Science knowldege religion bible

[inocente]

We have seen why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else – because of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. (Post #33).

I’m only going from quotes as well. From the Wikipedia entry

The Jesuit China missions of the 16th and 17th centuries “learned to appreciate the scientific achievements of this ancient culture and made them known in Europe. Through their correspondence European scientists first learned about the Chinese science and culture.”

Agustín Udías, Searching the Heavens and the Earth: The History of Jesuit Observatories. (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003). p.53

The problem with making a claim for the birth of natural science is that its intent and methodology have developed over time, and it’s unlikely that all the cultures involved would agree. I couldn’t claim it as an outcome of Christianity without feeling like a colonialist.

 

[Abu]

inocente
I couldn’t claim it [science] as an outcome of Christianity without feeling like a colonialist.

I guess that’s why we have historians who can produce facts and don’t rely on feelings. It is reason employing cause and effect, based on the search for the Creator’s laws, which produces real progress.

The denigration of the Church’s role in the development of science had been prevalent until the early twentieth century when historian Pierre Duhem underlined the Church’s crucial role and more and more historians have recognised this fact. (How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Thomas E Woods Jr., Regnery Publishing, 2005, p 75).

catholicleague.org/research/catholicism_and_science.htm
Catholicism and Science by Rodney Stark (from Catalyst 9/2004)
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.”

Whitehead ended with the remark that the images of God found in other religions, especially in Asia, are too impersonal or too irrational to have sustained science. A God who is capricious or unknowable gives no incentive for humans to dig deeply into his essence. Moreover, most non-Christian religions don’t posit a creation. If the universe is without beginning or purpose, has no Creator, is an inconsistent, unpredictable, and arbitrary mystery, there is little reason to explore it. Under those religious premises, the path to wisdom is through meditation and mystical insights, and there is no occasion to celebrate reason.

 

[greylorn]

To start off, it seems pretty certain you do *not *study philosophy. You might be right in general that I read science, but I have studied biology in particular, since it is my favorite science.

Basically the only substantial statement I have to reply to is the one in bold. Your ignorance of philosophy is conspicuous. For one so enlightened as your modern self, you have almost no knowledge of even the basic propositions of the most important philosophers to the most important questions of existence. You obviously have not even taken a cursory glance at Saint Thomas’ works. How about before making blunders like that at least look up the name on Wikipedia? In the Summa Theologica there are approximately 500 pages dedicated to abstracting the attributes of God based on the conclusions of the Quinque Viae. You can read it all right here on the internet: newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

Perhaps it is time for you to get over your errors, and start doing some seriously serious thinking, like Sts. Thomas or Bonaventure.

PS Please, I hope you understand that I’m not trying to be mean or anything. Text does not convey tone very well. But you must understand that you’re pontificating on something you don’t seem to have much knowledge of.

What a delight it is to open a page of CAF feedback and find all it (with the usual exception of Moonstruck) to be thoughtful, well considered, and on topic. Thank you, and the others posting to this subject.

The bad news is that I have a lot of work to do, and it’s about 3am after a long day, so replies will have to hold if they are to meet your standards. This may take a few days. Also, I checked my copy of “The Joy of Cooking,” but could not find any recipes for crow. Any tips? The last few times I’ve tried it fried and grilled, The best I could do, with the addition of lots of Dave’s Insanity Sauce, was to make it taste pretty much like roasted javelina boar basted with Dave’s Insanity Sauce.

 

[inocente]

I guess that’s why we have historians who can produce facts and don’t rely on feelings.

Sure, but Chinese, Indian, Muslim, etc. historians may not agree with our historians or “Alfred North Whitehead, the great philosopher and mathematician”. They would not be denigrating the Church by having their own facts.

It’s been argued on other threads that Protestants are responsible for the “curse of science”, but then the purpose of debate is to have a discussion after all.

 

[tjm190]

Considering that the sciences are clearly have their roots in ancient Greece, and the fact that both the European and Islamic world only moved forward in science after rediscovering their ideas kinda puts a dent in the ‘science results from Christianity’ argument. Even if we discount the Greeks, Muslims were inventing algebra and optics while Europeans were having their dark age.

 

[awatkins69]

Considering that the sciences are clearly have their roots in ancient Greece, and the fact that both the European and Islamic world only moved forward in science after rediscovering their ideas kinda puts a dent in the ‘science results from Christianity’ argument. Even if we discount the Greeks, Muslims were inventing algebra and optics while Europeans were having their dark age.

