Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1088864 Posts in 71969 Topics- by 19323 Members - Latest Member: bryangray
Jump to:  
Pages: 1 ... 68 69 70 71 72 [73]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Science vs Religion  (Read 165680 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
bhcordova
Wielder of the Cat Litter Scoop

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Joined: May 18, 2000
Posts: 7159
"Carpe Felix"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1440 on: Sep 23, 2011, 05:57PM »

From the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas.

1st Part

Question 1. The nature and extent of sacred doctrine

Is it necessary?
Is it a science?
Is it one or many?
Is it speculative or practical?
How it is compared with other sciences?
Is it the same as wisdom?
Is God its subject-matter?
Is it a matter of argument?
Does it rightly employ metaphors and similes?
May the Sacred Scripture of this doctrine be expounded in different senses?

Article 1. Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?

Objection 1. It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee" (Sirach 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides philosophical science is superfluous.

Objection 2. Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save what is true; and all that is, is true. But everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science--even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides philosophical science, there is no need of any further knowledge.

On the contrary, It is written (2 Timothy 3:16): "All Scripture, inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God.

I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 66:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.

Reply to Objection 1. Although those things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by faith. Hence the sacred text continues, "For many things are shown to thee above the understanding of man" (Sirach 3:25). And in this, the sacred science consists.

Reply to Objection 2. Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.

The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas
Second and Revised Edition, 1920
Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province
Online Edition Copyright © 2006 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.
Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.
APPROBATIO ORDINIS
Nihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.
Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis Anglię

MARIĘ IMMACULATĘ - SEDI SAPIENTIĘ
Logged

Billy Cordova, MBA
Forum Administrator
bcordova@tromboneforum.org

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! - Lewis Carroll

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup - Anon.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18609
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #1441 on: Sep 26, 2011, 06:41AM »

The Inquisition of Climate Science
by James Lawrence Powell
 
Amazon Synopsis:
Modern science is under the greatest and most successful attack in recent history. An industry of denial, abetted by news media and "info-tainment" broadcasters more interested in selling controversy than presenting facts, has duped half the American public into rejecting the facts of climate science -- an overwhelming body of rigorously vetted scientific evidence showing that human-caused, carbon-based emissions are linked to warming the Earth. The industry of climate science denial is succeeding: public acceptance has declined even as the scientific evidence for global warming has increased. It is vital that the public understand how anti-science ideologues, pseudo-scientists, and non-scientists have bamboozled them. We cannot afford to get global warming wrong -- yet we are, thanks to deniers and their methods.

The Inquisition of Climate Science is the first book to comprehensively take on the climate science denial movement and the deniers themselves, exposing their lack of credentials, their extensive industry funding, and their failure to provide any alternative theory to explain the observed evidence of warming. In this book, readers meet the most prominent deniers while dissecting their credentials, arguments, and lack of objectivity. James Lawrence Powell shows that the deniers use a wide variety of deceptive rhetorical techniques, many stretching back to ancient Greece. Carefully researched, fully referenced, and compellingly written, his book clearly reveals that the evidence of global warming is real and that an industry of denial has deceived the American public, putting them and their grandchildren at risk.
 
--
 
Looks like a good one!
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
bhcordova
Wielder of the Cat Litter Scoop

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Joined: May 18, 2000
Posts: 7159
"Carpe Felix"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1442 on: Sep 26, 2011, 07:35PM »

From the Summa;

Article 2. Whether sacred doctrine is a science?

Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every science proceeds from self-evident principles. But sacred doctrine proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident, since their truth is not admitted by all: "For all men have not faith" (2 Thessalonians 3:2). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.

Objection 2. Further, no science deals with individual facts. But this sacred science treats of individual facts, such as the deeds of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like. Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) "to this science alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected and strengthened." But this can be said of no science except sacred doctrine. Therefore sacred doctrine is a science.

I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.

Reply to Objection 1. The principles of any science are either in themselves self-evident, or reducible to the conclusions of a higher science; and such, as we have said, are the principles of sacred doctrine.

Reply to Objection 2. Individual facts are treated of in sacred doctrine, not because it is concerned with them principally, but they are introduced rather both as examples to be followed in our lives (as in moral sciences) and in order to establish the authority of those men through whom the divine revelation, on which this sacred scripture or doctrine is based, has come down to us.

