Should science be secular?

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t think that science and religion should have anything to do with one another? How can one compare science and religion and claim one is “better” than another in the first place? It’s like apples and oranges? Science cannot be informed by religion because science measures the knowable, the observable, that which can be seen and experimented upon. How can religion enter the equation? I don’t say this with hostility toward religion because I happen to be a believer. But in the search for a cure for cancer, what does religion have to do with the experiments or lab clinical trials being done? What does Jesus or Mary have to do with finding a cure for AIDS? How does the Beatific Vision or the Trinity enter into finding an anti-biotic to stop MRSA virus? Why must religion enter the equation? Why do we think religion must enter every discipline and science or else it’s worthless?

What we have here is a “science is better than religion because we’ve got evidence and religion doesn’t.” And the political aspect: keep your religious beliefs out of our public policy.

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

I don’t think that science and religion should have anything to do with one another? How can one compare science and religion and claim one is “better” than another in the first place? It’s like apples and oranges? Science cannot be informed by religion because science measures the knowable, the observable, that which can be seen and experimented upon. How can religion enter the equation? I don’t say this with hostility toward religion because I happen to be a believer. But in the search for a cure for cancer, what does religion have to do with the experiments or lab clinical trials being done? What does Jesus or Mary have to do with finding a cure for AIDS? How does the Beatific Vision or the Trinity enter into finding an anti-biotic to stop MRSA virus? Why must religion enter the equation? Why do we think religion must enter every discipline and science or else it’s worthless?

Science must be informed by truth, otherwise it is unreliable.

 

[InquisitiveCath]

Whoa. Hold on. A lot of little details but not much clarity.

Pope John Paul II was quite clear on this:

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

For all the value obtained from the scientific method, it is clear that some wish to ignore God and set up Science as an idol. This is contrary to the clear duty to present the Gospel and to lead all people into all truth.

God bless,
Ed

Ah but Ed, i think your crossing wires with theAtheist on this one.

Why did he bring up the Buddhist example? To use it as a stick to bash us with?

No, he brought it up as a model of interaction.

It reminds me of what one of my friends whose a big lover of Physics mentioned.

You ever hear about the Meson? It was a subatomic particle discovered by a Japanese physicist Hideki Yukawa. Yukawa credit’s a large chunk of the inspiration for the idea to Zen Buddhism.

Not that Buddha came down and whispered the secrets universe into his ear or something like that.

A specific philosophical doctrine within the intellectual structure of his belief system led to a discovery.

Once upon a time, we used to do that a lot for science. Somewhere though, our theology stalled. Like Pope Benedict said, it became so divorced from the rest of the world. It was logical but a self-referential system of thought.

And we really haven’t dug our way out of it yet. Fides et Ratio, remember that encyclical? People misinterpret a statement in it to say that we should “defend Thomism” although if you look at it closely enough, he’s saying we should retain the Thomistic methodology - not necessarily the conclusions.

This is the “adventure” that Hans Kung, Yves Cognar, Dominic-Marie Chenu, and all the men who built Vatican II have started.

Its just that we haven’t gotten around to cleaning house yet. You don’t need to take my word for it, ask some theologians on First Things. We’re in search of a System.

This is also why we are often attacked by the Orthodox Churches, specifically the Russian Orthodox. The accusation is that we’re “too rational.” We’re demanding too much rationality, too in love with Greek philosophy, and have essentially turned the Church of Christ into a philosophical debating forum.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

gurney

But in the search for a cure for cancer, what does religion have to do with the experiments or lab clinical trials being done? What does Jesus or Mary have to do with finding a cure for AIDS? How does the Beatific Vision or the Trinity enter into finding an anti-biotic to stop MRSA virus? Why must religion enter the equation? Why do we think religion must enter every discipline and science or else it’s worthless?

I would say it has a great deal to do with it. You are limiting your examples to doctrines that do not touch directly on medical problems. However, there are other Church teachings that do. For example, “Thou shalt not kill” can be an antidote to abortion, the mass killing of 40 million babies in America alone in just forty years.

The secular scientific world has no use for religion, they say. I would say that if the entire life work of scientists is not guided by religious principles, it will be the end of us all … one way or another … nuclear annihilation most likely or some other pestilence of the Four Horsemen.

Was it “Love one another” that inspired the atom bomb?

 

[edwest2]

Ah but Ed, i think your crossing wires with theAtheist on this one.

Why did he bring up the Buddhist example? To use it as a stick to bash us with?

No, he brought it up as a model of interaction.

