Catholic Traditon vs Science - are we looking deep enough

[SpiritMeadow]

Thanks for telling me about this, I’ll keep my eyes peeled for it.

I label myself an agnostic atheist, meaning that I leave open the possibility for some supreme being to exist, but don’t claim to be able to know what that being would be, and thus live my life without theism, and as a skeptic, with there being no empirical evidence of such a being.

If you say so. Again, I look forward to checking out what Fr Dubay has to say. From what you seem to imply, it is groundbreaking. (Don’t take that sarcastically. I am not here to berate anyone.)

Religion is a philosophy, not a scientific fact, as well, but regarding your claim that it is a bad philosophy, makes it clear to me that you have never deeply investigated it.

You guys keep repeating this extremely simplistic “random chance” argument, as if you know something I don’t, and you are in the process, trivializing the work of many well-renowned scientists. The scientific theories regarding the beginning of the universe are much more detailed and complex than this, and are not impossible assumptions. They are supported by scientific evidence, and the scientists who have developed them have specifically (obviously) considered probability theory.

I was agnostic for most of my life. A certain logic convinced me that belief made more sense. I have yet to find a proof of God and I’ve taken Master’s degree classes in theology and biblical studies. I don’t know why this issue raises so much angst here. It is faith after all. One can state that if God wanted to prove his existence, he most certainly could. That he does not suggests he expects us to reach the conclusion by means others than cold hard facts. It would not be faith in any case should there be proof. So I find the exercise both silly and counter to God’s wishes.

Science need not prove the non-existence of God or that the universe was created in a natural manner. Believers claim that it was not natural. It becomes incumbent upon us therefore to prove existence, not the other way around. Since we cannot, and science is not required to prove a negative, then it seems a dead end issue.

I can think of little reason why it is so actively engaged in other than that some don’t like the label “irrational” that is erroneously attached to the believer. As many have done, from Aquinas on down, a logically consistent argument can be made for God. It’s just not subject to proof.

 

[Janet_S]

If you say so. Again, I look forward to checking out what Fr Dubay has to say. From what you seem to imply, it is groundbreaking. (Don’t take that sarcastically. I am not here to berate anyone.)

Whether it’s groundbreaking or not, I can’t say. I’ve never seen it before. I just know I’ve liked every series by Fr Dubay.

Religion is a philosophy, not a scientific fact, as well, but regarding your claim that it is a bad philosophy, makes it clear to me that you have never deeply investigated it.

I converted from atheism to Catholicism, so I’m somewhat familiar with the philosophy, at least from an insider’s point of view.

 

[Janet_S]

You guys keep repeating this extremely simplistic “random chance” argument, as if you know something I don’t, and you are in the process, trivializing the work of many well-renowned scientists. The scientific theories regarding the beginning of the universe are much more detailed and complex than this, and are not impossible assumptions. They are supported by scientific evidence, and the scientists who have developed them have specifically (obviously) considered probability theory.

What detailed and complex theories are you referring to? Honestly, I’m interested in knowing.

Is there a theory intermediate between the belief that the universe (and all life forms) were created and belief that the universe (and all life forms) just came together-- dare I say-- randomly?

Because I have to tell you, I studied biology at Ohio State, and the “random chance” origin of life is what I was taught and what I at one time accepted. Maybe you’ve heard of the theory of primordial ooze–you put some molecules in a pond, shoot down some lightning to provide energy, and poof–the molecules come together to form primitive life forms. Anyway, that’s what I learned, and that’s an explanation based on “random chance.” And just because it is a theory taught in a science class, doesn’t make it science. Because it’s still just a story, just a myth, and nothing more.

And it’s important to keep in mind not all scientists are atheists, though many are. It’s just that a lot of atheistic scientists just assume certain things and never really ask themselves some of the hard questions about causation and design that would shake their atheistic worldview.

 

[jcrichton]

Of course animals are not on the same level as we are in these terms. I never said they were. You keep telling me ways in which we are superior to them, and I keep telling you that that isn’t my point. There are basic SIMILARITIES, and that is what matters from my point of view. I am by no means an expert in animal behavior, but from reading and watching media that has included these experts, I have found their discoveries about animal behavior to be enlightening.

What I was attempting to convey is that animals behave according to a mechanism that is in place… as excellent trackers as wolves and bears are they do not seek humans to take revenge upon them in order to satisfy their loss of habitat or mate/parent/child; that’s why many humans who have survived vicious attacks from animals insist on not blaming them for acting according to their nature. Humans on the other hand do behave differently than the animals because whether we nurture (love) or destroy (kill) we commit to both actions consciously.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mmortal03]

SpiritMeadow, I’ll send you my review of Haught’s book on atheism when the dust settles after “Expelled” opens on Friday. I fear biology departments are going to be distractingly besieged by Creationists next week.

I noticed that Haught gets slammed in many of the reviews on Amazon of the two books you have mentioned. It could just be those crazy atheists, though.

 

[mmortal03]

I was agnostic for most of my life. A certain logic convinced me that belief made more sense.

What was that? I’d be interested to hear it.

I have yet to find a proof of God and I’ve taken Master’s degree classes in theology and biblical studies. I don’t know why this issue raises so much angst here. It is faith after all. One can state that if God wanted to prove his existence, he most certainly could. That he does not suggests he expects us to reach the conclusion by means others than cold hard facts.

Catholics would, however, say that he did “prove” his existence, at least he supposedly did around 2000 years ago. But yes, if he exists, he has left our much later generations in quite the predicament, if the only direct evidence he left us was to become second hand knowledge VERY soon after it was dispersed, and he provided it during a time of antiquity where there would be no definitive medium for verifiable, uncorrupted transmission of his message to the advanced future.

It would not be faith in any case should there be proof. So I find the exercise both silly and counter to God’s wishes.

Science need not prove the non-existence of God or that the universe was created in a natural manner. Believers claim that it was not natural. It becomes incumbent upon us therefore to prove existence, not the other way around. Since we cannot, and science is not required to prove a negative, then it seems a dead end issue.

This is all true. My argument goes, however, that even if there was some generic proof for one or multiple gods to exist, there would be no way for me to be in any way certain which modern religion exists that represents him correctly, or if one even currently exists that can do that, or even ever existed that could do that.

My perspective is that there are an enormous number of moderate people around the world who are members of various religions (as well as those who are secular), and they are all more or less good people, due to the basic goodness in their interpretation of their religion, their cultures, and/or there being basic goodness in their dispositions/personhood. That isn’t to say that some systems of morality can’t be found to be better than others, so I am not arguing for relativism.

I can think of little reason why it is so actively engaged in other than that some don’t like the label “irrational” that is erroneously attached to the believer. As many have done, from Aquinas on down, a logically consistent argument can be made for God. It’s just not subject to proof.

I would propose that it is felt that it is needed to actively engage in this discussion primarily by the believers who have been unilaterally attached at the hip to it, or predominantly exposed to it, again, often unilaterally in their culture, for much of their lives. I guess there are others that it just fits so well, or well enough, that they feel the need to tell others about it, because “it just has to work for them too!”.

But the more I have honestly sought to unbiasedly learn about other cultures and religions, and as I have met people from around the world, the less I feel I can be so presumptuous as to know that Catholicism is the beacon of ultimate truth.

 

[mmortal03]

What detailed and complex theories are you referring to? Honestly, I’m interested in knowing.

Is there a theory intermediate between the belief that the universe (and all life forms) were created and belief that the universe (and all life forms) just came together-- dare I say-- randomly?

To be honest with you, I have read about such specific things in the past, but I don’t have them handy, so I’m not going to talk off the top of my head about those.

But in the most general sense, it isn’t even all random. The universe isn’t purely random in the first place. There are natural laws that govern how the universe works (and no, these don’t need to have been created by a god). There are random processes at work WITHIN these natural laws, not randomness changing the laws themselves. Within these natural laws, it may just be suitable for non-randomness (from our perspective) to arise in certain isolated cases (we don’t have any reference to know how isolated it may be).

