Does Catholicism offer anything to Modern Science?

[reggieM]

But there’s a level of quiet now coming from the domains of science and natural philosophy. There seems to be less of a drive to even broach questions of this sort at all.

It’s a good observation and a good point.

Most Catholics I know are not interested in science at all. The Catholic Faith has been under attack by science for more than a century. The people who make up the scientific community have created a culture that is hostile to faith.

The Catholics you admire from ages past worked in an environment that supported their Faith. What they discovered contributed to their love of God – the purpose of their lives.

There is less freedom for Catholics to be Catholic. They have to fight off attacks all the time. They have to appeal to people who possess a philosophy that is antagonistic to Catholicism but who rule the scientific community in our world today.

It’s the same with something like Hollywood. Where are the devout Catholic directors who use their faith to advance cinematic art?

There are a handful maybe – but they’re just barely working in the field. The innovators are the immoralists who are “ground breaking” with gay or porno films.

There’s really no such thing as “pure science”. It always comes with philosophical issues attached.

This environment is not friendly to Catholic scholarship.

The Catholic Faith, while very well-founded is a fragile thing as well. It must be protected and preserved in the soul – against many enemies in the natural and spiritual order.

That’s one thing Jesus’ sufferings teach us.

If there was no concern about heaven and hell, things would be different also.

What does the NASA program benefit us for eternity?

If funding was pulled on that, would it make much difference? Someday, we might not have a choice.

Science may be a luxury in many ways as well – an interesting past-time.

 

[Geremia]

Hello, TheAtheist, and thank you for the good post. As a Catholic astronomer and physicist, I will attempt to answer your questions. Let me know if you need any clarification.

I’m here to ask a deceptively simple-looking question: What can Catholicism offer modern Science?

This reminds me of Einstein’s quote: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

1.) Let me put this one out their immediately – I am by no means implying that Catholicism is under an obligation to offer modern Science anything at all. That would be an incorrect assumption – namely that Catholicism has to “work” for Science.

St. Thomas Aquinas, a medieval doctor of the Church whose best works treat the relationship between science and religion, says in his Summa Theologica, in response to the question “Whether sacred doctrine is nobler than other sciences?”, that “Other sciences [e.g., the natural sciences] are called the handmaidens of this one *: ‘Wisdom sent her maids to invite to the tower’ (Proverbs 9:3).”

Formally, this is known as the “warfare thesis.”

That science is a handmaid to God is a very loving relationship.

Once upon a time, there was indeed a very good push/pull creative tension between Catholicism (and the Orthodox Church as well) and those who engaged in Natural Philosophy and later on Science.

You would love the book Creative Tension by the Catholic priest, cosmologist, and Templeton Award winner Fr. Michał Heller. Another book I would recommend is The Savior of Science by the Benedictine physicist Fr. Stanley L. Jaki. Fr. Jaki argues that science could not have advanced to the point it has without a Catholic society. He shows how other, non-Catholic societies have only progressed scientifically up to a certain point, thus Catholicism helped the world advance its science further.

But I’m here for an internal perspective, for those of the faith, and I’m asking “What the heck happened to you guys?!”

The Church as a whole has been going through a dark time since Vatican II, but with the increasing numbers of Catholics who want to return to the Church’s rich liturgical traditions since Pope Benedict XVI the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum,” our faith will strengthen, and consequently so will our science. Pope Benedict XVI is a very good pope; he understands science and religion. Read this speech he would have given to Rome’s prestigious university “La Sapienza” had the anti-papacy university students permitted him.

To me, that’s lovely, that’s beautiful.

Indeed, I am glad to know someone knows that we Catholics are not at all anti-science. We foster it; we teach it in Catholic schools.

Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius X condemned these propositions, respectively: “Catholicism is compatible with modern civilization” and “Catholicism is incompatible with true science.” Comparing these two condemnations, one infers that modern civilization and true science are not compatible; hence Catholicism is crucial for good science.*

 

[cassini]

The Church’s official scope is not to be found in the development of mere human knowledge but in the preservation of divine knowledge. Given the Church’s duty is to preserve truth, and truth is reality, physical, philosophical and spiritual reality that permeates all time, past, present and future, even to its co-relationship with eternity, then all things that threaten truth must be condemned and corrected by the Church. This obligation was dogmatised at Vatican Council I of 1869-70:

‘Further, the Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teaching, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from divine providence, the right and duty of proscribing “knowledge falsely so called” (I Tim. 6:20), “lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit” (cf. Col. 2:8). Wherefore, all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend opinions of this sort, which are known to be contrary to the teaching of the faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, as the legitimate conclusions of science, but they shall be altogether bound to hold them rather as errors, which present a false appearance of truth.’ — (Denzinger - 1795-98.)

Theology is (or rather was) the QUEEN of sciences. Using the QUEEN, the Church in 1616 upheld the most profound reality of the universe in natural science, that it is geocentric. Had this reality prevailed vast areas of science would have been different. Who knows what advances could have been made in knowledge and perhaps in electromagnetism and the real nature of gravity. Alas, even though relativity has always prevailed making it impossible to prove or disprove any particular order (and thus its LAWS) man preferred a mind-image of the universe, a heliocentric one, and the ‘laws’ invented by Newton and Einstein to accommodate it. Like a horse riding to hell, science (and Churchmen by the way) galloped down the heliocentric road manufacturing theory after theory to suit the preferred anti-biblical and anti-Church heliocentricism. Thus when the science of electromagnetism developed science tried to tie it up with Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity. They came to a full stop. heliocentric science reached a dead end.
But more than that, for it had successfully prevented geocentric science getting past the starting block. Catholicism pointed man in the right direction but man rejected its divine guidance.

So, Catholic philosophy and theology, upon which nearly all mediaeval universities were founded, offered a divine guide towards a universe of sciences. Alas, in 1741 and 1820 such guidance came to an end when even Churchmen abandoned them.

So, the answer to the question is that yes, Catholicism has much to offer the natural sciences.
Have today’s Churchmen (or modern Catholicism if you prefer) anything to offer the natural sciences, no, absolutely nothing except support for what their predecessors condemned as false philosophy.

 

[AndyF]

…then there won’t be much that Catholicism can offer to such people.

A play on words a bit, Catholicism is "Christ"ism. The Church IS Christ. I smile when I read the tabloids about yet one more
child molestation, and how the Catholic Church is “shamed” by it. Catholicism’s barriers are common, from obstinate people who cling to dead sects, to people who claim God doesn’t exist,etc,etc. “Christ” is available and the offer hasn’t changed for 2000 years. It is the hearts that are closed, but Christ “will be with you always”.

THE Church can never be shamed, and Christ will never be shamed. It was attempted at Christ’s
crucifixion and it didn’t work and it never will happen. The guilty ministers of the Church who must work out their own redemption are shamed, and only them.

The Church is not one in a collection of Christian churches. There is only one true Christian church, only one recognized Church that has God’s sanction and that is Christ’s Catholic Church.

There are no longer other religions that have bonafide credentials has places of worship other than in the Catholic religion. Since it’s birth, no other religions are valid.

What you are seeing now is chaos due to man insisting he form institutions that meet his conditions. Nothing is sacred with him not even the sacred rituals of God (HS Marriage,etc).

Super"natural" in phenomena, that is unexplained or of undetermined causes we may find surprising or wonderous, but some is attributable to explainable causes. (Tongues of fire,etc) The works of spiritual beings are explainable but still supernatural. Our very nature is a duality, although we don’t sense it has it is immortal.

I see no problem with the word in context of the Church.

AndyF

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread has strayed from the OP. Please, everyone, take side discussions to new or existing threads.

