Descendant Of Charles Darwin Becomes A Catholic Apologist

[Chiquitunga]

I searched and couldn't find where this may have been posted before (if it was mea culpa) I saw this in our diocesan newspaper. pretty awesome! :like: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/06/13/descendant-of-darwin-becomes-a-catholic-apologist/ & longer article, http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/06/17/im-a-direct-descendant-of-darwin-but-i-have-discovered-the-beauty-of-the-catholic-faith/

[PhuturePriest]

I think it would be darkly funny if one of his descendants dies by street racing or something, as that technically means he will have died from natural selection. :P

Cool article, though.

Edited July 14, 2013 by FuturePriest387

[Didacus]

Faith and logic do not contradict each other.

[TheresaThoma]

I sympathize with her and find her story really awesome. I'm looked upon as an oddity because I am a Catholic and really into the sciences. It baffles me how many people think the two are incompatible.

[Spem in alium]

I've seen this story previously but loved coming across it again. It's wonderful :) Thanks for sharing.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Faith and logic do not contradict each other.

 

What about the trinity? 

[CrossCuT]

Faith and logic do not contradict each other.

:like3:

 

What about the trinity? 

The first thing that popped into my head was just because we dont have the capacity to understand it doesnt mean its not logical.

Have you ever heard of the 7 dimensions described by quantum physics? They are pretty insane! They almost sound like fairy tale magic!

 

An atheist friend of mine described them and said that in the 2D dimension cartoons that are drawn on a page exist in 2D but are aware of 3D...which is us. WE exist in 3D but are aware of time, the 4th dimension. It goes on and on until the seventh. He said that if God exists, he exists in the 7th dimension. Which is interesting since 7 is suppose to mean perfection or completeness.

 

Just food for thought, I dont know enough about quantum physics to argue one way or the other, I just appreciated the perspective form someone who sees the world differently than I do. :) 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

:like3:

 

The first thing that popped into my head was just because we dont have the capacity to understand it doesnt mean its not logical.

Have you ever heard of the 7 dimensions described by quantum physics? They are pretty insane! They almost sound like fairy tale magic!

 

An atheist friend of mine described them and said that in the 2D dimension cartoons that are drawn on a page exist in 2D but are aware of 3D...which is us. WE exist in 3D but are aware of time, the 4th dimension. It goes on and on until the seventh. He said that if God exists, he exists in the 7th dimension. Which is interesting since 7 is suppose to mean perfection or completeness.

 

Just food for thought, I dont know enough about quantum physics to argue one way or the other, I just appreciated the perspective form someone who sees the world differently than I do. :)

 

True, it is bizarre, but science isn't based on revelation. What is initially a bizarre finding in the scientific community becomes common sense later on. This never happens with religion. Faith is essentially belief without evidence. 

 

"A truly open mind means forcing our imaginations to conform to the evidence of reality, and not vice versa, whether or not we like the implications." Lawrence Krauss

 

^ This is science. Faith is essentially the opposite. It's not like we can gain a certainty that the trinity doesn't exist and change our beliefs based on that. The trinity is never open to question. Everything in science is open to dispute.

Edited July 15, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CrossCuT]

The way they go about deciding on what to believe is different of course, but thats just the nature of the two; it doesnt mean they are mutually exclusive. They may arrive at the same answer from two different directions.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

The way they go about deciding on what to believe is different of course, but thats just the nature of the two; it doesnt mean they are mutually exclusive. They may arrive at the same answer from two different directions.

 

I disagree. I think they're completely different. I'm not saying a religious person can't be a scientist. There are many. I just don't understand how they manage to do it. The religious person and the scientist have two entirely different ways of thinking. Science is evidence based. Faith isn't. We can correct our misunderstandings in science. We can't do that with religion. You will never hear the Pope say, "After reviewing the evidence, we admit we were wrong about Dogma x." In the same way, no scientist worth his weight in salt would say, "Despite the overwhelming evidence against my claim, I'm believing it anyways." 

[CrossCuT]

I disagree. I think they're completely different.