So, it is all just based on one’s perspective of what you think should be considered “random”, and what you think is “normal” or “universal”. I found some pretty interesting arguments made about this at the following: atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/design.htm (it is five short pages, and all of it is worth the read, if only for the sake of this discussion)

Because I have to tell you, I studied biology at Ohio State, and the “random chance” origin of life is what I was taught and what I at one time accepted. Maybe you’ve heard of the theory of primordial ooze–you put some molecules in a pond, shoot down some lightning to provide energy, and poof–the molecules come together to form primitive life forms. Anyway, that’s what I learned, and that’s an explanation based on “random chance.” And just because it is a theory taught in a science class, doesn’t make it science. Because it’s still just a story, just a myth, and nothing more.

Whatever it was that happened within the “randomness” of the entire universe that got life started on Earth, it happened over a vast span of time. But, yes, at some point, non-living matter came together to form very primitive living matter on Earth. After that, randomness wasn’t as important of a variable. And, it might have even had to happen a few times here on Earth before it got going, perpetually.

And it’s important to keep in mind not all scientists are atheists, though many are. It’s just that a lot of atheistic scientists just assume certain things and never really ask themselves some of the hard questions about causation and design that would shake their atheistic worldview.

I don’t think you are giving those scientists enough credit. Yes there are scientists that are stubbornly strong atheists in how they live their lives, but they never close off their minds to all the possibilities. They have imaginations just like anyone else does, and they create hypotheses daily. Yes, they don’t live their lives based on something that is so abstract and immeasurable, but if they found good evidence for it, they wouldn’t have some unchangeable dogma that would keep them from believing it. They would run with it, it would be a huge discovery, and they would do more tests, just like they do with any other experiment.

I don’t understand this argument that religious people like to make that these specific atheist scientists are closing off their minds to the possibility of God. This just isn’t true. This idea that monism is a prison to such people is just a lame, presumptuous, and patronizing tactic to make religious people feel their beliefs are superior. Yes, there are individuals on both sides who use tactics like this, and these individuals from BOTH sides are making themselves seem quite pretentious.

 

[mmortal03]

What I was attempting to convey is that animals behave according to a mechanism that is in place… as excellent trackers as wolves and bears are they do not seek humans to take revenge upon them in order to satisfy their loss of habitat or mate/parent/child; that’s why many humans who have survived vicious attacks from animals insist on not blaming them for acting according to their nature. Humans on the other hand do behave differently than the animals because whether we nurture (love) or destroy (kill) we commit to both actions consciously

Yes, it is true that animals don’t go out to take revenge in such extravagant ways, but this again isn’t the point. We all know they are generally attached to their unconscious patterns of behavior more than we think we are, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t also move outside of these patterns every once in a while.

But, anyway, consciousness is quite an interesting and deep topic that we would need a separate thread to properly discuss.

 

[davidgaither]

I am leaving this thread. It just makes me too sad to read these posts. It is the same as when I see all of the divisions in ALL of the Church’s. God would not have divided his church. Man did and for the most part using the same augments that are in these post. Remember “A house divided will fall”
I am sorry but I am 67 years old. Have loved God all of that time and with all due regard to all the intelligences I read here. I don’t feel that it is that difficult to understand what Jesus ask of us. All it takes is to read the five gospels and see what Jesus said, then ask the question, “What would Jesus say” or want me to do. He made it so easy for us with only two rules. 1. Love God with all of your heart and soul. 2. Love your fellow man as you love yourself. For the last I do not see any caveats of… unless you are are Arab or black or what ever…and there is also no…except those you do not believe as I do. How many times did Jesus tell us not to judge others. Remember…“Forgive my trespasses as I forgive those who trespass against me.” “Take the beam out of your own eye and then you can see the speck in your brothers eye.” “Judge not, unless you be judged also”. on and on…and to me for a easy reason. We can not look into anothers heart and know his soul.
I believe that you can have an intellectual augment without the need to belittle other peoples view. For one thing, when you cause rancor in your opponent there is nothing else you can say that will change his option, so why bother except for your own satisfaction, or for the game.
I am so sorry if I also hurt anyone because I love all of you and I hope we are all children of one god. I do enjoy the intelligent repartee that is on these boards. It is just the rancor that I can not handle, I have been in every state and 40 countries and have seen rancor and hate all my life in all of these places and I guess I am just sick of it. I am just waiting to go to my Lords house where the lamb lays next to the lion.
My love to all.