It reminds me of what one of my friends whose a big lover of Physics mentioned.

You ever hear about the Meson? It was a subatomic particle discovered by a Japanese physicist Hideki Yukawa. Yukawa credit’s a large chunk of the inspiration for the idea to Zen Buddhism.

Not that Buddha came down and whispered the secrets universe into his ear or something like that.

A specific philosophical doctrine within the intellectual structure of his belief system led to a discovery.

Once upon a time, we used to do that a lot for science. Somewhere though, our theology stalled. Like Pope Benedict said, it became so divorced from the rest of the world. It was logical but a self-referential system of thought.

And we really haven’t dug our way out of it yet. Fides et Ratio, remember that encyclical? People misinterpret a statement in it to say that we should “defend Thomism” although if you look at it closely enough, he’s saying we should retain the Thomistic methodology - not necessarily the conclusions.

This is the “adventure” that Hans Kung, Yves Cognar, Dominic-Marie Chenu, and all the men who built Vatican II have started.

Its just that we haven’t gotten around to cleaning house yet. You don’t need to take my word for it, ask some theologians on First Things. We’re in search of a System.

This is also why we are often attacked by the Orthodox Churches, specifically the Russian Orthodox. The accusation is that we’re “too rational.” We’re demanding too much rationality, too in love with Greek philosophy, and have essentially turned the Church of Christ into a philosophical debating forum.

Please don’t bring Vatican II into this. Along with cleaning house. This is a simple question to which I’ve supplied the simple answer from Pope John Paul II. In the past, scientists gave great glory to God. Today, it’s “get your beliefs away from my science.” In the past, I listened to scientists and understood that they could only say so much. Today, science has been turned into a cult that replaces God and religion for some people. It’s very simple.

Science must lead and guide, they say. Religion is this stumbling block, a relic from the past that, at best, makes people feel good, but, at worst, it stands in the way of what a small group defines as progress.

We’re in search of a system? I suggest you visit a few anti-theist sites and read up on their ideas of how things should go. I am unconcerned about attacks from the Russian Orthodox. What was lost in the 1960s was obedience to the Teaching Authority of the Church. Vatican II is the current scapegoat. If anything, we’re less rational than we used to be. We spend too much time considering opinions that are often uninformed, ideological as opposed to revealing the truth, or simply attacks on our faith.

God bless,
Ed

 

[InquisitiveCath]

Please don’t bring Vatican II into this. Along with cleaning house. This is a simple question to which I’ve supplied the simple answer from Pope John Paul II. In the past, scientists gave great glory to God. Today, it’s “get your beliefs away from my science.” In the past, I listened to scientists and understood that they could only say so much. Today, science has been turned into a cult that replaces God and religion for some people. It’s very simple.

Science must lead and guide, they say. Religion is this stumbling block, a relic from the past that, at best, makes people feel good, but, at worst, it stands in the way of what a small group defines as progress.

We’re in search of a system? I suggest you visit a few anti-theist sites and read up on their ideas of how things should go. I am unconcerned about attacks from the Russian Orthodox. What was lost in the 1960s was obedience to the Teaching Authority of the Church. Vatican II is the current scapegoat. If anything, we’re less rational than we used to be. We spend too much time considering opinions that are often uninformed, ideological as opposed to revealing the truth, or simply attacks on our faith.

God bless,
Ed

That’s the sad thing Ed. You and they are stuck in this “Crash Course” mentality.
You would make Science the Handmaiden of Religion? The Atheists would have us cease to exist.

Your more interested in fighting. Go right ahead.

But it doesn’t change the fact that we are in search of a new System. Even JPII and Benedict have admitted that the theological writings they leave behind are not a top down structure that Answers Everything but perhaps the foundation stones for something new.

Our hope and future lay in building upon what they have wrought.

 

[Anselm33]

Any ideas?

