C
cho_pilo
Guest
I think that if a religion is true it must conform to science and likewise true science must include the possibility of a creator.
What are your thoughts on this?
What are your thoughts on this?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Z
ZDHayden
Guest
I have always believed that truth cannot contradict truth. If science and religion do not agree, it is either a case of bad science or bad religion. Sometimes, the facts and data do not disagree but interpretations are most frequently in error.
C
cassini
Guest
As far as it goes ZDHayden, the above is the perfect remedy for TOTAL CONFUSION. However what the thread poster failed to clarify is what they mean by **RELIGION AND SCIENCE. ** I mean what religion has a problem with computers, or electromagnetism, or nuclear energy, or the emergence of the combustion engine, the physics of bridges, buildings, planes boats, football boots etc.? Does it mean the compatibility with the metalic makeup of its sacramentals, the ingredients of the host prior to consecration, or the structure of the arches of its churches.I have always believed that truth cannot contradict truth. If science and religion do not agree, it is either a case of bad science or bad religion. Sometimes, the facts and data do not disagree but interpretations are most frequently in error.
No, what they mean is Catholic faith and heliocentrism, uniformitarianism (long ages) and evolutionism compatible, the three areas that embrace the very fundamental tenets of the Catholic faith. If they mean Islam, well it totally rejects evolutionism. But Catholicism as a religion will trolerate anything, even aliens, and make it compatible with the Catholic faith even if it means taking aboard heresy and confusing Catholic theology to get it to comply with what all those intelligent scientists say is true. The very idea of a pope today rejecting the theories of PhDs, Professors, Drs etc is out. The Church came of age when it dumped the ideas of their predecessors of the scholastic period, those ignoramuses who believed the Bible when it said all those anti-science things in Genesis. Popes today like to be invited to speak at universities. To do so they must make the Catholic faith agree with all sciences metaphysical theories. Yes, Catholicism has put the Catholic faith in the hands of science to do with as it pleases.
Perhaps the best article I have read on the subject is THE GOD OF THEOLOGIANS AND THE GOD OF ASTRONOMERS by Marcello Pera ex Professor of Philosophy University of Paris.
Cosmology - which now included the age of the universe and earth, the evolution thereof, and all things in it - “** is always revisable**.” The Catholic faith is not. Therefore should NEVER be held to be compatible with the Catholic faith. As Pera says " Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistant enterprise as science?"
I agree, now there are two of us, hopefully more. The Catholic Church should REJECT all connections with what they call science today and just teach what it always taught and not be worried that ‘science’ will undermine that FAITH. Faith is belief. If it is true then science cannot prove it wrong. Just believe this. You do not have to mix the two to get the answer you want. Instead of showing the infinite intelligence of God in the things it investigates, ‘science’ has totally removed the divine from its findings. To natural evolution, from the stupid Big Bang to man on earth, is given all credit. It is pathetic to see Catholics, from popes to posters, trying to share the Catholic faith with the god of science.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
*It is pathetic to see Catholics, from popes to posters, trying to share the Catholic faith with the god of science. *
What do you mean by sharing? Catholics do not share their faith with any scientific principle. What they do rightly ask whether certain scientific principles are consistent with their faith. When science and religion converge, there is the mutual understanding that affirms both and celebrates both. The Big Bang and Evolution are not inconsistent with Catholic faith. That is a reason for celebrating the truth at work in both spheres of human understanding.
Now if religion tells us that the universe was created, and science told us that it always existed … there would be a real problem. But both religion and science agree today, whereas a 100 years ago they might not have agreed, that the universe was indeed created at a certain point in time. That is a reason for mutual affirmation, rather than keeping science and religion in a continuous state of tension and perhaps even open warfare, which some have tried to do (such as T.H. Huxley, Sigmund Freud, and Richard Dawkins).
