Originally posted by Thequ1ckScience can explain anything in the Universe consistently without the aid of extra natural explanations.
Does everything spring from the immutable crash of the unstoppable
force and the immovable object?
Or are we stuck between a rock and a hard place?
Questions like "why are we here, what's our purpose, or what created the Universe" are out of the scope of science.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckENCYCLICAL LETTER
Does everything spring from the immutable crash of the unstoppable
force and the immovable object?
Or are we stuck between a rock and a hard place?
FIDES ET RATIO
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON
From the introduction:
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html
Originally posted by ivanhoeThank you, you have restored my reason in faith.
ENCYCLICAL LETTER
FIDES ET RATIO
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON
From the introduction:
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the trut ...[text shortened]... va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html
Originally posted by Thequ1ckScience makes no comment on the supernatural nor any claims to be able to provide complete truth. Science seeks only to explain the natural world as well as humanly possible. The illusion that there is some competition between the two is from religion not being so honest about about its limitations.
Does everything spring from the immutable crash of the unstoppable
force and the immovable object?
Or are we stuck between a rock and a hard place?
Case in point, the encyclical above claims that "faith" is as important a path to truth as reason, though this is in itself unreasonable. Anyone that can claim that unquestioning belief (the definition of faith) in anything is a tool for approaching truth is either deluded or trying to delude.
Science approaches truths about the natural world, philosophy approaches truth in all other more intangible areas. Faith is the confusion between assumption and fact.
Edit: I would also like to point out that I have reservations about this being in the Science forum given that science quite clearly has no dealings with the supernatural.
Originally posted by serigadoWhat created the universe is a question intensely studied right now by scientists. Why we are here is not a question that demands religion, nor what is our purpose. Religion is the scurge of mankind not the saviour.
Science can explain anything in the Universe consistently without the aid of extra natural explanations.
Questions like "why are we here, what's our purpose, or what created the Universe" are out of the scope of science.
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves."That's a truly idiotic comment.
How can someone in a simple sentence make about 5-6 demagogic inferences? It almost sounds something true. Only someone like the pope might have been led to say that.
I bet many feel sympathetic to that comment. Surely I'm not one of them.
Originally posted by serigadoPlease keep in mind that "ratio"" (= "reason" ) has a wider horizon than merely "science".
That's a truly idiotic comment.
How can someone in a simple sentence make about 5-6 demagogic inferences? It almost sounds something true. Only someone like the pope might have been led to say that.
I bet many feel sympathetic to that comment. Surely I'm not one of them.
Have you read the encyclical ?
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves."
...says someone who doesn't belive in Big Bang, and refers to the bible, the greatest scientific advisor of all authorities. 😕
I say that religion is one thing, religion is totally another thing. Religion cannot ever be science, and science can never deal with religion.
Originally posted by sonhouseYou are absolutely right. Religion sucks! The saviour is a person. That person is Jesus Christ.
What created the universe is a question intensely studied right now by scientists. Why we are here is not a question that demands religion, nor what is our purpose. Religion is the scurge of mankind not the saviour.
Originally posted by josephwThat's really constructive josephw. Thank you for reminding us that
You are absolutely right. Religion sucks! The saviour is a person. That person is Jesus Christ.
Christians worship a man called Jesus. You can put your hand down now.
Well, we've heard from the scientists who are quite emphatic that science
not only does not need religion but is actually better off without it.
Do we have any Christian's out there that are willing to defend their faith
in light of it's usefulness in society? Or am I to expect another round of
chanting?
As a matter of historical fact, modern science has developed
from an understanding of the world as God’s ordered Creation,
with its own inherent rationality. The issue is whether it can continue
with confidence when it has jettisoned all theological
assumptions. Why does the world behave so regularly that science
can generalise and make universal claims about the nature
of physical reality? Why should it have such an inherent rationality
that our minds can make sense of it? Why should even the
highly abstract symbols of mathematics, the creation of human
minds, appear to be able to express its working? Without an
appeal to God, as the source and ground of reason, who has
made the world in a rational manner, there appears little
prospect for providing any external legitimation for science.
Unless we take science at its own (sometimes over-confident)
valuation, and do not indulge in any philosophical concerns
about its rational basis, we must take seriously the fact
that the belief in God, as Creator, has in the past provided a firm
basis for scientific understanding. A desire to understand the
works of the Creator has been a prime motivation for science.
Science needed theism in the seventeenth century at the time of
Newton and Boyle. The eighteenth century saw a growing belief
that science can survive on its own. Contemporary attacks on
the idea of ‘modern’ rationality suggest that without a legitimate
base science will not go on flourishing5.
Taken from the Faraday papers :
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Faraday%20Papers/Faraday%20Paper%202%20Trigg_EN.pdf