science and faith

[acochran742]

Has anyone checked out the website Magis Center for Reason and Faith? I am interested in explaining the existence of God with science and they have some wonderful ideas. The Big Bang theory was actually proposed by a Catholic priest, and it makes sense. Fr. Spitzer who’s been on EWTN has actually written a book on new physics proofs of the existence of God. It’s a bit heavy for the non science person, but in one chapter he talks about the universal constants which shows that everything has to be just 'Fine tuned" for life to have happened. I have kids and friends who are non-believers, and this has given me some real concrete things to say when they question my faith.

 

[Theophorus]

I have a science background and I think the Site looks good so far. Sites like this help to show that the separation of faith and reason is unnatural. someone once said faith and reason are like the shoes on your feet. you get further with both than just one!

 

[acochran742]

There’s a famous physicist Stephen Barr who was interviewed on EWTN. He just became a believer in God due to his work. Has anyone seen the program? It’s amazing that people think that science and faith cannot coexist. In the Confessions of St. Augustine, he writes about time and creation. It sounds a lot like the Big Bang theory…or the fact that time also has a beginning

 

[antroji]

God is not in the realm of assertive proof. If that is where you are contending, you have lost the battle, as you are plowing the wrong field, unless you are just in it for the exercise. As for the “new” scientific reasons some use as “proof,” they may say at the very most that there are certain wondrous aspects of the Universe that have elicited in them feelings definable *in their context *as “faith.” Those wonders do not of themselves prove God any more than new scientific insights of past ages are proofs for us now. Do you believe (there’s that pesky word) that the horizons we now scientifically bump against and use for “proof” are anywhere near where we will be in even a decade? A hundred years? and yet Wonder itself is a gateway to discovery. What, besides intellection, might one turn that light on?

 

[acochran742]

Has anyone read Fr. Spitzer’s new book? I just got it and the universal constants are amazing. Why is the speed of light 186,000miles/second? And the minimum mass or time? Fr. Spitzer does a good job of showing the beauty of these 20 or so constants. He just downloaded some podcasts also. Nice job, Father!

 

[Tuno]

Have you ever played a piano? Or are you familiar with the idea of octaves? If yes, than you might conjecture that those precise constants might be duplicated in other “universes” equally wondrous and Divinely constituted. And similarly to antennas which pick up waves at full and fractional proportions to wave lengths, there might be in between “universes” as well, all with proportional “constants?”

What bothers me about folks putting such things in religious contexts is that they limit both themselves and their alleged God, similarly to the geocentric world idea of not too long ago, into a far smaller domain of wonder than is possible and even practical. We can rightfully say that the Universe as it actually is if far more astonishing not only than we imagine, but than we can imagine. I forget who said that originally, but that person had it right, as new discoveries consistently prove.

That same thing can be said of Divinity relative to the rather poor attempts of habituated religionists and faithers of any stripe to quantify God into a religious system of approach or understanding. I am not adverse to anyone doing that, but similarly to grades in school, such an exercise must be regarded as but a grade in a continuum of growth. But no one seems to regard that as a point of importance or even of actuality. The part, as in your book, is mistaken for the Whole. And that limits both perception and understanding.

 

[edwest2]

Have you ever played a piano? Or are you familiar with the idea of octaves? If yes, than you might conjecture that those precise constants might be duplicated in other “universes” equally wondrous and Divinely constituted. And similarly to antennas which pick up waves at full and fractional proportions to wave lengths, there might be in between “universes” as well, all with proportional “constants?”

What bothers me about folks putting such things in religious contexts is that they limit both themselves and their alleged God, similarly to the geocentric world idea of not too long ago, into a far smaller domain of wonder than is possible and even practical. We can rightfully say that the Universe as it actually is if far more astonishing not only than we imagine, but than we can imagine. I forget who said that originally, but that person had it right, as new discoveries consistently prove.

That same thing can be said of Divinity relative to the rather poor attempts of habituated religionists and faithers of any stripe to quantify God into a religious system of approach or understanding. I am not adverse to anyone doing that, but similarly to grades in school, such an exercise must be regarded as but a grade in a continuum of growth. But no one seems to regard that as a point of importance or even of actuality. The part, as in your book, is mistaken for the Whole. And that limits both perception and understanding.

Sadly, this underscores constant attempts here to point out, by using science, that certain things recorded in the Bible could not have happened. In the meantime, God has sent Mary to deliver messages to the world. These events are recognized by the Church but are generally ignored or discredited, again by using science. The Church elevates persons to sainthood by verifying miracles attributed to their intercession. The secular press ignores such things. God has even left physical artifacts for us to see, like the cloak made of cactus fiber that should have fallen apart years ago. Our Lady of Guadalupe left an image on this cloak. It has been examined by scientists, but it is also ignored.

I encourage everyone to look up Our Lady of Guadalupe.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Anselm33]

QUOTE=antroji;6922142]God is not in the realm of assertive proof. If that is where you are contending, you have lost the battle, as you are plowing the wrong field, unless you are just in it for the exercise. As for the “new” scientific reasons some use as “proof,” they may say at the very most that there are certain wondrous aspects of the Universe that have elicited in them feelings definable *in their context *as “faith.” Those wonders do not of themselves prove God any more than new scientific insights of past ages are proofs for us now. Do you believe (there’s that pesky word) that the horizons we now scientifically bump against and use for “proof” are anywhere near where we will be in even a decade? A hundred years? and yet Wonder itself is a gateway to discovery. What, besides intellection, might one turn that light on?

Belief doesn’t necessarily come from “proof”… Proofs are for mathematics, not for science. Science is inductive and empirical; what is proposed in 1880 (the ether as a vehicle for electromagnetic waves) is negated 20 years later by experiment (the Michelson-Morley experiments). If you read about subjective probability (books by Richard Jeffrey) you’ll find that belief can be measured by varying degrees of probability. Now the arguments for belief in God from results of science (as put forth in Fr. Spitzer’s book) are very compelling to a reasonable person (i.e. one who is not wedded beyond reason to non-belief). There are so many improbable coincidences–values for fundamental constants of force laws, particle properties, etc–that enable our universe to exist, much less to be capable of supporting carbon-based life, that a reasonable person has to conclude, along with Sir Fred Hoyle, that

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Here’s an analogy paraphrased from Leslie (Universes). You are Mario Cavaradossi (in Tosca) awaiting execution by Scarpia’s firing squad of 50 crack shots; you’re blindfolded, given the last cigarette (this was 200 years ago) and bang–they miss! Now what would you conclude? That Tosca has prevailed over Scarpia and saved you, or that by chance all 50 shots missed? The point is, you can choose to believe in an accidental universe (and the unproven hypothesis of a multiverse, for which there will never, by assumption, be empirical verification) or a universe set up for carbon-based life.
To say that belief in God can’t be supported by what we see in the world around us is, I think, very limiting. To quote the very first anthropic argument:
"The heavens declare the Glory of God" (Psalm 19a)

 

[antroji]

QUOTE=antroji;6922142]God is not in the realm of assertive proof.

Anselem "Belief doesn’t necessarily come from “proof”…

Uhhhh… so you are agreeing with me??? It is not quite clear whom or what you are addressing.

 

[Tuno]

Sadly, this underscores constant attempts here to point out, by using science, that certain things recorded in the Bible could not have happened. In the meantime, God has sent Mary to deliver messages to the world. These events are recognized by the Church but are generally ignored or discredited, again by using science. The Church elevates persons to sainthood by verifying miracles attributed to their intercession. The secular press ignores such things. God has even left physical artifacts for us to see, like the cloak made of cactus fiber that should have fallen apart years ago. Our Lady of Guadalupe left an image on this cloak. It has been examined by scientists, but it is also ignored.

I encourage everyone to look up Our Lady of Guadalupe.

God bless,
Ed

Hi Ed,

Being new here I’m not aware of “constant attempts here to point out, by using science, that certain things recorded in the Bible could not have happened.” I do feel that more of the Bible is allegorical than is commonly acknowledged. But that does not mean that science is needed to point that out, and neither was my simple analogy by any means scientific. It is just a statement of possibility according to my lights, and it’s not clear to me how it was construed as a marshaling of scientific evidence against the Bible. I happen to consider the Bible as a pointer to Truth far greater than is considered by religious people of my acquaintance. I’m convinced, in fact, that neither tradition nor Scripture of your or other churches is taken as a gateway to what is surely a far greater scenario than is held by many. So the purpose of your statement, as least as it might apply to my post, escapes me.

