Having trouble using evidence to confirm the Church

[sw85]

Originally Posted by TarkanAttila

I am writing a paper for my College Composition 2 class. Originally my thesis was going to be something akin to "The Catholic Church is the truth, and here is the secular evidence in favour of it". I am writing about this because it seems to be the most important and worthy thing to write about - the foundation of my being. If my faith in God is a waste of time, then what does the rest matter? And if it is true, how to I teach others about it? Through evidence we all can agree on: scientific evidence!

After doing some researching, however, I'm starting to lose confidence in this thesis. (To tell you the truth, I never really had much confidence in it to begin with.)

I keep looking for medicinal journal evidence for anything. Something that isn't a blog or a popular publication, but a real, scholarly article about the scientific truth that seems to coincide with the Church. Maybe I'm not looking thoroughly enough at the articles, but it just seems like every article is AGAINST the Church and has nothing to confirm what is true and good. Just the opposite.

Am I just looking for the wrong kind of evidence? Am I not looking thoroughly enough at the articles? Anyone have any experience defending the Church in a research paper? Know what I ought to be looking for in a paper, or its abstract?

I need help. Maybe I should just withdraw from the class?

It could also be... because I'm not putting enough time and effort into researching... Maybe partially because I'm afraid I'm wrong.

Hello TarkanAttila,

"Evidence" is a logical proof for a material phenomenon. It is necessary for, say, scientific inquiries; but then the Church is not in the business of propagating scientific truths but metaphysical ones. The arguments in defense of its truths are philosophical ones, not scientific or evidential ones. They are arguments that what the Church propagates as truth is necessarily true -- that it follows from universally agreed-upon premises and flows logically to unavoidable conclusions. For an examination of the philosophical truths of the Church, you might start by reading Edward Feser's "The Last Superstition," which weaves together all the giants of classical and medieval philosophy.

There are plenty of things we know to be true for which we have no evidence (or at least no immediate sensory evidence). Speaking personally, I have never sensed the curvature of the earth, nor have I visually confirmed the existence of my own intestines. And more universally there is no evidence to support Euclid's axioms (that's why they're axioms).

Those who claim that scientific evidence is the only kind of knowledge worth having and who reject the claims of metaphysics are, themselves, making a metaphysical argument. (After all, there's no scientific evidence for the claim that scientific evidence is the only kind of knowledge worth having!). Thus, they have already conceded the ground to you in that the question at hand is a fundamentally metaphysical one: a question of epistemology.

Depending on what your assignment is, perhaps you would do well to revise the nature of your paper -- first by arguing the primacy of metaphysics over science, then by presenting the metaphysical arguments.

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by Khalid

I love philosophy. I converted from Eastern Orthodoxy due to Fides et Ratio, i.e. the approval and development of philosophy and philosophical theology in the Church, whereas the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't accept "the corrupted Western rational theology", without which (specifically Thomism) I would never have believed any God exists, let alone in any religion. So don't write off philosophy, beyond a pillar of smoke and fire with multiple independent witnesses, it's the only thing that makes the more intelligent of us believe. Philosophy at the point where its borders with theology blur, is likely the most important discipline one can ever become educated in.

Additionally, it's my understanding brothers of the Society of Jesus must be trained for almost a decade in philosophy, theology, and rhetoric: thus I want to become a Jesuit. And to spread the Word of God.

Khalid:

I must say that your posts have been phenomenal. You have absolutely taken the time to answer the OP to the best of your abilities. I am happy to have met you, even though we're distant. I have been to Columbus many times, so I feel that we're neighbors. Do you live near the university? I learned a long time ago that Columbus was without doubt the best melting-pot city in the US. What do you think of it? Oh well, that's another subject, for another thread.

I am sort of jealous of your becoming a Jesuit Priest. I was taught by Jesuits. (It's too bad that I wasn't more studious, or at least more intelligent!)

