Well I suppose it's easier for you to redirect me to the reexamination of our past back-and-forth statements than it is to simply answer a simple question: What is the foundation of science itself?
Then there is the problem of: What "allegations" have I made? Can you recite them back to me?
I have tried six-ways-to-Sunday to show you the epistemic root of our apparent difference, inviting you to reflect on it; and have tried to demonstrate it, to show it to you, from several points of view. And for all my trouble, I get back — every time, without fail — the simple statement: "The definition — and purpose — of science is finding 'natural explanations for natural processes.'"
As ever, I would like to know: WHO defined "science" in this way? (Would you just tell me???)
Certainly we can't blame Thomas Aquinas, Saint and Doctor of the universal Church. He never artificially divided the spiritual from the natural world; it was not he who proposed them as somehow mutually exclusive categories, such that "science" has to choose between them in order to do its business.
Rather, St. Thomas saw the natural world as an epiphany of God. To put it another way, the "material" universe is a process created, designed, and constantly sustained by the creative Will, Logos, and Living Sacrifice of God.
Thomas saw "natural law" as emergent in human consciousness from "divine law." The former is "nested" in the latter; the latter is the former's very "environment," in which it is doing its "scientific" work.
Thomas never indicated the two realms were mutually exclusive. Why do you, dear BroJoeK?
And I have absolutely no problem with the idea that the universe and everything in it "evolves." What else could you possibly expect a cosmic-scale spatio-temporal process to do?
Also I have no problem whatsoever with the scientifically-assessed age of the universe: 13.7 billion years (or maybe ~15 billion years). I don't see this as invalidating Genesis 1 or John 1:1–5 in any way shape or form.
When you asked me, "So please tell us how such a simple concept can be so difficult for you to grasp?" I definitely got the impression that you were trying to stage me as some kind of stoopid religious fanatic who, being "religious," is necessarily "stoopid."
Would you like to tell that to, e.g., Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, LeMaitre, et al.???
Gotta run for now. Am looking forward to your next. Thank you ever so much for writing, dear BroJoeK!
Would you like to tell that to, e.g., Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, LeMaitre, et al.???
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LoL.. Indeed,, Reminds me of some genius's I met at a few academic instutions that related.. "You have your truth I have mine".. as if truth was an just an "opinion"..
The pity being...... "to them" truth was just an opinion..
They did not know what to trust SOoo they trusted NOTHING..
to wit: Designer Paranoia..
Heck; Even the EVO's believed something, even if it was claptrap...
But that was not the question you asked in post #1,210 and to which in #1,214 I referred you back to a previous answer in #1,196.
betty boop (#1,237): "Then there is the problem of: What "allegations" have I made?
Can you recite them back to me?"
One example was posted right there, in #1,214, along with my response referring you to previous answers.
So here is the actual quote from my post #1,196:
Precisely how God accomplished (and accomplishes) all His miracles, we don't know, but science has suggested a very small number of theories.
By that I mean: the ratio of what we think we know versus what we don't know is still similar to that which Sir Isaac Newton reported 300 years ago when he said:
'I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.' "
betty boop (#1,237): "What is the foundation of science itself?"
Natural explanations for natural processes, period.
betty boop (#1,237): "As ever, I would like to know: WHO defined "science" in this way?
(Would you just tell me???)"
Here is one question of which you, Ms boop, can be 100% epistemically and ontologically certain: it's not you.
You personally get no say, no vote, no influence or suggestions on the subject.
You can't define "science", you can't touch it, it's not yours.
Natural-science belongs to somebody else.
Who does it belong to?
Well, natural-scientists, of course -- people who understand that the word "science" means: natural explanations for natural processes.
Since you, Ms. boop, don't understand that, or won't accept it, you get no say in what science is, or where it's going.
In that sense, you have the same relationship to science that, say, an atheist has to Christian theology.
Your opinions are irrelevant.
betty boop (#1,237): "Certainly we can't blame Thomas Aquinas, Saint and Doctor of the universal Church.
He never artificially divided the spiritual from the natural world; it was not he who proposed them as somehow mutually exclusive categories, such that "science" has to choose between them in order to do its business."
But of course, it was Aquinas who first drew our attention to the, ahem, difference, distinction, contrast or division between theology based on the Bible and "natural-philosophy" based on inputs from our senses.
As I posted in #275, my understanding of Aquinas comes, in part, from here:
He believed that truth becomes known through both natural revelation (certain truths are available to all people through their human nature and through correct human reasoning) and supernatural revelation (faith-based knowledge revealed through scripture), and he was careful to separate these two elements, which he saw as complementary rather than contradictory in nature."
As I said from the beginning of this thread: after Aquinas, the "complementary nature" of theology and natural-science became increasingly disputed.
Do you not "get" that?
betty boop (#1,237): "Thomas never indicated the two realms were mutually exclusive.
Why do you, dear BroJoeK?"
FRiend, boop, across many posts here, I've been consistent from the beginning in pointing out what you've just said: that Aquinas himself did not consider theology and natural-science to be in conflict, but that since Aquinas in historical fact they often have been, at times resulting in bloody violence.
Aquinas showed us the difference between them, others changed difference to violent dichotomy.
Do you not remember that discussion?
betty boop (#1,237): "And I have absolutely no problem with the idea that the universe and everything in it "evolves."
What else could you possibly expect a cosmic-scale spatio-temporal process to do?"
Sure, the term "evolution" is used in any number of highly informal & imprecise senses such that virtually any change can be said to "evolve".
But the precise scientific definition of "evolution" is simply: speciation through 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
Science itself says that evolution is teleologically "purposeless" which only means that if we see a purpose in evolution, then that purpose is supplied from a non-scientific realm, i.e.: theology.
betty boop (#1,237): "When you asked me, 'So please tell us how such a simple concept can be so difficult for you to grasp?'
I definitely got the impression that you were trying to stage me as some kind of stoopid religious fanatic who, being "religious," is necessarily "stoopid."
Of course, you refused to answer my question, and instead changed the subject.
Does that make you "smart" or "stooped", FRiend?
Why not just give the answer to my question: simple, straight forward and to the point?