Faith and Science

  • Thread starter Thread starter cassini
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Ed,

Thank you for this post because it also helps explain Post 190 by buffalo who also indicated that if science did not include God in any of its explanations, then it excluded God. I especially liked “God is active and detectable in nature.” I think there was a lst century historian which referred to this phenomenon. So, please keep posting your thoughts.

However, I would like to approach God being included in biology textbooks from a different, not necessarily an opposing, angle.
May I offer my personal opinion of the either/or position of either/or including or excluding God in science textbooks. I do understand why this position is being taken…because of the problem of “atheistic evolution”.

With contract law, you are using the mutually exclusive “or” which is correct because that is what the legal system has determined. In my opinion, comparing science to the legal system is like comparing apples to giraffes. I can’t quite put this into the right words–I’m still learning about this topic–but the science concept should be more like a free spirit (not to be confused with a freethinker).

The idea of academic freedom was one of the points of the recent Ben Stein documentary. Whether or not he presented enough evidence to back up his point is for others to decide. My point is that science should have the freedom to explore inside and outside the universe. If science were truly free than it would not be necessary to use the mutually exclusive “or” regarding God’s presence. Then there would be the reverse of a sentence in post 190. Instead of " Every gap we close makes the concept of God weaker." there would be “With every gap in our scientific knowledge closed, the concept of God grows stronger and stronger.”

Blessings,
grannymh
If you study atheist, humanist, marxist, bright, free thinker and similar web sites, a simple pattern emerges: man and science are the new gods. Atheism and paganism are being heavily marketed. Comedians form the core of the Ministry of Propaganda. Lewis Black will tell you: There’s no such thing as bad language. Bil Maher will tell you: religious belief is a neurological disorder. Chris Rock cannot stop talking about graphic and perverted sex. Meanwhile, the best and the brightest on Wall Street have plunged the world into economic chaos. And all they do is deal with numbers.

The Church teaches anyone can detect God through natural reason but people here are pretending atheists don’t exist and deflecting clear information that they do. They deflect the atheist connection to science while PZ Myers and a host of others are promoting it. No plumbing manual, or inanimate object will tell people who they relly are. Scientists have decided that all they see is all there is. The atheists like the idea. It helps their cause.

There was never a God of the Gaps. That’s a meaningless slogan. The reality is that evolution is filled with clever, but unprovable assertions. Punctuated equillibrium - of course. Given enough time, literally anything is possible. What rubbish. If I left all the parts to a bicycle on the ground for 5 billion years, exactly nothing would assemble itself.

Peace,
Ed
 
If you study atheist, humanist, marxist, bright, free thinker and similar web sites, a simple pattern emerges: man and science are the new gods. Atheism and paganism are being heavily marketed. Comedians form the core of the Ministry of Propaganda. Lewis Black will tell you: There’s no such thing as bad language. Bil Maher will tell you: religious belief is a neurological disorder. Chris Rock cannot stop talking about graphic and perverted sex. Meanwhile, the best and the brightest on Wall Street have plunged the world into economic chaos. And all they do is deal with numbers.

The Church teaches anyone can detect God through natural reason but people here are pretending atheists don’t exist and deflecting clear information that they do. They deflect the atheist connection to science while PZ Myers and a host of others are promoting it. No plumbing manual, or inanimate object will tell people who they relly are. Scientists have decided that all they see is all there is. The atheists like the idea. It helps their cause.

There was never a God of the Gaps. That’s a meaningless slogan. The reality is that evolution is filled with clever, but unprovable assertions. Punctuated equillibrium - of course. Given enough time, literally anything is possible. What rubbish. If I left all the parts to a bicycle on the ground for 5 billion years, exactly nothing would assemble itself.

Peace,
Ed
Regarding your last sentence about the bicycle – If you want some very interesting odds about chance happening as part of evolution, please read “Answering the New Atheism, Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God” by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker. They have some good relative examples.
 
