Faith and Science

[cassini]

how did you get that idea. you are confusing me with the atheists, i think G-d did it all.

that doesn’t help you with modern observational technology we can see that even other star systems are heliocentric. we can account for all the relative motion too, otherwise we couldn’t have sent probes all over the solar system accurately. that idea is patently false now in application.

we understand, its just wrong now. other star systems rotate around their stars. you are counting on hundreds of year old ideas to defy what we can now witness, its like you are telling us the sky is orange, no matter how many times you say it we can see it isn’t true.

thats the problem, that is not what the Roman Catholic Church believes. by differing with what the church believes you make us all look foolish, you give our enemies ammunition, you should stop.

if you care to do this for fun you could join the flat earth society, but there are people who come here and will be turned away from the faith because they may take you as a serious representation of Catholicism, and though you seem to believe that is alright, it works at cross purposes with the church. you are working against the church. no matter your purpose that is wrong

yeah, 400 years ago. but we bnow have all the evidence to the contrary.

what grip on the mind? it is purely a matter of evidence. its not a cult, we can actually observe these things now.

how are you more loyal a Catholic because you deny the obvious? no one in the church agrees with you, most especially the Papal Academy on the Sciences. the church does not agree with you, so how does that make you more loyal?

it is not beyond mans ability, we can now physically observe the fact of heliocentricity from our own space probes, and from the heliocentricity of other star systems.

because the church made a mistake, they were flat out wrong.

it is not a matter of faith or morals, and regarless of the opinion of 400 year old dead men it never will be.

now i see that you only deny H because you are unwilling to admit the church made a mistake in matters of science.

Back to square one. If anything you say above has any truth, then show us where and when the Church abrogated the 1616 decree. The Church has laws you know, canon law. She cannot willy nilly go defining and declaring a heresy and then dropping it as a mistake in a similar fashion similar to the way Protestants did it.

 

[hecd2]

And he won the Nobel prize in physics.

If only other scientists were as honest.

Yes, he was particularly honest with himself and others. Nevertheless, whether he understood quantum physics or not, he developed (with others) quantum electroynamics which makes the most exquisitely accurate predictions; more accurate than any other theory. So he must have understood some little thing about it. And he was a mean bongo player. He’s someone I look up to for these and other reasons.

The predictions and results of QM are very unexpected and need a lot of hard thinking to even begin to grasp.

At least with GR you can get some physical ideas into your head about what’s going on even if the maths can be hard.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Back to square one.

not at all, geocentrism is utterly defeated, heliocentrism is validated. this is a binary decision tree, its an either or.

If anything you say above has any truth, then show us where and when the Church abrogated the 1616 decree.

how could it possibly not be true? do you think that voyager, viking or the mars rover are fakes? like the conspiracy theorists believe the moon landings were faked?

the 1616 church had none of the current technologies to use in their decision making.

The Church has laws you know, canon law. She cannot willy nilly go defining and declaring a heresy and then dropping it as a mistake in a similar fashion similar to the way Protestants did it.

that doesn’t change the fact that they were wrong on a subject about which they had no authority.

it is not a matter of faith and morals and it never has been, if it were i would be defending the church, but its not, and since the the pontifical academy of sciences have reconsidered and reported to JPII that the gailileo affair was a mistake, in 1993 i think, i expect that is as much of a reversal as we will see for some time, but make no mistake, it was a reversal. the battle is over.

bottom line is that the church did not speak on the galileo issue infallibly because it is no a matter of faith and morals.

do

 

[grannymh]

I

re: post 456

" Believe it or not, demonstrating the fact of evolution or common descent forms no part of biologists’ research objectives; it’s a settled issue in science."

Dear Alec,

Sometimes comments, thoughts, questions stick in my head until I hear something that connects. This gives me the opportunity to test whatever is in my mind. And because I am feminine, I have the right to 1) change my mind and 2) ask for directions.

