Pope: Science cannot fully understand the mystery of man

[Brendan]

Science will continue to chip away at the “super natural”. This is not a threat to religon, just part of the discovery process. A process of demystification if you will. Never is a very long time, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss what science will eventually understand.

Nohome

When Science attempts to explain the Supernatural, by definition, it ceases to become Science, which is simply Natural Philosophy.

That doesn’t mean that mankind will not develop deeper understandings the Truth of man’s Ontological being, but it will do so via means seperate from science.

Science can only explain truths that occur naturally. God is outside of nature, therefore He cannot be explained via science.

Some people err when they consider science to the be only source of truth about humanity, when it is mearly one tool among several that explore Truth.

 

[Nohome]

I don’t understand your disagreement with Pope Benedict XVI. His is simply reminding us to resist the strong " temptation to circumscribe human identity and enclose it with the limits of what is known.”
Again - Pope Benedict XVI is not repressing science and discovery.

Let me rephrase this, I disagree with the assumption that scientists are tempted to circumscribe human identity and enclose it with the limits of what is known. That would be very unscientific. I guess I question why he would even feel the need to say such a thing.

Nohome

 

[buffalo]

Let me rephrase this, I disagree with the assumption that scientists are tempted to circumscribe human identity and enclose it with the limits of what is known. That would be very unscientific. I guess I question why he would even feel the need to say such a thing.

Nohome

I have said this before - science is curious and why would scientists confine themselves to something so limited.

 

[Nohome]

Science will never chip away at the supernatural. It can say nothing about the supernatural.

It already has. Mankind groups everything it doesn’t understand into the realm of “supernatural”. Fire, the movement of the planets, genetics and just about everything else that was once “mystical” were classified as supernatural at one time in human history. As human understanding of the natural world increased, these concepts were nolonger supernatural.

Science is getting closer to understanding many things including the origin of life. This increase in knowledge will force yet another shift in what is considered supernatural. The universe of the supernatural will continue to shrink.

This does not eliminate God, nor is it a threat to religeon. In a way, science is a heuristic device that will help mankind better understand its creator.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

I have said this before - science is curious and why would scientists confine themselves to something so limited.

I don’t understand your comment. Are you suggesting that science and faith are mutally exclusive?

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

Then you’ll fall into logical fallacy by using that scientific reasoning.

What are you going to have so much great logic, that it ceases being logical?

You lost me. Please try again.

Nohome

 

[buffalo]

It already has. Mankind groups everything it doesn’t understand into the realm of “supernatural”. Fire, the movement of the planets, genetics and just about everything else that was once “mystical” were classified as supernatural at one time in human history. As human understanding of the natural world increased, these concepts were nolonger supernatural.

Science is getting closer to understanding many things including the origin of life. This increase in knowledge will force yet another shift in what is considered supernatural. The universe of the supernatural will continue to shrink.

This does not eliminate God, nor is it a threat to religeon. In a way, science is a heuristic device that will help mankind better understand its creator.

Nohome

Not understanding physical laws is not the same as the supernatural.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t understand your comment. Are you suggesting that science and faith are mutally exclusive?

Nohome

Faith and reason are not opposed for they come from the same God.

What I was stating was scientists by nature are curious. They should be open to things outside of science. If they confine their experience to the limitations of science then they are self limiting which cuts across the grain of being curious.

 

[tomarin]

It already has. Mankind groups everything it doesn’t understand into the realm of “supernatural”. Fire, the movement of the planets, genetics and just about everything else that was once “mystical” were classified as supernatural at one time in human history. As human understanding of the natural world increased, these concepts were nolonger supernatural.

Science is getting closer to understanding many things including the origin of life. This increase in knowledge will force yet another shift in what is considered supernatural. The universe of the supernatural will continue to shrink.

This does not eliminate God, nor is it a threat to religeon. In a way, science is a heuristic device that will help mankind better understand its creator.

