C
classof61mom
Guest
Are faith and science contrary to one another?
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Faith and reason cannot be opposed for they flow from the very same God. However, right reasoning must include the complete picture (philosophical, metaphysical and scientific), not just he scientific.
E
Equites_Christi
Guest
No. In the Catholic belief, all truth comes from the same God, and science and faith are two different disciplines of truth, and truth cannot contradict itself.
S
Starwynd
Guest
Except for things like evolution versus creationism.
However, except in circumstances like that I see no reason why science should conflict with faith.
However, except in circumstances like that I see no reason why science should conflict with faith.
F
fishstick
Guest
Doesn’t christianity not allow for extraterrestial life? That’s another possible conflict.
W
Wirraway
Guest
because?
G
Ghosty
Guest
We already believe in extraterrestrial life: angels and demons. Whether or not there are other matter-borne immortal souls in the universe is completely untouched by Catholic theology.
Peace and God bless!
P
Paul2274
Guest
Pope John Paul II encyclical letter “Fides et Ratio” Faith and Reason would explain why the two cannot exist without the other.
Evolution cannot be proven. No solid evidence just jumps to conclusions based on missing data.
Here’s a thing on the UFO / Aliens thing:
By The Associated Press
.
Published: Tue, May 13, 2008 - 4:12 pm
(AP) – Believing that the universe may contain alien life does not contradict a faith in God, the Vatican’s chief astronomer said in an interview published Tuesday.
The Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, was quoted as saying the vastness of the universe means it is possible there could be other forms of life outside Earth, even intelligent ones.
“How can we rule out that life may have developed elsewhere?” Funes said. “Just as we consider earthly creatures as ‘a brother,’ and ‘sister,’ why should we not talk about an ‘extraterrestrial brother’? It would still be part of creation.”
In the interview by the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, Funes said that such a notion “doesn’t contradict our faith” because aliens would still be God’s creatures. Ruling out the existence of aliens would be like “putting limits” on God’s creative freedom, he said.
Paul
Evolution cannot be proven. No solid evidence just jumps to conclusions based on missing data.
Here’s a thing on the UFO / Aliens thing:
By The Associated Press
.
Published: Tue, May 13, 2008 - 4:12 pm
(AP) – Believing that the universe may contain alien life does not contradict a faith in God, the Vatican’s chief astronomer said in an interview published Tuesday.
The Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, was quoted as saying the vastness of the universe means it is possible there could be other forms of life outside Earth, even intelligent ones.
“How can we rule out that life may have developed elsewhere?” Funes said. “Just as we consider earthly creatures as ‘a brother,’ and ‘sister,’ why should we not talk about an ‘extraterrestrial brother’? It would still be part of creation.”
In the interview by the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, Funes said that such a notion “doesn’t contradict our faith” because aliens would still be God’s creatures. Ruling out the existence of aliens would be like “putting limits” on God’s creative freedom, he said.
Paul
C
crowonsnow
Guest
Sometimes they are, if by faith you mean religious belief.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Nothing in science can be proven, but evolution has been directly observed. And even common descent is so well documented that our Pope has said that it is “virtually certain.” Might be worth your while to check out that evidence.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Do evolutionists believe that Man will eventually evolve into something non-human, or is Man God’s crowning creation, made in His own image?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Man has, in the short time we’ve been able to observe genomes, evolved. There are quite a number of new allleles known.
Of course, the “image” spoken of in scripture refers to man’s soul, not his physical appearance.
It is not Catholic belief that God has earlobes, a nose, etc.
R
rwoehmke
Guest
Only if one forces one or the other to answer questions outside of each one’s proper realm of competence. Good science and good theology do not conflict with one another.
B
buffalo
Guest
PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGISOnly if one forces one or the other to answer questions outside of each one’s proper realm of competence. Good science and good theology do not conflict with one another.
