Science and faith as complementary

[Abu]

If we accept “faith” to be the Catholic faith of dogma and doctrine, then yes, true science and Catholicism are complementary as both come from the one God.

As science consists of an organized effort to explain natural phenomena, why did this effort take root in Europe and nowhere else? Because Christianity depicted God as a rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being, and the universe as his personal creation. The natural world was thus understood to have a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting (indeed, inviting) human comprehension.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I
As science consists of an organized effort to explain natural phenomena, why did this effort take root in Europe and nowhere else? Because Christianity depicted God as a rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being, and the universe as his personal creation.

Christianity was never a European-exclusive religion. African, Middle Eastern and Far Eastern science was more advanced than European science for centuries.

Otherwise, sure.

The natural world was thus understood to have a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting (indeed, inviting) human comprehension.

So we have to avoid supernatural non-answers, preferring natural answers to them when possible.

 

[JJATerstegge]

They may not allow speaking of anything but the religion and God they believe (Or want to believe) in. But to close one’s eyes and mind to something written and said by people who at the time had no communication to the rest of the world. Is by way of not truly having faith in what your religion has to offer you.
Jesus said that the entire world is Gods children as so by that statement, he has said that all religion and “Idles” worshiped is by way a path back to the one true God “His Father”.
We would be narrow minded to think that something said over 3000 years ago could be the only truth if by way of promise, such as the 2nd coming in a millennium (which had not came 3 times) as to be the one true God. Or Religion in that fact.
The Bible or Dead Sea scrolls have been written and told as the true truth by those who have profited by financial gains of one type or another. You will be hard to find any belief or religion that does not have a financial gain tied to it in some way.
If we cannot speak to the very God or through his disciples of other worldly ways, and have not been contacted by them by way or modern communication convenience.
In the past 100 years or so, then it is proven to be irresponsible of those who wrote the Bible and run religious institutions in modern day to admit that something may have been wrong about what has been written so long ago and to have been followed for so long without some reserve about it. If not an Angel or Apostle as a representative from heaven or where ever, then who can we believe is telling the truth or a night time bed story from 3000 years ago? We cannot believe what the Pope or Priest say if its only from the Bible “an unproven document of either fact or fiction”.

 

[Abu]

VeritasLuxMea #22
African, Middle Eastern and Far Eastern science was more advanced than European science for centuries.

In Catholicism and Science, Rodney Stark (from Catalyst 9/2004) points out that:
“Alfred North Whitehead, the great philosopher and mathematician, co-author with Bertrand Russell of the landmark Principia Mathematica, credited “medieval theology” for the rise of science. He pointed to the “insistence on the rationality of God,” which produced the belief that “the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith.”

“To sum up: The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: Nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Moreover, because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation it ought to be possible to discover these principles. These crucial religious ideas were why the rise of science occurred in Christian Europe, not somewhere else.”

 

[buffalo]

To believe something without evidence is not scientific, faith is not needing evidence. There are scientists who believe unscientific things, but they don’t apply those thoughts to their science. Issac Newton believed in alchemy, it doesn’t mean that alchemy isn’t nonsense. To say that there is no issue with faith in science is true in the sense that you can ignore the contradictions. If you think that faith and science go well together then use faith as a justification in a scientific paper and see how it goes. Also it seems like you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the moral philosophy that you claim atheists have. You can chose to define the word morality however you like, in that sense it is subjective. Saying that it’s what god commands doesn’t make it any less subjective, you just subjectively chose to use the definition that the church has provided for you. I subjectively chose to base my morality on the real suffering and happiness of other people. If you use that standard, things like telling a person who is attracted to the same sex that they have an “inherent moral evil” is morally reprehensible. Especially since you have no evidence for such a claim. Faith may be a high enough standard for you, but it’s not good enough to tell other people how to live their lives. Good day sir.

Are you kidding?

Belief in additional dimensions or even multiverses?

 

[MWin]

In Catholicism and Science, Rodney Stark (from Catalyst 9/2004) points out that:
“Alfred North Whitehead, the great philosopher and mathematician, co-author with Bertrand Russell of the landmark Principia Mathematica, credited “medieval theology” for the rise of science. He pointed to the “insistence on the rationality of God,” which produced the belief that “the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith.”

