Pope Benedict XVI- Jesus of Nazareth

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FightingFat

Guest
One phrase from this great book has stuck in my mind and I often reflect on what it means in particular:

The highest truths cannot be forced into the type of empirical evidence that only applies to material reality. (p.216)

What does this mean? Why not?
 
At one level, this undoubtedly means that we are called to a faith, the faith.

Blessed are they who have not seen but yet believe.
 
It’s just a statement against scientism; that everything we are able to know is limited by what scientific inquiry can tell us. I would explain it to a non-believer by giving examples of art. We can know truth from something like a painting (that an event took place). We might learn truth from a play filled with non-real characters. The point is that there are other ways to know truth besides only the application of the scientific method.

The very premise that we can only know truth through scientific inquiry is itself a philosophical statement that cannot be proven with the scientific method, making the statement itself false.

If one believes there is ONE source of all truth, then science and philosophy and art are not competitors but instead are complimentary, meaning that they should all lead to the same ultimate truth. Those who believe in scientism disbelieve that idea; they think science will lead to one thing (truth), while philosophy, art, etc. leads to something else but not truth.
 
DOShea said:
It’s just a statement against scientism; that everything we are able to know is limited by what scientific inquiry can tell us. I would explain it to a non-believer by giving examples of art. We can know truth from something like a painting (that an event took place). We might learn truth from a play filled with non-real characters. The point is that there are other ways to know truth besides only the application of the scientific method.

The very premise that we can only know truth through scientific inquiry is itself a philosophical statement that cannot be proven with the scientific method, making the statement itself false.

If one believes there is ONE source of all truth, then science and philosophy and art are not competitors but instead are complimentary, meaning that they should all lead to the same ultimate truth. Those who believe in scientism disbelieve that idea; they think science will lead to one thing (truth), while philosophy, art, etc. leads to something else but not truth.
Click to expand...
AWESOME! Thanks!! 👍
 
DOShea said:
It’s just a statement against scientism; that everything we are able to know is limited by what scientific inquiry can tell us. I would explain it to a non-believer by giving examples of art. We can know truth from something like a painting (that an event took place). We might learn truth from a play filled with non-real characters. The point is that there are other ways to know truth besides only the application of the scientific method.
Click to expand...
That is an excellent point. I find many who are enamored by scientism have very little taste or appreciation for art. Their world is limited by what can be measured or tested. Additionally, if everything is reduced to material nature – this is looking only at the superficial and external aspects of reality. As Pope Benedict wisely teaches – the highest truths cannot be forced into a worldview that is oriented towards physical matter and laws alone.

We can know truth from art in its many forms. We can observe beauty and various forms of perfection of the good in life. We can seek justice – and that cannot be reduced to materialism.

Even truths from mathematics cannot be reduced to material reality because some mathematical concepts are nowhere reflected in nature.

The same is true with the concept of the infinite. We can sense the meaning of that, although we cannot experience it or put it in a laboratory.
 
FightingFat said:
AWESOME! Thanks!! 👍
Click to expand...
It is the basis of this essay by Alan Mittleman, who is director of the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies and professor of Jewish philosophy at the Jewish Theological Seminary.

Whenever I find myself dealing with the subject of God’s existence, I find this essay a suitable way to say, “Here, read this and don’t ask me that again.”

It really speaks to a scientism that wishes to make God the subject of a scientific hypothesis.

You can find it here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/05/23/asking-the-wrong-question-a-meditation-on-the-question-%e2%80%9cdoes-god-exist%e2%80%9d/

In Christ,

dj
 
FightingFat said:
One phrase from this great book has stuck in my mind and I often reflect on what it means in particular:

The highest truths cannot be forced into the type of empirical evidence that only applies to material reality. (p.216)

What does this mean? Why not?
Click to expand...
The empirical evidence of material reality covers only things which are trivally true. These evidences are quantifications of space time mass and energy. All of these become reducable to quantities of extention,

Empirical evidence is a pissing contest…😊
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top