Philosophy: Science and Faith

[nobody]

Ani,
Theoretical or observational science both deal with the natural world. Both are science. Many of Einstein’s theories were based on thought experiments, Einstein was a theoretical physicist.

Faith goes beyond science into the supernatural. It is a supernatural gift from God. Again, I’m using faith to mean faith in God, not just in humans.

Yes, science seeks to explain how. Science still cannot explain how anything/everything exists. Faith can tell us how we exist (by the Love of God - thank you Seamus Sully).

Yes, I think science is beautiful in many respects.

No, I do not think we should rid the world of engineers (I am one!).

I’m sticking with overlapping.

Peace.

P.S. I don’t look anything like that guy with the cigar (is that A. H.?)

 

[anthony022071]

Science as we are familiar with it today tends to be deliberately
ignorant,deliberately blind to the claims of faith.
A scientist is not required to believe in a Creator God or that God created man in his own image. So scientists are free to be as manipulative as they please with the elements of Creation,because they do not believe it to be Creation. Nothing is really sacred and no strict limits are set on the manipulation of nature.Whatever can be done for the benefit of scientific progress should be done. Trying to explain to progressive scientists the moral problems of genetic engineering,cloning,stem cell research,atomic or biological weapons, would be like trying to tell multi-national corporate leaders to stop out-sourcing labor to untrustworthy businessmen and exploiting poor workers in foreign countries and engaging in deceptive advertising.Scientists,businessmen,politicians,and anyone else who is “career-oriented” tend to be crass in regard to moral consciousness,and when they reject the claims of faith they become hard-hearted in the Biblical sense.They don’t want
their work,their “progress” to be interfered with.They are too busy getting things done to be bothered by moral scruples.Such peopIe are mainly interested in getting from Point A to Point B,even if both the means and the ends are an affront to humanity. Even well-meaning scientists who think that they are benefiting humanity by their discoveries end by opening up another Pandora’s Box.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

nobody:

Theoretical or observational science both deal with the natural world.

Creation?

nobody:

Many of Einstein’s theories were based on thought experiments, Einstein was a theoretical physicist.

Yes.

nobody:

Faith goes beyond science into the supernatural.

OK, for now. This poses a problem that perhaps we can discuss?

Are you suggesting that the supernatural cannot be accessed by means of reason? If so, how do you reconcile Hebrews 11:1? How can we define the supernatural? (OK, I know the inherent contradiction in that question, but give it a go anyway.) Presumably one feature of the supernatural is its ‘unseenness’?

Given that, at a specific point in time, the supernatural is unseen, is the supernatural necessarily always unseeable?

The Jesuits say: God in everything. Presumably that means that God is seeable’ in nature (Creation).

If so, then is the seeability of the supernatural a function of time? If not, then why history?

nobody:

It is a supernatural gift from God. Again, I’m using faith to mean faith in God, not just in humans.

Understood. So we are not talking about faith which is relative. Let’s get that off the table.

nobody:

Yes, science seeks to explain how. Science still cannot explain how anything/everything exists. Faith can tell us how we exist (by the Love of God - thank you Seamus Sully).

OK, for now. Let’s consider this: that faith and science hold how in common.

But faith differs from science because faith answers why.

One could just as easily – and perhaps more accurately – reframe the question of how we exist (answer: by the Love of God) to why we exist (answer: because God loves us). Since God is verb-focussed, I trust the latter question more than the former question.

nobody:

Yes, I think science is beautiful in many respects.

Why is science beautiful? OK, I’ll start another thread.

nobody:

No, I do not think we should rid the world of engineers (I am one!).

What about hairdressers?

nobody:

I’m sticking with overlapping.

OK. My definition of faith differs from your own. Mine flows from Hebrews 11:1. Faith is theoretical knowledge. Science is observational knowledge. Faith is deductive. Science is inductive.

nobody:

Peace.

And also with you.

nobody:

P.S. I don’t look anything like that guy with the cigar (is that A. H.?)

I couldn’t find a cigar-smoking guy who looked like nobody. They all look like somebody. :blushing: That is AH. Do I give you another cigar?

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Creation?
Given that, at a specific point in time, the supernatural is unseen, is the supernatural necessarily always unseeable?

No. It must have some observable effects, or it is merely a philosophical speculation.
However the superantural cannot be manipulated like ordinary phenomena. It is an exception to the normal rules. Therefore its existence is hard to demonstrate by the ordinary scientific method.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Malcolm McLean:

No. It must have some observable effects, or it is merely a philosophical speculation.

