Is The World Old Or Young? Can We Trust Scientific Reasoning?

[Ianjo99]

In response to the OP:

I trust scientific reasoning more than I do a largely uneducated populous who use the bible as a starting point for science and whose goals include some arbitrary inclusion of pseudoscience into a general high school cirriculum coupled with pushing of new theories to be explored because the mainstream theory makes them uncomfortable.

While I consider myself a person of great faith, I put little faith in theories derived by people who stand against a large majority of authorities in the subject. If people don’t want to “believe” in a theory like evolution, then don’t. My problem comes when you want science to change to suit you and you don’t have the necessary background to make such a claim.

It’s admirable that people have such diehard determination for their religion, but it starts to look ridiculous and a little cultish to maintain a position in the face of such overwhelming backing.

If this kind of mass idiocy is the trend in America, I think I’ll get a dual-citizenship somewhere else.

 

[freesoulhope]

Gottle of Geer:

The apes will probably find the time-capsule = black monolith ?] first, and be told not to touch it by their Lawgiver 655 years later, the planet will be destroyed by the Doomsday Device

I like that concept!

 

[marysson]

Ianjo99:

In response to the OP:

I trust scientific reasoning more than I do a largely uneducated populous who use the bible as a starting point for science and whose goals include some arbitrary inclusion of pseudoscience into a general high school cirriculum coupled with pushing of new theories to be explored because the mainstream theory makes them uncomfortable.

While I consider myself a person of great faith, I put little faith in theories derived by people who stand against a large majority of authorities in the subject. If people don’t want to “believe” in a theory like evolution, then don’t. My problem comes when you want science to change to suit you and you don’t have the necessary background to make such a claim.

It’s admirable that people have such diehard determination for their religion, but it starts to look ridiculous and a little cultish to maintain a position in the face of such overwhelming backing.

If this kind of mass idiocy is the trend in America, I think I’ll get a dual-citizenship somewhere else.

Not to argue for a young-earth, but you just called a lot of people idiots and used a Fallacy called “Appeal to Authority” to argue your case.

 

[buffalo]

Ianjo99:

In response to the OP:

I trust scientific reasoning more than I do a largely uneducated populous who use the bible as a starting point for science and whose goals include some arbitrary inclusion of pseudoscience into a general high school cirriculum coupled with pushing of new theories to be explored because the mainstream theory makes them uncomfortable.

While I consider myself a person of great faith, I put little faith in theories derived by people who stand against a large majority of authorities in the subject. If people don’t want to “believe” in a theory like evolution, then don’t. My problem comes when you want science to change to suit you and you don’t have the necessary background to make such a claim.

It’s admirable that people have such diehard determination for their religion, but it starts to look ridiculous and a little cultish to maintain a position in the face of such overwhelming backing.

If this kind of mass idiocy is the trend in America, I think I’ll get a dual-citizenship somewhere else.

Science by its own definition is limited in what in can say about the cosmos. Why would you limit yourself?

 

[freesoulhope]

RESPECT TO THAT! hey buffalo, what is your beliefs concerning science, are you a young earth creationist or a creationist, or theistic evolutionist? and do you think its okay to say that certain storys in the bible ( which looks to me as if its ment to reflect actual history) are just myths told around camp fires to express Gods will and nature? should we be submiting to the opinions of science?.

 

[freesoulhope]

Ianjo99:

In response to the OP:
If this kind of mass idiocy is the trend in America, I think I’ll get a dual-citizenship somewhere else./QUOTE]

Your on your own there, my freind!

 

[steveandersen]

Ianjo99:

…
If this kind of mass idiocy is the trend in America, I think I’ll get a dual-citizenship somewhere else.

yes it is very scary

sometimes I fear for the nation :crying:

 

[freesoulhope]

Has any one heard of an apoligist called robert sugenisis. He’s a Catholic, and he seems to stand up for traditional catholisisom. He also talks about the flood and said that there maybe evidence of it!

 

[steveandersen]

freesoulhope:

RESPECT TO THAT! hey buffalo, what is your beliefs concerning science, are you a young earth creationist or a creationist, or theistic evolutionist? and do you think its okay to say that certain storys in the bible ( which looks to me as if its ment to reflect actual history) are just myths told around camp fires to express Gods will and nature? should we be submiting to the opinions of science?.

The opinions of science?
Well, while some popularizers of science do write opinion pieces, the technical work of hard sciences usually don’t have a lot of room for opinions.

The softer sciences, say for example the textural analysis that lead people to speculate about the various authorship and origins of portions of the Bible, are another matter IMHO.

besides FWIW

CCC:

159 Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

 

[steveandersen]

freesoulhope:

Has any one heard of an apoligist called robert sugenisis. …

while I don’t know much about his theology, Mr. Sungenis may have, not to be uncharitable, a few errors in his science

 

[freesoulhope]

Does that mean science is true with out Qeustion, and that it would actualy be a sin to hold to a young earth creationist or anti evolutionist veiw point and challenge science on a literal interpretation of the bible considering it is Gods hand that has guided us to understand evolution?. This is what your implying isnt it?( maybe i got it wrong?) Cuase if human science is Guided by God, to teach and protest against it and raise doubts about it in society in relation to the bible, would be in contradiction to Gods will, dont you agree? i mean this is what your saying isnt it?

 

[buffalo]

freesoulhope:

RESPECT TO THAT! hey buffalo, what is your beliefs concerning science, are you a young earth creationist or a creationist, or theistic evolutionist? and do you think its okay to say that certain storys in the bible ( which looks to me as if its ment to reflect actual history) are just myths told around camp fires to express Gods will and nature? should we be submiting to the opinions of science?.

