Architecture, Atheists, Catholic, Catholic apologetics, contraception, dissenters, Embryo, Filipino Freethinkers society, Freethinkers, homosexuality, Moral, pro-life, proportionalism, RHBill, Rome, St. Peter's Basilica, Vatican
Why is it that every atheist argument about religion ends up either being a faith versus science thing or a moral issue. I did a piece about some wannabe party-list congressman who filed a bill seeking to ban religious symbols or practices in government offices and premises. The com-box became a choc-ful of atheist arguments culminating in, yup you guessed it, religion and science are contradictory. The critique was that the Catholic Church is regressive because it won’t change her teaching to be in tune with the times. I pointed out that the Catholic Church is quite progressive in the sciences (take for example the Pontifical Academy of Science established in 1603) but she won’t change her stand on certain moral issues like abortion because it is murder (heck lets get it over with rather than go through the circuitous route of sexual-abuse, contraception and homosexual unions wich they will eventually bring up, I decided to just deal with the mother of all issues, the intentional murder of the unborn, a.k.a. abortion) The obvious rebuttal to this issue of faith versus science is the fact that the Church has always been a patron of scientists and their endeavors.The many cathedrals of Europe were in fact designed to be solar observatories. In fact it is so apparent in this day and age of Google, that one must be lying to himself when they claim any real conflict between faith and science. it’s an imagined conflict by those who want to push a secular ideology.
Santa Maria degli Angeli, a Catholic solar observatory
Condoning intentional abortion is never progressive no matter what the circumstance or condition and this is where he makes the (tenuous) point that the Church is regressive. So be it, i said, if not condoning murder is regressive then the Church is, I suppose. Come to think of it, science, the way he claims it to be, is even more regressive in accepting abortion because that practice even ante-dates Christianity!
Here is what the fellow said: “It’s not a question of whether abortion is murder or not. The question is if abortion is necessary or not?” This kind of modern-day sublime barbarism is what makes ideas like these seem intelligently acceptable. Unearthed, he is simply saying, I know it’s murder, the question is, is it necessary to do so or not. Yup sublime barbarism, I like that! I didn’t feel the need to tangle with this and I knew that someone who could think of a human life so cheaply and so coldly was not going to get it so I let him have the last say.
At any rate the lesson I never learn is that when dealing with an atheist who has a morality that changes faster than you can say abortion-is-murder, is, JUST DON’T!
But I can’t help it because my faith tells me that to be silent about evil is to condone it!
Faith versus science, I don’t think so!
Big Bang Cosmology: Fr. Georges Lemaître
Fr. Gregor Mendel (as in Mendelian genetics)
James B. Macelwane, S.J (Systematized the science of seismology)
Fides et Ratio (image linked to the document)