God bless,
jd

[Khalid]

I'm about 10km away from Ohio State University main campus. Never have I seen another city with such an odd range of income distribution either. I am not well off, and I live in a low-quality apartment complex that contains some subsidised housing. 5km down the street there are a dozen houses that cost many millions each, and 2km away from that the billionaire who owns "The Limited" and "Victoria's Secret". 7km in another direction is the inner city, and 15km in the opposite direction are large fields, forests, horse, cow, and pig farms, and general "country land" as they call it here.

There's quite a large mix of people of colour too, American blacks, Asians, North and South Africans, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans (the nation, not the religious order), South Americans, Arabs, Subcontinental Indians. All of Europe is pretty well represented to except for the Nordics - lots of Germans. I've lived in places with larger "minority" populations such as Dearborn and Baltimore, but "minority" is a misnomer in such cases because the so-called "minority" is actually the vast majority (Arab Muslims in Dearborn, American blacks in Baltimore). However this is a very strongly area split between the militant Fundamentalist Bibliolaters who consider Roman Catholicism to be "non-Christian" and the equally fundamentalist Atheists who spring like water from an aquifer from all of the liberal arts colleges. The census data says there are almost 25% Catholics here, but they're not in evidence - maybe they're just quieter than the Bible-thumpers: within 3km of my residence there are no less than 7 Protestant churches (Vineyards, Calvary Chapels, smaller non-aligned ones), and 1 Macedonian Orthodox and 1 Catholic. And a Mormon, if you can call it a "church".

In any case, all of America is far more molten than anywhere in Western Asia/Middle East, where the only moltenness of any kind is found in Pakistan, and that's a dozen different kinds of Arabs (Levantine, Circassian, Turk, etc.) and Subcontinental Indians.



And, it's merely a call to become a missionary: it's my preference for the Society of Jesus, but we do not always do what we believe ourselves called to do (for the Priesthood, I'm celibate anyways, "For he who can remain celibate for the Kingdom of God should do so": it is fitting that Catholicism actively encourages it, instead of merely tolerating it, as I have always felt - even as an infidel - that carnal and spiritual things were by their very natures mutually exclusive and damaging to each other) - I don't even know how to go about (or who I would ask) to go through whatever screening process for Jesuit formation is used. Due to the general extreme level of erudition, psychic, moral, spiritual, and especially philosophico-theological apologetic strength that I have seen in the Jesuits I have known.

If you know how one goes about "applying" to Jesuit formation, let me know. I keep threatening to call a priest about it but never have, since I am a recent convert to Christianity in general and even more recent to Roman Catholicism (it seems one would need to be "established" to be accepted even if one has personally heard the Call of the Lord, the same Call that pulled me out of rank superstition and false belief and sent me on to Justification through Christ, is a Call to do whatever I can to spread the Gospel amongst my former brethren so they can know the Religion of God in truth and not delusion, and I'm a natural Thomist theologian/Theist philosopher - I had great strength in sending the false message of Islam, and now pray for God's forgiveness through Jesus and the intercession of Mary and all the Saints to forgive me for any I have lead astray, and must make recompense by devoting even greater zeal to lead to Truth) and have yet to memorise anything except most of the Catechism, lacking memorisation of most of the New Testament outside of Matthew and John, or the Summa Theologiae, City of God, Confessions, Faith of the Fathers, Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church (and most of the Encyclical Letters of import, and "Male and Female" and "Love and Responsibility" etc.; the writings of Wojtyla/John Paul II I find engaging), writings of the Fathers &c. (I am on my first or second reading of most of the non-Bible books) and am lacking in English and Spanish language skills (I believe Jesuits must know both), only able to speak them on a level somewhat below that which I write them.

The last several paragraphs have stretched my ability in English once again, as I had no clear outline when I began: I leave it to the reader to read, and to the intelligent reader to understand and interpret the meanings.

