Science can't destroy Religion

[atheistgirl]

You can’t take one piece of the Catechism out of context and make it mean what you want it to mean any more than you can with the Bible.

It may be implicit in what’s written about conscience in the Catechism that unless you accept and agree with the Catholic Church, your conscience is misinformed and in error.

This is just classic I’m right and you’re wrong and if you can’t see I’m right, you’re wrong thinking

I happen to think it’s much more important to act with integrity at all times, informed by your conscience, and to keep informing your conscience.

I’m doing that to a degree here, learning about what Catholics believe and why.

But I would be betraying my conscience were I to enroll tomorrow in an adult class for new Christians and join the Catholic Church, when I haven’t found any of the justifications for the belief in a Deity remotely compelling.

On that basis, consistent with the catechism of the Church, I would be rejected as a new member, and so I should be, and I’d be told I wasn’t ready, since I would be acting against my conscience, which would be evident.

Sarah x

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Albert Einstein Theories of Relativity

“I have never found a better expression than “religious” for this trust in the rational nature of reality and of its peculiar accessibility to the human mind. Where this trust is lacking science degenerates into an uninspired procedure. Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this. There is no remedy for that.”

Max Planck Father of Quantum Physics

“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

In his famous lecture Religion and Science (May 1937) Planck wrote: “Both religion and science need for their activities the belief in God, and moreover God stands for the former in the beginning, and for the latter at the end of the whole thinking. For the former, God represents the basis, for the latter - the crown of any reasoning concerning the world-view.” (Max Planck, Religion und Naturwissenschaft, Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth Verlag, 1958, 27).

Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” (Heisenberg, as cited in Hildebrand 1988, 10).

Arthur Compton Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist

“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence – an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered – ‘In the beginning God.’”

Erwin Schroedinger Nobel Laureate in Physics:

1. ¨ In his book Nature and the Greeks (Cambridge University Press, 1954) Prof. Schrödinger writes:

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” (Schrödinger 1954, 93).

Max Born Quantum Physicist

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

Robert Millikan Nobel Laureate in Physics:
In an interview, entitled “A Scientist’s God” (Collier’s; October 24, 1925) Millikan stated:

“It pains me as much as it did Kelvin ‘to hear crudely atheistic views expressed by men who have never known the deeper side of existence.’ Let me, then, henceforth use the word God to describe that which is behind the mystery of existence and that which gives meaning to it. I think you will not misunderstand me, then, when I say that I have never known a thinking man who did not believe in God.” (Millikan 1925).

“To me it is unthinkable that a real atheist could be a scientist.” (Millikan

 

[atheistgirl]

Albert Einstein

I’m one of those people that finds appeal to authority figures unconvincing.

So what if a scientist believed/believes in a Deity?

Apart from the issue that none of the quotes you gave even remotely hint at a personal loving Christian God who actively gets involved in His creation and sacrificed Himself for the salvation of mankind, scientists can and do get things wrong, and hold all kinds of wonderfully exotic and idiosyncratic ideas - witness Newton, a great scientist and theologian, and his alchemy.

Sarah x

 

[Charlemagne_II]

atheistgirl

So what if a scientist believed/believes in a Deity?

This forum is about the so-called war between science and religion, and whether science can destroy religion. Given the quotes cited, it does not look as though the warriors on the science side are altogether out to destroy religion.

 

[atheistgirl]

atheistgirl

So what if a scientist believed/believes in a Deity?

This forum is about the so-called war between science and religion, and whether science can destroy religion. Given the quotes cited, it does not look as though the warriors on the science side are altogether out to destroy religion.

I agree with you.

And I’ve said I don’t believe science will ever destroy religion.

Just as I think there will always be believers in some kind of a Deity, there will always be a scientist somewhere who also believes in a Deity of some kind.

Course, we always come back to the problem of exactly Who and What kind of Deity there really is

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Albert Einstein Theories of Relativity

“I have never found a better expression than “religious” for this trust in the rational nature of reality and of its peculiar accessibility to the human mind. Where this trust is lacking science degenerates into an uninspired procedure. Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this. There is no remedy for that.”

Max Planck Father of Quantum Physics

“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

In his famous lecture Religion and Science (May 1937) Planck wrote: “Both religion and science need for their activities the belief in God, and moreover God stands for the former in the beginning, and for the latter at the end of the whole thinking. For the former, God represents the basis, for the latter - the crown of any reasoning concerning the world-view.” (Max Planck, Religion und Naturwissenschaft, Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth Verlag, 1958, 27).

Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” (Heisenberg, as cited in Hildebrand 1988, 10).

Arthur Compton Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist

“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence – an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered – ‘In the beginning God.’”

Erwin Schroedinger Nobel Laureate in Physics:

1. ¨ In his book Nature and the Greeks (Cambridge University Press, 1954) Prof. Schrödinger writes:

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” (Schrödinger 1954, 93).

