What can science tell us about truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love?

[tonyrey]

I did say only that it looks like a sneer. But you didn’t answer my question, what is the point of this thread, given that it panders to the stereotype of Catholicism as being anti-science.

For a start Catholicism is not anti-science and has produced great scientists. And Science has revealed the exquisite complexity of nature and of the genetic code in particular which support the view that they are the product of Design rather than fortuitous events.

             *

I’m pleased you used “generally” instead of “always” with reference to religion.

It’s called intellectual honesty. I may doubt that Monica Besra was cured of cancer by a miracle from Mother Theresa as the Church claims, rather than the medical treatment she was receiving, but I cannot prove it.*

You doubt as a matter of principle without even having examined the evidence.

A spate of miracles would wreak havoc on scientific predictions, wouldn’t it?

Not really, it would excite and invigorate the scientific world like nothing else. You don’t really understand the scientific mind, I suspect.

     I suspect you don't really understand the philosophical implications of a spate of miracles. Scientists would be compelled to admit there is a benevolent power responsible for inexplicable cures.

                                                                          [

](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11511380)

​

 

[tonyrey]

Let’s try this again.

I do not think you know what the phrase argumentum ad hominem means. For that to have been argumentum ad hominem, you would have had to have made an argument to be attacked.

Prove I have not “made an argument”.

I suggest that you withdraw this remark you made to another person which is contrary to the forum conduct rules - and apologise:

                                       You can only guess because** OP is a troll**. I suggest that we stop taking his bait.

 

[tonyrey]

In the WHO link you gave, the Sweden figures are for 2010, but France is 2007 and USA 2005. The latest figures are in the Wikipedia table I linked.

You think they have changed dramatically in a few years? Please explain why?

Stop it!

Your uncouth style is unseemly and discourteous - especially for a Christian.

What, let’s conveniently ignore homicide rates? Total suicides + homicides per 100,000 people: USA 17.2, France 15.8, Sweden 12.1.

The subject is suicide.

Sure, but for the truth we need to be more scientific. Deaths by suicide are swamped by other causes: for every suicide there are 85 deaths from other causes each year in Sweden (65 in the US).

Evasion.
People become depressed and commit suicide when they believe there is no point in living, no solution to their problems, no one loves them, no reason why they were born… Science doesn’t solve these personal problems. That is where philosophy and religion come in.

You’ll need to explain why Christians and members of other religions become scientists if they already have a far more reliable source of knowledge.

You are descending to absurdity to evade the issue.

And if it’s a far more reliable source of knowledge why does it differ from one religion to another?

It doesn’t.
They have the same fundamental beliefs and values - described in* The Perennial Philosophy* by Aldous Huxley.

 

[Nacho45]

Just as Catholicism does nothing for the health of a persons body. The point being, there are many aspects to life.

Then my assessment would be accurate. Nothing told about love, goodness, justice , etc. through science.

 

[inocente]

You think they have changed dramatically in a few years? Please explain why?

When data disagrees with preconceptions, the objective must be to explain rather than merely reject. There doesn’t seem to be any drama, it’s just a falling trend in Sweden while in some other nations it is rising.

Your uncouth style is unseemly and discourteous - especially for a Christian.

I apologize if you are really offended, it seemed as if you might be rehearsing for your upcoming role as Lady Bracknell: “I don’t know whether there is anything particularly exciting about the air in this particular part of Hertfordshire, but the number of engagements that go on seem to me to be considerably above the proper average that statistics have laid down for our guidance.”

The subject is suicide.

Isn’t the subject the thread title?

*Evasion.
*People become **depressed and commit suicide when they believe there is no point in living, no solution to their problems, no one loves them, no reason why they were born… Science doesn’t solve these personal problems. That is where philosophy and religion come in.

Get down off your high horse, in no way was it evasion. Your claim was that “Disease often has its origin in a negative attitude to life”. That is false for the vast majority of disease.

As for depression, don’t many suffers have a loving spouse and children? Hasn’t science done far more to successfully treat sufferers? Where’s the evidence that science “doesn’t solve these personal problems” while philosophy does?

You are descending to absurdity to evade the issue.

“Your uncouth style is unseemly and discourteous - especially for a Christian” .

Have another go - why do Christians and members of other religions become scientists if they already have a far more reliable source of knowledge?

It doesn’t.
They have the same fundamental beliefs and values - described in The Perennial Philosophy** by Aldous Huxley.

