Why doesn't the magisterium teach science?

[fakename]

Why doesn’t the magisterium teach science not per se, but in so far as science has normative value (for instance logic is normative -it lays down rules for correct reasoning and the magisterium teaches that men are rational so shouldn’t the magisterium also teach logic?).

Also, if the magisterium strictly limited itself to only moral truths, then since the world is logical, then assuming one thing about the world would lead to many other conclusions. So if the magisterium taught something about morality, these moral truths could imply a host of non-moral conclusions which would fall under the magisterium because the denial of these non-moral truths would logically entail the denial of the moral truths.

why is this not so?

 

[1ke]

That is the realm of the university.

The Bishop’s mission given to them by Christ is specific.

 

[SanAgustin]

Why doesn’t the magisterium teach science not per se, but in so far as science has normative value (for instance logic is normative -it lays down rules for correct reasoning and the magisterium teaches that men are rational so shouldn’t the magisterium also teach logic?).

Also, if the magisterium strictly limited itself to only moral truths, then since the world is logical, then assuming one thing about the world would lead to many other conclusions. So if the magisterium taught something about morality, these moral truths could imply a host of non-moral conclusions which would fall under the magisterium because the denial of these non-moral truths would logically entail the denial of the moral truths.

why is this not so?

Because it is outside the authority of the Magisterium, from the CCC;

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

The dogmas of the faith

88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

89 There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.50

90 The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ.51 "In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith."52

CCC 86 is key “It teaches only what has been handed on to it.”

Jesus did not reveal to his apostles scientific truths or laws, so why would the Magisterium have any authority over those matters?

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Because scientific statements are falsifiable. If the Church made a declaration that was later proven false, then they would be in trouble.

The Church has issued statements on science in the past and these statements were proven false. The only statements that remain are ones that can neither be proven or dis-proven but are matters of faith.

 

[Fiasco]

You can learn philosophy, Thomistic approaches - the use of reason/logic etc under the guidance of the Church. There are trustworthy books, plus info online.

 

[davidv]

The Church does not teach science because knowing science won’t get you to heaven.

 

[Rascalking]

Because they don’t know everything on every topic known to man, including science.

 

[fakename]

But respond to this: once you know one thing, certain things follow from it. So if you know morality, then other things perhaps non-moral, follow from it. So clearly the strength of your authority to teach morals leads you to have an equal strength in teaching the non-moral.

Logically then, one must accept the non-moral teachings if you accept the moral ones. Likewise one must, Modus Tollens, reject the moral teachings if you reject the non-moral ones.

Also, the non-moral can have moral effects: if you believe that there are no other minds, then evangelization would cease and if you believe that there are no spiritual substances than the soul and God cannot exist as they are thought to exist.

How does the magisterium’s teachings square with this view or is the view wrong somehow?

 

[Spirithound]

But respond to this: once you know one thing, certain things follow from it. So if you know morality, then other things perhaps non-moral, follow from it.

I cannot think of any instance when this would be true. Can you?

Also, the non-moral can have moral effects: if you believe that there are no other minds, then evangelization would cease and if you believe that there are no spiritual substances than the soul and God cannot exist as they are thought to exist.

The mind and the spirit are metaphysical concepts, not scientific. I cannot think of any instances where science overlaps with morality, revelation, or metaphysics.

 

[promethius]

But respond to this: once you know one thing, certain things follow from it. So if you know morality, then other things perhaps non-moral, follow from it. So clearly the strength of your authority to teach morals leads you to have an equal strength in teaching the non-moral.

Logically then, one must accept the non-moral teachings if you accept the moral ones. Likewise one must, Modus Tollens, reject the moral teachings if you reject the non-moral ones.

Also, the non-moral can have moral effects: if you believe that there are no other minds, then evangelization would cease and if you believe that there are no spiritual substances than the soul and God cannot exist as they are thought to exist.

How does the magisterium’s teachings square with this view or is the view wrong somehow?

I’m not sure you’re entirely clear on what the magisterium is. It’s not a group of people, a person, or an institution. It’s literally an authority to teach. The magisterium doesn’t teach anything. The CHURCH teaches things because it has the magisterium (authority) to do so.

What the church does NOT have is the magisterium to know and teach scientific truth beyond any doubt. Just as evolution can’t be used to describe cosmology (because it is outside the scope of the theory), the magisterial authority on faith and morals does not extend to whether or not a photon is a particle. You certainly aren’t arguing that physicists should be teaching art classes, or that drama professors have something to teach about biochemistry… so why do you expect the magisterial authority to be an endless permission to teach on all subjects?