Max Born Quantum Physicist

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

Robert Millikan Nobel Laureate in Physics:
In an interview, entitled “A Scientist’s God” (Collier’s; October 24, 1925) Millikan stated:

“It pains me as much as it did Kelvin ‘to hear crudely atheistic views expressed by men who have never known the deeper side of existence.’ Let me, then, henceforth use the word God to describe that which is behind the mystery of existence and that which gives meaning to it. I think you will not misunderstand me, then, when I say that I have never known a thinking man who did not believe in God.” (Millikan 1925).

“To me it is unthinkable that a real atheist could be a scientist.” (Millikan

Gems from your treasure chest!

 

[Viviphilia]

I have been attempting to follow this thread but I have not seen anything stated that supports your opening supposition. Why did you conclude certainty is part of the proposal? Very few Christians would say they never had doubts.

Both empirical evidence and logical arguments exist, yet they don’t yield certainty, to the point that some claim neither exist. This lack of certainty has been no barrier to those who have pursued and attained the highest order of holiness.

I don’t limit my discussion to what has been discussed in this thread.

CCC 157 Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but "the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives."31 "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."32

As I understand it, we are supposed to believe, with certainty, that the Biblical account of God creating the universe is a matter of fact, and one which is proven through logic.

Since logic is able to account for supernatural facts and science is unable to account for supernatural facts, and I have no way of telling for sure what is natural and what is supernatural, why would I ever rely on science? Should I always rely on logic since logic is clearly superior? And isn’t that position the exact reverse of scientism?

 

[buffalo]

I agree with you.

And I’ve said I don’t believe science will ever destroy religion.

Just as I think there will always be believers in some kind of a Deity, there will always be a scientist somewhere who also believes in a Deity of some kind.

Course, we always come back to the problem of exactly Who and What kind of Deity there really is

Sarah x

The question is will they converge on this?:

The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10

 

[Viviphilia]

Vivi

**Don’t we require some combination of empirical evidence and logical argumentation in order to have certainty? **

It would be great to have such combinations. But the combination of those two does not always lead to certainty. Sometimes they lead to an illusion of certainty. One person’s logic can contradict another person’s logic. One scientist’s experiments can contradict another scientist’s experiments.

As for theological truth, faith is another way of knowing with certainty … yet amid a plethora of doubts that must be constantly overcome or succumbed to.

Certainty is like trying to clutch water. Now you see it, now you don’t.

The certainty we do have is that we have to believe and hope in certainty. If we don’t, we become mentally unstable and frivolous.

In my view, knowledge is probabilistic. Degrees of certainty are determined in our minds by Bayesian neural networks which combine *a posteriori knowledge (empirical knowledge) with a priori *knowledge (logical knowledge). Certainty is indeed rare. Which is why I find it difficult to believe things on faith. I usually require both empirical and logical evidence. When I lack one or the other, I might still reach a conclusion, but that conclusion is necessarily incomplete and thus, weak and tentative. This is why I reject both scientism and “pure reason,” by themselves, as approaches to epistemology. A combination of science and logic are required for strong conclusions. I suppose this is a Kantian view, but I regret to admit I have never studied Kant.

To add: I thought Touchstone’s earlier comments on the metaphysical axioms of science to be rather interesting. A long time ago, I adopted Ayn Rand’s axiom - the validity of the senses. I have found that axiom to be very useful for developing a scientific worldview which is based on the combination of empirical evidence and logical argumentation.

That is not to say the validity of the senses axiom is unarguable, just that it is for the most part a trivial argument, in my opinion.

 

[atheistgirl]

The question is will they converge on this?

If there was a hope of convergence it would have happened by now I think.

Sarah x

 

[buffalo]

If there was a hope of convergence it would have happened by now I think.

Sarah x

I wouldn’t. But I am interested in why you think that.

 

[Lochias]

It may be implicit in what’s written about conscience in the Catechism that unless you accept and agree with the Catholic Church, your conscience is misinformed and in error.

God is a God of mercy, and he is also a God of justice. This kind of discussion gets into degrees of culpability versus responsibility, and as I am not God, I cannot claim to know how culpable or responsible for you are concerning your conscience and the ways you choose to form it.

I can say that I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, and am glad that you continue to dialogue with us here, though.

This is just classic I’m right and you’re wrong and if you can’t see I’m right, you’re wrong thinking

I liken it more to a blind person who has never seen the color red, and therefore cannot possibly understand or accept what someone’s definition of red is. They won’t be able to unless they have their eyes healed, and they won’t let their eyes be healed until they are willing to see beyond what their limited senses can tell them.

Do I mean this in any sort of derogatory way? Nope. But it has nothing to do with simply declaring that one is right, and leaving it at that.

I happen to think it’s much more important to act with integrity at all times, informed by your conscience, and to keep informing your conscience.

I’m doing that to a degree here, learning about what Catholics believe and why.

Ayup.

But I would be betraying my conscience were I to enroll tomorrow in an adult class for new Christians and join the Catholic Church, when I haven’t found any of the justifications for the belief in a Deity remotely compelling.

