Should science be secular?

[gurneyhalleck1]

Why has this discussion de-volved into an atheist vs. believer debate? Isn’t this discussion about science and whether or not it should be secular?

 

[StrawberryJam]

I had to reread a few posts. I think I get it.

The men of old had an advantage that we do not have now in experiencing God?

You wish you too had that advantage?

Can you demonstrate any advantage to experiencing God as a man of old?

I am not sure I would be lured in by the ability to have concubines or to have sex with my daughters that gave me booze.

 

[wanstronian]

Hi, Wanstronian,

I have been reading your posts and responses back and forth and I have an idea I would like to share with you.

Fine by me - you might want to tone your font down a little though - it’s difficult to read!

As I appreciate your position, since there is no ‘proof’ of God’s existence, then proceed as though God does not exist. This basically means that God can never be used as an answer to any scientific inquiry.

It’s not just this - it’s that science has been outstandingly successful without needing God. So why posit him? Science is built upon layers of empirical evidence, God is not empirically verifiable therefore to involve him is to invalidate the principles that has made science so successful.

While avoiding God in all things of life is certainly your right (we all have a free will) it does not appear to be either logical or prudent. Here is why:

IF there is a God and God chose to begin by creating a natural order (possibly as identified in Genesis 1) from which He freely created all things … yeah… back to Genesis, again… and someone comes around and says, “Hold on! There is no God because all of this happened according to a natural order. Case closed!” there seems to be a real problem here - at least the way I am looking at it.

A long time ago, scientists realized that there was a natural order to things - there is a certain predictibility here (even in what amouts to chaos [so they included that in their theories, too!) and on in particular went out on a very long limb to make his point. When I was a college Freshman in Chemistry, I vividly recall my prof telling me about the faith and courage of Dmitri Mendeleev (1834 - 1907) who developed the Periodic Table and then predicted the existance of an element and where it would be placed and its properties. Well, not only did the Russian chemists ridicule him … but, he was quite the laughing stock throughout the European chemical groups. Until his prediction was proven true![/COLOR]

Now, from our own expeiences (Newton’s, too) things just fall apart. But, you know, as well look around at the incredible order we see before us - Lord knows how old it all is (and, by the way, do you think we only had one Big Bang?) So, just what is going on - amongst all of this activity, we consistently find order. We find order in the heavens with the Hubel Space Telescope and right under our noses with the electron microscope. What a truly grand design, would you say? I know I would - and that is just one of the ideas on why I believe there is a very Grand Designer (I know you don’t like the term “Higher Power” - so, I offer another term… for God).

I fail to see why a natural order should be a product of a grand designer. On the contrary, it seems to be a product of the natural laws of physics and chemistry - laws which can be tested independently, used predictively, and which give consistent results. No God required.

This last statement is just more of the gambler in me. There are only two possibilities: there either IS or ISN’T a God. No grey area on this playing field. Now, if there IS a God and I act like there is a God, I think God would at least be less displeased with me than if I acted like there wasn’t a God. Now, if there ISN’T a God and I act as though there is - I certainly will be leading a moral life that would allow me to try and be harmonious with my neighbors throughout the world, respect their property and their lives (and those of their unborn babies). So, my life on earth will probably be much happier than if I live a life that proclaims, “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die!” Ultimatrely, it comes down to how you really see this arrangement - belief in God really does have more going for it. But, that is something that you have to work out for yourself (and, actually, I think the Grace of God will be helping you… )

God bless

My view is that if God does exist, he won’t think any better of me for pretending to believe that he exists when ultimately I believe that he doesn’t. Why would he reward me for lying? If he’s all he’s cracked up to be, he’ll recognise that I’m just thinking rationally and also that ultimately, he made me this way. Pascal’s Wager is a fallacy and fundamentally dishonest to onesself.

God is not necessary to be moral - this is just a theistic myth that has been disproved many times. So morality is not a factor.

I don’t think that belief in God has ‘more going for it’ - it doesn’t make one a better person, it doesn’t make one happier. A few months ago in a thread on this forum, I challenged someone to name one axiomatically positive aspect of their life that they felt was obtainable only from religious belief. I challenge you now to do the same.

 

[wanstronian]

Your cat can fly? Honestly?

