Nothing To Fear From Science?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, in a sense, there is nothing for the Church to fear from science. For one thing, The Big Questions (God’s existence, Jesus’s existence/resurrection) will probably always be unfalsifiable, and thus impossible to disprove. And historically, the Church has proven more than willing to reshape its theology and doctrines to square it with scientific understanding, or at worst, move the goalposts entirely. When evidence of the Big Bang and evolution became beyond intelligent dispute, the Church stopped disputing it and simply placed God at the top of the causal chain, and claimed that the contradictions in the Bible were simply metaphors for what actually happened.
 
ASimon said:
When evidence of the Big Bang and evolution became beyond intelligent dispute, the Church stopped disputing it and simply placed God at the top of the causal chain, and claimed that the contradictions in the Bible were simply metaphors for what actually happened.
Click to expand...
When did the Church ever dispute the evidence of the Big Bang? I don’t remember father Georges Lemaitre being excommunicated when he proposed it, ironically it was the scientific establishment itself that was very skeptical about it, the consensus back then was that the universe was eternal and the Big Bang disproved it.

To the OP, I totally don’t see how this really threatens our faith in any way whatsoever.
 
SanAgustin said:
When did the Church ever dispute the evidence of the Big Bang? I don’t remember father Georges Lemaitre being excommunicated when he proposed it, ironically it was the scientific establishment itself that was very skeptical about it, the consensus back then was that the universe was eternal and the Big Bang disproved it.

To the OP, I totally don’t see how this really threatens our faith in any way whatsoever.
Click to expand...
So wait - is it your contention that the Church was never in conflict with a cosmological model that directly contradicted Genesis 1?
 
ASimon said:
So wait - is it your contention that the Church was never in conflict with a cosmological model that directly contradicted Genesis 1?
Click to expand...
Let’s be very clear, your words:
When evidence of the Big Bang and evolution became beyond intelligent dispute, the Church stopped disputing it and simply placed God at the top of the causal chain
Click to expand...
When did the Church ever dispute (stopped disputing implies, dispute) the theory of the “primeval atom”? Even when it wasn’t accepted (… became beyond intelligent dispute), please cite sources.
 
Catholic90 said:
There is no contradiction there.
Click to expand...
This statment, among others, doesn’t contradict Catholic doctrine?

<<<<<Although we modern humans are now the only surviving lineage of humanity, others once roamed the Earth, making their way out of Africa before our species did, including the familiar Neanderthals in West Asia and Europe and the newfound Denisovans in East Asia. Genetic analysis of fossils of these extinct lineages has revealed they once interbred with modern humans, unions that may have endowed our lineage with mutations that protected them as we began expanding across the world about 65,000 years ago.>>>>>>>
 
There is nothing to fear from science - the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings have never been contradictory to scientific truths. There are popular theories out there but there isn’t anything which can prove the Church is wrong.
 
ASimon said:
Well, in a sense, there is nothing for the Church to fear from science. For one thing, The Big Questions (God’s existence, Jesus’s existence/resurrection) will probably always be unfalsifiable, and thus impossible to disprove. And historically, the Church has proven more than willing to reshape its theology and doctrines to square it with scientific understanding, or at worst, move the goalposts entirely. When evidence of the Big Bang and evolution became beyond intelligent dispute, the Church stopped disputing it and simply placed God at the top of the causal chain, and claimed that the contradictions in the Bible were simply metaphors for what actually happened.
Click to expand...
Just so you know more about what your talking about next time, the big bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest and disputed by the traditional scientific community.
 
Faith1960 said:
That we all are directly descended from Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
Science, by definition, is confined to material anatomies which decompose or turn into fossils. Once that fact is honored, then one should recognize that when “human” is used to refer to ancient beings living thousands of years going backwards, it refers to vertebrate anatomies. The evidence can support the conclusion that fossil pieces are from vertebrate anatomies. But, the evidence does not warrant that individual pieces of fossils are from the one and *only *vertebrate anatomies on the entire earth for all the years going backwards.
 
babylonsfalling said:
Just so you know more about what your talking about next time, the big bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest and disputed by the traditional scientific community.
Click to expand...
Well, Lemeitre didn’t really call it the big bang, but yeah that’s the point I was making earlier.

People quickly forget that the scientific community at the time thought the universe was eternal and not created.
 
SanAgustin said:
Let’s be very clear, your words:

When did the Church ever dispute (stopped disputing implies, dispute) the theory of the “primeval atom”? Even when it wasn’t accepted (… became beyond intelligent dispute), please cite sources.
Click to expand...
Sources are not necessary for this. Here is the reality - the Big Bang and Genesis 1 are two incompatible truth claims about cosmology. If you’re agreeing with one, you’re disputing the other, by definition.

To say the Church never disputed the Big Bang is effectively to say that it never believed in Genesis 1. An astonishing heresy to be confessing to, in my opinion.

