tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post2620606454684652888..comments2024-03-09T00:51:33.602-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: Meaning and purpose: Answering "Choice", Part TwoLeila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger205125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-79271335086650770862011-05-20T11:57:05.381-07:002011-05-20T11:57:05.381-07:00Nubby said, "Statistically the chances of a s...Nubby said, "Statistically the chances of a simple protein with only 100 amino acids to “evolve” is 20 to the 100"<br /><br />Nubby, could you tell me where you got that number? Also, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html<br />to refute it. <br /><br />I think Michelle might have also linked there.Marynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-80856549943328816362011-04-24T16:28:55.757-07:002011-04-24T16:28:55.757-07:00Aw, Choice, thanks. (It's Stacy, but my mom al...Aw, Choice, thanks. (It's Stacy, but my mom almost named be Sarah!) I would love to read your post on Christianity and Science.<br /><br />You said, "I don't want you to continue thinking that there's no one who can refute your belief on that topic, so I'll be sure to get to it at some point."<br /><br />Please do. It remains on the sidebar of my website for just that reason.Stacy Trasancoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14638075878905614981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-9289619922483088372011-04-23T17:15:25.745-07:002011-04-23T17:15:25.745-07:00Choice, thank you for being a part of the discussi...Choice, thank you for being a part of the discussion, and I hope you do pop back in one day!<br /><br />One thing that especially piqued my interest is your statement that our discussions strengthened you in your atheist faith. If you would ever want to point out what facts you learned or what philosophical truths brought you to a higher level of trust in your beliefs, I would be interested. (No feelings, just facts.)<br /><br />Thanks again for all your thoughtful comments!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-10547294181853713042011-04-23T13:16:23.659-07:002011-04-23T13:16:23.659-07:00Hi everyone,
Just wanted to apologize for my abse...Hi everyone,<br /><br />Just wanted to apologize for my absence the past few days or so. I'm quite busy and unfortunately no longer have the time to keep up with these discussions. But I do want to thank you all for challenging my beliefs and bringing me cause to re-evaluate the way I see the world. You've strengthened my atheistic worldview and brought new dimensions to it, as these conversations have likely strengthened your faith as well. If any of us set out to change minds, we were almost certainly setting out for failure! Regardless, I hope everyone has had the goals of re-evaluation and openness rather than stubbornness and refusal to consider alternate opinions. I think the former gives you the greatest opportunity for growth and discovery, even if your ultimate beliefs remain unchanged.<br /><br />Just one thing I wanted to mention on my way out:<br /><br />You mentioned and shared references to the "new atheism," which many of you characterized as the trend of adopting atheist belief systems without deeply and seriously examining them and recognizing the ultimate outcomes of those beliefs. I won't argue with you that there are a lot of atheists who promote their beliefs without fully examining, challenging, and understanding them, but I also see many many religious folks (be they christian, catholic, or any other denomination) who also do the same. So I don't think this trend is an atheist one; I think it's much more far-reaching. I think there are too many people out there who are willing to believe (or disbelieve) something without doing the hard work of truly determining why they believe it and learning the many aspects of their spiritual beliefs. And I think that's a shame. Glad to see quite a few of you who aren't in this category, and that's why I've felt this blog and the comments it elicits are so worthwhile and engaging (and why I'm bummed that I don't have all of the time I'd like to to spend discussing here).<br /><br />Regardless, thanks Leila for the space to discuss and challenge each other! You may certainly see me back in the future if and when I have some down-time. Sorry for any questions I may have left unanswered; right now I'm not able to sift back through the comments and answer each one.<br /><br />Sarah - my apologies for not getting to the post you requested about your position on Christianity and science. It'll certainly be on my radar for future free time. I don't want you to continue thinking that there's no one who can refute your belief on that topic, so I'll be sure to get to it at some point. :)Choicenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-25877969039270730152011-04-21T18:21:28.697-07:002011-04-21T18:21:28.697-07:00MaiZeke, I just came across this footnote in a boo...MaiZeke, I just came across this footnote in a book I am reading, and I am interested in your take:<br /><br /><i>Paraphrasing paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, a neo-Darwinist: "The meaning of evolution is that man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have us in mind" (The Meaning of Evolution, rev. ed. [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967], 344-45).