Should science be secular?

[Charlemagne_II]

ed

Too often here, when I read what the writer calls science I’m actually reading his promotion of an ideology he agrees with.

They have the nerve to argue that religion has nothing to do with science, but that science can be used to discredit religion … by the fact that most scientists are atheists!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Charlemagne II,

I like your quote from Plato!

God bless

Tom

ed

Too often here, when I read what the writer calls science I’m actually reading his promotion of an ideology he agrees with.

They have the nerve to argue that religion has nothing to do with science, but that science can be used to discredit religion … by the fact that most scientists are atheists!

 

[j1akey]

tqualey:

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!

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

Riiiiiight, as this would likely take hours to do I think I have better things to do with my time than go through pages and pages of posts on this and other threads picking out specific examples.

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!

Catholicism.

See? I can be jerk too.

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.

There’s no entertainment value in trying to discuss things with people that already agree with me.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Wanstronian,

Best wishes and much success on your business trip! I am confident we will be awaiting your thoughtful reply. Oh, and when it comes to the length of one’s response, remember the famous words of Polonius , “Brevity is the soul of wit.”

God bless

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.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Why don’t you think about what you are asking and ask it more clearly if you want real answers? In my opinion, the question doesn’t really make any sense. What are you actually asking? Are you talking about the nature of experimentation? Are you talking about research ethics? How are you defining science in the context of this question? Most scientists, like most of the population of the world at large, believe in God - are you asking about scientist’s beliefs? Rephrase and try asking again.

I am not excluding God or God(s) from possibilities by simply saying that Science should be secular.

The following two definitions are from wikipedia,

“Secularity is the state of being separate from religion.”

“Religion is any systematic approach to living that involves beliefs about one’s origins, one’s place in the world, or a responsibility to live and act in the world in particular ways. Religion is often equated with faith and belief in a higher power or truth”

As you can see arguing that Science should be secular is not saying that science should be free from the possibility of God(s). I am arguing that science should be separate from organized sets of beliefs that are simply not based on facts but instead on faith and most of the time set in stone, and this is for obvious reasons.

 

[jdnation]

To say that science should be ‘secular’ is the same as saying that science should only kotow to atheism and the belief in nothing absolute and in no truth.

There is no such thing as neutrality when it comes to science and philosophy.

‘Science’ is only a method of gathering and observing informations.

Interpreting that information will always be biased according to the philosophy and beliefs of the men who conduct science.

Anyone who says science should be ‘secular’ in order to be ‘neutral’ is asking for an impossibility. Secular philosophy is not neutral and stands against the truth of Christianity and the Church.

There will NEVER be neutrality. Do no let secularists and atheist scientists or scientists who compromise their faith with atheistic philosophy either wittingly or unwittingly delude anyone into thinking so.

Don’t be afraid of conducting scientific research and interpreting it according to the revealed truth and facts given by God and the Church and in the Bible, specifically Genesis, because we all know that whenever this ‘religion versus science’ stuff comes up, it ALWAYS has to do with Darwinian evolution and ridiculous unscientific beliefs that organisms magically become more complex or that the universe and matter spontaneously arose form nothing and grew more complex through other unknown magical means.

The ‘religion versus science’ debate is not really ‘religion versus science’ but ‘religion versus another competing religion’ in this case ‘Christianity versus Atheism and Materialism.’ Science is supposed to be unbiased and neutral. Scientists are not because they are human beings with free will, choice and temptations to reject God for their own pride.

 

[wanstronian]

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.

How? The thread subject is whether science should be secular. My contention, which nobody has been able to refute, is that God is not necessary for science to work. He is not required in its methodology, its assumptions, its results, its predictions. Nowhere does a scientific theory invoke God, or religion, as a necessary precursor to make that theory correct.

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

This is just another empty and ambiguous assertion that has no practical meaning.

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?

Because it works, consistently and predictable. It’s self-correcting, it’s independent, it’s objective, it’s consistent. If it’s wrong, then everything we know is wrong. Why make such an assumption when everything we can see points to it being right?

