Creationism and life in general

[antonivs]

So then, do you believe faith and reason are compatible as long as you get to decide what science is?

I think faith and reason are non-overlapping magisteria.

 

[Al_Moritz]

No, it makes him transcendant - people really don’t seem to fathom what transcendence entails - it something that is beyond our reality, beyond our capability to understand.

Yet most believers view of God is something closer to the temperamental, thundering monarch of the Old Testament or Greco-Roman myth, who lives in the sky, enacts labyrinthine law & ritual, demands constant attention from his subjects, grants favours to the servile few who play along to the rigmarole and damning the rest out of sheer spite.

Yes, also it should be remembered that God, from being “wrestled with” by Moses (?), more and more revealed Himself as being transcendent in the Old Testament. It took a long time, because it is a difficult concept to grasp. And look how Catholic theology, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, stresses a transcendent God and how far this is from an anthropomorphic God. Some board members here, however, indeed want to throw us back to the primitive times.

I can well see why the atheists think we’re crazy!

Yes, I can see that too, and it’s a cryin’ shame.

 

[razredge]

Yes, also it should be remembered that God, from being “wrestled with” by Moses (?), more and more revealed Himself as being transcendent in the Old Testament. It took a long time, because it is a difficult concept to grasp. And look how Catholic theology, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, stresses a transcendent God and how far this is from an anthropomorphic God. Some board members here, however, indeed want to throw us back to the primitive times.

Yes, I can see that too, and it’s a cryin’ shame.

It is - we have believers who insist the sun goes around the earth, that the universe started 6,000 years ago, that Muslims and Jews are pagans because they forget to pray to Jesus, that all science and technology comes from Satan, that Jonah really was in the belly of a whale for 3 days, who split into denominations over whether the rapture will occur before, during or after the rivers turn to blood and we are plagued by human faced locusts, that Papal infallibility and the Magisterium can actually overturn reality itself - I’ve even met people who in all seriousness go to their confessor fretting over whether the sins they ‘commit’ in their dreams are mortal or only venial.

It is rather depressing actually

 

[Al_Moritz]

It is - we have believers who insist the sun goes around the earth, that the universe started 6,000 years ago, that Muslims and Jews are pagans because they forget to pray to Jesus, that all science and technology comes from Satan, that Jonah really was in the belly of a whale for 3 days, who split into denominations over whether the rapture will occur before, during or after the rivers turn to blood and we are plagued by human faced locusts, that Papal infallibility and the Magisterium can actually overturn reality itself - I’ve even met people who in all seriousness go to their confessor fretting over whether the sins they ‘commit’ in their dreams are mortal or only venial.

It is rather depressing actually

Rather depressing? Absolutely depressing. And then we have some of the more educated members here who accuse us of deism, even though anything we say and believe is in full accord with Catholic doctrine and theology. And in fact, it seems that somehow, perhaps by God’s grace, we understand certain theological points better than they do – apart from us being on the side of modern science, and thus of a more informed view of God’s creation, as well.

 

[inocente]

Inocente, it does seem that if you want to belong to a church you must accept its teachings. However, as I tell my theology graduate students, theology is a living dialogue between a faith tradition and the culture in which it is embedded. If theology refuses to engage in conversation with the scientific culture of its time, it ceases to a be alive. and becomes a dead relic of once living tradition. St. Thomas understood this well in the thirteenth century, and was eager to express theology in the idiom of the then-current Aristotelian natural philosophical tradition.

When the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic/Galenic system began to fail, theology was forced to come to grips with its replacements – heliocentric astronomy, Newtonian physics, atomic chemistry, historical geology, evolutionary biology, modern psychology. The new chemistry – which we follow today – forced a theological crisis about how to interpret Eucharistic theology. With the destruction of Aristotelian physics the rug was pulled out from under a literal interpretation of the doctrine of transubstantiation.

So yes, to be a Catholic you do assent to Catholic teachings. But those teachings must be interpreted in light of what we know about this ancient, dynamic, and evolving creation of God’s!

During the recent Tunisian uprising a young Muslim woman commented that this wasn’t about religion but about democracy because “religion no longer has all the answers”. That to me was a really profound summary of the modern world.

With globalization we realize that all people have the same basic needs and dreams no matter what their belief, secular democracy is now the real power base, and science provides knowledge independent of any given faith. These things are well worth striving for but most theology, both professional and our amateur attempts on CAF, lives in a schizoid bubble, retreating into a belief-in-belief fighting a rear-guard action against an imagined conspiracy of dark forces.