As for the BVM, the finest economic age in Europe was when she, much under the label of the Black Madonna, or Isis, was generally worshiped or held in very high esteem. I wish we had such a situation now. The Catholic Encyclopedia rightfully declares that time one of the most even handed and fair economic eras in Western history.

But claims of miracles, even if actual, are pertinent to the faithful and pious only. Do you really think that an omniscient God faults declared non-believers for having skeptical attitudes about such things? Even at Fatima there were some who did not see the alleged miracle of the sun, and some plausible theories have been put forth about the rest, as awesome a spectacle as that surely was. But I wasn’t there; I don’t know. And I’m someone who can show you the face or body of Jesus or Mary in anything from pizzas to pie pans. We see what we want to, and if we see something we don’t understand, we go to our default cosmology. Witness the cargo cults. But did Guadalupe and Fatima and the rest happen as claimed? Maybe. Were they remarkable events? Certainly. But that of itself does not require faith of the general public, exceptionally inspiring though such may be.

And my, or anyone’s skepticism doesn’t per se constitute an attack on your faith or the Bible. Because you believe, you feel it does. That’s natural. But don’t protest too much; what you perceive as attacks may only be someone else’s way of inquiry, or defense of what they believe is so–or not. So how is yours the final word? I know mine isn’t.

 

[Anselm33]

QUOTE=antroji;6922142]God is not in the realm of assertive proof.

Anselem "Belief doesn’t necessarily come from “proof”…

It should have been clear from context (my entire post) that I was trying to distinguish between “evidence” and “logical/mathematical proof”. Science doesn’t “prove” laws in the logical or mathematical sense …it gives empirical evidence for them. In your post you seemed to deny that Fr. Spitzer brought forth evidence for the existence of God from science. And that conclusion is incorrect. If that isn’t what you meant, then you might have been clearer in your original post.

 

[antroji]

I admire that anyone would try to “prove” God by science or any other means as an exercise. And though I know for myself that God IS, I also am quite sure that while science or other means can promote wonder, they are inadequate to “prove” God, who needs no proof. In fact, IMHO, the futile struggle to prove God through intellectual means is demeaning and aids those who are not believers. Though it makes good scaffolding, any intellection is yet only useful in an approach, and is not the structure of Soul itself. That is another matter entirely.

 

[Anselm33]

I admire that anyone would try to “prove” God by science or any other means as an exercise. And though I know for myself that God IS, I also am quite sure that while science or other means can promote wonder, they are inadequate to “prove” God, who needs no proof. In fact, IMHO,** the futile struggle to prove God through intellectual** means is demeaning and aids those who are not believers. Though it makes good scaffolding, any intellection is yet only useful in an approach, and is not the structure of Soul itself. That is another matter entirely.

Addressing myself to the boldface part of your statement, many of the saints and Catholic philosophers–St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, Jacques Maritain, John Paul II–would disagree with you. That opinion is what is called fideism, and as John Paul II said, we should not follow that route but proceed on the “two wings of faith and reason” (“Fides et Ratio”). And as St. Thomas Aquinas said, what we know by both faith and reason confirms what we know by faith alone.

 

[Tuno]

Everybody talks about the wings, but not the bird they are attached to!

 

[Anselm33]

QUOTE=Tuno;6949277]Everybody talks about the wings, but not the bird they are attached to!

Three points from the center line; I guess you have to be an eagle to use both wings; penguins and dodos only use one.

 

[Tuno]

Bats, insects, and airplanes have wings as well; the principles of lift are “invisible” save in their predictable effect when used in conformity.

So what is the difference then, in the “Laws of Nature,” and “Natural Law?” The way I see it, if we stuck to “natural law,” we would not have airplanes. But we abstraced a principle and applied it. By “we” I mean the precious few who advance the race in ways everyone else takes for granted and claims as their own by “virture” of use. “My” television. “My” computer. Etc. But all these are abstractions and manipulations by intellect and intuition of natural laws, or laws occuring as Nature. Only religion insists that we don’t examine, abstract, and improve our state and does so by means of a closed canon. Science is always self correcting, never claiming ultimate knowledge as does religion. So again, what is the difference?

