The deification of science

[Trelow]

So essentially it’s pick a side.

I side with Holy Mother Church.

**CCC 159**Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."38

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm#159

 

[Nullasalus]

For the record, scientists are entirely capable of being dogmatists. Look up Einstein’s reaction to quantum mechanics. He was a determinist by admission, and saw the universe as behaving in a set causal way from start to finish. When it was discovered that at a certain level of reality, ‘matter’ behaved in a way that seemingly defied determinism, he refused to believe it. ‘Spooky action at a distance’ had to ultimately be deterministic, ‘God does not play dice with the universe’. QM is controversial to this day, in part because of the metaphysical interpretations that it can potentially point to.

But the best quote about the dogmatism of scientists comes from Maxwell Planck:

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Of course, he also had another quote I’m fond of, even if I don’t know of his specific religious preferences.

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”

And finally…

"Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it.”

As for the last quote - Ribo, if your gut reaction to that quote is to say ‘Preposterous. We evolved from lower life forms who were likely the result of abiogenesis’, then congratulations - you have displayed the largest and most valid criticism of scientism possible.

 

[Orogeny]

If your saying that science is constrained away from the supernatural, then how can it not exclude God?

It doesn’t speak to the existence of God one way or the other. The existence of God has no bearing on science. One can do perfectly good science and be a very devout person or one can do perfectly good science and be a strict athiest. The existence of God has no bearing on science.

Thats wonderful and good for you. I feel like science can’t threaten my faith as well, (although it did when I was a new Christian along time ago). The last time I checked this thread was called “The deification of science”. Maybe we should start a new thread and name it the defense of evolution. All of my points were geared towards how people deify science. All of your points sound like cheerleading evolution. I have no desire to debate evolution I only wish to show how people deify science.

How about you check the posts in this thread. My first post was in reply to you when you brought up evolution. If you don’t want to debate evolution, don’t.

Peace

Tim

 

[ribozyme]

For the record, scientists are entirely capable of being dogmatists. Look up Einstein’s reaction to quantum mechanics. He was a determinist by admission, and saw the universe as behaving in a set causal way from start to finish. When it was discovered that at a certain level of reality, ‘matter’ behaved in a way that seemingly defied determinism, he refused to believe it. ‘Spooky action at a distance’ had to ultimately be deterministic, ‘God does not play dice with the universe’. QM is controversial to this day, in part because of the metaphysical interpretations that it can potentially point to.

But the best quote about the dogmatism of scientists comes from Maxwell Planck:

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Of course, he also had another quote I’m fond of, even if I don’t know of his specific religious preferences.

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”

And finally…

"Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it.”

As for the last quote - Ribo, if your gut reaction to that quote is to say ‘Preposterous. We evolved from lower life forms who were likely the result of abiogenesis’, then congratulations - you have displayed the largest and most valid criticism of scientism possible.

What, tell me how that is a critique of scientism?

 

[Orogeny]

orogeny

Wow, that is some kind of twisted logic.

Not really. The universe evolved through billions of years. The part of evolution you are talking about only concerns the evolution of life on this planet. Evolution on this planet was impossible without the evolution of the ingredients of life on the stars and planets.

Yes, really. Evolution is independent of how the universe was created AND how life began. It just doesn’t matter.

Perhaps this will give you another view.

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Notice that not only was water required for the evolution of life, but also a rotation of the earth (cycling) and a fixed law of gravity. Darwin acknowledges here the larger aspects of universal motion and** pull** collaborating to produce the microcosmos we live in. It would take another century before astronomers would tie biological evolution to universal evolution through the Big Bang theory.

All nice and fine, but none have anything to do with evolution. Astronomers are concerned with astronomy, not biology.

Peace

Tim

 

[ribozyme]

Yes, really. Evolution is independent of how the universe was created AND how life began. It just doesn’t matter. All nice and fine, but none have anything to do with evolution. Astronomers are concerned with astronomy, not biology.

Peace

Tim

Correct, evolution can be defined in many ways. Biologists are concerned with Darwinian evolution, which is defined by mutation, amplification, and selection.

 

[Nullasalus]

What, tell me how that is a critique of scientism?

Because ‘evolution’ is as valid a reply as ‘From Delaware’ or ‘From Motel 6’. It’s a myopic response that misses the point and gravity of the question.

Think for a moment. Do you believe Max Planck was unaware of the theory of evolution? If not, then why did he pose the question he did, and why did he come to the conclusion he gave?

That is the ultimate problem with scientism - if science cannot answer a question, or if it can’t even fathom the question, it assumes the question does not exist.

Orogeny:

All nice and fine, but none have anything to do with evolution. Astronomers are concerned with astronomy, not biology.

I hear this response a lot, and I have to ask - do you really believe that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution? That’s like arguing that the first few lines of code in a computer program are worthless in understanding how the program operates.

No, the study of evolution does not require the origin of life explained to grant us many discoveries. But it’s still important to the discipline itself.

I agree with Gilbert Keith. The story of man did not begin with the origin of life on earth. It began with creation, for which the Big Bang seems to be the true ‘start’. (Ribo disagrees, I know.)

