Catholic Traditon vs Science - are we looking deep enough

[jcrichton]

I didn’t suppose that all Catholics will automatically think any particular thing about me. I just mentioned, as an example, that SOME individuals here might take my revelation of being an agnostic atheist as something to use against my arguments. That would be ad hominem, yes, but it does seem to come up quite often on forums like this, especially when those discussing the issues are unfamiliar with the common logical fallacies. Like I said, ignorance breeds intolerance. But no, I have a lot of respect for the debating, writing, and critical thinking abilities of a good number of members on this forum, so it wasn’t some broad sweeping attack or anything.

Nope, I’m not. Those are not examples that I am aware of that have anything to do with Catholicism. The first thing that came to mind when you mentioned the school shooters is was that you were referring to the Columbine kids in the above pertaining example, but I don’t know enough about their backgrounds to make any kind of judgment like that. From what I know, it wasn’t the major, if any, influence.

Wars being a product of Christian religion is way too general a statement to make. There have been conflicts in the past (the Crusades) with the clash of religion being the touted reason for the conflict, but I have also read that there were huge political motivations involved. I will not make such a black and white claim that “Christianity is the cause of wars” at all.

Hi!

Thank you for the clarifications… many times I’ve met (live and on-line) with self-professed atheists that do claim that all the problems (I know they are generalizing–but it is also indicative of what they are passing along to others) in the world rest on the Catholic Church (some times they also include non-Catholic Christians).

I fail to see the reason for Catholics to attack non-Catholics or others just because they do not believe as we do… I’ve never experience that–unless there is provocation… Catholics (speaking from those I know personally), as many other groups, tend to take attacks on the Faith very personal…

I will pray that you do not suffer such fate (as you fear from the part of some); just don’t tell me that you also used to be a Priest!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I don’t have an ultimate answer for you on that one. But anyway, the question is a trap. It isn’t something that one can safely or easily propose without having an extensive, systematic, non-contradicting answer. If you slip up in how you state it in the environment of a forum like this, people will start using the greatly possible lack of total coherency in your post against you. I’m not going to take myself down that path right now, as it’d be digging more holes than I can fill at the moment.

Edit: I will say that I find great wisdom in being agnostic about certain matters. An example of such would be the fourteen unanswerable questions from Buddhism, (not that I necessarily subscribe to them.)

…but the question is not a trap!

If you are Catholic the only Truth is Jesus.

If you are an atheist it is everything but Jesus.

If you are a buddist…

Searching for truth in a Catholic site would necessarily mean that you are searching for Jesus or you are seeking to persuade those who are to forgo their quest and join yours.

…just read back some of the posts you’ve made… particularly the last few; you confess that your parents had no real Catholic structure (as far as conviction of the Faith) yet you feel that you were forced into a belief system that was foreign to your inner being… you promote multiple belief systems as a means to teach children and give them a sense of “free choice;” yet you yourself were basically the product of such freedom and you ended up trading Faith for faith in man.

…from my perspective (inclusive of your suggested reading and sites) you are not seeking my Truth: Jesus.

But I do not hold that against you… it is your choice; what I find “strange” is that you seek this venue to excercise that choice.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[drpmjhess]

I guess there could be an afterlife without a deity needed to have created it or this world. In other words, it would be something that we cannot scientifically detect, but when we die, our neural consciousness would go there or be transferred there somehow, and it, like the current world, would not have been created by a god, but would just be here, as this world just is. But I think the same logic that applies to my not living my life with theism, also has me not living my life with that one on my mind.

mmortal03, I don’t see how “afterlife” makes any sense outside of a theistic context. I believe neuroscience shows that not only is my consciousness dependent on a brain, but that it is dependent on this brain. Without the present physical set-up, my consciousness would not exist; hence disembodied consciousness strikes me as without foundation. Therefore, life after death only makes sense if there is a being who can reconstitute the physical entity that is my brain, and I cannot imagine such a being not being God.

Now, what about God but no afterlife? There is no contradiction here, but it would seem to render our lives rather pointless. With no possible fulfillment of our hopes and dreams, no eschatological reparation for our sins, what is the point of this life? That’s why I tend to agree with Lutheran theologian Ted Peters that ultimately theodicy can only be coherently constructed in an eschatological context.

