B
- Status
E
Exalt
Guest
It’s really interesting, I think, that one the one hand Christians seem to claim they have conclusive evidence for their beliefs, but on the other hand they say things like faithful people require no evidence. I’ve always been confused by the discrepancy.
B
bellasbane
Guest
What is your definition of “evidence”?
E
estesbob
Guest
I suspect we differ on what conclusive evidence is. Some , it appears, are like the Apostle Thomas, wanting to put their fingers in his wounds to believe""For many of us the evidence is everywhere we look -from the Fly buzzing around our face to the soft autumn breeze that cools our brow
E
estesbob
Guest
I suspect we differ on what conclusive evidence is. Some , it appears, are like the Apostle Thomas, wanting to put their fingers in his wounds to believe""For many of us the evidence is everywhere we look -from the Fly buzzing around our face to the soft autumn breeze that cools our brow
S
SanAgustin
Guest
That quote is not really sourced, so I doubt that St. Thomas ever said that. Actually, the way that quote is formed it may be from a more modern novelist/author.St. Thomas Aquinas
Very nice.
I found somebody online claiming that is probably a variation of something St. Thomas said here;
Summa II-II:Q1-Article 5; Reply to Objection 1
newadvent.org/summa/3001.htm#article5
To put it in context, the question is;
Article 5. Whether those things that are of faith can be an object of science [Science is certain knowledge of a demonstrated conclusion through its demonstration]?
Objection 1 says;
And I think what St. Thomas is saying is not what the oversimplified quote is trying to attribute to him. For he says in Q2:Article 10;
newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article10
Article 10. Whether reasons in support of what we believe lessen the merit of faith?
Read the whole Q2:Article 10, it says a lot more about “faith and reason” than I can clumsily describe here.
D
didymus
Guest
To any & all who think “everything I need to know is in the Bible” or “who needs science if they’ve got faith?” A few words from St Augustine:
P
Protector
Guest
It has been postulated by a scientist (name escapes me) that Angels can travel at the speed of thought! He may have based it on the following :-
Protector
D
donsnow
Guest
Good evening, all,
I’d say that comparing religion and science is comparing apples and oranges. I also rephrase what I mentioned earlier, religion and science need not be held to each others’ standards.
In closing, history shows us that civilizations and their science have come and gone, and that knowledge has started over several times. I’d point out, it’ll probably turn out the same way with the world civilization we see burgeoning around us.
However, first by verbal tradition, then by written scriptures, God’s word has abided through all the rise and fall of civilizations and sciences and science starting over.
Enjoy the gadgets while you have them, they’re temporary.
God loves all of you.
I’d say that comparing religion and science is comparing apples and oranges. I also rephrase what I mentioned earlier, religion and science need not be held to each others’ standards.
In closing, history shows us that civilizations and their science have come and gone, and that knowledge has started over several times. I’d point out, it’ll probably turn out the same way with the world civilization we see burgeoning around us.
However, first by verbal tradition, then by written scriptures, God’s word has abided through all the rise and fall of civilizations and sciences and science starting over.
Enjoy the gadgets while you have them, they’re temporary.
God loves all of you.
P
Protector
Guest
R
ricmat
Guest
So it seems that you’re saying that we should fully understand the science in place at the time of Augustine, so that we can understand it in a reasonable fashion, and not look stupid.
On the contrary, it seems to me that the religious truth taught by Augustine, at the time of Augustine,* is still important today*, and the science of his time that he was suggesting be learned* is not so important* any more.
Actually, I haven’t seen anyone here say “everything I need to know is in the Bible” or “who needs science if they’ve got faith?” Is this a straw man? I haven’t read every post, so maybe I missed it.
E
Exalt
Guest
No one said that everything I need to know is in the Bible, to my knowledge. And neither did anyone say who needs science if they’ve got faith?
This was what was said:
**ricmat **asked me, “Which knowledge is more important, scientific, or religious?” and went on to say, “My answer would be that scientific knowledge, although interesting, and sometimes useful, is totally irrelevant in the end… my vote is for religious knowledge. As to ‘which religious knowledge?’ – that you’ll need to decide for yourself.”
I responded, saying, “How do you know that the Christian worldview is accurate? And that’s where skeptical inquiry and the scientific method come into play, I think. It’s to figure out which, if any, of the world’s religious traditions are true.”