 

[jfhh]

I’m here to ask a deceptively simple-looking question: What can Catholicism offer modern Science?

3.) What I am aiming for, what I am most interested in, is on the inspirational level.

I believe Catholicism can offer modern science an expansion of what is considered science. Science should just mean human knowledge. One way to accumulate knowledge is through the canonical scientific method. But there are other ways (ex. mathematical proof, intuition). So here I think Catholicism offers the same that philosophy offers.

In terms of inspiration, Catholicism offers an openness to beings beyond our imagination. Science currently imagines extra dimensions, matter, energy. But there may be more out there in the universe. Perhaps for example not everything in the universe is physical and the spiritual and physical interact somehow in a subtle way. Yes, true scientific experiments have yet to establish that, but how hard have we tried? How much more could we try? …

Remember the FLAT UNIVERSE question!

Some say the universe is flat (I assume you know what the technical term means here; if not check wikipedia or ask me) and recent experimental data seems to confirm that. Yet some scientists still say that their hunch is that the universe is not flat and that we have not yet detected its curvature because it is so slight from our perspective (like a mite crawling on a large balloon which may appear flat to it).

Same may be true of the existence of angelic influences or other “exotic” influences. Beings that consist of maybe things other than matter and energy or are otherwise very powerful but for some reason make their influence only subtle.

So the above are things that Catholicism can contribute. Science can also contribute to Catholicism. It should be a two way street, a mutually enrichening exchange of ideas and mutual incorporation of findings and ideas (science should inform Catholic ethics IMO as pro-lifers say it has for example).

I am not an orthodox Catholic; I am in between cafteria and orthodox Catholicism, rejecting both extremes … just so you know.

 

[jmcrae]

So back to the original question: Does Catholicism have anything to offer Modern Science?

First, I think what the Church offers to science that it can’t live without is the concept of Truth. What I mean by that is the idea that, outside of one’s personal experience, there are things that are true whether you know or believe them or not, and (by way of contrast) there are things that are false, regardless of personal opinions.

For example, science uses this idea of Truth to keep order in the science of Mathematics. 2+2=4, no matter what you’re doing, and no matter who you are. It does so for the infant who has never heard of it, yet, and for the insane person who wishes it were 5. Mathematical principles always hold true. Mathematicians, indeed, tend to be even more dogmatic than theologians, because there is absolutely no room for personal opinions.

Unfortunately, the concept of Truth is rather out of fashion nowadays. People prefer to believe what they experience, rather than taking someone else’s word for things - even when they know that their personal experience is only a partial window into the thing they are trying to learn about.

I think the reason is that Truth, by its nature, tends to generate authority (which is really out of fashion these days). How dare anyone else have greater knowledge than myself; obviously they must be bigots of some kind, seems to be a common point of view.

But without the concept of Truth, science would be stuck with theories and speculation - which is not a very good way to learn about the world.

 

[nirvana777]

LEt me tell you a little something about the buddha and the basis of his teachings before you talk about how can Catholicism offer anything to modern science, you are misunderstanding the basis of the two faiths if you are going to hold buddhism superior to catholicism. but i will attempt to explain both to you because buddhism is a science of the mind in order to relieve tension and worldy desires in order to expand your consciousness , people forget that the buddha wasn’t trying to create a new religion, he wainted to find the root of suffering in this world and consequently he created a new religion after he attained enlightenment accidentally!! Enlightenment exists not just within Buddhism But HInduism , So Buddhism to me is a religion to attain enlightenment just like Hinduism,both of these religions embrace scince, What The Catholic Church is trying to do is the same thing just through rituals, dogma, What seperates the Church is the principles of Salvation and Dogma so that is their salvation getting into heaven through good works and remaining in God
THe thing that seperates these religions is the Spirit of Divinity Supernatural, And by the basis of good works prayer and faith they will get into Heaven, now you must consider that the people are doing the same thing buddhists do just in a differnet manner

 

[jmcrae]

LEt me tell you a little something about the buddha and the basis of his teachings before you talk about how can Catholicism offer anything to modern science, you are misunderstanding the basis of the two faiths if you are going to hold buddhism superior to catholicism.