A Tale of Two Scientists & World Population

For a start, this isn’t a tale of “Two scientists” - it’s a tale of “One scientist and one guesser.” Secondly, the idea that evolutionary theory, with its vast tracts of consistent evidence, can be debunked by a single extrapolatory calculation, may be of comfort to creationists, but isn’t really credible.

Steady State Theory is one theory overturned which had major negative implications for atheists.(they fought it tooth and nail) Remember this verse - “In the beginning…”? Theologians have been stating this for a very long time. Science just caught up.

I asked for a case where a scientific theory was overturned by religion, remember? You’ve given me a case where a scientific theory has been overturned by another scientific theory. Where, in this superior theory, is God the crucial element? Well, whaddya know - nowhere! Hail science - without God!!

Premise: God is responsible for the observable universe. So in the big picture we have to credit God even though science cringes. This is so intertwined it is difficult to unravel. However, we do not have to invoke God for all explanations and I have not proposed that. What I am claiming is that the truth must illuminate our reasoning of our observations. Don’t misstate what I am saying.

Okay, you’ve stated a premise. Now all you have to do is prove that the premise is correct, then you can start using it in your arguments.

So enlighten me. Tell me what this ‘truth’ is, and how it adds objective value to our scientific discovery. I’m not asking you to invoke God for all explanations - just show me one case where invoking him makes a scientific theory work, where without him it didn’t.

I am speaking of Revelation not the book of Revelation. Before we go on please read so you understand Revelation.
Meaning of revelation

Fine - I was just checking. I know what revelation is - the subjective, non-verifiable religious experience undergone by fervent religious individuals, that for some reason is then expected to be taken as the literal truth by the rest of humanity.

You’ll forgive me if I point out that Revelation does not equate to evidence, and therefore has no more credibility than my cat’s abililty to fly?

 

[wanstronian]

Man’s scientific quests are at times driven more for illegitimate or negative reasons such as disproving the existance of God rather than those based on the admiration and further desire to know the Creator.

Science cannot disprove God - certainly not the God of modern theology who has been arbitrarily placed outside the realm of scientific detection. That clearly doesn’t mean he exists by default. It would be extremely poor thinking to assume that it does.

We can come up with theories until the end of the solar system if that would be what the future holds but the continual and final proof that God created all things will remain in man’s inability to prove otherwise.

And the booby prize goes to… twb1621, who thinks that an inability to prove a negative is the same as proving a positive!!

God will never provide proof to mortal man of Himself. That would in itself interfere with man’s true free will to choose and abolish true expression of faith.

So why did he (supposedly) do it before? He’s all over the bible. What’s different now?

For a man of science to disbelieve in the existance of God without supportive evidence it would be nothing more than bias unfounded opinion, as it is no different than the same man denying the impossibilities and improbabilites in the statistics surrounding 1000 years of prior prophacy fulfilled in the Life of Christ. To deny statistical analysis would be to deny one of the very principles supporting scientific research and the substance of theory. No arm of science has ever been able to provide evidence contrary to the existance of God or in favor of the non-existance of God. Only the unfounded opinions of man generate such conclusions and that is in defiance of true science.

Science is evidence-based. There is no evidence for the existence of God. Therefore, there is no reason to believe in God. It’s really that simple.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Wanstronian,

I would like to you know that I believe that the theory of evolution is correct - in that simpler life forms preceeded and set the stage for more complex life forms! As the earth changed from mainly a marine environment these life forms began to populate the land.

But… as you probably guessed … we differ on One Item: you believe this happened through a very long process of natural selection, while I believe the Hand of God was responsible for every single atom in existance.

For a start, this isn’t a tale of “Two scientists” - it’s a tale of “One scientist and one guesser.” Secondly, the idea that evolutionary theory, with its vast tracts of consistent evidence, can be debunked by a single extrapolatory calculation, may be of comfort to creationists, but isn’t really credible.

I agree with you here, Wanstronian.

I asked for a case where a scientific theory was overturned by religion, remember? You’ve given me a case where a scientific theory has been overturned by another scientific theory. Where, in this superior theory, is God the crucial element? Well, whaddya know - nowhere! Hail science - without God!!

Now, I think you have jumped to a conclusion here… Just because God did not physically appear with diagrams, blueprings and PowerPoint presentation to disprove a theory does not mean He was “nowhere”. So, before you go off the deep end with “Hail Science!” recall that science is evolutionary in its understanding, too. (And, that means it is not only weak - but, being constantly in a state of flux with one theory being disproven by the advent of another theory and so on.

