Descendant Of Charles Darwin Becomes A Catholic Apologist

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that God doesn't exist (though I personally don't believe she does), I'm just saying that faith in a God isn't compatible with a scientific approach. The only reason i think religions are being more science friendly now is because they're basically being forced to. The Catholic Church wasn't always zen with science that contradicted the Bible. 

Edited July 16, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CrossCuT]

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.

Youre right, it can be used in any way, but thats up to each individual to decide what they put their faith in. My purpose in this thread isnt to debate the nature of anyone belief, its simply to discuss Science and Faith.

I dont believe I have ever heard of a single scientist who has tried to prove God existed (or any other faith based type of belief) through Science.

"Let me just mix these two chemicals together and if the reaction results in X or Y then Ill know if God is real"

 

However, the average person may believe personally in a lot of things that are contrary to that viewpoint. I know of many people who take most of the New Testament (specifically Genesis) verbatim and believe that the creation of the Earth, as described there, is absolute. 

I also know many people (scientists included) who will do the opposite. They use science as a way of disproving the existence of God which (as much as this statement irritates people), you cant do that either because science cannot test spirituality, values, or the like.

 

In either case you run into problems. They exist in their own pools of thought and one cannot cross over into the other. Can they work together? Yes!! But like I said, they are  both different and amazing in their own respect.

 

And no, of course Scientists arent "trained" to believe claims based on faith alone...thats because they are scientists :hehe2: .

Thats not their job. If they want to personally believe in a religion of whatever type thats up to them, but they fulfill a job like anyone else. 

 

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that God doesn't exist (though I personally don't believe she does), I'm just saying that faith in a God isn't compatible with a scientific approach. The only reason i think religions are being more science friendly now is because they're basically being forced to. The Catholic Church wasn't always zen with science that contradicted the Bible. 

 

What part of the Scientific approach is not compatible with God? Do you know something I dont know?

As I scientist myself, I dont use God as a reference or instruction manual for any of the experiments I run or any of the research I do. So Im not sure what you mean by your comment.

 

I dont believe faith alters any type of scientific approach. If I could give another (hopefully not too horrible) example that I have used in other conversations with people on a similar topic, but imagine a clock on a wall. Now imagine that clock hanging on a wall in a room, it is ticking away and functioning in the way it was intended to and it will continue to do that until it is dead. The clock represents science in its physicality, mechanisms, etc. Now imagine you open a window in the room and some sunlight shines in. 

The light coming in would be Faith. Regardless of whether or not the room is light or dark, the clock will not change. The presence or absence of the light is not going to cause the clock flip upside down, start working backwards, or alter it in any way. The light is simply a different way of viewing the clock.

 

And yes, the Church has definitely had bumps in the past in reference to science, they are not proud moments but you need to understand that the Church is not a scientific institution. While they help reveal truths about our spiritual world, science helps reveal truths about our physical world which the Church doesnt understand on her own.

In all cases I am aware of, the church as amended her belief to be more coherent with scientific discovery...even if it took a little time. The church is only infallible in certain circumstances and ONLY in areas of faith and morals, so you must forgive us in the other cases  because we are only human. We are learning just along with the rest of the world even if initially we put up a fight.

 

 

ps. Thank you for this enjoyable conversation!  :bananarap:

Edited July 16, 2013 by CrossCuT

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Youre right, it can be used in any way, but thats up to each individual to decide what they put their faith in. My purpose in this thread isnt to debate the nature of anyone belief, its simply to discuss Science and Faith.

I dont believe I have ever heard of a single scientist who has tried to prove God existed (or any other faith based type of belief) through Science.

"Let me just mix these two chemicals together and if the reaction results in X or Y then Ill know if God is real"

True but some, like Lawrence Krauss, claim we're getting close to identifying a way in which the universe might have created itself, making God's existence unnecessary for explaining this mystery. Their findings won't disprove God's existence, only because we can't disprove the existence of something. 

