Faith and Science

[StAnastasia]

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.

Why should biology textbooks appeal to God? My son’s high chemistry textbook does not say that “God wills sodium and chlorine to combine to form sodium chloride.” In that sense I suppose you could say it’s a non-theistic chemistry text. As a Roman Catholic I have no problem with that. My dentist is a Catholic, but we didn’t say the rosary before discerning whether or not I need a crown last year. Would you say he practices atheistic dentistry? Do you have a moral problem with atheistic dentistry?

StAnastasia

 

[wildleafblower]

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

Still waiting for cassini’s reply.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What’s your problem with this?

try not to be so warm and charming, it is quite distracting from the current topic

You tell them that claiming that “the only way to acquire knowledge is through physical science”

they make ask “what evidence do you have?”

is not a scientifically falsifiable statement, but merely a philosophical preconception they bring to bear on their science.

and if they say "so? the preconception must be right as i dont see any evidence to the contrary.

what do you say then?

If a materialist can’t understand that he is too stupid to earn a doctorate.

i have found that a doctorate in no way excuses one from stupidity

 

[Namesake]

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

Are you Jewish? I ask because the only people I know who don’t spell out GOD, but instead spell G-d, are Jews. Just asking.

More to my point of interest, could you define “scientism” for me.

 

[Namesake]

It is wrong to claim that only scientists can speak about science. Anyone can learn.

To speak with authority one must have credentials. Just because one has access to information doesn’t confer authority.

So, I assert that for one to speak as an authority in scientific matters, one must have scientific credentials. Otherwise one must limit comments to generalizations, and even then one must defer to genuine authorities.

The pope has no scientific credentials and therefore must refrain from addressing specific scientific ideas. He of course is well within his province to expound to his heart’s delight on matters of morals and ethics regarding science. But not on science in a technical way.

 

[StAnastasia]

they make ask “what evidence do you have?”…and if they say "so? the preconception must be right as i dont see any evidence to the contrary.

There is no more scientific evidence for the preconception that “science is the only avenue to knowledge” than there is for the preconception that “religious experience reveals a God active in our lives.” Both are philosophical claims, offering different levels of epistemic cogency to different people. I don’t know that Richard Dawkins would know what to do with a religious experience other than “explaining it away” on neurological grounds.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

wildleafblower:
I don’t know – haven’t met them yet.

StAnastasia

 

[Namesake]

Nature magazine t

Nature is a journal. It isn’t a magazine. That really grates on me.

People is a magazine. Nature is a journal.

If you insist on attacking science at least get your terms right.

 

[edwest2]

To speak with authority one must have credentials. Just because one has access to information doesn’t confer authority.

So, I assert that for one to speak as an authority in scientific matters, one must have scientific credentials. Otherwise one must limit comments to generalizations, and even then one must defer to genuine authorities.

The pope has no scientific credentials and therefore must refrain from addressing specific scientific ideas. He of course is well within his province to expound to his heart’s delight on matters of morals and ethics regarding science. But not on science in a technical way.

This is not a sensible viewpoint. The Pope has access to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He can take their expert testimony, so to speak, and discern how it aligns or conflicts with revealed Truth. This is a Catholic Forum and these issues touch on man’s true origin and are relevant and proper for the Church to study. Unless you support the idea of a separate caste system for scientists, the Pope can and should speak about science in a technical way. There is no reason for him not to.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Nature is a journal. It isn’t a magazine. That really grates on me.

People is a magazine. Nature is a journal.

If you insist on attacking science at least get your terms right.

I am sorry for the error on my part. Attacking “science”? Science is only a method. I am attacking its misuse by scientists and its alliance with atheism as clearly stated by PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and others.

This is a Catholic Forum and I think it’s wrong for these people to use their standing as scientists to attack religion and those who believe in God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

I am sorry for the error on my part. Attacking “science”? Science is only a method. I am attacking its misuse by scientists and its alliance with atheism as clearly stated by PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and others.

Then maybe you should consider attacking those guys instead of what seems to be an attack on science, like evolution.

Attack the guys, not the science.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Are you Jewish? I ask because the only people I know who don’t spell out GOD, but instead spell G-d, are Jews. Just asking.

More to my point of interest, could you define “scientism” for me.

nope, just a backwoods redneck. its my personal crusade to end the casual use of His beautiful name. if you love your brother because he saved your life, how much more should you love Him, He who sacrificed His life for you? How much more should you love him when you realize that you personally drove the spikes through His hands with your sins, that those same sins were woven into His Crown of Thorns? you personally, each of us is individually responsible for the horrible torture and execution of our G-d. yet He loves us so much that He took upon Himself the death that we earned with our sins. instead of us being tortured to death in repayment, He took our punishment. He offered the sacrifice for which we were responsible.

we are nothing, not even the dirt beneath his feet. and every casual use of His name i hear, every exclamation, every curse, every time He is mentioned in any manner not fitting for one who has loved us so, i am a little saddened. that is why i dont write His name.

now that said, i probably saw it done somewhere, i just knew it didnt feel right to write His name, so i picked up the practice

as to scientism, look it up on wikipedia my dictionary just lists synonyms

 

[StAnastasia]

This is not a sensible viewpoint. The Pope has access to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He can take their expert testimony, so to speak, and discern how it aligns or conflicts with revealed Truth. This is a Catholic Forum and these issues touch on man’s true origin and are relevant and proper for the Church to study. Unless you support the idea of a separate caste system for scientists, the Pope can and should speak about science in a technical way. There is no reason for him not to.Peace,
Ed

Ed, I suppose that in a spirit of fairness you would agree to the competence of chemists to speak about the chemistry of transubstantiation. Or is the “dialogue” between religion and science really only a unidirectional monologue for you?