It’d be flat wrong to attribute science as a whole to Christianity. However, Christianity was one of the greatest influences leading to modern science. There’s certainly no false dichotomy that everyone likes to make it seem. To be quite honest, the only things I ever hear are about are Galileo, which I’ll concede is a fair case to look at, and Bruno, who is made out to be a martyr for science, when he was really only a martyr for heresy.

 

[4Horsemen]

4H:

Traditional religious beliefs are based upon the words of men. Other men came along and said that these words of men were actually the words of the Creator of the Universe, and a lot of men believed them. Clearly, you are one link in this long chain of agreement.

I’d rather be a “link” in beliefs based on Biblical inerrancy and tradition than on the words of men–scientists and pseudo-intellectuals who have no proof of anything outside their provincial realm of thought.

But even you might recognize that there is one, and only one Bible which can be attributed to the Creator of the Universe and to none other.

This Bible is the physical universe itself, replete with its laws of physics and evidence of biological evolution. Men cannot have created this awesome Bible.

I agree. Men could never ever create this wonderful universe with its physical laws based upon empirical knowledge and reason itself. Even scientific knowledge is built on the faith that the universe is coherent and that it is possible for the human mind to acquire knowledge of the world. Because of the rationality of the universe, we find it to be in God’s nature to exist–since non-existence is a negation of what we perceive all around us-- and thus we find God’s perfect nature to be at the root of all logical ideas and propositions, including scientific theorems and ideas.

Yes, men have the job of interpreting. They do this for even the bibles they wrote, and invent a variety of opinions according to their preferences. Humans freely drop from their bibles those sections which might prove troublesome. Various languages allow freedoms of translation which are well exercised, producing major variants of the written Bible’s absolute God-inspired truth.

Can you give some examples?
We can trace Scriptural accounts written by the Essenes all the way from 200 B.C. to 68 A.D. Many were found intact in 11 caves. The book of Isaiah is comparable to what is now in print. See more on the Dead Sea Scrolls at the following website: (I included one point of interest I found amusing).

centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html

"Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls actually appeared for sale on June 1, 1954 in the Wall Street Journal. The advertisement read — “The Four Dead Sea Scrolls: Biblical manuscripts dating back to at least 200 BC are for sale. This would be an ideal gift to an educational or religious institution by an individual or group. Box F206.”

(I was able to view the Dead Sea Scrolls which were loaned to the Milwaukee Museum. Also, some of the oldest and most decorative bibles like the Illuminated Bible.

 

[Abu]

inocente
Chinese, Indian, Muslim….having their own facts.

Unable to refute the facts, such speculations are empty.

tjm190
Considering that the sciences are clearly have their roots in ancient Greece, and the fact that both the European and Islamic world only moved forward in science after rediscovering their ideas…while Europeans were having their dark age.

Such falsehoods conceal the facts. The “Dark Ages” are pure myth, like so many other slanders that try to discredit Christ and His Church. Still the gullible are unable to see the wood for the trees.

The progress achieved during the “Dark Ages” was not merely technological. Medieval Europe excelled in philosophy and science. The term “Scientific Revolution” is in many ways as misleading as “Dark Ages.” Both were coined to discredit the medieval Church. The notion of a “Scientific Revolution” has been used to claim that science suddenly burst forth when a weakened Christianity could no longer prevent it, and as the recovery of classical learning made it possible. Both claims are as false as those concerning Columbus and the flat earth.
catholicleague.org/research/catholicism_and_science.htm, Catholicism and Science by Rodney Stark (from Catalyst 9/2004)].
**
Even the Greeks failed
It is Aristotle’s erroneous assumptions which have been cast aside. Historians Pierre Duhem, A.C. Crombie and Edward Grant have argued that condemnations by the Bishop of Paris in 1277 forced thinkers to break out of the intellectual confinement of Aristotelian presuppositions, from the restrictions of Aristotelian science and to adopt new thinking to the physical world. While Fr Jaki states that the Greeks came closest to the development of modern science, they still fell very short.

Aristotle had denied the possibility of a vacuum, and the condemnations “seem definitely to have promoted a freer and more imaginative way of doing science.” (Dales, The De-Animation of the Heavens in the Middle Ages, p 550).

Another condemned Aristotelian proposition was that “the motions of the motion of the sky result from an intellectual soul,” and prompted new approaches to the central question of the behaviour of the heavenly bodies.
(How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Thomas E Woods Jr., Regnery Publishing, 2005, p 75 – 79).

