• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Scientific Knowledge vs. Catholic Dogma

Kephalos

J.M.P.P. R.I.P. B5: RLOAI
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
687
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w4
I came across this article at a Catholic site called "The Catholic Thing":

http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/egopapism-and-the-arlington-five.html

At one point the author compares the development of Catholic dogma with the development of the discipline of computer science. But, I think this comparison misses an important point about scientific knowledge: eventually scientific knowledge changes, and what once was commonly accepted among leading academics may change and become obsolete. That is particularly true of a field like computer science. New scientific theories have the task of explaining phenomena explained by older theories and in addition resolve problems that arise with old theories; sometimes a new solution changes the direction of research and may even overthrow the explanations given in the older theories. But, this is not the case with religious dogma: it must remain the same because, since its believers think it is infallible, why would anyone want to change it? Therefore, any new language introduced into dogma must seek to conform with old dogma in a manner that new scientific opinions may not have to agree with older scientific opinions.

This is because computer science, like numerous other fields of study, is a knowledge tradition.

Over time that tradition, like all others, develops standard practices, ways of assimilating new discoveries and insights into already established understandings, and a hierarchy of expertise that grounds the authority of those in the profession.
Egopapism and the Arlington Five

All that the Church is asking the Arlington Five is that they treat the Church’s theology and its development with as much respect and deference as Ms. Riley expects others to treat the knowledge tradition about which she is an expert.
Egopapism and the Arlington Five

Another interesting parallel that this author makes is between academics working on scientific research and the priestly caste that governs the Catholic Church. But, again, there are crucial differences. On the one hand, there is no need in principle no requirement except perhaps some previous serious study to engage in an academic debate. But, in order to be a part of the body that makes Church doctrine, one needs fit certain criteria that can arbitrarily exclude other people.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
The comparison is fair.

Computer science is a branch of study that deals with specific problems, and computer scientists have developed a body of knowledge and traditions to address them. There is a history of evolving problem-situations and attempted solutions, and there are specialists who devote much of their lives to understanding and trying to solve them. Such people are authorities with regard to computer science. That is, if you had a problem that fell within their domain, then you would likely seek the assistance of a computer scientist.

Much the same thing could be said of Catholic theology. There are people who specialise in problems which afflict Catholicism; they attempt to understand and solve these problems within the confines of particular dogmas. There are, unfortunately, people who devote much of their lives to these tasks, and they are authorities with regard to their particular field of study. If you happened to be a Catholic, then you might seek their advice with regard to particular problems you might have with Catholicism.

The author does not push the comparison further than this. You're quite right: there is a great difference between scientific knowledge and catholic dogma. However, the article you link to really has nothing much to do with this difference but rather correctly draws attention to some similarities.
 

Kephalos

J.M.P.P. R.I.P. B5: RLOAI
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
687
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w4
But the word authority here is used ambiguously. It can mean that someone is an very knowledgeable in some specialized field, for example, an entomologist who is an expert in a very rare species of spider. But the word authority can also be used to mean that someone's own opinion requires assent from everyone else by virtue of some of position in a hierarchy, tradition or some other circumstance. Now, I don't think that authority in the second sense applies to any field of scientific research. It is only out of convenience, because of the advantage of division of labor, that people are used to deferring to the judgment of specialists in all sorts of matters. But, even specialists in the field of theology must in the case of the Catholic Church defer to the judgment of the officers in charge of doctrine.

Another example of the different meanings of authority is the treatment of texts. In some religions some texts are considered authoritative, whose content is binding on people in religious spheres. But outside of religion texts do not have that kind of permanent authority. For example, one might read today Darwin's Descent of Man out of curiosity or while studying the history of science, but it is hardly authoritative in more modern research on the evolution of man, since much more information has become available since then.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Incidentially given that its possible to infer from your post that you believe there is a dichotomy between religion and science, that you find comparisons between the two vexatious why are you surfing to Roman Catholic websites?

Anyway, in so far as that in both the RCC and academia the conserving and transmission of knowledge across generations the preserve of scholarly elites the comparison is fine, there are parallels, just because the selection criteria is more or less open or exclusive for the elite in either case does not actually invalidate that point.

The dogmatics of the RCC is essentially similar to earlier scholars, even scientists, norms of truth and knowledge in so far as what is sought is perrenial and universally true data, scientists used to investigate or seek to discover by investigation these natural laws.

