Using science to prove faith?

[paperclip21]

Hi peoples,

I’m feeling a little confused about this. How can we try to prove our faith with science (e.g. no premarital sex because the oxytocin released causes a bond for long-term commitment) yet science can’t disprove it? I can’t think of an example right now but I’m sure you’d be aware of at least one This doesn’t seem logical to me…Someone please put me straight!

God bless!

 

[grannymh]

Hi peoples,

I’m feeling a little confused about this. How can we try to prove our faith with science (e.g. no premarital sex because the oxytocin released causes a bond for long-term commitment) yet science can’t disprove it? I can’t think of an example right now but I’m sure you’d be aware of at least one This doesn’t seem logical to me…Someone please put me straight!

God bless!

Catholic teachings come from Divine Revelation. God does not need anyone to prove that He is right.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Hi peoples,

I’m feeling a little confused about this. How can we try to prove our faith with science (e.g. no premarital sex because the oxytocin released causes a bond for long-term commitment) yet science can’t disprove it? I can’t think of an example right now but I’m sure you’d be aware of at least one This doesn’t seem logical to me…Someone please put me straight!

God bless!

Science is insufficient to prove faith or God. It is limited.

 

[seanflynn]

Statements about oxytocin and other modern scientific discoveries that support the teaching of the faith do just that. They support it, they don’t prove it. We hold that everything revealed by God is True, and occasionally we find sources other than revelation that help us understand the how’s and why’s of God’s Truth.

Science can’t disprove God because science is a study of the universe, or nature, or whatever you want to call it. God made the universe/nature but is not a part of it. Recently, Stephen Hawking made waves by saying we didn’t need God to create the universe and all matter because gravity, left to its own devices, accomplishes this. Oh no! Science just disproved religion! Wait . . . where’d gravity come from? It is perfectly acceptable to believe that God created the natural world by the processes that scientists have since discovered. If someone discovers the cause of gravity, we could just as easily say, "ok, God made that so there would be gravity so there would be matter so there would be . . . "

You can explain it like that when “science isn’t allowed to disprove faith” seems incomplete and unfair. We can’t let science “prove” our faith either. What if ten years from now, new research shows that what we thought about oxytocin was wrong? We don’t lose faith in God (or even the sixth commandment) because scientific opinion is in flux.

 

[edwest2]

That will be the ongoing problem, both here and in the outside world. Stephen Hawking can say whatever he likes about God but he is 100% wrong to include a personal belief or philosophical opinion in a scientific book or make such a public statement. When any scientist appears on TV and states God did not do this or that based on his reading of science, he is making a personal belief statement, not a scientific statement. This is a grave problem since scientists should know better, instead they allow people who respect their authority to believe what they say without qualification.

So no, science is incapable of proving faith. It deals primarily with the material, although it occasionally invents things like Dark Matter.

Peace,
Ed

 

[PeterK]

paperclip,
You need to check out an audio series available in the EWTN audio library called ‘Finding God through Faith and Reason’ by Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D. He’s the president of Gonzaga University and a very humble and devout priest who’s deep faith comes through in his presentations. I think you would appreciate the depth of scientific and rational inquiry encountered in the presentations. He also has a book by the same title. I’m a about half way through the audio series.
My son listened to him speak at a college and it rekindled his faith a bit.
Here is the link to the first of 14 episodes in the series which are about 25 minutes each.
link

Hope you like,
PeterK

 

[PAboy57]

the universe has so many wonders that we haven’t even begun to think of all the questions to ask.

our little planet is so complex and we are just scratching the surface of understanding it and the human body.

I don’t understand how anyone can imagine that all of this just happened by chance or a big bang. God is the Creator and we go through the process of finding the truth in our life. Some find it and many don’t.

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate what we have learned but I believe God has allowed us to grow in knowledge. It is up to us to use it properly.

 

[grannymh]

paperclip,
You need to check out an audio series available in the EWTN audio library called ‘Finding God through Faith and Reason’ by Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D. He’s the president of Gonzaga University and a very humble and devout priest who’s deep faith comes through in his presentations. I think you would appreciate the depth of scientific and rational inquiry encountered in the presentations. He also has a book by the same title. I’m a about half way through the audio series.
My son listened to him speak at a college and it rekindled his faith a bit.
Here is the link to the first of 14 episodes in the series which are about 25 minutes each.
link

Hope you like,
PeterK

I am also a fan of Father Spitzer. He has moved on and has another book out.

magisreasonfaith.org/

 

[Irish_Polock]

Hi peoples,

I’m feeling a little confused about this. How can we try to prove our faith with science (e.g. no premarital sex because the oxytocin released causes a bond for long-term commitment) yet science can’t disprove it? I can’t think of an example right now but I’m sure you’d be aware of at least one This doesn’t seem logical to me…Someone please put me straight!