Yep, they are different like I just said in my previous comment so I don't know what you're disagreeing with.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Yep, they are different like I just said in my previous comment so I don't know what you're disagreeing with.

 

These ways of thinking are mutually exclusive. I'm not saying faith is wrong but it's not scientific. I'd even say it's the complete opposite. 

Edited July 15, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CrossCuT]

I'll try typing a better response when I'm not on my iPod at school :P

[CrossCuT]

I disagree. I think they're completely different. I'm not saying a religious person can't be a scientist. There are many. I just don't understand how they manage to do it. The religious person and the scientist have two entirely different ways of thinking. Science is evidence based. Faith isn't. We can correct our misunderstandings in science. We can't do that with religion. You will never hear the Pope say, "After reviewing the evidence, we admit we were wrong about Dogma x." In the same way, no scientist worth his weight in salt would say, "Despite the overwhelming evidence against my claim, I'm believing it anyways." 

Alrighty!!!

Yes of course they are different. Science is purely a study of our physical world...what we can see, what we can touch etc. There are no qualms there.

Religion, or any faith, is the study of the metaphysical. It is the spiritual side.

You cant compare the two nor can one be used to explain the other...it just doesnt work. They are two completely different beasts.

However what I was trying to say before is that just because they operate in two seemingly polar opposite spectrums, it does not mean they are unable to understand each other.

 

I am going to give a super bad example...I hope its not too bad....

 

Lets take a human for example. What is the worth of a human being...a Homo sapien.

 

Science would argue that Homo sapiens are important because they play a key role in many biological systems. They are predators and they are prey in the purest sense. They fulfill their biological roll of reproduction and passing of genetic material so that the subsequent generation can do the same. 

Religion would argue that human beings are important because we have souls. We are made in the image of God and fulfill a special role as a communal body of believers who help one another to grow and witness to their faith.

 

Each pool of thought has decided upon their own reasons why human beings are important and they came to the same conclusion via different means.

These two pools of thought are complementary in the sense that Science is indifferent; science is unable to account for morality or dignity. Religion/Faith (sorry if im not using proper terms but I think you catch my drift) is there to guide science in these ways. 

On the other hand, science can help keep religion "grounded" in a sense as it teaches us about our physical world. (Please forgive me terminology...with grounded for anyone who may get offended by that, it is not meant with negative connotation).

 

I dont know if that helped explain anything... I feel like Im starting to ramble.

I very much enjoy this topic as a Catholic and a Scientist myself.

 

Edit: Also, maybe my usage of "mutually exclusive" was a bad choice, sorry if that confused you! I was typing quickly!

Edited July 15, 2013 by CrossCuT

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Alrighty!!!

Yes of course they are different. Science is purely a study of our physical world...what we can see, what we can touch etc. There are no qualms there.

Religion, or any faith, is the study of the metaphysical. It is the spiritual side.

You cant compare the two nor can one be used to explain the other...it just doesnt work. They are two completely different beasts.

However what I was trying to say before is that just because they operate in two seemingly polar opposite spectrums, it does not mean they are unable to understand each other.

 

I am going to give a super bad example...I hope its not too bad....

 

Lets take a human for example. What is the worth of a human being...a Homo sapien.

 

Science would argue that Homo sapiens are important because they play a key role in many biological systems. They are predators and they are prey in the purest sense. They fulfill their biological roll of reproduction and passing of genetic material so that the subsequent generation can do the same. 

Religion would argue that human beings are important because we have souls. We are made in the image of God and fulfill a special role as a communal body of believers who help one another to grow and witness to their faith.

 

But this argument is as good as any superstitious argument. I can say that life is precious because the tooth-fairy needs a day job. The notion that God exists is as provable as the notion that 2pac is still alive. Science is irrelevant in questions regarding the meaning of life, true. But when it comes to religion, scientists aren't trained to believe claims based on faith alone. It's possible that God's existence will never be proven. A scientist can believe in God but she/he has as much a reason to believe that as to believe that a rabbit's foot will bring her/him good luck.