Catholic Traditon vs Science - are we looking deep enough

[mmortal03]

…where did that happened?.. did you not follow the news in the last decade or so?.. even a moment of silence, organized by the kids themselves, was litigated against by that pseudo civil rights cult–they claimed that the rights of the atheists’ kids were being violated.

According to your statement atheists and their hired guns are not persons of “any level of intelligence.”

I’m not sure what you are asking here, or what your argument here is.

 

[jcrichton]

Who me? I have never been known for any kind of humor or wry remark…

Always glad to entertain. I was looking for a little icon with a cowboy hat and spitting chew but all I could find was a leprechaun.

I know that you were not shooting for laughs but sometimes things serve a dual purpose… and, as they say, it’s all about timing!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

]Hi, David!

…I have not laughed so hard, unexpectedly, for a very long time… as the web’s intellects would have it: ro lol or is it rolol!

Hi, David!

…intellectualism and euphemism have much in common: they both operate from a position of grandeur and create formulas to produce a desired outcome… much of it is based on opinions–as we know, just as brains, everyone has one; I’ve learned long ago to respect other people’s opinions… understanding that, as a grain of salt, those opinions weigh less than my own.

So, do not despair; you can only own the label that you yourself commit to owning.

…as for science… I think that it is a wonderful tool at our disposal; yet, even science can serve a dark/evil purpose in the hands of intellectualism devoid of God.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I’m not sure what you are asking here, or what your argument here is.

Here’s the abstract from your post:

…I think that it is important that institutional Christian school prayer was removed. Children who’s parents are not Christians should not be forced to be surrounded by it, no matter how much of a good thing Christians think it is. Furthermore, no one who supports civil liberties with any level of intelligence has a problem with private prayer in school.

…where did that happened?..

The above question is directly related to your statement about "institutional Christian school prayer being removed:

…I think that it is important that institutional Christian school prayer was removed. Children who’s parents are not Christians should not be forced to be surrounded by it, no matter how much of a good thing Christians think it is.

Perhaps I am not old enough to have experienced that “institutionalized” prayer in New York City’s public school system… so I asked where did it happened? Since you did not undertand my query, perhaps I should have asked “when did it happened?”

…did you not follow the news in the last decade or so?.. even a moment of silence, organized by the kids themselves, was litigated against by that pseudo civil rights cult–they claimed that the rights of the atheists’ kids were being violated.

According to your statement atheists and their hired guns are not persons of “any level of intelligence.”

The above statement is in reference to this:

…Furthermore, no one who supports civil liberties with any level of intelligence has a problem with private prayer in school.

During the last decade various high schools have been in the news due to some of their respective students desiring to pray before the school day started… some came to school prior to Period 0 (that span of time before the officially authorized pre-school period when some of the students enter the school grounds); other students lobbied for a minute of prayer while others asked for a simple “minute of silence.”

All of it, regardless of the “non-institutional” involvement, became the target of the the people you call “no one who supports civil liberties with any level of intelligence has a problem with private prayer in school;” these students did not demand that the whole school prayed with them but that they be allowed to gather together and pray… even the “silent” prayer was denied.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Chuck_H]

Hi, David!

…intellectualism and euphemism have much in common: they both operate from a position of grandeur and create formulas to produce a desired outcome… much of it is based on opinions–as we know, just as brains, everyone has one; I’ve learned long ago to respect other people’s opinions… understanding that, as a grain of salt, those opinions weigh less than my own.

So, do not despair; you can only own the label that you yourself commit to owning.

…as for science… I think that it is a wonderful tool at our disposal; yet, even science can serve a dark/evil purpose in the hands of intellectualism devoid of God.

Maran atha!

Angel

NO CRITICISM

You just reminded me of a friend I have who says
“opinions are like butts, everyone has one and they all stink”

For the chuckle only this applies to no one in particular or all of US in general.

 

[jcrichton]

NO CRITICISM

You just reminded me of a friend I have who says
“opinions are like butts, everyone has one and they all stink”

For the chuckle only this applies to no one in particular or all of US in general.

…for the most part he’s right–still, there are some good-intentioned people out there who thrive not on debasing but on uplifting others.

(For that chuckle guy: …are you saying that the US is full of stinking butts?)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Chuck_H]

…for the most part he’s right–still, there are some good-intentioned people out there who thrive not on debasing but on uplifting others.

(For that chuckle guy: …are you saying that the US is full of stinking butts?)

Maran atha!

