Science and Catholicism

[johngh]

Most leading scientists reject God. The evidence is clear that their work has led them in this direction. I don’t think such men just wake up one day and say, “You know, I think I’ll just stop believing in God today.”

Ed

This is out and out just simply not true as has been stated many times. The real fact is that most great scientists DO believe in God. Modern science does not lead scientists away from God, it leads them straight to God. Just go read a book on modern physics and you will see that though it obviously doesn’t “prove” the existence of God, it most definitely points in His direction. Somehow though the incorrect notion that scientists and educated people are mostly atheist has been propagated in our society even though it is a blatant lie.

 

[WillieWonka]

I think the average person is simply filled with whatever the major newsfeeds put out. Facts are usually the first casualties of any conflict.

That said, the Church continues to publish relevant facts. Thank God.

Peace,
Ed

The average person doesn’t understand the scientific method and his ignorance condemns him to being manipulated by whatever fraud comes along. These can be media, politicians, or religious advocates.

 

[Bluegoat]

The average person doesn’t understand the scientific method and his ignorance condemns him to being manipulated by whatever fraud comes along. These can be media, politicians, or religious advocates.

I’ve met a few graduate students in the sciences who didn’t understand the scientific method, which is a rather terrible thing. They of course tended to make statements about science that weren’t really true, without any ill-intent at all.

 

[antunesaa]

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.

This “scientists beliefs” talk is of course completely irrelevant, as if the opinion of scientists on God were especially relevant. Like their opinion on love, for instance, which is also quite irrelevant and probably deleterious to most people. Anyway, the number of scientists declaring themselves atheists or agnostics is 28%, slightly above one quarter. This is still a minority. The same with those saying they don’t believe in any metaphysical being - 41%, still a minority. Within scientists usually those of physics and mathematics tend to be more religious than those from human sciences, like anthropologists or sociologists.

 

[edwest2]

The average person doesn’t understand the scientific method and his ignorance condemns him to being manipulated by whatever fraud comes along. These can be media, politicians, or religious advocates.

Method shmethod. No one needs to know the scientific method. Propaganda can come from all sides but people do love the truth. In my years in publishing, I have heard from many people who admire truth and honesty.

For the Catholic, we must follow the words of Jesus: By their fruit you shall know them.

Once we are made aware of the intentions of the people trying to move us in this or that bad direction, we can avoid the deception they are selling.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Cecilianus]

Non-material? I don’t think they even know what material is. Nor are they sure what the difference between material and energy is. And they dont know what energy is. So, there’s quite a long path before them.

My hope is that this “long path” will lead to a real, true, and scientifically-grounded metaphysics (to answer the questions as to what matter is, what energy is, etc.) which can replace defunct Aristotelianism. But, without having answered those questions explicitly, we’ve still talked about non-material permanent realities. It’s called mathematics.

 

[WillieWonka]

Method shmethod. No one needs to know the scientific method. Propaganda can come from all sides but people do love the truth. In my years in publishing, I have heard from many people who admire truth and honesty.

For the Catholic, we must follow the words of Jesus: By their fruit you shall know them.

Once we are made aware of the intentions of the people trying to move us in this or that bad direction, we can avoid the deception they are selling.

Peace,
Ed

You illustrate the problem perfectly.

 

[Bluegoat]

My hope is that this “long path” will lead to a real, true, and scientifically-grounded metaphysics (to answer the questions as to what matter is, what energy is, etc.) which can replace defunct Aristotelianism. But, without having answered those questions explicitly, we’ve still talked about non-material permanent realities. It’s called mathematics.

You know, I think that Aristotelian and Platonism both have a lot more in common with modern physics than many give them credit for. Form and matter, for example, both have, to my mind, clear relationships to some of the questions modern physics considers. I tend to think about Form, for example, as having a very close resemblance to mathematical relationships - and I think one could make a good argument that Plato may have thought the same.

 

[Cecilianus]

You know, I think that Aristotelian and Platonism both have a lot more in common with modern physics than many give them credit for. Form and matter, for example, both have, to my mind, clear relationships to some of the questions modern physics considers. I tend to think about Form, for example, as having a very close resemblance to mathematical relationships - and I think one could make a good argument that Plato may have thought the same.

And what we call “energy” corresponds perfectly to what Aristotle called “prime matter”. Aristotle’s notion of space is also closer to Einstein’s than to Newton’s (though the Aristotelian rejection of the vacuum is wrong). But the neo-Thomism taught in Catholic colleges today is unfortunately very anti-scientific - which is baffling to me, since the two ought to learn from each other, both of them seeking truth. I would like to rewrite (or see someone else) rewrite the entire Thomistic metaphysical synthesis based on modern science rather than Aristotle’s physics, which was flawed in many aspects. Unfortunately, few Thomists seem to like that idea.

 

[Bluegoat]

And what we call “energy” corresponds perfectly to what Aristotle called “prime matter”. Aristotle’s notion of space is also closer to Einstein’s than to Newton’s (though the Aristotelian rejection of the vacuum is wrong). But the neo-Thomism taught in Catholic colleges today is unfortunately very anti-scientific - which is baffling to me, since the two ought to learn from each other, both of them seeking truth. I would like to rewrite (or see someone else) rewrite the entire Thomistic metaphysical synthesis based on modern science rather than Aristotle’s physics, which was flawed in many aspects. Unfortunately, few Thomists seem to like that idea.

I am so pleased that someone else doesn’t think I am nuts. I haven’t ever heard anyone expound this POV, and so I thought I might be way off base, especially since I have no real background in physics and don’t even know what calculus is.