 

[Seeker2010]

Now the social sciences have discovered that the more frequently Americans worship, practice religion, the better they do on every observable outcome measured to date – this includes adultery, homosexual conduct, cohabitation and many more areas benefiting the individual and society:
catholiceducation.org/articles/printarticle.html?id=6543

Actually, that does not seem to be the case. The exact opposite, in fact. To wit:

“It’s because of the loss of religion that our country is in the condition it is in”. I have heard this phrase, or akin to it, over and over again in my personal study of religion and society. I decided one day recently to test that phrase. After a few hours research here is what I discovered.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reported in 2009 that the MOST religious state in the US is Mississippi. That is to mean that there are more people in Mississippi then in any other state who claim that religion is important to them, whether it is Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism, or Islam, etc. It should be noted that the report also states that Mississippi is overwhelmingly Christian. Here’s some other statistics on Mississippi that bear importance on the argument of whether or not we’re “going to hell in a handbasket” as a result of a lack of religion.

(Rankings are 1-51(includes District of Columbia unless otherwise indicated) 1 being the best statistic, 51 being the worst)

1. Crime Index Ranking: Ranked 29th
2. Median Income Ranking: Ranked 51st
3. % of families that are below poverty rate: Ranked 51st
4. % of h.s. grads who met/exceeded ACT College Readiness Levels: Ranked 51st
5. Average ACT score: Ranked 51st

6. of Teen pregnancy: Ranked 45th*​

7. of Abortions: Ranked 47th*​

The flipside: New Hamshire was reported as the LEAST religious state

1. Crime Index Ranking: Ranked 2nd
2. Median Income Ranking: Ranked 7th
3. % of families that are below poverty rate: Ranked 1st
4. % of h.s. grads who met/exceeded ACT College Readiness Levels: Ranked 3rd
5. Average ACT Score: Ranked 3rd

6. of Teen pregnancies: Ranked 1st*​

7. of Abortions: Ranked 1st*​

Is there a direct correlation between religion and these other statistics? It seems quite apparent to me that there is.

*Does not include the District of Columbia.

Sources:
Pew Forum on Religious Life "How Religious is Your State (2009)
Crime Rates: Disaster Center Crime Reports (2008)
ACT College Readiness Report (2009)
Census Report - Median Income Report (2008)
Census Report - % of families at/below poverty levels (2007)
Guttmacher Institute - "U.S. Teenage Pregnancies, Births and Abortions:
National and State Trends and Trends by Race and Ethnicity (2010)

 

[greylorn]

To start off, it seems pretty certain you do *not *study philosophy. You might be right in general that I read science, but I have studied biology in particular, since it is my favorite science.

Basically the only substantial statement I have to reply to is the one in bold. Your ignorance of philosophy is conspicuous. For one so enlightened as your modern self, you have almost no knowledge of even the basic propositions of the most important philosophers to the most important questions of existence. You obviously have not even taken a cursory glance at Saint Thomas’ works. How about before making blunders like that at least look up the name on Wikipedia? In the Summa Theologica there are approximately 500 pages dedicated to abstracting the attributes of God based on the conclusions of the Quinque Viae. You can read it all right here on the internet: newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

Perhaps it is time for you to get over your errors, and start doing some seriously serious thinking, like Sts. Thomas or Bonaventure.

PS Please, I hope you understand that I’m not trying to be mean or anything. Text does not convey tone very well. But you must understand that you’re pontificating on something you don’t seem to have much knowledge of.

A.W.

I accept your corrections. My statement, “Not a one, including Aquinas, tackles the relevant aspect of this question, which is, what are the properties of the God whose existence is being proven,” is incorrect. I was writing from my personal perspective without making that clear. I did not find Aquinas’ answers on some topics relevant to my personal inquiries, but to write as if they are generally irrelevant is stupid, and disrespectful to a great thinker. I apologize.

I had read (not studied) Aquinas years ago during my, “What to think about the First Law of Thermodynamics,” period, and found his answers wanting. After reading several sections of the link you posted (excellent, by the way! I have it bookmarked as first rate reference material that may help prevent me from making similar errors.) I recalled things read years ago, so I should have known better.

Aquinas, and subsequent theologians, have not provided what I regard as logical answers to certain purely logical questions, or answers that fit into the context of physical reality.

For example:

“ESSENCE: We cannot know what God is, but only what He is not. So to study Him, we study what He has not – such as composition and motion.”

I object to all aspects of this statement. I find it perfectly reasonable to initiate an understanding of God with the question, “What properties must he have, at bare minimum, in order to create the universe that we have so far learned about?” This positive question produces several simple and interesting answers which are entirely in keeping with scientific evidence and theory.

I see no reason for the assertions that God has no composition and is incapable of motion. Nor do I accept the notion that we cannot know at least something of what God is— i.e. what properties he possesses and does not possess. Aquinas makes no convincing case for it.

