Churches rejecting science altogether

  • Thread starter Thread starter PerfectTiming
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
This is a common idea, but God never said to the people that there ‘were those before you. Animals that were not yet physically men, but gradually, over a great period of time, changed, and became men as you are today.’

No need to explain DNA, mutation or the rest.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Nor did He not say it.

God also never explained to the ancient Jews that they were made of subatomic particles. He never explained the theory of light. He never explained the theory of gravity, or of basic classical mechanics. He never even offered base ten arithmetic, and basic algebra.

The counter-argument you offer seems to have no significant standing at all, while the original argument can be applied to a great deal of knowledge that the ancient Jews didn’t have. Thus one argument is consistent across many things, while the other would be inconsistent.

I choose to believe that God is consistent.
 
Filippo_Bruno said:
This is fiction, as any zookeeper or dog owner could tell you.
Click to expand...
Actually, it’s not fiction. The argument isn’t that animals have NO pain, the argument is that humans have increased pain (relative to other animals) due to relative brain size at birth.

In fact it is brain size that causes women to “wiggle their hips”. Women had to evolve wider hips to accommodate larger brains at birth, thus allowing a wider birth canal. This structure is what causes the wiggle when women walk. From an evolutionary perspective, hips cannot get much wider without losing the ability to walk, so there is a limit on this feature accommodating increased brain size.

This is another feature tied to the same issue which is clearly not found in other species.
 
lynnvinc said:
I read something recently about the distinction between “production science” (science used to build up our high technology-based materialist lifestyle) and “impact science” (how that technology is harming life on planet earth), and how many conservatives are really into “production science” but fight tooth and nail against “impact science.”*

I guess there could also be a distinction between “science that doesn’t go against anything in the Bible” (that doesn’t deal with heliocentrism or evolution, etc) and “science that does go against the world view expressed in the Bible.”

I teach mythology, and I praise how the ancients understood the world. Try erasing everything you know, stand outside and do “scientific” observations. The sun comes up in the east & sets in the west; the sun is moving & the earth is still. What else goes across the sky – birds. And the sun brings warmth and heat. The sun is a firebird (Chineese myth). Pretty good.

Now think of the world as another Bible which we can study, just like Biblical scholars study the Bible.

God is Truth, and scientific truths (changeable as they are with better evidence and theories) are to be respected, and the scientists who reveal these truths are to be respected and not harassed and smeared, just because what they have found out is unpopular or unpleasant.

I’m thinking that people who reject science – whether it be climate science or evolution – are committing a sin against God, who created the world and doesn’t wish us to lie.

As an anthropologist who teaches evolution, I used to tell my students that I knew some may be from religions that reject evolution and that they didn’t have to believe in it, only learn it for the test. I would go on to explain that I had never had any problem between science and religion, and that science had even inspired greater religious understanding and appreciation; that there was nothing science could discover that would ever shake my belief in God, but only strengthen it. I tell them how my learning about evolution blew my mind re the greatness of God, beyond imagination.

Now I tell them that I think it may be a sin against God to reject evolution; I do not want to condone something that would be harmful to their souls.

And because human lives are at stake, I think it is a much greater sin to reject climate science & our implication in causing harms and killing people through anthropogenic climate change, and not make efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction of greenhouse gases (tho if a person rejects the science, but nevertheless mitigates it as an act of prudence, that I think would be okay). However, I think it is a really much worse sin when skeptics put forth a lot of effort to dissuade others from accepting climate science and mitigating climate change. Sort of a Cain type of sin. I guess we all bear the mark of Cain.

I’m no saint re truth & also need much reform. I’m even ashamed to write this post, as if I’m somehow a completely truthful person. Please pray for me.
*“Anti-reflexivity : The American Conservative Movement’s Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy,” Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap, Theory, Culture & Society, 2010, Vol. 27(2–3): 100–133
Click to expand...
Why would you be ashamed of writing this post? I loved it 👍

My experience from discussing on this board is that evolution makes people feel that God would then “intervene” too little. People want more “physical” proof of their faith to feel comfortable with it; that is why they reject the scientific truth. As far as physical evidence for the existence of God goes, I am perfectly content with the cosmological fine-tuning argument with respect to the laws of nature.