The principle of falsifiability, an 'agnostic' mindset about data, is only a more recent post enstein and post Popper innovation in thinking. It is not itself dogmatically asserted by scientists because if it were you could not perform experiments or research so radical would be your doubt about the likely findings. However, in terms of research norms, dialogue, dispute and 'saving face' among academics who have sometimes to risk stating theoretical hypothesis which can be superseded it no doubt has its uses.
 

Trunks

I'm not Trunks
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
333
I don't know anything about catholic dogma..I like scientific knowledge, its more logic to me.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
But the word authority here is used ambiguously. It can mean that someone is an very knowledgeable in some specialized field, for example, an entomologist who is an expert in a very rare species of spider. But the word authority can also be used to mean that someone's own opinion requires assent from everyone else by virtue of some of position in a hierarchy, tradition or some other circumstance. Now, I don't think that authority in the second sense applies to any field of scientific research. It is only out of convenience, because of the advantage of division of labor, that people are used to deferring to the judgment of specialists in all sorts of matters. But, even specialists in the field of theology must in the case of the Catholic Church defer to the judgment of the officers in charge of doctrine.

Another example of the different meanings of authority is the treatment of texts. In some religions some texts are considered authoritative, whose content is binding on people in religious spheres. But outside of religion texts do not have that kind of permanent authority. For example, one might read today Darwin's Descent of Man out of curiosity or while studying the history of science, but it is hardly authoritative in more modern research on the evolution of man, since much more information has become available since then.

The collection of new data doesn't undermine computer science, it just affirms it! You should join the Catholic Church!
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
But the word authority here is used ambiguously. It can mean that someone is an very knowledgeable in some specialized field, for example, an entomologist who is an expert in a very rare species of spider. But the word authority can also be used to mean that someone's own opinion requires assent from everyone else by virtue of some of position in a hierarchy, tradition or some other circumstance. Now, I don't think that authority in the second sense applies to any field of scientific research. It is only out of convenience, because of the advantage of division of labor, that people are used to deferring to the judgment of specialists in all sorts of matters. But, even specialists in the field of theology must in the case of the Catholic Church defer to the judgment of the officers in charge of doctrine.
The author appears, without coming right out and saying it, to be using the word 'authority' in a much stronger sense than we normally think of scientific authorities. This is, perhaps, a consequence of his belief in incorrigible sources of knowledge that particular 'authorities' have special access to. However, even so, there remains nothing wrong with the comparison he draws between Catholic theology and computer science--he doesn't say they are exactly the same. Presumably, the author does not believe computer scientists have access to the same infallible sources of knowledge as Catholic authorities.

Another example of the different meanings of authority is the treatment of texts. In some religions some texts are considered authoritative, whose content is binding on people in religious spheres. But outside of religion texts do not have that kind of permanent authority. For example, one might read today Darwin's Descent of Man out of curiosity or while studying the history of science, but it is hardly authoritative in more modern research on the evolution of man, since much more information has become available since then.
It seems you want to discuss the philosophical issue of dogmatism versus fallibilism. That's fine; I've spent an awful lot of time thinking about it myself. I don't think this article, or at least your initial criticism of it, are a particularly good way of addressing the matter.
 
S

Society

Guest
i'm with the article on this one - computer science is a technological science not a natural one, it's discoveries are limited to human ingenuity, and most of that ingenuity expands on established protocols, not in the face of them. this is why most coding languages in common use are either specialized or higher level variations of C, such as javascript or python respectively, and C is still holding the throne of the all-father since the 70's.

the higher level of coding we need to do and the more existing systems we need to interact with, the more difficult it would be to make a switch, so even if someone does rewrite a competition for assembler that somehow gains an edge, at this point the edge would have to be so great to convince anyone into making the switch that it's unlikely, and getting less likely by the decade. maybe quantum computing or something like it will do that, but i think its more likely we'll figure out a way to port assembler to it, or some hybrid in which we can make requests from an assembler based command to a quantum processing unit, rather then build a whole new basis for coding. to bring down C you might need a computer science apocalypse.

you are right regarding natural science, but technological sciences are actually a lot closer to traditions then they are to natural sciences: in religion two, it depends on the philosophical innovations of the members within it in order to change, and since they are biased towards their traditions, it gets less likely the older the philosophy gets. it is a growing tradition of how to apply a science more then it is a science, and 1's and 0's have so far successfully remained 1's and 0's.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Religion is falsifiable.

Wait 'til Allah comes and see if we don't have an observation.
No, that's not what 'falsifiable' means.