.

what rhetoric?, do you want me too list all the probes that we have sent all over the solar system? pictures, mathematical proofs, etc?

of course the movements are relative to each other, all movement is relative to every other movement, as a matter of mathematical determinism. it could be no other way.

yet that does not support geocentrism, frame independent phenomenon dispute it, the equatorial bulge, corialis forces, deep space probes, and pictures from them.

nasa uses a heliocentric model of the solar system to calculate trajectories for spaceecraft and probes, these bodies reach their destinations, where under a geocentric model they wouldnt. the earth obviously spins, its rotation is observed from orbit, its both witnessed by astronauts, and by inertial systems reliant on gyroscopes creating a separate frame of reference. even the GPS is dependent on providing a separate frame of reference in order to calculate positions on the surface.

and most damning to your theory is the fact that other worlds in other systems revolve around their stars, in fact every system revolves around the most massive thing in that system

and since these systems are removed most definitely from the frame of reference of the relative motion of bodies in this solar system, it would seem to completely destroy the theory of geocentrism.

looks like a ton of observational proof to me. the relative motion you are referring to is easily accounted for. a simple coordinate system, like the ones used in any 3-dimensional navigation are meant for exactly that.

if it is just consensus you would be right, but its direct observational evidence, what more could you need, or even acquire?

it is proven by all the observational data, and the church now accepts heliocentrism

ah, now we come to the meat of the matter, instead of accepting the churches position that science is not a threat to faith, you choose your own position. that the church is wrong, and you are right.

i believe the church of JPII, and Benedict XVI, unless you just stepped out of a time machine than you should too, frankly you have no support from the church,and have had none for several hundred years.

now you have been offered proof of heliocentrism, and the modern churches position, will you recant these foolish theories, or do you defy the church?
Warpspeed, you agree movement between the sun and earth is relative - in other words modern science cannot determine with certainty which one moves and which one doesn’t. You then go on to tell me about all those ‘proofs’ for a moving earth around a fixed sun.

Now forgive me for being so thick, but are you Heliocentricists not contradicting yourselves.

I can also tell you that if an Angel of Light were to appear before me and tell me the Church of 1616 and 1633 were wrong in the following definition, I wouldn’t believe him. Moreover, if I got a telephone call from JP2 or Ben XVI telling me the Church were wrong and they were right, I would give them an earfull also:

Pope Paul V Confirms the Verdict

The following, according to the Vatican minutes, was the order of events after the examination. On Wednesday, February 24th, the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered, to be at least erroneous in faith.”

Given there is no record of the considerations we do not know the basis of the ‘philosophical’ censure which was/is not subject to canonical penalty. To say the sun moves, now formal heresy, is to deny a doctrine of faith. The second proposition, the movement of the earth, was not found formally heretical because it is based on certain scriptural inferences but not according to the words themselves. Moreover, and this is important, note what was condemned and what was not. At no time did the Church declare or confirm any geometric system of the cosmos, only that the sun moves and that the earth, at the centre of the universe, does not. These then are principles, not models. The Inquisition did not comment on the ‘scientific’ (so-called proofs) aspect of the proposals but stuck to its area of purview and comment. With regard its definition of formal heresy and ‘erroneous to the faith’; the Church remained within the parameters of its divine protection and guidance.
 
As regards the authority of the decree warpspeed:

The Authority of the Anti-Copernican Inquisition

In 1542, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Paul III set up various congregations to assist the Pope in his task of safeguarding the Apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level. Then, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such papal authority.
 
Warpspeed, you agree movement between the sun and earth is relative - in other words modern science cannot determine with certainty which one moves and which one doesn’t.
We can’t determine anything with certainty in science. We can only point to the evidence. Hence, the evidence shows that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but there are mathematical systems that could, with a few exceptions and some “correction factors” do a reasonably good job of a geocentric model.

But they require violating a few things like the limitation on the speed of matter. The stars would have to exceed the speed of light by a considerable margin, and there would be observable relativistic effects if they were moving even a large fraction of the speed of light.
 
Warpspeed, you agree movement between the sun and earth is relative - in other words modern science cannot determine with certainty which one moves and which one doesn’t. You then go on to tell me about all those ‘proofs’ for a moving earth around a fixed sun.
i agree motion is relative and then i go on to explain why that cannot be used as an excuse for the denial of H or the support of G. all the proof is for H none is for G. i wonder if you even read it as you a havent responded to the validity of the individual proofs.

