Religion and Science!

[tonyrey]

It seems you don’t want to commit yourself to an explanation of the precise scope of science but your reference to magic and the possible elimination of free will leaves the impression that no other explanation of human activity should be considered.

St Anastasia: Can you show me where I proposed the elimination of free will?

You hinted that it wouldn’t matter if science disposed of it.

That is not surprising because many scientists are not prepared to limit the scope of their subject - even though science is clearly incapable of explaining itself!

The scientists I know are quite prepared to limit the scope of their subject. Which scientists do you know?

You have been reluctant to explain its limits.

The religion plays for such scientists in interpreting reality seems neglible and hardly distinguishable from deism.

This sentence is not really coherent, but I can guess what you mean.

I added a correction that you have probably overlooked:

“The role religion plays for such scientists in interpreting reality seems negligible and hardly distinguishable from deism.”

Why would you expect religion to play a role in interpreting reality for scientists?

Would you expect religion to play a role in interpreting reality for plumbers or electricians?

I expect a person who claims to be a Catholic to explain briefly how the scope of religion is related to the scope of science - since it seems to be in the process of being whittled down to negligible proportions - but of course you are not compelled to do so if you find the subject distasteful…

 

[Paul_Infirdigno]

what?

 

[Elizabeth502]

might be hard to follow, Paul, if you weren’t following the previous Science & Religion thread, now closed due to size. The OP here is continuing those conversations.

 

[Paul_Infirdigno]

might be hard to follow, Paul, if you weren’t following the previous Science & Religion thread, now closed due to size. The OP here is continuing those conversations.

oh! okay thanks.

God Bless you and yours.

 

[StAnastasia]

You hinted that it wouldn’t matter if science disposed of it.

Of course it would matter.

“The role religion plays for such scientists in interpreting reality seems negligible and hardly distinguishable from deism.”

The same is true for plumbers and electricians, who approach their jobs as if the pipes and wires don’t have God hidden inside them. Agnostic or atheist plumbing!

I expect a person who claims to be a Catholic to explain briefly how the scope of religion is related to the scope of science - since it seems to be in the process of being whittled down to negligible proportions - but of course you are not compelled to do so if you find the subject distasteful…

Truth or dare? You’re on. You go first!

 

[inocente]

Originally Posted by You:
Start from the other end. Was every bit of the earth during its history submerged under water? Yes. Did the animals with breath in their nostrils trapped in that flooding die? Yes. Did many kinds, types, or species of animals perish? Yes. Did some species survive? Yes. Did the water eventually recede? Yes.

Movement of tectonic plates is happening right now just as it has always done. Look around you – how many animals do you see being drowned by this process? Very few, because although on rare occasions local flooding may cause deaths, in general the pace of change is glacial. Even a three legged tortoise has all the time in the world to escape.

But if you don’t believe me, would you believe the Bible? If I can wrestle you away from Genesis for a moment, try looking at a different creation account.

What? There’s another creation account? In the Bible? Really? Psalm 104 (NAB so you’ll feel at home):

5 Who have founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever. 6 The deep like a garment is its clothing: above the mountains shall the waters stand. 7 At your rebuke they shall flee: at the voice of your thunder they shall fear. 8 The mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which you have founded for them. 9 You have set a bound which they shall not pass over; neither shall they return to cover the earth. 10 You send forth springs in the vales: between the midst of the hills the waters shall pass. 11 All the beasts of the field shall drink: the wild asses shall expect in their thirst. 12 Over them the birds of the air shall dwell: from the midst of the rocks they shall give forth their voices.

So the Earth is founded with every place covered by water, then the waters recede at God’s rebuke, the mountains ascend, rivers and springs form, and animals make their appearance. And what’s that in verse nine? “You have set a bound which they [the waters] shall not pass over; neither shall they return to cover the earth”.

The Bible itself says Noah’s flood cannot possibly have covered the world, so if it ever happened it must have been just a local flood.

 

[inocente]

Originally Posted by tonyrey:
*You should know by now - if the name of your denomination is correct…

NB The term is etymologically precise… *

But saying that the emergence of the person requires the personal Factor as well as physical events isn’t really saying much, since God is included in everything - physical events themselves require the presence of God, therefore physical events can explain the person.