 

[drpmjhess]

I noticed that Haught gets slammed in many of the reviews on Amazon of the two books you have mentioned. It could just be those crazy atheists, though.

I assume it’s atheists slamming him; Jack is a faithful Catholic. I have yet to complete the book. I’m giving a public lecture today on th eend of affordable oil; back in town tomorrow, and I’ll try to look through Haught.

Petrus

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What was that? I’d be interested to hear it.

Nothing earth shattering, I can assure you. I am compelled by the yearning for God that I feel. Secondly i am compelled by the events surrounding Jesus. Putting aside the relative truth of particulars, something extraordinary happened. Such that people wrote extensively about the experience and ultimately a good many were willing to die rather than betray that belief. I believe that people in those times were every bit as intellectually acute as we, albeit, they assigned more to the supernatual than we do rom imperfect knowledge. I am a bit overwhelmed by the millions who have found faith worthwhile since then, a great many of greater intellect than myself. I feel a bit arrogant going against that tide I guess.

Catholics would, however, say that he did “prove” his existence, at least he supposedly did around 2000 years ago. But yes, if he exists, he has left our much later generations in quite the predicament, if the only direct evidence he left us was to become second hand knowledge VERY soon after it was dispersed, and he provided it during a time of antiquity where there would be no definitive medium for verifiable, uncorrupted transmission of his message to the advanced future.

Such can be said of all Christians undoubtedly. But we were not privy to the eyewitnessing, so we only have faith. It does I admit raise the question why God would take that particular time with all its limitations to enter into his creation with such force. That is neither a plus or minus as to God’s existence, but may be so as to man’s conclusions I dare say.

This is all true. My argument goes, however, that even if there was some generic proof for one or multiple gods to exist, there would be no way for me to be in any way certain which modern religion exists that represents him correctly, or if one even currently exists that can do that, or even ever existed that could do that.

Where I separate here, is that I am not sure that there is one better than all others. there is one better than all others for me certainly, but one could rationally posit that the multiplicity of faiths are designed to reach people in their own particular place and time. I firmly believe that God does speak to all people in the manner most helpful to them. Some of us gravitate to other faiths where we find a better explanation or rationale.

But the more I have honestly sought to unbiasedly learn about other cultures and religions, and as I have met people from around the world, the less I feel I can be so presumptuous as to know that Catholicism is the beacon of ultimate truth.

I truly understand that. I am constrained to suggest only what I have above. The claim of Catholicism which is felt no doubt by other faiths, but not vocalized as such,. that they are the only way to “salvation” is as we can well see most unhelpful when trying to interact with other faiths. The few who are convinced and convert to the “true” faith are few in number to those who are forever turned off by the arrogance of such a claim. I have always found that the best teachers are those who make no such assertions but respect the beliefs of others, as it respects non-Christian faiths.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

To be honest with you, I have read about such specific things in the past, but I don’t have them handy, so I’m not going to talk off the top of my head about those.

But in the most general sense, it isn’t even all random. The universe isn’t purely random in the first place. There are natural laws that govern how the universe works (and no, these don’t need to have been created by a god). There are random processes at work WITHIN these natural laws, not randomness changing the laws themselves. Within these natural laws, it may just be suitable for non-randomness (from our perspective) to arise in certain isolated cases (we don’t have any reference to know how isolated it may be).

