Faith and Science

[cassini]

FAITH AND SCIENCE

I put this on a new thread as I find on this forum the same thing being discussed on different threads and they would be better on the one, so I will start this all embracing thread. It is part new and part of the thread Theistic evolution and Scripture and earth at the centre of the universe thread. I try to bring the two together so all can participate on the one.

The nineteenth and twentieth century popes all kept telling us there can be no dispute between faith and science. John Paul II was into this one big time. If you are an ‘intellectual’ pope, you can impress academia entering this arena. You will be lauded by all the atheists and agnostics that occupy the invited chairs on this body that has its roots in the occult Academy of Lynxes that published the books of Galileo. As a pope like JP2 and B16 enter the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for they know their belief system will not be challenged as they listen to popes trying to keep Christianity credible with the ‘science’ of evolutionism and cosmology.

Now it is true there can be no dispute between Catholic faith and science, but, and here is the CRUNCHER, there are TWO kinds of science, - true science and false science or false philosophy if you prefer.
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.)

This shows us the Church’s position in recognising false science – even if the same Churchmen were already victims of the false science.

So, how do you get false science? Simple, science is rendered possibly false when it is not directed by Catholic theology. When the StAs offer their science, it is a science as accepted for many years now, what I call a GODLESS science.
Now the StAs will not dispute this for they will claim that science IS a godless science by it nature now. In other words when one is investigating anything the first condition is that it CANNOT be based on there being a supernatural or a preternatural element in the universe, So, they MUST find a natural solution to everything.

The bedrock of this science can be traced back to the heretical Heliocentricism. From its 100% acceptance by atheists and Isaac Newton’s theory of gravitation came everything. First it went to the ‘nebular fact of science’ how a H solar system came to be. Then when they interpreted the red shift as indicating an expanding universe they extrapolated back to a bib bang. Before that the fact of genetic spread was used to explain a ‘scientific’ reason for all flora and fauna.

Now the other type of science is that directed by theology. Now there are parameters by which to interpret things in the universe and on earth. A direct creation eliminated a evolutionary need. a G created universe should have led to investigation of a G physics.

Now I have a choice of SCIENCES, one directed by theology or one directed by GODLESS thought. As a Catholic I chose the one protected by theology. Alas it seem I find myself in opposition to popes, Churchmen and lay folk for centuries now.

Which side are you on?

 

[clmowry]

I think there is very little science that has any relationship to faith.

The Origin of the Universe, Abiogenesis and Common Ancestory come to mind. (Maybe Noah and the flood?)

Most other scientific “conflicts” with Catholic teaching are just noise.

Give’m time and eventually the scientists will get it right.

It seems to me that despite the best efforts of some scientist to fight it the data continues to push them towards a truth that coincides in the few places where science and religion overlap.

Chuck

 

[StAnastasia]

I think there is very little science that has any relationship to faith.

Neuroscience can be in dialogue with faith on the subject of religious experience. One can take a scientistic approach that explains away religious experience, or a dialogical approach that concedes the possibility that underlying the neurobiologic basis of experience is an ontological reality.

StAnastasia

 

[The_Barbarian]

So, how do you get false science? Simple, science is rendered possibly false when it is not directed by Catholic theology. When the StAs offer their science, it is a science as accepted for many years now, what I call a GODLESS science.

Hmm… Newton denied that Christ was God. So maybe F isn’t really equal to mass times acceleration? Maybe calculus doesn’t work? Sorry, not a credible approach. BTW, all science is possibly false; if it’s not at least falsible in principal, it can’t be tested, and is therefore not science.

In other words when one is investigating anything the first condition is that it CANNOT be based on there being a supernatural or a preternatural element in the universe, So, they MUST find a natural solution to everything.

No. They must confine their studies only to those things that are natural, leaving the supernatural to other disciplines.

The bedrock of this science can be traced back to the heretical Heliocentricism.

You must be joking. Anastarchus of Samos, one of the earliest scientists, inferred Heliocentrism from observing the Sun and the Moon. Most atheists (like most other people) accepted the geocentric model.

Now I have a choice of SCIENCES, one directed by theology or one directed by GODLESS thought. As a Catholic I chose the one protected by theology. Alas it seem I find myself in opposition to popes, Churchmen and lay folk for centuries now.

It’s tough being a Catholic. But if you are truly Catholic, you should not be afraid of the truth. God is truth.

Which side are you on?

Truth. The truth matters. It should matter to you.

 

[Namesake]

Which side are you on?

It’s very hard for me to understand why people keep trying to include religion within science.

Scientists may try to exclude God but science never does. Science is completely silent on matters of faith.