</i><br /><br />Do you agree or disagree?<br /><br />PS: I am going to be off the computer for a day or two, probably back on sometime on Saturday, then off again….Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-56256198170049743462011-04-21T11:39:18.052-07:002011-04-21T11:39:18.052-07:00*I know why you feel awe and also love hard scienc...*I know why you feel awe and also love hard scienceLeila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-79014141423250032011-04-21T11:38:14.478-07:002011-04-21T11:38:14.478-07:00Stacy and Nubby, I realize how grateful I am for g...Stacy and Nubby, I realize how grateful I am for good scientific minds, as I was an English major!!! I am learning so much from you (the parts that my pea brain can understand).<br /><br />MaiZeke, I think I can clear it up for you. It sounds like I am asking confusing questions about hard science vs. feelings, because I <i>am</i> confused! I am confused about what you believe as atheists.<br /><br />First, you tout science as the be all and end all, because it's the only thing we can really know demonstrably (weights and measures). I think that atheists believe only in the material.<br /><br />But then (confusingly!!) you say there is some deep meaning in your life. ?? I don't get how that can be true, if it's all about hard science and molecules and no loving creator and nothing but a cosmic, impersonal burp that accidentally created "life". So, when you or Choice speak of this "meaning" within your atheistic philosophy, I don't get it at all. I'm hearing that the "purpose" or "meaning" of life is based on how you "feel" about the universe; that our meaning comes from a feeling of "awe" or "happiness" and "pleasantness."<br /><br />I think your system is all messed up.<br /><br />I can't reconcile it. Can you help me see what I am missing?<br /><br />(Caveat: I know why you fell awe and also love hard science... because you have a mind, body <i>and</i> soul. Because I am a Christian, your life makes sense to me, and your feelings of love, awe, pleasantness and meaning. But I can't reconcile it with your stated belief as an atheist.)Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-71321282935082875642011-04-21T10:04:37.041-07:002011-04-21T10:04:37.041-07:00Love metaphysics too, Stacy.
Just for fact's ...Love metaphysics too, Stacy.<br /><br />Just for fact's sake, since others might be interested:<br />Statistically the chances of a simple protein with only 100 amino acids to “evolve” is 20 to the 100 (or 20 with one hundred zeros behind it, one of the few numbers larger than our national debt). That only gets you to a simple protein. Simple protein, even.<br /><br />"Chance" cannot make enough proteins to make even the most basic functional cell.<br /><br />-Nubby<br />ref: Answering the New AtheismAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-85708874275145877142011-04-21T09:57:04.978-07:002011-04-21T09:57:04.978-07:00Nubby, I love reading what you write!Nubby, I love reading what you write!Stacy Trasancoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14638075878905614981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-80910552466820425122011-04-21T09:55:44.118-07:002011-04-21T09:55:44.118-07:00MaiZeke,
Maybe this question will help you unders...MaiZeke,<br /><br />Maybe this question will help you understand how the physical and the spiritual are different.<br /><br />Can you explain how the mind can conceive of unity only by the movement of unknown millions of moving physical parts?Stacy Trasancoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14638075878905614981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-29304892143512807552011-04-21T09:51:45.181-07:002011-04-21T09:51:45.181-07:00MaiZeke:
Logic would dictate that you, being an at...MaiZeke:<br />Logic would dictate that you, being an atheist, only believe in information which can be gathered through the human senses.<br /><br />It doesn't mean your feelings are wrong.<br />Feelings are subjective and fine.<br />But your whole philosophy of life demands that you only believe in sensory perception and nothing beyond. <br /><br />If you believe in the mystical, that is spirits/souls, then you aren't a pure materialist atheist.<br /><br />All due respect, you don't sound as if you grasp the atheist dogma. That, or you don't adhere fully to it. <br /><br />Leila is merely following logically where questions will lead. If your measure is subjective, she honestly asks, then how do you measure value?<br /><br />It's logical, some would say very scientific, to ask the natural way Leila has been asking. <br /><br />-NubbyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-17022846469213767432011-04-21T09:49:49.308-07:002011-04-21T09:49:49.308-07:00Christianity didn't just give us scientists, i...Christianity didn't just give us scientists, it provided the psychological and cultural matrix that gave us modern science itself. <br /><br />I love the evolution debates. High five Nubby and Guiseppe! (Guiseppe my husband will get back to you about a question you asked me, he's been insanely busy this week.)