So, it is all just based on one’s perspective of what you think should be considered “random”, and what you think is “normal” or “universal”. I found some pretty interesting arguments made about this at the following: atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/design.htm (it is five short pages, and all of it is worth the read, if only for the sake of this discussion)

Whatever it was that happened within the “randomness” of the entire universe that got life started on Earth, it happened over a vast span of time. But, yes, at some point, non-living matter came together to form very primitive living matter on Earth. After that, randomness wasn’t as important of a variable. And, it might have even had to happen a few times here on Earth before it got going, perpetually.

I don’t think you are giving those scientists enough credit. Yes there are scientists that are stubbornly strong atheists in how they live their lives, but they never close off their minds to all the possibilities. They have imaginations just like anyone else does, and they create hypotheses daily. Yes, they don’t live their lives based on something that is so abstract and immeasurable, but if they found good evidence for it, they wouldn’t have some unchangeable dogma that would keep them from believing it. They would run with it, it would be a huge discovery, and they would do more tests, just like they do with any other experiment.

I don’t understand this argument that religious people like to make that these specific atheist scientists are closing off their minds to the possibility of God. This just isn’t true. This idea that monism is a prison to such people is just a lame, presumptuous, and patronizing tactic to make religious people feel their beliefs are superior. Yes, there are individuals on both sides who use tactics like this, and these individuals from BOTH sides are making themselves seem quite pretentious.

I don’t understand why belief that life arose naturally upon earth, if indeed it did, is somehow incapatible with faith. Such is utterly not true and simply belies an very strong lack of understanding of both their faith and science IMO.

I agree that atheists are not closed to God. Why would they be? Certainly a universe with God is to be preferred I would assume. Most atheists don’t really refer to themselves as atheists, rather they call themselves skeptics. They simply await hard evidence. I cannot blame them for that. If skeptics or atheists are strident, it is only because certain believers are illogical in their claims, going so far beyond the pale of rational logical facts to make their statement that such nonsense is dangerous to our children who must function in a rational world.

 

[Janet_S]

I noticed that Haught gets slammed in many of the reviews on Amazon of the two books you have mentioned. It could just be those crazy atheists, though.

I looked it up. There were 5 reviews–2 favorable, 3 unfavorable. Those who were sympathetic with Haught’s point of view gave favorable reviews; those who were sympathetic with the atheists point of view gave unfavorable ones. Nothing surprising there.

It will be interesting to see what the world will be like if these activist atheists (such as Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens) are successful in bringing about the further suppressing of religious people and their influence in society. Will we finally have heaven on earth?-- so to speak.

 

[drpmjhess]

I don’t understand why belief that life arose naturally upon earth, if indeed it did, is somehow incapatible with faith. Such is utterly not true and simply belies an very strong lack of understanding of both their faith and science IMO. .

SpiritMeadow, you are right – the natural arising of life from earth is not incompatible with faith, any more than is any other natural phenomenon. The Big Bang is not incompatible with faith in God; the formation of heavier elements through nucleosynthesis in first generation stars is a natural process too, and it is not incompatible with faith; the gravitational accretion of the earth and other planets from the disc of gas surrounding the infant sun is not incompatible with faith. George Coyne notes that his study of astronomy gives him even more about which to pray and praise the creator in Mass!

I think for YE Creationists the issue is that there can be nothing natural, nothing done through nature. Hence the insistence on a literal interpretation of a hexaemeral creation; of course here they are contradicting Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, and a host of other theologians and scientists. ID Creationists do allow some naturalism, but draw three lines in the sand: (1) a protective belt around the human “soul” that I think is theologically unnecessary, (2) a line around the Behe has called the “irreducibly complex” which we now know is not so; and (3) a line between organic chemical compounds and the first self-replicating molecules. If organic chemistry shows an imperceptible transition from the one state to the other (which it may well do), this third line will be seen as a god-of-the-gaps argument.

Theology should have no trouble with the imperceptible natural transformation of non-life into life, just as it has no problem with the transition from living into dead tissue. If we believe in God, we believe that She/He/It is embedded in every ramification of the evolving universe, and we don’t need to draw lines in the sand and protective belts to separate “natural” from “unnatural.”