However, I see no reason to think that we can know “Who” God is. We cannot know His personality or his motivations. The best we can do is guess. And we do plenty of that. Each different modern religion seems to agree upon the properties of God (omnipotence, etc.), but disagree upon God’s personality, motivations, purposes, desires, intentions, etc. These are the elements which separate religions, all human guesswork.

I find it absurd that religions arrogate to themselves the understanding of that which can only be made up by humans, and ignore the attributes of God which are obvious from an extrapolation of basic physics. But, religions are designed to make people believe, not to facilitate serious understanding. Of course, these are only my opinions.

While I did not read the entire thing and risk being in error on every following issue, I invite correction, especially by pointing out the specific relevant argument. I scanned the material for issues which I personally find relevant, and conclude, inferentially----

Aquinas’ God cannot think. (Since He does not have ideas, but simply knowledge.)

The soul is not unique to man. He defines soul as a principle of life, which applies equally well to algae and pinworms as to humans.

He fails to define soul in such a manner as supportive of thought and consciousness, nor does he offer a suitable reason for its creation.

---

I believe that Aquinas and I would get along just fine and have some constructive conversations. But the timing is clearly wrong. Nonetheless, thanks for the reintroduction.

Anyway, you’re right that I’m a poor student of philosophy. I did not take a philosophy course until after my book on philosophy was in the publication process. That its ideas were actually taken seriously enough to be excerpted in at least one philosophy book and made required reading for several philosophy courses does not make me a philosopher. I have only 3 university credits on the subject.

This paucity of formal knowledge makes it easier to apologize for the errors I make, and comfortable in welcoming their corrections. If I had a Ph.D, I’d need to be right.

Thank you for a straight-up post!

 

[awatkins69]

I’m going to reply to the stuff where there’s something to reply to.

A.W.

Aquinas, and subsequent theologians, have not provided what I regard as logical answers to certain purely logical questions, or answers that fit into the context of physical reality.

That’s because this is metaphysics.

For example:

“ESSENCE: We cannot know what God is, but only what He is not. So to study Him, we study what He has not – such as composition and motion.”

I object to all aspects of this statement. I find it perfectly reasonable to initiate an understanding of God with the question, “What properties must he have, at bare minimum, in order to create the universe that we have so far learned about?” This positive question produces several simple and interesting answers which are entirely in keeping with scientific evidence and theory.

You misunderstand. The point is that we cannot predicate accidental attributes of God.

I see no reason for the assertions that God has no composition and is incapable of motion. Nor do I accept the notion that we cannot know at least something of what God is— i.e. what properties he possesses and does not possess. Aquinas makes no convincing case for it.

Then you obviously didn’t read it.

However, I see no reason to think that we can know “Who” God is. We cannot know His personality or his motivations. The best we can do is guess. And we do plenty of that. Each different modern religion seems to agree upon the properties of God (omnipotence, etc.), but disagree upon God’s personality, motivations, purposes, desires, intentions, etc. These are the elements which separate religions, all human guesswork.

Again, according to Aquinas, these attributes are not predicated of God absolutely but only analogically.

I find it absurd that religions arrogate to themselves the understanding of that which can only be made up by humans, and ignore the attributes of God which are obvious from an extrapolation of basic physics. But, religions are designed to make people believe, not to facilitate serious understanding. Of course, these are only my opinions.

Yet somehow physics does not fall under the realm of limited human understanding. And “not to facilitate serious understanding”? You’ve got to be kidding me. Please read Duns Scotus’ metaphysics and tell me that it was not designed to facilitate serious understanding.

While I did not read the entire thing and risk being in error on every following issue, I invite correction, especially by pointing out the specific relevant argument. I scanned the material for issues which I personally find relevant, and conclude, inferentially----

I think you only read about two sentences.

Aquinas’ God cannot think. (Since He does not have ideas, but simply knowledge.)

If you object prove it wrong. Answer his replies in the Summa. That God does not think is pretty obvious if God is omniscient…

The soul is not unique to man. He defines soul as a principle of life, which applies equally well to algae and pinworms as to humans.

Aquinas **does **believe algae and pinworms have souls in the manner of Aristotle. They are essentially different however. BASIC philosophical history and you would know this.

He fails to define soul in such a manner as supportive of thought and consciousness, nor does he offer a suitable reason for its creation.