In my view, God created a Grand Design - where everything He created fits into this pattern. This Grand Design for all life on earth,started out simple and moved to complex. If you have ever marveled at the predictibality of natural events (e.g., Spring comes before Summer every year) then this implies order - and an ultimately discoverable pattern. Well, patterns just don’t happen - there is a Pattern Maker. In your eagerness to dismiss God’s role in all of creation, you need to stop and just look around. Yeah, go on… smell the roses - He made them, too!

Here are just two examples of the development of understanding of objective reality. For the longest time, the ‘early Periodic Table’ consisted only of: Fire, Earth, Wind and Water! Now, look at our understanding of chemistry. When it came to understanding celestial movement, the Ptolemic System seemed to be correct - and for roughly 1500 years it was accepted as the accurate scientific explanation for how the planets moved. The along came Copernicus and an entirely new system replaced the Ptolemic one. The reality of how the universe has not changed - only our understanding of it.

Okay, you’ve stated a premise. Now all you have to do is prove that the premise is correct, then you can start using it in your arguments.

Now, if there is anything with Sir Isaac Netwon’s fascination for the ways things deteriorate (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) we have to scientifically ask our ourselves: how did we move from simple to complex - when by our own observations, the complex is always deteriorating to the simple. Our own bodies are perfect examples - and the older we get the more obvious it becomes that we do not work as well as we used to. Ultimately, we will die and return to dust - which by most standards is much simper than we are as living humans.

Right now, I am using a laptop computer to send this post. The idea of me throwing it up against the wall and trying to reassemble the broken pieces back into a perfectly functioning computer is a real (but highly remote) possibility - assuming that all of my descendants and their friends want to contribute to this labor! But, even if this could be done - my belief is that God DID NOT TAKE existing parts to make the universe - but crated them from NOTHING. We can not even imagine ‘nothing’ - our space (even in a empty closet) is always filled with something. But, I’ll ‘cut you some slack here’… has there ever been a scientific event that created anything from no visible or measurable object?

Your challenge is really hollow in the sense that unless it can be seen (God can not be seen) it does not exist. The only power that exists is the power that you acknowledge. As one who believes in Science - you know this statement must be false - or else we have obtained all possible knowledge.

God bless

 

[zdon011]

Science cannot disprove God - certainly not the God of modern theology who has been arbitrarily placed outside the realm of scientific detection. That clearly doesn’t mean he exists by default. It would be extremely poor thinking to assume that it does…Science is evidence-based. There is no evidence for the existence of God. Therefore, there is no reason to believe in God. It’s really that simple.

You imply that before ‘modern theology’ ‘arbitrarily placed’ God beyond the realm of detection, science could prove/disprove his existence. Proof?

So scientists of old were much closer to ‘debunking God’? How have theologians been so clever as to make God so much harder to disprove scientifically, as you imply?

Science is evidence-based. There is no evidence for the existence of God. Therefore, there is no reason to believe in God. It’s really that simple.

Science is the study of the physical world. According to your narrow definition, only physical evidence can be admitted as reasons for believing in God.

As you will find very quickly if you ask scientists or philosophers of religion, spiritual and supernatural matters (such as God) are beyond the reach of science by their very nature (not because of some clever tricks on the part of ‘modern theology’).

For example, provide physical evidence for the existence of the force called ‘love’. I suspect you will fall back on its effects on people and their behaviour. The same can be said for God and miracles.

 

[buffalo]

Can you demonstrate any advantage to experiencing God as a man of old?

Experiencing God face to face on earth would be the ultimate. It might be #2 compared to the beatific vision.

 

[buffalo]

For a start, this isn’t a tale of “Two scientists” - it’s a tale of “One scientist and one guesser.” Secondly, the idea that evolutionary theory, with its vast tracts of consistent evidence, can be debunked by a single extrapolatory calculation, may be of comfort to creationists, but isn’t really credible.

I asked for a case where a scientific theory was overturned by religion, remember? You’ve given me a case where a scientific theory has been overturned by another scientific theory. Where, in this superior theory, is God the crucial element? Well, whaddya know - nowhere! Hail science - without God!!

Okay, you’ve stated a premise. Now all you have to do is prove that the premise is correct, then you can start using it in your arguments.

