THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: I have long advocated on this blog that Catholics should remain current on the cutting edge of scientific discovery. Why? Well, because I have discovered in my own personal life that a good understanding of the latest scientific theories, discoveries and laws not only helps me understand the universe better, but it also helps me understand the Catholic faith better. More importantly, it puts modern science into perspective.
You see, much of the science that atheists rely on to 'prove' their theories of godlessness is actually very old science. In fact, the science typically taught to high school students is actually over one-hundred years old. Unless you study science in college, and by that I mean such things as astrophysics or quantum mechanics, chances are, you probably don't have much more than a high school understanding of scientific theories. That understanding is certainly enough to get you through modern life, but it's not enough to really and truly understand the world around us. It is this lack of understanding that atheists rely on, to attack our religious faith.
Keeping in mind that the science atheist rely on is the same science taught to high school students is important, because that science is old and outdated. In fact, it's obsolete. Real scientists today consist of many different faiths and religions, and yes, some of them are atheists, but the latest theories and information they discover today are so fascinating, so compelling, that questioning another man's faith almost seems superfluous. Everyone's understanding of the universe is challenged -- even the atheist's. What we discover is that the universe is so incredibly 'different' than what we previously thought, and commonly experience, that it's really no man's placed to call into question the existence of God.
Every time I learn something new about the universe, my faith in God (and his Christ) is strengthened not questioned. Realising that none of this new understanding would be possible, without the existence of the scientific method, which was in actuality CREATED by the Catholic Church, again only reinforces my faith. The arguments of modern-day atheists often cause me to laugh, or at least chuckle a little, not just because of my faith, but because of my reason which is fuelled by the latest scientific discovery.
Some columnists have recently put forward the theory that modern Evangelicalism (at least as we know it) is dying, that its days are numbered, simply because it has embraced the Puritan idea that reason (science in particular) is the enemy of faith. Because of this, science is destined to crush the Evangelical model of Christian faith. In time, as our scientific understanding of the universe improves, those who embrace the Puritanical notion that faith and science are incompatible will eventually have to shelve either their faith or else their reason. Those who cling to faith will eventually be consigned to backwoods communities, living as the Amish, and shunning the modern scientific world (that is, until they need medical attention). While those who cling to reason will have to shelve their faith, embracing atheism or at the very least some form of agnosticism. Such a dichotomy is ridiculous and completely unnecessary. The Puritans were wrong about a great number of things, including their belief that faith and reason where incompatible. Is it any wonder their sect no longer exists? As for the Evangelicals, they had better learn to drop this notion and adapt quickly, or be consigned to the ash heap of failed ideas in the not-too-distant future. I've met some Catholics who cling to this Puritanical idea too. That is a huge mistake for them, at least on an individual or group level. The only redeeming thing about that is the Church itself does not embrace this view, which means the Church will soon leave them behind, along with those who still cling to the geocentric theory and a flat earth.
Catholics would do well to keep up on the latest scientific trends, and in doing so, I predict your faith will be enriched because of it. I don't say this because there is anything spiritually edifying in science -- there isn't -- but rather because Catholics who do this will begin to understand the fluid nature of scientific theories, particularly how they change and why. It isn't because scientists don't know anything. Actually they know quite a bit. They are, after all, very smart people. Rather, it's because they are like children still learning, and guess what? They will be the first to tell you that! While they understand much of how the universe works, they will tell you that for every answer they achieve, even more questions are proposed, making way for more discovery. The universe is much like this endless puzzle, and the more they put it together, the more they realise the puzzle is much larger than they ever previously expected. For example, imagine working on a puzzle, but you do not know how big it really is. There is no box to tell you. You simply reach into a hole in the floor and pull out a couple dozen pieces. You take some time to put that together, only to realise you just have a portion of a much bigger picture. So then you reach into the hole and pull out a few more dozen pieces. All the while your understanding of the picture is increasing, but as your understanding increases, you realize the picture is still much bigger. What started out as a hundred piece puzzle, has now turned into a thousand piece, and no sooner you put together a thousand pieces, you discover ten-thousand more pieces. This is how scientific discover is. Does it mean the scientists understand nothing? No quite the opposite actually. They understand much more than the common man, but when it comes to getting the big picture, they still have a very long way to go.