I’ve been reading many of the comments (pro and con) on this, and am going to leave this thread cause it doesn’t seem that there are many new ideas and it also seems that people are pretty much stuck in whatever positions they choose from previous prejudices–strike that–contingent cognitive training they may have experienced.
Two main points to argue;
SHOULD SCIENCE (OR BETTER–SCIENTISTS) HAVE VALUES OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE?.
I say yes. If not, then we will have situations such as in Nazi Germany where doctors were conducting experiments on identical twins–cold and pain endurance, amongst others. Nicely designed experiments, but… Many of us in this forum feel that stem-cell experiments on non-implanted embryos are also morally wrong. If you’re a physicist, should you work on a new weapon of mass destruction?
DOES THE UNIVERSE SHOW EVIDENCE FOR AN INTELLIGENT DESIGN?
If one looks objectively at all the so-called anthropic coincidences–the narrow range of values for natural constants–masses, force laws, etc–required for even a universe with stars to exist, much less for carbon-based life to occur–they are improbable in the extreme. Positing an infinity of universes begs this question; there is no empirical evidence for such, nor will there be. If you follow the principle of Ockham’s razor, the most economical explanation is that of an intelligent designer (and I’m not referring to evolution here). A particularly significant anthropic coincidence involves the nucleosynthesis of carbon-12, and the resonance of excited nuclear levels of Be-8 and C-12, predicted by Fred Hoyle.

 

[Anselm33]

I didn’t have room for this quote from Fred Hoyle (who had been a militant atheist previous to all this–a proponent of the “steady state” theory, because he did not want a Creation event to point to the hands of a Creator):
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology; and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

 

[InquisitiveCath]

I’ve been reading many of the comments (pro and con) on this, and am going to leave this thread cause it doesn’t seem that there are many new ideas and it also seems that people are pretty much stuck in whatever positions they choose from previous prejudices–strike that–contingent cognitive training they may have experienced.

Well Anselm, thanks for the contribution.

That’s just great though. I come late only to see the Neuroscientist head out the door followed by the Physicist. And they were the nonantagonistic level-headed ones!

The intellectual value of this thread just dropped immensely.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TheAtheist,

I certainly did not mean to insult you TA. Please accept my apology. So, maybe it would be be good to define (or at least explain) our terms so that we are both on the same page.

In my lifetime, i have stood shoulder to shoulder with some of the best academic minds who just happen to share your faith and belief structure. You know, this may not be unrelated coinsidence, TheAtheist!

Why do you think I praise Franciscan and Jesuit learning? I am really not sure - so, please tell us why you praise these men?

From Fordham, to Notre Dame, to Georgetown. Not ONCE. NOT ONCE have they EVER excused me of what you just stated. Ever. Of being petulant? Of refusing to respond to scientific examples of just where science failed - and ignoring it? But, let’s not play 20-questions… just WHAT did your Franciscan and Jesuit friends accuse you of, TheAtheist?

Because you have just grouped me in with the New Atheists.

Now, on this one, I really must plead innocent. I honestly have never heard of “New Atheists”. So, please tell me, just what is “new” about them - contrasted with the old version who simply refused to believe in God. This position was old when David wrote Psalm 14 (here is a link: usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm14.htm. It is only 7 verses long… Now, efforts to replace God with another god are quite old, too. It does not make any difference if that god is Hathor from Egypt or Baal from Phoenician areas or gold or even science. These are all efforts to take away the honor owed to God and supplant Him with a man made object. Honest, I have not seen anything new - but, if I missed it, please let me know.

If that’s how you truly perceive the world, then by all means - enjoy the flood that’s coming. Enjoy what i like to call the Atheistic version of a Radical Christian. I’m sure you’ll all get along regurgitating the same exact arguments again and again and again and again.

If by “flood”, TheAtheist, you mean a castrophic destructive force, I believe such an event is coming! But, it will not be lead by any Atheistic verson of a Radical Christian (whatever that is). For a fairly informative (but, not exhaustive) account, you can start here: usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/revelation1.htm and just work your way through the next 22 Chapters (none are especially long). I really do not know quite what you mean by a. “… regurgitating the same exact (sic - if it is same it is exact…) arguments again and again and again and again…”. You have yet to address what I have presented to you in a logical and elequent manner (surely your Franciscian and Jesuit friends have challenged you on both your content and presentation - now is the time to show it off! )

I can take comfort at the very least, that those I call colleagues and friends (who happen to adhere to the same religious organization as you do) are far more balanced in their assessments.

Take comfort wherever you can find it, TheAtheist! And, I really can not argue that havng balanced friends (and their accompanying assessments) is superior to having a unbalanced (and probably unsavory)stew. But, you know, from the Franciscians and Jesuits I have known - they suffer foolish arguments poorly. I would be interested in knowling how these learned colleagues have given you comfort in your proudly proclaimed atheisism. Please share.

But then again, that’s always been the problem with the Catholic Church hasn’t it?

Ask a member of Opus Dei about something, you’ll get one answer.

Ask a Jesuit, you just might get another.

