What would science have to do to disprove Catholicism?

[Samuel1991]

Science would have to finally rationally debunk the paranormal and Catholic exorcisms. They still cannot debunk them using the rational science. I am a Practicing Conservative Christian Catholic person because i believe that the paranormal/supernatural exists.

 

[thinkandmull]

If science made someone from two gay males dna, wouldn’t that contradict what the Church teaches about human nature coming from Adam and Eve? Don’t we all need two parents, one male and one female.

As for intersex people, they are truly female or male. They have aspects of the other sex, but they are not a merged being.

 

[twf]

If science made someone from two gay males dna, wouldn’t that contradict what the Church teaches about human nature coming from Adam and Eve? Don’t we all need two parents, one male and one female.

As for intersex people, they are truly female or male. They have aspects of the other sex, but they are not a merged being.

Just because we can do something doesn’t make it right. Even now we are able to use the freewill God gave us to act against natural law.
The Church teaches that God ordained marriage and wills that men and women procreate by natural means. It doesn’t say that it is impossible to procreate in other manners. God gave us the power of intellect…we can use it to obey His laws or to push at the laws He gave us.

 

[mikekle]

Just because we can do something doesn’t make it right. Even now we are able to use the freewill God gave us to act against natural law.
The Church teaches that God ordained marriage and wills that men and women procreate by natural means. It doesn’t say that it is impossible to procreate in other manners. God gave us the power of intellect…we can use it to obey His laws or to push at the laws He gave us.

But he is not going to allow mankind to become ‘gods’…if we ever found a way to actually create offspring from 2 men/ 2 women, that would be a serious problem for the faith.

We are really living in interesting and scary times, the stuff they are experimenting with and hoping to do is really out there, (and that doesnt even begin to address the stuff they are doing in secret!), If this is where we are in 2017, what will it be like in 100 yrs, 500yrs 1000yrs?

Just looking back 100 yrs ago compared to today is crazy all the stuff we can do, so its very likely the next 100 yrs will offer the same, people will look back to 2017 in the same light that we view the horse and buggy times, things that we think are impossible now will be commonplace then.

 

[twf]

But he is not going to allow mankind to become ‘gods’…if we ever found a way to actually create offspring from 2 men/ 2 women, that would be a serious problem for the faith.

We are really living in interesting and scary times, the stuff they are experimenting with and hoping to do is really out there, (and that doesnt even begin to address the stuff they are doing in secret!), If this is where we are in 2017, what will it be like in 100 yrs, 500yrs 1000yrs?

Just looking back 100 yrs ago compared to today is crazy all the stuff we can do, so its very likely the next 100 yrs will offer the same, people will look back to 2017 in the same light that we view the horse and buggy times, things that we think are impossible now will be commonplace then.

We already are “gods” compared to pre-Agricultural Revolution men 10 000 years ago. So where do you draw the line? We don’t know what God will or will not allow. He’s allowed us to discover genetics (and genetic inheritance was first discovered by a monk to boot). He’s allowed us to discover IVF, which people use successfully to reproduce even though the Church condemns it.

 

[Wesrock]

IMO, if they ever successfully cloned a person without the female body providing the womb, and or were able to create an offspring from multiple parents, even 2 of the same gender, that would make me take notice.

But why? I don’t understand that. I feel like this misunderstands the Church’s moral teaching.

 

[Wesrock]

But he is not going to allow mankind to become ‘gods’…if we ever found a way to actually create offspring from 2 men/ 2 women, that would be a serious problem for the faith.

Why are people setting up these weird barriers? Of course it’s going to be scientifically possible to create persons from more than two parents or people of the same gender, it’s just a matter of scientific advancement.

The first few attempts will no doubt end badly, and people will claim that as proof it’s impossible, but it’s likely people will be getting their custom babies with whoever they want as base-parents in a century. That doesn’t disprove the Church’s point, anymore than allowing legal divorce, allowing contraception, allowing abortion, or allowing same-sex marriage disproves the Chirch’s point.

 

[thinkandmull]

The Church teaches certain things about human nature. I don’t see how there can be someone with several parents or from two gay males without the Church’s teaching being disproven. Suddenly we would have a continuum, where there is no female or male, and no natural law

 

[GEddie]

There couldn’t be a baby without an egg-cell. So at most, you’d have genes from two dads, but there Would be at least an egg donor from the female side.

I still don’t see how these bizarre biological games, however finalized, would disprove the Church. To my knowledge, the Church has never made the gestational process part of the definition of human life.

ICXC NIKA

 

[mikekle]

There couldn’t be a baby without an egg-cell. So at most, you’d have genes from two dads, but there Would be at least an egg donor from the female side.

ICXC NIKA

What if they eventually figured out a way to by pass the egg donor/ female at some point and end up with a living breathing person, create a person from scratch so to speak?

 

[Wesrock]

The Church teaches certain things about human nature. I don’t see how there can be someone with several parents or from two gay males without the Church’s teaching being disproven. Suddenly we would have a continuum, where there is no female or male, and no natural law

Natural law is a moral law, not physical law. Just because people behave immorally doesn’t mean there is no natural law.

 

[Wesrock]

What if they eventually figured out a way to by pass the egg donor/ female at some point and end up with a living breathing person, create a person from scratch so to speak?

The means would be immoral. The resultant person would be a human person who should be afforded the full dignity that a human person is due.