“To sum up: The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: Nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Moreover, because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation it ought to be possible to discover these principles. These crucial religious ideas were why the rise of science occurred in Christian Europe, not somewhere else.”

I wrote an article about the never-ceasing calumniation of the Middle Ages. Although people functioned differently, this introverted epoch has laid the foundation of modern European consciousness.

Understanding European psychology

~ European psychology and its rooting in the interiority of Christian Middle Ages ~

Keywords: introversion, Middle Ages, history of science, Islam, cultural clashes, locus of control.

Read the article here:
home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/interiority.htm

Mats Winther

 

[Abu]

MWin #26 27/5/13
Understanding European Psychology

Thanks – a very useful contribution

 

[CHRISTINE77]

To believe something without evidence is not scientific, faith is not needing evidence. There are scientists who believe unscientific things, but they don’t apply those thoughts to their science. Issac Newton believed in alchemy, it doesn’t mean that alchemy isn’t nonsense. To say that there is no issue with faith in science is true in the sense that you can ignore the contradictions. If you think that faith and science go well together then use faith as a justification in a scientific paper and see how it goes. Also it seems like you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the moral philosophy that you claim atheists have. You can chose to define the word morality however you like, in that sense it is subjective. Saying that it’s what god commands doesn’t make it any less subjective, you just subjectively chose to use the definition that the church has provided for you. I subjectively chose to base my morality on the real suffering and happiness of other people. If you use that standard, things like telling a person who is attracted to the same sex that they have an “inherent moral evil” is morally reprehensible. Especially since you have no evidence for such a claim. Faith may be a high enough standard for you, but it’s not good enough to tell other people how to live their lives. Good day sir.

Alchemy was the forerunner of modern chemistry. Scientific thinking is a direct result of logical thinking developed by Aquinas and other Catholic thinkers. Most science came from educated people who were trained by the Church. Everything is built on something else, it does not arise from thin air. You can still believe in God and in science and many scientists do.

 

[edwest2]

Alchemy was the forerunner of modern chemistry. Scientific thinking is a direct result of logical thinking developed by Aquinas and other Catholic thinkers. Most science came from educated people who were trained by the Church. Everything is built on something else, it does not arise from thin air. You can still believe in God and in science and many scientists do.

I wish that were true.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Scientists have been a great help to mankind but their work appears to have influenced their religious beliefs.

Peace,
Ed

 

[CHRISTINE77]

List of Christians who were and are scientists:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

 

[edwest2]

Thanks for the list but there is, today, a friction between faith and science which is being promoted by certain scientists. I could post a few book titles if you’d like.

I have no problem with science itself, but today, there is an ongoing trend to convince the public that science matters and religion/faith does not.

Peace,
Ed

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Thanks for the list but there is, today, a friction between faith and science which is being promoted by certain scientists. I could post a few book titles if you’d like.

I have no problem with science itself, but today, there is an ongoing trend to convince the public that science matters and religion/faith does not.

Peace,
Ed

Yes but I believe you are talking about the media and they way they portray science and religion. They always show the extreme views, and never the middle way.

 

[edwest2]

Yes but I believe you are talking about the media and they way they portray science and religion. They always show the extreme views, and never the middle way.

Well, what’s the solution? It seems the scientific community, like the National Academy of Sciences, does not have a representative appear on CNN to clarify things. In the past, I loved how different science magazines tried to give the public a broad overview. I think there should be a way to engage the public that is fun, relevant to their daily lives, and inspirational.

I was there for the run-up to the US landing on the moon. I read anything I could get my hands on to find out more about the whole thing. Today, scientists are coming up with better solar cells, better ways to clean waste water or purify water and deal with energy issues, but I don’t have the sense that the media is on board with this. It’s mostly about celebrities I’ll never meet, the outrageous and certain political issues. There is a disconnect between science and scientific progress among people today as opposed to the fascination I felt throughout the early 1960s.

Right now, the media is definitely pushing faith into the negative end of the spectrum and science - limited to a handful of subjects - is now the way.

