« Enemy of the State | Main | In Chicago »
December 29, 2005
Back to HuffPo
As noted below,there's an insane post at the Huffington Post that twists the words of Benedict's Urbi et Orbi message to give the impression that he's condemning intellectual achievement, an interpretation that's gleefully seized on by commentors there, confirming their communal wisdom about the evils of the medieval, backwards, oppressive church. It's bizarre, frankly, and in a way, a minority view, but...not totally. There is, indeed, a kind of anti-Catholicism among the left that sees the institution as essentially obscurantist, because you know, there was Galileo, and there's AIDS, or so sez Bill Maher, Al Franken and HuffPo.
One has to wonder, though.
At all of of those Catholic universities around the world...what are they teaching (shut up, smart aleck from the Cardinal Newman Society...yeah, you. Stick with me on this one)...are there no departments of science or mathematics in those institutions? Do the students sit around with an abacus and a spyglass, vainly tilted at the heavens?
At all of those Catholic hospitals around the world...what's going on? Are all of those surgeries just facades, behind which priests shake holy water and nuns finger beads? Well, if so, perhaps we'd better rethink this whole "medicine" thing after all!
And what about this thing - this Pontifical Academy of Science, "Pontifical" having to do with, you know, the POPE. Look at the papers it's published: "Accordian-like vibrations of long chain molecules" "New developments in neurobiological research." "Infrared and Raman spectra of 1,2-dichloroethane and its deuterium compound in the gaseous, liquid and solid states."
Anti-scientific clerical oppressors!
What about these conferences, sponsored by the Vatican over the past decade or so:
On biotechnology and crops, and one on depression as mental illness
On end-of-life issues and palliative care
On "Science and the future of humanity"
On "Pastoral Care for the Liberation of Street Women"
On "The Family and the Integration of the Disabled"
And on, and on and on...we haven't even touched on the conferences and working groups on philosophy, history, the arts and yes, theology.
(insert obligatory Vatican Observatory reference here)
Show me a global institution more dedicated to learning, to integrating intellectual work and real world problems. Show me. I dare you.
Beyond the ignorance of reality, the mindset so doggedly opposed to religion and ethical considerations is mind-boggling. But, you know, you get what you pay for. You want science unfettered by the inconvenient questions and challenges of an ethically-grounded world view?
Okay. There you go! Good luck with that!
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3930526
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Back to HuffPo:
» The last round-up for 2005 from The Anchoress
Sad, aint it, pardners? One last round-up of the lil doggies and then we movesie on, as they say in the Western part of Brooklyn.
Laura Bush and Disco pants? Victoria takes a look at the phenomenon of First Lady makeovers.
Looking ... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 29, 2005 4:04:30 PM
» HuffPo Energy Still Going Strong from COSMOS-LITURGY-SEX
Amy is still pumped today, about the HuffPo thread from yesterday and started up a new one, same issue, today. Today’s specific focus was the uniformed presumption that the buffoons on the HuffPo thread were making that the Church was anti-science (... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 29, 2005 6:41:14 PM
Comments
Amy,
I'll take your dare.
As impressed as you are with the physical papers you mentioned, they are not exactly ground breaking things. From the titles, they seem to be about 50 years old... And nobody of significance is attending the Vatican conferences.
When I really think of it, there is no groundbreaking scientific research going on at any Catholic schools I can think of, save Catholic U, Georgetown, Notre Dame, and a couple of other universities regularly trashed in the blogosphere every Valentine's Day when the Vagina Monologues plays on their campuses. Try the words "Catholic", "biomedical" and "research" in google and see what you get: the first page dosn't even get a ".edu" No student seriously interested in the sciences would go to a Catholic school other than those mentioned. And no, Stanford isn't a Catholic school...
Now let's add in the unfortunate article by Cardinal Schoenborn in the new First Things and the popularity of "ID" among many traditional Catholics. [shudder]
The problem here is that Catholic institutions in this country are pretty weak in science, and the rest of the world is pretty weak compared to the U.S. (with some noteworthy exceptions granted in Europe and Asia). And as people like Cardinal Schoenborn try to put Philosophy on an equal footing with Science, the more ridiculous they make the Church look.
If the Church wants to be serious about science it should invest in funding scientific researchers. The Vatican can start with me! :)
But in the meantime, the NSF, DOD, DOE, NIH, NRL, DHS, etc. are the real driving force behind science. The U.S. Congress - welfare provider to the American Academy - is far more dedicated to learning, to integrating intellectual work and real world problems. The Church didn't eradicate polio, the Church didn't send astronauts to the moon and explore the Universe with probes and orbiting satellites, the Church didn't investigate and decode the human (or any other) genome... I could go on...
Posted by: Ian at Dec 29, 2005 2:32:51 AM
Wait...the American government is a global institution? I thought the American government was...you know...American.
Oh, and since this is a government we are talking about, I think the money here is not so much for the interest of science for the sake of learning (like the Vatican), but for other interests entirely. Hehe, the Department of Defense as a lover of science...maybe just the one that makes shiny objects that go boom.
The Vatican holds conferences like these for the sake of knowledge, one of the pillars of doctrine. The US Congress funded the space race, genome-mapping, et al, to serve other purposes entirerly, such as to stick it to the Russians, or find a way to harvest people for money by peddling the scientific equivalent of snake oil.
As for the attempt to put Philosophy on equal footing with Science, I will disagree. I think the Scientific Establishment lacks the sophistication to do what Cardinal Schonborn is doing. Ridiculous? Only in the eyes of the myopic Zeitgeist. Schonborn is doing that establishment a favor, especially since the best it can come up with with regards to scientific "wisdom" (different from intelligence, which the establishment has enough of) are idiots like Dawkins.
As for the lack of "hard science" research in Catholic schools, I wouldn't be so sure. America leads the world in scientific research today, but most good American Catholic universities (those that will not bother with Ensler's crappy play), contrary to the prevailing spirit, tend to focus on things beyond the hard sciences, like aforementioned philosophy. One can call it a free market thing. Or an identity thing. In time, when a Catholic university's identity is so solid that it no longer needs to bow to the Zeitgiest in order to become the next Georgetown, we will see the Catholic universities lead the pack, just as they have centuries before. Back when America was but a mere thought in the dreams of its Founding Fathers, The Church hosted some of the best in hard science research. Galileo (despite the trial), Copernicus, Kepler, et al. The Jesuits and astronomy, physics (while Galileo discovered that two objects will always fall at the same acceleration, it was a priest that measured the actual number) and seismology. Later on, we have that monk Mendel and genetics, plus the Big Bang theory. The lack of massive hard science research in American Catholic universities will be a temporary phenomenon, because scientific research is not worth the price of losing one's soul, like Georgetown did.
Posted by: JonathanR. at Dec 29, 2005 5:36:01 AM
Jesuit priest & mathematician Girolamo Saccheri in 1733 made groundbreaking progress on Euclid's Fifth Postulate, which paved the way for the hyperbolic geometry of modern physics.
Eminent physicist Roger Penrose is fond of pointing this out.
It is galling for leftists to bash Catholic Universities for being science-lightweights when it is liberalism itself that has caused these once-great institutions to lose sight of their mission.
Posted by: Jeff at Dec 29, 2005 6:39:38 AM
One could argue that were it not for the great scholars of the Middle Ages in Catholic universities there would be little science today - but ah, who wants to go there?
In the meantime, NPR continues on its anti-Christian crusade - yesterday's All Things Considered gave us in the space of thirty minutes a deconstructed fundamentalist now married to a "secular Jew" who has written a book gently mocking the fundamentalist school she was raised in, but claiming that the school encouraged the questioning which led her to see it as just another pathetic church related institution and Christianity as an even more pathetic idea system. Later Sylvia Pugeoli (?) breathlessly gave us the story that the Catholic Church is speaking freely in Italy, but that horror of horrors, it's trying to use free speech to influence people. (Liberals are all for free speech as long as those who speak freely - excepting liberals of course - don't try to influence people.) I love NPR - it has become its own best charicature.
As for liberal "intellectuals" (isn't that an oxymoron)despising the intellectual life of the Church and deliberately distorting what people say, that's par for the course. Long ago, when I was a "liberal", I learned they were as dishonest as their ideological conservative counterparts.
I did have a Catholic education through my undergraduate years, and one of the blessed consequences was that I was taught to think "critically" - courses in logic and debating, argumentation, seeking evidence, challenging assumptions, etc. It keeps one from becoming a "true believer" in any human system - it also enables one to detect the (fill in the blank) as it flies. Many years ago, the late, lamented Catholic magazine, The Critic, used to feature a wonderful universal symbol for No BS - we need more of that today.
Posted by: Dan Crawford at Dec 29, 2005 8:06:43 AM
"The Church didn't eradicate polio, the Church didn't send astronauts to the moon and explore the Universe with probes and orbiting satellites, the Church didn't investigate and decode the human (or any other) genome..."
And it is certainly not their job - qua Church - to do so (although I know indivivdual Catholic scientists working on cutting edge science, including genetics).
