Why choose the Catholic faith?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ejp123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Eleve said:
WOW.

April, the word “science,” as commonly understood and used by most people, refers specifically to empirical knowledge, knowledge that’s about the physical or empirical world.

That’s why people say things like “You need a science degree to become a patent examiner.” That would be redundant if every form of study were to count as science. Patent examiners need a particular kind of degree - one in the sciences.

That’s why we use the word “scientist” to refer to certain kinds of researchers (Einstein, Curie, Rutherford) and not to others (Elkies, Parfit, Vendler). James Levine studies music; is he a “scientist”? Nobody I know has ever called him that!

That’s why Wikipedia says that “Science … is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.” Note the qualification: explanations and predictions about the universe. Not other forms of claim about the universe, and not claims that are not about the universe itself.

You are correct that “science” sometimes means study or systematic knowledge in general. But most of the time it refers to particular empirical methods and the subjects which they investigate.
Click to expand...
I disagree. If you read the definition you will find that it is wider than that.

Saying that, the main discussion became about what ‘Science’ can and cannot study. My position is that ‘Science’ can study anything - there are no sacred cows or taboos. .

So to use your analogy a scientist could study music, the sounds, why some notes are pleasing, others discordant The effects on emotion etc,. etc,. In that respect James Levine is very much ’ a scientist of music’ as I am sure he is studied it at a very ‘scientific level’

But back to my point - some on this post feel that ‘Science’ should not, or cannot touch, certain subjects - to me that is simply wrong.

It does raise the question is the idea of limiting science just a religious perspective and why would people be resistant to the development of human knowledge in any facet of life.

I like the WOW - long may life produce WOWs and not dogma or totalitarianism.
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
You can study the fields of literature, history, humanities, and language. They aren’t sciences. They are considered arts. Study does not equal science.
Click to expand...
I am not saying they are synonyms.

I am saying that Science can study any topic. It can certainly study literature, history, humanities and language. Science is about acquiring knowledge.
 
dshix said:
The bolded parts of that definition confirm what I was telling you all along; science is used to understand physical knowledge. The last two definitions are intended in context with the first three. I’m not sure what is so hard about this.
Click to expand...
Now to quote someone else here WOW - I see you are re-arranging the definition to suit your point.

That does beg the question why are you and others so reticent about religion or gods being studied in a scientific manner?
 
aprilfloyd said:
I disagree. If you read the definition you will find that it is wider than that.
Click to expand...
The dictionary offers multiple definitions. At least two of those are restricted to empirical study of the universe. Further, everyone here took you to be using that restricted definition, which is why they found your claim to be so baffling. (If they had taken your definition as the natural one, your claim would have been a truism.)

Which do you think is more likely?

  1. *]You are using the word “science” the way it is ordinarily used. The dozen people disagreeing with you here are all making the same mistake about the ordinary meaning of the word, and they just coincidentally made that mistake in such a way that they all came up with the same definition. Further, everyone except you in this thread, including atheists like myself, are making this mistake; somehow nobody else here knows the correct meaning of the word.
    *]Everyone else here is using the word “science” the way it is ordinarily used. You mistakenly think that the word naturally communicates systematic knowledge and study in general.
 
April, what do you mean by “studied in a scientific manner”? If all study is science, surely there is no such thing as “study in an unscientific manner,” is there?
 
aprilfloyd said:
Now to quote someone else here WOW - I see you are re-arranging the definition to suit your point.

That does beg the question why are you and others so reticent about religion or gods being studied in a scientific manner?
Click to expand...
I don’t have a problem with you trying to examine God in a scientific manner. I don’t know how you scientifically observe something you can’t see, but you are welcome to try!

I have a problem with you trying to make conclusions on what you can’t see. Since God is a naturally spiritual being, it is impossible to examine Him with science, because He is invisible.
 
aprilfloyd said:
So to use your analogy a scientist could study music, the sounds, why some notes are pleasing, others discordant The effects on emotion etc,. etc,. In that respect James Levine is very much ’ a scientist of music’ as I am sure he is studied it at a very ‘scientific level’

.
Click to expand...
An audiologist is a scientist who studies sound. That is a particular science. The study of music in particular is considered an art.
 
aprilfloyd said:
I am not saying they are synonyms.

I am saying that Science can study any topic. It can certainly study literature, history, humanities and language. Science is about acquiring knowledge.
Click to expand...
You haven’t proven what you are saying. Science can touch certain topics. In another post I stated the difference between studying sound and studying music. Just because you say it, doesn’t make it fact. You are quite wrong.
 
aprilfloyd said:
I disagree. If you read the definition you will find that it is wider than that.

Saying that, the main discussion became about what ‘Science’ can and cannot study. My position is that ‘Science’ can study anything - there are no sacred cows or taboos. .

So to use your analogy a scientist could study music, the sounds, why some notes are pleasing, others discordant The effects on emotion etc,. etc,. In that respect James Levine is very much ’ a scientist of music’ as I am sure he is studied it at a very ‘scientific level’

But back to my point - some on this post feel that ‘Science’ should not, or cannot touch, certain subjects - to me that is simply wrong.