What do you mean by sharing? Catholics do not share their faith with any scientific principle. What they do rightly ask whether certain scientific principles are consistent with their faith. When science and religion converge, there is the mutual understanding that affirms both and celebrates both. The Big Bang and Evolution are not inconsistent with Catholic faith. That is a reason for celebrating the truth at work in both spheres of human understanding.
Now if religion tells us that the universe was created, and science told us that it always existed … there would be a real problem. But both religion and science agree today, whereas a 100 years ago they might not have agreed, that the universe was indeed created at a certain point in time. That is a reason for mutual affirmation, rather than keeping science and religion in a continuous state of tension and perhaps even open warfare, which some have tried to do (such as T.H. Huxley, Sigmund Freud, and Richard Dawkins).
G
GirlyChick092
Guest
Definitely!
I don’t remember the name of him, but there was a scientists who said that the more he learned, the more it pointed him to God.
I don’t remember the name of him, but there was a scientists who said that the more he learned, the more it pointed him to God.
D
Della
Guest
The Church holds that whatever is true is true no matter who states it. And it has never taught a literal six day creation as the only true interpretation of Genesis, for instance. Most people who attack the Catholic Church by using what they think is science are really setting up strawmen and then knocking them down again and declaring victory. Most scientists know very little about sound theology, but that the Church is willing to understand the theories and discoveries made by scientists tells me who is the more informed side and who is approaching the whole question more intelligently.
Scientists just like anyone else can have some pretty silly ideas about religion, especially the Catholic faith, and they demonstrate it when they air their ignorance in books and other media with attacks any well-informed Catholic child could counter. Most such attacks are based in personal bias or because of a moral failing–just like most people who reject the Church’s teachings without really knowing what they are or because they just don’t want to follow the Church–as if anyone had a gun to their backs making them, for crying out loud. Anyway, science can tell us a good deal about the world and ourselves, but what it cannot tell us it should let alone, such as how do we go to heaven. It’s simply not the kind of question science can answer nor should it even attempt since it is impossible for us to know such things through experimentation and testing.
Scientists just like anyone else can have some pretty silly ideas about religion, especially the Catholic faith, and they demonstrate it when they air their ignorance in books and other media with attacks any well-informed Catholic child could counter. Most such attacks are based in personal bias or because of a moral failing–just like most people who reject the Church’s teachings without really knowing what they are or because they just don’t want to follow the Church–as if anyone had a gun to their backs making them, for crying out loud. Anyway, science can tell us a good deal about the world and ourselves, but what it cannot tell us it should let alone, such as how do we go to heaven. It’s simply not the kind of question science can answer nor should it even attempt since it is impossible for us to know such things through experimentation and testing.
C
cassini
Guest
Let me demonstrate this sharing then if you think I err Charlemagne II; I copied it off a website:*It is pathetic to see Catholics, from popes to posters, trying to share the Catholic faith with the god of science. *
What do you mean by sharing? Catholics do not share their faith with any scientific principle. What they do rightly ask whether certain scientific principles are consistent with their faith. When science and religion converge, there is the mutual understanding that affirms both and celebrates both. The Big Bang and Evolution are not inconsistent with Catholic faith. That is a reason for celebrating the truth at work in both spheres of human understanding.
Now if religion tells us that the universe was created, and science told us that it always existed … there would be a real problem. But both religion and science agree today, whereas a 100 years ago they might not have agreed, that the universe was indeed created at a certain point in time. That is a reason for mutual affirmation, rather than keeping science and religion in a continuous state of tension and perhaps even open warfare, which some have tried to do (such as T.H. Huxley, Sigmund Freud, and Richard Dawkins).
In 1951, interestingly, Pius XII (who so grudgingly acknowledged the possibility of evolution) celebrated news from the world of science that the universe might have been created in a Big Bang. (The term, first employed by astronomer Fred Hoyle was meant to be derisive, but it stuck.) In a speech before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences he offered an enthusiastic endorsement of the theory: “…it would seem that present-day science, with one sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the august instant of the primordial Fiat Lux [Let there be Light], when along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, and the elements split and churned and formed into millions of galaxies.” (ME, 254-55)
But the Pope didn’t stop there. He went on to express the surprising conclusion that the Big Bang proved the existence of God:
Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, [science] has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the world came forth from the hands of the Creator. Hence, creation took place. We say: therefore, there is a Creator. Therefore, God exists!
