Trust science ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe you can explain what you are talking about here and what it has to do with the text of mine that your quoted.

In addition, do you trust science? In other words, when you have a bacterial infection, what is more efficacious, prayer or antibiotoics?

Best,
Leela
An interesting question indeed. Our society as evidenced by the amount of medication administered obviously has trust in science. The real question is much deeper.

So this would express a lack of faith in prayer. It does not answer the question as to which works better.

The bigger question - is I don’t trust science to keep my mortal body from dying. All it does is slow down the process.

Prayer is definitely more efficacious to my immortal soul.

Our different worldviews have a different focus.
 
Your statements indicate your bias. All science regarding human origins is subject to its proper place. The Church holds final authority as regards man’s true nature and creation.
What does bias have to do with the issue? You ave your views and I have mine. Is one of us “biased”? This is a conservative code word for “this person disagrees with my dogma.”

Science must always answer to the facts rather than the Church. To some extent, the Church answers to the facts as well like when it came around on heliocentrism.
Why should my beliefs concern you?
I just thought we were having a conversation. Should they concern me?
 
A scientist could “admit” that he himself lied, but how could a scientist “admit” that other scientists lie?

Coyne is just asserting that scientists are less inclined today to pander to religious groups than they have been in the past. To me this movement makes science more trustworthy rather than less, and your attempt to paint Coyle and other scientists as liars falls flat. Instead, it is the continuation of a long ongoing process of science freeing itself from the control of the Church.

I assume Coyle refers to Stephen Jay Gould’s ‘NOMA’ - ‘non-overlapping magisteria’. Gould claimed that science and true religion never come into conflict because they exist in completely separate dimensions of discourse:

“To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.”

Coyle thinks that such claims are dishonest or at least untrue since the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis.

Dawkins comments, "Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis - by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn’t, of course, although a control group who knew they had been prayed for tended to get worse (how about a class action suit against the Templeton Foundation?) Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.

To see the disingenuous hypocrisy of religious people who embrace NOMA, imagine that forensic archeologists, by some unlikely set of circumstances, discovered DNA evidence demonstrating that Jesus was born of a virgin mother and had no father. If NOMA enthusiasts were sincere, they should dismiss the archeologists’ DNA out of hand: “Irrelevant. Scientific evidence has no bearing on theological questions. Wrong magisterium.” Does anyone seriously imagine that they would say anything remotely like that? You can bet your boots that not just the fundamentalists but every professor of theology and every bishop in the land would trumpet the archeological evidence to the skies.

Either Jesus had a father or he didn’t. The question is a scientific one, and scientific evidence, if any were available, would be used to settle it. The same is true of any miracle - and the deliberate and intentional creation of the universe would have to have been the mother and father of all miracles. Either it happened or it didn’t. It is a fact, one way or the other, and in our state of uncertainty we can put a probability on it - an estimate that may change as more information comes in. Humanity’s best estimate of the probability of divine creation dropped steeply in 1859 when The Origin of Species was published, and it has declined steadily during the subsequent decades, as evolution consolidated itself from plausible theory in the nineteenth century to established fact today."

Best,
Leela
The Church does not recognize evolution as an established fact.

The “long ongoing process of science freeing itself from the control of the church” is a fiction. Do priests block the entrances to labs or universities? You are attempting to paint a picture of something that does not happen.

Once again, why does this concern you?

Peace,
Ed
 
Are you saying that Scientists are a group of brainwashed individuals who cannot think for themselves,and are falling for the party line because they don’t have the mental capacity to see through the manipulation given to them?

Do you even understand what science is about?

Scientists don’t become athiests because they are being manipulated , coerced or any other such theory. One of the most stringent controls around science and the reason it is SO powerful is that it is immune as a discipline to manipulation through co-ercion. It is based on evidence…so not matter what you WANT to believe, if you put truth first then you simply have no choice but to remove your belief.

Not all scientists have integrity and science can be used in dreadful way’s. But the discipline itself is not subjected to the same problems that religion is.

Ironically enough, you have applied all of the issues of religious education and indoctrination into your post, not even realizing that it isn’t science you are describing. It’s a projection of what you’ve already probably experienced.

No…scientists are not like the religious by default. They require evidence and take very little pride in “faith” and believing what they want to. At least this is the case for those that are respected globally amongst all scientific professionals.
“you simply have no choice but to remove your belief” I should wait for the Fascist Atheist Technocracy to take over? The new social order? When will the camps be built for the reeducation of the dissidents?

Science is a job, nothing more. I have known a few brilliant individuals who taught at the University level. Science means going to work everyday, hoping the funding doesn’t run out. It means kowtowing to governments, corporations or groups of private investors who expect results, or else you’re out of a job.

I refuse to worship men who can be just as corrupt as any other group of men. Evidence can and is manipulated. “Facts” can be invented.

