--- "Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote addressing Santosh Helekar:
> Your basic error is not to admit the limits of empirical Science, which you > are absolutizing. George's comment: Does not religion absolutize? In rejecting the 'dictatorship of relativism' at the pre-Conclave mass, did Cardinal Ratizinger accept the 'dictatorship of absolutism'? >God cannot be empirically verified and analyzed like other objects. George's comment: True. You are too sophistated a thinker to do that. However, a number of religious people commit that error. > Both scientists and theologians must constantly seek the truth afresh, > each according to their own different methods. "Reflection" and > "discernment" are key-words in Theology. Does this mean that Catholic theologians and you seek the 'truth afresh'? Is that Catholic revisionism? Would you be open to rejecting some of your current belief's in the future? I am actually in favor of religions updating their understanding of truth in the modern world we live in, but time and again we see religious ideas stuck in the Dark Ages. > Modern empirical Science employs its methods, such as quantifying, > formalizing, mathematicizing. But they are not adequate for the > understanding of the world George's comment: Isn't the key issue in understanding the world today 'rich versus poor'? Do you believe that both science and religion should primarily focus on that issue? Why is the 'preferential option for the poor' (liberation theology) rejected by the Catholic Church (the late JPII and Cardinal Ratzinger) in favor of a 'preferential option for the rich and powerful' (capitalism and Opus Dei)? Regards, George