The man who laid the groundwork for the Big Bang theory, astronomer Edwin Hubble, received a letter from a friend asking whether the Pope’s announcement might qualify him for “sainthood.” The friend enthused that until he read the statement in the morning’s paper, “I had not dreamed that the Pope would have to fall back on you for proof of the existence of God.” (ME, 255)
Other people, including Belgian astronomer Georges Lamaître and the Vatican’s science advisor, had a different reaction. They understood that the Big Bang in 1951 remained very much a contested theory and worried what might be the effect if the Pope pinned the Catholic faith too much on its proving true. They spoke privately to the Pope about their concerns, and the Pope never brought up the topic again in public.
C
cassini
Guest
Now Professor Pera’s opinion:Let me demonstrate this sharing then if you think I err Charlemagne II; I copied it off a website:
In 1951, interestingly, Pius XII (who so grudgingly acknowledged the possibility of evolution) celebrated news from the world of science that the universe might have been created in a Big Bang. (The term, first employed by astronomer Fred Hoyle was meant to be derisive, but it stuck.) In a speech before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences he offered an enthusiastic endorsement of the theory: “…it would seem that present-day science, with one sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the august instant of the primordial Fiat Lux [Let there be Light], when along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, and the elements split and churned and formed into millions of galaxies.” (ME, 254-55)
But the Pope didn’t stop there. He went on to express the surprising conclusion that the Big Bang proved the existence of God:
Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, [science] has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the world came forth from the hands of the Creator. Hence, creation took place. We say: therefore, there is a Creator. Therefore, God exists!
The man who laid the groundwork for the Big Bang theory, astronomer Edwin Hubble, received a letter from a friend asking whether the Pope’s announcement might qualify him for “sainthood.” The friend enthused that until he read the statement in the morning’s paper, “I had not dreamed that the Pope would have to fall back on you for proof of the existence of God.” (ME, 255)
Other people, including Belgian astronomer Georges Lamaître and the Vatican’s science advisor, had a different reaction. They understood that the Big Bang in 1951 remained very much a contested theory and worried what might be the effect if the Pope pinned the Catholic faith too much on its proving true. They spoke privately to the Pope about their concerns, and the Pope never brought up the topic again in public.
“Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity as an act of creation. What conclusion can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose for the sake of argument, that this too is conceded. The problem now is twofold: Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of [Catholic] faith?
My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creator cannot be understood as a person or as the WORD made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not of philosophers and scientists.”
To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creator as a person is to make an illigitamite inference, to commit a category fallacy.
My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because being a God proved by cosmology, he would be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriousness.” cosmology is always revisable.”
Here then is a lesson for all Modernists who insist on reinterpreting the Scriptures to suit the scientific theories of man. All they do is contradict the literal beliefs of Catholics for 1820 years, for that is when popes conceded the traditional faith to the dictates of scientific theories and preferences. They add not ONE IOTA to the Catholic Faith and its supernatural quest of saving souls.
Z
ZDHayden
Guest
So - correct me if I am wrong, as I am sure you will, cassini - God the Creator of the universe, God who is being in and of himself, God who is omnipotent and omnipresent and omniscient is unworthy of belief because signs of God have been seen in the cosmos? Is that what you are stating? Because science has found potential evidence for God, we are to reject the signs, even if they point to our own, the one true God?
