The deification of science

  • Thread starter Thread starter ribozyme
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
nucatholic

Let me ask this question: what other method of gaining knowledge about the world has been more successful than scientific inquiry? Is it faith? Didn’t faith once tell us that the earth was the center of the universe and that it was flat? Is there any way that we can prove anything asserted by faith?The most important acheivement in history was when the great philosophers turned from scholasticism to a new method of inquiry that was not based on “authority” but rather committed to actually observing things.

This might be true only to an atheist

But the most important event in history was the coming of Christ to teach us the Way. It was Christ who came to save us from ourselves, not science. Science in our own lifetime has produced the wherewithal to anihilate all life on earth. Only Christ can stop us from committing ourselves to nuclear Armageddon.

Scientism is part of the problem, not the cure. Einstein admitted as much. He had urged the creation of nuclear weapons. When he saw the results at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he said he should have chosen to be a watchmaker.
 
The first thing to notice about scientism is that it makes a fundamental assertion about reality. Scientism says, “science is the only way of obtaining true knowledge of reality.” This statement, however, cannot itself be verified by the methods of science."
integralscience.org/questioning.html

“Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful.”
skepdic.com/scientism.html
 
Isn’t science sometimes used to reinforce Biblical facts? Such as the Biological complexity that, according to some scientists, can’t be achieved by shear random evolution? And the medical accuracy of those found on the Levitical laws? And many more?
 
Orogeny said:
Would you care to explain which part of evolution deals with the creation of the universe?

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
My point is that most of the evolutionist out there deny the existence of God. Science says that creation is invalid. If creation is invalid then the universe must have created it’s self. I find the notion that the universe created it’s self to be devoid of common sense. I think one of the big problems in the end is that scientist like to pretend that they know a lot more then they actually do.

To answer your question, evolution does not deal with the creation of the universe. I should have said, most evolutionist types contribute to the deification of science and the silly notion that the universe created it’s self.

-D
 
Originally Posted by Orogeny forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Would you care to explain which part of evolution deals with the creation of the universe?
*

The part that says things change gradually. Life on earth would not have been possible but for the gradual changes in planets and stars throughout the universe. Hydrogen became the dominant element in the universe right from the start. Guess what ingredient essential to life is dominated by hydrogen.*
WATER!
 
Darrel said:
My point is that most of the evolutionist out there deny the existence of God. Science says that creation is invalid. If creation is invalid then the universe must have created it’s self. I find the notion that the universe created it’s self to be devoid of common sense. I think one of the big problems in the end is that scientist like to pretend that they know a lot more then they actually do.

To answer your question, evolution does not deal with the creation of the universe. I should have said, most evolutionist types contribute to the deification of science and the silly notion that the universe created it’s self.

-D
Click to expand...
You may or may not be correct that most evolutionists deny the existence of God. That, however, says nothing about evolution.

Science does not exclude God. Science is constrained to the natural world and God is supernatural.

I suppose that I would fall into your classification of evolutionist. I accept evolution as a fact. I also accept God as the creator of everything. The big bang is not a threat to my faith. Science is not a threat to my faith. There is nothing that science can find that could possibly threaten my faith.

Peace

Tim
 
Gilbert_Keith said:
Originally Posted by Orogeny forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Would you care to explain which part of evolution deals with the creation of the universe?

The part that says things change gradually. Life on earth would not have been possible but for the gradual changes in planets and stars throughout the universe. Hydrogen became the dominant element in the universe right from the start. Guess what ingredient essential to life is dominated by hydrogen.

WATER!
Click to expand...
Wow, that is some kind of twisted logic. Let me help you out. Evolution is a biological fact dealing with the way life has changed (and is changing) over time. The creation of the universe was a physical event. Evolution is completely silent on the creation of the universe. In fact, evolution is completely silent on the creation of *life *much less the universe.

Peace

Tim
 
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.

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.
 
Orogeny said:
You may or may not be correct that most evolutionists deny the existence of God. That, however, says nothing about evolution.
Click to expand...
I know,

That because the comment was about most evolutionist, and not about evolution it’s self.
Science does not exclude God. Science is constrained to the natural world and God is supernatural.
Click to expand...
If your saying that science is constrained away from the supernatural, then how can it not exclude God?
I suppose that I would fall into your classification of evolutionist. I accept evolution as a fact. I also accept God as the creator of everything. The big bang is not a threat to my faith. Science is not a threat to my faith. There is nothing that science can find that could possibly threaten my faith.
Click to expand...
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.

-D
 
Trelow said:
Science is the study of the physical order. It is not in opposition to theology. They pursue the same Truth, through different means.
Click to expand...
They just contradict each other at each intersection. This is such a cop out I’m sorry.
 
Darrel said:
…Scientist believe in what they can’t see or prove so I guess that means there is a deification of science.
-D
Click to expand...
Science is not about belief or disbelief. It is about developing and then testing the validity of theories and hypotheses which attempt to explain and predict certain penomena of the material world-seen and unseen. Not all scientific theory is absolutely “true” or provable, but there is often a way to disprove a faulty theory.

Religion IS about belief (faith) and disbelief. Theology is the intellectual, even scientific, branch of religious thought in which matters of faith–seen and unseen-are put to a logical test by reasoning and proofs. As with science, not every theory is provable with mathematic precision or predicability–yet many a faulty premise has been discredited with the application of logic.

