Jesus - Also the Savior of Science?

[minichibi]

Father Stanley Jaki is a Benedictine priest and Distinguished Professor of Physics at Seton Hall University, with a remarkable curriculum which includes an undergraduate training in philosophy, theology and mathematics, as well as graduate work in theology and physics and doctorates in theology from the Pontifical Institute in Rome.

Unlike it’s commonly mythified, he argued that mankind would have never achieved the current level of schientific and technological development if we hadn’t become Christians some time in History.

Beginning with a review of ancient civilizations, Jaki tried to prove that science is doomed and futile unless there is a divine redeemer to inspire and guide humanity.

Father Jaki argues that even though the Ancient Egyptians developed advanced architecture and irrigation techniques, their obsession with animal worship and death halted their concept of transcendence. Father Jaki credited the Ancient Hindus with the creation of the decimal system and other advances, but Jaki argued that they, with their Buddhist view of a cyclical cosmos, stunted their civilizations, not to mention the of the Casts System of Hinduism. Father Jaki credited the Arabs with the development of Arabic numbers, geometry, algerbra, and medicine. Yet, some Muslems couldn’t develop a clear concept of cause-and-effect because of a literal and conservative interpretation of the Quran.

Father Jaki then focused on the Catholic Cosmology. He explained that the Ancient Hebrews had a good understanding of the Cosmos, but these people understood that God was the Creator of the Cosmos and not the Cosmos itself. In other words, the Cosmos is a wonder but not God. Father Jaki showed his familiarity with the Old Testament and New Testament and cited several passages where God created the Cosmos, and finally created men in God’s image. According to Father Jaki, God is the First Cause. Father Jaki dpicted pantheism as an abandoning of the notions of good and evil and therefore moral responsibility.

Father Jaki criticized both Creationism and Darwinism. Jaki critisized the advocates of Creationism because of their attempts to fit scientific theories or to fabricate data and evidence to fit their theology. Father Jaki also condemned the Darwinists because of their claims of absolute truth in spite of new discoveries. The Darwinists lost all of their sense of wonder and awe which makes for a dull view.

Sorry for my messed up text, I’m half asleep but I wanted to post this anyway. So, any thoughts about this?

 

[cornbread_r2]

From the OP:

“Father Jaki also condemned the Darwinists because of their claims of absolute truth in spite of new discoveries. The Darwinists lost all of their sense of wonder and awe which makes for a dull view.”

If this is an accurate paraphrase, Jaki would seem to be misinformed.

 

[Crescentinus]

The stuff from the article > some of the idiotic theories about scientific development such as ancient aliens

 

[Seira]

The stuff from the article > some of the idiotic theories about scientific development such as ancient aliens

 

[Crescentinus]

http://i49.tinypic.com/1zzibeg.gif

lol

Seriously though, I do think that at least some of the theorists (such as Tsoukalos) tend to be a few sparks away from an explosion.
There are at least two ideas about science that are more readily believed than the article:

1. Aliens introduced it to us (Tsoukalos et.al. argues this ad nauseam).
2. Catholicism and science are incompatible.
   Neither of these are true.

 

[Micosil]

Interesting post. I will try to analyze Father Jaki’s opinions to the best of my abilities, focusing on issues I am more readily familiar with.

[

Father Jaki then focused on the Catholic Cosmology. He explained that the Ancient Hebrews had a good understanding of the Cosmos, but these people understood that God was the Creator of the Cosmos and not the Cosmos itself. In other words, the Cosmos is a wonder but not God. Father Jaki showed his familiarity with the Old Testament and New Testament and cited several passages where God created the Cosmos, and finally created men in God’s image. According to Father Jaki, God is the First Cause. Father Jaki dpicted pantheism as an abandoning of the notions of good and evil and therefore moral responsibility. ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Jaki)

One only needs to remember that Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, a Catholic priest and member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain and first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, resented the use of his “L’Hypothèse de l’Atome Primitif (The Primeval Atom Hypothesis)” by Pope Pius XII as a justification for Creationism. Remember - this was a Catholic priest; he didn’t like mixing his religion with his science. Indeed, bad things can happen when this is done (going a bit off-topic here - Newton couldn’t figure a particular issue with the motion of planets, because he didn’t properly take into account the influence of other nearby planets, so he just gave up and attributed it to God. It took Laplace to use perturbatory methods to arrive at the observed orbits.) The way I understand it, and if I am mistaken, do not hesitate to point out my mistake as I am here to learn humbly from people who know more than myself, is that the view the Catholic Church takes is that of “theistic evolutionism”, that is, the origin and evolution of species has a completely natural answer in Darwin’s theory of evolution, which can live in harmony with the existence of a God because Genesis is treated as a non-literal story that describes the fall of man.

