Class
summaries
September 15, 2015 - Amy Burke
·
Info given regarding
bursaries and awards in Catholic Studies.
September 30th 2015 dead line for application letter. Be sure to include community works and why
you are a suitable candidate.
·
Review of last class:
What is Religion? What is Christianity?
·
How is Catholicism
distinct?
·
Historically i.e. Traditions and practices.
·
Central Authority.
·
The way scripture is
interpreted *we the reader interpret the message.
·
Doctrinal matters.
·
Relationship of scripture
and tradition.
·
Magisterium *not in any
other religion.
·
Theory/ Dogma/Scripture
·
What is Dogma-truth
about faith and morals (Catholic Encyclopedia).
·
True faith can never
contradict true reason.
·
Science and
Christianity both cannot be right
with different beliefs ….so both must be in agreement.
·
What is the purpose of
Scripture?
·
Written document- needs
to be interpreted…..Need to ask:
§ Is
there any literary device being used i.e. Poem?
§ What
is the purpose of the text i.e. Arouse emotions or explanations?
§ What
is the intention of the author and what does he want you to get out of it?
·
When we read we need to
go through a process of interpretation HERMENEUICS.
·
Different denominations
are not in agreement of # books in the Bible.
·
How do you approach the
text?
·
Approach as a belier or
disciple? Some say not to but as a neutral scholar.
·
Some claim you need to
put yourself into action…be the text.
·
What do humans bring to
the text?
·
Our own ideas,
experiences, and understandings. We have
a unique perspective.
·
You do not have to
believe to understand.
·
Metaphors
·
Scripture is filled
with them Luke13:34, John 10:11, John 6:47-51.
·
Use of metaphors
carries out a literal mean not to be taken literally.
·
Used to communicate
truths.
·
Different Histories or
Different Stories.
·
Two genesis
authors/editors Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-3:24 (day 6).
·
Why the second story?
§ Hypothesis:
2 different stories because there are two different purposes: Approach was taken by different authors for a
different interpretation.
§ 1st
story – order and structure, matter, human flesh, good things, orders to “go
forth and multiply”
§ 2nd
story – focus on individual part of the 6th day, specific mission
for human.
§ These
2 stories do not contradict each other but have different perspectives of
origin.
·
Summary
·
When we talk about
Christianity we need to be precise.
§ What
do people believe?
§ Teaching
and Dogmas:
§ Scripture:
literally, metaphorically, and purpose of text.
·
What is Science
·
Science as any
systematic, rationally pursued investigation. SCIENTIA.
·
Scientist coined 1834.
·
Science Today
·
Subject matter:
material things, observed and tested.
For next class…In what way is science
different from world view of other disciplines?
September
17 - Cynthia Forgeron
Scientific
Method
-> Usually causal
-> Usually empirical - observe and re-generalize
- Biology
professor - "His classroom is outside"
-> They
might generalize based on data they've picked up
-> Testable (POPPER, 1932, Logic of Scientific Discovery)
-> Can't verify but you can know what's wrong
-> Example of Pi
and the repeating 7's
-> Can it be replicated?
-> Objective (but observer effect/ quantum theory)
-> "This is the
fact"
-> An observer can affect the experiment
Probabilistic v Demonstrative
-> Evolution = Highly Probable
-> Criminal trial, can be found guilty, guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, OJ Simpson example with the glove
World View
-> Materialist v Naturalist
-> Methodologically, science is materialist
-> Nature as an object
-> to be tested, examined, etc
-> Nature isn't implied valuable
-> Value rooted in human ends
-> Nature doesn't imply value
-> "good for
something"
-> Claims to be disengaged/ impartial
-> People view your science as your science and nothing else
-> Instrumental model of reasoning
-> Not because it can be intrinsically valuable, but because it is
useful
What is to be learned from this?
What counts as science?
Astrology, alchemy, phrenology, necromancy
were once sciences.
One method or many?
Science and Culture
-> Science as part of our culture
-> Science as shaping our culture
-> Huxley - "Science should make culture rationalistic"
-> Universalitic
-> Non-biased
Is science impartial, value-neutral, autonomous? Tuskagee case.
