More from Fr. Jordan Schmidt, O.P.'s Aquinas 101 creation series: -Biblical Accounts of Creation Through God's Power - th-cam.com/video/wIXL-uYy9eo/w-d-xo.html -Biblical Accounts of Creation With God's Wisdom - th-cam.com/video/fD3BVDUurp4/w-d-xo.html -How Do We Interpret the Genesis Creation Accounts? - th-cam.com/video/d2Ik1ea8yUI/w-d-xo.html
Great video. Thank you. I am a Professor Emeritus who taught Biology at a Catholic university for 37 years. In 2009, the university and its founding Benedictine Abbey sent me to an international conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome on the topic of Evolution and the Catholic Church. We had Cardinals, priests, theologians, biological and physical scientists, and social scientists in attendance. We had presentations and discussions and we all agreed that science and Catholic Christianity are NOT in conflict. One Cardinal stated, as you noted, 'truth cannot contradict truth'. In fact, it seems to me that Catholicism is the Christian church that most enthusiastically endorses science, including evolution, Big Bang cosmology, etc. Makes me proud to be Catholic.
Were any of the scientists present non-Catholics? I have to ask because I find it hard to believe that you _all_ came to the conclusion that the Catholic Christian faith & science are not in conflict. I say this as a Catholic believer myself, only because I know people tend to have a diversity of opinions on almost everything.
"we all agreed that science and Catholic Christianity are NOT in conflict." They are. Science as it is practiced is naturalistic. That makes for a fundamental conflict with Church doctrine and reason itself. The scientific theories of origins contradict scripture, Church doctrine and reason. They attribute powers to nature that nature does not have, and thus make illogical claims of causality in which the supposed causes and effects do not correspond. "One Cardinal stated, as you noted, 'truth cannot contradict truth'." This is a stupid thing to say to justify scientific theories. Science is a naturalistic methodology, not truth. And scientists are not necessarily committed to seeking the truth. Truth must be sought by reason and logic, not naturalistic ways of thinking. And seeking the truth about nature must not exclude or conflict with the knowledge provided by the Church doctrine and scripture. "it seems to me that Catholicism is the Christian church that most enthusiastically endorses science, including evolution, Big Bang cosmology, etc." The Church does not endorse scientific theories. You are confusing the opinions of some modern clerics and theologians and teachers with the Church itself.
@@anthonypuccetti8779 I disagree with YOU, Anthony, about many things. Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, in his book 'Rocks of Ages, Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life' argues that science and religion are too separate 'magisteria' with different methodologies and addressing different questions and issues. Therefore, they cannot be in conflict. A full view of reality requires both. The problem I have with religious fundamentalists (who deny science) and advocates of scientism (who deny religion) is that both views are based on a literal mis-reading of OT Scriptures, such as the Genesis creation myths. Rather, the OT consists mainly of stories which are religious allegories. They teach religious lessons and are not intended as history. Biblical literalism is lazy and shows little or no actual attempt to understand the writings within their historical and religious context. You make the absurd statement that 'scientists are not necessarily committed to seeking the truth. Truth must be sought by reason and logic, not naturalistic ways of thinking.' Scientists DO seek truth in discovering what is real about the physical universe. But this does not extend to metaphysical questions of religion which is not naturalistic. You are correct about one thing. Religious doctrine does not include science. When Darwin's discovery of evolution by natural selection became a widely debatable issue, the Church initially took no stand either way. Rather, Catholic theologians waited to see how scientists responded to Darwin's discovery. (One idea at the time was that mutation rather than natural selection is the major driving force of evolution. However, further evidence showed that Darwin was correct.) However, authorities in 'The Church' have written in support of science in general and evolution in particular. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences in a treatise 'Recent Advances in the Evolution of Primates' states that "We freely acknowledge that there is room for differences of opinion on such problems as species formation and the mechanisms of evolutionary change. Nonetheless, we are convinced that masses of evidence render the application of the concept of evolution beyond serious dispute." Pope John Paul II, in his message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 stated "We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (Leo XIII, Encyclical Providentissimus Deus).Pius XII had already stated that there is no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of faith." (I should note that several main-line religious groups, Protestant and Jewish also have written in support of the science of evolution.)