Given a choice of watching their funding dry up and being out of work, or manipulating a few numbers at the request of their corporate backers, a few scientists will give in.

I never said scientists are stupid. My point is: scientific misconduct occurs, and it lasts long enough for a product to get to market. A product that may later be recalled after it kills a certain number of people.

Wake up. The people in charge are not the scientists. It’s the people with the money. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Peace,
Ed
 
The Church does not recognize evolution as an established fact.
That the species have evolved over time to be the forms they take today is an established fact whether the Church wishes to affirm it or not and whether or not the Church ever decides to endorse any particular scientific theory about how that happens. I think the Church now tries to avoid making scientific claims to avoid potential embarrassment in “infallibly” proclaiming the likes of geocentrism.
The “long ongoing process of science freeing itself from the control of the church” is a fiction. Do priests block the entrances to labs or universities? You are attempting to paint a picture of something that does not happen.
Are you saying that this never happened or that it never happens anymore?
Once again, why does this concern you?
Why do you ask? Why does what concern me?

Best,
Leela
 
That the species have evolved over time to be the forms they take today is an established fact whether the Church wishes to affirm it or not and whether or not the Church ever decides to endorse any particular scientific theory about how that happens. I think the Church now tries to avoid making scientific claims to avoid potential embarrassment in “infallibly” proclaiming the likes of geocentrism.

Are you saying that this never happened or that it never happens anymore?

Why do you ask? Why does what concern me?

Best,
Leela
Are you saying that religious belief is rubbish and Catholics should abandon it?

Do priests, today, block the doors of science labs? Yes or no?

Peace,
Ed
 
Hi Ed,

For some reason you seem to think that you are entitled to answers to your questions while you won’t answer mine. I don’t think that is a game I’ll want to play much longer.
Are you saying that religious belief is rubbish and Catholics should abandon it?
I didn’t say anything of the sort. This is off-topic. But to answer, obviously I don’t think Catholicism is goo dto believe or I would believe it myself.
Do priests, today, block the doors of science labs? Yes or no?
You really need me to answer this? No. As far as I know, they don’t. Is this supposed to be relevant somehow?

You keep on this “whoever pays the piper thing,” but the vast maority of people (and we can assume piper payers) are religious. The Templeton foundation for example has lots of money for any scientist who wants to do research that supports religious belief.

That was the point of the Coyle remarks. Scientists have felt pressured to not offend the religious piper payers. Science has been corrupted as you say, but according to Coyle it is being corrupted by the Church.
 
Truth and Science
Code:
 			 			It is almost axiomatic in our culture that the pronouncements of Science are synonymous with Truth. This received wisdom is so prevalent that whenever media reports begin with the words “Scientists have found that…[fill in the blank]“, whatever follows is widely believed by the public to be unassailable fact. So revered is Science and so respected its methods, that the mere suggestion that something might be amiss is considered ignorance or heresy. And so the statements of Science are defended vigorously while the critics are dismissed as quacks and uninformed idiots. The prevailing attitude seems to be (to slightly bend the well-known quote from Richard Dawkins) “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in the *findings of Science* [emphasis and edit mine], that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
more…
 
Truth and Science
Code:
 			 			It is almost axiomatic in our culture that the pronouncements of Science are synonymous with Truth. This received wisdom is so prevalent that whenever media reports begin with the words “Scientists have found that…[fill in the blank]“, whatever follows is widely believed by the public to be unassailable fact. So revered is Science and so respected its methods, that the mere suggestion that something might be amiss is considered ignorance or heresy. And so the statements of Science are defended vigorously while the critics are dismissed as quacks and uninformed idiots. The prevailing attitude seems to be (to slightly bend the well-known quote from Richard Dawkins) “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in the *findings of Science* [emphasis and edit mine], that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
more…
I don’t know anyone who thinks that science and truth are synonyms, but the two are certainly related. Science is the word we use to describe humanity’s best attempts to discern what is true–to distinguish what we have good reason to believe from what is asserted to be true without evidence.
 
I don’t know anyone who thinks that science and truth are synonyms, but the two are certainly related. Science is the word we use to describe humanity’s best attempts to discern what is true–to distinguish what we have good reason to believe from what is asserted to be true without evidence.
best attempts is an ideal.
 
Hi all, 👋

I’m just here to lighten it up and write this get along song… “It’s the get along gang, get along gang. Each one so special in his own way.” :whistle:

Whats up with dualism these days? :console:

This smiley is just funny… :banghead: This one is cute too… :knight2:

God bless,
Frank

:doh2:

ps- forgive my writing style
 
Hi all, 👋

I’m just here to lighten it up and write this get along song… “It’s the get along gang, get along gang. Each one so special in his own way.” :whistle:

Whats up with dualism these days? :console:

This smiley is just funny… :banghead: This one is cute too… :knight2:

God bless,
Frank

:doh2:

ps- forgive my writing style
Hi Frank,

Well, it’s like this. You have the bad Catholic Church which is supposedly standing in the way of Science. And in the other corner, Science: champion of truth, freedom and evidence.

