Science and Catholicism

[buffalo]

Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It is limited to our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. It can say nothing about the supernatural. It therefore operates in a very limited sphere. It is poisoned by the a priori worldview of methodological naturalism. Science is provisional.

Empirical science is testable, repeatable and predictable.

Faith and reason cannot be opposed. Use caution when human a priori conclusions are used. The truth of God must illuminate these conclusions.

 

[WillieWonka]

We should keep in mind that everything a scientist thinks and believes is not science. He can have all kind sof opinions, but that doesn’t mean they are the product of the scientific method. He can also have speculations. That also does not mean they are the product of scientific method.

I would be very interested in hearing about any scientist who says the scientific method has validated the hypothesis that god does not exist.

 

[DOShea]

This ongoing debate really comes down to what philosophical view you hold, and that means what capabilities you assign to science. Ever since Emmanuel Kant drew a line in the sand between the metaphysical realm and the physical realm, scientists have been running around assuring everyone God cannot be known “by science.” Before that, you had people like Aquinas who saw no such hard and fast line; who saw that God’s interaction with the physical world could certainly be seen.

When you probe, you get the lecture on how science is this pure thing, totally unadulterated by the things of lesser intellect beings like people who believe things on faith, etc. You are assured that every scientific “fact” is backed by repeated, independent tests, carefully scrutinzed by vigorous probing by peer scientists, and on and on. You’d think it was easier to crack into Fort Knox than to slide a non-fact past “those in science.”

But such is far from true. We have anthropologists digging up monkey bones in a cave along with primitive tools and telling us the monkeys made them, must therefore have been hunters, intelligent, calculating, worked in cooperative groups and probably had a highly sophisticated communications to be able to work in concert. All this from some monkey skeletons and and some crude hammers.

It never seems to be given any consideration that the cave could have been a place where hunted monkeys were brought for killing and field dressing. Those hammers could have belonged to Joe Caveman, and he left them in the cave because he used them there.

We had Piltdown Man, the famous bogus fossil that lasted decades as a fraud. Haekel’s Embryo drawings, a deliberate fraud, exposed a century ago and still in some textbooks.
Recently the IPCC’s climate change model (the famous “hockey stick” graph) was found to be completely fraudulent, and that after the “scientist” who did it spent 3 years trying to keep his publicly funded data a secret. So science is not the pure thing it is often assumed to be.

Denying that nothing of God can be observed in science is a fallacy, and it is an arbitrarily chosen one at that. Science has no explanation for why, through a totally chance process, virtually every creature has two eyes. Why do some not have four when it would clearly improve their survival chances? Why haven’t wildebeests grown horns front and back by now to deter the attack of lions? Why, if we once had a tail, did we lose it - something that would obviously be extremely useful, especially carrying two armloads of groceries up to a closed door? What is the evidence for the reasons these things haven’t happened, nor anything predictable like them?

Some of the earliest fossils from the Cambrian and pre-Cambrian had extremely complex structures, the equal of many complex structures today. Trilobyte eyes are an example. What is the reason we see no progression of that eye, from simple to complex, only the sudden appearance of it as a complex structure, and then try to sell the idea that complexity is increasing when we know for a fact that all mutations represent a loss of genetic information, not a gain of more?

So there is plenty of speculation going on being sold as science. Some it requires just as much “faith” as it does to believe in a religion. But science has a fallback answer - "The theory is useful. as an explanation mechanism. So is Santa Claus if you’re dealing with a child. Is he scientific too?

 

[WillieWonka]

This ongoing debate really comes down to what philosophical view you hold, and that means what capabilities you assign to science. Ever since Emmanuel Kant drew a line in the sand between the metaphysical realm and the physical realm, scientists have been running around assuring everyone God cannot be known “by science.” Before that, you had people like Aquinas who saw no such hard and fast line; who saw that God’s interaction with the physical world could certainly be seen.

When you probe, you get the lecture on how science is this pure thing, totally unadulterated by the things of lesser intellect beings like people who believe things on faith, etc. You are assured that every scientific “fact” is backed by repeated, independent tests, carefully scrutinzed by vigorous probing by peer scientists, and on and on. You’d think it was easier to crack into Fort Knox than to slide a non-fact past “those in science.”

But such is far from true. We have anthropologists digging up monkey bones in a cave along with primitive tools and telling us the monkeys made them, must therefore have been hunters, intelligent, calculating, worked in cooperative groups and probably had a highly sophisticated communications to be able to work in concert. All this from some monkey skeletons and and some crude hammers.