Do I detect some confusion in understanding responses here,TheAtheist? My guess is that you will need to present the ideas of Opus Dei and those of the Jesuits so we can see how they differ on the same topic. Considering this probably is not really on topic for this thread, maybe you would like to start another?

Your cry has been that God has not sufficiently DEMONSTRATED Himself to you. Unlike water CAN BE TESTED to boil at 212F at sea level every time - you are claiming God does not exist to suit your fanciful tests - whenever you choose to test Him. About 2,000 years ago the Jews attempted to test Christ - even though they had seen the wonderous signs he performed - and Christ would not play their game. That position is still in effect. Your challenge is to either accept this reality or reject it. At the time of your last breath will you be calling to the ‘god’ you have made of science to rescue you?

God bless

 

[InquisitiveCath]

Sorry Tom, the Scientists have left the building. Run off by the folks who just want to debate.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, InquisitiveCath,

Welcome to the list! I think you will find CAF a source of great blessings and solid information.

You know, one of the more interesting ‘undocumented’ aspects of CAF is that like moths to the flame, these Catholic baiters keep on returning! They get an intellecutal thrashing, retreat and then - for some reason unbeknownst to me … come back for another sound presentation of logic, theology and some humor. My guess is that they just don’t get this on Catholic hating sites … so … they return.

My hypothesis is that these ‘Scientists’ will return shortly (in less than a week!) ignore the previous posts ('those arguments never really existed…! ) and just post a new line of wild assumptions devoid of any objective fact.

God bless

Sorry Tom, the Scientists have left the building. Run off by the folks who just want to debate.

 

[buffalo]

Sorry Tom, the Scientists have left the building. Run off by the folks who just want to debate.

Scientists who cannot argue their own position, or they do not like to be challenged to test their paradigms? or science faith?

In my IDvolution posts I have used the findings of modern science to build support.

 

[InquisitiveCath]

My hypothesis is that these ‘Scientists’ will return shortly (in less than a week!) ignore the previous posts ('those arguments never really existed…! ) and just post a new line of wild assumptions devoid of any objective fact.

God bless

Tom, with all do respect. You have completely missed the point.

Were Anselm or TheAtheist really here to debate to begin with?

Oh and news flash Tom - Anselm was a CATHOLIC SCIENTIST.

And even he didn’t see much worth in this thread.

 

[j1akey]

Scientists who cannot argue their own position, or they do not like to be challenged to test their paradigms? or science faith?

In my IDvolution posts I have used the findings of modern science to build support.

Sure they can but what’s the point of debating with people who will flatly reject anything you say, regardless of how accurate or logical their argument is. Debating most people on this board is like repeatedly slamming your face into a brick wall. Everyone on these boards gangs up on them and then claim victory and say they can’t hold an argument. More likely they just get sick and tired of dealing with it rather than sit here all day responding to ever single counter argument you folks come up with. Better to just come and say what you came to say and then leave it at that like these guys did because otherwise the “debate” just goes on forever and eventually one side just gets sick of talking about it. Since there are way more of you guys than there are non-believers here the side with the most numbers usually lasts the longest.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re talking about scientific ETHICS. Now if you’re saying that religions should come together to make sure that science uses proper ethics in respecting life and the human condition, I"m on board with you. I’m firmly against embryonic stem cell research, etc. It’s unethical and you’re indeed correct that religion and society at large has a role to play in that discussion.

Abortion, as loathsome and disgusting and opposed to it as I am, is not a scientific phenomenon is it? Isn’t that a procedure used in hospitals? Is that really part of the scientific method and science or is it part of the Supreme Court and liberal politicians’ desires to see child murder used as health care? I don’t see abortion as part of the scientific realm but rather as a part of a sickening social policy that seeks to consider infantacide as a “procedure” or a “right” or “health care.”

As far as the atom bomb goes, would you have preferred World War II to have kept going on? I think the “Final Solution” of Hitler and the mass slaughter of the Pacific by Japan needed to be stopped. It was a sad and desperate measure, but the “bomb” stopped what would’ve been an even nastier blood-letting I’m sure. We can debate that one all day long though with little progress…

I agree with the sentiment and most examples you give though, Charlemagne. Ironically, your namesake Charlemagne had plenty of blood and guts on his hands. History is full of it, isn’t it!

gurney

But in the search for a cure for cancer, what does religion have to do with the experiments or lab clinical trials being done? What does Jesus or Mary have to do with finding a cure for AIDS? How does the Beatific Vision or the Trinity enter into finding an anti-biotic to stop MRSA virus? Why must religion enter the equation? Why do we think religion must enter every discipline and science or else it’s worthless?