 

[ribozyme]

I hear this response a lot, and I have to ask - do you really believe that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution? That’s like arguing that the first few lines of code in a computer program are worthless in understanding how the program operates.

No, the study of evolution does not require the origin of life explained to grant us many discoveries. But it’s still important to the discipline itself.

I agree with Gilbert Keith. The story of man did not begin with the origin of life on earth. It began with creation, for which the Big Bang seems to be the true ‘start’. (Ribo disagrees, I know.)

Regarding the origin of the universe, I don’t know. I personally like the cyclic model though (which means there is not “true start”). However, I do think evolution and abiogenesis shows that life is contingent and purposeless. Evolution is not a teleological process (to me anyway).

 

[nucatholic]

The problem with making conclusions based on cosmology is that we simply don’t have enough evidence either way about whether there was one Big Bang, or whether the Cyclic Model is more accurate or whether the String Theorists are possibly correct about the origins of the universe. I agree with Ribozyme that the universe doesn’t seem to show any signs of teleology, which is a blow to the Natural Law theory which, if I remember correctly, is the official view of the Catholic Church.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Correct, evolution can be defined in many ways. Biologists are concerned with Darwinian evolution, which is defined by mutation, amplification, and selection.

The theory of evolution neither began nor ended with Darwin. As each discovery is made in the sciences (since everything is connected) astronomy supplements our knowledge of biological evolution. Photosynthesis alone ought to prove the connection between the stars and the evolution of life. The presence and dominance of hydrogen at the start of the universe ought to give us an inkling that water was in the works, and therefore the universe would evolve toward life in various places.

 

[Nullasalus]

The problem with making conclusions based on cosmology is that we simply don’t have enough evidence either way about whether there was one Big Bang, or whether the Cyclic Model is more accurate or whether the String Theorists are possibly correct about the origins of the universe. I agree with Ribozyme that the universe doesn’t seem to show any signs of teleology, which is a blow to the Natural Law theory which, if I remember correctly, is the official view of the Catholic Church.

“The universe has no purpose” is a claim which many assert, yet no one believes. If you really believe it, why does it matter to you that others disagree? The universe has no purpose or meaning, remember, so it doesn’t really matter what other people believe - or what you believe, really.

In fact, since both you and Ribo seem to rely heavily on pure science for your viewpoints, let me ask you - who would you rather be right? The Church, arguing that there is a loving God, mercy, and eternal life and happiness? Or yourselves, arguing that there is no God, no purpose, no good and evil, and the only true destiny is likely to be heat death?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

nucatholic

The problem with making conclusions based on cosmology is that we simply don’t have enough evidence either way about whether there was one Big Bang, or whether the Cyclic Model is more accurate or whether the String Theorists are possibly correct about the origins of the universe.

But we do know there was at least one Big Bang. If everything in science should be subject to proof, we have no proof whatever (and never will) that there are cyclic Bangs and Crunches. That is, of course, the atheist’s heartfelt wish, so that he can dispose of God once again with a flick of the scientific wrist. But science cannot be made up of what you would like to be true. You have to stick with the facts.

The facts reveal ONE Big Bang. Nothing more. Nothing less.

When atheists complain of theists and their wishful thinking, they should look to themselves. They truly wish God not to exist, and will exert every cerebral muscle to make it so.

 

[ribozyme]

“The universe has no purpose” is a claim which many assert, yet no one believes. If you really believe it, why does it matter to you that others disagree? The universe has no purpose or meaning, remember, so it doesn’t really matter what other people believe - or what you believe, really.

To me, it really does not matter, but I am merely curious of arguments to the contrary.

In fact, since both you and Ribo seem to rely heavily on pure science for your viewpoints, let me ask you - who would you rather be right? The Church, arguing that there is a loving God, mercy, and eternal life and happiness? Or yourselves, arguing that there is no God, no purpose, no good and evil, and the only true destiny is likely to be heat death?

Personally, I prefer the former to the latter; I would be happy if someone could demonstrate that I am wrong. But personally, I prefer the truth in contrast to believing in what I precieve to be a pleasant delusion.
Gilbert Keith:

When atheists complain of theists and their wishful thinking, they should look to themselves. They truly wish God not to exist, and will exert every cerebral muscle to make it so.

Nope, you are wrong, as I stated above.

 

[Nullasalus]

To me, it really does not matter, but I am merely curious of arguments to the contrary.

Personally, I prefer the former to the latter; I would be happy if someone could demonstrate that I am wrong. But personally, I prefer the truth than to believe in what I precieve to be a pleasant delusion.

But there’s the conflict. If the former is true, then it follows that everything does matter. And as it stands, to you it really doesn’t matter… but at the same time, the truth does matter. But the only way the truth can really matter is if there’s a real purpose to it - otherwise, what’s wrong with a pleasant deception? Nothing matters.

Which is why, for as much as I appreciate and respect science, I always end up among the theists. We’re (as a whole) hopeful, and can see purpose, reason, and potentially even reward in this universe. We’re bound to make some mistakes, but the fact that there are mistakes to make is in a way refreshing. The alternative is to argue that everything is meaningless, but - against all logic - still act as if there’s meaning. I have to suspend more reason and deny more questions as an atheist than I do as a theist. But, that’s my result - yours may vary.