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?

I have no idea what you’re talking about here, sorry.

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?

Zero, or close to it. The prophecies are not reliable evidence. Revelation is personal and subjective. Nothing to see here, move along.

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

What is Truth

Ah, so when you say truth, you’re not talking about the dictionary definition, but of an ecumenical one. In short: “If you don’t do science in the context of religion, how will your results confirm the dogma of that religion?”

A somewhat circular argument.

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

I ask them to present their peer-reviewed methods and evidence. And guess what! They do it!

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.

Sorry - I don’t count speculation and a book of dubious and unproven origin and content as being pertinent to a conversation about science. I want evidence, not dogma.

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

There’s only one explanation for when people make this kind of statement. They are completely unaware of the breadth, depth and consistency of evidence for evolution. You have either been lied to about it, or you’re deliberately denying the truth. Evolution is a fact. People who don’t believe it are either ignorant or stupid. Usually the former - there’s a lot of disinformation out there on Creationist websites and in Creationist literature, just waiting to be lapped up by those who want their belief to be true, regardless of the facts.

All the evidence in support of evolution is independently verifiable. Go to a musem, see for yourself.

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

I don’t know. There may have been some guy with that name who went round preaching. If he existed, it looks very likely that he was a nice guy. I don’t believe he was the son of God, or that he performed miracles, or that he was resurrected, or any of that other impossible stuff. No evidence, you see.

At the end of the day who was right?

Clearly, neither of them. This little parable is nothing but a specious hijacking of logic and maths in an attempt to make YEC sound plausible. Neither of them was in full possession of the facts - you expect to metricate the population of the earth using just two numbers and a standard logarithmic extrapolation? Lunacy.

Certainly the guy who put 2 and 2 together and got 4,500 years was in firm denial of the mountains (literally) of evidence that show origins of human life to be significantly earlier. The whole story is just a smug Christian self-congratulation that is emphatically, provably incorrect.

It’s the kind of story that firmly demonstrates why science MUST remain secular.

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

A somewhat puerile comment. Can we get back to the subject? Can anybody demonstrate how science is wrong unless God is an intrinsic and documented part of the methodology?

 

[wanstronian]

“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.

It’s an interesting point you make - there’ve been a number of articles recently on how people DO discount science when it contradicts their underlying beliefs, whether those beliefs are religious or not. Homeopathy is a great example.

So yes, people are ignoring science from time to time. But of course, that doesn’t for one minute mean that science is wrong and non-scientific belief is right. What it shows is that humans are irrational creatures. Science still works though, regardless of this. Your comment shows that you are just as easily convinced by your own conviction, as anybody else. It doesn’t make your conviction correct.

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

No - miracles don’t occur and science has been successful. There is no independent documentation of a miracle, and reams of independent documentation showing the success of science. It’s no contest.

Ignoring religious dogma in favour of a provable reality is logical.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jdnation,

I disagree with your main statement and I think you have overstated MOST (but not all) of the case.

Of course there are atheists, and humanists and scientists who believe only in science. But, that does not mean that anit-Christian or anti-Catholic principles drive science.

To say that science should be ‘secular’ is the same as saying that science should only kotow to atheism and the belief in nothing absolute and in no truth.

There is no such thing as neutrality when it comes to science and philosophy.

‘Science’ is only a method of gathering and observing informations.

Actually, Jdnation, I would say that only the ‘scientific method’ guarantees the best chance at obtaining data that is free of bias. Sloppy scientists give science a bad name. Sloppy scientists have a conclusion in mind BEFORE they gather their data - skew their data to match the colcusion they want and announce results that are totally bogus. This is not science - this is a sham and a fraud pretending to be valid work.

Interpreting that information will always be biased according to the philosophy and beliefs of the men who conduct science.