What I look to the Church to do is provide meaningful moral insight and analysis of science as it is used in the world, and this they do far, far, far better than anyone else on the planet.
And again, as I stated above, I also look to individual Catholics, not just the Church. On a related topic, the 1928 (I believe) Supreme Court voted 8-1 based on the science of the day that people could be sterilized without their knowledge or approval. The lone holdout? A Catholic.
Posted by: Mary at Dec 29, 2005 8:10:18 AM
Ian -
Please note that I did not say anything about Catholicism being a locus of groundbreaking scientific research. Duh. As a commentor pointed out, that is not the role of the Church. The accusation I'm addresing is that the Church is opposed to science, to the intellectual life, that it sees that as the enemy. My post was a Dummies guide for those confronted with that accusation who are not sure what to say in response. I said, show me a global organization more dedicated to integrating intellectual work and real world problems.
Posted by: amy at Dec 29, 2005 8:39:22 AM
Theology was known as the Queen of the sciences in the early universities. The concept of university is considered by many to have been the fruit of the flowering Catholic culture of the Middle (dark?) Ages. The modern Academy, heavily dependent on government funding, may briefly be well served by overtly embracing the religion of Scientism, as Ian's note seems to imply.
Ian's note, in my opinion, is a nice presentation ("nobody of significance is attending the Vatican conferences" indeed!) of the modern Zeitgeist. It seemed to tickle my ears. However, Catholicism properly understood is not unscientific. Believers know how the story will eventually turn out, because ultimately we are to be concerned with spiritual matters.
Thank you Amy, for your hard work. May God continue blessing you and your family. I loved your essay on Christmas in National Review Online. Merry Christmas!
Posted by: Joseph R. Wilson at Dec 29, 2005 9:00:56 AM
I think you are presupposing more intellectual depth in these complainers than actually exists. My experience is that these people are so cynical, and so bound to a narrow world view, they would not be able to appreciate anything the Vatican did on things like Cosmology or the other difficult topics you mention. Shallow is the best word to describe them. They merely parrot lines and platitudes that will score them points with their fellow cynics. (The same thing happens on other parts of the political spectrum)
It all comes down to these people hating anybody who tells them that something they might do is not good. For you see, all of what man does is good in their eyes...there is no fall for these people - but they are all clearly Bent.
Posted by: tk at Dec 29, 2005 9:05:08 AM
tk is right. I respect Ian for trying to dispute Amy's post in a coherent, well-thought-out way, but the Huffington Post crowd aren't on that level. Facts mean nothing to them.
Posted by: James Kabala at Dec 29, 2005 9:25:09 AM
Amy,
Why not transplant your post over to the HuffPo thread? With a few modifications, it would shake things up over in that echo chamber just enough to make it interesting. I think they would really appreciate a little diversity of thought in their thread.
Posted by: Other Marc at Dec 29, 2005 9:27:59 AM
Then there is Limbo.
Posted by: Realist at Dec 29, 2005 9:34:56 AM
Limbo?
Posted by: Fr Martin Fox (Septimus) at Dec 29, 2005 9:40:06 AM
Ian wrote:
... And nobody of significance is attending the Vatican conferences.
Ian, you should really avoid saying such patently absurd and easily refuted things. You only make yourself look silly.
One of the key presenters at the Vatican conference on end-of-life issues and palliative care mentioned by Amy above was Dr. Alan Shewmon, the head of the Neurology dept. at UCLA, a leading researcher in epilepsy, EEG, brain mapping with PET, etc. He has been one of the leaders in the current movement in medicine questioning the use of Brain Death as the criterion for clinical death.
Who is "significant" will, of course, depend on the field. Unless you pretend to expertise in every field, statements like "nobody of significance is attending the Vatican conferences" smacks more of ignorance and bigotry than anything else.
Posted by: Fr. Rob Johansen at Dec 29, 2005 9:40:23 AM
Not being a great or even remotely good scientific mind or particularly brilliant in scientific history, I think there is a place for the Church in science in the present and the future. I truly think science and scientists have gone a little too far in playing God in certain instances. It is the Church's responsibility and the responsibility of individuals and others in making sure scientists have ethics and some sort of moral compass for their research and projects. Science has done great great things to make our lives better but they have also made it possible for us to commit mass suicide. The scientific community needs to question itself in both negative and positive ways in the research it's doing. I used to be extremely liberal, but am now more middle of the road, with a bent toward liberalism especially in terms of social programs and policy, but whenever I ventured off the politically correct platform with like-minded friends by admitting I could see the conservative argument side of things, I turned into Eva Braun. Science itself cannot teach morals or ethics, that falls into the realm of religion and philosophy.
Posted by: thomps at Dec 29, 2005 9:46:09 AM
Amy,
Can you explain why you made this statement -
"(shut up, smart aleck from the Cardinal Newman Society...yeah, you. Stick with me on this one)..."
What does the Cardinal Newman society have to do with anything that you're saying?
Posted by: Frank Gibbons at Dec 29, 2005 10:06:51 AM
The most important thing the Church can do to support "science" is to foster thinking. That is no easy matter. But it happens to be one of the Church's great contributions, insofar as the Church has fostered, over the centuries, not only institutions of learning (who originated the university? who preserved the texts? who fostered extended reflection on the same?), but even in the moral life: Catholic moral reasoning -- well, even the name is telling -- always involves a good deal of thinking...
Which is hard work; and admittedly, many have always preferred to let others do it for them. "Just tell me if it's right or wrong," is often a response; and certainly the Church can do that.
But you can go all the way back to Augustine (and perhaps farther), to see this tradition of moral reasoning; and it continues, through to Peter Lombard, Albert the Great, and of course, Thomas Aquinas, and down to the present day.
It can be funny-but-sad, really; because many times, the "we're-so-smart-but-the-Church-is-so-stupid" crowd will mock the Church precisely because of this tradition of moral reasoning: "splitting hairs," "quibbling," etc.
No, it's called thinking and it's hard work!
The classic examples involve either the "Principle of Double Effect," or the rules about cooperation with evil.
The classic example of the former would be a pregnant woman with a cancerous uterus: may she receive treatment for that cancer -- even if the consequence would be the loss of her unborn child?
The answer is yes. But it comes down to the intention. She may not intend the harm to the child; but saving her own life is a legitimate intention, and if the harm caused is unavoidable, and the consequence of an action that is itself morally good or neutral, then she may proceed.
The latter set of principles I referenced, having to do with cooperation with evil, are very handy to use in all sorts of situations that otherwise can be problematic -- resulting either in paralysis, or in indifference.
Formal cooperation with evil is to share the intention; material cooperation is to be involved with it, in some fashion, without sharing the intention.
Cooperation can be immediate, proximate, or remote: If you load the gun right before I use it to commit murder, that's pretty immediate, and the question of intention matters less. If you buy from a company that invests some of its profits in a morally problematic way, your cooperation is proximate, or more likely remote (assuming you have little real influence), and your intention matters more.
A case where these two principles come together: the nurse caring for a woman whose had an abortion. Is that wrong? No, both because there's no formal cooperation, the cooperation is certainly remote, and the intention is to do good, and any bad result is unintended and unavoidable (i.e., affirmation of the abortion decision).
Now, this sort of reasoning can be manipulated, of course -- which is why intention matters! God reads the heart, and while we may fool everyone else, even ourselves, we can't fool him.
Also, sometimes this sort of reasoning cannot resolve a matter with utmost certainty; one can reach differing conclusions.
But the point remains that we do use reasoning to arrive at moral judgments -- a point I try to illuminate in the confessional.
(The point of confession is badly missed if we simply come in, and denigrate ourselves as sinners. We aim to make right moral judgments; the way we judge ourselves in matters of sin and virtue helps shape our image of God; and if we err constantly on harshness toward ourselves, does that lead to an accurate image of God--not to mention an accurate picture of the reality of our own lives? I think not. Just as I have to nudge folks to have a less rosy view of themselves, likewise, I have to nudge people to be less condemning of themselves.)
I cite this as but one way the Church has fostered the essential foundation of science: the art of reasoning.
Posted by: Fr Martin Fox (Septimus) at Dec 29, 2005 10:25:00 AM
Fr. Fox,
Awesome! Thank you.
We need this kind of cold analysis on so many issues today in our diocesan and local newspapers on so many issues-abortion, stem cell research, abortion related vaccines, etc. The Pope and his pontifical gatherings do great things, but by the time the AP picks it up, the real intellectual power is lost and diluted into the conservative vs progressive paradigm. We need to start doing more of this on the local levels.
