Sunday, September 18, 2011
John Paul II on Faith and Reason and Barbour Readings
After reading both of the texts I come to understand that both texts are trying to establish the idea that both religion and science could co-exist. Of course there would be some difficulty with both of them co-existing but it could be possible. John Paul II believes that it would crucial for both to co-exist because with the two coming co-existing there could come a mutual understanding of one another and this would allow for big advancement of both religion and science. Though for me it really doesnt seem possible because of the fact that both try to prove one big idea that cannot be accept from on another, for me that would be the creation of the universe if science and technology would come to prove how the universe was created then what would religion have to say. I just believe that there couldn't be any real mutual understanding of one another. Even though John Paul II does explain how the differences in ideas of both religion and science may be aiming at different conclusions there could be a middle for both to go off of I just cant really see religion coming to live peacefully with what science is trying to prove.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that religion and science can coexist. I completely agree with Pope John Paul II when he says how religion and science are aimed at different conclusions but there could be a middle ground to go off of. Religion’s basis is done, meaning that what has been established in religion is established as fact, whereas much of science's contradiction with religion is just theories and postulations. In science new discoveries are being made every day. Science's job is to question the very nature of everything. Therefore it is no surprise that current theories contradict religious teachings. Though the theories may seem believable, they are not facts, and are constantly being tested. Who's to say that in the end science is not going to agree with religion, that that middle ground where they can agree will not be reached.
ReplyDeleteI agree with another main point of each text, that religion and science would not be what they are today with out one another. Certain parallels do exist between the two, yet some ideas of religion cannot be carried over to science. When speaking of nature, I do think it is possible to create some kind of conversation of correlation between religion and science. I think that both subjects deal with what we see, but I think that when it comes to what created what we see it is hard for scientists and theologians to agree. I would not go so far as to say it is not possible for scientists and theologians to reach some kind of agreement, but it will be challenging if that ever happens. I think John Paul II makes the overall point that though each is different, science and religion can be used wrongly, and there needs to be communications between both parties considering both of their purposes are to benefit human knowledge and purpose. I do not think that,especially with scientific advances, it will by any means be easy for people of our era to accept the collaboration of science and religion.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that there could be a middle ground for science and religion but that middle ground is at the moment hard to see for both of them and even if it is found could that middle ground lead to an agreeable conclusion for both?
ReplyDeleteThe way I read the text, Pope John Paul II's main point wasn't so much that science and religion could coexist (this was quickly established and taken as a sort of postulate) but more that science and religion can no longer keep one another at arm's length if they want to mature. The Pope calls on science and religion to understand one another, stating that each can be helped by a better understanding of the other. As he puts it, this better understanding could purify religion of superstition, and keep science from taking itself so seriously that it cannot see when it needs to recognize a limit to its knowledge. Science tends to work best when it has a practical application to everyday life (certain medical discoveries, for example), and he sees that a religious understanding of the moral aspects of science can help integrate it into our spheres of understanding. In summary, the Pope sees both a new way of looking at religion and a new way of looking at science as highly important.
ReplyDeleteHowever, although he calls for unity, he states that neither science nor religion is an extension of the other: "We are asked to become one. We are not asked to become each other".
In this way he sees the roles of understanding as separate but compatible, both true, but with different methodologies.
Thoughtful consideration of this mindset might serve us well in evaluating the integration of science and religion even in our daily experience.
I think the pope describes the co-existence of science and religion in a upbeat, best case scenario. I think the two "could" stay together if they were looked at from a completely new standpoint like he says, but I feel as though this is highly unlikely. I doubt this possibility because I feel, relatively speaking, religion will resist to change and science will change as technology and understanding improves.