This is one of the risks we take as human being who conduct research and human beings who read and then try to apply research. One of the elements of a research presentation is to establish one’s assumptions - to clearly lay out what could be a bias. another element is to clearly state the sample size used (serious distortions can quickly arise if there was bias (unintentional or other-wise) in selecting what or who will be in the sample. If the sample is too small, it does not matter how unbiased it was when it was selected, it may not mirror the larger population. These are just some of the considerations one must have when looking at a study. Those who read the title and then the conclusion and believe it are, “… fools lead by knaves…”

Anyone who says science should be ‘secular’ in order to be ‘neutral’ is asking for an impossibility. Secular philosophy is not neutral and stands against the truth of Christianity and the Church.

There will NEVER be neutrality. Do no let secularists and atheist scientists or scientists who compromise their faith with atheistic philosophy either wittingly or unwittingly delude anyone into thinking so.

The challenge here - and, it is for all of us - is not to confuse the use of something with its abuse. There are those who propose that the Big Bang just happened, that a one cell creatue scratched its head and said, “I think I will divide into two” and that because God can not be measured or tested that He does not exist. It isn’t that these thoughts are so remote that can be safely ignored - rather - we should be aware that atheists - in whatever line of work they are in - are trying to advance their own agenda. Amazingly - it is the same agenda as the Devil who wants to eliminate God from everything - and will use whatever color or garment are necessary to accomplish his hellish ends. But, this isn’t science and it is not philosophy, either.

Don’t be afraid of conducting scientific research and interpreting it according to the revealed truth and facts given by God and the Church and in the Bible, specifically Genesis, because we all know that whenever this ‘religion versus science’ stuff comes up, it ALWAYS has to do with Darwinian evolution and ridiculous unscientific beliefs that organisms magically become more complex or that the universe and matter spontaneously arose form nothing and grew more complex through other unknown magical means.

We are really in agreement here, Jdnation… My view is that the Creative Hand of God chose to create certain laws (we would call them Laws of Nature … but, they are really Laws of the Creator! ) and from these laws God chose to have progressive life forms develop. This very concept of life is totally dependent on God. it just did not happen. There was no 'majic. And, without God’s Hand this very instant, all would vanish into the nothingness from whence it was created.

The ‘religion versus science’ debate is not really ‘religion versus science’ but ‘religion versus another competing religion’ in this case ‘Christianity versus Atheism and Materialism.’ Science is supposed to be unbiased and neutral. Scientists are not because they are human beings with free will, choice and temptations to reject God for their own pride.

We do not live in a perfect world, Jdnation, and our focus should be to follow Christ as we remain as simple as doves and cunning as wolves (Matt 10:16). The fact that scientists fail, give incorrect or false information, are lazy or sloppy in the proper use of the scientific process should alert all of us to be on our guard in what we read and hear. You are right - these scientists are just humans … as are we. But, this does not mean we should condemn Science becuase of the poor use its workers have made of it. Science is a discipline that allows us to appreciate some partial aspect of the truth of the natural world. These ‘partial’ aspects mean that our grasp of ‘truth’ is subject to change (e.g., the planets orbit around the earth vs the plantes orbit around the sun).

God bless

 

[DPMartin]

To say that science should be ‘secular’ is the same as saying that science should only kotow to atheism and the belief in nothing absolute and in no truth.

There is no such thing as neutrality when it comes to science and philosophy.

‘Science’ is only a method of gathering and observing informations.

Interpreting that information will always be biased according to the philosophy and beliefs of the men who conduct science.

Anyone who says science should be ‘secular’ in order to be ‘neutral’ is asking for an impossibility. Secular philosophy is not neutral and stands against the truth of Christianity and the Church.

There will NEVER be neutrality. Do no let secularists and atheist scientists or scientists who compromise their faith with atheistic philosophy either wittingly or unwittingly delude anyone into thinking so.

Don’t be afraid of conducting scientific research and interpreting it according to the revealed truth and facts given by God and the Church and in the Bible, specifically Genesis, because we all know that whenever this ‘religion versus science’ stuff comes up, it ALWAYS has to do with Darwinian evolution and ridiculous unscientific beliefs that organisms magically become more complex or that the universe and matter spontaneously arose form nothing and grew more complex through other unknown magical means.

