Trust science ?

[edwest2]

I think most people with a passion for science who go on to get degrees and work in their field of interest are interested in what their instructors have to say. I think if they picked up a copy of Nature and read that Most Leading Scientists Still Reject God, that could have an impact on them. Their instructors started pretty much the same way, and who influenced them? Both groups, teachers and students, are the end result of a mass media campaign that emphasizes and deemphasizes certain things. The media creates the mental background noise that occupies us, and our coworkers.

Unless this mental atmosphere is viewed critically, it can become the default source of answers to questions we ask ourselves and answers to questions others ask us. All media resonate off of each other. Each one reinforces and magnifies what the other one says or shows, creating a mental image of what we think most people are doing in our area and in our country.

It’s all built on trust and ego. When we go to our classes in college, we enter into a rather intimate intellectual relationship with our peers and our instructors. All of us who are studying to become a scientist in whatever specialty are not only absorbing knowledge and information, but we are also absorbing the mind-set of our instructors and the mind-set given off by our chosen field. Take biology. Leading men in this field reject God. Certainly, you must think, they can’t be rejecting such an idea for no particular reason. Could their work have something to do with it? After all, these are highly intelligent and, in some cases, egotistical people. Certainly, they can’t be wrong. Evidence is evidence after all. No evidence for God? Sure. Why not exclude Him from your private life? But it doesn’t stop there.

Take PZ Myers. On a youtube interview, he says that science and atheism are inextricably linked. “We have the data,” he says, that science is corrosive to religious belief. Data. Well. What more could you ask for?

How about Sam Harris? He tells people in a published article that his fellow scientists are actually ‘pod people’ for listening to the Pope. He mocks the Virgin birth.

 

[edwest2]

Our ability to accept almost all knowledge is based on our willingness to trust the source. From our youth, schools were a sort of second home filled with people we didn’t like or were indifferent toward, and some we got along with. Our teachers fell in a different category. We had to pay attention, whether we liked them or not. And, especially when young, they often influenced us whether we realized it at the time or not. As we entered higher education, we had more leeway to pick and choose and had to make some decisions about the future. Once again, we put our trust in others to get us from point A to the job we wanted. Trust was required.

Now, as adult Catholics, our worldview is being challenged by a handful of people claiming to have evidence for something. Evidence, they say, overturns our understanding of certain Biblical truths. They cannot point to a single scientific paper that explains the work of God. So let’s send a team of top scientists back in time to spend a week with Jesus. The Report:

"After spending one week with the subject, we could detect no fraud, no manipulation and no sleight of hand. Our summary is as follows:

Young boy A, dead, brought back to life:
Young man with leprosy, completely healed.
Young girl, dead, brought back to life.
Lazarus, completely investigated, dead, brought back to life.

Conclusion: God did it.

Science would never mislead they say, as if science, like all other human institutions, is free of any fraud or misleading information. My point is, if this life is all there is and making a dollar is all there is, then sometimes fraud is just part of doing business, even if public heath is put at risk:

hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MCGBEN.html

One poster here points out that religious are working with evolution every day. Are there also nuns cutting up human embryos? I’ve posted an article previously by a man who interviewed his colleagues to discover that evolution plays no role in drug development.

So what is going on here? I submit, an attempt to gain the trust of those who speak out against the prevailing dogma: the mind of man is greater than some likely fictional God. Richard Dawkins made that quite clear on TV: “WE no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” One more to the trash heap of history?

How many scientists are complaining about billboards that read: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.? Or Man created God on the sides of buses? Is the media complaining? No. Why? Because paganism or, in the case of too many Catholics, living like Agnostics, has become, according to the media, the “norm.”

Who do you trust? And why?

And what is the advice given to Timothy in the Bible? Be sober, be vigilant because your adversary the devil goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. And some come here, loudly, seeking some way to get in. To get people to listen.

Forty years ago, I saw the gradual turning away of too many Catholics to slightly naughty distractions which gradually became more naughty, then passed into risque and are now pornographic. Small groups of people going under various names, Hippies, Radicals, Anarchists, Women’s Libbers, Liberals, Leftists, they all wanted things to be their way. The National Organization for the Repeal of Marijuana Laws wants all of us smoking dope. Oh yeah, that’ll save your brain cells.

When a man like PZ Myers puts a rusty nail through a Consecrated Host and throws it in the trash, and puts it all on youtube, does the University where he teaches put him on notice? To they distance themselves from him?

The current Dictatorship of Relativism demands an intellectual/scientific foundation. That foundation must be man was created by nothing, lives to reproduce (or not), performs a few adaptive behaviors, and dies to nothing. Scientific Atheist Nihilism gets a free pass.

 

[edwest2]

But what does happen if you teach Biology and doubt evolution?

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/teacher-gets-fired-when-colleague-rats-his-doubts-about-darwinism/

You could get fired, even if you’re not teaching the dreaded ID or the more dreaded, Creationism.