There are distinctions between souls. There are vegetative and sensory which are composed of form and matter. Then there are rational souls, humans and angels. No suitable reason for its creation? Please refute his argument:

“We may proceed from the specific notion of the human soul inasmuch as it is intellectual. For it is clear that whatever is received into something is received according to the condition of the recipient. Now a thing is known in as far as its form is in the knower. But the intellectual soul knows a thing in its nature absolutely: for instance, it knows a stone absolutely as a stone; and therefore the form of a stone absolutely, as to its proper formal idea, is in the intellectual soul. Therefore the intellectual soul itself is an absolute form, and not something composed of matter and form. For if the intellectual soul were composed of matter and form, the forms of things would be received into it as individuals, and so it would only know the individual: just as it happens with the sensitive powers which receive forms in a corporeal organ; since matter is the principle by which forms are individualized. It follows, therefore, that the intellectual soul, and every intellectual substance which has knowledge of forms absolutely, is exempt from composition of matter and form.”

Look, no offense or anything, but I’m not here to teach you the basics of philosophy. If you’re interested in learning these issues I’d recommend “Introduction to Philosophy” by Jacques Maritain. Once you’ve gotten a basic understanding of the problems start a thread with a rational criticism, rather than bare assertions of mere opinion, and we’ll talk. God bless.

 

[Abu]

greylorn
I see no reason to think that we can know “Who” God is. We cannot know His personality or his motivations….separate religions, all human guesswork….I find it absurd that religions arrogate to themselves the understanding of that which can only be made up by humans.

Pity that he has progressed no further since he wrote “So in the absence of knowledge, they make things up. Religions have left the interpretation of God’s real bible to scientists, who, for lack of any logical reason to accept religious dogmas, have become atheists. This leaves the interpretation of God’s true but neglected Bible in the hands of atheists. You will have to study physics and microbiology if you genuinely want to understand it.”

We’ve seen that very many outstanding scientists are not only not atheists but, some like Dr Michael Behe, firm believers in Christ and His Church. A good start is to acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth is the only individual who claimed seriously to be God, and proved it by His Resurrection from death, and to avoid lazily confusing one religion with another.

If “science” is defined merely to coincide with empirical science, there results a false concept of science and an impoverished idea of reality. Technical science, as distinguished from common sense, is “certified knowledge,” and some assume that only the knowledge gained from empirical science is really certified, into which they might throw historical knowledge in a broader sense. But there are other areas and levels of technical science that also give certified knowledge. Not only is there true historical science, but, in the midst of the widespread confusion and misunderstanding in the field known today as “modern philosophy,” there is still an area of true philosophical science, if one can manage to find it, and it resides in Scholastic philosophy. Again, there is still an area of theological science, and it resides today especially in Scholastic theology, and the knowledge presented in these latter two sciences is also objectively true and real. [LT123 - Anthony Rizzi, The Science Before Science / Blessed Columba Marmion, Christ, The Life Of The Soul]](LT123 - Anthony Rizzi, The Science Before Science / Blessed Columba Marmion, Christ, The Life Of The Soul])

 

[greylorn]

Errors, errors, errors my friend.

Paragraph 1: Firstly, the Catholic Church is the only Church that traces its history back to the start of Christianity while adhering to the same beliefs of the early Christians.

Errors, you think? Let’s get to honest work. This will be reply 1 of 2 to post 3-32.

Christianity began when Christ started teaching. His ideas were enough to start a major religion, and get lots of people thinking on previously unconsidered subjects. Christ did not address many of these interesting philosophical issues.

In his wake, the Gnostics arose. Just thinkers, dealing with previously untouched and largely metaphysical issues, like the purpose of mankind’s creation. Mary Magdalene may have founded the movement. Her writings are few, but both brilliant and fascinating. I found them in a university library, and they may be available in similar venues for anyone interested in the real roots of Christianity. Likewise the writings of other gnostic thinkers.

Must of Christianity represents the teachings of the New Testament writer, John, and the “apostle” Paul, converted, by his personal claim, from a murderous and villainous Roman. Most of his teachings were his personal opinions.

The modern Church officially began with the Nicene Council, roughly 3rd century, Those who attended were carefully selected to be part of a majority in mutual agreement. This council selected Catholic beliefs which had not been taught by Christ. Gnostics were not invited, but shortly after the Church took real power, they were exterminated. Must have been the nasty Romans feeding their leftover lions.

Secondly, the Church had a positive influence on science, not just neutral. Christian scientists were extremely important in development of the scientific method. Try looking up Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, and Descartes for starters.

It’s late, so I’ll deal with Descartes, whose philosophies I’ve read and whose mathematics I used. History records that he was fearful to publish his best philosophical ideas for fear of the Inquisition. He accepted an invitation to stay in Sweden as the queen’s court philosopher, for fear of remaining in Catholic France. The cold climate and drafty castle brought him an early demise.