G is wrong, no way around it.
Now forgive me for being so thick, but are you Heliocentricists not contradicting yourselves.
im not, you are either misunderstanding the relationship between relative motion of bodies and frames of reference or you being deliberately obtuse on the subject. either way, G is disproven. you have yet to make an argument based on any data but your own opinion. i believe you have none, and you know it, so i vote for ‘deliberately obtuse’
I can also tell you that if an Angel of Light were to appear before me and tell me the Church of 1616 and 1633 were wrong in the following definition, I wouldn’t believe him. Moreover, if I got a telephone call from JP2 or Ben XVI telling me the Church were wrong and they were right, I would give them an earfull also:
Pope Paul V Confirms the Verdict
The following, according to the Vatican minutes, was the order of events after the examination. On Wednesday, February 24th, the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:
(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”
(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered, to be at least erroneous in faith.”
Given there is no record of the considerations we do not know the basis of the ‘philosophical’ censure which was/is not subject to canonical penalty. To say the sun moves, now formal heresy, is to deny a doctrine of faith. The second proposition, the movement of the earth, was not found formally heretical because it is based on certain scriptural inferences but not according to the words themselves. Moreover, and this is important, note what was condemned and what was not. At no time did the Church declare or confirm any geometric system of the cosmos, only that the sun moves and that the earth, at the centre of the universe, does not. These then are principles, not models. The Inquisition did not comment on the ‘scientific’ (so-called proofs) aspect of the proposals but stuck to its area of purview and comment. With regard its definition of formal heresy and ‘erroneous to the faith’; the Church remained within the parameters of its divine protection and guidance.
you seem to misunderstand the limits of Papal infallibility. i.e the Pope is only infallible in matters of Faith and Morals, of which G is neither.

give it up, it is unproven, and technically insupportable as statement ex cathedra.

you are simply wrong in your interpretation, as is the entire community of modern Geocentrists

at some point you must admit that either nothing can change your mind as a matter of your will, or you must admit you are wrong.
 
i

you seem to misunderstand the limits of Papal infallibility. i.e the Pope is only infallible in matters of Faith and Morals, of which G is neither. … at some point you must admit that either nothing can change your mind as a matter of your will, or you must admit you are wrong.
Dear warpspeedpetey,

You’ve read my mind. Now that is really scary science! This AM I began wondering if this earth thing was ever discussed by an official Church Council. It’s too early to remember the exact
designation.

It seems to me that the doctrine of faith which is involved is that the existence of the universe, ourselves included, is due to a transcendent being.

Yikes! I’m using the dictionary! Just discovered something interesting in the definitions for transcendent under “philosophy” “b. In Kant’s theory of knowledge, being beyond the limits of experience and hence unknowable.”

The perspective of “unknowable” which is part of atheistic evolution is similar to the dictionary’s description of Kant’s theory above which is similar to a form agnosticism. In other words, Darwin is one in a long line of people perplexed by the spiritual. This underlying perception could be a fear of the spiritual; thus there is the attempt to shove the spiritual aside.

In an earlier post, I mused (verb form is not in the dictionary–I just happen to like it) about the relationship of faith and science being broken. This relationship can be seen as the human being, herself and himself. As human beings, we are both spiritual (in the broadest definition) and physical matter. Thus we can begin to know both the transcendent and the material or natural world. Please note: the operative word is begin.

Blessings,
grannymh
 
grannymh, here is a useful video explaining Intelligent design:

youtube.com/watch?v=YXfIop5ZOsY

Enjoy.

StAnastasia
I watched the first couple minutes of the video, and it is apparent that it is setting up a straw man that has nothing to do with ID.

Here are some definitions.

intelligentdesign.org/faq.php

intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

And your issue of “defective DNA from a defective designer” leads to a much broader question.

So rather than focus on deformed hands, let’s ask why is it that God made some people short, and some tall. Some smart and some not so smart. Some that live to be 100 and some that die in childhood, some beautiful and some ugly. Your premise is that if God is responsible for humanity, then he would have made us all the same, made us all perfect.

