Science knowldege religion bible

[4Horsemen]

I don’t believe in anything, but rather strive to invent (as in make up) theories about the origin of the universe and myself (you too) which are logically consistent, and also consistent with the solid laws of the universe. My theories include a concept very close to the traditional concept of angels.

I hope your theories are based on educated hypotheses. “A concept very close to the traditional concept of angels”??? That needs an explanation. Perhaps in your new book.

But He did not say that it was “perfect,” did He?

God meant “good” as “perfect.” He was satisfied.

I just finished a pair of book chapters which show Darwinism for the absurd theory it is. In the process, I calculated the probability for the evolution of a single, small human gene by the driving force of random changes to DNA, which came out to one chance in 10exp542.

Interesting!

Moreover, there are no theories which explain abiogenesis. Science mostly ignores this issue.

Agreed.

Let me query you after you finish it. I will be interested to see if it contains any alternative ideas about the nature and purpose of God. Proving the existence of an entity which is poorly defined (IMO) does not seem relevant.

I’ll be lucky (blessed) to read a few chapters.

Be sure to pack mosquito repellent, ammonia, and anti-histamines on your August trip to the (Wisconsin?) northwoods. Been thereabouts, too.

Thank you. Will do.

No need. I’ve gazed through very large telescopes, and squinted into microscope eyepieces. I see beauty in orchids and wart hogs and concise mathematical descriptions of physical phenomena. I could write such a book, except that I’m not poetic enough. Thank you nonetheless.

No. Invent an anti-gravity drive.

Wart hogs? I’ll stick to orchids. Better yet, beauty can be found in God’s Word.

No man can “know” God. The best we can do is develop an understanding of His physical nature which is, at least, consistent with the best knowledge we are able to obtain, and then to modify our understanding as we develop better knowledge.

I believe that this level of understanding about God and creation is available to anyone with a competent mind.

I can agree with that.

No. There is too much good in fundamental Christianity that I would invite those who know that good to find something else. I’m here to convert atheists, or at least get in some practice at it. Hard to do, since the atheists who post here are rather dull.

I’m also here to learn, and have benefited considerably from this excellent website, through those I’ve been able to engage.

In the process, I have apparently been helpful to a few who were on the cusp of disbelief by offering a science-based alternative.

I also use the CAF as a source of serious conversation, in the absence of physical friends or acquaintances with the mind for such things. In the process, new ideas have appeared.

Below is an article (very basic) about Christianity (historical perspective) and the birth of science.

catholicleague.org/research/catholicism_and_science.htm

If you are the “enemy of our enemies,” I would think it reasonable that you would agree with the basic tenets of Catholicism.

God bless,
4

No. That’s Big Bang and Darwinism, both absurd.

Should you ever read my stuff, expect to appreciate them.

 

[greylorn]

where does common sense come from? Book of Proverbs or ???

How about from personal engagement with the laws of physics (falling down and getting back up) and experience with the local language and social patterns? It isn’t something you can read in a book.

 

[greylorn]

May I respectfully suggest that one’s beliefs are a part of the person you are. How can you untangle what is belief from knowledge and understanding. IMO, beliefs are formed through the understanding of the body of knowledge a person acquires in life.

It is simple to distinguish beliefs from understanding and knowledge, but requires both courage and intellectual honesty. All religions market belief, so if it comes from a religion, belief is what it is. Knowledge comes from sensory information and personal experience. It may all be wrong and yet be knowledge. Understanding is what you as an individual manages to distill from available beliefs and knowledge.

If it cannot be proven, it is belief. If it depends upon authority for its existence, its a belief. If it was programmed into your brain when you were a child, it is a belief.

Lots of stuff is just belief masquerading as science. E.g: Darwinism.

I did re-read the book of Joshua, Chapter 6. You must consider that God was working with tribal people who had no home and allowed their invasion of Jericho. He is Lord of life and death. At the time, He was preparing the children of Israel for the coming of the Savior. Also, He chose the Jewish race because they were the most despised among the nations. He sent His Son to be a servant and teach the law of love. (Hopefully, some brilliant theologians on CAF would explain this better).