Thirdly, for the famous Galileo case, Galileo got in trouble for presenting heliocentrism as more than just a hypothesis, as absolute truth.

Not quite. Essentially, he proposed, as I do, that the truth of the universe which God had created is a higher truth than the inventions of man. When the two contradict, trust God’s universe. The Church had already adopted the false physics of Aristotle and incorporated that nonsense into its dogma, believing that it (the Church) could discover the laws of physics by extrapolating from dogma.

Galileo taught (correctly, IMO) that it was the other way around. I’ve brought up this point often. No one on CAF has dared to dispute Galileo’s (and my) assertion about the true origin of beliefs. The physical universe is a certain creation of God, whereas the Bible is the certain creation of men, interpreted by men, and agreed upon by men that the writings of men are actually the word of God. Therefore, the physical universe is a higher truth.

(This does not imply that the interpretations of this truth by scientists are correct. Give the job of interpreting God’s Creation to nitwits who don’t believe in God— why expect something else?)

Care to give it a shot?

Father Nicolaus Copernicus had no problems at all, and even dedicated his “De Revolutionibus” to the Holy Father.

I’d not known that Copernicus was a priest. I’d read that he had a high but lesser Church position. But, what matter?

The reason that Copernicus had no problems with the Church is simple. Fearful of the Inquisition, he ordered that his ideas be published posthumously.

He also loved his Church and its principles, as did Galileo. Hence the dedication. Like Galileo, he preferred not to die a horrible death by offending the dogmatists in power. Hence the publication delay.

 

[greylorn]

Fourthly, this myth of Giordano Bruno being denounced for his science is absurd. Giordano Bruno was condemned as a heretic by the Holy Office for these errors:
* Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers.
* Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ’s divinity and Incarnation.
* Holding erroneous opinions about Christ.
* Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass.
* Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.
* Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes.
* Dealing in magics and divination.
* Denying the Virginity of Mary.

This will be Reply #2 of 2 to your post, 3-32.

I shall assume that you are quoting official Catholic sources, not the same material about Bruno that I read. Rather than argue about the validity of historical information, which I imagine you are no more of an expert on than I, shall we cut to a simpler chase?

Which of the above listed opinions justifies Bruno’s torture under the Holy Office (you do recognize that this is a code word for The Inquisition, yes?) his being staked and burnt to death? Since you’ve read the New Testament more times than I, perhaps you can point out Christ’s teachings which justify either the fact or the style of Bruno’s elimination?

I am too ignorant or stupid to find it.

Paragraph 2: Come on man. There are so many Catholic scientists it’s not funny. Here you go:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_scientist-clerics
More here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Roman_Catholic_scientist-clerics

I’m certain that there are. I met one at breakfast one morning at Kitt Peak Observatory, a Jesuit using the Vatican telescope. He would not discuss religion, his observational program, or any aspect of his ideas about the relationship between religion and science. I was not impressed.

In 20 years of working in hard science fields, I met only one other Ph.D. who believed in God. He would not discuss his beliefs either. He was known in the department where I worked at the time as a poor astronomer. He had not done observational work or published in years, refused to learn what a computer was, and had been relegated to teaching freshman introductory courses for non-scientists. Since he had tenure, he could not be fired.

There are many fields which regard themselves as a science. Education, sociology, etc. Perhaps they sport more religious followers than physics, astronomy, mathematics and biochemistry/biology.

Your Big Bang theory was conceptualized by the Monsignor Georges Lemaitre. Not to mention the number of Jesuit modern physics professors.

Not only do I watch the History Channel too, I was working in space astronomy when Gamow and Hoyle were debating. Still have worn copies of their books. Engaged in many a discussion with astronomers over the origin of the universe and similar issues.

I failed to convince a one of them of even the possibility of a Creator. Believe me, I tried.

Incidentally, the Big Bang theory is not, as you suggest, something I’m willing to own. Just because I know some science does not mean that I agree with all “scientific” beliefs. I think that the Big Bang theory is as absurd as Darwinism, and can generate several arguments from physics and math to support that claim.

So, I’m less impressed than you that George thought of it.

Curiously, Big Bang theory is functionally identical to belief in an Omnipotent God as creator of the universe, so that George came up with it should not come as a big surprise. Fine mind, nonetheless. No deprecation of LeMaitre intended. He’d not be the first person to deal with an extremely difficult subject and get some aspects of it wrong. He tried, way ahead of his time.

Of course it is far more likely that I am wrong and LeMaitre is right. I’m doing my best.

Paragraph 3: I’d be careful. It seems you’re the one who has the closed mind. You like to perpetuate this false dichotomy myth.