Again, you are measuring God by your own expectations. If StA were God, she would have made everybody perfect. But God’s way is not our way. The Pharisees asked Jesus why the man was born blind. He replied that it was so the works of God could be made manifest. We are all children of God, sharing in his image, regardless of how imperfect we may seem to be. In God’s eyes we are all just as we should be, and for a reason. God gives each of us talents which we should use to make manifest God’s love to those who have less than we do.

At least that’s how I see it.
 
I watched the first couple minutes of the video, and it is apparent that it is setting up a straw man that has nothing to do with ID. .
Ah, so you didn’t bother to watch the whole video, to listen to the whole argument. I see. You sensed it was too dangerous, I’ll bet. Raises too many uncomfortable questions, does it?
 
Ah, so you didn’t bother to watch the whole video, to listen to the whole argument. I see. You sensed it was too dangerous, I’ll bet. Raises too many uncomfortable questions, does it?
Dear StAnastasia,

Thanks for the video link. My problem is that I don’t have sound on my computer, so I watched it until there were words on the screen, digesting these as best I could. I had to stop before the end because grandchildren are coming for the weekend. Later, I will devote the time needed to figuring it out for myself. I’ll also try other suggested links.

By the way, the quote referred to about God’s ways… It is in Isaiah: speed limit or Isaiah: double nickles depending on one’s age. That quote was given to me as a penance in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I learned to love that passage and the only way I can remember it is by the above names.

Speaking of uncomfortable questions… I hope that someone spots a few I stuck in my last post.

Blessings,
grannymh
 
Ah, so you didn’t bother to watch the whole video, to listen to the whole argument. I see. You sensed it was too dangerous, I’ll bet. Raises too many uncomfortable questions, does it?
OK, I watched the whole video.

The video you reference is not an anti-ID video. It is an anti-God video.

As I mentioned below, the issues which are raised fall in the general category of “why does God allow evil or imperfection to exist in the world.” This is a much debated topic and has nothing to do with ID in particular.

Please see the bolded part of my original response below.

Also, if you have a bible, I suggest you read the book of Job. Especially chapters 38-42.
I watched the first couple minutes of the video, and it is apparent that it is setting up a straw man that has nothing to do with ID.

Here are some definitions.

intelligentdesign.org/faq.php

intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

And your issue of “defective DNA from a defective designer” leads to a much broader question.

So rather than focus on deformed hands, let’s ask why is it that God made some people short, and some tall. Some smart and some not so smart. Some that live to be 100 and some that die in childhood, some beautiful and some ugly. **Your premise is that if God is responsible for humanity, then he would have made us all the same, made us all perfect.

Again, you are measuring God by your own expectations.** If StA were God, she would have made everybody perfect. But God’s way is not our way. The Pharisees asked Jesus why the man was born blind. He replied that it was so the works of God could be made manifest. We are all children of God, sharing in his image, regardless of how imperfect we may seem to be. In God’s eyes we are all just as we should be, and for a reason. God gives each of us talents which we should use to make manifest God’s love to those who have less than we do.

At least that’s how I see it.
 
you seem to misunderstand the limits of Papal infallibility. i.e the Pope is only infallible in matters of Faith and Morals, of which G is neither.

give it up, it is unproven, and technically insupportable as statement ex cathedra.

you are simply wrong in your interpretation, as is the entire community of modern Geocentrists

at some point you must admit that either nothing can change your mind as a matter of your will, or you must admit you are wrong.
Dear warped, first you think you can overcome the scientific problem in the matter of G or H. As a philosopher you stand out in history, leaving the likes of the following looking foolish.

‘I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don’t rush into the wasps’ nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude…to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of – I don’t feel the courage.’ — Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859).