Posted by: Other Marc at Dec 29, 2005 10:32:27 AM
Good day, everyone,
I have an issue that I face that I'd like your opinion on:
I am a fairly new Christian (3 years this last December 20th!) of the Protestant variety. I have some disagreements with Catholic teachings, but on the whole I think they are much more solid than what many Protestant churches teach. My in-laws are almost all anti-Catholic, and very vocal about it. From their experience with people they know, Catholic churches don't teach the Gospel (and knowing some of their examples, I have to agree that those people do not have a firm hold on what Christianity is all about). From my experience with bloggers like Amy and others, Catholics are very admirable and often "better" Christians than Protestants. At the very least I cannot exclude someone from being a Christian because they are Catholic (as my in-laws do). How should I respond when they come up with anti-Catholic rhetoric? For example, my future sister-in-law is thrilled because her parents are going back to the Church and attending confirmation classes. This makes my mother-in-law doubt where my sister-in-law is coming from, since if she's thrilled that her parents are going back to the Church, she's thrilled that they're not going to be any closer to becoming Christian.
If I just say (as I have in the past) that Catholics are most definitely Christians, they'll come up with all their examples of Catholics who don't seem to be Christians. A corresponding list of Protestants who also don't seem to be Christians doesn't hold much weight with them, and they dismiss it. Should I remain silent? What can I say? Should I say?
Thanks for any ideas you have,
Misty
Posted by: Misty at Dec 29, 2005 10:32:39 AM
I like Amy's accurate description of the post in question as "insane." I'm accordingly a little pessimistic about the efficacy of replying with rational argument, but I applaud your effort, Amy.
Posted by: Maclin Horton at Dec 29, 2005 10:32:55 AM
Hmmm. Wasn't Father Gregor Mendel Catholic?
Posted by: Doug Barber at Dec 29, 2005 10:35:14 AM
The intellectuals of modern society are very prone to "learned ignorance" - I think that phrase is from St. Augustine.
Just a few citations how the Church or its memebers have pushed intellectual development :
1. Pope Gregory the Great dispatches missionaries to England. RESULT : Roman alphabet in daily use in English for 1400 years.
2. Reform of calendar by Pope Gregory XIII in the late 16th century. RESULT : Calendar in daily use around the world. Will remain accurate for several thousand years.
( ASIDE : Strangely enough, "advanced" Protestant nations resisted the introduction of the Gregorian calendar; England finally adopted it in the 1750's, after 150+ years of resisting popish innovations ).
3. In the 19th century, French mathematician Cauchy provides a mathematically rigorous definition of "limits", thus putting calculus on a firmly scientific foundation. His career was more or less sidelined by secularists who found Cauchy's strident Catholicism objectionable.
4. "Mersenne numbers" are highly important in various areas of computer work. They are named after a 17th century French cleric, who belonged to the order of Minims.
5. Bolzano, a Czech (?) priest, made important contributions to mathematics in the 19th century.
Posted by: Ed at Dec 29, 2005 10:38:18 AM
Frank,
The Cardinal Newman Society seeks to encourage Catholic colleges and universities to be fully Catholic, including being true to the Magisterium in its theology courses, in its policies, and in the causes it promotes or opposes.
As a part of this mission, it frequently points out how in its opinion some Catholic colleges and universities are not fully Catholic.
The parenthetical that you wondered about was Amy's way of putting off to the side the objections that the Cardinal Newman Society might raise about how Catholic some of the institutions to which, in general, she was referring.
Posted by: Sean Gallagher at Dec 29, 2005 10:41:51 AM
Dear Misty,
You wrote, "Thanks for any ideas you have."
It sounds to me as if you have already done a good job defending what you know to be true, and your in-laws can't admit to themselves the truth of what you have to say. Their only way of defending themselves is to talk over you and yo pretend your words mean nothing to them.
Perhaps, one day, they will be able to allow themselves to listen, if you keep praying for them, and continue to live a joyful Christian life.
St. Francis of Assisi said, "Preach always! When necessary, use words." Lives of gentleness, patience, reverence, purity, and kindness may win over stubbornly closed minds and hearts better than eloquent arguements ever could.
Perhaps this is what you being are called to do, Misty, to be an example to your in-laws.
Thank you so much. May Our Lord and Savior bless you in your efforts.
Posted by: Marion (Mael Muire) at Dec 29, 2005 11:15:50 AM
Dr. Jerome LeJune, a pro-life Catholic unlocked the chromosome pattern of Down Syndrome. And the current U.S.head of Communion and Liberation, theological/philosophical heavyweight, Fr. Lorenzo Albacete, has a degrees in space science and one in applied physics.
And thank you so much Fr. Fox. Yours is a post to cut and paste and keep for future reference.
Posted by: Judy at Dec 29, 2005 11:18:07 AM
Hi, Misty - and thank you for your kind thoughts!
In what way do your in-laws believe Catholics are not Christians? Do you mean that they actually think Catholics do not believe in Jesus? Or do you mean that they just think a lot of Catholics don't live their faith? It sounds like the latter, but I wasn't sure.
My answer to your question will depend on your answers to these! :-)
Posted by: Robin at Dec 29, 2005 11:19:48 AM
In defense of Ian, although he may be exaggerating slightly, science is a real problem in Catholic universities. It is all very well and good to learn how to think clearly -- and indeed, essential to the enterprise of science -- but it won't get you a graduate fellowship. Certainly not in a place that puts you into the mainstream of science. As the wife of a research physician, and the mother of at least two children who may end up in the sciences, I do not like contemplating a choice between a true Catholic university education and a good launching into a scientific career. This choice should not be necessary! Yes, the Church has supported and continues to support the advance of the sciences, but she's fallen mighty far behind in turning out good scientists from her universities. I am constantly debating this issue with my husband, who is reluctant to restrict his children's educational choices in order to enhance their spiritual development. Right now we are managing with homeschooling through grade 8 and public high school; but college is a real issue and we are unsure how we will proceed for any child who has an aptitude in the sciences.
Posted by: scotch meg at Dec 29, 2005 11:29:35 AM
Hi Misty,
Another thought -- instead of countering with Protestants who don't act like Christians, how about giving examples of Catholics who do? Who do your in-laws admire? There's a saint for almost any situation imaginable... if they admire Albert Schweitzer, how about Mother Theresa? If they admire John Eliot, how about Isaac Jogues? If they admire Martin Neimoller, how about Maximilian Kolbe? Buy Amy's "Book of Saints" and research anyone who might be appealing to your in-laws. Get an adult book out of the library (if you can find one) or ask a Catholic friend for a loan. I know what I'm suggesting is work, but it sounds like this is an ongoing issue for you. Good luck!
Posted by: scotch meg at Dec 29, 2005 11:38:46 AM
Misty,
If Catholics ( or the Orthodox ) are not Christians, then did "Christianity" spring full-blown from the minds of reformers in the early 16th century? By the "logic" of your in-laws, Christianity had not existed from the death of the last apostle until the 16th century, right? Are we to believe that Christianity had disappeared for the span of 15 centuries? The very best remedy is to study history, especially Western history and culture. Someone once remarked that, in studying Western history, you could argue for the Catholic Church or against the Catholic Church, but you CANNOT argue Western history WITHOUT the Catholic Church.
Posted by: Ed at Dec 29, 2005 11:38:46 AM
Hi, Robin,
Thank you for being willing to take some time to answer. As far as I can tell, they believe that the Catholic church doesn't teach their members about Jesus' complete act of sacrifice for us, so they don't know enough about Jesus to believe in Him. They think that Catholics aren't taught to read the Bible on their own, and thus can't even figure out the Gospel on their own.
Marion: Thank you for your response and suggestions! I will certainly keep praying for them (and for myself).
Posted by: Misty at Dec 29, 2005 11:40:04 AM
Misty,
I find there is really only one good counterargument against protestant anti-catholicism. It is the notion that the authentic memory of Jesus is maintained by the church he founded. In other words, the faith comes from the true Word of God (Jesus the Christ). Sacred scripture does not come first; indeed, the books which comprise the bible were put together by the catholic church (and Luther chucked the ones he did not like out!). As the recent obsession with Gnosticism shows, there were many many competing psuedo-Christian tracts and "gospels" in circulation at the time. The church separated the wheat from the chaff. How then, can believers in sola scriptura denounce the catholic church? It just isn't logical!
Posted by: Tony A at Dec 29, 2005 11:50:53 AM
After reading Ian's post, I was going to come on here and blather about the perfidious complex of Big Science, Big Government, and Big Business (a most unholy Trinity), and how it narrows our perspective on the real, and how the best philosophy of science in the last fifty years has come to an agreement on this --it is all hardly as innocuous as poor Ian claims it to be -- but JonathonR, though not in so many words, seems to have hit the ball out of the park on that aspect of Ian's post.
I guess I should say this much: given Ian's scientism, it seems necessary to point out that technological progress is not the mark of civilizational advancement. Rather, the embodiment of charity, in the city of man, marks the advancement of civilization, and this is so regardless of the average life-expectancy of the populous.
As a case in point, the technological advancement of the last 100 years has been accompanied by unprecedented carnage -- from the carnage unleashed on the German people by the state mandated scientism of the Nazis, to the world-wide terror of Communisim, itself concomitant with a state-mandated scientism.