@@alfredmartin2891 Gould was wrong. The teachings of the Church and the scientific establishment are in conflict. Naturalistic theories of origins necessarily contradict Church doctrine. "Science" is not an infallible teaching authority, it is a naturalistic methodology that uses bad logic and makes false claims about causality. And it is a tool of social control for oligarchs and governments. "The problem I have with religious fundamentalists (who deny science) and advocates of scientism (who deny religion) is that both views are based on a literal mis-reading of OT Scriptures, such as the Genesis creation myths." The creation accounts in Genesis are written in the literal historical sense. They are not myths. The Church Fathers and later saints affirmed their historicity. No one said they were myths until after evolution theory was accepted by the elites and most of the intellectuals and scholars. There is no metaphorical meaning to saying God created this or that. Its a statement of fact. The Pontifical Biblical Commission said that the literal historical sense of Genesis may not be cast in doubt. The Church teaches that God created all things through Jesus Christ his Logos, out of nothing, at once and by his own power. That excludes natural processes and a long period of time. The Church's doctrine of creation is not a fallible private interpretation of Genesis, it is an infallible teaching that came from apostolic tradition. Theistic evolutionists pretend that the literal reading of Genesis is a protestant fundamentalist thing, but its obviously the traditional belief of the Catholic Church. And in recent years many Catholics who used to believe in evolution theory have rejected it and now hold the traditional view of Genesis and the traditional Church doctrine of creation. Scientific theories of origins are losing credibility as more and more people are publicly criticizing them and teaching the traditional doctrine of creation.
@@anthonypuccetti8779 Wow. You're a Catholic fundamentalist and a science illiterate. I hope that disease doesn't spread very far. And, NO, Gould is correct. I know many Catholic scholars in different disciplines who would agree with me about the roles of science and religion. By the way, there are two accounts of creation in Genesis and they are contradictory in many details. Also the flood myth (with two contradicting accounts) is obviously based on the older Babylonian myth called 'The Epic of Gilgamesh' from the same area of the world. There are too many similarities for it to be a coincidence. The early Hebrew writers of the flood myth recast the well-known Gilgamesh story to teach that GOD created the world rather than the mythical Babylonian god Marduk in the Gilgamesh story. A Catholic theologian once told me that both creation and human evolution are true and can be reconciled. God put a divine spirit (the soul) into an evolving primate. The soul, the divine essence, is how we are specially created in the image and likeness of God. Furthermore, the evolving world of life from non-life and the origin of the entire physical universe is testimony to the great creative power of God.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🌌 Tension between Faith and Science is emblematic, but is the conflict real? Can biblical faith and science coexist? 01:26 📚 Some argue Faith clashes with scientific progress, dismissing the Bible as cultural artifact. Catholic Church seeks harmony between faith and science. 02:46 🧩 Galileo's syllogism suggests truth in both faith and science, calling for reconciliation of their messages. 04:06 🛠️ Church aims to reconcile Bible and science, not correct Bible with science. Need to interpret Bible properly in historical and theological contexts. 06:21 ✒️ Church doctrine of inspiration: Bible authored by both humans and God, conveying salvific truth without error. 07:12 🔍 Interpreting Scripture requires understanding both historical context and divine significance. 08:09 🌍 Exploring what the Bible teaches about God's creation and relationship with the universe comes next.
Thank you so much for these videos. They will help to both preserve and strengthen the faith of many people. May God richly reward you for your efforts and may the fruit of those efforts continually increase.
Anyone notice how the creation story lines up perfectly with science? For instance the order in which life appears on Earth, first in the oceans then on land. Vegetation first and humans last.
The creation story lines up perfectly with science?" They don't. They are completely different. Evolution theory is naturalistic and contradicts scripture, Church doctrine and reason. It attributes powers to nature that nature does not have, and thus make illogical claims of causality in which the supposed causes and effects do not correspond.
First you define Faith, define Science and please throw in Dogma while you are at it. Faith and religous practices are two different things, maybe at the same level that Science and Scientism are different
St Augustine in his commentary on the Book of Genesis explains and dealt with this over 1700 years ago. The Scriptures contain spiritual and moral truths. They contain wisdom, history and law. The scientific perspective of the authors is exactly that of their times and this is a proof of the various books authenticity and antiquity. There is no contradiction as the various sciences are concerned with understanding the material world. They are concerned with the how. Scripture is concerned with the why and in the important crucial questions of how to live, the meaning of the material world, or what is beyond the material world and on the reality of being a human in the material world interacting with ourselves, others, other creatures and the natural world.
When I first read that commentary it was an eye-opener on scripture & the Church's actual relationship with science. It would be nice to include these commentaries into our Catholic secondary schools, either as part of religious ed or science classes, because students definitely have these questions or discussions outside the classroom whether teachers realise it or not. Secular media (& pop culture) often ignores or misrepresents the Church's approach to science & young Catholics are left disappointed by what they perceive to be the Church's anti-intellectual history.
