Science Needs Interpretation (Aquinas 101)

⭐️ Donate $5 to help keep these videos FREE for everyone!
Pay it forward for the next viewer: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
Everyone agrees that the Bible requires interpretation, and so too does science.
Science Needs Interpretation (Aquinas 101) - Fr. James Brent, O.P.
For readings, podcasts, and more videos like this, go to www.Aquinas101.com. While you’re there, be sure to sign up for one of our free video courses on Aquinas. And don’t forget to like and share with your friends, because it matters what you think!
Subscribe to our channel here:
kzbin.info...
--
Aquinas 101 is a project of the Thomistic Institute that seeks to promote Catholic truth through short, engaging video lessons. You can browse earlier videos at your own pace or enroll in one of our Aquinas 101 email courses on St. Thomas Aquinas and his masterwork, the Summa Theologiae. In these courses, you'll learn from expert scientists, philosophers, and theologians-including Dominican friars from the Province of St. Joseph.
Enroll in Aquinas 101 to receive the latest videos, readings, and podcasts in your email inbox each Tuesday morning.
Sign up here: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute...
Help us film Aquinas 101!
Donate here: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!
Explore here: go.thomisticinstitute.org/sto...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinstitute.org/
#Aquinas101 #ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic #ScienceAndFaith #ScienceAndReligion
This video was made possible through the support of grant #61944 from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

[@LVCIVSANTONIVS]

As a catholic scientist I can say: pray for me

[@mers3481]

As a scientist who was kicked out for becoming Catholic, pray for me.

[@benhutchinson9808]

I like this. Basically just saying "hey science, stay in your lane".

[@PInk77W1]

“The greatest love u can show someone Is to tell them the Truth.” St Thomas Aquinas

[@ivoryas1696]

@benhutchison9808 That seems... vaguely inaccurate. I suppose I shouldn't hold my interpretation above all others, and it would be against my nature to do so but I more read it as: "This 'science' thing can't _truly_ answer our questions by itself, not about our personal experience with reality anyway, so be careful about how much you tie any one perspective to the label of 'scientific' or _un_ scientific."

[@g1a18]

i am Muslim and really like Fr. James Brent

[@sethapex9670]

As a chemist, I concur with the idea that there is more to things than just atoms. Depending on the compound those atoms are in, they could be hazardous or nutritious. Indeed even if the same elemental constituents are identical, the very shape of the molecule determines a great deal of how it interacts with living systems.

[@collinsmith3926]

Hi Seth, I agree that the arrangement of atoms following from the form matters as well. I think the question that is most perplexing is if substantial form vs accidental form is actually a thing. Substances are things that actually exist in themselves and thus are the most fundamental. However, in trying to say what a substance is, it seems mostly like a labeling game with lots of disagreement. Calling water a substance in a pool but not in blood seems like it's way too easy to change something supposedly so fundamentally real.

[@paulbizard3493]

There is more to things than just atoms and we have 10 billion proofs: the human consciousness.

[@apeture_explorer4810]

@@collinsmith3926yeah I agree. It's difficult mainly in discussing what the thing in question is if it's not actually identifiable as a primary substance in a stable fashion such that say, water maintains its identify whether in blood or otherwise. If not, then what exactly is it we are discussing in blood, or out of it for that matter? What is "water"?

[@thishandlewasnttaken]

Thanks for these videos. Super good to get this stuff out there since most Christians never get taught this stuff.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks! We hope you continue to find the series helpful!

[@angelicdoctor8016]

So here is a question. How can we get every science teacher to watch this video, so that through sound philosophical argument they might stop implicitly promoting atomism to their students?

[@michaelanderson4849]

@Angelic Doctor Why should teachers stop promoting the best theory we have at the moment?

[@jonathacirilo5745]

​@@michaelanderson4849 not op but i suposse his response would be that atomism(or at least atomism in the way/form that it is taught) is not the best theory we have at the moment.

[@michaelanderson4849]

@@jonathacirilo5745 It is the best scientific theory we have. But feel free to show me otherwise.

[@johnfitzgeraldkennedy5265]

Great video and not to mention the animation really helps to understand as well! Please don’t stop! You’re awesome!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

We're happy to do it. Thanks for watching!

[@marc6003]

These are among the clearest, cleverest and most well-made philosophy videos on the internet. Thank you very much for sharing!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for that compliment! We hope you continue to find the series helpful.