The issue here is that the methodological naturalism that is used to do science, need not imply metaphysical naturalism, that is, the belief that there is nothing other than the natural world which actually exists. Things are complicated further by so-called “preternatural” effects, explained here as,
Father J. A. Fortea:

the action which goes beyond the structure of the nature of the material universe. The fruit of the action of an angelical or demoniacal nature is said to be preternatural. The word comes from “praeter naturam”, beyond nature.

Father Jaki criticized both Creationism and Darwinism. Jaki critisized the advocates of Creationism because of their attempts to fit scientific theories or to fabricate data and evidence to fit their theology. Father Jaki also condemned the Darwinists because of their claims of absolute truth in spite of new discoveries. The Darwinists lost all of their sense of wonder and awe which makes for a dull view.

Sorry for my messed up text, I’m half asleep but I wanted to post this anyway. So, any thoughts about this?

While I agree with his criticism of what I presume to be Young Earth Creationists and the like, no scientist worth his salt will claim that he is in possession of the “absolute truth”. Science is an enterprise that keeps collecting new knowledge, in accordance with the most current observed experimental and empirical data. If evolutionary biologists, called somewhat disdainfully by Father Jaki as “Darwinists”, found tangible, credible evidence that evolution doesn’t work, they’d look into it and stop accepting it as the best theory there is for the evolution of species. Even Richard Dawkins, one of the “four horsemen” of New Atheism, says this in his books.

Furthermore, even for atheist scientists, there is much wonder and awe as the spectacular laws of nature reveal themselves to those who tries to find them.

That’s all I have to say for now, will love to read what you think.

 

[Micosil]

Interesting post. I will try to analyze Father Jaki’s opinions to the best of my abilities, focusing on issues I am more readily familiar with.

One only needs to remember that Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, a Catholic priest and member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain and first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, resented the use of his “L’Hypothèse de l’Atome Primitif (The Primeval Atom Hypothesis)” by Pope Pius XII as a justification for Creationism. Remember - this was a Catholic priest; he didn’t like mixing his religion with his science. Indeed, bad things can happen when this is done (going a bit off-topic here - Newton couldn’t figure a particular issue with the motion of planets, because he didn’t properly take into account the influence of other nearby planets, so he just gave up and attributed it to God. It took Laplace to use perturbatory methods to arrive at the observed orbits.) The way I understand it, and if I am mistaken, do not hesitate to point out my mistake as I am here to learn humbly from people who know more than myself, is that the view the Catholic Church takes is that of “theistic evolutionism”, that is, the origin and evolution of species has a completely natural answer in Darwin’s theory of evolution, which can live in harmony with the existence of a God because Genesis is treated as a non-literal story that describes the fall of man.

The issue here is that the methodological naturalism that is used to do science, need not imply metaphysical naturalism, that is, the belief that there is nothing other than the natural world which actually exists. Things are complicated further by so-called “preternatural” effects, explained here as,

While I agree with his criticism of what I presume to be Young Earth Creationists and the like, no scientist worth his salt will claim that he is in possession of the “absolute truth”. Science is an enterprise that keeps collecting new knowledge, in accordance with the most current observed experimental and empirical data. If evolutionary biologists, called somewhat disdainfully by Father Jaki as “Darwinists”, found tangible, credible evidence that evolution doesn’t work, they’d look into it and stop accepting it as the best theory there is for the evolution of species. Even Richard Dawkins, one of the “four horsemen” of New Atheism, says this in his books.

Furthermore, even for atheist scientists, there is much wonder and awe as the spectacular laws of nature reveal themselves to those who try to find them.

That’s all I have to say for now, will love to read what you think.

 

[Mintaka]

Father Jaki had nothing against evolutionary biologists or Darwin. What he was talking about was people who make up some weird materialist religion for themselves and then claim it for Darwin.

For example, there were an awful lot of racists in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries who claimed that Darwin had declared white people to be the fittest race and black people to be an evolutionary dead end.

Did this have anything to do with Darwin? No. Did it have anything to do with science? No. Were there plenty of people who thought it was Darwin’s science? Yes.

Today we have people still claiming that the latest fad in progressivism or the newest version of atheism is somehow proved by Darwin. Different fads, of course, but the same old Rorschach blotch version of Darwin. Real science has absolutely nothing to do with fads; fads get in the way of doing real thinking and experimenting. Predetermining what you will allow yourself to see, because of your fads, ruins your sense of wonder and your ability to do science. Yet a lot of people who should know better are still being sucked into all this crazy faddism, and pointing to their Darwinfish as some kind of justification.