Peace,
Ed

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Well, what’s the solution? It seems the scientific community, like the National Academy of Sciences, does not have a representative appear on CNN to clarify things. In the past, I loved how different science magazines tried to give the public a broad overview. I think there should be a way to engage the public that is fun, relevant to their daily lives, and inspirational.

I was there for the run-up to the US landing on the moon. I read anything I could get my hands on to find out more about the whole thing. Today, scientists are coming up with better solar cells, better ways to clean waste water or purify water and deal with energy issues, but I don’t have the sense that the media is on board with this. It’s mostly about celebrities I’ll never meet, the outrageous and certain political issues. There is a disconnect between science and scientific progress among people today as opposed to the fascination I felt throughout the early 1960s.

Right now, the media is definitely pushing faith into the negative end of the spectrum and science - limited to a handful of subjects - is now the way.

Peace,
Ed

I agree, and the media is dangerous because so many people believe what they read or hear from it, hook, line and sinker. It’s maddening. But people who are discerning and look beyond the media for their information source are the only hope for truth.

 

[Khalid]

[Edited]

That’s why the scientific paradigm, despite being a success story, is deficient. In the end, it must be complemented by a spiritual paradigm that sees things differently. It should be possible for the two paradigms to exists side by side, provided that they both give up their ambition of world hegemony. A scientist must realize that there is some sense to the mythological creation stories and the spiritual worldview. On the other hand, creationists must realize that the scientific version of creation is unshakable scientific truth. It should be possible for two complete worldviews to exist side by side, while giving due admission to the alternative worldview. They are not competing worldviews anymore, but alternative aspects of reality.

But these worldviews cannot be mixed. An advanced consciousness cannot maintain a conglomerative worldview, since the modern individual has been deprived of the unitarian naiveté, characteristic of historical mankind. It is natural for the modern individual to relate to a scientific worldview. He is also capable of taking up a sophisticated trinitarian belief involving contemplation, simplicity, and reclusiveness. I know that many intelligent people find this idea attractive, to go live in retreat and lead a simple life for a time. One must make up one’s mind, for the time being, whether to live in a profane or a spiritual universe. Is this a satisfying solution? In quantum physics, certain theorists have expressed the view that complementarity is a provisional solution, and they are expecting something better in the future. But the complementarity principle seems unshakable. I discuss these matters on my homepage, here.

Mats Winther

Apologies for the extremely long delay in replying; I have been occupied in “meatspace” with studies. At that, my reply would be, “Is that not simply a modern formulation of the old Averroist-Scholastic ‘theory of double truth’”?

 

[MWin]

No, Averroism says that there is one truth, but there are two ways to reach it: through philosophy (science) and through religion. So it focuses on the method to reach the one truth. A complementarian perspective says that there are really two incompatible truths about the world, one spiritual and one scientific, and they both use their own method to reach the truth. However, either view is unable to give a comprehensive account of totality. In the end, they cannot make do without each other.

Nevertheless, it is not evident that there are two worlds. The world is only experiential as one world from the individual perspective. Arguably, these are really two perspectives of one world. The notion of unus mundus was a scholastic ideal. I recently wrote an article where I discuss the alternative view, which I happened to call dualis mundus (a questionable term). It revolves around depth psychology, but it should be intelligible to the theologian, too. (Warning! Although I see the value of religion, I am very critical of the traditional religious sentiment, characterized by routinization. I contrast it with the standpoint, forwarded by Jesus, of a true life in the spirit.)

Dualis Mundus ~ a complementarian metaphysic

Abstract: Certain phenomena in the realm of psychology, especially, cannot be explained by science. It calls for a complementarian metaphysical model according to which the universe is both spiritual and material. But it is not experiential as a dual universe. Depending on the conscious viewpoint of the observer, it is either spiritual or material (scientific). Yet, neither of the models will suffice as sole explanatory model. This follows the principle of bipartite complementarity. The metaphysical nature of the Jungian archetype is discussed.

Keywords: spirit, transcendental, science, complementarity, metaphysics, archetype, unus mundus, psychoid, C.G. Jung.

