Faith and Science

  • Thread starter Thread starter sparta2011
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sparta2011

Guest
I have a question for anyone who can help…
How can the Catholic Church claim to be in harmony with science when it believes in the Bible and the religious beliefs are contrary to science?
 
The teachings of the Catholic Church conflict with science only when “science” is wrong, so I think you kind of have it backwards.
 
The teachings of the Catholic Church conflict with science only when “science” is wrong, so I think you kind of have it backwards.
The empirical evidence of Copernicus and Galileo being scientifically right, and the Catholic Church being wrong, suggests otherwise in a manner quite tangible and self evident.

jomoco
 
The empirical evidence of Copernicus and Galileo being scientifically right, and the Catholic Church being wrong, suggests otherwise in a manner quite tangible and self evident.

jomoco
Well here we go again. I’d agree if someone could prove that the Church actually taught this or that.

Not to make this discussion more complicated than it needs to be, what empirical evidence is there that Copernicus and Galileo were right?
 
Science is always changing as humans understand it more and differently. The Bible is always true, the Church never conflicts with either science or the Bible, therefore your position is incorrect and not realistic. I think you should consider what the scope of science really entails. There are many sciences which own are hardly homogeneous with on another.
 
The empirical evidence of Copernicus and Galileo being scientifically right, and the Catholic Church being wrong, suggests otherwise in a manner quite tangible and self evident.
Here is a link:

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

It is explained far better and more thoroughly than I could do in in this article. Your post below mine is explained in this article too.
 
Well here we go again. I’d agree if someone could prove that the Church actually taught this or that.

Not to make this discussion more complicated than it needs to be, what empirical evidence is there that Copernicus and Galileo were right?
Don’t get me wrong, the CC’s support of a geocentric solar system surrounding us was quite understandable because it was a product of the best minds of their past, Aristotle, Plato, etc.

But the fact that Copernicus and Galileo were right in a demonstrably scientific, repeatable sense, pretty much put an end to the belief of Papal infallibility in many people’s minds both within and outside the CC.

Just because Aristotle and others were proven wrong on the matter of geocentrism does not reflect badly on them or the CC in my opinion, it merely proves that with the sole exception of Christ(God), we are all quite human, and therefore fallible.

jomoco
 
I have a question for anyone who can help…
How can the Catholic Church claim to be in harmony with science when it believes in the Bible and the religious beliefs are contrary to science?
The Church could only best be described as holding to the view that science cannot validate or invalidate the supernatural, being as it is without the realm of material empiricism. With Galileo there was a popular view, not a dogma, that was ultimately false but popular.

But here’s a quote from St. Augustine to help show the Church’s view of science:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]
(I originally intended to post a quote wherein he states that if science proves something we must accept it and harmonize it with Tradition [oral and written,] but I couldn’t find it.)
 
Remember, we believe God wrote the Bible and the scientific laws (so to speak).
 
=sparta2011;8012028]I have a question for anyone who can help…
How can the Catholic Church claim to be in harmony with science when it believes in the Bible and the religious beliefs are contrary to science?
Hi and WELCOME to the CA FORUM!

I’d like to respond but am not exactly sure what you have in mind? Could you provide and example or two?

God Bless,
Pat
 
The empirical evidence of Copernicus and Galileo being scientifically right, and the Catholic Church being wrong, suggests otherwise in a manner quite tangible and self evident.

jomoco
Garbage. Garbage, garbage, garbage.

Copernicus was right, and his text was actually accepted by the church, excepting during a brief period where minor corrections were made to the science.

Galileo’s text on heliocentrism was entirely and 100% flawed. It was rejected by scientists of his day precisely because every ounce of “empirical evidence” he used didn’t ACTUALLY support heliocentrism at all. For example, he argued that the tides were effectively water on earth “sloshing” as a result of the earth’s movement… and at that time scientists already knew that the tides were a consequence of gravitational forces from the moon and the sun.

All in all, Galileo was a great scientist, but he was prone to error when it came to his pride in positing what was demonstrably false proofs and then clinging to them despite being shown his scientific error (and, ultimately, abusing the church while using his own flawed scientific analysis).