And, the main reason I asked those questions was genuine curiosity. I ghost around on atheist forums at times, and there are many - and I mean many - who will talk openly about the pleasure they take in disturbing people’s faith. Dawkins himself has indicated that he clings to science to back up his worldview - atheism is not the logical result for him, but a preference that requires defense and offense. You’re very polite, but I still wanted to know where you stood on such things. Thank you.

 

[ribozyme]

Which is why, for as much as I appreciate and respect science, I always end up among the theists. We’re (as a whole) hopeful, and can see purpose, reason, and potentially even reward in this universe. We’re bound to make some mistakes, but the fact that there are mistakes to make is in a way refreshing. The alternative is to argue that everything is meaningless, but - against all logic - still act as if there’s meaning. I have to suspend more reason and deny more questions as an atheist than I do as a theist. But, that’s my result - yours may vary.

Hmm… I find it extremely difficult to believe in transubstantiation. What is a “substance” in the context of transubstantiation, in contrast to believing the the bread and wine did not change at all. We cannot observe any change, so it is parsimonious to say that there is no change.

Regarding purpose, there is no objective purpose to life (that is what I think), but I do believe that one can supplement subjective purpose to life. That is why we act like we have a purpose in our lives.

And, the main reason I asked those questions was genuine curiosity. I ghost around on atheist forums at times, and there are many - and I mean many - who will talk openly about the pleasure they take in disturbing people’s faith. Dawkins himself has indicated that he clings to science to back up his worldview - atheism is not the logical result for him, but a preference that requires defense and offense. You’re very polite, but I still wanted to know where you stood on such things. Thank you.

Well regarding Dawkins, I just got my copy of The God Delusion, which contains Dawkins’ intellectual reasons for denying the existence of God. I wonder if Catholic answers Forums would put a banner “refuting” the book on this forum (as it did with the Da Vinci Code, and it coexists with the other banners “How to become a Catholic”, “God’s love for you,” and “The Pillar of Fire”). The God Delusion, in my opinion, is an extremely potent polemic to the Christian faith in contrast to the work of fiction by Dan Brown.

Why does the Catholic Church see Dan Brown a greater threat to their faith as opposed to Richard Dawkins?

 

[Trelow]

Hmm… I find it extremely difficult to believe in transubstantiation.

Then pray for faith.

 

[ribozyme]

Then pray for faith.

Well, as a clarification, just because we cannot observe it does not mean it does not exist. For example, DNA did not magically appear in the 1950s, after the discovery by Watson and Crick (and Franklin as they used her data), as it has been around for billions of years. They elucidated the structure of DNA, as DNA was known for several decades before their discovery, but no one appreciated that molecule’s significance in biochemistry.

But in the case of transubstantiation, nothing discernable happens at all even if we use sophisticated techniques from analytical chemistry to detect a change. Nothing happens at the molecular level. Maybe at the quantum level, but that would be harder to test.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ribozyme

But personally,* I prefer the truth** in contrast to believing in what I precieve to be a pleasant delusion.*

How did you discover the truth of the Cyclic Model or String Theory? Where is the proof? You have nothing but conjecture. One man’s conjecture is as good as another.

But the Big Bang is as close to scientific fact as astronomy can get. One creation is all the Big Bang reveals. Nothing more. Nothing less.

That is a truth I prefer to believe in rather than your own “pleasant delusion” that God does not exist, that there is no soul, that man has no purpose, and that we are all dead meat in the end.

 

[Orogeny]

I hear this response a lot, and I have to ask - do you really believe that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution? That’s like arguing that the first few lines of code in a computer program are worthless in understanding how the program operates.

No, the study of evolution does not require the origin of life explained to grant us many discoveries. But it’s still important to the discipline itself.

I agree with Gilbert Keith. The story of man did not begin with the origin of life on earth. It began with creation, for which the Big Bang seems to be the true ‘start’. (Ribo disagrees, I know.)

No, the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is an interesting question and certainly evolution doesn’t occur without it , but it truly is irrelevant.

I, too, agree that the story of man begins at creation. Evolution, however, did not.

Peace

Tim

 

[ribozyme]

ribozyme

But personally,* I prefer the truth*** in contrast to believing in what I precieve to be a pleasant delusion.

How did you discover the truth of the Cyclic Model or String Theory? Where is the proof? You have nothing but conjecture. One man’s conjecture is as good as another.

But the Big Bang is as close to scientific fact as astronomy can get. One creation is all the Big Bang reveals. Nothing more. Nothing less.

That is a truth I prefer to believe in rather than your own “pleasant delusion” that God does not exist, that there is no soul, that man has no purpose, and that we are all dead meat in the end.

If you read my previous posts, I do not regard my non-belief in a personal God to be pleasant.

Personally, I prefer the former to the latter; I would be happy if someone could demonstrate that I am wrong.

So my own words say that I prefer that a personal God exists.