Faith and Science

  • Thread starter Thread starter cassini
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Some scientists - but there must be a reason why scientists statistically are less likely to believe in God and the answer as far as I can see is that a deeper knowledge of how nature works tends to undermine a number of the arguments for God’s existence.Alec, evolutionpages.com
Alec, I know what you mean by this, but I feel I must mention again the many priest and clerical scientists who do not draw this conclusion: Teilhard, Coyne, Stoeger, Consolmagno, Peacocke, Polkinghorne, Parnell, Budenholzer, etc. Their deeper knowledge of how nature works gives them more to pray about. You may dismiss this “more” as a bagatelle, but to them it is a reality that enriches their life. In fact, I have a number of friends in the Society of Ordained Scientists (SOSc) home-based in England.

StAnastasia
 
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.

Re: Intelligent Design

Dear StAnastasia and ricmat,

I just watched the whole video StAnastasia recommended. From the headline "God & DNA, I figured that the video was giving examples of DNA gone wrong.
The screens with words did have some familiar “lines” but I am not sure that they would go with my own personal perception of Intelligent Design.

Also I checked out the links provided by ricmat. To me, these confirmed that there is a scientific movement regarding Intelligent Design. I had to see Ben Stein’s documentary twice just to get some idea of what has been happening. Never realized how far out of the loop I am 🤷

Thank you to both of you.

Blessings,
grannymh

Important P.S. I am still open to any and all information…
 
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
I agree with you! I’m so glad to have you clearly explain. Again, and I’ve mentioned this on a different thread- I think Christians are feeling “threatened” ,so to speak, by those very vocal atheists (Dawkins and others) and since they (Dawkins and others) believe in evolution, then we (Christians) shouldn’t. There is a big difference between materialistic evolution and theistic evolution (of which you will find many Christians.) If anyone hasn’t read the book The Language of God by Francis Collins I highly recommend it. Father Groeshel (sp??) on EWTN recommended it also.

Mary
 
Also I checked out the links provided by ricmat. To me, these confirmed that there is a scientific movement regarding Intelligent Design. I had to see Ben Stein’s documentary twice just to get some idea of what has been happening. Never realized how far out of the loop I am.
Thank you to both of you.
Blessings,
grannymh
Thanks, grannymh – blessing in return to you!

I am not aware that Intelligent Design is a scientific movement, as I am unaware of any current research projects producing scientific results. I suspect it is more of philosophical perspective.

Of course, any Catholic would (I presume) have to believe that world was created by an intelligent being, but the point I gathered from the video is that it is virtually impossible to ascribe any particular structure or behaviour to a designer. Their is to much dysteleology to confirm a designer working in the world, unless one is also willing to ascribe horrific genetic abnormalities to that designer. You can’t have it both ways, arguing that God is responsible for designing the eyeball but not genetic conditions that give rise to anancephaly, spina bifida, or teratomas.

I believe the creator so loved and respected the world that God allowed the world its own autonomy of development. This includes the many byways of evolutionary development, such that “bad” things as well as “good” things happen. God is responsible for the bad things in the larger sense that God chose an open universe to maximize the possibility of free response by evolving rational creatures.

StAnastasia
 
So we come full circle. What’s wrong with that? As I said before:

Why shouldn’t these people express their world view as openly and persuasively as they wish? We are all entitled to express our world view or life philosophy, whether it be a particular religion, or agnosticism or atheism. And we should be able to do that whether we are scientists, or doctors, or journalists or pizza delivery boys. Since we are all formed partly by our profession, why shouldn’t we use what we know as part of the argument for our position?

and

It’s not for you or anyone else to limit any individual’s right to proclaim their philosophy or world view as persuasively as they want. The Church is no longer in a position to determine who believes what, who reads what or who says what. No-one is going to tell me that I cannot argue my world view, using all the evidence and arguments at my command, as vigorously as I wish.

The only thing that would be wrong, if it could be shown that it happened, would be for someone to draw theological conclusions (theistic or atheistic) or to use theological arguments in scientific texts, because that would violate the methodology of science and it excludes people with certain opposing beliefs: science is a project for everyone, whatever our religion or lack of it. But no-one has been able to show any such thing.

Alec
But for a couple of points - emboldened and underlined above - you are precisely correct.

For your first para, one CANNOT but argue from a perspective shaped, refined and honed from their worldly experience and collected data.

But, as you fault theologians for claiming conclusions contrary to scientific findings, so too should you see the problem with individuals, scientific or science-based, who claim conclusions contrary to theological findings.