I want you to keep in mind that the scientific theories we use to send rockets into space and put men on the moon are based on theories developed over three-hundred years ago. Stop and think about this for a moment. The man who invented the science NASA now uses to send objects into orbit was Sir Isaac Newton. When he formulated these theories, the United States hadn't even been created yet. Men rode on horses' backs, sailed on the high seas with nothing more than the wind to propel them, and the sword, not the gun, was still the most reliable weapon ever devised. Yet from the theories this man developed (old and obsolete theories by today's standards) NASA has been able to send men to the moon, put a space station into orbit, and make multiple trips of unmanned vehicles to other worlds in our solar system. Granted, it took a few centuries for the engineering technology to reach a point where all this could happen, but we have Sir Isaac Newton to thank for all of it. The mathematical theorists of the 20th century have only begun to shape the world around us. Assuming we survive the secrets they've unlocked, and I suspect we probably will, there is no telling what kind of technology awaits us as a result of their contributions.
For years, understanding the latest scientific theories has been the job of geeks and nerds, for people who make it their career to understand these things. Of course, we should be nice to them, for in the course of just my lifetime, the geeks have inherited the earth (pun intended). Our whole modern life is owed to men such as these. Thankfully, some of these geeks have taken it upon themselves to explain their most recent discoveries in terms the rest of us can understand. They've produced documentaries that 'dumb it down' so to speak, for the rest of us to easily understand. In truth, I think this may be their greatest accomplishment, for in doing so, they open the eyes of the masses.
Modern atheists, militant secularists and moral relativists, depend on a public understanding of science that is old and antiquated -- essentially obsolete. By keeping people locked in the late 1800s scientific understanding of the universe, these people have been able to successfully crush the faith of millions. Today's elementary and high schools rarely ever teach anything beyond this level of scientific understanding. Yet by today's standards, these are just the basics. They are essentially no more than the ABC's of how the universe works.
Catholics who keep abreast on the latest science has to offer, even by just watching the layman's 'dumbed-down' version via documentaries, will quickly find themselves amused by the atheist's attempt to explain away God. The Catholic Church encourages the study of science, and in fact, the Catholic Church invented the study of science. So long as we always remember that science is not the study of truth, but rather the study of evidence, we will never get confused. The scientific method was never designed to teach us truth, it was designed to give us evidence. Truth is the stuff of philosophers not scientists, and any good scientist will tell you that. A scientific theory is nothing more than a certain explanation for the nature of things, until a better one comes along. The Catholic Church does not fear modern science, in fact, she invented it. Catholics should not fear it either, but rather embrace it, understanding that while evidence may come from science, truth comes from the Church, and it was the truth of the Church that gave us the process of discovering evidence, which is the scientific method.
Still we have the ignorant, who like to point to such historical examples as the Galileo affair to blemish the Church. I have answered those people soundly at this link HERE.
Today, I would like to encourage my readers to take an hour out of their busy schedule and watch this video HERE. It is a video documentary on the latest scientific understanding of the nature of the universe. Then come back and leave your comments below...
26 comments; post here:
Sir Knight,
As a former fundamentalist baptist I am curious to know your opinion on Ken Hamm and the young earth creationist movement. I was formerly involved with this and still have a soft spot for their way of thinking. Can we take Genesis literally and still be considered foreward thinking Catholics?
Every Catholic should read a biography on the 19th-20th century French Catholic physicist Pierre Duhem.
