The Role of Belief in Science (Aquinas 101)

[@Chamindo7]

Thank you for helping me grow and learn as a new Catholic. The Thomistic Institute has been a source of support for growth in the virtues. Thank you. Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis. Vivat Christus Rex

[@ThomisticInstitute]

We're very happy to hear this! Thanks for watching. God bless you.

[@benhutchinson9808]

Dr Oberg is great.

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

This channel has helped me so much. It seems that when I have a doubt or serious question/concern, The Thomistic Institute seems to have either a video on the subject or on topics around the subject. Thank you so much! God bless you!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

We're glad you've found this channel so helpful! God bless you!

[@lauzeladasse]

Another good one video from the faith and reason. Thanks TI, God bless you

[@ThomisticInstitute]

You're welcome! Thank you for watching. God bless you!

[@abualymotivator3222]

Excellent. Thanks a lot. Prof.

[@hoyokutensho7]

Great video! Thank you, Dr. Oberg!

[@jonofarc443]

👏👏👏 This is great, thanks!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for watching. We're glad you enjoyed it!

[@jonofarc443]

@@ThomisticInstitute I've been wanting to get deeper into Thomism, so I signed up for Aquinas 101. Thanks for making it free!

[@briantrafford4871]

Amen

[@ponzianomanning3071]

Well said. Thank you1

[@sunroad7228]

"Energy, like time, flows from past to future".

[@Cpripri85]

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[@williammcenaney1331]

I've heard Prof. Lawrence Krauss deny that he believes anything. So I want to ask him whether he believes that he denies that he believes anything. What does he mean by "believe?" You can define knowledge as a justified, warranted true belief. If that definition is accurate, then when you know something, that presupposes that you believe it, too. But believing differs from knowing because you can believe a false statement. Though Dr. Krauss may be a great physicist, maybe he needs to learn about logic and philosophy.

[@ZacharyCath]

Lawrence "from nothing, to nowhere" Krauss. He's a character, that's for sure!

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@ZacharyCath When he debates whether God exists, Krauss seems too philosophically ignorant to debate the question competently. He's like Christopher Hitchens when Hitchens debates Prof. William Lane Craig. Like Hitchens, Krauss says a lot. But he doesn't criticize his opponent's arguments. If I debated quantum mechanics with Dr. Krauss, that would humiliate me because I haven't studied physics. But I probably know enough about Thomism to debate St. Thomas's cosmological argument shows that God is real. Dr. Krauss makes a category error each time he talks about different gods. Sure, he can use the word ""god" to stand for Zeus. But if he knew what classical theists mean by "God," he would see that it doesn't even make sense to think God and Zeus are members of the same kind. Zeus is a fictional object. But if he exists, he has a cause because he has parents. God has no cause. If there were no God, there would be no causes, since there would be nothing at all.

[@danielvso]

I believe the many women that accuse him of sexual harassment and even more.

[@ZacharyCath]

​@@williammcenaney1331 My favorite way to respond to the "many gods" arguments is by conceding it... ;) . By this, I mean it's as you allude to...God isn't a "god". The Lord tells us this in Exodus 3:14, when he says to Moses: "I AM THAT I AM".

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@ZacharyCath Each lowercase-g god is an idol, including science and human reason when people replace God with them. If each scientist were objective and humble, he wouldn't persecute members of the ID movement for doubting neo-Darwinism.

[@shashikamanoj1160]

Karl Popper : Conjectures and Refutations

[@jay-senphang7565]

Excellent video. However I would say that from an evolutionary perspective there is a very strong adaptive advantage towards surviving and reproducing if an individual organism's observations of nature and ability to reason and react effectively to those observations is stronger rather than weaker. This perception/consciousness does not require a creator/designer to exist but is actually a major driving force in evolutionary biology.

[@Ajas0810]

I like her crucifix

[@hglundahl]

_"Faith and reason are not opposites, but rather are two different ways of coming to know the truth."_ You mean faith and reason-ING, right? Both are acts or habits of reas-ON. The one faculty that does know the truth - or doesn't know it.

[@MrFossil367ab45gfyth]

There is faith in both realms of religion and science. Faith in God or God's and holy books and texts is in religion. Faith or confidence in research, data and findings is in science.

[@traesaint9328]

Why is a woman preaching in a Thomistic Institute video?

[@byrondickens]

This isn't preaching, idiot.

[@antoniopioavallone1137]

epistemological realism is literally a belief.

[@antoniopioavallone1137]

@Matt Mayuiers I'm saying that without God we cannot be sure that our cognitive faculties are aimed to truth. So this is not a problem for believers, this is what i wanted to say.

[@letdaseinlive]

@@antoniopioavallone1137 That's slightly inaccurate. It is a problem for the believer which is why the theological virtues include hope. It is a very great problem. For the non-believer, it is not yet a problem due to an innocent or pre-conscious lack of response to being.

[@antoniopioavallone1137]

@@letdaseinlive Okk tell me how do you justificate epistemological realism without God and also explain to me why the universe itself would have rational laws.

[@letdaseinlive]

@@antoniopioavallone1137 Exactly by faith. Faith means not having God. It wouldn't be faith otherwise. I refer you to the "theological virtues". Put another way, God himself doesn't require faith.

[@antoniopioavallone1137]

@@letdaseinlive I don't understand what you are arguing for....Honestly I think that the belief in the existence of God is the only thing which can explain Reason, moral realism, the intelligibility of the universe and also that our scientific and philosophical devolpment isn't just an illusion. Faith itself is required for the existence of Reason.

[@parabellum4622]

Ma'am... You cannot talk about the solar system as it quite literally does not fit in your religion. With Catholic the same as Christianity, also can not have disagreements and still apart of the same thing, respond on anything dealing with the solar system as in your interpretations the earth is surrounded by water. Edit: One of you are incorrect about your beliefs.

[@byrondickens]

You don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about. Your parents should have sued your school district.

[@parabellum4622]

@@byrondickens Everything I just said was literally true. Also the school system does not teach religion. It's you who have failed yourself.

[@byrondickens]

@@parabellum4622 No, but the school system is supposed to teach science and history. Everything you just said is literally a bald-faced lie. The audacity - not to mention sheer arrogance - of you, who knows exactly zero about religion to show up and pontificate on what does and does not "fit" in someone's religion is breathtaking. Especially when that person is both a Harvard scientist and a devout Catholic who knows quite a bit about both and more than you ever will.

[@parabellum4622]

@@byrondickens None of what I said was a lie, you or anyone else reading can fact check me. Also, facts do not care about your feelings or credentials. For people who are so warped they gain prestige into a high valued university just assert they have the authority to advocate for anything, to say they have the creditials to then go on and concatenate their religious views into science and history. It's a fact that science quite literally does not support Christianity or any religion. It's not arrogance it's understanding. You say this lady will know more than I'll ever know yet she doesn't know this and is even trying to assert this. Finally, you are the one who needs to read your holy book again along with science buy it wouldn't be fruitful as you'll just start making shit up to cope with your delusions.