Views On Science?

[xSilverPhinx]

I'm curious to know what this small portion of the Catholic population thinks about science, both in general and especially when it comes to explanations of our origins (Big Bang and evolutionary theory). While being religious and into science are not mutually exclusive by any means, it seems the general trend is the more scientifically-minded people are, the less religious they tend to become, or at least the more likely they are to gravitate to deism rather than theism. 

I do know plenty of people of various denominations who are scientists and seem to have no problem keeping their faith, however.  

So...any scientists among you? Any science enthusiasts?  

Edited November 3, 2015 by xSilverPhinx
typo

[Archaeology cat]

I'm an archaeologist, so social science (I didn't do the hard science part with radiocarbon dating, etc). I believe God gave us ways of observing our world and universe through science. So yeah, I trust the radiocarbon dating (note - that isn't just C-14 dating; second note - even dendrochronology has the world older than 6,000 years). I'm fine with theistic evolution, as well. The Big Bang was postulated by a Catholic, and genetics was also pioneered by a Catholic. 

When I was younger and starting out studying archaeology, my grandmother cautioned me that I'd lose my religion. I never have, and in fact the wonders of science deepen my faith. From her perspective, though, maybe I did since I'm no longer Baptist. I tended to get in trouble as a Baptist who didn't hold to YEC. 

[CatherineM]

I can't imagine a better discription of the Big Bang than and God said let there be light. I've also thought that the seven days of creation were seven nights of dreams to an ancient scribe kind of like Joseph's dreams. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

I just wanted to say that the Big Bang theory was actually formulated by a Catholic priest as an effort to try and argue against atheism, maybe because many people wondered if the universe is eternal (which it can't be theologically). This is not a well known fact and its strange how so many think that this theory supports atheism when its purpose was the opposite. 

[tinytherese]

The Church even says that you can be a Catholic in good standing and believe in evolution. For all we know, God could've used it. Scripture has multiple senses to it which are not mutually exclusive; literal, allegorical, anangogical, and moral.

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/index.cfm?recnum=467 

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

 

Faith and reason are not opposed to each other, but complimentary. http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html 

[xSilverPhinx]

I'm an archaeologist, so social science (I didn't do the hard science part with radiocarbon dating, etc). I believe God gave us ways of observing our world and universe through science. So yeah, I trust the radiocarbon dating (note - that isn't just C-14 dating; second note - even dendrochronology has the world older than 6,000 years). I'm fine with theistic evolution, as well. The Big Bang was postulated by a Catholic, and genetics was also pioneered by a Catholic. 

When I was younger and starting out studying archaeology, my grandmother cautioned me that I'd lose my religion. I never have, and in fact the wonders of science deepen my faith. From her perspective, though, maybe I did since I'm no longer Baptist. I tended to get in trouble as a Baptist who didn't hold to YEC. 

I would have guessed that based on your username.  I think archaeology is a cool science, and began liking to learn about old human settlements after I visited Egypt (back when I was 11). Old Middle Eastern, North African and Italian (especially Pompeii) settlements and historical artifacts fascinate me. Mummies and their sarcophagi would intrigue me. 

What sort of things do you specialise in, if you don't mind my asking? 

 

  

I can't imagine a better discription of the Big Bang than and God said let there be light. I've also thought that the seven days of creation were seven nights of dreams to an ancient scribe kind of like Joseph's dreams. 

"I've also thought that the seven days of creation were seven nights of dreams to an ancient scribe" 

That's an interesting view, I haven't heard it before. 

[xSilverPhinx]

I just wanted to say that the Big Bang theory was actually formulated by a Catholic priest as an effort to try and argue against atheism, maybe because many people wondered if the universe is eternal (which it can't be theologically). This is not a well known fact and its strange how so many think that this theory supports atheism when its purpose was the opposite. 

Ironic how that turned out isn't it? 

I think it might be because most of the erm...louder Christians are usually YECists and since the Big Bang suggests the universe is around 14 billion years old they reject it. Not to jumble up Christians of different denominations and beliefs together but that at least has been my experience.  

Just an addendum: "theory" in science lingo is a collection of facts, not a hypothesis, as it is in common language. There's the theory of gravity, germ theory, evolutionary theory, etc., all of which have ample evidence to support them.     

It's tricky to say that science supports atheism or even religious beliefs. Science is materialistic and is a way of trying to understand the natural world. Is your God part of that world? Can his existence be tested by natural means or measured? Religion is metaphysical and subjective interpretations attached to scientific facts are philosophical. I think the late Stephen Jay Gould had it right when he came up with NOMA, or non-overlapping magisteria. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria 

 

The Church even says that you can be a Catholic in good standing and believe in evolution. For all we know, God could've used it. Scripture has multiple senses to it which are not mutually exclusive; literal, allegorical, anangogical, and moral.

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/index.cfm?recnum=467 

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

 

Faith and reason are not opposed to each other, but complimentary. http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html 

Interesting, especially the last link. I'll have to read those when I have the patience.  