So enlighten me. Tell me what this ‘truth’ is, and how it adds objective value to our scientific discovery. I’m not asking you to invoke God for all explanations - just show me one case where invoking him makes a scientific theory work, where without him it didn’t.

Fine - I was just checking. I know what revelation is - the subjective, non-verifiable religious experience undergone by fervent religious individuals, that for some reason is then expected to be taken as the literal truth by the rest of humanity.

You’ll forgive me if I point out that Revelation does not equate to evidence, and therefore has no more credibility than my cat’s abililty to fly?

Hello - the SST was indeed replaced by another scientific theory. No argument here. However that was a foundational change that had physicists all over having to recalculate. Lot’s of time, effort and money spent.

Every time you invoke we don’t need God to do it is completely missing the point.

Science that works in darkness is less reliable than science that works in light.

One case? - all current science a priori excludes him by your admission. The question has to be framed another way? Are we drawing the right conclusions form our observations? How do we know?

I will go back to my balls in the box analogy. There is a box. In it are white and black balls. We only pick the black balls in applying reasoning. What does that say about our conclusions?

Revelation indeed does equate to evidence. It is historical and tells of the relationship with God and man. In this history the account of the beginnings is transmitted to man. Man’s floundering in His relationship with God. It includes prophecies that were fulfilled in one man, Jesus that defy the odds. All of this together has to be assigned some value of truth. An atheists who assigns it a 0 value is irrational and argues out of defiance more than reason.

What value do you assign the accounts? 0-10?

I find many atheists weak in history and philosophy and simply repeat the party line.

What is Truth

 

[buffalo]

Fine - I was just checking. I know what revelation is - the subjective, non-verifiable religious experience undergone by fervent religious individuals, that for some reason is then expected to be taken as the literal truth by the rest of humanity.

You’ll forgive me if I point out that Revelation does not equate to evidence, and therefore has no more credibility than my cat’s abililty to fly?

Do you castigate fervent materialist scientists the same way or do you give them a pass?

 

[buffalo]

So why did he (supposedly) do it before? He’s all over the bible. What’s different now?

Science is evidence-based. There is no evidence for the existence of God. Therefore, there is no reason to believe in God. It’s really that simple.

Famous last words - It is accomplished. When Jesus started His church on earth He left it to man to evangelize and live the life He taught them. Sure He could have stuck around on earth and be preaching today. You can ask Him why when you meet Him. My guess has to do with the maturity of mankind.

 

[buffalo]

Science is evidence-based. There is no evidence for the existence of God. Therefore, there is no reason to believe in God. It’s really that simple.

Really - then you have to re-evaluate your position. There is more evidence for Jesus than there is for evolution.

So - did Jesus walk on this earth or not? Yes or No?

 

[buffalo]

For a start, this isn’t a tale of “Two scientists” - it’s a tale of “One scientist and one guesser.” Secondly, the idea that evolutionary theory, with its vast tracts of consistent evidence, can be debunked by a single extrapolatory calculation, may be of comfort to creationists, but isn’t really credible.

At the end of the day who was right?

So we should remove backward extrapolation from science? We may be making progress in this discussion.

 

[buffalo]

You imply that before ‘modern theology’ ‘arbitrarily placed’ God beyond the realm of detection, science could prove/disprove his existence. Proof?

So scientists of old were much closer to ‘debunking God’? How have theologians been so clever as to make God so much harder to disprove scientifically, as you imply?

Science is the study of the physical world. According to your narrow definition, only physical evidence can be admitted as reasons for believing in God.

As you will find very quickly if you ask scientists or philosophers of religion, spiritual and supernatural matters (such as God) are beyond the reach of science by their very nature (not because of some clever tricks on the part of ‘modern theology’).

For example, provide physical evidence for the existence of the force called ‘love’. I suspect you will fall back on its effects on people and their behaviour. The same can be said for God and miracles.

Flatlanders cannot understand the 3D world.

 

[twb1621]

Your not getting it. Really, your not. Buffalo at least seems to understand what it would take.

The Jesuits and Franciscans who travel in similar circles (since more often than not they’re the ones stuck holding the bag when it comes to doing science within your church) i’ve met get it.

Heck the Rabbinical association i’ve often spoken to gets it.

Moses didn’t go singing Yahweh’s praises until AFTER Mt. Sinai. After The Encounter.