And, let us not forget, the Eugenics Movement (which gave Hitler his impetus to wipe out the Jews) had its birth among the community of scientistic Social Darwinists in the U.S. (see Edwin Black's "The War Against the Weak"). Of course, the Eugenics Movement is alive and well today in the U.S., with our scientifically efficient abortions, stem-cell harvesting, euthanasia without pain, etc.
None of this is to say that science is bad. It is, however, to say that it has to be oriented toward the Good. And, of itself, it cannot discover the Good. That requires philosophy and, lo, theology.
Posted by: Marco at Dec 29, 2005 11:52:26 AM
Father,
All due respect, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Alan Shewmon is certainly not a leading researcher in epilepsy. He hasn't published anything significant in the past 5 years. This dosn't mean he's not an expert, but he's a physician, not a scientist.
And Amy, when you ask "I said, show me a global organization more dedicated to integrating intellectual work and real world problems" I have provided an answer. If the U.S. research community - funded by Congress - isn't global I don't know what is. Half of the scientific researchers funded by the U.S. are foreigners, including the graduate students in my department. The U.S. has led the global fight against AIDS, which at last I understood was a global problem. And every paper published as a result of federally funded research develops science on a global scale.
And for those who think that the DOD/NRL etc. only funds "shiny objects that go boom" I invite you to check out the following, for instance:
http://heron.nrl.navy.mil/contracts/0506baa/610501.htm
Research funded by the DOD/ONR, etc. has had broad ramifications in medicine, electronics, etc.
Amy, I understand your disappointment with the liberal attacks but the problem is that they're kind of on to something. They are hitting the Church in a weak point, and frankly, one that is extraneous from its mission. Then they distort our doctrine based on (a) a lack of understanding of the Magisterium (b) unfortunate comments by many of our clergy and (c) phrases taken out of context. But when you consider (b), you can't say the Church didn't effectively ask for it.
Posted by: Ian at Dec 29, 2005 11:53:40 AM
Amy,
I think you are absolutely right and it makes no sense to me. Why is the catholic church lambasted for not ordaining women priests when orthodox Jews and muslims get a free pass for segregating the sexes in places of worship? Why is a minor and highly-nuanced document on gays in the priesthood attacked so viciously, while gays are murdered regularly in muslim countries? Why is the concept of an institutional church and a hierarchy subject to derision, while these same people laud a despotic theocracy in Tibet? Why does the Church get so little credit for being the largest provider of education, healthcare, and social services in the world?
Tony.
Posted by: Tony A at Dec 29, 2005 11:55:39 AM
And nobody of significance is attending the Vatican conferences.
That no-name physicist Stephen Hawking attended a Vatican conference on cosmology back in '81. He might have even misrepresented the pope in his little-known book, A Brief History of Time.
That said, Catholic education cannot teach the sciences as a semi-religion, which certainly is how it is taught in many schools today. For Catholics, it is ignorance of Christ that is the summum malum, not ignorance of the latest scientific discoveries. This is a disadvantage in the competitive market, since all our devotion is ultimately directed towards the Creator and not the Creation.
Science education today too often is simply technical or vocational education without any real emphasis on scientists' special capacity to glorify God and to love their neighbor by discovering things of benefit to him. The article "Francis Bacon's God" in the journal The New Atlantis goes a long way towards recovering a conception of scientific research done in the spirit of piety and charity.
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Dec 29, 2005 12:08:03 PM
"The Church didn't eradicate polio, the Church didn't send astronauts to the moon and explore the Universe with probes and orbiting satellites, the Church didn't investigate and decode the human (or any other) genome..."
On the other hand, another backward anti-intellectual churchman and mathematician, Christopher Clavius, SJ (+1612) did the necessary calculations for the 1582 Gregorian reform of the Julian calendar (now in use by these same dopey Catholic bashers) without the use of the new fangled decimal point, which Clavius didn't begin to employ until later in his career.
o{]:¬)
Posted by: Fr. J.T. Zuhlsdorf at Dec 29, 2005 12:09:41 PM
Misty says: "As far as I can tell, they believe that the Catholic church doesn't teach their members about Jesus' complete act of sacrifice for us, so they don't know enough about Jesus to believe in Him. They think that Catholics aren't taught to read the Bible on their own, and thus can't even figure out the Gospel on their own."
I'm not sure about "Jesus' complete act of sacrifice" - can you elaborate on what that means? I have heard that some Protestants think that Jesus is "re-sacrificed" during every Mass, which is not correct, but I hate to spend a lot of time on that if it's not their issue.
The second part is easier for me. If I were you, I would concede that Catholics are not particularly good at quoting Scripture and giving citations. (This is a broad generalization and not aimed at all Catholics.) In general, the Protestants I know have us completely beat at that. IMHO, the Catholic Church could do a much better job seeing that Catholics are familiar with Scripture.
THAT SAID . . . You might want to point out that every Catholic Mass is full of Scripture. On Sundays and Holy Days, there are two readings from books other than the four Gospels, a Psalm, and a reading from one of the Gospels. At daily Mass, there is a Psalm, a Gospel reading, and one reading from a book other than the four Gospels.
In addition to the readings, the liturgy is chock full of passages from Scripture. This is why Scott Hahn, a Presbyterian minister who converted to Catholicism, says that Catholics really know a lot more Scripture than they think they do! So your in-laws probably (understandably) think Catholics are more ignorant than they really are.
Also, the "official" Church (i.e., the Holy See) has strongly encouraged Catholics to read Scripture. The fact that many Catholics fail to do it is unfortunate, but your in-laws should know that it's the fault of individual Catholics, not the Catholic Church.
Another point you might want to make with your in-laws is that Catholic belief is not based completely on Holy Scripture, although that is very important. Catholic belief is also based on Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church). Thus, most Catholic catechetical materials will have a combination of these sources, and not just Scriptural material. This probably makes Catholics less able to quote and cite Scripture but more likely to have a "correct" understanding about what Scripture MEANS because of the other two prongs of the Catholic faith.
(For why it's not a good idea to rely on Scripture alone, go back to the post from Tony A.)
(I also agree that you should pray for your in-laws . . . and also for your sister-in-law who is converting!)
God bless you!
Posted by: Robin at Dec 29, 2005 12:16:57 PM
Ian--
Sorry to pile on, but unless you're playing Devil's Advocate, you've got some tightening up to do in your own research.
You seem to be fully larded with false dichotomies. For example, Dr. Shewmon is "a physician, not a scientist."
Well, I hate to break your 18th century reverie, but physicians today ARE scientists--though, admittedly, many fail to think and act scientifically.
Sir Alexander Fleming, Dr. Jonas Salk, to name just two examples of physicians who contributed more than their share to science.
Posted by: Cranky Lawyer at Dec 29, 2005 12:22:52 PM
Regarding the Church and science, there was a fascinating book published about 5 years ago by a guy named J. L. Heilbron (A Prof. at Berkeley! - I'm sure this book cost him some friends there) called "The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories".
Heilbron's thesis: "'The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and, probably, all other, institutions.' Despite the persecution of Galileo, Heilbron notes, the Church actively supported mathematical and astronomical research--often designing cathedrals that could also function as observatories--in order to set the precise date of Easter..."
In addition to being a fascinating read, the book itself is quite beautifully produced, with lots of wonderful illustrations.
The paperback's available for a mere $12.99 at Amazon. Perhaps we should all chip in and send a few to the gang at the HuffPo? Then again, given the kind of people we're dealing with, judging from the posts on that thread about the Pope's Urbi et Orbi message, the books would probably just go to waste.
Posted by: Dennis at Dec 29, 2005 12:36:54 PM
Reminds me of a piece that appeared in Slate last March, "Oy Vitae: Jews vs. Catholics in the stem cell debate." It is William Saletan's account of his experiences attending a bioethics conference at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University in Rome earlier this year.
A snippet:
"...The first presenters, a couple of scientists, summarize the state of stem cell research. When they're done, a soft-spoken young priest in the front row raises his hand. "In a case of aneuploidy, it may be possible to laser ablate one or two of the blastomeres," he says. A priest in the back row asks about "aberrant silencing of the IGF and IGF2 receptor." I can hardly believe what I'm hearing. Afterward, I ask the first priest, Father Tad Pacholczyk, where he learned this stuff. Turns out he's got a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Yale, plus a research stint at Harvard Medical School and undergraduate degrees in biochemistry and molecular biology. Around the room, half the guys in collars are scientists..."
Read the whole thing here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2114733/
Posted by: Cheryl at Dec 29, 2005 12:37:35 PM
Try introducing the ignorant or duped to "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" by Thomas Woods. There has been so much rewriting of historical facts, or just plain neglect, that even in Catholic institutions, the truth goes without notice. In fact, Mr. Woods invites thesis writers to choose some of the unreported Jesuit scientists. That is a wide open and undiscovered area for research. Interesting that something like 5% of all within a particular scientific group of all centuries studied, are Jesuits... and they were only there for around 3 of the centuries. A very prestigious medal awarded in science today is named for and has the name of a renowned Jesuit. The places gaining the most notoriety today for so-called stem cell research are producing nothing of evidence, while the real experiments using adult stem cells are having more and more successes. Now, just why doesn't the public know this??? hmmm. So, sometimes you can't blame the stupid who don't know enough to do their own research and just swallow the elitist "powers that be's" fabrications of history. There really is an active movement to obtain available monies for research labs who wish to just play without much emphasis on proof. If you can't understand the seemingly massive attacks against the True Church (with help from the world's technology in communication) today, then you don't contemplate too much on the Son of God's (THE TRUTH) crucifixion.