As a theologian you even surpass Cardinal Bellarmine in wisdom:

Born in Montepulciano Italy, the now Saint Robert Bellarmine was made cardinal in 1599 by Pope Clement VIII who said that his equal in learning was not at that time to be found in the Church. By his books, published at the height of the Catholic Church’s reply to the Protestant Reformation, he dealt formidable blows to their heretical doctrines and ecclesiological ideas, especially those of the Freemason King James I of England, while by his catechism, translated into forty languages, he spread the knowledge of Christian doctrine in all countries of the world.
Robert Bellarmine had many interests, one being an affinity for science. At the University of Louvain he was qualified enough to lecture on astronomy and in 1611 had viewed the sky through a telescope and had seen ‘some very marvellous things’. Thus we can see that he was qualified to judge and comment on all aspects of the Galileo case

Now warped, let’s see again what you said first:
‘you seem to misunderstand the limits of Papal infallibility. i.e the Pope is only infallible in matters of Faith and Morals, of which G is neither.’

And now St Robert Bellarmine’s opinion:

’ Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.’

Cardinal Bellarmine’s personal opinion was reported to Galileo by Prince Ceisi (of the Academy of the Lynxes) in the following unmistakable terms:

‘With regard to the opinion of Copernicus, Bellarmine, who heads the Congregations that deal with such matters, told me himself that he holds it to be heretical, and that the doctrine of the earth’s motion is beyond all doubt whatever (senza dubbio aleuno) contrary to Scripture.’ —
Letter from Prince Cesi to Galileo on January 12, 1615, Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, Antonio Favaro, vol. X11, pp.129-131.

And anything contrary to Scripture is heresy.
 
Nay, more that that for warped even knows better that pope Urban VIII:

The Inquisition’s Sentence

Fr Roberts continues the story:

‘… “And to the end,” said the document, “that so pernicious a doctrine might be altogether taken away, and spread no further to the heavy detriment of Catholic truth, a decree emanated from the Sacred Congregation of the Index [in 1616], in which books that treat of doctrine of the kind were prohibited, and that doctrine was declared false, and altogether contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.”
And observe in what emphatic and unmistakable terms Rome repudiated the notion that the decree might be interpreted as a practical direction, as a measure of caution for the time being, or as anything short of an absolute settlement of the question.
“Understanding,” the Congregation said, “that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo di Galileo Galilei delle due massime Sisteme del Mundo Ptolemaico e Copernicano, the false opinion of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun was gaining ground, it had examined the book, and had found it to be a manifest infringement of the injunction laid on you, since you in the same book have defended an opinion already condemned, and declared to your face to be so, in that you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.”
Thus the declaration of the Index, for which all the authority of an absolutely true decision was claimed, was identified with the condemnatory judgement made known to Galileo by a Congregation held in the Pope’s presence. This was significant enough; but mark what followed.
“And when a convenient time had been assigned you for your defence, you produced the following certificate in the handwriting of the most eminent Lord Cardinal Bellarmine [Here the Commission quotes Bellarmine’s letter]:

‘We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, …declare that the said Signor Galileo Galilei has not abjured, … but only the declaration made by the Holy Father, and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, has been intimated to him, …-that the earth moves round the sun, and that the sun is stationary in the centre of the world, and does not move from east to west- is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore cannot be defended or held.’

… procured, as you said, to protect you from the calumnies of your enemies, who had put it about that you had abjured, and had been punished by the Holy Office; in which certificate it is affirmed that you had not abjured, had not been punished, but only that the declaration made by our Lord the Pope, and promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of the Index; had been announced to you the tenor whereof is, that the doctrine of the motion of the earth, and of the fixity of the sun, is contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, and therefore can neither be defended, nor held. “But this very certificate produced in your defence has rather aggravated the charge against you; for it asserts that the above-mentioned opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture: yet you dared to treat of it, to defend it, and advance it as probable.” Here, then, the Congregation plainly made it known that the decision of the Index was Papal. But Papal in what sense? In a sense, according to what had been said above, to make it a most grave error to suppose that the opinion condemned thereby could in any manner be probable. In a sense, according to the sentence that followed, to justify its being classed with those declarations and definitions, the conclusiveness of which it would be heresy to deny. Papal in such a way that a Catholic might be compelled to yield its doctrine the assent of faith.
“Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by documentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture. And consequently that you have incurred all the censures and penalties decreed and promulgated by the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against delinquents of this class. From which it is our pleasure that you should be absolved, provided that, with a pure heart and faith unfeigned, you in our presence first abjure, curse, and detest, the above-named errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, according to the formula which we shall show you.
“And that this your grave and pernicious error, and transgression remain not altogether unpunished, and that you may be the more cautious for the future, and be an example to others to abstain from offences of this sort, we decree that the book of the Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict; and you we condemn to the prison of this Holy Office during our will and pleasure; and, as a salutary penance, we command you for three years, to recite once a week, the seven Penitential Psalms; reserving to ourselves the power of moderating, commuting; or taking away altogether, or in part, the above-mentioned penalties and penances.” ’
 