Lets keep this simple. New testament: 1. Jesus was born of a virgen 2. Walked on water 3. Turned water to wine and multiplied fish supply. 4. Brought the dead back to live. 5. Died and resurrected Old Testament 1. God created the world in 6 days 2. Jonas was trapped in a giant fish for 30 days. 3. Moses parted the red sea 4. God flooded the earth. Species were saved in Noah's ark. 5. Created men Adam and out of his rib created Eve. Which of these are true? If none of them are, them the whole religion is a ferry tale. I prefer the Marvel universe.
Perhaps a misspeak. The point is that Dawkins overreaches in his criticism of religion. Anyone who says a scientific mind has no place for faith is just wrong.
@@stevendebettencourt7651 Scientists, as individuals, may or may not be people of faith. But science, as a process, has no place for faith. Faith, in the religious sense, is not a path to truth.
@@maxxam3590 Well, it’s not that science has no place for faith, it’s just that science cannot deal with the divine. The Scientific Method, while robust, has limits, and we must always keep that in mind
What is your attitude to Emanuel Swedenborg teachings about the fact, that angels are spiritually developed people ( not a separate race), and demons - spiritually degraded? And to his sayings that the Bible shouldn't be understood straightforwardly, but has the hidden messages, like the story about Satan ( Swedenborg claims it is not a separate person, but the description of an evil person, so everyone of us could be named Satan, if we do evil actions)?
The Bible's presentation of truths relates to our meaning and purposes of existence as God's creation and above all our relationships with God. The Bible came to be written already in full faith that the one living God exists because, as stated, the author of the Bible is God through human writers who received God's callings. The Bible is not a thesis on the search for scientific truths, or a search for God, but rather, as I remember Bishop Barron puts it, God's story of how He reaches out to us. And hence, scientific knowledge about the material workings of the physical universe through the scientific method is irrelevant to how the Bible is, or "should be", written and to the purposes of why the Bible is there in the first place. As a humble analogy, it's like a cooking or recipe book which deals with how we can utilize ingredients and the various cooking equipment available to make good food, and such a book doesn't deal with how a stove is assembled or how refrigerators work according to thermodynamics. Also, the Bible, having the Word of God in it, is not a book that anyone can utilize as he/she wishes, but it has an authority that is directly connected to the same authority that governs the Church, namely Jesus Himself being the Word of God. The Bible and the Catholic Church cannot be separated, the Church herself being the mystical Body of Christ and the new Israel. The Bible is also not a "book of morality" to be treated as a casual book with a purpose to give general instructions for a general public who wants to "live well" or to search for a god that suits their purpose, with the result that it is often mistakenly viewed as a book with "contradictions" and "bad morals" by non-Christians or unbelievers. As the Catechism (No.95) puts it, "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls." Scientific knowledge itself can never, and no matter how one wants to proclaim that there is no objective morality, be a guide to morality and how we treat each other. As soon as people see others as mere collections of atoms and molecules no different than a grass or a fish or a dog, and as history and current events have clearly testified, we are in deep darkness. Scientific "truths" are not universal truths, are not existential truths, and can never give light to everything there is because science is not only just creation, but science rests solely upon visible evidence and it relies on imperfect human perspectives and subjectivity affected by political and social conditions. And hence, science doesn't deserve first place, not even close, to how we orient our lives. It is science that serves us, not we who come to serve science. Science is the natural explanation of how things mechanically work together following God's divine power. Science is not the reason why things exist, things that came to exist gave birth naturally to science because they are sustained in logical and natural existence, and things exist because of the power of God.
We distinguish between science per se and science developed by some scientists. Science per se cannot contradict faith because its source is the same God as the author of nature and the Author of revelation. However, 'this science' or the science developed by a scientist or group of scientists may contradict faith. For instance, why would we believe the Copernican theory cuddled by Galileo? The copernican theory is heliocentric than geocentric which the Bible teaches? Nowadays, there are proofs to debunk the Copernican theory, does the earth revolve around the Sun? There are scientific proofs to prove the earth is not global; there are valid proofs to debunk that Man really and actually landed on the moon which is consistent to what the Bible says that the sun and moon are lights (photons) hence they are not solid but lights. So how can man land on the moon as light? Those astronauts would not even swear by the Bible that they indeed landed on the moon. Until now there is no authentic photo of the earth from Outerspace. NASA admits those earth photos are PHOTOSHOPPED by which NASA admits they cannot take photos of the earth from the Outerspace. I believe the Word of God rather than the words of man which find no evidence.