I don’t think that was his point; I think he was just giving an example of how someone’s religious/spiritual worldview can have a profound influence on his work as a scientist. The example he chose happened to be a guy who was Buddhist.

He is asking “Where do we find this kind of thing with the Catholic faith?”

 

[jfhh]

Mathematical principles always hold true. Mathematicians, indeed, tend to be even more dogmatic than theologians, because there is absolutely no room for personal opinions.

Mathematical systems will leave some things undecided so you can have one “truth” where the parallel postulate holds and another where it doesn’t and do all sorts of nifty things with it and apply it even to theoretical physics and experimental science. Whether the universe is “flat” is related to that.

You are right in terms of what I think your point is, but in terms of the field of mathematics, there is some room for personal opinions in terms of the philosophy of mathematics. Some mathematicians view mathematics as mere games with complex rules which rules they can change as they please and have fun with that have no ontological reality. Others are Platonists and view numbers as somehow actually existing for example. Apart from that, there is of course opinion on matters that are kind of in between mathematics proper and the philosophy of mathematics. For example, some argue the Continuum Hypothesis is true and say that accepting certain other axioms claimed to be of intuitive value justify that. Others say intuition has no place in mathematics. So there’s a difference of opinion on the philosophy of mathematics there which translates into a difference of opinion on whether something is true in mathematics proper with one saying it is and another saying it’s meaningless to say it’s true or not, it’s only true relative to a system of axioms or false relative to different system of axioms.

So there is a strand of relativism (formalism) versus absolutism (Platonism) mixed in there. Today, formalism is the most common framework and it is how mathematics is de facto practiced for the most part.

I think the reason is that Truth, by its nature, tends to generate authority (which is really out of fashion these days). How dare anyone else have greater knowledge than myself; obviously they must be bigots of some kind, seems to be a common point of view.

The thing is though that in science and mathematics, truth is accepted not by relying on someone’s personal authority (faith), but by the scientific community or mathematical community being able to verify the findings through either repeatible experimentation or checking a proof line by line. When an unquestionably brilliant British mathematian announced a proof for Fermat’s Last Theorem (which wasn’t a theorem until it was actually proved; it would be a conjecture), one might have faith that it is true based on the brilliance of the person asserting it. However as it turned out, there were some mistakes in the proof. But those were eventually fixed. In religion and Catholicism it seems to work differently but I hope one day with a mutual exchange of ideas, that science learns from Catholicism and Catholicism from science, and Catholicism becomes more open to self-correction and non-dogmatism. This would be more comforting to me.

 

[The_Barbarian]

It’s a good observation and a good point.

Most Catholics I know are not interested in science at all. The Catholic Faith has been under attack by science for more than a century. The people who make up the scientific community have created a culture that is hostile to faith.

Not that I’ve ever noticed. No one in science ever sneered at me in my work because of my faith. Indeed, many working scientists today are men and women of faith, and no one seems to be bothering them about it.

There’s really no such thing as “pure science”. It always comes with philosophical issues attached.

More likely, people try to map their philosophical idea on the information science uncovers.

This environment is not friendly to Catholic scholarship.

Never had a problem, myself. I don’t know of any Catholic scientists who did, in America.

The Catholic Faith, while very well-founded is a fragile thing as well.

You never met my mother.:nope:

Science may be a luxury in many ways as well – an interesting past-time.

Tell the parents of child with phenylketonuria that.

 

[Geremia]

St. Augustine of Hippo wrote in his On the Teacher (De Magistro, ch. X, 23):

If I am given a formula, and I am ignorant of its meaning, it cannot teach me anything, but if I already know it what does the formula teach me?