It never seems to be given any consideration that the cave could have been a place where hunted monkeys were brought for killing and field dressing. Those hammers could have belonged to Joe Caveman, and he left them in the cave because he used them there.

We had Piltdown Man, the famous bogus fossil that lasted decades as a fraud. Haekel’s Embryo drawings, a deliberate fraud, exposed a century ago and still in some textbooks.
Recently the IPCC’s climate change model (the famous “hockey stick” graph) was found to be completely fraudulent, and that after the “scientist” who did it spent 3 years trying to keep his publicly funded data a secret. So science is not the pure thing it is often assumed to be.

Denying that nothing of God can be observed in science is a fallacy, and it is an arbitrarily chosen one at that. Science has no explanation for why, through a totally chance process, virtually every creature has two eyes. Why do some not have four when it would clearly improve their survival chances? Why haven’t wildebeests grown horns front and back by now to deter the attack of lions? Why, if we once had a tail, did we lose it - something that would obviously be extremely useful, especially carrying two armloads of groceries up to a closed door? What is the evidence for the reasons these things haven’t happened, nor anything predictable like them?

Some of the earliest fossils from the Cambrian and pre-Cambrian had extremely complex structures, the equal of many complex structures today. Trilobyte eyes are an example. What is the reason we see no progression of that eye, from simple to complex, only the sudden appearance of it as a complex structure, and then try to sell the idea that complexity is increasing when we know for a fact that all mutations represent a loss of genetic information, not a gain of more?

So there is plenty of speculation going on being sold as science. Some it requires just as much “faith” as it does to believe in a religion. But science has a fallback answer - "The theory is useful. as an explanation mechanism. So is Santa Claus if you’re dealing with a child. Is he scientific too?

Of course there is speculation going on in science. That is how a hypothesis is developed. If one understand the scientific method, one can discriminate between speculation, hypothesis, experiment, and scientific theory.

 

[johngh]

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.

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.

Every evidence i’ve ever read states that the majority of good scientists, specifically physicists, do believe in God, or at the very least believe in intelligent design. The reason for this being that modern science supports the idea of intelligent design far more than it doesn’t. And to say science has nothing to do with God existence I think is a bad viewpoint. Both science and philosophy seek the truth, through different means. If the truth is that God exists, both science and philosophy should at the very least point in that direction (assuming humanity isn’t just plain stupid, which is a very debatable topic). And guess what, both science and philosophy DO point towards God.

 

[hatsoff]

Every evidence i’ve ever read states that the majority of good scientists, specifically physicists, do believe in God, or at the very least believe in intelligent design. The reason for this being that modern science supports the idea of intelligent design far more than it doesn’t. And to say science has nothing to do with God existence I think is a bad viewpoint. Both science and philosophy seek the truth, through different means. If the truth is that God exists, both science and philosophy should at the very least point in that direction (assuming humanity isn’t just plain stupid, which is a very debatable topic). And guess what, both science and philosophy DO point towards God.

I might be able to buy that the Pew poll was somehow radically mistaken, and that most scientists do believe in God. After all, polls are notoriously unreliable. But in order for me to be convinced of that, I’ll need some very strong competing evidence to that effect. So should you, since you are now, like me, aware of the Pew poll.

What makes this so ridiculous, though, is the idea that most scientists believe in the pseudoscience which is Intelligent Design. You are referring to the Behe/Dembski claims, right? If so, then please chew on this list of scientific societies rejecting ID, for example.

 

[buffalo]

Every evidence i’ve ever read states that the majority of good scientists, specifically physicists, do believe in God, or at the very least believe in intelligent design. The reason for this being that modern science supports the idea of intelligent design far more than it doesn’t. And to say science has nothing to do with God existence I think is a bad viewpoint. Both science and philosophy seek the truth, through different means. If the truth is that God exists, both science and philosophy should at the very least point in that direction (assuming humanity isn’t just plain stupid, which is a very debatable topic). And guess what, both science and philosophy DO point towards God.

Most biologists are atheists.

 

[WillieWonka]

Every evidence i’ve ever read states that the majority of good scientists, specifically physicists, do believe in God, or at the very least believe in intelligent design. The reason for this being that modern science supports the idea of intelligent design far more than it doesn’t. And to say science has nothing to do with God existence I think is a bad viewpoint. Both science and philosophy seek the truth, through different means. If the truth is that God exists, both science and philosophy should at the very least point in that direction (assuming humanity isn’t just plain stupid, which is a very debatable topic). And guess what, both science and philosophy DO point towards God.

