RE: [asa] FYI: Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of

From: Kelner, Paul <PKelner@medcentral.edu>
Date: Fri Aug 24 2007 - 11:35:09 EDT

It is my belief that there will always be unsolved problems. As we all
know, answering any scientific question always leads to further
unanswered questions. With the passage of time, reductionists find that
'there is always something smaller'. Faith can not exist without the
possibility for doubt. In Corinthians I (verse 12), Paul states:

Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face
to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully
known.

The allegory of the cave will always be true to some part on this side
of glory. Sometimes I think that I understand life no more then a fish
in a pond understands me. For some, the inability to solve the puzzle
completely acts as a deterrent to even trying to solve it. For me,
there is always excitement in visualizing the 'reflection in the mirror'
a little better...

Paul Kelner, M.D.
Associate Professor
MedCentral College of Nursing
Mansfield, Ohio
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Austerberry, Charles
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 11:10 AM
To: asa@lists.calvin.edu
Cc: peterwloose@compuserve.com
Subject: RE: [asa] FYI: Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith -
is the new enemy of

Peter, you have a point. I agree with Catholic and other philosophers
who hold that the logical and rational includes, but is not limited to,
the scientific. However, scientific explanations not only must be
rational and logical, but also testable. Thus, scientific explanations
must be natural explanations. The Catholic Church's "Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith" (the bureaucracy that determines the teaching
of the Catholic church - used to be called the "Inquisition" - they
don't use that term so much any more, because of some bad history in
past centuries!) produced a great document when the current pope was
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and he led the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith (he was the "Prefect"). That "Congregation" has a few
"Commissions", and the International Theological Commission produced
this document:

 
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_
con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

See paragraph 69, especially. Here are two sentences from that
paragraph:

"In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic
variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of
evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be
demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process
that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is
contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided
evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine
providence - simply cannot exist because "the causality of God, Who is
the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent
principles of species, but also as to the individualizing
principles....It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they
participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence"
(Summa theologiae I, 22, 2)."

Charles (Chuck) F. Austerberry, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Biology
Hixson-Lied Room 438
Creighton University
2500 California Plaza
Omaha, NE 68178
 
Phone: 402-280-2154
Fax: 402-280-5595
 
e-mail: cfauster@creighton.edu
 
Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education
http://nrcse.creighton.edu
***************************
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:12:13 +0100
From: "Peter Loose" <peterwloose@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE: [asa] FYI: Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith -
is the new enemy of
 
May I ask what is so meritorious about a 'scientific explanation of P'?
At
what point would those who are proposing the need for such cease their
searching for a scientific explanation had they been at the Wedding in
Canaan when the feast ran out of wine.?
 
I sense that your problem, not to say thinly disguised ridicule of
Plantinga, is not on the merits of his case (which is part of a
two-section
very long paper) but because of the way you define science. You don't
mean a
rational, logical explanation - you mean an explanation in terms of
something natural, judged to be more fundamental which will lead to the
need
for a further explanation of something(s) natural but more fundamental
still
and so on ad infinitum. Isn't this naturalism dressed up as science?
 
I'm still waiting for someone to come back with a clear and succinct
statement of what is meant by science. I don't mean a treatise - I mean
one
or two sentences.
 
Peter
  
****************************************************************
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Aug 24 11:36:27 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 24 2007 - 11:36:27 EDT