I would like to give the wisdom of St. Augustine: St. Augustine argued that the Genesis account should not be taken at face value - that the days in the creation stories of Genesis were more of theological than physical merit. St. Augustine held that all of creation, based on Sirach 18:1 in the Latin Vulgate: “qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul.” St. Augustine argues further that if evidence points to a specific method of creation we should adhere to that specific method of creation, as the Genesis account of creation is more theological than chronological. Genesis (Which says that the things of the universe were made one at a time and in stages) CANNOT contradict Sirach (which states that the universe and all things in it were created at once, together). Sirach sounds a whole lot like the Big Bang, no? BOOM! all the material of the universe flies out, and over time begins clumping together. All the material being presented into existence at one time. Truth cannot contradict truth.
I would like to give the wisdom of St. Augustine: St. Augustine argued that the Genesis account should not be taken at face value - that the days in the creation stories of Genesis were more of theological than physical merit. St. Augustine held that all of creation, based on Sirach 18:1 in the Latin Vulgate: “qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul.” St. Augustine argues further that if evidence points to a specific method of creation we should adhere to that specific method of creation, as the Genesis account of creation is more theological than chronological. Genesis (Which says that the things of the universe were made one at a time and in stages) CANNOT contradict Sirach (which states that the universe and all things in it were created at once, together). Sirach sounds a whole lot like the Big Bang, no? BOOM! all the material of the universe flies out, and over time begins clumping together. All the material being presented into existence at one time. Truth cannot contradict truth.
C
cassini
Guest
First of all ZDHayden, It is I who defend the greatest of all signs of God in the universe, you and the 99.9999% of Catholics REJECT them. Have you ever read up on the doctrine of geocentrism that all, including St Augustine adhered to? Nothing has ever demonstrated the relationship between God, the cosmos and mankind more that the visual geocentric world we live in and witness. Science has never proved the cosmos is otherwise. Every experiment tried to prove Heliocentrism ended up showing the opposite, that the earth does not move. Your idea of cosmology was defined and condemned as heresy, and heresy does not enhance the image of the God of Catholics.So - correct me if I am wrong, as I am sure you will, cassini - God the Creator of the universe, God who is being in and of himself, God who is omnipotent and omnipresent and omniscient is unworthy of belief because signs of God have been seen in the cosmos? Is that what you are stating? Because science has found potential evidence for God, we are to reject the signs, even if they point to our own, the one true God?
I would like to give the wisdom of St. Augustine: St. Augustine argued that the Genesis account should not be taken at face value - that the days in the creation stories of Genesis were more of theological than physical merit. St. Augustine held that all of creation, based on Sirach 18:1 in the Latin Vulgate: “qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul.” St. Augustine argues further that if evidence points to a specific method of creation we should adhere to that specific method of creation, as the Genesis account of creation is more theological than chronological. Genesis (Which says that the things of the universe were made one at a time and in stages) CANNOT contradict Sirach (which states that the universe and all things in it were created at once, together). Sirach sounds a whole lot like the Big Bang, no? BOOM! all the material of the universe flies out, and over time begins clumping together. All the material being presented into existence at one time. Truth cannot contradict truth.
By way of false science the MINDS of man were cleared of this relationship. What is there now in a cosmology shared by ATHEISTS that shows or enhances the relationship of Him to us? nothing but conflict, theologians and atheist scientists contradicting one another. Only believers can be convinced that God is involved and they already believe, big deal…
As for St Augustine, he was a creationist, in his case immediate creation, all in one go. The rest of the Fathers were six-day creationists. Here is another of Augustine’s sayings used often for Modernist purposes: "“If it happens that the authority of Sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly.” The Fathers, including Augustine, and even popes, said the LITERAL cannot be eliminated on mere conjecture, only on “clear and CERTAIN reasoning.”
“Clear and certain reasoning” Wow. Now tell me what ‘clear and certain reasoning’ is there about the metaphysical cosmos? That there are as many stars as there are grains of sand on earth? Well the Bible told us that already. Was the rejection of a papal decree defining H heresy aborted on 'clear and certain reasoning?" My eye it was. Is the Big Bang theory a “clear and certain” fact? Well the last time I studied science theories were not facts. So too every other theory Modernists tell us enhances our Catholic faith.
