Science and Catholicism

[scameter18]

I am curious about the relationship between science and Catholicism. From what I have seen, there are two different sides to science: the ancient, original scientific practice of the Middle Ages and subsequent Catholics who simply tried to study nature and understand it rationally. The other side is the one based on an atheistic preconceived paradigm that uses science to disprove God, to make life seem random, helpless, and materialistic, mostly by theories of an eternal universe and evolution, particularly the latter. Modern science almost exclusively follows the latter, so how can an orthodox Catholic trust in the validity of any modern scientific “discovery” without wondering if it was simply invented as a means of supporting atheism, besides purely right-in-front-of-you sciences like medicine and astronomy. Essentially, how should a Catholic approach modern science?

 

[Areopagite]

I am curious about the relationship between science and Catholicism. From what I have seen, there are two different sides to science: the ancient, original scientific practice of the Middle Ages and subsequent Catholics who simply tried to study nature and understand it rationally. The other side is the one based on an atheistic preconceived paradigm that uses science to disprove God, to make life seem random, helpless, and materialistic, mostly by theories of an eternal universe and evolution, particularly the latter. Modern science almost exclusively follows the latter, so how can an orthodox Catholic trust in the validity of any modern scientific “discovery” without wondering if it was simply invented as a means of supporting atheism, besides purely right-in-front-of-you sciences like medicine and astronomy. Essentially, how should a Catholic approach modern science?

Well, one thing, much to the scandal of militant atheists, most scientists believe in God. In fact, I somewhat recently talked to a German physicist who was traveling to various laboratories and institutions, and he said most scientists are actually Christian. He also said that the atheistic ones who push for disproving religion by means of certain physical theories are generally ones that aren’t serious scientists and really haven’t done anything except make a lot of pompous noise, pretending they know what they’re talking about. This was all quite a shock to me. Gradually, I found that this stereotypical image of the atheistic scientist has been conjured up by disgruntled pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-scientific people (often in academia) who aren’t really capable scientists and sometimes not even scientists at all. Most of the scientists in the modern era who have made significant discoveries have been Christian actually. That’s not to say that there haven’t been actually atheists and agnostics in the scientific community, and when there are, they are usually thrown into the spotlight by the certain influential modernist academia or media in a constant futile attempt to destroy Christianity (or whatever they’re trying to do).

It is indeed true that the loudest and most published philosophers of science* nowadays seem to be atheists or agnostics, but the actual scientists who are actually doing scientific experiments or applying science in practical and useful ways* are mostly theists and even Christian. So when you mean “modern science,” if you mean “science done in the modern era” then it is not to be condemned by Christians. If by “modern science” you mean “the modernist view of science” then, yes, it is to be condemned. The philosophy of science and the science itself are totally different things though. If scientific discoveries, therefore, are accepted in the wide scientific community, then the discoveries are probably genuine. If these discoveries are merely promulgated by the very outspoken and deceptively small anti-Christian section of scientists, then there is room for doubt. Time will tell, usually. Truth will come out after a few years, generally. Lies are flimsy things.

For what it’s worth, I’d like the wider society to return to the original usage of the word science. It used to mean “an organized body of knowledge” but now it just means “an organized body of knowledge pertaining only to physical universe.” The sense people get now because of this is that only the physical universe can really be understood clearly. But that’s garbage. Metaphysics, and philosophy in general, as developed by Aristotle and the Scholastics is extremely organized and coherent and actually very necessary for right understanding of the physical sciences. The physical sciences only job is to observe repetitions and measure material reality. Whenever one starts to think of something beyond that, it ceases to be a physical science and becomes a metaphysical science. That’s what the modernists try to do a lot of the time, they preach about metaphysical issues as if it’s a part of physics, whereas physics is only about physics, whereas metaphysics is about everything (b/c, by definition, metaphysics is the study of all being and how it relates to all possible sciences). The people who claim they are physical scientists and feel that they can talk about philosophical issues and about God and things really aren’t talking about physical science anymore and yet think they are and have the authority to because they are “scientists.” But really, they’re usually not even physical scientists but products of the corrupt and confused academia who have villainously brainwashed them.

Anyway, if nothing I said even remotely answered your question, I would ask for more specifics on what exactly you want to know. My apologies.