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote his own De Magistro based on St. Augustine’s. Click here to read it. It sheds light on how only God is the source and teacher of knowledge, even scientific knowledge.

 

[SumEns]

There are two things that I would like to state with respect to “What can Catholicism offer science”. I have read a lot of these posts so I am not sure who mentioned it, but Science has it’s foundations in a metaphysics established first by Aristotle, and then finely tuned and polished by St. Thomas Aquinas. In a sense, what Catholicism can offer science, is science itself. That may be a bold statement, but I do not believe it to be untrue. Science still uses the ideas of effiecient and material causes in their paradigm, although they would not refer to them as such.

A more direct ‘offering’ is with the philosophy of mind. The OP mentioned the giddy neuroscientists who are all to willing to bury people with information on what each Broadman’s area does and how the brain works with independent islands of cortex as well as interlinked islands that work together to form a coherent whole. The Catholic theory of mind, as offered up by Aquinas both offers an opposing theory of mind that is non-materialist, and forces neuroscientists to reconsider their bold claims. Without getting into too much detail, the point is that the mind, as Aquinas claims, is non-material. The neuroscientists can give us a plethora of information on the brain, but little about the mind (although many just assume the mind is the brain). Thus, Catholic philosophy both informs science, and is informed by science. There is a healthy debate from the likes of John Searle, Michael Gazinga, etc. with Catholics on the very nature of the mind. If all goes well, we can only go forward.

 

[edwest2]

What Catholicism offers modern science is a reminder of truths it holds. Truths that modern science, especially through its institutionalized atheism, has become blind to. Nature magazine tells us most leading scientists reject God.

Until the mid-1800s, science welcomed faith and scientists expressed themselves in ways that acknowledged God. “What hath God wrought?” Samuel Morse, inventor of the telegraph.

It offers to modern science the truth about man. But modern science has rejected this truth and kills human embryos, reducing human life to a mere utilitarian biological device. See C.S. Lewis,The Abolition of Man.

It also offers to modern science the correct path toward dealing with suffering and the aged. When I first began working in health care, I learned the principle under which doctors worked was: “First, do no harm.” Now, instead of treating pain, they are being asked to go the cost effective route and simply allow their patients to die.

It offers its support to science for adult stem cell research which is producing results today, but is mostly ignored by a media complicit with an anti-life mind set.

It is telling modern science, in some case, the means you are using do not justify the ends, and here’s why. It says these things so that man will not literally lose his God-given identity, scientist and non-scientist alike.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Good evening to you all.

To me, that’s lovely, that’s beautiful. That’s interesting, useful, and far far far more engaging than the simplistic “Your Immoral/Stupid vs. hahaha…Flying Spaghetti Monster” blah blah blah.

Wow! I like the way you write. And I have only read your 1st post. The first word that resonated was “relationship”.

Also trying to remember if Flying Spaghetti Monster was in Ben Stein’s documentary: Expelled No Intellegence Allowed or if I read it as a quote from Richard Dawkins.

No offense meant, but you reminded me to dig out a 2006 issue of the Skeptic magazine (which one of my six kids gave me) and actually get a subscription to it. I’d like to do a “Letter to the Editor” for it.

I would love to get into a discussion with you, but first I need to understand stuff from your point of view and read everything that has been posted.

A Sidebar: Since in my mind, relationship requires respectful give and take, I wonder if there’s merit in transposing your question into Does Modern Science offer anything to Catholicism
and to society as well? This would not be a new topic but rather another way of exploring your original question.

It will take a few days, maybe a week, before I feel comfortable on your turf. So keep thinking and searching while I do the same.

Another one of my kids, who is more non-theist than athiest, tells me she is sending me good thoughts. That is her way of “praying”.

Since I am very much a Catholic, though a struggling one at times, I will send you both-- prayers and good thoughts.

grannymh

 

[grannymh]

A quick P.S. to my previous post.

I’m still reading the posts… looking for references to “relationship”.