Since I have no beliefs, unlike you and others of various persuasions, it is likely that my mind remains open. I regularly change it in the face of new evidence— nevermind that the changes are accompanied by a lot of whining.

I’ve invented a set of ideas about the origin of the universe in which I once believed in passionately enough to get me fired from good jobs, then changed my beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. I began as a devout and passionately outspoken Catholic.

Have you ever given up passionately held beliefs? Do you have any idea how wrenching that is? Do you really mean to label me, ‘closed minded?’

 

[Abu]

greylorn
The Church had already adopted the false physics of Aristotle and incorporated that nonsense into its dogma, believing that it (the Church) could discover the laws of physics by extrapolating from dogma. Most of his [Paul’s] teachings were his personal opinions.
it is likely that my mind remains open

So open that it holds nothing, apparently. The nonsense never stops! St Paul contradicted no Apostle, Pope or Bishop. Such a false prejudice, tut, tut.

He never learns. Repeating: it is Aristotle’s erroneous assumptions which have been cast aside. Historians Pierre Duhem, A.C. Crombie and Edward Grant have argued that condemnations by the Bishop of Paris in 1277 forced thinkers to break out of the intellectual confinement of Aristotelian presuppositions, from the restrictions of Aristotelian science and to adopt new thinking to the physical world. While Fr Jaki states that the Greeks came closest to the development of modern science, they still fell very short.

Aristotle had denied the possibility of a vacuum, and the condemnations “seem definitely to have promoted a freer and more imaginative way of doing science.” (Dales, The De-Animation of the Heavens in the Middle Ages, p 550).

Another condemned Aristotelian proposition was that “the motions of the motion of the sky result from an intellectual soul,” and prompted new approaches to the central question of the behaviour of the heavenly bodies.
(How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Thomas E Woods Jr., Regnery Publishing, 2005, p 75).

 

[greylorn]

Face Reality
All you can do is to complain – you are not being insulted, your errors are being laid bare. What an enormous capacity you have for error, and now you come back spewing more error by claiming that the Catholic Church threatened with torture those who studied and wrote about scientific thought including Galileo!

1. “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 his handiwork. 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 were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.” The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 22-23].

1. Alfred North Whitehead, F.R.S., knew that Catholic theology was essential for the rise of science in the West, while stifled elsewhere. He 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 Stark, op.cit., p 15].

See *Catholicism and Science *by Rodney Stark (from Catalyst 9/2004) at:
catholicleague.org/research/catholicism_and_science.htm

1. Galileo was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible. He was wrong in his physics. He was not tortured, nor threatened with torture. From Ockham through Copernicus, the development of the heliocentric model of the solar system was the product of the universities – that most Catholic innovation. From the start, the medieval Christian university was a place created and run by scholars devoted entirely to knowledge. Buridan, Oresme, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Newton, all developed empirical science from Catholic theology. The system of Copernicus was never denounced.

At least this was slightly less insulting than your previous posts.

Consider that an alleged Christian who begins arguments with stuff like,

“All you can do is to complain – you are not being insulted, your errors are being laid bare. What an enormous capacity you have for error, and now you come back spewing more error… ya da ya da ya da.”

is a confused defender of beliefs based upon Christ’s teachings.

You might reference my previous replies to awatkins, and study his courteous, yet forthright style of presenting arguments. You might be worth a response when you mellow out a bit.

There’s no need to post directly to me again. Good luck!

 

[greylorn]

Compare the results of going to a witch doctor with visiting a scientifically trained doctor.

A few decades back I snuck into a class to hear a young doctor’s address to about 40 final-year medical students. His subject was alternative medicine, something he had taken up after being disenchanted with the teachings and results of conventional medicine.

His name is Dr. Andrew Weil, and here’s a Wikipedia link to more current information about him.

Dr.Weil has a website, of course, and his many books are internationally published. Back then, he was just a guy with some thoughtful, but different, views about medicine and human health.

One of his observations to the med school class was this:

Every healing method, witch doctors, shamans, faith healers, prayers, psychic surgeons, chiropractors, and M.D.'s like himself with a degree-papered office, has, on average, an 80% chance of success.

He prefaced this with a story about himself being dreadfully sick for months, and unable to obtain a cure from the practitioners within his own profession. A friend suggested that he try homeopathy. He had already dismissed that healing method as absurd, but was desperate enough to visit a homeopath and take the inexpensive tablets that were prescribed. He returned to normal health in 3 days.

This experience fueled his quest, and gave him a healthy disrespect for conventional belief systems.

 

[greylorn]

Which one do you disagree with?