And Galileo had to abjure in the following terms:

Galileo’s Abjuration
Code:
 “I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged seventy years, appearing personally before this court, and kneeing before you, the most eminent and reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General of the universal Christian Republic against heretical pravity, having before my eyes the most holy Gospels, and touching them with my hands, swear that I always have believed, and now believe, and with God’s help will always believe, all that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds, preaches, and teaches. But because, after this Holy Office had juridically enjoined me to abandon altogether the false opinion which holds that the sun is in the centre of the world, and immovable, and that the earth is not the centre, and moves; and had forbidden me to hold, defend, or teach in any manner, the said false doctrine; and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine is repugnant to Holy Scripture, I wrote and caused to be printed a book, wherein I treat of the same doctrine already condemned, and adduced arguments with great efficacy in favour of it, without offering any solution of them; therefore I am judged vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the centre, and moves. Wherefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and all Catholic Christians, this vehement suspicion legitimately conceived against me, with a sincere heart and faith unfeigned, I abjure, curse, and detest, the above named errors, and heresies, and generally every other error and sect contrary to the above-mentioned Holy Church; and I swear for the future, I will neither say, nor assert by word of mouth, or in writing, anything to bring upon me similar suspicion. And if I shall know any heretic, or one suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor, or Ordinary of the place in which I may be. Moreover I swear, and promise, to fulfil, and observe entirely, all the penances that have been or shall be imposed on me by this Holy Office. And if -which God forbid- I act against any of these said promises, protestations, and oaths, I subject myself to all the penalties and punishments which the sacred canons, and other constitutions, general and particular, have enacted, and promulgated against such delinquents.  So help me God, and His holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands.
 “I, Galileo Galilei above-named, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; in token whereof I have signed with my own hand this formula of my abjuration, and have recited it word by word.”
Thus did Rome’s supreme Pontifical Congregation, established, to use the words of Sixtus V., “tanquam firmissimum Catholicae fidei propugnaculum . . . cui ob summam rei gravitatem Romanus Pontifex praesidere solet,” known to be acting under the Pope’s orders, announce to the Catholic world that it had been ruled that the Papal declaration of 1616 was to be received, not as a fallible utterance, but as an absolute sentence and abjuration with the following message:

“To your vicars, that you and all professors of philosophy and mathematics may have knowledge of it, that they may know why we proceeded against the said Galileo, and recognise the gravity of the error in order that they may avoid it, and thus not incur the penalties which they would have to suffer in case they fell into the same.” ’

This was accomplished, and in many cases the professors of mathematics, physics, and astronomy were assembled like their students at roll call and the trial documents read to them. Theologians and scholars were then urged to use their learning to show Copernicanism to be a serious heresy.

Ah but wait for it, Pope warped has spoken for all those Copernicans who know better, in both faith and science now. All you have read above is now cancelled as a non event, as null and void, not worth the paper it was all written on.

Make way for the new Church of today, the one that has to comply with the faith and science of warpy and friends. God help us all.
 
In an earlier post, I mused (verb form is not in the dictionary–I just happen to like it) about the relationship of faith and science being broken. This relationship can be seen as the human being, herself and himself. As human beings, we are both spiritual (in the broadest definition) and physical matter. Thus we can begin to know both the transcendent and the material or natural world. Please note: the operative word is begin.]
grannmyh, this is an interesting faith. However, I don’t think I’d say that the relationship between faith and science is broken, even if the full understanding of that relationship is not manifest in the thought of work of everyone. Even non-theistic scientists manifest a faith in the ultimate intelligibility of the world, and while they would not willingly acknowledge it, this faith is not reducible to science.

