Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 16 Oct '08 21:14 / 6 edits
    Because the important issues raised in the Encyclical "Fides et Ratio" are of interest not only to those interested in "Fides" but also to those interested in "Ratio", I post this VIS report here at the Science forum. In this way those who want to enter the field of the broader issues concerning the relationship between Faith and Reason can study them and hopefully gain a more profound insight in these matters.


    POPE PRAISES THE CONSTANT RELEVANCE OF "FIDES ET RATIO"

    VATICAN CITY, 16 OCT 2008 (VIS) - Ten years after the publication of John Paul II's Encyclical "Fides et Ratio", the Pontifical Lateran University in collaboration with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the World Conference of Catholic University Institutions of Philosophy, has organised a conference to commemorate the anniversary.

    This morning, participants in the congress were received in audience by the Holy Father who spoke of the "constant relevance" of the Encyclical, which "is characterised by its great openness to reason, especially in a period in which there is speculation about its weakness. John Paul II underlined the importance of uniting faith and reason in a reciprocal relationship, while respecting the autonomy proper to each.

    "With this document", he added, "the Church interpreted an emerging need of the modern social context. She sought to defend the force of reason and its capacity to arrive at truth, while once again presenting the faith as a specific form of knowledge thanks to which we open to the truth of Revelation. The Encyclical says that we must trust in the capacity of human reason and not set overly modest goals".

    "Who can deny", the Pope asked, "the contribution the great philosophical systems have made to the development of man's self-knowledge and to the progress of various cultures? Indeed, these cultures become fruitful when they open to truth, enabling those who participate in them to reach objectives that make social life ever more human".

    "Nonetheless, we cannot conceal the fact that there has been a slide from a prevalently speculative form of thought to a chiefly empirical one. Research has turned to focus above all on the observation of nature in the attempt to discover its secrets. And the desire to understand nature has then been transformed into the desire to reproduce it. ... Scientific and technological progress, which 'fides' is increasingly called to confront, has altered the old concept of 'ratio'; in some way it has marginalised the reason that sought the ultimate truth of things to make way for a reason that satisfies itself with discovering the contingent truths of the laws of nature.

    "Scientific research certainly has a positive value" when "the applied sciences are the fruit of reason and an expression of the intelligence with which man manages to penetrate the depths of creation. For its part, faith does nor fear scientific progress and the developments to which its achievements lead when their ultimate focus is man, his wellbeing and the progress of all humanity".

    The Holy Father pointed out that "science is not capable of establishing ethical principles. ... In this context, philosophy and theology become an indispensable aid which must be taken into account to ensure that science does not advance alone along a difficult path full of pitfalls and not without risks. This does not mean limiting scientific research ... but in keeping alive the sense of responsibility which reason and faith must have towards science, to ensure it remains at the service of man".

    "Reason", he went on, "discovers that beyond its own achievements and conquests there exists a truth that can never be discovered by using its own parameters, but only received as a gratuitous gift. The truth of Revelation is not superimposed on the truth achieved by reason, rather it purifies and exalts reason, enabling it to expand beyond its confines to become part of a field of research as unfathomable as the mystery itself".

    Benedict XVI concluded: "The passion for truth impels us to turn into ourselves to discover the profound meaning of our lives in the interior man. True philosophy must lead people by the hand and bring them to discover how fundamental knowing the truth of Revelation is for their own dignity".

    AC/FIDES ET RATIO/... VIS 081016 (640)

    ******************************************************

    Encyclical "Fides et Ratio".

    - Table of Contents -

    INTRODUCTION - “KNOW YOURSELF”

    CHAPTER I - THE REVELATION OF GOD'S WISDOM
    Jesus, revealer of the Father
    Reason before the mystery


    CHAPTER II - CREDO UT INTELLEGAM

    “Wisdom knows all and understands all” (Wis 9:11)
    “Acquire wisdom, acquire understanding” (Prov 4:5)


    CHAPTER III - INTELLEGO UT CREDAM

    Journeying in search of truth
    The different faces of human truth


    CHAPTER IV - THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON

    Important moments in the encounter of faith and reason
    The enduring originality of the thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas
    The drama of the separation of faith and reason


    CHAPTER V - THE MAGISTERIUM'S INTERVENTIONS IN PHILOSOPHICAL MATTERS

    The Magisterium's discernment as diakonia of the truth
    The Church's interest in philosophy


    CHAPTER VI - THE INTERACTION BETWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY

    The knowledge of faith and the demands of philosophical reason
    Different stances of philosophy


    CHAPTER VII - CURRENT REQUIREMENTS AND TASKS

    The indispensable requirements of the word of God
    Current tasks for theology


    CONCLUSION

    **********************************************************

    Integral text of the Encyclical "Fides et Ratio":

    http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM
  2. 17 Oct '08 04:20
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    Because the important issues raised in the Encyclical "Fides et Ratio" are of interest not only to those interested in "Fides" but also to those interested in "Ratio", I post this VIS report here at the Science forum. In this way those who want to enter the field of the broader issues concerning the relationship between Faith and Reason can study them and ho ...[text shortened]...
    http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM
    I haven't read it all, but tell me, what has the word of the pope to do with science?

    Shouldn't this thread be in Spiritual instead?
  3. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    17 Oct '08 07:06
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I haven't read it all, but tell me, what has the word of the pope to do with science?

    Shouldn't this thread be in Spiritual instead?
    Just read the bit in bold.

    Does ethics have any bearing on science? If yes, then no; if no, then yes.
  4. 17 Oct '08 21:03 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I haven't read it all, but tell me, what has the word of the pope to do with science?

