody who has to see things from a scientific viewpoint. That is always optional, not mandatory, to each individual.
So, in closing, my feeling good does not depend on any understanding about science.

God loves you,
Don

My degrees are in Natural Science and Mathematics. I work in business finance.

If you consider many of the major issues facing democracies today, a significant amount of them require some understanding of science and how it works to be able to consider the issues reasonably. So yes, as an obligation to a democracy, EVERY CITIZEN needs to “adopt” some science orientation. It’s optional ONLY IF someone is choosing to be an irresponsible citizen - which they have a right to do.

So in closing, your “feeling good”, along with your responsibilities to your neighbors, DOES depend on you having some understanding of science.

BTW, although mathematics and science are my background, I read and teach philosophy, I got my undergrad from a liberal arts college, and am very supportive of the arts - my son is in music for example. I have a responsibility to those things, just as other citizens have a responsibility to science.

 

[kbachler]

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

No, because some such crossings are driven by reality.

For example, arriving at an understanding of quantum mechanics forced scientists to change what it means “to know”. They didn’t just “cross” the line into philosophy. They learned that trying to interpret reality and derive meaning through our current philosophy was impossible, such that the basic philosophy needed to change.

 

[kbachler]

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

Most scientists have at least some training in philosophy, at the minimum mathematical philosophy. Depending on the area, some may get ethics, so metaphysics, etc.

 

[kbachler]

What I like in this thread is when people say science is terrible, and then they quote a scientist to prove it!!

 

[edwest2]

Let’s consider a few major issues:

Pollution
Energy
Food production
Disease
Pest control
Distribution/Travel mechanisms (new trains, places, etc.)
Communication
Global warming/climate change

Ed, which of the above issues doesn’t require at least some knowledge of science in order to be able to intelligently discuss them?

More than at any other time, an understanding of science is critical in a democracy. How can you vote on something you can’t understand?

Again, you’ve got “THEM” complex. Stop looking to blame everyone else. Start taking some responsibility yourself.

Sad that you wish to shunt the issue away. I do vote and I do study the issues. Scientific facts are manipulated all of the time, or only part of the story is told. Abortion is a good example. Outright lies were told by experts or those designated as such to convince women to kill their own children. Scientifically, it is easy to show a human embryo is a human being. Genetic tests are being devised for human embryos. Why? If they are not human then why bother? Surgery can be done to the human in the womb. These facts are downplayed to insure people do not understand.

I understand the difference between a human embryo and a “blob of tissue.” That is my point.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JDaniel]

Do you think human nature has changed that much? I think we have more toys to do that with, but as for motives, what might have changed is the onset of industrial ontology and its twin, the back to Nature/nature, both of which have collapsed creation to the flatness of surfaces, that since the useful but inherently problematic Enlightenment. Religion as publicly know it is insufficient a remedy for that, as it has it’s own similar problems unconsciously developed over a longer period and influenced as well by the industrial paradigm as much as it might speak against it s evils.

RF:

More than likely, no. But, the peer and non-peer almost instantaneous review will bring it to public attention far faster and far more devastatingly these days. Take for example, the fellow who posited some life-form skeletons in some meteoritic rocks just the other day.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Sad that you wish to shunt the issue away. I do vote and I do study the issues. Scientific facts are manipulated all of the time, or only part of the story is told. Abortion is a good example. Outright lies were told by experts or those designated as such to convince women to kill their own children. Scientifically, it is easy to show a human embryo is a human being. Genetic tests are being devised for human embryos. Why? If they are not human then why bother? Surgery can be done to the human in the womb. These facts are downplayed to insure people do not understand.

I understand the difference between a human embryo and a “blob of tissue.” That is my point.

Peace,
Ed

Ed:

However, there are scientists that will use whatever means available to thwart your ability to get that out. Take, for example, ESCR, when have we heard that there has yet to be a “win” from the use of embryonic stem cells? That notion has been purposely relegated to the dark recesses of some warehouse where artifacts are stored.

So, perhaps it is the too close affinity of mankind to science that is responsible for the most heinous crimes in civilization.

God bless,
jd

 

[edwest2]

Ed:

However, there are scientists that will use whatever means available to thwart your ability to get that out. Take, for example, ESCR, when have we heard that there has yet to be a “win” from the use of embryonic stem cells? That notion has been purposely relegated to the dark recesses of some warehouse where artifacts are stored.

So, perhaps it is the too close affinity of mankind to science that is responsible for the most heinous crimes in civilization.

God bless,
jd

Not long ago, in Africa, one tribe attacked another using primitive weapons. Many died. Science is only a method of study, followed by application. Only men are responsible in the end.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Craig Venter denies Tree of Life.

Watch the what is life panel. Other very interesting stuff here.

Richard Dawkins, J Craig Venter, Sydney Altman, Lee Hartwell, Paul Davies, Chris McKay, Lawrence Krauss, Roger Bingham

---

**Venter vs. Dawkins on the Tree of Life – and Another Dawkins Whopper
**

“The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren’t really holding up…So there is not a tree of life.”
Dawkins is Flabbergasted
Fast forward to 11:23, when moderator Roger Bingham turns the microphone over to Dawkins:
“I’m intrigued,” replies Dawkins, “at Craig saying that the tree of life is a fiction. I mean…the DNA code of all creatures that have ever been looked at is all but identical.”
WHOPPER. Venter just told the forum that Mycoplasma read their DNA using a different coding convention than other organisms (for “stop” and tryptophan). But Dawkins is undaunted:
“Surely that means,” he asks Venter, “that they’re all related? Doesn’t it?”
As nearly as we can tell from the video, Venter only smiles.

---

More support for IDvolution.

 

[ChinoCoug]

Hi, kbachlr,

Well, I’m certainly no authority on what is a science issue.
And, I haven’t heard any radio, seen any TV or come across any internet or Church authorities announcing that you are the authority on what is not a science issue.

So, you are entitled to your interpretation of the facts to say some things are not science issues and I am entitled to my interpretation of the facts to regard those things as science issues.

In my education and personal life, I am not a science major. I do like some of the fruits of science. I am not science orientated nor do I have to adopt a science orientation to please anybody. It would be neat if the people who “defend” [aka push] science would realize that there isn’t anybody who has to see things from a scientific viewpoint. That is always optional, not mandatory, to each individual.
So, in closing, my feeling good does not depend on any understanding about science.

God loves you,
Don

I think science has a special place among human knowledge because it’s the area of human knowledge with the greatest amount of certainty (outside revelation, of course).

I swtiched from an international relations major to economics to move up the chain of epistemological certainty. Now I’m not satisfied with economics so I want to move into neuroscience.

 

[PerfectTiming]

I think science has a special place among human knowledge because it’s the area of human knowledge with the greatest amount of certainty (outside revelation, of course).

Actually even science is filled with uncertainty. The nature of the scientific method means that theories can be proved incorrect but cannot be proved correct, you can only provide evidence supporting it. And experimental evidence always has a degree of error, sometimes a very significant one. That’s not to say science is not valuable, but it is not infallible. The discipline with the greatest degree of certainty is mathematics, because in mathematics you can simply prove something correct or incorrect.