 

However, the average person may believe personally in a lot of things that are contrary to that viewpoint. I know of many people who take most of the New Testament (specifically Genesis) verbatim and believe that the creation of the Earth, as described there, is absolute. 

I also know many people (scientists included) who will do the opposite. They use science as a way of disproving the existence of God which (as much as this statement irritates people), you cant do that either because science cannot test spirituality, values, or the like.

 

 

Interesting. I don't know how exactly these scientists would try to do this. I actually think morals can be tied into science... but that's another discussion. 

 

 

 

In either case you run into problems. They exist in their own pools of thought and one cannot cross over into the other. Can they work together? Yes!! But like I said, they are  both different and amazing in their own respect.

I just don't see how. The existence of a god isn't proven. To a scientist, belief in a higher power should be equated to believing any other superstition. We can argue that any superstition has it's own pool of thought separate from science. What makes religion any different?

 

 

And no, of course Scientists arent "trained" to believe claims based on faith alone...thats because they are scientists  :hehe2: .

Thats not their job. If they want to personally believe in a religion of whatever type thats up to them, but they fulfill a job like anyone else. 

But how do they go into the lab with one mindset, and leave with a completely different mindset? That's what is confusing me. 

 

 

What part of the Scientific approach is not compatible with God? Do you know something I dont know?

We can't prove God. We can't even disprove God. It's a claim as unscientific as the belief in Bigfoot. 

 

 

As I scientist myself, I dont use God as a reference or instruction manual for any of the experiments I run or any of the research I do. So Im not sure what you mean by your comment.

 

Maybe I badly worded what I was trying to say. 

 

 

 

I dont believe faith alters any type of scientific approach. If I could give another (hopefully not too horrible) example that I have used in other conversations with people on a similar topic, but imagine a clock on a wall. Now imagine that clock hanging on a wall in a room, it is ticking away and functioning in the way it was intended to and it will continue to do that until it is dead. The clock represents science in its physicality, mechanisms, etc. Now imagine you open a window in the room and some sunlight shines in. 

The light coming in would be Faith. Regardless of whether or not the room is light or dark, the clock will not change. The presence or absence of the light is not going to cause the clock flip upside down, start working backwards, or alter it in any way. The light is simply a different way of viewing the clock.

Very interesting example. I still think the ray of light doesn't need to be belief in God. It can be a belief in Santa or a belief in Zeus. I'm still confused how they can be compatible. I know they are separate but It's hard for me to imagine someone bringing these different ways of thinking together. 

 

 

 

And yes, the Church has definitely had bumps in the past in reference to science, they are not proud moments but you need to understand that the Church is not a scientific institution. While they help reveal truths about our spiritual world, science helps reveal truths about our physical world which the Church doesnt understand on her own.

In all cases I am aware of, the church as amended her belief to be more coherent with scientific discovery...even if it took a little time. The church is only infallible in certain circumstances and ONLY in areas of faith and morals, so you must forgive us in the other cases  because we are only human. We are learning just along with the rest of the world even if initially we put up a fight.

Well, that's the thing. The Church has allowed for the Bible to be treated as a source of scientific knowledge. The Galileo incident is probably an example of Catholicism at it's worst. The Church was more open about evolution but took too long to actually say anything about it. I believe many religions had more of a literal interpretation of their scriptures early on. As time progressed, believers adopted a metaphorical reading of some passages. Every time a scientific discovery would come out that seemed to contradict the faith, the religious would be all like, "well, this just proves God is more creative than we could have imagined!"

Also, we can't forget that some Christians still believe the earth is 6-10 thousand years old.

 

 

ps. Thank you for this enjoyable conversation!   :bananarap:

Likewise. We just hijacked this thread.

 

Edited July 16, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Amppax]

Nevermind.  Ignoring Galileo trolling.  