As for 'truth cannot contradict truth", well that all depends on whose “truth” it is. The Church gave us a “truth” in 1616 and 1633, but according to all after 1820 that “truth” did contradict scientific “truth”. Now its Big Bang “truth”. Bangs always separate matter but this one is made different, it forms matter, and even life. That is not science, that is magic. That means natural forces do the creating. That consigns scholastic theology into the dustbin.
Ah look I could go on, but I see I waste my time.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Cassini
*The man who laid the groundwork for the Big Bang theory, astronomer Edwin Hubble, received a letter from a friend asking whether the Pope’s announcement might qualify him for “sainthood.” *
Your source is not quite accurate here. It was LeMaitre, not Hubble, who laid the groundwork for the Big Bang theory. Hubble confirmed through his telescope what LeMaitre had first argued when he noted that the galaxies were expanding.
The rest of your argument seems not to be relevant to whether we as Catholics believe or do not believe our faith. We believed it long before Evolution, and we believed it long before the Big Bang theory. Should Evolution and the Big Bang somehow be disproven (hardly likely) there would be no reason to believe that the universe has not been created as testified in Genesis. Moreover, so far as the Big Bang is concerned, even if the theory were somehow explained away, there would still be no scientific proof that the universe is eternal and therefore does not require a Creator.
As to the qualities of the Creator, it is true that neither the Big Bang nor science can tell us anything about those qualities. That is the business of theology, not science. So far as most people would be concerned, it is enough that science can merely confirm a Creation event that is consistent with Genesis. What more should we ask of science?
Our Catholic faith tells us that the universe was created. Science tells us there was a creation event. What’s the problem here? Nothing. Now if science were to tell us that the universe was never created, and there was scientific proof to that effect, it would be clear to me that the science was somehow defective, because we cannot believe that Genesis lies when it says that the universe was created over a certain period of time.
What is there now in a cosmology shared by ATHEISTS that shows or enhances the relationship of Him to us?
There is very little, to be sure. But at least what the new cosmology suggests is something that many 19th and 20th century atheists believed is not true. They believed the universe is eternal and there was no need to consider the existence of a Creator. The Big Bang suggests quite the opposite. For any atheist, that should be food for thought … if they are really thinkers.
*The man who laid the groundwork for the Big Bang theory, astronomer Edwin Hubble, received a letter from a friend asking whether the Pope’s announcement might qualify him for “sainthood.” *
Your source is not quite accurate here. It was LeMaitre, not Hubble, who laid the groundwork for the Big Bang theory. Hubble confirmed through his telescope what LeMaitre had first argued when he noted that the galaxies were expanding.
The rest of your argument seems not to be relevant to whether we as Catholics believe or do not believe our faith. We believed it long before Evolution, and we believed it long before the Big Bang theory. Should Evolution and the Big Bang somehow be disproven (hardly likely) there would be no reason to believe that the universe has not been created as testified in Genesis. Moreover, so far as the Big Bang is concerned, even if the theory were somehow explained away, there would still be no scientific proof that the universe is eternal and therefore does not require a Creator.
As to the qualities of the Creator, it is true that neither the Big Bang nor science can tell us anything about those qualities. That is the business of theology, not science. So far as most people would be concerned, it is enough that science can merely confirm a Creation event that is consistent with Genesis. What more should we ask of science?
Our Catholic faith tells us that the universe was created. Science tells us there was a creation event. What’s the problem here? Nothing. Now if science were to tell us that the universe was never created, and there was scientific proof to that effect, it would be clear to me that the science was somehow defective, because we cannot believe that Genesis lies when it says that the universe was created over a certain period of time.
What is there now in a cosmology shared by ATHEISTS that shows or enhances the relationship of Him to us?
There is very little, to be sure. But at least what the new cosmology suggests is something that many 19th and 20th century atheists believed is not true. They believed the universe is eternal and there was no need to consider the existence of a Creator. The Big Bang suggests quite the opposite. For any atheist, that should be food for thought … if they are really thinkers.
