Is science grounded on faith?

[donsnow]

Actually, I agree with MindOverMatter, here.

Because, the mind of Christ existed before he was incarnated in Mary’s virgin womb. While God the Holy Trinity was totally incorporeal before the advent of Jesus Christ, the mind of God was intangible with the intangible Holy Trinity. ipso facto, the mind of God can exist without a brain.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Again you are demanding scientific evidence. But lets think of this rationally.

The reason that approach was discarded centuries ago is because it leads one up the garden path.

Let’s collate some evidence. Let’s find some examples of thought occurring in the absence of a brain, or let’s admit that we have no reason to believe that such an event can occur.

 

[Geremia]

This post has come the closest to answering my question. Everyone else has hijacked the thread. Please address my OP question or do not post to this thread. Thank you

 

[Shredderbeam]

I see the point of your argument. But not all questions about reality are scientific questions and so the scientific rule doesn’t apply in both cases. When dealing with reality in general, the question of Gods existence is not a scientific Question, but rather it is a metaphysical Question.

I view God’s existence as a fact about reality. Either there is a God, or there isn’t, and in principle we could use evidence to make a probability judgment in either direction.

MindOverMatter2:

Besides, we make inferences from knowledge of our selves to the existence of other minds without scientific evidence all the time. This is a rational belief, not a scientific belief. Thus i don’t see that the empirical method automatically applies in every case.

While there’s some evidence to support the idea that others have conscious experience similar to we do, I will grant that if there were no such evidence (say, 1000 years ago) we would probably believe it anyway. However, I think that that is more of an ingrained belief than a rational one. Out of curiosity, why do you say that it’s a rational one?

MindOverMatter2:

Also we make inferences within the scientific context to none observable entities like quarks based on a belief that if the effect is measurable then the cause or rather the quark exists

, and we believe in its existence because it explains those things that are measurable. Scientists “believe” these things, not just as scientists but as people, and they are rational to believe it. They have a reasonable belief based on observation.

I’m no expert in subatomic physics, but as far as I know, quarks are believed to exist partly because their effects can be observed, and partly because predictions assuming their existence were made, which were fulfilled.

But yes, I agree that it seems to be rational to believe in quarks.

MindOverMatter2:

Similarly, many intelligent Christians believe in God because their experience as persons and existence in general prompts them to the rationalization that only something as powerful as God can “ultimately” account for reality in general as they experience it; because, in respect of an “ultimate explanation”, nothing else makes sense of the effect. They have a reasonable belief based on observation. And not all Christians or scientists believe that that the science of reality in particular is contradictory or in opposition to the idea that a supreme intellect fashioned the laws of physics.

Their belief is disputed, though. The evidence for the existence of quarks is fairly solid, as far as I know, but the evidence for a God is not quite so solid.

MindOverMatter2:

Proceeding with scientific knowledge on the basis of a belief necessarily bars science from asking metaphysical questions, such as why is there something rather than nothing; since such a question can only be answered by metaphysical certainty

; not science. God is not an empirical entity, but rather God is the reason for why there is such a thing as reality in general. One is not asking why there are physical things in particular. One is asking why is there such a thing as potential reality and reality in general, and a non-empirical transcendent necessary reality with an intellect is the only logical explanation.

I’ll grant that science cannot answer questions of metaphysics, but I disagree that a necessary reality requires an intellect.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The reason that approach was discarded centuries ago is because it leads one up the garden path.

So say you; the career atheist. Every other person that knows what they are talking about disagrees.

Let’s collate some evidence. Let’s find some examples of thought occurring in the absence of a brain, or let’s admit that we have no reason to believe that such an event can occur.

I don’t need to show evidence of thoughts with out a physical reaction since i am not trying to prove that human beings don’t process information with their brain. However i have given good reasons that strongly imply that ideas and thoughts are not ultimately a manifestation of physics, but rather of immaterial intellects. I have provided rational reasons that are supported from observing the evidence. You simply refuse to accept it for non-rational reasons. Anyway the OP has said that we are derailing the thread, which means you can’t reply to this. so… i guess i win the debate by having the last word.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This post has come the closest to answering my question. Everyone else has hijacked the thread. Please address my OP question or do not post to this thread. Thank you

Huge sorry from me.