To be pedantic, a hypothesis is falsifiable if it entails a proposition which contradicts another reporting a logically possible observational event. The statement 'Allah will come' is obviously unfalsifiable, since it doesn't specify when, where, or how to look. No matter how long we wait, it's always possible that we just haven't waited long enough. In other words, the statement 'Allah will come' is consistent with any possible set of observational reports, i.e. it's unfalsifiable.
 
W

WALMART

Guest
No, that's not what 'falsifiable' means.

To be pedantic, a hypothesis is falsifiable if it entails a proposition which contradicts another reporting a logically possible observational event. The statement 'Allah will come' is obviously unfalsifiable, since it doesn't specify when, where, or how to look. No matter how long we wait, it's always possible that we just haven't waited long enough. In other words, the statement 'Allah will come' is consistent with any possible set of observational reports, i.e. it's unfalsifiable.


What an utter waste of effort, I hope your ego feels good.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
You'd think that religious dogma must remain the same because logically that is the purpose of dogma, but historically this is not what happens, and it especially didn't happen in Catholicism.

Throughout history and still today, Catholicism has what are called 'ecumenical councils' which are essentially the high ranking 'bosses' which decide what the doctrines and practices are.

The reason we have so many Orthodox splits in Catholicism is because in a preexisting church, the ecumenical council decided to reinterpret things and a part of the church didn't agree with it, so it split off - so they really were reinventing the dogma. It wasn't that people decided to be different and split off, it was the ecumenical council itself deciding to be different and some people disagreed with it.

Or put more plainly, splits happened because they decided to change the core dogma, and not from the core dogma remaining the same and people deciding they want to make a new one.

Edit: also interestingly, the way they seem to get away with claiming that dogma doesn't change, is by limiting what they call dogma. Most of the doctrine is not technically dogma and there is room for interpretation. Basically the divine infallible truths never change, so they are just really careful about what they say is a divine infallible truth.

However, in the past when the council denounced a heresy they made the denunciation a dogma - which basically means "this was always true and is now divinely revealed to be dogma. We didn't call it dogma before, but now we do, so no more arguments about it"
 
W

WALMART

Guest
Oh, that was a "joke".


Anyways, your assessment of the word "falsifiable" was still incorrect. It simply means that a logic set has a way to be overturned.

Stating God is omnipotent but will never expose himself to our world is non-falsifiable.

God coming and wreaking havoc on the land would falsify atheism. Got it?
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Anyways, your assessment of the word "falsifiable" was still incorrect. It simply means that a logic set has a way to be overturned.
No, that's really not what it 'simply means'. Seriously, go read Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery. In his parlance, a hypothesis is falsifiable if, in conjunction with some set of initial conditions, its consequence class contains a 'basic statement', i.e. a statement corresponding to some observational event. A 'logic set', by which I suppose you mean a set of propositions, may be 'overturned', in the sense of criticised or refuted, by means other than falsification, so what falsifiability simply means is just not what you describe.

Stating God is omnipotent but will never expose himself to our world is non-falsifiable.
What?

First, 'stating' is not falsifiable because only propositions (or statements exemplifying propositions) are falsifiable. Stating is not a description of the facts. It can be true that someone made a statement, and a proposition that someone is stating may be true, but stating itself is an action not a proposition. Second, while it's true that a theory positing an omnipotent God who cannot, in principle, be observed is unfalsifiable, that is true of anything that cannot, in principle, be observed, omnipotent God or invisible teapot. Third, practically nobody, with the possible exception of deists, actually hold such a theory of God; it's such a weird example.

God coming and wreaking havoc on the land would falsify atheism. Got it?
Atheism makes a specific prediction about every moment, i.e. that God will not appear, whether throwing lightning bolts from the sky or handing out free candy. Of course, most theists believe that atheism has, in fact, been falsified. That is, God has appeared and we have corroborating evidence in sources such as The Bible.
 
W

WALMART

Guest
[MENTION=115]reason[/MENTION]

You are obviously a person with a mind leagues beyond me, for I hardly have the attention span to get past for first paragraph. I am forced to withdraw and admit defeat.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Enculturation

Over the millennia Catholicism has adopted the culture of those it wishes to convert. Catholics call this enculturation.

So for instance Catholicism adopted the culture of pagans as part of their conversion, and interesingly, on meeting the Western Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries, Catholicism adopted the culture of the Enlightenment. In particular Catholicism adopted the doctrine of Faith and Reason in imitation of the Enlightenment practice of evidence and reason.

However there is a catch - Catholicism only applies reason to faith.

And so Catholics can claim that they don't believe anything that is unreasonable.

In effect it is sleight-of-hand to gain the kudos of the Enlightenment and science without applying evidence and reason to Catholicism itself.
 
Top