The Scientific Method: Common Objections to Faith w/ Prof. Karin Öberg (Aquinas 101)

[@claymcdermott718]

Cool that you released this in the 60th anniversary of Gagarin going to space

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Nice! Excelsior.

[@angelicdoctor8016]

This is great - we need MORE of these videos from Catholic scientists like Prof Karin! SCIENTISM, a serious epistemological error, is one of the leading reasons why young Catholic adults leave the faith (as per PEW Research). THANKS Prof. Karin!!

[@RadTradX]

Thank you!!!! More people need to realize this

[@ponzianomanning3071]

Prof. Karin's videos are great for us who are devout Catholics who love science. Thank you!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

So glad you're enjoying the videos! God bless you.

[@jacoba7275]

Happy Easter everyone!

[@showyourvidz]

Roger Bacon, a medieval Franciscan, described a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and the need for independent verification.[citation needed] He recorded the way he had conducted his experiments in precise detail, perhaps with the idea that others could reproduce and independently test his results.

[@sweakley1]

It's a very different proposition to say some Catholics have employed or helped developed the scientific method, than it is to say it is generally endorsed, or supported by the medieval church.

[@kristheobserver]

@@sweakley1 By far the largest supporter of science during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance was the Catholic Church. What other organization during that time period contributed more if you disagree.

[@causalaetitiae]

I really LOVE your videos. Thank you so much! I'm a Religious Education teacher and your work helps me to keep a thomistic, real, orthodox, integral focus in my classes - despite of the secularistic, anthropocentric and fragmentary curriculum. I truly benefit from your work. Thank you very much and may Our Lord reward you! With gratitude, a sister in Christ from Germany.

[@brianw.5230]

You rock!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks!

[@sreenathjohnsonsaysnotolgbtq]

Thanks 🙏

[@drewm3807]

Professor Oberg wins the award for understatement. Observation repeatedly confirms the historical accuracy of the claims of the church.

[@arveihnebar4150]

Thank you professor. Hope many contemporary Catholic scientists will defend that faith and science is not in conflict. GOD created the universe. In God we live, we move and have our being.

[@aidentreherne2784]

Literally a Catholic popularized the scientific method

[@disguisedcentennial835]

And made the Big Bang Theory

[@Doug8521]

if the Bible doesn't say Scientific Method, then it's not real.

[@disguisedcentennial835]

@@Doug8521 is this sarcasm

[@sweakley1]

You are apparently unaware of Church history, Galileo, Copernicus, and hundreds other thinkers who have been suppressed, tortured, or killed for advocating the scientific method

[@sweakley1]

It's a very different proposition to say some Catholics have employed or helped developed the scientific method, than it is to say it is generally endorsed, or supported by the medieval church. They often did so in direct opposition to, and endured punishment by the church.

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

Loving these!

[@benhutchinson9808]

These videos are great.

[@victorbrongel2038]

Great video! God Bless you Prof. Karin.

[@dynamic9016]

Really appreciate this video.

[@williamjerome5836]

Besides the wonderful videos, one delightful thing about Aquinas 101 is the comments which I find are often quite profound.

[@boku5192]

Can't wait for future videos on this subject :-)

[@dannielpayne3045]

Thank you, thank you, thank you! God bless everyone. God exists.

[@servantoftheexpander9688]

Do we exist? If we do then where are we in this universe?

[@infinitame0517]

Awesome content and video quality!

[@niluksanjeewa3276]

holy spirit guiding you Amen

[@kristindreko3194]

Thank you Aquinas 101, may God bless you!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

You're welcome! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

[@ATageH]

Love this channel, good content

[@filiusvivam4315]

Amen Amen Amen.

[@gregorythorne6101]

What went thru Galileo's mind when he saw that the sun orbited a super massive black hole, one of millions in our galaxy one of millions of galaxies that all came to be from a pinpoint of nothingness ? Then was welcomed in !! Loved the exposition Professor ... Long live TI !

[@gfujigo]

These videos are far too short. I wonder if the course goes into more details.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

There are many more in the pipeline.

[@gfujigo]

@@ThomisticInstitute That’s good to know.