Posted by: chris K at Dec 29, 2005 12:53:36 PM
Some physicians are scientists, not all are. For instance, I have a collaborator who is a physician. The other physician I mentioned (retorting Father Rob's claim), is no longer a scientist. He no longer runs a lab or practices science. He writes commentaries.
Marco sums up what I'm complaining about:
"After reading Ian's post, I was going to come on here and blather about the perfidious complex of Big Science, Big Government, and Big Business (a most unholy Trinity)..."
Now Amy, do you see why the libs complain ab out why the Church is unscientific? This is what they're mocking. And they use comments like Marco's to support their arguments to a public that dosn't know about the Catholic Church's doctrine because priests and bishops fail to expound it.
And Marco, please define "scientism." Are its followers Scientologists or "scienticians"
http://achangeinthewind.typepad.com/achangeinthewind/2005/10/scientician_of_.html
lol
Posted by: Ian at Dec 29, 2005 1:00:20 PM
Ian,
That last post of yours simply points a finger and says: "Look! See!" But the issue requires a bit more reflective attention than that. You're doing little more at this point than advocating globalism, dominated by the hegemony of the U.S. Rightly, many people in the world, many of them non-Catholics, are not too happy about this situation.
What it may come down to, ultimately, is this: Is it more important to have a long life, without reference to that life's goodness, without suffering, or a good life (in the sense of developing good character), that may be short and that may involve suffering? The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive (though, unless you're a foolish baby-boomer, you surely must realize that everyone will suffer).However, the question is an important one. What is the point of human life?
Science cannot answer that question. It presumes an answer to the question. American society answers it thus: A good life is a life of material prosperity and comfort. We must spread this ideal globally. Hence, our governmental funding preferences.
Is this, however, the correct answer to the question?
Posted by: Marco at Dec 29, 2005 1:04:11 PM
I think Amy's point is well taken, but Ian also makes a very good point.
To cite one example, Georges Lemaitre. While the Belgian priest/physicist is usually credited as the 'father of the big bang' and indeed, he did formulate the first big bang model (l'atom primitif), his more important contribution to physics was convincing Einstein and his generation that the universe was truly dynamic. (There was a lot of stubborness on this point, because virtually all of Lemaitre's mentors and colleagues were older, and more wedded to the notion that the universe was static.)
Lemaitre died in 1966. In 1979 Alan Guth based his Inflation Theory in part on a paper of Lemaitre's from 1925 ("Note on de Sitter's Universe").
Now, I'm not saying it's too bad that Guth wasn't a priest...but, I do wonder why there haven't been any more heavyweight cosmologists from "our schools" since Lemaitre.
On the philosophy side, I've long thought that the Church seriously needs to think about bringing up a new Aquinas. Just as Thomas sucked down and digested all of Aristotle's work in the 13th century and fought to convince the Church of that time that the pagan philosopher's work was worth assimilating and building on, so too I think somehow the Church needs a priest or other well educated layperson schooled in all traditional philosophy--to get highly trained in physics and/or evolutionary biology precisely in order to synthesize a new philosophy--one that--without discarding the truths of common sense philosophy that Cardinal Schonborn reminds us of, but also takes a new approach to such wisdom through science.
Posted by: John Farrell at Dec 29, 2005 1:08:47 PM
Dennis,
Thanks for citing professor Heilbron's book - I'll have to give it a read. As for the Huffpro crowd, they don't seem particularly literate. Maybe someone would volunteer to read Heilbron's book to them.
Posted by: Ed at Dec 29, 2005 1:12:37 PM
Marco,
Your comment is laughable. I'm not advocating anything. I'm just answering Amy's question posed in her post:
"Show me a global institution more dedicated to learning, to integrating intellectual work and real world problems. Show me. I dare you."
She dared and I responded, with cold hard facts.
"advocating globalism, dominated by the hegemony of the U.S."... Are you kidding me? lol I'm just stating the facts...
John Farrell's point is probably better than he realizes, because if the Church took science seriously and castigated its detractors the libs would have nothing to work with. But as long as there are Protestant legends of ecclesial supression of science ("Galileo was burned at the stake!") and anti-scientific forces in the Church they'll always have fresh meat to gnaw.
As this thread shows, even the most intelligent Catholics are "science indifferent," just like the hierarchy. Not necessarily against science, but ambivalent, and more often than not skeptical. A few Vatican-sponsored conferences and a low-end journal are merely window dressing.
Posted by: Ian at Dec 29, 2005 1:32:13 PM
Re Misty's comments: from my experience with my anti-Catholic friends and relatives (I'm a reluctant evangelical with strong papist leanings, and a Bob Jones graduate to boot), I'd be willing to bet good money that the objections of Misty's relatives comes down to a belief that Catholics reject justification by faith in favor of a works-based approach to salvation. Incidentally, it's the same objection that they would likely have (as my acquaintances do) to the mainline Protestant denominations, which, in their minds, now preach a social gospel that defines the faith largely in terms of the performance of good works.
Because of this, the suggestion that Misty present examples such as Mother Theresa, etc., is unlikely to do any good. My friends are more than willing to accept that such Catholics are upstanding moral examples and are usually willing to count them as allies in certain social causes, but consider them Christians? Not unless there's evidence they've "accepted Christ as their personal savior" and place no hope for salvation in their own merit. Responding to this objection by pointing to the self-sacrifice of Catholic heroes will only confirm their view that the Church is preaching a false gospel, because it sounds like an argument that it is their self-sacrifice that makes them acceptable to God, rather than the sacrifice of Christ.
The best response, I think, would be to send them (as I have done) links to, for example, the recent Advent homilies on justification given by the preacher to the papal household (can't recall his name right now). That'll at least throw them for a loop. Benedict himself seems to have an appreciation for these concerns that may break down a lot of barriers, though I do think that the specter of a works-based religion does rear its head in the minds of traditional protestants when they hear him say that an individual of good will who follows his conscience as best he can may be saved even apart from faith in Christ--it just sounds too much as if he's saying that person is saved by his own effort.
Posted by: Richard at Dec 29, 2005 1:50:16 PM
Ian,
Your "laughing off" of my post is itself laughable. It shows a real ignorance on your part about the socio-economic realities that undergird big-science. A certain social will has to manifest itself in order for science funding to take the scale that it does. This will is a manifestation of what our society thinks constitutes a good life, as I mentioned in my last post. You seem to think that this is automatically true. Hence, you are an apparently an unwitting proponent of globalism -- the reduction of the social good to material comfort and prospertity driven to fulfillment by business, government and science and spread globally.
The problem is, apparently, that you don't think on the level of philosophical presuppositions. So, I would ask you: why is it "good" that scientific research be so "big" -- that it be driven by the confluence of big-business and big-government in the way that it is? That all knowledge be thought reducible to it? Your claims imply a willing acceptance of this situation whether or not you want to admit it.
Furthermore, how, given the "bigness" of the scientific project, and that it is driven by capitalist democracy, can the Church even begin, in its comparatively paltry institutions, to "compete" with this?
Furthermore, does the Church not have the responsibility to point out that scientific research can never reach the ultimate truth -- given its materialistic methodology -- and that it is not the higherst pursuit of man?
Posted by: Ian at Dec 29, 2005 1:52:44 PM
How did my name come up as "Ian" -- God forbid!
Posted by: Maro at Dec 29, 2005 1:54:33 PM
Dear Ian,
I don't get what it is that would make anyone think that the Catholic Church or any religious institution ought to be found in the vanguard of scientific progress.
Did the Army Corp of Engineers build levees in NOLA? Sure, but building civilian infrastructure is not the primary mission of the military. And if that's what they spent most of their time and budget doing, they would necessarily be failing in their true mission.
Do they study English lit at M.I.T.? Sure. Do M.I.T. graduates go on to become award-winning novelists? Not lately. Should M.I.T. therefore cut funding for studies in the field of advanced technology and move millions into teaching 18th century English prose and poetry? As big a fan as I am of the writings of that era, I think that for M.I.T. to do such a thing would be a huge mistake.
Does the Catholic Church promote science big-time?
Er, not really. Why would we? Science ain't our bread 'n' butter.
For the record, my Catholic father graduated from Harvard with a degree in physics. He had a distinguished career in computer science; the sciences in general and mathematics were his hobbies. He loved science, and he loved the Catholic Church very much.
I do, too.
Posted by: Marion (Mael Muire) at Dec 29, 2005 1:54:42 PM
Marion:
Agreed, IMO Church should not be the NIH. But I was responding to Amy's dare (read the original post).