-> some supported this study
-> The end justifies the means
-> Science presupposes value
An Ambiguous History
Tertullian
-> Once you have faith, you don't need anything else
Augustijne
-> We should know about the world, Infidels will mock us
-> Believe so that you may understand
Anselm
-> Faith seeking understanding
Benedict
-> Credo ut intelligat
Charlemagne
-> Every monastery should have a school
Education in the middle ages
- Understanding scripture + nature
- Grossteste -
empirical method
- Roger Bacon
- Nicolaus Copernicus
Aquinas -> "No 2 truths"
Jean Calvin - we see both approaches
-> Genesis is not a scientific text
"Christianity made modern science
possible"
-> Galileo
-> Darwin - agnostic
Sometimes sciences take priority and vice versa.
September
22, 2015 – Fr Andrew Gillies
Review of “An Ambiguous History”
An ambiguity has existed since the
beginning of Christianity:
- Tertullian: once
you’ve got faith, there’s no need for science
- Gandhi: people
ought to tend to their souls; we’re all mortal; so all that matters is one’s
soul (science is not inherently evil but is not necessary)
- Augustine: If
Christians are ignorant of the world around them, why should people take
anything they say seriously?; faith seeks
understanding; we believe in order to understand
- Benedict XVI:
can’t just believe blindly; there is a connection with understanding
- Importance of
education: not just sacred but profane science; not just humanities but basics
of science too
-
Middle Ages: an understanding about nature is
understanding something about God and faith
The biggest struggle between Christianity
and Science comes when science is seen as challenging religion:
- Darwin: went to
Cambridge to become an Anglican clergyman; evolution doesn’t prove the
nonexistence of God but it does (at least) show that this is a big and
difficult question
- Newman: doesn’t
think evolution is a problem for religious belief; evolution is quite
consistent with religious belief; divine design would posit that the given laws
of matter from millions of years ago lead to the kind of development we happen
to have; so Darwin’s theory need not be atheistic
- Struggle in the
U.S.: illegal to teach evolution, even as a theory
- Intelligent
Design
- Two separate worlds: world of faith and world of science
“Gaudium et Spes, 1965”
GS, 7: the effects of the modern world
(particularly of scientific issues) on faith:
- new conditions have an impact:
- on one hand,
because of a more vivid sense of God, there is more critical ability to
distinguish religion from a magical view of the world and superstitions (Jesus
magically turning water to wine, the baseball player at the plate blessing
himself);
- on the other
hand, growing numbers, as a consequence of a focus on science and having their faith
shaken, are abandoning religion in practice; what we used to depend on religion
for has changed as we better understand the relationships between nature and
science and nature and religion
- It is good to believe that nature has its
own laws and values; science should be autonomous (from ideologies and
non-scientific things); if the science is true, legitimate science, then
religion has nothing to fear (they can’t contradict)
- There is a problem when science tries to
replace religion; Christians should respect the rightful independence of
science, if not, people are led to believe that they are opposed.
-Regarding moral norms, for example, there
is a certain autonomy that science has to respect as well.
GS, 36: “But when God is forgotten, however, the creature itself grows unintelligible.”
Stephen Pinker would say: get ethicists off
science councils, science will determine for itself what is within its limits.
So, who would decide? Any honest individual could determine
when something is not what science can do.
“Summary; Key Questions”
There is a conflict when a fundamental
incompatibility between religion and science is believed to exist.
So where exactly do they conflict and where
are they compatible?
What does each assert?
A question for Richard Dawkins would be:
What is it exactly that religion asserts which a reasonable person can’t
accept?
Or, is it, rather, a problem with Religion
as an institution? Is it that the way science see the world conflicts with the
way science sees the world?
Is it political? Economic? Cultural?
Sociological?
Why would people be worried about what
Galileo said when Copernicus said the same thing a century before?
There were challenges to authority and not
really a debate about science or religion; what was needed to calm things down
at that time in history?
Catholic Church’s view on Freedom of
Religion:
In the 19th Century war and political
instability were problems; are there broader issues at stake?
If so, telling me more about science or
religion isn’t going to help.
“Origins: Cosmology, Cosmogony and
Creation”
1. a) Origin
stories from religion vs. origin stories from science
From religion: come from a need for an
explanation; wonder; coming into existence over 6, 24-hour periods is a rather
strange scientific explanation; people have a curiosity about genealogy (famous
and infamous ancestors); who we are has a relation to me today: my purpose, my background;
my identity tells me something about the relationship of humans to God; God is
a person who started it/us off and still intervenes today; this is not a
scientific explanation but it is an explanation; just as the birth of Canada,
its founding people, is important to its history and where my roots are; who I
am is a reflection of who my parents and previous generations were.
b) People are causes of things; if I have
free will I cause my actions (otherwise I am just a puppet); Is
the universe a natural phenomenon or a product of things? Or a persona being?