Remember that TheAtheist said: “What I’m more interested in is capturing the dynamics of a relationship.” under point 1.) in his opening post.

Above that he said: “For in the end, what I’m looking for is a discussion about a relationship (of a constructive sort) between reason and faith.”

So I’m looking for more references to the quality and characteristics of the reason/faith relationship. Perhaps current expectations of the relationship.
It seems both obvious and logical that reason/faith can coexist in human activity.

In one of the posts, TheAtheist says: “I’m just trying to illustrate what a positive relationship is like.”

To me, the challenge of determining what the faith/reason relationship should be calls for creativity. However, it invokes vulnerability because we need to look at ourselves first to find out how we actually relate faith and reason.

How does faith and how does reason operate in our worldview? Does it inspired us?

 

[TheAtheist]

WOW…umm. First of, i really really really don’t know where to begin - toooo many responses! Too many comments! Need to impose some sort of sequential order on this thing.

Let me get the unfortuante business out of the way first, as there seems to be issues/questions regarding my intentions (and i was sooo hoping that my initial post would have deflated all that).

So let me first state the following:

I don’t think that was his point; I think he was just giving an example of how someone’s religious/spiritual worldview can have a profound influence on his work as a scientist. The example he chose happened to be a guy who was Buddhist.

He is asking "Where do we find this kind of thing with the Catholic faith?"QUOTE]

I can safely say that JmCrae knows my mind . And probably stated my question in a far more precise/less wordy manner. So thank you JM.

And that’s pretty much it. I’m not here to “assail your walls” or anything of that sort. Actually, that type of talk reminds me of those who have attached themselves to the “New Atheists” movement largely responsible due to the so-called “Four Horsemen” - (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett…although i’d like to subtract Dennett from the group - he’s a lot less polemical).

Same old same old with them too. “We’re the bearers of Truth, the barbarians who wield their foul supersition are at our gates, Reason is under attack, oohh the Persecution, the Persecution the Persecution, its so hard being an atheist in a world full of theists, but the better Utopia is just around the corner…”

Blah blah blah blah blah.

As you can probably guess, i have a very low opinion of that sort of mentality.

Since every group always screams Persecution - i’ve always wondered who exactly is doing all the persecuting.

But that’s enough of that, i think the vast majority of you here understood what i mean. I’m just a guy who rolled up in his car/wagon/kawasaki motorbike/donkey to the doors of your Castle/Church/Community and is knocking on the gate with milk and cookies…and dodging the “defensive arrows” all the while wondering “What did i do?”

 

[TheAtheist]

WOW…umm. First of, i really really really don’t know where to begin - toooo many responses! Too many comments! Need to impose some sort of sequential order on this thing.

Let me get the unfortuante business out of the way first, as there seems to be issues/questions regarding my intentions (and i was sooo hoping that my initial post would have deflated all that).

So let me first state the following:

I don’t think that was his point; I think he was just giving an example of how someone’s religious/spiritual worldview can have a profound influence on his work as a scientist. The example he chose happened to be a guy who was Buddhist.

He is asking "Where do we find this kind of thing with the Catholic faith?"QUOTE]

I can safely say that JmCrae knows my mind . And probably stated my question in a far more precise/less wordy manner. So thank you JM.

And that’s pretty much it. I’m not here to “assail your walls” or anything of that sort. Actually, that type of talk reminds me of those who have attached themselves to the “New Atheists” movement largely responsible due to the so-called “Four Horsemen” - (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett…although i’d like to subtract Dennett from the group - he’s a lot less polemical).

Same old same old with them too. “We’re the bearers of Truth, the barbarians who wield their foul supersition are at our gates, Reason is under attack, oohh the Persecution, the Persecution the Persecution, its so hard being an atheist in a world full of theists, but the better Utopia is just around the corner…”

Blah blah blah blah blah.

As you can probably guess, i have a very low opinion of that sort of mentality.