Second, heliocentrism isn’t even the correct model, as we no longer believe that the sun is the center of the universe either. And finally, I would LOVE to see where you think the “church” dogmatically taught geocentrism…
 
I have a question for anyone who can help…
How can the Catholic Church claim to be in harmony with science when it believes in the Bible and the religious beliefs are contrary to science?
I think a better way to say it is “The Catholic Church is in harmony with the Truth.”

Science is not always true. Many scientists don’t understand this, and a lot of lay people don’t as well.

In fact, what are considered to be scientific facts change daily. Is it global warming, or another ice age? Is coffee good for you, or bad for you? Vestigal organs have no function, or else they actually do. The earth is at the center, no wait, it’s the sun, no wait, its…we’ll let you know when we figure it out.

Why put your eggs in THAT basket?

Thank God that the Church is in harmony with the Truth!

And only to the* limited extent *that science is in harmony with the Truth, the Church is in harmony with science.
 
I have a question for anyone who can help…
How can the Catholic Church claim to be in harmony with science when it believes in the Bible and the religious beliefs are contrary to science?
The Bible is a theological work, not an historical work or a scientific work. It is infallible on theological matters, not historical or scientific matters. It is just one of many ancient references when it comes to historical matters or scientific matters.

The only scientific issues regarding which the Bible is infallible are those which are required for a theological principle. For example, Jesus must have lived, died and resurrected. But, the Flood need not have happened…certainly not precisely as told. Man need not have been created in the form in which he now exists. The Genesis stories can be allegory, and evolution could have occurred. (I believe evolution is the best explanation we have available to us now, and Pope John Paul has said as much.) The Genesis stories are there to teach theology, not to teach history or science.

Granted, many religious people believe the Bible is historically/scientifically infallible. But such belief is not required by the Catholic Church. I cannot speak for protestant faiths, who seem to wrestle with Creationism more than Catholics do. (After 17 years of Catholic education, I met my first adult creationist at my first job. Needless to say, he was not Catholic.)

In the final analysis, the Catholic Church does not teach any factually disprovable concepts which science can challenge. Thus, the Catholic Church is in perfect, inevitable harmony with science.
 
The Bible is a theological work, not an historical work or a scientific work. It is infallible on theological matters, not historical or scientific matters. It is just one of many ancient references when it comes to historical matters or scientific matters.

The only scientific issues regarding which the Bible is infallible are those which are required for a theological principle. For example, Jesus must have lived, died and resurrected. But, the Flood need not have happened…certainly not precisely as told. Man need not have been created in the form in which he now exists. The Genesis stories can be allegory, and evolution could have occurred. (I believe evolution is the best explanation we have available to us now, and Pope John Paul has said as much.) The Genesis stories are there to teach theology, not to teach history or science.

Granted, many religious people believe the Bible is historically/scientifically infallible. But such belief is not required by the Catholic Church. I cannot speak for protestant faiths, who seem to wrestle with Creationism more than Catholics do. (After 17 years of Catholic education, I met my first adult creationist at my first job. Needless to say, he was not Catholic.)

In the final analysis, the Catholic Church does not teach any factually disprovable concepts which science can challenge. Thus, the Catholic Church is in perfect, inevitable harmony with science.
How did they manage to so purposefully eliminate history or science?
 
Garbage. Garbage, garbage, garbage.

Copernicus was right, and his text was actually accepted by the church, excepting during a brief period where minor corrections were made to the science.

Galileo’s text on heliocentrism was entirely and 100% flawed. It was rejected by scientists of his day precisely because every ounce of “empirical evidence” he used didn’t ACTUALLY support heliocentrism at all. For example, he argued that the tides were effectively water on earth “sloshing” as a result of the earth’s movement… and at that time scientists already knew that the tides were a consequence of gravitational forces from the moon and the sun.

All in all, Galileo was a great scientist, but he was prone to error when it came to his pride in positing what was demonstrably false proofs and then clinging to them despite being shown his scientific error (and, ultimately, abusing the church while using his own flawed scientific analysis).

Second, heliocentrism isn’t even the correct model, as we no longer believe that the sun is the center of the universe either. And finally, I would LOVE to see where you think the “church” dogmatically taught geocentrism…
No doubt we’re all entitled to our own opinions, how ever false or mistaken they may be.