ReplyDeletePope John Paul II offered wonderful insight about how Religion and Science can "communicate" with one another to create a type of unity. Personally, I want to disagree with you Diego. You said that you can't see science and religion living peacefully with one another. However, as a science major and as well as Theology minor, I can see how Science and Theology will be able to "communicate" to each other. During the letter from Pope John Paul II to the director of the Vatican Observatory, he stated how "Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." This is how I see science being able to communicate with Religion because scientifically, there are theories in which are considered "absolute," but in reality they are not absolute. A theory that is considered to be absolute in science would the concept of absolute zero, which is considered to be the temperature (0 Kelvin, -273.15 C) in which all molecular motion cease to exist. In reality, this does not exist because the coldest temperature known to man is liquid hydrogen (-252 C). Religion in this case can help scientists from making these types of false absolutes.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, science can help purified Relgion from supersition by applying logical to certain aspects of Religion, such as how the universe is created (i.e The Big Bang Theory) or how it is impossible to rise from the dead. Using this same type of dialogue between science and religion, Religion can purify science from idolary by how science today tend to prove or state that there is no God or higher power. Religion in this case can help scientists understand that there could be a God by helping them understand the human condition and in reality it can help further science by rising questions, as I will explain later. These are the type of dialogue that would help humanity understand themselves better. In order words, instead of proving or explaining why science or religion is wrong, I think Pope John Paul II tried to explain to us that we as a society should try our best to integrate the two together in order to foster a deeper understanding of the world because in reality, both science and religion exist in the same exact universe.
One example I like to mention in which where science and religion can speak to each other is the case of creation. In Christian myths, God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh, and most scientists consider that the universe is created by the Big Bang. Logically, we know that it is quite impossible to create the universe in six days. Personally, I do not believe that the Big Bang could actually happened because of certain scientific laws and theories out there. To me, the Big Bang cannnot occur because the first law of thermodynamics state that energy is always conserved and thus cannot be created nor destroyed. Hence, where did the energy from the Big Bang came from? Second, the law of conservation of mass, states that matter cannot be created nor destroy, so how did the planets and stars formed? Third, according to Louis Pasteur spontanous generation cannot occur. In other words all life must come from other life forms. This is the basis of The Cell Theory. Forth, life form is an extremely ordered system, so the chances of carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen atoms spontaneously bonding together in such a perfect fashion is extremely unlikely (next to impossible really) or every single life form that was created was just extremely lucky during that time period. Thus, religion can help us from making these kinds of haste and false absolutes with our own scientific laws. Religion in this case can help scientists ask deeper questions about what they are studying and what they consider to be absolutes.
ReplyDeleteSo in essence, this is where we can integrate science and religion in order to deepen our understanding of the universe . I think Pope john II would want the scientific and religious communities to rise these types of questions. Even though it might seem that the two would fragment each other at first, but with each fragmentation a deeper understanding is gained. Hopefully, these fragmentations would be the perfect pieces of the puzzle that would eventually link science and theology. Thus, an integration of the human mind(science) and soul(religion) occurs.
PS. Sorry that I made you read all of that. It is something that I would like to get off my chest.
Timmy I do agree with you that in some aspects that science and religion can come to understand one another with certain points but not with all and some points will cause great disagreement and this will always happen because of what both believe in. You explained the theory of creation(big bang) and the story of creation but there are scientist trying to find how the universe started, such as the finding of the god particle and with this there is disagreement with religion and science. I will have to agree with Bryan when he says that science is always changing with the advancement of technology and other scientific fields thus making religion have more to disagree with because religion doesn't change it stays with what is known.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Timmy as well... I think that the progress of scientific knowledge has become the driving power of general cultural progress, we already know that science and religion are based and belong in different orders of knowledge, science with new discoveries changes, religion in the other hand I believe it doesn't because is based in pure faith. We are splitting up up again two different 'branches' which are reason and faith, one follows the scientific method and the for me religion follows the Bible. If we talk about technology then we would have to say that all the scientific advances has led to a radical transformation of human technology.So my question is... is there a right or wrong theory?, conclusion?...
