Churches rejecting science altogether

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

**The reason being that science is amoral and is can therefore be used for immoral purposes… **

Science is hopelessly inadequate at even addressing moral questions. But that doesn’t stop certain scientists from pretending they can. That is why psychology and sociology as social sciences have become so suspect. They want their high priests to decide great questions of morality. Freud was the first high priest to declare homosexuality was not a moral nor even a psychological disorder.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

**The reason being that science is amoral and is can therefore be used for immoral purposes… **

Science is hopelessly inadequate at even addressing moral questions. But that doesn’t stop certain scientists from pretending they can. That is why psychology and sociology as social sciences have become so suspect. They want their high priests to decide great questions of morality. Freud was the first high priest to declare homosexuality was not a moral nor even a psychological disorder.

On the other hand - returning to the topic - there have been psychologists like Erich Fromm and Carl Jung who have made valuable contributions to our understanding of human nature!

 

[donsnow]

I agree.
Some scientific disciplines need to remember their place.

Thank you, Perfect Timing,

My sentiments exactly.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

The reason being that science is amoral and is can therefore be used for immoral purposes…

Hi, tonyrey,

I agree. Science, like any other tool, takes on the character of whichever person picks it up.

God loves you,
Don

 

[tonyrey]

Hi, tonyrey,

I agree. Science, like any other tool, takes on the character of whichever person picks it up.

God loves you,
Don

Thanks, Don! It’s good to know you’re still participating.

 

[PerfectTiming]

Science is hopelessly inadequate at even addressing moral questions. But that doesn’t stop certain scientists from pretending they can. That is why psychology and sociology as social sciences have become so suspect. They want their high priests to decide great questions of morality. Freud was the first high priest to declare homosexuality was not a moral nor even a psychological disorder.

Most of Freud’s ideas have been discredited over and over again and aren’t even taught as part of psychology degrees anymore.
Psychology as a science has nothing to do with morality and nothing about it tries to decide morality either. Psychology uses scientific methods to study humans and their behaviour and tries to understand why we behave the ways we do. As tonyrey pointed out, psychology has given incredible contributions to our understanding of the human nature and behaviour. Some psychologists may try to, as you put it, be “high priets” of morality but they are very much few and far between.
And sociology is hardly a science, though as a psychologist I may be biased.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Science requires math.

And people who run churches generally are defensive about their math skills.

So, they avoid math and prefer to instead discuss glittering global generalities.

 

[donsnow]

Science requires math.

And people who run churches generally are defensive about their math skills.

So, they avoid math and prefer to instead discuss glittering global generalities.

Gee, Monte,

I think your statement leaves a lot out of running a church. Church isn’t science, so the only math needed is in doing the budget. For that, we hire accountants.

Science and math are not authorities of themselves. Church is the moral authority and the proper moral authority, science and math aren’t.

I try to give each establishment (Church, government, military, science, arts, etc) it’s righteous due.
Science has given us as many headaches as it has given us blessings. Because, technology and all the other benefits of science are mixed blessings, since science doesn’t always pay attention to the moral and ethical consequences of its advances.

God loves you,
Don

 

[Carmel_B]

From The Christian World View of Psychology and Counseling.

1. Scientific Method

We affirm that the scientific method is useful in carrying out the creation mandate of Genesis 1:28 to subdue and have dominion over creation when the investigators have Biblical presuppositions and when the Bible does not directly give us the answers we seek; that the use of the scientific method is entirely controlled by the presuppositions of the investigators and therefore the results are a pronouncement of faith rather than of scientific fact; and that the faith nature of the results of scientific investigation is evidenced by the investigators’ proselytizing intent, that is, their attempt to transform man into their idea of what man should be. We deny that the scientific method can ever be applied in psychology without its being thoroughly determined by the presuppositions of the investigators.

It is simple when scientific results affirm Church teaching they are valid although redundant and when they contradict it they are by definition mistaken and likely the product of demonic interference. In areas where the Church has not spoken then Scientists are allowed to investigate but the Church is always the final arbiter.

 

[RobbyS]

From The Christian World View of Psychology and Counseling.

It is simple when scientific results affirm Church teaching they are valid although redundant and when they contradict it they are by definition mistaken and likely the product of demonic interference. In areas where the Church has not spoken then Scientists are allowed to investigate but the Church is always the final arbiter.

Well, psychology is not a science per se.

 

[excubitor]

I reject all Science which is anti-God, anti-Scripture and anti-Church. Which is a great deal of it, particular in the fields of archaeology, biology, cosmology, geology, astronomy,

I also reject all of those fields of Science which have become so hopelessly corrupted by greed and money that they have become harmful to society and are no longer a benefit as they once were.

 

[donsnow]

Hi, excubitor,

I try not to reject the knowledge in any field of science, but to brush aside the militant atheists and skeptics who ruin it by their anti-God and/or anti-Church and/or anti-Catholic attitudes.

God loves you,
Don

 

[copperblade]

I recently read an article I thought some of the people here might be interested in regarding the subject of science and religion:

slate.com/id/2114733/

I think it definitely shows that there are some pretty sharp scientific minds in the Church actually thinking and working out these issues.