Angel

Welllllllllllllllllll, not the US of A , just butts in general

 

[jcrichton]

Welllllllllllllllllll, not the US of A , just butts in general

…it just seemed such a good set up, I could not but take a wack at it!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[BiblicalDavid]

I know that you were not shooting for laughs but sometimes things serve a dual purpose… and, as they say, it’s all about timing!

Maran atha!

Angel

Actually the humor is a strategy. If I ever get that full of myself just take me out behind the barn and shoot me. Life would be no fun anymore. Humor separates us from the apes. (among other things). It also disarms.

Hey there going to have a “Simpsons” episode about this stuff we are talking about!:extrahappy:

I am not completely certain that my shadows have a sense of humor. Transmuting Gold?.. er ah…, transmuting diamonds with their clinching gludes…

Timing is everything…

 

[mmortal03]

Apparently I am in a state of *moral panic *as proposed by my two beloved friends, MMortal and drpmjhess. Well, let’s call it concern, but certainly not panic. I now marvel at the fact that I am being dealt with. Not sure what that means but I am sure they will tell me it is very simple. I am hoping to connect my next dot soon.

If many of the historical events of the past were driven by moral panic then I am grateful for at least a couple of them. The historical items based on tyranny in particular.

The events that brought down tyranny throughout history were not moral panics, because they were not unfounded or exaggerated. I would argue that it was concepts along the lines of classical liberalism, with the masses finally breaking down the nonsensical laws and mores of the time that were what ended those.

Science does require physical framework, models, templates, data collection, mathematical proofs and so on and etc.'s. I can understand a certain amount of sterile and matter of fact ness related to such scientific approach. Be it atheist or Christian makes little or no difference when regarding simple facts. As well, science is only a framework. To be certain, we don’t even know what gravity and evolutional truly are yet. (Based on earlier threads) What the heck is electricity? What holds a quark or threads together within a group of atoms (again a scientific framework and theory) certainly each discovery as studied holds a certain level of paradigm shift to beliefs and knowledge that we held as truth in the past. Given the latest discoveries of DNA, I am fascinated by the possibilities of this scientific mapping.

This discussion is turning into a bit of a roundabout for me and is not really a value added activity any longer. I find the discussions direction a little weird at times based on my simple, farm boy, upbringing.

I am just a simple workaday guy that generally is just trying to make a living. I don’t think my assessments are that much of a stretch based on my current information.

Should you be able to pour the ocean into your footprint on the beach, let me know. It is only then that you will have discovered the true secrets of how God has designed life and the universe.

He surely has made it interesting to study in spite of this however and we, in our lofty view of self, think that we have everything figured out.

I agree with you that there has been a lot of going in circles with this stuff. I am going to contribute another comment to this pattern: You don’t need a god for any of that scientific stuff you describe, but somehow in your mind that is what it has to be, so, great, no more need to talk about it. Nothing I am going to say is going to change that, and that is what my perspective is on this. You are going to have to get what I am talking about some other way.

I have heard many a scientist loftier in knowledge and overall smarts than I conclude that “at some point science ends and theology begins”. I find this interesting from the standpoint that they realize a stage where the hand of God takes over and the science goes off the charts.

I hear what they said, and it can be taken in many different ways. But I don’t doubt that there are a good number of scientists who believe in some religion or another, though, nor that you’ve met one of them. I could quote an atheist who is a scientist saying something quite similar, but replacing “theology” with “the unknown”.

 

[mmortal03]

Hi, David!

…intellectualism and euphemism have much in common: they both operate from a position of grandeur and create formulas to produce a desired outcome… much of it is based on opinions–as we know, just as brains, everyone has one; I’ve learned long ago to respect other people’s opinions… understanding that, as a grain of salt, those opinions weigh less than my own.

So, do not despair; you can only own the label that you yourself commit to owning.

…as for science… I think that it is a wonderful tool at our disposal; yet, even science can serve a dark/evil purpose in the hands of intellectualism devoid of God.

Maran atha!

Angel

Why do you have to continue making this false assumption that without God, you can have no morality? It is completely false. Take away God, and it becomes okay to murder? No, it doesn’t. I’ll give more examples if you want.

 

[BiblicalDavid]

Why do you have to continue making this false assumption that without God, you can have no morality? It is completely false. Take away God, and it becomes okay to murder? No, it doesn’t. I’ll give more examples if you want.

I might actually agree with you here. Within the premise and construct of all mankind having intellect and no attachment to any God, there would be a certain morality or code of action and behavior that would be geared toward self preservation. Even on a fundamental level this could occur. Generally giving someone a kick in the groin would be one of those no-no moral constructs.