As to your second point about transcendnet beings knowing the natural world, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin speaks about this extensively in his writings. In the evolution of self-conscious beings, the universe has become aware of itself; in the evolution of mind and reason, stardust has come to recognize the spiritual. A great German Jesuit whom I admire, Karl Rahner, has some marvelous passages along these lines, which I’ll try to find for you.

StAnastasia
 
Ah but wait for it… All you have read above is now cancelled as a non event, as null and void, not worth the paper it was all written on…Make way for the new Church of today, the one that has to comply with the faith and science of warpy and friends. God help us all.
Cassini, time waits for no man. I know the world has changed a lot since your day – we now recognize the pulmonary circulation of the blood, the non-geocentric character of the solar system, the germ theory of medicine, the neo-Darwinian synthesis, and a world made from quarks. Try as you might to resurrect your own alternative view of the world, the chances are slim that you will convince many to return to the days of Aristotelian physics, Ptolemaic astronomy, and Galenic medicine. But good luck and bon courage in trying!

StAnastasia
 
As to your second point about transcendnet beings knowing the natural world, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin speaks about this extensively in his writings. In the evolution of self-conscious beings, the universe has become aware of itself; in the evolution of mind and reason, stardust has come to recognize the spiritual. A great German Jesuit whom I admire, Karl Rahner, has some marvelous passages along these lines, which I’ll try to find for you.
I read one of his books a long time ago (1980s). This is before I realized that Teilhard de Chardin was admonished by the Vatican, and forbidden to teach or write on theological themes.

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/newage/dechardin.html

We should avoid his teachings, his writings, and his philosophy.
 
40.png
grannymh:
I know Scott Hahn would not be qualified to critique science per se. Neither would Benjamin Wiker. Nonetheless, I know Scott Hahn as a powerful analytical thinker which is why I bought the book. Anyone who can dissect the bible the way Hahn can with his unbelievable memory has my deep respect.

My impression of what they meant by Dawkins’ turf is that they were starting with his theories which supported his case regarding the non existence of a god. They used logical thinking to demonstrate the weakness of Dawkins’ own proofs that a god wasn’t needed for evolution to begin. I don’t think proofs is the right word, sorry. It had more to do with some of Dawkins’ theories on the mechanics of evolution which is why there were a lot of direct quotes from Dawkins and “The Origin of Species” along with the identifying footnotes.
Well I can understand that they are competent to critique Dawkins’s philosophical reasoning behind his atheism. But I don’t see how they could be competent to critique Dawkins’s insights and understanding of the mechanics of evolution. For that they would have to be trained scientists, so if this is their approach, they would be out of their depth. However, this is all hypothetical, as I haven’t yet read the book. I’ve just realised that I bought the book, and it’s in my pile of new unread books. You’ve piqued my interest, so I’ll move it to the top.
I’ve read the Hahn and Wiker book a couple of times now and I would characterise it as a very poor response to a poor book. They are at their best when presenting the Fine Tuning argument and refuting (or presenting other people’s refutation of) Dawkins’s silly “proof” for the improbability of God. But most of the rest of the book is embarassingly bad and none more so than when they attempt to take Dawkins on his own turf, ie science. They purport to show the impossibility of abiogenesis, and , for heaven’s sake, the impossibility of the diversity of species arising from natural causes. Their treatment is schoolboyish and very badly flawed - it amounts to no more than naive ID and God of the Gaps arguments using nonsensical illustrations of probability that bear no relationship to the case. They accuse Dawkins of being sophomoric in his treatment of philosophy and they might well be right, but their treatment of the science is appallingly bad. Behe, Meyer and Dembski have presented far more sophisticated arguments than these guys, and still been shown to be wrong.

They are quite poor even on what should be their own turf, for example in their presentation of Aquinas’s arguments or the argument from morality.

They end the book with a chapter of ridiculous rhetoric and bombast.

So, no, I didn’t find them very convincing - a poor riposte to a poor thrust.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top