The ‘religion versus science’ debate is not really ‘religion versus science’ but ‘religion versus another competing religion’ in this case ‘Christianity versus Atheism and Materialism.’ Science is supposed to be unbiased and neutral. Scientists are not because they are human beings with free will, choice and temptations to reject God for their own pride.

Hear, Hear and Amen.

The mind set that seems so effective in the science community is there claim of “ethics” in respect to how things are made. As has been stated it is truly a matter of interpretation of evidence found in investigation and observation thereof. No different then interpretation of the Bible according to one’s own will to gain.

Therefore nether is ethical.

The question of whether secular or religious nether flies as claiming right of interpretation for both are based on what is believed. Beliefs not recognized as a religion but belief none the lest, even if it is not believed by the teachers thereof, seeking there own goals honestly or dishonestly for gain of what they value.

Surly some one would be treated as a fool if he think to know how something is made, without the knowledge of the maker. The maker has the knowledge and understanding not the made. And no matter what science is saying they know that it is made. And science also knows that everything responds to rules, such as what is understood as (Law of gravity). But who set the law of gravity into place? That the whole of the universe responds to. Does the universe (that which is made) make gravity, or does gravity the existence thereof organize the universe? And who assures that gravity exists, and remains so?

How can that which is not alive contend with the source of Life, that which is alive forever. Do we not have the same understanding in that what ever is at our hand that is not alive we can make do things and make things to serve our purpose? How is it that what is not alive, their god, ruler, king, source of their life and system of belief?

Isaiah 45:

11: Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.
12: I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

 

[buffalo]

How? The thread subject is whether science should be secular. My contention, which nobody has been able to refute, is that God is not necessary for science to work. He is not required in its methodology, its assumptions, its results, its predictions. Nowhere does a scientific theory invoke God, or religion, as a necessary precursor to make that theory correct.

This is just another empty and ambiguous assertion that has no practical meaning.

Because it works, consistently and predictable. It’s self-correcting, it’s independent, it’s objective, it’s consistent. If it’s wrong, then everything we know is wrong. Why make such an assumption when everything we can see points to it being right?

I have no idea what you’re talking about here, sorry.

Zero, or close to it. The prophecies are not reliable evidence. Revelation is personal and subjective. Nothing to see here, move along.

Ah, so when you say truth, you’re not talking about the dictionary definition, but of an ecumenical one. In short: “If you don’t do science in the context of religion, how will your results confirm the dogma of that religion?”

A somewhat circular argument.

I ask them to present their peer-reviewed methods and evidence. And guess what! They do it!

Sorry - I don’t count speculation and a book of dubious and unproven origin and content as being pertinent to a conversation about science. I want evidence, not dogma.

There’s only one explanation for when people make this kind of statement. They are completely unaware of the breadth, depth and consistency of evidence for evolution. You have either been lied to about it, or you’re deliberately denying the truth. Evolution is a fact. People who don’t believe it are either ignorant or stupid. Usually the former - there’s a lot of disinformation out there on Creationist websites and in Creationist literature, just waiting to be lapped up by those who want their belief to be true, regardless of the facts.

All the evidence in support of evolution is independently verifiable. Go to a musem, see for yourself.

I don’t know. There may have been some guy with that name who went round preaching. If he existed, it looks very likely that he was a nice guy. I don’t believe he was the son of God, or that he performed miracles, or that he was resurrected, or any of that other impossible stuff. No evidence, you see.

Clearly, neither of them. This little parable is nothing but a specious hijacking of logic and maths in an attempt to make YEC sound plausible. Neither of them was in full possession of the facts - you expect to metricate the population of the earth using just two numbers and a standard logarithmic extrapolation? Lunacy.

Certainly the guy who put 2 and 2 together and got 4,500 years was in firm denial of the mountains (literally) of evidence that show origins of human life to be significantly earlier. The whole story is just a smug Christian self-congratulation that is emphatically, provably incorrect.

It’s the kind of story that firmly demonstrates why science MUST remain secular.