Why did he say Dawkins and Harris are not scientific experts? They are qualified scientists. That they are right when they talk about religion is another máster entirely, though.
It’s not impossible … I think the number was probably closer to 100 though … although … *Thinks about Sampson vs a thousand armed men put into video games a la Romance of the Three Kingdoms/Dynasty Warriors* You know, a lot of history could use the Koei treatment. Joshua holding the Sun and Moon in the sky would be particularly epic, though I’m not sure how scientifically you could pull that off.
Edit: My comments in these videos often get many replies, but never from anyone at the Thomistic Institute You insist on how this conflict is just "apparent" and how in fact science and faith are not in contradiction but then I have a question: Why do people, guided by faith, often believe in things which later turn out to not be true? If faith and science were really in harmony this would never happen
That's a great question. I'll ask the correlary to that question. "Why do people, guided by science, often believe things about God that are not true at all?" The answer to both questions? Ignorance (lack of knowledge). And applying theological expertise and tools to scientific subjects, and applying scientific knowledge and tools to theological subjects. Your final statement "If faith and science were really in harmony this would never happen" would only be true in a perfect world. 1. Honest, properly practiced theology will ALWAYS lead us closer to a better understanding of the natural world. (This is true because of who God is and what He's done.) 2. Honest, properly practiced science that does NOT carry a prima facie assumption that God does NOT exist, will ALWAYS lead us to a better understanding of God's nature, confirming His existence. The Enlightenment was fueled by God, NOT man. He knew that good science could never happen as long as religious politicians were meddling with science. In almost all cases, a theologian who makes scientific proclamations looks like an utter fool, proud of his own ignorance. And of course, scientists who make similar proclamations about the nature of God out of complete ignorance, lack of experience, and lack of effort to discover Him, sound like 13 year old boys who are just beginning their spiritual journey. IOW - Vapid and vain. As a man of faith and a lover of science, I've found hints of scientific truths throughout scripture, written with the understanding of non-scientists thousands of years ago. There's even a scripture talks about the atomic forces and what would happen if they were released. (One of the clearest examples of this is a description of the Big Bang in Genesis.)
@@bkf8166 But here's the thing: you imply that ignorance misguides people, but if you believe something by faith, as revelation, then it should never change. Revelation should be immune to ignorance precisely because it's revelation, and yet, beliefs based on faith and revelation have been abandoned when they were proven to be false Which of your beliefs based on faith could change if science contradicts them?. You probably would answer "none" and yet, that's what people before you would have answered too
@@falnica You're completely mistating faith. I don't have faith in a "thing", but in a person. My faith is in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. What you're describing as faith is actually just MY understanding of either what scripture says, OR what I believe God has spoken to me personally. I don't believe things about the world by faith, especially the blind faith that you're describing. Faith is never blind. God has earned my trust over time, which in turn has strengthened my faith in Him. Paul said "And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love." IOW - Experience in relationship with God had built his trust in God. You said "...and yet, beliefs based on faith and revelation have been abandoned when they were proven to be false." Exactly! That's the process that I'm talking about. As I spend time with Him, he corrects my beliefs and "revelations". You asked "Which of your beliefs based on faith could change if science contradicts them?" ANY of them, as long as the science is sound and unbiased. Remember, scripture is NOT a scientific text. It's a theological text. Scripture tells us the scripture is written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the USE of the Holy Spirit. IOW - It's a tool that the Holy Spirit uses to direct us and bring us into a better understanding of God. Hope that helps. Good questions. EDIT: BTW - Of course ignorance misleads people. That's what ignorance is - lacking knowledge to make the right decision.
The truth of the Bible is found and interpreted by each according to his or her time and place. The bible cannot be interpreted just literally. It is called the living bible.
More from Fr. Jordan Schmidt, O.P.'s Aquinas 101 creation series:
-Biblical Accounts of Creation Through God's Power - th-cam.com/video/wIXL-uYy9eo/w-d-xo.html
-Biblical Accounts of Creation With God's Wisdom - th-cam.com/video/fD3BVDUurp4/w-d-xo.html
-How Do We Interpret the Genesis Creation Accounts? - th-cam.com/video/d2Ik1ea8yUI/w-d-xo.html
Great video. Thank you. I am a Professor Emeritus who taught Biology at a Catholic university for 37 years. In 2009, the university and its founding Benedictine Abbey sent me to an international conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome on the topic of Evolution and the Catholic Church. We had Cardinals, priests, theologians, biological and physical scientists, and social scientists in attendance. We had presentations and discussions and we all agreed that science and Catholic Christianity are NOT in conflict. One Cardinal stated, as you noted, 'truth cannot contradict truth'. In fact, it seems to me that Catholicism is the Christian church that most enthusiastically endorses science, including evolution, Big Bang cosmology, etc. Makes me proud to be Catholic.
