A bit of blogging elsewhere

RE: the nature of scientific vs. religious inquiry into and apprehension of the Truth:

Me: "There is another crucial difference between science and the Catholic Faith: Catholic truths, whether revealed or revealable, are demonstrably true. The best one can say of scientific theories is that they are not yet falsified by experiment.
Joachim | 10.25.07 - 10:32 am"

J Dave G: "The best one can say of scientific theories is that they are not yet falsified by experiment.

I can say better than that, oh snarky one

Scientific theories are useful. It's handy to know that V=IR. We can predict many outcomes quite well, and design things we all use every day. It ain't much compared to the big questions, but it is something.

Catholic truths, whether revealed or revealable, are demonstrably true.

I believe firmly in those Catholic truths, but at best, that quick remark is an incomplete description leaving faith and other important matters unsaid, and ultimately misleading many of those exact folks who could profit from a bit of education. It might even be worse: a schoolyard taunt "Our proofs are better than your proofs, nyah!" that only pours fuel on the flaming-stupid notion that science and faith are incompatible. Or worse still, it might even be a pompous bit of Catholic agitprop - yeah, some of us Catholics are in that business too.

Of course, we are left to guess what your precise intentions were.
J Dave G | 10.26.07 - 10:25 am |"

Me: "J Dave G, the quickness of my original remark comes from reading and posting to the blog (about Mark's comments; I had yet to read the original article) from my cell phone while at work (I'm a mailman, I don't get a workstation or even a laptop), so let me unpack this a little more.

My main point is that natural science and religion (and Catholicism especially) have different attitudes toward and grasps of (Ultimate) Truth, which is the end of each (in a Thomistic sense). The scientist does not have the benefit of Revelation (supernatural truth) or an immutable deposit of faith, but he is trying to comprehend all natural truths through theory, observation, and experiment. Mark refers, in his post, to dogmas as "the conclusion of thought," and I accept that, but I wish to distinguish religious dogma from scientific axiom. Granted, the scientist accepts that "the universe is intelligible," and "we don't understand everything and are always learning more." The scientist must necessarily assume these things at the beginning, or there is no science at all, and you cannot put these dogmas/axioms to experimental test either.

In layman's terms, the closest the scientist can come to saying "This is true," is "These experimental results confirm those theoretical predictions (or vice versa), so the theory works, for now." Scientific understanding does not develop in the way Christian doctrine does. The Eucharist will always be the Eucharist in a way that scientific concepts are not. Scientific developments may, in a sense, be thought of as real corrections to prior understanding--understanding which makes predictions at variance with later experiments or observations.

I was a physics major in college, so I've always been more comfortable with Newton than Darwin, Forgive me for shifting things a bit. In Newtonian theory, gravity is a force caused by two objects. According to Einstien, gravity is the curvature of space-time. Particle physics tries to make gravity into another mediating particle, the graviton (which is as yet experimentally undetectable). What we have is one explanation (Newton) which worked to a point, before the body of knowledge overall had to be radically re-thought through two different (and mutually irreconcilable, to date) explanations of a phenomenon (Einstein's curvature vs. quantum theory's particle). Each theory still works in its own sphere, but it's more of a patchwork quilt than a tapestry. Einstein said it best, but alas, I must paraphrase: The effort to understand the universe can be compared to that of a man understanding a closed watch--he can observe the object and theorize, but he cannot open the watch, and he cannot even conceive what it means to open the watch. (I remember that Gary Zukav cited the exact quote in "The Dancing Wu Li Masters," Ch. 1--the very first Ch. 1, he numbered all the chapters "1")

So while the scientist is limited to his own fallible, amendable understandings of what will always be unknowable in toto, the Christian has been visited by Truth Himself (and gets to eat him too!), and has the assurance of arriving at that same Truth (God willing). That is the sense of what I was groping for when I said that Catholic Truths are demonstrably true. They have a logical certainty and finality ("the end") that scientific knowledge never will. I did not intend to sound triumphal.

More things that Jesus never Said: "To which of the Scientists, did He at any time, say, "You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free?"

It's like that, I guess. Which makes me ask, scientifically, what IS Darwin's theory? What results does it explain, preferably better than any other scientific explanation? Does it make testable predictions? And, as a layman, why does the secular culture seem to treat it like dogma?
Joachim | 10.26.07 - 6:20 pm |"

J Dave G: "Thanks Joachim, I won't have time to mull this for a few days, but I'll look forward to it. Briefly I'll say that "proofs" in science and theology are different in ways I'm still trying to grasp, and Darwin can't hardly be discussed rationally in this culture with blame on many sides.
J Dave G | 10.26.07 - 10:18 pm |"

Me: "J Dave G, I have heard it said that a common misconception people have about the theory of evolution is that they understand it. I will be a bit busy with a little vacation travelling myself, but I will be checking in from time to time. I agree with you that "proofs" are different for science and religion. I'll put it this way: the scientist must always build from the bottom up; he is limited by what human reason can know (reveal-able, ex., existence of God). The Believer can use reason in like manner, to a point, but can also know things from the top down. (reveal-ed, ex., Triune God)
Joachim | 10.26.07 - 11:15 pm |"

It was fun to work on this over a relaxing afternoon. It'll be interesting to see how this works out.