How does one gather evidence on what “good scientists” believe? Is there a poll that includes a question asking, “Are you a good scientist?”

To say science has nothig to do with god is a very valid viewpoint. Science uses the scientific method, not faith. Philosophy and theology are free to use faith.

 

[Bluegoat]

How does one gather evidence on what “good scientists” believe? Is there a poll that includes a question asking, “Are you a good scientist?”

To say science has nothig to do with god is a very valid viewpoint. Science uses the scientific method, not faith. Philosophy and theology are free to use faith.

That’s kind of funny. I guess you would find scientists that have articles published in reputable journals and are employed by reputable universities etc.

I’ve seen varying results from such polls. Part of the problem seems to be how the question is defined. If you ask if they belong to an organized religion, or there is some underlying first principle, you can get quite a different answer. There are a fair number of deists among scientists for example, but depending on the question, that could get missed. Even more so with a pantheist.

I’ve seen similar polls for philosophers, but they really run into trouble defining who counts as a philosopher, and I think are not very accurate.

Anecdotally, I have met a lot of Christian physicists, and more that were deists. Physics does seem to be fairly compatible with, even lead to, the kind of questions and ideas that support belief in god. Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising given how mathematical physics is - it is already talking about non-material unchanging things that have a real existence of their own. I wonder if it also applies to mathematicians? I don’t know any so I have no clue.

 

[WillieWonka]

That’s kind of funny. I guess you would find scientists that have articles published in reputable journals and are employed by reputable universities etc.

I’ve seen varying results from such polls. Part of the problem seems to be how the question is defined. If you ask if they belong to an organized religion, or there is some underlying first principle, you can get quite a different answer. There are a fair number of deists among scientists for example, but depending on the question, that could get missed. Even more so with a pantheist.

I’ve seen similar polls for philosophers, but they really run into trouble defining who counts as a philosopher, and I think are not very accurate.

Anecdotally, I have met a lot of Christian physicists, and more that were deists. Physics does seem to be fairly compatible with, even lead to, the kind of questions and ideas that support belief in god. Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising given how mathematical physics is - it is already talking about non-material unchanging things that have a real existence of their own. I wonder if it also applies to mathematicians? I don’t know any so I have no clue.

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.

 

[edwest2]

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.”

Science is not free from personal biases and personal agendas. PZ Myers, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, all using the same ‘mountains of evidence’ to say: We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more."

This is idolatry. The idea that the mind of man is somehow full of knowledge that rejects religion. Christopher Hitchens in the National Catholic Register: If we had known then what we now know, would we have ever become religious?" An incredibly illogical standpoint, especially from the carved in stone rule that science can never know or study the supernatural.

What is the difference between a child born 2,000 years ago and one born today? Nothing. The only difference is we flash these devices in front of him: this is a TV, this is a cell phone, this is an MP3 player, this is a car… instead of parchment, a horse and a plow.

Science is only important today because for some, science = evolution, the idea that nothing created life, human beings and everything around us. And you, yes, you, must accept that or ‘we’ will be back everyday to get you to just say yes.

Idolatry. Evolution is a pillar of atheism. Prior to the publication of Darwin’s book, most scientists were Christians, spurred by a search for the truth by The Truth. Now, science is divorced from truth in that it wants man to be knower of all things, which, so far, has led him to nothing has made him, nothing cares about his existence and nothing happens after he dies. This is nihilism. Feeling good today? So what? It’s just neurons firing – doesn’t mean anything.

God forbid,
Ed

 

[DOShea]

Of course there is speculation going on in science. That is how a hypothesis is developed. If one understand the scientific method, one can discriminate between speculation, hypothesis, experiment, and scientific theory.

Speculation has a place in forming hypothesis, absolutely. That’s not what I’m speaking of. I am speaking of some of the conclusions that science takes axiomatically long before there is any evidence that would stand up to the scientific method.

Take the formation of stars for example. We - humanity - has never seen a single star form. Do you deny that science holds it as a truth that stars form in nebulous regions of space? Where is the evidence? Where is the star that formed, in which nebula, and when? Where is the repeatability so often touted in scientific method? Ahhh, minor inconvenience.