There are scientific findings that are “Facts.” Yet there are mountenous arguments about some of them.

There are theological “Facts.” Yet there are mountenous arguments about them.

There is absolute truth in science as there are in theology. The problem is that they are two different discipline of the same subject.

The Church has never forbidden any individual from learning and if you knew your church history you’d know that learning, in general, stems from efforts of The Church. Nothing has overtaken The Church in telling people what to believe, yet you yourself, think so. Knowledge is simply more profound and available.

You may also be surprised to find that The Church does not forbid the pursuit of knowledge through ANY discipline. What She DOES profess though is that THE CONCLUSION of all pursuits will be HE WHOM SHE HOLDS TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT ALL.

I have great respect for you and Rossum. I say stick to your guns and hang on for dear life. I am at a position to know that you are both ‘Catholic’ in practice, study and life!! How well do I know??..

I bet my life on it!

Science WILL show you her Source and Conclusion one day! (Remember you heard it here first when that moment comes!) As for Rossum, he’s bought 2-tickets to the raffle! Science and belief. If science doesn’t do it, his faith will. Buddha was a man. Every man has a Maker.

:cool:
 
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
i think the Jesuits say something along the lines of “faith is built on a ladder of reason”

how embarrassed we are likely to be when we see the beatific vision and all things that we have yet to understand will make sense. when all the beautiful and all the terrible things have ever happened coalesce into the Divine plan. that will be so embarassing:)
 
It’s a relatively short book. It didn’t take me long to read it twice. I read all sorts of books, not only ones that support my views, so, no, not contaminated :-). In this case, I am thinking of writing a review of the Hahn and Wiker book for my website, hence the second reading making notes. I haven’t read either of the two books you mention. Should I?

Alec
evolutionpages.com
I enjoyed both books - the Science Before Science because it gave me some philosophical insights against which science can be framed. It was a difficult read for me because the vocabulary of philosophy uses words differently than science and engineering.

And A Meaningful World because - well, it was just a fun book to read. It has some good chapters on the history of science.

As I said, both touch on evolution. Both also touch on God. So you’d probably have to temporarily suspend disbelief in God in order to enjoy them fully.

So to answer your question, I’d recommend them as good books to read.
 
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
Funny, I’ve been involved with RCIA for 20 years and questions like you mention above have never come up. And most of those RCIA experiences were at university parishes.

Perhaps you misunderstood what they were saying.
 
Of course, any Catholic would (I presume) have to believe that world was created by an intelligent being, but the point I gathered from the video is that it is virtually impossible to ascribe any particular structure or behaviour to a designer. Their is to much dysteleology to confirm a designer working in the world, unless one is also willing to ascribe horrific genetic abnormalities to that designer. You can’t have it both ways, arguing that God is responsible for designing the eyeball but not genetic conditions that give rise to anancephaly, spina bifida, or teratomas.

I believe the creator so loved and respected the world that God allowed the world its own autonomy of development. This includes the many byways of evolutionary development, such that “bad” things as well as “good” things happen. God is responsible for the bad things in the larger sense that God chose an open universe to maximize the possibility of free response by evolving rational creatures.
I repeat, and repeat, and repeat: Intelligent Design does not say that God is the direct cause of every event that happens. But rather that God was the direct cause of SOME events. And that traces of this intelligent behavior are detectable by humans.

It seems that all you know about ID is incorrect.

God causes some things directly to happen, and God permits other things to happen.
 
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.
once again, had he lived in the modern era, he would have had access to modern observational technology. and he would, as a man of science seen the light so to speak.

do you have aqoute from someone who lived in the last century?

this is the rhetoric that you seem to despise so, do you have any evidence to offer, or an argument against my evidence?
 
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.
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.” ’
more rhetoric, no evidence, please qoute someone with access to modern observational technology

it doesnt matter what someone thought 400 years ago if they lacked the evidence that we currently have.

and it is still not a matter of faith and morals

if so than the vaticans observatory is staffed by a bunch of heretics

poppycock
 
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.
wow, so many words, yet no evidence that supports your opinion, that must be some kind if record:)
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.
indeed even the church admits the error of the handling of this incident, it is not worth the paper it is written on, and the church admits it
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
no evidence, all rhetoric.

please, either admit that no reason can change your mind, as an act of your will, or admit you are wrong, or submit evidence that H is wrong.

rhetoric doesnt fool me. geocentrism is still wrong. 🙂
 
grannmyh,
As to your second point about transcendnet beings knowing the natural world,
StAnastasia
post 315

Dear StAnastasia,

Glad you found my musings interesting. Am still working on my broken relationship theory, thus your comments add to it. Now I am wondering if the video you recommended would be part of a broken relationship.