Perhaps there could be a dialogue about faith and science. I hope so. But not until people on both sides of the issue examine who they trust and why. And when Catholics really stop to examine the apparent motives of others, including Catholics, who claim that biology textbook evolution completely lines up with Catholic beliefs. As I’ve written elsewhere, the Church, in her wisdom, recognizes a complementary relationship between faith and science. It is obvious that there are some who post here that do not.

Peace,
Ed

 

[homogotohell]

Yes, trust science. It tests its own ideas and is willing to modify them if they are proven wrong. Science is a search for truth. I, personally, would NOT trust a man in a funny hat who claims to talk with the creator of the universe, and claims also to be infallible.

Science is the reason you are able to post on forums like this, and why the internet itself exists. Don’t take XXXXX on it while using the fruits of its labour.

 

[James_S_Saint]

But what does happen if you teach Biology and doubt evolution?

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/teacher-gets-fired-when-colleague-rats-his-doubts-about-darwinism/

You could get fired, even if you’re not teaching the dreaded ID or the more dreaded, Creationism.

Perhaps there could be a dialogue about faith and science. I hope so. But not until people on both sides of the issue examine who they trust and why. And when Catholics really stop to examine the apparent motives of others, including Catholics, who claim that biology textbook evolution completely lines up with Catholic beliefs. As I’ve written elsewhere, the Church, in her wisdom, recognizes a complementary relationship between faith and science. It is obvious that there are some who post here that do not.

Peace,
Ed

All you say is true, so whatcha gunna do?

I advise against talking about Science as though it were doing the speaking. It doesn’t speak. Those telling of what “Science says” are NOT Science and cannot be trusted any more than merely someone saying “God says”.

The ONLY thing that Science has ever said is, “we tried this, using this equipment in this fashion, and got this result.” End of story. Science makes NO conclusions.

So still, "whatcha gunna do?

You have only 3 options that I can see;

1. It isn’t a solvable situation (God doesn’t want it fixed)
2. The CC doesn’t want to fix it
3. The CC hasn’t prayed properly so as to know how to fix it.

Seeing that (2) and (3) are not acceptable to a devout Catholic, that only leaves (1). So to a devout Catholic it isn’t something to complain about because obviously God wants it this way.

But in my case, this leaves me still wondering (I am not a devout Catholic …yet anyway). I can clearly see a real solution and thus I can’t believe that God doesn’t want it fixed any more than “if God wanted Man to fly, He would have given him wings”. But that would mean that the CC must either not want to fix it or doesn’t pray properly.

Although I believe I know how the CC could truly fix the situation, I do not believe that I know how to tell the CC anything of what they do not already believe. My inability to be heard (and anyone else’s) is related to the CC not understanding how to pray. Praying is “listening even to the most meek of voices”. The CC has a history of not listening.

But I’m not trying to bash the CC. I am just pointing out that the situation is one where you must accept that God doesn’t want it fixed, or that the CC will not act for which ever reason. Thus you complaining about the problem puts **you **in a bind. It seems that you “should” either accept it as a God (and thus good) thing, or question the veracity of the CC.

So whatcha gunna do?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Science did NOT create computers or the Internet. PEOPLE created both. Science is ONLY a tool. It creates NOTHING, but offers details as to how to accomplish something once sought.

Science does not and cannot lead, only advise.

 

[edwest2]

On the contrary, science can and does lead. But it is not made up of a a separate type of human being. It works with other human beings. If it is not etchical then it will work with any human being it cares to work with, ethical or unethical.

The current chant is: “you can’t make it without science.” In international affairs, the fear of the Military-Industrial Complex is that another country will invent something to ‘tip the balance of power’ and so on.

A small group in this country wants a Dictatorship of Relativism combined with a Dictatorship of Science.

Peace,
Ed

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Science did NOT create computers or the Internet. PEOPLE created both. Science is ONLY a tool. It creates NOTHING, but offers details as to how to accomplish something once sought.

Science does not and cannot lead, only advise.

To me, although science does offer details of things or ideas once thought, science more frequently just makes man more insignificant by opening yet more doors yet to be answered. Science truly NEVER leads it only remotely follows.

We in our quest for knowledge, and often arrogance, spend far to little time in worshipful awe as we peel back the layers of understanding, which usually results in more confusion.

A few prime examples would be the current understanding of the universe. In ancient times we thought of the world as the center and later realized our sun was the center, but wait no only the center of the solar system. Then we discovered just how many galaxies are in existence when we went beyond the solar system. Now we find more universes and dimensions of existence might be present, as we broaden our look out. And as we look under the microscope we find just as many new horizons with querks and other extremely small wonders in the sub-atomic levels of creation. What will be next? God’s capacity to over awe humanity is truly staggering each and every time we push the envelope or balloon of our current understanding in the void of ignorance the surface area of our knowledge only expands the amount of as yet unknown total surface area of the balloon.

One of the most awesome and fundamental pillars of science makes the case for god and his power. Sir Issac Newton’s states that in every action there must have been an equal and or opposite reaction. So exactly what was the opposite and or equal reaction to the “Big Bang” or the creation of all the other universes?

