7. The clash between science and faith

[Manuel]

Do you think there is conflict between science and faith? I assume you have heard of Galileo's case. Have you ever heard of any other? Did you have a preconceived idea about this before reading this book? Has it changed after reading the book?

[John]

I do not believe there is conflict between science and faith, as they each have their field, but those without faith hold that science alone has the right to make truth claims, and it is certainly possible for some to assert silliness on a particular reading of scripture. These erroneous approaches to faith and science generate lots of conflict, but do not represent an wise faith or true science.

[Manuel]

John wrote: "I do not believe there is conflict between science and faith, as they each have their field, but those without faith hold that science alone has the right to make truth claims..."

But the assertion that "science alone has the right to make truth claims" is not science, therefore if it is true, it falsifies itself. Therefore it must be false.

[Jill]

He doesn't take account of the role of revelation in theology, which isn't simply a matter of reasoning. The term "faith seeking understanding" seems useful.
I've heard before about how important the Christian understanding of Creator/creation has been in stimulating scientific research, but some of the particulars and people he mentions were new and interesting to me.
He seems to equate the Christian worldview with Deism (God winding up the clock and leaving it to run itself according to natural law). That's not what we believe.

[Manuel]

Jill wrote: "He seems to equate the Christian worldview with Deism (God winding up the clock and leaving it to run itself according to natural law). That's not what we believe."

Right, that's not what we believe. But where did you get the impression that he tended to deism? I didn't. In fact, in his only reference to deism, he says this: This new cult was an effort by Robespierre to draw back from the complete atheism of the Revolution in favor of a weak deism. It doesn't look like deism is his stance.

[Fonch]

This is one of the chapters of the book, which I personally liked most, could be complemented by the one dedicated to thomas E. Woods in "How the Church Saved Western Civilization". I liked that you will talk about the scientists of that time San Alberto, Santo Tomas de Aquino, Nicolás Oresme, Roger Bacon, Roberto Groseteste, Guillermo de Okham (although I reject that he is one of the initiators of nominalism together with Roscelino de Compiegne. He completely rejected that from William of Ockham.) There is one of my favorite characters who is Nicholas of Cusa who appears in Mika Waltari's novel "John the Pilgrim" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... I recommend this book, which will make me change our view of the Middle Ages, forever, as a dark moment. Some have compared it to Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose," but I think it's its opposite. Despite being a science fiction book Michael Michael Flynn reflects the Middle Ages in "Eifelheim" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... as I believe, that was, William of Ockham also appears, and shows it at the time of repenting. . It clarifies perfectly that it consisted of the achievement of Nicolas Copernico. By the way, he dedicated his work to Pope Paul III. He acknowledged that he did not take into account the elliptical movement. It clarifies the question of Galileo, and what really happened. Taking up quotes from the Esol brothers, and Manuel Alfonseca would be the only scientific mistake made by the Church, but Galileo was not judged for that. This theme is beautifully addressed by Fred Saberhagen in the last story of his sci-fi novel "Brother Killer" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
and license is allowed to mix it with another rather earlier moment in history, but the result is undeniable. I wish someone was encouraged to read this book. He does two very good things first in this chapter. One demonstrate, that being a Christian in this Catholic case is not undermining to be a great scientist, and two to demonstrate, that Catholic scientists, despite the advance of English, and Dutch are equalized, and that in Malpighi's case he considered doubtful by the author.
On the subject of Sir Isaac Newton I would like to recommend one more novel from our moderator I do not know if you have translated it into English "The Hidden Hand" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2..., it also helps us to deal with the subject of the different methods of colonization in America English, French, and Spanish.
In addition to the books mentioned by Rodney Stark, Duchem's could be added. I told my friend Professor Alfonseca in our correspondence for a final quote from Richard Dawkins, one of the four philosophers of atheism where he believes in the possible existence of aliens, and that they can do unimaginable things, which makes them Let us consider them gods. This makes there meeting points in my opinion between Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan, who promoted this thought in his books especially in his novel Contact. Aliens would be a substitute for God's holetap). Some kind of illusion that aliens are coming to fix our world. I doubt Sagan's good-going and Rousseaunian's vision of the good alien. On the subject of the existence of aliens I am agnostic, they may exist, maybe they don't.
But I do not like this current of using aliens for everything and it is not only an atheist current, but of Christian currents like seventh-day Adventists, jehovah's witnesses, or the worst Scientology. In many places in Europe it is forbidden to cult, because they consider it a sect. I want to warn against this deification of aliens, because I have seen this widespread, and I have been very concerned about this quote from Richard Dawkins shown by Rodney Stark (if true).

[Manuel]

Fonch wrote: "I have been very concerned about this quote from Richard Dawkins shown by Rodney Stark (if true)"

Yes, it is true. I have Dawkins book and can confirm that Stark's quote is correct. It is in chapter 2, section "Little Green Men."

[Fonch]

Manuel wrote: "Fonch wrote: "I have been very concerned about this quote from Richard Dawkins shown by Rodney Stark (if true)"

Yes, it is true. I have Dawkins book and can confirm that Stark's quote is correct. ..."

I guessed, but not putting the book on, I couldn't take it for granted 100%, but that's what makes me angry. This gentleman may mock my beliefs and nothing happens, but if I am skeptical of the possibility of the existence of extraterrestrial life and that they have divine powers. The one that falls on me. This shows what G.K. Chesterton said, "That a person who has stopped believing in God is capable of believing in anything."
I agree with what my friend Professor Alfonseca says when they say that these men when they write their books do nothing science, but philosophy, and they do it wrong.
Anthony Esolen commented on the subject in his book "Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... when he expressed his disapproval of the film Ultimatum the Earth, because aliens came to save us from our miseries. I agree more with Spielberg's views of the War of the Worlds than Wise's. If they exist they can be good, bad, or regular, but I don't think they're archangels without original sin, to those of us who owe existence, or in whether we consider them gods. We have to be critical of those opinions, because they circulate, and they have more predicament than we think.