I’ve been trying to place, in general, what biology is doing today. I would say that it is contributing to improved health of society in a number of ways… I can see the answer to why worker ants and bees are willing to sacrifice their chance of reproduction for the society as a viable objective…

I would interpret your comment in post 456 as saying that, in general, biology is looking forward, trying to better the future. It certainly doesn’t contradict my thoughts. Or does it?

Of course, there are exceptions. I am sure there are also biologists who are trying to find the source of life as a way of contributing to society. But let’s stick with my main train of thought.

I can accept that the demonstration of the fact of evolution or common descent is settled. My question-- is demonstration like evidence for evolution or common descent? Just curious because earlier posts, don’t recall whose, differentiated between proof and evidence.

This is my impression. While the fact of evolution is settled, the source of life is not settled in a scientific manner. Let’s skip the ID and creationists’ views. Practically speaking, biologists and other scientists can jump in as is. As one of my co-workers would say: “Why reinvent the wheel?” Or maybe a biologist would say something like “why waste time worrying about how evolution started, it’s here already – there are more important challenges ahead of us.”

Is my train of thought on track?

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[grannymh]

what answer did you receive? i would think that Aquinas would be true regardless. no matter the effect, there must be sufficient cause for it to occur, i would think this applies to all matters quantum.

we know that there is really only one substance, energy, and that all other observable phenomenon are varying functions of that. in that way the substance is no different than the accident.

Dear warpspeedpetey,

One answer or conclusion (post 447) was that modern physics - if quantum physics - did not eliminate the metaphysics of St Thomas Aquinas. Another (452) referred to Aristotle which needs more discussion.

I can’t speak for all of St. Thomas Aquinas’ writings, but my instinct tells me he is right about substance and accidents in general. (O.K. it is my woman’s intuition!)

I do think that your reference of substance, energy is different from my understanding. Though, I have recently learned that there are accidents and there are accidents. However, as my Irish Mother would say: “There is more than one way to skin a cat.” Thus, I can handle multiple theories.

This is a primitive example of substance and accidents. Who we are, our being, our substance, our human nature is not the same as the color of our hair, the fat on our bones, or any word used to describe our appearance. For example, we can change the color of our hair and become slim, but we are still Joe or Jane, etc. We know instinctively that our being, the who we are, still exists.

It was your post 450 that contained “observable reality” which started me wondering.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[grannymh]

what answer did you receive? i would think that Aquinas would be true regardless. no matter the effect, there must be sufficient cause for it to occur, i would think this applies to all matters quantum.

we know that there is really only one substance, energy, and that all other observable phenomenon are varying functions of that. in that way the substance is no different than the accident.

Dear warpspeedpetey,

One answer or conclusion (post 447) was that modern physics - if quantum physics - did not eliminate the metaphysics of St Thomas Aquinas. Another (452) referred to Aristotle which needs more discussion.

I can’t speak for all of St. Thomas Aquinas’ writings, but my instinct tells me he is right about substance and accidents in general. (O.K. it is my woman’s intuition!)

I do think that your reference of substance, energy is different from my understanding. Though, I have recently learned that there are accidents and there are accidents. However, as my Irish Mother would say: “There is more than one way to skin a cat.” Thus, I can handle multiple theories.

This is a primitive example of substance and accidents. Who we are, our being, our substance, our human nature is not the same as the color of our hair, the fat on our bones, or any word used to describe our appearance. For example, we can change the color of our hair and become slim, but we are still Joe or Jane, etc. We know instinctively that our being, the who we are, still exists.

It was your post 450 that contained “observable reality” which started me wondering.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[The_Barbarian]

This is my impression. While the fact of evolution is settled, the source of life is not settled in a scientific manner.

Yes. Exactly so. While there is some evidence for the way life began, it is far from settled. Of course, as you know, the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Dear warpspeedpetey,

One answer or conclusion (post 447) was that modern physics - if quantum physics - did not eliminate the metaphysics of St Thomas Aquinas. Another (452) referred to Aristotle which needs more discussion.

I can’t speak for all of St. Thomas Aquinas’ writings, but my instinct tells me he is right about substance and accidents in general. (O.K. it is my woman’s intuition!)