A somewhat puerile comment. Can we get back to the subject? Can anybody demonstrate how science is wrong unless God is an intrinsic and documented part of the methodology?

Denials, denials, denials.

You - “Zero, or close to it. The prophecies are not reliable evidence. Revelation is personal and subjective. Nothing to see here, move along.”

This is the telling point that all your other denials hinge upon. You cannot/will not assign any level of credibility to Revelation. None at all. This is totally irrational. There are obvious accounts in the Bible that have been archaeoligically verified. The Bible is a totality. To give it zero credibility as witness exposes your a priori bias.

Yet you will assign credibility values to science that will be overturned?

Wanstronian exposed! Total irrationality. Another irrational atheist. No need to go further.

 

[hugh_r.miller]

Because there is no other objectively valid paradigm.

Example?

Ha! So what? It’s all a big conspiracy theory against the poor anti-evolutionists?

I think it’s more likely that the science publications are unwilling to jeopardise their reputations by publishing non-scientific hypotheses. Which is absolutely the right thing to do, otherwise we’d end up with superstition being touted as science and nobody would know which was which.

ID has no scientific basis, so although the blog quoted may contain some (harvested) truths, that doesn’t suddenly make ID a credible and attention-worthy subject for science journals.

Ah! Typical arguments from authority by folks who** believe** in one form of evolution or another as a fact. But both theistic and atheistic **beliefs and their many derivatives **are self contradictory and there is NO mechanism, yet everyone is taught that it is a fact? How simply benevolent of academia to advise us poor dumb Catholics that evolution is a fact–now we no longer have to be concerned how we got here. Also how deliciously religious! No real science, no real data, just pseudoscientific story telling called the only obejectively valid paradigm. For the accuracy of the above critique read Dr. Larry Azar’s book noted below. He has studied evolutionary claims for many decades which might be paraphrased as follows:

Evolution of life from non-life can be considered a fairy tale for those who want to substitute naturalism for the Creator of the universe [Dare I suggest He is the Intelligent Designer?-- you know like DNA in all life forms!]. The ID Person did this Ex Nihilo as all the fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church have proclaimed. Who are we to challenge their wisdom and that of the Holy Ghost who so informed them! I don’t want to have any part of evolutionary gobble-de-gook. It’s more religious than claimed for ID as it requires far more miracles than there are electrons in the universe.

Thus fairy tales are not worthy of much of a response on this thread. I suggest all on this thread read and discuss the contents of Catholic philosopher, Dr. Larry Azar’s book: ***Evolution and Other Fairy Tales – ***Professor emeritus of Iona College! May he forever rest in peace for setting the record straight on such wishful paradigms of origins.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Hugh,

Just two quick questions for clarification purposes…

1.) What is “thesistic evolution”? and

2.) What is it about “thesistic evolution” that would make it a ‘fairy tale’?

God bless

Ah! Typical arguments from authority by folks who** believe** in one form of evolution or another as a fact. But both theistic and atheistic **beliefs and their many derivatives **are self contradictory and there is NO mechanism, yet everyone is taught that it is a fact? How simply benevolent of academia to advise us poor dumb Catholics that evolution is a fact–now we no longer have to be concerned how we got here. Also how deliciously religious! No real science, no real data, just pseudoscientific story telling called the only obejectively valid paradigm. For the accuracy of the above critique read Dr. Larry Azar’s book noted below. He has studied evolutionary claims for many decades which might be paraphrased as follows:

Evolution of life from non-life can be considered a fairy tale for those who want to substitute naturalism for the Creator of the universe [Dare I suggest He is the Intelligent Designer?-- you know like DNA in all life forms!]. The ID Person did this Ex Nihilo as all the fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church have proclaimed. Who are we to challenge their wisdom and that of the Holy Ghost who so informed them! I don’t want to have any part of evolutionary gobble-de-gook. It’s more religious than claimed for ID as it requires far more miracles than there are electrons in the universe.

