What would you do if it were proven...?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Candide_West
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Candide_West said:
Right, so I have imagined something which does not in fact exist. Which is exactly what Rahner appears to be saying I can’t do.
Click to expand...
:confused: I’m sorry, but if that’s what you think Rahner is saying, then, again, I think you haven’t been reading very carefully. If I’m mistaken about this, then please tell me what it is exactly that you’re referring to here.
Ahhh perhaps I haven’t read carefully enough then…Ok, in that case what you have presented here is a false dichotomy. Hence I choose option 3). That ‘God’ is a viable concept for adults to consider, but is not ‘required’ to be a mature adult.
Click to expand...
The thing with being a mature adult is that you have to recognize that you can’t escape a dichotomy simply by inventing an imaginary third option, and I would maintain that that’s all you’ve done here. (It would be like saying, “I don’t have to choose between believing in God or not believing in God, because instead I could choose to believe in the flying spaghetti monster.” No, you couldn’t - that’s completely silly nonsense.) IOW, you’ve invented a false trichotomy, because your third option is not a real option. It does not form a viable third way. …Unless you can explain this: If ‘God’ is indeed a viable concept for mature adults to consider (as you grant), then how can they be mature adults without considering it (as opposed to immature adults, who necessarily must have their heads in the sand if they are managing to simply ignore ‘God’? - or, even worse, to effectively equate ‘God’ with 'flying spaghetti monster?)?

I’m guessing that maybe you are thinking that society is pluralistic and that ‘God’ is just one more optional cultural artifact among all the others - like Indian cooking or origami or bull-riding or the social history of the industrial revolution: if you’re interested, fine, if not, join the club (most people aren’t); but that view seems completely implausible, certainly a pure assertion on your part, and one which suggests to me that you don’t understand much about the fundamental role of religion (and therefore of ‘God’) in all human societies. (And in turn this would suggest that your belief that you have a sound understanding of ‘God’ is mistaken.) But of course maybe you have some other way of defending your assertion?
 
PRmerger said:
<sigh!>
Are you really going to tell your toddler that it’s okay for him to walk out that 3rd story window? Or are you going to “dig in your heels” and tell him, “If you walk out of that window, you will fall. I guarantee it. I am not mistaken.”
Click to expand...
There is scientific evidence/it is physically obervable for those things to happen so it is reasonable to say those things with certainty.
Are you really going to let your 5th grade English student tell you that “he died for you and I” is ok grammatically, or are you going to tell him, “Sorry, but that is incorrect grammar and you must use a direct object after ‘for’”?
Perhaps what you call “digging in your heels” is really just proclaiming the truth?
Click to expand...
Sometimes, yes, in which case I don’t particularly have a problem with it. When it involves declaring infallibility (or more frequently, a very very reluctant decision to change teachings - technically digging in your heels doesn’t have to mean indefinitely) then I have a problem with it.
Could you give an example of the Church claiming a Truth that has been disproved by scientific evidence? Or I’ll even consider one that is “not supported” by scientific evidence.
Click to expand...
Besides the obvious one of heliocentrism?

They dug their heels in with evolution. Took a loooonng time for them to come around on that due to its apparent or actual contradiction to Genesis:
-"Genesis does not contain purified myths. "(Pontifical Biblical Commission 19091)

-“The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body” (Leo XIII).

I know those weren’t infallible teachings, but She sure took Her time to accept something that was widely accepted elsewhere.

Jesus’ conception as a miracle involving no natural father, no sexual intercourse, and no male seed in any form, but instead brought about by the Holy Spirit

Sorry for sounding so cliche, but extraordinary claims [should] require extraordinary evidence. There are numerous ways Jesus could have been conceived that do involve a natural father and male seed. Jesus’s conception as a miracle is not supported by scientific evidence. Scriptural basis, yes. Scientific evidence, no. Granted, there is a lack of scientific evidence in this particular case but …" all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the** legitimate** conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith…" (Vatican Council I) so not only does the Church make a claim that cannot be proven, She also prohibits Her followers from accepting scientific evidence if some were to ever be brought forward. Digging. In. Her. Heels. In principle AND in reality.
 
samiam1611 said:
There is scientific evidence/it is physically obervable for those things to happen so it is reasonable to say those things with certainty.
Click to expand...
Yes, sam, there is scientific evidence for scientific things. There is theological evidence for theological things.

