westprog
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,928
That is entirely compatible with being a Catholic. The authority of the Pope and the infallibility of the Pope are different things.
Why science and religion are not compatible
- Thread starter Humes fork
- Start date
That is entirely compatible with being a Catholic. The authority of the Pope and the infallibility of the Pope are different things.
The best advice I was ever given was to get over myself. I'm giving that same advice to you.
citizenzen
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,454
Okay ...
Chris·tian adjective
1. pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
1. pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
By the very first definition, you can be a Christian, simply by following His teachings. Thanks for backing me up on that SG. I didn't think to look in the dictionary. That was very smart of you to suggest it.
citizenzen
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,454
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
You don't have to believe there was a Christ to be a Christian?
westprog
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,928
This is exactly what I was talking about, when I referred to atheists telling Christians what they believe. It doesn't take scientific analysis to show that the appearance of the bread and wine doesn't change. The fact that catholics consume it should be a sufficient clue. They already know that what they consume has the outward appearance of bread. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that there is some intermediate level, not spiritual but detectable by some kind of scientific apparatus. This is not catholic doctrine.
There might be a handful of catholics with the mistaken belief that there's some kind of detectable change in the appearance of the bread. However, they would be a minority, and would be considered out of step with mainstream catholic belief.
Yet there is this insistence that Catholics believe something that they don't believe. I can understand that for a non-Catholic, there would be some confusion. Hence the mention of Accident vs. Substance without really understanding what is meant. I doubt if many people would be willing to go through the whole of the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It's confusing and convoluted. However, it's possible to find the important element in the context of this discussion, which is
Catholic Encyclopedia said:
My italics.
I don't really expect atheists (or Protestants) to concern themselves with the intricacies of Catholic doctrine. After all, most Catholics don't. I just think that if they are going to make ex cathedra pronouncements about it, that they take the trouble to get it right, and maybe rather than claiming that Catholics believe X, they could try asking a Catholic what he believes and then telling him what's wrong with it.
westprog
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,928
This is exactly what I was talking about, when I referred to atheists telling Christians what they believe. It doesn't take scientific analysis to show that the appearance of the bread and wine doesn't change. The fact that catholics consume it should be a sufficient clue. They already know that what they consume has the outward appearance of bread. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that there is some intermediate level, not spiritual but detectable by some kind of scientific apparatus. This is not catholic doctrine.
There might be a handful of catholics with the mistaken belief that there's some kind of detectable change in the appearance of the bread. However, they would be a minority, and would be considered out of step with mainstream catholic belief.
Yet there is this insistence that Catholics believe something that they don't believe. I can understand that for a non-Catholic, there would be some confusion. Hence the mention of Accident vs. Substance without really understanding what is meant. I doubt if many people would be willing to go through the whole of the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It's confusing and convoluted. However, it's possible to find the important element in the context of this discussion, which is
Catholic Encyclopedia said:
My italics.
I don't really expect atheists (or Protestants) to concern themselves with the intricacies of Catholic doctrine. After all, most Catholics don't. I just think that if they are going to make ex cathedra pronouncements about it, that they take the trouble to get it right, and maybe rather than claiming that Catholics believe X, they could try asking a Catholic what he believes and then telling him what's wrong with it.
westprog
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,928
Then you should have known that when the consecration takes place, there is no apparent change in the appearance of the bread or wine. What do you think is in conflict with science in this?
citizenzen
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,454
I'm not sure I understand your question. By "Christ" do you mean a savior? One of the Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Ghost?
As the dictionary definition that SG (so smart) prompted me to look up showed, the first definition of a Christian is pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith, which is very much of what I was getting at in my post that you just quoted. Following His teachings is the primary aspect of being a Christian.
As Dinwar pointed out, some churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, require more than just that. But then you're parsing specifics between churches, none of which you are required to belong to. If you scratch the surface you'll find there are many different ways that one can follow the teachings of Jesus and still consider themselves to be Christian ...
• Non-denominational Christianity
• Jesuism
• Rastafarians
• Mormons
• Unitarianism
• Jews for Jesus
The following are excerpts from an article in Christianity Today, which talks about how millions are leaving churches and forming smaller groups or simply going it alone ...
No Church? No Problem
Unlike the Great Awakenings, which brought people into the church, this new movement "entails drawing people away from reliance upon a local church into a deeper connection with and reliance upon God." Already "millions of believers have stopped going to church," so Barna expects that in 20 years "only about one-third of the population will rely upon a local congregation as the primary or exclusive means for experiencing and expressing their faith." Down will go the number of churches, donations to churches, and the cultural influence of churches.
Are you worried about the church where you were baptized, taught, married, and given Communion? That's only a "congregational-formatted ministry," one of many ways to "develop and live a faith-centered life. We made it up." Writes Barna, "Whether you become a Revolutionary immersed in, minimally involved in, or completely disassociated from a local church is irrelevant to me (and, within boundaries, to God)." He doesn't reveal God's expectations for church involvement, but they don't seem hard to get over.