    Shouldn't this thread be in Spiritual instead?
    Bosse gave the correct answer .....
  5. 17 Oct '08 21:40
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    Bosse gave the correct answer .....
    But what does the pope know about science? Why is the pope so eager to introduce ethics in science, when he's not capable to introduce ethics in religion?
    Example: Why is condoms bad when people get AIDS without it?
    Another example: Was it okay to burn Bruno alive because he had the wrong ideas?
    So where are the ethics within the churchs attitude when it matters? Why is ethics within science so important for the pope?

    When does the church accept evolution as a part of gods creation? Why is religion so against science?

    Religious ethics should be in the Spiritual Forum, because the history has shown that the religion cannot have any part of science.
  6. 17 Oct '08 21:42
    When does the church accept evolution as a part of gods creation? Why is religion so against science?


    The Roman Catholic church accepted evolution quite some time ago.
  7. Standard member Nemesio
    Ursulakantor
    18 Oct '08 01:33
    The Holy Father pointed out that "science is not capable of establishing ethical principles. ... In this context, philosophy and theology become an indispensable aid which must be taken into account to ensure that science does not advance alone along a difficult path full of pitfalls and not without risks. This does not mean limiting scientific research ... but in keeping alive the sense of res ...[text shortened]... eason and faith must have towards science, to ensure it remains at the service of man".
    Given that science is not capable of ethical principles, what is one to do when a course of action
    is rationally justified and scientifically supported but goes against the ethical principles taught by
    the Church?

    Nemesio
  8. 18 Oct '08 05:50
    Originally posted by Eladar
    [b]When does the church accept evolution as a part of gods creation? Why is religion so against science?


    The Roman Catholic church accepted evolution quite some time ago.[/b]
    They did?

    Oh, then why isn't evolution a scientific fact for christians as a whole? Why are christians still against evolution? Why are some christians so anti-science?

    You avoided the other un-ethical standpoints that the pope has. As long the pope is anti-science, then he shouldn't talk about ethics within science, of which he obviously doesn't understand.
  9. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    18 Oct '08 08:10
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    They did?

    Oh, then why isn't evolution a scientific fact for christians as a whole? Why are christians still against evolution? Why are some christians so anti-science?

    You avoided the other un-ethical standpoints that the pope has. As long the pope is anti-science, then he shouldn't talk about ethics within science, of which he obviously doesn't understand.
    Because they're literalists, unlike the Catholics. You should know, this has been pointed out to you a brazillion times.

    Bruno burnt 500 years ago. Nor was he a scientist. And people don't get burnt for heresy in Catholic countries anymore.

    As for the condoms -- put one on before your next confession.

    Anyway, what is the relationship between science and ethics, in your opinion?
  10. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    18 Oct '08 08:11
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Given that science is not capable of ethical principles, what is one to do when a course of action
    is rationally justified and scientifically supported but goes against the ethical principles taught by
    the Church?

    Nemesio
    How about 'goes against ethical principles' in general? And why don't you answer your own question? It's a bit broad, it could cover anything from mandatory euthanasia of the insane to that well trodden topic abortion.
  11. 18 Oct '08 08:21
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    They did?

    Oh, then why isn't evolution a scientific fact for christians as a whole? Why are christians still against evolution? Why are some christians so anti-science?
    My parents were Anglican and they taught me that Evolution was fact. As far as I know the Christians who do not believe evolution is fact are in the minority.
    Christians differ in their beliefs quite significantly. I grew up in a town of about 100,000 and there were over 140 different Christian denominations. Within each denomination there is rarely full agreement.
    What is interesting is that surveys show that the ordinary person who claims to be Christian does not necessarily even believe in life after death.
  12. 18 Oct '08 08:25
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    How about 'goes against ethical principles' in general? And why don't you answer your own question? It's a bit broad, it could cover anything from mandatory euthanasia of the insane to that well trodden topic abortion.
    I don't think either of those topics has anything much to do with science. I doubt if the science is in dispute by anyone on either side of the argument. (except possibly the people who argue that a single celled fetus can think).
  13. 18 Oct '08 09:35
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    My parents were Anglican and they taught me that Evolution was fact. As far as I know the Christians who do not believe evolution is fact are in the minority.
    Christians differ in their beliefs quite significantly. I grew up in a town of about 100,000 and there were over 140 different Christian denominations. Within each denomination there is rarely full ...[text shortened]... rdinary person who claims to be Christian does not necessarily even believe in life after death.
    This is why I say, now and then: Christianity is not one religion.

    I have moslem friends who have more in common with me concerning ethics than different parts of christianity has in relation to eachothers.
  14. 18 Oct '08 09:38
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Because they're literalists, unlike the Catholics. You should know, this has been pointed out to you a brazillion times.

    Bruno burnt 500 years ago. Nor was he a scientist. And people don't get burnt for heresy in Catholic countries anymore.

    As for the condoms -- put one on before your next confession.

    Anyway, what is the relationship between science and ethics, in your opinion?
    Bruno was burnt 500 years ago, but isn't catolisism eternal? Don't they have the same god at Bruon's time as they have now? God is eternal, they say? So what they thought was good then, isn't that good now too?

    And now I bring the topic back to science and ethics - a religion without religious ethics shouldn't open their mouth about scientific ethics. The pope believes that he can stop AIDS by prohibiting condoms - religious ethics...
  15. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    18 Oct '08 09:51
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Bruno was burnt 500 years ago, but isn't catolisism eternal? Don't they have the same god at Bruon's time as they have now? God is eternal, they say? So what they thought was good then, isn't that good now too?
    Obviously not, because, as I've already pointed out, heresy is no longer punishable by death in Catholic countries. Don't be a jerk.

    If the Pope is excluded from speaking about science merely because he is a Catholic, shouldn't Catholic scientists also keep their mouths shut?