In vitro fertilization is immoral due to natural law arguments. That doesn’t disprove Catholicism or make the resultant children less human.

 

[goout]

I was reading this this morning:

bbc.com/news/health-31069173

I have heard of this before. The babies will technically be from two parents, but have extra material from another person. At least, that is how it appears to me. There are three ways, in my opinion, that science wants to and can (IF they succeed) disprove Christian doctrine;

1. If they make someone

“They” don’t make a human person, God is responsible for the existence of a human person, in partnership with the pro-creative capacity of a man and woman. This question goes to the question “what is a human being and how do we come to exist?”.
All the rest is moot speculation.

who doesn’t clearly have less than 3 parents (cloning I think is explainable)

1. If they make someone who isn’t neither fully male nor fully female

1. If they engineer people to procreate with lower (not higher) species to the point that a fertile rational being results (one human parent, one animal)

These are the only ones I can think of. Can anyone out there think of another one? Does anyone have information on which scientists or groups are anti-Christian and want to do something scientific that destroys the faith? Can we ever trust them on scientific accomplishments?

 

[thinkandmull]

Natural law is a moral law, not physical law. Just because people behave immorally doesn’t mean there is no natural law.

Suppose they uploaded a person’s consciousness to a computer? The Church teaches that the soul is the form a the natural body

 

[goout]

Suppose they uploaded a person’s consciousness to a computer? The Church teaches that the soul is the form a the natural body

Speculation leads to no good. Just sayin.
What is consciousness? Is consciousness the same thing as soul? I don’t think so.

 

[GEddie]

Speculation leads to no good. Just sayin.
What is consciousness? Is consciousness the same thing as soul? I don’t think so.

Of course not, consciousness is a BODY function. Your soul is intact even while you are asleep, anaesthetised or even in a coma.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Rhubarb]

I was reading this this morning:

bbc.com/news/health-31069173

I have heard of this before. The babies will technically be from two parents, but have extra material from another person. At least, that is how it appears to me. There are three ways, in my opinion, that science wants to and can (IF they succeed) disprove Christian doctrine;

1. If they make someone who doesn’t clearly have less than 3 parents (cloning I think is explainable)
2. If they make someone who isn’t neither fully male nor fully female
3. If they engineer people to procreate with lower (not higher) species to the point that a fertile rational being results (one human parent, one animal)

These are the only ones I can think of. Can anyone out there think of another one? Does anyone have information on which scientists or groups are anti-Christian and want to do something scientific that destroys the faith? Can we ever trust them on scientific accomplishments?

Well, I think 1 is already on the table. Recombining DNA for en vitro fertilization using the material of three people. I don’t think this disproves anything. We understand genetics enough to make it happen. If we grant Catholic belief as true, can’t we just say God designed our DNA to be ‘hackable’ like that? He might not like it, but, that’s how it works.

1. That depends on what you mean by ‘not fully male or female’. There are plenty of examples of ambiguously formed people, and people with chromosomes that don’t match the XX/XY paradigm. You’re going to have trouble p(name removed by moderator)ointing exactly what you mean in a way that there hasn’t already been examples of them born naturally in the world.
2. Same as 1. This isn’t inconsistent with a God described by Catholic belief. We were simply created with DNA, and it so happens our science has progressed so far that we can ‘hack’ it to create chimeras.

The underlying problem is that science can’t disprove anything. It can show that a specific result did not arise from a specific experiment. But neither can it prove anything universally. We can add data to a set and make theories. But inductive reasoning doesn’t deal with proofs. It deals with data.

To demonstrate Catholicism is wrong would take something crazy. Like… Finding the literal bones of Christ without a shadow of a doubt, with so much corroborating evidence that it can’t be argued against. Or, like, the heavens opening and Shiva coming down with a booming voice saying “YOU CATHOLICS HAVE IT ALL WRONG! HINDUISM IS TOTALLY THE WAY TO GO!”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Science cannot disprove Catholicism any more than it can disprove God.!

 

[inocente]

Does anyone have information on which scientists or groups are anti-Christian and want to do something scientific that destroys the faith?

Suppose there are one billion Catholics, and that one in a thousand is a scientist. That makes potentially one million Catholic scientists. A lot anyway. So you could always see what they say.

But they would ask what you mean by “do something scientific”. I mean to scientifically disprove something, first you have to turn it into a scientific hypothesis. Which would mean turning Catholicism into a hypothesis which makes a physical, testable prediction. Is it even possible to do that? Should you even try? By starting out down that path, wouldn’t that say science is your ultimate measure of truth, not Catholicism?

 

[Russell_SA]

Suppose there are one billion Catholics, and that one in a thousand is a scientist. That makes potentially one million Catholic scientists. A lot anyway. So you could always see what they say.

But they would ask what you mean by “do something scientific”. I mean to scientifically disprove something, first you have to turn it into a scientific hypothesis. Which would mean turning Catholicism into a hypothesis which makes a physical, testable prediction. Is it even possible to do that? Should you even try? By starting out down that path, wouldn’t that say science is your ultimate measure of truth, not Catholicism?

Wouldn’t they just start with the religious claims that overtly cross over in to the scientific study of reality? Such as how evolution disproves the adam and eve story as being a factual event. So any claim of a religion that crosses over into an attempt to explain the natural world or an event that happened in the natural world could be studied by science. Or is that not the case as you see it?