Yet we know many things by means of theoretical science (philosophical speculation).
Malcolm McLean:

However the superantural cannot be manipulated like ordinary phenomena. It is an exception to the normal rules. Therefore its existence is hard to demonstrate by the ordinary scientific method.

OK. Scientific method meaning observational science.

What about the studies correlating prayer with effects in the world?

 

[buffalo]

Faith and reason canot be opposed for they flow from the same God.

Reason is higher than science. Emperical science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe, limited to our own 5 senses and dimensions. Reason is the interpretation of these emperical observations. Our own reasoning ability is limited, therfore we may not draw the correct conclusions from our science.

 

[dessert]

They are overlapping. A proposition can’t be true in one subject - say history, and false in another, say metallurgy. If a Saxon axehead is one thousand five hundred years old according to an examination of the metal, then it must also date from about the first invasion, according to history.

Sometimes you get an apparent contradiction. Theology says that men have free will and a soul, biochemistry says there is no way that can happen. Atoms are atoms and move according to electrical attractions between them. In this case it is pretty obvious that biochemistry is in the wrong; a theory of human behaviour that has no place for consciousness, free will and language has nothing going for it. Exactly how the biochemists are in the wrong is something this particular biochemist would dearly like to know.

Do you think that opposites attract or alikes attract?
This would probably make a good thread but I’m trying to follow so many I’m not going to start one and it is late and i’m bushed.

I was in a sociology class once and we got onto the discussion of the science of it actually.
We were told to do an observation experiment or data I guess and try to find out without interfereing in the lives of our subjects to see who were diabetic, slight or full blown and ask if their mate was diabetic.
Then we were to pile our data and see if diabetics were attracted to other diabetics which our prof was really trying to stress that we are all chemically attracted to each other, so much for love huh?

We were told that opposites fight and alikes attract. Actually this is contrary to science I think, but then smokers do like to be around smokers.

I have a sister in law who said she likes to be around a smoker because she like the scent of the ash but did not want to smoke what a world? She said that it reminded her of her father.
When I take of my socks and throw them on the floor my cats roll around in them. I think scent has a lot to do with alot but we do have a free will not like a cat because they are very instinctive.
Dessert

 

[Truthstalker]

When I take of my socks and throw them on the floor my cats roll around in them.

What a fine piece of prose. I wish I could write like that. Sigh.

That just struck me as extremely funny. I don’t know why.

 

[dessert]

What a fine piece of prose. I wish I could write like that. Sigh.

My cats love me and are sweet is it love? Or maybe they eat well MY sweetest is hanging out at my puter now trying to learn to type. she is alya was Felix butgrew into a girl Dessert

 

[Janet_S]

My cats love me and are sweet is it love? Or maybe they eat well MY sweetest is hanging out at my puter now trying to learn to type. she is alya was Felix butgrew into a girl Dessert

I’ve heard of a lot of cats who started out female and became male, but none that started out male and became female. My friend had a cat “Sadie.” She took Sadie to the vet, and upon examining her, the vet said to my friend “Uh-oh.” My friend was alarmed and said “What did you find? Worms?” The vet said “No. Testicles.” Sadie is now called Syd.

Anyway, I’m not sure if this is in the CCC, but the Catholic position is cats (or any other animal) cannot love. They cannot sin either. Because what they lack, and what we have that enables us to both love and sin, is** free will.**
Not all philosophies/social sciences agree with the CC that humans have free will. Karl Marx did not believe in free will. Martin Luther did not either. In modern psychology free will is more or less denied in favor of genetic, chemical, and environmental influences.

I think there is a tendency in the disciplines of modern social sciences to put humans and animals on the same level by denying that humans have free will. It sounds like this is what your sociology professor was getting at–people are drawn to each because of irresistible, chemical attractions which bypass the will. If it’s not an outright rejection of free will, at least it’s subordinating its role in human behavior.

 

[crisco]

I like this quote from JPII that I scooped from someone on this forum.

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

 

[rodschmidt]

Science begins with our five senses, and extends from there.

If we have “spiritual eyes” as well as “physical eyes” then our study of the spiritual realm could similarly begin with what we see with our spiritual eyes, and extend from there.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

I like it too. Good scoop, crisco. Here is the link:

Our knowledge of God and nature: physics, philosophy and theology

The Church does not propose that science should become religion or religion, science. On the contrary, unity always presupposes the diversity and the integrity of its elements.

