 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Luke12:48
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Southeast, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 120 |
| First Name: | Kate | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle catholic, left for many years, returned June 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 8th, 2006 12:00 am |
|
The cover story is God vs Science and the only image on the stark white cover is a double helix that fades into a rosary at the bottom. I found it interesting that the debate is between an athiest and a christian yet the cover art carries a symbol unique to catholicism. The article also makes for fascinating reading and references several books supporting each side. Overall, the article is written as a debate between the two but is somewhat superficial. It is a shame that they didn't go a little deeper....
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2410 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 8th, 2006 12:35 am |
|
Kate, I’ve never been able to figure out how people come to the conclusion that the creator of the universe can be so “opposed” to science. Seems to me that if the scientists were doing things right they would have no trouble at all with this.
As to the symbolism on the cover: I seem to recall that the Protestants in my own childhood weren’t too keen on symbols of any kind, except when it came to “writing off” what they inherited from Catholicism as “nothing but symbols.” The fact remains that Catholicism is practically the only part of Christianity that has any recognizable symbols.
Superficial? Time magazine? I’m sure you know what would happen if they or any other secular journal were to get serious about religion.
 David
|
|
|
Luke12:48
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Southeast, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 120 |
| First Name: | Kate | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle catholic, left for many years, returned June 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 8th, 2006 02:04 am |
|
"Superficial? Time magazine? I’m sure you know what would happen if they or any other secular journal were to get serious about religion."
Ok--so that was a kind of obvious description of any article in Time but this was superficial even by their standards. I swore I would never do this but just maybe a little letter to the editor....
"I’ve never been able to figure out how people come to the conclusion that the creator of the universe can be so “opposed” to science. "
The opposition of science and religion come from the fact that each draws broad conclusions about our most basic questions in life from entirely different pocesses and in the two main areas of contention, the conclusions are directly opposed.
"Seems to me that if the scientists were doing things right they would have no trouble at all with this."
(I would like to hear more on where you are coming from with this--see my way more than .02 below)
I know I am asking for trouble here but I am going to have to disagree on this statement. No one said the creator is opposed to science. It's not that the creator is opposed but that the creator exists. You presume a creator. A scientist can be doing everything right and still, there is an inherent conflict because of the initial presumption required.
Scientists (true scientists) can only observe and formulate theories. Even an open-minded scientist can struggle with evidence that is in conflict with what they believe to be true (religious or not). This is why a hypothesis must often be re-written many times. You have to be able to alter your thinking based on each set of preliminary results. Therefore, the typical scientist becomes dependent upon analysis of a never ending cycle of experiment and hypothesis.
The primary battlegrounds for science and religion are the existence of God and the creation story and unfortunately both sides in each only want to see black or white. Neither can conceive of a hypothesis that exists ouside their belief system -- a middle ground if you will. There is no cycle of experiment and hypothesis. You are left with the proverbial "leap." A decision for faith must come from other factors way outside the comfort zone of the average scientist. It essentially][size=requires the formulation of a hypothesis that says I trust that the explanantion is there and even if I can't see how it can be, I will follow.
It comes down to the evaluation of the evidence and is the call strong enough to override evidence to the contrary (whether it really is or just appears to be)?
(On a side note, Dan Brown's other novel Angels & Demons has a character who is a priest and a physicist and there is discussion of how belief in science and God can coexist and it was definately the better book.)
][size=]Last edited on Wed Nov 8th, 2006 02:05 am by Luke12:48
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 8th, 2006 02:11 am |
|
Since Hurricane Katrina, my copy of Time arrives several days later than it used to, so I haven't seen the issue yet. I've browsed it online, but haven't read it in depth so I can't really comment on the article.
I did want to mention, however, that the position of the Catholic Church is that science and religion describe the same reality created by God from different perspectives, so there can't be disagreements between religion and science. It's impossible. Science describes the physical, religion describes the metaphysical, but they are both speaking of the same reality.
|
|
|
Luke12:48
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Southeast, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 120 |
| First Name: | Kate | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle catholic, left for many years, returned June 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 8th, 2006 02:21 am |
|
Ok Rick--you guys are keeping me going way too late here  but every time I go back to the main screen there is another new message and I just have to look because who knows when I'll get the chance again.
I agree with your post and it is the position you state that has eased my way back -- as in" It essentially requires the formulation of a hypothesis that says I trust that the explanantion is there and even if I can't see how it can be, I will follow."
My commentary was meant as observations on the broad picture.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 8th, 2006 02:36 am |
|
| I understand your point, but I just wanted to make sure the "official" position of the Church on the relationship between faith and science was stated plainly. Remember, these discourses will hopefully be around for years and many other people will have the opportunity to read them in the near and distant future. Often, my comments are much more directed at them than as part of the current discussion.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2410 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 8th, 2006 02:47 am |
|
You should be aware by now, Kate, that Catholicism takes a both/and approach toward science, not either/or. The opposition or “incompatibility” you have experienced (and I recall the debate you recently reported) is from Protestantism.
