A World without Religion?

[BrassAnkles]

The question is what it means to receive the Gospel adequately or fully. As Jimmy just said two post above, that is for God to judge. Many believers, and thus also many former believers before they became atheists, think of God as a sort of superman, as the Big Man in the Sky (the folk concept of God). They have no clue about the God of classical theism. Hey, if my religious education had stopped at that, perhaps I’d be an atheist by now as well (actually, that’s rather likely).

Of course, like others you completely misread and distort my position. The Catholic Church’s is anything but gray on this issue, we agree. What I referred to as “gray” on this issue is the actual morality of believers.

Not everything is black-and-white. Not all believers are all good, and not all atheists are all bad. That’s what I meant with “gray” – and by the way, there are enough atheists that I would view as decent people over and above some believers that are evidently a**holes. That atheists can also do good is affirmed by Pope Francis.That affirmation does not extend to their salvation as atheists, but we have covered that already on page 14.

Am I to understand you think you might leave the faith?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Says who? Most abortions supporters say this. They say abortion should be used as a last resort and that it save lives. Neither are based in reality. Then again those that promote abortion were never interested int eh truth, just the ability to play God.

Yeah, after reading some follow-up comments by Bradski I guess my post was premature. I do agree with him though that the demand side needs to be addressed, by education, religious instruction, opportunity etc. Sole concentration on the supply side doesn’t cut it, and in fact is not morally sufficient.

 

[jimmy]

I think it’s clear from your inference that you might leave the faith that you Catholic doctrine must appear to be “gray” to you. Just remember that “application” is dependent on “law” but not vice versa, ie the validity of the latter has nothing to do with the former.

I am not sure what you think is wrong with the post of al moritz. Every Christian is a sinner and every atheist has the potential to do good. I don’t see what is so controversial about that. The Catholic Church doesn’t dispute that.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I think it’s clear from your inference that you might leave the faith that you Catholic doctrine must appear to be “gray” to you. Just remember that “application” is dependent on “law” but not vice versa, ie the validity of the latter has nothing to do with the former.

Also, as a student and professional in the science like you, I find it disappointing your skepticism not to mention how scientific minds can be so logical in research to predict relationships and outcomes yet fail to use the same logic and methodology to infer same regarding the Big Bang, etc.

Say what? Can you please re-phrase so I can understand? Thank you.

And by the way, whatever you might have meant with your first sentence confused, I am not going to leave my faith. In fact, I would estimate that the chances that I will ever become an atheist are among the lowest of any believers. I have withstood too many storms for that already, intellectual or otherwise.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I am not sure what you think is wrong with the post of al moritz. Every Christian is a sinner and every atheist has the potential to do good. I don’t see what is so controversial about that. The Catholic Church doesn’t dispute that.

Thank you.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Am I to understand you think you might leave the faith?

Oh, I see you have completely changed your post. No, I might not leave the faith. The chances for that are practically non-existent. See my previous post # 265.

It is no because i am more fanatic than other believers, quite the contrary. I just know too much and have studied both theism and naturalism too deeply to ever become an atheist.

 

[BrassAnkles]

Say what? Can you please re-phrase so I can understand? Thank you.

And by the way, whatever you might have meant with your first sentence confused, I am not going to leave my faith. In fact, I would estimate that the chances that I will ever become an atheist are among the lowest of any believers. I have withstood too many storms for that already, intellectual or otherwise.

When I read your comment about abortion I re-read your post and saw that I had misunderstood it.

Regarding my comment about science, I understand you are a research scientist. I was lamenting what is happening in the scientific world where so many scientists don’t apply the same logic, reasoning and methodology used in their professional lives and applying it to other larger “questions”.

For example, the probability of the pre Big Bang conditions and complex biological systems that would have to “appear” independently and coincidentally at the same time.

 

[Al_Moritz]

For example, the probability of the pre Big Bang conditions and complex biological systems that would have to “appear” independently and coincidentally at the same time.

I agree with you about the fine-tuning of the universe, I disagree with you about evolution. I am afraid you need to study evolution a bit more. And no, humans are not to be solely explained by evolution which, as a material process, cannot explain the immaterial rational soul.

But the Church is clear on that. It allows for Catholics to accept the evolution of the human body, but at the same time it insists on the infusion of the soul by God.

 

[BrassAnkles]

I agree with you about the fine-tuning of the universe, I disagree with you about evolution. I am afraid you need to study evolution a bit more. And no, humans are not to be solely explained by evolution which, as a material process, cannot explain the immaterial rational soul.

But the Church is clear on that. It allows for Catholics to accept the evolution of the human body, but at the same time it insists on the infusion of the soul by God.

I understand we cannot discuss evolution on this forum but it would be nice if you could point me to a link that would address the issue of complex biological mechanisms not to mention the problems of the last universal ancestor theory. Here is a study that shows some issues:

Problematic genes could be removed from the analysis though a fundamental
problem remains [15••]: any site that was free to
evolve over the whole period at, say, 0.5% change per every
million years will become saturated with 20–40 changes per
site. Detecting phylogenetic signal above noise for deep
divergences is thus difficult, making many proteins unsuitable
for such phylogenetic studies [15••]. Other factors
worsen recovery: rate differences between lineages; long
branch attraction; horizontal transfer; unrecognised gene
duplications; changes in nucleotide frequency; and changes
in functional constraints [13,15••,16••].