For example Communion and Stewardship para. 69 says there’s a “lively disagreement” in science about evolution versus “specified complexity [sic - irreducible complexity]”. No there isn’t, it’s silly to pretend there is. Read on and the committee get themselves into a big hole of their own making about causality which is “not incompatible with”, “can nonetheless”, etc. And it’s all a bit irrelevant compared to curing cancer or even Twitter.

It’s as if we suddenly woke up and can’t remember what religion brings to the party. But people still have faith, the reasons for belief haven’t and can’t change, so I agree with you but would go far, far further – the Message is still immediately relevant and instead of theology vainly trying to shore up its own traditions we need a revolution, not against the RCC or anything, but an honest recognition across the board that religion “no longer has all the answers”.

 

[inocente]

So you believe God never intervenes on any occasion whatsoever. You must be a deist.

As you know I love being awarded new labels, and will wear “deist” alongside all the rest.

Have you never heard of the “Deus absconditus”?

Nail on the head tonyrey – do ordinary people worry about high faluting concepts like whether God is hidden, idle, interventionist or whatever, or could it be that Christ touches their lives? I’ll wheel out Akus again with some slightly squishy but well thought out and relevant theology:

youtube.com/watch?v=UWXNm9b6pKs - There Is A Reason

 

[inocente]

It is - we have believers who insist the sun goes around the earth, that the universe started 6,000 years ago, that Muslims and Jews are pagans because they forget to pray to Jesus, that all science and technology comes from Satan, that Jonah really was in the belly of a whale for 3 days, who split into denominations over whether the rapture will occur before, during or after the rivers turn to blood and we are plagued by human faced locusts, that Papal infallibility and the Magisterium can actually overturn reality itself - I’ve even met people who in all seriousness go to their confessor fretting over whether the sins they ‘commit’ in their dreams are mortal or only venial.

Great research, but yikes!

I can’t find my own favorite, which was about using quantum mechanics to explain the Eucharist.

 

[edwest2]

During the recent Tunisian uprising a young Muslim woman commented that this wasn’t about religion but about democracy because “religion no longer has all the answers”. That to me was a really profound summary of the modern world.

With globalization we realize that all people have the same basic needs and dreams no matter what their belief, secular democracy is now the real power base, and science provides knowledge independent of any given faith. These things are well worth striving for but most theology, both professional and our amateur attempts on CAF, lives in a schizoid bubble, retreating into a belief-in-belief fighting a rear-guard action against an imagined conspiracy of dark forces.

For example Communion and Stewardship para. 69 says there’s a “lively disagreement” in science about evolution versus “specified complexity [sic - irreducible complexity]”. No there isn’t, it’s silly to pretend there is. Read on and the committee get themselves into a big hole of their own making about causality which is “not incompatible with”, “can nonetheless”, etc. And it’s all a bit irrelevant compared to curing cancer or even Twitter.

It’s as if we suddenly woke up and can’t remember what religion brings to the party. But people still have faith, the reasons for belief haven’t and can’t change, so I agree with you but would go far, far further – the Message is still immediately relevant and instead of theology vainly trying to shore up its own traditions we need a revolution, not against the RCC or anything, but an honest recognition across the board that religion “no longer has all the answers”.

Hopefully, all Christians will realize that science does not have all the answers. There is no conspiracy, just the ongoing belief in a man-made utopia. When man places himself above God, that’s when problems arise.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

So you believe God never intervenes on any occasion whatsoever. You must be a deist.

That is an unfair characterization of Inocente. I did not hear him say God never intervenes. Where I differ with the IDers is that I don’t believe science can measure or test for or prove God’s intervention. In fact, I think the ID quest for evidence of design is testimony to their lack of religious faith. I know numerous people whose lives have been forever changed by “miraculous” events. Such events are susceptible of naturalistic explanation, but that is not relevant. What is relevant is that the person’s life was changed forever as a result of their faith-filled interpretation of an otherwise explainable event.

StAnastasia

 

[fhansen]

What is relevant is that the person’s life was changed forever as a result of their faith-filled interpretation of an otherwise explainable event.

StAnastasia

I have a bit of a problem with this thinking, though, because I’d hate to have my life changed forever, positively or negatively, by my “faith-filled interpretation of an otherwise explainable event”, as if that’s all miracles are. I apologize if I’m misunderstanding you-and I probably am- but our faith is all about the supernatural, after all, or else it’s less than worthless.

