Criticism of Modern Science

[Charlemagne_II]

Rocinante

*rather i think it’s a banal claim. how could their be human experiences that simply can’t be inquired about? *

Any human experience can be inquired about. But not every experience, and especially spiritual experiences, can be inquired about in a scientific context.

 

[tonyrey]

rather i think it’s a banal claim. how could their be human experiences that simply can’t be inquired about?

Don’t you think** there **are human experiences which are incommunicable? Can you get into another person’s mind? There is nothing to stop you inquiring but don’t expect a reply which fits into your scheme of things!

 

[Rocinante]

Rocinante

*rather i think it’s a banal claim. how could their be human experiences that simply can’t be inquired about? *

Any human experience can be inquired about. But not every experience, and especially spiritual experiences, can be inquired about in a scientific context.

scientists already study spiritual experiences.

 

[edwest2]

try to determine what we have good reason to believe is true and false.

i can’t see how that would help, but there would be nothing that prevents scientists from doing so if the bible ever proved to be a good way to learn things. is there any evidence that there are things to learn from the bible? if so. scientists should certainly study it.

there are lots of peer reviewed papers that refute the claims made in genesis.

if there are true and false claims to be made about god, there ought to be evidence that scientists can study. if there is no evidence then how could anyone’s claim to knowledge be compared to contradictory claims? what could it even mean to say that a claim is true if it has no measurable impact on the world?

I would call an electrician.

but if god is part of human experience, then it is an empirical phenomenon that science can study. if it is not a part of human experience, then there is nothing to know about it.

God, an empirical phenomenon? And what can science do with God right now? Put Him in a lab? Analyze his noncorporeal being? All science, as defined here, can do is point to the existence of a phenomenon called God or religion.

I understand that science as defined here is only interested in putting all phenomena under a mechanical/functional descriptor - the end. Science is partly blind in that regard. Only the Church can provide the proper synthesis of information and revelation. There are simply areas where science is nonapplicable and nonfunctional regarding finding answers.

Miracles happen all the time. Doctors, scientists and other specialists are called in to examine these miracles. At the end, all that science can do is rule out a scientific explanation. That’s it. The same with the Bible.

On the other hand, there are those who post here who presume to know about something science cannot study. These observations are not based on any peer-reviewd scientific papers.

Show me one peer reviewed paper that mentions Genesis of the Bible explicitly. Otherwise, all that you’re describing is an extrapolation desired by some.

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Get a large group of people to independently judge the poems and see if there’s a quorum. It’s closer to social science than physics, but do-able all the same.

Science by popular vote. Most people in the U.S. reject Darwinian theory. Therefore, it must be false. Most people believe in God. Therefore God exists.

My limited Latin says gattus is corrupted to cat (English), chat (French) and gato (Spanish), although cats are probably still mammals independent of what name we use. Are you saying linguistics isn’t a science?

The word CAT is similiar to the word CATTLE. Plus, they’re both mammals. Plus, they both live on farms. Are you saying that agriculture is not a science?

 

[edwest2]

scientists already study spiritual experiences.

“spiritual experiences”? Science cannot study the spiritual. The spiritual has been revealed by God.

Science can only observe spiritual experiences that produce mechanical effects: a needle moves, changes in chemistry or other function. This mechanical description refers to a device, not a person.

A spirit has no corporeal body. Until science puts a ghost in a jar, it can only guess.

God bless,
Ed

 

[davidv]

rather i think it’s a banal claim. how could their be human experiences that simply can’t be inquired about?

So you say. I do not accept your say so however. Where is your evidence that this is a physical inquiry? I say it must be a metaphysical inquiry using the disciplines of philosophy and theology.

 

[reggieM]

scientists already study spiritual experiences.

Spirituality, by definition, is immaterial. It is not a product of matter or material laws.
In order for science to study spiritual experiences, science must accept that spiritual experiences exist.

If, however, science studies spiritual experiences and calls them “natural phenomena” or “physical reactions” or reduces them to a material function – then science is not studying spiritual experiences at all.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Modern science has no business commenting on the divine.