@Scott: Read the Response of the Biblical Commission, June 30th, 1909:
a) The first three Chapters of Genesis contain narratives of real events (rerum vere gestarum narrationes quae scilicet obiectivae realitati et historicae veritati respondeant), no myths, no mere allegories or symbols of religious truths, no legends. D 2122.
b) In regard to those facts, which touch the foundations of the Christian religion (quae christianae religionis fundamenta attingunt), the literal historical sense is to be adhered to. Such facts are, inter alia, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time, and the special creation of humanity. D 2123.
c) It is not necessary to understand all individual words and sentences in the literal sense (sensu proprio). Passages which are variously interpreted by the Fathers and by theologians, may be interpreted according to one’s own judgment with the reservation, however, that one submits one’s judgment to the decision of the Church, and to the dictates of the Faith. D 2124 et seq.
d) As the Sacred Writer had not the intention of representing with scientific accuracy the intrinsic constitution of things, and the sequence of the works of creation but of communicating knowledge in a popular way suitable to the idiom and to the pre-scientific development of his time, the account is not to be regarded or measured as if it were couched in language which is strictly scientific (proprietas scientifici sermonis). D 2127.
e) The word “day” need not be taken in the literal sense of a natural day of 24 hours, but can also be understood in the improper sense of a longer space of time. D 2128. Cf. the whole letter of the Secretary of the Bible Commission to Cardinal Suhard, dated 16th January, 1948 (D 3002).
Scott, I understand this issue all too well. I was also of a similar persuasion when I was an Evangelical Protestant.
When we look at the young earth theories, of which I believe Henry Morris is the grandfather, we have to step back and look at the big picture. By that I mean astrophysics. Einstein's theory of relativity has actually been proved by NASA to be a law, or at least certain portions of that theory anyway. In particular we have the constant of space-time, which are constantly adjusting in relation to the velocity of an object in motion. As the speed of the object increases, the perception of time decreases. Thus time travels slower for objects moving faster. Now when we look to the most recent discoveries concerning the known universe, we find that the galaxies are moving away from each other at an ever increasing speed. Thus the expansion rate of the universe is increasing, the speed of galaxies hurdling through space-time is speeding up, thus time within those galaxies is slowing down. Therefore, what would have been measured as a year, say a million years ago, would actually be measured as much shorter by today's standards. If you could peep through a window in space-time and observe people living on the earth a million years ago (or even a thousand years ago) the first thing you would notice is that everyone seems to be moving much faster. This is the result of the time disturbance created by the increasing velocity of our galaxy through the universe.
My point here is to illustrate that when it comes to time, our perceptions are relative, and when it comes to the creation of our world (indeed the whole universe for that matter) any use of time measurements (as we know them) become meaningless. Modern astrophysicists no longer use 'years' to measure the universe. They use 'light years' and other mathematical expressions.
Now when it comes to the young earth theories, it seems to me that what their proponents are really after is a way to explain the universe that is compatible with a literal understanding of time in relation to the first chapter of Genesis. As I just pointed out, from an astrophysics point of view, that is meaningless.
I do not know exactly how God created the universe, the earth and all life on it. Nobody knows that. But I do know that there is no way God could have explained astrophysics and biology to a nomadic tribe of humans living some four-thousand years ago. So rather than give them the technical details, I would venture to say the first few chapters of Genesis deal with the basic moral and spiritual truths minus the physical details. God gave them what they needed to know, not every detail they couldn't possibly understand.
When it comes to the young earth scientists, I believe they still have much to contribute to understanding how global catastrophes effect life on earth, and I do believe some of their theories carry credible weight, especially in describing mass extinction events. However, I would be hesitant to accept all of their theories as a whole package. Basically, I would say the same thing about all different types of scientists.
I understand that God wouldn't be able to explain science to people all those years ago, but then why make up a story about the first man and woman in a garden with a snake? And then you have to wonder how many OT books are just metaphors. If Genesis is all just symbolism then I'd really like to know what it all represents.
I just don't understand why God would start us off as apes or whatever we were supposed to be first, only to make us human.
I have a PhD in theoretical physics from Oklahoma State University. I have to say that everytime I delve into reading a technical book on physics, I am amazed at the beauty of God's creation. Everytime I look into the sky I appreciate God's handy work of the celestial heavens. I went to graduate school with many scientists who still retain their atheistic belief. Their 'faith', as one chinese student told me, was in physics. I couldn't wrap my hands around that one because I can't fathom how one can deny God when the evidence is all around us.
