Science & Religion

[grannymh]

levinas, you raise a fascinating question. In a post-Aristotelian universe – particularly after the purification and “baptism” of atomism by Marin Mersenne, Pierre Gassendi and Walter Charelton – the exclusive effectiveness of “transsubstantiation” is questionable. some suggestions have included “transignification” and “transfinalization.” Eucharistic theological discussion is something I observe with great interest from the sidelines.

Emphasis mine.

What is important from a Catholic position is that theological suggestions (see post 1273) keep in tune with the actual Catholic dogma of the Real Presence. Therefore, it is my understanding that the “exclusive effectiveness”-- if I understand that terminology correctly – of “transubstantiation” in its proper meaning is not questionable.

I am not referring to exclusive as in excluding other avenues of grace. Rather, I am interpreting exclusive in relationship to the uniqueness of the sacrament.
This uniqueness of the presence of God is not questionable; therefore, terms referring to the Eucharist cannot imply doubt or some other form of presence. The Eucharist is also unique in relationship to other ways God is present, for example, God is present in the worshiping community.

I am aware from Eucharistic discussions from other threads, that there is the perennial attempt to correlate the miracle and mystery of the Catholic Eucharist with latest scientific findings and theories.

 

[grannymh]

This is not to question the presence of Jesus in Eucharist.

I understand you and would not think otherwise.

However, I find that a misuse of terms and their meaning have led some people to progress to the idea that the Sacred Bread is only a symbol. Hence, the drop in attendance at the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[rossum]

**Cats **have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. (source)

I am somewhat surprised at the 90% level of homology with humans. Given that both cats and dogs are carnivores, I would expect the homology with dogs to be highest. All the others are mammals, so I would expect the level of homology to be about the same. Your source did contain an excellent example of scientific humour: “8. A dynamic online genome browser of Genome Annotation Resource Field (GARFIELD) (Pontius and O’Brien 2007)” in a paper dealing with the Cat genome.

• The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans (source).

An insect, so as evolution would predict, a lesser degree of homology than for mammals. Also note that your sources are using a different measure, “of its DNA” as opposed to “homologous genes”. Be careful of any conclusions you draw from the detail in the differences, you are not measuring the same things. A gene can be 100% homologous but have less than 100% identical DNA.

• About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. (source)

Back to gene homology again, I notice. Chickens are amniote tetrapods, like us, but not mammals. As evolution predicts, they have a lesser degree of similarity than between mammals.

If one adds in the fact that all life shares around 500 or so conserved (immortal) genes the genetic piano idea looks better and better.

No gene is immortal. There were no genes on Earth 5 billion years ago. There will be no genes on Earth in 20 billion years time, since the Sun will have failed by then. A large number of common genes do stuff inside the cell, and so are common to almost all life. This is what evolution predicts. Internal cellular mechanisms evolved a long time before multicellular life. We wouldn’t expect them to change much after multicellular life evolved. A multicellular organism provides a reasonably constant environment for its constituent cells, and evolution predicts that in a constant environment, natural selection will tend towards stasis rather than towards change.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Science is **not **

1. Perception of beauty doesn’t entail understanding of beauty.
2. To revel in freedom is not to understand the implications of freedom.
3. Animals are not held morally responsible for their behaviour.

In your opinion what distinguishes persons from animals?

Science per se does not constitute faith.

And yet the very act of engaging in scientific inquiry presupposes an implicit faith in the intelligibility of the world!

1. Science presupposes but does not explain the scientist.
2. Faith in the intelligibility of the world is metascientific not scientific…

 

[tonyrey]

1. On this planet only human beings can grasp the distinction between good and evil.

Do you believe they are in the same category?

…human concepts, then only humans would grasp them. You’d have to show that good and evil have an independent, objective existence.

1. You are assuming that human beings are the only rational beings.
2. If good and evil are **only **human concepts they need not correspond to reality.
3. If good and evil do not correspond to reality they are simply terms that can be ignored.

2. If many human beings originated simultaneously they all grasped the distinction between good and evil simultaneously - unless some were more human than others!

It might be hard for you to demonstrate that all cultures from earliest times held with the distinction.

It is not necessary because cultures which did not grasp the distinction between good and evil were subhuman!

Perhaps it originated from one later dominant culture. It could be just an artifact that grew like topsy.