In discussion here I have even been accused of being a “deist”. That comes from a lack of understanding of metaphysics (people need to study Aquinas more about God sustaining the world) and of Catholic theology on the part of those coming up with such charges (and obviously, I believe in constant spiritual intervention by God in this world).

False theology bears false rejection of science. Also, people feel threatened by the metaphysical implications that some prominent scientists (e.g. Dawkins) give to evolution. They feel threatened because they do not know the boundaries between science and metaphysics (just as people like Dawkins don’t), because they are ignorant of both science and philosophy. And just like atheists, they confuse the methodological naturalism of science with the worldview of metaphysical naturalism. They fall into precisely the same trap, with opposite consequences.

Adding to the confusion is that some want to redefine science beyond methodological naturalism into something broader like “science is the analysis of observable phenomena”. The hidden agenda behind this that they want to have a backdoor to define biological ID as “science”, to make it more respectable.
 
lynnvinc said:
I
I’m thinking that people who reject science – whether it be climate science or evolution – are committing a sin against God, who created the world and doesn’t wish us to lie.
Click to expand...
First, the Catholic Church does not “reject science altogether” like it says in the thread title.

The Catholic Church is different from other Churches. One difference is that Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Sunday’s Holy Sacrifice of the Mass brings Jesus Christ personally to us. Thank you, God.

Catholicism teaches that the first man, Adam was created in God’s friendship. Yet, in order for Adam and his future descendents to remain in God’s holy friendship, Adam as the created one needed to live in free submission to God the Creator. Adam, just like his future descendents could choose whether to obey God’s command or not. Adam freely chose to scorn his Creator and thus he broke the friendship with God not only for himself for but all his future descendents.

Yet, God did not abandon us. He promised a Savior. Jesus Christ hung bleeding on a cross as atonement for the Original Sin of Adam which affected all his future descendents. Because *all *humanity descended from the one man Adam, *all *humanity was reconciled with God.

In general, the Catholic Church encourages science, provided that science is conducted properly. Science, in turn, has provided many benefits for humanity.
Where science and Catholicism collide is that there are some scientific theories which hold that humanity descended from a whole bunch of parents. This is in direct opposition to the Catholic doctrine that all humanity was reconciled with God, through the sacrifice of Christ, because all humanity came from one set of parents.

As we know, science is constantly increasing in knowledge of the material universe. On the other hand, basic knowledge of human origin is the same today as it was when God, Himself, created the spiritual soul in Adam and subsequently He creates the spiritual soul in each and every human.
When it comes to knowledge about who we are and where we are intended to be for eternity, the Catholic Church has the truth. God called Adam and He now calls us to share in His own life through knowledge and love.

Science, because it is located in the material/physical world, can only give us part information about who we are. Thus, we turn to the Catholic Church to give us complete information about eternal life which includes *both *our material body and our spiritual soul. When it comes to knowing our first parents, Divine Revelation trumps!

Blessings for the New Year,
granny

Catholicism teaches that the nature of our first ancestor, Adam, united the material and spiritual worlds.
 
grannymh said:
First, the Catholic Church does not “reject science altogether” like it says in the thread title.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course, the Catholic Church is (has become) wise, and does not reject science. Yet many Catholics reject crucial parts of science.
Science, because it is located in the material/physical world, can only give us part information about who we are. Thus, we turn to the Catholic Church to give us complete information about eternal life which includes *both *our material body and our spiritual soul.
Click to expand...
Indeed. But the soul is not just for eternal life, but integral to the earthly essence of human beings. While this is confirmed by divine revelation, the existence of a rational soul is also simply a philosophical conclusion that goes back to Plato and Aristotle, and has been expanded on further in more modern times in diverse versions of the Argument from Reason.
 
Al_Moritz said:
Yes, of course, the Catholic Church is (has become) wise, and does not reject science. Yet many Catholics reject crucial parts of science.
Click to expand...
And many people with blue eyes reject crucial parts of science. 😉 The real key is not who rejects crucial parts of science but *both *how *and *why. Ooops. The real key is what is defined as crucial parts of science. Personally, I do not believe there will ever be a consensus regarding what is a crucial part of science and what is not.

