Thanks. That looks like a way for Catholics to support and endorse scientific research rather than a develop alternative science.

Indeed, that is exactly what it is. Mainstream catholics don’t really have a problem with science in general, but with moral consequences of some application of science. Broadly speaking, they are not saying that science is fake, more that there are some things we should not do.

A conversation with a Jesuit for example can be enlightening because they have intellectual and moral arguments, it’s not just castles built on the shifting foundations of a Bible verse.

This leads to different approaches compared to a lot of American Protestants. They don’t seek to undermine science.

Ironically, Catholicism as an institution has a better track record of supporting science than many Protestant sects. Much of the "alternative science" comes from the Baptists and Evangelicals.

Why is this ironic?

It's ironic because no matter how much science they embrace, they never come around to realizing their God is just as much make believe as every other.

This position has nothing to do with science.

Science doesn’t say we are the only intelligent forms in the universe. Science doesn’t say intelligent max’s out with humans. Science doesn’t describe concepts outside of time and space.

oh. thanks for clarifying. I'd thought the irony lies in some image of being anti-scientific.

the fun thing, ironic itself, about dismissing religion in it's entirety is that most religions have long understood that G'd can't be proven, measured, captured with experiments. the irony in this is that while you can't prove G'd you can't disprove G'd either, so the lack of proof is no proof of a lack of "The Force". quantum physics did not not exist just because the was no proof for it.

one interesting train of thought in this regard was the conclusion of a book on the neurobiology of meditation, (the title escapes me right now): what if the only "instrument" to measure religious experience is the brain? we can measure effects of systematic religious practice on the brain, like meditation aka contemplative prayer. we can identify some aspects of states that humans describe as religious experience, in the brain, as they happen. why would we dismiss those as mere "brain formations"? while we accept equally measurable effects of sound or light on the brain as "real"?

it's non-trivial...