From: "Mario Goveia" <mgov...@sbcglobal.net>
--- On Sun, 4/19/09, MD <mmdme...@gmail.com> wrote:
Science is no match for religioud (sic) belief.
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbel...@yahoo.com>
But good faith is not good science. That is all I am saying. I am forced
to say it because of the false claims made by Fr. Ivo, and now Gilbert,
that their religion is scientific.
Mario observes:
As a practicing Catholic and a believer in objective science, it continues
to boggle the mind when otherwise serious individuals confuse science and
faith, which is the basis of religion.
***Mario, I am not confusing Science with Faith. But what is faith for you?
"Beliefs" without any historical-scientific basis? We can always eleborate
these points.
I have already given some of them.
Several weeks ago I got Fr. Ivo to agree that the existence of God cannot
be either proven or disproven by science; which should have ended this
thread right there. Yet, a month later, the verbal mud-wrestling
continues, much to my amazement and amusement, especially Fr. Ivo's very
personal version of English as I highlighted in
http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-March/175446.html
The belief in the existence of God or a supernatural being is based on
faith and some circumstantial evidence that does not constitute scientific
proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
***Why do you believe in God? Review this question.
I only repeated that Science does not prove nor disprove the existence of
God.
Does it mean that there are no grounds for the existence of God.
Is Science the only source of knowledge? Christian faith is historical
faith, not mythical,
therefore it has historical-scientific basis. Not scientific, in the sense
that it can be empirically proved,
like physical phenomena, but in its historical background (as much as
scientific test can do for the
spiritual-supernatural phenomena with their sensible wrappings), its
consequences, individual and societal...
We know that even the saintly Mother
Theresa was wracked by doubts about the existence of God and worked to do
good in spite of it.
***I am afraid that even Mother Teresa would not agree with Mario. We speak
of "spiritual aridity". Saints like Teresa of Avila and Teresa of Lisieux
had 'spiritual aridity', they could not find consolation and 'sensible'
happiness. Mother Teresa could not have doubts about the existence of God.
She was praying before the Eucharistic Jesus (Blessed Sacrament) every day.
She was embracing the ostracised people because she could see the image of
God in them. She told her Spiritual Father about it.
My stand should be clear: I only said from the very outset that Science
neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, because Science does not
deal with the existence of God. It is theology that deals with the existence
of God. Therefore, to say that "that should have ended this thread right
there" is wrong. Because if Science does not tell us of the existence of
God--nor can Science do this job--it does not mean that we deny the
existence of God. Religion tells us about God. Reason speaks to us.
What good is being convinced that God exists and not living what that
should mean on a day-to-day basis? On the other hand, wouldn't God
approve of someone who cannot believe HE exists but lives their lives as
if HE did - in the true Christian spirit - anyway?
***How can also be easy doing good without faith in God? Jesus himself
spoke to us about his intimacy with the Father (God) and told us to do
good.If Mother Teresa has done what she did, it is because she lived in
communion with God.
I have always argued that once we accept and live by at least the last
seven of the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the
Mount, the rest is all window dressing and a full employment scheme for
thousands of religious persons.
***Who has given Ten Commandments? Who has spoken of Golden Rule with its
new foundation,
and the Sermon on the Mount?
If Jesus of Nazareth has spoken to us, what did he say about God?
In the meantime, as a cancer survivor who had to put up with the most
Godawful stuff dripped into me, not to mention the cutting and stitching
and burning with mysterious rays I had to endure - all of which worked
splendidly in my case, I would rather follow the serious debate on why
untested placebos have become so popular in the practice of medicine.
***Homeopathy has its benefits. This is clear. I am not telling you to
follow only homeopathy, leaving allopathy.
Both can work in these cases. Allopathy can work together with the adjunct
therapies. By the way,
they are white small wonderful pills, not "pink" pills. Dr.S.C.Madan and
Dr.S.R.Wadia would be able to tell you better
about your disease.
Regards.
Fr.Ivo