1. 
   *]The Attributes of God in General
   *] The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence. (De fide.) The Attributes of the Divine Being
   *] God is absolutely perfect. (De fide.)
   *] God is actually infinite in every perfection. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolutely simple. (De fide.)
   *] There is only One God. (De fide.)
   *] The One God is, in the ontological sense, The True God. (De fide.)
   *] God possesses an infinite power of cognition. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute Veracity. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolutely faithful. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute ontological Goodness in Himself and in relation to others. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness. (De fide.) D 1782.
   *] God is absolute Benignity. (De fide.) D1782.
   *] God is absolute Beauty. D1782.
   *] God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)
   *] God is eternal. (De fide.)
   *] God is immense or absolutely immeasurable. (De fide.)
   *] God is everywhere present in created space. (De fide.) The Attributes of the Divine Life
   *] God’s knowledge is infinite. (De fide.)
   *] God’s knowledge is purely and simply actual.
   *] God’s knowledge is subsistent
   *] God’s knowledge is comprehensive
   *] God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things
   *] The primary and formal object of the Divine Cognition is God Himself. (Scientia contemplationis)
   *] God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
   *] God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
   *] By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
   *] God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty (Scientia futuribilium). (Sent. communis.)
   *] God’s Divine will is infinite. (De fide.)
   *] God loves Himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-Divine things, on the other hand, with freedom. (De fide.)
   *] God is almighty. (De fide.)
   *] God is the Lord of the heavens and of the earth. (De fide.) D 1782.
   *] God is infinitely just. (De fide.)
   *] God is infinitely merciful. (De fide.)

1. 
   Buffalo,
   That is an exhaustive list indeed. I’ve never been faced with anything remotely as formidable. I’m curious about your agenda in presenting it, and hope that this will come in further posts.
   
   I prefer simple binary answers, and will honor you with as many as I can. Some of these attributes are such that in the context of my best theories about the nature of God and all things, I must give equivocal answers, with apologies.
   
   Inapplicable to my theories: 6, 7
   
   Not understood: 23
   
   Meaningless without a defined context: 10
   
   Accepted, conditionally: 32
   
   Accepted: 16, 17 (Part 2 only), 20, 21, 22.
   
   Requiring elaboration:
   5 In terms of substance, God is simple. As are all such entities. In terms of depth and richness of thought, God is complex. By comparison, minds such as Einstein, Aquinas, Shakespeare, Richard Feynman, Max Planck, are as clever and rich as those of dung beetles, while you and I are flatlined.
   1. So does the human “soul,” at least when soul is correctly defined as an essential component of what we call the human mind.
   Other attributes are not ones I find to be consistent with an understanding of the universe devised from spiritual experience and a limited understanding of basic physics.

 

[tjm190]

It’d be flat wrong to attribute science as a whole to Christianity. However, Christianity was one of the greatest influences leading to modern science. There’s certainly no false dichotomy that everyone likes to make it seem. To be quite honest, the only things I ever hear are about are Galileo, which I’ll concede is a fair case to look at, and Bruno, who is made out to be a martyr for science, when he was really only a martyr for heresy.

I fail to see how Christianity was a great influence- is it just a coincidence that Christianity entered “science mode” at the exact moment that classical ideas/recent Islamic discoveries were diffusing from the Middle East?

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo,
That is an exhaustive list indeed. I’ve never been faced with anything remotely as formidable. I’m curious about your agenda in presenting it, and hope that this will come in further posts.

I prefer simple binary answers, and will honor you with as many as I can. Some of these attributes are such that in the context of my best theories about the nature of God and all things, I must give equivocal answers, with apologies.

Inapplicable to my theories: 6, 7

Not understood: 23

Meaningless without a defined context: 10

Accepted, conditionally: 32

Accepted: 16, 17 (Part 2 only), 20, 21, 22.

Requiring elaboration:
5 In terms of substance, God is simple. As are all such entities. In terms of depth and richness of thought, God is complex. By comparison, minds such as Einstein, Aquinas, Shakespeare, Richard Feynman, Max Planck, are as clever and rich as those of dung beetles, while you and I are flatlined.

1. So does the human “soul,” at least when soul is correctly defined as an essential component of what we call the human mind.

Other attributes are not ones I find to be consistent with an understanding of the universe devised from spiritual experience and a limited understanding of basic physics.

I responded to a post that I believe you made - something to the effect that we cannot assign attributes to God.

I replied with the list of attributes we have assigned to God.

What is my agenda? Simply to get you to single any of them out and find out how we know. In other words there is much depth and history to how we arrived at them.

Hint: - God came to meet man - Revelation.