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10607605

Also, (hopefully this isn’t forbidden to postulate) but looking at models of development from our human point of view it seems logical that it takes time to develop a “mechanism” given all the unknown variables. For instance a race car or airplane would be a good examples. However, what if there were no unknown variables because one had the universal formula that governed everything and a “supercomputer” that was able to do infinite calculations that would take billions of years for a mainframe in the blink of an eye? In other words evolution as a developmental tool would not be necessary.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I understand we cannot discuss evolution on this forum but it would be nice if you could point me to a link that would address the issue of complex biological mechanisms

Try Talkorigins.org.

not to mention the problems of the last universal ancestor theory. Here is a study that shows some issues:

Problematic genes could be removed from the analysis though a fundamental
problem remains [15••]: any site that was free to
evolve over the whole period at, say, 0.5% change per every
million years will become saturated with 20–40 changes per
site. Detecting phylogenetic signal above noise for deep
divergences is thus difficult, making many proteins unsuitable
for such phylogenetic studies [15••]. Other factors
worsen recovery: rate differences between lineages; long
branch attraction; horizontal transfer; unrecognised gene
duplications; changes in nucleotide frequency; and changes
in functional constraints [13,15••,16••].

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10607605

As for this paper, I don’t see fundamental problems from just reading the abstract. Sure, there are unsolved problems in evolution, which is what science is for to further study. But evolutionary science has already solved too many problems for me to be fundamentally skeptical that there are insurmountable problems lurking somewhere. Sure, a healthy skepticism is good, but the arguments that I hear from ID proponents usually amount to little more than “arguments from incredulity”.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I just know too much and have studied both theism and naturalism too deeply to ever become an atheist.

By the way, to those who think I am sounding like an arrogant jerk with above statement: I am very fortunate to have had sufficient intellectual foundations at the time challenges came up against my worldview, and to have been able to have had easy access to all the necessary resources for further questions. My science education also helped a great deal, believe it or not. And no, I did not get my philosophical education from my local church. Again, I was fortunate and am very thankful for that. Not everyone is/was equally fortunate.

 

[cena]

Hey, you won’t believe this, but some people who belong to a particular religious group are only meant to have sex when they want to conceive. In fact, having sex without the possibility of conceiving is not allowed.

But guess what. It doesn’t work. And in fact, one of the largest groups of women who have abortions are members of that religion.

Whoda thunk…

They can have sex when they are not As fertile (so they probably won’t conceive) and would be moral as long as it’s done naturally

 

[Aloysium]

. . . But evolutionary science has already solved too many problems for me to be fundamentally skeptical that there are insurmountable problems lurking somewhere. . .

So where is the spirit? Unless that is addressed there is no true solution. Oh, I forgot, it is not supposed to exist. It becomes all perfectly clear at that point, if we ignore the central feature of being human.

 

[Al_Moritz]

So where is the spirit? Unless that is addressed there is no true solution. Oh, I forgot, it is not supposed to exist. It becomes all perfectly clear at that point, if we ignore the central feature of being human.

Addressed in post # 269!

 

[KidCatholic1]

?
I’m not sure what you mean by “support abortion”.
Do you mean “pro-choice”?
Because I can understand why many non-theists would support a woman’s right to make her own choice for herself and her body.
Then again, I know many Atheists who are against abortion. There are many groups of them all over the world.
And I know many Theists, including Catholics, who are also pro-choice and believe abortion should be legal and the woman should have the wright to choose.

Do you have statistics on this “majority” of Atheists who “support abortion”?

Here’s a few links for that:
gallup.com/poll/162548/americans-misjudge-abortion-views.aspx
gallup.com/poll/154946/non-christians-postgrads-highly-pro-choice.aspx

 

[Aloysium]

Addressed in post # 269!

So, what was the point you were trying to make in post # 271? You lost me. It sounds like you were saying that "evolutionary science’ has it pretty much all figured out in your opinion. I don’t see that at all. They can’t even accurately define what is a human being. All they have are morphology and statistic analyses based on how things are assumed to happen. Obviously this would exclude miracles at the outset. I would think that this poses an insurmountable problem if the aim is to arrive at a valid explanation of man’s presence on earth.

 

[Al_Moritz]

So, what was the point you were trying to make in post # 271? You lost me. It sounds like you were saying that "evolutionary science’ has it pretty much all figured out in your opinion. I don’t see that at all. They can’t even accurately define what is a human being.

My response already given (emphasis added):

And no, humans are not to be solely explained by evolution which, as a material process, cannot explain the immaterial rational soul.

But the Church is clear on that. It allows for Catholics to accept the evolution of the human body, but at the same time it insists on the infusion of the soul by God.

And by the way, there is a difference between expecting that evolution will eventually fully explain the development of biological structures, and between saying that evolutionary science has it ‘pretty much all figured out’. The latter I obviously didn’t say in post #271, that is entirely your flawed interpretation.

 

[Aloysium]

My response already given (emphasis added):

And by the way, there is a difference between expecting that evolution will eventually fully explain the development of biological structures, and between saying that evolutionary science has it ‘pretty much all figured out’. The latter I obviously didn’t say in post #271, that is entirely your flawed interpretation.

Do you believe that evolutionary science will demostrate that we have as our origin, two first parents?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Do you believe that evolutionary science will demostrate that we have as our origin, two first parents?

No, but this is not necessary, because of the metaphysical nature of humans. See:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8931157&postcount=1327

 

[Aloysium]

No, but this is not necessary, because of the metaphysical nature of humans. . .

You are free to believe whatever you want.

IV. MAN IN PARADISE
375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.

Here and elsewhere, it is pretty clear what the church teaches.

My comments above were based on the fact (according to me, based on revealed truth) that currently science has it wrong about our origins. I do not think they can ever arrive at this truth