Science & Religion

[grannymh]

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?

Continued from post 1317.

As demonstrated in post 1317, the empirical method works in the material/physical domain. That is, it depends on sense perception from a human person or through technology such as gene sequencing.

Technically, does the conclusion of a research paper have to falsify every possibility from observation or from technology such as computer simulations of probable populations? No, because scientific conclusions normally flow from reasonable examination of the presented evidence. When one reads actual research papers, one can tell by the language that the researchers did what was reasonable in regard to the presented evidence.

Sometimes, a research paper will point out that previous research lacked a reasonable examination of the presented evidence. This is normal since science can be considered provisional.

The point is that research is not always a “mountain of evidence.” Most often, it is a series of anthills.

The unresolved question regarding research results is actually a question about the application or implication of the interpretation of the conclusion.

To be continued.

 

[SGWessells]

While doctrine does not change, its interpretation does change with time.

Sorry, StAnastasia, but much as I appreciate your posts generally, I have to disagree with you here. When the church says evolution may be freely discussed as long as one believes that all humans are descended from only one man and one woman, changing the “interpretation” of that doctrine to mean that the man and woman referred to are symbolic of many men and women, you have in fact changed the doctrine, not just the interpretation, to mean that all humans are not descended from one man and one woman. That is because the doctrine is number-specific. If you say humanity is descended from any number of men and women greater than one of each, you have changed the doctrine itself.
Personally, I applaud the apparent fact that the doctrine has been tacitly abandoned; I wish more Catholics had the honesty to abandon it explicitly, and encourage the teaching of accurate science in public schools so our children are not crippled by ignorance when they get to college or compete with the rest of the world. But that’s the trap it puts itself in by claiming infallibility; it becomes immune to advances in knowledge in certain areas, and increasingly irrelevant to the world as knowledge grows…

 

[SGWessells]

That doesn’t conflict with the belief that there was only one human couple at the outset. It is more reasonable than the hypothesis that thousands of our primitive ancestors simultaneously grasped the distinction between good and evil!

These aren’t necessarily the only alternatives, Tony. It’s possible, for example, that the groups who developed a moral sense did so gradually (as people do today), and because they consciously chose actions such as altruism and cooperation which enhanced the survival of the group, their communities survived while groups which still fought among themselves for the alpha female did not. No evolutionist says that thousands of ape-like creatures suddenly woke up one morning and realized that there was good and evil.

 

[SGWessells]

Not when we grasp the absurdity of the “biological machine” hypothesis!

I’ve read all 1231 posts so far in this thread, and so far you are the only person who has mentioned the “biological machine” idea. If you stop putting your words into our mouths, maybe you can hear what we are saying.

 

[StAnastasia]

Sorry, StAnastasia, but much as I appreciate your posts generally, I have to disagree with you here. When the church says evolution may be freely discussed as long as one believes that all humans are descended from only one man and one woman, changing the “interpretation” of that doctrine to mean that the man and woman referred to are symbolic of many men and women, you have in fact changed the doctrine, not just the interpretation, to mean that all humans are not

descended from one man and one woman. That is because the doctrine is number-specific. If you say humanity is descended from any number of men and women greater than one of each, you have changed the doctrine itself.

OK, let’s agree to disagree. In my understanding the heart of the doctrine is that sin entered the world as humans became morally conscious. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus constitute God’s recreation of the moral order. I’ll follow the lead of the Hebrew author, who used the generic term “Adam” (man) taken from “adma” (earth) and joined to “Eve” (mother of all) to symbolize emerging humanity. I regard the claim that an historic “Adam” and “Eve” lived in Mesopotamia (or Akron, Ohio) as scientifically false and theologically irrelevant.

Personally, I applaud the apparent fact that the doctrine has been tacitly abandoned; I wish more Catholics had the honesty to abandon it explicitly, and encourage the teaching of accurate science in public schools so our children are not crippled by ignorance when they get to college or compete with the rest of the world.

 

[SGWessells]

1. On this planet only human beings can grasp the distinction between good and evil.
2. If many human beings originated simultaneously they all grasped the distinction between good and evil simultaneously - unless some were more human than others!

NB:

#1 is debatable.
#2 misinterprets the nature of evolution. Humans emerged gradually, like every other species. Individual humans, as StAnastasia pointed out with reference to her children, do not “simultaneously” or immediately realize the distinction between good and evil. Nobody is born understanding it. We gradually understand it better through our lives, and some people like psychopaths never do apply it to themselves.

 

[tonyrey]

.

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

Please produce evidence.

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

#2 misinterprets the nature of evolution. Humans emerged gradually, like every other species. Individual humans, as StAnastasia pointed out with reference to her children, do not “simultaneously” or immediately realize the distinction between good and evil.
Children are** taught **what is good and evil.