Since Catholicism recognizes boundaries to its own competency (theology is not a physical science), it allows for the domain of natural science, so that it can exist and function. We must see, too, that most of the early scientists were churchmen, people like Mendel and Albertus Magnus.
Conversely, I am quite aware of modern science’s necessary position on “ultimate questions.” This is the boundary to its own competency. And it is the window of opportunity for scientists to understand the Catholic Church’s competency in a new light.
CCC 39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.
CCC 159 Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”
CCC 2293 Basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man’s dominion over creation. Science and technology are precious resources when placed at the service of man and promote his integral development for the benefit of all. By themselves however they cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress. Science and technology are ordered to man, from whom they take their origin and development; hence they find in the person and in his moral values both evidence of their purpose and awareness of their limits.
CCC 2294 It is an illusion to claim moral neutrality in scientific research and its applications. On the other hand, guiding principles cannot be inferred from simple technical efficiency, or from the usefulness accruing to some at the expense of others or, even worse, from prevailing ideologies. Science and technology by their very nature require unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria. They must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, of his true and integral good, in conformity with the plan and the will of God.
CCC 2727 We must also face the fact that certain attitudes deriving from the mentality of “this present world” can penetrate our lives if we are not vigilant. For example, some would have it that only that is true which can be verified by reason and science; yet prayer is a mystery that overflows both our conscious and unconscious lives. Others overly prize production and profit; thus prayer, being unproductive, is useless. Still others exalt sensuality and comfort as the criteria of the true, the good, and the beautiful; whereas prayer, the “love of beauty” (philokalia), is caught up in the glory of the living and true God. Finally, some see prayer as a flight from the world in reaction against activism; but in fact, Christian prayer is neither an escape from reality nor a divorce from life.
From these quotes, you can see where my comments were directed: that if each discipline — theology and natural science — recognized the limits of its own domain, there would be no opposition on the human plane. Furthermore, from God’s own point of view, the two cannot conflict because they are the product of the same creative cause.
So the whole controversy comes down to man’s shortsightedness. It’s not a matter of one discipline being fundamentally opposed to the other, but of a person’s inability to see that his vision is limited. The Catholic Church, for its part, is willing to admit its own limits on an official level. Trying to explain too much with a single theory is a well known fallacy in the scientific world. Is it being properly applied to science overreaching its own boundaries?
David
|
|
|
DavidVS
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 46 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian - On the Journey to Rome |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13th, 2006 01:17 am |
|
I have never understood the alleged conflict between science and religion. I read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" years ago and, to me, what scientists refer to as the "Big Bang" is nothing more than a nano-second by nano-second description of God's creation of the universe (Let there be light).
Sometimes I believe the science vs. religion controversy is little more than a scheme for Time and other periodicals to sell more magazines.
I spent most of my undergraduate and post-graduate years in chemistry, biology and physics labs. I found God's fingerprints everywhere I looked.
You will see fundamentalist ministers railing against evolution and the Big Bang but you will have to look pretty hard to find a real, working scientist spending any time at all talking against the existance of God.
Some of the most spiritual people in the world are scientists.
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 1398 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 16th, 2006 10:12 am |
|
David, Excellent Post! Unless I missed it in another contributor's posting, a lot of folks in this science vs. church "debate" keep overlooking the fact that it was the Catholic Church who founded most, if not all, of the great universities in Europe. It was hardly "anti-science." Oh, Gallileo makes for a nice "bloody shirt" for anti-Catholics to wave around, but anybody who's read up on that subject will learn that he didn't get into trouble until he went beyond saying his views on the earth and sun were facts, not theories. Even then, he wasn't mistreated.
As for the howling from fundy ministers, I can guess you've had your fill of the "rev" Rod Parsley. Who wouldn't!
____________________
James Michael Curley to a young Thomas “Tip” O’Neill -- “Son, it’s nice to be important, but it’s more important to be nice.”
|
|
|
DavidVS
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 46 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian - On the Journey to Rome |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 16th, 2006 11:49 am |
|
Steven Barrett wrote: David, Excellent Post! Unless I missed it in another contributor's posting, a lot of folks in this science vs. church "debate" keep overlooking the fact that it was the Catholic Church who founded most, if not all, of the great universities in Europe. It was hardly "anti-science." Oh, Gallileo makes for a nice "bloody shirt" for anti-Catholics to wave around, but anybody who's read up on that subject will learn that he didn't get into trouble until he went beyond saying his views on the earth and sun were facts, not theories. Even then, he wasn't mistreated.
As for the howling from fundy ministers, I can guess you've had your fill of the "rev" Rod Parsley. Who wouldn't!
I think Rod Parsley, "Doctor" Mike Murdock and the other characters who promise that untold wealth and good fortune will fall on you if only you will "plant a seed" in their ministry are in for a big disappointment. I believe they and their friends on the Inspirational Network are mocking God and I do not believe God likes to be mocked. Not for me to judge, I guess, but I have a feeling God will put them in their place one day.
|
|
|
Current time is 10:59 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