Edited July 16, 2013 by Amppax

[Socrates]

Science and faith are not mutually exclusive, and there are and have been plenty of excellent scientists who are also religious believers.  Modern science actually arose from the inquiries and discoveries of Catholic monks in the Middle Ages, who preserved and advanced learning and inquiry into the natural world.

 

Science can tell us a lot about the material world, its dimensions, and how it works, but it is limited to knowledge about those things.  Science cannot tell us d by dewhy there is a material universe in the first place, why there is something rather than nothing, the purpose of human existence, the meaning of life, or how we as human beings ought to live our lives.

 

(That in itself does not prove the existence of God, but shows that there are areas of human knowledge that cannot be determined by natural science.)  Some things are outside the realm of the physical sciences and can only be known through philosophy and/or religion.

 

God by definition is pure Spirit, rather than some material thing, and as such is outside the realm of material science (which can only observe and measure material things.

If you think that is absurd or irrational, consider being or existence itself.  We are all aware of the reality of being or existence (as individual things can either exist or be non-existent, but reality or existence itself is not a particular thing we can observe and measure physically in the lab.

 

A Christians, we believe that God is pure, limitless, infinite Being, the source of all being.  All material things we can observe in the universe are dependent on other things or conditions (physical laws, fields, etc,) for their existence, and none of them can by themselves account for their own existence.  To determine the ultimate cause of the being of all things, we must go back to something that is simple pure Being itself, not dependent on anything else.  We believe this source of all being to be God - the great "I Am Who Am" revealed to Abraham.

 

I definitely find belief in God as more philosophically and intellectually satisfying than the idea that the material universe is somehow the cause of its own existence.

 

While I don't have time or space to get into the actual proofs for God here (plus I need to brush up on my philosophy), if you're  really interested in this topic, I'd highly recommend reading Robert J. Spitzer's New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy.  The first part of the book deals with modern physics, and how the evidence points toward the universe having a set absolute beginning from nothing, as opposed to the various fluctuating universe and multiverse hypotheses, and the second part uses philosophical proofs involving logical reasoning.  

A careful reading of the book may or may not convince you of the existence of God, but I can guarantee you will no longer see belief in God as irrational or contrary to science.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Socrates

[CrossCuT]

(That in itself does not prove the existence of God, but shows that there are areas of human knowledge that cannot be determined by natural science.)  Some things are outside the realm of the physical sciences and can only be known through philosophy and/or religion.

Well put and I think this is a very key idea.

We arent JUST physical beings. We have an entire spectrum of emotion, ability to think and appreciate etc etc.

We need BOTH to help explain our world.

[Socrates]

What about the trinity? 

 

If you actually study the theology of the Most Holy Trinity, you'd know that it is regarded as a Mystery not because it is irrational or illogical, but because the inner life of the Infinite God is beyond the grasp of finite human reason, and the human mind can understand it only imperfectly and by weak metaphor.  While man can know through pure reason that there is a God, he cannot know absolutely everything about the nature of God without it being revealed to him.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

If you actually study the theology of the Most Holy Trinity, you'd know that it is regarded as a Mystery not because it is irrational or illogical, but because the inner life of the Infinite God is beyond the grasp of finite human reason, and the human mind can understand it only imperfectly and by weak metaphor.  While man can know through pure reason that there is a God, he cannot know absolutely everything about the nature of God without it being revealed to him.

Wait, so are you saying that it is irrational but it's not regarded as a Mystery for this reason? 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Science and faith are not mutually exclusive, and there are and have been plenty of excellent scientists who are also religious believers.  Modern science actually arose from the inquiries and discoveries of Catholic monks in the Middle Ages, who preserved and advanced learning and inquiry into the natural world.

Newton was into astrology. That doesn't mean that astrology and science aren't mutually exclusive. How this is any different?

 

 

 

Science can tell us a lot about the material world, its dimensions, and how it works, but it is limited to knowledge about those things.  Science cannot tell us d by dewhy there is a material universe in the first place, why there is something rather than nothing, the purpose of human existence, the meaning of life, or how we as human beings ought to live our lives.