 

[edwest2]

Hi Ed,

Being new here I’m not aware of “constant attempts here to point out, by using science, that certain things recorded in the Bible could not have happened.” I do feel that more of the Bible is allegorical than is commonly acknowledged. But that does not mean that science is needed to point that out, and neither was my simple analogy by any means scientific. It is just a statement of possibility according to my lights, and it’s not clear to me how it was construed as a marshaling of scientific evidence against the Bible. I happen to consider the Bible as a pointer to Truth far greater than is considered by religious people of my acquaintance. I’m convinced, in fact, that neither tradition nor Scripture of your or other churches is taken as a gateway to what is surely a far greater scenario than is held by many. So the purpose of your statement, as least as it might apply to my post, escapes me.

As for the BVM, the finest economic age in Europe was when she, much under the label of the Black Madonna, or Isis, was generally worshiped or held in very high esteem. I wish we had such a situation now. The Catholic Encyclopedia rightfully declares that time one of the most even handed and fair economic eras in Western history.

But claims of miracles, even if actual, are pertinent to the faithful and pious only. Do you really think that an omniscient God faults declared non-believers for having skeptical attitudes about such things? Even at Fatima there were some who did not see the alleged miracle of the sun, and some plausible theories have been put forth about the rest, as awesome a spectacle as that surely was. But I wasn’t there; I don’t know. And I’m someone who can show you the face or body of Jesus or Mary in anything from pizzas to pie pans. We see what we want to, and if we see something we don’t understand, we go to our default cosmology. Witness the cargo cults. But did Guadalupe and Fatima and the rest happen as claimed? Maybe. Were they remarkable events? Certainly. But that of itself does not require faith of the general public, exceptionally inspiring though such may be.

And my, or anyone’s skepticism doesn’t per se constitute an attack on your faith or the Bible. Because you believe, you feel it does. That’s natural. But don’t protest too much; what you perceive as attacks may only be someone else’s way of inquiry, or defense of what they believe is so–or not. So how is yours the final word? I know mine isn’t.

Well, first, there are regular attempts here to attribute the global flood of Noah on a regional flood centered in a relatively small part of the earth.

More television programs using what they called scientific evidence to disprove, for example, the plagues sent against Egypt by God in the Old Testament as a series of coincidences and “natural” events.

Then there was the osuary or stone box shown on TV that allegedly contained the bones of Jesus. Anyone examining the inscription closely could tell what was pointed out as the word Jesus was added later, probably much later.

Back to this forum, and all you need to do is type evolution into the search box. Go ahead. You’d think that belief in this theory holds this very planet together. Because without it, I don’t know, very bad but extremely vague things will happen to the United States. That, in itself, has caused me to reexamine the science behind it and conclude: (A) It’s mostly a bunch of speculation based on incomplete knowledge, (B) the scientific literature contains too many “must” statements linking events, (C) the number of suppositions related to it that have been overturned, and (D) it’s obvious use here and elsewhere as a primarily ideological weapon. Whatever science it contains has become completely covered over by a thick layer of materialism.

It is unfortunate that some peole have taken it upon themselves to interpret the Bible. It is also unfortunate that things are mixed and matched to create a personal mosaic that may only include portions of the truth.

To say miracles are only pertinent to the pious and faithful does not make sense. There are atheists that are hoping for some tangible sign that God is real. Miracles are meant for all.

themiracleofthepacocha.com/

God bless,
Ed

 

[Abu]

Tuno
So what is the difference then, in the “Laws of Nature,” and “Natural Law?”

The Natural Law is “a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation.” (The Clash of Orthodoxies, Professor Robert P George (Princeton),2001, p 169). So that’s where you have to start – with reason, and the effects of acting against reason and the natural moral law. It is that **natural moral law **that is in our human nature on which conscience can ascertain good from evil.

“To ascertain the reasonableness of something, one must examine cause-and-effect relationships, a process that calls for scientific research and study.”
[See *Christians For Freedom, Alejandro Chafuen, Ignatius 1996, p 29-30].