Sigh. It’s amazing how few people have actually read The Origin of Species or anything about the voyage of the Beagle, who yet claim to be followers of Darwin. They are followers of a beardy picture and their own imagination.

 

[Micosil]

Father Jaki had nothing against evolutionary biologists or Darwin. What he was talking about was people who make up some weird materialist religion for themselves and then claim it for Darwin.

For example, there were an awful lot of racists in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries who claimed that Darwin had declared white people to be the fittest race and black people to be an evolutionary dead end.

Did this have anything to do with Darwin? No. Did it have anything to do with science? No. Were there plenty of people who thought it was Darwin’s science? Yes.

Today we have people still claiming that the latest fad in progressivism or the newest version of atheism is somehow proved by Darwin. Different fads, of course, but the same old Rorschach blotch version of Darwin. Real science has absolutely nothing to do with fads; fads get in the way of doing real thinking and experimenting. Predetermining what you will allow yourself to see, because of your fads, ruins your sense of wonder and your ability to do science. Yet a lot of people who should know better are still being sucked into all this crazy faddism, and pointing to their Darwinfish as some kind of justification.

Sigh. It’s amazing how few people have actually read The Origin of Species or anything about the voyage of the Beagle, who yet claim to be followers of Darwin. They are followers of a beardy picture and their own imagination.

Interesting observation. It is unfortunate that “Darwinist” and “Darwinism” have fairly distinct connotations, depending on the location, both geographic and context wise.

From the Wikipedia article on Darwinism, it is said that
Wikipedia:

The meaning of “Darwinism” has changed over time, and varies depending on context.[4] In the United States, the term “Darwinism” is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection.[5]

Thanks for reminding me there’s more than one connotation. I will ponder it.

 

[grannymh]

From the OP:
“Father Jaki also condemned the Darwinists because of their claims of absolute truth in spite of new discoveries. The Darwinists lost all of their sense of wonder and awe which makes for a dull view.”
*

If this is an accurate paraphrase, Jaki would seem to be misinformed.

“Wonder and awe” in the universal sense comes from a person’s spiritual soul. All natural science, a gift from the Creator, is limited by the restrictions of the material/physical world. When thinking of the world of happiness eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision in comparison to the material/physical world of our decomposing anatomies, it is understandable that the material/physical world proper to science would seem a tad dull.

 

[grannymh]

While I agree with his criticism of what I presume to be Young Earth Creationists and the like, no scientist worth his salt will claim that he is in possession of the “absolute truth”.

Correct, because scientists use the induction method and then deal with probability.
It is ill-informed interpreters who wave the absolute truth flag regarding “mountains of evidence”.

As for Jesus being the savior of science – I am not too sure since savior of science is more a poetic designation. Nonetheless, Jesus taught that every human is worthy of profound respect by dying for all on the cross. That simple fact of human nature certainly inspires women and men in the medical science arena.

 

[thesmiter1]

Interesting post. I will try to analyze Father Jaki’s opinions to the best of my abilities, focusing on issues I am more readily familiar with.

One only needs to remember that Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, a Catholic priest and member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain and first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, resented the use of his “L’Hypothèse de l’Atome Primitif (The Primeval Atom Hypothesis)” by Pope Pius XII as a justification for Creationism. Remember - this was a Catholic priest; he didn’t like mixing his religion with his science. Indeed, bad things can happen when this is done (going a bit off-topic here - Newton couldn’t figure a particular issue with the motion of planets, because he didn’t properly take into account the influence of other nearby planets, so he just gave up and attributed it to God. It took Laplace to use perturbatory methods to arrive at the observed orbits.) The way I understand it, and if I am mistaken, do not hesitate to point out my mistake as I am here to learn humbly from people who know more than myself, is that the view the Catholic Church takes is that of “theistic evolutionism”, that is, the origin and evolution of species has a completely natural answer in Darwin’s theory of evolution, which can live in harmony with the existence of a God because Genesis is treated as a non-literal story that describes the fall of man.

The issue here is that the methodological naturalism that is used to do science, need not imply metaphysical naturalism, that is, the belief that there is nothing other than the natural world which actually exists. Things are complicated further by so-called “preternatural” effects, explained here as,

While I agree with his criticism of what I presume to be Young Earth Creationists and the like, no scientist worth his salt will claim that he is in possession of the “absolute truth”. Science is an enterprise that keeps collecting new knowledge, in accordance with the most current observed experimental and empirical data. If evolutionary biologists, called somewhat disdainfully by Father Jaki as “Darwinists”, found tangible, credible evidence that evolution doesn’t work, they’d look into it and stop accepting it as the best theory there is for the evolution of species. Even Richard Dawkins, one of the “four horsemen” of New Atheism, says this in his books.