**estesbob **responded to me, saying, “To those who have Faith no explanation is necessary. For those who don’t no explanation will suffice”
I responded to him, saying, “It’s really interesting, I think, that one the one hand Christians seem to claim they have conclusive evidence for their beliefs, but on the other hand they say things like faithful people require no evidence. I’ve always been confused by the discrepancy.”
To recap, I suggested that science is useful* not only *because of things like the theory of relativity, or medicine, or computers. The scientific worldview – with it’s skeptical inquiry, dogged search for evidence, and willingness to change even fundamental beliefs (like the speed of light experiment) – is useful when thinking about religious matters. No, actually, “useful” isn’t a strong enough word. Being skeptical and trusting evidence is required, I think, when dealing with claims of supernatural phenomenon of all types, including Christian claims, especially given how many contradicting supernatural claims exist in the world.
But it seems that individuals like **estesbob **think that faith is all you need to believe in Christian supernatural claims, and that confuses me. It confuses me because on the one hand Catholicism is supposed to be a friend of science, and the Church’s support of evolution and other sciences seems to be clear on that matter – and yet estesbob says that faith is all I need to believe. It’s puzzling. Anyone care to clear up the matter for me?
E
estesbob
Guest
That is because the Catholic Church sees absolutely no conflict whatsoever between science and our faith. Ffor instance when looking at evolution science is looking at the “how”. Catholics more concerned with the “who”
E
Exalt
Guest
But that wasn’t my question at all. Of course Catholicism is generally unconcerned with evolution, I never said that they were.
*This *is what I asked: But it seems that individuals like **estesbob **think that faith is all you need to believe in Christian supernatural claims, and that confuses me. It confuses me because on the one hand Catholicism is supposed to be a friend of science … and yet estesbob says that faith is all I need to believe. It’s puzzling. Anyone care to clear up the matter for me?
E
estesbob
Guest
Again I fail to see how it is a problem accepting science and saying all it takes is Faith to beleive. they are not mutually exclusive
E
Exalt
Guest
Under what basis should I believe in Christianity’s particular supernatural claims? Your response seems to be: T**hose who have Faith need no explanation.
But this strikes me as completely unreasonable. What standard should I use if not scientific standards for determining which religion, if any, should be believed?
And that’s the tension. On the one hand, the Church says they love science … except when those underlying scientific principles get applied to their religion. On the one hand, they say they love the process of doggedly gathering and examining evidence, of being skeptical-minded, of revising one’s own fundamental conceptions of the world based on evidence. And on the other, they say you should just have faith; no explanation for believing is necessary; scientific thinking should not be applied to the Church’s audacious claims about the universe. That’s a massive contradiction in attitudes.
What’s wrong with my understanding here?
E
estesbob
Guest
Nothing. There is nothng that I can show you that can “prove” Catholocism. Likewise there is nothing in Science that contradicts Catholocism.
E
Exalt
Guest
Ah, interesting. Thanks for the clarification.
One more question from me: You said that there’s nothing in science that contradicts Catholicism, but that’s not quite true, is it? Here’s why: Scientific thinking means believing in a theory because of evidence, doggedly and exhaustively collecting evidence, and overturning previously held theories if the evidence turns out to contradict the theory. If, as you said, there is nothing you can show me that can “prove” Catholicism, then the correct scientific conclusion would be to not believe in Catholicism because of lack of evidence. Correct scientific thinking would prevent one from believing in **any **claim that has insufficient evidence to back it up, including the supernatural claims of Christianity and pseudo-scientific claims.
So, if I want to be scientific minded, shouldn’t I disbelieve in the Church’s teachings because of it’s lack of evidence?
R
ricmat
Guest
Let me jump in here for a minute.
What kind of scientific evidence would prove Catholicism? E=mc^2 therefore Catholicism is true?
I read a book a while back where the first few chapters focused on “how do we really ‘know’ anything”. What assumptions are we making, etc. You might enjoy reading the book yourself. If you don’t enjoy the book, at least you can relish the title. The Science Before Science - by Rizzi. Since you have some sort of religion background (philosophy?) and are interested in science, it is right up your line.
C
colmywaykurtz
Guest
I’d say it’s a bit premature to junk C as the universe’s speed limit just yet. There’s abundantly MORE evidence for global warming than for translight-speed particles at the moment…Odd how scientists can calmly discuss the overturn of a widely accepted theory but question global warming and you become a pariah.
- Status