T
Timothysis
Guest
Yet, according to mathematoons, the only thing that matters is salvation. I wonder if he would feel to same watching his friends and family die from contaminated drinking water.
- Status
mathematoons
New member
Sorry, I had to laugh when I read this. It just shows how worldly your thinking is. It is God, not the water, who decides when each person will die.
You know what I found really helpful? This little book, downloadable as a free PDF:
mercyradio.com/St.%20Claude%20de%20la%20Columbiere%20on%20Divine%20Providence.pdf
Obviously I have to work at implementing what I read in that book, but I have found it so helpful. I hope you benefit from it as much as I did.
I
Immacolata
Guest
Yet you call others arrogant. The love of God is the priority above all things, but that does not mean we should not take into account our own health. Science has done wonders for the modern world, and, in most cases, it is most certainly not evil.
I
Immacolata
Guest
Yet you call others arrogant. I must say, I had to laugh when I read that.
The love of God is above all other priorities; but that does not mean we should disregard all other priorities we have, such as our health. Following that logic, it should be allowed to eat contaminated food as it is not the food that decides when people die, but God. God does decide when people die, but that does not mean we should disregard the safety of our well being.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Do you/would you seek medical help if you found yourself afflicted with a condition or illness?
T
Timothysis
Guest
I give what I can to Franciscans Mission who provide aid to the poorest of the poor in the world with food, shelter and medicine, with a an emphasis on those with leprosy. Are you suggesting that the Franciscans are “worldly” because they help those in need instead of letting God decide when they shall die?
Tell me, do you go to the doctor if you become sick or afflicted with a medical condition?
A
aragonjohn1
Guest
that “modern” science is not modern.
and unsurprisedly since the “enlightenments” belonging to chiefly the late 1500s and most of the 19th the uncomplicated aspects have not not stressed enough.
God bless
Merry Christmas Y’all
B
buffalo
Guest
I submit engineering, not science is more responsible for the the modern conveniences we enjoy. Modern science was not around when the wheel got an axle. Engineers did it.
And there is more technology and engineering in a single human cell than all we have come up with.
And there is more technology and engineering in a single human cell than all we have come up with.
N
Novart
Guest
The “why” of our existence is what we are after, for the most part. But given the absurdities that American and other politicians (as distinct from Statesmen) are capable of uttering science is grossly under rated. I mean science is incomplete in that it doesn’t, and can’t, in a way, deal with Meaning, Religion hasn’t done such a good job of that either, in any Universal sense, despite the name of our Church and the good, whatever, it has done. But at least science has a practical handle on phenomenon, and even the soft sciences can make us think. The ideologue stance of so many religionists is a blockage in the flow of our understanding of ourselves as creations of the God.
How can a person who sincerely believes that we are all made in the Image and Likeness of God limit the exploration and meaning of that to a superimposed belief system without doing deep introspection to discover the map inherent within each and every one of us as that Child, that Image? At least science clears much mumbo-jumbo of the table, unless you haven’t cleared your own pre cognative prejudices from your considerations. I mean, isn’t getting real, usable UNIVERSAL answers what you want?
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Are not the two entangled with each other? Engineering applies knowledge that was acquired through both science and engineering experience, and various sciences use tools that were designed by engineers.I submit engineering, not science is more responsible for the the modern conveniences we enjoy. Modern science was not around when the wheel got an axle. Engineers did it.
N
Novart
Guest
I’d agree: Engineering is applied science, scientific discovery generalized over specific needs or possibilities of imagination.
E
edwest2
Guest
First of all, science is fine as long as people don’t build worldviews with it. That happens here all the time with religious matters. I am amazed that people will try to concoct stories and connect it to the Bible, for example, when they don’t have a single shred of scientific support. Science can’t study God or the soul. They don’t exist in science.
And yes, people can get so enthralled with science that they forget there are other things we need to know about human beings that science can’t tell us. It is overrated.
Peace,
Ed
N
Novart
Guest
That’s fine, Ed, the difference being that science is teleological towards a unified view and understanding, despite what it can’t properly study, while religions tend to be divisive to some extent or another while alleging to be unitive. Again the difference is that the unitive strides of science are verifiable by application in common experience, while religions, even ours, wish submission to an ideology which is tentative in its origins and requires swallowing rather than discovering. You might also agree that “discovery” under the auspices of a faith, whichever it is, puts a lens of color and distortion on the object of discovery, making connections that don’t necessarily obtain, or obscure rather than clarify.
Dr. Amit Goswami addresses this dualism quite brilliantly. You might enjoy looking him up. His is the best public dissolution of the science-religion dilemma that I’ve seen. There are other, older ones, but his is brilliant.
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
I agree, but it can show flaws in worldviews – or more specifically stories about worldviews. There seems to be a tendency to think that when science shows that a biblical story could not have occurred or a biblican concept is scientifically untrue, that it’s imposing a worldview. A worldview can (and probably should) be more than what science provides. By the same token a worldview may be flawed if it contradicts science and provable fact.
B
Bradski
Guest
If you wait a while, he’ll scratch his answer on a rock with a stick and walk to Baton Rouge to hand it to you. Or maybe he’ll do the Devil’s work and use Evil Scientific Technology (lightning flash, crash of thunder and demonaic laughter) to let you know.