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Judith that religion is based on 'pure faith'. The way that's stated, it makes faith seem more like 'imaginative stubbornness' than anything else. Faith (should) come into the picture only after you decide that you have a legitimate reason to believe something, and you decide to take the next step based on a credible basis for your belief. That's the way I've always thought about it, anyway. =)
ReplyDeleteI think that there could really be a right or wrong theory or conclusion, religion is something that primarily based on faith which is something that can't be proven right or wrong, and science will always have some new discovery that will change previous ideas or theories.
ReplyDeleteCouldnt*
ReplyDeleteI am more inclined to agree with Judith in that religion is based on 'pure faith.' While that is not good bad or sideways, that just is. While Chelsey points out that people generally can claim a legitimate reason to believe something, that reason is more often than not because it is all that the individual had been exposed to from an early age. When I was growing up I was not presented with the Torah or the Quran or Mahayana texts. I was taught the Bible and raised as a Roman Catholic. The reason was because it was familiar and close to home.
ReplyDeleteI had a teacher in high school who was a devout Jew, and she said that if she were not born in Israel she most likely would not be Jewish yet at the same time could not imagine believing in any other faith. Granted this is not a rule, but merely an observation that seems to often be the case.
Now, more to the point, science and religion may indeed coexist. However, for the two to exist in harmony, it must be in the mind of an individual who gives equal credence to both. As Nietzsche said, any God exists within the mind of his followers. The same could technically be applied to science. There are those who would stand by either science or religion as a higher authority, and that is where the conflict arises. As soon as an individual gives more credence to one or the other, the coexistence begins to fade.
I agree that both science and religion could coexist, however it is very unlikely. Science seems to be always moving forward and finding new discoveries. Religion tends to try and stand still in time without much change at all. When it does change it seems that it is just based on human opinion not a fact or a strong theory.
ReplyDeleteI also like what andrew said about where you grow up and what you believe. Its an interesting point it may not be exactly to the point but its interesting and I think there is some truth to it.
I Struggle reading JP II Address. He discusses how unification of all four fundamental forces in physics will bring more answers and shed light on the origins of the universe. I can see how the four fundamental sources can work together that is commonsense to most. But to understand how religion and science work together and coexist is not as convincing argument. I completely agree with Andrew as he stated above that the individual most give equal recognition to both science and religion
ReplyDeleteThis thought process might be entirely wrong. I don't know if this idea came from one philosopher or just the melding pot of my brain, however, I can't help feeling that as technology progresses and continues to redefine humanity, the need for a parallel progression of ethical viewpoints is in order. I also believe that religion and religious philosophy are uniquely suited for this task. Allow me to clarify this one point. When I say, "Religion" I do not mean Catholicism, or Christianity or Judaism and certainly not Scientology. I mean religion in general. Also, when I say religion I actually mean the ethical viewpoints they impart upon their patrons.
ReplyDeleteThe ethical arguments of the ancient past were over basic theological subjects. Scientific advances recently have been huge in number. We live in the future now. In summary strangely enough this means that we have so much more to ponder and argue over.
Some subjects of questionable morality to the general public
anonymous (I support it)
lulzsec (I VERY MUCH DO NOT SUPPORT IT)
stem cell research (not sure)
fat based stem cell research (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fat+based+stem+cell+research&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart)
etc.
I'm going to have to disagree with the original post in this context: "Though for me it really doesnt seem possible because of the fact that both try to prove one big idea that cannot be accept from on another, for me that would be the creation of the universe if science and technology would come to prove how the universe was created then what would religion have to say."
ReplyDeleteI dont think science and religion necisserly have to be meeting different ends. The creation of the universe may not be word-for-word accepted on either side, but both of their compliments give light to a more wholesome view of creation.
I think that JPII is all about the intergreation and DOES believe that it is possible. I would go beyond saying that he thinks it is possible but believes it IS Necissary! As modern science comes into play, it is our role to understand it in our faith.
Religion doesnt always have to "Stand still and protect tradition" in many ways the catholic church has shown a history of scientific acceptance and proogress. If science and religion were to coexist happily it would be the most wholesome approach to understanding anything we could have as it looks at any question from multiple angles.