In another thread on this forum regarding evolution a poster stated the we know we (humans) have evolved, meaning from something into us. Again, where is this evidence, who independently tested it, when did it repeated? Where are the parent and son or daughter skeletons, offspring something different than the parents? Oh, slow gradual change was it? Where is the random sample ever X generations to demonstrate it? Science holds evolution as if it were a fact, and they have yet to prove it.

When science claims they have no ability or means to detect or sample God, it does not mean that God can not be present in science. Science says, “we can’t explain miracles,” and that might be so in terms of the cause or the method, but they CAN serve as the testing bed that rejects other normal explanations. One part of the scientific method is the ability to independently verify OR falsify a hypothesis. In that way, limiting themselves to what they can detect, test, or know, they serve as the “falsifier” of what would be a an otherwise normal explanation for a posed miracle. When a person is covered in 3rd degree burns and given no chance for survival, the doctor who finds the person still alive the next day and unwraps the dressings to find not only no burns, but NEW skin, as in the skin of a baby, covering the burned areas can certainly say with all scientific validity, “this is beyond any natural cause.” Did they “prove” God? No, but they can eliminate human cause. I think most people are capable of taking it from there.

 

[WillieWonka]

Speculation has a place in forming hypothesis, absolutely. That’s not what I’m speaking of. I am speaking of some of the conclusions that science takes axiomatically long before there is any evidence that would stand up to the scientific method.

Take the formation of stars for example. We - humanity - has never seen a single star form. Do you deny that science holds it as a truth that stars form in nebulous regions of space? Where is the evidence? Where is the star that formed, in which nebula, and when? Where is the repeatability so often touted in scientific method? Ahhh, minor inconvenience.

In another thread on this forum regarding evolution a poster stated the we know we (humans) have evolved, meaning from something into us. Again, where is this evidence, who independently tested it, when did it repeated? Where are the parent and son or daughter skeletons, offspring something different than the parents? Oh, slow gradual change was it? Where is the random sample ever X generations to demonstrate it? Science holds evolution as if it were a fact, and they have yet to prove it.

When science claims they have no ability or means to detect or sample God, it does not mean that God can not be present in science. Science says, “we can’t explain miracles,” and that might be so in terms of the cause or the method, but they CAN serve as the testing bed that rejects other normal explanations. One part of the scientific method is the ability to independently verify OR falsify a hypothesis. In that way, limiting themselves to what they can detect, test, or know, they serve as the “falsifier” of what would be a an otherwise normal explanation for a posed miracle. When a person is covered in 3rd degree burns and given no chance for survival, the doctor who finds the person still alive the next day and unwraps the dressings to find not only no burns, but NEW skin, as in the skin of a baby, covering the burned areas can certainly say with all scientific validity, “this is beyond any natural cause.” Did they “prove” God? No, but they can eliminate human cause. I think most people are capable of taking it from there.

“When science claims they have no ability or means to detect or sample God, it does not mean that God can not be present in science.”

Of ourse it means that. So what? Everyone else is free to include god in whatever they want to do. Go for it.

The problem the god folks face is their philosophy, theology, and explanations don’t have the credibility with the population that science has. That’s a fault of philosophy, theology, and its advocates. It’s not science’s problem.

Science has pursued excellence and it has been recognized. I suggest philosophy and theology do the same rather than demand science fall back into their grasping hands of mediocrity.

 

[Fran65]

Most leading scientists reject God.

This does not seem to be true:

**Nobel Scientists (20-21 Century) **
Albert Einstein Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Max Planck Nobel Laureate in Physics Protestant
Erwin Schrodinger Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic
Werner Heisenberg Nobel Laureate in Physics Lutheran
Robert Millikan Nobel Laureate in Physics probably Congregationalist
Charles Hard Townes Nobel Laureate in Physics United Church of Christ (raised Baptist)
Arthur Schawlow Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist
William D. Phillips Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist
William H. Bragg Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican
Guglielmo Marconi Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic and Anglican
Arthur Compton Nobel Laureate in Physics Presbyterian
Arno Penzias Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Nevill Mott Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican
Isidor Isaac Rabi Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Abdus Salam Nobel Laureate in Physics Muslim
Antony Hewish Nobel Laureate in Physics Christian (denomination?)
Joseph H. Taylor, Jr. Nobel Laureate in Physics Quaker
Alexis Carrel Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
John Eccles Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
Joseph Murray Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
Ernst Chain Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish
George Wald Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish
Ronald Ross Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Christian (denomination?)
Derek Barton Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?)
Christian Anfinsen Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish
Walter Kohn Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish
Richard Smalley Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (?denomination)
adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html

In the US, according to a survey published in Nature in 1997, four out of 10 scientists believe in God. Just over 45% said they did not believe, and 14.5% described themselves as doubters or agnostics. This ratio of believers to non-believers had not changed in 80 years. guardian.co.uk/science/2003/sep/04/science.research

The survey referred to actually asked about a personal God, not a non interventionist God. This means that a higher proportion may believe in God than concluded by Larson’s 1987 survey.