I wish people could understand that. Science never excludes God, it just isn’t interested in God. Just like people here tell you that plumbing isn’t interested in God. No different.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

I think science and religion go hand in hand. It just depends on how much understanding you have about God, the world, and its people.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[Namesake]

I think science and religion go hand in hand. It just depends on how much understanding you have about God, the world, and its people.

Well, they certainly can go hand in hand as long as people respect the limits of each. Science can’t do anything about the supernatural and religion can’t be an authority on natural science.

Some respect for the differences would help a lot.

 

[cassini]

It’s tough being a Catholic. But if you are truly Catholic, you should not be afraid of the truth. God is truth.

Truth. The truth matters. It should matter to you.

Ah Barbarian, but as Pilate asked Christ, ‘what is truth’. And that’s the question i asked, what is truth. Elsewhere of course He told us: ‘I am truth.’ Now who is I? Answer the Church. But according to all the barbarians in the world, 99.9999% of the ‘educated’ peoples, the Church didn’t get the truth of it in 1616, did they? So, was Christ exaggerating then?
You say:
‘Hmm… Newton denied that Christ was God. So maybe F isn’t really equal to mass times acceleration? Maybe calculus doesn’t work? Sorry, not a credible approach. BTW, all science is possibly false; if it’s not at least falsible in principal, it can’t be tested, and is therefore not science.’

Barbarian, You know I didn’t meant that, don’t be so frivilous. If you want to discuss Newton’s maths and what it was worth in finding truth I can do that. But Newton’s maths were used to try to support GODLESS science, that is, cosmic movement that did NOT include divine causality.

You say:
No. They must confine their studies only to those things that are natural, leaving the supernatural to other disciplines.

See, this is science the GODLESS way. Let me give you an example Geocentricism is a God revealed fact of nature. Heliocentricism is a religion turned into a science to insert itself into the minds of men as a fact of nature. Once this was achieved Geocentricism as a revelation and as a science were demoted to a false faith with no scientific credibility. Thus, using Barbarians formuls above, geocentricism is not considered natural but supernatural, outside the parameters of science. That’s how GODLESS science eliminated a GOD revealed science.

You say:
You must be joking. Anastarchus of Samos, one of the earliest scientists, inferred Heliocentrism from observing the Sun and the Moon. Most atheists (like most other people) accepted the geocentric model.

Heliocentricism has two identities, one religious, one as a cosmic theory. It wasn’t until Galileo that the theory was adopted to a ‘perpetual motion’ without any need for divine causality. Thus GODLESS science did begin with Galileo.
Atheism had its origins with the Copernican revolution. A recent book on Atheism sources the first of these in the seventeenth century. It seems to me then that few atheists accepted geocentricism for G has a complete doctrine attached to it.

 

[edwest2]

Science as a method of investigation is silent about God, but scientists are not. There is also the institutionalized atheism, caled scientism, that has corrupted the worldview of scientists, leading them to false conclusions where science touches upon questions of human origins. Take Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and PZ Myers. All of them feel that their understanding of scientific information leads to the conclusion that there is no God. And please, no more defense of Richard Dawkins. The only Christianity he might be interested in is a meaningless Christianity, one that is symbolic only.

Nature magazine tells us most leading scientists reject God. Why? Scientific information, they claim, leads them to that conclusion.

Don’t quote Pope John Paul II only when it’s in support of atheist beliefs. The truth matters but it must flow in both directions to be true, not just one. There will be no dictatorship of science.

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” Pope John Paul II

The current idolatry being practiced by scientists and their followrs is that the mind of man is everything. The Church opposes this.

Peace,
ED

 

[edwest2]

Well, they certainly can go hand in hand as long as people respect the limits of each. Science can’t do anything about the supernatural and religion can’t be an authority on natural science.

Some respect for the differences would help a lot.

Why can’t religion be an authority on natural science? Mere human beings can go to a university and become authorities. The Church founded the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for the purpose of staying current with the various sciences. The Vatican has an observatory.

Scientists have become very vocal of their disdain of religion and PZ Myers put a rusty nail through a eucharistic host and threw it in the trash. He told Christians on his web site: “It’s just a ****** cracker!” And Nature magazine tells us most leading scientist reject God. PZ goes on to tell people on his youtube interview that “science is corrosive to religious belief” and that atheism and science go hand in hand. If that’s not enough, he goes on to tell how atheists are going to elbow their way out of isolation. An Atheist-Scientific Technocracy is clearly the goal.

So, it’s pretty clear that science is now a tool of an atheist mind set among scientists, and that’s it’s being actively promoted. Even by non-scientists who have been inspired by statements made by Dawkins and others, like Bill Maher (Religious belief is a neurological disorder according to him.)

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Ah Barbarian, but as Pilate asked Christ, ‘what is truth’. And that’s the question i asked, what is truth. Elsewhere of course He told us: ‘I am truth.’ Now who is I? Answer the Church. But according to all the barbarians in the world, 99.9999% of the ‘educated’ peoples, the Church didn’t get the truth of it in 1616, did they? So, was Christ exaggerating then?

