Criticism of Modern Science

  • Thread starter Thread starter Geremia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TEPO said:
Thanks for the reference, I’ll be buying this book today… Sounds like a good read. 🙂
Click to expand...
It’s really something special. That book helped convert the famous atheist, A. N. Wilson to Christianity.
 
Yes, it was a fascinating article. But Wolfgang Smith, though I agree with very much of his stance, is a “Christianist” relative to Christianity in the same way that he has the philosophical mistakes of scientists labeled “scientism.” Neither fundamentally obtain and both wrongly connect dots.

I will try to see if I can find his critique of Chardin and see if his thoughts go with that in the direction mine did, as I was not in complete agreement with Pere as remarkable as his ideas are.
 
inocente said:
I bit and summarize it thus - things were better in the old days, God has no plan, we’re all doomed, ignorance is bliss. Well done old chap, yet more souls turned away from Christ by the shallow, confused, joyless and arcane. :mad:
Click to expand...
This may sound a bit odd coming from me, but I like the cut of your gib Inocente.
 
inocente said:
I bit and summarize it thus - things were better in the old days, God has no plan, we’re all doomed, ignorance is bliss. Well done old chap, yet more souls turned away from Christ by the shallow, confused, joyless and arcane. :mad:
Click to expand...
How do you glean that from the Dr. Smith article? Do you think there is is no difference between pre- and post-Galileo-Cartesian science?
 
Geremia said:
How do you glean that from the Dr. Smith article? Do you think there is is no difference between pre- and post-Galileo-Cartesian science?
Click to expand...
When Smith says “In his denial of essences, scientistic man has destroyed the very basis of the spiritual life” what he meant to say, imho, is “in its questioning of my particular take on reality, science has made me question my particular take on spirituality, and oh deary deary me”. Which summed up the article for me.

Or, now here’s something –* “In our struggle to transcend the scientistic outlook, we are dealing, moreover, not simply with a belief system of human contrivance, but with something more formidable by far; for here too, in the final count, “we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of the world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Eph. 6:12).”*. Yikes!!! should we bin Romans 8:38-39 then? :rolleyes:

Science moves on in its methodology and findings, in the same way that spirtual thought moves on. I’ve posted this on CAF before, but it’s so excellent:
*Implicit here is the fact that the classic creation account is not the only creation text of sacred Scripture. Immediately after it there follows another one, composed earlier and containing other imagery. In the Psalms there are still others, and there the movement to clarify the faith concerning creation is carried further: In its confrontation with Hellenistic civilization, Wisdom literature reworks the theme without sticking to the old images such as the seven days. Thus we can see how the Bible itself constantly readapts its images to a continually developing way of thinking, how it changes time and again in order to bear witness, time and again, to the one thing that has come to it, in truth, from God’s Word, which is the message of his creating act. In the Bible itself the images are free and they correct themselves ongoingly. In this way they show, by means of a gradual and interactive process, that they are only images, which reveal something deeper and greater.

In the Beginning…, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger*Give the Pope a cigar. Like he says, we really can see one world, one God. We do not need to cower, we do not need to stay still – Let nothing disturb you / Do not be frightened / All things must pass / God never changes - Santa Teresa.

So in that context, how about if we stopped blaming scientism (along with relativism, secularism, liberalism and all those other conspiracies)? How about if we had a little humility, a little faith that “truth cannot contradict truth” (JPII :cool:) and started being just a little more positive, creating our own perspectives, instead of blaming “them”?

Went on too long, forgive me. 🙂
 
inocente said:
When Smith says “In his denial of essences, scientistic man has destroyed the very basis of the spiritual life” what he meant to say, imho, is “in its questioning of my particular take on reality, science has made me question my particular take on spirituality, and oh deary deary me”. Which summed up the article for me.