Re: Your comment “As to your second point about transcendent beings knowing the natural world…
I was pointing out that it is we human beings who “can begin to know both the transcendent and the material or natural world. Please note: the operative word is begin.” I chose not to include knowing the spiritual side of human nature in that particular sentence. Maybe I should have. Also, I would think that there could only be one transcendent being. This transcendent being would know the natural world as well as knowing humans. And so I continue to wonder.

Blessings,
grannymh
 
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.

Dear Alec,

Thank you for your thorough review. And especially for the time you put in.

I remember saying something about their choice of points inviting discussion which sounded good to me. I still feel that way about discussion.

Blessings,
grannymh
 
Perhaps you misunderstood what they were saying.
No – I understood their questions quite well. There is fear among some educated potential converts that the forces of geocentrism, biblical literalism, YEC, and IDC will require them to turn in their intellects at the door when they are baptized.
 
Except, they are completely bogus. They calculate the probability of a given DNA sequence of 100 nucleotides assembling completely at random. Then they calculate the probability of the purely random assembly of a protein of 100 predetermined residues. Both calculations are entirely irrelevant to the question of abiogenesis and their conclusion that natural abiogenesis is impossible is completely unwarranted.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
I’m not really looking for answers right now. I would rather wait until I do more reading because I most likely will find the answers on my own regarding the question of abiogenesis.

Don’t know for certain right now, but the questions rolling around this brain most likely would involve what is relevant when probability is involved as well as what is relevant to the evolution which must be going on continually ???

Blessings,
grannymh
 
So we come full circle. What’s wrong with that? As I said before:

Why shouldn’t these people express their world view as openly and persuasively as they wish? We are all entitled to express our world view or life philosophy, whether it be a particular religion, or agnosticism or atheism. And we should be able to do that whether we are scientists, or doctors, or journalists or pizza delivery boys. Since we are all formed partly by our profession, why shouldn’t we use what we know as part of the argument for our position?

and

It’s not for you or anyone else to limit any individual’s right to proclaim their philosophy or world view as persuasively as they want. The Church is no longer in a position to determine who believes what, who reads what or who says what. No-one is going to tell me that I cannot argue my world view, using all the evidence and arguments at my command, as vigorously as I wish.

The only thing that would be wrong, if it could be shown that it happened, would be for someone to draw theological conclusions (theistic or atheistic) or to use theological arguments in scientific texts, because that would violate the methodology of science and it excludes people with certain opposing beliefs: science is a project for everyone, whatever our religion or lack of it. But no-one has been able to show any such thing.

Alec
Dear Alec

I agree that we can express our world views… Yet, the trickledown effect of world views does affect society for good or bad.

Blessings,
grannymh
 
Glad you found my musings interesting. Am still working on my broken relationship theory, thus your comments add to it. Now I am wondering if the video you recommended would be part of a broken relationship.
Grannymh, there is a lot of rhetoric on both sides of the issue. The most thorny challenge for so-called “intelligent design” is the problem of evil.

A God who tinkers with creation – and leaves calling cards visible to scientists – is a God who chooses to engage in some tinkering, and chooses not to engage in other tinkering. Is the God of “intelligent design” a God who could nudge an asteroid to wipe out dinosaurs and make room for mammalian evolution, and yet who refused to cause Hitler to die of SIDS, thereby preventing Nazism and the “holocaust”? Is it a God who nudged certain certain mammals to become primates, but who could not nudge the iceberg out of the way of the Titanic? Is it a God who could nudge certain primates to evolve rationality, but who chooses not to tweak the genetic abnormality that leads to anancephaly?

These are deep questions. Of course, divine action and intervention is a problem for theistic evolutionists as well, raising parallel if different challenges.

StAnastasia
 
No – I understood their questions quite well. There is fear among some educated potential converts that the forces of geocentrism, biblical literalism, YEC, and IDC will require them to turn in their intellects at the door when they are baptized.
Some people have lost their faith for the same reason. Yes, they were foolish and uninformed, to think that these things were part of Christian belief. But they are still lost. We should not focus on their error, but on the factors that moved them away from God.
 
Grannymh, there is a lot of rhetoric on both sides of the issue. The most thorny challenge for so-called “intelligent design” is the problem of evil.

Dear StAnastasia,

One thing that we all can agree on is that the problem of evil has been the bane of human existence since humans existed.
Maybe “evil” will eventually be seen as a common enemy.

Blessings,
grannymh
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top