Since every group always screams Persecution - i’ve always wondered who exactly is doing all the persecuting.

But that’s enough of that, i think the vast majority of you here understood what i mean. I’m just a guy who rolled up in his car/wagon/kawasaki motorbike/donkey to the doors of your Castle/Church/Community and is knocking on the gate with milk and cookies…and dodging the “defensive arrows” all the while wondering “What did i do?”

 

[TheAtheist]

And now, the incredibly hard task of trying to address all these thigns!

ReggieM:

It depends on how one views “modern science”. If it is, as I see it, built on materialist philosophy (essentially atheistic) and populated by biased professors who are seeking to destroy belief in God and the supernatural, then there won’t be much that Catholicism can offer to such people.

Well, methodological naturalism has served us quite well in producing results and constructing a framework for acquiring knowledge.

Some of us feel its warranted to extend that to a metaphysical level until results bear out otherwise (if we think it will bear out at all).

I can’t really say that i agree with you on the “biased professor” business.

To be frank with you, many hold a kind of “irrelevantist” position. Others hold a “weak atheist” position - namely “We haven’t seen any evidence.”

Before someone jumps down my throat about intuitive or mystical knowledge of God, let me state the following. I’m sure we can all agree on the idea of “Different strokes for different folks” right?

The “different stroke” that many are willing to consider is attached to my favorite person in your Bible - the Apostle (Or is it Disciple, never could keep it straight) Thomas.

**"Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.” **

Now there’s a true empricist.

Unlike Buddhism, Catholicism posits a supernatural order. God actually “does things” which affect the universe.

Actually, they do posit one too. Sort of. Its complicated - some do and some don’t. Depends on the “flavor,” although a lot of erm “Protestant buddhists” have tried to sanitize Buddhism of its “superstitious elements.”

Frankly, i think most of them are trying to find some sort of foundational point for their specific moral-ethical codes outside of Western civilization, but that’s a topic for another day.

I realize that most of the evolutionist-Catholics (all of them) on CAF disagree with me, but I believe that the only thing that modern Catholicism contributes to modern science is a “me tooism” where belief in the supernatural is dismissed or shelved, and when all else fails, a NOMA barrier is erected.

That’s what i’m afraid of - “me tooism” has a tendency of leading to something else that is…less benign.

That and well, given the historical record - just like those Tibetans and Orthodox Jews, i believe your tradition is capable of engaging these issues. Otherwise, all we have left are like the 20 some odd Anglicans (ok, that’s a bad joke, but seriously there aren’t a lot left), a few Wesleyan Methodists, Reformed Lutherans, and maybe some of the Orthodox churches.

Minus all them and your Church, we’re left with your “unruly cousins.”

Although i’m not a fan of Behe’s work, i will accept that as an attempt. At least he tried.

Now this is a great transition spot for the next response.

 

[TheAtheist]

Geremia said:

You would love the book Creative Tension by the Catholic priest, cosmologist, and Templeton Award winner Fr. Michał Heller. Another book I would recommend is The Savior of Science by the Benedictine physicist Fr. Stanley L. Jaki. Fr. Jaki argues that science could not have advanced to the point it has without a Catholic society. He shows how other, non-Catholic societies have only progressed scientifically up to a certain point, thus Catholicism helped the world advance its science further.QUOTE]

I owe you sir a great debt - thanks for your thoughts. Your references to Pope Benedict are one of the reasons why i’ve open up this inquiry. He seems like the type who wants to roll up his sleeves and “go for it” instead of “fencing off” your Church.

Indeed, I am glad to know someone knows that we Catholics are not at all anti-science. We foster it; we teach it in Catholic schools.

Kind of like your St. Anslelm eh? Faith seeking Understanding.

Its the “Seeking Understanding” part that wins you respect from those who may not hold your viewpoints. Well that and it probably gives us more to talk about.

Eek. More people to reply to, more to come!