Oh, really? I often see the attribute “merciful” applied to God in this forum, but it would not fit your justification for Jericho, would it? I also noted that your justification for Jericho somehow neglected to justify the unnecessary murders, rapes, and enslavements allegedly ordered by God.

I imagine that by your standards, it will be fine with you when a gang of Mexican illegals takes over your house, rapes applicable family members, and murders you, provided that they have been assured beforehand by some prophet that they are acting in the name of God.

With luck you will notice some contradictions between your current belief in God and the actions attributable to Him. I did. From them I concluded that mankind invented its God-concepts from nothing and changes them as befits the commerce and politics of the day. Put simply, there is God, but man has not defined him competently.

My choice was to quit believing in God altogether, as many rational people choose, or to come up with a God-concept into which the behavior of mankind makes perfect sense. What I write on CAF comes from my personal God-concept, which meets my standards of common sense and logical consistency, and which I, like many others, invented.

Mathematics is God’s handwriting. My idea of perfection is an absolute quality that can only be reached in a very limited way as imperfect human beings. But the idea is to stay on track and attempt to be perfect. As Jesus tells us, “Be ye perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect.” (There are a bunch of refs. if you have a concordance to the Bible).

Mathematics and logic are things onto themselves. They cannot be created by man or God, only discovered.

Why would Christ tell us to be perfect, knowing the impossibility of it?

Again, it’s the difference in the Old Testament way of thinking as compared to the New Testament which is the Law of Love: to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, strength and our neighbor as ourselves. God is working in human history. All we can do is trust that He will bring to fruition all He has begun.

I will not trust an inconsistent God, just as I do not trust politicians. I do not know when He might change His policies again.

How do you want the Church to change? I know people who would like the Church to go back to the Traditional Latin Mass. (I attend here and there. It’s been said that it’s the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven). I’d take the Ugandan priest at our parish which has no priest anymore, just a deacon and circuit-riding priests for the 2-parish system with a school to top it!

I would like it to review its dogmas and devise suitable explanations for dropping them, then do so. They were never necessary. Christ’s teachings are enough by themselves. It is not necessary to claim that Christ is the virgin born son of God in order to accept the value of his words, or whoever’s words they are.

Once it unencumbered itself of dogma, the Church might consider seeking a scientifically plausible explanation for creation of the universe and man.

All churches need a collection to help support them. They have bills too.
So IMHO, I hope you will give the Catholic Church another chance. Let’s disregard the negative things (there are plenty) and think only of God’s Third Commandment to keep holy the Lord’s day. It’s a time for the community to come together for group worship. That’s just as important as individual worship.

Yes, someone has to pay for the silk vestments and gold ornaments. Someone has to buy the steaks and cigars. Then there’s gas for the PopeMobile, and such. Curious how Christ managed, isn’t it?

Of course, things were different then. The standard of living was lower. I’m sure that if Christ was here today, he’d be teaching on national TV and cable, all decked out in $5000 suits, wearing a custom made Rolex, big gold rings that would make a Superbowl winner ashamed, driving a Maserati, flying between his mansions on a private 747.

 

[greylorn]

If you are the “enemy of our enemies,” I would think it reasonable that you would agree with the basic tenets of Catholicism.

That would make me a Catholic, once again. Respectfully, I’ve been there, done that, and found a different basis for my understanding of the nature and purposes of the Creator.

When I first took on the job of fighting the Church’s real enemies, such as Darwinists, I was ill-equipped to do so alone, and sought to do so from within the Church. I did not pass my first theological audience, and never tried again. Darwinism cannot be managed from within the Church, where instead of being recognized for the fundamental evil it is, and the consequent evils it fosters, it has been embraced by the Church.

You stick with the Church. It needs good men. And good is not a synonym for passive.

 

[Abu]

greylorn
Mathematics and logic are things onto themselves. They cannot be created by man or God, only discovered.