[TarkanAttila]

Originally Posted by Khalid

I love philosophy. I converted from Eastern Orthodoxy due to Fides et Ratio, i.e. the approval and development of philosophy and philosophical theology in the Church, whereas the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't accept "the corrupted Western rational theology", without which (specifically Thomism) I would never have believed any God exists, let alone in any religion. So don't write off philosophy, beyond a pillar of smoke and fire with multiple independent witnesses, it's the only thing that makes the more intelligent of us believe. Philosophy at the point where its borders with theology blur, is likely the most important discipline one can ever become educated in.

Additionally, it's my understanding brothers of the Society of Jesus must be trained for almost a decade in philosophy, theology, and rhetoric: thus I want to become a Jesuit. And to spread the Word of God.

You really think so? It's not that I don't appreciate philosophy. That would be like saying I don't appreciate computers because I don't understand them! I very much like computers. But understanding them, like understanding philosophy, is difficult for me, so I am content not to understand it and leave it to people who do understand it.

Originally Posted by sw85

Hello TarkanAttila,

"Evidence" is a logical proof for a material phenomenon. It is necessary for, say, scientific inquiries; but then the Church is not in the business of propagating scientific truths but metaphysical ones. The arguments in defense of its truths are philosophical ones, not scientific or evidential ones. They are arguments that what the Church propagates as truth is necessarily true -- that it follows from universally agreed-upon premises and flows logically to unavoidable conclusions....

Those who claim that scientific evidence is the only kind of knowledge worth having and who reject the claims of metaphysics are, themselves, making a metaphysical argument. (After all, there's no scientific evidence for the claim that scientific evidence is the only kind of knowledge worth having!). Thus, they have already conceded the ground to you in that the question at hand is a fundamentally metaphysical one: a question of epistemology....

I agree. Really I do. But I've never been able to explain this to anyone, not even myself, except through the words of other people. I believe Archbishop Sheen once said that you know you know something when you can explain it in your own words. I cannot paraphrase my knowledge of philosophy and metaphysics because they are beyond me at this time.

So, in order to pass the class, I have to write about something I DO understand to some degree. And for me, cold, hard, scientific fact is what I understand and can explain to an audience. Most especially about abortion. For sure, I will use some common sense philosophy, because abortion is partially a religious issue. But I think I can, with science, make a case against it. Others already have. I will use what they have learned.

[dostoyevskyfan]

Originally Posted by TarkanAttila

And about historical evidence: what about pre-Christian or even pre-Judaic evidence for the Christianity? Is there any such thing - even if it's only historical evidence a Catholic or Christian would accept?

Thanks, guys.

I don't think Pascal's argument is useless. The objections are easily refuted. Most by Pascal himself in the Pensees. People who claim there's a problem with the argument usually have just read a summary of it on an atheist website.

As far as the above, I'm hoping more scientific study will be performed on the Shroud of Turin. I believe the carbon dating on the shroud was flawed in that the sample of the cloth was a piece of fabric from after the shroud survived a fire. The problem with letting secular scientists experiment on the shroud is that they might destroy it out of hatred of Catholicism. Letting Catholic scientists study the shroud would lead to claims of "bias". I personally believe the Shroud is empirical proof of the resurrection.

Historical evidence ...the pagan historian Thallus' account of the darkness and earthquakes after the crucifixion. Josephus mention of Jesus...you can google all this stuff ...I'm not going to list it. You also might want to read the dialogue between Justin Martyr and Tryphus the jew.

[Charlemagne II]

Tarkan

If my faith in God is a waste of time, then what does the rest matter? And if it is true, how to I teach others about it? Through evidence we all can agree on: scientific evidence!

There's the rub. You are never going to see atheists and Christians agree about whether science substantiates Christianity. The atheist will generally argue that science really asserts atheism, as when Dawkins argued that the theory of evolution made atheism finally respectable.

It's a long read, and some think somewhat outdated (I don't think so) but you might try William Paley's Natural Theology. Paley was a great believer in the teleological proof and introduced the metaphor of the watchmaker in the first pages. Paley followed Newton in seeing intelligent design behind the universe.

