qfnol31 Posted September 10, 2005 Author Share Posted September 10, 2005 I think Theology is the highest of the philosophical studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 [quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 10 2005, 03:29 AM']That's an interesting classification and I agree with it in the sense of how inclusive each field, as it were, is regarding aspects of reality that they address. For example science, being on the lowest rung, attempts to explain only physical reality. As one ascends the hierarchy, more, deeper aspects of reality are addressed. [right][snapback]717928[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes.. While I find the study of say, aquatic life, or the solar system to be quite interesting, I arrange human pursuits of knowledge in a hierarchy based upon existential significance. And I'd say the more "ultimate" the questions become, the higher their priority in this schema. And since I believe all things have their origin and end in God (including man), the study of God is of highest priority. He is the Alpha and the Omega as well as the Reason (Ratio, Logos) of all things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hierochloe Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 10 2005, 03:35 AM']Yes.. While I find the study of say, aquatic life, or the solar system to be quite interesting, I arrange human pursuits of knowledge in a hierarchy based upon existential significance. And I'd say the more "ultimate" the questions become, the higher their priority in this schema. And since I believe all things have their origin and end in God (including man), the study of God is of highest priority. He is the Alpha and the Omega as well as the Reason (Ratio, Logos) of all things. [right][snapback]717931[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Exactly how I would put it if I were as eloquent as you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morostheos Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 [quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 10 2005, 06:08 AM']Exactly how I would put it if I were as eloquent as you. [right][snapback]717932[/snapback][/right] [/quote] ditto!! I do, however, think it is important not to turn science into theology by using theological ideas and scripture to define truths in the natural world rather than using the scientific method (i.e. - the Bible says the sun rises and sets, therefore the sun must be moving around the earth) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hierochloe Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 My personal definition of the term philosophy is adjusting.... What is the nature of a doctorate degree in any science outside of the medical field? Yup, philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colleen Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 Ooh, this is interesting. I don't think that Philosophy and Science or Science and God should be separate. I actually came to this conclusion last semester, based on something I was reading by the Angelic Doctor. He wrote something called [i]Does Natural Philosophy Treat of What Exists in Motion and Matter?[/i], which is a part of a collection of works called [i]The Division and Method of the Sciences[/i]. In the work St. Thomas defends the idea that natural philosophy (that is, what we today refer to as science) is something worthy of study. Furthermore, he said that studying natural philosophy was not incompatible with Christian beliefs. Since the terminology can be a little confusing, let me clarify. By “science,” Thomas is referring to knowledge, and by “Division of the Sciences” he means the division of all branches of knowledge. Therefore, the Sciences include all sorts of branches of knowledge, such as philosophy, natural science, theology, and mathematics. Natural philosophy (or natural science) is the philosophy of nature itself (that is, the world around us). In this particular work, Thomas says that natural philosophy (that is, natural science) should be studied to complete our knowledge of being and our knowledge of the universe, as well as simply to understand why things are. To him, the various branches of knowledge (eg: philosophy, natural science, theology, and mathematics), are not incompatible. While they are distinct categories of study, they do not have to contradict each other and indeed, can go hand in hand. Thomas rejects the claim that nature is unworthy of study, saying that: [quote]“[T]here must be some speculative science dealing with what is in matter and motion, for otherwise the teaching of philosophy, which is knowledge of being, would be incomplete. Now no other speculative science treats of these things, for neither mathematics nor metaphysics does so. Therefore, natural science treats of them.”[/quote] Thus, natural philosophy deserves recognition, as it serves an important purpose that other academic disciplines cannot. Without studying the world around us, he argues, we cannot learn about ourselves in a full and satisfying way. Later, he says it's true that natural science does not study God, the First Mover, but at the same time, God is not separate from the study of natural science. Natural science is a means to the end which is God. Thus, studying natural science can lead someone to a fuller understanding or grasp of God. He goes on to say that as the Creator and First Mover of all things, God is not separable from the natural world. God is not the same as that which is found in the natural world, yet He still is part of it, as the One who sets everything into motion. To Aquinas, God created everything that we see. Since creation is intrinsically good, to study it is good. And because of that, natural philosophy is worthy of study. I wish I could find this text online, but I've been unable to find it. It's very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 That's interesting Cailin. If you find it hook us up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Knight Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 Even though God is illogical, the very nature of science proves his existance, so you can use a logical field to prove something that God did through His Creation of our existance. Never in our entire history has Science and God been so innerconnected to each other, its brillant how God used such a complex system of doing things, yet its so simple for Him that it defys our logic and there makes it illogically for us to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 [quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 11 2005, 02:23 AM']Even though God is illogical, the very nature of science proves his existance, so you can use a logical field to prove something that God did through His Creation of our existance. Never in our entire history has Science and God been so innerconnected to each other, its brillant how God used such a complex system of doing things, yet its so simple for Him that it defys our logic and there makes it illogically for us to understand. [right][snapback]719037[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Technically God is not illogical, God is alogical. In other words outside the scope of logic. And mathematics for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 I've been a bit ill lately, so the brain's not thinking too well. Sorry if this makes no sense. Anyway, my answer of "maybe" to "Should science and God be separate?" is because while it's pretty easy for us to define what science is, not everyone agrees on God, or how He may have revealed Himself. If you start putting your religious beliefs overtly into your research or experiments, whatever truth it is you might have discovered may be biased. No one will take the work seriously. Individual scientists should, of course, be devout, thoughtful Catholics... just like everyone else should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Knight Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 The infinatecy of God's being is outside the box we sould say, there are some things we cannot explain through Science about God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah_JC Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Science is a branch Philosophy. It always has been, why mess with a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirklawd Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 easy. God invented the world and how the world/universe works, he also gave us our curiosity and ability to comprehend which allows us to study everything created and see what is what and how it all works. ofcourse this doesnt make anything we "discover" through scientific study truly profound. the best we can do is determine that something is what it is. i like how Chesterton put it: (paraphrased) science can only tell us that a pumpkin is, infact, a pumpkin and that it does infact continue to be a pumpkin instead of, say, a dog. what science cant tell us is why a pumpkin goes on being a pumpkin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Knight Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 God as our Intelligent Designer, our Creator, Maker of Heaven and Earth, has left His signature in his Creation, everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now