The usual failing to realise that as created by God mankind has the ability to reason from cause to effect; the mind or intellect produces ideas such as being, goodness, truth, beauty, virtue, honour, ambition, justice, wisdom – these ideas are beyond the grasp of any bodily sense organ. They require a spiritual power to comprehend them, unlike any other animal.

Theology was defined as the “Queen of sciences” in the universities of Europe. In this context “science” refers to “an organized body of knowledge” thus including subjects other than biology and the physical sciences, although it includes those as well.

Webster’s dictionary defines theology as “The science of God or of religion; the science which treats of the existence, character, and attributes of God, his laws and government, the doctrines we are to believe, and the duties we are to practice. . . the science of Christian faith and life.”

“Philosophy is the discipline that seeks to understand the causes, or principles, of things according to reason. Its object can be being, existence and nature (metaphysics), knowledge and how and what we know (epistemology and logic), religion, mathematics, natural science, culture, art etc…” (Colin P Donovan, EWTN, June 15, 2009).

Thus it is facing reality to not limit science to a reliance on experiment, observation and mathematical deduction only.

 

[greylorn]

Webster’s dictionary defines theology as “The science of God or of religion; the science which treats of the existence, character, and attributes of God, his laws and government, the doctrines we are to believe, and the duties we are to practice. . . the science of Christian faith and life.”

I wondered at this. Has even Webster’s Dictionary succumbed to stupidity? Perhaps recently, but in my 1991 copy the word “science” does not appear within the definition of theology, which is the exact opposite of any remotely scientific study.

Therein, theology is correctly called “a field of study,” which it is.

I checked a half-dozen internet sites, including the Mirriam-Webster Free Online Dictionary, without finding the word “science” in any definition of theology.

Kindly tell us which version of Webster’s dictionary you are using, so that someone on CAF who has a similarly dated version can verify your claim. At this point, I am certain that you simply made it up. If that is the case, I propose that you permanently excuse yourself from further posts on CAF, and while gone, you might investigate the meaning of “intellectual honesty.”

 

[Abu]

greylorn
Has even Webster’s Dictionary succumbed to stupidity? theology is correctly called “a field of study,” which it is I am certain that you simply made it up

How fatuous, but typical.
I could not locate the article which quoted Webster’s definition but for the astute reader here is a Merriam- Webster definition:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
“science
2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study ”

So the effort to limit a “science” to a reliance on experiment, observation and mathematical deduction only, pauperises the empirical effort.

rtforum.org/lt/lt141.html
**Msgr John F McCarthy explains: **
“Immanuel Kant and, in general, all empiricists falsely limit the concept of “science” and the knowledge of reality to what is observed by the physical senses. Thus, for them, intellectual concepts, reasoned conclusions, and spiritual things are not real. Thomas Aquinas more lucidly explains that “science,” that is, “the certified knowledge of reality,” is broader than the perception of material things and exists on different levels. Thus, there is the real knowledge of philosophical science; and there is the real knowledge of theological science.13 Of these, the knowledge of substantial forms pertains to philosophical science, and, therefore, it is not unscientific. In our day it has become customary to use the Kantian definition of science in common parlance, and thus to distinguish, on the one hand, between theology and science and, on the other hand, between philosophy and science. But this usage is damaging to the reality of the objects of faith and reason.”

A few of greylorn’s other common errors can be seen at:
Post #89: that religion and science have to be at war (a fantasy of A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, an influential reference by Andrew Dickson White, founder and first president of Cornell University).
Post #71& #33: that the Church gives “lip service” to science & threatened Galileo with torture (She enabled the development of science, and gave Galileo a fair hearing).
Post #55: that the Church had already adopted the false physics of Aristotle and incorporated that nonsense into its dogma (She enabled the refutation of Aristotle’s errors).
Post #13: that pagans could not get to heaven (blissfully unaware of Pope St Clement’s teaching in the first century).

