Science bashing - What is it?

[CatholicGeek1]

CatholicGeek1;10544634:

No interpretation was needed. It was the title of the thread. If that was not what was meant a different wording should have been used.

I will grant your other points but not this. This was a simple case of rash judgment. If you judge every book or article by the title, literally interpreted you will be wrong a great deal of the time. Reading through the post and the posts which followed ( and you didn’t come into the debate until the 98th post) you could not have believed that I was labeling science as phony. In the O.P. I specifically mentioned " pseudo science, " later on I said I had in mind specifically the current stances taken by certain scientests and others using pseudo science to champion ideas which threatend or were opposed to Catholic teaching.

You simply chose to put a bad light O.P. to advance your own agenda and your weren’t shy about doctoring the truth. You deliberately determined to paint a black picture, and you weren’t alone. So much for the truth. And guess what, becuause of the way some acted the thread has been closed. For their lack of charity, I would like to thank those folks. It was a very clever and uncharitable operation. Linus2nd

I understand that you were careful to label what you were criticizing as pseudo-science, however, you and the others posting on your side, then labeled things that I believe to be actual science as pseudo-science.

 

[Farsight001]

What was the overall scientific level at the time the E theory was declared? Surgeons were operating by the book, without washing their hands.
Do not compare E with gravity because there is not one example of proven evolved creature.

There are literally thousands of examples, including ones evolved in laboratory experiments But we can’t get into detail on that. Banned topic.

 

[edwest2]

If you want to go back to living in a cave, scrounging around for food in the mud, warring with your neighbors for every morsel and dying at the age of 20 due to perfectly preventable diseases then be our guest. Go ahead, reject science. No one is stopping you.

Reported.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

I have not seen this happen. The Bible is not a science book, however, science has never proven the Bible wrong. The Bible likewise does not prove science wrong. They are different things.

Some of the threads in question, I should not link to, but trust me, they exist. “Your Bible says this happened but science says it didn’t” is the gist. And no, the Church has made statements about science. That is the other problem here: Those who believe that their totally secular worldview is the ONLY source of knowledge. They’re wrong.

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago”

I hope everyone noticed the word infallibly.

Peace,
Ed.

 

[edwest2]

Not sure what you mean – but if it is “human nature,” then I agree. Our problem is human nature has not changed, but technological advances have made it possible to kill off many more “Abels” than before, billions of them. I guess that’s why Christ came toward the end of time, r/t much earlier. Only by his redemption can we hope to overcome this human nature and do a little good, instead of tremendous bad.

Well, I’m a social scientist – we are just trying to understand people best we can; they’re a bit more complicated than rocks – and I’ve always had a great deal of respect for physical scientists…was even planning on going into physics at one time, or become a large animal vet. And I’ve always been a Christian close to God, so it is possible to be both Christian and a social scientist.

Maybe the reason some scientists hate Christians is because some Christians have made themselves detestable. I remember promoting my Little Way of Environmental Healing, and an atheist read it and was very touched. I don’t think he converted, but he did say because of it he didn’t hate Christians any more.

RE the complexities of science – while climate science is complicated, the solutions are fairly simple, and also serve to solve many other problems while helping one’s pocketbook and the economy. But the ultimate solution (as you point out) is love. It is our lack of love and our human nature that blocks us from doing the right things, even when they are good for ourselves and our progeny and the rest of God’s good creation. It really is simple, as you suggest.

We need Jesus now more than ever.

I have an idea, why not start a church based on Christian principles and promote those principles – we can call it the Catholic Church

Interesting assumption about Christians. Obviously, you’ve not read Sam Harris:

secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=harris_27_2&section=library

He doesn’t like other scientists who even momentarily consider religious ideas.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

No, using some mistake that was actually caught later by scientists and admitted as a mistake as proof that the whole of climate science is wrong; or selecting one scientist and his findings (like Mann and his tree ring data) to say the whole of climate science is wrong.