N
Novart
Guest
Yes, I like this, and would add for my part that short of Omniscience, it is all a story, if for no other reason than it is an intellectual construct colored by emotions in many cases, and in all cases incomplete. That is where humility ought or could enter, and that is where the fear nature of idealouges, fundamentalists, and the less considerate* show themselves by touting adamantly unexamined paradigms as a shield against the inevitability of honest unsurety.
E
edwest2
Guest
I understand that, but the problem here is the “because science says so” argument followed by the ‘science is making new discoveries all the time’ argument.’ So those who claim something is not literally true in the Bible because science said so are basically saying it’s all carved in stone today and it would be irrational not to accept it as 100% unchangeable truth. This raises the paradox of ‘science is always discovering new things,’ then how can any claim today not get disproven tomorrow?"
Dark Matter? Where did science get that? Any proof yet?
I believe God can do whatever He wants, and Biblical archaeology has been affirming more and more about what the Bible has written about, including the discovery of places that were claimed never existed as of a few years ago, in some cases.
God performs miracles today. It doesn’t matter that science can’t explain them.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Religions are what they are. They are only perceived as divisive. I am fine with others who don’t believe as I do. It is only when they post here, claiming that their non-belief, or belief in something else, is superior to what I believe based on not a single scrap of science to support a biased assertion that division occurs. Sure, other religions can and do harm others over religious differences, but that does not apply to every religion.
Discoveries under the auspices of science also lack a dimension that Christians know colors their views.
stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Pope John Paul II encouraged a more cooperative relationship between science and religion but that did not seem to get anywhere as far as I know. While I appreciate and follow scientific developments almost daily, science, especially here, is more often used as a cudgel to bludgeon religion.
I believe it’s fine for people to post here about science, including how it may relate to religion. Most people have a discussion, discuss their views and that’s the end of it - agree or disagree. Imagine having a close friend who insists on bringing up the same thing every time you call or visit him. It provides evidence that attempts to educate Catholics about science is not the goal. Peaceful exchanges, good. Insisting we’re wrong about something, over and over and over again, not good.
And thanks for the reference, although I’d like to add that this dualism has been debated for quite some time.
Peace,
Ed
R
ricmat
Guest
Speaking as an engineer, with a daughter who has a PhD in physics, I’d say that the difference is primarily that engineers MUST deal with reality. The bridge falls down, or not. The computer works, or not. The software computes, or not. There is an inherent limit on one’s pride (and getting ones paycheck) which is this inconvenient thing called reality.
Science is quite abstract, and yes, indeed engineers use a lot of science. But much of what goes today for science is theory with no reality limits. We read regularly about newly discovered “earthlike” planets when the reality is that nobody has been there to check out whether “the bridge falls down or not.” 50 years ago Venus was thought to be earthlike (or so scientists told us). 49 years ago (not sure about those numbers - too lazy to look it up) a spacecraft actually got there and Venus is anything but earthlike.
And you all know the current science fad:
Global cooling (1970’s) - The earth is going to freeze - give us money for research and a global government run by scientists or we’re all going to die!!! (cricket sounds).
Global warming (1990s) - The earth is going to melt!! - give us money for research and a global government run by scientists or we’re all going to die!!! (more cricket sounds - except for Al Gore).
Climate change (current) - Well, it appears that the global cooling and warming things didn’t work, how about this "Climate change - which could consist of global warming or global cooling or both - is going to kill us all!!! Give us money for research and a global government run by scientists or we’re all going to die!!!
I wonder what the sky-is-falling disaster will be next year. As I said, no limits on reality, like engineering.
Well, I’m glad I got that off my chest!
S
Sarcelle
Guest
Experimental physicists also have to deal with reality, but on the whole I agree.Speaking as an engineer, with a daughter who has a PhD in physics, I’d say that the difference is primarily that engineers MUST deal with reality. The bridge falls down, or not. The computer works, or not. The software computes, or not. There is an inherent limit on one’s pride (and getting ones paycheck) which is this inconvenient thing called reality.
Science is quite abstract, and yes, indeed engineers use a lot of science. But much of what goes today for science is theory with no reality limits. We read regularly about newly discovered “earthlike” planets when the reality is that nobody has been there to check out whether “the bridge falls down or not.” 50 years ago Venus was thought to be earthlike (or so scientists told us). 49 years ago (not sure about those numbers - too lazy to look it up) a spacecraft actually got there and Venus is anything but earthlike.
And you all know the current science fad:
Global cooling (1970’s) - The earth is going to freeze - give us money for research and a global government run by scientists or we’re all going to die!!! (cricket sounds).
Global warming (1990s) - The earth is going to melt!! - give us money for research and a global government run by scientists or we’re all going to die!!! (more cricket sounds - except for Al Gore).
Climate change (current) - Well, it appears that the global cooling and warming things didn’t work, how about this "Climate change is going to kill us all!!! Give us money for research and a global government run by scientists or we’re all going to die!!!
I wonder what the sky-is-falling disaster will be next year. As I said, no limits on reality, like engineering.
Well, I’m glad I got that off my chest!
I attended a scientific/engineering convention given by SPIE, about a year and a half ago in San Diego and one of the most fascinating talks was on the nature of light. The speaker took care to mention that in scientific inquiry, humility is a must. Without humility, the right questions cannot be asked and without the right questions, science cannot make progress. The speaker also said that Physics today is at a dead end.
(SPIE is an organization made up of optical scientists and engineers from around the world.)
- Status