 

[donsnow]

I recently read an article I thought some of the people here might be interested in regarding the subject of science and religion:

slate.com/id/2114733/

I think it definitely shows that there are some pretty sharp scientific minds in the Church actually thinking and working out these issues.

Thanks, copperblade,

That’s quite an article and shows that the Catholic Church does not reject science.

From reading the article, I would say that each viewpoint, Catholic and Jewish, has merit. I have as an adult, felt that reason serves best as the handmaid to faith, not vice versa.

God loves you,
Don

 

[razredge]

I reject all Science which is anti-God, anti-Scripture and anti-Church. Which is a great deal of it, particular in the fields of archaeology, biology, cosmology, geology, astronomy,
.

Oh yes, don’t you know all science comes from Satan!

And you left out physics, medicine & history from your list - if I were you I’d also stop using your computer to make these posts - it was probably built using Satanic knowledge and might leave you open to demonic possession.

Oh and the next time you fall sick, definitely don’t go see a doctor or use modern medicine - just pray a Rosary or find a charasmatic healer - after all who needs ****** science when you have God on your side.

EDIT: And why does this forum censor the word c-r-a-p-p-y?

 

[Peter_John]

I reject all Science which is anti-God, anti-Scripture and anti-Church. Which is a great deal of it, particular in the fields of archaeology, biology, cosmology, geology, astronomy,

I also reject all of those fields of Science which have become so hopelessly corrupted by greed and money that they have become harmful to society and are no longer a benefit as they once were.

Setting aside cosmology as an amalgem of perceptions of various sciences, how can archaeology, biology, geology, and astronomy be anti-God, andti-Scripture, or anti-Church? if science seems anti-God, perhaps we do not correctly understand God. If science seems anti-Scripture, perhaps we do not correctly understand Scripture. If science seems anti-Church, perhaps we do not correctly understand the Church.

 

[donsnow]

Setting aside cosmology as an amalgem of perceptions of various sciences, how can archaeology, biology, geology, and astronomy be anti-God, andti-Scripture, or anti-Church? if science seems anti-God, perhaps we do not correctly understand God. If science seems anti-Scripture, perhaps we do not correctly understand Scripture. If science seems anti-Church, perhaps we do not correctly understand the Church.

Hi, Peter John,

There’s a lot of atheists and skeptics who give science a bad name with some Church people.

So, there’s as much fault with some science types as with some Church types. It takes two sides to make a quarrel.

God loves you,
Don

 

[kbachler]

Most of Freud’s ideas have been discredited over and over again and aren’t even taught as part of psychology degrees anymore.
Psychology as a science has nothing to do with morality and nothing about it tries to decide morality either. Psychology uses scientific methods to study humans and their behaviour and tries to understand why we behave the ways we do. As tonyrey pointed out, psychology has given incredible contributions to our understanding of the human nature and behaviour. Some psychologists may try to, as you put it, be “high priets” of morality but they are very much few and far between.
And sociology is hardly a science, though as a psychologist I may be biased.

The statement about Freud is a bit of overkill since many of Freud’s statements were related to the time period and society in which those ideas were developed and tested. Modern psychology has built a broader base because society and its issues have evolved (even though in some ways the issues remain the same.) Certainly the concept and practice of psychoanalysis is still very important.

One could equally argue that Copernicus, Galileo or Newton were outmoded (Newton’s calculus was outmoded before he ever announced it because Liebniz’s notation was better.) Yet we still value and teach the underlying concepts.

 

[kbachler]

Gee, Monte,

I think your statement leaves a lot out of running a church. Church isn’t science, so the only math needed is in doing the budget. For that, we hire accountants.

Science and math are not authorities of themselves. Church is the moral authority and the proper moral authority, science and math aren’t.

I try to give each establishment (Church, government, military, science, arts, etc) it’s righteous due.
Science has given us as many headaches as it has given us blessings. Because, technology and all the other benefits of science are mixed blessings, since science doesn’t always pay attention to the moral and ethical consequences of its advances.

God loves you,
Don

Don, no subject is an authority because an authority is a person - not an area of study. The argument regarding moral authority is a non sequitur within this context; they do not claim that, that is no reason to reject them.

My sense is that many Christians would better understand God if they understood math at least through calculus. It changes your thinking, and leads to understanding not easily possible without it.

 

[PerfectTiming]

The statement about Freud is a bit of overkill since many of Freud’s statements were related to the time period and society in which those ideas were developed and tested. Modern psychology has built a broader base because society and its issues have evolved (even though in some ways the issues remain the same.) Certainly the concept and practice of psychoanalysis is still very important.

One could equally argue that Copernicus, Galileo or Newton were outmoded (Newton’s calculus was outmoded before he ever announced it because Liebniz’s notation was better.) Yet we still value and teach the underlying concepts.

In relation to his main theories ie. of psychosexual development, I don’t think it’s overkill. They have been discredited, that is fact. His ideas about defense mechanisms, however, have been much more pervasive. Whilst it is arguable that he was limited by his time and society, much of his work fails purely because it doesn’t fit with actual human behaviour. Pavlov was of the same era, yet his work lives on because it has scientific basis which Freud lacks. Freud is not outmoded, just is many cases wrong.

And it is true that Freudian psychology is barely taught anymore. I don’t think his being a great proponent of cocaine helped his cause much either.