[@marc6003]

@@ThomisticInstitute Absolutely, actually I've subscribed to your newsletter. Appreciate you guys!

[@matswessling6600]

so aritoteles was very wrong. the atoms are in many ways fundamentals and yes they are very much "tinkertoys". hylomorphism is just word salad. there isnt anything such a virtual precenses.

[@mers3481]

This is probably the best video put out by this organisation. Biochemist here 😊 Things are all made of the elements (which don't necessarily exist in their atomic form by themselves), but they are only the material aspect of the creature. The creature itself is a substantial form. I'm not sure I agree that prime matter doesn't exist by itself; matter is matter.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for your comment! Glad you enjoyed the video. God bless you!

[@helenarodrigues8645]

From Coimbra,Portugal, a very big "thank you"!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

You're most welcome! Thank you for watching!

[@dandan5928]

You guys are rock and roll. Keep up the awesome videos!

[@gabrielle1962]

I love the thoughtfulness of proper interpretation. Science is an authority in people's lives and holds great power in people's worldviews. Because of this, every scientist and every science communicator have a personal responsibility to understand that they have biases that can project onto others reality.

[@EinSofVirtuoso]

We see the fruits of years of the "shut up and calculate" paradigm by the way science and humanity is presented nowadays- as excitations of quantum fields within this "universe." My favorite resource is "The Modeling of Nature" by William Wallace, which unveils the power of Thomistic reasoning applied to the natural sciences, doing away with the typical reductionism people tend to nowadays.

[@kamiljan1131]

Thank you so much!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

You're welcome! God bless you.

[@adelephilomenadonata3226]

Jacopo Annese of the Brain Observatory is a friend of mine from Dartmouth College where there is an Aquinas House. I feel strongly about his ability to properly, beautifully, interpret data. He cooked for me at his home. His family was in olive oil. They are from Florence, I believe. My daughter is from a Dominican town in Puglia.

[@juanperez2006]

Thank you! Great way to see how philosophy, when applied correctly, can help us better understand the sciences. Love this work by the Thomistic Institute.

[@dynamic9016]

Insightful.

[@ieatburgersalot]

Thank you. Immensely.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

You're most welcome. Thanks for watching!

[@maryjohnstone4777]

A stimulating and informative video,need to watch it again,it proved a bit hard to take it all in .thanks tho. for a clear n thorough presentation Fr.

[@simiamens]

"If atomism is true, [Aristotle] reasoned, then forms such as cats and dogs are not substantial forms but accidental arrangements of atoms. And if that is so, then cats and dogs and similar things are not really real or primary substances, and so do not substantially generate or corrupt. And those implications are counterintuitive." I'm not sure it's an 'everyday' enough implication to be counterintuitive! XD

[@simiamens]

But to clarify, atomism doesn't entail that arrangements of atoms are 'accidental' in the sense of 'coming into and being sustained in that arrangement _by mere chance,'_ right? Because atomists can acknowledge that evolution favors arrangements of atoms that stick around and maintain homeostasis and so on.

[@simiamens]

More importantly, it sure seems like that suggests Aristotle was falling prey to a false dichotomy. "Atomists held that atoms' being arranged in various configurations and changing place explained all the features and changes of higher-level phenomena, such as cats and dogs." That doesn't mean atomism entails there are no substantial forms! Just that those substantial forms are entirely explainable in terms of the 'various configurations' of a given higher-level substance's (changing, replaceable) parts.

[@miriba8608]

Stacy Trasancos has a text book that may help our kids. She is a Catholic chemistry teacher.

[@antoniomoyal]

This is soooo goood!

[@Ajas0810]

When this guy speaks I listen.

[@joekeegan937]

Great helpful video, thank you. Although Ive never heard of a thinker toy.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks, Joe!

[@RK-tr4xk]

You guys are grand - keep it up :-)

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Many thanks! We hope you continue watching.

[@louiesosa4390]

Fantastic, keep up the great work.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks! We hope you continue to find the videos helpful.

[@AaronJediKnight]

In my basic education, I was taught that atoms had proven Democritus was right. Furthermore, a friend of mine mocked Cicero for refuting epicureans on the basis of the atomic theory being wrong. It's good to now have the full picture

[@fr.hughmackenzie5900]

Thanks. If hylomorphism is an improvement upon atomism, even better would be to acknowledge that modern science has shown that the holism of both a molecule and a dog is achieved in the same way. They both have a meaningful, unified, predictable function with their local environment - as witnessed by respectively the periodic table and natural selection. They do not each have a Form metaphysically distinct from the individuating matter -"accidental" for the molecule, "substantial" for the dog.