Were any of the scientists present non-Catholics? I have to ask because I find it hard to believe that you _all_ came to the conclusion that the Catholic Christian faith & science are not in conflict. I say this as a Catholic believer myself, only because I know people tend to have a diversity of opinions on almost everything.
"we all agreed that science and Catholic Christianity are NOT in conflict."
They are. Science as it is practiced is naturalistic. That makes for a fundamental conflict with Church doctrine and reason itself. The scientific theories of origins contradict scripture, Church doctrine and reason. They attribute powers to nature that nature does not have, and thus make illogical claims of causality in which the supposed causes and effects do not correspond.
"One Cardinal stated, as you noted, 'truth cannot contradict truth'."
This is a stupid thing to say to justify scientific theories. Science is a naturalistic methodology, not truth. And scientists are not necessarily committed to seeking the truth. Truth must be sought by reason and logic, not naturalistic ways of thinking. And seeking the truth about nature must not exclude or conflict with the knowledge provided by the Church doctrine and scripture.
"it seems to me that Catholicism is the Christian church that most enthusiastically endorses science, including evolution, Big Bang cosmology, etc."
The Church does not endorse scientific theories. You are confusing the opinions of some modern clerics and theologians and teachers with the Church itself.
@@anthonypuccetti8779 I disagree with YOU, Anthony, about many things. Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, in his book 'Rocks of Ages, Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life' argues that science and religion are too separate 'magisteria' with different methodologies and addressing different questions and issues. Therefore, they cannot be in conflict. A full view of reality requires both. The problem I have with religious fundamentalists (who deny science) and advocates of scientism (who deny religion) is that both views are based on a literal mis-reading of OT Scriptures, such as the Genesis creation myths. Rather, the OT consists mainly of stories which are religious allegories. They teach religious lessons and are not intended as history. Biblical literalism is lazy and shows little or no actual attempt to understand the writings within their historical and religious context. You make the absurd statement that 'scientists are not necessarily committed to seeking the truth. Truth must be sought by reason and logic, not naturalistic ways of thinking.' Scientists DO seek truth in discovering what is real about the physical universe. But this does not extend to metaphysical questions of religion which is not naturalistic. You are correct about one thing. Religious doctrine does not include science. When Darwin's discovery of evolution by natural selection became a widely debatable issue, the Church initially took no stand either way. Rather, Catholic theologians waited to see how scientists responded to Darwin's discovery. (One idea at the time was that mutation rather than natural selection is the major driving force of evolution. However, further evidence showed that Darwin was correct.) However, authorities in 'The Church' have written in support of science in general and evolution in particular. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences in a treatise 'Recent Advances in the Evolution of Primates' states that "We freely acknowledge that there is room for differences of opinion on such problems as species formation and the mechanisms of evolutionary change. Nonetheless, we are convinced that masses of evidence render the application of the concept of evolution beyond serious dispute." Pope John Paul II, in his message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 stated "We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (Leo XIII, Encyclical Providentissimus Deus).Pius XII had already stated that there is no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of faith." (I should note that several main-line religious groups, Protestant and Jewish also have written in support of the science of evolution.)
@@alfredmartin2891 Gould was wrong. The teachings of the Church and the scientific establishment are in conflict. Naturalistic theories of origins necessarily contradict Church doctrine. "Science" is not an infallible teaching authority, it is a naturalistic methodology that uses bad logic and makes false claims about causality. And it is a tool of social control for oligarchs and governments.
"The problem I have with religious fundamentalists (who deny science) and advocates of scientism (who deny religion) is that both views are based on a literal mis-reading of OT Scriptures, such as the Genesis creation myths."
The creation accounts in Genesis are written in the literal historical sense. They are not myths. The Church Fathers and later saints affirmed their historicity. No one said they were myths until after evolution theory was accepted by the elites and most of the intellectuals and scholars. There is no metaphorical meaning to saying God created this or that. Its a statement of fact. The Pontifical Biblical Commission said that the literal historical sense of Genesis may not be cast in doubt. The Church teaches that God created all things through Jesus Christ his Logos, out of nothing, at once and by his own power. That excludes natural processes and a long period of time. The Church's doctrine of creation is not a fallible private interpretation of Genesis, it is an infallible teaching that came from apostolic tradition. Theistic evolutionists pretend that the literal reading of Genesis is a protestant fundamentalist thing, but its obviously the traditional belief of the Catholic Church. And in recent years many Catholics who used to believe in evolution theory have rejected it and now hold the traditional view of Genesis and the traditional Church doctrine of creation. Scientific theories of origins are losing credibility as more and more people are publicly criticizing them and teaching the traditional doctrine of creation.