[@angelicdoctor8016]

@@ThomisticInstitute May that pipeline be everlasting :)

[@trnslash]

Read Logos Rising, truly a great Thomistic book, also watch the doco The Principle

[@affel6559]

Add Cauchy to your list of accomplished Catholic scientists. Unlike some others he was actually reaaaally devout from what I can see on Wikipedia. And there is NO math student or physics students who will not come across his name many many times. He layed much of the ground-work of modern mathematics. One of his doctoral students is Blessed Francesco Faà di Bruno.

[@affel6559]

Good video dear brothers and sisters, I didn't mean to come across too demanding and rude. God bless!

[@goncalosantos3235]

Not only was he devout, he was always trying to convert his colleagues or bring them back to the faith

[@gdebouillon]

Gagarin was a devout believer

[@thespiritofhegel3487]

'Keep listening to the thunder of his voice and the rumbling that comes from his mouth. Under the whole heaven he lets it go, and his lightning to the corners of the earth. After it his voice roars; he thunders with his majestic voice, and he does not restrain the lightnings when his voice is heard. God thunders wondrously with his voice; he does great things that we cannot comprehend. For to the snow he says, ‘Fall on the earth,’ likewise to the downpour, his mighty downpour'. - Job 37:2-6.

[@realdealreds2578]

Liberation theology is the application of faith to the science of historical materialism, and vice versa

[@pl8154]

Actually, since the Incarnation God can be scientifically investigated. The Shroud of Turin for example, is material evidence of a direct interaction between God and the material world. And putting Descartes in the company of 'devout Catholics is a stretch, to say the least.

[@nsmith6718]

is there a mr. öberg

[@yohanessunjoko2837]

The Galileo affair is actually a debate between Copernican and Ptolemian solar system... Not between science and bible..

[@sweakley1]

If you have any knowledge of history you know that is wrong. The Church had a very entrenched and codified teaching that the Earth is the center of the universe. You would also be aware that Galileo was silenced under the threat of death.

[@viciadoemhalo3]

​@@sweakley1 I saw Wolfgang Smith prove in a documentary that if you measure the expansion of universe you can empirically reach the conclusion that our entire solar system is in the center point of this expansion, which means that both the Earth and the Sun are really at the center of the universe, since the distances are incredibly vast.

[@sweakley1]

@@viciadoemhalo3 Well that's really implausible, since that would presume that the Earth was the site of the Big Bang and the age of the Earth and the visible horizon fundamentally make that impossible. I'd be interested in seeing his theory if you can find it.

[@lumpichu]

It could be also mentioned that Lemaitre, who formulated the Big Bang Theory, was a Catholic priest. No opposition to faith at all.

[@eugeniusbear2297]

It is common not to mention 20th century Jesuits

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Keep an eye out for Fr. Lemaitre in our series!

[@winstonbarquez9538]

How can science disprove something that cannot be proved with the empirical method?

[@gfujigo]

Easy - at least in the minds of those that think science is the only path to valid truth. They simply say if science can’t discover it, it’s not real.

[@andreasw.6425]

@winston barquez - Science does not need to prove the existence of god, as it does not make any claims about the existence of god. The burden of proof is with people claiming that god exists. A good start would be to come up with an objective demonstration of god's existence, scientific or otherwise. Which has not happened in the last couple of thousand years. So...unless there is a demonstration, it is rational to not be convinced about god existing. ;-)

[@gfujigo]

@@andreasw.6425 What do you mean by “proof” and “demonstration”? Can you give me some examples of what you mean? Thanks.

[@andreasw.6425]

@@gfujigo - ...in science, you can, for example, use experiments to demonstrate the validity of a claim. Alternatively, simulations can be Part of scientific demonstrations. Can you experimentally prove the existence of god? Can you simulate the existence of god? I guess not...😅

[@gfujigo]