Thus fairy tales are not worthy of much of a response on this thread. I suggest all on this thread read and discuss the contents of Catholic philosopher, Dr. Larry Azar’s book: ***Evolution and Other Fairy Tales – ***Professor emeritus of Iona College! May he forever rest in peace for setting the record straight on such wishful paradigms of origins.

 

[wanstronian]

Denials, denials, denials.

No - critical thinking, critical thinking, critical thinking.

You - “Zero, or close to it. The prophecies are not reliable evidence. Revelation is personal and subjective. Nothing to see here, move along.”

This is the telling point that all your other denials hinge upon. You cannot/will not assign any level of credibility to Revelation. None at all. This is totally irrational. There are obvious accounts in the Bible that have been archaeoligically verified. The Bible is a totality. To give it zero credibility as witness exposes your a priori bias.

What do you mean, “The Bible is a totality?” Do you mean that if one thing in it is true, then it all is? Surely not - this would be a ridiculous stance. So what do you mean?

Revelation IS subjective. From the link you provided, it is defined as “communication of some truth by God to a rational creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature.” It is, by definition, subjective.

Yet you will assign credibility values to science that will be overturned?

I assign credibility to science as the best - indeed only - way of providing independent, unbiased, repeatable, predictive information about our universe. That some of this information may be overturned in time, in light of the discovery of new information, is a strength of science, not a weakness. Furthermore, admitting that we lack the information and/or scientific maturity to discover the answers to some questions is also a sign of strength. Contrast to religion, which states “God did it” whenever the question gets too awkward, and continues to state “God did it” even when a more complete and verifiable explanation is put forward. Poor narrow-minded theists.

Your blanket statement “will be overturned” shows an unwarranted smugness that all of science is wrong. Do you think heliocentricity will be overturned?

Wanstronian exposed! Total irrationality. Another irrational atheist. No need to go further.

Buffalo exposed! Bluster and rhetoric, but no substance, no evidence, no substantiation. It must be very frustrating for you, being unable to put forward one iota of evidence in support of your belief and yet feeling compelled to defend it anyway.

Back to the subject of the thread - you still haven’t responded to my challenge: Simply demonstrate where God has proved essential in the formation of a scientific theory, and you win. Lamely stating that the bible starts with “In the beginning” doesn’t really cut the mustard, particularly when the rest of that first chapter has been shown to be absolutely, categorically, verifiably WRONG. And if the best and most up-to-date independent evidence we can find shows that first chapter to be so utterly wrong, why on earth would we be compelled to believe any of the rest of it? And you call ME irrational!!

 

[wanstronian]

Ah! Typical arguments from authority by folks who** believe** in one form of evolution or another as a fact. But both theistic and atheistic **beliefs and their many derivatives **are self contradictory and there is NO mechanism, yet everyone is taught that it is a fact? How simply benevolent of academia to advise us poor dumb Catholics that evolution is a fact–now we no longer have to be concerned how we got here. Also how deliciously religious! No real science, no real data, just pseudoscientific story telling called the only obejectively valid paradigm. For the accuracy of the above critique read Dr. Larry Azar’s book noted below. He has studied evolutionary claims for many decades which might be paraphrased as follows:

Evolution of life from non-life can be considered a fairy tale for those who want to substitute naturalism for the Creator of the universe [Dare I suggest He is the Intelligent Designer?-- you know like DNA in all life forms!]. The ID Person did this Ex Nihilo as all the fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church have proclaimed. Who are we to challenge their wisdom and that of the Holy Ghost who so informed them! I don’t want to have any part of evolutionary gobble-de-gook. It’s more religious than claimed for ID as it requires far more miracles than there are electrons in the universe.

Thus fairy tales are not worthy of much of a response on this thread. I suggest all on this thread read and discuss the contents of Catholic philosopher, Dr. Larry Azar’s book: ***Evolution and Other Fairy Tales – ***Professor emeritus of Iona College! May he forever rest in peace for setting the record straight on such wishful paradigms of origins.

Ooooh, a Catholic philosopher? Well, he’ll be unbiased then! Let’s all listen to what he’s got to say!! Ooh look, a circular argument! Well I never!