I have sympathy with the notion that all long term religions (dismissing short lived cults) contain truth, but the obvious question is why don’t religions use such a synthesis to discard unshared beliefs as false, why do they continue to insist that all of their own beliefs and values are the true truths? The reasons would seem to have more to do with anthropology than theology, i.e. they are cultural. In any event it is inconvenient that Islam and Bahá’í can lay greater claim to being transcendental.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Science cannot tell us about truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

Common sense tells us a lot about these things … first and foremost that they exist.

 

[tonyrey]

You think they have changed dramatically in a few years? Please explain why?

A falling trend is insignificant if it is minimal - and its previous position among the top ten still requires explanation. Nor is it the only nation in that category. Sheer coincidence? Or could it be that the poor appreciate what they have more than those who live in comfort?

Your uncouth style is unseemly and discourteous - especially for a Christian.

I apologize if you are really offended, it seemed as if you might be rehearsing for your upcoming role as Lady Bracknell: “I don’t know whether there is anything particularly exciting about the air in this particular part of Hertfordshire, but the number of engagements that go on seem to me to be considerably above the proper average that statistics have laid down for our guidance.”

Your personal comments are irrelevant and do nothing to further the discussion.

The subject is suicide.

Isn’t the subject the thread title?

The thread title is the** topic.** The related** subject **we were discussing is suicide but you have added homicide.

                                                  *

Evasion.
*People become **depressed ***

and commit suicide when they believe there is** no** point in living, no solution to their problems, no one loves them, no reason why they were born… Science doesn’t solve these personal problems. That is where philosophy and religion come in. *

Get down off your high horse…

Unnecessary and discourteous remark.

Your claim was that “Disease often has its origin in a negative attitude to life”. That is false for the vast majority of disease.

Since when is “often” synonymous with “the vast majority”?

As for depression, don’t many suffers have a loving spouse and children? Hasn’t science done far more to successfully treat sufferers? Where’s the evidence that science “doesn’t solve these personal problems” while philosophy does?

I note that you have omitted religion even though I stated:
“That is where philosophy and religion come in”.

You give the impression that science is far more effective at solving personal** problems** than philosophy and religion. Do you really believe drugs do far more to help people than counselling and spiritual guidance?

What do you think** personal **problems are? Malfunctions of the body? To what extent do your religious beliefs and values help you when you are in trouble?

“Your uncouth style is unseemly and discourteous - especially for a Christian”

.

Sticking your tongue out is even more unseemly and discourteous.

Have another go

Yet another unnecessary and discourteous remark.

• why do Christians and members of other religions become scientists if they already have a far more reliable source of knowledge?

There happen to be different sources of knowledge, some of which are far more valuable when you are faced with unemployment, poverty, bereavement, incurable disease and other tragedies. Pill-popping is an inadequate solution on those occasions.

They have the same fundamental beliefs and values - described in* The Perennial Philosophy*

• by Aldous Huxley.
  I have sympathy with the notion that all long term religions (dismissing short lived cults) contain truth, but the obvious question is why don’t religions use such a synthesis to discard unshared beliefs as false, why do they continue to insist that all of their own beliefs and values are the true truths? The reasons would seem to have more to do with anthropology than theology, i.e. they are cultural. In any event it is inconvenient that Islam and Bahá’í can lay greater claim to being transcendental.

There are ecumenical movements based on their religions’ common fundamental beliefs and values regardless of cultural factors. That is why their differences do not make them a less reliable source of knowledge as you implied. Moreover their knowledge is of spiritual truths which are beyond the scope of science.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I have sympathy with the notion that all long term religions (dismissing short lived cults) contain truth, but the obvious question is why don’t religions use such a synthesis to discard unshared beliefs as false, why do they continue to insist that all of their own beliefs and values are the true truths?
.

The above thought comes from inocente and is quoted by tonyrey.

Well, this is a curious thought. Suppose all the scientists in the world said, “Let’s get ride of the thoughts on which we disagree.” Would that thought seem logical to you, inocente?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Prove I have not “made an argument”.

Sure. Here’s your original post:

???

That which is completely devoid of content cannot constitute an argument.

I suggest that you withdraw this remark you made to another person which is contrary to the forum conduct rules - and apologise:

I decline, sir. You owe us an apology.

 

[Phil_Marinus]

I think this Thread will go on forever…just like the thread…

Could the universe have created itself…
Yawn.......

 

[inocente]

Your personal comments are irrelevant and do nothing to further the discussion.

The thread title is the** topic.** The related** subject **we were discussing is suicide but you have added homicide.

Unnecessary and discourteous remark.