<br /><br />Regarding evolution, we do not know the exact molecular mechanism. It is not exact science, far from it. The idea that offspring changed ever-so-slightly over millions of years to evolve into vast species is a <i><b>metaphysical concept</b></i> imagined in the mind's eye by tying together things we have discovered.Stacy Trasancoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14638075878905614981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-62479725701035377272011-04-21T09:41:29.597-07:002011-04-21T09:41:29.597-07:00But why? I would never "refuse" to respo...<i>But why? I would never "refuse" to respond to an honest question that you posed (forgive me if I ever did!). So why refuse this? If atheists believe only in things that can be seen and weighed and measured, then why is this a question that you balk at? Do you believe in the metaphysical? If so, can you elaborate? What of things other than the material? Do you believe in things outside of the material? It's a fair question.</i><br /><br />First of all, I didn't say "refuse". <br /><br />Second of all, the comment I was referring to about science and feelings is this: <br /><br /><i>And similarly, when you talked about the "beauty of nature and the intricate interconnectedness of life systems and the AMAZING displays of science", you are again talking about the way those things make you feel, aren't you? You “feel” awe, you “feel” compelled to know more. </i><br /><br />So now you'll have to color me confused. Your whole blog post is about how purposeness is based on how atheists "feel", and "feeling" is subjective, which is bad. So intially you were accusing atheists of only "feeling" things. <br /><br />And now you're saying that "atheists believe only in things that can be seen and weighed and measured" and "Do you believe in things outside of the material? It's a fair question"<br /><br />I am having a very hard time understanding how these two lines of questioning fit together. Either I only believe in feelings, or I only believe in things that can be weighed and measured. <br /><br />Perhaps there is a logical explanation for this. Perhaps you mean that I can measure my feelings? Is that it?MaiZekehttp://hameno.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-91715878323314686642011-04-21T08:59:57.909-07:002011-04-21T08:59:57.909-07:00Okay, one more thing:
You refused to respond to t...Okay, one more thing:<br /><br />You refused to respond to this:<br /><br /><i>If you're an atheist, you have to attribute everything to biology, and chemistry, etc. If you do that, there is nothing more than the pure, basic, material side of life. Meaning, for you, there can be no meaning.</i><br /><br />But why? I would never "refuse" to respond to an honest question that you posed (forgive me if I ever did!). So why refuse this? If atheists believe only in things that can be seen and weighed and measured, then why is this a question that you balk at? Do you believe in the metaphysical? If so, can you elaborate? What of things other than the material? Do you believe in things outside of the material? It's a fair question.<br /><br />No one ever answered me about the concepts of justice and mercy, for example. How can those be measured and weighed? What are they? Material or something else? How do you account for them? Etc…..Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-45786769950069391342011-04-21T08:55:43.856-07:002011-04-21T08:55:43.856-07:00For example I didn't think it was necessary to...<i>For example I didn't think it was necessary to reply to her contention that science is just feeling in the original post. </i><br /><br />Wow, I am not around this morning, but I had to say this before I leave:<br />I never, ever, ever, ever said or implied that "science is just feeling"! That is so bizarre. If you are talking about Choice's discussion of the meaning of life, then I think I showed very well how her decisions on that were based on how things made her <i>feel</i> (pleasantness, happiness, etc.). <br /><br />But to say that I think science is just feelings….? That is just wrong.<br /><br />I really am left with no idea how to counter something that so blatantly misrepresents what I said.<br /><br />But, MaiZeke, I do appreciate your engagement of the conversation, nonetheless.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-78795278320434834802011-04-21T07:13:05.932-07:002011-04-21T07:13:05.932-07:00MaiZeke says:
Evolutionary science is part of the ...MaiZeke says:<br />Evolutionary science is part of the sciences. Evolution is a theory as gravity is a theory. A theory is the best explanation we have until a better explanation comes up. Even Giuseppe has said<br /><br />He just disputes how it started. He may think that God works through evolution, I'm not clear on that point yet. Some people do, as a means to reconcile the obvious, non-refutable facts of science with their belief in God. <br />---------------<br /><br />MaiZeke:<br />Your answer is half right. Though evolution is also a philosophy.<br /><br />And to clear your confusion on how Catholics view God and evolution:<br />Catholics are free to believe in both evolution and creation, in proper order. Not only are we free to believe it, we should embrace both.<br />The Church doesn't pronounce officially anything on the sciences. <br /><br />Atheists (materialists) are only concerned w/ secondary causes, as if that's all that matters. Catholics are to believe in both; that God authors all yet there are natural processes as well.<br /><br />It's more freeing than Fundamentalists Bible Believers, it embraces both 1st and 2nd causes.<br /><br />And I've still got the data in hand in regards to life beginning from chance, if you would like to read it. I can post it.<br /><br />-NubbyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-81826218997943309862011-04-21T06:26:37.962-07:002011-04-21T06:26:37.962-07:00Also, Choice, you said in Leila's previous dis...Also, Choice, you said in Leila's previous discussion, and I think you alluded to it here, that you believe that there is nothing awaiting you after you die. The thought of your death saddens you only in that the people who love you will grieve for you. I think I understand you to believe that your love for them will live on in the sense that it will still influence them and in turn will influence others, and it will live on in their memories (albeit, increasingly watered down as memory of you fades over generations and other influences take precedence.) But, as far as you yourself are concerned, they do not have to grieve for you, because you will not be sad, you will not miss them, you will not love them or think of them ever again. For your part, your love for them ends when you die. Would that be an accurate representation of what you believe?<br /><br />Hope I'm able to keep up from here on! :)Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-63669995302120385642011-04-21T06:25:39.552-07:002011-04-21T06:25:39.552-07:00Hi all, I have been trying, as I said in the last ...Hi all, I have been trying, as I said in the last discussion, to keep up with all of the posts. I stayed up very late trying to continue with it all, and kept trying this morning, but I guess I would have to have been in the discussion at the beginning to have any hope of keeping up. Given that, I hope you don't mind if I share some thoughts that I've had, and I'll just try to stay with the discussion at least from this point forward.<br /><br />MaiZeke said that we must believe that God would choose to have a child born to a mother who would not care about her, and the response given to her was that it's not God's fault that the mother chose not to care for the child. It's the mother's fault.<br /><br />I have to say... God did very well know that He was sending that child to a mother who would not care about it. I don't think we reach the truth of the matter by, in a manner of speaking, letting God off the hook too easily here by placing all the blame at the feet of "free will". God has a will, too, and He did, in fact, know that that child was being born into very poor circumstances. I guess I think we can't possibly understand why God allows such things to happen, except that when it happens, there is an opportunity for the rest of us (atheist and otherwise) to grow in love. A child needs to be cared for. Will we help? Will anyone help? In our humanity we positively respond to an adorable baby, if we respond at all, but can we love the severely handicapped child, or another child who is not so easy to love? One who will die shortly after birth and take our love with him, at great cost to our own hearts? I think that one of the things we can't see, but that is still very real, is that reality that we need love, and that healthy people need to give love, and that love is not always going to be easy - in fact, is hard more often than it is easy, but that the giving of love in difficult circumstances is incredibly good for us. The child who needs us is a gift to us more than anything in that way. And even severely handicapped, about-to-die children, I believe, can experience our love, and that is the greatest good that any of us can experience. But that is something we can't really "see" or measure.<br /><br />I also think that it is fair to attribute Choice's and Chelsea's concern for others as arising, not out of random chance, but out of compassion. Choice, I think you would agree that you owe your sense of compassion to your parents (that was you who mentioned your parents, right?) They cared well for you, and you would like to see the same for other people. I have to say that there is love for others in your heart, and I believe that "love is of God, and everyone who loves is born of God, and knows God." (First John 4, vs. seven and eight) Even if they don't know that they know Him. If the love you have in your heart, the compassion for another human being, is not love, then I would have to agree with Guiseppe that it could only be described as a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions are not "meaningful" themselves. I don't see, then, how your "love", your compassion, could be anything other than meaningless. I realize that you do not believe that any love in your heart comes from God. I'm the one who believes that. But if I am wrong, then it seems that Guiseppe must be right, and your reaction is a meaningless chemical response.