As befitting the title of this thread Msgr McCarthy’s insight is pertinent:
By drawing attention to the *concept of reality *as the common and distinctive element in the definition of every science as a science, we hope to clear up some confusion regarding the intellectual medium of certain sciences, especially those of theology, philosophy, and history, and thus to restore access to the remote reality which is the true object of these sciences.
[LT69 - THE AIMS OF THE ROMAN THEOLOGICAL FORUM RESTATED]](LT69 - THE AIMS OF THE ROMAN THEOLOGICAL FORUM RESTATED]).

 

[greylorn]

How fatuous, but typical.
I could not locate the article which quoted Webster’s definition but for the astute reader here is a Merriam- Webster definition:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
“science
2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study ”

So the effort to limit a “science” to a reliance on experiment, observation and mathematical deduction only, pauperises the empirical effort.

rtforum.org/lt/lt141.html
**Msgr John F McCarthy explains: **
“Immanuel Kant and, in general, all empiricists falsely limit the concept of “science” and the knowledge of reality to what is observed by the physical senses. Thus, for them, intellectual concepts, reasoned conclusions, and spiritual things are not real. Thomas Aquinas more lucidly explains that “science,” that is, “the certified knowledge of reality,” is broader than the perception of material things and exists on different levels. Thus, there is the real knowledge of philosophical science; and there is the real knowledge of theological science.13 Of these, the knowledge of substantial forms pertains to philosophical science, and, therefore, it is not unscientific. In our day it has become customary to use the Kantian definition of science in common parlance, and thus to distinguish, on the one hand, between theology and science and, on the other hand, between philosophy and science. But this usage is damaging to the reality of the objects of faith and reason.”

A few of greylorn’s other common errors can be seen at:
Post #89: that religion and science have to be at war (a fantasy of A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, an influential reference by Andrew Dickson White, founder and first president of Cornell University).
Post #71& #33: that the Church gives “lip service” to science & threatened Galileo with torture (She enabled the development of science, and gave Galileo a fair hearing).
Post #55: that the Church had already adopted the false physics of Aristotle and incorporated that nonsense into its dogma (She enabled the refutation of Aristotle’s errors).
Post #13: that pagans could not get to heaven (blissfully unaware of Pope St Clement’s teaching in the first century).

As befitting the title of this thread Msgr McCarthy’s insight is pertinent:
By drawing attention to the *concept of reality *as the common and distinctive element in the definition of every science as a science, we hope to clear up some confusion regarding the intellectual medium of certain sciences, especially those of theology, philosophy, and history, and thus to restore access to the remote reality which is the true object of these sciences.
[LT69 - THE AIMS OF THE ROMAN THEOLOGICAL FORUM RESTATED]](LT69 - THE AIMS OF THE ROMAN THEOLOGICAL FORUM RESTATED]).

By inventing a definition of theology as science, to suit your arguments, and attributing it to Webster’s Dictionary where it clearly does not exist, you have established yourself as someone who invents information, otherwise commonly known as a “liar”. Then, when called on it, by obliquely blaming a mysterious “article” that you cannot locate, you have established yourself as someone who lacks the personal integrity to face up to a mistake.

IMO, therefore nothing you post is trustworthy.

You will understand why I shall not respond to you again, except to point out other falsehoods that you may attempt to perpetrate.

 

[Abu]

greylorn
Has even Webster’s Dictionary succumbed to stupidity?

A bore is one who is frightfully tedious and long-winded. In greylorn’s case one who is very confused and unable to escape the narrowness of the conceited. Hence his inability to face reality.

BTW, the article from which the original quote came (post #125) is at thebareessentials.org/theology.htm:
Webster’s dictionary defines theology as “The science of God or of religion; the science which treats of the existence, character, and attributes of God, his laws and government, the doctrines we are to believe, and the duties we are to practice. . . the science of Christian faith and life.”

