D
Dancelittleewok
Guest
You don’t believe evil doesn’t objectively exist…yet you limit yourself to your own personal definition. Do you believe this absolutely or subjectively? Aren’t you imposing your personal views on us?
- Status
R
ribozyme
Guest
Well, we can’t consider things like cancer and HIV to be “evil”; they are simply a physical phenomenon, not some conscious agent which harms humans with alacrity. But from a human perspective, they cause suffering (which suffering can only be percieved subjectively). So why is this suffering allowed to happen to humans?
T
tdgesq
Guest
You seem to almost be ready to admit that it is reasonable to believe that there is a first and primary uncaused cause of the universe that we can call God. It looks like you might even be willing to go further than that. You are skeptical of a God that interacts with the universe and humanity, especially humanity. I would say that the evidence about humanity suggests the opposite of a God that is eternally distant from us. As other posters have indicated, self-consciousness, freedom of choice, and moral action all point to a basis apart from one that can be explained by the specialized sciences. Considering your skepticism, it would truly be a leap of faith to attribute these things that make us uniquely human to a yet undiscovered gene or other biological explanation. This is particularly true with respect to free will. If nature and nurture is all there is, then there is no room for free choice.
The problem of evil. Much could be said here. C.S. Lewis claims if we could see all ends like God can, then evil (which you equate with natural disasters) would be consistent with the goodness of God. Furthermore, God is not necessarily bound to his moral laws in the same way that we are, otherwise the moral law would govern God and not the other way around. Finally, the notion that there are no moral absolutes is contrary to human experience. By the way, the dichotomy you create between God and man is a false one. If God is the basis of everything about us that makes us unique as human beings, then man is completely dependent upon God to take action as a “counterforce” as you put it.
I am unwilling to believe that you really hold to this. You recognize that human life is special, as evidenced by your reference to the holocaust. I would also be willing to wager that you do acts of charity for others - even for people you have never met. Biology will not help you here. It lacks the explanatory power you seek. Why? Because most of the things we know about the world are not discovered through the specialized sciences. When I place my hand on a hot stove, I know that it is hot. I didn’t need to engage in the scientific method to figure that out. The laws of logic were not discovered with a microscope. I have more to say, but I have to go.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
You don’t seem to be sceptical of Professor Joyce 
Christians are every bit as capable of scepticism as you claim to be - we just happen to be to sceptical of entities other than God: Darwinism, for example, or scepticism itself. As atheists sometimes point out, everyone who does not believe this or that theistic vision of the world, is, in relation to it, an atheist. Which makes us atheists too, in certain connections ##
R
ribozyme
Guest
What do you mean by Darwinism? The theory of evolution is a robust theory. It seems that skepticism of Darwin’s theory when one is exposed to the evidence is dogmatism.You don’t seem to be sceptical of Professor Joyce
Christians are every bit as capable of scepticism as you claim to be - we just happen to be to sceptical of entities other than God: Darwinism, for example, or scepticism itself. As atheists sometimes point out, everyone who does not believe this or that theistic vision of the world, is, in relation to it, an atheist. Which makes us atheists too, in certain connections ##
Well, I am skeptical of most of Joyce’s views regarding the origin of life… you could ask him yourself
. Well, he has influence me a lot, and his work is quite interesting, and I consider him to be an extraordinary scientist.
R
ribozyme
Guest
Personally, I do not see anything that makes human life special objectively. I just see ourselves as a self-sustaining system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution. We assign a value to human life, as I do not condone events like genocide because they promote suffering
I don’t know if “killing is wrong” is an a priori moral true. I think it the morality evolved, to help population of humans survive. If we killed each other in a Grand Theft Auto like fashion, then it is hard to see how could evolution favor the survivial of the human race.
Best wishes to you all!
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
What do you mean by Darwinism? The theory of evolution is a robust theory. It seems that skepticism of Darwin’s theory when one is exposed to the evidence is dogmatism.
Well, I am skeptical of most of Joyce’s views regarding the origin of life… you could ask him yourself
If I meant Darwinism, and not evolution, I would (I hope) specify Darwinism “Darwinism” and “evolutionism” & “evolution” are not convertible terms - I accept evolution as an hypothesis, because I have no reason not to (not being a scientist).