The child like ignorance of man is the only limits on our creator. The more we learn about his great creations the less we really understand, quantitatively speaking that is.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Perhaps there could be a dialogue about faith and science. I hope so.

It’s interesting how now there are calls for a “dialog”, now that the battle between faith and science has been won in a rout by science, at least in the intelligent public’s mind. Sorry, scientists will settle for nothing short of the white flag of surrender. Faith is subject to science and the scientific method, not the other way around, regardless of what Aquinas may have said. Admission of this is a sine qua non for any “dialog” to occur. The Church has more or less conceded the battle with evolution (and did a long time ago with regard to geocentrism, old earth, no global flood, and so on), but I don’t think many realize the worst is yet to come in the area of neuroscience. The only area in which the modern scientific consensus can be said to be consonant with what was traditionally believed is the finite age of the universe.

But not until people on both sides of the issue examine who they trust and why. And when Catholics really stop to examine the apparent motives of others, including Catholics, who claim that biology textbook evolution completely lines up with Catholic beliefs.

People’s motives have nothing to do with the truth of the matter. If biology textbook evolution doesn’t line up with Catholic beliefs, so much the worse for Catholic beliefs. You would of course say, so much the worse for biology textbook evolution, never mind what evidence can be brought to bear in favor of it. As for trust, well yes it’s theoretically possible biologists have falsified some evidence. But why believe that with no reason?

As I’ve written elsewhere, the Church, in her wisdom, recognizes a complementary relationship between faith and science. It is obvious that there are some who post here that do not.

Of course they don’t, because faith and science are fundamentally irreconcilable, what the Church claims notwithstanding. The only way to reconcile them is to use the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, where if something discovered by science contradicts, or seems to contradict faith, then it is all of a sudden no longer “true” science.

Science makes the following basic claims about the empirical methodology:

1, that direct observation and inference are the only ways to gain knowledge about contingent facts, since they cannot be deduced from first principles; and
2, that inferences, no matter how strong they might seem, are never held with absolute certainty. Scientific theories can be overturned with new evidence. In fact they have been, and the most striking examples have occurred in physics.

Faith has to admit that many articles of faith are not necessary, but contingent, truths, and that God’s revelation is also contingent. Faith has to admit that some kind of observation (a preacher, etc.) is necessary to gain knowledge about those contingent facts. But it wants to hold that after that these inferred contingent truths can be held with absolute certainty. Faith will not admit the possibility, even theoretical, that new evidence could overturn the provisionally held inferences. Faith wants to hold that there can be evidence for faith but not evidence against it. And that is logical nonsense.

 

[Areopagite]

It’s interesting how now there are calls for a “dialog”, now that the battle between faith and science has been won in a rout by science, at least in the intelligent public’s mind.

What on earth are you talking about? I personally know dozens of people with Ph.D’s (even in advanced science) that believe faith and reason do not contradict each other. The “intelligent public’s mind” (whatever that means) are not in harmonious agreement on this issue either way. Sorry.

Faith is subject to science and the scientific method, not the other way around, regardless of what Aquinas may have said.

What are you referring to? What passage in Aquinas? What do you think he said?

For what it’s worth, Aquinas said that if a conventional Biblical interpretation does not match up with very evident and widely accepted scientific laws, then the interpretation must be discarded in favor of the science (and replaced, commonly, with a more symbolic one). Are you aware that he said this?

The Church has more or less conceded the battle with evolution (and did a long time ago with regard to geocentrism, …

Did the Church ever oppose evolution? I’m not aware that it did. Please educate me. I may be uninformed on this matter. It is certainly evident that Augustine believed in it.

And once again, it was a local fallible tribunate who opposed Galileo and his non-geocentric theories. Copernicus was never persecuted by the Church … rather, he was honored by the Pope.

And for all the other things you bring up that the Church has “gone back on” … when did the Church ever made those dogma? Yeah, they really never did. I know that Protestants did, but Catholics did not.

Of course they don’t, because faith and science are fundamentally irreconcilable, what the Church claims notwithstanding. The only way to reconcile them is to use the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, where if something discovered by science contradicts, or seems to contradict faith, then it is all of a sudden no longer “true” science.

I need specifics here. Perhaps you have given some in the past, and if so, could you direct me to them. (are you talking about the neuroscience thing … because perhaps we need to start that up again … alas).

Science makes the following basic claims about the empirical methodology:

1, that direct observation and inference are the only ways to gain knowledge about contingent facts, since they cannot be deduced from first principles; and
2, that inferences, no matter how strong they might seem, are never held with absolute certainty. Scientific theories can be overturned with new evidence. In fact they have been, and the most striking examples have occurred in physics.

Faith has to admit that many articles of faith are not necessary, but contingent, truths, and that God’s revelation is also contingent. Faith has to admit that some kind of observation (a preacher, etc.) is necessary to gain knowledge about those contingent facts. But it wants to hold that after that these inferred contingent truths can be held with absolute certainty. Faith will not admit the possibility, even theoretical, that new evidence could overturn the provisionally held inferences. Faith wants to hold that there can be evidence for faith but not evidence against it. And that is logical nonsense.