I think what you propose would be an excellent idea, though I think it would also be worthwhile to consider Aristotle directly in the same way.

I wonder if perhaps part of the problem isn’t the specialized nature of the academic world at the present time. As far as I can gather, it is even worse in parts of Europe than in North America. But it might be an excellent project for a philosopher with a physics background and a physicist with a background in philosophy to tackle together.

But it does seem odd given Thomas’ conviction that truth was a unity and the material world was a valid object for study that modern Thomists would not be more interested.

 

[alforo]

Areopagite has provided a succinct response to the question of science vs religion. What scientists have to say about religion has no more weight than what anybody else has to say about it. Scientists can only validate what they say by experimentation. If they did not conduct a lab experiment to base an opinion on then the opinion is just that - an opinion or pure speculation. Even a cursory study of science shows that every scientific law has been based on experiments and those experiments have only been conducted as applied to the physical material world.

 

[Cecilianus]

I am so pleased that someone else doesn’t think I am nuts. I haven’t ever heard anyone expound this POV, and so I thought I might be way off base, especially since I have no real background in physics and don’t even know what calculus is.

I think what you propose would be an excellent idea, though I think it would also be worthwhile to consider Aristotle directly in the same way.

I wonder if perhaps part of the problem isn’t the specialized nature of the academic world at the present time. As far as I can gather, it is even worse in parts of Europe than in North America. But it might be an excellent project for a philosopher with a physics background and a physicist with a background in philosophy to tackle together.

But it does seem odd given Thomas’ conviction that truth was a unity and the material world was a valid object for study that modern Thomists would not be more interested.

Simple explanation of calculus: Study of motion, or, more precisely, rates of motion. Basically trying to find the slope of a function in terms of “x” (so, for example, the slope of the equation “y = x-squared” is always going to be “2x”, no matter where you are on the graph). Now you know

I do agree with you about the specialized nature of academia. I tried double-majoring in philosophy and physics in order to bridge the gap, but none of my philosophy professors seemed interested - they just wanted me to study medieval texts without deviating from what the texts were saying, and forget about modern science. Apparently it’s been “corrupting my mind” by turning me into too much of a nominalist. It may just be a quirk at my particular college, but it is frustrating when every single professor simply scoffs at science, and then teaches a version of Thomism so silly that I wonder whether they understand it themselves.

So I am a physics major, even though philosophy is really the only thing I’m interested in. Physics is my philosophy.

 

[antunesaa]

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

George Lemaître was a catholic priest and astronomer. He is the inventor of the Big Bang theory in cosmology.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

 

[Bluegoat]

Simple explanation of calculus: Study of motion, or, more precisely, rates of motion. Basically trying to find the slope of a function in terms of “x” (so, for example, the slope of the equation “y = x-squared” is always going to be “2x”, no matter where you are on the graph). Now you know

I do agree with you about the specialized nature of academia. I tried double-majoring in philosophy and physics in order to bridge the gap, but none of my philosophy professors seemed interested - they just wanted me to study medieval texts without deviating from what the texts were saying, and forget about modern science. Apparently it’s been “corrupting my mind” by turning me into too much of a nominalist. It may just be a quirk at my particular college, but it is frustrating when every single professor simply scoffs at science, and then teaches a version of Thomism so silly that I wonder whether they understand it themselves.

So I am a physics major, even though philosophy is really the only thing I’m interested in. Physics is my philosophy.

My university now has a history of science and technology program - it wasn’t there when I attended, but it seems popular. I can see them doing a project like that, there are also a lot of Thomists there, as it was once an Anglican theological school, and has still got a lot of classics types.

 

[Cecilianus]

George Lemaître was a catholic priest and astronomer. He is the inventor of the Big Bang theory in cosmology.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

One could also mention Abbe Breuil for his work on human evolution.

 

[buffalo]

Rebutting Methodological Materialism - interview with Angus Menuge

 

[liquidpele]

Rebutting Methodological Materialism - interview with Angus Menuge

How many threads are you planning to post that to? I count three so far…

 

[DashMN]

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.

Could you clarify those remarks? Because they seem to stand in stark opposition to the quote below attributed to Pope Benedict XVI in the book, Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo where he appears to be telling the very “fictional story” you mentioned. Admittedly, he doesn’t claim it to be scientific, but I would have thought his ideas would carry some weight.

The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of “God.” The first Thou that – however stammeringly – was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man . . . herein . . . lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.

Benedict’s statement would seem to agree with John Paul II’s Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: On evolution on October 22, 1996 in which he stated…

With man, we find ourselves facing a different ontological order—an ontological leap, we could say. But in posing such a great ontological discontinuity, are we not breaking up the physical continuity which seems to be the main line of research about evolution in the fields of physics and chemistry? … The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way—although we can nevertheless discern, through experimental research, a series of very valuable signs of what is specifically human life. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-consciousness and self-awareness, of moral conscience, of liberty, or of aesthetic and religious experience—these must be analyzed through philosophical reflection, while theology seeks to clarify the ultimate meaning of the Creator’s designs.

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.”

While Benedict did, in fact, make that statement, that too seems to present a different version than was presented in Communion and Stewardship, by the International Theological Commission, which was endorsed by its then president, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. I refer specifically to paragraph 63, where it is stated…

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens.

Benedict has also called the battle between creationism and evolution, “an absurdity”.

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

With all due respect Ed, I have consulted them, and they seem to disagree with some of your statements.