Z
ZDHayden
Guest
To be frank, I think you do. Geocentrism was disproved long ago. The Church has recognized the fundamental error of geocentrism. Rome has spoken. And that is enough. The evidence during the patristic period pointed to geocentrism. Advanced technology revealed otherwise later. Augustine and his contemporaries were following the suggestion of the data they had. Truth CANNOT contradict truth. If the physical world shows that the earth is not the center of the universe, as it has (Copernicus, Galileo, et al), then the old things must be swept away.Ah look I could go on, but I see I waste my time.
Who originally proposed the geocentric model? It was not Scripture. It was a Greek philosopher named Plato. Hardly infallible. The Church took Plato’s model because it was the best explanation of the time. A better explanation has been found.
E
edwest2
Guest
Science today has been hijacked by an ideology.
Let us look at Hubble and redshift:
astronomy-mall.com/Adventures.In.Deep.Space/peculspr.htm
news.discovery.com/space/no-time-dilation-for-distant-quasars.html
This article tells us there is no time dilation for quasars. There are other examples of non-distance related redshift. Even the sun exhibits a redshift. Hubble himself admitted his observation may not have something to do with distance.
The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age.
Peace,
Ed
Let us look at Hubble and redshift:
astronomy-mall.com/Adventures.In.Deep.Space/peculspr.htm
news.discovery.com/space/no-time-dilation-for-distant-quasars.html
This article tells us there is no time dilation for quasars. There are other examples of non-distance related redshift. Even the sun exhibits a redshift. Hubble himself admitted his observation may not have something to do with distance.
The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age.
Peace,
Ed
T
The_Exodus
Guest
It is frustrating to read posts like this. I much admire cassini, and somewhat share his sympathies (though for sentimental and not scientific reasons, me not being a scientist) that the earth is the center of the universe. And, though he can be a bit cheeky at times, he has made a staggering point:To be frank, I think you do. Geocentrism was disproved long ago. The Church has recognized the fundamental error of geocentrism. Rome has spoken. And that is enough. The evidence during the patristic period pointed to geocentrism. Advanced technology revealed otherwise later. Augustine and his contemporaries were following the suggestion of the data they had. Truth CANNOT contradict truth. If the physical world shows that the earth is not the center of the universe, as it has (Copernicus, Galileo, et al), then the old things must be swept away.
Who originally proposed the geocentric model? It was not Scripture. It was a Greek philosopher named Plato. Hardly infallible. The Church took Plato’s model because it was the best explanation of the time. A better explanation has been found.
Geocentrism cannot, in principle, be disproved. The early fathers, as well as scripture and the history of the Church, and, more especially, the Scholastics and St. Thomas Aquinas (whose philosophy the faith is founded on), held that the earth was the center of the universe. Therefore, why ought a Catholic conclude or believe it is not?
Now, your post is frustrating because you don’t engage in this point. You sweep it under the rug and “bulverise.” (See wikipedia reference if you are unfamiliar with “bulverism.”) In short, you have neither shown a) how, as you claim, it has been proven that the earth is not the center of the universe; nor b) why we, being unable to prove for certain which is true (since proof in this case is impossible, there being no absolute reference point for us to "look at the whole picture), ought not to believe in Scripture, the fathers, the history of the Church, and the faith as it is expounded by the greatest mind of all time - St. Thomas?
D
DebChris
Guest
For religion to conform to science is to take away the mystery, the things that we cannot understand. These mysteries, especially in the Catholic Faith, are not to be solved, but to be entered into. In other words, God cannot be boxed into what we as humans expect Him to be. While there is much that cannot be understood by the human mind, reason does support faith.
CCC155 In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace. “Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace.”
CCC159Faith and Science “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently knowledge, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”
CCC155 In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace. “Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace.”