 

 

 

 

I can apply your argument to new age beliefs too. Faith in something we can't test = not scientific.

 

 

(That in itself does not prove the existence of God, but shows that there are areas of human knowledge that cannot be determined by natural science.)  Some things are outside the realm of the physical sciences and can only be known through philosophy and/or religion.

We don't need faith in God for any of these areas of human knowledge.

 

 

God by definition is pure Spirit, rather than some material thing, and as such is outside the realm of material science (which can only observe and measure material things.

If you think that is absurd or irrational, consider being or existence itself.  We are all aware of the reality of being or existence (as individual things can either exist or be non-existent, but reality or existence itself is not a particular thing we can observe and measure physically in the lab.

 

Good point! We can use science to explain human consciousness. There are experiments related to this. If I didn't answer you fully, you can press me. 

 

 

 

A Christians, we believe that God is pure, limitless, infinite Being, the source of all being.  All material things we can observe in the universe are dependent on other things or conditions (physical laws, fields, etc,) for their existence, and none of them can by themselves account for their own existence.  To determine the ultimate cause of the being of all things, we must go back to something that is simple pure Being itself, not dependent on anything else.  We believe this source of all being to be God - the great "I Am Who Am" revealed to Abraham.

Right, but this relies on faith. I can say my pillow is the prime mover. It's not any crazier or less provable than your claim.  

 

 

I definitely find belief in God as more philosophically and intellectually satisfying than the idea that the material universe is somehow the cause of its own existence.

 

I find my pillow more philosophically, intellectually, and physically satisfying than the idea of God's existence. That doesn't make it any more right. 

 

 

 

 

While I don't have time or space to get into the actual proofs for God here (plus I need to brush up on my philosophy), if you're  really interested in this topic, I'd highly recommend reading Robert J. Spitzer's New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy.  The first part of the book deals with modern physics, and how the evidence points toward the universe having a set absolute beginning from nothing, as opposed to the various fluctuating universe and multiverse hypotheses, and the second part uses philosophical proofs involving logical reasoning.  

A careful reading of the book may or may not convince you of the existence of God, but I can guarantee you will no longer see belief in God as irrational or contrary to science.

 

I'm not saying the idea of a God is irrational. I'm saying that faith (belief in something without proof) is not compatible with a scientific way of thinking, which is evidence based. Btw, I don't deny that the universe began from nothing. It's possible that it did this on its own without the need of a God. I don't think we know enough to say for sure. 

Edited July 17, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

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.

 

I think science has alot of revelation. Someone thinks of something theoretically and than they try and apply and prove that theory. Not unlike faith, first we dare to believe than we apply that belief with the action of faith, in all sorts of ways. Science seeks temporal truths or facts, Faith seeks perpetual truth. I love science how it is always seeking to reveal a truth, i just don't like the media and other popular culture selling some scientific theories to the masses as truths.

 

 

Onward christian souls

JESUS iz LORD.

 

JC " Seek and you shall find."

Edited July 17, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[EmilyAnn]

Newton was into astrology. That doesn't mean that astrology and science aren't mutually exclusive. How this is any different?

 

I can apply your argument to new age beliefs too. Faith in something we can't test = not scientific.

 

We don't need faith in God for any of these areas of human knowledge.

 

Good point! We can use science to explain human consciousness. There are experiments related to this. If I didn't answer you fully, you can press me. 

 

Right, but this relies on faith. I can say my pillow is the prime mover. It's not any crazier or less provable than your claim. 

 

I find my pillow more philosophically, intellectually, and physically satisfying than the idea of God's existence. That doesn't make it any more right. 

 

 

I'm not saying the idea of a God is irrational. I'm saying that faith (belief in something without proof) is not compatible with a scientific way of thinking, which is evidence based. Btw, I don't deny that the universe began from nothing. It's possible that it did this on its own without the need of a God. I don't think we know enough to say for sure. 