I consider myself a definite creationist in that the author of creation is God. All Catholics should be creationists by definition.

Now young earth? theistic? quite another question.

Whether the earth is old or young does not affect my faith. God can do it whatever way He wants. His creation is not subject to my approval.

I rule out any type of atheistic evolutionary ideas.

I do not subscribe to gottle’s of patg’s new hermeneutics. I follow the Catechism which requires we listen to the literal.

(116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83)

Revelation, the true Word of God trumps all. Science is its servant not its master. Faith and reason are not opposed. Wrong reasoning can be opposed to Revelation until it’s reconciled.

I say let the young and old earthers who have much more knowledge than I continue to duke it out. I believe it to be healthy.

 

[freesoulhope]

steveandersen:

while I don’t know much about his theology, Mr. Sungenis may have, not to be uncharitable, a few errors in his science

Mr Anderson. You will submit to young earth creationist veiwpoint, yes you will .You will submit to my unfounded logic, or its the gallows for you my freind!

 

[steveandersen]

freesoulhope:

Does that mean science is true with out Qeustion, and that it would actualy be a sin to hold to a creationist veiw point and challenge science on a literal interpretation of the bible considering it is Gods hand that has guided us to understand evolution?. This is what your implying isnt it?( maybe i got it wrong?) Cuase if human science is Guided by God, to protest against it and raise doubts about it in relation to the bible, would be in contradiction to Gods will, dont you agree? i mean this is what your saying isnt it?

No, I’m not saying that it is in anyway wrong or sinful to question science. Questioning and challenging is the heart of science.

All I’m saying is that it is my understanding that the Church teaches what is important for salvation. The scriptures were written to that end. Mechanics, geology, biochemistry, etc are unimportant to salvation and thus are not addressed in scripture so findings in those fields can’t be in contradiction to faith.

IMHO science just adds to a greater appreciation of Creation

Many skeptics like to point to apparent contradictions in scripture or lack of historical evidence for certain events as an excuse to try to tear the whole belief system down.
Fortunately for Catholics, in the Aristotelian - Thomistic worldview certain terms can have two meanings, the naturalistic one and the Christian one, so that you can assert that there is truth and there is Truth without there being a contradiction.

 

[buffalo]

steveandersen:

The scriptures were written to that end. Mechanics, geology, biochemistry, etc are unimportant to salvation

Why not?

 

[freesoulhope]

Mr anderson. Acording to the FREE SOUL Association, if you do not submit to a strictly literal aprouch to the bible, i have the athority to torture you untill you give up your evolutionary ideas. If after, you continue to involve your self with honest and true evolutionary science, i will have no choice but to give the order to have you bombfired publicaly. You have one day to comply, will it be your “life” or your “science”!( im just kidding)

 

[freesoulhope]

freesoulhope:

Mr anderson. Acording to the FREE SOUL Association, if you do not submit to a strictly literal aprouch to the bible, i have the athority to torture you untill you give up your evolutionary ideas. If after, you continue to involve your self with honest and true evolutionary science, i will have no choice but to give the order to have you bombfired publicaly. You have one day to comply, will it be your “life” or your “science”!( im just kidding)

Just out of intrest, if fundementalist gained power and you where forced one day not to continue promoting evolution under pain of death. Would you refuse to submit?

 

[steveandersen]

buffalo:

Why not?

Because if they were then what is the implications for those who lived before those sciences were developed? And similarly what would be the implications for someone who hadn’t been able due to ability or circumstance to learn those fields?

If they were important would that imply that experiments in certain fields were immoral or a demonstration of disbelief?

 

[buffalo]

steveandersen:

Because if they were then what is the implications for those who lived before those sciences were developed? And similarly what would be the implications for someone who hadn’t been able due to ability or circumstance to learn those fields?

If they were important would that imply that experiments in certain fields were immoral or a demonstration of disbelief?

I submit that God inspired scriptures to contain within them the Truth. The Truth contains observations of nature to convey His word. Although not scientific textbooks (as we know them today) per say, where they intersect with science they have to speak the truth, for God cannot deceive or be deceived.

 

[steveandersen]

freesoulhope:

Just out of intrest, if fundementalist gained power and you where forced one day not to continue promoting evolution under pain of death. Would you refuse to submit?

Interesting question (and sometimes a frightening possibility in this land of ours )

Would these hypothetical fundamentalists merely ask me to keep quite or would they want me to swear to their ideas and/or actively promote them?

Let’s think about this:
If you assume that science is not a matter of faith and that opening my mouth could be a form of suicide (?)* or some sort of harm that would prevent me from looking after my family then keeping quiet might seem at first flush to be the way to go.
BUT we are only required to comply with just laws from legitimate authority.
Since the death penalty for holding a certain view seems disproportionate and if the fundamentalists seized power then both their laws and authority would be suspect.

Besides, I don’t know if I could do that ….I’m an opinionated sort. Overeducated and deadly dull at parties.

I suppose the same test could be applied that is used for rebellion or challenging any authority; some sort of variation on the principle of double effect. What evil would come from defying them and what good? Could my death inspire a movement to challenge them? Or would it be better to preserve myself for now and wait so that my actions produce the most good?

However if they want me to swear to something or proclaim something false then all bets are off and there isn’t even a question.

*I’m not sure if it is suicide if you don’t actually do it your self. Even if you do something knowing that they will kill you, I would think it is clearly their sin not yours.