Faith and Science

  • Thread starter Thread starter cassini
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The teaching that says Adam was created by God direct from inanimate matter and that He infused Adam’s body with a human soul and that He then created Eve from the flesh of Adam. He then tested them and under the direct temptation of the Devil Adam and Eve committed Original Sin. this sin in turn deprived Adam and Eve from heaven and for all their descendants. That one personal sin that gave rise to the Incarnation, birth, life and death of Jesus so that man could gain heaven once again.

That teaching, the one billions of Catholic were taught and believed.
And of course God knew it would all happen exactly that way so why was the test even done if God knew how it would turn out?
 
I have no problem with astronomers or astronomy, my problem is with what they call COSMOLOGISTS.
hey im an amateur cosmologist and a Catholic, the two are not inseparable. they tend to be complementarity its only a problem when one tries to use cosmology in such a way as to exclude a Creator.
 
Couple of thoughts, the Church does not and cannot dictate Truth as it is, has been, and will be forever. To us Catholics Truth, which is inseparable from faith and reason, is not a something, it’s a someone.

Second, a good indicator of Truth would be Beauty. Both scientists and theologians can agree, that when something is presented in an elegant, sophisticated way, there is Truth to it.
The devil works through deception, substituting a fake for the true article. There are distorted forms of beauty walking the streets at night, or in a movie. The outward must have Truth inside or it is just a replica of what is true.

Peace,
Ed
 
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
Except that for many people, Science has become the default substitute for religion. In Roman times, people of skeptical bent, confronted with remarkable phenomenon, could humanly default to superstitition or a kind of agnosticism regarding the gods, or magic . Many people still do this. For them science is a kind of magic. But there is a slightly different approach, too. Confronted with a wonder, and unable to explain it, they say that science cannot YET explain it, but…they have faith that it will.
 
And of course God knew it would all happen exactly that way so why was the test even done if God knew how it would turn out?
you misunderstand what we believe about G-d, namely that he is not subject to time as we know it. Scripture says the following things
  1. a second is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a second to Him.
  2. G-d is infinite.
what can we infer from this?

from His viewpoint all eternity is a temporal singularity all actions occur simultaneously, including His knowledge of them. we see time as a chain of causality because of our limited mental processing power. he doesnt have that problem.
 
Or to include one.
no creator violates the sufficient cause, clause of Aquinas’ first cause argument. therefore a cosmology inclusive of a creator is acceptable, a cosmology that lacks a creator is not, and still be logical.
say that three times fast:)
 
And of course God knew it would all happen exactly that way so why was the test even done if God knew how it would turn out?
Just because God knows the future does not prevent Him from allowing man free will and choice.
 
hey im an amateur cosmologist and a Catholic, the two are not inseparable. they tend to be complementarity its only a problem when one tries to use cosmology in such a way as to exclude a Creator.
Hi warpetc., trouble is as most posts of that nature say, cosmology is a science so has no room for God.
 
Hi Tim,

This is hair splitting. As I have read many business contracts, I’ve learned a simple rule: if it’s not included, it’s excluded. That’s all I’m saying. The Church is in the same position.The biology textbook excludes God who the Church regards as a direct causal agent, without which, evolution cannot exist. Evolutionary theory is the little engine that can’t. It is unguided and unintelligent. It operates toward no purpose. Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution. You can find that at the Library on this site.

I am growing tired of people here who add the word God to make an incomplete theory palatable to Christians. I’m not buying it. I also reject the Deist view that God kick started everything and then sat back and relaxed. God is active and detectable in nature. He is the Creative Reason that orders and sustains and guides. Here, God is just a word to help market an ideology.

Peace,
Ed
So you admit that there are no biology textbooks that explicitly exclude God? Great! I guess you will not be using that fallacious argument anymore, right?

Peace

Tim
 
By definition - every “science” textbook excludes God.
So why is it that Ed only picks out biology textbooks? Why would that be any less disturbing about a chemistry or physics textbook? How about an accounting textbook?

Its a bogus argument. I certainly doesn’t show an athiestic slant to the textbooks.