But there are others indicating reality:
dictionary.net/moral+theology
dictionary.net
Theology
“The science of God or of religion; the science which treats of the existence, character, and attributes of God, his laws and government, the doctrines we are to believe, and the duties we are to practice; divinity; (as more commonly understood) “the knowledge derivable from the Scriptures, the systematic exhibition of revealed truth, the science of Christian faith and life. [1913 Webster]”

“Many speak of theology as a science of religion [instead of “science of God”] because they disbelieve that there is any knowledge of God to be attained. --Prof. R. Flint (Enc. Brit.). [1913 Webster]
[Source: The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48]"

Additionally, bcfworld.org/bible_studies/articles/Can%20Intelligent%20People%20Believe.pdf
“Theology – a: the science of God or of religion; the science which treats of the existence,
character, and the attributes of God, his laws and government, the doctrines we are to believe,
and the duties we are to practice (an old definition);5”​

“5 Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)”

Having established the accuracy of the quote which greylorn’s use of reason and inefficiency was unable to establish, we can return to his hang-ups.

 

[Abu]

greylorn
theology, which is the exact opposite of any remotely scientific study. Darwinism……has been embraced by the Church.
It is simple to distinguish beliefs from understanding and knowledge, but requires both courage and intellectual honesty. All religions market belief, so if it comes from a religion, belief is what it is. Knowledge comes from sensory information and personal experience….

As we have seen the science of theology was instrumental in the development of empirical science — and is part of many different sciences with certified knowledge. Certainly “Darwinism” has not “been embraced by the” Catholic Church.

Christ’s teachings are enough by themselves…Lots of stuff is just belief masquerading as science….Once it unencumbered itself of dogma, the Church might consider seeking a scientifically plausible explanation for creation of the universe and man.

The confusion is worse confounded, for the only way we know “Christ’s teachings” with certainty is through His own Church which He established and which gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God, as Christ wrote nothing. Further dogma “proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.” (CCC #88). Dogma thus clarifies what we must believe.

Christ’s Church does not need to seek an empirical science explanation as to how the universe was created, or how man was created – that is not Her mission. She can and will condemn whatever is proposed which tries to distort dogma or doctrine – that is Her mission.

 

[Big_Dummy]

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)

Stats that leave out DC gives an incomplete picture,

City Murder rates: 25 years after DC’s ban
Washington, DC 46.4 per 100,0001
Arlington, VA 2.1 per 100,0002
(Arlington is just across the river from D.C.)
Total VA metropolitan area 6.1 per 100,0003

gunowners.org/sk0601.htm

With the books finally closed on 2007, we can take an official look at the crime statistics for the year. The Washington Post did so yesterday and found that, as expected, violent crime in the District was up last year as compared to the previous year.

You can view some of the District’s 2007 crime data at the MPD’s site over here. It shows that 2007 saw 181 murders, up 7.7 percent from 2006, which saw 168 murders. Nonfatal shootings and other gun crimes were also up in 2007.

dcist.com/2008/01/02/violent_crime_u.php

but currently it is getting better mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,561242,mpdcNav_GID,1523,mpdcNav,%7C.asp

 

[edwest2]

That would make me a Catholic, once again. Respectfully, I’ve been there, done that, and found a different basis for my understanding of the nature and purposes of the Creator.

When I first took on the job of fighting the Church’s real enemies, such as Darwinists, I was ill-equipped to do so alone, and sought to do so from within the Church. I did not pass my first theological audience, and never tried again. Darwinism cannot be managed from within the Church, where instead of being recognized for the fundamental evil it is, and the consequent evils it fosters, it has been embraced by the Church.

You stick with the Church. It needs good men. And good is not a synonym for passive.

When was Darwinism embraced by the Church? The secular world posts here, desperate to get a clear statement from the Church, as well as individual Catholics here, that we “accept” it. I don’t accept the textbook version.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

As we have seen the science of theology was instrumental in the development of empirical science — and is part of many different sciences with certified knowledge. Certainly “Darwinism” has not “been embraced by the” Catholic Church.

The confusion is worse confounded, for the only way we know “Christ’s teachings” with certainty is through His own Church which He established and which gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God, as Christ wrote nothing. Further dogma “proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.” (CCC #88). Dogma thus clarifies what we must believe.