So where are the Revolutionaries going? To "mini-movements" such as home schooling, house churches, Bible studies at work, and Chris Tomlin worship concerts. What matters is a godly life, so "if a local church facilitates that kind of [godly] life, then it is good. And if a person is able to live a godly life outside of a congregation-based faith, then that, too, is good."
And that begs several questions. First, who are these 20 million people defined as Revolutionaries? We know they're fully devoted to God, but Barna gives us precious little information about them. Barna does say that only 9 percent of the nation's 77 million born-again adults have a biblical worldview, and that accounts for just under 7 million people. So the remaining 13 million Revolutionaries either don't have a biblical worldview or aren't born again? You can't tell from reading this book.
Granted, Christianity has always accepted non-congregational forms. Consider the fourth-century hermits who fled to the Egyptian desert. But precisely because those loose gatherings of ascetics fostered so many problems—including pride and dissension—John Cassian and others formed them into communities that were committed to the sacraments and under spiritual authority. In other words, Christianity has welcomed non-congregational forms, and it will welcome many created by today's Revolutionaries, but Christianity has wisely reserved the central and essential place for the local congregation.
Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam argued compellingly in Bowling Alone (Simon & Schuster, 2001) that since 1960, Americans' involvement in social groups and churches has dropped 25 to 50 percent. So we can't help but wonder if this same societal withdrawal from institutions is now bringing us a do-it-yourself church. As Roger E. Olson writes in The Mosaic of Christian Belief (InterVarsity, 2002): "Nowhere in the Great Tradition of Christianity before the twentieth century can one find the uniquely modern phenomenon of 'churchless Christians.'"
Unlike the Great Awakenings, which brought people into the church, this new movement "entails drawing people away from reliance upon a local church into a deeper connection with and reliance upon God." Already "millions of believers have stopped going to church," so Barna expects that in 20 years "only about one-third of the population will rely upon a local congregation as the primary or exclusive means for experiencing and expressing their faith." Down will go the number of churches, donations to churches, and the cultural influence of churches.
Are you worried about the church where you were baptized, taught, married, and given Communion? That's only a "congregational-formatted ministry," one of many ways to "develop and live a faith-centered life. We made it up." Writes Barna, "Whether you become a Revolutionary immersed in, minimally involved in, or completely disassociated from a local church is irrelevant to me (and, within boundaries, to God)." He doesn't reveal God's expectations for church involvement, but they don't seem hard to get over.
So where are the Revolutionaries going? To "mini-movements" such as home schooling, house churches, Bible studies at work, and Chris Tomlin worship concerts. What matters is a godly life, so "if a local church facilitates that kind of [godly] life, then it is good. And if a person is able to live a godly life outside of a congregation-based faith, then that, too, is good."
And that begs several questions. First, who are these 20 million people defined as Revolutionaries? We know they're fully devoted to God, but Barna gives us precious little information about them. Barna does say that only 9 percent of the nation's 77 million born-again adults have a biblical worldview, and that accounts for just under 7 million people. So the remaining 13 million Revolutionaries either don't have a biblical worldview or aren't born again? You can't tell from reading this book.
Granted, Christianity has always accepted non-congregational forms. Consider the fourth-century hermits who fled to the Egyptian desert. But precisely because those loose gatherings of ascetics fostered so many problems—including pride and dissension—John Cassian and others formed them into communities that were committed to the sacraments and under spiritual authority. In other words, Christianity has welcomed non-congregational forms, and it will welcome many created by today's Revolutionaries, but Christianity has wisely reserved the central and essential place for the local congregation.
Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam argued compellingly in Bowling Alone (Simon & Schuster, 2001) that since 1960, Americans' involvement in social groups and churches has dropped 25 to 50 percent. So we can't help but wonder if this same societal withdrawal from institutions is now bringing us a do-it-yourself church. As Roger E. Olson writes in The Mosaic of Christian Belief (InterVarsity, 2002): "Nowhere in the Great Tradition of Christianity before the twentieth century can one find the uniquely modern phenomenon of 'churchless Christians.'"
citizenzen
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,454
This is the key to a good discussion: don't tell people what they believe, ask them.
And don't worry ... there'll be plenty of time to tell them how big of an idiot they are after they give you their answer.
westprog
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,928
This is the key to a good discussion: don't tell people what they believe, ask them.
And don't worry ... there'll be plenty of time to tell them how big of an idiot they are after they give you their answer.
It's not really an ad hominem to say that person A knows more than person B about what person A believes. The best way for person B to find out what person A believes is... well, not to try to calculate it from first principles and then inform person A about it.
Egg
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,585
There are certainly some interesting discussions to be had around a subject such as that brought up in the OP. Unfortunately, the first issue we hit is that the word "religion" is just far too broad to really make any pointed statements about it at all. So we just end up having people criticising (or maybe defending) some narrow, blinkered idea based on limited personal experience which is whatever is conjured in the mind for them when they talk about "religion".
We also have the fairly fuzzy "incompatible with science" which could mean a number of things. Are we talking about having beliefs that prevent someone from utilising scientific methodology? Might we be referring to a disagreement in fundamental assumptions about the universe which need to be in place for science to have any legitimacy?