<br /><br />My post is too long so I'm splitting it in two. More below!Sharonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-76991854516703896362011-04-21T04:04:38.430-07:002011-04-21T04:04:38.430-07:00I'm sorry, MaiZeke, I thought we were talking ...<i>I'm sorry, MaiZeke, I thought we were talking about evolutionary science. Am I wrong in what I said? </i><br /><br />Evolutionary science is part of the sciences. Evolution is a theory as gravity is a theory. A theory is the best explanation we have until a better explanation comes up. Even Giuseppe has said<br /><br /><i>Am I against evolution? Absolutely not! You can see micro-evolution, for example, everywhere. The fact that my skin is a different color than some of our friends proves evolution on some scale exists. Adaptation exists. </i><br /><br />He just disputes how it started. He may think that God works through evolution, I'm not clear on that point yet. Some people do, as a means to reconcile the obvious, non-refutable facts of science with their belief in God.MaiZekehttp://hameno.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-83637972628922854542011-04-21T03:55:02.492-07:002011-04-21T03:55:02.492-07:00Giuseppe -
I have never said on this blog that I...Giuseppe - <br /><br />I have never said on this blog that I will answer every question put to me. With the faithful outnumbering the atheists by a wide margin, it is near impossible unless this is a full time job, as it appears to be to Leila. And some are not here for rational discussion, it is clear.<br /><br />I don't even reply to all of Leila's questions/statements, even though she is the blog owner. For example I didn't think it was necessary to reply to her contention that science is just feeling in the original post. <br /><br />I didn't reply to this one of yours either: <br /><br /><i>If you're an atheist, you have to attribute everything to biology, and chemistry, etc. If you do that, there is nothing more than the pure, basic, material side of life. Meaning, for you, there can be no meaning.</i><br /><br />In some cases, the most polite thing to do here is to not reply to very off-base comments. Although it may not seem so to some, I do make an effort to be polite.<br /><br />Now, I do reply to things that I think will continue to advance the conversation. Regarding the free will/choice/personhood comment, you used the word determinism in one comment, at which point Leila suggested that she would look it up and make a post on it. I voted for that option, if you go back and check. I think it is a valid point for discussion, but recommend it be given a post of its own. I will in fact be happy to talk about personhood outside of the abortion discussion.<br /><br />Regarding the attempt to draw me into the discussion of the first origins of life. I'll state it more clearly: I agree that the details are unclear about how this happened. We have some hypotheses but nothing conclusive, as you point out. However, not being clear on how it happened is not a reason to say that it didn't or couldn't have happened. Most importantly, not knowing how it happened is not proof that it must have been done by a larger-than-life being. <br /><br />For anecdotal purposes only, for my 11th grade biology final paper I researched what was known about this very first beginnings of the origin of life, and it set me on my path to atheism. So it is dear to my heart.MaiZekehttp://hameno.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-40627423551529993602011-04-20T23:06:58.150-07:002011-04-20T23:06:58.150-07:00MaiZeke
You suggest that we don't understand...<b> MaiZeke </b><br /><br />You suggest that we don't understand what evolution is? Do you even know who the scientist was who attempted to prove that life could spontaneously generate? A hint I mentioned him, and his 'inspiration' to do the experiments above.<br /><br />I've brought questions before you about choice, free will, and personhood, as far as I can read, they haven't been answered. I even brought up the actual researchers who tried to prove that life could come from some random proteins floating about in a soup, and I even mentioned a tidbit of detail about their experiments, all to see if I could draw you into a discussion of how life first came to be. You've not directly responded to any of it, except to claim that we know nothing of evolution, or evolutionary science.Giuseppe Ambrosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15825109896111176650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-92169073997366374302011-04-20T22:29:38.611-07:002011-04-20T22:29:38.611-07:00Manda, exactly….