 

[You]

Movement of tectonic plates is happening right now just as it has always done. Look around you – how many animals do you see being drowned by this process? Very few, because although on rare occasions local flooding may cause deaths, in general the pace of change is glacial. Even a three legged tortoise has all the time in the world to escape.

But if you don’t believe me, would you believe the Bible? If I can wrestle you away from Genesis for a moment, try looking at a different creation account.

What? There’s another creation account? In the Bible? Really? Psalm 104 (NAB so you’ll feel at home):

5 Who have founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever. 6 The deep like a garment is its clothing: above the mountains shall the waters stand. 7 At your rebuke they shall flee: at the voice of your thunder they shall fear. 8 The mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which you have founded for them. 9 You have set a bound which they shall not pass over; neither shall they return to cover the earth. 10 You send forth springs in the vales: between the midst of the hills the waters shall pass. 11 All the beasts of the field shall drink: the wild asses shall expect in their thirst. 12 Over them the birds of the air shall dwell: from the midst of the rocks they shall give forth their voices.

So the Earth is founded with every place covered by water, then the waters recede at God’s rebuke, the mountains ascend, rivers and springs form, and animals make their appearance. And what’s that in verse nine? “You have set a bound which they [the waters] shall not pass over; neither shall they return to cover the earth”.

The Bible itself says Noah’s flood cannot possibly have covered the world, so if it ever happened it must have been just a local flood.

As much as it pains me to provide another commentary of sorts on the bible, I will provide another alternative for you;

5 Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever.
The Earth is set in motion in its orbit and spin etc.

6 The deep like a garment is its clothing: above the mountains shall the waters stand.

The waters of Noahs Flood will indeed cover all the land like a garment or cloak.

7 At thy rebuke they shall flee: at the voice of thy thunder they shall fear.

The waters will indeed recede from the lands they cover.

8 The mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which thou hast founded for them.

As the lands for the final time ascent from the waters plate tectonics and continental drift bounce the continental landmasses off each other causing simultaneously orogeny and depressions of basins.

9 Thou hast set a bound which they shall not pass over; neither shall they return to cover the earth.

While the earth was being flooded certain areas of continents were preserved to protect some of the life therein, that being the bound, later this life spread out when the land rose and the land they had occupied sank then or sometime later or earlier. The bounds of the flood were to preserve life so that some should survive the flood.
The flood will not return because that is His promise, and because now the topography has changed from low-lying lands splitting from the first supercontinent to collided and uplifted continental plates, margins and interiors.

10 Thou sendest forth springs in the vales: between the midst of the hills the waters shall pass.

This new uplifted topography now provides the mechanical means of uplifting large air-masses over mountains, moving from the humid oceans surfaces to condensing low temperatures at mountain top. Now we have rain. With rain we have mountain springs and rivers between the midst of the hills.

11 All the beasts of the field shall drink: the wild asses shall expect in their thirst.

This condensed rainwater, filtered and enriched with minerals as it passes through the new mountain rock is good for the beasts of the field and also provided habitable areas for wild animals.

12 Over them the birds of the air shall dwell: from the midst of the rocks they shall give forth their voices.

Life-giving fresh water will be everywhere in the lands, both in wild and fertile places.

13 Thou waterest the hills from thy upper rooms: the earth shall be filled with the fruit of thy works:

The clouds will now rain on the hills because of this new topography and life will fill the earth because of it.

14 Bringing forth grass for cattle, and herb for the service of men. That thou mayst bring bread out of the earth:

As it says.

15 and that wine may cheer the heart of man. That he may make the face cheerful with oil: and that bread may strengthen man’s heart.

We can drink wine and be cheerful and enjoy the fruits and foods which He has provided us.

 

[grannymh]

I expect a person who claims to be a Catholic to explain briefly how the scope of religion is related to the scope of science - since it seems to be in the process of being whittled down to negligible proportions - but of course you are not compelled to do so if you find the subject distasteful…

I have been a Catholic all my life and have never considered the expectation that I should be able to explain briefly how the scope of religion is related to the scope of science. Never until Google landed me in the middle of CAF and I couldn’t exit so I registered as a member.