Amy is trying to make the case that the Church is not anti-scientific. She does an OK job, and as some commenters have pointed out, it was the Church that brought the academy into existence, and many Catholics (although not the Church) have contributed to science.
But the problem here is that the Church is not explicitly pro-science. The Church fathers have thrown around the word "science" but the application of logic and the posing of arguments is not science. The scientific method addresses falsifiable hypotheses, not all hypotheses. The Church is (or should be) concerned with spreading the Gospel, which is axiomatic, not falsifiable. Hence, the Church is indifferent to science, and opposed at worst (ie. when the scientific method shows that the Earth is not flat, or that it's billions of years old and that its inhabitants have evolved from simpler organisms). That means skepticism is the "middle ground."
In the "ID" debate, most Catholics I met/sparred with were less concerned with the truth and more concerned with winning an argument. I suspect they are motivated by fear, as the Evangelicals are (but then that means the Bible is wrong!). This manifested itself as an opposition to science and a retreat into 17th-19th century philosophy ("Theology is the mother of science" yadda yadda). Their arguments were irrelevant to the axioms of ID and to science.
And this is a big problem, because it fuels the perspectives of the atheists and liberals who see the Church is backward.
Amy brings up several "scientific initiatives" of the Vatican to refute the Huffpo posters, but she's not addressing the elephant in the living room: the fact that there are a lot of Catholics who are "anti-science," including many in the clergy. At the end of the day, their fear and skepticism makes our faith a laughingstock.
And that does not help us evangelize scientists now, does it.
Posted by: Ian at Dec 29, 2005 2:15:10 PM
The Catholic Church, with the 402 year old Papal Academy of Sciences, Vatican Observatory, various Catholic universities, etc., is not a leader of scientific research; neither is the Church of England and various Anglican/Episcopal bodies; nor any religious communitiy, for that matter.
The science of today and tomorrow (rather than, say, the 18th century), is very, very expensive (apart from a few pure mathematicians who can live in caves). Modern scientific reseaerch requires expensive equipment, expensive materials (often with very complex procedures for acquisition, use and disposal), expensive facilities, and expensive collaborations. Only national governments have the means to support science, and these governments decide which science will be pursued by means of direct funding, or controlling funding to a second tier of myriad institutions, agencies, universities, contractors, etc.
Modern science is amoral; it is not concerned with "right" and "wrong," with "good" and "bad." I would go further to say science in inhuman. It is not concerned about the human person, the human spirit, even if it is interested in human beings as objects. The only "sins" for a scientist are: (1) faking data and results, (2) misappropriation of funds, and (3) rocking the political boat of your funding agency. That's about it.
Given the state of modern science, I think it is good that the Church have these various "trailing edge" scientific institution for two reasons:
(1) to avoid stepping in scientific doo-doo, like the Galileo thing, because of scientific ignorance; the leaders of the Church, as a whole, should not be less scientifically informed than the folks in the pews, as a whole.
(2) to make noises and wave arms when scientists (individual or groups) are clearly going off into the moral darkness.
But I, nearing the end of a career in science, do not think that "Catholic" and "leading edge scientific research" go together, nor should they be required to be coupled, any more than "Catholic" and "world class chef," or "Catholic" and "football player." They are different fields of human endeavor which have some interplay, like plants and fish, but they are different things.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Dec 29, 2005 2:16:36 PM
Two things (both of which are going to make me sound like I'm dumb and haven't followed the argument correctly):
1) Why can't a physician be a scientist? The definition of scientist is "A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science." That definition doesn't say the have to split atoms in the garage on weekends in order to still be a scientist.
2) Ian, I didn't understand your argument about Catholics and ID.
I though intelligent design merely meant that I accept evolution but I think God has a hand in it all, no? I don't see how any arguments you (as a scientist) would refute that. I also don't see how saying God had a hand in it threatens your science or my religion. And I don't see why arguing God has a hand in evolution is an argument rooted in fear.
But, as I said before, these questions are probably dumb and I haven't really been reading all of this too carefully!
Posted by: CMick at Dec 29, 2005 2:26:06 PM
Dear CMick,
I known physicians who are scientists. They do research in areas like medical imaging, new radiation therapies, drug development.
But these are not they physicians you will see if you have bronchitis, or break a leg on the ski slopes, or have typical hypertension. They only see patients who are subjects for their research projects. They do not work like normal internists and surgeons in a general hospital or clinic treating a wide variety of patients.
Scientists who are physicians tend to focus on their scientific research, publications, scientific conferences, and view their patients as a source of data.
"Regular" physicians tend to be more focused on helping their patients be healthy, curing their diseases, comforting their families, etc. They really view patients more as people.
That's my two cents.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Dec 29, 2005 2:33:15 PM
Old Zhou, far be it from me to dispute your general assessment. However, there are always exceptions. :) My beloved wife is a pulmonary critical care specialist, and while she worked for ten years as a research scientist and published papers on chemokines and their role in inflammation of the lungs, she was also a tireless doctor who saw patients more than part-time, with every kind of lung ailment--in addition to regular all-night stints in the ER. Many of her patients grew very attached to her and were extremely upset when she stopped to raise our children.
Posted by: John Farrell at Dec 29, 2005 2:52:46 PM
Those of you who want to dialogue about Catholic Theology and Science should try
http://ITEST.slu.edu
ITEST, Institute for the Theological Encounter of Science and Technology was founded by Fr. Robert Brungs, SJ. He and I were buddies in adjoining labs in graduate school.
Posted by: Thomas Hynes at Dec 29, 2005 2:52:51 PM
Amy's Challenge:
Show me a global institution more dedicated to learning, to integrating intellectual work and real world problems. Show me. I dare you.
Pope's Message:
n the millennium just past, and especially in the last centuries, immense progress was made in the areas of technology and science. Today we can dispose of vast material resources. But the men and women in our technological age risk becoming victims of their own intellectual and technical achievements, ending up in spiritual barrenness and emptiness of heart.
The Pope also enumerated some "real world problems":
May the God who became man out of love for humanity strengthen all those in Africa who work for peace, integral development and the prevention of fratricidal conflicts, for the consolidation of the present, still fragile political transitions, and the protection of the most elementary rights of those experiencing tragic humanitarian crises, such as those in Darfur and in other regions of central Africa. May he lead the peoples of Latin America to live in peace and harmony. May he grant courage to people of good will in the Holy Land, in Iraq, in Lebanon, where signs of hope, which are not lacking, need to be confirmed by actions inspired by fairness and wisdom; may he favour the process of dialogue on the Korean peninsula and elsewhere in the countries of Asia, so that, by the settlement of dangerous disputes, consistent and peaceful conclusions can be reached in a spirit of friendship, conclusions which their peoples expectantly await.
Modern science and technology has very little relevance to these kinds of "real world problems."
Posted by: Old Zhou at Dec 29, 2005 2:57:47 PM
Ian, you wrote, "But the problem here is that the Church is not explicitly pro-science."
That's like saying that I have a problem with science because science is not explicitly pro-salvation.
The salvation of mankind is the Church's primary mission.
Science (in the modern sense of the word - what used to be called "the natural sciences") is about measuring, predicting and manipulating observable reality.
The Church is about the truth of God's love for us. The Church doesn't concern itself (much) with measuring and predicting observable reality.
The Church concerns itself with proclaiming the truth.
Many people who do science have a problem with the very notion that objective truth exists at all. Whereas many religious people may be backward when it comes to science, many people who do science take a dismissive view of reality apart from what is directly observable.
So a mutual antipathy has developed among people who have not learned to understand and appreciate both. Which is too bad.
Would you have suggestions, Ian, as to how people of faith could develop a better appreciation of scientific endeavor, and how devotes of science might come to better appreciate religious belief?
Posted by: Marion (Mael Muire) at Dec 29, 2005 3:00:02 PM
"He hasn't published anything significant in the past 5 years. "
"Your comment is laughable."
This is the way scientists invalidate arguments they cannot refute. Next, Ian will be pointing out spelling and grammatical mistakes. People like Ian are one of the reasons I got out of government funded science. The other reason is that it wastes HUGE amounts of money in a dogged pursuit of the trivial.
Posted by: John J. Simmins at Dec 29, 2005 3:00:36 PM
Old Zhou,
I'll admit that when most people think "scientist" they're thinking "beakers and bubbles." However, I'd posit (along with the dictionary) that scientists are people who practice science as a profession and I think you'd agree that doctors practice science.
Not all doctors research, that's true. As for the doctor Ian mentioned, I'd say that guy, regardless of definitions, is a scientist. You are what you do and he did research.
Posted by: CMick at Dec 29, 2005 3:29:49 PM
Ian says
'In the "ID" debate, most Catholics I met/sparred with were less concerned with the truth and more concerned with winning an argument. I suspect they are motivated by fear, as the Evangelicals are (but then that means the Bible is wrong!). This manifested itself as an opposition to science and a retreat into 17th-19th century philosophy ("Theology is the mother of science" yadda yadda).