 

Faith is not scientific. Because...*gasp*....it's not a science. There are a lot of fields of knowledge that are not scientific. Shockingly enough, the things that are scientific are....sciences. Sciences are only a tiny part of human knowledge. Types of knowledge are different and there are different patterns and ways of thinking. You can't apply one method to the other because they are different. I don't approach literature in the same way I approach my psychology experiments. Using one approach on the other doesn't work because they're not the same.

 

Contrary to popular opinion, sciences are flawed and fallible. They are prone to human error just as much as any other field of knowledge. I'm not saying this to dismiss scientific fields (since I am in one myself) but because sciences are being misunderstood and put on a pedestal when they shouldn't be. 

[CrossCuT]

Sciences are only a tiny part of human knowledge. Types of knowledge are different and there are different patterns and ways of thinking. You can't apply 

 

This was the next thing I was going to mention but Emily beat me to it!

Catholicsarekewl - It seems like youre comparing everything to science and saying that because it doesnt fit in there, then its not something to "believe" in. 

 

Im curious to how you cope with anything else you encounter besides faith.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I think science has alot of revelation. Someone thinks of something theoretically and than they try and apply and prove that theory. Not unlike faith, first we dare to believe than we apply that belief with the action of faith, in all sorts of ways. Science seeks temporal truths or facts, Faith seeks perpetual truth. I love science how it is always seeking to reveal a truth, i just don't like the media and other popular culture selling some scientific theories to the masses as truths.

 

 

Onward christian souls

JESUS iz LORD.

 

JC " Seek and you shall find."

 

Interesting point. You're right, philosophy/creativity does have a lot to do with coming up with ideas for experiments. And it's true that some faulty science is sold as truth in the media. 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Faith is not scientific. Because...*gasp*....it's not a science. There are a lot of fields of knowledge that are not scientific. Shockingly enough, the things that are scientific are....sciences. Sciences are only a tiny part of human knowledge. Types of knowledge are different and there are different patterns and ways of thinking. You can't apply one method to the other because they are different. I don't approach literature in the same way I approach my psychology experiments. Using one approach on the other doesn't work because they're not the same.

 

EMILYANN! Oh my goodness, this our first argument?  :o

 

I know faith isn't a science. It is a belief in something without proof. This isn't scientific, EmilyAnn. That doesn't make your faith wrong but it does make it incompatible with the way of thinking one should adopt as a scientist. Literature does not require us to believe in something we can't prove. I can be a Sherlock Holmes enthusiast and a chemistry teacher. There's no contradiction in those ways of thinking. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well enough...

 

Let's say you know professor x. Professor x teaches bio/chem/bio-chem and is famous for his research on y. You notice that professor x is into alchemy, wears power balance bracelets, and has a shrine to Athena in his office. Do you find this at all puzzling? Why? Why not?

 

For your psychology experiments, do you ever accept articles on faith when you do a literature review? No, you make sure to investigate what methods the authors used, whether their work has been peer reviewed, etc. You have to approach everything skeptically. Why don't you apply this sort of skepticism to your religious beliefs?

 

Faith is not an area of human knowledge. Faith is a belief in something without proof. Faith in God is as scientific as faith in astrology. Faith = not compatible with science. 

Edited July 17, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CrossCuT]

If a scientist allowed their faith mentality to bleed over into how they handle scientific questions, then there would be a problem and your argument would have more ground. However that is not the case and if it is, those scientists are in error. 

They are allowing their faith to determine physical ideas which cant happen.

 

 

It seems like youre arguing that beause a particular scientist might believe in God or the toothy fairy etc, that means that they use that same mode of thinking and apply it to everything else. Not true.

 

It is possible to be a scientists AND believe in God without it altering how you operate in your field. 

Edited July 17, 2013 by CrossCuT