I do think that your reference of substance, energy is different from my understanding. Though, I have recently learned that there are accidents and there are accidents. However, as my Irish Mother would say: “There is more than one way to skin a cat.” Thus, I can handle multiple theories.

This is a primitive example of substance and accidents. Who we are, our being, our substance, our human nature is not the same as the color of our hair, the fat on our bones, or any word used to describe our appearance. For example, we can change the color of our hair and become slim, but we are still Joe or Jane, etc. We know instinctively that our being, the who we are, still exists.

It was your post 450 that contained “observable reality” which started me wondering.

Blessings,
grannymh

i see the universe essentially as a huge bathtub full of BBs’ so to speak. to me every particle has a distinct mathematical relationship with every other particle, which, should there be no external forces to the system would mean that we are the puppets of mathematical determinism. as most would agree that we have free will, that necessitates a Creator.

so to me it does not matter in what manner the BBs’ interact. as long as they do so consistently i am happy with the average of the particle interactions. or ‘observable reality’

 

[StAnastasia]

i see the universe essentially as a huge bathtub full of BBs’ so to speak. to me every particle has a distinct mathematical relationship with every other particle, which, should there be no external forces to the system would mean that we are the puppets of mathematical determinism. as most would agree that we have free will, that necessitates a Creator.’

Are you a Lucretian?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Are you a Lucretian?

i dont think so, there are some similarities but the conclusions i draw from across this 2100 year gulf between his time and mine, are completely different. i have the advantage of the church, of science, and an education, though normal for now, in his time would have been the envy of the patricians.

he was a reflection of epicureanism, with which i hold the atomist and indeterminist views but little else.

i dont think that free will is a matter of ‘swerve’, that seems little more than a crass attempt to account for free will with some imaginary ‘random’ uncaused change in the positions of particles.

instead i believe in G-d. and one of the proofs of His existence is free will, without it we would be nothing but puppets to determinism.

i am not claiming to understand the mechanism by which this is accomplished, rather that seems to be the effect of whatever mechanism there might be

 

[Deconi]

It’s a fact. The scientific method is too weak to handle the supernatural.

Not weak, but limited. It goes from stepping stone to stepping stone, but it is the only mechanism we have to examine what is said to be there.

Depends on whether or not he uses science to do it. If he looks it up in his scripture and believes, then he uses a different method.

Does using a fire under a beaker of water disqualify him from the religion, or his finding from science?

Rather, science is limited to the physical universe. As the Pope has said, those who try to extend it beyond are in error.

I think the Pope meant specifically those that extend it in the ‘wrong’ direction. Since his Boss made it all, he cannot fault the findings that illuminates what revelation has stated.

 

[Deconi]

(1) You haven’t yet used science to prove God.

I don’t need science, personally, for it.

(2) The man of religion boils water, but God does not proclaim the temperature to him through divine revelation.

No, but He provides the tools for the examination.

(3) I don’t understand what you mean by theology being “confined to philosophical thought and scriptural interpretations.”

Scientific study is practical theology!

(4) I don’t understand “theology illuminating revelation.” Usually we speak of revelation illuminating. Theology is merely rational discourse about religious claims, or “God talk.”

Theology illuminates revelation. Revelation itself has been subjected to multiple theological views because every thinker is a ‘theologian’ in asking, “Why am I here?”

(5) What do you mean by saying “Science disciplines theology. Theology disciplines science.”?
StAnastasia

Simplified…

Theologian:
‘We came from a planet in the 3rd star system of Lunatic Assylum. There is a spaceship behind Halley’s that will be here to pick us up, if we swallow these pills at precisely 10:27pm, Tues.14th Aug 2001…’

Science:
'Uhm…Halley isn’t due then. We can track your individual lineage to eighteen generations and you ain’t alien…"

---

Science:
'We can clone humans and use the clone’s cells as ‘spare parts’ for the original…or the clone will be better and we can eliminate the faulty original…"

Theologian:
"Ethics, PLEASE! "

Et cetera, et cetera…

 

[cassini]

Quote from Cassini:
If anything you say above has any truth, then show us where and when the Church abrogated the 1616 decree.

