---------------------------------------------------------------------------
**** http://www.GOANET.org ****
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symposium on Pre-Primary & Primary School Education &
Primary School Students Chess Tournament
More information at:
http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2008-January/068222.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr.Santosh Helekar,
Thanks for having given your answer in your usual 'scientific' way.
Let me give my answer in holistic way.
I shall divide my exposition into threee sections. This is the first one
(1).
You wrote: >< The above is a true statement about science, one which
> all scientists, including myself, would be in
> agreement with. But see how you tend to contradict
> this statement below.
*I only stated the limited empirical principle of natural sciences that is
yours. There is no contradiction whatsoever in what I wrote if you read
carefully what I accept and what I do not accept.
>>*There is an effort to explain the natural
>>phenomena, by taking into account
>>their complexity and randomness, with the concept of
>>Infinite Designer. I have received today one post
>>from Perry Marshall. You are sure that this is not
>>necessary. At this stage, I would say that I
>>do not know from the scientific viewpoint, adding
> that >science does not disprove the existence of God.
>>
>You wrote: <> Please note the contradiction. This effort by
> definition cannot be scientific if the "Infinite
> Designer" is deemed to be supernatural or some kind of
> god. Indeed, whoever this Perry Marshall is, it
> appears that he does not believe in the theory of
> evolution. He is an intelligent design creationist. I
> thought your religious sect believed in evolution. It
> is quite likely that Marshall's religious sect does
> not.
*According to the above principle, there is a contradiction if the theory of
"Infinite Designer" is taken as a scientific theory. Creationism cannot be
accepted. Bible does not contradict science, neither does it teach science.
This should be well understood. We cannot accept neither creationism nor
concordism. This is biblical fundamentalism. The biblical author does not
intend to teach natural sciences. A book on culinary intends to teach how to
cook, it does not teach chemistry. Bible is a 'religious' book, it is
crystallization of the God-experience, it does not intend to teach natural
sciences.
If it is based on metaphysical principle of causality and sufficient
reason, then it is a proof. There is no contradiction. In this sense I do
endorse it. Natural science without metaphysics is lame.
We cannot accept creationism (creation is not a scientific theory) nor
concordism--by interpreting Christian Scriptures at the tune of scientific
theories. There are 'scientific' or 'pre-scientific' views of that time, but
it does not want to impose on us today. In fact, science evolved a lot from
the biblical background through the scientists who have been also men of
faith in the Bible. Further, science has taken insights from the Bible in
its theories of origins of the world (Chaos Theory from tehom,
toho-wa-bohu of Genesis).
I do not belong to any 'religious sect'. I 'believe' in evolution, it
cannot be empirically proved. It cannot even be reconciled with scientific
laws of thermodynamics. Efforts are made by scientists, these are also
merely theories. The
Church and the theologians today generally accept it. John Paul II said that
evolution was "more than a hypothesis". But evolution does not
exclude 'creation' in the theological sense. Theologians speak of 'creative
evolution'. Among scientists there is always an open question about the
beginning. With all your love of science you cannot prove it, nor convince
us. We 'believe' in some statements made by you, because we cannot prove
them. We just rely on your knowledge. It is a leap of faith. But you also
have to 'believe' in the origins of the Universe. You cannot prove them. In
our daily life we make so many statements. We cannot prove all of them
empirically. Perry Marshall is not bound to believe in evolution, nor you in
'creation' as a scientific theory. Faith in God will come in the light of
our reason and Revelation. With your scientific principle that only
empirical science is true knowledge, you may reject the existence of God.
But then to say that there is no God is also a leap of faith. As an agnostic
you say that you do not know whether there is God or not, because empirical
science does not tell you. This is also a leap of faith. You cannot prove
the non-existence of God. Natural science neither proves nor disproves the
existence of God. William d'Ockham brought in the principle of ontological
parsimony ('Ockham's razor'). But he did accept the existence of God in the
light of divine Revelation, as well as Trinity, Creation, Incarnation,
Grace, Resurrection of the Body.
Fr.Ivo