Furthermore, even for atheist scientists, there is much wonder and awe as the spectacular laws of nature reveal themselves to those who tries to find them.

That’s all I have to say for now, will love to read what you think.

I would say that Lemaitre did mix his science with his faith: he realized that faith in God and the wonders of science are not incompatible, but rather that science is a greater understanding of God’s creation.

Being unable to reconcile faith and science is a fundamentalist Christian view, and not the stance held by the Catholic Church. The Church founded the first Universities and hospitals. We are not opposed to understanding God’s creation. Real science will never contradict God.

And just because I can see this argument coming: People bring up Galileo, but they fail to realize that Galileo did not have telescopes powerful enough to prove beyond a doubt his theory, and the Church gave him permission to present his theory AS theory. Instead of obliging, he declared elements of Scripture false and flaunted his view as fact (before it was confirmed to be so). He also mocked the pope heavily in his book. His declaration of Scriptures as being false are the primary reason he had to recant.

 

[steve53]

slightly OT- anybody read Dowd’s works on “Evolutionary Christianity”?

Very oxymoronic.

Ignores the dark, amoralistic side of evolution- the wiping out of entire species as a matter of course.

 

[Micosil]

I would say that Lemaitre did mix his science with his faith: he realized that faith in God and the wonders of science are not incompatible, but rather that science is a greater understanding of God’s creation.

Indeed, that may be what Lemaitre actually felt, but the mixing I am talking about is not a spiritual/philosophical view of the order and laws in nature as a greater understanding of God’s creation, but rather, invoking God to explain unknown phenomena; that is, a God of the gaps argument. This is what Newton did, and had he put more effort into understanding his particular problem with a completely methodologically naturalistic explanation, he could have arrived at the solution. When Laplace eventually ended up solving Newton’s original problem in his Celestial Dynamics books, Napoleon asked him why he hadn’t mentioned God in them - Laplace famously answered, “I didn’t need that hypothesis”. This was clearly an anti-God of the gaps mentality from the French scientist.

Being unable to reconcile faith and science is a fundamentalist Christian view, and not the stance held by the Catholic Church. The Church founded the first Universities and hospitals. We are not opposed to understanding God’s creation. Real science will never contradict God.

Indeed it is, rampant New Age Creationism, Great Flood “geology”, Intelligent Design… the list is endless. No offense to Protestants intended at all, but some people really took Luther’s “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has” quote as far as they could… and then some!

And just because I can see this argument coming: People bring up Galileo, but they fail to realize that Galileo did not have telescopes powerful enough to prove beyond a doubt his theory, and the Church gave him permission to present his theory AS theory. Instead of obliging, he declared elements of Scripture false and flaunted his view as fact (before it was confirmed to be so). He also mocked the pope heavily in his book. His declaration of Scriptures as being false are the primary reason he had to recant.

It’s interesting you say that - speaking to a Catholic friend of mine, he even talked about a book where the claim that Galileo was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life is analyzed, and the author reaches the conclusion that it’s a false claim. I wish I could remember the title of the book…

 

[JesuisSean]

Jesus - Also the Savior of Science?

Define science. Define religion. Today we have religion, and we have science. Both are therefore fields of incompleteness since completeness would allow room for only one, due to completeness being the ALL. The ALL, is the complete TRUTH.

If you are located in the zone of incompleteness, then you are located at a distance from the complete truth, thus you are located with in the zone of less than truth.

If you are located within the zone of less than truth, then you become dependent upon beliefs and dis-beliefs.

If you stick to your beliefs and dis-beliefs, then you stick to being located within the zone of less than truth.

This is ongoing at this time and thus in turn has held both Science and Religion back from reaching the complete truth.

However, Jesus walked the path of truth, NOT the path of beliefs and dis-beliefs.

If you do NOT stick to beliefs and dis-beliefs, and thus in turn point your mind towards truth, then you can properly understand the concept known as motion. Within a very short time period you will find that you have created equations that turn out to be identical the the famous equations known as the Lorentz Fitzgerald Contraction equation, the Time Dilation equation, the Lorentz Transformation equations, and the Velocity addition equation.

You then understand Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity as though it was nothing but child’s play, and have done so even if you had never received any education in physics at all. If you wish to see the truth about something, simply look in the direction of the truth.

Currently, in general, Science and Religion are kept separate, thus physicists still are having problems in understanding Particle/Wave Duality, Action at a Distance, Entangled Pairs, etc. However, if you include the other side of reality in the laws of physics, the side known as the spirit world, then all of these puzzles are immediately answered.

But since Science and Religion are kept separate, no one is interested in the complete truth.