The difference between a skeptic and a denialist is this: a skeptic has some legitimate questions about some theory and is willing to listen to what the scientists say re his/her ideas that put the theory in doubt, and accept what the scientists say if they address those doubts adequately. .

A denialist, OTOH, is one who will never accept the science no matter what. There are those who reject evolution and/or anthropogenic climate change who will never ever change their views no matter what evidence and science is presented to them. They are ideologically wedded to their positions.

My own position is that I accept what the climate scientists say, knowing they are reticent in their claims and it might be worse than what they say, and also knowing that there is a less than 5% chance they are wrong.

Since JPII, BXVI, and the US Catholic bishops agree with that position of prudence (as I’m sure Pope Francis does too, who has background in chemistry and would have ability to understand that greenhouse gas molecules absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas ) – that ACC is a serious problem and it is everyone’s responsibility to mitigate it (even if one is not totally sold on the science) – it’s extremely hard for me to understand why so many Catholics should be skeptics and denialists at this point in the process, 18 years after science reached 95% confidence on ACC (.05 on the null). I do understand that our media, educational system, and gov have been pretty much complicit in this denialism over the decades, but that’s not a complete excuse.

It seems the skeptics and denialists neither want to reduce their risk of harming others (they do not even want to countenance the idea that maybe there is a 50%, even a 10% chance the scientists are correct) nor collect on the great financial savings to be had by mitigating. I guess that could be called “super-denialism” and abuse of science by totalling ignoring the science & its implications, and fishing for whatever fake-science the well-oiled denialist industry spews out that they can find to justify their position. It is totally flabberghasting to me. God gave us brains and a heart, and hope of salvation (and nothing, not even death, to fear), and we should not be afraid to use these faculties and graces and seek out the real truth on matters.

I’d thought back in 1990 that all I had to do was mitigate ACC to the best of our ability (my husband didn’t want to sacrifice, so we’ve done it without sacrificing our lifestyle), and then inform a few others about the problem and great savings in mitigating it, and they’d inform others until the whole world would be mitigating. And I could within a few months get back to my regularly scheduled life. It has been a rude awakening over 23 years of how obstinately opposed to reducing the risk of harm the world really is, even among front-pewers in my own church. After years of banging my head against this brick wall of derelict obstinance, I had decided to just keep quiet on the issue & just live in sorrow holding Our Lady in my heart that my pitiful efforts without those of most other people would not amount to much help. We don’t have children, so it was no skin off my personal nose if the world was determined to wipe out much, perhaps all, of life on earth over the next 100s, 1000s or 100,000 years. Then the reading in Mass that exact same week was, if you know your brother is doing some sin and you fail to inform him, the sin falls back on you.

So in my old age until my very last breath I will continue to bang my head against this brick wall of obstinate resistance and inform people that ACC is real and dangerous to life, and mitigating it will greatly benefit one and the world.

Sorry if I’m a bother to people here. I have to do it. As a Christian, I have no choice.

Enjoy the brick wall while you can. I don’t believe for a microsecond that any sort of climate change is occurring and scientists won’t convince me either.

What will convince me is when millionaires and billionaires around the world begin selling their multi-million dollar homes along the ocean-front and buying up land in certain parts of the world, or publicly putting their money into making a difference. Until I see that, this is just another scheme to make a buck: “I’ll trade my carbon emissions for your carbon emissions.” “No, no. There’s no money in that. I’ll charge you a carbon tax or maybe we can set up a climate stock exchange.”

I’ve read many of the schemes scientists have cooked up to solve this non-problem. The big problem? They can do something but they don’t know what will happen, along the lines of: “We still understand very little about weather patterns and how even interventions on a small scale might lead to not helping the problem but making it worse.”

I’ve also read about a plan where satellites would deploy a flexible material that is kilometers across to reflect sunlight as it comes in. My almost daily reading of the science literature shows nobody’s moving on that front, and God only knows what they’re doing aboard the space station.