Some questions:
a. Who claimed that 'theology is the mother of science'? I've heard the expression 'philosophy is the handmaiden of theology' but not 'theology is the mother of science.'
b. Who are the Catholics with whom you have spoken about ID? Most scientists who are Catholics are on the ID-sceptical side. Even people who make ID-friendly claims--e.g., Cdl Schonborn--have not suggested that Catholics should not participate in the scientific study of evolution.
c. What is the 'fear' that would prompt a Catholic to be a supporter of ID? ID is not consistent with a literalist interpretation of the Genesis account, so I don't see why a fear that the Bible might be wrong would motivate someone to affirm ID.
Ian, your claims about Catholics and the sciences seem very inconsistent with the facts that: (a) the Church encourages and does not condemn scientific research (except when it involves a direct violation of moral law--e.g. embryonic stem cell research); and (b) that there are many many Catholics (including priests and religious) who are involved in scientific research.
Posted by: reluctant penitent at Dec 29, 2005 3:31:02 PM
RP (and Ian):
A small mistake in terms seems to have been made. Theology has been referred to as the "queen" of the sciences, but not to my knowledge as their mother by any acknowledged master of the subject. Theology was so designated because of "the sublimity of its object [God], the certainty of its premises [revelation], and the excellence of its light," to borrow Jacques Maritain's phrase.
Posted by: Nicholas at Dec 29, 2005 3:46:31 PM
John Simmins:
Please read Father Rob's comment [" Dr. Alan Shewmon, the head of the Neurology dept. at UCLA, a leading researcher in epilepsy, EEG, brain mapping with PET, etc."] My response ["He hasn't published anything significant in the past 5 years."] showed that Shewmon isn't research active, and therefore is not a "leading researcher." And for the record, Scientists invalidate arguments by presenting data that refute those arguments. I'd expect better from someone with six-sigma training. If you found your work trivial, I feel bad for you, but not all scientific studies have big, immediate results.
Marion:
Please elaborate, since I don't understand your comment "That's like saying that I have a problem with science because science is not explicitly pro-salvation." "Science" is not an institution like the church, it's a method of investigation based on the construction and falsification of falsifiable hypotheses. Science isn't "pro" anything. Regardless, I fail to see how your comment relates to your quote of mine.
Which gets to your question "Would you have suggestions, Ian, as to how people of faith could develop a better appreciation of scientific endeavor, and how devotes of science might come to better appreciate religious belief?"
If the religious would acknowledge the difference between the scientific method and the opinions of "jerk scientists," we have overcome an obstacle. If a God-hating atheist performs a scientific study on some phenomenon, its results are true regardless of his opinions so long as he employed the scientific method. The religious must acknowledge this.
Believe it or not, most Scientists are religious. Scientists only denigrate religious beliefs when those beliefs are empirically false. For instance, there are people who believe the Earth is flat, or who believe that Einstein's work on relativity promotes "moral relativism." This is sheer nonsense; even Mark Shea mocks these guys on a regular basis. The relative perception of time among two individuals (or particles, etc.) moving at two different speeds or existing in two different gravitational fields has thing zero to do with morals. When scientists witness people aggressively attacking the results of irrefutable, well-performed and well-designed experiments because of a fear of knowledge or a fear that the results might impinge upon their holy books, they have a natural response: "idiot" or "ignoramus."
And in the ende, this isn't a problem for most Catholics. And Papal Encyclicals of the 20th century addressing evolutiondo not condemn the results of scientific empiricism. And how could they? Yet we of the American Right have a funny Protestant trend that always suspects something sinister from science since the Scopes trial.
And when you consider birth control, abortion, euthanasia, etc. all of which were developed by scientists, it's easy to demonize. But for God's sake keep in mind that science didn't create these things, Men did.
Posted by: Ian at Dec 29, 2005 3:50:14 PM
and women too! let's not forget the ladies!
Posted by: Dan at Dec 29, 2005 3:54:35 PM
I think the pill was actually created by a Catholic, wasn't it?
Posted by: CMick at Dec 29, 2005 3:57:39 PM
Yes. John Rock, M.D.
Posted by: Marion (Mael Muire) at Dec 29, 2005 4:02:04 PM
Let me hop on the wagon with Ian, except to add that another global institution that can be said to promote the advancement of scientific knowledge (of both the natural and the social varieties of science) is the United Nations. But, I doubt this will resonate with this audience since the UN is so trashed by many conservative nationalists here who narrowly view the UN as the security council debating war resolutions.
But let me also add another point which harkens back to a debate on this blog not long ago about the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and their statements on immigration. Many here were reluctant to trust the Bishops when they spoke outside of the realm of ethics and morality, arguing that they should leave the social science of immigration to the demographers and the economists. I wonder whether or not these same folks would look at Amy's list of Church contributions to science and look at it with equal suspicion, or consider it something the Church shouldn't be sticking its nose in.
You can't say that the Church is unqualified to comment on migration issues outside of its moral and ethical dimensions and then point to its contributions on the SCIENCE of other topics as indicative of its intellectual contributions to these other fields of scientific inquiry.
So what is it? Either the Church is a competent intellectual authority on the subjects it studies and comments upon, or it's a pretender.
Posted by: Jimmy Huck at Dec 29, 2005 4:02:10 PM
Yep - John Rock was one of the inventors of the pill and a CINO if there ever was one. Margaret Sanger funded him, if memory serves me, and he also did work on abortifacients.
Posted by: Ian at Dec 29, 2005 4:08:34 PM
Ian, you wrote:
"Please elaborate,"
O.K.
Earlier, you had written, "the problem is that the Church is not explicitly pro-science" . . .
as if the Church's non-explicitly-pro-science stance is somehow a defect of the Church.
I'm saying it's not. A defect.
Just as, for example, it's also not a defect of Science as an institution (which you say you don't believe in, which is OK; let us agree to disagree) not to be explicitly-pro-salvation.
Posted by: Marion (Mael Muire) at Dec 29, 2005 4:12:18 PM
Amy is trying to make the case that the Church is not anti-scientific.
Which she did beyond doubt. What you are asking her (or what you are trying to prove) is that the Church is not a scientific research institution. Which is true, but is completely irrelevant. The Church supports scientific endeavors in the ways mentioned above, but its mission is not to be the cutting edge.
On the other hand, a significant part of its mission is to be a restraining ethical voice on all human endeavors, including science. The conflict seems to come in when people don't respect the proper spheres of both. Science's role, of which it does not like to be reminded, is to figure out the what and how of things. The Church's role (and society at large) is to tell science whether it should do things - from a "permission" viewpoint, not a capability viewpoint. Scientists (like anyone else) don't like to be denied permission to do something they think they are capable of accomplishing. But scientists are no better (and in many cases, worse) at sorting out moral imperatives. Too often they get dazzled by the technical ability to do something without adequately assessing the moral implication (sort of a high IQ counterpart to the redneck's last words - "Hey, watch this").
Posted by: c matt at Dec 29, 2005 4:17:52 PM
If you want to claim that a Catholic invented "The Pill" (which actually has many men claiming to be its father--how ironic!),
then let us also claim that the American nuclear weapons arsenal was also initiated by Catholics:
The origin of the code name Trinity for the test site is also interesting...Another version of the name's origin comes from University of New Mexico historian Ferenc M. Szasz. In his 1984 book, The Day the Sun Rose Twice, Szasz quotes Robert W. Henderson head of the Engineering Group in the Explosives Division of the Manhattan Project. Henderson told Szasz that the name Trinity came from Major W. A. (Lex) Stevens. According to Henderson, he and Stevens were at the test site discussing the best way to haul Jumbo (see below) the thirty miles from the closest railway siding to the test site. "A devout Roman Catholic, Stevens observed that the railroad siding was called 'Pope's Siding.' He [then] remarked that the Pope had special access to the Trinity, and that the scientists would need all the help they could get to move the 214 ton Jumbo to its proper spot."[3]
[3] Szasz, The Day the Sun Rose Twice, p. 40.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Dec 29, 2005 4:19:58 PM
Ian: you must have Googled me. I wondered what that tickling sensation was. You’re right I should provide data and I could if I didn’t have a day job. At least I can provide an opinion like everyone else on this blog, including you.
Consider the mission statements, taken from their websites, of two prominent government labs:
Mission of Sandia National Laboratories:
Nuclear weapons – better bombs make better neighbors.
Non-proliferation – making sure our neighbors don’t want to make us better neighbors.
Homeland security – repackaging programs where the funding was cut to boost homeland security as homeland security programs.
Energy & infrastructure – same programs with a fresh coat of green paint.
Military technologies & applications – hitting what we aim at.
Science, technology & engineering – we’ll do anything for a buck.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
Nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship -- better bombs make better neighbors.
Nonproliferation and Homeland security – the major difference here is that “nonproliferation” is not hyphenated like those jerks at Sandia who haven’t published anything significant in the past 5 years.