“Origins”, “What is a cause?”
I hear a bomb – What caused the sound?
|
|
Imagine a Sculpture |
- Bomb [material] |
|
- stone |
- Bomb maker (idea in her mind) [formal] |
|
- image/form in mind |
- The bomber [efficient] |
|
- the sculpter |
- Her goal: liberating her country [final] |
|
- why do it at all?; the goal |
Final Causes: goals agents is looking to
achieve;
not juts God doing it but how God did it
‘Stuff’ makes a thing‘what
it is’;
‘the person’ who carries out ‘what he has in mind’ -- >
Causes who or what can be – not just the ‘doer’ but the goal that is sought
(the end, purpose)
“How does science approach origins?”
- Method: Naturalism
- Science focuses on what can be observed
and tested, e.g., nature
Methodological
naturalism:
a) Why did the light come on?
Switch – opens or closes circuit;
Electricity – excites mercury; Light
Naturalism
within science says that all hypotheses and events are to be explained and
tested.
This only applies to natural causes and
events. To introduce a supernatural/transcendental
cause within science is to depart from science.
b) i. Nature is
all there is
ii. nature
(universe/cosmos) consists of natural elements that are somehow imminent in the
structure of the universe
iii. nature
follows natural laws and all can be explained by science and philosophy
iv. the supernatural does not exist
Sept.
24/15 – Hannah Keller
Origins - How does science approach origins?
·
Naturalism
o
Methodological naturalism
§ Refer to natural events alone to explain a hypothesis. Scientific
truth is only interested in naturalism
o
Metaphysical naturalism
§ All that exists is natural
§ Everything – including mind, ideas, and values – has a scientific
explanation. Nature consists only of natural elements
§ Nature works by natural processes that follow natural laws, and all
can, in principle, be explained and understood by science and philosophy.
§ The supernatural does not exist, i.e., only nature is real,
therefore supernature is non-real.
o
“Supernaturalism” maintains
that:
§ There are supernatural beings who act in the world and have concerns
with salvation, sanctification, sin, etc.
§ “Since everyone agrees that the natural exists, it is the
responsibility of the supernaturalist to demonstrate
the existence of the supernatural.”
§ If you think there is something supernatural, prove it.
Definition of Cosmology
·
Study of the structure and
changes in the present universe
·
Cosmogony – concerned with the
origin of the universe
·
The work of cosmologists and
cosmogonists overlap
1.
Steady State Theory
a.
A steady state universe has no
beginning or end in time.
i.
The universe is always expanding
ii.
But maintaining a constant everage density
iii.
Matter is continuously being
created to form new stars and galaxies at the same rate that old ones become
unobservable
iv.
On the grand scale, the average
density and arrangement of galaxies is the same.
v.
Needs no first cause
b.
Criticisms of Steady State
i.
Edwin Hubble showed that the
universe was expanding (general relativity theory excluded the possibility of a
static universe)
ii.
Discovery of the cosmic
microwave background radiation (in 1965) thought to be left over from the Big
Bang
iii.
Quasars and radio galaxies were
found only at large distances (therefore exist only in the distant past, not in
closer galaxies), whereas the Steady State Theory predicted they would be found
everywhere, including close to our own galaxy.
iv.
The mechanism for the creation
of “new matter” was never found
v.
But “quasi steady state theory”
– the Big Bang Theory makes assumptions that we cannot check.
2.
The Big Bang Theory
a.
How old is the universe, and
why does this matter? 9-18 billion year range; if we find quasars that are 10
billion years old, then the universe cannot be 9 billion years old.
b.
An infinitely dense, hot, and
small “particle” explodes (why did it explode?)
c.
Only energy exists in radiation
d.
Cools down over years
e.
Protons and neutrons being to
form elements
3.
Bang Bang
Bang Theory
a.
A new string theory based
cyclical model – expand and contract. There is no beginning to the universe;
the big bang is one in a series.
b.
“eternal inflation” theory
c.
Andre Linde
and Alan Guth: Higgs field is the agent for cosmic
inflation.
i.
“If it starts, this process can
keep happening forever… it can happen now, in some part of the universe.”
ii.
So, eternal inflation = a
greater universe = unimaginably large, chaotic, and diverse.
iii.
“Chaotic inflation allows us to
explain our world without making such assumptions as the simultaneous creation
of the whole universe from nothing.”