Read the article here:
home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/dualmetaphysic.htm

Mats Winther

 

[Khalid]

Interesting article - but you misinterpreted my point (or, more likely, I mis-stated it); what I meant by hyphenating “Averroist” with “Scholastic” (distinguishing “Averroist-Scholasticism” from “Averroes” in much the same way that Plato’s theories are distinguished from “Platonism”, or Aristotelian-Thomism is distinct from the doctrines of Aristotle, or earlier Aristotelians) - was to point out the theory of double truth that gained prominence near St Thomas Aquinas’ time in the Latin West, being promoted by scholars there who would later be known as Averroists (regardless of the actual origins of the theory), which theory states, that there can be two mutually-exclusive “truths”, one of faith/theology/religion and one of reason/philosophy/science, both “truths” being equally true (and still not being divided in to neatly divided spheres of influence such as SJ Gould advocated, and I pointed out earlier).

According to this theory (as contradictory as it may sound; for further information, see Etienne Gilson’s Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages), the propositions “the earth is 6,000 years old” and “the earth is 4.5 billion years old” are (more or less) absolutely true according to theology, and secular reason/science respectively, and never the twain shall meet. (Whilst both remaining “true” in some sense, while seeming to break the law of non-contradiction, that I can not comprehend, likely because it requires a more thorough knowledge of the Arabic commentaries on Aristotle and Averroes himself.)

I see that you do not believe this bears any more than the most superficial resemblance to your theory, but I have a hard time separating them and their respective propositions in mine own mind, the two theories - the one you propose, and the one you say you do not represent - of necessity being very similar, if either are to resolve the problems that you (and the Averroist-Scholastics) indicated as being solvable by the theory, a sample of which is given in the diverging estimates of the age of the earth. (This exact example being one the Averroists of old did battle with the Church over, at the time taking the position of “eternal” [today, in the guise of evolutionists, taking the position of “six hundred years less than eternal”], against the Church, which then, as now, took the position which states that less than 10,000 years of history have elapsed, in a universe begun by a free act of God, ex nihilo creatio ab initio temporis.)

If the theory is to actually solve this impasse, it must perforce be, at core, some sort of theory of double truth of the sort favoured of the Latin Averroists, insofar as I can see, although this may be due to failure of the imagination, or inability to comprehend.

 

[MWin]

I find that very interesting. I have already pointed out, in “The Complementarian Self”, that the notion of complementarity occurs in christology. The Christ is wholly human and wholly divine, yet not at the same time. When he is present on earth, he is wholly human. That is, he is not semi-divine (that is, he is not a half-god, which is an heretic formulation). Yet, it is not possible to fully explain the phenomenon of Christ in human terms. A complementarian spiritual model must be applied to fully account for the phenomenon. In the same vein, when he is in his Father’s presence, he is wholly divine. Yet, it is not possible to fully explain the phenomenon of Christ in divine terms. The interpretation of the Christ as divine being is insufficient to account for the phenomenon. It is an old heresy.

Whereas the nature of the Christ can be interpreted as a bipartite complementarity, the Trinity is a tripartite complementarity. Science only makes use of bipartite complementary, but a tripartite complementarity is a wholly plausible construction. A scientist would not hesitate to make such an intepretation of a natural phenomenon, if empirical data suggested it.

I don’t know enough about theology to determine the extent to which the theological notions coincide with complementarity. However, I have argued that it was really the church fathers who invented the concept. So it wouldn’t surprise me if the scholastics have already delved into this. If it’s correct, it is no surprise to me. St Thomas Aquinas said that there exists an entity in the mind which is necessary for us to be able to perceive anything. The ‘nous poiétikos’ was not merely in the physical cosmos but in the human mind, a notion akin to Kantianism. St Thomas took the modern step of introjecting the notion of order, realizing that the terms we use come from our own minds. He went even further and asked why our own minds produced such ideas of order and this he attributed to the ‘nous poiétikos’. St Thomas withdrew the projection of “spirit” on the world and realized that, in part, it is a question of our own mental operations, for there is no meaningfulness unless we see it. He realized that we need a mind, an inner configuration of spirit, in order to “have a world”. Thus, St Thomas took the older concept ‘nous poiétikos’ and cut it in two, saying that in part the ‘nous poiétikos’ was not in the cosmos but in the human mind, and the other half was the Wisdom of God.