I'm interested to know how Catholics define "reason", it seems to me like it's more intuitive and emotional than logical. 

[SaintOfVirtue]

I split atoms for a living so science is pretty important.

[Not A Mallard]

I'm not a science aficionado, but I can trust that many of the Church's teachings are based in science.

 

[Gabriela]

Some people would call what I do "social science", but I'm a hardcore Popperian, so I wouldn't dream of it. I'd rather call it "social studies".

I have no problem with science as a method, but it's often treated like an idol. Scientists can be extremely arrogant, and not just with regard to religion, but with regard to science itself. They think that since the method "meets the highest epistemological standard" known today, the method is inerrant. Maybe the method is (I doubt it), but the people who use the method are not. I would like to see much more humility in the interpretation of scientific data than we presently do.

Particularly irksome to me personally is the presumptuousness of those science enthusiasts who think that, since science supposedly meets the highest epistemological standard, all other ways of knowing are worthless. The arrogance of this makes me want to punch people. It's also incredibly ignorant, since 99% of what we "know" we know on faith or from personal experience.

Also: A theory isn't a collection of facts. A collection of facts is just a dataset. A theory is an attempt at explaining the facts. Which really is more like a hypothesis than like the facts themselves, although of course theories must (or, at least, should) take facts into consideration. (But then, so do hypotheses.)

Edited November 4, 2015 by Gabriela

[Not The Philosopher]

One time when I was in high school, Science beat me up and took my lunch money.

[HopefulHeart]

I voted that science is an important human endeavor. I'm not a scientist, though; I'm an English major!

The discussion about evolution and religion reminds me of an interesting book that I read for a class: Finding Darwin's God, by the biologist Kenneth R. Miller. Miller (who I believe is Catholic) tries to reconcile evolution and theism, and he deals with topics like YEC and intelligent design. Even if you don't agree with his conclusions, it's still a thought-provoking read.

[xSilverPhinx]

I split atoms for a living so science is pretty important.

That's pretty cool! 

Is it true that you can create a mini black hole that soon disintegrates itself in a particle accelerator? 

[Archaeology cat]

I would have guessed that based on your username.  I think archaeology is a cool science, and began liking to learn about old human settlements after I visited Egypt (back when I was 11). Old Middle Eastern, North African and Italian (especially Pompeii) settlements and historical artifacts fascinate me. Mummies and their sarcophagi would intrigue me. 

What sort of things do you specialise in, if you don't mind my asking? 

Should have said I'm a former archaeologist  My undergrad was Near Eastern & Classical archaeology, and I have my MA in Egyptology. My field work was all in the US, though (Big Sandy period settlement in KY, then CRM work in FL). Bad knees have stopped me doing fieldwork. Now I teach my kids about it. Actually, I was doing the religion lesson with my 5-year-old recently and wasn't specific enough in asking her who the first humans were, and she answered "Homo Erectus." Not bad for 5.  She'd overheard part of her big brother's lesson but not all of it. 

I'm not a science aficionado, but I can trust that many of the Church's teachings are based in science.

 

Science, I said science again!

[xSilverPhinx]

I'm not a science aficionado, but I can trust that many of the Church's teachings are based in science.

 

Forget the floating test tube, the clean lab coat is the oddity... 

Some people would call what I do "social science", but I'm a hardcore Popperian, so I wouldn't dream of it. I'd rather call it "social studies".

I have no problem with science as a method, but it's often treated like an idol. Scientists can be extremely arrogant, and not just with regard to religion, but with regard to science itself. They think that since the method "meets the highest epistemological standard" known today, the method is inerrant. Maybe the method is (I doubt it), but the people who use the method are not. I would like to see much more humility in the interpretation of scientific data than we presently do.

Particularly irksome to me personally is the presumptuousness of those science enthusiasts who think that, since science supposedly meets the highest epistemological standard, all other ways of knowing are worthless. The arrogance of this makes me want to punch people. It's also incredibly ignorant, since 99% of what we "know" we know on faith or from personal experience.

Also: A theory isn't a collection of facts. A collection of facts is just a dataset. A theory is an attempt at explaining the facts. Which really is more like a hypothesis than like the facts themselves, although of course theories must (or, at least, should) take facts into consideration. (But then, so do hypotheses.)

That hasn't been my experience working around scientists, going as far as thinking the method is inerrant. The best we have, yes, but not inerrant. just the other day I attended a seminar held by neuroscientists in which they brought up the subject of the perils of human biases in scientific analyses.

On theories, Ok, I stand corrected. However, they aren't merely hypotheses because they explain a broader set of phenomena, whereas an hypothesis is narrower. A hypothesis is an explanation which can be tested and a theory has predictive power and can be falsifiable.    

"The arrogance of this makes me want to punch people." 

One time when I was in high school, Science beat me up and took my lunch money.

I'm shocked! The same Science I fell in love with?