And yes, I understand your point that certain teaching on faith and morals has caveats which extend beyond the realm of just faith and morals… such as the church’s view on cosmology (having taught for 1,500 years what science just discovered: that the universe and time came from “nothing”), the rationality of scientific law, the issues of contraception, etc. However, that does not mean that the church has a role in the primary discussion or infallible teaching in these realms of thought

 

[fakename]

I’m not sure you’re entirely clear on what the magisterium is. It’s not a group of people, a person, or an institution. It’s literally an authority to teach. The magisterium doesn’t teach anything. The CHURCH teaches things because it has the magisterium (authority) to do so.

What the church does NOT have is the magisterium to know and teach scientific truth beyond any doubt. Just as evolution can’t be used to describe cosmology (because it is outside the scope of the theory), the magisterial authority on faith and morals does not extend to whether or not a photon is a particle. You certainly aren’t arguing that physicists should be teaching art classes, or that drama professors have something to teach about biochemistry… so why do you expect the magisterial authority to be an endless permission to teach on all subjects?

And yes, I understand your point that certain teaching on faith and morals has caveats which extend beyond the realm of just faith and morals… such as the church’s view on cosmology (having taught for 1,500 years what science just discovered: that the universe and time came from “nothing”), the rationality of scientific law, the issues of contraception, etc. However, that does not mean that the church has a role in the primary discussion or infallible teaching in these realms of thought

Corrections on the magisterium noted except for the latter part of your post:

It’s true that there can be connections between sciences (and what other alternative is there to the idea that the universe is logically connected?). For instance, physics talks about movement, and art talks about drawing yet the same laws that move the hand in drawing also move the objects of nature -in this sense a physicist talks about art (for the physically possible sets the limits on art). Likewise, certain moral teachings only make sense within a certain universe, (like I wrote about the case of the solipsist). So as far as physical facts fall within morality, it is possible for the magisterium to comment on these.

In science for instance the magisterium could say that bushes that burn but yet are not consumed are possible or some such thing.

And also, I use the word science to include metaphysics.

 

[thistle]

Corrections on the magisterium noted except for the latter part of your post:

It’s true that there can be connections between sciences (and what other alternative is there to the idea that the universe is logically connected?). For instance, physics talks about movement, and art talks about drawing yet the same laws that move the hand in drawing also move the objects of nature -in this sense a physicist talks about art (for the physically possible sets the limits on art). Likewise, certain moral teachings only make sense within a certain universe, (like I wrote about the case of the solipsist). So as far as physical facts fall within morality, it is possible for the magisterium to comment on these.

In science for instance the magisterium could say that bushes that burn but yet are not consumed are possible or some such thing.

And also, I use the word science to include metaphysics.

That has nothing to do with science!

 

[Farsight001]

In science for instance the magisterium could say that bushes that burn but yet are not consumed are possible or some such thing.

Making a declaration like this would undo the Church. To declare something like that scientifically possible would cause many problems, the most important of which is that it would mean that the burning bush is no longer a miracle., but just another mundane event of the universe.

 

[promethius]

In science for instance the magisterium could say that bushes that burn but yet are not consumed are possible or some such thing.

But the church already teaches this (although not that they are scientifically possible). When we state that God is omnipotent we state that the supernatural takes precedence over the merely natural and thus through God ALL things are possible

I’m just wondering what great human need would be filled by God granting magisterial authority to the church to teach on matters like science rather than just faith and morals…?

 

[You]

In science for instance the magisterium could say that bushes that burn but yet are not consumed are possible or some such thing.

Botany says there is a burning bush. But its not the Biblical Burning Bush.

 

[fakename]

But the church already teaches this (although not that they are scientifically possible). When we state that God is omnipotent we state that the supernatural takes precedence over the merely natural and thus through God ALL things are possible

I’m just wondering what great human need would be filled by God granting magisterial authority to the church to teach on matters like science rather than just faith and morals…?

1. Although people know that the supernatural exist, it doesn’t follow from that that they know what is supernatural or that the burning bush existed. So to decree that such a thing did happen is to both lay down a moral norm and to discuss history and “science”.
2. By “science” I include metaphysics includes things that are possible, and miracles are possible, so science includes a treatment of miracles -not as such, since how a miracle operates fully is known only by God, but we do have a generic knowledge of a miracle’s working: we know what it is and how it generally comes about but we don’t know specifically how to work one.

 

[Spirithound]

1. By “science” I include metaphysics includes things that are possible, and miracles are possible, so science includes a treatment of miracles -not as such, since how a miracle operates fully is known only by God, but we do have a generic knowledge of a miracle’s working: we know what it is and how it generally comes about but we don’t know specifically how to work one.

Science has come to mean things that are empirically verifiable and repeatable. As much as I love calling the world back to precise language, I really think this is a definition you should adopt.