Fr. Ivo, I provide below answers to some of your questions, and a list of problems and questions with what you wrote:
1. Modern science is rational, theoretical and empirical in nature. 2. You conveniently gloss over the fact that the Bible and traditional Christian theology contain beliefs and explanations about natural phenomena that modern science has shown to be completely wrong. 3. The assertion "Hence for him (agnostic) Science explains the whole reality (the "absolute truth")" is a confused attempt at redefining absolute truth. The reality which Science explains is the reality of the natural universe and natural phenomena. It has nothing do with absolute truth, which no true scientist or agnostic claims to know. 4. How does theology know there is life after death? Why should anybody believe in such a mere assertion? 5. Objective evidence refers to physical facts about the natural universe, which can be independently verified and evaluated by any observer. They enable us to distinguish between fantasy and reality. You have conveniently avoided telling me how your theology distinguishes between fantasy and reality. 6. What are the rational grounds for your dogma? Why can this dogma not be regarded as fantasy? 7. You repeat once again: "Whatever is witnessed by our universal experience is not fantasy". You dont tell me why. Your assertion is obviously false. Dreams, illusions and hallucinations are also witnessed by our universal experience. What we experience in them cannot be regarded as real. 8. How do you know that the things that are contained in ancient texts "are immutable truths", that they reveal "immutable truths about human existence"? We already know that these texts contain many assertions about the natural universe and natural phenomena that are completely false. 9. Any discipline that does not follow the scientific method is not regarded as a science in the modern context. That is why theology and religion are not sciences. 10. All fields that describe the natural universe and provide explanations for natural phenomena can be subjected to experimentation or observation. The scientific method can be applied to them. 11. I think your definition of ideology applies quite nicely to religion. Religion is "a system of concepts, convictions, interpretative patterns and norms of action, which --mostly governed by particular interests--, produces a distorted picture of the reality of the world." 12. Agnosticism is not intolerance. Agnosticism refers to a lack of knowledge. An agnostic recognizes the unknown, that there are many things that s/he does not know. S/he also does not believe in anything without reason and physical evidence. Intolerance comes from people who believe in immutable truths and dogma, whether they are religious or non-religious. 13. Your long unwaranted anti-scientific and anti-technological rant seems to me as an exposition of a religionist ideology mixed with some postmodernism. 14. In response to your question: "Could you point out to a tenet of Catholic faith which to your mind should be changed?", I would say, I am not the one who claimed that theology seeks truth afresh, and renews its understanding through "reflection" and "discernment". I dont think any religion or theology is interested in seeking truth afresh, or renewing anything. They believe, as you do, that their ancient texts contain "immutable truths". It is therefore you who have to tell me which tenets you would renew by "reflection" and "discernment", or as you now say "re-think and re-affirm in the light of the Gospel values, taking into account also what modern Science has discovered". Cheers, Santosh