Not a mystical encounter, not a logical proof with premises that can be shifted, not a hope in the human heart.

He got a booming voice out of the Heavens. Oh, and that really nifty ability to part the Red Sea.

Yahweh had to Demonstrate his power. Heck, since we’re running with the theory, he had to demonstrate it about 12 times before Egyptians even budged.

Key Phrase: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>DEMONSTRATION.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

And not something that’s “iffy” either. Blatant unmistakable demonstration.

Some people are like John.

I’m proud to be a Thomas.

As for the saving of my immortal soul (if that in and of itself could be demonstrated to exist) - i’ve got Buddha, Krishna, Laozi, Mohammed, some random pagan deities, the Great Goddess, Vishnu, Shiva, Ahura Mazda, and a whole host of others claiming the same deal.

As any good scientist would say: “All you have to do show yourself. Otherwise. Well sorry, just enough evidence.”

TheAtheist… as you spoke you are “proud”… Perhaps you also fear you may be required to sacrafice some of the self gratifications you now enjoy if you did find Truth in God and find that unacceptable, just a thought. It is in fact pride and ego that interferes with every man’s ability to find truth (scientist or otherwise) and as proof you have acknowledged this is your self support. I do not mean this to be insulting, rather common among disbelievers of any particular unknown, or unexplainable entity. It is to show you, where there is pride / ego there is definitive bias for one’s self, and a wall that is put between the seeker and the truth.

It is unfortunate you do not recognize that those who have been given proof as in the appearance of God such as Moses experienced, have also suffered greatly as a result both in their ever piercing desire to be with God and in the service they were called upon to perform in their life. Many people who demand but are not provided the kind of proof you “need” only find it after being impacted with a sever crisis that drives them to find the truth, pursue their knowledge of God and due to their learning of Him enter into an intimate relationship with Him of which they no longer disbelieve, but long for the time of being with Him.

You like science, try investigating, and experiencing the science of human nature in cause and reaction. Set aside pride so you can learn without bias what there is to know before taking a position based on lack of information and unwarranted pride. Research that 1000 years of prior prophecies before the life of Christ, of which each of hundreds of prophecies that had been fulfilled statistically far exceeds the averages for two unrelated people living in the same geographic area possessing the same DNA. Those prophecies that were fulfilled through Christ’s life.

Go further to find a reasonable explanation as to why the disciples of Christ, who fled when He was taken into custody, hid during His imprisonment and again hid in fear of extreme torture for their lives at the time of His crucifixion, only a short time later (after His resurrection from the dead) all of whom completely turned from fear and went forth publically and in front of the very authorities who could and would and did eventually put them to death, to preach all they where taught with the unwavering certainty they knew they were to follow Christ in extreme death but be gifted with eternity in the house of the Father. Only one thing could change their fear to devotion, they already knew all the teachings. That one thing that would have been necessary was Christ’s final promise to raise from the dead in three days which proved all He had promised them and that final proof was all that was left for them to have no doubts. You want proof, but are you willing to suffer for Him as He suffered for your salvation? If so, pray for your awakening and devote all you were, are, and will be to God. By the way, the study required in each of the fields I suggested you research is science and some of the most renowned scientists in an ever growing community have converted to Christianity.

One final thing, if you wait for proof to decide to save your mortal soul, it is highly unlikely based statistically on the teachings of scripture you will be pleased with the outcome.

God’s guidence

 

[edwest2]

Why has this discussion de-volved into an atheist vs. believer debate? Isn’t this discussion about science and whether or not it should be secular?

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

 

[edwest2]

Fine by me - you might want to tone your font down a little though - it’s difficult to read!

It’s not just this - it’s that science has been outstandingly successful without needing God. So why posit him? Science is built upon layers of empirical evidence, God is not empirically verifiable therefore to involve him is to invalidate the principles that has made science so successful.

I fail to see why a natural order should be a product of a grand designer. On the contrary, it seems to be a product of the natural laws of physics and chemistry - laws which can be tested independently, used predictively, and which give consistent results. No God required.

My view is that if God does exist, he won’t think any better of me for pretending to believe that he exists when ultimately I believe that he doesn’t. Why would he reward me for lying? If he’s all he’s cracked up to be, he’ll recognise that I’m just thinking rationally and also that ultimately, he made me this way. Pascal’s Wager is a fallacy and fundamentally dishonest to onesself.