The traditional scientific model, according to which laws in matter guide the world, is insufficient to account for natural phenomena. Scientists have been forced to include the observer, and his inner ‘nous poiétikos’, to account for phenomena. It has given rise to the notion of complementarity. In a similar vein, we cannot experience the Christ if he isn’t already inside us. He is a complementarian phenomenon.

Mats Winther

 

[Ismael]

Science makes bad philosophy, religion makes bad science.

I think that FANATICISM makes bad science, rather… and fanatiscism is present in science and scientists themselves.

I mean look at some theories these days… like String Theory and some Cosmological theories… most of them are… ludicrous. Really. Sometimes it reminds me of the techno-babble in Star Trek (as a physicist myself I always thought it was amusing LOL).

Mind you I am not saying String Theory is ‘dumb’ (although there are PLENTY of scientists, most of the atheists, btw, who claim String Theory is not worth a dime).

The problem with certain areas of modern science is that they are NOT PREDICTIVE or rather they make AD HOC PREDICTIONS, without serious base for it.

Even evolution is guilty of this (mind you Evolution is somewhat predictive in very limited scale and I do not say it’s false, I believe it’s true… but some ‘evolutionist philosophies’ are really crazy… like Dawkins’ ideas…)

As Richard Feynmann said “String Theory does not make predictions, it makes excuses”… well I would extend this to ALL branches of ‘untestable science’ (like the many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics, which in my opinion it’s jut a bleak attempt to recapture classical determinism at quantum level.)

Think also of concepts like** Dark Energy or Dark Matter**… they are based on observations… but they are really ad hoc conjectures to fit in the little theories some scientists believe in.

Some theories, like MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics and gravitational theory) does NOT need Dark Matter at all, in its explanations.

Some theories do away with Dark Energy as well, explaining that some observation are misinterpreted.

Now I am not saying who is right here on these scientific debates… but the point is that fanaticism exists in science. More than you think. The nonsense that sometimes comes out of some Cosmologists butt is the proof of that.

Really… sometimes I read some putrid amalgamations of shaky science and bad philosophy that disappoints in both fields (more on the philosophical side… the math they use is usually sound… but good math does not always entail good physics either…!)

---

Also look up the story of Dan Shechtman, who was persecuted by several scientists, including Nobel prize winner Linus Pauling because Shechtman ideas on quasi-crystals did not fit within the mindset of ‘orthodox crystallography’.

In the end Shechtman did win the Nobel in 2010 prize himself and got recognition, but it was really a ‘modern day Galileo’… and Shechtman had far more empirical proof than Galileo, too.

In Shechtman case no religion was involves, just pure fanatiscism by (often very atheist) scientists.

I am not saying, mind you, this is ‘common occurence’ in science… but it does happen (usualy on smaller scale)

 

[wmw]

I wrote an article about the never-ceasing calumniation of the Middle Ages. Although people functioned differently, this introverted epoch has laid the foundation of modern European consciousness.

Understanding European psychology

~ European psychology and its rooting in the interiority of Christian Middle Ages ~

Keywords: introversion, Middle Ages, history of science, Islam, cultural clashes, locus of control.

Read the article here:
home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/interiority.htm

Mats Winther

This contemplative thinking or what you call interiority you say has come to those of European decent via the Middle Ages. Do you have a theory of transmission? Is there an adaptive, genetic component or is it strictly learned and instilled by cultural, religious teachings?

It seems to have a great staying power to still be so recognizable in peoples in Europe today and so absent in Africa. With the expansion of Christianity in Africa this element of religious teaching must not be very effective in a religious class or church setting; therefore, either it is very genetic or very dependent on a home environment and taught almost instinctively and/or subconsciously.

I’m having trouble excepting that such ways of thinking are so easily transferred to European children in such an unintentional way, but so hard to instill in Africans and seems to be a theory heavily built upon stereotypes of European, Middle Eastern, and African displays of emotion and sensitivity to external affronts to the ego.