Science Is Destroying The Catholic Church

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://cruxnow.com/cna/2016/12/18/catholics-leaving-faith-age-10-parents-can/

---

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Young Catholics are leaving the faith at an early age - sometimes before the age of 10 - and their reasons are deeper than being “bored at Mass,” the author of a recent report claims.
“Those that are leaving for no religion - and a pretty big component of them saying they are atheist or agnostic - it turns out that when you probe a bit more deeply and you allow them to talk in their own words, that they are bringing up things that are related to science and a need for evidence and a need for proof,” said Doctor Mark Gray, a senior research associate at the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University.
“It’s almost a crisis in faith,” he told CNA. “In the whole concept of faith, this is a generation that is struggling with faith in ways that we haven’t seen in previous generations.”
....
In exploring why young Catholics were choosing to leave the faith, he noted “an emerging profile” of youth who say they find the faith “incompatible with what they are learning in high school or at the university level.” In a perceived battle between the Catholic Church and science, the Church is losing.

----

Interesting.....

 

[bigfield]

I blame smartphones.

Anything a preacher says in church can be instantly Googled by any child with a smartphone before they even leave the building.

 

[Keith&Co.]

they are bringing up things that are related to science and a need for evidence and a need for proof,”

That seems incomplete. Shouldn't it say, they're asking for evidence and proof and the RCC offers bupkes?

So is science destroying the RCC or is the RCC failing the RCC?

 

[skepticalbip]

It is likely much more than just a lack of evidence. Probably the decreasing number of believers means that there is decreasing peer pressure to blindly accept church dogma on faith. There is also the natural tendency for young people to reject authority, it's just the cool thing to do especially if the crowd is doing it.

I would like to think that a rise in public skepticism and rational thought accounted for the decline of religion but I haven't seen evidence of that in other spheres of life. The young seem to be even more easily sucked into popular memes and fake news than ever.

 

[James Brown]

Of course, the buzz word this year is that we're entering a post-truth society. Authorities no longer teach us anything; they either confirm what we already believe or they contradict it, which makes our prior convictions all the more rigid.

And priests are just one more authority figure, aren't they? Just because some guy in a dress stands up and tells us that contraception is sinful and that God is mad at us doesn't mean we're going to accept it anymore.

 

[Syed]

science is not destroying christianity BUT rampant sexual immorality destroying christianity

 

[Keith&Co.]

science is not destroying christianity BUT rampant sexual immorality destroying christianity

YEs, yes, thanks for that, Syed. Now go play in the political corner, the adults are talking.

- - - Updated - - -

It is likely much more than just a lack of evidence.

Oh, I agree.
I just thought it was telling, the peasants are crying for evidence and the study doesn't even try to say 'the church responds with...'

 

[Lion IRC]

....It was the Christian faith that was the birthplace of science
...There’s not a contradiction between faith and science

I can understand why some 10 year old kids aren't astute enough to work this out.
At least these autodidacts have still got Facebook and Instagram.

[YOUTUBE]v=EShUeudtaFg[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Science was something the Greeks and Babylonians did long before Christianity. And in early Islamic nations continued when science was all but dead in Northern Christian countries.

 

[Lion IRC]

You mean those secular atheist Greeks and Babylonians???

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

In the case of the Greeks, many early scientists/philosophers were in effect, atheists. And some got into trouble for that.


Heraclitus
This world-order, the same of all, no god nor man did create, but it ever was and is and will be: everliving fire, kindling in measures and being quenched in measures.

 

[Lion IRC]

Do you claim that Heraclitus was an atheist?

 

[Juma]

....It was the Christian faith that was the birthplace of science
...There’s not a contradiction between faith and science

I can understand why some 10 year old kids aren't astute enough to work this out.
At least these autodidacts have still got Facebook and Instagram.

[YOUTUBE]v=EShUeudtaFg[/YOUTUBE]

Bullshit. Humans are by nature curious.
What you says that was a "bithplace" was just that Christianity didnt quelch it entirely, just took control of it and severely punished the ones that found out that the church was wrong...

 

[abaddon]

Do you claim that Heraclitus was an atheist?

How does that relate to how science got its start before Christianity? And survived to modernity in spite of Christianity?

 

[Lion IRC]

Cheerful Charlie asserts that the Greeks practiced science.
I actually agree - but not the sort of science that Copernicus or Francis Bacon, the father of modern science, would call science^TM.

If Cheerful Charlie wants to push the inception of science back even further in history that's fine by me. The ancient Greek civilization was MUCH more religious than us. (And much more open-minded about the blurred line between natural and 'super' natural.)

So how is it that they could embrace science AND religion?
Answer - because (theistic) science presumes the possibility/probability of a measurable and repeatable order in a world created by an intelligent designer. It also presumes that scientific discovery will enlighten us on existential questions.

We scientifically investigate our origins to give our life meaning - not because we have spare time and building Hadron Coliders alleviates boredom.

But if there is no higher purpose or meaning of life, then investigating how 'old' the universe is or how many times you can split an atom into smaller and smaller particles/packets is scientific equivalent of chewing gum for the mind.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Do you claim that Heraclitus was an atheist?

I just noted Heraclitus denied God had anything to do with the existence of the Universe. He was not the only one.

 

[Lion IRC]

I'll take that as a 'no'.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I was taught that the Greek elements are states. Ie earth, air, fire and water are solid, gas, liquid and energy. Fire therefore would be energy. Mind, or psyche or soul, in this system would also be considered energy as would intelligibility. Reason and understanding are divine, the totality of which would be god in the sense of unity. Not a magical being who speaks to chosen people.

 

[abaddon]

...

Answer - because (theistic) science presumes the possibility/probability of a measurable and repeatable order in a world created by an intelligent designer. It also presumes that scientific discovery will enlighten us on existential questions.

We scientifically investigate our origins to give our life meaning - not because we have spare time and building Hadron Coliders alleviates boredom.

But if there is no higher purpose or meaning of life, then investigating how 'old' the universe is or how many times you can split an atom into smaller and smaller particles/packets is scientific equivalent of chewing gum for the mind.

What if the search back to the beginning of the universe does not result in your presumed conclusion regarding an intelligent designer? Will you accept the result regardless of personal preferences and needs, in the spirit of science? Or will you go on redefining things like science because of your presumption about God being necessary to meaningfulness?

 

[Keith&Co.]

So how is it that they could embrace science AND religion?
Answer - because (theistic) science presumes the possibility/probability of a measurable and repeatable order in a world created by an intelligent designer. It also presumes that scientific discovery will enlighten us on existential questions.

SCIENCE is a tool, not a world view.
SCIENCE presumes possibility/probability of a measurable and repeatable order in the world.
SCIENCE does not presume an intelligent designer.
Scientists that presume an intelligent designer just add 'because God' at the end of any discovery.