 

[Moonstruck888]

So say you; the career atheist. Every other person that knows what they are talking about disagrees.

I don’t need to show evidence of thoughts with out a physical reaction since i am not trying to prove that human beings don’t process information with their brain. However i have given good reasons that strongly imply that ideas and thoughts are not ultimately a manifestation of physics, but rather of immaterial intellects. I have provided rational reasons that are supported from observing the evidence. You simply refuse to accept it for non-rational reasons. Anyway the OP has said that we are derailing the thread, which means you can’t reply to this. so… i guess i win the debate by having the last word.

What makes you think I’m going to let you have the last word? I’ll start my own thread if necessary…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

What makes you think I’m going to let you have the last word? I’ll start my own thread if necessary…

 

[donsnow]

This post has come the closest to answering my question. Everyone else has hijacked the thread. Please address my OP question or do not post to this thread. Thank you

That’s the post I had in mind, when I wanted to rebut later. Now, first, Betterave does correctly define faith as apart from intuition. I’m not arguing that.

I would like to point out why I have the opinion that science owes religion for its very existence, which is to say, yes I think science is grounded on faith.

When I say religion, I include pagan as well as Christian religions. And, I refer to Astronomy as a science. We learn from anthropologists that the Surmerian, Babylonian, Mayan and other early [pagan] civilizations made surprising astronomical observations. It was the priests in these countries, no other, who had the time to study the heavens and record their findings for future generations of priests. I respectively submit, this is science soundly grounded in religion, ie, grounded in faith.

Now, as has been mentioned by others on this thread, the same applies to Catholic monks ever since the establishment of the Catholic church. Coming up to recent times, a Catholic monk named Mendel recorded his findings about genes in the plants he studied. Again, genetics is science and it was soundly grounded in Mendel’s Catholic faith.

These are my two examples of why I think religion is grounded in faith.

Thank you,
Don

 

[Betterave]

A science of principles is grasped immediately by the intellect (understanding). This is more like immediate intuition than faith. Faith is “more certain” because it is based on God’s revealed word. But that certainly doesn’t imply that what natural reason grasps is based on revelation; rather, it is based on the effective exercise of our own intellectual powers - and this is, in a sense, the opposite of fideism, which declares that there is no such thing (at least when it comes to certain questions).

Thank you for the reply.

What do you think of faith being one of the “two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth,” the other being reason (Fides et Ratio 1.)? Does this imply that reason—and science, too—can never build on faith, only vice versa?

Tough question, especially when it’s not clear what all of the terms should be taken to mean in this particular context.

What bothers me is that if the lower sciences are the handmaidens of theology (Summa Theologica Iª q. 1 a. 5 s. c.), unified in this study of God, and if faith affords knowledge of God and His revealed truths for theology to adopt as its principles, then why does it seem the truths of theology don’t help the lower sciences like physics, chemistry, and biology, or vice versa?

Natural sciences are autonomous in their own domains, but relative to theology are “handmaidens.” They are not really unified, except in God’s mind. In our minds they remain methodologically distinct. Whether the natural sciences and revealed theology are mutually supportive… yeah, probably not, at first glance. But the question as to what belongs to each domain is logically prior and is pretty difficult. The owl metaphor tells us that there is much that is visible but that is hard to see because of our eyes or the conditions in which we are seeing - but these conditions are also not set in stone so the boundaries between the “knowable to us” and the “knowable in itself” are variable…

If they would and if the sciences are indeed ultimately unified in theology, the supreme science, then the ultimate source of all the sciences’ principles would be grounded on Revelation, obtained by faith. This is fideism. I guess I struggle with why it is wrong.

No, I think you make a mistake here. “The sciences are unified in theology” should not be understood as claiming that this unification is something that happens within the horizon of our frail earthly human intellection. This is the natural directedness of human reason, yes, but not something that we achieve perfectly. This means that the two wings never merge into one for us. If they did, we would not be left with fideism - the *subjugation *of reason - but with something like perfect intuitive knowledge - the *perfection *of reason. (Something like grace not destroying nature, but perfecting it.)