Answer from Warp:
how could it possibly not be true? do you think that voyager, viking or the mars rover are fakes? like the conspiracy theorists believe the moon landings were faked?
the 1616 church had none of the current technologies to use in their decision making.

How often must I tell you, all spaceflight is done from geocentric calculations. Either this is a fact or not. What you say or I say cannot change the fact.
Note readers, Warp has NOTHING to show that the Church abrogated the anti-Copernican decree. Again I challenge all. Show me where the Church abrogated the heresy officially? Saying the Church of 1616 had no idea of spaceflight methods is NOT an intelligent answer. This is a thread for FAITH and SCIENCE remember,​

Quote from Cassini:
The Church has laws you know, canon law. She cannot willy nilly go defining and declaring a heresy and then dropping it as a mistake in a similar fashion similar to the way Protestants did it.

Answer from Warp:
that doesn’t change the fact that they were wrong on a subject about which they had no authority. it is not a matter of faith and morals and it never has been, if it were i would be defending the church, but its not, and since the the pontifical academy of sciences have reconsidered and reported to JPII that the gailileo affair was a mistake, in 1993 i think, i expect that is as much of a reversal as we will see for some time, but make no mistake, it was a reversal. the battle is over. bottom line is that the church did not speak on the galileo issue infallibly because it is no a matter of faith and morals.

So, Pope Warp has decided how to interpret the Scriptures is not a matter of faith for the Catholic Church. Well Warp, here is news for you. The whole affair was about HOW the Scriptures should be read. If you do not know that then you debate in your ignorance and simply do harm to your Church, the same Church of 1616 and 1633, depicting them as a bunch of idiots defining and declaring on a scientific issue. First and foremost it was the Scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics of the Church that was defended in 1616 and in 1633.

You then hide behind that 1981-1992 pontifical commission that I describe thus:

Then came the existentialist mystic and phenomenologist Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II (1978-2005), ‘the Copernican Cannon’ as he used to call himself when bishop of Krakow. As one of the chief architects of Gaudium et Spes, one of the first things he did when elected to the papacy was to set up a Galileo Commission to ‘right the wrong’ as Vatican II had requested. What emerged will some day, when the truth comes out as it always does, go down in history as the most devious document of them all. Moreover, by endorsing it before the world’s press, Pope John Paul II must share in this fiasco. While producing nothing new as far as the second legend goes, the final report was so spin-doctored, out of context and selective that even the Copernicans went public in their criticism of it. Worst of all it depicted the seventeenth century Churchmen involved in the Galileo case as unfit to interpret the Scriptures properly. When presented to the world’s press gathered at the Vatican, the report also contained a veiled apology to Galileo with lots of praise for the suspected heretic’s Catholicism, biblical exegesis and his achievements in science, for which the pope later received an accolade from Italian Freemasons. It is a fact then, that whereas in 1633, in a world that was absorbed in scholastic Christianity, it was Galileo on his knees abjuring the Copernican heresy; in 1992 we find Pope John Paul II, in effect, on his knees, apologising to Galileo and criticising the decisions of his predecessors instead.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It’s a fact. The scientific method is too weak to handle the supernatural.

Not weak, but limited.

Use whatever metaphor works. But it can’t do the supernatural.

It goes from stepping stone to stepping stone, but it is the only mechanism we have to examine what is said to be there.

No. Faith and reason will show you God. Evidence and reason will show you His natural creation.

Barbarian observes:
Depends on whether or not he uses science to do it. If he looks it up in his scripture and believes, then he uses a different method.

Does using a fire under a beaker of water disqualify him from the religion, or his finding from science?

No more than praying disqualifies a scientist. Believers can do science, scientists can believe. But if a photographer makes a shoe, that doesn’t mean that leathercraft is photography.

Barbarian observes:
Rather, science is limited to the physical universe. As the Pope has said, those who try to extend it beyond are in error.

I think the Pope meant specifically those that extend it in the ‘wrong’ direction.

No.

In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science.