CCC159Faith and Science “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently knowledge, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”
C
cassini
Guest
Charlemagne, wasn’t it Hubble whose observation of red-shifts led him to propose an expanding universe. Now an expanding universe suggests an initial ‘explosion’ as a cause. thus it was Hubble who laid the groundwork for the Big Bang theory.Cassini
*The man who laid the groundwork for the Big Bang theory, astronomer Edwin Hubble, received a letter from a friend asking whether the Pope’s announcement might qualify him for “sainthood.” *
Your source is not quite accurate here. It was LeMaitre, not Hubble, who laid the groundwork for the Big Bang theory. Hubble confirmed through his telescope what LeMaitre had first argued when he noted that the galaxies were expanding.
The rest of your argument seems not to be relevant to whether we as Catholics believe or do not believe our faith. We believed it long before Evolution, and we believed it long before the Big Bang theory. Should Evolution and the Big Bang somehow be disproven (hardly likely) there would be no reason to believe that the universe has not been created as testified in Genesis. Moreover, so far as the Big Bang is concerned, even if the theory were somehow explained away, there would still be no scientific proof that the universe is eternal and therefore does not require a Creator.
As to the qualities of the Creator, it is true that neither the Big Bang nor science can tell us anything about those qualities. That is the business of theology, not science. So far as most people would be concerned, it is enough that science can merely confirm a Creation event that is consistent with Genesis. What more should we ask of science?
Our Catholic faith tells us that the universe was created. Science tells us there was a creation event. What’s the problem here? Nothing. Now if science were to tell us that the universe was never created, and there was scientific proof to that effect, it would be clear to me that the science was somehow defective, because we cannot believe that Genesis lies when it says that the universe was created over a certain period of time.
What is there now in a cosmology shared by ATHEISTS that shows or enhances the relationship of Him to us?
There is very little, to be sure. But at least what the new cosmology suggests is something that many 19th and 20th century atheists believed is not true. They believed the universe is eternal and there was no need to consider the existence of a Creator. The Big Bang suggests quite the opposite. For any atheist, that should be food for thought … if they are really thinkers.
As for the rest of your post, well fair enough, very reasonable. Indeed I’d say it confirms my own position. but wasn’t the initial proposal that the findings of science enhance our faith in God more and more as science dictates?
Oh, here is an interesting history of expanding universe. Copernicus, in his book De Rev… said that if the universe was created geocentric with a rotating universe around the earth, then natural forces should cause the universe to expand as viewed from earth, in every direction, equally. And what do you know, that is exactly what Hubble found four hundred years later. But we all know, don’t we, that it couldn’t be geocentric, agreeing with those Holy Scriptures, so we can rule that scientific possibility on ideological grounds and go for a Big Bang instead.
B
buffalo
Guest
Look here - set the earth in the follow object tab.To be frank, I think you do. Geocentrism was disproved long ago. The Church has recognized the fundamental error of geocentrism. Rome has spoken. And that is enough. The evidence during the patristic period pointed to geocentrism. Advanced technology revealed otherwise later. Augustine and his contemporaries were following the suggestion of the data they had. Truth CANNOT contradict truth. If the physical world shows that the earth is not the center of the universe, as it has (Copernicus, Galileo, et al), then the old things must be swept away.
Who originally proposed the geocentric model? It was not Scripture. It was a Greek philosopher named Plato. Hardly infallible. The Church took Plato’s model because it was the best explanation of the time. A better explanation has been found.
B
buffalo
Guest
Just a little food for thought.
This flower pattern is unique to geocentrism. Focus on any other object as the center and the symmetry disappears.
http://www.realityreviewed.com/Flower Pattern World.gif
This flower pattern is unique to geocentrism. Focus on any other object as the center and the symmetry disappears.
http://www.realityreviewed.com/Flower Pattern World.gif
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Charlemagne, wasn’t it Hubble whose observation of red-shifts led him to propose an expanding universe. Now an expanding universe suggests an initial ‘explosion’ as a cause. thus it was Hubble who laid the groundwork for the Big Bang theory.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
- Status
- Not open for further replies.