Christ’s Church does not need to seek an empirical science explanation as to how the universe was created, or how man was created – that is not Her mission. She can and will condemn whatever is proposed which tries to distort dogma or doctrine – that is Her mission.

Actually, due to the ongoing attempt to explain man as a bag of chemicals, the Church has dealt with this issue. Too many people believe they are nothing more than another animal. This does concern the Church.

God bless,
Ed

 

[greylorn]

When was Darwinism embraced by the Church? The secular world posts here, desperate to get a clear statement from the Church, as well as individual Catholics here, that we “accept” it. I don’t accept the textbook version.

God bless,
Ed

When? How would I know? I’m not a historian. In 1959 I asked a Norbertine religion teacher what I as a Catholic should believe about evolution. Was told that it is acceptable to believe that man evolved according to Darwin’s theory, but I must believe that God created the soul. (It later came as no surprise that they called that one backwards.)

So, before 1959 the Church must have given Darwinism its imprimatur, at some level.

You don’t accept the textbook version of what, exactly?

 

[Moonstruck888]

So the effort to limit a “science” to a reliance on experiment, observation and mathematical deduction only, pauperises the empirical effort.

What a preposterous argument. Basically what you’ve said here is that to limit science to science pauperizes the empirical effort.

For once, I’m forced to agree with greylorn. You can’t just redefine words to suit your purposes and then cry foul when he points out your mendacity.

 

[Abu]

Moonstruck888
what you’ve said here is that to limit science to science pauperizes the empirical effort.

No.

You can’t just redefine words to suit your purposes

That’s why reason based on sound thought is used, but if moonstruck this may cloud understanding.

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])

 

[4Horsemen]

Science is more than merely empiracal knowledge. We might begin by understanding or trying to clarify what science can let us know about the beginning of the universe and causation. First of all, unlike philosophy and metaphysics, science cannot deductively prove creation or a God. Of course this is because natural science deals with the physical universe and the enduring “laws of nature” that are evidenced within the universe. However, God is not a phenomenon or object to be studied as such, so science cannot say anything about God. Also, science is not an inductive discipline (according to author Robert Spitzer), so science is not perfectly knowledgable in that it has considered every possibility and all relevant data to complete observation of physical events or phenomena about the universe itself or our little portion of it. It’s always open to new information and discoveries. An example is the revisions made to the Big Bang model. So I imagine that Darwinism had revisions as well.

We can get an incorrect or “impoverished” or incomplete idea of our world and our selves as human beings if we depend only upon science as it is defined nowadays leaving out the greater and deeper understanding that there exists more than we can observe, hear, feel, see, etc. . . , or even study empirically, even if you trust your senses completely. (Have you ever been fooled by a clever magician?) What is needed is a model of an ontological concept of the universe and our place within it. The Church gives us philosophy and theology regarding supernatural causation. A true understanding of science demonstrates that physics and philosophy can meet.

 

[greylorn]

What a preposterous argument. Basically what you’ve said here is that to limit science to science pauperizes the empirical effort.

For once, I’m forced to agree with greylorn. You can’t just redefine words to suit your purposes and then cry foul when he points out your mendacity.

I appreciate your succinct riposte to Abu. I can’t deal with him anymore, so I also appreciate your patience.

I’m tempted to wonder if, since we agree on some fundamental principles of honest discourse, you and I might actually have one. Could be more interesting, and more challenging for you than dealing with traditional beliefs. I’ve oft wondered why someone with a mind of your quality would argue with me, and have chalked it up to misunderstanding. But you’re smart enough to prove me wrong.

 

[JDaniel]

No.

That’s why reason based on sound thought is used, but if moonstruck this may cloud understanding.

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])

Abu! I can’t get the link to work! Help!!!

God bless,
jd

 

[Abu]

JDaniel
Try this:

rtforum.org/lt/lt123.html

If it does not work, copy and paste into your browser.

The list of articles at the Roman Theological Forum is at: rtforum.org/lt/index.html