What do you mean by “God’s revelation is contingent?” Obviously, God did not have to reveal it to us. But are you implying that it’s changeable? I don’t know what you’re saying here. I would say that God’s revelation is unchanging, but interpretations of it can change. But I may be missing your point.

Also, the claim that the Church refuses to believe that “new evidence could overturn the provisionally held inferences” is not true. Aquinas certainly did not believe this.

It depends what you mean by “evidence” when you say that “Faith wants to hold that there can be evidence for faith but not evidence against it.” Obviously, faith believes there cannot be any evidence that definitely disproves it. However, there can be things once and awhile that may seem to suggest some things against the faith. For example, in a court case, if a person is truly innocent, there could nonetheless be evidence that suggests that he committed the crime, even though he did not. Hence, of course there could be evidence against the faith, in that sense. There just can’t be proof against it.

Does that makes sense?

 

[edwest2]

And I’m reminded of what satan said in the garden, “Ye shall be as gods.” When this life is viewed as all there is then only two things apply: money and power. So everything becomes a struggle to get money and power. Who will justify me? Science. Who opposes me? Religion. That is the current thinking for some.

Fear not, my brothers and sisters in Christ, man does not have the power or wisdom of God and His Church cannot be overthrown. Not because I said so but because He said so.

Peace,
Ed

 

[kamalayka9]

Faith is subject to science and the scientific method, not the other way around
.

That would be false.

(Oh, and I have a Masters degree in Neuroscience, and I am a Christian!)

 

[NowAgnostic]

What on earth are you talking about? I personally know dozens of people with Ph.D’s (even in advanced science) that believe faith and reason do not contradict each other. The “intelligent public’s mind” (whatever that means) are not in harmonious agreement on this issue either way. Sorry.

And I know someone with an engineering degree who thinks we never went to the moon. Big deal. Isolated examples don’t prove the point. The fact is that the vast, vast majority of educated people consult what scientists have to say regarding questions of contingent and empirical facts and inferences, and pay no attention to what any Church may or may not be saying on the matter.

What are you referring to? What passage in Aquinas? What do you think he said?

Something about theology as queen of the sciences and philosophy its “handmaiden”.

For what it’s worth, Aquinas said that if a conventional Biblical interpretation does not match up with very evident and widely accepted scientific laws, then the interpretation must be discarded in favor of the science (and replaced, commonly, with a more symbolic one). Are you aware that he said this?

That isn’t exactly what he said. He said the literal sense must always be kept, though one should not be too wedded to one particular literal interpretation over another one. Anyway, what Aquinas said is really beside the point.

The main point is that faith is making an **empirical **claim and as such is dependent on empirical and inferential methodologies. It is not really a battle over this fact or that, but a question of epistemology - how we can know what we know. Faith is forced to use an empirical/scientific methodology to make its claims. Apologetics is forced to use inductive/inferential arguments (the “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” trilemma of C.S. Lewis is an example of this).

Did the Church ever oppose evolution? I’m not aware that it did. Please educate me. I may be uninformed on this matter. It is certainly evident that Augustine believed in it.

And once again, it was a local fallible tribunate who opposed Galileo and his non-geocentric theories. Copernicus was never persecuted by the Church … rather, he was honored by the Pope.

And for all the other things you bring up that the Church has “gone back on” … when did the Church ever made those dogma? Yeah, they really never did. I know that Protestants did, but Catholics did not.

I will readily concede there exists no ex cathedra or conciliar condemnation of evolution, heliocentrism, or anything else with the exception of eternity of the world. The question is deeper than this though.

And this doesn’t mean historically the Church fought no battle against them. It did, even if the biggest weapon wasn’t brought out. The “local fallible tribunate” was in fact headed by Cardinal Bellarmine, and its decisions were approved by the Pope. Because, you must concede, these findings are not “comfortable” for Catholicism. The “rule” of faith of what was believed everywhere and by all was found to be no longer reliable. A young earth, geocentrism, special creation of animal “kinds”, dispersion of language at the Tower of Babel, literal Adam and Eve, etc., these were believed everywhere and by all and never really questioned.

And this undercuts the Church’s claim when it does make *ex cathedra *pronouncements. Because the Pope doesn’t claim a special revelation from God, he claims he’s merely defining what has been held and believed from the beginning.

I need specifics here. Perhaps you have given some in the past, and if so, could you direct me to them. (are you talking about the neuroscience thing … because perhaps we need to start that up again … alas).

Well, there is a poster on this forum who says “Divine Revelation trumps” on the thread where monogenism vs. polygenism was discussed. Is this your view? There are three possibilities here:

1. I’m not going to listen to any scientific evidence for polygenism. The Church says, literal Adam and Eve, and that’s that, and that’s what has always been believed.
2. We will hold polygenism provisionally based on the evidence, and re-interpret the doctrine of original sin to match.
3. The evidence shows there’s really no such thing as original sin, man didn’t descend from a pristine into a fallen state.
4. and 3) means that what was believed everywhere, by all, is false - because the doctrine of original sin, as traditionally believed, did not only encompass **that **there is such a thing as original sin but **actually how **it got here.