God is not necessary to be moral - this is just a theistic myth that has been disproved many times. So morality is not a factor.

I don’t think that belief in God has ‘more going for it’ - it doesn’t make one a better person, it doesn’t make one happier. A few months ago in a thread on this forum, I challenged someone to name one axiomatically positive aspect of their life that they felt was obtainable only from religious belief. I challenge you now to do the same.

“No god required.”

I hope some scientists are reading this. Now you have evidence as to the motives behind science and why it has lost credibility with the public. God is useless. Belief is pointless. Only empirical evidence matters.

Miracles still occur but only science has been successful? Ignoring one reality because you prefer another is not logical.

God bless.
Ed

 

[InquisitiveCath]

I had to answer this one. Because frankly this is the absolute gravest insult that be given to me.

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.

Why do you think I praise Franciscan and Jesuit learning?

From Fordham, to Notre Dame, to Georgetown. Not ONCE. NOT ONCE have they EVER excused me of what you just stated. Ever.

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

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.

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.

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.

ROFL - the fact that they went after you, of all people. The most moderated atheist in CAF. The guy whose even argued on our behalf at times.

So somebody has to got redeem the good name of Christianity, lest you think we’re all polemicists without any intellectual content tossing a sales pitch on every single post we make.

1.) What your asking for, we wouldn’t mind ourselves.

It would seal the deal now wouldn’t? Direct, visible, tangible proof.

The problem of course, as something even the current pope wrote about in his “Introduction to Christianity” back when he was a cardinal…is that kind of proof simply isn’t ours to give.

That’s what the struggle of faith is all about. Emphasis on the struggle part.

2.) The Tibetan Buddhism example and what Catholics can offer Science…

In a word: Nothing at this point and time.

I vaguely recall, maybe about a year back, you had enumerated and connected the dots between scientific development in the 16th-18th centuries and cross referenced it with developments in Catholic theology. Kind of creating this neat feedback loop.

We can’t do that right now. I mean, you can see in the posts that dot this forum, people have taken up a postmodernist tactic to just demolish the objectivity claims of science.

In other words, they’ve set themselves up in an adversarial position. In contrast to what the Buddhists are doing with you folks.

Big question of course is: Why?

The answer, at least if i’m to believe my professors (hey its one of those “crazy” Jesuits!) is that we currently lack a systematic theology.

There’s a good book about this subject, “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” - its about what went down in Vatican II. The reference of the German river comes from the fact that the “Rhine Fathers” - people like Pope Benedict, Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, et al took a battering ram to Neo-Scholasticism.

let me quote you directly from the Pope when he was still a Cardinal.

"In a certain sense, the theology of the first half of the [20th] century was more balanced, but also more closed within itself. Much of that theology lived inside the box of Neo-Scholasticism. It had greater certainty and logical lucidity than today’s theology, but it was far removed from the real world. The adventure that began in the Council took theology out of that box and exposed it to the fresh air of today’s life.

"Consequently this exposed it to the risk of new unbalances, since it was subject to divergent tendencies without the protection of a system. This caused theology to look for new balances in the context of an open and lively dialogue with today’s reality.

“This step seems to me not only justified, but also necessary, because theology should serve faith and evangelization, and, for this reason, must face reality as it is today … Therefore, it was a just and necessary step, although also a risky one … But risk is part of a necessary adventure.”

That was from 30 Dias, April 1994. And if you look on First Things, the theology website, we still haven’t really gotten our act together.

As an institution we can “meet” science or scientist directly, as i’m sure you’ve noticed in the recent gathering at the Vatican regarding the origins of life or the existence of extraterrestrial life.

As an intellectual enterprise? Not yet. Not until we’ve cleaned house, put the chairs were they’re supposed to be, and scrubbed the tables.

Since Neo-Scholasticism went KABOOM! we’ve had people try to bring it back, we’ve theologians working on their own “piecemeal” bits of theology, some merging Thomism with Continental Philosophy, others merging Thomism with Analytical Philosophy.

And even on strange strain that tried to merge Thomism with Marxist Revolutionary ideas - that would Liberation Theology.

Its all a kind of mess. And we’re still sorting it out. Yeah i know, Vatican II happened in the '60s. But think about it this way, how long does it take to reorganize a scientific paradigm?