 

[Geremia]

the mind of God can exist without a brain

By “mind” you mean a “human intellectual soul?” A human soul is subsisting, so it can exist without a brain or body. When someone dies, his soul separates from his body and is no longer its form. His soul does not die because it is immortal. The brain is a sense organ that supplies the soul, which informs and animates an alive human body, with sensory information.

 

[Geremia]

A science of principles is grasped immediately by the intellect (understanding).

Is this what St. Thomas means when he says: “But those immediate principles are not made known through an additional middle but through an understanding of their own terms.”?

This is more like immediate intuition than faith.

I liked St. Thomas’s analogy of the whole and part to show how the intellect grasps first principles immediately, but I get the sense that the analogy could break down. I think it comes down to what the division is between natural reason and reason aided by the grace of God à la “grace builds on nature.” But can our nature itself even exist without God’s grace?

Faith is “more certain” because it is based on God’s revealed word. But that certainly doesn’t imply that what natural reason grasps is based on revelation; rather, it is based on the effective exercise of our own intellectual powers - and this is, in a sense, the opposite of fideism, which declares that there is no such thing (at least when it comes to certain questions).

I loved the Vatican Council’s document that God’s existence can be known through natural reason, but what is natural reason? Our human nature is pretty fallen, but sometimes I think it hasn’t fallen so badly that we no longer have any sort of human reason to work independently of God’s grace, but even if it has, God is infinitely merciful and can still turn that bad into good only if we are allowed to use faith as a means to knowledge, right?

Also, what do you think of this article from St. Thomas’s Summa?

It is necessary for man to accept by faith not only things which are above reason, but also those which can be known by reason: and this for three motives. First, in order that man may arrive more quickly at the knowledge of Divine truth. Because the science to whose province it belongs to prove the existence of God, is the last of all to offer itself to human research, since it presupposes many other sciences: so that it would not by until late in life that man would arrive at the knowledge of God. The second reason is, in order that the knowledge of God may be more general. For many are unable to make progress in the study of science, either through dullness of mind, or through having a number of occupations, and temporal needs, or even through laziness in learning, all of whom would be altogether deprived of the knowledge of God, unless Divine things were brought to their knowledge under the guise of faith. The third reason is for the sake of certitude. For human reason is very deficient in things concerning God. A sign of this is that philosophers in their researches, by natural investigation, into human affairs, have fallen into many errors, and have disagreed among themselves. And consequently, in order that men might have knowledge of God, free of doubt and uncertainty, it was necessary for Divine matters to be delivered to them by way of faith, being told to them, as it were, by God Himself Who cannot lie.

Natural sciences are autonomous in their own domains, but relative to theology are “handmaidens.” They are not really unified, except in God’s mind. In our minds they remain methodologically distinct. Whether the natural sciences and revealed theology are mutually supportive… yeah, probably not, at first glance. But the question as to what belongs to each domain is logically prior and is pretty difficult. The owl metaphor tells us that there is much that is visible but that is hard to see because of our eyes or the conditions in which we are seeing - but these conditions are also not set in stone so the boundaries between the “knowable to us” and the “knowable in itself” are variable…

No, I think you make a mistake here. “The sciences are unified in theology” should not be understood as claiming that this unification is something that happens within the horizon of our frail earthly human intellection.

No, but it is something toward which we should strive, though, no?

This is the natural directedness of human reason, yes, but not something that we achieve perfectly. This means that the two wings never merge into one for us. If they did, we would not be left with fideism - the *subjugation *of reason

I thought of it as faith being reason’s servant, i.e., subjected to reason, not “of reason.” Or in the wing metaphor, that a bird has a dominant ring, e.g., the right wing! (no pun intended…) E.g., St. Augustine says:

Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.

• but with something like perfect intuitive knowledge - the *perfection *of reason. (Something like grace not destroying nature, but perfecting it.)

 

[Geremia]

Also, what do you think of this article from St. Thomas’s Summa?

The article I quoted was this: IIª-IIae q. 2 a. 4 co.Summa Theologica

 

[Geremia]

Also, what do you think of this article from St. Thomas’s Summa?

The article I quoted was this: IIª-IIae q. 2 a. 4 co.Summa Theologica

 

[Betterave]

Is this what St. Thomas means when he says: “But those immediate principles are not made known through an additional middle but through an understanding of their own terms.”?