Honesty is a virtue, yes.

On that basis, consistent with the catechism of the Church, I would be rejected as a new member, and so I should be, and I’d be told I wasn’t ready, since I would be acting against my conscience, which would be evident.

“Rejected” would be too strong a word…you would always be encouraged to come and talk to the priests, attend RCIA, ask any questions you had, and generally get any help you wanted or needed in continuing to inform your conscience, all without pressure. There’s always more to learn in an institution that is over 2000 years old.

 

[atheistgirl]

**’'Rejected" would be too strong a word…**you would always be encouraged to come and talk to the priests, attend RCIA, ask any questions you had, and generally get any help you wanted or needed in continuing to inform your conscience, all without pressure. There’s always more to learn in an institution that is over 2000 years old.

I agree with you.

From everything I’ve been reading I wouldn’t be ‘‘rejected’’ but rather, I would be encouraged - encouraged to keep searching, keep reading, keep studying, keep discussing … until I eventually believed as you did

Sarah x

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Vivi

****That is not to say the validity of the senses axiom is unarguable, just that it is for the most part a trivial argument, in my opinion. ****

I think it’s very arguable and not at all trivial.

The senses are helpful, but they can be misleading. Before Copernicus the Earth seemed to be the center of the solar system and everything revolved around it. Only by adopting mathematical analysis were Copernicus and Galileo able to demonstrate otherwise. The centuries long resistance to the theory of the atom was largely based on the objection that it didn’t exist because you couldn’t see it. That changed with the discovery of neutron, electrons, and protons, which still couldn’t be seen but whose existence could be logically inferred. There are now thousands of instances where our senses tell us one thing but reason tells us something entirely different. In each case it is reason that is more truthful than the senses.

 

[Viviphilia]

The senses are helpful, but they can be misleading.

The validity of the senses does not mean that we always correctly interpret what we are sensing. It merely means that what we are sensing really exists. For example, when we see the color red, there is really a photon of a certain wavelength which leaves a red object and carries the information to our eye - as opposed to the perception of redness existing solely in the mind. Assuming the senses are valid, the world we sense around us is really there - as opposed to being a construct in our mind, as if we were in some kind of Matrix-like virtual reality chamber.

This is why I do not have a hard time determining between natural and supernatural. With the axiom of the validity of the senses, all supernatural events are removed from consideration. We can argue that axiom if we like, for example, we could argue that the world around us is really an illusion created in our minds, and we might be able to find ways to violate the laws of nature - but that argument seems trivial to me. I don’t plan on looking for supernatural mechanisms to change anything. Mastering nature is already hard enough without trying to worry about supernatural stuff.

 

[Lochias]

I agree with you.

From everything I’ve been reading I wouldn’t be ‘‘rejected’’ but rather, I would be encouraged - encouraged to keep searching, keep reading, keep studying, keep discussing … until I eventually believed as you did

Sarah x

Hey, nobody’s holding a gun to your head. Just like you say, you’re always welcome to ask and such, no pressure asked.

How MUCH you want to learn is entirely up to you. Like X-Files said, the Truth is Out There…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Vivi

**We can argue that axiom if we like, for example, we could argue that the world around us is really an illusion created in our minds, and we might be able to find ways to violate the laws of nature - but that argument seems trivial to me. I don’t plan on looking for supernatural mechanisms to change anything. Mastering nature is already hard enough without trying to worry about supernatural stuff. **

I’ve already answered these points, except to offer that what’s really trivial is that which is bound to perish. If you have a soul that will perish, because you think it dies with your body, then I can see why you think your immortal soul is trivial and you won’t bother worrying about it.

But here’s the bottom line: you are here at Catholic Answers; so you are worrying about it … and therefore it is not trivial to you.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s a cocophonos din of gongs and nails scratching on a wall.

Sarah x

Sorry. I have no idea what that means.

 

[PRmerger]

From what I’ve read, The Orthodox teach everyone goes to purgatory after death.

Could you please cite your source?

Catholics do not teach everyone goes to purgatory after death.

This is incorrect.

The CC does not claim either way who goes to purgatory after death, Sarah. Even with the great martyrs of the Church there has been no proclamation that they did not endure a final purification prior to, or subsequent to, their death.

To me, your claims about purgatory, and the Orthodox claims about purgatory, are contradictory.

Perhaps it’s because you don’t know what contradictory means.
csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/phl4/Handouts/phl4contradiction.htm*

What you have been describing is a* difference* between the Orthodox and the CC in defining the minutiae of what happens to a soul that is not quite yet ready to meet the Godhead.

But you have not yet proffered any evidence for any contradictory statements.

For that to happen you would have to demonstrate something like this:
The Catholic Church says that purgatory exists.
The Orthodox Church says that purgatory does not exist.

*Disclaimer: the site contains one foul word.

 

[PRmerger]

Please don’t adopt such a condescending tone when you reply to me. Thanks.

I won’t if you won’t.

Sound fair?