Mary, it's interesting to no...Manda, exactly….<br /><br />Mary, it's interesting to note that Christian teaching on contraception was one of the last things (most recent) that Protestants have rejected. They hung on to the truth for almost 500 years in that department, and strangely enough they only caved on it about the same time that Margaret Sanger was pushing birth control, and founding Planned Parenthood (her slogan, "No gods, no masters"). So, we either go with the Holy Spirit or the spirit of the age. Contraception and masturbation are celebrated by the spirit of the age. No gods, no masters, we do what we want, regardless of 2,000 years of unbroken Christian teaching on the matter.<br /><br />Manda was referring to this post, which I think tells it like it is:<br /><br />http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/01/contraception-leads-to-abortion-come.html<br /><br />Two sides of the very same, dirty coin.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-73409912302586164702011-04-20T20:13:42.337-07:002011-04-20T20:13:42.337-07:00Mary,
As far as the evils of birth control- I wou...Mary,<br /><br />As far as the evils of birth control- I would argue that the evidence against birth control is substantial. Birth control allows for pre-marital sex (fornication, listed in the bible among sins that will prevent you from entering the kingdom of Heaven)and encourages casual, promiscuous sex and adultery, among other things.<br /><br />Oh yes! I remember reading Leila's post on this- birth control is a contract saying,"I agree to have sex with you but I do not agree to have a baby with you" and the back-up plan is abortion. Since the wide-spread use of contraception, abortion rates have sky-rocketed. Coincidence? I think not.<br /><br />Also, Mary, I think you said you are a Lutheran? Anytime you see the word "sorcery" in the New Testament, listed among forbidden sins, it means birth control and sterilization.Mandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01347616073655350336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-50079969280887977092011-04-20T17:30:20.264-07:002011-04-20T17:30:20.264-07:00-Nubby
(above)-Nubby<br /><br />(above)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-68563512811837931162011-04-20T17:29:45.311-07:002011-04-20T17:29:45.311-07:00Mary-
The Church doesn't fear science. The Ch...Mary-<br />The Church doesn't fear science. The Church gave us scientists, I could provide quite a list if you're interested. The Church believes in Faith and Reason. Together. Not mutually exclusive.<br /><br /><br />"Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith..." straight from the Catechism.<br /><br />The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery. Infact, as I've said, the Church has given us many great scientists.<br /><br />A few I pulled just from a quick search:<br />Jean-Charles de la Faille (1597–1652) - Jesuit mathematician who determined the center of gravity of the sector of a circle for the first time<br />Gabriele Falloppio (1523–1562) - One of the most important anatomists and physicians of the sixteenth century. The Fallopian tubes, which extend from the uterus to the ovaries, are named for him.<br />Gyula Fényi (1845–1927) - Jesuit astronomer and director of the Haynald Observatory; noted for his observations of the sun; The crater Fényi on the Moon is named after him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com