Cardinal Ratzinger,
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:

 

[hecd2]

This is my impression. While the fact of evolution is settled, the source of life is not settled in a scientific manner.

That’s correct - the process for the origin of life is far from settled - progress is being made, but it’s slow and there are many important unanswered questions and difficulties.

Let’s skip the ID and creationists’ views. Practically speaking, biologists and other scientists can jump in as is. As one of my co-workers would say: “Why reinvent the wheel?” Or maybe a biologist would say something like “why waste time worrying about how evolution started, it’s here already – there are more important challenges ahead of us.”

Is my train of thought on track?

Pretty much. You can do almost all biology from systematics to comparative genomics to ecology to developmental biology without a hypothesis for the origin of life, so although some people are working on it, it’s not a huge priority. That doesn’t mean to say that it’s not interesting in its own right, or that if we were to figure it out we wouldn’t get some insights that illuminated other areas of biology, but the effort seems at the moment to be out of proportion to the return. This is in contrast, of course, to evolutionary theory which illuminates and provides a context for the whole of biology and significant parts of medicine.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

i see the universe essentially as a huge bathtub full of BBs’ so to speak. to me every particle has a distinct mathematical relationship with every other particle, which, should there be no external forces to the system would mean that we are the puppets of mathematical determinism. as most would agree that we have free will, that necessitates a Creator.

so to me it does not matter in what manner the BBs’ interact. as long as they do so consistently i am happy with the average of the particle interactions. or ‘observable reality’

That’s a reasonable approach to the world unless you have to encounter or explain phenomena or technology that depend on individual quantum events. We already have working quantum crytography; and quantum computing and quantum communication are round the corner. A lot of people are working on Bose-Einstein condensates. Even lasers depend on non-classical ensembles of energy states. I think we are going to be made to confront the underlying non-BBness of nature more in the future (although you could possibly use these things without ever thinking that they were anything other classical ensembles of BBs, you couldn’t design them or maintain them)

Alec
evolutionages.com

 

[grannymh]

Simplified clarification regarding canon law of the Catholic Church and heresy. Canon Law has nothing to do with heresy because…

Canon law refers to how the organization is conducted. There are cannon law “lawyers” and there is a system of “courts” which makes decisions, hears appeals, etc. A formal definition of canon law: “The rules (canons or laws) which provide the norms for good order in the visible society of the Church.” Glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition.

In practice, The Code of Canon Law refers to the universal church; however, there can be provisions, in some instances, that allow bishops leeway so to speak in their own dioceses. Sometimes regulations accompany a particular law. Obviously, since canon law deals with the visible society of the Church, it does change. Canon law has nothing to do with heresy.

Heresy is a very serious matter because it attacks the essential beliefs of the Catholic Church. Arianism is a heresy because it directly attacks the being or person of Jesus Christ. The trickledown effects of Arianism are still present.

In practice, bishops in the Church may recognize a heresy before it is officially declared one. And they would work to resolve the issue. This is what happened during the period of the “Church Fathers” and later on in Church history. If the issue involved the core of Catholic belief and it could not be resolved plus there was the real danger that people would be seriously misled, then a council was held to define the dogma or heresy or both. The infallibility of the Pope was part of the process. Both the dogma and the heresy would be spelled out. Many times, the word “anathema” is included to denote the seriousness of the issue.

If one is refering to the Catholic Church, one needs to use the word heresy with utmost care. Unfortunately, today heresy has come to mean differences of opinion about facts etc. etc. Heretical can be used as a common word, etc. etc.
This is not what heresy means to the Catholic Church.

 

[ricmat]

Here’s a general article that was just posted on the subject of Science and Religion. Many of the readers of this forum might enjoy reading it.

firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1245

 

[warpspeedpetey]

How often must I tell you, all spaceflight is done from geocentric calculations. Either this is a fact or not. What you say or I say cannot change the fact.

how is that? they came back from the moon. definitely not a geocentric calculation, how is your assertion a fact?

even more, we can literally see heliocentrism in action from a number of space probes.

and worst, we can see it in action in other star systems.

geocentrism is flat out wrong. we can see it is not what is happening.

why cant you admit the truth? heliocentrism is a proven fact, you cant credibly deny it as a matter of observation.