But rather than argue the matter, what say we document our assertions my friend?

law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

Now I know you think that’s all garbage. But can you document your opinions in any manner whatsoever?

jomoco
 
No doubt we’re all entitled to our own opinions, how ever false or mistaken they may be.
Quite so, which is why I look at my degree in physics, hanging over my desk, before engaging on the subject of scientific development.
But rather than argue the matter, what say we document our assertions my friend?
I ask for evidence of a dogmatic catholic teaching and you present me a non-dogmatic ruling by a handful of cardinals. Want to try again?
Now I know you think that’s all garbage. But can you document your opinions in any manner whatsoever?
It is not generally hard to document historical fact: pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/galileo-big-mistake.html

Galileo’s proof for heliocentrism was based on two major ideas:
  1. That the tides were caused by sloshing motion of earth moving and rotating at the same time.
  2. That venus’ motion (in front of and behind the sun) could only be explained by heliocentrism.
The first was incorrect because, as Kepler noted, tides were caused by the influence of the moon, thus describing why there were two tides per day. Galileo asserted that ONE tide was caused by the motion of the earth and backed this with apparently accurate math, while the second tide was caused by… er… he supposed it was the size and depth of the “basin”, but he never did present mathematical evidence for this.

The second was incorrect (in a way) because others had also created a geo-heliocentric model which mathematically described the orbital motion of the solar system and accounted for the positions of venus by noting that the inner planets in this model rotated around the sun. So while the geo-heliocentric hybrid system was wrong, Galileo was incorrect in asserting that his model was the ONLY one that could account for the phases of Venus (or the moons of Jupitor for that matter).
 
No doubt we’re all entitled to our own opinions, how ever false or mistaken they may be.

But rather than argue the matter, what say we document our assertions my friend?

law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

Now I know you think that’s all garbage. But can you document your opinions in any manner whatsoever?

jomoco
I’m just a bystander. But I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

Are you saying that Galileo’s pronouncement that the Sun was the center of the universe was correct?

Are you saying that there was an infallible / dogmatic teaching that the Earth was the center of the universe?

Here’s an interesting article on the whole affair. I’m not sure it addresses your concerns, since I’m not sure what you’re getting at. 🤷

There are folks here who know more about this than I do, so maybe they can give you a better answer.

🙂
 
Quite so, which is why I look at my degree in physics, hanging over my desk, before engaging on the subject of scientific development.

I ask for evidence of a dogmatic catholic teaching and you present me a non-dogmatic ruling by a handful of cardinals. Want to try again?

It is not generally hard to document historical fact: pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/galileo-big-mistake.html

Galileo’s proof for heliocentrism was based on two major ideas:
  1. That the tides were caused by sloshing motion of earth moving and rotating at the same time.
  2. That venus’ motion (in front of and behind the sun) could only be explained by heliocentrism.
The first was incorrect because, as Kepler noted, tides were caused by the influence of the moon, thus describing why there were two tides per day. Galileo asserted that ONE tide was caused by the motion of the earth and backed this with apparently accurate math, while the second tide was caused by… er… he supposed it was the size and depth of the “basin”, but he never did present mathematical evidence for this.

The second was incorrect (in a way) because others had also created a geo-heliocentric model which mathematically described the orbital motion of the solar system and accounted for the positions of venus by noting that the inner planets in this model rotated around the sun. So while the geo-heliocentric hybrid system was wrong, Galileo was incorrect in asserting that his model was the ONLY one that could account for the phases of Venus (or the moons of Jupitor for that matter).
While I admire your attempt to subtly switch subjects from both Copernicus and Galileo being right on the matter of heliocentrism, to Galileo being wrong on the matter of what caused tides, the fact that the CC banned Copernicus’ writings on heliocentrism, and persecuted Galileo for his advocacy of Copernicus’ belief being true and accurate is self-evident to both historians and Christians, as well as anyone else seeking the truth of the matter of heliocentrism being an accepted objective fact of our planetary system.

Does the Pope hold any responsibility for the documented actions of his own church?

Or does he only claim infallibility in matters intangible and undocumentable?

jomoco
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top