Why are you assigning an arbitrary criterion, such as science, to determine theological matters?

It’s like telling a student, “You must give me all your math answers in German.” Why should she do that? 🤷
 
samiam1611 said:
Besides the obvious one of heliocentrism?
Click to expand...
I’m assuming you mean geocentrism, and not heliocentrism, sam?

At any rate, do you have a source that states that the Church declared geocentrism to be an infallible teaching?
They dug their heels in with evolution. Took a loooonng time for them to come around on that due to its apparent or actual contradiction to Genesis:
-"Genesis does not contain purified myths. "(Pontifical Biblical Commission 19091)
Click to expand...
-“The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body” (Leo XIII).
Click to expand...
I know those weren’t infallible teachings, but She sure took Her time to accept something that was widely accepted elsewhere.
Click to expand...
And what is your understanding about what the Church teaches regarding evolution now?
And what did she teach before? If you could provide some documentation for this change.

That the 'body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body" was once taught, but now it is not? Is that your contention?
 
samiam1611 said:
Jesus’ conception as a miracle involving no natural father, no sexual intercourse, and no male seed in any form, but instead brought about by the Holy Spirit
Click to expand...
This is quite interesting, sam. Do you have some sort of scientific evidence that conception must occur only through sexual intercourse?

Not to be coy here, but have you heard of In vitro fertilization? Or cloning?

NB: Of course I am not stating that Christ was conceived through the above methods! :whacky: Only that science has clearly demonstrated that it’s possible to conceive without sexual intercourse, right? And that life can develop without a “male seed”, right?
 
samiam1611 said:
" all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the** legitimate** conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith…" (Vatican Council I)
Click to expand...
Just a few sentences below your quote, see this (from your same source):

For she is neither ignorant nor contemptuous of the advantages which derive from this source for human life, rather
she acknowledges that those things flow from God, the lord of sciences, and, if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of his grace.

Nor does the church forbid these studies to employ, each within its own area, its own proper principles and method:
Code: 
but while she admits this just freedom,
she takes particular care that they do not
    become infected with errors by conflicting with divine teaching, or,
    by going beyond their proper limits, intrude upon what belongs to faith and 
engender confusion.
 
PRmerger said:
This is quite interesting, sam. Do you have some sort of scientific evidence that conception must occur only through sexual intercourse?
Click to expand...
I agree it is possible. No technology needed. If Mary was fooling around with someone, and he got a little excited, there could have been some spillage in that area and one of his little swimmers made it all the way.
 
PRmerger said:
I’m assuming you mean geocentrism, and not heliocentrism, sam?
Click to expand...
The Church said heliocentrism conflicted with scripture right?
At any rate, do you have a source that states that the Church declared geocentrism to be an infallible teaching?
Click to expand...
I did not say it was. I said “a very very reluctant decision to change teachings.”
And what is your understanding about what the Church teaches regarding evolution now?
Click to expand...
Theistic evolution. Here is a case of Her coming 'round 👍
 
samiam1611 said:
I did not say it was. I said “a very very reluctant decision to change teachings.”
Click to expand...
Very well, then. It did seem that you were conflating the Church’s “reluctance” to change her teachings with infallibility. If you weren’t, why did you say this below? It was you who brought up the issue of infallibility as it pertains to geocentrism, no?
But the Church claims it has the Truth on some things that are not supported (or are disproved) by scientific evidence bc to change the teaching on certain things would put into question the iinfallibility of the Church and She doesn’t want that.
Click to expand...
 
samiam1611 said:
Theistic evolution. Here is a case of Her coming 'round 👍
Click to expand...
Fair enough. So could you provide an example of the old teaching of the Church on evolution, and the “new” teaching, the case where she “came around”? Please cite your sources. Thanks.

And, just so we’re on the same page here, are you using this as an example of how the Church could not be infallible as she has allegedly changed her teaching?
 
samiam1611 said:
For the record, I do not think that scientific knowledge gives us certainty. This is why I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I like science because it is willing to examine, if not seek out, new evidence to get closer to certainty. As opposed to digging in its heels.
Click to expand...
The thought occurred to me, sam, that science may not be all that open to examining and seeking out “new evidence” to get closer to certainty.

To wit: the scientific community seems quite closed (vehemently, shrilly so at times) to examining whether homosexuality is indeed a mental disorder. They will not consider any evidence that it is anything other an an “lifestyle choice.” The scientific community has spoken. There will be no further examination of the subject. Case closed!
 