Note readers, Warp has NOTHING to show that the Church abrogated the anti-Copernican decree. Again I challenge all. Show me where the Church abrogated the heresy officially?

they took 400 years to admit the mistake, and that was only 16 years ago. but the mistake was admitted by the Pope, from the work of the Pontifical Commission, sounds awful official to me. what more could change that admission? what would constitute an official reversal in your mind? and can you wait the several centuries it may take for the Church to issue it?

Saying the Church of 1616 had no idea of spaceflight methods is NOT an intelligent answer. This is a thread for FAITH and SCIENCE remember,

seems like one of a variety of good explanations as to why the church made a mistake.

So, Pope Warp

why the invective? i havent been calling you names.

has decided how to interpret the Scriptures is not a matter of faith for the Catholic Church.

they werent interpreting Scripture, they were interpreting scientific observation, and then trying to reconcile it to Scripture. they had the cart before the horse and didnt know it because they had limited observational technology.

Well Warp, here is news for you. The whole affair was about HOW the Scriptures should be read. If you do not know that then you debate in your ignorance and simply do harm to your Church, the same Church of 1616 and 1633, depicting them as a bunch of idiots defining and declaring on a scientific issue. First and foremost it was the Scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics of the Church that was defended in 1616 and in 1633.

they weren’t idiots or fools, they were simply ignorant of the facts we now possess.

You then hide behind that 1981-1992 pontifical commission that I describe thus:

Then came the existentialist mystic and phenomenologist Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II (1978-2005), ‘the Copernican Cannon’ as he used to call himself when bishop of Krakow. As one of the chief architects of Gaudium et Spes, one of the first things he did when elected to the papacy was to set up a Galileo Commission to ‘right the wrong’ as Vatican II had requested. What emerged will some day, when the truth comes out as it always does, go down in history as the most devious document of them all. Moreover, by endorsing it before the world’s press, Pope John Paul II must share in this fiasco. While producing nothing new as far as the second legend goes, the final report was so spin-doctored, out of context and selective that even the Copernicans went public in their criticism of it. Worst of all it depicted the seventeenth century Churchmen involved in the Galileo case as unfit to interpret the Scriptures properly. When presented to the world’s press gathered at the Vatican, the report also contained a veiled apology to Galileo with lots of praise for the suspected heretic’s Catholicism, biblical exegesis and his achievements in science, for which the pope later received an accolade from Italian Freemasons. It is a fact then, that whereas in 1633, in a world that was absorbed in scholastic Christianity, it was Galileo on his knees abjuring the Copernican heresy; in 1992 we find Pope John Paul II, in effect, on his knees, apologising to Galileo and criticising the decisions of his predecessors instead.

so let me get this right. the church made no mistake 400 years ago, but now they do may a mistake? by admitting to a previous mistake that all the world can now see was wrong?

and still geocentrism is held as false by the Churhc, by science, and by alol the evidence.

whether you may like it or not, the Church admitted fault.

so now the only question remaining is if you will now admit what has been proven empirically and stated by the church. your back is to the wall here, and you have no other credible cards to play, if you ever wish to be taken seriously.

do you now admit the truth of heliocentrism?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That’s a reasonable approach to the world unless you have to encounter or explain phenomena or technology that depend on individual quantum events. We already have working quantum crytography; and quantum computing and quantum communication are round the corner. A lot of people are working on Bose-Einstein condensates. Even lasers depend on non-classical ensembles of energy states. I think we are going to be made to confront the underlying non-BBness of nature more in the future (although you could possibly use these things without ever thinking that they were anything other classical ensembles of BBs, you couldn’t design them or maintain them)

Alec
evolutionages.com

a BB is the most basic particle, no matter what that may be, or even if it turns out to be a class of particles. it doesnt matter if their interactions make sense rather only that their interactions are consistently senseless.

so it then doesnt matter what interpretation of qauntum theory that we use, or what particles are further discovered for the purposes of metaphysics.