[@michaelflores9220]

What if a particle was one planck length in size? Planck Length is what science considers the smallest size possible.

[@cosmicnomad8575]

This is actually committing the same error that he describes here. Science doesn’t necessarily say Planck Length is the smallest length or that any Planck unit is anything like that but it is probably the smallest unit that our current theories of physics can deal with and accurately describe. But that doesn’t mean it is necessarily the smallest length and you’ll see debate over this.

[@b4u334]

Elements are defined by their atomic number. Scientists are not stating these “elements” are indivisible. They are simply saying with an atomic number of “x” you have “a” element.

[@lucassanzaneze]

I don't know if I understand well, but is the substantial form what "organizes" the material parts of a being?

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Nicely put! See this video, where Fr. James elaborates on the topic: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eWetmXlnrrh2fs0

[@lucassanzaneze]

@@ThomisticInstitute Thanks. It helps me a lot.

[@apeture_explorer4810]

Can a living primary substance ever be virtually present in a higher primary substance? I don't think I've ever seen one do that, but say, could a human be virtually present in a substance? That would be, somewhat eerie.

[@hydrogeniodide8436]

2:50 What does "substantially generate or corrupt" mean?

[@hydrogeniodide8436]

4:20 "and the substantial forms of such whole call for and constitute the secondary matter or parts according to their order and kind." What does this mean?

[@alexandersupertramp3326]

How does Aquinas view of time compare to modern physics view of time?

[@michaelflores9220]

Are you saying quantum physics can't explain chemical reactions?

[@crunchybroll4731]

2:30

[@misanek007]

Good job. Modern science implicitly teaches atomism and that is problematic. This does not make science incorrect, but it does create confusion, as science should not imprint philosophical positions upon people. Hylomorphism as a philosophical position does not negate modern science, it negates atomism, which is a philosophical position that modern science implicitly instills in us.

[@widipermono854]

👍👍👍

[@jasongr3219]

Now we know about quarks. Or do we...?

[@Gonicksomestuff]

Nooo Fr. James the geometry of that molecule is wrong - this hurts the chemist in me!

[@opensky6580]

Why are you continuosly presupposing, that a final substance should exist. There is nothing forcing nature to provide final substances, which must be unchangeable. As we have never observed anything not changing in this universe., it eould be save to assume such a base substance does not exist.

[@alphazero5614]

It is true that from an empirical scientific standpoint, we observe constant flux and change at the level of material phenomena. However I would not conclude that final unchanging substances do not in fact exist. Change does not negate the reality of substance itself, but rather points to the distinction between a thing's essence and its contingent modes or accidents. Substantial forms define the intrinsic principles of an entity's being that endure through alteration of extrinsic properties. While composite substances in this flux of generation and corruption exhibit a qualified mutability, the formal natures they instantiate are fixed templates for the types of being possible. One must distinguish between essential fixity and accidental flux. Further, it would seem change itself admits of an explanation only on the presupposition of some constant categories and principled regularities in nature. Otherwise becoming would lack any intelligible order. The Forms provide just such a grounding framework. Thus, substantival metaphysics does not need to deny flux but systematizes it within a coherent explanatory context positing unchanging inner principles. Absent such formal determination, the mutable realm itself becomes irrational. Empirical flux warrants formal causes, not vice versa. The theory remains sound.

[@byron8657]

Our human flesh and the proteins of heaps of dust of the Earth are the same but God breath on this Human Body formed into His own image and likeness breath on it for us becoming soul spirit Human Beings k! Book of Genesis written 5000 BC

[@hopekean2604]

[@daveat191]

Here is a guy saying living things are more than a pile atoms. No kidding. Don't confuse organic chemistry with inorganic chemistry.

[@ProfessorShnacktime]

That’s all you got?