I have to disagree on one aspect of your blog though. You state that Newton's theory of mechanics is old and obsolete. There are in fact not obsolete at all. Newtonian mechanics (or classical mechanics as it is also called) is used everyday in engineering. It is used also in orbital mechanics along with other physics such as Langranges equations and such. Einstein's general theory of relativity is only utilized when when objects are traveling at very great speeds. These equations reduce to newtonian mechanics in the limit of low speeds.
Antaine, first and foremost, let me clarify. The stories of the Old Testament are not just symbolism. They are real stories about real people and real events. However, they are told as one would tell a story to a small child.
For example; suppose you were trying to relay the story of World War II to a five-year old child. How would you go about doing this? Naturally, you would highlight the important characters and the general events. Then you might try to tie in some important moral lessons so the child can find this information useful. But I think it's safe to say you would leave out a pretty large amount of details. In fact, you would probably leave out so many details, that if that is all the child is ever told about World War II, he would be likely to create a mental image of the conflict that differs radically from how it actually happened. I believe this is what happened with the stories of Genesis. Herein the first few chapters, we are given simple information highlighting major people, events and moral lessons. That doesn't at all mean this information is untrue in any way. It is true, and it is real. Yes, there really was a man named Adam, and a woman named Eve, but what we are not given are the scientific details of their lives
Now when we look at the second chapter of Genesis, we find a verse that helps us deal with the whole evolution question. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." -- Genesis 2:7 Some translations substitute the word "dust" for "slime." The literal Hebrew can also be translated as "mud." So whatever word you choose, the general premise of this passage is that God formed man out of the muck of the earth. Now that being said, which is more dignified? To say God raised man from slime? Or do say God raised man from apes?
Personally, I think neither is very dignified, and I also think that's the point of the passage. God here is likely telling us that the body of man comes from the earth, that it is not heavenly in origin, and this should be a source of humility for us. It is Scripturally undeniable to say that the body of man came from the earth. That is a Scriptural fact. What we are not told is what biological process contributed to the formation of the human body. However, what we are told is this, man was not 'man' until God himself, personally, breathed life into him. We know the Hebrew word for breath is ra-uch which is also the same word for "spirit." This likely means the spirit of man comes directly from God even though the body of man comes from the earth.
This is revolutionary, because the Scriptures later say the spirit of an animal comes from the earth. So therein lies the principle difference between men and beasts (including apes). The spirit of the beast comes from the earth along with the body of a beast. Whereas the spirit of man comes from God (heavenly origin), even though the body of man comes from the earth (earthly origin).
Regardless of the theories that surround the origins of human life, we can accurately say there was never such thing as an "ape-man." If the bodies of men evolved from apes, than they remained as apes, all the way up until God breathed his own spirit into one of them creating the man known as Adam. Prior to this there were no men, only apes, assuming that's how it all really happened.
Again, we cannot know for sure, because none of us were there. What we do know is the Scriptures are truth, and the scientific evidence is real. We should never dismiss either one.
Dear Anonymous PhD, thank you for your comment and for reading my blog.
Yes, you are absolutely right about Newtonian mechanics. I articulated that point very poorly, which you articulated very well. Thank you for that clarification.
Not bad Sir Knight. I'm impressed. I know many people would considered people like myself as medieval and holding back progress with what I may believe, but at the same time I'd rather not run head first into something that might be misleading.
Not that I'm claiming anything you have said may be misleading. I honestly don't know. Just one of the main reasons I tend to stay out of so-called religion vs science debates.
Dear Sir,
While it is an obvious fact the the study of cosmology can support one's Faith, I must disagree on some fundamental concepts.
Eistein's theory is not sound. The speed of light has shown not to be constant as assumed by Einstein. There are sufficient scientific papers to prove this. Please read the following website to get a picture of the real state of modern science:
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html
Any and all claims that time passes more slowly at higher speeds is complete and utter BS. A basic study of scholastic philosophy teaches us that time is an accident. It is the accident of the measurement of relative change. Any and all methods of keeping time are purely a comparison of two mechanical motions. There is no fundamental substance "time" that clocks are plugged into to synchronize them. Any claim that time moves more slowly can be explained mechanically.