Your post shows the typical outbursts of the typically ignorant theist. You think there’s no data, no science involved. You claim there’s “NO mechanism.” You would only believe these things if you had deliberately avoided learning about the evidence, or if you have gotten your information from one of the many pro-creationist websites which, quite simply, lie about and misrepresent evolutionary theory. As I said before, the evidence is out there. There’s tons of it, from many different branches of science. None of it is contradictory. Go and see for yourself - it’s freely available. Get some courage. Learn something for yourself, rather than just repeating the dogma you’ve been fed. Open your eyes.

You castigate evolutionary theory for not explaining the origin of life. You might as well castigate the theory of gravity for the same thing.

Please, please, please, creationists. At least read up on the thing you hate before you decide to attack it. Otherwise you just continue to make the same unintentional statement: “I am ignorant.”

However, the topic of the thread is whether religion has a place in science. I would still like to see some of this religious rhetoric backed up with hard data, showing where religion validates a scientific theory that otherwise fails.

If nobody can provide such an example, I consider the point proven. Science MUST be secular. Otherwise, it’s just not science!

 

[Anselm33]

Ooooh, a Catholic philosopher? Well, he’ll be unbiased then! Let’s all listen to what he’s got to say!! Ooh look, a circular argument! Well I never!

Your post shows the typical outbursts of the typically ignorant theist. You think there’s no data, no science involved. You claim there’s “NO mechanism.” You would only believe these things if you had deliberately avoided learning about the evidence, or if you have gotten your information from one of the many pro-creationist websites which, quite simply, lie about and misrepresent evolutionary theory. As I said before, the evidence is out there. There’s tons

 

[Geremia]

Any ideas?

No! History’s greatest natural scientists, such as Nicole Oresme and Newton, were theologians or at least had a profound interest in theological matters, like Einstein. Pope John Paul II wrote in his 1998 encyclical Fides et Ratio 76. that “faith purifies reason” (fides purificat rationem) and “liberates [it] from presumption” ([fides] rationem a nimia confidentia exsolvit); consequently, secular science—i.e., faithless science—is impure with some error and presumptuous.

 

[buffalo]

No - critical thinking, critical thinking, critical thinking.

What do you mean, “The Bible is a totality?” Do you mean that if one thing in it is true, then it all is? Surely not - this would be a ridiculous stance. So what do you mean?

Revelation IS subjective. From the link you provided, it is defined as “communication of some truth by God to a rational creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature.” It is, by definition, subjective.

I assign credibility to science as the best - indeed only - way of providing independent, unbiased, repeatable, predictive information about our universe. That some of this information may be overturned in time, in light of the discovery of new information, is a strength of science, not a weakness. Furthermore, admitting that we lack the information and/or scientific maturity to discover the answers to some questions is also a sign of strength. Contrast to religion, which states “God did it” whenever the question gets too awkward, and continues to state “God did it” even when a more complete and verifiable explanation is put forward. Poor narrow-minded theists.

Your blanket statement “will be overturned” shows an unwarranted smugness that all of science is wrong. Do you think heliocentricity will be overturned?

Buffalo exposed! Bluster and rhetoric, but no substance, no evidence, no substantiation. It must be very frustrating for you, being unable to put forward one iota of evidence in support of your belief and yet feeling compelled to defend it anyway.

Back to the subject of the thread - you still haven’t responded to my challenge: Simply demonstrate where God has proved essential in the formation of a scientific theory, and you win. Lamely stating that the bible starts with “In the beginning” doesn’t really cut the mustard, particularly when the rest of that first chapter has been shown to be absolutely, categorically, verifiably WRONG. And if the best and most up-to-date independent evidence we can find shows that first chapter to be so utterly wrong, why on earth would we be compelled to believe any of the rest of it? And you call ME irrational!!