God bless,
Ed

I would take your call for a separation of Theology and Science more seriously if I had not read previous posts of yours applying (Catholic) theological principals to scientific endeavors like invitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research, and numerous other areas of scientific study. To let priests and theologians criticize and comment on the work of scientists, but not allow scientists to do the reverse, would be to leave scientific research utterly at the mercy of religious prejudices.

 

[edwest2]

I would take your call for a separation of Theology and Science more seriously if I had not read previous posts of yours applying (Catholic) theological principals to scientific endeavors like invitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research, and numerous other areas of scientific study. To let priests and theologians criticize and comment on the work of scientists, but not allow scientists to do the reverse, would be to leave scientific research utterly at the mercy of religious prejudices.

When was the last time you saw priests or nuns blocking the doors at the local science lab? “utterly at the mercy of” what? Scientists can’t criticize what they can’t study, which includes God, the Bible and the supernatural. It’s in the rules: This is science. No miracles allowed.

There is only one true answer, not two or more. Too many leading scientists now subscribe to a personal philosophy that is outside of proper scientific inquiry. Science is partly blind now.

Yes, the Church has made comments that were critical of certain scientific endeavors. So what?

The Church does not just examine theological, or revealed truths, but scientific facts and techniques derived from those facts:

catholicinsight.com/online/church/vatican/article_475.shtml

It is entirely within its competence to do so. So no, Catholics do not oppose certain scientific research entirely for religious or theological reasons but for entirely practical and visible reasons. Contrary to what some believe about the Church, she only proposes, not imposes.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rocinante

*scientists already study spiritual experiences. *

How do you define spiritual experiences. Name a study and the subject of the study.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Angry
*
To let priests and theologians criticize and comment on the work of scientists, but not allow scientists to do the reverse, would be to leave scientific research utterly at the mercy of religious prejudices.*

Your analogy doesn’t work.

Priests never talk about science except to the extent of moral implications of scientific research or experimentation. That is their business … to examine and comment on the behavior of scientists in the realm of morals. In fact, it is **everybody’s business **to be concerned about scientists stepping across certain lines (like nuclear weapons and cloning) just because the technology exists to do so. We are back in the realm not of what is, but of what ought to be the behavior of scientists as human beings.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Contrary to what some believe about the Church, she only proposes, not imposes.

God bless,
Ed

Actually the Catholic Church often imposes itself on others (at least until recently in historical terms).

The best and most obvious example of this would be the Papal States. A theocratic government which (in the end) did not enjoy the support of the people and was propped up by the military strength of foreign (French) troops.

 

[edwest2]

Contrary to what some believe about the Church, she only proposes, not imposes.

God bless,
Ed

Actually the Catholic Church often imposes itself on others (at least until recently in historical terms).

The best and most obvious example of this would be the Papal States. A theocratic government which (in the end) did not enjoy the support of the people and was propped up by the military strength of foreign (French) troops.

---

Care to explain how events from 1849 and before connect to this discussion? Unless the Vatican has talked about annexing Ohio, I don’t see it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Cat_Herder]

Actually the Catholic Church often imposes itself on others (at least until recently in historical terms).

In atheist-superiority revisionist history, sure. But in reality, it was the Protestants and communists who did the imposing.

The best and most obvious example of this would be the Papal States. A theocratic government which (in the end) did not enjoy the support of the people and was propped up by the military strength of foreign (French) troops.

Napoleon was an imperial tyrant. If you want to claim the Papal States were imperial as well (they weren’t), you have nothing but an empire changing hands, which was not incidentally the outcome of the French Revolution as well.

 

[inocente]

Science by popular vote.

Not at all please see my reply to Anselm post #146, which explains further.

The word CAT is similiar to the word CATTLE. Plus, they’re both mammals. Plus, they both live on farms. Are you saying that agriculture is not a science?

You lost me there, but then some Christians also lost me long ago with their apparent antagonism towards learning more about ourselves and our world.

This is how I think of science, in the words of Pope Benedict. Is he wrong, anyone?