“Perhaps” and “could be” are not convincing arguments! More precision is necessary…

In your scheme of things you seem to be left with precious little.

 

[StAnastasia]

“Exclusive effectiveness” vs. what, are you suggesting?

That “transubstantiation” is not the only effective term for describing the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is a term derived from Aristotelian physics.

The Church has never put limits, by the way, on God’s grace.

Quite true. I never suggested it did.

 

[StAnastasia]

1. Perception of beauty doesn’t entail understanding of beauty.

1. To revel in freedom is not to understand the implications of freedom.
2. Animals are not held morally responsible for their behaviour.

 

[grannymh]

.
In your opinion what distinguishes persons from animals?

Catholicism teaches that it is the total human nature which distinguishes persons from animals. Humans have the spiritual soul, which does not evolve from one’s anatomy nor is it produced by a population of parents. The spiritual soul, in the image of God, is directly and individually created by God for each human person.

 

[Elizabeth502]

That “transubstantiation” is not the only effective term for describing the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is a term derived from Aristotelian physics.

As I have said here, and as the Church herself has said elsewhere, an explanation and even a whole new set of terminologies, in no way changes doctrine. In some cases it makes doctrine more intellectually accessible to the people of God, and thus more spiritually available as well. But word-games are not changes in doctrine. They are ways of explaining absolute moral truths, systematics, and sacramental theology in contemporary terms which current populations may embrace more easily. But by the way, that is not necessarily universal. Sometimes new attempts at explanation confuse, obscure, and introduce doubt where none was. That’s why the Church exercises some monitoring and sifting of “new theologies” – not because she is afraid of all new language, but because of the potential for confusion, depending on the structure and terms of any new theology.

I have zero problem with transsubstantiation. I received a top-flight education from crack theologians who were well-grounded in philosophy as well, so it all hangs together perfectly for me without a need for “new explanations.” I know I represent a group of some size. Do not assume that every Catholic who didn’t receive a classical Catholic theological education needs a faddish new language to understand Eucharist.

 

[StAnastasia]

As I have said here, and as the Church herself has said elsewhere, an explanation and even a whole new set of terminologies, in no way changes doctrine. In some cases it makes doctrine more intellectually accessible to the people of God, and thus more spiritually available as well. But word-games are not changes in doctrine. They are ways of explaining absolute moral truths, systematics, and sacramental theology in contemporary terms which current populations may embrace more easily. But by the way, that is not necessarily universal. Sometimes new attempts at explanation confuse, obscure, and introduce doubt where none was. That’s why the Church exercises some monitoring and sifting of “new theologies” – not because she is afraid of all new language, but because of the potential for confusion, depending on the structure and terms of any new theology.

True.

 

[tonyrey]

** 1. Perception of beauty doesn’t entail understanding of beauty.
2. To revel in freedom is not to understand the implications of freedom.
3. Animals are not held morally responsible for their behaviour.**

All three statements are true.

In your opinion what distinguishes persons from animals?

A variety of things: (1) the capacity to sustain authentic relationships. (2) Moral reasoning. (3) Spiritual sensitivity. (4) Rationality. (5) Developed language. (6) Conceptual thought. Etc., etc.

1. Science presupposes but does not explain the scientist.
2. Faith in the intelligibility of the world is metascientific not scientific…
   True.

It’s refreshing to know we agree on fundamentals…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Internal cellular mechanisms evolved a long time before multicellular life.

Can you elaborate? How would unicellular life have evolved into multicellular life?

For that matter, how would inanimate matter have become animated?

 

[rossum]

Internal cellular mechanisms evolved a long time before multicellular life.

We have evidence of unicellular life from about 3 billion years ago, and possibly earlier. We have evidence of multicellular life from about 600 million years ago. Hence we know that unicellular life was present before multicellular life.

Can you elaborate? How would unicellular life have evolved into multicellular life?

This is still an open question. Have a look at things like bacterial mats and Volvox. There is a more detailed treatment at From Single Cells to Multicellular Organisms.

For that matter, how would inanimate matter have become animated?