But the defender of 1) is faced with an apparent conflict between faith and reason - because there is substantial scientific evidence for polygenism, especially in the genome. So he will try to claim that this is not “true” science - that “true” science would support monogenism. (This is of course, precisely the m.o. of literal six-day creationists.)

Cont…

 

[NowAgnostic]

And this is just what Vatican I did:

1. God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

1. Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false [34].

1. Furthermore the Church which, together with its apostolic office of teaching, has received the charge of preserving the deposit of faith, has by divine appointment the right and duty of condemning what wrongly passes for knowledge, lest anyone be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit [35].

1. Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.

What do you mean by “God’s revelation is contingent?” Obviously, God did not have to reveal it to us. But are you implying that it’s changeable? I don’t know what you’re saying here. I would say that God’s revelation is unchanging, but interpretations of it can change. But I may be missing your point.

By contingent I mean logically contingent. It is not logically necessary that God reveal anything.

Also, the claim that the Church refuses to believe that “new evidence could overturn the provisionally held inferences” is not true. Aquinas certainly did not believe this.

Really? Is the Church willing to reconsider Papal Infallibility? Is the Church willing to reconsider the inerrancy of Scripture? Or is not the case that no new evidence, no matter how strong, would ever cause the Church to reconsider these doctrines.

It depends what you mean by “evidence” when you say that “Faith wants to hold that there can be evidence for faith but not evidence against it.” Obviously, faith believes there cannot be any evidence that definitely disproves it. However, there can be things once and awhile that may seem to suggest some things against the faith. For example, in a court case, if a person is truly innocent, there could nonetheless be evidence that suggests that he committed the crime, even though he did not. Hence, of course there could be evidence against the faith, in that sense. There just can’t be proof against it.

Does that makes sense?

Yes, that’s quite an admission on your part. For, though the person is truly innocent, there could nonetheless be strong evidence which leads to a false conviction. And, the jury would be reasonable in believing he committed the crime. Are you willing to admit there could (in theory) therefore be evidence which would make belief in Catholicism unreasonable? This would put you at odds with Vatican I it would seem:

1. If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the Church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith: let him be anathema.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Dear NowAgnostic,

Although I am by NO means any sort of expert on science, or really anything for that matter, the scientific view of life along side that of different religions or faiths seems to me to be like the story of the blind men arguing about what an elephant is as they feel different parts of it. Man in his infinitesimal understanding of the universe is no closer to understanding the scientific approach to creation as he is through faith. It seems to me that each time we gain a little in understand a specific aspect of nature, we open up many more questions. It seems to me that something or someone or? Is constantly showing us just how little we know.

Even in areas of law, fundamentally men of a fair mind and conscience seem to turn to God for the answers when right and wrong just can’t be proved in other ways. This at least seems to hold out over time for most societies that are not bent on self-destruction. These natural laws were used even this century to convict Nazi war criminals as (wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55117)
the allies could not stand on any other scientific or legal grounds. It seems that what is right, is right and it is known by most all. It is just our nature to know that impelling a child is wrong. Killing your own child is just as bad………although some can let it be done by others.

I am pretty certain that each agnostic curses? Why? Is it like saying….”Oh stew meat!”, or “Feet-damn!” I think probably not. I think most of humanity naturally likes to admonish the creator, or their version of a divine entity, when things are not going right. They will find a way to vent, or spout all along knowing through natural law, deep in their soul, that what they are doing is wrong. Just like the little kid taking the cookies from the cookie jar. Conversely most people naturally like to take credit for all good things that happen to them and rarely give credit to a higher being. It is just human nature.

It is even more amazing, at least to me, that a number of learned men and women also find that God must have created this universe, or multiple universes. (godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html#TkwT4qQhhMQH) I would think that as they delve deeper into understanding they would drift from god, but it seems that is not the case. I have a personal friend of mine that is a doctor that is very religious and I asked him why he believes. He told me that it came to him while he was at Med School……imagine that. He said that only a loving creator would purposefully design a human body to release massive levels of endorphins at the time of death. He said that if you followed Darwinian theory it should be just the opposite. I really appreciated that insight.

It seems obvious to me that you are well read and have researched and pondered over some of your arguments to the nth detail, and although you will likely never admit it, the reason for the pondering was probably because deep down questions keep coming up. Questions you really can’t answer, and honestly no one can.

Even if you do not believe in the Catholic Church, chances are you do believe in God, you just don’t call him that. Like a lot of humanity you are likely acting out some form of rebellion or protest against the natural laws. In the end I wish you luck in your search for faith. I truly do believe that you will find it if you keep on delving into these question, it is just a matter of time before you will start to find answers to these and other questions that you have not even asked yet. Well you will if you keep as open a mind about the possibility of a designed universe as your belief in science.