On the development of science, even Alfred North Whitehead, F.R.S., explained: “The greatest contribution of medievalism to the scientific movement [was] the inexpugnable belief that …there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted in the European mind?..It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality.” [E.L. Jones, 1987; in *The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 15; my emphasis].

rtforum.org/lt/lt123.html
Anthony Rizzi, in *The Science Before Science *(Baton Rouge, LA: IAP Press, 2004, reviewed by Msgr John F. McCarthy:
“The dominant theme of this book is that sound philosophy is a science on a par with the empirical sciences and is actually a prerequisite for proper thinking even in the empirical sciences. Philosophy is that field of certified knowledge “that seeks and studies first principles of all things” (p. 4).

 

[Tuno]

=Anselm33;6947143]Belief doesn’t necessarily come from “proof”… Proofs are for mathematics, not for science.

Right. And all that you said ff goes to show that it is unreasonable therefore to use even Fr. Spitzer’s new book as other than a possible direction of inquiry. I cannot deny God based on my own experience, au very contraire. I’m just saying that it is as useless to use science as “proof” as it is to say that science is math, though math is included in science.

Certainly one can be aroused to a sense of wonder and awe by science and math, feeling that there must necesarily be a God. But such wonder and awe, even though based on recent science, has no more authority in this matter than do the emotions of a Neanderthal faced with a thunderstorm, an eclipse, or a sunset. Why would we assume that our science is at or near an end point in explaining the Infinity of Universe? Despite our advances, given Infinity, are we any closer than the Neanderthals in terms of “proof” by eclipse or lightning? I don’t think so; we are just arrogant. I maintain that though belief is actual as a factor in our psyche, it is not real in the sense that a mathematical proof describes an actual dynamic of relationship useful in prediction. Our faith is not useful in prediction even nearly as non-math science is. Faith is belief is not knowledge. Faith, indeed, is a grown-up word for “let’s pretend.”

Faith, any faith, might as well be sociology, except weaker. At least some sociology is statistically useful. Ultimately we beleive because we want to. And in this we are no different looking at “constants” than ancient man first looking at fire or a starry sky. We don’t KNOW; we believe. And as we all know, we we as humans will stake even our lives on being right rather than admit being wrong, even in a belief. We project, superimpoisng what we want as an explanation over the phenomenon we partially observe with our exceptionally limited senses and limited logic.

Most of our logic doesn’t even go beyond one or two dimensions, especially regarding religion, when by math we might be looking at eleven as far as even physical reality is concerned! Add to that that faith is often a set of emotions pasted on to unverified assumptions taken as fact. If yours aren’t then ask if this doesn’t apply to someone whose religion you don’t believe. Then ask if they might not think the same about you.

What is more, if we know we don’t know, we will still use a belief as “knowledge.” In science this is fine, because we have teleology and eventyually come to some degree of self correction. In religion we have no such grace. Religions tend to be what are called “closed canons.” The beliefs aof any religon are in a creed or whatever and are the final version of that religion until there is a splinter group who see ti differently. The original faith either srvives or dies, it’s memebers cliaming til the end that they were right. This happened even in the face of Einstein’s equations. Many phyisicists went to their graves denying them. Einstein himself didn’t believe the implications of his own equations! So we have faith again denying not just science, but math!

Far be it from me to attempt to take away anyone’s faith, especially given my own position. But let’s at least have the honesty of differentiating between what we conjecture as beliefs and what we know. As humans, there is really only one thing that we can know. All the rest is consensus and ad hoc practicallity. And we use that ad hoc stuff and literary fluff to approach God when it is what we know that might in fact be the sole/soul key.

 

[JohnDamian]

Far be it from me to attempt to take away anyone’s faith, especially given my own position. But let’s at least have the honesty of differentiating between what we conjecture as beliefs and what we know. As humans, there is really only one thing that we can know. All the rest is consensus and ad hoc practicallity. And we use that ad hoc stuff and literary fluff to approach God when it is what we know that might in fact be the sole/soul key.

To be fair; we cannot even say with certainty that Descartes conclusion of one certainty is the case. Even permitting this dubious point; every concept or object we know can come to be known with modally distinct certainty; to myself it is more apparrent that God exists than that I exist; for my existence is contingent.