Sticking your tongue out is even more unseemly and discourteous.
Yet another unnecessary and discourteous remark.

Since when is “often” synonymous with “the vast majority”?

Unnecessary and discourteous use of sarcasm.

You keep requiring me to follow rules which you then don’t follow yourself. Please come down off your high horse and talk to me as an equal, it’s impossible to have a conversation when you keep acting so superior. It’s unnecessary and discourteous Tony. Now with that put aside and hopefully never to be mentioned again…

 

[inocente]

A falling trend is insignificant if it is minimal - and its previous position among the top ten still requires explanation. Nor is it the only nation in that category. Sheer coincidence? Or could it be that the poor appreciate what they have more than those who live in comfort?

I think it’s difficult to draw any simple conclusions from the league table due to the large variety of potential correlates. For instance, the high rate in Japan is partly due to factors which don’t apply elsewhere. In addition, suicide may be under-reported in poorer countries (poor record keeping) or where it carries high social stigma (it may be reported it as something else to protect the family).

Since when is “often” synonymous with “the vast majority”?

Your claim that “Disease often has its origin in a negative attitude to life” is a fallacy of composition, since it claims that what may be true for a small number of diseases is true for all diseases.

*I note that you have omitted religion even though I stated:
“That is where philosophy and religion come in”.

You give the impression that science is far more effective at solving personal** problems*** than philosophy and religion. Do you really believe drugs do far more to help people than counselling and spiritual guidance?

What do you think** personal **problems are? Malfunctions of the body? To what extent do your religious beliefs and values help you when you are in trouble?

You’re trying to answer a question with a question. I asked: As for depression, don’t many suffers have a loving spouse and children? Hasn’t science done far more to successfully treat sufferers? Where’s the evidence that science “doesn’t solve these personal problems” while philosophy does?

*There happen to be different sources of knowledge, some of which are far more valuable when you are faced with unemployment, poverty, bereavement, incurable disease and other tragedies. Pill-popping is an inadequate solution on those occasions. *

Not sure that answers my question. Some religious people become scientists after a personal tragedy to help find a cure to stop it happening to others. Science can prevent or mitigate tragedies while you appear to be saying philosophy and religion are merely possible sources of comfort following a tragedy which they were powerless to prevent.

There are ecumenical movements based on their religions’ common fundamental beliefs and values regardless of cultural factors. That is why their differences do not make them a less reliable source of knowledge as you implied. Moreover their knowledge is of spiritual truths which are beyond the scope of science.

My question was why don’t religions use a synthesis to discard unshared beliefs as false, why do they continue to insist that all of their own beliefs and values are the true truths?

Ecumenical movements are an attempt to find common ground in order to avoiding making any changes to the religions. People carry on following their religion, they don’t replace it with a belief in an ecumenical movement. For this reason it can be argued that all religions are culturally bound (most people take to the religion they are born into, and so on).

Also, while not suggesting that science is the only source of knowledge, I don’t understand why spiritual truths should necessarily be beyond the scope of science.

 

[inocente]

The above thought comes from inocente and is quoted by tonyrey.

Well, this is a curious thought. Suppose all the scientists in the world said, “Let’s get ride of the thoughts on which we disagree.” Would that thought seem logical to you, inocente?

You used to be II and now you are III. I didn’t know that Catholics get reincarnated.

Since science is about using empirical evidence as a mediator to arrive at truth, then yes you could say it’s about getting rid of the thoughts on which we disagree. While philosophers work alone and disagree on everything, scientists cooperate in teams and try to agree on everything.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Since science is about using empirical evidence as a mediator to arrive at truth, then yes you could say it’s about getting rid of the thoughts on which we disagree. While philosophers work alone and disagree on everything, scientists cooperate in teams and try to agree on everything.

This is patently untrue.

Many philosophers agree and disagree about many things.

Many scientists agree and disagree about many things.

Many theologians agree and disagree about many things?

Where do you get this notion that scientists try to agree on everything.

Reading this article should disabuse you of that notion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics

 

[inocente]

This is patently untrue.

Many philosophers agree and disagree about many things.

Many scientists agree and disagree about many things.

Many theologians agree and disagree about many things?

Where do you get this notion that scientists try to agree on everything.

Reading this article should disabuse you of that notion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics

This is patently untrue when, rather than looking only at work in progress, where it would be unreasonable to expect agreement in any discipline, we look instead at the body of knowledge produced by a discipline.

Any schoolbook of physics contains laws discovered by physicists on which all physicists agree. This must be the case since evidence is the arbiter.

