Class summaries
What is Christianity?
-
A Religion
What is the difference?
-
Christ is God
-
Scriptures (Sacred Texts)
(Hebrew Scriptures)
-
Old Testament – Hebrew
Scriptures prior to Christ
-
New Testament –Scriptures
that go back 3000 years ago
-
Practice - worship
-
Jesus is God, part of the
Holy Trinity
o He
is both human & God
-
Afterlife
Catholicism
-
Central authority, The
pope ( no other Christians have this )
-
Differs from Roman
Catholicism
-
Different amount of
sacraments
-
Doctrines
-
The Holy spirit
o Where
it comes from
o Trinity
viewed differently
-
Eucharist is different
-
Scripture & Tradition
are equally important (unlike protestant who only use scripture)
-
If there is no scripture
left on the earth, Catholics could rely only on tradition alone
and get enough salvation.
-
Magisterium, different
levels. Believers have to believe.
o You
have to believe what the pope says.
o Pope
is pastor and teacher to all.
o Bishops
can also create rule in line with pope.
o No
other Religion has this
§ Pope
write encyclicals (Definitive statements not infallible)
§ Theologians,
help Bishops. Explains the teachings to the Church
§ Priests
have no magisterial authority
-
Dogma
o “A
truth appertaining to faith or morals that are revealed by God
and transmitted through the apostles in scripture or by
tradition” – Catholic Encyclopedia
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 blast – What
caused it?
|
|
|
Similarly, imagine a Sculpture |
|
- Bomb [material] |
Material cause |
- stone |
|
- Bomb maker (idea in her
mind) [formal] |
Formal cause |
- image/form in mind |
|
- The bomber [efficient] |
Efficient cause |
- the sculpter |
|
- Her goal: liberating her
country [final] |
Final cause |
- 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.”
September 29
Development:
Evolution,
Matter and the Immaterial
History
Ideas of Evolutionary Theory in Chemistry &
Biology are not new:
v Lucretius
(99-55 BC) “On the nature of things”
Ř Explaining
Epicurean Philosophy (307 BCE): Pleasure is the greatest good
§ Its
important that the simple things in life be pleasurable
Ř General
account of astronomy, natural history and development
Ř Universe
operates according to physical principles (atomism) and chance
and not by the gods or final
cause
Ř Since
all is natural (due to natural causes), there is no need to be
afraid of the gods
Ř Still
room for freedom; atoms “swerve” (clinamen)
v George
Leclerc (1707-1788) “Histoire
Nauurelle”
Ř Species
can improve or degenerate overtime; not fixed
Ř How
does this change happen? There was no knowledge of genetics yet.
v Lamarck
(1744-1829)
Ř Inheritance
of acquired characteristics (change in response to environment)
v Lyell
(1797-1875)
Ř Principles
of Geology
§ Deposits:
slow progressive change
§ Uniformitarian
Theory (but not necessarily Evolution until later in his life)
§ Darwin
studied him
v Herbert
Spencer (1820-1903)
Ř “Principles
of Biology”, 1864
§ A
move from homogeneity to heterogeneity, yet also integration of
the parts (Organicism)
§ Lemarcian
Evolution
§ Coined:
“Survival of the fittest”
v Darwin
(1809-1882) [and Alfred Russell (1823-1913)]
Ř Enjoyed
Paley at Cambridge (1828-1831); adaptations as example of God
acting in nature
Ř Five-year
voyage (1831-1836); he joins as a ‘self-funded naturalist’
Ř ‘On
the Origin of the Species’; species develop in different ways in
different environment
Ř “Natural
Selection”; nature just “selects” the most suitable from less
suitable ones; he borrows “survival of the fittest”; not
conscious but blind operation; not about you but about how you
fit in the environment.
v Gregor
Mendel (1822-1884)
Ř Priest
and scientist
Ř Founder
of genetics: term coined by Bateson (1861-1926)
Ř Mendelian
inheritance (traits in pea plant patterns) vs. blending
inheritance
Ř His
work was not widely accepted until after he died (circa 1900);
three separate projects replicated what he had done
Evolution is a story that is not given all at
once:
v There
are three key questions:
Ř What’s
life?
§ Oxford
dictionary: distinguishes us from non-living
§ Capacity
to grow, metabolize, react to stimuli, reproduce, and change
preceding death
Ř How
do we get it?
§ Two
stories
·
earth is 4.5 billion
years old
·
earliest known life
(3.5-4 billion years ago)
Ř How
does it develop?
§ Aristotle,
“History of Animals”, 350 BC
·
Based on observation
(empirical): Plants from plants, animals from animals
·
Animals develop
spontaneously
·
Living things from
non-living
·
Dominant view for 1500
years
§ Metabolism
first
·
Beginning of organic
life: things can metabolize, develop
·
mechanisms such as
lighting and radiation act as catalysts
v Alexander
Oparin (1894-1980)
Ř Biogeneticist
Ř “Origin
of Life”, 1924
Ř No
fundamental difference between living organisms and nonliving
organisms
Ř Possibility
of life arose directly from the evolution of lifeless matter
Ř “spontaneous
generation of life” found when early earth changed and which is
now impossible
Ř So
a “primordial soup” of organic molecules could be created in an
oxygen-less atmosphere through the action of sunlight
October 13
October
15, 2015 - Hannah Keller
Scientific perspective:
-
Big Bang – uncaused?