It is here that I learned that the “world’s scientists”, some priests, some educated Catholics, and others of different faiths or no faith, preach their individually tailored view on life – and a few others, including people from various faiths, explain life in terms of God being the Creator of all that is visible and invisible which is a reference to both the material *and *spiritual worlds. Interesting.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[grannymh]

The same is true for plumbers and electricians, who approach their jobs as if the pipes and wires don’t have God hidden inside them. Agnostic or atheist plumbing!

Emphasis mine.

I sure hope you will explain “Agnostic or atheist plumbing” a tad further. I keep thinking about the “Yellow Pages.” Would this be considered an example of the separation between religion and science? I remember a lot of confusion about Catholicism and scientific endeavors on older threads.

My apology, but I cannot help

 

[StAnastasia]

a few others, including people from various faiths, explain life in terms of God being the Creator of all that is visible and invisible which is a reference to both the material *and *spiritual worlds. Interesting.

Granny, you are unduly pessimistic in saying “a few others.” All Christians accept the Nicene Creed.

 

[inocente]

As much as it pains me to provide another commentary of sorts on the bible, I will provide another alternative for you;

It pains you to talk about the Bible in general, or you think God should have given the job to someone else in this instance?

6 The deep like a garment is its clothing: above the mountains shall the waters stand. …]

9 Thou hast set a bound which they shall not pass over; neither shall they return to cover the earth.

While the earth was being flooded certain areas of continents were preserved to protect some of the life therein, that being the bound, later this life spread out when the land rose and the land they had occupied sank then or sometime later or earlier. The bounds of the flood were to preserve life so that some should survive the flood.

Where was life created? In verse six the psalmist says the water level is above the mountains, so land animals can’t yet exist (the Earth was only founded in verse five anyway).

But you say land animals do exist by verse nine, even though the psalmist doesn’t mention any until verse eleven. Are you saying the psalmist thought land animals and humans were too trivial to mention in verses seven and eight? And where does he say the waters receded to allow Noah to be born and build his ark, and where does he say they advanced a second time and then receded again post-Noah?

The psalmist would be well aware of the Noah tale, yet never mentions it. Unless the latest methodology is to first decide what we want the bible to say, then ignore what it actually says so as to shoehorn in our meaning, but I’ll stick with the ordinary rules of reading literature if you have no objections (and frankly even if you do ).

 

[inocente]

Originally Posted by grannymh:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition’s info about Jesus Christ starts with Chapter Two, I Believe in Jesus Christ, the Only Son of God. Sub titles are: The Good News: God has sent His Son; To preach…the unsearchable riches of Christ; At the heart of catechesis: Christ.

Ah, since you picked up the thread, thanks :flowers:
But you didn’t really answer my question, which was if the CCC, the Pope and the Bible spend a lot more time on Christ than Genesis, why do you think Genesis has assumed such importance to others, even in the face of evidence that it pushes young people out of church?

 

[StAnastasia]

I sure hope you will explain “Agnostic or atheist plumbing” a tad further. I keep thinking about the “Yellow Pages.” Would this be considered an example of the separation between religion and science? I remember a lot of confusion about Catholicism and scientific endeavors on older threads.

Tonrey said: “The role religion plays for such scientists in interpreting reality seems negligible and hardly distinguishable from deism.”

I merely extended it: “The role religion plays for plumbers and electricians in interpreting reality seems negligible and hardly distinguishable from deism.”

A chemist exploring chemical reactions without invoking God is no more a “deist” than is an electrician tracking down a blown fuse without invoking God. A biologist exploring the evolutionary relationship between rattlesnakes and jackrabbits without invoking God is no more a “deist” than is a plumber exploring the source of a basement leak without invoking God.

Plumbers, electricians, biologists and chemists may be Christians, agnostics, atheists, or otherwise. Their metaphysical commitments are irrelevant to the practice of their trade. There is no more such a thing as “atheist biology” than there is “atheist plumbing.”

