Priests in over their heads

It seems to be my week for criticizing priests. I hope this isn’t one of those things that come in threes.

Sodamonk wonders how scientists can be Catholic and also believe in evolution. He makes a common error that has been addressed numerous times. This happens when people, including priests, stray from the topics they know and wander into unfamiliar territory beyond their expertise.

He seems amazed that an evolutionist would write the following passage:

As Darwin wrote, there is grandeur in an evolutionary view of life, a grandeur that is there for all to see, regardless of their philosophical views on the meaning and purpose of life. I do not believe, even for an instant, that Darwin's vision has weakened or diminished the sense of wonder and awe that one should feel in confronting the magnificence and diversity of the living world. Rather, to a person of faith it should enhance their sense of the Creator's majesty and wisdom (Miller 1999).

Almost Catholic in tone and reverence, isn’t it? It is written by Kenneth R. Miller, PhD. Dr. Miller has written the basic biology text used by high school students throughout the U.S. and is the frequent target of The Discovery Institute, the Intelligent Design think tank publishing those books at the furious pace observed by Fr. Sodamonk. Phillip Johnson, as part of the Discovery Institute, specializes in misrepresenting science as part of their public relations efforts in support of Intelligent Design. I certainly hope that Fr. Sodamonk will first read Dr Miller’s book, Finding Darwin’s God, and put it on his Intelligent Design reading list.

The quoted passage surprises no one familiar with evolution or with the writings of Dr. Miller, who is indeed Catholic.

The plain fact is that evolutionists cannot be pigeonholed in their beliefs, something both Sodamonk and Phillip Johnson attempt to do. You cannot attribute the beliefs of atheist evolutionists with those of Catholic, protestant or Jewish scientists either. It’s like asking Catholic American citizens why they believe in atheism because there are also atheist American citizens. The citizenship has nothing to do with the religious belief. Same for evolution.

Sodamonk agrees with the statement hat someone can believe in evolution and also be Catholic. I’m pleased to hear that and so is this guy. Once you understand that evolution doesn’t conflict with religion, Father’s further questions pose no challenge to Catholic or religious scientists: Of course God has a purpose for life and of the universe.

But Fr. Sodamonk, showing he doesn't understand the subject,  addresses this "stumper" to Catholic and other religious scientists:

“If you agree that God has a design for life and the universe, why would anyone insist that God's design can never be studied scientifically?

Here’s the answer: No Catholic or religious scietist insists that! Atheisits do! Remember—his question is directed to religious scientists, not atheists. Of course, the question is no stumper for atheists either.

But let’s turn the question around because Father is making some unwarranted assumptions: Do you believe that science can answer all of the questions we human may have? If that answer is “No,” then aren’t there some things that can’t be studied scientifically?

What might some of those things be?

1. Whether Opera is better than Country Music.

2. Whether Rembrandt is better than Andy Warhol.

3. Whether winter is a more beautiful season than summer.

4. The simultaneous location and momentum of an electron.

5. The characteristics of the human soul.

There’s an (incorrect) assumption that to be worthwhile, it must be studied scientifically. Fr. Sodamonk makes this mistake. That’s ridiculous. Science is not the font of all knowledge and wisdom. It follows therefore that some things really are beyond the ability of science to meaningfully study. Certainly we should consider that God’s properties and motivations might be some of those things beyond science. It’s not at all preposterous to suggest that we will not find God through a study of science. I'm surprised a priest even suggests this.

Science doesn’t study some things because science is inherently limited to only those things that can be weighed measured, detected or “quantified” somehow. That excludes a lot of human knowledge in Religion, philosophy, art, music and literature, just to name a few subjects. When you get down to it, science is pretty restricted.

So, science studies those things that can be measured and detected according to natural laws. When science observes a phenomenon that can be quantifiable and explained by natural laws, it’s science. If it can’t be measured, detected and quantified by science it can’t be studied by science. If it's not governed by natural laws, then it is futile to emply science to study it.   That doesn’t mean something doesn’t exist—it only means that it’s not science. This is the methodological naturalism, --a limit on the reach of science that Phillip Johnson obfuscates with philosophical naturalism, a different animal altogether. Theologians like John Haught (Deeper than Darwin)  and Howard Van Till both examine the theological aspects of evolution in far more detail than I can here. I hope both also make Fr. Sodamonk’s reading list.