You know Science too is often wrong…Thalidomide, Tobacco, Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, and Asbestos. All of the above were the next best things since sliced bread……heck cigarettes were marketed as clearing the lungs. Even with examples like the above most people that argue against the CC seem to take the terrorist approach. It is ok for scientists to be wrong a zillion times, but if the church is wrong once…….hey…that is not tolerated. What do they think that the church is perfect? The Church is men and women, and we ALL make mistakes.

Infallibility only resides with very careful morale and theological teachings. What I find amazing is even during the times of some of the Bad Popes. (E.R. Chamberlin 1969 ISBN 0-88029-116-8) they never made mistakes with regards to church teaching. Personal mistakes MANY……but none against the Church? Why? That is the part of the CCC 892 references and really must be taken by faith. I know you don’t like to take things on faith, but you do. As a man of science you take many things on faith that are against your science. What was the big bang? What was the equal and opposite force that created the Big Bang for this universe? What about all the other universes and the other dimensions? This force is supposedly a law of Newton. Did he make a mistake in this? In the end you can parse the words and dissect each and every tenant of faith and you will still have only your own inner soul left……And while it is all alone with just your scientific mind it will be saying “And is that all?” And while you are listening to your answer, if you are actually understanding even why you asked yourself the question you will likely have found your answer.

 

[Areopagite]

And I know someone with an engineering degree who thinks we never went to the moon. Big deal. Isolated examples don’t prove the point. The fact is that the vast, vast majority of educated people consult what scientists have to say regarding questions of contingent and empirical facts and inferences, and pay no attention to what any Church may or may not be saying on the matter.

And my point was that there are plenty of scientists and intelligent people who do not think there is a conflict between faith and reason. Maybe all the dozens (maybe hundreds) of people I’m thinking of just happen to be those isolated examples. I suppose that’s a possibility.

Something about theology as queen of the sciences and philosophy its “handmaiden”.

You need to be clear how you’re using the word “science.” You said, “Faith is subject to science and the scientific method, not the other way around, regardless of what Aquinas may have said.” What do you mean by “science” here as distinguished from the “scientific method.” The Aristotelian definition would be “an organized body of knowledge” whereas the popular modern usage is specifically “the physical sciences.” So, are you saying that the spiritual science of theology is subject to the scrutiny of the physical sciences?

Also, not all sciences (in the Aristotelian sense) use the scientific method (like math and logic).

That isn’t exactly what he said. He said the literal sense must always be kept, though one should not be too wedded to one particular literal interpretation over another one.

Unless I’m mistaken, the term “literal” here doesn’t refer to the more common modern usage of meaning “without metaphor or exaggeration” (there’s probably a better word for it … well, the correct word is literalistic). Rather, it pertains to keeping the exact words of the text (right? I might be wrong). It’s quite obvious that Aquinas and all the Church Fathers never believed in a strict literalistic view of the Bible, but recognized poetical devices replete throughout Scripture. I can’t say as much for certain Protestants.

I also remember quite clearly that Aquinas said a more metaphorical view of a Scriptural passage must be adopted when science seems to contradict it. But, I admit I have no idea where he said it. Any help, anyone?

The main point is that faith is making an **empirical **claim and as such is dependent on empirical and inferential methodologies. It is not really a battle over this fact or that, but a question of epistemology - how we can know what we know. Faith is forced to use an empirical/scientific methodology to make its claims. Apologetics is forced to use inductive/inferential arguments (the “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” trilemma of C.S. Lewis is an example of this).

Not sure what you’re talking about. Why is faith forced to make an empirical claim and to use inductive/scientific methodologies? Faith is a divinely infused knowledge which bypasses ordinary means of gaining knowledge. Apologetics, on the other hand, DOES use ordinary means to debunk arguments that try and disprove faith. However, apologetics isn’t essential to faith. It helps. But for faith to be faith, apologetics technically does not have to exist.

The “local fallible tribunate” was in fact headed by Cardinal Bellarmine, and its decisions were approved by the Pope. Because, you must concede, these findings are not “comfortable” for Catholicism.

Sure.

Now I’m no historian in this matter, but if I’m not mistaken, Bellarmine and the Pope took issue with several things that Galileo said (including various attacks on the Eucharist, I believe). And specifically, it was Galileo’s claim that heliocentricity was in conflict with the Bible that the tribunate took action (but also for those other reasons). It wasn’t merely because Galileo supported heliocentricity. Bellarmine and the Pope supported the tribunate’s decisions because of multiple charges against Galileo.

Now, maybe I’m dead wrong, but I remember reading about this from non-Catholic sources.

The “rule” of faith of what was believed everywhere and by all was found to be no longer reliable.

No, Copernicus didn’t believe in geocentricity. And he was never persecuted. In fact, he was honored by the Pope for his scientific work.

And this undercuts the Church’s claim when it does make *ex cathedra *pronouncements. Because the Pope doesn’t claim a special revelation from God, he claims he’s merely defining what has been held and believed from the beginning.

