From: "Santosh Helekar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Fr. Ivo da C. Souza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>We cannot dance at the tune of scientific
>theories.
.....................................
I would qualify now "at the tune of so-called
'scientific' theories".
In this revision of his earlier opinion Fr. Ivo
appears to be implying that some scientific theories
are "so-called scientific" theories. Being a
non-scientist, this distinction of his is very
clearly based on his ideology and/or personal
religious beliefs, rather than a proper understanding
of science.
**Being a scientist, Dr.Santosh does not know that all scientific theories
are
nothing more than representations,
that is, constructions of the natural phenomena. By being representations,
scientific theories cannot aim to know Nature itself. As a consequence, a
scientific theory will never be
complete or definitively true. The natural phenomena can be explained by
several alternate theories, that are
often in competition among themselves for the preference of the scientific
community. A scientific theory can,
and almost surely will, one day, be replaced by another. It is the
possibility of the replacement of one theory by another
that defines and constitutes the scientific progress.
In this line of thought, I said that "we cannot dance at the tune of
scientific/or so-called 'scientific' theories"
while speaking of the Reality of God or metaphysical being or
epistemological processes.
There are some scientific theories which we accept today.
But there are other theories which are entering the scientific platform,
they are still being tested.
Therefore, my statements are not "based on ideology and/or personal
religious beliefs", but on a "proper understanding"
of scientific theories themselves... Faith does not teach the processes of
natural phenomena,
but the process of our salvation and the Reality of God.
It is quite understandable that being a religious
person he has a unresolvable major conflict with the
growing scientific evidence that all mental concepts,
including those of non-physical, non-observable
entities such as god(s), have physical representations
within the brain.
**Being a scientist, Dr.Santosh is repeating his epistemological blunder:
if all mental concepts have 'physical' representations within the brain,
they are "mental representations" of physical or non-physical realities.
A mermaid has a mental representation in our mind, but it does not exist as
a physical reality.
A chair has a mental representation in our mind, it is like a photo, with a
neural basis,
but it is distinct from the reality of a chair. The chair exists outside our
mind.
God has a mental representation in our mind, it is analogical, it is
expressed through images, symbols and myths,
but it is also a reality outside our mind,
and therefore it is not a "figment of our mind". From the neural theory of
the concepts of our mind
one cannot explain away the reality of God, which is neither proved nor
disproved by Science,
but it is assessed in the light of Reason and Revelation. Again, there is no
conflict whatsover
with the growing scientific knowledge, which is welcome to us, 'religious
persons'...
We are grateful to the scientific community, to which Dr.Santosh is
privileged to belong.
Regards.
Fr.Ivo