[@michaelanderson4849]

First, philosophy is a great tool for formulating questions. Not so great for answering those questions though. Second, the grouping of particles we call atoms were given their name at a time when they were truly believed to be indivisible. The name stuck. Just as the erroneous image of the electrons orbiting the nucleus like planets around the sun. On a very, very, basic level of scientific studies these known errors does not pose a real problem for understanding nature. But as soon as you introduced to a more serious level of scientific education you will understand how and why those analogies are wrong. But it takes a heft bit of math to do so. The war between philosophy and science is the result of the unholy fornication between philosophy and theology that has been going on for millennia. Up until a few centuries ago the church was the big dog on the block and had been the big dog for over a millennium. What the big dog said was pretty much law and when the big dog said jump, the only valid question was how high. Anything else and you could look forward to being the main attraction at the big barbecue in the main square. Being a part of the machinery that was the big dog, the theologians and philosophers could formulate a seemingly never ending pile of absolute word salads which ordinary people were in no position to question. They just had to swallow the nonsense and accept it as the "truth" because it was the big dog who said it. In this reign of terror the scientific method slowly began gaining momentum following the advancement of math. This lead to the big dog found itself having its pants pulled down, or getting a nasty wedgie, by science over and over again. Let's just say that doggy did not approve of those wedgies.

[@ProfessorShnacktime]

Very childish. You made about 0 good points in this rant as well.

[@michaelanderson4849]

@@ProfessorShnacktime Oh I tremble in awe of thy mighty arguments and firm logic... 🙄

[@ProfessorShnacktime]

@@michaelanderson4849 at least I’m not talking about dogs and “wedgies”.

[@Spectrometer]

I thought you were going to write a meaningful point of discussion but you just started with an ad hominem attack.

[@michaelanderson4849]

@@Spectrometer Ad hominem... really? Against whom and in what way did I attack that person?

[@parkinson1963]

You can interpret the Bible for another 2000 years and it still won't affect or mean anything.

[@carlosalegria4776]

The bible does not need further interpretation, because the church, the church fathers, and ecumenical councils have established doctrine for the faithful. It is that exact 'interpretation' of the bible done by individuals with no guidance that has led to the thousands upon thousands of denominations which label themselves 'Christian' to claim they have the truth. The bible gives us divine revelation, and 'fills in the blanks'. But does not, under any accord, tell us to reject reason, to reject the natural sciences, and to reject finding the truth of the natural world. Reason leads to God, not the reverse.

[@parkinson1963]

@@carlosalegria4776 reason always leads away from the imaginary gods.

[@carlosalegria4776]

@@parkinson1963 it literally doesn't. Aristotle and Plato reached God through reason alone.

[@parkinson1963]

@@carlosalegria4776 Aka imaginary. They started with god and worked backwards.

[@carlosalegria4776]

@@parkinson1963 that is literally wrong. How about actually reading the authors instead of spouting basic bitch Richard Dawkins reasoning?

[@opensky6580]

What a lazy argument, non existing "forms" would be counterintuitive and therefore wrong. Why should form be something real w/o the matter. They ar concepts in our heads nothing else. Do you just teach outdated philosophy in an historical context or do xou really believe this stuff you are explaining?

[@cosmicnomad8575]

Or just read Aristotle. This is a nine minute video, they’re not going to go into everything rigorously

[@antonfildan3655]

Most truth are counterintuitive. Intuitively the earth is flat and the sun revolves the earth. What a bad argument So whats the problem if dogs and cats and chairs are just your imagined division of the world in our minds. Why should there be a need for a substance. Which part of the dog contains the substance. Where does the supposed substance reside if you remove some part?

[@alphazero5614]

Substance refers not to any particular material constituent but rather signifies the intrinsic principle of act and operation by which a thing exists as the kind of entity it is. That is to say, substance denotes the essential quiddity or nature of a thing which renders it an actual individual of a determinate species or type of being. Now in the case of composite or material substances like a living dog, this quiddity is not a bare abstraction but the product of two real principles - prime matter and substantial form. The prime matter as sheer potency is given actuality and determination according to a fixed species-definition by the substantial form which shapes and constitutes the material into an integrated whole of a specifiable sort. Though reliant on properly ordered bodily parts for its operations, no singular constituent as such embodies the substance. Rather, it is the animating substantial form united to organized organic matter that serves as the interior principle of the dog's substantial being qua dog. Hence while removal of vital organs may corrupt the integrity and functioning of the individual, it does not annihilate the specific substantial nature so long as prime matter remains capable of that species of informed existence. In this sense we should not imagine the substance as located discretely within any corporeal region. As actuality of the composite whole, wherever prime matter endures configured by the animating form, there persists the substance. The parts themselves owe their being to it as their intrinsic ground and source of unity. The notion of substance thus serves to explain identity amid flux and provide a rational foundation for unity within the world of material creatures. (I hope this account helps clarify the Thomistic conception without undue reductivism.)