What would science have to do to disprove Catholicism?

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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?

Evolution does not disprove monogenism.

 

[brian_custer]

It would be necessary to disprove the Resurrection of Christ; good luck!

ICXC NIKA

agreed

even if “aliens” were to be proven to exist who’ve never heard of catholicism

that would not prove that the Catholic faith is not the way, the truth & the life…

maybe catholic missionaries need to land on alien planets ( assuming intelligent life even exists there) and evangelize

 

[inocente]

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?

I’m not a Catholic but think that can’t be a problem as Pope JPII recognized evolution 20 years ago. Here’s his speech and the Church’s position.

newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/evolution-and-the-magisterium

 

[PRmerger]

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?

Produce the bones of Jesus, proving he did not rise from the dead but rather remained dead and buried for 2000 years.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

To actually address the question:

1. Find significant evidence that a church teaching about the way the world works is factually incorrect -](e.g. that the earth is not the center of the universe.)/-] The teaching about the way the natural world works was never an infallible teaching of the church!
2. -]Find significant evidence that the old testament stories are fabricated etc/-] We’re not required to believe the old testament is literal!
3. -]Find significant evidence that a “confirmed” miracle is false/-] Miracle confirmations are not infallible, nor do they “get at the heart” of Catholic teaching!
4. Find significant evidence that the Gospels are fabricated, inaccurate, or otherwise embellished.

It seems to me that in order for science (which is in the business of falsifying propositions about the natural world) to falsify some core claim of Catholicism, it would necessarily need to be a Catholic claim about the natural world. Furthermore, claims about the old testament are out (because it’s figurative) and the church has wised up about basing natural-world claims on religion since they got over their initial aversion to evolution (although some bishops have stepped awfully close to this line when pontificating about the social implications of gay marriage.) Taken together, it seems to me that the only remaining falsifiable natural-world claims made by the Catholic church lie in the gospels (i.e. that the events they describe actually happened.)

Now this can be read two ways. A Catholic might say “in 2000 years, no one has been able to unseat this cornerstone of our faith!” A skeptic might say “you’re standing on a single stilt that’s awfully thin, and 2000 years tall.”

The only other natural-world claim I can think of is the existence of a soul. But I suspect that even if a natural basis for things like intellect and emotions was discovered, the cry would go out:

The church never issued a formal doctrine on exactly which functions the soul is responsible for. Even though all mental processes are now explained via natural phenomena, the soul still exists!

 

[PRmerger]

To actually address the question:

1. Find significant evidence that a church teaching about the way the world works is factually incorrect -](e.g. that the earth is not the center of the universe.)/-] The teaching about the way the natural world works was never an infallible teaching of the church!

Yep. This is correct. Not only that, it wasn’t even a teaching of the Church, fallible or infallible.

If one is going to object to Catholicism one needs to actually object to Catholicism, not someone’s view of Catholicism.

Likewise, someone could say: Catholicism one taught that abortion is wrong, but now Catholicism teaches that it’s fine because “I heard Fr. McBrien teach that it is!”

But I think anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Catholicism would know that Catholicism does NOT teach that abortion is morally licit. Despite what one or a dozen Catholics profess.

 

[PRmerger]

1. -]Find significant evidence that the old testament stories are fabricated etc/-] We’re not required to believe the old testament is literal!

Yes, this is correct.

Even St. Augustine, way back in the 4th century, understood and professed this.

Perhaps if you were on a fundamentalist Bible Alone forum the above would be trenchant, but here it’s an otiose statement.

 

[PRmerger]

1. -]Find significant evidence that a “confirmed” miracle is false/-] Miracle confirmations are not infallible, nor do they “get at the heart” of Catholic teaching!

Well, if One Miracle was proven false, that would indeed be the demise of Catholicism, but modern day “confirmed” miracles being proven false, so what?

 

[PRmerger]

1. Find significant evidence that the Gospels are fabricated, inaccurate, or otherwise embellished.

Not sure about this one. Inaccuracy, like a mustard seed not actually being the “smallest of all the seeds” wouldn’t disprove Catholicism.

We’d need something a bit more meaty.

It seems to me that in order for science (which is in the business of falsifying propositions about the natural world) to falsify some** core** claim of Catholicism, it would necessarily need to be a Catholic claim about the natural world.

I like how you insert the adjective I have bolded.

Because the examples you gave originally are definitely not examples of some “core claim” of Catholicism.

Furthermore, claims about the old testament are out (because it’s figurative)

Wait a minute…just so we’re clear: the OT is not figurative ONLY.

Here’s that weird fundamentalism that atheists so often share with the Bible Alone folks.

I don’t understand why atheists and fundamentalists always insert ONLYs were none are required.

