A Cardinal on Science

  • Thread starter Thread starter harinkj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
harinkj:
I believe that all of the differences between machines and the living things are well understood by both of us. The differences between man and other living things is probably where we do not agree. Correct?:hmmm:
Click to expand...
Probably although I don’t know your view. I would say that the difference between man and other animals (at least on Earth) is as great or greater than the difference between a flower and a car.
When we settle the above question this will be settled.
Click to expand...
👋

Neither!!! The mind is not the brain and the mind is not separate from the brain.

The mind is the brain’s activity. :clapping:
 
If you can reduce everthing down to biochemical reactions then is there no difference between me putting gas in my car which goes into the engine and makes a reaction that makes the car go and chemical reactions that go on in my brain that helps me understand this thread? Do chemical reaction care if they understand this thread? I never actually read in my chemistry books that any of those chemical reactions referred to care about what was going on. Yet we care. At what point in time does that happen that a group of chemical reactions start to care about what chemical reactions are to come? At that point I’d wonder why chemical reactions would care, because chemical reactions will continue on regardless.

If it actually mattered what happens, something worth caring about, something more than chemical reactions upon chemical reactions have to be occuring. Something beyond the natural has to occur if it actually matters what we do, if we actually understand science or not. This or that molecule I doubt cares if this clump of chemical reactions understand science or not, it’ll exist regardless. If there is nothing supernatural, then what does it matter if I exist? What does it matter if I make sence on this thread or not?
 
40.png
jman507:
I never actually read in my chemistry books that any of those chemical reactions referred to care about what was going on.
Click to expand...
Actually I believe that neurobiology is actually the field that covers this and in fact there are new discoveries all of the time. Clearly we don’t know everything or even a large portion of this field yet.
  • Kathie :bowdown:
 
I notice in my own diocese that whent he topic of Science vs. Creationism or Intelligent Design comes up that our Priests tend to side with those who want to shut out all discussion. In bulletins and the diocesan newspaper you see terms like “religious right” and “Fundamentalists.” While the Roman Catholic Church certainly tends to view this issue differently than many Protestants do it troubles me that our religious tend to always want to side with those forces who embrace a progressive non-religious view.
 
I notice in my own diocese that whent he topic of Science vs. Creationism or Intelligent Design comes up that our Priests tend to side with those who want to shut out all discussion. In bulletins and the diocesan newspaper you see terms like “religious right” and “Fundamentalists.” While the Roman Catholic Church certainly tends to view this issue differently than many Protestants do it troubles me that our religious tend to always want to side with those forces who embrace a progressive non-religious view.
Click to expand...
I think that is because Intelligent Design is a bogus theory. Discussing Intelligent Design in biology would be like making all theological discussions on the existance of God include crackpot theories such as one that posits that a band of evil parrots reside on Mars and they are the ones who created us.

I think that the church is realizing the a large number of people are throwing critical thinking to wind in order to support crackpot theories. I.e. Intelligent Design, or the idea that you’ll get 72 virgins in heaven if you blow up people, or other crackpot ideas.

Just because an individual does not understand current biological studies, he does not have license to assume that crackpot theories have validity and then to divert publics monies to support these crackpot theories in schools.

Should we force astronomy professors to teach astology? Of course not.
  • Kathie :bowdown:
 
You want to talk about crackpot theories, the normal person is going to think what your proposing is that it is not men that come up and determine all ideas, but it is the chemical reactions that do all the thinking.

Then you say we don’t know everything, but if we study it enough we will understand. Trust you. Trust you, who wants to trust you. If you don’t have the whole Truth why should we trust you, you still have to put your faith into something you fancy. Why cause one day you will be able to give us something where we don’t need to have faith but we will know?

You wonder why people like the fundamentalist want to throw off science? Atleast they can make a decision under their ideas. If everything is all material and there is no spiritual, there is no meaning, aim or goal for anything. Its much easier to gamble on something that gives life a meaning, than to choose something that says life is meaningless. If it is all meaningless, then it is meaningless if we understand science.
 
This thread has had only one recent post that was on topic. Those involved in the current discussion should start a new thread in the appropriate forum if the wish to continue. This thread is closed.

Walt
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top