Or, now here’s something –* “In our struggle to transcend the scientistic outlook, we are dealing, moreover, not simply with a belief system of human contrivance, but with something more formidable by far; for here too, in the final count, “we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of the world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Eph. 6:12).”*. Yikes!!! should we bin Romans 8:38-39 then? :rolleyes:

Science moves on in its methodology and findings, in the same way that spirtual thought moves on. I’ve posted this on CAF before, but it’s so excellent:
*Implicit here is the fact that the classic creation account is not the only creation text of sacred Scripture. Immediately after it there follows another one, composed earlier and containing other imagery. In the Psalms there are still others, and there the movement to clarify the faith concerning creation is carried further: In its confrontation with Hellenistic civilization, Wisdom literature reworks the theme without sticking to the old images such as the seven days. Thus we can see how the Bible itself constantly readapts its images to a continually developing way of thinking, how it changes time and again in order to bear witness, time and again, to the one thing that has come to it, in truth, from God’s Word, which is the message of his creating act. In the Bible itself the images are free and they correct themselves ongoingly. In this way they show, by means of a gradual and interactive process, that they are only images, which reveal something deeper and greater.

In the Beginning…, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger*Give the Pope a cigar. Like he says, we really can see one world, one God. We do not need to cower, we do not need to stay still – Let nothing disturb you / Do not be frightened / All things must pass / God never changes - Santa Teresa.

So in that context, how about if we stopped blaming scientism (along with relativism, secularism, liberalism and all those other conspiracies)? How about if we had a little humility, a little faith that “truth cannot contradict truth” (JPII :cool:) and started being just a little more positive, creating our own perspectives, instead of blaming “them”?

Went on too long, forgive me. 🙂
Click to expand...
Scientism is a serious problem. How many science related programs are there on TV? How many that present the religious view of science? Today, due to an increasingly pagan media, belief in anything supernatural is not only dismissed, it is actively criticized.

And here, on this forum, the words of certain Church leaders and even saints, are invoked to “prove” some purely scientific point. If someting is true then it’s true, right? But no. Here, people need to put up quotes from religious figures to tell Catholics: see, one of your holy people believes this and so should you. That’s not the way science works. A science that cannot study God or the soul.

Take embryonic stem cell research. A columnist in a Detroit newspaper made the point that only religious people are against such research for religious reasons. Really? The Catholic Church makes the claim that the human embryo is a human being. And the claim is self evident. Why cut up that human being if it was not a human being? Why not use a chicken or a cow embryo? But the writer tries to distract the reader from thinking by going on to write that a human embryo does not have fingers and toes.

Wake up my fellow Catholics.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Scientism is a serious problem. How many science related programs are there on TV? How many that present the religious view of science? Today, due to an increasingly pagan media, belief in anything supernatural is not only dismissed, it is actively criticized.
Click to expand...
Wow. We must be on WAY different TV services. Mine has many varieties of EWTN from every faith, and all sorts of “spiritual” people from palm readers through ghost busters to seriously heavy hitting philosophers. Wanna borrow my guide?
And here, on this forum, the words of certain Church leaders and even saints, are invoked to “prove” some purely scientific point. If someting is true then it’s true, right? But no. Here, people need to put up quotes from religious figures to tell Catholics: see, one of your holy people believes this and so should you. That’s not the way science works. A science that cannot study God or the soul.
Click to expand...
Right.
Take embryonic stem cell research. A columnist in a Detroit newspaper made the point that only religious people are against such research for religious reasons. Really? The Catholic Church makes the claim that the human embryo is a human being. And the claim is self evident. Why cut up that human being if it was not a human being? Why not use a chicken or a cow embryo? But the writer tries to distract the reader from thinking by going on to write that a human embryo does not have fingers and toes.
Click to expand...
That is both a matter of where one stands in faith and of some need of clarification in terms of what a human is as potentiality and accomplishment in awareness, as distinct having intrinsic value.
Wake up my fellow Catholics
Click to expand...
.Why are you constraining yourself to admonishing only Catholics? Granted the need there is immense, but it is no less than nearly anywhere else, eh?
God bless
Click to expand...
God Blesses indiscriminately always and everywhere. 🙂
 
This is a Catholic forum. Unlike the rest of the opinion filled internet, clarity regarding Catholic teaching should be promoted, no matter who reads what’s written here.