These quotes may also help:

Nicolaus Copernicus Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System

“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

Johannes Kepler Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motions

“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

Galileo Galilei Laws of Dynamics

“The Holy Bible and the phenomenon of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”

Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

Benjamin Franklin Electricity, Bifocals, etc.

”Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped.

James Clerk Maxwell Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations

“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen none that will not work without God.”

Lord William Kelvin Laws of Thermodynamics, absolute temperature scale

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

Charles Darwin Theory of Evolution

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Louis Pasteur Germ Theory

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Max Planck Father of Quantum Physics

“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”


J.J. Thompson Discoverer of the Electron

“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

Arthur Compton Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist

“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man.”

Max Born Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

Paul A.M. Dirac Quantum Physicist, Matter-Anti-Matter

“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

George LeMaitre Father of the Big Bang Theory,
“There is no conflict between religion and science.” Reported by Duncan Aikman, New York Times, 1933

Albert Einstein Special and General Theories of Relativity

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921

[Charlemagne II]

sw85

Those who claim that scientific evidence is the only kind of knowledge worth having and who reject the claims of metaphysics are, themselves, making a metaphysical argument. (After all, there's no scientific evidence for the claim that scientific evidence is the only kind of knowledge worth having!). Thus, they have already conceded the ground to you in that the question at hand is a fundamentally metaphysical one: a question of epistemology.

[Charlemagne II]

Tarkan

You may also find this source helpful:

The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom

by Gerald L. Schroeder

This book correlates the known history of the universe according to the Big Bang theory with the Six days of Creation in Genesis. The author has a PhD in physics from M.I.T. and also has impressive credentials in Biblical scholarship.

Pages 84 & 86 were really interesting!

[Khalid]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II

Tarkan

If my faith in God is a waste of time, then what does the rest matter? And if it is true, how to I teach others about it? Through evidence we all can agree on: scientific evidence!

There's the rub. You are never going to see atheists and Christians agree about whether science substantiates Christianity. The atheist will generally argue that science really asserts atheism, as when Dawkins argued that the theory of evolution made atheism finally respectable.

Albert Einstein Special and General Theories of Relativity

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921

It's possible and much easier to prove a Deist God (the God of Newton and Spinoza) than it is to prove a Theist God or Personal God, but, it in any case, it is possible to irrefutably prove (viz. to the point where you can strap QED on to the end of the syllogism) the existence of a God, in the singular, the architect of the multiverse, the first cause, using nothing but pure logic. It's not possible to prove a plurality of gods. Deism is God without Faith, as the Deist God can be proven. The living God requires faith, and thus does not wish to be proven, and He has the power to prove or refuse to allow Himself to be proven in the eyes of Man (although He does not have the power to disprove Himself, as He is bound by the Laws He created: "God is a God of sense, not of confusion").

Anything after that is a matter of theology, actually. To prove the Jewish God is harder; to prove the Christian God (i.e. the Incarnation) is virtually if not actually impossible to prove using pure logic: one must take historical records (which are a form of authority, and thus part of the fallacy argumentum ad auctoritas) as authoritative in addition.

It is somewhat possible to prove or argue for a personal God using arguments from universal morality and similar, as used by CS Lewis (one of the best apologists of Christianity for a lay audience): other arguments, such as the prime mover, argument from design, argument from purpose, argument from transcendence, etc. can go no further than proving the God of Deism - the "Watchmaker God" - but are useful to lay a logical foundation for the belief in the Personal God as well, as the "God-concept" is generally harder to accept for the educated than any specific individual characteristics of that God: that is to say, the "All-Powerful Guy in the Sky" is the hardest-to-grasp part of it: once it has been proven, it's much easier to accept the individual parts, such as personal involvement, revelation, the three omnis, the Incarnation, etc., but one can never prove the Christian God to the QED standard.

[tonyrey]

The best evidence for the truth of Christianity is the teaching of Jesus. We take it for granted because we have grown up with it but I know from experience that it strikes a pagan like a thunderbolt. The truth shines by its own light...