Meanwhile, there is off-the-shelf technology that could remove tons of pollutants from the air but big business only cares about one thing: “Dat would cost too much money. Ya know what I’m sayin’?”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Farsight001]

Reported.

Ed

Seriously?! In what universe was that offensive? I find your need to declare that you have reported him rather more offensive than his post.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Science and technology together deserve some credit and some bashing, just as the Catholic Church deserves some credit and some bashing now and then. Nobody is exempt from bashing. The main bash against science I would offer is that through an arsenal of nuclear weapons science has delivered into our hands the means by which to annihilate the human race and many other life forms along with it.

Hopefully the arrogance of science will be tempered by the humility of wisdom.

Why can’t religions, petition their Gods and stop war - in Syria for example. science can’t be arrogant it is not a living thing.

 

[InJesusItrust]

When people speak of immutable scientific laws, I think of children assuming everything that they have discovered in building their Lego house applies to a real building. We can agree on models of nature, but then someone goes on to say that anything the model does not predict cannot really happen.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Keep it civil and charitable.

Otherwise thread will be closed and infractions issued.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Some of the threads in question, I should not link to, but trust me, they exist. “Your Bible says this happened but science says it didn’t” is the gist. And no, the Church has made statements about science. That is the other problem here: Those who believe that their totally secular worldview is the ONLY source of knowledge. They’re wrong.

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago”

I hope everyone noticed the word infallibly.

Peace,
Ed.

I agree that a totally secular worldview is incorrect. I also believe that a totally religious worldview is incorrect. I believe that we need a combination of both. I also agree that religious answers are superior to their secular counterparts, however, there are a lot of areas that religion does not address and a lot of questions that it does not answer and for those answers, we turn to the secular.

 

[edwest2]

I agree that a totally secular worldview is incorrect. I also believe that a totally religious worldview is incorrect. I believe that we need a combination of both. I also agree that religious answers are superior to their secular counterparts, however, there are a lot of areas that religion does not address and a lot of questions that it does not answer and for those answers, we turn to the secular.

Science can arrange itself however it wants but a real push is on to convince people that only science is going to help. Nothing else. Just science. No need to mention extremes, I’m only pointing out some of the posts here that basically say ‘science saves,’ and while not ignoring the important things science has done, it ignores the fact that science has become a kind of religion for some.

My point is, like anything man does, science can be corrupted and often for the same reason: money.

No, this does not mean I distrust all science, just the tendency posted here on a regular basis to accept certain parts as irrefutable dogma. I see that as one reason why some people are suspicious of such statements, especially if disagreement with certain dogma invites insults.

I don’t believe “the secular” is a proper term. Science is just a tool for investigation and applied science is a method of putting findings into a form that is useful to human beings.

Peace,
Ed

 

[lynnvinc]

Enjoy the brick wall while you can. I don’t believe for a microsecond that any sort of climate change is occurring and scientists won’t convince me either.

What will convince me is when millionaires and billionaires around the world begin selling their multi-million dollar homes along the ocean-front and buying up land in certain parts of the world, or publicly putting their money into making a difference…

I hate to say this, but the rich strike me as not being very bright. I think their wealth makes them think they can fabricate reality any way they wish, then they buy up the media and contribute to the educational system and politicians to promote their whacko realities.

I’d rather put my hand in the hand that stilled the water than follow the rich.

 

[lynnvinc]

Interesting assumption about Christians. Obviously, you’ve not read Sam Harris:

secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=harris_27_2&section=library

He doesn’t like other scientists who even momentarily consider religious ideas.

Peace,
Ed

I stay away from atheists (esp new & militant), mainly bec they aren’t necessarily that bright either.

I remember nearly 40 years ago reading about Dawkins’s “selfish gene,” before I ever knew he was an atheist, and thinking he’s off his rocker.

