Dear Dr.Santosh Helekar,
While you tried to clarify what you said throughout in your postings, let me
also correct your misunderstandings and misquotations.
I have been interested in this problem since my young days, when I used to
find articles in reviews on the topic. But I never had an opportunity to
discuss these points with an 'agnostic scientist'. Thanks for the
opportunity!
Those who have read and understood what I have written
here over the years know that, as a naturalist,
scientist and pluralist, I am indifferent to what
others believe on the basis of their Faith, a
psychological need for some kind of faith, a lifelong
habit, or some other compulsion.
*One thing is to be 'indifferent', another is to attack beliefs in the name
of Science and call it 'hallucination', 'parochial beliefs', 'world of
fantasy', 'psychological need', 'lifelong habit', 'some other compulsion'.
Faith can be also reasonable. It is grounded on motives for credibility.
Every time you come with your 'scientific dogma' to negate Religion or
relegate it to the 'world of fantasy'. Readers in this Forum have already
reacted to your blatant statements about Religion, God, Miracles. I have
nothing against you. I admire your scientific knowledge. You can clarify
readers about superstitions. When you only speak of 'limited scope' of
Science 'to explaining the natural world', how can you give such statements?
You better learn why people believe at all... It cannot be without grounds,
all the people, all the times and places, always...
These are religious people.
*Precisely because they are "religious people" they have integrated Science
with Religion. There is no conflict between Science and Religion. According
to Francisco Ayala: "First, let me challenge from personal experience the
statement that most evolutionists are not religious or even anti-religious.
There are some evolutionists that are so, but I am by no means persuaded
that they are a majority"; and according to Arthur Peacocke: "If you like
it, there is the religion [or the philosophy] that says everything is
knowable through data; therefore there is no God. You may subscribe to that
religion as a scientist. Or you may, as a scientist, subscribe to the other
religion which says beyond what science can do, there is a world of
unknowability in which one finds God. Either way, that's a choice. That's a
free will choice that does not determine how good you are as a scientist".
<<Nowhere do they say that they
believe that faith or Faith plays any role in science.
* I said: "They speak of faith in scientific experiments", here I did not
speak of Faith ('religious faith'). I always distinguished between faith
as a human trust and Faith as a human response to Divine Revelation. I did
not say that Faith plays a role in Science by giving its answers for the
natural phenomena, which is the specific area of Science. But certainly it
can guide people with the meaning of human existence and values.
Assumptions, guidelines, motivations, values in the scientific field are
'faith'...
And yet Fr. Ivo implies that they do. He says below
that "They speak of faith in scientific experiments".
No such affirmation can be found anywhere in what they
have said on that website.
*You cannot find it with your 'scientist lenses'. You cannot do science
without 'faith' and 'hope'. You can verify it empirically to a large
extent. I am reproducing what the scientists said. I do agree with them. I
am giving quotations in another posting because of the space. Just see
Mark Noll: "The element of faith is certainly present in both scientific
endeavor related to origin and also in relationship to God and the world.
But it's a different kind of faith...I actually think, historically
considered, that there is a strong theistic presupposition or theistic
faith in the doing of science. When scientists believe that their minds
are able to grasp some aspects of the reality of the material world, that
is a kind of faith. But it's a different sort of faith than what religious
believers exercise. Our other panelists, particularly Francisco Ayala,
spoke well, I think, of the different tasks of scientists and people of
faith. They're not contrasting, they're not contradictory, but they're
different tasks. And it's just simply appropriate to think of different
inputs, different procedures, different results from scientific enterprise
and from religion".
You wrote: <<the scope of science is limited to explaining the natural
world.
*And yet you conclude that this is the whole Reality... If the scope of
Science is limited, then there are other sources of knowledge. That is
precisely what I have been saying throughout. I called this 'scientism',
'absolutism', 'pedantry'. Please, do not misunderstand me. I never
contradicted you by saying that Science is not the study of natural
phenomena. Science should go on with its 'experimentations' and
'discoveries' within ethical limits. Christian Faith cannot be verified
empirically, but it has its rational grounds of credibility, implications,
consequences, both individual and societal.
You wrote: <<That science has nothing to do with the
supernatural, and that anybody who proclaims that
science points to his God is making a bogus claim.
**You are misquoting me, if you refer to my postings. I have repeated that
Science neither proves nor disproves the existence of God.
Another thing is to say "Science points out to God", because what Science by
itself cannot do, Reason and Revelation can do together with Science...
Regarding the posting of Nigel Brito, I did not agree with him. I only said
that do not call his position "ignorance and illiteracy", because even if he
studies the theory of Evolution, nobody can impose it on him... Many do not
accept it. Yet Evolution should be taught in the schools, colleges and
universities. I have told you that we speak of "creative evolution".
Evolution is taught in Theological Anthropology. Biblically, creationism is
to be discarded. It is biblical fundamentalism.
Please, see that there is no conflict in our writings. You speak of 'gods'
as a mere scientist and think it is a 'superstition' or 'habit' or
'compulsion' or 'psychological need' or 'world of fantasy'. I am speaking of
God in the light of Science, Philosophy and Theology, with a holistic
approach. I am not 'believing' in God because of Science, but because of
Reason and much more because of God's Revelation, as found in the Bible. God
spoke to humankind through the Prophets and finally through his own Son,
Jesus Christ (cf.Hb 1:1-3). This should be clear enough in this Forum which
is secular, that is, destined for all people of all faiths and 'no-faith'...
I believe that the majority of readers in this Forum will be 'believers in
God', not scientists. We do not impose our views. We hope not to be
deceived... Thank you for helping us to revise critically our Faith!
Fr.Ivo