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

PS – My public lecture last night on the religious implications of the impending end of affordable oil was very well received, if somberly so. I suspect it’s coming faster than the “doomsters” have been arguing, and a world without cheap, plentiful gasoline will be an interesting challenge. The college at which I spoke is preparing for this eventuality, as it’s largely a commuter campus.

 

[drpmjhess]

It will be interesting to see what the world will be like if these activist atheists (such as Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens) are successful in bringing about the further suppressing of religious people and their influence in society. Will we finally have heaven on earth?-- so to speak.

Janet, I share your concern, but I remain optimistic that genuine faith will perdure. It could be that the new atheism is a virulent response to the resurgence of a vigorous “religious right” initiated in the Reagan years, and that if society swings back to a more moderate position, that virulent atheism will fade into the background. But maybe not.

Petrus

 

[buffalo]

SpiritMeadow, you are right – the natural arising of life from earth is not incompatible with faith, any more than is any other natural phenomenon. The Big Bang is not incompatible with faith in God; the formation of heavier elements through nucleosynthesis in first generation stars is a natural process too, and it is not incompatible with faith; the gravitational accretion of the earth and other planets from the disc of gas surrounding the infant sun is not incompatible with faith. George Coyne notes that his study of astronomy gives him even more about which to pray and praise the creator in Mass!

I think for YE Creationists the issue is that there can be nothing natural, nothing done through nature. Hence the insistence on a literal interpretation of a hexaemeral creation; of course here they are contradicting Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, and a host of other theologians and scientists. ID Creationists do allow some naturalism, but draw three lines in the sand: (1) a protective belt around the human “soul” that I think is theologically unnecessary, (2) a line around the Behe has called the “irreducibly complex” which we now know is not so; and (3) a line between organic chemical compounds and the first self-replicating molecules. If organic chemistry shows an imperceptible transition from the one state to the other (which it may well do), this third line will be seen as a god-of-the-gaps argument.

Theology should have no trouble with the imperceptible natural transformation of non-life into life, just as it has no problem with the transition from living into dead tissue. If we believe in God, we believe that She/He/It is embedded in every ramification of the evolving universe, and we don’t need to draw lines in the sand and protective belts to separate “natural” from “unnatural.”

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

PS – My public lecture last night on the religious implications of the impending end of affordable oil was very well received, if somberly so. I suspect it’s coming faster than the “doomsters” have been arguing, and a world without cheap, plentiful gasoline will be an interesting challenge. The college at which I spoke is preparing for this eventuality, as it’s largely a commuter campus.

There is nothing that is incompatible with faith in God. That really isn’t the issue.

The issue is that there are points of intersection between revelation and the conclusions science reach. These have to be reconciled for they cannot be opposed.

That my resident heretic, is very different.

 

[drpmjhess]

The issue is that there are points of intersection between revelation and the conclusions science reach. These have to be reconciled for they cannot be opposed.

Buffalo, can you give an example of such a point of intersection?

Petrus

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, can you give an example of such a point of intersection?

Petrus

Again?

The dogmas concerning our first parents.

 

[Janet_S]

Janet, I share your concern, but I remain optimistic that genuine faith will perdure. It could be that the new atheism is a virulent response to the resurgence of a vigorous “religious right” initiated in the Reagan years, and that if society swings back to a more moderate position, that virulent atheism will fade into the background. But maybe not.

Petrus

I’m sure you’re right that atheists would fade into the background if “moderate” Christianity prevailed.

What would atheists have to worry about then? They certainly share a lot of common ground with religious moderates–cafeteria Catholics and other moral relativists–especially on issues of morality.

For example aren’t Sam Harris’ opinions on sexual ethics/the value of human life (abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, homosexual marriage, etc) identical to Nancy Pelosi’s?

 

[drpmjhess]

I’m sure you’re right that atheists would fade into the background if “moderate” Christianity prevailed.

What would atheists have to worry about then? They certainly share a lot of common ground with religious moderates–cafeteria Catholics and other moral relativists–especially on issues of morality.

For example aren’t Sam Harris’ opinions… identical to Nancy Pelosi’s?

I haven’t studied Pelosi.