StAnastasia

 

[inocente]

Plumbers, electricians, biologists and chemists may be Christians, agnostics, atheists, or otherwise. Their metaphysical commitments are irrelevant to the practice of their trade. There is no more such a thing as “atheist biology” than there is “atheist plumbing.”

You could extend that. Any electrician who says “I know what I did looks a right mess, and it’s probably not up to code although I don’t really know what I’m doing, but God told me it won’t burn your house down so that’s OK then praise be” probably won’t get many recommendations, even from devout Christians.

 

[You]

It pains you to talk about the Bible in general, or you think God should have given the job to someone else in this instance?

Its not my job to give bible commentaries, but I actually like this psalm as it does not contradict Noah or geology as far as I can see.

Where was life created? In verse six the psalmist says the water level is above the mountains, so land animals can’t yet exist (the Earth was only founded in verse five anyway).

But you say land animals do exist by verse nine, even though the psalmist doesn’t mention any until verse eleven. Are you saying the psalmist thought land animals and humans were too trivial to mention in verses seven and eight? And where does he say the waters receded to allow Noah to be born and build his ark, and where does he say they advanced a second time and then receded again post-Noah?

The psalmist would be well aware of the Noah tale, yet never mentions it. Unless the latest methodology is to first decide what we want the bible to say, then ignore what it actually says so as to shoehorn in our meaning, but I’ll stick with the ordinary rules of reading literature if you have no objections (and frankly even if you do ).

I don’t know why you say any of that. The psalm did not say animals do not exist until it mentions them. As it stands it does actually fit in quite well with the Noah story and geology.

 

[grannymh]

Ah, since you picked up the thread, thanks :flowers:
But you didn’t really answer my question, which was if the CCC, the Pope and the Bible spend a lot more time on Christ than Genesis, why do you think Genesis has assumed such importance to others, even in the face of evidence that it pushes young people out of church?

Emphasis mine.

Right back at you.:flowers: You young, sweet, intellectual Bible quoter.
First of all, I have not read all 50 chapters of Genesis so I have no clue why Genesis
has assumed such importance to others or how it assumed such importance to others.

Second, I learned Catholic doctrine before I opened a Bible so I do not do well in Scripture duels. However, when a particular Scripture verse (CAF mine quoting) interests me, I may go back to the Bible, read the entire context, footnotes, and occasionally the cross references. I should do this more often because often when I do, I find the basis or foundation for Catholic doctrines I learned in grade school. Talk about an eureka moment!

My point is that I need to know the Catholic doctrine in question before I can attempt to answer your questions and your reference to evidence.

Finally, being a nitty-gritty personality, I have, on my own, started exploring why Catholics are losing interest in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. When symbolism creeps into the basic Catholic understanding (transubstantiation) of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, participating in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass loses significance. (Note: please do not confuse add-on “symbolic” interpretation with Catholic definitions of reality.)

From my Catholic doctrine position, what you are implying about something in Genesis pushing young people away from “church” may also relate to a water-down version of the Catholic Eucharist.

For example – What I am seeing is that there are Catholics who openly declare that they do not believe in the doctrines of Adam and Eve, which include the origin of human nature, human’s relationship to our Creator, spiritual soul, Original Sin, and the essential relationship of the first human being with Jesus Christ.

These Catholics, who speak publically against Catholic doctrines, often refer to the popularity of science as if empirical science is the one and only source of all truth.** In other words, the message which these Catholics preach is that it is o.k. for Catholics not to believe individual Catholic Doctrines**. Why? Because the reality of Adam and Eve cannot be explicitly proven by scientific methods and materials.

These Catholics, who oppose Catholicism, will refer to “evidence” as if evidence has the power to dismiss God. These Catholics do so with the appeal – you got to be modern or otherwise you are…! Often these Catholics will talk about God in glowing terms . They talk about theology finally in dialogue with contemporary culture and modern science.

I believe that these Catholics. not all Catholics, are misusing science for whatever purpose they have. Science is a gift of love from God. Science has and always will benefit society. But the limitations of science must not be abused

Personally, I am not sure why some Catholics are turning against the Church founded by Jesus Christ. I am sure that the theological movement to change the Catholic Church consists of diverse individuals.