Nobody is born understanding it. We gradually understand it better through our lives, and some people like psychopaths never do apply it to themselves.

“We” too have been **taught **by our parents. Who taught our ancestors?

 

[tonyrey]

Not when we grasp the absurdity of the “biological machine” hypothesis!

It must have hit a nerve! Please explain what distinguishes a person from a BM in your scheme of things…

 

[tonyrey]

No amount of equivocation can delete anyone’s soul, period.

Being an orthodox Christian or an atheist has nothing to do with the existence of the spiritual soul. One’s spiritual soul comes with being human, period. This is why the spiritual soul does not evolve,
but rather is part of the whole package known as human nature.

I agree with you but I have to be more circumspect on a philosophy forum, alas!

 

[StAnastasia]

“We” too have been **taught **by our parents. Who taught our ancestors?

Their parents.

 

[SGWessells]

At the end of page 84, my observation is this: science and religion are perfectly compatible until one denies something the other holds as truth (either divinely revealed, in the case of religion, or confirmed by repeated experiment in correlated fields better than any evidence claimed by the opposition, in the case of science). Since everyone who investigates the compatibility of science and religion subordinates one to the other, when that conflict happens each person affirms the position of either science or religion as truth and adjusts the other to fit. Since commitment to the priority of science or religion is generally already decided in advance, neither side can convince the other.
Has anyone so far switched primary allegiance from science to religion, or from religion to science, as a result of this discussion? I’m doubtful but curious.

 

[grannymh]

The point is that research is not always a “mountain of evidence.” Most often, it is a series of anthills.

The unresolved question regarding research results is actually a question about the application or implication of the interpretation of the conclusion.

Continued from post 1318.

To put it simply. In scientific research, the evidence must fit the conclusion and the conclusion must fit the evidence.

Contrary to popular opinion, contemporary science has tackled philosophical concepts such as Cartesian dualism. This can be seen in some of the research on the human brain. This research can serve as an example of the importance of evidence fitting the conclusion and the conclusion fitting the evidence. In addition, this kind of research on the human person also calls for an interpretation of the conclusion. The basic interpretation pertains to the particular conclusion flowing from the particular evidence.

At this point, it is necessary to recognize the difference between a particular interpretation and an universal interpretation.

For example. Some of the research on the human brain includes stimulating certain areas of the brain with a bipolar electrode. (“Movement Intention After Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans”, Michel Desmurget et al, Science May 8, 2009) The particular interpretation was that activity in the brain is related to the movement of the extremities. This interpretation was supported by the methods and materials used in the research.

Some interpreters extrapolated the paper’s anatomical conclusions to an universal interpretation that the research conclusions ruled out absolutely all possibility of “free will” in all human beings. To back up to the paper’s first two sentences: “A central question in the study of human behavior concerns the origin of willed actions. Where in the brain are intentions formed?” The evidence presented was seven individuals with brain tumors located anteriorly or posteriorly to the central sulcus, who were undergoing awake brain surgery. What the researchers were observing is the functional technique of brain mapping which is used to guide critical surgery.

Can the experience of seven individuals, in critical condition, represent all people, especially those who do not need a bipolar electrode to stimulate their brain in order for them to get off the couch and walk to the refrigerator? Furthermore, what are the conditions for free will to be exercised? Therefore, the limited evidence in this study cannot lead to an universal conclusion covering all people in all situations. Note: the “medical” results of the research paper benefited society.

To be continued.

 

[You]

At the end of page 84, my observation is this: science and religion are perfectly compatible until one denies something the other holds as truth (either divinely revealed, in the case of religion, or confirmed by repeated experiment in correlated fields better than any evidence claimed by the opposition, in the case of science). Since everyone who investigates the compatibility of science and religion subordinates one to the other, when that conflict happens each person affirms the position of either science or religion as truth and adjusts the other to fit. Since commitment to the priority of science or religion is generally already decided in advance, neither side can convince the other.
Has anyone so far switched primary allegiance from science to religion, or from religion to science, as a result of this discussion? I’m doubtful but curious.

What Catholic truth does science contradict?

 

[inocente]

As demonstrated in post 1317, the empirical method works in the material/physical domain. That is, it depends on sense perception from a human person or through technology such as gene sequencing.

If you’re still talking to me, the definition you gave of “empirical” doesn’t rule out the spiritual. Empirical doesn’t mean limited to the physical, it means not based on theory, based instead on what we can agree is experienced or seen. While the spiritual is deeply experienced, what often rules it out is not being able to agree (you may experience God in one form, someone else in another).

There’s a sense in which the role of religion is to give us common metaphors by which we can communicate our spiritual yearnings: “In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.” – Rom 8:26-27.