Nohome

your last paragraph notwithstanding, many people believe scientific knowledge is a substitute for religious knowledge, and that science is “cornering down” religion in the marketplace of ideas.

the media is rife with this kind of scientific materialist attitude, with a new article appearing in the popular press each day, it seems, about the “scientific” basis of morality or belief in god.

what this attitude fails to understand is that science and religion ask qualitatively different questions about human experience, and arrive at answers to those questions in radically different ways. in my opinion science will never replace religion, for the simple reason that science is incapable of even asking the questions that religion addresses. there’s a fundamental division of labor at work here, which gullible people (not saying you’re one of them) ignore at their peril.

 

[Riley259]

Is this speech in an English translation anywhere?

 

[Nohome]

Not understanding physical laws is not the same as the supernatural.

Until said supernatural is explained by a physical law.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

your last paragraph notwithstanding, many people believe scientific knowledge is a substitute for religious knowledge, and that science is “cornering down” religion in the marketplace of ideas.

the media is rife with this kind of scientific materialist attitude, with a new article appearing in the popular press each day, it seems, about the “scientific” basis of morality or belief in god.

what this attitude fails to understand is that science and religion ask qualitatively different questions about human experience, and arrive at answers to those questions in radically different ways. in my opinion science will never replace religion, for the simple reason that science is incapable of even asking the questions that religion addresses. there’s a fundamental division of labor at work here, which gullible people (not saying you’re one of them) ignore at their peril.

I work with a lot of scientists and I go to church every Sunday. Interesting enough, many of the faces I see in the pews are the same ones I see in the lab. I can’t argue about the media, because my personal experience is that the learned community is far from atheist.

Nohome

 

[TMC]

“the exact sciences, both natural and human, have made prodigious advances in their understanding of man and his universe”. However at the same time "there is a strong temptation to circumscribe human identity and enclose it with the limits of what is known.”

Contrary to what some seem to be assuming, I don’t think this remark was aimed only at scientists. Everyone needs to remain open to knowledge, and acknowledege that reality is not circumscribed by the limits of our understanding - this applies to scientists, theologians, and lay people.

Here, I would disagree with the pope. The scientists I know would never dream of enclosing anything within the limits of what is known on any topic. This would be the case in any scientific discipline. Good science isn’t about what you know, it’s about what you don’t know and seek to know.

Nohome

I think the bolded part is the Pope’s point. Science needs to be open to the broader truth. Religion must also acknowledge and deal with truths revealed through science. Neither should let preconceived notions, politics, or ideology block the search for truth.

How do you think the evolutionists will like this?

This is why appending the “Darwinian” comment to the quote was disingenuous. The Pope is, I think, referring to those scientists who view creation as a Godless happenstance, but many evolutionists don’t see it that way. I think he was also speaking more broadly about maintaining a proper respect for the dignity of man, and an understanding that not all truth is scientific.

Pope Benedict has repeatedly emphasized that humans are not the result of random chance, but a loving and deliberate creation. He has also said that this belief is not incompatible with evolution.

 

[buffalo]

Until said supernatural is explained by a physical law.

Nohome

Then is wasn’t supernatural in the first place.

And by the way God can use both supernatural as well as natural means to perform miracles.

 

[edwest2]

I am concerned that some people are holding up the Bible in one hand and proclaiming truth from it, and the Biology book in the other hand and proclaiming a different kind of truth from it.

As Pope John Paull II stated: “Truth cannot contradict truth.” However, ideologues, those who actually establish policy, have the final say in the secular world. If the Biology book alone is their sole criterion, then the Bible, no matter how many scientists may read it and believe it, becomes irrelevant to the discussion.

A common theme on atheist forums is that science is rational, that what exists is all there is, along with any relevant evidence. They claim that religion is irrational, has no evidence (apparently, actual miracles are somehow ignored), and does not produce physical good; i.e. videogames, instant cookie makers and DVDs.

Science is presented as engaging and compelling, religion is not. As Pope Benedict observed: “It counts for nothing.” The Pope also cites indifference and atheism as problems facing the human person. I agree.

As the theory of evolution is extrapolated into the areas of behavior and social interaction, including human identity; i.e. “We’re all just animals.” it degrades the human person. It denies his divine connection. It seeks to inhibit religious voices in the public square. This is the goal.