There’s no need to have
-the Bible ONLY
-Science ONLY
-the King James Version ONLY
-the Mass should be in Latin ONLY

Catholicism typically has a both/and approach, which is what makes it so formidable to refute.

and the church has wised up about basing natural-world claims on religion since they got over their initial aversion to evolution

This is absolutely an uneducated assertion.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Yep. This is correct. Not only that, it wasn’t even a teaching of the Church, fallible or infallible.

If one is going to object to Catholicism one needs to actually object to Catholicism, not someone’s view of Catholicism.

Likewise, someone could say: Catholicism one taught that abortion is wrong, but now Catholicism teaches that it’s fine because “I heard Fr. McBrien teach that it is!”

But I think anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Catholicism would know that Catholicism does NOT teach that abortion is morally licit. Despite what one or a dozen Catholics profess.

People got excommunicated for contradicting church teachings on how the world worked (e.g. Dr. Gregorio Chil y Naranjo, in 1878, for scientific work supporting Darwinian evolution.) Now, its fine to say what you have said, but the end result is that even things that look an awfully lot like official church teachings (and get people excommunicated today) may not turn out to be quite so official 100 years from now, when times have changed.

 

[PRmerger]

People got excommunicated for contradicting church teachings on how the world worked (e.g. Dr. Gregorio Chil y Naranjo, in 1878, for scientific work supporting Darwinian evolution.) Now, its fine to say what you have said, but the end result is that even things that look an awfully lot like official church teachings (and get people excommunicated today) may not turn out to be quite so official 100 years from now, when times have changed.

You’ll have to offer something a bit more substantive here, JK, than “it looks an awful lot like the church taught that evolution was wrong”.

I could take your words here and say, “It looks an awful lot like JK thinks autism is caused by the MMR vaccination”…but that wouldn’t be close to true would it?

 

[PRmerger]

People got excommunicated for contradicting church teachings on how the world worked (e.g. Dr. Gregorio Chil y Naranjo, in 1878, for scientific work supporting Darwinian evolution.)

Regarding this alleged excommunication–I’d like to have 4 independent journalistic accounts of this alleged excommunication, written within 30 years of this incident.

Also, if there were something written by Dr. Naranjo that documents this excommunication and why it occurred that would be helpful.

And no inaccuracies, please, with anything that any of these 4 independent journalists have written.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You’ll have to offer something a bit more substantive here, JK, than “it looks an awful lot like the church taught that evolution was wrong”.

I could take your words here and say, “It looks an awful lot like JK thinks autism is caused by the MMR vaccination”…but that wouldn’t be close to true would it?

This response is so eager to be prickly that it misses the thread-relevant point, which you have seemed to agree with. That is: the only anchor Catholicism has to the world-as-known-by-science is the new testament accounts. Believers are capable of incorporating every other discovery into their belief system, as you have so clearly demonstrated.

There’s no need to have
-the Bible ONLY
-Science ONLY
-the King James Version ONLY
-the Mass should be in Latin ONLY

Catholicism typically has a both/and approach, which is what makes it so formidable to refute.

I agree, but not for the reasons you have in mind. Specifically, the issue is that the sentiment “we combine parts of the bible/science/traditions/etc so we are very stronk!” creates intellectual wiggle room. In practice what this looks like is:

1a. Someone points out that some key part of the old testament is factually inaccurate, and so doesn’t serve as a reliable basis for religious belief X.
2a. Believer points out that Catholicism has other reasons for religious belief X, such as a very specific and sympathetic interpretation of the new testament/science/etc.

1b. Someone else points out that more realistic readings of the new testament don’t serve as a reasonable basis for religious belief X.
2b. Believer points out that Catholicism has other reasons for religious belief X, such as the old testament/science/etc.

1c. Someone else points out that more informed understandings of the current state of scientific understanding don’t give you a reasonable basis for religious belief X.
2c. Believer points out that Catholicism has other reasons for religious belief X, such as the old and new testaments/traditions/etc.

and so on

Now religious belief X was the same in each example above, but believers are able to come out of each one of those discussions confident that their beliefs are sound, despite the fact that taken together, 1a, 1b, and 1c have undermined all their defenses. So it is in this sense that I agree with you: the claim of being supported by portions of multiple sources is a powerful psychological defense, if not a powerful philosophical defense.

 

[goout]

This response is so eager to be prickly that it misses the thread-relevant point, which you have seemed to agree with. That is: the only anchor Catholicism has to the world-as-known-by-science is the new testament accounts. Believers are capable of incorporating every other discovery into their belief system, as you have so clearly demonstrated.I agree, but not for the reasons you have in mind. Specifically, the issue is that the sentiment “we combine parts of the bible/science/traditions/etc so we are very stronk!” creates intellectual wiggle room. In practice what this looks like is:

1a. Someone points out that some key part of the old testament is factually inaccurate, and so doesn’t serve as a reliable basis for religious belief X.
2a. Believer points out that Catholicism has other reasons for religious belief X, such as a very specific and sympathetic interpretation of the new testament/science/etc.