 

[RNRobert]

Well, one thing, much to the scandal of militant atheists, most scientists believe in God. In fact, I somewhat recently talked to a German physicist who was traveling to various laboratories and institutions, and he said most scientists are actually Christian. He also said that the atheistic ones who push for disproving religion by means of certain physical theories are generally ones that aren’t serious scientists and really haven’t done anything except make a lot of pompous noise, pretending they know what they’re talking about. This was all quite a shock to me. Gradually, I found that this stereotypical image of the atheistic scientist has been conjured up by disgruntled pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-scientific people (often in academia) who aren’t really capable scientists and sometimes not even scientists at all. Most of the scientists in the modern era who have made significant discoveries have been Christian actually. That’s not to say that there haven’t been actually atheists and agnostics in the scientific community, and when there are, they are usually thrown into the spotlight by the certain influential modernist academia or media in a constant futile attempt to destroy Christianity (or whatever they’re trying to do).

This reminds me of something G.K. Chesterton wrote in Orthodoxy:
“The agnostic doubts…because modern science is moving away from the supernatural, but it isn’t, it is moving towards the supernatural with the rapidity of a railway train.”

 

[tonyrey]

We should consider each alleged scientific discovery on its merits. We have nothing to fear from the truth whether it is scientific, metascientific, metaphysical, moral or mystical.

What we have to be on our guard against are distortions of the truth which occur when exaggerated claims are made for the implications of a scientific discovery, e.g. that a part of the brain has been located where decision-making or religious belief originates.

 

[scameter18]

Areopagite, you answered my question very well actually. But perhaps I can state it more simply and clearly: How can one discern between scientific claims that are distortions of the truth, and ones that are genuine facts? Since most of us can’t scientifically verify the claims ourselves.

 

[Areopagite]

Areopagite, you answered my question very well actually. But perhaps I can state it more simply and clearly: How can one discern between scientific claims that are distortions of the truth, and ones that are genuine facts? Since most of us can’t scientifically verify the claims ourselves.

Well, when it comes to alleged truths about physics, for example, sometimes there are really no ways to verify them (in one sense) unless we conduct the experiments ourselves (a posteriori vs. a priori knowledge … that jazz). And that’s not always possible. It’s actually an act of faith, I would say, or at least belief when, for example, I acknowledge the widely accept rate for the speed of light. I just generally accept or go along with what the scientific community says on matter of physics (though not with a particularly strong conviction, because sometimes they change their minds on some things), provided that they only talk about physics and not things outside the physical realm. Ultimately, I would say, it’s not too terribly important (at least for the average person) to be able to discern whether a discovery in the physical sciences is true or not … PROVIDED, once again, that such claims do not overstep their field into religion. Once again, physics is just about matter and not spirit. So, I guess to answer your question, when an alleged scientific discovery makes claims beyond its particular science, it is to be suspected and perhaps even condemned … but if an alleged scientific discovery makes claims within its proper science, you can say, “Okay, sure,” because it’s not too big a deal … and, yes, the discovery might be disproved later on, but it wouldn’t matter too much for you, because you would have had a kind of indifference or ambivalence to it in the first place. Not that physics is utterly unimportant to our religion, it’s just not that important for the average believer. People can become saints while believing gross scientific absurdities (St. Francis de Sales is an example … if anyone knows what I’m talking about). Nonetheless, the physical sciences when studied with their proper context can assist people in knowing God better, since creation is a reflection of the divine nature to some extent.

Does that answer your question? I think I’m more or less right here, but I may be missing another useful and important factor here. On the other hand, I might be totally off. Is there some particular kind of alleged scientific discovery that you’re thinking of that makes you ask this question, just out of curiosity?

 

[hatsoff]

Well, one thing, much to the scandal of militant atheists, most scientists believe in God. In fact, I somewhat recently talked to a German physicist who was traveling to various laboratories and institutions, and he said most scientists are actually Christian.

He appears to be mistaken. For the most recent polls (e.g. this one) indicate that only about 1/3 of scientists believe in any God at all, much less the Christian God.

However, polls are notoriously unreliable, and so he may be right, despite the evidence to the contrary. In any case, it really doesn’t matter. Scientists are experts on their respective specialties, not on the question of God’s existence or nonexistence.

Yet scientists also tend to be generally more intelligent and well-informed than non-scientists, and we should expect their intelligence to aid them in truth-seeking. If God does not exist, then it certainly makes sense to discover that, whatever the ratio within scientific communities, it is lower than the ratio outside those communities. Conversely, if God does exist, then the reason for the observed disparity is not at all clear.