Philosophical naturalism says that we can’t study God or the human soul because they can't be detected by science and therefore don’t exist.

Methodological scientists simply say science ahs no opinion on the matter because it can’t be detected, yet. —Maybe in the future.

After making several wrong assumptions, Father’s conclusion predictably goes off the deep end:

“If they claim it is simply because no scientific proof of God has even been found, they are begging the whole question of Intelligent Design. Because it is not impossible, in principle, for scientific evidence of God's design to be found."

There is only one way for science to detect God and that is to observe a miracle, defined as a fundamental violation of the laws of nature.

And,  it’s Intelligent Design that begs the question. It has not demonstrated a singlesuch miracle. Fr. Sodamonk must not know that both Michael Behe and William Dembski both agree in principle that evolution is essentially correct. Behe and Dembski claim only a handful of instances where they argue intelligent design is observed according to their criteria. They both must agree to maintain plausibility that eviolution describes the vast majority of biology that we observe. Nobody else agrees with them on thos efew instacnes they calim to have observed, but even if they are right,  what’s left if evolution is overwhelmingly correct ? Behe has left God with only a handful of miracles like gluing tails on the butts of particularly virulent germs. Everything else evolved according to natural laws, according to Behe and Dembski. This is a "gingerbread crumb trail" theology of God. How poor, how deficient, how weak in faith!

But who cares if a priest butchers good science with bad theology?

St Augustine provides the answer:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Comments

[jcecil3]

UC,

This was great. I especially like the list of things science cannot answer (and Country is better than Opera. Everyone knows that :) ).

My dad is a scientist who believes in evolution and a devout conservative Roman Catholic. All the priest who taught in my Catholic schools believed evolution was at least possible (and most like Tielhard De Chardin). I never had the sense that science and religion conflict growing up. It surprises me as I grow older that Catholics are still debating this.

It's not that I dogmatically believe in evolution. As far as scientific theories go, it isn't as iron-clad as some other theories. But it's the best explanation of our observations for now, and provides the most predictive framework yet. Maybe a better theory will "evolve", or maybe the evidence for evolution will mount higher than it currently is. Either way, there is no reason to lose faith over it.

Science is the study of how the world seems to work.

Theology is the study of why things are as they are - the study of meaning.

You can't often answer "Why?" questions with "How?" answers or vice-a-versa intelligibly.

"Why do fools fall in love?"

...is not the same question as....

"How do fools fall in love?"

Peace!

[Jeff]

UC: Thanks for the "Priests in Over Their Heads" blog. A good follow-up might be to look into why there is so much controversy about the theory of evolution these days.Also I was glad to see the name of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin mentioned in jcecil3's comment. As difficult as it is at times to understand Fr. Teilhard's ideas, it is worth the effort to do so. I have one request for you, UC - the St. Augustine quote is taken from which of his writings - please cite chapter and page? Once again thanks.
Regards - Jeff

[Rick]

A scientist weights in:

Jcecil3 brought up the distinction between how things work and why things work (meaning). While science can't answer questions about meaning, as advances in the cognitive sciences are made -- a number of thinkers are claiming to explain *how* we think about meaning -- in other words, to explain how the brain creates concepts like "meaning" and how it addresses them. And many scientists act as though explaining something is the same as explaining it away.

My argument is that the certainty with which science can address questuions is proportional to 1.) The degree to which a problem can be reduced (i.e., taken away from its context, controlled, and ideally reproduced in a laboratory). And 2.) The disinterest with the scientist can approach the problem. For example, if I'm addressing questions about atoms and molecules, the answers I come up with are unlikely to threaten my sense of self. If I'm answering questions about the origins of human life and human nature -- its a whole other kettle of fish.

Inidentally, I learned about evolution in parochial school in 5th grade.

[Unapologetic Catholic]

Obviously, one area where I do expect expetise from our clergy is in the field of theology. Chardin has such powerful insights into evolution and man's relationship to God that I really don't think you can hold a meaningufl discussion of evolutiona nd theology without mentioning him. I know that he wa in some sense criticized by the Vatcian but I don't know how or why.

That's an area that a priest could enlighten us on. I, fpr one would like to know what the issues were and whether they've been resolved.

My internet is partially disabled at the moment so I'll post St Augustine's citation later.

[biagra]

Here is majority info.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra >biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]