God bless!

It’s very simple imo. Matter cannot create itself, because matter is finite. Nothing finite could ever create itself. Therefore, simple logic demands that only something infinite has no beginning and is not subject to being created.

St Thomas Aquinas wrote in his Summa, that if we think of God as kind of a clanking material object responsible for the creation of the universe, you immediately encounter the question: Well, who created the clanking material object? And Aquinas says you can go on forever that way, and that’s not satisfying. What conclusion does Aquinas draw? Don’t think of God that way, as a clanking material object. Think of him as a necessarily existing being, not a contingent being.

I hope this has helped in some way.
God be with you.

 

[_Locke]

Hi peoples,

I’m feeling a little confused about this. How can we try to prove our faith with science (e.g. no premarital sex because the oxytocin released causes a bond for long-term commitment) yet science can’t disprove it? I can’t think of an example right now but I’m sure you’d be aware of at least one This doesn’t seem logical to me…Someone please put me straight!

God bless!

The problem is, the people here want it both ways. They want the “language and credibility of science, but without being bound by its method and rules.” (Carl Sagan)

Big bang starting the universe? Complexity of DNA? These show the mark of a creator!

Evolution? Virtual particles? Contemporary cosmology? Arrogant scientists, overstepping their fields!

“Do yourself and your faith the honor of calling it faith, don’t call it science, you won’t get away with it.” (Christopher Hitchens quote)

I consider the modern teleological argument for God the most persuasive, and even this won’t get you to a personal God, and most definitely not the God of Christianity, and certainly not to Christian theology. These leaps takes faith.

 

[AntiTheist]

Science can’t disprove God because science is a study of the universe, or nature, or whatever you want to call it. God made the universe/nature but is not a part of it. Recently, Stephen Hawking made waves by saying we didn’t need God to create the universe and all matter because gravity, left to its own devices, accomplishes this. Oh no! Science just disproved religion! Wait . . . where’d gravity come from? It is perfectly acceptable to believe that God created the natural world by the processes that scientists have since discovered. If someone discovers the cause of gravity, we could just as easily say, "ok, God made that so there would be gravity so there would be matter so there would be . . . "

Indeed. This is called “The God of the Gaps” – “God” is just plugged into any gaps we have in our knowledge. If we can’t explain something, people tend to say “God did it!” rather than simply say “we don’t know yet” and leave it at that. As soon as those gaps are filled, god is pushed back further into other, smaller gaps we have in our knowledge.

Ancient peoples believed in gods who literally hurled lightning bolts – these gods filled in the gaps in our knowledge. As we learned more – for example, what causes lightning – those gods got pushed back. Then the gods just created weather patterns. Of course, we’ve discovered that weather patterns follow regular, natural cycles and don’t need any supernatural guidance, so back again the gods go…

And so on and so forth. At the point we’re at now, where we can broadly explain the workings of the universe by Newtonian physics, “god” has become this wispy invisible spirit who set off the first spark. This is a very far cry from a god who drops manna from heaven and manifests in front of people and sends swarms of locusts after people and makes burning bushes appear etc.

We’ve gone from a lightning-thrower to a wispy ghost who hides on the other side of existence and acts in ways that can’t be detected at all.

As humans learn more, there’s simply less and less for the divine to do. As the gaps in our knowledge get smaller, the gods we’ve invented become weaker until eventually they’ll be completely indistinguishable from nothing at all.

 

[tonyrey]

The success of science demonstrates that the power of reason is infinitely more creative and valuable than blind processes. It is absurd to have faith in the magical power of purposeless particles to produce the exquisite beauty of the universe and rational beings with the capacity for insight into the immense value of existence and the supreme significance of love…

 

[Anselm33]

Hi peoples,

I’m feeling a little confused about this. How can we try to prove our faith with science (e.g. no premarital sex because the oxytocin released causes a bond for long-term commitment) yet science can’t disprove it? I can’t think of an example right now but I’m sure you’d be aware of at least one This doesn’t seem logical to me…Someone please put me straight!

God bless!

it’s a good question, and the answer is straightforward. Science consists of basic theories with subsidiary theories, almost always framed as mathematical relations; these theories are confirmed (or denied) by repeated measurements/experiments; i.e. science is quantitated, confirmed by numerical data. Accordingly science as science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, any more than science can tell us that the Bach B-minor Mass is better (or worse) than some piece of rap music, or deal with any other subjective (non-objective) judgment.

However, science is consistent with (not proves) a universe designed and created by a benevolent intelligence. (As Psalm 19A says, “The heavens declare the glory of God.” To go beyond that we have to go to revelation and faith.

anselm

 

[edwest2]

Indeed. This is called “The God of the Gaps” – “God” is just plugged into any gaps we have in our knowledge. If we can’t explain something, people tend to say “God did it!” rather than simply say “we don’t know yet” and leave it at that. As soon as those gaps are filled, god is pushed back further into other, smaller gaps we have in our knowledge.