It does raise the question is the idea of limiting science just a religious perspective and why would people be resistant to the development of human knowledge in any facet of life.

I like the WOW - long may life produce WOWs and not dogma or totalitarianism.
Click to expand...
In that case I would love for you to use the Scientific Method to explain the Trinity.

😃
 
Eleve said:
The dictionary offers multiple definitions. At least two of those are restricted to empirical study of the universe. Further, everyone here took you to be using that restricted definition, which is why they found your claim to be so baffling. (If they had taken your definition as the natural one, your claim would have been a truism.)

Which do you think is more likely?

  1. *]You are using the word “science” the way it is ordinarily used. The dozen people disagreeing with you here are all making the same mistake about the ordinary meaning of the word, and they just coincidentally made that mistake in such a way that they all came up with the same definition. Further, everyone except you in this thread, including atheists like myself, are making this mistake; somehow nobody else here knows the correct meaning of the word.
    *]Everyone else here is using the word “science” the way it is ordinarily used. You mistakenly think that the word naturally communicates systematic knowledge and study in general.
Click to expand...

  1. You make a fair point. But again I think people are misreading what I have been saying. My point was about the ability for ‘science’ to study any topic. I never said I would use a restricted definition.

    I don’t feel that people were making the same mistake, some were deliberately being obtuse rather than just accept that religion could be studied scientifically, like any other topic and some probably genuinely did not know the origin of the word to mean ‘knowledge’ and assumed science is just chemistry and not realise that it could include economics.

    I think I have been clear but others have been trying to obfuscate,rather than just see my point for what it is. We all use the word science the same way. We all agree on the definition. Some people have tried to narrow the definition which is intriguing as to why.
 
To give aprilfloyd some leverage 🙂

Science comes from the Latin word scientia, which in Latin means knowledge.

Anyone heard the phrase:

“Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est” by Francis Bacon?

Carry on :D:D
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
In that case I would love for you to use the Scientific Method to explain the Trinity.

😃
Click to expand...
Again I think you are confusing* ‘science’* with knowing all the answers. Science is not a dictionary, with all the answers to every question you can conceive. It is about studying and acquiring knowledge and building on that knowledge.

By Trinity, am I correct in assuming you mean ‘The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost’ as in the Catholic tradition?
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
You haven’t proven what you are saying. Science can touch certain topics. In another post I stated the difference between studying sound and studying music. Just because you say it, doesn’t make it fact. You are quite wrong.
Click to expand...
Can you give me a topic and explain why science cannot study it.
 
aprilfloyd said:
Again I think you are confusing* ‘science’* with knowing all the answers. Science is not a dictionary, with all the answers to every question you can conceive. It is about studying and acquiring knowledge and building on that knowledge.

By Trinity, am I correct in assuming you mean ‘The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost’ as in the Catholic tradition?
Click to expand...
Chill chill chill!!!

Did you miss the big smiley at the end? I was kidding.

and yes to your question.
 
Sure, science can study religion. But that’s because religion comes with a lot of parts. Social science can tell you how religion spreads. Psychological science can tell you what makes some people more receptive to religious belief than others. And historical sciences can evaluate the authenticity of religious texts and the accuracy of the claims that they make.

But on the other hand, it’s hard to see how science could investigate:

  1. *]Whether Jesus, after the Incarnation, had one nature or two
    *]Whether it was impossible for the Virgin Mary to sin, or whether she simply chose not to
    *]Whether the substances of the bread and wine used in communion are changed into the body and blood of Christ, or whether they remain present alongside the Real Presence

    Yet these are all aspects of religion. So there are some aspects of religion which are beyond science, and into the realm of systematic theology and philosophy.
 
dshix said:
I don’t think acquiring knowledge is limited to some types of knowledge. I said that science is limited to natural knowledge.
Click to expand...
Can you explain why you think science is limited to natural knowledge?
 
aprilfloyd said:
Can you give me a topic and explain why science cannot study it.
Click to expand...
I showed you the difference in studying music and studying sound.That has been the only example and I have proven you wrong. I have also stated that science can touch of certain topics, but one can’t study everything scientifically. I have given you an example, you have yet to give me one that is true. Also take a look at higher education and the fact that majors differenciate between Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Sciences.
Where is YOUR proof? You started this debate, yet have not proven anything. You aren’t very good at debating. I guess you haven’t broken that down into a science. 🙂
 
Eleve said:
But on the other hand, it’s hard to see how science could investigate:

  1. *]Whether Jesus, after the Incarnation, had one nature or two
    *]Whether it was impossible for the Virgin Mary to sin, or whether she simply chose not to
    *]Whether the substances of the bread and wine used in communion are changed into the body and blood of Christ, or whether they remain present alongside the Real Presence

    Yet these are all aspects of religion. So there are some aspects of religion which are beyond science, and into the realm of systematic theology and philosophy.
Click to expand...

  1. Some science is admittedly hard, but if anything science has taught us that that should not necessarily be a hindrance to furthering knowledge.

    Transubstantiation is an interesting phenomena. It would be interesting to find out if there would be any real world applications. Did Mary have a virgin birth - is it possible? Was Jesus the son of God?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top