I would say it has a great deal to do with it. You are limiting your examples to doctrines that do not touch directly on medical problems. However, there are other Church teachings that do. For example, “Thou shalt not kill” can be an antidote to abortion, the mass killing of 40 million babies in America alone in just forty years.

The secular scientific world has no use for religion, they say. I would say that if the entire life work of scientists is not guided by religious principles, it will be the end of us all … one way or another … nuclear annihilation most likely or some other pestilence of the Four Horsemen.

Was it “Love one another” that inspired the atom bomb?

 

[buffalo]

Sure they can but what’s the point of debating with people who will flatly reject anything you say, regardless of how accurate or logical their argument is. Debating most people on this board is like repeatedly slamming your face into a brick wall. Everyone on these boards gangs up on them and then claim victory and say they can’t hold an argument. More likely they just get sick and tired of dealing with it rather than sit here all day responding to ever single counter argument you folks come up with. Better to just come and say what you came to say and then leave it at that like these guys did because otherwise the “debate” just goes on forever and eventually one side just gets sick of talking about it. Since there are way more of you guys than there are non-believers here the side with the most numbers usually lasts the longest.

This is the position of many of those you cite:

%between%http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=4483

or they cite old science and fail to take into account science of the last five years and even what the top evo’s are saying. When challenged they leave. Perhaps they will come back after they have done the research.

 

[wanstronian]

I’m away on business for a day or two, and only have internet access via a mobile device, which isn’t practical for the length of post required. I’m keen to carry on the discussions I’ve been having, but as others have joined the thread now it might be difficult for me to catch up. I’ll do my best… see you soon.

 

[tqualey]

Great Post, 1akey!

But, I guess there was a problem with the internet transmission because all of the actual objective facts I know you used to back up your general statement were somehow lost! I know you would never engage in an argument consisteing of nothing more than vague generalities… so, here is your chance to fill in those missing parts!

Sure they can but what’s the point of debating with people who will flatly reject anything you say, regardless of how accurate or logical their argument is.

And, just what is your accurate and logical argument? Take all the space you need - and feel free to go on to additional pages!

Debating most people on this board is like repeatedly slamming your face into a brick wall.

And I was half expecting you to have learned about reality from slamming your face into the ‘brick wall’ of better argumentation the first time. I guess this is your example of another 'face slamming, 1akey!

Everyone on these boards gangs up on them and then claim victory and say they can’t hold an argument. More likely they just get sick and tired of dealing with it rather than sit here all day responding to ever single counter argument you folks come up with.

The real ‘trick’ to a valid arugment, 1akey is that it not only addresses the issue but has integrity. There is no question that the matter is unresolved. Whether others agree and join or not is immaterial. The argument is able to stand on its own feet. You have an invitation to place your argument before the group and see if it can stand on its own weight. This means, you start our with a hypothesis, support it with objective fact, provide references from objective sources. Please proceed with your well-reasoned argument.

Better to just come and say what you came to say and then leave it at that like these guys did because otherwise the “debate” just goes on forever and eventually one side just gets sick of talking about it. Since there are way more of you guys than there are non-believers here the side with the most numbers usually lasts the longest.
What a disappointment! I am at a loss at trying to figure why you bothered to come at all considering the obvious frustration you have been put through - and, put through repeatedly! “Say what you want, don’t bother with a response and leave”, eh? Surely there is a word for combining cowardice with laziness inside of a truly insecure ego… just can’t think of it. But, if you haven’t left yet, help me with this vocabulary term. Thanks!

Now, I understand that there are several anti-Catholic URLs out there that seem to thrive on comments such as you have made. It seems to me that you would be happier there. But, I will leave that up to you.

Better luck on your future posts!

God bless

 

[edwest2]

That’s the sad thing Ed. You and they are stuck in this “Crash Course” mentality.
You would make Science the Handmaiden of Religion? The Atheists would have us cease to exist.

Your more interested in fighting. Go right ahead.

But it doesn’t change the fact that we are in search of a new System. Even JPII and Benedict have admitted that the theological writings they leave behind are not a top down structure that Answers Everything but perhaps the foundation stones for something new.

Our hope and future lay in building upon what they have wrought.

I have no idea what you’re saying. I don’t want to make science the handmaiden of anything. I would like to see science disentangled from the heavy accretion of materialism that buries it today. Too often here, when I read what the writer calls science I’m actually reading his promotion of an ideology he agrees with.

God bless,
Ed