Peace

Tim
 
So why is it that Ed only picks out biology textbooks? Why would that be any less disturbing about a chemistry or physics textbook? How about an accounting textbook?

Its a bogus argument. I certainly doesn’t show an athiestic slant to the textbooks.

Peace

Tim
They are not allowed to put God in the textbooks.

Perhaps the preface could read -

Science admits that God is our creator. The following textbooks are our best guesses as to how He did it.

Think we could get that in?
 
They are not allowed to put God in the textbooks.

Perhaps the preface could read -

Science admits that God is our creator. The following textbooks are our best guesses as to how He did it.

Think we could get that in?
What do you think?😉

Maybe we could put that in accounting textbooks as well.

Peace

Tim
 
What do you think?😉

Maybe we could put that in accounting textbooks as well.

Peace

Tim
Nah. Accounting textbooks do not address origins.

Or we could preface our science books -

This is a textbook on the natural sciences. Since we only address the natural, our conlcusions will be based on the emperical evidence only. We will not form conclusions that are worldview or philosophically based.
 
Hi warpetc., trouble is as most posts of that nature say, cosmology is a science so has no room for God.
as Catholics we believe that science is compatible with Christiainity, essentially scientists are mechanics exploring this machine of Creation.

it is unfortunate that some would like to use the workings of the machine to exclude the factory, but it is a logical impossibility.
 
Ah, but God created everything. I think it is an athiestic plot to remove God from accounting. Once you do that, you get…

ENRON!!!

Peace

Tim
Well now you bring up a good point. The removal of God from accounting has indeed led to ethical and moral violations.
 
Hi warpetc., trouble is as most posts of that nature say, cosmology is a science so has no room for God.
As science, cosmology does not include God any more than does chemistry or biology or physics. But as we learn more and more about cosmology – including the apparent incredible fine-tuning of the many constants – we find that cosmological science carries fascinating philosophical and theological implications. Aquinas knew knew the distinction between theology and science, a distinction forgotten by IDers and YECs today.

StAnastasia
 
As science, cosmology does not include God any more than does chemistry or biology or physics. But as we learn more and more about cosmology – including the apparent incredible fine-tuning of the many constants – we find that cosmological science carries fascinating philosophical and theological implications.
Thank you for mentioning the “fine-tuning” in a positive context. There are many here who present fine-tuning as God fiddling at the controls trying to get it right (which of course it is not).

Fine-tuning refers of course to the initial conditions at time=0 of the big bang being exactly right for our universe to properly unfold over time. G. Coyne didn’t understand this and he has a lot of followers who are following his blind leadership by misrepresenting what fine-tuning refers to.

Again, thank you.
Aquinas knew knew the distinction between theology and science, a distinction forgotten by IDers and YECs today.
StAnastasia
I believe that the IDers above that you refer to are actually a few YECs attempting to use ID as a wedge, much like atheists like to use evolution as a wedge. Most IDers today are NOT YECers. Unfortunately it seems that more and more scientists are atheists 😦

Aquinas was an IDer. As an attempt to discredit the notion that it is possible to perceive God’s design in nature, there are some here who mistakenly say that ID was invented in the late 1800s or early 1900s by YECers. One of Aquinas’ 5 proofs for the existence of God is his “argument from design” and he was long gone by the 1800s.

Were you aware that the whole fine-tuning argument is in fact an argument for design, a design that we can actually perceive (or at least we think we can perceive the fine tuning constants).

I think you’ll agree with me that it is a pity that so many scientists can see the works of God and be awed by them, but still fail to see the artisan behind them (Wisdom 13).
 
Fine-tuning refers of course to the initial conditions at time=0 of the big bang being exactly right for our universe to properly unfold over time. G. Coyne didn’t understand this and he has a lot of followers who are following his blind leadership by misrepresenting what fine-tuning refers to.
Well, ricmat, that’s curious. George and I had dinner together not long ago, and much of our excellent and cordial conversation revolved around the issue of fine tuning. What do you mean by the statement that he doesn’t understand it?

StAnastasia
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top