@@andreasw.6425 It seems the point of the video and of the series is that there are many things we have confidence are true yet they cannot be validated via science. For example, we cannot prove that the laws of the universe have always been the way they are now or that cause and effect have always worked the same way they do now, but yet we build science around the notion that the laws of the universe have been the same throughout time and space. In fact, science is built upon unprovable assumptions. My point being that all truth does not require the scientific method since the scientific method itself was developed not by the scientific method, but by human rational reflection and philosophy about how the universe works. Even the concept of physical laws is from theology - God ordered the universe according to laws Newton concluded. The issue being addressed here is what explains reality: ie that anything exists at all, that reality is ordered, that distinctions exist in reality, that there is a physical universe, etc. These questions are even in principle beyond the scope of science. We as humans need to expand our thinking. Why think that if something cannot be measured physically, observed and repeat it is not real? The perceptual content of human cognition (eg thoughts, intentions, etc) cannot be observed physically. So this tells us there is more to reality than what can be physically catalogued. I think the universe is profoundly different from how materialism and atheistic scientist portray it to be. I am excited about future research and rational investigation of the universe.

[@sweakley1]

If you understand fundamental logic, one of it's primary precepts is that you can't prove a negative. So the burden of proof for the proposition would be to "prove there is a God", which no one has succeeded in doing

[@1977a]

What branch of logic do you subscribe to? You should read St Thomas Aquinas for the philosophical proof of the existance of God. Also the premise of your assetion is more akin to pseudo logic as there are ways to substantiate negative claims across different branches of philosophy, science, mathematics and economics. Modern atheistic society is not short of claimants that say there is no God. They use scientism to put forward their positive claim. On the other hand, devine revelation and rigorous philosophical enquiry provide evidence of the existance of God. Remember that the scientific method only measures the material world and even then, human knowledge of the material world is limited. It is more logical to study devine revelation and philosophical enquiry to scientism to ascertain whether God exists or not.

[@sweakley1]

@@1977a Well I have read St. Thomas Aquinas, and any simpleton with a cursory knowledge of philosophy knows that you cannot prove the existence of God. They also know that, except within very narrow limits of a specific event or case, proving a negative is impossible. Yes, there are many claimants who say there is no God. But claiming, or believing there is not a God is not the same as proving it.

[@sweakley1]

@@1977a It is a very different thing to say you cannot disprove God, than it is to say you can prove him

[@sweakley1]

@@1977a I also do not know of any scientist who claims he can PROVE there is not God. All of her original premises are false, as the the claims of science.

[@sweakley1]

@@1977a You also can't prove there are no ghosts or Bigfoot. That is not an argument for their existence

[@redhen2470]

Should have mentioned the fact that the "scientific method" was created by Robert Grosseteste, the Bishop of Lincoln.

[@servantoftheexpander9688]

What about ibn Al Haytham who lived in 10 century?

[@flaviofr4v0]

Blaise Pascal was too a great scientist and religious.

[@elzoog]

How about this objection? Can you believe something that is false on faith? For example, can you believe that Satan is actually the good guy and that God is the evil one based on faith? If so, then faith can't be a way to know the truth.

[@62peppe62]

Satan didn't incarnate, his coming in history wasn't prophetized, didn' and doesn't perform myracles, didn't die and resurrect for the salvation of mankind.

[@matthewm5581]

There is no such thing as “Judeo-Christian tradition”, only Christian tradition, being Catholic.

[@servantoftheexpander9688]

You are right. History also speaks for it. There is nothing in history called Judeo-Christian tradition. They both are distinct and hated each other through iut history.

[@gabrielteo3636]

God could easily provide scientific evidence, but God chooses to hid from scientists and the scientific method and me, but those wily philosophers find God right away! Really impressive!

[@the_abandoned_monastery7218]

Science and faith do not actually conflict with each other. Only those who hold dear to one without the other do so.

[@gabrielteo3636]

@@the_abandoned_monastery7218 The only conflict is God hiding from scientists. God could so easily provide scientific proof, but chooses to hide.

[@the_abandoned_monastery7218]

@@gabrielteo3636 you’re presupposing God’s mark to be something akin to bear tracks, when those with faith simply see the mind of God everywhere in nature. Information proves God. Intelligence is needed for the base sequencing of DNA for there is no chemical affinity to arrange the adjacent base-pairs. The base A goes with T, and G with C, but in between, there is nothing chemical to influence AT to be next to GC over CG or TA or AT again. It requires intelligence to arrange such an order in a meaningful way so as to produce meaningful results.