Matter is matter. Inanimate matter in a glass of water is the same as the animate water contained inside my living body. If you are asking about abiogenesis, then that is very definitely an open question. A search for “abiogenesis” in Google Scholar gives me almost 3,000 hits, and there are many more articles on the subject that do not actually use the word “abiogenesis”. For example, an important recent study was Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions. You should know that two of the four bases found in RNA (Uracil and Cytosine) are pyrimidines, as is Thymine, which is found in DNA. The other two bases (Adenine and Guanine) are purines and are covered by other research, such as, Abiotic synthesis of purines and other heterocyclic compounds by the action of electrical discharges.

Abiogenesis is currently a lot of very detailed individual pieces of research, such as the two I have referenced above, but it has not yet been drawn together into an overall theory. It is an open problem that science is currently working on.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Thank you for your clarifications.

I like your signature statement:

**The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth. **

Paradox has always intrigued me as the essence of profound knowledge.

I don’t actually believe there is no Ultimate Truth. I just believe it is incredibly difficult to encounter it. Nor do I believe we have always encountered it when we think we have. But I think sometimes we have encountered it without knowing we have, or even denying we have. Finally, I think sometimes we have encountered it and know we have.

 

[levinas12]

I understand you and would not think otherwise.

However, I find that a misuse of terms and their meaning have led some people to progress to the idea that the Sacred Bread is only a symbol. Hence, the drop in attendance at the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

I’m don’t want to derail this thread with its focus on science and religion.

But I couldn’t resist the question about philosophy, especially since theology relies so heavily on philosophical concepts.

I agree that we need to exercise great caution when it comes to the Church’s teaching on the real presence of Jesus.

Maybe I’ll start another thread on philosophy’s role in theology.

 

[SGWessells]

Grannymh wrote: "Do recall that we both know that science is limited to the material/physical world and therefore cannot submit the spiritual to laboratory testing. "

Sorry for answering an old post (this thread unwinds so fast), but this is a common assertion I keep running into.

The assertion that every human being is descended from a single pair is ***not a spiritual assertion; it is an empirical assertion ***open to testing and falsification by science like every other empirical assertion. You can’t make dogmatic statements which science can test, then claim immunity from testing on the grounds that the source of your assertion is “spiritual.” The alleged source may be spiritual, and science has no interest in that claim, but as far as the evolutionary descent of homo sapiens goes, science is currently opposed to your dogma. Also, as soon as the Church says that Catholics “are not at liberty to” say or believe something, they have left the realm of science, which cares nothing for any church’s teachings unless it can back them up with sound scientific knowledge which is open to confirmation or refutation from non-church sources. The church can command its members to believe whatever it wants, but it cannot claim to be doing or respecting science when it does so.

 

[SGWessells]

Please consider that the Catholic Church does not have a doctrine on “stealthy fairies wearing top hats, riding dragons and speaking Klingon.” (from post 1102) So there is no comparison.

You miss the point, Granny. No one is saying that Church teaches about leprechauns (though sure, it would be fun if it did; begorrah); the point is that just because something is possible is no good reason to believe in it, because all the silly things mentioned are just as possible, but nobody thinks that’s a good reason to believe in them,.

Incidentally, phrases like “for your information” and “you should know that…” come across as prim and condescending, but I don’t think you mean to sound like that.

 

[SGWessells]

“The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason.”

That’s what we have been saying all along; we just reverse the value of faith and reason.
Old Ben was a wise man, but not entirely orthodox. Not that I care.

Then again, you probably don’t believe me because you see it as heresay. Let me ask you, if a scientist told you something in relevance to science, would you call it heresay as well? By what standard do you measure the information you receive, facts I’m assuming? If you asked for directions and a man pointed you west, would you doubt him?

I didn’t say everything was hearsay, I said someone else’s experience is hearsay for those who haven’t experienced it, because all they have to go on is that person’s veracity. They have not shared the experience.
I have no doubt that you experienced something profound and important, but I doubt that it came with a soundtrack explaining its meaning. My experiences don’t. I have to interpret them according to the best understanding of my knowledge and temperament, and I don’t expect other people to accept my interpretation based solely on an experience they have not shared.
If a scientist tells me something scientific, I generally accept it unless it conflicts with other scientific knowledge I’ve read about; then I investigate further. But science by definition is not hearsay, because science is based on evidence and hearsay is not.
If the man pointed west, I’d believe him unless he told me that God wanted me to go that way. Then I’d probably head east as fast as possible.