There is no equivalent schoolbook of arguments produced by philosophers on which all philosophers agree, nor will there ever be. This must be the case since there is no objective arbiter.

Philosophy has never produced a body of knowledge on which all philosophers agree.

Here’s a survey which asked over 3000 professional philosophers questions about basic foundations of philosophy, and not once do they agree even remotely on anything:

philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl (for demographics etc. see philpapers.org/surveys/)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

(for demographics etc. see philpapers.org/surveys/)

Nor has science

Science textbooks routinely discuss problems in biology and physics, for example, where there is wide disparity of opposing views. This has been the history of science. Take abiogenesis, for example. No scientific theory of evolution can be applied to the origin of life, since the first living being had nothing to evolve from. This does not stop biologists some biologist from asserting the fortutitous appearance of life. and other arguing the intelligent design of life. One camp is dominated by atheists, the other one by theists. So you see, even science cannot escape the influence of philosophy.

When you talk about things that all scientists agree upon you are only talking about conventions that are regarded as true today, but very possibly false tomorrow. Facts today but fictions in a hundred years. No scientist worthy of the name believes he is infallibly correct, or that even a council of physicists are infallibly correct, never mind a high school textbook.

 

[tonyrey]

Nor has science

Science textbooks routinely discuss problems in biology and physics, for example, where there is wide disparity of opposing views. This has been the history of science. Take abiogenesis, for example. No scientific theory of evolution can be applied to the origin of life, since the first living being had nothing to evolve from. This does not stop biologists some biologist from asserting the fortutitous appearance of life. and other arguing the intelligent design of life. One camp is dominated by atheists, the other one by theists. So you see, even science cannot escape the influence of philosophy.

When you talk about things that all scientists agree upon you are only talking about conventions that are regarded as true today, but very possibly false tomorrow. Facts today but fictions in a hundred years. No scientist worthy of the name believes he is infallibly correct, or that even a council of physicists are infallibly correct, never mind a high school textbook.

Scientists worthy of the name believe scientifc theories are provisional.

 

[tonyrey]

You used to be II and now you are III. I didn’t know that Catholics get reincarnated.

Since science is about using empirical evidence as a mediator to arrive at truth, then yes you could say it’s about getting rid of the thoughts on which we disagree. While philosophers work alone and disagree on everything, scientists cooperate in teams and try to agree on everything.

You are obviously unaware of the intense competition, rivalry and even dishonesty in the scientific community.

 

[tonyrey]

I think it’s difficult to draw any simple conclusions from the league table due to the large variety of potential correlates. For instance, the high rate in Japan is partly due to factors which don’t apply elsewhere. In addition, suicide may be under-reported in poorer countries (poor record keeping) or where it carries high social stigma (it may be reported it as something else to protect the family).

Your claim that “Disease often has its origin in a negative attitude to life” is a fallacy of composition, since it claims that what may be true for a small number of diseases is true for all diseases.

You’re trying to answer a question with a question. I asked: As for depression, don’t many suffers have a loving spouse and children? Hasn’t science done far more to successfully treat sufferers? Where’s the evidence that science “doesn’t solve these personal problems” while philosophy does?

Not sure that answers my question. Some religious people become scientists after a personal tragedy to help find a cure to stop it happening to others. Science can prevent or mitigate tragedies while you appear to be saying philosophy and religion are merely possible sources of comfort following a tragedy which they were powerless to prevent.

My question was why don’t religions use a synthesis to discard unshared beliefs as false, why do they continue to insist that all of their own beliefs and values are the true truths?

Ecumenical movements are an attempt to find common ground in order to avoiding making any changes to the religions. People carry on following their religion, they don’t replace it with a belief in an ecumenical movement. For this reason it can be argued that all religions are culturally bound (most people take to the religion they are born into, and so on).

Also, while not suggesting that science is the only source of knowledge, I don’t understand why spiritual truths should necessarily be beyond the scope of science.

The essence of your assertions is that science is far more valuable, informative, verifiable, meaningful, fruitful and fulfilling than spiritual truths, a view which is difficult if not impossible to reconcile with Christianity.

What precisely does science tell us about the teaching of Jesus?

 

[aragonjohn1]

The essence of your assertions is that science is far more valuable, informative, verifiable, meaningful, fruitful and fulfilling than spiritual truths, a view which is difficult if not impossible to reconcile with Christianity.

What precisely does science tell us about the teaching of Jesus?

not much about what science can not know like love, truth, hope, grace, virtues, etc…

God bless