I don’t see why I should accord Darwin (or anyone else) an authority which is due only to Scripture; not because it is Scripture, but because it is the Word of God. And I don’t accept Scripture as the final authority on all matters historical (say) when it is not seeking to assert, with such final authority, matters of an historical nature; sometimes, what seems to be an historical narrative, is better understood as a saga, or an aetiological myth, or a legend, or the like.Why should I accord Darwin an authority that even the Bible cannot be given ? What matters is not the source for what is said, but what is said, & how it is to be understood. If Darwin (or Haeckel or Haldane or some other) appeared in a vision, to announce that Darwinism as such was a divinely-revealed truth, such a vision would have no authority except for the visionary; its validity would be relative to that of the revelation of God in Christ, which is its proper environment, intellectually, theologically, spiritually - & scientifically.
It would have no value in certain contexts - Biblical scholars can’t use preternatural or supernatural entities as evidence in their work, because such entities cannot be accommodated within the requirements of the methods proper to Biblical scholarship; scholarship cannot be a co-operative venture, if those engaged in it are using different methods.
But there is no reason to think that Darwinism is divinely revealed - therefore, it would be superstitious to treat it as such.
I reserve the right not to give implicit & total credit to any man on earth - not even to Darwin. I don’t think that is dogmatism; I think it is a sensible approach. If Darwin did not think he was infallible, why should anyone else think so ?
And by what right must they think so ? He is as subject to correction as any other human being, AFAIK.Besides, one cannot expect Christians to have the same mental attitudes as atheists - or conversely. The difference is not purely academic, but is a difference in one’s entire outlook on the universe. Elements of Darwinism can (one assumes) be accommodated within the Christian “mould”, & presumably the converse is true - but to decant either into the mould of the other, is not possible.
V
visavismeyou
Guest
Miracles are not yet in my focus. I just bought a book about miracles which were verified by scientists yet have not read it
Are they direct works of God? Perhaps they are but the overall of my point is that God has given us the foundations and is letting us use our free will to choose him. Miracles here and there may be just reminders to let us know “I am still here, do not forget me.”
As far as the story of Noah, it can be didactic and true.
As far as evil, it is much easier to look at evil as the mutation of originally good acts. Go through all actions which are evil and you can see how they are inherently good actions which were twisted and the remnants are evil.
You are right on one account though, evil does not exist objectively, only good does.
Think about the universality of a moral law which all of mankind have always agreed upon (perhaps not actively agreeing upon the moral law but always embracing like ideals of what is morally acceptable and morally reprehensible.) Try to imagine two cultures, nations, organizations or belief structures which have a different moral law. Let’s take devil worshippers and the Catholic Church. Do they have a similar moral law? I say they do.
Does the former embrace disloyalty? Flagrant Rape? Flippant Cannibalism? No, neither does the latter. There is a group of actions which are reprehensible to all humans.
Thus an essential moral law governs all people regardless of how different their policies or belief structures are.
This displays that there is some “thing” which binds all humanity together on a moral basis and the aberrant of that moral law is evil.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
For reasons, or considerations, which can only with awkwardness be treated as wholly immanent within either of those systems. These reasons transcend the “systems”, so I suspect that belief may be doubly difficult for you. There is no bridging the gap between absence of faith, and the having of it - the two are discontinuous, which is why faith involves a “leap” of trust, of letting go of what one had so that one can be filled with something better and fuller. The only continuity between these two states, is that God is at work in both - but this is hidden from human sight; God cannot be “tracked” by human wisdom, because He infinitely exceeds it.
The gift of faith, for one thing. This is something that nobody can summon up from their own resources - it comes as a gift, and one which is not owed to those who have it, or it does not come at all. BTW - faith is not a thing for the intellect alone; it involves a re-orientation of the entire personality; it is meant to affect the entire person in all respects, values included. It’s powerful stuff.
Christians are like one-eyed men in the country of the blind - atheists are like men without sight, & perhaps without eyes. So it’s very difficult to transpose what Christians have access to by faith, into categories which make sense to those without faith. This is because when all is said and done, God is not reducible to the measure of man. As the Christian “vision of the universe” is God-centred & Christ-centred, there is a problem.