It is true that ex cathedra pronouncements define what has always been believed. However, it does not follow that everything that is widely and somewhat consistently believed is worthy of being formally defined by ex cathedra pronouncements. Some things that are widely believed are not part of Sacred Tradition.

Well, there is a poster on this forum who says “Divine Revelation trumps” on the thread where monogenism vs. polygenism was discussed. Is this your view?

I don’t know. I haven’t considered the issue enough. Presumably, if polygenism is true, the existence of original sin isn’t necessarily in danger, because (as Aquinas says) original sin is passed on down through the fathers … and hence intermarriage between the various groups could eventually result in everyone having original sin, even if original sin only came with one man actually sinning for it to come into the world.

But maybe that’s just a crazy idea.

 

[Areopagite]

And this is just what Vatican I did:

1. Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.

I addressed this a long time ago, on this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5760801&postcount=31

By contingent I mean logically contingent. It is not logically necessary that God reveal anything.

I agree.

Really? Is the Church willing to reconsider Papal Infallibility? Is the Church willing to reconsider the inerrancy of Scripture? Or is not the case that no new evidence, no matter how strong, would ever cause the Church to reconsider these doctrines.

No, the Church is not willing to reconsider Papal Infallibility or the inerrancy of Scripture. What evidence would disprove it? I’m not sure what you’re saying here. My apologies.

Yes, that’s quite an admission on your part. For, though the person is truly innocent, there could nonetheless be strong evidence which leads to a false conviction. And, the jury would be reasonable in believing he committed the crime. Are you willing to admit there could (in theory) therefore be evidence which would make belief in Catholicism unreasonable? This would put you at odds with Vatican I it would seem:

1. If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the Church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith: let him be anathema.

Those who have received faith have received knowledge about the truth of Christ (and like truths). Hence, rejecting that knowledge simply because there is some evidence against it would be the unreasonable thing to do. It’s not like the faith is complete opinion or even complete belief. It’s actually infused knowledge (but not complete and perfectly formed knowledge).

A poor analogy, I suppose, would be this: if your friend was being charged for murder, and you were with him at the time of the murder (and saw that he was nowhere near the crime scene), and yet there was evidence (and even a lot of evidence … fingerprints and all) that he did commit the crime (enough that everyone is convinced that he did do it), would it be reasonable for you to side with the evidence and not your personal experience? No, you should side with what you know and not what any evidence says. Nonetheless, it would reasonable for you to try and find evidence to support your position and try to explain away the incriminating evidence. Right?

So, anyway, faith is like this. It is legitimate knowledge of Christ and divine truths that one receives which cannot be justly discarded no matter how compelling a certain historical theory is at the time.

I know this probably sounds wretched to you, but I hope you gained a clearer picture on what the Church claims faith to be.

 

[NowAgnostic]

And my point was that there are plenty of scientists and intelligent people who do not think there is a conflict between faith and reason. Maybe all the dozens (maybe hundreds) of people I’m thinking of just happen to be those isolated examples. I suppose that’s a possibility.

Yet most of these, I am sure, believe in big bang, standard evolution, old universe/earth, no global flood, heliocentrism, polygenism, and so on. Most of them, I am also sure, accept most of the conclusions of modern higher biblical criticism. It’s because faith is not now making issue with these things. Yet it once did, at least with most of them. The key is how the relationship of faith with reason is understood.

Now there are two ways of understanding that faith does not conflict with reason. The first simply “defines” any alleged truth of reason conflicting with faith as contrary to reason. Obviously this is the “no true Scotsman” fallacy which makes “no conflict between faith and reason” a meaningless tautology. The second gives reason some autonomy and makes the claim that the tools of reason, properly applied but without an a priori commitment to faith, will not result in the conclusion of something contrary to faith. This now makes faith falsifiable by reason and thus subject to its methodologies to be able to deny the claim of falsification.

You need to be clear how you’re using the word “science.” You said, “Faith is subject to science and the scientific method, not the other way around, regardless of what Aquinas may have said.” What do you mean by “science” here as distinguished from the "scientific method."

The scientific method simply means the inductive method of reasoning in which inferences are made from observations.

It’s quite obvious that Aquinas and all the Church Fathers never believed in a strict literalistic view of the Bible, but recognized poetical devices replete throughout Scripture. I can’t say as much for certain Protestants.

No doubt they did not, but the problem is that the Church Fathers all believed in geocentrism, young earth, global flood, monogenism, etc., as being of faith. Augustine’s version of evolution was a super-fast version.

Not sure what you’re talking about. Why is faith forced to make an empirical claim and to use inductive/scientific methodologies? Faith is a divinely infused knowledge which bypasses ordinary means of gaining knowledge.

Ah, but here’s the rub. Protestants and Muslims claim that as well. How do you know you’ve really got that “divinely infused” knowledge and are not mistaken? Is that supposedly divinely infused as well? And then how do you know that? You end up in an infinite regress. So at some point you are forced to go to ordinary means of gaining knowledge. And because truths of faith, being contingent (not logically necessary) can’t be deduced from first principles they must be inferred.