The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas
Second and Revised Edition, 1920
Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province
Online Edition Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.
Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.
APPROBATIO ORDINIS
Nihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.
Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis Anglię

MARIĘ IMMACULATĘ - SEDI SAPIENTIĘ
Logged

Billy Cordova, MBA
Forum Administrator
bcordova@tromboneforum.org

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! - Lewis Carroll

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup - Anon.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18609
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #1443 on: Sep 27, 2011, 10:12AM »

Peace of Mind: Near-Death Experiences Now Found to Have Scientific Explanations
 
There is nothing paranormal about near-death experiences: how neuroscience can explain seeing bright lights, meeting the dead, or being convinced you are one of them
 
As always, science is pulling the curtain back, revealing the machinery behind contemporary lightning (I'm guessing most of you can decrypt what that means, and some of you know immediately what it means).
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18609
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #1444 on: Dec 22, 2011, 07:55AM »

From the Skeptics Society:
 
Unnatural Acts: Critical Thinking, Skepticism, and Science Exposed! - Chapter 1: Believing in the Palpably Not True
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Stretch Longarm
old enough to know better

*
Offline Offline

Location: Washington
Joined: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 3819

View Profile
« Reply #1445 on: Dec 22, 2011, 08:13AM »


Wow - great stuff.
Logged

trombone airflow is 360 degrees. Think about it.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18609
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #1446 on: Jan 04, 2012, 10:38AM »

Lawrence Krauss: Everything and Nothing: The Universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18609
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #1447 on: Mar 14, 2012, 07:56AM »

Science, Religion Incompatible?
Hot-Button Debate Features Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, Dr. Michael Shermer
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Radar

*
Offline Offline

Location: Rochester NY
Joined: Feb 23, 2012
Posts: 724

View Profile
« Reply #1448 on: Apr 12, 2012, 06:11PM »

Regarding religion and science I think there is only areconflict if you take the fundmentalist view of the Bible that every word is the perfect infallable word of God.  Although I'm a believer in God, and Christ as the son of God I also believe that the Bible is a collection of smaller writings by various authors who were inspired by their faith to record the stories and beliefs that had been passed down to them. If you read the Bible in this light then you can discern what the important messages are in the various stories.  If your read Genesis as a story that is designed to tell us who created the world, and not a science text that tells you exactly how he did it and in what order (since if you read all of Genesis there are 2 different creation accounts and if you line them up side by side they don't agree on the order of things).  The fundamentalists will say that you can't pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you want to believe in, but my response to that is that yes I can and I do.  There are many stories (especially in the old testament) that I believe are there to make a moral point, and are not an account of an actual event.  Did Jonah really get swallowed by a whale and live to tell about it, I would have to say probably not.  So I have no problem reconciling my religious beliefs and science.  I respect those that do have a fundamentalist views of religion and the Bible, I just from my reading and study can say that I have faith in God, and believe Christ to be his son who is our savior, but I don't believe that the Bible can be read and interpreted literally in all instances.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18609
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #1449 on: Apr 13, 2012, 07:19AM »

Regarding religion and science I think there is only areconflict if you take the fundmentalist view of the Bible that every word is the perfect infallable word of God.
Well, it's not a problem for pretty much any given believer to compartmentalize his religious beliefs, fundamentalist or otherwise, and his scientific ... with some exceptions of course. That's a key aspect of religious faith--fostering our capacity to compartmentalize and the intellectual and moral plasticity required to do so.
 
The fundamentalists will say that you can't pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you want to believe in, but my response to that is that yes I can and I do.
Yeah, all believers have to, many just refuse to own up to it (which requires intellectual plasticity/compartmentalization).
 
I respect those that do have a fundamentalist views of religion and the Bible ...
Respect isn't demonstrated by coddling people though--presuming they're so fragile it's hurtful or even harmful if you don't also feign respect for their more vapid notions. That's really just patronization, but we're socialized to conflate the two concepts when it comes to religion. That's because we're socialized to venerate religion and to presume religious values are the height of virtue, and that entire house of cards depends upon the winds of reality being kept at bay. So while we normally tend to recognize the value of critical thinking, when and where it touches on religion we're taught to change our view so that "criticism" becomes "disrespect" and "hostility". Articles of faith are simply too fragile to survive too much exposure to nature. There's too much of a conflict to be mitigated. It has to be compartmentalized, and the extent to which we can do that is a direct factor of our intellectual integrity. That's why most believers, being generally good people (such as is the nature of social species), don't actually have much at all in the way of faith, which is in turn why most of the rhetoric about faith is precisely about what faith isn't rather than what it is (it's about redefining faith so it can be claimed by ethically/morally intact and yet also conscientious people).
 
So while there's an inherent and very fundamental conflict between actual faith (rather than "rhetoricized" faith as I call it) and science/skepticism/sound, critical reasoning and epistemology and all that shite, people don't tend to have any difficulty compartmentalizing them both in the same host organism--the same host mind. So you have to equivocate between "conflict" in terms of the ideas/paradigms themselves, and in terms of the capacity for the host to maintain them both at the same time, in order to conclude there's no "conflict" between them. Equivocation is one of the favorite (most useful) intellectual escape and evasion tools for religious apologists--comes up pretty frequently in religious apologetics and rhetoric.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Pages: 1 ... 68 69 70 71 72 [73]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: