John, While I am sure that we all appreciate the thoughtfulness and time you put into this email, I am not sure that we are doing apologetics for any particular point of view, but rather we are discussing how to maintain a critical and scientific perspective faced with a strong movement towards fundamentalist teachings in our schools.
Perhaps it is very useful for scientists to understand the perspectives of those we are confronting, but it is also incumbent on them to understand ours. And, while on some scales Catholic=Baptist, to a Catholic or Baptist, they are not equal. And, also, while the Church states that reason and faith are never contradictory, it turns out that that is only true for faith-based reason. For example, reason can come up with some pretty good reasons for abortion, but faith may not be able to. But that is not the issue here. As an aside, when fundamentalists are fighting scientific teachings in their schools, the fundamentalists are seldom, if ever, Catholic. Cheers, Jim John Waldron said the following on 10/May/07 03:24: > I am tentative to post because I wish I had more time to argue and make a good > case, but Ill try to offer just a few ideas that I think have yet to be > mentioned. > > It was previously mentioned that somehow Roman Catholic beliefs were far > different from Southern Baptists, but that claim was shot down without being > expounded. Now I cant say much about other religions, but I can say a few > things about Catholicism. It is a central Catholic belief that faith and > reason > are never contradictory. The same God that is revealed in the Bible is > revealed > in Gods Creation, and Truth does not deny Truth. In fact, the Catholic > Church > believes that faith and reason are complementary. We come to know God only > through faith AND reason. Though the Church does say that, "the certainty that > the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason > gives" (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II 171, 5, obj. 3.). The Church never fails > to stress the importance of using our faculties of reason in their greatest > capacity. > > Here we have it straight from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: > Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real > discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries > and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God > cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, > methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out > in > a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict > with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive > from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of > nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for > it > is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."38 > > > Perhaps the problems we face today are not a result of the fact that religion > is > too fundamental to Americans lives. (Some people not on this list may even > argue that our problems are a result of the idea that science or empiricism is > too fundamental to our lives.) I argue that our problems do not arise because > of a population that believes in an unseen God, rather they stem from the > tunnel vision so often associated with both religious AND scientific camps. > Believers of science and religion must recognize the danger of believing in a > false choice between either science or religion. Many of those religiously > faithful in unseen things must learn to practice reason. Many of the > religiously scientific must learn to fully develop their rational capacities > and acknowledge, at the very least, the limitations of pure reason. > > final thought: > Believing in our own reason, the scientific method, or having faith in only > those things we experience directly or indirectly through our senses is not > all > that different from belief in something we are unable to detect through > biologically explicable means of perception. > Where does all this fanatical faith in science come from? What happened to > science as a search for truth characterized by Socratic humility and > uncertainty? > > Peace, > > John Waldron > > 37 Dei Filius 4: DS 3017. > 38 GS 36 # 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting Jim Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Look, Whether its God, god, no god, no God, or maybe the Vikings nailed it > with Odin or maybe its a stack of turtles or a blink in the eye of Brahma. > > In any case the Earth is not 6,000 years old. Therefore one can not take > the Bible literally at face value. > > That by no means discounts the wisdom and metaphor of such writing. > > Jim Sparks > > > > On 5/9/07, James J. Roper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Cara, > > > > I have a feeling that this polarization you are worrying about is very > > asymmetrical. While I strongly feel that critical thinking and > > scientific thinking are extremely important for all levels of education, > > as I am sure most scientists are, I am not advocating polemics against > > Christian or other superstitious philosophies. I would bet that while > > scientists are against teaching religious ideas in school, that most of > > them would have no problems having their religious friends over for > > dinner, for a friendly peaceful discussion of the wherefores and whys. > > Also, in reading of the cases in which people are fighting for > > intelligent design, the religious folks are much more adamant, much more > > ready to "bear arms", and downright lie, cheat and steal (read the > > judge's comments on the Pennsylvania case Kitzmiller versus can=B4t > > remember who) to get their way. Thus, the polemics are that the > > religious right is much more vehement in its replies, much more > > political in its actions, than are the scientists. Also, scientists are > > extremely outnumbered. > > > > So, polarizaiton, I think not. I would bet it is hard to get a good > > scientist to yell about this topic, while it is easy to get a religious > > person to yell - I know, I have done it! > > > > Cara Lin Bridgman said the following on 09/May/07 03:46: > > > What bothers me in this Christianity vs Evolution debate is the trend > > > you'd expect from most any