 

[edwest2]

Then what did Jesus do? Raised the dead, gave sight to the blind and cleansed the lepers, all without explanation. God is diminished when human beings insist that He cannot violate natural laws. Blessed Pope John Paul II is one miracle away from sainthood.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Al_Moritz]

I have a bit of a problem with this thinking, though, because I’d hate to have my life changed forever, positively or negatively, by my “faith-filled interpretation of an otherwise explainable event”, as if that’s all miracles are. I apologize if I’m misunderstanding you-and I probably am- but our faith is all about the supernatural, after all, or else it’s less than worthless.

Yes, miracles are miracles.

 

[tonyrey]

		 		 	 	 As you know I ***love*** being awarded new labels, and will wear "deist" alongside all the rest.

Do you believe God** never** intervenes?

Nail on the head tonyrey – do ordinary people worry about high faluting concepts like whether God is hidden, idle, interventionist or whatever, or could it be that Christ touches their lives?

In that case why are you on a** philosophy** forum?

 

[tonyrey]

That is an unfair characterization of Inocente. I did not hear him say God never intervenes.

That seems to be the drift of his argument.

Where I differ with the IDers is that I don’t believe science can measure or test for or prove God’s intervention.

Design is based on the inadequacy of science to explain the order, intelligibility, creativity, complexity, organization, consciousness, purpose, value, beauty and development within the universe.

In fact, I think the ID quest for evidence of design is testimony to their lack of religious faith.

Why then did Jesus appeal to **reason **citing the beauty of nature?

I know numerous people whose lives have been forever changed by “miraculous” events. Such events are susceptible of naturalistic explanation, but that is not relevant. What is relevant is that the person’s life was changed forever as a result of their faith-filled interpretation of an otherwise explainable event.

So the first Christian apologists like St Justin Martyr and St Irenaeus of Lyons were misguided? Did they lack faith?

 

[ricmat]

Where I differ with the IDers is that I don’t believe science can measure or test for or prove God’s intervention.

That’s a straw man argument. Because many (not all) IDers believe in God, and God’s intervention, does not make it a tenet of ID. ID is not intended to measure God.

In fact, I think the ID quest for evidence of design is testimony to their lack of religious faith.

There are many types of IDers. Most are Christian / Catholic, some are of other religions, some are even atheists. Religious faith has nothing to do with a quest for design although most religious folks would no doubt conclude that God was ultimately behind the design.

Speaking as a Catholic, independently of my ID leanings, when one looks for God’s handiwork in nature (which appears in many forms - beauty, mathematics, the laws of nature, etc.) it is only natural that we would also see elements of design such as the harmony of nature’s laws. To refuse to see it, and therefore be unable to acknowledge it is in my mind depriving God of some of that glory he deserves.

We are called to praise God for his majesty and power and glory. Part of that majesty and power and glory can be seen in the “design” of a non-random, non-accidental, well planned and well functioning universe. A well designed universe. MOST Catholics believe that it is not an accident. If God did it (the universe), then how can we not investigate it and understand it from every angle possible?

The greatest scientists of the past (up until perhaps 100 years ago) saw science as a method to discover more about God’s creation. Today, science is used quite often in an attempt to disprove God’s existence. How sad.

 

[Al_Moritz]

it is only natural that we would also see elements of design such as the harmony of nature’s laws.

Aah, another point we agree on!

 

[ricmat]

Aah, another point we agree on!

Hmm… if that’s all you could agree with in my post above, I’m really disappointed.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Hmm… if that’s all you could agree with in my post above, I’m really disappointed.

Don’t be. Here’s another part:

“The greatest scientists of the past (up until perhaps 100 years ago) saw science as a method to discover more about God’s creation. Today, science is used quite often in an attempt to disprove God’s existence. How sad.”

 

[ricmat]

Don’t be. Here’s another part:

“The greatest scientists of the past (up until perhaps 100 years ago) saw science as a method to discover more about God’s creation. Today, science is used quite often in an attempt to disprove God’s existence. How sad.”

 

[StrawberryJam]

Don’t be. Here’s another part:

“The greatest scientists of the past (up until perhaps 100 years ago) saw science as a method to discover more about God’s creation. Today, science is used quite often in an attempt to disprove God’s existence. How sad.”

I object.

You know why I do.