Due to the ban on evolution discussion, I am forced to figure out some kind of Catholic apologetics that could somehow defend some basic Catholic doctrines. This is probably a very good thing due to popular misinformation about natural science which naturally makes a dialog very difficult, but not impossible if one can persevere.
Indeed. But the soul is not just for eternal life, but integral to the earthly essence of human beings. While this is confirmed by divine revelation, the existence of a rational soul is also simply a philosophical conclusion that goes back to Plato and Aristotle, and has been expanded on further in more modern times in diverse versions of the Argument from Reason.
Click to expand...
In the time of Plato and Aristotle, was the soul considered the principle of life which would explain all life from plants to lions to humans? I thought I read that somewhere. I would think that this concept is part of philosophical reasoning,
To trace the concept of spiritual soul, it seems to me that one needs to go all the way back to primitive times where there is a recognition of the spiritual world in oral legends and traditions. 🤷

Since we are prohibited from certain crucial areas of science, would it be logical to look at the crucial areas of Catholicism? My answer is yes. 🙂

The crucial area of Catholicism is the presence of Jesus Christ, True God and True Man on earth. It is the Catholic Church which answers the pertinent questions of who? how? what? when? where? why? and cost. For the pupose of this thread, it is best to first ask why? The answer goes back to the first human being, biblically known as Adam, and his original friendship with God his creator. Since Adam has a material anatomy, science can jump into the conversation.

In the conversation about Adam and subsequently his future descendents including all humankind, science can rightfully explore the human physical make-up. The problem is when interpreters of scientific research claim that a human person is only a material anatomy with the final goal of decomposition. The Catholic Church, which preserves the teachings of Jesus Christ, says no way can the amazing person be limited to a final end in this material world. Human nature, itself, is an unique unification or composite of both the material and spiritual worlds. Our spiritual soul is why we are in the image of God Who is Pure Spirit without the limitations of the natural world. He is Supernatural.😃

The Catholic Church will not deny the purpose of Jesus Christ’s presence on earth. Nor will it deny the reason for Christ’s atonement on the cross. The Catholic Church will reject all interpretations of science which claim that God does not individually create the spiritual soul which distinguishes each human person from all other species on earth.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert
 
Al_Moritz said:
Yes, but I was specifically talking about the rational soul, which has to be immaterial, see:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/01/against-neurobabble.html
Click to expand...
Thank you. I have read some Edward Fesser’s blogs, but not this one.

My next questions would have involved the status of the rational soul from both the
Catholic position and from 21st century science. As a free spirit, I do not approach spiritual soul or the basic Catholic doctrines regarding human origin in an orderly manner. Unfortunately due to some “limitations”, I am not quite as free to explore as I would like. Nonetheless, I will not give up my goal of providing a defense for two sole parents of humankind. I will simply shift the focus – or is that called moving the goal posts?

Obviously, my musings about real human origin, pro and con, do not exactly fit in the Philosophy Forum. I am thinking since I want to help Catholics remain Catholic, I should be in the Apologetics Forum sometime down the road. Also, I feel that my posts 716 & 718 adequately state my position on this thread, so there is really nothing more for me to say here.

Perhaps, there will be a day in the future when you and I can continue this particular discussion. You have the links plus experience and I can read plus listen – all of which should make for an interesting conversation.😃

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
 
The Catholic Church is fond of saying that truth cannot contradict truth. Well, science contradicts the Bible all the time. So you have to choose between one or the other. You cannot have both. You cannot have both your science and your Bible, too. Fundamentalist Christians understand this and choose the Bible. Atheists understand this, too, and choose science. It is the mainstream Catholic or Protestant who is in a sad state of denial and who needs to face up to the choice before him.

That choice is often avoided by claiming that the Bible is not wrong but, rather, it is our understanding of the Bible that is wrong. But wouldn’t an omniscient God know that? Wouldn’t God know that certain verses in the Bible would be used to support geocentrism or young earth creationism? And yet God inspired men to write those verses anyway? What could possibly be the reason unless, of course, geocentrism, and young earth creationism are true? Either that, or the Bible is not the word of God after all.