It’s really not a good idea for people in different fields (like biology) to try their hand at another field (like anthropology), without having a clue about that field. They tend to come across like those know-it-all bores you sometimes run into at parties who think they know every field bec they may know something in their own field.

I actually did a study of militant atheists (some Eucharist desecrators), but only did a conference presentation, not a publication (I lost interest…). What I’m studying now is Catholic views on climate change. That’s more interesting to me, esp Catholics who conflate their anti-green philosophy with its roots in anti-Catholic Enlightenment philosophy with Catholicism…

Anyway I’ve never had any problem accepting and respecting science AND being a religious person. It should be understood, tho, that while science is good for what it can do, it is limited to the material, empirical world and cannot either prove or disprove God or the spiritual realm – which is well beyond us finite, limited being with very limited understanding. As St. John of the Cross said whatever one can conceive of God, it’s wrong.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Right! An accusation tossed at anyone who disagrees with the prevailing so called scientfic truth’s.

Would that be sort of like Tesla versus Edison?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

april

**Why can’t religions, petition their Gods and stop war - in Syria for example. science can’t be arrogant it is not a living thing. **

It is not possible to dissociate human beings from the science they discover. The scientists who are willing to create nuclear weapons for the destruction of humanity cannot plead that they are just doing science.

The Catholic Church routinely prays for peace throughout the world. It’s altogether uncertain that the scientists who are creating the nuclear weapons are also praying they will never be used.

 

[edwest2]

I stay away from atheists (esp new & militant), mainly bec they aren’t necessarily that bright either.

I remember nearly 40 years ago reading about Dawkins’s “selfish gene,” before I ever knew he was an atheist, and thinking he’s off his rocker.

It’s really not a good idea for people in different fields (like biology) to try their hand at another field (like anthropology), without having a clue about that field. They tend to come across like those know-it-all bores you sometimes run into at parties who think they know every field bec they may know something in their own field.

I actually did a study of militant atheists (some Eucharist desecrators), but only did a conference presentation, not a publication (I lost interest…). What I’m studying now is Catholic views on climate change. That’s more interesting to me, esp Catholics who conflate their anti-green philosophy with its roots in anti-Catholic Enlightenment philosophy with Catholicism…

Anyway I’ve never had any problem accepting and respecting science AND being a religious person. It should be understood, tho, that while science is good for what it can do, it is limited to the material, empirical world and cannot either prove or disprove God or the spiritual realm – which is well beyond us finite, limited being with very limited understanding. As St. John of the Cross said whatever one can conceive of God, it’s wrong.

Jesus Christ revealed the attributes of God in the Bible.

Peace,
Ed

 

[lynnvinc]

Jesus Christ revealed the attributes of God in the Bible.

Peace,
Ed

But whatever we conceive of beyond that (what Jesus and Moses, etc have revealed) is wrong bec the infinite is beyond the fully knowing of the finite. Other Christian mystics have also written about that, e.g., The Cloud of Unknowing.

And Pope Francis in his Easter Vigil Mass, God always surprises us.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Then why do people post here on a regular basis - using zero science - to interpret our holy book by their self-proclaimed scientific standards? I see it all the time. They say the Bible is not a science book, followed by: “According to science, your holy book is wrong, here, here and here.” I wish they could’ve been there when Jesus raised the dead or gave sight to the blind using zero science or technology. Or know that one miracle has been attributed to the intercession of Pope John Paul II and that he is one miracle away from sainthood. Today.

Peace,
Ed

Raising someone from the dead would be worth considerable scientific study. It would require more advanced technology than we have at present.

 

[aprilfloyd]

You have clearly misunderstood all of the points that I was attempting to make, so I am not going to go into deep detail on them.

I did want to make one clarification though, many people seem to misunderstand what theory means in science. Theory in science does not mean it is simply a guess or thought, it means that something is as close to proven as it is likely to get. Gravity is a scientific theory, does someone want to state that it is not fact?