Lastly, current cosmological theories are products of inventive but dishonest minds. Ever since Einstein, the trend has been to invent fanciful mathematical theories and then somehow invent the physics to fit. These so-called professors protect their livelihoods by creating theories that only they can understand or interpret and anathematize those that don't disagree. Those who doubt that this happens only have to watch Ben Steins "Truth Expelled" to see how this works for evolution.
A true cosmological theory will not disagree with scholastic philosophy. Yet physicists and cosmologists keep feeding us these theories which assume two impossibilities: action at a distance (gravity) and existence of spaces in which no substance exists (standard model).
Peter Chabot
Polish priest Nicholas Copernicus invented modern astronomy with Galileo building on his work.
Belgian priest George Lemaitre was the inventor of the Big Bang Theory.
Priest and composer Antonio Vivaldi was the father of Baroque and classical music.
Both science and culture came from Catholicism. However, the US has too much Protestant influence with its biblical literalism and narrow mindedness. Historically, the old testament was never as important to Catholics as the New Testament. Only in protestantism did we see a larger emphasis on the old Testament which lead to American exceptionalism, meaning these protestants actually believed that America was the inheritor of the old covenant, and was the new Israel.
Nice video CK.
I also recommend the "Through the Wormhole" series with actor Morgan Freeman as host.
Carl Sagan`s "Cosmos" series.
And "The Universe" series.
Btw, the Fra Mauro formation on the moon was named after an Italian priest mapmaker.
I cannot agree with most of your statements Peter. First off, physics is the study of nature. We have observation as our guide. If we produce a theory and it does not stand up to observation, then we MUST discard it as it is useless. Our theories are mere mathematical representations of the reality in which they exist. Yes we do 'invent' math to serve our needs in the scientific realm. I don't see how that is a bad thing. Newton invented calculus (as did Liebniz) in order to solve physics problems in his day. If we are to better understand our universe around us, it is necessary for the mathematical descriptions to evolve from its infancy. That is not to say that in the end, we may have a simple elegant equation. As it stands now, however, we relegate ourselves to the tools which serve us--in this case a tool bag full of complex mathematical descriptions.
Secondly, you are partially correct about Einstein's theory. Every test has shown to agree with GR's predictions. As it is NOT a complete theory, it does serve us well in many aspects. It predicts nearly perfectly with the precession of Mercury. It proved gravitational lensing. It predicted blackholes, also shown to exist. I will not say that it is a perfect theory, but it takes a different approach to gravity as it describes a fabric of space which can be warped by a massive body. So action at a distance is in fact occurring through the change in geometric representation of space by the bodies which exist within it.
I will agree in part that a number of physicists, not including myself, keep themselves employed by engaging is 'fraud.' I personally work in the private industry where I do research funded by my companies that employs me. I produce results or I am not necessary.
Your statement about time flowing differently between two objects if false. In fact, if you utilize the Lorentz transformation equations you will find that relative speeds between two bodies dictate the flow of time. Now i agree that time is somewhat a made up value. However, it is a defined quantity given by a set number of oscillations of a Cesium atom. So just because there is nothing physical about time, i think we can agree something is passing as we progress in reality. This is what time acknowledges, and as a physicist we have defined such a quantity to describe observation. We can see actual experiments that the Lorentz transformation equations describe just fine. This involves the muons that should not be reaching the earths surface due to their decay rates. Yet they do. Experiemnts have been done with atomic clocks to show that time does in fact 'flow' at different rates between two bodies with differing speeds.
THe problem with philosophy is that it uses only words to describe events in reality. Physicist seek a much deeper understanding. Philosophy never had any predictive ability. However, mathematical representations of our physical reality have the ability to predict events, at least above a certain dimension scale above that which is dominated by quantum mechanics.
