From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Mon May 02 2005 - 17:09:07 BST
Hi Sam, Ant, Ian, all,
Subject change, since I think we might move this beyond the
transubstantion debate....
On 2 May 2005 at 14:36, Sam Norton wrote:
And as, to me, it seems the core of the thread is Scott's question
about whether science and 'contemporary non-fundamentalist theism'
are in conflict.
msh:
I agree and, as often happens, comments have galloped away from the
original subject, so let's see if we can rein them into a new corral.
Here's a summary of the ideas that are being contested here. This is
from memory, so may be off in the details (if so, someone will
correct me, I'm sure):
1) Ant offered the belief in transubstantion as evidence of a
science/theism conflict.
2) Sam said TS implies no conflict, citing Aquinas' explanation of
TS as making a distinction between substance and accidents, saying
that the bread and wine change in substance, not accidents and, since
science is able to mark changes in accidents, not substance, there is
no conflict.
3) Sam claimed, therefore, that no Catholics really believe they are
eating flesh and drinking blood.
5) I claimed that this is not the impression I got as a young
Catechism student. But maybe Sister Mary hadn't read Aquinas.
6) Ant said that maybe she had but was doing what the church seeks to
do: indoctrinating members to adopt non-questioning, non-scientific,
authoritarian explanations of what is and isn't true.
7) In a similar vein, very recently, DMB said that this is how
theologians protect themselves from scientific criticism, claiming,
basically, for example in this case (TS), there is a substantial
change that is not measurable by science, but is nevertheless real.
msh now says:
If David is correct, and I think he is, then it will be IMPOSSIBLE
for any scientist to show a conflict between science and theology.
This doesn't bother me much, because I've always claimed that science
and theology are mutually exclusive areas of investigation, one with
its roots in practical empiricism, the other stemming from
assumptions based on faith.
It seems to me that, at this point, the discussion would be over but,
because, for whatever reason, most (all?) theologians are desirous
of science's stamp of approval, they constantly offer challenges
exactly like the challenge offered by Scott to begin this thread.
And the circle goes round...
So, to me the interesting question has always been, why do
theologians so often appear to seek the imprimatur of science?
I'll appreciate any comments along these lines, but please bear in
mind that I have little familiarity with modern theology.
Nevertheless, you should be able to make valid ideas understandable,
even to a theological dufus like me. Just as I can discuss any
aspect of computer science in terms understandable to non CS
Engineers.
Thanks,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com ""Science is a differential equation. Religion is a boundary condition." - Alan Turing (British cryptographer, mathematician and logician. Considered to be one of the fathers of modern computer science. 1912-1954) MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 02 2005 - 19:47:37 BST