Given my known perspective, I am not going to go into a theology lesson here again for you because you have probably heard most of it before. Suffice to say, there is a glimmer of Yahweh in everyone whether they see or believe it or not.

As well, it would be difficult to prove the condition you describe. Put the non believing group in a bubble to see how they would perform? Because the non-believers have been interacting with a god or God bearing population that has deliberately set for laws and morality codes. The influence of God believing peoples would have to be eliminated. And the current population is not a “pure” sample group. They have been contaminated by the laws of those pesty believers.

Oh well getting late. This will probably be the closest I get to complete agreement in any fashion. And thats fine. I fundamentally believe in the providential and that our paths have crossed for a reason.

Getting way too late, Good night all.

Best wishes for tommorrow.

 

[Chuck_H]

Why do you have to continue making this false assumption that without God, you can have no morality? It is completely false. Take away God, and it becomes okay to murder? No, it doesn’t. I’ll give more examples if you want.

Actually, if you completely eliminate God from the equation, yes morality goes too. This does not say that “religion” is required at all. It says nothing more than, when we think of morality, we use a higher standard, we measure against something, and since there is nothing in nature that can be used as a sufficient standard we by definition must go “super” natural and look in that realm. The lion has no morality so a male lion can kill all of the previous male’s cubs to reintroduce heat in the females. His only aim is to provide his genes an avenue for expression and even this he does with conscious plan. This is nature unfettered by morality. Once a man begins to entertain thoughts of ethics and morality, he is giving God some measure of involvement even if he does so without professing belief. C.S. Lewis makes a wonderful argument of this even before moving on to any defined God as professed by any religion (Mere Christianity).
On either side of the coin, whether it is unfettered human behavior that has no morality but is responding to its own desired ends or human behavior that uses Biblical fundamentalism to achieve its own desired ends, God is completely removed from the equation and what results is always fundamentally evil as proven by historical perspective.
I won’t use this as any “proof” of God as I know Him or as an apologetic for any religion. It simply says that a man who looks for morality must go above nature since he cannot find anything in the natural world to base it on.

 

[mmortal03]

The above question is directly related to your statement about "institutional Christian school prayer being removed:

Perhaps I am not old enough to have experienced that “institutionalized” prayer in New York City’s public school system… so I asked where did it happened? Since you did not undertand my query, perhaps I should have asked “when did it happened?”

“When and where did it happen?” Is that what you are asking?
What you quoted that I said never had to imply that it specifically happened at any particular location, but my understanding was that it did. I said “I think that it is important that institutional Christian school prayer was removed” (in other words, that the possibility of it was removed). Your anecdotal evidence that you did not see it in New York City means nothing. That just means that it did not happen in NYC when you went to school there. This is a big country, sir, and NYC was also likely to be more P.C. at whichever point in history you choose compared to rural America.

The point is that teachers shouldn’t be leading students in prayer. I am sure that that has happened in the past.

Your point regarding breaking up individual student groups wanting to pray on their own time is contrary to the law. If they want to pray before they eat at lunch, for example, they can. If they want to pray together in a small group at a time where it does not disrupt instruction, they can. If a Muslim wants to pray at the certain times in the day, they will allow him to go to a room and do that. What they can’t do is lead the class or student body in prayers. Your argument that prayer is not allowed in school is a straw man argument.

Quoting Wikipedia on this:

Those in favor of sponsored prayer in state schools publicly often say that “prayer” is forbidden in state schools. Prayer is not and never has been forbidden. Regarding the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the courts have consistently ruled that students’ expressions of religious views through prayer or otherwise cannot be abridged unless they can be shown to cause substantial disruption in the school.

During the last decade various high schools have been in the news due to some of their respective students desiring to pray before the school day started… some came to school prior to Period 0 (that span of time before the officially authorized pre-school period when some of the students enter the school grounds); other students lobbied for a minute of prayer while others asked for a simple “minute of silence.”

If any of that was blocked, it was against the law.

All of it, regardless of the “non-institutional” involvement, became the target of the the people you call “no one who supports civil liberties with any level of intelligence has a problem with private prayer in school;” these students did not demand that the whole school prayed with them but that they be allowed to gather together and pray… even the “silent” prayer was denied.

You are going to have to show me your sources on this, and specify who was targeting these people. If they were doing as you say, and there were no other wrinkles in this, then, yes they don’t have any intelligence regarding their stances on civil liberties.

 

[mmortal03]

I might actually agree with you here. Within the premise and construct of all mankind having intellect and no attachment to any God, there would be a certain morality or code of action and behavior that would be geared toward self preservation. Even on a fundamental level this could occur. Generally giving someone a kick in the groin would be one of those no-no moral constructs.

