Faith and Science

[StAnastasia]

The answer pal, which is open to speculation, will be found to concord with two possible theories, the universe with its effects turns around global earth, or as you prefer the earth rotates.

Cassini, will you be presenting a session on your theory at the American Astronomical Union conference next year, or at the geophysical sciences convention in San Francisco this coming week? If you’ve got cutting edge information regarding the truth of geocentricity, the scientific world should know about it.

Or are you afraid to propose such a session because you lack the requisite education and credentials in physics and astronomy? Are you afraid you wouldn’t receive a fair hearing from serious scientists? Still, if you are in possession of the truth, you should share it in more fora than just Catholic Answers. You owe it to the world to make this new knowledge known, and you should be confident that if it is true, and if God is an advocate of Truth, the Holy Spirit will be with you as you present!

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

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.

Well you don’t need to have any knowledge of science to enjoy and understand the Ancestor’s Tale, but you do need to think and have your wits about you.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Good morning Alec,

One of the people I wrote for insisted that I had to prove every word I wrote. For example, if I wrote about the green grass in the quadrangle, I had to have the date when I last checked.

The point is that I try to be very careful when writing. The operative word in my post is “some”. because the general intent of the book does not deal with all the insights and understanding of the mechanics of evolution which would be out of their depth. The authors were cherry pickers as we used to say. And they are correct to pick not only what supports their view but also that which they reasonably can handle. Obviously, this invites people to debate with them on their choice. That sounds good to me.

The challenge to think and use my wits has already been given due to an old conversation with my daughter-in-law, the scientific one, who was telling me about the accomplishments of Richard Dawkins. She mentioned a TV show or maybe it was a clip, in which rude “creationists” were badgering Richard Dawkins. Of course, she never outright challenged me and our conversation never resumed.

The one thing I did decide was that I couldn’t be a creationist with their literal interpretation of the bible’s account of the creation of the universe. Yet, I very definitely believe in a God Who did create the universe. I remain open to the way or ways in which He did it. I don’t often use the mutually exclusive “or”. I prefer looking at things as “both/and”.

Credit has to be given to Scott Hahn for moving the challenge to think, outside the box in my case, to the front burner in my case. Now isn’t getting people to think, one of the many purposes of both science and philosophy? If you suggest that “faith” as in the topic of this thread, automatically by definition, excludes thinking-- I will reply that I accept subjective thinking as part of human nature.

Note to All: When I worked in public relations which included work for the development office and the information office which did news releases, the environment was good will toward all.

My favorite example was when a newspaper photographer called us and said that the staff member handling one of our major stories had found a humorous error in the release. This was not a humorous error. It was an incorrect descriptive term applied to a person arriving in town. Today, some papers would have turned the error into a rather bad scandal – just uncovered, from inside sources, would be the headline… The descriptive term was corrected in time.

My point is that I welcome your pointing out any terms or words I use incorrectly. Also do enlighten me. Discussion is a great way of learning. Thank you.

Since I will be traveling without easy access to a computer, I will be off this thread for a while.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[StAnastasia]

The one thing I did decide was that I couldn’t be a creationist with their literal interpretation of the bible’s account of the creation of the universe. Yet, I very definitely believe in a God Who did create the universe. I remain open to the way or ways in which He did it. I don’t often use the mutually exclusive “or”. I prefer looking at things as “both/and”

Precisely, grannymh. Creation and evolution are not contradictory, but rather complementary ways of looking at the cosmos. Creation is a theological-philosophical claim about the ontological dependency of the world on God; evolution is a scientific explanation for terrestrial biological diversity. It is not even possible for them to contradict each other!

Have a safe trip.

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

Catholics have nothing to fear from science. By studying science, one comes to understand God’s design for creation- and to appreciate it even more.

Scientists have become infected with atheism which has become institutionalized. Just read Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens or PZ Myers. Professor Dawkins uses the same “mountains of evidence” that supposedly support evolutionary theory to say, with certainty, there is no god. “We no longer worship the Greek or Roman Gods, I’m simply adding one more.”

There is also the infection caused by the ideology called scientism which is simply the belief that our five senses and advanced instrumentation are the only means to observe reality. This is false. On a Catholic Forum, the missing reality is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died for all men.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Scientists have become infected with atheism which has become institutionalized…There is also the infection caused by the ideology called scientism which is simply the belief that our five senses and advanced instrumentation are the only means to observe reality. This is false. On a Catholic Forum, the missing reality is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died for all people.Peace,Ed

I have many scientist friends who are Catholic, some of whom are priests. It would be news to them to read your claim that “scientists have become infected with atheism.”

I agree with you that scientism is false, and my Catholic scientist friends join you in combating this false application of a philosophical presupposition to the practice of cosmology or evolutionary biology.

StAnastasia

 

[The_Barbarian]

Scientists have become infected with atheism which has become institutionalized.

Sounds like a testable claim. Which scientific institutions have declared that there is no God?

Just read Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens or PZ Myers.