Each of these members should become not less itself but more itself in a dynamic interchange, for a unity in which one of the elements is reduced to the other is destructive, false in its promises of harmony and ruinous of the integrity of its components.

We are asked to become one. We are not asked to become each other.

To be more specific, both religion and science must preserve their autonomy and their distinctiveness. Religion is not founded on science nor is science an extension of religion. Each should possess its own principles, its pattern of procedures, its diversities of interpretation and its own conclusions…

… science develops best when its concepts and conclusions are integrated into the broader human culture and its concerns for ultimate meaning and value. Scientists cannot, therefore, hold themselves entirely aloof from the sorts of issues dealt with by philosophers and theologians.

By devoting to these issues something of the energy and care they give to their research in science, they can help others realize more fully the human potentialities of their discoveries. They can also come to appreciate for themselves that these discoveries cannot be a genuine substitute for knowledge of the truly ultimate.

Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.

:extrahappy:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Science begins with our five senses, and extends from there.

If we have “spiritual eyes” as well as “physical eyes” then our study of the spiritual realm could similarly begin with what we see with our spiritual eyes, and extend from there.

There are two poles to scientific investigation: observation and theory.

Theory is described by St Paul in Hebrews 11:1. St Paul describes those spiritual eyes to which you refer.

 

[dessert]

I’ve heard of a lot of cats who started out female and became male, but none that started out male and became female. My friend had a cat “Sadie.” She took Sadie to the vet, and upon examining her, the vet said to my friend “Uh-oh.” My friend was alarmed and said “What did you find? Worms?” The vet said “No. Testicles.” Sadie is now called Syd.

Anyway, I’m not sure if this is in the CCC, but the Catholic position is cats (or any other animal) cannot love. They cannot sin either. Because what they lack, and what we have that enables us to both love and sin, is** free will.**
Not all philosophies/social sciences agree with the CC that humans have free will. Karl Marx did not believe in free will. Martin Luther did not either. In modern psychology free will is more or less denied in favor of genetic, chemical, and environmental influences.

I think there is a tendency in the disciplines of modern social sciences to put humans and animals on the same level by denying that humans have free will. It sounds like this is what your sociology professor was getting at–people are drawn to each because of irresistible, chemical attractions which bypass the will. If it’s not an outright rejection of free will, at least it’s subordinating its role in human behavior.

Whaat happened is we got supposedly two kittens from the same litter both male, twins but the one developed testicles and the other didn’t so we waited and waited nothing but we are keeping her because we love her too and may get her spayed but this person that gave us the kittens says they won’t mate yeah right.

Also on the diabetics, yes we also communicate with speech that animals don’t. If I was a diabetic and met someone that person would more than likely find out that I had the problem and would empathize with me or also have the problem and feel a link to one of the kind of problem and link up. Subordinating is the best definition I’ve heard so far. We can reason out and that is why we need faith to guide our science. Thanks Dessert

 

[Ani_Ibi]

… If I was a diabetic and met someone that person would more than likely find out that I had the problem and would empathize with me or also have the problem and feel a link to one of the kind of problem and link up. Subordinating is the best definition I’ve heard so far…

What is subordination?

 

[Riley259]

I like it too. Good scoop, crisco. Here is the link:

Our knowledge of God and nature: physics, philosophy and theology

:extrahappy:

Good resource from JPII.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Good resource from JPII.

Gotta love that pope!

 

[dessert]

What is subordination?

Ah not sure but did look it up, so are they or can they be on an equal plane? (Faith and science I mean)

What I read they can as functioning in a different realm but to achieve the same goal or organism (system) worship ,even our God who is supreme being and ‘divine’ as the earth even glorifies God by existing. When the sun rises it is in obedience to the Father as he made it to do.

Jesus said we can ‘our faith’ can move a mountain(this word from a nother thread I am talking on and these threads are really neet(archaic word) , He did not say a mountain can move our faith,.
Does this make any sense?
I had a hard time with the wording of the OP sorry takes me awhile to sort it out. Dessert

 

[dessert]

Subordination; Something that is less superior to another or less valuable.
As in a Hierarchy.
But we would think that gold is more valuable to silver but one is more conducive to electicity so maybe their value could be a more equal plane . I guess this doesn’t have to do with faith? Dessert