-
First Law of
Thermodynamics (energy is neither created nor destroyed in a
closed system)
-
Natural selection
o There
is no ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ in life; there is no end or final
cause to evolution.
o Richard
Dawkins: the universe has only “pitiless indifference”, no
foresight; it is blind and random. (The Blind Watchmaker)
Is there really no value in nature according
to naturalism/physicalism?
-
There may be a kind of
“species altruism” which explains morality
o Ex.
Injured dolphins helping each other
o A
purely evolutionary trait
-
Patricia Churchland: the
evolution of oxycontin (enhances trust, calmness, attachment)
may have been one of the mechanisms by which organisms take care
of others.
-
No objective right/wrong
What does Christianity add?
-
Matter is good,
not just instrumentally, but intrinsically.
-
Nature is not “complete”
o Miracles
o Is
this creating new energy? (Recall: in a closed system –
is the universe a closed system?)
-
Things have purpose
(telos)
o Nature
has a value (St. Francis of Assisi
-
Human beings are the
summit of creation – and have purpose/end as well. There is a
“higher” and “lower” in nature.
o CCC
358: “God created everything for man”
o CCC
343: “Man is the summit of creation’s work…”
-
Natural selection does
not give us this account.
Why is humanity special?
-
Created in God’s image
and likeness
o Source
of dignity (CCC 356, 357, 369)
-
Endowed with unique
powers – freedom, reason, will
-
The human race forms a
unity (co-creation with God)
-
Humans have a
supernatural destiny
-
Humans have a spiritual
component
-
Humans are capable of
value/morality
-
Does this contradict
science? (Evolutionary Theory)
Why take Christianity seriously on this
issue?
-
2 Methodological
perspectives on the same thing:
o How
do you “prove” anything? (Different ways of proving things in
different fields – mat vs. biology vs. theology vs. ethics,
etc.)
o What
is the right method? (What end are you trying to achieve?)
§ Maritain:
the method is determined by the object
o Example
of the rainbow, seen by a physicist or by and artist
§ Both
are dealing with reality, but from different
perspectives/different ends
o 2
perspectives on the same thing:
§ From
the point of view of science (natural causes), what can be known
empirically?
§ From
POV of philosophy/theology/scripture
·
What is known from the
POV of ontological dependence?
·
What can be known
philosophically/theologically?
·
Why things are, and
continue to be
o These
things don’t conflict! They can both be true at the same time.
An account of human nature and human being
-
Preliminary – what is it
to be a human person?
-
Science/Naturalism
(metaphysical) or physicalism
o We
are like our primate cousins, and should show the latter similar
respect (or else be guilty of speciesism)
o Consciousness
is a product/state of matter, just as biological life is.
Exam
-
3 parts
1st- Terms: Cause,
Humani Generis, Abiogenesis, Naturalism, Cosmogony, Dogma,
Natural Selection,
and Hermeneutics
Description and how
relates to class
2nd –Detailed questions from
each section
3rd – Broad questions
covering all sections
Problems
1)
Ecologism does not
provide a clear positive
argument for why things have value “Inherent value appears as
a mysterious
non-natural property which we must take on faith”
2)
The conception of
nature is reductionistic
3)
Ecoglogism is based on
an intuition/assumption:
That everything has value & equal value
4)
The consequences of
ecologism are not humanist
5)
Problems in applying
ecologism
3) Catholic
Christianity Today
1) The environment is not just nature; “It is creation”
->”Our
common home” p.
76,33,140
-> Radical
distinction between religious & radical approach
-Religious
-> they have value in themselves, valuable
-> Creation
includes natural & material (as physis) but also the so
called “nature” is
linked to the notion of physis or “growth”
-What
an individual thing- its nature is intelligible only in terms
of what normally
becomes p. 43, 48
-> There
is an environmental crisis today
i)
Pollution & climate change; pollution, waste & the
throw away culture
climate as a common good.
ii)
Water & the depiction of other natural resources p. 28, 30
iii)
Loss of biodiversity
iv)
Decline in the quality of human life & breakdown of
society
v)
Global inequality
->
But it is not just a crisis in “nature”; it is a “cultural
&ecological
crisis” p. 60, 9 BUT> p. 14(lack of
interest), STILL> p.
201(common good)
2) Role of Humanity
-> Major
industrialized countries have major responsibilities p.170
-> We
need tot find our “moral compass” & identity, a common
good p. 200,224
Why?
Because humanity has a distinctive place in creation, a human
being
-
Has the ability to make
a plan of life and follow
it
-
Has a concept of the
good
-
Has a capacity to make
moral judgments
-
Exists in a “community”
of such beings over
generations, that reflects a trans-historical shared good
-
Capable of recognizing
& assigning value
-
Is capable of being a
“steward” of nature
č
Therefore humanity has
a distinctive value and
not simple equal value- there is a hierarchy in nature, lk
12:67, 112:24, Mt
12:11-12, p118,119
č
Some implications, p
78,146- is part of
“meaning of life” p,160
č
Technology will solve
out problems- myths
č
Cant ignore indigenous
communities & their
cultural traditions
č
What kind of world do
we want to leave to those
after? Not just matter of future but our own duty.
č
Does this view fit with
empirical science?
č
Does this view conflict
with empirical science?