@@anthonypuccetti8779 Wow. You're a Catholic fundamentalist and a science illiterate. I hope that disease doesn't spread very far. And, NO, Gould is correct. I know many Catholic scholars in different disciplines who would agree with me about the roles of science and religion. By the way, there are two accounts of creation in Genesis and they are contradictory in many details. Also the flood myth (with two contradicting accounts) is obviously based on the older Babylonian myth called 'The Epic of Gilgamesh' from the same area of the world. There are too many similarities for it to be a coincidence. The early Hebrew writers of the flood myth recast the well-known Gilgamesh story to teach that GOD created the world rather than the mythical Babylonian god Marduk in the Gilgamesh story. A Catholic theologian once told me that both creation and human evolution are true and can be reconciled. God put a divine spirit (the soul) into an evolving primate. The soul, the divine essence, is how we are specially created in the image and likeness of God. Furthermore, the evolving world of life from non-life and the origin of the entire physical universe is testimony to the great creative power of God.
Not to undermine the serious nature of the video, but Fr. Schmidt has an excellent voice
Cheers! Thanks for watching, and may the Lord bless you!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🌌 Tension between Faith and Science is emblematic, but is the conflict real? Can biblical faith and science coexist?
01:26 📚 Some argue Faith clashes with scientific progress, dismissing the Bible as cultural artifact. Catholic Church seeks harmony between faith and science.
02:46 🧩 Galileo's syllogism suggests truth in both faith and science, calling for reconciliation of their messages.
04:06 🛠️ Church aims to reconcile Bible and science, not correct Bible with science. Need to interpret Bible properly in historical and theological contexts.
06:21 ✒️ Church doctrine of inspiration: Bible authored by both humans and God, conveying salvific truth without error.
07:12 🔍 Interpreting Scripture requires understanding both historical context and divine significance.
08:09 🌍 Exploring what the Bible teaches about God's creation and relationship with the universe comes next.
Awesome video an explanation, thanks to the Aquinas 101 team for their ongoing efforts 👌
Our pleasure! Thanks for watching, and may the Lord bless you!
Great video, and a pleasant voice to listen to. Thank you, Fr. Jordan.
Cheers, thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you.
Thank you so much for these videos. They will help to both preserve and strengthen the faith of many people. May God richly reward you for your efforts and may the fruit of those efforts continually increase.
Thanks for watching and for your kind words! May the Lord bless you.
Anyone notice how the creation story lines up perfectly with science? For instance the order in which life appears on Earth, first in the oceans then on land. Vegetation first and humans last.
The creation story lines up perfectly with science?" They don't. They are completely different. Evolution theory is naturalistic and contradicts scripture, Church doctrine and reason. It attributes powers to nature that nature does not have, and thus make illogical claims of causality in which the supposed causes and effects do not correspond.
Well done, Father Schmidt
Thank you! May the Lord bless you!
Thank you Father.
Thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you.
Please, talk about poligenism, monogenism and the original sin dogma.
First you define Faith, define Science and please throw in Dogma while you are at it.
Faith and religous practices are two different things, maybe at the same level that Science and Scientism are different
St Augustine in his commentary on the Book of Genesis explains and dealt with this over 1700 years ago. The Scriptures contain spiritual and moral truths. They contain wisdom, history and law. The scientific perspective of the authors is exactly that of their times and this is a proof of the various books authenticity and antiquity. There is no contradiction as the various sciences are concerned with understanding the material world. They are concerned with the how. Scripture is concerned with the why and in the important crucial questions of how to live, the meaning of the material world, or what is beyond the material world and on the reality of being a human in the material world interacting with ourselves, others, other creatures and the natural world.
When I first read that commentary it was an eye-opener on scripture & the Church's actual relationship with science. It would be nice to include these commentaries into our Catholic secondary schools, either as part of religious ed or science classes, because students definitely have these questions or discussions outside the classroom whether teachers realise it or not. Secular media (& pop culture) often ignores or misrepresents the Church's approach to science & young Catholics are left disappointed by what they perceive to be the Church's anti-intellectual history.
Lets keep this simple.