[Charlemagne II]

Khalid

as the "God-concept" is generally harder to accept for the educated than any specific individual characteristics of that God: that is to say, the "All-Powerful Guy in the Sky" is the hardest-to-grasp part of it: once it has been proven, it's much easier to accept the individual parts, such as personal involvement, revelation, the three omnis, the Incarnation, etc., but one can never prove the Christian God to the QED standard.

Interesting. What do you think there is in the psychology of the educated that makes it difficult to accept the "God-concept"?

[Charlemagne II]

tonyrey

The best evidence for the truth of Christianity is the teaching of Jesus. We take it for granted because we have grown up with it but I know from experience that it strikes a pagan like a thunderbolt.

Yeah, loud and clear ... except to the deaf!

[Khalid]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II

Khalid

Interesting. What do you think there is in the psychology of the educated that makes it difficult to accept the "God-concept"?

The reductionist materialism (and related philosophies that all boil down to "materialism") that is so popular, taught as gospel truth, hammered in to the heads of the young in most academically-good colleges in any philosophy, science, psychology, etc. class, not to mention the stigma against religion and the praising of liberalism, political correctness, "multiculturalism" and atheism that abounds in many private liberal arts schools. Religion is made to look "parochial", a superstition the educated would never believe in.

Strict materialism and the supernatural don't mesh well. Arguments need to be put forth that debunk the materialism, whether in itself, or by proving that the materialism can't work (the five ways are good for this) before the God-concept can make any inroads whatsoever, on a purely intellectual level.

Note, I disregard any divine intervention to make someone a believer; I speak of philosophy alone.

[warpspeedpetey]

Originally Posted by TarkanAttila

I am writing a paper for my College Composition 2 class. Originally my thesis was going to be something akin to "The Catholic Church is the truth, and here is the secular evidence in favour of it". I am writing about this because it seems to be the most important and worthy thing to write about - the foundation of my being. If my faith in God is a waste of time, then what does the rest matter? And if it is true, how to I teach others about it? Through evidence we all can agree on: scientific evidence!

After doing some researching, however, I'm starting to lose confidence in this thesis. (To tell you the truth, I never really had much confidence in it to begin with.)

I keep looking for medicinal journal evidence for anything. Something that isn't a blog or a popular publication, but a real, scholarly article about the scientific truth that seems to coincide with the Church. Maybe I'm not looking thoroughly enough at the articles, but it just seems like every article is AGAINST the Church and has nothing to confirm what is true and good. Just the opposite.

Am I just looking for the wrong kind of evidence? Am I not looking thoroughly enough at the articles? Anyone have any experience defending the Church in a research paper? Know what I ought to be looking for in a paper, or its abstract?

I need help. Maybe I should just withdraw from the class?

It could also be... because I'm not putting enough time and effort into researching... Maybe partially because I'm afraid I'm wrong.

Take heart, Christianity is the One True Faith. Christianities truth is mathematically verified by Christs fulfillment of the Jewish Messianic Prophecy. You can research a book by mathematician Dr. Stoner called "Science Speaks" or the subject in general by Googling Messianic Prophecy, mathematics, and odds to get the gist of the arguments. There are dozens of websites that list the prophecies, where they were made and fulfilled to help you also.

[Charlemagne II]

Khalid

Strict materialism and the supernatural don't mesh well.

This reminds me of the old saw: which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I can see materialism being in the way of obstructing our recognition of God. I can also see pride being an obstruction to the knowledge of God. Once God is rejected, materialism is sort of a natural inference that is made.

But I think atheism is, at least in part, more so the angry reluctance of human egos to admit the existence of an EGO (I AM) bigger than their own. Intellect is recruited to justify that anger by constructing suitable support doctrines such as materialism, relativism, even hedonism, etc. ... everything that works against the recognition of God.

Since the Reformation the human ego has become increasingly imperious. The watering down of Christianity through the proliferation of sects and the abolishing of the sacrament of Penance (Confession), which keeps us humble in the presence of God, set the groundwork for the rise of modern virulent atheism.

Modern academia is a great feeding ground for atheism.