We should not expect the Bible to be a science textbook. But if the Bible is the word of God then we should expect that the Bible not become an obstacle to truth. The Bible did not lead men into the error of geocentrism, but it did provide support for such error and was an obstacle to man’s discovery of the truth of heliocentrism. The case of young earth creationism is even worse, since it is an erroneous cosmology directly caused by the Bible itself.
 
gentle_atheist said:
The Catholic Church is fond of saying that truth cannot contradict truth. Well, science contradicts the Bible all the time. So you have to choose between one or the other. You cannot have both. You cannot have both your science and your Bible, too. Fundamentalist Christians understand this and choose the Bible. Atheists understand this, too, and choose science. It is the mainstream Catholic or Protestant who is in a sad state of denial and who needs to face up to the choice before him.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
gentle_atheist said:
The Catholic Church is fond of saying that truth cannot contradict truth. Well, science contradicts the Bible all the time. So you have to choose between one or the other. You cannot have both. You cannot have both your science and your Bible, too. Fundamentalist Christians understand this and choose the Bible. Atheists understand this, too, and choose science.
Click to expand...
Yup, atheists have something in common with religious fundamentalists.
It is the mainstream Catholic or Protestant who is in a sad state of denial and who needs to face up to the choice before him.
Click to expand...
Nonsense, you do not know the long theological history of Bible interpretation within the Church. St. Augustine, one of the greatest Fathers of the Church, dismissed a literal interpretation of Genesis already in the fifth (!) century, more than a millenium before the scientific revolution.

See also:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#Natural_knowledge_and_biblical_interpretation
 
gentle_atheist said:
The Catholic Church is fond of saying that truth cannot contradict truth.
Click to expand...
The truth is
that very few people, including Catholics, know what that so-called “truth” is.
I believe that Pope John Paul II used a similar phrase, but very few people, including Catholics, bother to check the context in order to understand what the Pope was actually saying.

As far as I know, the saying dates back to St. Thomas Aquinas. It was referenced in an article in This Rock magazine.
catholic.com/magazine/articles/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design

Here is a summary of the two places which referred to St. Thomas.

The goal of science is to seek truth.
The goal of Catholicism is to preach truth.

God is the creator of science since He is the true Creator of the material world.
God is the truth of Catholicism since Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, founded the Catholic Church and remains within it as He is truly present in the Holy Eucharist.

God is the author of all truth, thus there is only one truth.

In order for the truth of science to be in accord with the truth of Catholicism, two conditions must occur simultaneously.
  1. Science must be conducted properly and
  2. Catholic doctrine must be properly understood.
**When these two conditions are completely and entirely met, then truth cannot contradict truth. **
 
The Catholic Church is the greatest truth telling institution in the world. These words were said by Catholic Radio commentator Al Kresta.

I would ask the following:
  1. Please identify which Churches reject science altogether with sources stating this.
  2. It is not a rational position to say the Bible is not a science book and then say it should be, at least in certain cases.
  3. God can and does perform miracles, even today. Even if the Church was in full agreement with science, would it make it that much easier for non-theists to accept the fact that the Eucharist, or Communion wafer, contains the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ? That the priest can forgive your sins? Or that you will be judged by the Living God after you die?
Peace,
Ed
 
gentle_atheist said:
The Catholic Church is fond of saying that truth cannot contradict truth. Well, science contradicts the Bible all the time.
Click to expand...
I think this is much less clear than your statement implies. If one reads the Bible only literally at all times, then yes, the statement may well be true. However, your statement would then likely be true with respect to most works of fact or fiction chosen at random - and hence, your statement may be true if taken that way - but its also not particularly meaningful.
 
kbachler said:
I think this is much less clear than your statement implies. If one reads the Bible only literally at all times, then yes, the statement may well be true. However, your statement would then likely be true with respect to most works of fact or fiction chosen at random - and hence, your statement may be true if taken that way - but its also not particularly meaningful.
Click to expand...
Please read post 724 for the truth about the truth sound-bite.
If you have a question, let me know.