THe problem with philosophy is that it uses only words to describe events in reality. Physicist seek a much deeper understanding. Philosophy never had any predictive ability. However, mathematical representations of our physical reality have the ability to predict events, at least above a certain dimension scale above that which is dominated by quantum mechanics.
You are setting up a false dichotomy between philosophy and natural science. I have been listening to a series of lectures by the late Dr. Raphael Waters, a Thomistic philosopher who left a career in pharmacy to devote his life to scholarship (in effect, a scientist-turned-philospher). I think you would find his comments on science and philosophy very illuminating.
I have learned much from these lectures, including the fact that it is nearly impossible to discuss philosophy with scientists because most, who are otherwise very intelligent, simply do not know what philosophy is, or what its role is in understanding life (including "understanding life scientifically").
Dr. Waters's lectures are available for purchase on the internet.
Luciana
PS - I was trying to say (although not explictly) that I have learned from Dr Waters that Philosophy is necessary in order to understand science - in other words, scientific understanding is dependent on philosophy.
Philosophy is far deeper than science.
Thank you, Dr. Raphael Waters.
Luciana
PHILOSOPHY IS A SCIENCE
Philosophy is a Science
By contrast, Dr. Waters, along with Father Woodbury and St. Thomas Aquinas, rightly teach that philosophy is a science that gives certitude to the mind. Dr. Waters defined philosophy as “certain knowledge of all things through their ultimate causes in the light of the principles of reason.”
By “certain knowledge”, he means “sure knowledge”.
Dr. Waters’ mentor, Father Woodbury, spends a remarkable nine pages in his unpublished Introduction to Philosophy, demonstrating with pitiless logic: “Philosophy is knowledge of all things through highest causes, proceeding under the natural light of human reason.” Here, both Dr. Waters and Father Woodbury simply reiterate the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas: “Wisdom [i.e. philosophy] is the science which studies first and universal causes; wisdom considers the first cause of all causes.”
Philosophy differs from the experimental sciences as it studies the ultimate cause of all things.
READ MORE....
http://www.aquinasphilosophy.com/page25/page25.htm
Luciana
I am facinated by this topic. I always believed that faith and science are partners, not enemies. Both atheists and Christians alike have contributed throughout the ages to the long pit between faith and science. We are living now in a time when that pit is being filled and shrank with knowledge and faith combined. I actually wrote a book where I spend a whole chapter talking about this very topic. The book covers many things about the Catholic faith and my own personal journey. You can find it on Blurb.com for a hard copy or for your kindle you can go to this link:http://www.amazon.com/Theos-A-Personal-Journey-ebook/dp/B0068OQTJ8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327452339&sr=8-1
Check it out. I love this blog.
-Ralph
The videos were very interesting and actually understandable. Although I have to say the theory that we are merely 3D projections from the surface of a 2D black hole (are there more than one?) hints of manichaeism.
I stand by my statement that Physics and mathematics are the core subjects that describe nature. Ultimately, all science comes does to physics and math--chemisty, geology, medicine, etc. It all involves the interaction of atoms, albeit at different time scales. Philosophy will never be able to tell me how to put an object in space. It will never tell me how produce chemical compounds. Philosophy might be able to tell you the implicataions on society, but there is no real scientific substance to philosophy. Richard Feynman had a great remark about philosophers that escapes me.
Please don't get me wrong, philosophy has its place, just not within the scientific realm...at least that is my opinion. Being a physicist, I couldn't care less about a philosophical idea when I am trying to work out a model of molecular interaction between two different complex systems.
However, when it comes to C.S. Lewis, I very much enjoy read his works. St. Augustine's Confessions, is another great work. The philosophical ideas of Plato and the like are another set of great works. Again though, their 'scientific' reach stops short of any real scientific substance.