I am also sure that some of these individuals are innocent because they do not know how to deal with the pressure of media hype and the example of fellow Catholics.

In conclusion --which is not really a conclusion since there is a lot more I can say based on common advertising principles-- one needs to shift from a particular verse in the first three chapters to the message of those who dispute Catholic doctrine. The message is that everyone is free to replace reality with symbolism.

I cannot speak for other Christian Faiths. The Catholic Church has the guts to say that when it comes to the Catholic Deposit of Faith, Catholics are not free to replace reality with symbolism.

Blessings,
granny

Bible means: Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth

 

[tonyrey]

But saying that the emergence of the person requires the personal Factor as well as physical events isn’t really saying much, since God is included in everything - physical events themselves require the presence of God, therefore physical events can explain the person.

Defective logic!

It doesn’t follow from the fact that God creates everything that every thing can explain every other thing - and certainly not persons who are made in the image of God…

 

[grannymh]

Emphasis mine.

Right back at you.:flowers: You young, sweet, intellectual Bible quoter.
First of all, I have not read all 50 chapters of Genesis so I have no clue why Genesis
has assumed such importance to others or how it assumed such importance to others.

Second, I learned Catholic doctrine before I opened a Bible so I do not do well in Scripture duels. However, when a particular Scripture verse (CAF mine quoting) interests me, I may go back to the Bible, read the entire context, footnotes, and occasionally the cross references. I should do this more often because often when I do, I find the basis or foundation for Catholic doctrines I learned in grade school. Talk about an eureka moment!

My point is that I need to know the Catholic doctrine in question before I can attempt to answer your questions and your reference to evidence.

Finally, being a nitty-gritty personality, I have, on my own, started exploring why Catholics are losing interest in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. When symbolism creeps into the basic Catholic understanding (transubstantiation) of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, participating in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass loses significance. (Note: please do not confuse add-on “symbolic” interpretation with Catholic definitions of reality.)

From my Catholic doctrine position, what you are implying about something in Genesis pushing young people away from “church” may also relate to a water-down version of the Catholic Eucharist.

For example – What I am seeing is that there are Catholics who openly declare that they do not believe in the doctrines of Adam and Eve, which include the origin of human nature, human’s relationship to our Creator, spiritual soul, Original Sin, and the essential relationship of the first human being with Jesus Christ.

These Catholics, who speak publically against Catholic doctrines, often refer to the popularity of science as if empirical science is the one and only source of all truth.** In other words, the message which these Catholics preach is that it is o.k. for Catholics not to believe individual Catholic Doctrines**. Why? Because the reality of Adam and Eve cannot be explicitly proven by scientific methods and materials.

These Catholics, who oppose Catholicism, will refer to “evidence” as if evidence has the power to dismiss God. These Catholics do so with the appeal – you got to be modern or otherwise you are…! Often these Catholics will talk about God in glowing terms . They talk about theology finally in dialogue with contemporary culture and modern science.

I believe that these Catholics, not all Catholics, are misusing science for whatever purpose they have. Science is a gift of love from God. Science has and always will benefit society. But the limitations of science must not be abused

Personally, I am not sure why some Catholics are turning against the Church founded by Jesus Christ. I am sure that the theological movement to change the Catholic Church consists of diverse individuals.

I am also sure that some of these individuals are innocent because they do not know how to deal with the pressure of media hype and the example of fellow Catholics.

In conclusion --which is not really a conclusion since there is a lot more I can say based on common advertising principles-- one needs to shift from a particular verse in the first three chapters to the message of those who dispute Catholic doctrine. The message is that everyone is free to replace reality with symbolism.

I cannot speak for other Christian Faiths. The Catholic Church has the guts to say that when it comes to the Catholic Deposit of Faith, Catholics are not free to replace reality with symbolism.

Blessings,
granny

Bible means: Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth

 

[StAnastasia]

You could extend that. Any electrician who says “I know what I did looks a right mess, and it’s probably not up to code although I don’t really know what I’m doing, but God told me it won’t burn your house down so that’s OK then praise be” probably won’t get many recommendations, even from devout Christians.

Inocente, if he invoked God, could the electrician fix the mess?