A
Alberich
Guest
A couple problems with the discussion, as I’ve seen it so far. First of all, we all need to agree on common definitions for terms being used. Is “evil” to be understood as pain and suffering? Does evil denote the conscious choice to do harm to another? Or is it simply anything that transgresses God’s will–God as understood by Catholics?
Further, could you be a bit more explicit as to what sort of explanation of belief you are looking for? An explanation based in theology, philosophy, history, or science?
Finally, if it helps any, I’m a research biologist that studies molecular evolution in the immune system (a hot topic now, what with the specter of flu epidemics looming…)–if you’d like to discuss how a person whose profession is based on a rigorous objectivity can believe whole-heartedly not only in any god, but in the Catholic Trinity, I’m always happy to talk through the forums, PMs, or email.
Pax tecum,
A
R
ribozyme
Guest
Well, regarding the definition of evil, I’ll choose the pain and suffering definition. Any reason why this is not a good definition for evil?
R
ribozyme
Guest
It took me a while to guess what you were trying to convey…If I meant Darwinism, and not evolution, I would (I hope) specify Darwinism
I don’t see why I should accord Darwin (or anyone else) an authority which is due only to Scripture; not because it is Scripture, but because it is the Word of God. And I don’t accept Scripture as the final authority on all matters historical (say) when it is not seeking to assert, with such final authority, matters of an historical nature; sometimes, what seems to be an historical narrative, is better understood as a saga, or an aetiological myth, or a legend, or the like.
Why should I accord Darwin an authority that even the Bible cannot be given ? What matters is not the source for what is said, but what is said, & how it is to be understood. If Darwin (or Haeckel or Haldane or some other) appeared in a vision, to announce that Darwinism as such was a divinely-revealed truth, such a vision would have no authority except for the visionary; its validity would be relative to that of the revelation of God in Christ, which is its proper environment, intellectually, theologically, spiritually - & scientifically.
It would have no value in certain contexts - Biblical scholars can’t use preternatural or supernatural entities as evidence in their work, because such entities cannot be accommodated within the requirements of the methods proper to Biblical scholarship; scholarship cannot be a co-operative venture, if those engaged in it are using different methods.
But there is no reason to think that Darwinism is divinely revealed - therefore, it would be superstitious to treat it as such.
I reserve the right not to give implicit & total credit to any man on earth - not even to Darwin. I don’t think that is dogmatism; I think it is a sensible approach. If Darwin did not think he was infallible, why should anyone else think so ?
Besides, one cannot expect Christians to have the same mental attitudes as atheists - or conversely. The difference is not purely academic, but is a difference in one’s entire outlook on the universe. Elements of Darwinism can (one assumes) be accommodated within the Christian “mould”, & presumably the converse is true - but to decant either into the mould of the other, is not possible.
I never argued that Darwin himself was infallible…I argued that the theory of evolution is robust. And it is not merely a hypothesis; it is a theory, which means it explains the available evidence really well. Darwinian evolution simply is an iterative process of mutation, selection, and amplification; that’s what is described in the theory of evolution.
So what is “Darwinism” when you define it?
T
tdgesq
Guest
That’s fine, but I fail to understand how your acceptance of the theory of Darwinian evolution would lead you to conclude that human life is not “objectively special.” Right off, I don’t perceive a contradiction.
In all fairness, the questions I put to you regarding morality did not include random video game killings. My questions involved primarily acts of charity. What sense does it make from an evolutionary standpoint to waste time and money to comfort an unknown child in Africa dying of AIDS? The elderly and infirm seem to be a burden on society who nothing to promote the survival of the species. It is also far from apparent that reducing human suffering translates even indirectly into survival of the human race.
I think that you are asking a scientifc theory to do a whole lot more than it can or was ever intended to do. Philosophy has a place. So does theology for one like yourself who is at least willing to admit the possibility of the existence of God, putting aside for a moment his attributes. I hope your quest for truth goes well, and it was very enjoyable chatting with you.
R
ribozyme
Guest
The question of charity is interesting, and it would seem contrary to any Darwinian mechanism, but I do agree that the theory of evolution does not provide a firm basis for morality. I think utilitarian ethics provides a basis for charity though, as utilitarianism is not selfish, unlike Darwinian evolution.
Well, I thank you too for your thoughtful comments.