Huh? Let’s see - a truth communicated by God (who is truth) would be subjective? Then it wouldn’t be a truth now would it?

from the link:

Such in brief is the account of Revelation given in the Constitution “De Fide Catholica” of the Vatican Council. The Decree “Lamentabili” (3 July, 1907), by its condemnation of a contrary proposition, declares that the dogmas which the Church proposes as revealed are “truths which have come down to us from heaven” (veritates e coelo delapsoe) and not “an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by its own strenuous efforts” (prop., 22). It will be seen that Revelation as thus explained differs clearly from:

• inspiration such as is bestowed by God on the author of a sacred book; for this, while involving a special illumination of the mind in virtue of which the recipient conceives such thoughts as God desires him to commit to writing, does not necessarily suppose a supernatural communication of these truths;
• from the illustrations which God may bestow from time to time upon any of the faithful to bring home to the mind the import of some truth of religion hitherto obscurely grasped; and,
• from the Divine assistance by which the pope when acting as the supreme teacher of the Church, is preserved from all error as to faith or morals. The function of this assistance is purely negative: it need not carry with it any positive gift of light to the mind. Much of the confusion in which the discussion of Revelation in non-Catholic works is involved arises from the neglect to distinguish it from one or other of these.

I did not claim that “all” science will be overturned. I make the point you assign more credibility to some science that will surely be overturned but zero credibility to recorded historical events. That is irrational.

Is anything in the Bible true? Yes or No

 

[wanstronian]

Huh? Let’s see - a truth communicated by God (who is truth) would be subjective? Then it wouldn’t be a truth now would it?

You seem to be unaware of the logical error involved in setting up your desired conclusion as a premise in your argument. Unless you understand the basic principles of logic, you’re not really in a strong position to debate. To spell it out: saying “God exists, therefore Revelation is true” doesn’t prove anything other than that you are unable to think outside your superstitious dogma.

I did not claim that “all” science will be overturned. I make the point you assign more credibility to some science that will surely be overturned but zero credibility to recorded historical events. That is irrational.

I don’t give zero credibility to recorded historic events where the record is believable and verifiable. The bible doesn’t meet those criteria though.

And I made the point that I assign credibility to a discipline that has shown, time and time again, that it provides the best (most independent and verifiable; self-correcting) explanation of our environment. The fact that some theories are overturned from time to time is not a weakness, as you seem to think - it’s a huge strength. It means we don’t all get bogged down in clearly erroneous dogma.

Is anything in the Bible true? Yes or No

How would I know? It’s not all debunkable, for exactly the same reason that most of it is unverifiable. Some parts are definitely false though, so that immediately casts doubt on the veracity of the rest of it. How can we possibly know which parts, if any, are true?

Anyway, as you seem to be unable to meet my challenge, I consider the point proved. Science IS secular - that’s why it’s called “science” not “guessing.”

 

[buffalo]

You seem to be unaware of the logical error involved in setting up your desired conclusion as a premise in your argument. Unless you understand the basic principles of logic, you’re not really in a strong position to debate. To spell it out: saying “God exists, therefore Revelation is true” doesn’t prove anything other than that you are unable to think outside your superstitious dogma.

I don’t give zero credibility to recorded historic events where the record is believable and verifiable. The bible doesn’t meet those criteria though.

And I made the point that I assign credibility to a discipline that has shown, time and time again, that it provides the best (most independent and verifiable; self-correcting) explanation of our environment. The fact that some theories are overturned from time to time is not a weakness, as you seem to think - it’s a huge strength. It means we don’t all get bogged down in clearly erroneous dogma.

How would I know? It’s not all debunkable, for exactly the same reason that most of it is unverifiable. Some parts are definitely false though, so that immediately casts doubt on the veracity of the rest of it. How can we possibly know which parts, if any, are true?

Anyway, as you seem to be unable to meet my challenge, I consider the point proved. Science IS secular - that’s why it’s called “science” not “guessing.”

Revelation leads us to God, not the other way around. Revelation is history, in it God communicates. That is how we have come to understand the attributes of God.

If there was no history I could agree with you. But there is. We have Revelation.

We need to work towards an assigned value of credibility. Give it your best shot. 10% is true? 20%