The supporters of Science come here and say “You must accept the evidence. You have no choice.”

While the Church tells Catholics: Science and Faith are complementary. But, if you believe the Catholic Church is based on nothing then you get upset. You think Science and Faith can never be complementary.

See?

So when I tell people that what I believe regarding science has to be informed by what the Church teaches and has taught… well, some people just can’t accept that. Some people try to turn this forum from being Catholic Answers to Non-Catholic Answers Only.

Thanks for the humor,
Ed
 
Yes, science strives for this ideal as I explained. What is your point?
Pure science without bias is the ideal. Science right from the get go by its own definition has a limited say. In addition it is corrupted by the a priori views held by scientists that cherry pick observations.
 
Are you saying that Scientists are a group of brainwashed individuals who cannot think for themselves,and are falling for the party line because they don’t have the mental capacity to see through the manipulation given to them?
If he doesn’t, then I say that. How can I say that? Simple, during the '50’s all Americans were scandalized when N. Korea brainwashed American POWs to turn against America. That’s when the word entered our lexicon. As a result of that scandal, I and all the other recruits in boot camp during 1961 were taught to 1) Recognize brainwashing; 2) How to resist brainwashing and 3) To resist brainwashing.
Since that time, and since the '70’s, I have internalized those lessons, in regards to our political, media and educational establishments. Dameedna, as a survivor of the Cold War of ideas, I’m here to say that brainwashing of the American public has been going on since the '50’s; and has increased since the '60’s. (Soviet Communist party had a manifesto of ten points to destroy America - attacking religion one of those ten points.)
Hey, we’re all “brainwashed” by commercials, Academic attitudes, politicians, media cultural opinions, public education and churches. Our only choice, is to pick which brainwashing we’re willing to die for, literally.
Do you even understand what science is about?
If you don’t understand that Science has sold out to political and private funding, then you’re the one who doesn’t know “what science is about.”
Scientists don’t become athiests because they are being manipulated , coerced or any other such theory.
Yes they do, see above. We’re still victimized by the political poison of a dead Soviet Union.
One of the most stringent controls around science and the reason it is SO powerful is that it is immune as a discipline to manipulation through co-ercion.
Urban myth # 1,002.
It is based on evidence…
Ma’am, I respectfully submit, no, it’s based upon interpretation of data.
so not matter what you WANT to believe, if you put truth first then you simply have no choice but to remove your belief.
I have already submitted that the truthful only choice is which brainwashing to accept.
Not all scientists have integrity and science can be used in dreadful way’s. But the discipline itself is not subjected to the same problems that religion is.
How so? Both Science and Religion suffer those who are against each one, because of media blitz brainwashing both sides.
Ironically enough, you have applied all of the issues of religious education and indoctrination into your post, not even realizing that it isn’t science you are describing. It’s a projection of what you’ve already probably experienced.
Look who’s talking, since I repeat that both Science, Religion as well as everything else in America remains victims of poisonous Communist brainwashing, now forwarded by Al Jazir.
No…scientists are not like the religious by default.
Well, imho, Darwinists are very much like the religious by default of the Darwin cult.
They require evidence and take very little pride in “faith” and believing what they want to.
This does not describe my experience with Darwinists and Darwinism, in the 21st Century.
At least this is the case for those that are respected globally amongst all scientific professionals.
There’s also an Al Gore cult, based more on belief than unbiased review of all data. Said cult has international membership, witness the Nobel Peace Prize.
 
Re: Church brainwashing -

Imho, all the Reformation Churches have and are engaged in brainwashing their followers.
 
A scientist could “admit” that he himself lied, but how could a scientist “admit” that other scientists lie?
Because they told him that they lie also in order to secure government grants and to pretend that they’re friendly to the religious believers who support them.

He called it a “dirtly little secret”. It’s been kept quiet by the scientific community.

Once in a while the truth slips out though – as it just did recently with Climategate.
 
Hi Frank,

Well, it’s like this. You have the bad Catholic Church which is supposedly standing in the way of Science. And in the other corner, Science: champion of truth, freedom and evidence.

The supporters of Science come here and say “You must accept the evidence. You have no choice.”

While the Church tells Catholics: Science and Faith are complementary. But, if you believe the Catholic Church is based on nothing then you get upset. You think Science and Faith can never be complementary.

See?

So when I tell people that what I believe regarding science has to be informed by what the Church teaches and has taught… well, some people just can’t accept that. Some people try to turn this forum from being Catholic Answers to Non-Catholic Answers Only.

Thanks for the humor,
Ed
Ed,

I see your point.

It seems as if people use faith and reason to search for truth, and this search for truth becomes more important to them than love and kindness. Knowledge will never be as powerful as Love.

Keep the Faith,
Frank
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top