Where scientists rely on theory to explain the unexplainable, the religious rely upon faith. In the end, I don’t find science and theology to be working at cross purposes. In fact I find them complimentary and similar in their styles, even in regards to evolution. I think one can readily “believe” that a divine presence created the physical world and at the same time acknowledge the evolution hypothesis as both the means and evidence of how the created world continues the brilliant and intensely complex design process initiated by its creator.
 
Island_Oak said:
Where scientists rely on theory to explain the unexplainable, the religious rely upon faith. In the end, I don’t find science and theology to be working at cross purposes. In fact I find them complimentary and similar in their styles, even in regards to evolution.
Click to expand...
When scientist talk theory to explain the unexplainable they have an impact on our society. I think it is unrealistic to say that atheistic science does not exist or have an impact on people. How common is it to believe that we are decended from apes and are just ‘more advanced animals’. As animals without accountability to God how easy is it to kill the unborn for the sake of personal need? Much of science is good and wonderful, but for some people it replaces God.
I think one can readily “believe” that a divine presence created the physical world and at the same time acknowledge the evolution hypothesis as both the means and evidence of how the created world continues the brilliant and intensely complex design process initiated by its creator.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. People who deify science do not. They believe that notions of a God are ignorant and fear based primal rantings of the weak minded. I see a clear link between science and atheism. I think it’s obvious that for some people, evolution is a replacement for God. Is it for you and I? Not at all.

-D
 
I think it’s not the decification of science, but rather faith in man’s reason: rationalism. Isn’t science just our understanding of the world?
 
Trelow said:
I’m calling this one. Give me an example.
Click to expand...
  1. Evolution and original sin in the Garden of Eden. Death existed prior to the first man, therefore making the argument for original sin ushering in death at odds with science. No original sin = no need for a savior.
  2. The resurrection = impossible according to science.
  3. Real presence = impossible according to science.
The three most important concepts of the Catholic faith rendered impossible according to science.
 
Saint_Michael said:
  1. Evolution and original sin in the Garden of Eden. Death existed prior to the first man, therefore making the argument for original sin ushering in death at odds with science. No original sin = no need for a savior.
  2. The resurrection = impossible according to science.
  3. Real presence = impossible according to science.
The three most important concepts of the Catholic faith rendered impossible according to science.
Click to expand...
  1. Well, I challenge anyone to explain the origin of original sin and make in congruent with the fact that Adam and Eve did not exist.
  2. Not really 🙂 . See: news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060927-resurrection.html?source=rss
  3. I do believe that one could only believe in transubstantiation if you use an unrigorous definition of the word “substance.” What is substance perhaps? In science, an element is defined by the number of protons an atoms posessess. A change from one element to another requires the addition or removal of protons from the nucleus (which could occur with alpha, beta, and positron decay). But in a discussion about the Eucharist on this board, Gottle said that molecular structure is accidental, that is, it is characteristic of the bread (or “Body of Christ” or whatever), not its substance. In other words, the doctrine of transubstantiation is entirely metaphysical and there is nothing empirical about it. I don’t know what a “substance” is, but it cannot be investigated in any empirical way or quanitified, while in contrast atoms can be observed and quanitified. The concept of “substance” explains nothing about the real world.
St. Michael, do you believe in atomic theory?
 
Saint_Michael said:
  1. Evolution and original sin in the Garden of Eden. Death existed prior to the first man, therefore making the argument for original sin ushering in death at odds with science. No original sin = no need for a savior.
  2. The resurrection = impossible according to science.
  3. Real presence = impossible according to science.
The three most important concepts of the Catholic faith rendered impossible according to science.
Click to expand...
Science doesn’t prove any of that impossible.

1.) Show me the scientific treatise that states, and gives evidence for man experiencing death prior to the fall.

2.) History proves this. Miracles occur all the time that cannot be explained simply by science. Why? Because they are outside of it’s domain.

3.) Again, this cannot be disproved by science. It is outside the domain of science.

Your fault, and that of many people, is that they try to use science to explain events outside of it’s jurisdiction. Science seeks to understand the ordinary, theology, the extraordinary.
 
ribozyme said:
  1. Well, I challenge anyone to explain the origin of original sin and make in congruent with the fact that Adam and Eve did not exist.
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about Adam and Eve existing, the point is death exisiting prior to Adam and Eve,a dn what that does to the idea of original sin.
ribozyme said:
  1. Not really 🙂 . See: news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060927-resurrection.html?source=rss
Click to expand...
When I say resurrection I am speaking of Jesus a person being dead three days and coming back fully to life. I suppose you understood that though, so I’m not sure why you dont’ just address it right away.
ribozyme said:
  1. I do believe that one could only believe in transubstantiation if you use an unrigorous definition of the word “substance.” What is substance perhaps? In science, an element is defined by the number of protons an atoms posessess. But in a discussion about the Eucharist on this board, Gottle said that molecular structure is accidental, that is, it is characteristic of the bread, not its substance. In other words, the doctrine of transubstantiation is entirely metaphysical and there is nothing empirical about it. I don’t know what a “substance” is, but it cannot be investigated in any empirical way or quanitified, while in contrast atoms can be observed and quanitified. The concept of “substance” explains nothing about the real world.
St. Michael, do you believe in atomic theory?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter what I believe about the atomic theory, it has no basis in this discussion. And yes everything I listed is in direct contradiction of what science can tell us. I’m sure I can find hundreds of peer reviewed journals on the effects of death on the cells in the body, lack of oxygen to the brain etc… That would point to it being impossible to come back to life after being dead three days and post mortem setting in etc… I can also find plenty of peer reviewed journals on the fact that death existed long before modern man. So essentially it’s pick a side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top