Blessings,
granny
 
gentle_atheist said:
The Catholic Church is fond of saying that truth cannot contradict truth. Well, science contradicts the Bible all the time. So you have to choose between one or the other. You cannot have both. You cannot have both your science and your Bible, too. Fundamentalist Christians understand this and choose the Bible. Atheists understand this, too, and choose science. It is the mainstream Catholic or Protestant who is in a sad state of denial and who needs to face up to the choice before him.

That choice is often avoided by claiming that the Bible is not wrong but, rather, it is our understanding of the Bible that is wrong. But wouldn’t an omniscient God know that? Wouldn’t God know that certain verses in the Bible would be used to support geocentrism or young earth creationism? And yet God inspired men to write those verses anyway? What could possibly be the reason unless, of course, geocentrism, and young earth creationism are true? Either that, or the Bible is not the word of God after all.

We should not expect the Bible to be a science textbook. But if the Bible is the word of God then we should expect that the Bible not become an obstacle to truth. The Bible did not lead men into the error of geocentrism, but it did provide support for such error and was an obstacle to man’s discovery of the truth of heliocentrism. The case of young earth creationism is even worse, since it is an erroneous cosmology directly caused by the Bible itself.
Click to expand...
The Bible was never meant to be a book on chemistry, biology, physics, etc.; but on the other hand, it doesn’t mean that the Bible contains errors on these subjects. I think that although the Bible may touch upon an occasional matter of science now and then, it does so only casually. For example, when the Bible says, “So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them” (Genesis 2:1), it simply means that nothing new is now being created under the sun, which indicates the First Law of Thermodynamics. And also theistic evolutionists and creationists, like most people in the world, will not argue against the facts of real science. For instance, they will not argue against the fact that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, or 0 degrees Celsius; but they might take issue with the pseudo science that says life emerged from non-life.
 
grannymh said:
First, the Catholic Church does not “reject science altogether” like it says in the thread title.

The Catholic Church is different from other Churches. One difference is that Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Sunday’s Holy Sacrifice of the Mass brings Jesus Christ personally to us. Thank you, God.

Catholicism teaches that the first man, Adam was created in God’s friendship. Yet, in order for Adam and his future descendents to remain in God’s holy friendship, Adam as the created one needed to live in free submission to God the Creator. Adam, just like his future descendents could choose whether to obey God’s command or not. Adam freely chose to scorn his Creator and thus he broke the friendship with God not only for himself for but all his future descendents.

Yet, God did not abandon us. He promised a Savior. Jesus Christ hung bleeding on a cross as atonement for the Original Sin of Adam which affected all his future descendents. Because *all *humanity descended from the one man Adam, *all *humanity was reconciled with God.

In general, the Catholic Church encourages science, provided that science is conducted properly. Science, in turn, has provided many benefits for humanity.
Where science and Catholicism collide is that there are some scientific theories which hold that humanity descended from a whole bunch of parents. This is in direct opposition to the Catholic doctrine that all humanity was reconciled with God, through the sacrifice of Christ, because all humanity came from one set of parents.

As we know, science is constantly increasing in knowledge of the material universe. On the other hand, basic knowledge of human origin is the same today as it was when God, Himself, created the spiritual soul in Adam and subsequently He creates the spiritual soul in each and every human.
When it comes to knowledge about who we are and where we are intended to be for eternity, the Catholic Church has the truth. God called Adam and He now calls us to share in His own life through knowledge and love.

Science, because it is located in the material/physical world, can only give us part information about who we are. Thus, we turn to the Catholic Church to give us complete information about eternal life which includes *both *our material body and our spiritual soul. When it comes to knowing our first parents, Divine Revelation trumps!

Blessings for the New Year,
granny

Catholicism teaches that the nature of our first ancestor, Adam, united the material and spiritual worlds.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I disagree with you at all. You don’t seem to be opposing evolution or climate science, so I have no problem with what you write.

I think evolution shows how much greater God is than we ever could have imagined. So it is still a sin to reject it, bec we are trying to make God into something much lesser than what science points to – making him into a David Copperfield on a white cloud wielding a magic wand – a carcicature of what God is…tho as St. John of the Cross points out, whatever we conceive God to be, we are wrong…
 
I must disagree. As Pope Benedict stated:

“Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to verify or disprove the theory.”

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top