A
Alberich
Guest
It’s not a bad definition if the context is understood. Most Catholics will understand evil to be that which is contrary to God’s will, though. (Consider, if God is the summum bonum, then all that is good comes from God. Therefore that which is contrary to God is, by definition, evil.)
A man can have a heart attack and be in serious pain and suffering both physically and mentally, yet I would be hard-pressed to call it “evil.” On the other hand, a person can feed a consecrated host to his pet cat. You would be hard-pressed to show any objective harm from this, but I would term it “evil.”
I guess what I’m taking forever to say is that, when discussing theological matters, it might be best to use the terms as they are commonly understood within that theology.
Make sense?
Alberich
F
francisca
Guest
I am a christian first of all, by God’s will, I was baptized in a catholic church. For me God is alive, meaning I talk to Him and He answer me. From the time I was a little girl, I have experienced this. I asked Him and He answered me. There were times in my teenage until early twenties when I stopped to believe for some reason I can’t explain here (it’s too long. Well, Let me put it this way: I grew and fell to disbelieve then.) Later everything made sense to me that when things were good was because I always asked HIm. I came back to Him and now when I ask Him He answers me just like when I was a little girl. Even so, I still have times when I need to learn to rely on Him. It’s not easy, because first of all, I am learning to be honest with myself about many things. There are lies in us, things that we do not honestly want, negative things I still believe. I pray to Him that He help me see the truth. He has taught me that all good things comes from Him, therefore they are the truth and bad things are lies because they are not from Him. Even so I still hang on some negative thinking knowing they are lies. It’s sometimes not that easy. But Jesus is good. He always there for me. This is why Christianity is credible for me : because Jesus answers me and help me and protect me. If He does not, I don’t think I want to be His follower.
That’s fair. It’s good to be fair with yourself.
Don’t try to contradict science with religion. The thing is, our science is full of constraints because our science use our senses to gather and process data. Knowing that our senses are constrained, so as such our science methodologies. Thus science as a branch of phylosophy cannot take over “reasoning” totally from phylosophy. Because things that we cannot sense does not mean they are not there. Reasoning can lead us to truth, not by mere empiricism. Empiricism limit us in things we can see/ feel.
But surely when we don’t have empiric proof we might talk rubbish such as the greek sophists Socrates condemned. Thus phylosophy, away from science, does have some risk of – as you put it-- “believe in delusion”. Therefore some phylosophy is “pseudo”.
Now theology is a phylosophy that we learn from the revelation of the word of God. This word of God is an anchor of credibility for those who believe it. With believer’s language, it is called “a woman who has The Faithful Husband”, because phylosophy whithout “The Truth” is like “harlots”. They can go anywhere they want and claim whatever they want with some tricky twist and turn in it’s own logic.
Theology is a kind of phylosophy with God’s Spirit (read God’s reasoning) included. This require faith. Faith comes from listening the word of God (God’s reasoning, the logos in John 1) and personal experience of God’s love in your real life (eg. answered prayers). Somebody who is a skeptic may find God in his HONESTY about many things.
Faith can be reasoned, because God reveal his Word in our history. And if it’s not enough, God himself has chosen to come INTO history by becoming a man. A skeptic can read and learn how the Word is revealed, who are the witnesses, how about good experiences from those who already believe, and how about “I try it myself” and so on.
If you used to be a believer from other religion-- If I am not mistaken-- I have another suggestion. Do not fear anymore. Once you know how big God is, you know that you had nothing to lose when you decided to find the truth. For He is the truth.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
How much reading are you willing to do?
Are you willing to study both sides of the issue?
How much reading do you do, on a regular basis? Are to up to reading, for example, St. Thomas Aquinas who has written extensively on this issue?
How much reading HAVE you done on this issue?
This particular topic has been discussed and debated for several thousand years. Where do you stand in terms of accepting or rejecting those discussions?
Or would you prefer, for example, a definitive answer in just a few words?
Are you willing to study both sides of the issue?
How much reading do you do, on a regular basis? Are to up to reading, for example, St. Thomas Aquinas who has written extensively on this issue?
How much reading HAVE you done on this issue?
This particular topic has been discussed and debated for several thousand years. Where do you stand in terms of accepting or rejecting those discussions?
Or would you prefer, for example, a definitive answer in just a few words?
R
RyanL
Guest
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Is that you, ribozyme?
- Status