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X
ON THE DOCTRINES
OF THE MODERNISTS
*** Faith Subject to Science
*** 17. Yet, it would be a great mistake to suppose that, given these theories, one is authorised to believe that faith and science are independent of one another. On the side of science the independence is indeed complete, but it is quite different with regard to faith, which is subject to science not on one but on three grounds. For in the first place it must be observed that in every religious fact, when you take away the *divine reality *and the experience of it which the believer possesses, everything else, and especially the *religious formulas *of it, belongs to the sphere of phenomena and therefore falls under the control of science. Let the believer leave the world if he will, but so long as he remains in it he must continue, whether he like it or not, to be subject to the laws, the observation, the judgments of science and of history. Further, when it is said that God is the object of faith alone, the statement refers only to the divine reality not to the idea of God. The latter also is subject to science which while it philosophises in what is called the logical order soars also to the absolute and the ideal. It is therefore the right of philosophy and of science to form conclusions concerning the idea of God, to direct it in its evolution and to purify it of any extraneous elements which may become confused with it. Finally, man does not suffer a dualism to exist in him, and the believer therefore feels within him an impelling need so to harmonise faith with science, that it may never oppose the general conception which science sets forth concerning the universe.
Thus it is evident that science is to be entirely independent of faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science. All this, Venerable Brothers, is in formal opposition with the teachings of Our Predecessor, Pius IX, where he lays it down that: In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, but not to prescribe what is to be believed but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, not to scrutinise the depths of the mysteries of God but to venerate them devoutly and humbly.
The Modernists completely invert the parts, and to them may be applied the words of another Predecessor of Ours, Gregory IX., addressed to some theologians of his time: Some among you, inflated like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the sense of the heavenly pages . . .to the philosophical teaching of the rationals, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science . . . these, seduced by strange and eccentric doctrines, make the head of the tail and force the queen to serve the servant.
C
crowonsnow
Guest
Jesus was a person as I understand the Catholic religion, and Jesus is venerated as God among Catholics. Therefore this God would certainly have human features, unless there is something I do not understand
Also, as a human, Jesus would have been subject to the same evolutionary forces as the rest of humanity. If not, Jesus could not have been human.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Homo erectus had human features, and yet it was a different species of human than we are. So did Neandertals. Don’t see a point here.
Individuals don’t evolve. Only populations do. Evolutionarily, the only significance an individual has is whether or not he reproduces.
Jesus appears like a man because He is a man as well as God. This does not mean that God mad man to physically resemble Him.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
What does “image” mean to you?
Here is from the dictionary:
A reproduction of the form of a person or object, especially a sculptured likeness.
- Physics An optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror.
- One that closely or exactly resembles another; a double: He is the image of his uncle.
C
crowonsnow
Guest
Bears have noses but they’re not human. That’s the point.
You cannot have a population without individuals.
This is Gnosticism as I understand it.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
Homo erectus had human features, and yet it was a different species of human than we are. So did Neandertals. Don’t see a point here.
Barbarian observes:
Individuals don’t evolve. Only populations do. Evolutionarily, the only significance an individual has is whether or not he reproduces.
Barbarian
Jesus appears like a man because He is a man as well as God. This does not mean that God made man to physically resemble Him.
Jesus became man, with all the limitations of man, out of love for us; it does not mean that God had to do this, or that God therefore became the image of man.
Homo erectus had human features, and yet it was a different species of human than we are. So did Neandertals. Don’t see a point here.
What bears don’t have are human apomorphies that H erectus had, such as a postcranial skeleton virtually identical to those of modern humans, and transitional features between non-human hominins and modern humans.
Barbarian observes:
Individuals don’t evolve. Only populations do. Evolutionarily, the only significance an individual has is whether or not he reproduces.
Forget Pokemon. Individuals do not evolve. Populations evolve because the individuals composing them die and new ones are born.
Barbarian
Jesus appears like a man because He is a man as well as God. This does not mean that God made man to physically resemble Him.
I don’t see how Catholic doctrine is Gnosticism. Gnostics were extremely anthropomorphic, while anthropomorphism is an error that is abhored in Catholicism.
Jesus became man, with all the limitations of man, out of love for us; it does not mean that God had to do this, or that God therefore became the image of man.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Try it the other way around. God didn’t become the image of Man. God created Man in His own image. An image something that looks like the same thing.
- Status