debate: increasing polarization. The > > > result is, Christians saying that since I study evolution, I can't > > > possibly be Christian and scientists saying that since I am Christian, > > > I can't possibly be studying evolution, much less accept evolution as > > > fact. > > Also, > > > The point is, instead of improving communication between these two > > > fundamental aspect of most people's lives (religion and science), > > > we've got people isolating themselves into camps. > > I find it hard to believe that science is fundamental to most people's > > lives! If it were, we would not be having these debates. > > > So, I think it is very careless and risky of scientists to make strong > > > declarations as part of their role as scientists of being athiests, to > > > make statements intended to alienate those following a religion. > > Is it risky to state that which guides your critical thinking? The > > scientific method is a data and pattern based process. There are > > fundamental consequences of such a process, such as, not taking things > > on faith. So, to explain what it means to a non-scientist, perhaps > > explaining one's atheism is part of the process. One unifying concept > > that should be in both camps is search for "truth" and if you make it > > clear to a person with a "faith-based" belief system that you are > > searching for truth (we certainly are not trying to figure out how to > > explain things with lies!), then that should be the common grounds on > > which we can agree. > > > Part of our job as scientists is to explain the facts we've discovered > > > about the natural world. I don't think we're being very successful if > > > we end up blocking communication by increasing the religion-science > > > polarization. That's one problem I have with Richard Dawkins, he can > > > be so scornful of religious beliefs. > > Yes, but religious systems are also scornful of other belief systems. > > After all, there are religions the world over trying to convince those > > with other belief systems that those systems are wrong, and that the > > others should switch. Here in Brazil it is amazing to see the > > proselytizing done by other religions, such as Mormon - the most > > obvious. What is it but scorn for one religion to tell another religion > > that they are wrong! I would say that Dawkins is mild in comparison to > > what the major religions in the world do today. > > > if you are a scientist, then I think you should try to keep from > > > muddying the facts with your religion or lack of religion--save that > > > for the times when your beliefs supply a common ground. > > We should not lump science and religion into a category called "belief > > systems". It reminds me of a set-theory diagram. A big circle called > > belief systems, within which we have to non-overlapping circles, > > religion and science. That is just not the case. There is no bigger > > circle. Science is not a belief system, but rather a system of > > attempting to discover the knowable. Religion is not that at all but > > rather it is a faith-based belief-system. > > > My impression is that America, at least, is currently in a strongly > > > anti-science (and anti-academic) trend. > > Oh, that is because Bush is president! > > > This is truly worrisome. > > Only to us, not to the conservative right, who outnumber us! > > > Science can point out and explain these problems, but I think it will > > > take much more than science to solve them. > > Well, of course. Science is not a social problem solving endeavor. > > However, it certainly should inform the social problem solving > > endeavors! And that is why we need critical, scientific thinking in > > schools! Sure, keep the myths and superstition, after all, it is part > > of our history - but keep them in the social studies classes. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jim > > -- > > James J. Roper, Ph.D. <http://jjroper.googlepages.com/home> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Universidade Federal do Paran=E1 > > Depto. de Zoologia > > Caixa Postal 19020 > > 81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Phone/Fone/Tel=E9fono: 55 41 33611764 > > celular: 55 41 99870543 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia > > <http://www.ararajuba.org.br/sbo/ararajuba/revbrasorn.htm> > > Zoologia na UFPR <http://zoo.bio.ufpr.br/zoologia/> > > Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Curr=EDculo Lattes <http://lattes.cnpq.br/2553295738925812> > > E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Phone/Fone/Tel=E9fono: 55 41 33611764 > > Alternativa: 55 41 33857249 > > celular: 55 41 99870543 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/> > > P=E1ginas Acad=E9micas <http://jjroper.googlepages.com/home> > > Consultoria e Tradu=E7=F5es <http://arsartium.googlepages.com/home> > > XXVII Congresso Brasileiro de Zoologia <http://www.cbz2008.com.br/> > > Call me! <skype:jjroper?call> > > > > > > --=20 > James L. Sparks Jr. M.Sc. > Freelance Ecology > 4530 E. Seminary Ave. > Richmond, VA 23227 > 804.426.2479 (cell) > > "Quis custodiet ipso custodes?" -Juvenal > > > > -- > > -- James J. Roper, Ph.D. <http://jjroper.googlepages.com/home> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Universidade Federal do Paraná Depto. de Zoologia Caixa Postal 19020 81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil ------------------------------------------------------------------------ E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone/Fone/Teléfono: 55 41 33611764 celular: 55 41 99870543 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia <http://www.ararajuba.org.br/sbo/ararajuba/revbrasorn.htm> Zoologia na UFPR <http://zoo.bio.ufpr.br/zoologia/> Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Currículo Lattes <http://lattes.cnpq.br/2553295738925812> E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Phone/Fone/Teléfono: 55 41 33611764 Alternativa: 55 41 33857249 celular: 55 41 99870543 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/> Páginas Académicas <http://jjroper.googlepages.com/home> Consultoria e Traduções <http://arsartium.googlepages.com/home> XXVII Congresso Brasileiro de Zoologia <http://www.cbz2008.com.br/> Call me! <skype:jjroper?call>