 

[buffalo]

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.

Breeding pair claims are just that, claims, and in no way proven.

 

[inocente]

Do you believe they are in the same category?

From what you said, you claim good and evil have an existence independent of humans. I was suggesting there’s no way you can prove it.

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.

Speed limits are also only human concepts, are you saying they’re not real?

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

Little children don’t grasp the distinction either, are they also subhuman?

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

I wasn’t suggest any particular scheme of things, just asking to see the reasoning behind your claim.

 

[buffalo]

Very quietly…the scientific consensus is still about 4.5 billion years.

Why do people criticize the changes in scientific knowledge as if they are somehow a weakness instead of evidence that science is adding to the sum of human knowledge, unlike a stagnant faith that never changes? Perhaps because believers tend to think of truth as unalterably absolute and handed down from infallible authority, so when science changes its mind about something, faith interprets it as a weakness or abandonment of eternal truth. But it is not, because science recognizes no eternal or unchanging truth, and for that reason it can grow in knowledge. No one in science will ever say, “it is forbidden for science to believe X because God has revealed it.” As soon as someone accepts that, he will never know the truth about X, because he is not allowed to investigate. All he can do is assert and bluster and twist opposing evidence to fit his preconceived theories.

Very very quietly now. Please list the top three assumptions that a 4.5 billion earth are built upon.

 

[StAnastasia]

At the end of page 84, my observation is this: science and religion are perfectly compatible until one denies something the other holds as truth (either divinely revealed, in the case of religion, or confirmed by repeated experiment in correlated fields better than any evidence claimed by the opposition, in the case of science). Since everyone who investigates the compatibility of science and religion subordinates one to the other, when that conflict happens each person affirms the position of either science or religion as truth and adjusts the other to fit. Since commitment to the priority of science or religion is generally already decided in advance, neither side can convince the other.
Has anyone so far switched primary allegiance from science to religion, or from religion to science, as a result of this discussion? I’m doubtful but curious.

SGWessells, I can’t answer that with respect to this particular conversation, but I know that “Creationism” of the science-denying type (not the venerable Catholic doctrine of ontological dependence of creation upon Creator) definitely does create atheists. Many of the most vitriolic atheist scientists I know (or know about) were Fundamentalist sorts (Catholic or Protestant) such as you might encounter on this forum.

These people grew up under the sway of a science-denying religious tradition, and when they went off to university and became scientifically educated they abandoned an immature version of a religion that they had embraced as children. In fact, they had never known Christianity as adults, so the version of Christianity they abandoned was a crude, “cartoonish” faith sporting literal gardens of Paradise with the naked Adam and Eve, talking snakes, literal forbidden fruits, Towers of Babel, and global floods carrying arks with all the animals. They are surprised when they learn that I never accepted this crude literalist faith to begin with. While that doesn’t necessarily convert them to religious belief, at least it sets them back to think in a more sophisticated and less “cartoonish”
way about religious belief in general.

When science and religion respect the integrity of each other’s domains, we can have constructive conversations. When either side pursues a hegemonic campaign to exclude or dominate the other, we end of at loggerheads. But I can certainly tell you that at the meetings of the Catholic Theological Society of America, whose 1,500 members come from Catholic colleges and Universities all over the country, we have very insightful conversations that respect of both theology and science.

StAnastasia

 

[inocente]

Very very quietly now. Please list the top three assumptions that a 4.5 billion earth are built upon.

Not assumptions, science works on evidence. To give one more than you asked for: dating of meteorites, lunar samples, oldest-known Earth rocks, luminosity and mass of the Sun.

Please quietly list the top three assumptions that a different age is built upon (you’ll need to give the age as well, as there are so many to choose from outside of science ).

 

[buffalo]

Regarding Buffalo’s posts 1213 and 1214, thank you for documenting the Church teaching on taking Genesis literally. I got laughed at awhile ago for suggesting it. However, it is equally obvious that the church does not have the same attitude toward evolution now that it did before. For one thing, none of the quotes before 1860 addressed the scientific theory of evolution at all, since it was not firmly established before Darwin published the Origin in 1859. For another, the current Pope and the one previous were a lot more convinced of the scientific support for evolution than previous Popes. So that leaves Buffalo in a quandary; does he accept the church of the past or the church of the present? It seems pretty plain what his choice is.

Right, they didn’t call it evolution before.

No quandary at all. Since science is provisional I go with the constant teaching of the Church. I believe in the unchangeable truth of Revelation. The result of this is that we need to peer deeper and challenge the science since its weak spot is human reasoning of the observations. The practical side of this is that Revelation acts as a true compass so to speak. Revelation also illuminates our reasoning.

Revelation trumps.