I’ve read some of their scientific work, but none of it actually denies God. None of it even suggested such. What scientific work of theirs says this? Keep in mind that if Kenneth Miller writes “Darwin’s God”, it isn’t an affirmation that science has institutionalized God. It just means that some scientists believe in God, and some don’t. But neither group, so far as I’ve read, have put it into their work as scientists.

Professor Dawkins uses the same “mountains of evidence” that supposedly support evolutionary theory to say, with certainty, there is no god.

If so, what do we make of Dawkins’ assertion that science can’t rule out God, or his admission that God might exist?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You don’t really understand how science works, do you?

do you have an argument that refutes the quote?, last i checked the scientific method was essentially

1. hypothesize.
2. test
3. rehypothesize

seems a match up pretty good with the definiton of proof, looks alot like a process or operation deigned to discover a fact, to me

Proof Proof, n. [OF. prove, proeve, F. preuve, fr. L. proba,
fr. probare to prove. See Prove.]
[1913 Webster]

1. Any effort, process, or operation designed to establish or
   discover a fact or truth; an act of testing; a test; a
   trial.
   [1913 Webster]

so exactly how do i misunderstand science again?

 

[buffalo]

Sounds like a testable claim. Which scientific institutions have declared that there is no God?

I’ve read some of their scientific work, but none of it actually denies God. None of it even suggested such. What scientific work of theirs says this? Keep in mind that if Kenneth Miller writes “Darwin’s God”, it isn’t an affirmation that science has institutionalized God. It just means that some scientists believe in God, and some don’t. But neither group, so far as I’ve read, have put it into their work as scientists.

If so, what do we make of Dawkins’ assertion that science can’t rule out God, or his admission that God might exist?

Survey says:

Scientists May Not Be Very Religious, but Science May Not Be to Blame

Overall, 75% of professors contacted completed the survey. Among the different disciplines, disbelief in the existence of God was not correlated with any particular area of expertise: Disbelief in God by Academics Discipline % Physics 40.8 Chemistry 26.6 Biology 41.0 Overall 37.6 Sociology 34.0 Economics 31.7 Political Science 27.0 Psychology 33.0 Overall 31.2
Ecklund and Scheitle concluded that the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable.
Ecklund says, "It appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions. This may reflect the fact that there is tension between the religious tenets of some groups and the theories and methods of particular sciences and it contributes to the large number of non-religious scientists."

 

[edwest2]

Sounds like a testable claim. Which scientific institutions have declared that there is no God?

I’ve read some of their scientific work, but none of it actually denies God. None of it even suggested such. What scientific work of theirs says this? Keep in mind that if Kenneth Miller writes “Darwin’s God”, it isn’t an affirmation that science has institutionalized God. It just means that some scientists believe in God, and some don’t. But neither group, so far as I’ve read, have put it into their work as scientists.

If so, what do we make of Dawkins’ assertion that science can’t rule out God, or his admission that God might exist?

As to your last question, I cannot believe Mr. Dawkins is sincere.
As to science having anything to say about God, it is the scientists who deny Him. See Nature magazine: “Most Leading Scientists Still Reject God.” Go to the PZ Myers youtube interview where he cites the corrosive effect of science on religious belief, and his assertion that science and atheism are intimately linked.

Peace,
Ed

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Not true in science, at least. No one can ever hope to get all the relevant data. We just sample and make inferences. You need to learn how science works.

condescension aside, by what mechanism is it not true?, all the data exists. it is true that one could eventually get all the relevant data, i admit it is next to impossible to do so in the time alloted for one man, but not for the generations of scientist that build upon each others work.

science fits perfectly to the definition of proof

Proof Proof, n. [OF. prove, proeve, F. preuve, fr. L. proba,
fr. probare to prove. See Prove.]
[1913 Webster]

1. Any effort, process, or operation designed to establish or
   discover a fact or truth; an act of testing; a test; a
   trial.
   [1913 Webster]

looks like exactly what science does.

how does the following quote disagree with me? it seems to support my argument.

Barbarian observes:
In the sense you’re using, evolution is proven, since it has been directly observed. And even common descent is “proven” in the sense you use, since there is overwhelming evidence from observed evolution, fossil evidence, DNA data, etc.

**Not from that, at all. St. Paul writes:
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. 2 For by this the ancients obtained a testimony. 3 By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God; that from invisible things visible things might be made. **

what do you think Aquinas’ argument is other than a logical proof of this verse?

Have some faith in faith, petey.

got plenty thank you. i only use reason to talk to with those who only speak that langauge. kind of a double edged sword there aint it?

Other than an airplane falling out of the sky now and then.

not for a lack of understanding concerning aerodynamics they don’t.

 

[StAnastasia]

Go to the PZ Myers youtube interview where he cites the corrosive effect of science on religious belief, and his assertion that science and atheism are intimately linked.
Peace,Ed

Science has a corrosive effect on religious belief only for those with simplistic religious belief (e.g., bliblical literalism, epistemological naivete, etc). My priest scientist friends are prayerful men, excellent scientists, well-grounded in theology. For them the bogeyman of science-the-religion-killer is a non-issue. Their scientific knowledge gives them even more to pray about.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

You’re claiming a level of epistemic certainty scientists do not – or should not --claim. Science disproves some hypotheses and confirms others. Truth is an asymptote toward which science tends.