EDIT: To address another point - that science once considered the Universe to be eternal is beside the point. Science is allowed to be wrong. The Bible is supposed to be the infallible word of the Creator of the Universe. You may a credit a Belgian astronomer/priest with originating the theory. That’s hardly the same as The Church coming up with it.
 
SanAgustin said:
Well, Lemeitre didn’t really call it the big bang, but yeah that’s the point I was making earlier.

People quickly forget that the scientific community at the time thought the universe was eternal and not created.
Click to expand...
It was actually the scientific community that called it the big bang, in a type of mockery…up until the time they caught up with the Catholic scientist and quit disputing it.

And in truth, the point that you were trying to make earlier was that the the “Church stopped disputing it”…not the scientific community.

I love it when atheists go into damage control mode though so don’t worry about it.
 
Faith1960 said:
This statment, among others, doesn’t contradict Catholic doctrine?

<<<<<Although we modern humans are now the only surviving lineage of humanity, others once roamed the Earth, making their way out of Africa before our species did, including the familiar Neanderthals in West Asia and Europe and the newfound Denisovans in East Asia. Genetic analysis of fossils of these extinct lineages has revealed they once interbred with modern humans, unions that may have endowed our lineage with mutations that protected them as we began expanding across the world about 65,000 years ago.>>>>>>>
Click to expand...
This isn’t a contradiction. This refers to different lines of humans that existed but no longer exist. It doesn’t ‘disprove’ the existence of the first humans, Adam and Eve, which is out of the scope of the statement (Key words are ‘once interbred,’ which does not mean the first humans, but after. Think about the time scale); it only states that other lines of humanity existed and intermingled with the surviving line of humanity. This is just a case of hybrid genetics producing a stronger generation. There is no anti-religious statement here.
 
ASimon said:
Sources are not necessary for this. Here is the reality - the Big Bang and Genesis 1 are two incompatible truth claims about cosmology. If you’re agreeing with one, you’re disputing the other, by definition.
Click to expand...
That only applies if you are a fundamentalist Christian, even the Church Fathers without the benefit of our modern science understood this (see St. Augustine).
To say the Church never disputed the Big Bang is effectively to say that it never believed in Genesis 1. An astonishing heresy to be confessing to, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
How can the church “dispute” a theory that was never even proposed. The fact is, it was Lemeitre who observed that the universe was expanding, and the Church didn’t dispute this (Einstein as it contradicted his magical universal constant, and non-existent eternal static universe) as he proposed it at all.

I love how you are accusing me of being heretical though 🙂
 
ASimon said:
Sources are not necessary for this. Here is the reality - the Big Bang and Genesis 1 are two incompatible truth claims about cosmology. If you’re agreeing with one, you’re disputing the other, by definition.

To say the Church never disputed the Big Bang is effectively to say that it never believed in Genesis 1. An astonishing heresy to be confessing to, in my opinion.

EDIT: To address another point - that science once considered the Universe to be eternal is beside the point. Science is allowed to be wrong. The Bible is supposed to be the infallible word of the Creator of the Universe. You may a credit a Belgian astronomer/priest with originating the theory. That’s hardly the same as The Church coming up with it.
Click to expand...
You really need to do your homework before coming here trying to us what the church beleives about a subject like scripture. The Church does not teach the young earth theory nor does it teach that Genisis is a historical text of how the world came into exsistence.

Peace!👍
 
ASimon said:
Sources are not necessary for this. Here is the reality - the Big Bang and Genesis 1 are two incompatible truth claims about cosmology. If you’re agreeing with one, you’re disputing the other, by definition.

To say the Church never disputed the Big Bang is effectively to say that it never believed in Genesis 1. An astonishing heresy to be confessing to, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Not so… They are completely compatable…

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 1:1-3[/BIBLEDRB]

Sounds like a poetic description of the Big Bang to me… A scientist might say In the beginning all matter was created. It was all cramed into a very small place that had such gravity that light could not escape… Then it exploded and there was a tremendous light.

I don’t see the problem… God just stated the facts in a far more poetic form.

And that’s not just me… That’s the Church’s teaching…

God bless
 
ASimon said:
EDIT: To address another point - that science once considered the Universe to be eternal is beside the point. Science is allowed to be wrong. The Bible is supposed to be the infallible word of the Creator of the Universe. You may a credit a Belgian astronomer/priest with originating the theory. That’s hardly the same as The Church coming up with it.
Click to expand...
It’s difficult to answer your points if you edit your posts like that, still, I never said the Church “came up with it”, I said father Lemeitre did and the Church never disputed it.

I’m honestly not trying to be glib here but speak with accuracy and truth, but you do seem to be as you say, “moving the goal post”.

I’m curious BTW, and feel free to not answer, were you born a Christian, and if so what denomination?

Thanks and God bless!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top