ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Groundbreaking Scientific Achievements of Catholic Scientists | The Catholic Talk Show
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ต.ค. 2018
- On this episode of The Catholic Talk Show, the guys discuss some groundbreaking scientific achievements and contributions of the Catholic Church.
Episode #6
A lot of people think the Catholic Church is anti-science-but it’s actually quite the opposite. In fact, some of the greatest scientific achievements of all time are directly owed to the Catholic Church
______________________
-- SUPPORT THE CATHOLIC TALK SHOW --
Become a supporter of The Catholic Talk Show on Patreon and get awesome gifts like mugs, hoodies, and more: bit.ly/SupportT...
______________________
-- SUBSCRIBE TO THE CATHOLIC TALK SHOW --
iTunes: bit.ly/Catholic...
TH-cam: bit.ly/Catholic...
Castbox: bit.ly/Catholic...
Google Play: bit.ly/Catholic...
Stitcher: bit.ly/Catholic...
Spotify: bit.ly/Catholic...
______________________
-- FOLLOW THE CATHOLIC TALK SHOW --
Follow The Catholic Talk Show
/ catholictalkshow
/ catholictalkshow
/ catholictalksho
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 75 | คู่เอก "คมเพชร vs โอมาร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WugMG7Po8uw/mqdefault.jpg)
As a geologist, I think I should let y'all know about the father of stratigraphy and one of the key figures in early geological science. His name was Niels Steensen (better know as Nicolas Steno). He discovered the principles of stratigraphy before he was Catholic but later converted to the faith and became a Catholic bishop. He was beatified by JPII in 1988.
thank you sir for making it known
A side note: A priest in Wisconsin went to public works and blessed all of the salt that would be applied to the roads this winter.
Love these 3 wonderful catholic men & love their respect & love for Fr Spitzer.
Nacho Libre quotes spattered throughout this video... Just excellent in fact I’d say downright amazing! God Bless, you guys are awesome! The only advice I’d give is to have that outro concise and have one guy do it! Otherwise awesome stuff you guys have great chemistry
my college philosophy course was a life changing time. Great video yall!
Thank you for a thoughtful, and enjoyable way of explaining our faith. The idea of guys sitting around discussing the church, and what we believe in a way that reflects how many learned from each other when I was in college is the best. The added benefit of a priest gives truth and beauty to the discussion. Please, continue just as you have been doing - it's great!
So very interesting!!
Great video.
Thank you.❤️
Can you provide citations Ryan? I use a lot of your information for esssays and a few things i have trouble finding accurate citations for.
Thank goodness
I watch this episode a lot haha
Please do not emphasize Teilhard. He was a good palaeontologist and a very devout priest. However, he was a terrible theologian. He thought Original Sin was a reflection of a creation that is both evil and good. Be very careful when discussing Teilhard. Lemaitre, of course, was a great scientist and an orthodox thoughtful theologian. Dorothy Garrod, first woman promoted to full professor at Cambridge. She was a good Catholic and a great human prehistorian; famous for her groundbreaking work in human paleoanthropology. You would do well to contact the Catholic Society of Scientists. Thanks for your program. Richard Clinnick
I know this comment is two years old but we also recognize the good of Origen but obviously, not everything
Be careful of how you criticize others theorys' and know that you're reading something that someone else edited. You might be right about your thoughts but wrong about his. You have to be careful when taking a stance. You can lose that way. Keep your mind open and without judgement.
First of all loving the show, keep up the good work. The vampire thing at the end was hilarious.
Second I wanted to touch on what you said at 6:30 with regards to the church and why they denounced/imprisoned/whatevered people like Galileo. You claimed that they didn’t like the religious truths that Galileo and others deduced from the science, and you said that you would go more into that later but didn’t. I wish you had expounded upon this comment, as I think it is an important point. From what I can gather, however, this point does not seem to be supported from my cursory google search, but correct me if I’m wrong:
“All our Fathers of the devout Convent of St. Mark feel that the letter contains many statements which seem presumptuous or suspect, as when it states that the words of Holy Scripture do not mean what they say; that in discussions about natural phenomena the authority of Scripture should rank last... [the followers of Galileo] were taking it upon themselves to expound the Holy Scripture according to their private lights and in a manner different from the common interpretation of the Fathers of the Church...”
- Letter from Lorini to Cardinal Sfrondato, Inquisitor in Rome, 1615. Quoted in Langford, 1992
This is the closest quote I could find that kinda supports your argument, yet it specifies “natural phenomena.” This leads me to believe that the church did not like the fact that Galileo’s interpretation of the solar system contradicted the physical model, not any theological/moral principles. A stronger quote against your claim is also:
...”to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.”
- The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616
Once again, the inquisition appears to be targeting the science and model itself and not any contradictory theological extrapolations from said model.