Petrus

 

[mmortal03]

There are general things about human nature that you can build systems of ethics or morality upon. You don’t need a God to exist to have morality, or for individuals to want or need to treat other people as human beings.

A. Yes…and from where does it come, what informs it?

It just exists. It emerged due to natural processes. Nothing external is needed to inform it. In other words, I think C.S. Lewis’ argument involving Natural Law is flawed. I don’t think that the existence of abstract ideas and tendencies like morality, emotions, etc. do need any external source. They just exist, just like everything else like you and me just does.

 

[elt1956]

The burying of the dead by Neanderthals has been debunked recently.

By whom? I just saw this story of the Neanderthals very recently on Discovery Channel.

 

[elt1956]

The burying of the dead by Neanderthals has been debunked recently.

It just exists. It emerged due to natural processes. Nothing external is needed to inform it. In other words, I think C.S. Lewis’ argument involving Natural Law is flawed. I don’t think that the existence of abstract ideas and tendencies like morality, emotions, etc. do need any external source. They just exist, just like everything else like you and me just does.

The compulsion for self preservation is strong in humans. Where does the “pull” for humanitarian acts come from?

 

[mmortal03]

If you are Catholic the only Truth is Jesus.

If you are an atheist it is everything but Jesus.

It isn’t an all or nothing thing. There are certain things that the Bible says that Jesus said that I can still agree with.

Remember that if you are Catholic, you are also denying the existence of every other religion’s beliefs about their god as being ultimate truth. I take it a step further and say that there is no way for me to know if ANY of the religious beliefs that have existed about God are ultimate truth.

Searching for truth in a Catholic site would necessarily mean that you are searching for Jesus or you are seeking to persuade those who are to forgo their quest and join yours.

I am interested in the discussions. I am not trying to “find Jesus” or to persuade others to become atheists. It doesn’t “necessarily” mean that. My presence on this forum has to do with past membership making it convenient for me to bounce my viewpoints off of others, and for self analysis.

…just read back some of the posts you’ve made… particularly the last few; you confess that your parents had no real Catholic structure (as far as conviction of the Faith)

No, they had, and continue to have, conviction in their faith, it just isn’t an intellectual conviction. They believe in God, but not because philosophy or logic dictates it, but because they just “feel” that it is right. That isn’t “good enough” for me. I don’t base or validate my beliefs on some kind of emotional intuition (and if I tried doing that, it just wouldn’t exist in my head for me to have that type of conviction. There is no internal connection I feel to a god or anything like that. It just isn’t there.)

yet you feel that you were forced into a belief system that was foreign to your inner being

Well, I was forced to participate in it, but not until I really analyzed my “inner being” did I get why it didn’t work for me. In other words, I am not saying I have some kind of contempt for my parents because they made me go to church. They weren’t of the mindset to even recognize how it might have been harmful to me to only expose me to this narrow range of beliefs.

… you promote multiple belief systems as a means to teach children and give them a sense of “free choice;” yet you yourself were basically the product of such freedom and you ended up trading Faith for faith in man.

I only was allowed that freedom once I was out on my own, really. Yes, I could have chosen to not go to Church, but with stiff consequences. However, my parents were not mindlessly strict enforcers of all of the Church’s law, either, so it did at least not cut off my ability to critically think for myself, even if I didn’t have the good atheistic arguments in my hands until much later. My parents also had (and continue to have) their certain disagreements with the Church here and there, but are still devoted enough to it to not change their religious affiliation.

…from my perspective (inclusive of your suggested reading and sites) you are not seeking my Truth: Jesus.

But I do not hold that against you… it is your choice; what I find “strange” is that you seek this venue to excercise that choice.

Catholicism isn’t all bad, and there are many quite good critical thinkers here who can critique my arguments from a theist’s perspective. I don’t think it is so far fetched to listen to the opinions of a community that you used to be a part of. The philosophical discussions, by themselves, are stimulating to me.

 

[mmortal03]

mmortal03, I don’t see how “afterlife” makes any sense outside of a theistic context. I believe neuroscience shows that not only is my consciousness dependent on a brain, but that it is dependent on this brain. Without the present physical set-up, my consciousness would not exist; hence disembodied consciousness strikes me as without foundation. Therefore, life after death only makes sense if there is a being who can reconstitute the physical entity that is my brain, and I cannot imagine such a being not being God.