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

To StAnastasia

Not an issue? It certainly is with Pope Benedict and Cardinal Schoenborn. As I wrote, the scientists are making the noise. Nature magazine tells us most leading scientists reject God. So even if you do work with a group that believes, the loud noise is coming from those who do not. Sam Harris, in a piece he wrote for a secular humanist web site, speaks of the “alien hiss” of religion. And he refers to his fellow scientists as “pod people” who work as scientists but actually listen to the Pope! The trend for scientists is clearly away from God.

Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict speak of the new evangelization. If current trends among scientists continue along with certain social trends that claim to have the backing of science then I encourage my fellow Catholics to evangelize the scientists they know.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict speak of the new evangelization. If current trends among scientists continue along with certain social trends that claim to have the backing of science then I encourage my fellow Catholics to evangelize the scientists they know.Peace,Ed

Evangelization yes – but not in the way you and Cassini propose. If I tried to convert to Christianity the scientists with whom I work, adding to proclamtion of the Gospel the caveat that “By the way, you will have to reject evolution and heliocentrism if you want to follow Christ,” can you imagine how much success I would encounter?

StAnastasia

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You’re claiming a level of epistemic certainty scientists do not – or should not --claim.

no, im saying that the practical application of the scientific method matches the definition of ‘proof’ as you can see from the definitions given in previous posts.

as to the idea of epistomological certainty, you can see in a review of post #124 that i am not speaking about the philosophical ideal, but rather in the practical application of the scientific method, which does indeed match the following definition of the word ‘proof’

Proof Proof, n. [OF. prove, proeve, F. preuve, fr. L. proba,
fr. probare to prove. See Prove.]
[1913 Webster]

1. Any effort, process, or operation designed to establish or
   discover a fact or truth; an act of testing; a test; a
   trial.
   [1913 Webster]

it would seem that your argument is dead on arrival. the scientific method does match this definition, and there doesnt seem to be a way around it.

Science disproves some hypotheses and confirms others.

you say it yourself here, the opposite to the word ‘disprove’ that you use in the above quote is the word ‘prove’

the word ‘confirm’ is a synonym of the word ‘prove’ as below

Prove
Syn: To try; verify; justify; confirm; establish; evince;
manifest; show; demonstrate.
[1913 Webster]

your context here is opposites, so the sentence should actually be this below, using the synonym of the word proof

"Science disproves some hypotheses and proves others. "

your own words support my assertion

Truth is an asymptote toward which science tends.

there is a finite amount of data concerning any physical science. therefore given enough time science and truth can meet up.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Evangelization yes – but not in the way you and Cassini propose. If I tried to convert to Christianity the scientists with whom I work, adding to proclamtion of the Gospel the caveat that “By the way, you will have to reject evolution and heliocentrism if you want to follow Christ,” can you imagine how much success I would encounter?

StAnastasia

how would one explain the falsity of scientism to a strictly materialist crowd anyway?

but the difficulty does no remove the duty to do so. if the choice is between the respect of rationalists or ones G-d, let me be a public fool and a private saint

 

[StAnastasia]

how would one explain the falsity of scientism to a strictly materialist crowd anyway?

You would have to educate the materialist crowd to understand that “the only way to acquire knowledge is through physical science” is not a scientifically falsifiable statement. Therefore it is merely a philosophical preconception the materialist brings to bear on her science.

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

Evangelization yes – but not in the way you and Cassini propose. If I tried to convert to Christianity the scientists with whom I work, adding to proclamtion of the Gospel the caveat that “By the way, you will have to reject evolution and heliocentrism if you want to follow Christ,” can you imagine how much success I would encounter?

StAnastasia

Evangelization involves the Holy Spirit and leads to a personal encounter with the Living God. Eventually, being intelligent people, they would come to realize the problem the Church has with evolution as taught in the biology textbook - it excludes God. And their fellow scientists are also in favor of excluding God. They would also have to consider that the Church teaches that each one of us can detect God in nature (scientist or not). May I respectfully point out that faith in Jesus Christ is not just faith but history as well? From the Incarnation to His death on the cross.

The atheist movement is currently looking to totally discredit Christianity, both as a belief and as history (primarily the Bible).

Peace,
Ed

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You would have to educate the materialist crowd to understand that “the only way to acquire knowledge is through physical science” is not a scientifically falsifiable statement. Therefore it is merely a philosophical preconception the materialist brings to bear on her science.

StAnastasia

ohhhh… i wonder how to actually make that point?

 

[StAnastasia]

ohhhh… i wonder how to actually make that point?

What’s your problem with this? You tell them that claiming that “the only way to acquire knowledge is through physical science” is not a scientifically falsifiable statement, but merely a philosophical preconception they bring to bear on their science. If a materialist can’t understand that he is too stupid to earn a doctorate.

StAnastasia