God bless,
Ed

 

[tomarin]

I work with a lot of scientists and I go to church every Sunday. Interesting enough, many of the faces I see in the pews are the same ones I see in the lab. I can’t argue about the media, because my personal experience is that the learned community is far from atheist.

Nohome

i’m sure there are believers and non-believers in the scientific community. anyone with a proper understanding of the relationship between faith and reason can see that the one doesn’t necessarily exclude the other.

what i don’t quite understand or agree with is your assertion (and my apologies in advance if i am misconstruing your argument) that science will eventually “explain” god. because to argue this is to make god’s truth subservient to science’s truth by reducing him to a feature of the physical laws of the universe, which it is the job of science to explain.

if you agree that he created the universe, it stands to reason that he cannot be reduced to a feature of the same universe that He created – that would make him a part of his own creation and be equivalent to saying he created himself. instead the christian understanding of god (as i understand it) is that his nature transcends the physical laws of the universe and that he has no beginning and no end.

if this is true then it is beyond’s science’s ability to “explain” him, no matter how far scientific knowledge advances, because his nature transcends the laws that science is equipped to study; he is a supernatural being and so by definition cannot be captured under the lens of a microscope.

 

[Orogeny]

As Pope John Paull II stated: “Truth cannot contradict truth.” However, ideologues, those who actually establish policy, have the final say in the secular world. If the Biology book alone is their sole criterion, then the Bible, no matter how many scientists may read it and believe it, becomes irrelevant to the discussion.

The exact same can be said for religious ideologues, Ed. Those who insist that if we don’t teach about God in a specific science class, we are promoting athiesm.

A common theme on atheist forums is that science is rational, that what exists is all there is, along with any relevant evidence. They claim that religion is irrational, has no evidence (apparently, actual miracles are somehow ignored), and does not produce physical good; i.e. videogames, instant cookie makers and DVDs.

Well, they are half right. Science is rational. Religion doesn’t require evidence since it is based on faith.

Science is presented as engaging and compelling, religion is not. As Pope Benedict observed: “It counts for nothing.” The Pope also cites indifference and atheism as problems facing the human person. I agree.

You are again equating science with atheism. Science is engaging and compelling as is religion. The fact that some deny either doesn’t make them right.

As the theory of evolution is extrapolated into the areas of behavior and social interaction, including human identity; i.e. “We’re all just animals.” it degrades the human person. It denies his divine connection. It seeks to inhibit religious voices in the public square. This is the goal.

Science is incapable of demeaning or uplifting. Those are human or spiritual traits. Science is the explanation of observations.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Science is the explanation of observations.

Peace

Tim

I wish it was a pure as that. As I have stated many times before the reasoning can be faulty as well as the observations. Reasoning can be influenced.

 

[edwest2]

Hi Tim,

With all due respect, you are operating in a 100% pure environment. Ideology is what people try to sell other people all the time. Some people are more committed to their ideological views than some people are to their religion.

There is a culture war going on in this country right now. The atheists and pagans want the power balance to shift in their direction and evolution is their biggest club. It’s easy to look at it as “just” the science, but I’ve seen it being marketed everywhere on the internet: “Believe it. Now!” “Believe it, or, I don’t know, something bad will happen. The earth will explode, the fundies will take over. Fer cryin’ out loud, just believe it!”

Only the Catholic Church has the right answer.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

With all due respect, you are operating in a 100% pure environment. Ideology is what people try to sell other people all the time. Some people are more committed to their ideological views than some people are to their religion.

That doesn’t affect the science one bit. That is a statement about some people. After all, some people are more committed to their idea of religion than they are to the Church.

There is a culture war going on in this country right now. The atheists and pagans want the power balance to shift in their direction and evolution is their biggest club. It’s easy to look at it as “just” the science, but I’ve seen it being marketed everywhere on the internet: “Believe it. Now!” “Believe it, or, I don’t know, something bad will happen. The earth will explode, the fundies will take over. Fer cryin’ out loud, just believe it!”

Well, insist that people deny science and see how bad that culture war becomes.

Let me ask you a question, Ed. Are you ever going to post an argument against the science or will you perpetually attack a strawman?

Peace

Tim