He also said that the atheistic ones who push for disproving religion by means of certain physical theories are generally ones that aren’t serious scientists and really haven’t done anything except make a lot of pompous noise, pretending they know what they’re talking about. This was all quite a shock to me.

Perhaps this guy was the one making pompous noise.

I can’t imagine a respectable scientist who would ever claim to “disprove” God. Proof and disproof are left to math and logic. Even Dawkins has explained that he is technically agnostic, since he cannot disprove God.

 

[JDaniel]

This reminds me of something G.K. Chesterton wrote in Orthodoxy:
“The agnostic doubts…because modern science is moving away from the supernatural, but it isn’t, it is moving towards the supernatural with the rapidity of a railway train.”

That’s a Chesterton quote I haven’t heard before. It’s quite interesting, and, I think, true.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Areopagite, you answered my question very well actually. But perhaps I can state it more simply and clearly: How can one discern between scientific claims that are distortions of the truth, and ones that are genuine facts? Since most of us can’t scientifically verify the claims ourselves.

Personally, I regard any scientific claims with a willing suspension of disbelief, as if reading a novel and not knowing whether it is fiction or non-fiction. As soon as the claims begin to be used as an anti-God apologetics, I decide to look a little deeper. Then, if I find that the so-called scientists are pseudo-scientists, I cancel my willing suspension of disbelief post haste!

jd

 

[RNRobert]

That’s a Chesterton quote I haven’t heard before. It’s quite interesting, and, I think, true.

jd

It comes from his book Orthodoxy. I highly recommend reading it and another one of his works, The Everlasting Man.

 

[scameter18]

Areopagite, you answered it again pretty well really. I love science and thoroughly enjoy it, which is why I really dislike when scientists try to put their beliefs into their science, as both atheists and theists sometimes do, which goes against what the ancient Scholastic scientists taught in the Middle Ages about theology not mixing with science.

The main scientific fields that, I think, are most open to bias are theoretical (i.e. explanative and historical) sciences, such as evolution, cosmology, archaeology, paleantology, etc. Usually, with physical facts, there is little possible deception. But when trying to explain those facts and/or to explain history, it is always and inevitably vague and ambiguous, which allows room for people to make assertions that could or could not be true, but that they assert with absolute faith. For example, the claim by many scientists that life came about from a single cell completely from random natural occurances. That is absolutely unverifable - literally. It is impossible to prove that, because there are no fossils that far back, and we can’t currently go back in time. We can just guess. But from vague guess-work, many scientists have absolute faith that life arose in that way. That is not scientific, but they claim it is, and people trust them because they’re scientists, which apparently is a modern cleric. Like I say, how can you know what is true and what is not that scientists claim about theoretical and historical sciences, such as evolution, cosmology, etc.?

As evidence for my claim, see the difference between your claim, Areopagite, about the frequency of Christian scientists, and hatsoff’s claims.

 

[RoncalliM]

Its a sort of funny dichotomy the path this relationship has taken. People used to use religion to explain that which science could not, for example why the sun rises and sets, ect. Now we know that so much that we are IN AWE of how much we don’t know, which causes many people to come to religion. How big is the universe? Are we alone? How do genetics determine intelligence?

 

[scameter18]

Actually Catholic scholars throughout history haven’t used religion to explain what they could not. That was the problem with Aristotle, who attributed the motion of the planets to individual deities pushing them. The Church has always been distinct, and has formed the basis for modern science, by saying that the universe is not governed in every respect personally by God’s effort, but rather by laws that He establishes that govern the universe in a consistent, observable way. There are the same seasons every year, the same pattern of movement of the planets, and fundamental physical laws such as gravity and thermodynamics are laws, hence they consistently occur in nature. Now, common people may have used religion in that way, but the Church has and does not. The only thing that the Church says that God does directly in the physical world that science cannot really explain is the imparting of life to living things, and particularly the human soul to a newly-conceived person. But, that is about spiritual, supernatural things. They never claim that the physical processes in the womb can’t be explained scientifically.

 

[geometer]

I am curious about the relationship between science and Catholicism.

The father of experimental science was Roger Bacon who was a Roman catholic monk.

On Experimental science

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The father of experimental science was Roger Bacon who was a Roman catholic monk.