Ancient peoples believed in gods who literally hurled lightning bolts – these gods filled in the gaps in our knowledge. As we learned more – for example, what causes lightning – those gods got pushed back. Then the gods just created weather patterns. Of course, we’ve discovered that weather patterns follow regular, natural cycles and don’t need any supernatural guidance, so back again the gods go…

And so on and so forth. At the point we’re at now, where we can broadly explain the workings of the universe by Newtonian physics, “god” has become this wispy invisible spirit who set off the first spark. This is a very far cry from a god who drops manna from heaven and manifests in front of people and sends swarms of locusts after people and makes burning bushes appear etc.

We’ve gone from a lightning-thrower to a wispy ghost who hides on the other side of existence and acts in ways that can’t be detected at all.

As humans learn more, there’s simply less and less for the divine to do. As the gaps in our knowledge get smaller, the gods we’ve invented become weaker until eventually they’ll be completely indistinguishable from nothing at all.

Sad. This is entirely untrue. God has sent Mary in history with messages. We even have an artifact:

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1851797/posts

Pope Benedict recently elevated a man to sainthood. Two miracles are required.

As the mind of man continues to be worshipped by some, the power of the Holy Spirit of God will not diminish at all.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist

*As humans learn more, there’s simply less and less for the divine to do. As the gaps in our knowledge get smaller, the gods we’ve invented become weaker until eventually they’ll be completely indistinguishable from nothing at all. *

Whoa there, big fellow!

You know this is a *non sequitur *of the first magnitude. God does not get pushed back with each scientific discovery. On the contrary, God gets pulled forward. The Big Bang begs for an explanation that science cannot provide, but philosophy and theology can (“Let there be light.”) Evolution (and especially abiogenesis) by blind chance likewise leaves doubts about its credibility without an intelligent design behind the universe.

Why else would world famous atheist Antony Flew, after reviewing all the latest scientific data, change his mind and decide that, if anything, science is more consistent with the idea of God than opposed to it?

 

[4Horsemen]

As a liturgical song goes, “There is a longing in our hearts . . .”

Science is a tool and its pursuit exists that we may strive to discover the power that is greater than ourselves. The longing to know is implanted in our hearts, so to speak. We are more than body parts strung together from our DNA. In our yearning, the mystical reveals itself through creation and, also, through our own humble creation in its purest form, that we call art. Perhaps science in its most symbolic form (the design of mathematical equations) could be called art. The intellectual pursuit of science beckons our minds, our power of reasoning, to seek answers to the questions of the spirit.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Perhaps science in its most symbolic form (the design of mathematical equations) could be called art.

Indeed, many mathematicians have been flabbergasted by the beauty of mathematics.

As no less a mathematician than Bertrand Russell said:

Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty — a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as poetry.

 

[4Horsemen]

Perhaps science in its most symbolic form (the design of mathematical equations) could be called art.

Indeed, many mathematicians have been flabbergasted by the beauty of mathematics.

As no less a mathematician than Bertrand Russell said:

Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty — a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as poetry.

Ah! A very good quote! I think that Bertrand Russell was a proponent of freethought. Freethinkers hold there is “insufficient evidence” to support religious thought or supernatural phenomena (like some anti-theists on this forum). Strange that Russell noted “the sense of being more than Man.” That should suggest something immortal like the soul. Freethinkers say they are only resorting to logic and reason and scientific inquiry. Maybe they should take a lesson from the Pope’s Fides et Ratio.

 

[JDaniel]

Perhaps science in its most symbolic form (the design of mathematical equations) could be called art.

Indeed, many mathematicians have been flabbergasted by the beauty of mathematics.

As no less a mathematician than Bertrand Russell said:

Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty — a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as poetry.

Poor, poor Bertrand Russell. :tissues:

God bless,
jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ah! A very good quote! I think that Bertrand Russell was a proponent of freethought. Freethinkers hold there is “insufficient evidence” to support religious thought or supernatural phenomena (like some anti-theists on this forum). Strange that Russell noted “the sense of being more than Man.”

Bertrand Russell’s fatal flaw was that he saw only the defects of men who called themselves Christian. Like Dawkins and Hitchens, he turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to anything beautiful in Christianity. But though he declared himself an agnostic about religion, I’ve never found anywhere that he said he was an atheist, and on at least on one occasion (the radio debate with F.C. Copelston) he denied that he was an atheist. This leads me to hope that maybe near the end, like Jean Paul Sartre and Antony Flew, he had second thoughts and in the privacy of his soul came to embrace God in some mysterious way that we can hardly fathom.