*Certainly the Church acknowledges that “with the help of science and technology…, man has extended his mastery over almost the whole of nature”, and thus “he now produces by his own enterprise benefits once looked for from heavenly powers” (Gaudium et Spes, 33). At the same time, Christianity does not posit an inevitable conflict between supernatural faith and scientific progress. The very starting-point of Biblical revelation is the affirmation that God created human beings, endowed them with reason, and set them over all the creatures of the earth. In this way, man has become the steward of creation and God’s “helper”. If we think, for example, of how modern science, by predicting natural phenomena, has contributed to the protection of the environment, the progress of developing nations, the fight against epidemics, and an increase in life expectancy, it becomes clear that there is no conflict between God’s providence and human enterprise. Indeed, we could say that the work of predicting, controlling and governing nature, which science today renders more practicable than in the past, is itself a part of the Creator’s plan.

Science, however, while giving generously, gives only what it is meant to give. Man cannot place in science and technology so radical and unconditional a trust as to believe that scientific and technological progress can explain everything and completely fulfil all his existential and spiritual needs. Science cannot replace philosophy and revelation by giving an exhaustive answer to man’s most radical questions: questions about the meaning of living and dying, about ultimate values, and about the nature of progress itself.

Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 6 November 2006 (pdf)*

 

[Rocinante]

“spiritual experiences”? Science cannot study the spiritual. The spiritual has been revealed by God.

Science can only observe spiritual experiences that produce mechanical effects: a needle moves, changes in chemistry or other function. This mechanical description refers to a device, not a person.

A spirit has no corporeal body. Until science puts a ghost in a jar, it can only guess.

Here is an example of an article about a scientific study on such phenomena:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1847442.stm

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Napoleon was an imperial tyrant. If you want to claim the Papal States were imperial as well (they weren’t), you have nothing but an empire changing hands, which was not incidentally the outcome of the French Revolution as well.

The Pope ruled the Papal States directly as a monarch.
How is that not imperialistic?

 

[Cat_Herder]

The Pope ruled the Papal States directly as a monarch.
How is that not imperialistic?

Nominally, yes. But politically the States were governed by local princes, similar to the Holy Roman Empire (which was not holy, not Roman and not an empire.)

 

[Rocinante]

Spirituality, by definition, is immaterial. It is not a product of matter or material laws.
In order for science to study spiritual experiences, science must accept that spiritual experiences exist.

If, however, science studies spiritual experiences and calls them “natural phenomena” or “physical reactions” or reduces them to a material function – then science is not studying spiritual experiences at all.

you say that spirituality is by definition immaterial, but like phenomenon such as human health, we do well to continually redefine spirituality as we learn more about what it is.

one thing that is well known by the religious and just beginning to be studied by scientists is that experiences that people refer to as “mystical” or “spiritual” may fairly reliably result from certain uses of attention (i.e., prayer and meditation). there are certain benefits from the uses of attention that result in these experiences. these are reproducible effects for those well-trained in certain practices. one needs to “build his telescope” to observe the changes in conscious experience that result from such prayer and meditative practices, but there is nothing inherently unscientific about studying their effects and how to bring them about.

Sam Harris:

“It is an empirical fact that sustained meditation can result in a variety of insights that intelligent people regularly find intellectually credible and personally transformative. The problem, however, is that these insights are almost always sought and expressed in a religious context. One such insight is that the feeling we call “I”—the sense that there is a thinker giving rise to our thoughts, an experiencer distinct from the mere flow of experience—can disappear when looked for in a rigorous way. Our conventional sense of “self” is, in fact, nothing more than a cognitive illusion, and dispelling this illusion opens the mind to extraordinary experiences of happiness. This is not a proposition to be accepted on faith; it is an empirical observation, analogous to the discovery of one’s optic blind spots. Most people never notice their blind spots (caused by the transit of the optic nerve through the retina of each eye), but they can be pointed out with a little effort. The absence of a reified self can also be pointed out, though this tends to require considerably more training on the part of both teacher and student.”