 

[edwest2]

Would you like a link to PZ Myers’ youtube interview? He goes on to say that Richard Dawkins, not Kenneth Miller, would be a better front man for the scientific community. Evolution, like approval for abortion, is a litmus test for being sane, rational, etc., both from the scientific community and the media at large.

I suggest you read this article from the journal, Nature.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

It is clear to me that whatever scientific merit there may be in evolutionary science, it has been seized upon by some as the false god of the 21st Century. “Nothing” is worshipped, the mind of man, which came from nothing, is worshipped, and every scientific discipline that gives support to this idea is worshipped.

The current belief is that Science, Meaning The Mind of Man, will save us, cure us, entertain us, and give us explanations and approval for anything we want to do. How many times have I read over the years that eating this or drinking that will kill you or at least lead to grave ill effects, to only read several months later, that the same things are good for you?

The other Idol being worshipped currently is Change. I’m bored - everything’s gotta change. I want to be amused.

My brothers and sisters in Christ. Read up on science, but realize that too many people post here, mixing science with religion and drawing conclusions that science cannot demonstrate, all to separate man from his creator.

Adam and Eve? No evidence.

Global Flood? No evidence.

Jesus Christ? Maybe he lived, maybe not, but he sure wasn’t any God.

Science is going to have the final word on the work of God? The carved in stone rule is that science is silent about the supernatural. That’s certainly not true here.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Fran65]

Hi Ed,

It seems that science here is being confounded by scientism. Having been educated as a scientist (albeit in Psychology) and working as head of a science department (teaching) I know how easy this is to do. Many of my colleagues are surprised by my Catholicism simply because of my professional position and my belief in how useful and interesting science is.

I would never support or condone scientism however. This is a whole philosophy that the only way to the whole truth about the world and the universe is through science. The position that opposition to abortion is based on unfounded beliefs is an example of scientism - as you point out. Scientism is also the belief that only what is empirical and observable is worth discussing and nothing else counts as evidence or should be used to draw conclusions and form theories.

The dangers of confounding science with scientism are similar to those confounding Catholicism with fundamentalism.

 

[edwest2]

Hi Fran,

That’s the thing, isn’t it? Politics and the media in the States have conspired to make amorality and immorality the things to think about.

Fact: We all began life as human embryos. Yet a major local newspaper tells its readers that only ‘religious nuts’ are against embryonic stem cell research.

I think it disturbs compassionate Christians that experts would perpetuate such a falsehood. I don’t want to think evil of others or that people in a position to know would lie to me. I have, however, have had to adjust to the reality that deception is going on, and that sometimes, ‘facts’ are not factual.

On the internet, I am too often confronted by the insistence argument, which by weight of repetition, seeks to establish a too often, false “truth.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Fran65]

Yet a major local newspaper tells its readers that only ‘religious nuts’ are against embryonic stem cell research.

I think it disturbs compassionate Christians that experts would perpetuate such a falsehood.

One of the major problems is that science is written about by journalists and used by politicians. Neither of these groups are objective and they both have their own agendas. This means that we don’t get honest reporting and discussion of either science or Catholicism.

It is of primary importance that people are educated and well informed about both of these areas.

For example, science actually gives society more of the evidence needed to stop abortion. It has demonstrated that the foetus feels pain, that the foetus responds to stimuli including sound and light in utero from an early stage and that the foetus can survive from 22 weeks. This of course is in addition to the fact that the embryo and foetus is a human life; but for those whom don’t accept this as a good enough reason, the scientific evidence should give them pause…

This is just one of the ways in which Catholicism and science can work together.

 

[edwest2]

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

 

[geometer]

This does not seem to be true:

The survey referred to actually asked about a personal God, not a non interventionist God. This means that a higher proportion may believe in God than concluded by Larson’s 1987 survey.

I read somewhere that 80% of scientists with PhDs attend a house of worship every week.

Freeman Dyson