New testament:
1. Jesus was born of a virgen
2. Walked on water
3. Turned water to wine and multiplied fish supply.
4. Brought the dead back to live.
5. Died and resurrected
Old Testament
1. God created the world in 6 days
2. Jonas was trapped in a giant fish for 30 days.
3. Moses parted the red sea
4. God flooded the earth. Species were saved in Noah's ark.
5. Created men Adam and out of his rib created Eve.
Which of these are true? If none of them are, them the whole religion is a ferry tale. I prefer the Marvel universe.
1:20
What do you mean Richard Dawkins isn't a scientific expert?
Perhaps a misspeak. The point is that Dawkins overreaches in his criticism of religion. Anyone who says a scientific mind has no place for faith is just wrong.
@@stevendebettencourt7651 Scientists, as individuals, may or may not be people of faith. But science, as a process, has no place for faith.
Faith, in the religious sense, is not a path to truth.
@@maxxam3590 Well, it’s not that science has no place for faith, it’s just that science cannot deal with the divine. The Scientific Method, while robust, has limits, and we must always keep that in mind
@@stevendebettencourt7651 What exactly is "the divine"? Is it something factually real? If so, could you prove it?
Awesome video!
Cheers, thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!
Can we reconcile contradictory statements---the Word of God (Scriptures) and the word of men about creation?
What is your attitude to Emanuel Swedenborg teachings about the fact, that angels are spiritually developed people ( not a separate race), and demons - spiritually degraded? And to his sayings that the Bible shouldn't be understood straightforwardly, but has the hidden messages, like the story about Satan ( Swedenborg claims it is not a separate person, but the description of an evil person, so everyone of us could be named Satan, if we do evil actions)?
The Bible's presentation of truths relates to our meaning and purposes of existence as God's creation and above all our relationships with God. The Bible came to be written already in full faith that the one living God exists because, as stated, the author of the Bible is God through human writers who received God's callings. The Bible is not a thesis on the search for scientific truths, or a search for God, but rather, as I remember Bishop Barron puts it, God's story of how He reaches out to us. And hence, scientific knowledge about the material workings of the physical universe through the scientific method is irrelevant to how the Bible is, or "should be", written and to the purposes of why the Bible is there in the first place. As a humble analogy, it's like a cooking or recipe book which deals with how we can utilize ingredients and the various cooking equipment available to make good food, and such a book doesn't deal with how a stove is assembled or how refrigerators work according to thermodynamics.
Also, the Bible, having the Word of God in it, is not a book that anyone can utilize as he/she wishes, but it has an authority that is directly connected to the same authority that governs the Church, namely Jesus Himself being the Word of God. The Bible and the Catholic Church cannot be separated, the Church herself being the mystical Body of Christ and the new Israel. The Bible is also not a "book of morality" to be treated as a casual book with a purpose to give general instructions for a general public who wants to "live well" or to search for a god that suits their purpose, with the result that it is often mistakenly viewed as a book with "contradictions" and "bad morals" by non-Christians or unbelievers. As the Catechism (No.95) puts it, "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."
Scientific knowledge itself can never, and no matter how one wants to proclaim that there is no objective morality, be a guide to morality and how we treat each other. As soon as people see others as mere collections of atoms and molecules no different than a grass or a fish or a dog, and as history and current events have clearly testified, we are in deep darkness. Scientific "truths" are not universal truths, are not existential truths, and can never give light to everything there is because science is not only just creation, but science rests solely upon visible evidence and it relies on imperfect human perspectives and subjectivity affected by political and social conditions. And hence, science doesn't deserve first place, not even close, to how we orient our lives. It is science that serves us, not we who come to serve science. Science is the natural explanation of how things mechanically work together following God's divine power. Science is not the reason why things exist, things that came to exist gave birth naturally to science because they are sustained in logical and natural existence, and things exist because of the power of God.
..."The bible is the Word of God in the words of men."...
We distinguish between science per se and science developed by some scientists. Science per se cannot contradict faith because its source is the same God as the author of nature and the Author of revelation. However, 'this science' or the science developed by a scientist or group of scientists may contradict faith. For instance, why would we believe the Copernican theory cuddled by Galileo? The copernican theory is heliocentric than geocentric which the Bible teaches? Nowadays, there are proofs to debunk the Copernican theory, does the earth revolve around the Sun? There are scientific proofs to prove the earth is not global; there are valid proofs to debunk that Man really and actually landed on the moon which is consistent to what the Bible says that the sun and moon are lights (photons) hence they are not solid but lights. So how can man land on the moon as light? Those astronauts would not even swear by the Bible that they indeed landed on the moon. Until now there is no authentic photo of the earth from Outerspace. NASA admits those earth photos are PHOTOSHOPPED by which NASA admits they cannot take photos of the earth from the Outerspace. I believe the Word of God rather than the words of man which find no evidence.