3.) Don’t let the haters get you down.

CAF is like every other internet forum. You’ve got people here compelled to defend their viewpoint and hide all the “dirty laundry” and inconsistencies that might make their cause look bad.

Once upon a time, when i was much younger, i was one of those dopes.

Your smart enough to spot them. Remember to avoid.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Wanstronian

I asked for a case where a scientific theory was overturned by religion, remember? You’ve given me a case where a scientific theory has been overturned by another scientific theory. Where, in this superior theory, is God the crucial element? Well, whaddya know - nowhere! Hail science - without God!!

Religion does not presume to offer itself as an alternative to science. It merely presents the truth as it sees it. When Einstein insisted that the universe was never created, however, he did presume to offer science as an alternative to religion, and then, in order to do so, deliberately fudged his math to produce the results he wanted … steady state and infinite universe.

LeMaitre corrected Einstein’s math by dropping the cosmological constant, itself a mistake that Einstein later regretted as the greatest blunder of his life. It turns out that LeMaitre, a Catholic priest, was not biased against a creation event precisely because his religion asserted that such an event happened. In this case, his religious conviction furthered the cause of the Big Bang by not being so myopic that he had to invent a phony mathematical device against the Big Bang. It was really Einstein’s dislike for the Genesis account of creation that got him in trouble.

This is not to say that religion “overturned a scientific theory,” but rather that religion was compatible with the overturning of at least one aspect of a scientific theory that deserved to be overturned.

 

[edwest2]

ROFL - the fact that they went after you, of all people. The most moderated atheist in CAF. The guy whose even argued on our behalf at times.

So somebody has to got redeem the good name of Christianity, lest you think we’re all polemicists without any intellectual content tossing a sales pitch on every single post we make.

1.) What your asking for, we wouldn’t mind ourselves.

It would seal the deal now wouldn’t? Direct, visible, tangible proof.

The problem of course, as something even the current pope wrote about in his “Introduction to Christianity” back when he was a cardinal…is that kind of proof simply isn’t ours to give.

That’s what the struggle of faith is all about. Emphasis on the struggle part.

2.) The Tibetan Buddhism example and what Catholics can offer Science…

In a word: Nothing at this point and time.

I vaguely recall, maybe about a year back, you had enumerated and connected the dots between scientific development in the 16th-18th centuries and cross referenced it with developments in Catholic theology. Kind of creating this neat feedback loop.

We can’t do that right now. I mean, you can see in the posts that dot this forum, people have taken up a postmodernist tactic to just demolish the objectivity claims of science.

In other words, they’ve set themselves up in an adversarial position. In contrast to what the Buddhists are doing with you folks.

Big question of course is: Why?

The answer, at least if i’m to believe my professors (hey its one of those “crazy” Jesuits!) is that we currently lack a systematic theology.

There’s a good book about this subject, “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” - its about what went down in Vatican II. The reference of the German river comes from the fact that the “Rhine Fathers” - people like Pope Benedict, Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, et al took a battering ram to Neo-Scholasticism.

let me quote you directly from the Pope when he was still a Cardinal.

That was from 30 Dias, April 1994. And if you look on First Things, the theology website, we still haven’t really gotten our act together.

As an institution we can “meet” science or scientist directly, as i’m sure you’ve noticed in the recent gathering at the Vatican regarding the origins of life or the existence of extraterrestrial life.

As an intellectual enterprise? Not yet. Not until we’ve cleaned house, put the chairs were they’re supposed to be, and scrubbed the tables.

Since Neo-Scholasticism went KABOOM! we’ve had people try to bring it back, we’ve theologians working on their own “piecemeal” bits of theology, some merging Thomism with Continental Philosophy, others merging Thomism with Analytical Philosophy.

And even on strange strain that tried to merge Thomism with Marxist Revolutionary ideas - that would Liberation Theology.

Its all a kind of mess. And we’re still sorting it out. Yeah i know, Vatican II happened in the '60s. But think about it this way, how long does it take to reorganize a scientific paradigm?

3.) Don’t let the haters get you down.

CAF is like every other internet forum. You’ve got people here compelled to defend their viewpoint and hide all the “dirty laundry” and inconsistencies that might make their cause look bad.

Once upon a time, when i was much younger, i was one of those dopes.

Your smart enough to spot them. Remember to avoid.

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