I can't agree with a long-earth cosmology for the world. It is opposed to the Tradition of the Church. I recommend the books Genesis 1-11 and Galileo was Wrong, the Church was Right both by Robert Sungenis. Other great books on the topic are A Catholic Assessment of Evolution Theory by John Wynne Theory of Evolution Judge by Cardinal Ruffinni, and Doctrines of Genesis 1-11 by Fr. Warkulwiz. No person should make up their minds on evolution without reading these books. I suggest Robert Sungenis's sight the Bellarmine Report and the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation:
http://www.catholicintl.com/
http://www.kolbecenter.org/ Pax Christi
Dear Physicist,
You could learn a thing or two about philosophy from another scientist, the late Raphael Waters. Unfortunately, your apparent belief that you "know it all" already has closed your mind prematurely about a matter you know little about. Thank God scientists like Raphael Waters exist, who have people like you sussed. He even talks about people like you in a few of his lectures!
I am not a scientist but my late husband had a doctorate in Mathematics. Although not a physicist, he could as a mathematician discuss physics with physicists, and even taught undergraduate physics and logic as part of his academic repertoire. He used to call math the "language of God." Although I cannot discuss science on your level (I am not a scientist) I suspect that if my husband were here he could have given you a run for your money in regard to "scientific discussions." He was a fan of Dr. Waters, by the way, and understood philosophy as well as science.
An open mind would pursue the Waters material for what he has to say about science and philosophy based solely on what I have written above. As Dr. Waters taught, a first-rate mind always tries to resolves contradictions.
Luciana
PS - According to Dr. Raphael Waters, the greatest philosophical minds were not Plato and Augustine - they were Aristotle and Aquinas. And not only are they the greatest philosophical minds - they are perhaps the greatest minds, full stop.
As one who ordinarily prefers Plato and Augustine myself, Dr. Waters's brilliance in this area has been so illuminating for me that he has managed to bring me around to his way of thinking.
Luciana
Dr Wood's on the Church & science http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSdrcB7m5QY he has more.
Luciana,
On the contrary, my mind is opened to new ideas. I agree with your late husband that Mathematics is the language of God, at least as we see it. Mathematicians should be able to talk physics with physicist because the language of physics is
mathematics.
Please allow me to correct your misconception that I know it all. I know very little actually, and in general, scientists know very little. We have lots of pieces of information, but we lack the ability to put it all together...to connect the dots. Sure we can solve some complex problems, but to find the relationships to the other areas of science is what we are lacking. Richard Feynmnan gave a lecture at CalTech before he died regarding this topic and it was quite fascinating really.
As for Dr. Waters, I'll look into it and see what his views are all about. I may not change my mind, but who knows right?
Also please do not presume to know all about me from a few posts I have given. This comment is in response to your comments: "Unfortunately, your apparent belief that you "know it all" already has closed your mind prematurely about a matter you know little about. Thank God scientists like Raphael Waters exist, who have people like you sussed. He even talks about people like you in a few of his lectures!"
clint
Dear Clint,
Thank you for your kind reply. I am happy to hear that you plan to pursue the material I referenced from Dr. Waters. The course I have been listening to is called "Metaphysics." It consists of 42 audio CD's. In one of the early-sh CDs, he explains how most scientists mis-perceive philosophy. (The most impossible to get through to, according to Dr. Waters, are engineers). He does so in a way that is extremely illuminating but impossible for me to summarize here.
I am having a hard time grasping much of these lectures because they are deep and dense (and will thus merit a second, third, and fourth listening! But St. Thomas certainly is the study of a lifetime). My very high-level understanding of Dr. Waters's point about natural science and its relationship to philosophy ("natural science properly understood" Dr. Waters would probably say) is summarized partially above, in my earlier posts. I will also mention that I think he means, in part, that natural sciences deal only with the PHYSICAL WORLD whereas Christians believe the physical is contained within the metaphysical; Scholastic philosophy (which is rooted in Aristotaleinism), unlike natural science, addresses the Metaphysical.
As you say about these lectures, you "may not change your mind" but you will at least have considered a very compelling argument made by a very erudite and informed mind!
Best wishes,
Luciana
A quick rebuttal by Dr. Robert Sungenis against the evolutionists:
http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/science/evolution/576-response-to-ronald-l-conte-jr-regarding-evolution-v-creation
Post a Comment