God bless,
Ed
 
Geremia said:
What is a good book that criticizes modern science and considers it a futile attempt at seeking knowledge?
Click to expand...
Geremia,
I haven’t bothered to read through this thread so I don’t know whether or not you’ve gotten a satisfactory answer.

I cannot say that the following authors consider science to be “a futile attempt at seeking knowledge” or not. Furthermore, the content of the following books is more in the line of a critique than criticism, but if you have in mind a desire to increase your knowledge of the current status of science, you would do well to read all three. They are an easy read even for those uninitiated in science.
  1. The Trouble with Physics, Lee Smolin
  2. The End of Physics, David Lindley
  3. The End of Science, John Horgan
Good luck with you endeavor,
Yppop
 
edwest2 said:
Take embryonic stem cell research. A columnist in a Detroit newspaper made the point that only religious people are against such research for religious reasons.
Click to expand...
That’s an excellent example of what I’m on about. It’s not especially hard to get invited to make comments on TV or in newspapers. Journalists always need material. A reporter hears that you might know what you’re on about, phones you and that’s about it (in my case it’s technical stuff, only on daytime TV, etc.). Other reporters see the program and soon you have more invitations. All that’s needed is to stay on topic and make a few sound bites.

One of the first things you learn when selling products is that criticizing competitors doesn’t work – you need to leave the buyer with positive messages, not negative. Telling people the positive reasons why stem cell research is wrong, and giving alternatives, will sway hearts and minds in exactly the way that trashing the opposition won’t.

By being negative, all that comes across is a closed mind and cold heart, no matter what the intent. If a Christian can’t be positive, the only message that comes across is that Christians can’t be positive.

Let’s stop blaming self-invented dark forces. Whatever you think of Obama, “Change”, “Hope” and “Yes We Can” worked. Enough of this negativity, dudes!!!
 
edwest2 said:
This is a Catholic forum. Unlike the rest of the opinion filled internet, clarity regarding Catholic teaching should be promoted, no matter who reads what’s written here.
Click to expand...
I guess you might be talking to me, Ed. I’ll make that assumption, despite the adage.

Yes, I can see that this forum has no opinions on it. 🙂 Glad you pointed that out as a distinction from other venues. And why would anything posted on here not be related to clarity about Catholic teaching, even alleged attacks? Are those not opportunities for proselytizing? I used them as such when I was practicing.

And it is due to such clarity as you mention that I desisted from Catholicism as presented in favor of what I see as the actual Essence from which it sprang. You may not agree with that, but as far as I can see, many Saints and Sages do.

I know that much of what I say is an irritation, and that is fine. I felt the same way when I first heard my current stance as an intellectual proposition. But it is now anything but that. If you wish some clarity on what the full dynamic might be concerning all this kind of discussion and dialog, you might check out the four quadrants diagram provided by Ken Wilbur. I don’t ordianrily care for Wikipedia, but if you go here you might get some useful information about the surrounding ideas.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
I would say that understanding God is impossible because there is nothing there to understand. God is a delusion, a figment of our imaginations, a personification of our hopes, our doubts and our fears. To understand God we have to understand our own shortcomings and limitations.
Click to expand...
Is this your disproof, then? What about God as uncaused cause, first mover, etc.?
 
yppop said:
  1. The Trouble with Physics, Lee Smolin
  2. The End of Physics, David Lindley
  3. The End of Science, John Horgan
Click to expand...
Just browsing those books, they seem more to be popular science. I would like something written by a good philosopher, e.g., but thanks anyways.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top