If we mean that biases are present which skew the way evidence is interpreted, this is certainly not limited to those with religious leanings. I'd be surprised if anybody would make it into such a category and even if they might, who could be trusted to be unbiased enough to be the judge of that?
If we're just talking about holding beliefs which don't fit into the findings of the mainstream scientific community, then there are certainly many religious people who would qualify, but there would also be many highly qualified non-religious scientists who would also fit that description over one thing or another.
I kind of get the impression that actually what some people mean is that theism is generally at odds with a materialist or positivist view of the universe. This may well be the case, but it's a clash of philosophy rather than science.
An interesting thing about the issue of science is that if it does demonstrate something near enough conclusively, it's rare that even those at the extremes of religion will refute it (so long as they understand the evidence). Creationists will usually attempt to argue over scientific issues, rather than dismiss science in principle. To me, that doesn't suggest incompatibility - science doesn't insist on a particular interpretation of evidence or a belief in particular conclusions (even if certain flavours of religion arguably do).
We also have the fairly fuzzy "incompatible with science" which could mean a number of things. Are we talking about having beliefs that prevent someone from utilising scientific methodology? Might we be referring to a disagreement in fundamental assumptions about the universe which need to be in place for science to have any legitimacy?
If we mean that biases are present which skew the way evidence is interpreted, this is certainly not limited to those with religious leanings. I'd be surprised if anybody would make it into such a category and even if they might, who could be trusted to be unbiased enough to be the judge of that?
If we're just talking about holding beliefs which don't fit into the findings of the mainstream scientific community, then there are certainly many religious people who would qualify, but there would also be many highly qualified non-religious scientists who would also fit that description over one thing or another.
I kind of get the impression that actually what some people mean is that theism is generally at odds with a materialist or positivist view of the universe. This may well be the case, but it's a clash of philosophy rather than science.
An interesting thing about the issue of science is that if it does demonstrate something near enough conclusively, it's rare that even those at the extremes of religion will refute it (so long as they understand the evidence). Creationists will usually attempt to argue over scientific issues, rather than dismiss science in principle. To me, that doesn't suggest incompatibility - science doesn't insist on a particular interpretation of evidence or a belief in particular conclusions (even if certain flavours of religion arguably do).
Last edited:
IANAD(Dinwar), but Shirley the belief that even though there is no apparent change, the bread and wine have somehow entered a supernatural state of being in which they are the flesh and blood of Jesus via Latin incantation, might conflict with science just a tiny bit...
westprog
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,928
The fuzziness is what makes it sound plausible, because when a rigorous interpretation of science is applied to a specific religious doctrine, the supposed contradiction disappears. Much of what is claimed as inconsistency so far is based on either a misrepresentation of what science requires of its practitioners, or else a mistaken (though often very fondly held) view of what a particular religious doctrine actually says.
It's important to realise that any restriction in what scientists are supposed to legitimately think would be extremely harmful to the practice of science. Both Nazi and Communist idealogues in the twentieth century applied their various philosophical prejudices to dismiss many ideas of modern physics. Indeed, some Marxists to this day continue to refuse to accept certain interpretations of quantum theory because it conflicts with their understanding of materialism.
There's no danger to science in having scientists who believe that miracles can happen. The danger lies with people who think that X is impossible - whatever X may happen to be. A scientist is supposed to rely solely on what the evidence is. Much of what experimenters found in the early quantum experiments seemed absurd and nonsensical. They still trusted their data over their preconceptions.
Of course, if a scientists were to routinely believe that any given outcome could be explained away as a miracle or divine intervention, he would be a fairly useless scientist. However, scientists, in general, realise that a necessary part of doing science is to seek for a naturalistic explanation.
westprog
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,928
Yes, it might. If you care to specify exactly how, I'd be interested to hear it.
N.b. by definition, science, which deals with the natural, doesn't have anything to say about the supernatural.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
That's why they're not compatible.
westprog
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,928
This thread has been going on for some time, and I have no idea what is meant by that claim. Depending on the meaning, it's either wrong, meaningless or trivial, but without further explanation I can't tell which.
Except that, as far as we can tell, it doesn't exist.
Scientists can demonstrate that chanting in latin and waving one's hands doesn't transform the substance of bread and wine into flesh and blood. The Catholic Church assert that a "Supernatural Transformation" takes place; where is their evidence? It requires faith? There is no way to verify this Transformation empirically, therefore, I think it is not compatible with a world-view based on empiricism.
This is only one example of one belief of one sect of one religion, but if it is unfalsifiable, it might as well be invisible pink unicorns that inspire your Faith, but please don't try to tell me they are real.
Empiricism is based on Faith too, you say? Faith in the basic axioms of maths and science? Let me know when they let you down, and I'll get back to you.
Egg
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,585
A world-view based solely on empiricism, then yes. Believing anything unproven or unfalsifiable classifies as that. But science is not a world-view. As Westprog suggested, the great thing about science is that is doesn't really matter what the individual scientist actually believes, since the results should speak for themselves.