Apologetics, on the other hand, DOES use ordinary means to debunk arguments that try and disprove faith. However, apologetics isn’t essential to faith. It helps. But for faith to be faith, apologetics technically does not have to exist.

But for faith to not contradict reason it does have to exist if you do not wish to use the “no true Scotsman” approach. And therefore apologetics must use inferential/inductive methodologies. If one did not have this magical knowledge you spoke of earlier, one should be able to infer the truth of Christianity from the evidence. Otherwise, faith would contradict reason. But now, you see, evidence against Christianity can be brought into the picture. If faith cannot contradict reason, and reason, using inductive methodology, would infer Christianity to be likely false, then one should renounce Christianity. Would you agree?

Now I’m no historian in this matter, but if I’m not mistaken, Bellarmine and the Pope took issue with several things that Galileo said (including various attacks on the Eucharist, I believe)…

You are mistaken, the tribunal claimed heliocentricity contrary to faith and that is what they condemned Galileo for, not anything having to do with the Eucharist. A distinction was made between the sun’s immovability (formally heretical), which we know now to be false anyway, and the earth’s motion (claimed “at least erroneous in faith”).

No, Copernicus didn’t believe in geocentricity. And he was never persecuted. In fact, he was honored by the Pope for his scientific work.

His book wasn’t published until after his death. But anyway, Galileo is really neither here nor there when it comes to the larger question.

It is true that ex cathedra pronouncements define what has always been believed. However, it does not follow that everything that is widely and somewhat consistently believed is worthy of being formally defined by ex cathedra pronouncements. Some things that are widely believed are not part of Sacred Tradition.

Yes, but the question is whether they are widely believed to be of faith. The Shroud of Turin, for instance, couldn’t possibly qualify, nor could any modern alleged apparitions or miracles.

I don’t know. I haven’t considered the issue enough. Presumably, if polygenism is true, the existence of original sin isn’t necessarily in danger, because (as Aquinas says) original sin is passed on down through the fathers … and hence intermarriage between the various groups could eventually result in everyone having original sin, even if original sin only came with one man actually sinning for it to come into the world.

But maybe that’s just a crazy idea.

It isn’t crazy scientifically, there’s Y-chromosome Adam, as there must logically be.

 

[NowAgnostic]

No, the Church is not willing to reconsider Papal Infallibility or the inerrancy of Scripture. What evidence would disprove it? I’m not sure what you’re saying here. My apologies.

Well, surely you must be aware of some of the problems with Scripture; for instance, the discrepancy in when the census took place. Now of course you can always add this and that ad hoc assertion to “save” inerrancy of Scripture just like you can add eccentrics and epicycles to “save” geocentrism. But the real question is, would a reasonable person, without an a priori commitment to Scriptural inerrancy, conclude an error had occurred? Clearly the answer is yes. Why do you think modern Scriptural scholarship is so wedded to literary forms, form and redaction criticism, and the like?

As for Papal Infallibility, the very same Vatican I council where it was defined also maintained that miracles could be proved, and that these would prove Christianity:

1. If anyone says that all miracles are impossible, and that therefore all reports of them, even those contained in Sacred Scripture, are to be set aside as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, nor can the divine origin of the Christian religion be proved from them: let him be anathema.

Both claims are nonsense, can be shown to be so from reason, and this should call into question the “genuineness” or “ecumenicity” of Vatican I in the Catholic mind. (Pius IX’s heavy-handed tactics have been documented elsewhere. *La tradizione, son io *indeed!)

Those who have received faith have received knowledge about the truth of Christ (and like truths).

And how have they received that knowledge?

Hence, rejecting that knowledge simply because there is some evidence against it would be the unreasonable thing to do. It’s not like the faith is complete opinion or even complete belief. It’s actually infused knowledge (but not complete and perfectly formed knowledge).

And how is it known that knowledge is infused?

A poor analogy, I suppose, would be this: if your friend was being charged for murder, and you were with him at the time of the murder (and saw that he was nowhere near the crime scene), and yet there was evidence (and even a lot of evidence … fingerprints and all) that he did commit the crime (enough that everyone is convinced that he did do it), would it be reasonable for you to side with the evidence and not your personal experience? No, you should side with what you know and not what any evidence says. Nonetheless, it would reasonable for you to try and find evidence to support your position and try to explain away the incriminating evidence. Right?

In this case you have more compelling evidence than the circumstantial evidence available. So naturally you come to a different conclusion. It’s still one based on observation.

So, anyway, faith is like this. It is legitimate knowledge of Christ and divine truths that one receives which cannot be justly discarded no matter how compelling a certain historical theory is at the time.

I know this probably sounds wretched to you, but I hope you gained a clearer picture on what the Church claims faith to be.

You have an infinite regress problem when it comes to justifying this knowledge as legitimate.

 

[jakeorely]

jesus was black