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

Partly because of this forum, I have grown increasingly skeptical of the science behind evolution. Along with research I’ve done in the past, geological dates are highly suspect. I’ve also run across too many articles where ‘nature’ has been anthropomorphicized. Where certain organisms are described as having “learned” to do things when, in fact, there is no evidence they have any relevant capacity to do so. Add to that the ‘religious fervor’ shown here and at other Christian sites to promote science=evolution, and it is entirely clear that not a campaign to educate but a full-scale propaganda campaign is underway. This undermines the slant evident here.

This is happening across all media platforms currently. The signs of the times all point in the same direction - atheism, paganism and secular humanism. Christianity? It’s silly and dangerous (to paraphrase Bill Maher).

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

nope, just a backwoods redneck. its my personal crusade to end the casual use of His beautiful name. if you love your brother because he saved your life, how much more should you love Him, He who sacrificed His life for you? How much more should you love him when you realize that you personally drove the spikes through His hands with your sins, that those same sins were woven into His Crown of Thorns? you personally, each of us is individually responsible for the horrible torture and execution of our G-d. yet He loves us so much that He took upon Himself the death that we earned with our sins. instead of us being tortured to death in repayment, He took our punishment. He offered the sacrifice for which we were responsible.

we are nothing, not even the dirt beneath his feet. and every casual use of His name i hear, every exclamation, every curse, every time He is mentioned in any manner not fitting for one who has loved us so, i am a little saddened. that is why i dont write His name.

I can’t agree that mankind is all that worthless and bad. I think it lessens the good that a loving God does in His creation.

as to scientism, look it up on wikipedia my dictionary just lists synonyms

Yeah, I can and have done that. I just wanted to find out what you think it means since you use the term so often in this discussion. If you don’t feel comfortable giving your idea of the meaning of the term then that’s OK.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, I suppose that in a spirit of fairness you would agree to the competence of chemists to speak about the chemistry of transubstantiation. Or is the “dialogue” between religion and science really only a unidirectional monologue for you?

StAnastasia

I’ve been on this forum to experience the unidirectional dialogue here about evolution. There are priests who are scientists, right? I don’t understand where science operates in its own little world and the Pope or any other nonscientist human being cannot speak about it.

It is wrong to even suggest, Oh, the Pope, he’s no scientist. He couldn’t possibly understand. But people have science teachers and they trust them to give them facts that they can understand and use, right?

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

Partly because of this forum, I have grown increasingly skeptical of the science behind evolution. Along with research I’ve done in the past, geological dates are highly suspect. I’ve also run across too many articles where ‘nature’ has been anthropomorphicized. Where certain organisms are described as having “learned” to do things when, in fact, there is no evidence they have any relevant capacity to do so. Add to that the ‘religious fervor’ shown here and at other Christian sites to promote science=evolution, and it is entirely clear that not a campaign to educate but a full-scale propaganda campaign is underway. This undermines the slant evident here.

This is happening across all media platforms currently. The signs of the times all point in the same direction - atheism, paganism and secular humanism. Christianity? It’s silly and dangerous (to paraphrase Bill Maher).

Regardless of your personal feelings, evolution science is very well grounded. Your attacks are not within acceptable ideas from a scientific point of view.

You assert that science is corrupted, but you give no evidence. I challenge you that a great number of scientists would just love to agree with you, but they don’t because there is no evidence to support your claims. If there were any evidence to support your claims I assure you it would be published post haste!

So, give us the evidence of your claims.

 

[Namesake]

I’ve been on this forum to experience the unidirectional dialogue here about evolution. There are priests who are scientists, right? I don’t understand where science operates in its own little world and the Pope or any other nonscientist human being cannot speak about it.

People without credentials in science can’t address scientific issues form a position of authority. It’s pretty simple and not at all threatening.

It is wrong to even suggest, Oh, the Pope, he’s no scientist. He couldn’t possibly understand. But people have science teachers and they trust them to give them facts that they can understand and use, right?

Science teachers have at least some credentials in science, right?

 

[edwest2]

Regardless of your personal feelings, evolution science is very well grounded. Your attacks are not within acceptable ideas from a scientific point of view.

You assert that science is corrupted, but you give no evidence. I challenge you that a great number of scientists would just love to agree with you, but they don’t because there is no evidence to support your claims. If there were any evidence to support your claims I assure you it would be published post haste!

So, give us the evidence of your claims.

Please see this article, especially the last paragraph:

firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=71

I reject the false analogies posed here about scientific authority. I took chemistry in high school and performed experiments that worked exactly as my instructor described they would. I learned how to write out formulas. No, I wouldn’t let the Pope do a heart operation or even plumbing, but I think a man of his university background has the wisdom, intelligence and necessary people with credentials to give him the information he needs to criticize science. On the matter of human origins, I trust the Church more than I trust scientists.

Peace,
Ed

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is no more scientific evidence for the preconception that “science is the only avenue to knowledge” than there is for the preconception that “religious experience reveals a God active in our lives.” Both are philosophical claims, offering different levels of epistemic cogency to different people. I don’t know that Richard Dawkins would know what to do with a religious experience other than “explaining it away” on neurological grounds.

StAnastasia

true, true

i just wear my faith on my sleeve, if i am around intellectuals i try to speak as a rationalist, if i am around other rednecks, i speak as a redneck, if i am around mexican day laborers is speak in spanish, if i am around felons, i speak in pimp. (ok, maybe pig pimp)

but i always speak about G-d, that is where all conversations must lead, i find little value elsewhere the older i get.

now if i could only conquer this stupid problem of being a sinner, i might get somewhere!

yes, im being sarcastic