PRmerger said:
The thought occurred to me, sam, that science may not be all that open to examining and seeking out “new evidence” to get closer to certainty.

To wit: the scientific community seems quite closed (vehemently, shrilly so at times) to examining whether homosexuality is indeed a mental disorder. They will not consider any evidence that it is anything other an an “lifestyle choice.” The scientific community has spoken. There will be no further examination of the subject. Case closed!
Click to expand...
Ohhh! And another example just came to mind.

There seems to be some evidence that abortion and breast cancer are linked. Yet the scientific community is very, very virulently opposed to any research that may examine this to seek out the truth. :hmmm:
 
PRmerger said:
Very well, then. It did seem that you were conflating the Church’s “reluctance” to change her teachings with infallibility.
Click to expand...
As you can see I am well out of my element here. And I appreciate you not being mean about it! Just in coming up with responses to you I have learned a lot. Granted, I get it most from Wikipedia (though I look at primary sources as well.)

The specifics of the Infallibility of the Church doctrine is not something I’m particularly - ok, even remotely - educated on so I shouldn’t have brought it up! I So forget I said that! Just their teachings in general I mean. The teachings that overlap with science.
If you weren’t, why did you say this below?
Click to expand...
You asked
Could you give an example of the Church claiming a Truth that has been disproved by scientific evidence? Or I’ll even consider one that is “not supported” by scientific evidence?
Click to expand...
so that’s what I did. Here’s a source: newadvent.org/cathen/13598b.htm
It was you who brought up the issue of infallibility as it pertains to geocentrism, no?
Click to expand...
I meant it to be an example of when the Church dismissed scientific evidence in favor of scriptural evidence for an awfully long time. Pardon my misuse of the word infaillible earlier.
The thought occurred to me, sam, that science may not be all that open to examining and seeking out “new evidence” to get closer to certainty.
Click to expand...
What can I say, the desire to seek new evidence varies. Sometimes they are guilty of it too! After all, they’re only human! :yup:
There seems to be some evidence that abortion and breast cancer are linked. Yet the scientific community is very, very virulently opposed to any research that may examine this to seek out the truth."
Click to expand...
Yikes. Let’s hope they get to the truth of that matter.

What’s the deal with the capital T for Truth? I see that a lot, how does it differ from truth? Is that like the theological equivalent of a scientific fact vs theory?
 
PRmerger said:
What, specifically, are you trying to indicate from this article, sam?

Where is the scientific evidence that the Church has denied? IOW, what specific teaching from the Church contradicts that of science?

Could you please provide the Church teaching?
Click to expand...
Somewhere on that page She admits she made an error with regards to heliocentrism/geocentrism. Like 3/4 down the page. She called heliocentrism heresy bc it contradicted geocentrism which was the teaching at the time. I’m sick of the subject though Professor PR, can I go back to saying my random thoughts as the new student in class instead of doing my homework?
😃
By the way where’s your sources for your examples, hmmm? Quite a definitive statement you made there! “Case closed!” you said. Would you care to share the official or heck I’ll even accept the unofficial declaration that Science made to not delve forward on those subjects?!
 
samiam1611 said:
She called heliocentrism heresy bc it contradicted geocentrism which was the teaching at the time.
Click to expand...
Umm…no, sam. I’m pretty sure she didn’t “call heliocentrism a heresy”.

Nuh-uh. No way. It was* never* a heresy.

Now, if you’d like to prove me wrong, please provide a source, from the Magisterium of the Church, which declared it to be so.

These words, in the document from the 17th century, would be helpful:
  • heresy
  • “we infallibly declare”
  • “we hereby define”
or words to that effect.
I’m sick of the subject though Professor PR, can I go back to saying my random thoughts as the new student in class instead of doing my homework?
😃
Click to expand...
I really wish you *would *do your homework, sam, as it does really aid in furthering the dialogue.
By the way where’s your sources for your examples, hmmm? Quite a definitive statement you made there! “Case closed!” you said. Would you care to share the official or heck I’ll even accept the unofficial declaration that Science made to not delve forward on those subjects?!
Click to expand...
Will do, provided you answer my question first. (In the culture of this forum, it is considered polite discourse that those questions posed first are given priority in answering.)

So could you provide an example of the old teaching of the Church on evolution, and the “new” teaching, the case where she “came around”? Please cite your sources. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top