How do you think they didn’t get it. Were “they” the Church?

Barbarian, regarding the notion that only science by those accepting the Church is reliable:
‘Hmm… Newton denied that Christ was God. So maybe F isn’t really equal to mass times acceleration? Maybe calculus doesn’t work? Sorry, not a credible approach. BTW, all science is possibly false; if it’s not at least falsible in principal, it can’t be tested, and is therefore not science.’

Barbarian, You know I didn’t meant that, don’t be so frivilous.

You didn’t consider what you were saying. You meant to confine it to only science you don’t like. But as you see, it applies to most science, even the parts you like.

If you want to discuss Newton’s maths and what it was worth in finding truth I can do that. But Newton’s maths were used to try to support GODLESS science, that is, cosmic movement that did NOT include divine causality.

True, Newton used no religious ideas in his theory of gravity. But it works very well to a high degree of precision for most things.

Barbarian observes:
No. They must confine their studies only to those things that are natural, leaving the supernatural to other disciplines.

See, this is science the GODLESS way.

Plumbing is that way, too. Does “GODLESS” plumbing bother you?

Let me give you an example Geocentricism is a God revealed fact of nature.

Nope. In fact, it doesn’t say anything at all about it.

Heliocentricism is a religion turned into a science to insert itself into the minds of men as a fact of nature.

Wrong again. Heliocentrism, in the middle ages was first proposed merely as a convenience for calculation. You didn’t need all the odd corrections to make calculations using helocentrism.

And of course, Aristarchus merely inferred the position of the Sun from observed data.

Once this was achieved Geocentricism as a revelation and as a science were demoted to a false faith with no scientific credibility.

Heliocentrism was demonstrated by Galileo, who showed that Venus has phases because and the Earth orbit the Sun, with Venus closer to the Sun.

Thus, using Barbarians formuls above, geocentricism is not considered natural but supernatural, outside the parameters of science.

Don’t see how that could be, given the facts.

That’s how GODLESS science eliminated a GOD revealed science.

Except, of course, God never said that the sun orbited the Earth.

Barbarian observes:
You must be joking. Anastarchus of Samos, one of the earliest scientists, inferred Heliocentrism from observing the Sun and the Moon. Most atheists (like most other people) accepted the geocentric model.

Heliocentricism has two identities, one religious, one as a cosmic theory. It wasn’t until Galileo that the theory was adopted to a ‘perpetual motion’ without any need for divine causality. Thus GODLESS science did begin with Galileo.

No. Democritus of Abdera. Nearly 2000 years earlier. The idea that science should be conducted on evidence, instead of magic or religion is older than you think.

Atheism had its origins with the Copernican revolution.

Odd then, that St. Paul speaks of them. And the Bible even earlier.

Psalms 13:1 Unto the end, a psalm for David. The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God, They are corrupt, and are become abominable in their ways: there is none that doth good, no not one.

You’ve got some catching up to do.

 

[StAnastasia]

Thus GODLESS science did begin with Galileo. Atheism had its origins with the Copernican revolution.

Cassini, you need to learn some history of science. Lucretius propounded an atheistic atomism well before Christ was born.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Scientists have become very vocal of their disdain of religion and PZ Myers put a rusty nail through a eucharistic host and threw it in the trash. He told Christians on his web site: “It’s just a ****** cracker!” And Nature magazine tells us most leading scientist reject God. PZ goes on to tell people on his youtube interview that “science is corrosive to religious belief” and that atheism and science go hand in hand. If that’s not enough, he goes on to tell how atheists are going to elbow their way out of isolation. An Atheist-Scientific Technocracy is clearly the goal.Peace,Ed

Some people in science are driven to atheism because the religion they have encountered is juvenile anti-intellectualism. As one who has published on the relationship between religion and science, I have been asked to consult after Christmas with RCIA candidates who are trepidatious of throwing in their lot with Catholicism, because they fear they will be required to surrender their reason to a Church that is anti-science. One candidate is a philosopher, another a scientist.

The specific questions I have been asked to address in January with our parish RCIA group include: (1) “Is the Church against biological evolution?” (the answer is “of course not”): and (2) "When I become Catholic must I leave my brains on the doormat and start believing that the sun revolves around the earth? I look forward to dialoguing with these candidates who are preparing for baptism at Easter.