Given my known perspective, I am not going to go into a theology lesson here again for you because you have probably heard most of it before. Suffice to say, there is a glimmer of Yahweh in everyone whether they see or believe it or not.

As well, it would be difficult to prove the condition you describe. Put the non believing group in a bubble to see how they would perform? Because the non-believers have been interacting with a god or God bearing population that has deliberately set for laws and morality codes. The influence of God believing peoples would have to be eliminated. And the current population is not a “pure” sample group. They have been contaminated by the laws of those pesty believers.

It would take an entire race of antisocial personality disordered individuals to not have morals and do what they want to each other. If you say that morality requires God, then you are saying that if God didn’t exist, you would yourself be fine with going around and killing people that don’t look attractive enough to you, or something like that. No, and that is because there is certain things in how humans interact that are, relative to humans, right or wrong, because they are beneficial to us as a collective group. And, no, that doesn’t require a god to have created these morals for it to be true. like C.S. Lewis tries to say. It can just be part of human nature, period. I am glad that we agree on something, though, as it’s a start.

 

[mmortal03]

Actually, if you completely eliminate God from the equation, yes morality goes too. This does not say that “religion” is required at all. It says nothing more than, when we think of morality, we use a higher standard, we measure against something, and since there is nothing in nature that can be used as a sufficient standard we by definition must go “super” natural and look in that realm. The lion has no morality so a male lion can kill all of the previous male’s cubs to reintroduce heat in the females. His only aim is to provide his genes an avenue for expression and even this he does with conscious plan. This is nature unfettered by morality. Once a man begins to entertain thoughts of ethics and morality, he is giving God some measure of involvement even if he does so without professing belief. C.S. Lewis makes a wonderful argument of this even before moving on to any defined God as professed by any religion (Mere Christianity).

This is not true at all as it doesn’t require a god at all. I have read Mere Christianity, and I don’t buy Lewis’ argument one bit. He makes a leap in his logic that there is no basis for. Morality can be completely a human thing. Just because I can imagine certain optimized or ideal rules for interaction between human beings doesn’t mean a god is needed. Being able to conceptualize of a “higher standard” does not imply there being a supernatural or a God at all. You can have a higher, or best, or optimal standard for many different things. A hammer I might imagine in my mind is better for the job that I am doing than another hammer. This doesn’t mean that a god must exist to give me the ability to think of a better hammer. The hammer is by itself a self contained entity that I can imagine and apply if I can actually build one.

Once a man begins to entertain thoughts of ethics and morality…

this actually just means that he is more intelligent than the animals and that he has different interests than the animals, such that he can optimize his collective environment in a greater manner than the other animals. There is no need for there to be a god at all for you to entertain thoughts of ethics and morality.

 

[mmortal03]

According to your statement atheists and their hired guns are not persons of “any level of intelligence.”

You completely twisted what I said into something that I didn’t just so you could make a lame stab at atheists. What I said was "Furthermore, no one who supports civil liberties with any level of intelligence has a problem with private prayer in school.
I wasn’t talking about intelligence in general, I was talking about intelligence with regards to their support of positions on civil liberties.
Atheists and their “hired guns” have no problem with others praying in school. As I mentioned a few posts above, it is the leading of a class or the student body by other students or teachers that is the problem.

 

[drpmjhess]

Actually, if you completely eliminate God from the equation, yes morality goes too. .

Chuck, I don’t thinks that’s necessarily true. Atheist morality can be based on enlightened self-interest. None of us wants to be murdered, so by convention murder is prohibited.

Petrus

 

[buffalo]

Chuck, I don’t thinks that’s necessarily true. Atheist morality can be based on enlightened self-interest. None of us wants to be murdered, so by convention murder is prohibited.

Petrus

What stopped the first atheist from killing the second?

 

[drpmjhess]

What stopped the first atheist from killing the second?

Nothing absolutely stops anyone – religious or otherwise – from doing anything; there are plenty of religious murderers. But conventional morality can be powerful: avoid wanton killing of one’s fellows because a society in which there is no prohibition against murder is a lawless one and a society that would adversely affect the welfare of oneself and one’s family. In fact, I wonder whether a society that had no prohibition against murder exist at all.

In short, societies have morality, based either pragmatically on extension of self interest, or based on the revelations of a "“God” who imposed these rules on us. Adding God to the mix provokes a chicken-and-egg question: does God prohibit murder because murder is wrong, or is murder wrong because God prohibits it?

Petrus