Accepting the Narrative and Running With It

Church Life: Faith and the Expanding Universe of Georges Lemaître by Jonathan Lunine

On October 29th of last year, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) voted to recommend renaming Hubble’s Law the “Hubble-Lemaître Law.” That such a vote would take place today—during a...

TED Talk - Guy Consolmagno, SJ

Brother Guy Consolmagno, SJ, the director of the Vatican Observatory, gives a great TEDTalk on science and religion.

Posted by Vatican Radio - English Section on Monday, October 12, 2015

Dr. Matthew Levering - Romans 1:20 and Our Knowledge of God

Two from Fr. Schall

The Reasonable Character of the Credibility of the Christian Faith
The Church understands that it needs thinkers to examine and explain why arguments are leveled against it and whether or not these arguments are valid

On Pope Francis and Understanding Theology
The world is like a school that the students refuse to attend because they do not want to know what they need to know to be saved

The Cardinal Newman Society: Bioethics Expert Explains Harmony between Science and Faith at Christendom College

A Little Too Late to Save American Academia?

Post by The Cardinal Newman Society.

DSPT: Dominican Colloquia in Berkeley: Philosophers & Theologians in Conversation
What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem?
DSPT - Philosophy and Theology Colloquium
Dialogue between Philosophy and Theology in the 21st Century

July 16-20, 2014, Berkeley, California

Registration to begin January, 2014

DSPT: Theology Without Philosophy: A View From the Box-Canyon of Religious Studies by F. Russell Hittinger

The Principles of Theology

Dominicana: St. Thomas the Supernaturalist

Did I post a link to this lecture by Fr. Spitzer(?) on God and Modern Physics? I have not yet watched it, but I assume that like many contemporary Catholic apologists, he accepts contemporary cosmology as a premise for his argument.

Magis Center of Reason and Faith
Why Modern Physics Point to God

Related:
Dr. Paul L. Gavrilyuk
Associate Professor of Historical Theology
faculty page

alt

More from the Science and Faith Conference

Edward Feser & Jonathan Sanford - Science and Faith Conference


Stephen Barr & Alexander Sich - Science and Faith Conference


Michael Behe & Daniel Kuebler - Science and Faith Conference


Jay Richards & Mark Ryland - Science and Faith Conference


(How is the Institute for the Study of Nature doing?)

More from FUS.

Unfortunately, no video is available for Dr. Carroll's presentation? (There is video of the response.) But I did find the following:

William Carroll: Darwin in the 21st Century: Nature, Humanity, and God


William Carroll: "The Scientific Revolution and Discourse on Science-and-Religion"

Alvin Plantinga & John Bergsma - Science and Faith Conference

James Chastek, Two truths in theology and history

Per impossibile, what if there were rock-solid evidence that Christ didn't rise from the dead? I just find the hypothetical question posed rather baffling. "Assume we have, say, rock solid evidence that Pilate was a no-nonsense judge, with no scruples about killing anyone for the sake of order (I’ve heard historians modify or contest this, but assume that it is firmly established)."

What what the rock solid evidence be? Some record, some testimony, plus some reasoning on the part of the historian. Can a historian ever capture the full character or personality of a historical person? It is questionable whether we can even do that with respect to the people we "know."

Mr. Chastek writes at the end:

The Christian can point to the fact that it is possible that the accounts are true, but is it necessary that he be able to transmute possibility into a historically reasonable claim? So do we have some sort of “two truths” doctrine here? In fact, if historical truth is what the theologian calls a probable opinion, and the theologian can admit that some historical facts need not be the ones that are most probable given the historical evidence we have, is there even a tension between the two truths? Why can’t something that is in fact false be what is most probable given the historical evidence that we have?

Any evidence we have is some sort of testimony and subjected to criteria pertaining to trustworthiness/credibility. If history cannot attain the level of certitude necessary for a science, then this isn't really a problem of "two truths, " is it? Can we say that the history given within Sacred Scripture is more reliable than anything constructed by human historians working without the aid of the Holy Spirit? Why not? In addition, isn't the testimony of the authors of Sacred Scripture one more historical source that must be taken into consideration by the secular historian? On what a priori basis can he exclude it as being unreliable?

Eileen Sweeney has a new book out: Anselm of Canterbury and the Desire for the Word.