I believe the issue of the church’s inquisition and apparent resistance to scientific progress during the periods of corruption in the church to be a very important issue that was glazed over in this show. Sure, you can name of many brilliant individuals who were part of the church that contributed greatly to science or in later years how the church approves/encourages science, but that does not change the fact that the church appears to have hindered progress during a corrupt (yet substantial) point in its life.
Saint JP2 apologized for Galileo. You can search for background on both secular and Vatican/Catholic sites.
It seems like Galileo was a strong headed personality, and deliberately pushed vatican buttons....causing the Vatican to also retroactively censure Copernicus who had published heliocentric work a half century prior , without a stir.
The power struggle was over the "hubris " of comments that Galileo made, essentially saying that scientific truth should be used to help illuminate the understanding of scripture, not the other way around.
Today we (including the Church) probably don't
have a problem with the reasonableness of that kind of statement. However in fairness to the minds of that era, heliocentricism, and many scientific observations,
were new propositions to the general understanding. And for Galileo to cross "line in the sand " to tell the Church how to reconcile natural truth with matters of faith, was crossing into their territory, and righteous responsibility of guidance in matters of faith. If he had simply published a scientific paper like Copernicus, he probably would have been OK. In fact, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Church pretty much came up with the same guidance for the faithful, anyway. BUT it was her duty ALONE to prayerfully determine that.
He specifically got into citing some scripture quotes of the 'earth being immovable " or the "sun moving quickly in the sky " and dained to tell the church to reevaluate their reading of scriptures based on the burgeoning new scientific field. "When the Biblical text oversteps those limits, addressing matters that are within reach of sensory experience and rational knowledge, God does not expect these God-given capacities to be abandoned… It follows that theologians, before committing themselves to an interpretation of such passages, would be well advised to examine the demonstrative arguments of scientists and natural philosophers."
..crossexamined.org/galileo-and-the-catholic-church/
Objective and informative site. FYI
is Nacho Libre just their go-to meme movie
Genesis basically falls in line with science
Well when Jesus comes again, per s scripture, HIS Trumpets shall sound......I was told unbelievers will only hear thunder. I believe when GOD spoke, explosions like big bangs went off. Many things happen when atoms collide.
Bro. I fo dogma 🤦. Way more cussing tho
I am a college educated Creationist who believes in "Fiat" creation. That means God spoke creation into existence. I'm also a "Young earther" in that I believe in Biblical evidence as an historical account about the Earth rendered from God Himself recorded by Moses.
Since Holy Scripture is the only divinely inspired piece of literature the human race has why is everyone so quick to try to debunk it? Trace the lineage of thought from evolution directly into atheism and moral depravity a la Margaret Sanger, Karl Marx and Hitler/Stalin. Evolution is a demonically inspired trick to undermine belief in God's Word and ultimately in God Himself.
Do not preach s Satanic doctrine as acceptable to Catholics. I'll cut you a break for being young and immature in Your faith, and because post-V2 RC Church gives it creedance. I know it's confusing. But remember Christ's statement about belief in Him from John 5: (especially verse 47)
44How can you believe, who receive glory one from another: and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek? 45Think not that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth you, Moses, in whom you trust. 46For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me. 47But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?
misele mondele Almighty God bless you, well stated.
I think I just lost all respect for you for even mentioning Teilhard - (Jesuit Cancer). From a scientist standpoint Jean Rostand said of Teilhards work that he did not cast the slightest light on the great problem of organic evolution. Sir Peter Medawar (Nobel Prize winner) speaks to his mental confusion and exaggerated expression that borders on hysteria. Teilhards 'the Phenomenon of Man is unscientific in its procedure, lack scientific structure and his competence is modest and doesn't understand or respect the norms required for scientific scholarship. He fails to grasp the nature of the person (self-consciousness between man and animals). His theory on the "fusion" of persons is impossible. His ideal of the "collective man" reveals that he fails to understand not only the nature of man as a person but also the nature of true communion and community. He doesn't understand the hierarchy of being, his attempts to eliminate antitheses, leaves no place for love, misses the difference between matter and spirit, he denies that man has free will. He is completely at odds with Christianity. Christian revelation presupposes certain basic natural facts such as the existence of objective truth, the spiritual reality of an individual person, the radical difference between spirit and matter, difference between body and soul, the unalterable objectivity of moral good and evil, freedom of will, the immortality of the soul and the existence of a personal God; none of which teilhard's chasm of theology fiction advocates for. He inverts the hierarchy of values (cosmic processes rank higher than the individual soul), research ranks higher than moral values, action (evolutionary process) is more important than contemplation, contrition for our sins, and penance. Its no wonder that teilard authoring works are on public display with those of Marx and Lenin in Moscow's hall of atheism. Then there is the his commentary of deriding Catholic teaching of sexual continence indicating that "...we should now use eugenics to aim at the optimum in birth, not the maximum in reproduction...we have the absolute right to try everything to the end; even in the matter of human biology (sexuality, euthanasia, conception in vitro, homosexuality).