[@gabrielteo3636]

@@the_abandoned_monastery7218 No I mean, God makes no novel testable predictions that science can verify. There are millions of tests available. Pray to a certain God and they grow back limbs, start wet napkins on fire by invoking a certain God but doesn't work for others, etc. I'm not playing a parlor trick. I'm trying to discover if there really is a God. As far as DNA sequence, evolution explains that very well.

[@the_abandoned_monastery7218]

@@gabrielteo3636 You can understand by looking into the spiritual world. We are influenced by spiritual goods and spiritual evils. These things are metaphysical. I will say though, that Catholics believe in what is called temporal punishment due to sin. We also believe in what is called partial and plenary indulgences. I would look into such things and test them for yourself; however, it’s kind of a catch-22 because it is a magisterial teaching that one must be Catholic, and not in schism, free from the stain of venial and mortal sins (by confessing them to a priest), then by fulfilling certain criterion such as praying for the intentions of the pope, doing charitable things, reading the gospel, etc. I would suggest at the very least you learn to pray the rosary. It is a simple procedure to call upon the holy Mother of God to intercede for you. It can’t hurt to try :)

[@johnfisher247]

Strange accent and voice pitch. Hard to listen to this voice.

[@andreasw.6425]

"Is there scientific evidence against (!) the existence of god?" Is a silly question. It would be necessary to find scientific evidence for (!) the existence of god. Which does not exist. I ll consider the existence of god once there is any type of scientific evidence. 😆😅

[@andreasw.6425]

@Anahata347 - "There are other ways of finding knowledge, not just the scientific method." True, I would not contest this. I would ask: Are these other ways of knowledge rational and warrant belief? " For example the arguments from natural theology ... " Which arguments specifically are you referring to? "Why is there something and why are we here?" (a) You imply that there is, in fact, a reason for the existence of the universe. Please demonstrate first that existence needs a reason. (b) Science at least can attempt to explain causes for being, i.e. there is the big bang theory which describes the beginning of the universe or evolution, which describes the origin of species. "Those are questions science can't answer because science operates in the realm of existence and can't therefore answer the cause of existence itself" (a) "God" is a sufficient answer to address the question of why we are here. "Invisible Spaghetti Monster" would also be sufficient to address this question. "Magic" is also a sufficient explanation. Problem: Which of these three explanations is not only sufficient but actually true? Probably none - unless you find a way of, let's say demonstrating the existence of god. Can you demonstrate the existence of god in an objective manner? No? Thought so. ;-)

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@@andreasw.6425 Aristotle proposed that we have a natural desire to know, and that demonstrative, or scientific, knowledge of immaterial first causes could be reached by reason, based on the senses. Others propose that we have a will to ignorance. It's rationally plausible that there's no reason for existence, but it seems unnatural not to seek such a thing. Ancient thinkers often referred the beginning of scientific thought to "wonder." Anahata347 is probably referring to Summa theologiae I, q. 2., a. 3: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/st-ia-q-2#FPQ2A3THEP1 These proofs establish something "which everyone understands to be God," but do not characterize him specifically as one, good, perfect, loving, Trinity, etc. - St. Thomas will consider those aspects of God in the subsequent questions. The other names of God you provide are probably not in the running at this point, though.

[@andreasw.6425]

@@ThomisticInstitute - "Aristotle proposed that we have a natural desire to know, and that demonstrative, or scientific, knowledge of immaterial first causes could be reached by reason, based on the senses." Not sure if I agree that Aristotle's understanding of "demonstrable knowledge" can easily be equated to "sciencific knowledge" in the modern meaning of the word. "It's rationally plausible that there's no reason for existence, but it seems unnatural not to seek such a thing." It is rational and might be the truth. I would not know why looking for Truth would be "unnatural". "These proofs establish something "which everyone understands to be God," Erm - I do not understand god, so what exactly would that proof look like? 🤣

[@krzysztofciuba271]

@@andreasw.6425 "demonstrate first that existence needs a reason" U are funny. Hm, evenyour own existence did not have a reason? have you existed ...eternally (like non-contradiction principle)? At first read Aristotle

[@andreasw.6425]

@@krzysztofciuba271 - ...and I will not believe your claim that existence has an intrinsic reason or meaning for being, until you demonstrate that existence without reason is impossible.