It could all just be one big simulation, like the Matrix, with no deity outside of the Matrix, either.

Now, what about God but no afterlife? There is no contradiction here, but it would seem to render our lives rather pointless. With no possible fulfillment of our hopes and dreams, no eschatological reparation for our sins, what is the point of this life? That’s why I tend to agree with Lutheran theologian Ted Peters that ultimately theodicy can only be coherently constructed in an eschatological context.

There doesn’t need to be an ultimate “point” to life. That is just some human’s schema that their needs to be some ultimate goal. Just because humans think something should be or want it to be, doesn’t mean that it is that way.

 

[elt1956]

What is the problem? The “physical evidence” does support geocentrism, a young earth and a global flood. Galileo was wrong. Ask any honest scientist is it actually proven that the earth moves and the sun does not. He’ll say no, but it “makes more sense”. NASA ofcourse assumes the earth is stationary when calculating targeting solutions or launching anything. They say it makes the math easier. The fact is it works. Put a bunch of minerals in a jar, fill it with water, shake it, and let it settle out: you’ll find you have your “geologic column”. We;ve been feed a bunch of nonsense by “science” for centuries. Why do we choose to beleive it and NOT the Church?

Then there is the discovery that our galaxy is “moving” through space.

 

[elt1956]

In the New Testament, Jesus gives us the prayer, “Our Father”. This why we refer to the Lord as Father. Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches us that the Holy Spirit is God’s ‘Love’ and His Son, Jesus is ‘The Word’. God is compatable with all things in the universe. He is the Uncaused Caused that began everything. And if this reference of referring to God as Him still bothers you, just remember that in literature the term ‘he’ or ‘him’ encompasses both she and he.

No it doesn’t. Not any more. You lose!

 

[mulligan59]

It just exists. It emerged due to natural processes. Nothing external is needed to inform it. In other words, I think C.S. Lewis’ argument involving Natural Law is flawed. I don’t think that the existence of abstract ideas and tendencies like morality, emotions, etc. do need any external source. They just exist, just like everything else like you and me just does.

That’s just silly. Was there a particular event or revelation that made you disbelieve in God? Is there something about Catholicism that particularly offends your sense of order, justice, whatever? How can things “just exist”?

 

[drpmjhess]

No it doesn’t. Not any more. You lose!

You’re right on this one, elt1956. But to some in the older generation the generic term for human will always be “man” and “humankind.” I observe in my children’s generation that this understanding of “maleness” as normative to both the Godhead and humanity is passing away. In fifty years gender neutral language will be common (as it is in my church), and an exclusively male clerical hierarchy may be battling for survival against the forces of inclusiveness.

Your friendly local heretic,
Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

You can make up for the damage you have wrought. I don’t know about your family and I hope God won’t judge them based on your heresy. His grace and mercy hopefully will abound. There is a bible passage that speaks to those who mislead the children…

Heresy is a difficult concept to pin down, and many creative thinkers have been labeled “heretics,” so I don’t take too seriously the accusation when it is flung at me. I certainly don’t intentionally mislead my children or my students, and I don’t shove stale “dogmas” down their throats. Rather, I teach them honestly and forthrightly how to think critically about scriptural exegesis, about the history of the church, about the relationship between science and religion, and about theology in its developing cultural context.

Petrus

 

[buffalo]

Heresy is a difficult concept to pin down, and many creative thinkers have been labeled “heretics,” so I don’t take too seriously the accusation when it is flung at me. I certainly don’t intentionally mislead my children or my students, and I don’t shove stale “dogmas” down their throats. Rather, I teach them honestly and forthrightly how to think critically about scriptural exegesis, about the history of the church, about the relationship between science and religion, and about theology in its developing cultural context.

Petrus

You are teaching them what you and they conclude is more important thant the Magisterium? That is not only heresy it is protestantism.

So Jesus’ teachings can get stale?

now your new name will be - the protesting heretical ex - theologian

 

[drpmjhess]

You are teaching them what you and they conclude is more important thant the Magisterium?

Did I say that? I thought I said I teach them to think critically. Of course, some find critical thinking a threat.

 

[buffalo]

Did I say that? I thought I said I teach them to think critically. Of course, some find critical thinking a threat.