Why did he say Dawkins and Harris are not scientific experts? They are qualified scientists. That they are right when they talk about religion is another máster entirely, though.
The Bible is the well, the words are the conduit or infrastructure for which the living water can be realized by those who are thirsty.
Does that mean Samson singlehandedly took out a thousand armed soldiers with a jaw bone?
It’s not impossible … I think the number was probably closer to 100 though … although …
*Thinks about Sampson vs a thousand armed men put into video games a la Romance of the Three Kingdoms/Dynasty Warriors*
You know, a lot of history could use the Koei treatment. Joshua holding the Sun and Moon in the sky would be particularly epic, though I’m not sure how scientifically you could pull that off.
You can have both.
Ah yes, the great Thomist theologian *checks notes* Galileo.
Don’t check to see what any of the Thomists in Galileo’s own say thought of him.
Millions of lost birthdays…. What happened to all those babies……?
🤙🤙🤙
Edit: My comments in these videos often get many replies, but never from anyone at the Thomistic Institute
You insist on how this conflict is just "apparent" and how in fact science and faith are not in contradiction but then I have a question:
Why do people, guided by faith, often believe in things which later turn out to not be true?
If faith and science were really in harmony this would never happen
Hi, good question, but what do you mean by "things"?
Yes. What do you mean by things? We don’t actually believe in a thing that later turns into nothing.
That's a great question. I'll ask the correlary to that question.
"Why do people, guided by science, often believe things about God that are not true at all?"
The answer to both questions? Ignorance (lack of knowledge). And applying theological expertise and tools to scientific subjects, and applying scientific knowledge and tools to theological subjects.
Your final statement "If faith and science were really in harmony this would never happen" would only be true in a perfect world.
1. Honest, properly practiced theology will ALWAYS lead us closer to a better understanding of the natural world. (This is true because of who God is and what He's done.)
2. Honest, properly practiced science that does NOT carry a prima facie assumption that God does NOT exist, will ALWAYS lead us to a better understanding of God's nature, confirming His existence.
The Enlightenment was fueled by God, NOT man. He knew that good science could never happen as long as religious politicians were meddling with science.
In almost all cases, a theologian who makes scientific proclamations looks like an utter fool, proud of his own ignorance. And of course, scientists who make similar proclamations about the nature of God out of complete ignorance, lack of experience, and lack of effort to discover Him, sound like 13 year old boys who are just beginning their spiritual journey. IOW - Vapid and vain.
As a man of faith and a lover of science, I've found hints of scientific truths throughout scripture, written with the understanding of non-scientists thousands of years ago. There's even a scripture talks about the atomic forces and what would happen if they were released. (One of the clearest examples of this is a description of the Big Bang in Genesis.)
@@bkf8166 But here's the thing: you imply that ignorance misguides people, but if you believe something by faith, as revelation, then it should never change.
Revelation should be immune to ignorance precisely because it's revelation, and yet, beliefs based on faith and revelation have been abandoned when they were proven to be false
Which of your beliefs based on faith could change if science contradicts them?. You probably would answer "none" and yet, that's what people before you would have answered too
@@falnica You're completely mistating faith. I don't have faith in a "thing", but in a person. My faith is in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
What you're describing as faith is actually just MY understanding of either what scripture says, OR what I believe God has spoken to me personally. I don't believe things about the world by faith, especially the blind faith that you're describing.
Faith is never blind. God has earned my trust over time, which in turn has strengthened my faith in Him. Paul said "And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love." IOW - Experience in relationship with God had built his trust in God.
You said "...and yet, beliefs based on faith and revelation have been abandoned when they were proven to be false." Exactly! That's the process that I'm talking about. As I spend time with Him, he corrects my beliefs and "revelations".
You asked "Which of your beliefs based on faith could change if science contradicts them?" ANY of them, as long as the science is sound and unbiased. Remember, scripture is NOT a scientific text. It's a theological text. Scripture tells us the scripture is written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the USE of the Holy Spirit. IOW - It's a tool that the Holy Spirit uses to direct us and bring us into a better understanding of God.
Hope that helps. Good questions.
EDIT: BTW - Of course ignorance misleads people. That's what ignorance is - lacking knowledge to make the right decision.
Sad. He is quoting a heretical council
The truth of the Bible is found and interpreted by each according to his or her time and place. The bible cannot be interpreted just literally. It is called the living bible.