1b. Someone else points out that more realistic readings of the new testament don’t serve as a reasonable basis for religious belief X.
2b. Believer points out that Catholicism has other reasons for religious belief X, such as the old testament/science/etc.

1c. Someone else points out that more informed understandings of the current state of scientific understanding don’t give you a reasonable basis for religious belief X.
2c. Believer points out that Catholicism has other reasons for religious belief X, such as the old and new testaments/traditions/etc.

and so on

Now religious belief X was the same in each example above, but believers are able to come out of each one of those discussions confident that their beliefs are sound, despite the fact that taken together, 1a, 1b, and 1c have undermined all their defenses. So it is in this sense that I agree with you: the claim of being supported by portions of multiple sources is a powerful psychological defense, if not a powerful philosophical defense.

Everybody does this, even atheists.

 

[PRmerger]

This response is so eager to be prickly that it misses the thread-relevant point, which you have seemed to agree with.

And this response is so eager to be supercilious that it misses the thread relevant point, which you seemed to agree with.

That is: no one has been able to disprove Catholicism in over 2000 years

That is: the only anchor Catholicism has to the world-as-known-by-science is the new testament accounts.

Ridiculous.

Every sane secular historian believes that a man named Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago. And they know this not simply by the NT accounts.

Believers are capable of incorporating every other discovery into their belief system, as you have so clearly demonstrated.

I don’t understand what you mean here.

I agree, but not for the reasons you have in mind. Specifically, the issue is that the sentiment “we combine parts of the bible/science/traditions/etc so we are very stronk!” creates intellectual wiggle room.

Just a wee correction: Catholicism take ALL of the Bible, ALL science, ALL knowledge we can attain, so we are very strong.

And I am bemused why an atheist would find this objectionable?

Don’t you do the same thing: “we combine history, psychology, sociology, geometry, so we are very strong!”

As for me and my house, well, I applaud all of us who use everything we have been given to come to a better understanding of the world.

 

[PRmerger]

1a. Someone points out that some key part of the old testament is factually inaccurate, and so doesn’t serve as a reliable basis for religious belief X.

Sometimes I wonder how people can come here to the Catholic Answers Forums and forget that they are talking to…Catholics.

Did you forget this, JK, and think that you are in dialogue with a fundamentalist Bible Alone advocate?

Catholicism does not use the Bible to “serve as a reliable basis” for our religious beliefs.

This is not our paradigm: The Bible says X, therefore we get our religious belief X.

Rather, we have our religious belief X, and the Bible supports our religious belief X, or at least doesn’t contradict religious belief X.

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

Our beliefs do not come from the Bible, (OT or NT). Rather, they come from Christ, through His Body, the Catholic Church.

Surely you knew this already after being here for so many years?

 

[STT]

Has ever the church changed His mind on a topic?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Sometimes I wonder how people can come here to the Catholic Answers Forums and forget that they are talking to…Catholics.

Did you forget this, JK, and think that you are in dialogue with a fundamentalist Bible Alone advocate?

Catholicism does not use the Bible to “serve as a reliable basis” for our religious beliefs.

This reaction is pretty bizarre to me.

Me: Catholics base some beliefs on the OT.
PR: WE’RE NOT BIBLICAL LITERALISTS HOW DARE YOU.

So I’m curious, then. Would you have such a strong reaction to this real professional Catholic philosopher who is asserting that certain literal parts of the Genesis story are fundamental Catholic teachings?

This is not our paradigm: The Bible says X, therefore we get our religious belief X.

I wonder if you would tell that to Aquinas, who used old testament passages throughout his Summa as a defense of his ideas. E.g. “On the contrary, It is said (Wisdom 14:3): “But Thou, Father, governest all things by providence [Vulg. But ‘Thy providence, O Father, governeth it.’].””
newadvent.org/summa/1022.htm

Now of course you don’t believe **just **because the bible says so. You believe because the Church says so, and in many cases the church’s justification for saying so is because the bible says so.

 

[TeenCatholicGuy]

I love what my Science Teacher said about this, matching some views on the internet.

He said God and Science can’t prove or disprove each other.

However, I like what this video points out: youtube.com/watch?v=-jxdIt2_WI0

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Just a wee correction: Catholicism take ALL of the Bible, ALL science, ALL knowledge we can attain, so we are very strong.

Catholicism does not use the Bible to “serve as a reliable basis” for our religious beliefs.

So which is it?