Yeah, you did say it. I have absolutely no problem with teaching critical thinking skills. They must be taught in a correct context so they don’t fall victim to a conscience of convenience.

When you are teaching them to evaluate Magisterial teaching and make their own determinations you are teaching dissent.

 

[drpmjhess]

Yeah, you did say it. I have absolutely no problem with teaching critical thinking skills. They must be taught in a correct context so they don’t fall victim to a conscience of convenience.

When you are teaching them to evaluate Magisterial teaching and make their own determinations you are teaching dissent.

Then teach students not to fall victim to a conscience of convenience. And there is nothing theologically wrong with faithful dissent. We are not robots of the Magisterium!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow, I agree with you that God is quite beyond gender, and that is why I have a slight problem with the popular ascription of femininity to the Holy Spirit. This seems too much an afterthought, trying to balance a trinity already top-heavy with masculinity in the person of the Father and the Son.

Petrus

It is an arbitary usage no doubt, but it is useful to remind folks form time to time since we all fall into the use of masculine forms regarding God and the Spirit.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

By that definition I certainly won’t find hell a lonely place. My family will all be there, as will be many priests I know, most students I’ve taught, and by far the majority of American and European theologians. It’s going to be crowded. I just hope both Zinfandel and Chardonnay grapes grow in such a wam climate!

Petrus

LOL…well Petrus you can always be sure you are at CAF when you are told you’re not really a Catholic. Folks here would reduce to Church to 1/10th its size, but they would all be robot followers without a question about anything. That apparently is what they desire,since they tell us we are not wanted so often. I must be told that at least 10 times a week. No religion I know tries so hard through its members to reduce their numbers. It’s another of the oddities of fundamentalist Catholicism. Pretty much in line with the great unchurched fundies who tell most everyone they are going ot hell too. Fundamentalism makes for strange strange bedfellows.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It isn’t an all or nothing thing. There are certain things that the Bible says that Jesus said that I can still agree with.

Remember that if you are Catholic, you are also denying the existence of every other religion’s beliefs about their god as being ultimate truth. I take it a step further and say that there is no way for me to know if ANY of the religious beliefs that have existed about God are ultimate truth.

I am interested in the discussions. I am not trying to “find Jesus” or to persuade others to become atheists. It doesn’t “necessarily” mean that. My presence on this forum has to do with past membership making it convenient for me to bounce my viewpoints off of others, and for self analysis.

No, they had, and continue to have, conviction in their faith, it just isn’t an intellectual conviction. They believe in God, but not because philosophy or logic dictates it, but because they just “feel” that it is right. That isn’t “good enough” for me. I don’t base or validate my beliefs on some kind of emotional intuition (and if I tried doing that, it just wouldn’t exist in my head for me to have that type of conviction. There is no internal connection I feel to a god or anything like that. It just isn’t there.)

Well, I was forced to participate in it, but not until I really analyzed my “inner being” did I get why it didn’t work for me. In other words, I am not saying I have some kind of contempt for my parents because they made me go to church. They weren’t of the mindset to even recognize how it might have been harmful to me to only expose me to this narrow range of beliefs.

I only was allowed that freedom once I was out on my own, really. Yes, I could have chosen to not go to Church, but with stiff consequences. However, my parents were not mindlessly strict enforcers of all of the Church’s law, either, so it did at least not cut off my ability to critically think for myself, even if I didn’t have the good atheistic arguments in my hands until much later. My parents also had (and continue to have) their certain disagreements with the Church here and there, but are still devoted enough to it to not change their religious affiliation.

Catholicism isn’t all bad, and there are many quite good critical thinkers here who can critique my arguments from a theist’s perspective. I don’t think it is so far fetched to listen to the opinions of a community that you used to be a part of. The philosophical discussions, by themselves, are stimulating to me.

Hope you don’t mind if I chime in, but I find your posts interesting. The problem is that you are getting an extremely limited and right wing view of Catholicism here. This is not even remotely close to what is going on in mainstream Catholicism. Move around this site and see. While any form of contraception is vehemently decried here as mortal sin, 85% of Catholics in this country use birth control. A majority favor the right to choose for abortion. I’m sadly afraid you cannot learn much about what true Catholicism is by reading posts here. Unless what you are interested in are views that mirror pre-Vatican II views of the world. Some here are even more conservative than that. Just beware of what you think you are learning about the Church.