StAnastasia

 

[cassini]

Great stuff lads, it would taske me a month to reply to all objections to my opinion. The passage in Psalms quoted above obviously refers to those who did not believe in the true God - pagans - who all had a deity of one kind or another. I simply do not accept the passage as a reference to atheists.To my knowledge, there has never been found a race of atheists. Even when remote peoples were found who never had outside influences, all had a deity. Knowledge of God is inherent in human nature. Atheism as a personal conditiopn and as an institution is an acquired state. Individual atheists claim they are natural atheists but they are conditioned by the philosophies of their time. Today Atheism has grown into a force opposing Catholicism. This institutionalised atheism emerged only when they could use ‘science’ to ‘prove’ their mind-state. Thus a recent book on the subject could only document atheism in the 1600s. The author admitted each ‘advance’ in Bible rejecting ‘science’ supported their cause. When Churchmen endorced their GODLESS science, they swelled the numbers of atheists in the world. The Churchmen should have been rejecting this false philosophy as required by Catholic faith, dogmatised at Vatican Council 1870, instead were accepting every theory that made Genesis look like a fairy tale. These Churchmenm prefered to warp Catholic theology to the dictates of GODLESS science. One Pope did see this, Pope St Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi. Alas, he was hardly in his grave before the underground modernists climbed out from under their stones.

I will address other points another time.

 

[Deconi]

“Cassini”…hmmm. How was the ‘trip’ and when did you get back? I don’t think ‘we’ expected you back???

Which moon of your planet rotates in the opposite direction?

 

[cassini]

“Cassini”…hmmm. How was the ‘trip’ and when did you get back? I don’t think ‘we’ expected you back???

Which moon of your planet rotates in the opposite direction?

You talkin to me?

 

[Deconi]

You talkin to me?

Yeah. Didn’t you descend into the Saturn orbit around 2001??

 

[cassini]

It’s very hard for me to understand why people keep trying to include religion within science.

Scientists may try to exclude God but science never does. Science is completely silent on matters of faith.

I wish people could understand that. Science never excludes God, it just isn’t interested in God. Just like people here tell you that plumbing isn’t interested in God. No different.

Now here is someone so naive that it seems a shame to bring him or her into the real world. First of all the word GOD is bandied about nowadays giving the impression that HE embraces every concept of the deity. Well GOD is the TRINITY, the rest are the not GOD. But if I can get so-called adherents to the TRINITY to accept other concepts of god as GOD, then even Lucifer becomes GOD because to some Lucifer is a god.

The history of scientific institutions, expecially the Royal Society of London, demonstrates how God (the TRINITY) was purged from science and replaced with a new god of science - the god of forces.

Separating
Science from
Pseudo-science

‘Science, as any other human endeavour, does not exist in a vacuum. It is not an isolated, independent system of thought and practice. What happens in other realms of human life affects how science is practised, perceived, and received.’ —
Peter Machamer, introduction to The Cambridge Galileo, 1997, p.1.
There we are now, and we all thought what they call ‘science’ is an independent discipline totally free of all bias and prejudice, didn’t we? Where then did this new idea of ‘science’ come from?

‘The seventeenth century saw the replacement of Aristotelian physics by the classic physics of Newton. The Aristotelian view of the universe was that of unaided common sense: a stationary earth with the sun, the stars and the planets revolving around it…Thomas Kuhn [another philosopher of science] wrote a book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. He distinguished between normal science when research goes on using an accepted theory, or paradigm, and the times of crisis when there is a switch to a new and incommensurable paradigm.’ —
See T. Kuhn, Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago Press, 1970.

So, their idea of science comes from preferring Newton’s heliocentric view of the universe to Aristotle’s geocentric ‘view’, not from the deductive method to the inductive or empiric experience as one could expect. All involved in and with the great earthmoving and sun fixing revolution though claimed/claims their support for a nine-planet solar system and modern cosmology is true science, don’t they? But we see above philosophers know it is but a new paradigm as how one interprets a system. Can we say interpreting discoveries in a heliocentric paradigm is true science and interpreting discoveries in a geocentric paradign is also true science?

I submitted that only one paradigm, the H one is now considered as science, whereas the other G one is eliminated as true science. Thus there are two paradigms of science, one GODLESS the other (Geocentricism) as GOD science. Most replies have denied this.
Let readers be the judge.

 

[cassini]

Yeah. Didn’t you descend into the Saturn orbit around 2001??

Got you now kid, yes that me, but I never gave them permission to use my name. I have nothing in common with them, they are all heliocentric frauds who use geocentric calculations and pretend they are heliocentric ones.

 

[cassini]

I think there is very little science that has any relationship to faith.

The Origin of the Universe, Abiogenesis and Common Ancestory come to mind. (Maybe Noah and the flood?)

Most other scientific “conflicts” with Catholic teaching are just noise.

Chuck

Come on now clmowry, the infamous conflict with Galileo’s heretical promulgations can hardly be described as ‘noise.’ Have you no idea that it was the heresy that led to modernism and the resulting apostasy in the Church with Catholicism losing its influence in the world? Some noise.