3 ms·

Why? I'm a believing Catholic and believe in science too.

Intermernet 7y ago
What, in this instance, defines "Catholic" and "science"? Science relies more on disbelief than belief. Faith is anathema to the scientific method. You can disagree, but you should be able to make a cogent argument as to why what I just typed is incorrect.
- baud147258 7y ago
  I don't like the term belied when applied to science, but I still used since it was the term the parent comment used. In that context, it's faith in the scientific method, not blind faith in anything that science has to say
  - Intermernet 7y ago
    Yes, but faith in scientific method can be re-written as "I've seen the scientific method demonstrated in the past, and I will continue to see it demonstrated in the future, because it strictly follows rules that define it". It's a "faith" that things will continue to be tested to be false, and, if not found to be false, slightly more founded in the the way we understand and correlate the observable universe. Those who define science as truth are being lazy with the definition. Science is a series of experiments to determine what doesn't seem to be true, so we can narrow down what might be true. I'm not meaning to be oblique or argumentative, and I actually respect the right of anyone to believe anything they find to be personally gratifying to believe (otherwise science wouldn't progress). I just tend to get entrenched in these discussions because I find religion (and faith) so fascinating. I see "faith" as the birth of a hypothesis, but without experimentation, it's only a hypothesis.
- mcv 7y ago
  You can be both Christian and do science without the science having to be "Christian science". They are different concerns dealing with different things. They don't have to conflict at all unless you try to make them conflict.
  - Intermernet 7y ago
    You can also, as a scientist, use both general relativity and quantum mechanics. They are also different concerns dealing with different things. They still conflict. At least one of them is, and possibly both are, wrong. There is crossover in the Venn diagrams of religion and science. History has shown that as scientific knowledge increases, the area that religion has previously laid claim to decreases. They definitely, and historically, conflict until you're left with religion laying claim to the area that is un-provable, and therefore, un-falsifiable. This is the root of the "god-of-the-gaps" fallacy, and seems to be usually only met with the "fine-tuned-universe" theory, which is, if you think about it, a circular argument at best, and self defeating at worst.
adrianN 7y ago
Because you it's really hard to believe in the miracles Jesus performed while also believing that physics is a worthwhile endeavor. Either the universe follows laws that we can discover, or you can turn water into wine. I realize that the catholic church does the necessary mental contortions to believe both, but to me miracles and science are contradictory.

What, in this instance, defines "Catholic" and "science"? Science relies more on disbelief than belief. Faith is anathema to the scientific method. You can disagree, but you should be able to make a cogent argument as to why what I just typed is incorrect.

baud147258 7y ago
I don't like the term belied when applied to science, but I still used since it was the term the parent comment used. In that context, it's faith in the scientific method, not blind faith in anything that science has to say
- Intermernet 7y ago
  Yes, but faith in scientific method can be re-written as "I've seen the scientific method demonstrated in the past, and I will continue to see it demonstrated in the future, because it strictly follows rules that define it". It's a "faith" that things will continue to be tested to be false, and, if not found to be false, slightly more founded in the the way we understand and correlate the observable universe. Those who define science as truth are being lazy with the definition. Science is a series of experiments to determine what doesn't seem to be true, so we can narrow down what might be true. I'm not meaning to be oblique or argumentative, and I actually respect the right of anyone to believe anything they find to be personally gratifying to believe (otherwise science wouldn't progress). I just tend to get entrenched in these discussions because I find religion (and faith) so fascinating. I see "faith" as the birth of a hypothesis, but without experimentation, it's only a hypothesis.
mcv 7y ago
You can be both Christian and do science without the science having to be "Christian science". They are different concerns dealing with different things. They don't have to conflict at all unless you try to make them conflict.
- Intermernet 7y ago
  You can also, as a scientist, use both general relativity and quantum mechanics. They are also different concerns dealing with different things. They still conflict. At least one of them is, and possibly both are, wrong. There is crossover in the Venn diagrams of religion and science. History has shown that as scientific knowledge increases, the area that religion has previously laid claim to decreases. They definitely, and historically, conflict until you're left with religion laying claim to the area that is un-provable, and therefore, un-falsifiable. This is the root of the "god-of-the-gaps" fallacy, and seems to be usually only met with the "fine-tuned-universe" theory, which is, if you think about it, a circular argument at best, and self defeating at worst.

adrianN 7y ago

Because you it's really hard to believe in the miracles Jesus performed while also believing that physics is a worthwhile endeavor. Either the universe follows laws that we can discover, or you can turn water into wine. I realize that the catholic church does the necessary mental contortions to believe both, but to me miracles and science are contradictory.