I believe so.

I liked St. Thomas’s analogy of the whole and part to show how the intellect grasps first principles immediately, but I get the sense that the analogy could break down. I think it comes down to what the division is between natural reason and reason aided by the grace of God à la “grace builds on nature.” But can our nature itself even exist without God’s grace?

Can you expand on this, give a reference?

I loved the Vatican Council’s document that God’s existence can be known through natural reason, but what is natural reason? Our human nature is pretty fallen, but sometimes I think it hasn’t fallen so badly that we no longer have any sort of human reason to work independently of God’s grace, but even if it has, God is infinitely merciful and can still turn that bad into good only if we are allowed to use faith as a means to knowledge, right?

Natural reason is just the kind of reason which pertains to human nature. All I can say is that it hasn’t been destroyed, but it is highly(?) susceptible to being led astray by accidental (e.g. cultural) influences. I sure don’t know the extent to which ignorance is ‘invincible’ in particular cases, but I’m confident that in many cases it is not.

Also, what do you think of this article from St. Thomas’s Summa?

A lot of common sense there, I think.

No, but it is something toward which we should strive, though, no?

Yes, although always with humility.

I thought of **it **as faith being reason’s servant, i.e., subjected to reason, not “of reason.” Or in the wing metaphor, that a bird has a dominant ring, e.g., the right wing! (no pun intended…) E.g., St. Augustine says:

I’m afraid I don’t follow. “it” = fideism??

 

[donsnow]

By “mind” you mean a “human intellectual soul?” A human soul is subsisting, so it can exist without a brain or body. When someone dies, his soul separates from his body and is no longer its form. His soul does not die because it is immortal. The brain is a sense organ that supplies the soul, which informs and animates an alive human body, with sensory information.

Yes, Geremia,

I hadn’t thought of that until I read this post.

Don

 

[Geremia]

Natural reason is just the kind of reason which pertains to human nature. All I can say is that it hasn’t been destroyed

So basically as long as there is a human nature, there is some amount of intellect and reason. That makes sense because that is what human nature is; humans are rational creatures.

A lot of common sense thee, I think.

That is an understatement! St. Thomas is the master of commonsense.

Re: “Whether it is necessary to believe those things which can be proved by natural reason?” St. Thomas answers in the affirmative, yet this seems to contradict what he maintains elsewhere, the maxim: “Habitus scientiae et habitus fidei non possunt esse simul in eodem intellectu respectu ejusdem objecti” “The habit of science and the habit of faith cannot be the same time in the same intellect with respect to the same object.”]. (Cf. II-II. Qu. I Art. IV. co.Summa).

 

[Leela]

Can you prove conclusively that the earth is not only 10,000 years old? Can you even prove that the sun will rise tomorrow? So, it’s just faith then. Can the scientific method be used to justify itself? Then it’s just faith. Our sets of beliefs are all just different flavors of Koolade. It’s all just faith. No beliefs are any better justified that any others, so you may as well believe in Christianity. Drink up!

I am being ironic in the above, of course, but why would believers want to diminish faith in this way by saying that everything we believe is merely faith?

 

[edwest2]

What do you want people to do? When I was studying chemistry and electronics, everything happened exactly as it was supposed to - chemicals combined in the proper way and electronic devices worked as they should. I don’t know anyone who goes to bed thinking that there’s a .000000001% chance that things like the sun won’t be there tomorrow or that their normal car would suddenly be able to fly.

Science has a relationship to faith, but, especially lately, politics has overshadowed this relationship.

God bless,
Ed

 

[LittleSoldier]

Faith is for the people who look at the universe and can’t understand how it came to be and so try to fill the gap of ignorance with what they want to belive in (God.

Science is for the people who look at the universe and can’t understand hot it came to be and so try to find out by acctuly trying by looking at the stars, expermenting and researching.

And theistic science is for those who look at the universe with awe and can’t understand how it came to be and so try to find out by actually looking at the stars, experimenting and researching, and at the same time they are looking out into what appears to be endless space they are looking inside themselves and see and feel the reality of God and realize that God has created everything ex nihilo and is Love.