Maybe you haven’t read enough of my posts to know this, but I’ve already met God. Several times, in fact. I spent 16 years as a devout, prayerful, churchgoing Christian, both Catholic and Protestant (about half and half), so you can be pardoned for thinking I know nothing about relating to God, feeling called, glorifying and serving him. But now it is just too incredible to believe. I suspect that you are so sure that your faith is true that you can’t imagine anyone who shares it ever deserting it for the “fleshpots of Egypt”, or trading his birthright for a mess of porridge, but it happens.

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh wrote: "Do recall that we both know that science is limited to the material/physical world and therefore cannot submit the spiritual to laboratory testing. "

Sorry for answering an old post (this thread unwinds so fast), but this is a common assertion I keep running into.

The assertion that every human being is descended from a single pair is ***not a spiritual assertion; it is an empirical assertion ***open to testing and falsification by science like every other empirical assertion. You can’t make dogmatic statements which science can test, then claim immunity from testing on the grounds that the source of your assertion is “spiritual.” The alleged source may be spiritual, and science has no interest in that claim, but as far as the evolutionary descent of homo sapiens goes, science is currently opposed to your dogma. Also, as soon as the Church says that Catholics “are not at liberty to” say or believe something, they have left the realm of science, which cares nothing for any church’s teachings unless it can back them up with sound scientific knowledge which is open to confirmation or refutation from non-church sources. The church can command its members to believe whatever it wants, but it cannot claim to be doing or respecting science when it does so.

Thank you for bringing up my post. My reasoning needs to be challenged.

My first thought is that before one can talk spiritual and empirical, one has to understand the object being studied.

One of the Catholic explanations about the nature of the human person is that human nature unites both the material and non-material realms. I nailed the problem when I said: “Do recall that we both know that science is limited to the material/physical world and therefore cannot submit the spiritual to laboratory testing.”
This does not imply that science is useless when it comes to the human person. Science does a great job when it focuses on our anatomy. But since our soul is spiritual or non-material, it cannot be submitted for study in the same way DNA can.

If I am using the word assertion correctly, my first assertion is that myself and all other humans have the same human nature that is both rational and corporeal. My anatomy comes from my parents and it can be tested six ways to Sunday by the empirical method. But my spiritual soul is outside of the limits of science; yet, I claim that the spiritual soul exists. This is based on a spiritual source which is God. Therefore, there are two principles in a single human nature.

When I demonstrate the uniqueness of the human species in comparison to all other species, I can claim that the reason our species is peerless is that its unity as a species is guaranteed by descent from two mating founders.

The scientific method is also limited to a positive conclusion flowing from a positive hypothesis. The positive existence of fossils and current human DNA can be the evidence used in some very interesting research regarding a variety of anatomies. Unfortunately, the present either-or approach also known as the “mutually exclusive or” can be difficult to apply to positive scientific conclusions. Positive because they have not been falsified.

This brings us to a somewhat unresolved question regarding research results. Can one really say that either the results exist or there is nothing? In other words, can the *mutually exclusive or" say that the particular conclusion excludes all other possibilities?

In my humble opinion, I have respected science in the above. Since I am proposing something which is a tad unusual for CAF, I will stop here so I can listen to your comments. Ooops, maybe what I am proposing is common on CAF since I have not been on every thread to find it.

 

[SGWessells]

Given the huge blind spot in the scientific view (the spiritualt), your claim of falsehood does not follow from the premises.

Most, if not all, scientific claims about the origin of man are hypotheses or theories, so it is no position to claim anything theological is false. Your claim of unnecessity also guts the doctrine original sin of most of it meaning.

I wish you guys would decide once and for all whether you want science to include the spiritual or ignore it. Thank you.

Science is well within its rights to declare false any theology which makes statements which science can test and disprove; among which is the dogma that the human species is descended from one breeding pair of first-humans. That is the problem with the church painting itself into a corner by claiming infallibility for some teachings. When science disproves them, it puts the members in the difficult position of denying either their church or their reason.

I agree that the doctrine of original sin depends on the common descent of all humans from a single pair who fell into sin. However, I think human evil is much more plausibly explained by genetics, inheritance from primate ancestors, and psychology. If original sin has to go along with Adam and Eve east of the Eden of demonstrable fact, then good riddance to it.