Advanced defense capabilities – hitting what those jerks at Sandia couldn’t hit who haven’t published anything significant in the past 5 years.
Energy and environment – same programs with a fresh coat of green paint.
Bioscience and biotechnology – thar’s gold in them there hills! Plus we got a lot of mutated rats we don’t know what to do with.
Fundamental science and applied technology – we’ll don anything for a buck, too only better than those jerks at Sandia who haven’t published anything significant in the past 5 years.
Now, a lot of this duplicitous duplication of duplicate work is duplicated at Savannah River, Oak Ridge (where I was a guest worker) and Brookhaven National Lab (where I was also a guest worker).
Now Ian, provide me with data as to why two of these four facilities (or more) should not be shut down.
You can also check for grammatical and spelling mistakes to dismiss me.
Posted by: John J. Simmins at Dec 29, 2005 4:26:51 PM
Old Zhou,
I was trying to make a point by the Catholic-pill-inventor thing. I just was wondering someting.
Posted by: CMick at Dec 29, 2005 4:30:40 PM
Ian--
Your points would be a lot more convincing if you didn't slip and let your bias show so often. Example: "For instance, there are people who believe the Earth is flat."
Really? Who?
Wait, I'll make it easier. Who even used to believe the Earth is flat?
Your entire point of view seems to be suffused with Enlightenment-era myths designed to separate and elevate reason over faith.
It's a both/and proposition and the Church need not be publishing on the bleeding edge of "science" to have a lot to say that is of value to science (even science qua science).
And, Old Zhou, you had better hope the doctor treating your bronchitis is indeed a scientist. If he or she isn't, bon chance.
Posted by: Cranky Lawyer at Dec 29, 2005 4:39:02 PM
Amy was complaining that the offending piece gave the impression that the Church condemns intellectual achievement, and that it is anti-intellectual, yada yada.
Although she pointed out science related intellectual achievement, that is not the only type of intellectual achievement (although it seems this thread has equated the two). Science is but a small part of intellectual achievement. And I dare say that no other single institution has contributed more to overall intellectual achievement than the Church - in Science, Literature, Philosophy, History, the Arts. No one even comes CLOSE!!!
Yet these bafoons call the Church anti-intellectual!!! If anything, one might make the complaint (and some Protestants have, not without basis) that the Catholic Church is too intellectual.
Posted by: c matt at Dec 29, 2005 4:45:23 PM
c matt:
She didn't prove that the Church isn't antiscientific "beyond doubt." I would go so far as to say that her information shows that the Church is making an effort to not be perceived as antiscientific, but there are major antiscientific forces at work in the Church, as this thread demonstrates.
At the end of the day, the media dosn't care about Canons, they care about what Cardinal or Archbishop so-and-so said (as long as it's embarassing). The Church has an obligation to stop these irresponsible comments.
Posted by: Ian at Dec 29, 2005 4:47:50 PM
But then, intelligence is God's fingerprint afterall.
Posted by: c matt at Dec 29, 2005 4:51:29 PM
I missed something. How does the thread demonstrate major antiscientific forces at work in the Church?
Posted by: CMick at Dec 29, 2005 4:51:40 PM
Maybe the next time Dr. Hwang meets with Seoul Archbishop Nicholas Cheong it will be for the sacrament of confession.
S. Korean School Debunks Hwang's ResearchBy BO-MI LIM
SEOUL, South Korea - South Korea's top university said Thursday that a leading researcher fabricated all of the stem cells he said were cloned from individual patients _ a shattering blow to the disgraced scientist's reputation as a medical pioneer.
The conclusion was a crushing blow to Hwang Woo-suk's once-vaunted reputation as a leader in the field of cloning who held the key to breakthroughs for hard-to-treat diseases.
A panel from Seoul National University investigating Hwang's work said last week at least nine of the 11 patient-specific stem cell lines reported this year in the journal Science were fabricated. On Thursday, the panel said the remaining two were also faked.
"The panel couldn't find stem cells that match patients' DNA regarding the 2005 paper and it believes that Hwang's team doesn't have scientific data to prove that (such stem cells) were made," Roe Jung-hye, the university's dean of research affairs, told reporters....
Recall Dr. Hwant's comments after meeting the Archbishop last summer:
Cheong told AP that he was somewhat relieved to find out that Hwang's research would be "complementary" to adult stem cell research."I will pray for God's blessing for his future research," he said.
After the meeting Hwang expressed to the Archbishop that he would like to meet with him in the future for his advice, "depending on the progress of our research," according to The Chosun Ilbo newspaper.
Maybe the Archbishop would advise him to pursue a quiet and humble life as a penitent.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Dec 29, 2005 4:52:38 PM
But there are major antiscientific forces at work in the Church, as this thread demonstrates.
I suppose before we go further, we need to define what you mean by anti-scientific, because I don't see that. I don't see the Church burning Darwinists at the stake; I see some members questioning some assumptions, which assumptions have not (and cannot) be proven or disproven because they are philosophical presuppositions beyond empirical measure (eg, the universe arose by random chance, evolution cannot be directed toward any ultimate "end").
If questioning nonempirical philosophical assumptions or criticizing the application of mechanistic causal theories to human interaction is being "anti-scientific", then count me in.
Posted by: c matt at Dec 29, 2005 5:02:23 PM
application of mechanistic causal theories to human interaction
As an example - love between humans is nothing more than a chemically induced survival instinct that evolved over the years.
Posted by: c matt at Dec 29, 2005 5:18:59 PM
Science" is not an institution like the church, it's a method of investigation based on the construction and falsification of falsifiable hypotheses. Science isn't "pro" anything.
Ahhhh, I see Ian's problems.
1. He has a mistaken view of what constitutes even modern science. Anthony Flew was about the last philosopher of science I know who still stubbornly clung to the idea that falsifiability (in his case the weak variety) was the criterion for true "science." I'm not sure he still does as he was motivated by his now abandoned atheism. Now it seems to be held only by scientists who do not realize they are doing nor know how to do philosophy. Much of theoretical cosmology cannot ever be falsified; many doubt that evolution can ever be falsified. Rather, what seems to underlie the attempts to circumscribe what is considered modern science are materialistic presuppositions.
2. Modern science has no method, it has a variety of approaches; many of which employ inspiration, aesthetics (beauty, symmetry, etc.) and other non-systematic, non-linear, non-quantitative tools. Most times there is not even an articulated hypothesis being tested. Often times no testing is possible (which is why verifiability and falsifiability have been largely abandoned as criteria).
3. Other statements, such as philosophy trying to be put on an equal basis with "science" reveals what seems to be a Cartesian view of knowledge. He should read Fides et ratio.
4. His statements about ID seem to suggest little familiarity it? Has he read any of the paper's by Behe, et. al.? ID does nothing different than what SETI did, which by the way could not be falsified. I wonder why there were no court cases about spending public money on this one? It appears that Ian is only familiar with the popularizations of it on the creationist side?
5. He seems to want to have it both ways. He says some Catholics, including clergy, have contributed to science but not the Church. Then he says the Church presents itself as anti-science because of some statements from orthodox Catholics, including clergy. Why do individuals not count in favor of the Church on the one hand but count against her on the other?
6. He seems to assume that what the Church does on behalf of the promotion of science (which is far more than any other religious organization has Amy and others have rightly pointed out) but because they are not in the forefront of every field of science they are not sufficiently pro-science. I suspect he is negatively influenced, as Marco surmised, by the cautions the Church constantly provides that unreflective assimilation of all technological possibilities is dangerous. By the way, most should know that scientism is a general outlook that sees "science" as the source of the only true knowledge which leads to a religious dependence upon it whereby the scientists become its high priests and its adherents look to it as their source of their salvation.
7. I think that the issue of Catholic universities and their inability today to contribute in large ways to scientific advancements is a valid concern. However, the problem is one which all smaller, private schools face--the expense. Frankly, I believe the undergrad schools are correct to focus on a well rounded liberal education. The culture needs to be much more widely evangelized before resources will become available to grow Catholic institutions to the size they need to compete with government funded universities. Nevertheless, this in no way bears on Amy’s original dare.
Posted by: David at Dec 29, 2005 5:22:13 PM
Given the recent crap eminating from Huff Post isn't it nice to see how some people's priorities are in such order?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/all/stories/DN-brokeback_29edi.ART.State.Edition1.187ff8cd.html
Posted by: Jonathan Carpenter at Dec 29, 2005 5:27:34 PM
Ian says: The Church is (or should be) concerned with spreading the Gospel, which is axiomatic, not falsifiable.
Eep, treating Christianity as an axiomatic system can cause huge problems. Gospel Truth is not a collection of first principles and logical derivations therefrom but a person, who is the Risen Christ. (Perhaps I'm using "axomatic" in a different sense, but I couldn't pass this up)
Another difficulty is that "Pop-Science" tends to dominate these discussions. Carl Sagan pontificates on Nuclear Winter, Paul Ehrlrich on the Population Bomb, Daniel Dennett on the inh