Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Can science EVER explain faith?
1 posted on 12/27/2011 9:38:28 AM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: JRandomFreeper; Allegra; BlackVeil; Straight Vermonter; Cronos; SumProVita; AnAmericanMother; ...

Catholic Word of the Day – links will be provided later by another FReeper.  (Would anyone like to help with this?)

 

Ishbosheth

All-Powerful

Opus Dei

Authenticity

Incardination

In Synodo Episcopali

Universal Bishop

Presence

Myth

Approbation

Easter

Reason

Salome

Precious Blood

Ampullae

Transitional Diaconate

Transcendence

Winged Lion

Society of Precious Blood

St. Michael Scapular

Restored Nature

Benedictus

Maniple

Messiah

Mass

Physical Miracle

Epistle of James

Retributism

Podium

Knowledge of God

Neo-Scholasticism

 

 

 

 

 

Catholic Word of the Day Ping!

If you aren’t on this Catholic Word of the Day Ping list and would like to be, please send me a FReepmail.


2 posted on 12/27/2011 9:40:45 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Salvation
Can science EVER explain faith?

That's not really the problem. Scholasticism was greatly informed by the Metaphysics of Aristotle and by others of his works. For the most part this worked very well.

But Aristotle's physics were not the best and his biology was sometimes, um, fanciful would be a nice way of saying it.

So even though Thomas's teacher, Albertus Magnus, was very keen on the importance of observation, the real and important distinction between the empirical sciences/the philosophy of science/other sorts of philosophy was not clearly or usefully delineated.

Among the interesting results and consequences is Aquinas's rejection of the Immaculate Conception which was based on his faulty understanding of embryology. In general he thought that the semen (remember, not much of a notion of cellular critters like gametes) provided the "form" -- that which made a human a human, while the woman provided the "matter" -- that which has informed, you might say and thus became human. So he would have argued against abortion because it was perverse, but not because the conceptus was human right away. We understand now that a human zygote is human from the instant of fertilization.

(These days embryology from a moral point of view is corrupted by the metaphysics of the left.)

SO, because the conceptus was not really human, neither sin nor moral innocence really applied, therefore Mary could not have been immaculately conceived. The "Immaculateness" would have had to wait for 40 days or so.

So of course, science doesn't explain faith, but it can help refine it and its expression.

For the sake of rigor: everything I said about Aquinas, Mary, and embryology I did NOT learn from primary sources but from various teachers. I'm just passing on info more than vouching for it.

3 posted on 12/27/2011 11:49:35 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Jesus, I trust in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson