Re: SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY FULL TEXT LIMITED LICENSE
The book Science was born of Christianity
is worth discussing for its attempt to reconcile Catholic orthodoxy and modern science. My interest in the philosophy of science began in 1981 when I was took an introductory unit in the topic at Sydney University, and obtained a Masters degree for a philosophy thesis on related topics. Since then I have maintained an intellectual interest in the relation between science and religion, a topic of enormous controversy and diversity of views.
I like religion, and see it as central to values and ethics. However, contrary to the Catholic theory expressed in the book under discussion here, I view traditional religion as delusional, but concealing lost accurate knowledge. My view is that religion can only recover any credibility once it is reformed to align with science. That is the agenda against which I read Stacy Trasancos.
I am interested to take up the call for dialogue, although my experience is that theologians who hold to supernatural commitments are completely unwilling to engage in dialogue, since their agenda is preaching rather than learning. So it is good that Stahrwe has come into the lion’s den, as it were, by seeking this conversation at Booktalk, where long term regulars are basically atheist. It presents an opportunity for atheists to pick apart a theological philosophy, and for theists to attempt to justify the arguments. I propose to gradually work through the book, using quotations as starting points for commentary. Lets start.Magisterium
is an old fashioned word, suggesting the magisterial power and glory of the magistrate, but more precisely indicating the dogmatic line of the papacy with its various conservative ideas such as immaculate conception, papal infallibility, the deposit of faith and apostolic succession.
The magisterium has a way of thought generally seen as out of step with modern science, but the agenda of this book is to show that a scientific philosophy can be fully in accord with conventional Catholicism. I see that agenda as illogical and impossible, so it will be interesting to explore the arguments.
Here we see a good example of the style of illogical argument favoured by defenders of conventional Christianity. The first statement asserts the legitimacy of the term ‘Creation’ rather than ‘the universe’, implying there may be non-scientific methods that can fully grasp the meaning of creation.
Creation (and creature) imply a creator, whereas universe (and organism) do not. The invalid implication in this true observation that physicists cannot leave the universe would be to imagine that theologians do have this magic power. As is well known, theologians of course can leave the universe in their magic turdis to commune with a god who is outside all nature.
Unlike the childish scientists mocked by Trasancos, theologians apparently have a special space ship that lets them zoom out of space time so they know The Truth, that God Exists. Sadly, that is all imaginary fantasy.