And Francis Bacon (no relation), the later philosopher who set down principles for the scientific method, was a Christian.

 

[Bluegoat]

Actually Catholic scholars throughout history haven’t used religion to explain what they could not. That was the problem with Aristotle, who attributed the motion of the planets to individual deities pushing them. The Church has always been distinct, and has formed the basis for modern science, by saying that the universe is not governed in every respect personally by God’s effort, but rather by laws that He establishes that govern the universe in a consistent, observable way. There are the same seasons every year, the same pattern of movement of the planets, and fundamental physical laws such as gravity and thermodynamics are laws, hence they consistently occur in nature. Now, common people may have used religion in that way, but the Church has and does not. The only thing that the Church says that God does directly in the physical world that science cannot really explain is the imparting of life to living things, and particularly the human soul to a newly-conceived person. But, that is about spiritual, supernatural things. They never claim that the physical processes in the womb can’t be explained scientifically.

Hmm, but perhaps by deities he meant a sort of disembodied principle? Though he seems to have imagined them to have a will, but then mathematical principles that describe physical realities, when combined with those realities in real life - do have a kind of power that the equations themselves don’t have on a page. That probably seems really unclear, these are my inner musings and I wouldn’t die to defend them - if we imagine the equation for relativity, we can picture it on a page and maybe even understand what it is describing. But it just sits there. But the reality it is describing, that the equation governs, is so powerful that it shapes the universe and determines how things behave in it. It does seem to have a kind of a will or fire in it that we can’t see in the plain descriptor. So I wonder if that is not what Aristotle was attempting to describe in a way appropriate to his setting. I’m not sure that it would be less accurate to call it a deity, really - the equation isn’t the real thing either. And in any case they were still dependent on the unmoved mover.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Not to mention Copernicus, who was a Catholic priest, and who led the way in producing the great achievements of modern science.

 

[RNRobert]

Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, was also a Catholic priest.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Georges LeMaitre, mathematician and astronomer, grandfather of the Big Bang theory, was also a Catholic priest. Einstein, at first opposed to the Big Bang, later admired LeMaitre for his genius.

 

[edwest2]

Areopagite, you answered my question very well actually. But perhaps I can state it more simply and clearly: How can one discern between scientific claims that are distortions of the truth, and ones that are genuine facts? Since most of us can’t scientifically verify the claims ourselves.

First, look at the various branches of science.

Astronomy: Only a small amount of actual matter exists in space. However, there have been recent claims regarding Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Neither has been proven. The point to watch out for are claims that the stars are a certain distance away. This is based on a phenomenon called “red shift,” which is currently being challenged. The stars may not be as far away as we once thought.

Biology: The one science which is the primary focus of atheists. It is currently being used to sell the idea that a self-generating machine called evolution selects self-generating organisms which inexplicably become more complex. There is currently no rational explanation as to why say, asexual cells developed into more complex sexual organisms or why fish became amphibians which became land dwelling creatures, or so the story goes.

In regard to human origins, there is a fictional story that at some point in human development, our hominid ancestors reached a level of “neurological awareness” and had souls dropped into them. This assigns the soul and even human consciousness to purely biological forces, which were explicitly not guided toward any goal.

Catholics should be careful as regards any scientific claim, or pseudo-scientific claim, that cannot be demonstrated by science. There are no peer reviewed science papers regarding the soul entering the supposed hominid line, thereby elevating us to being able to communicate with God.

For them, science has become the new circumcision, strongly suggesting that without acceptance of evolution, we are not being reasonable or rational. Do not be overly concerned aout this. As Pope Benedict stated regarding a certain remark made by Pope John Paul II and widely hailed by atheists/secularists: “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

The rest of biology, from the human genome to bioinformatics, is quite easy to comprehend and demonstrate. It deals exclusively with things that are alive right now.

Chemistry: Originally, plants and their parts were our medicines until synthetic substances appeared. Some of these began as dyes for fabrics which were discovered to have medicinal properties. Chemistry also provided fuel and lubricants and helped build the first nuclear reactor. It provided explosives and rocket fuel.

The Church founded universities which were later infiltrated by people who wanted to remove God by subtle and not so subtle means. Study history and go to your library. The internet is a good starting point but seeing the answers to your questions in print is the best way to go.

By their fruit you shall know them.

The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Catholic authors publish many books about many subjects that include the sciences. Consult them.

Peace,
Ed