Creationism and life in general

[StrawberryJam]

That seems to be the drift of his argument.

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

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

The complexity argument fails,. and the understanding of one who persues such a view is exposing their lack of understanding of fundemental science. Sorry, but it has to be said.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I object.

You know why I do.

Not really. Can you explain, please?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Not really. Can you explain, please?

PM? Or here? Your choice.

 

[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.

fhansen, certainly miracles cannot all be reduced to this sort. But they can be of this sort – that’s all I meant to say.

 

[tonyrey]

The complexity argument fails,. and the understanding of one who pursues such a view is exposing their lack of understanding of fundamental science. Sorry, but it has to be said.

Precisely **how **does it fail?

 

[fhansen]

fhansen, certainly miracles cannot all be reduced to this sort. But they can be of this sort – that’s all I meant to say.

Yes, sorry then. I just sometimes find too many people, Catholics as well-that seem to be looking for reasons not to believe. But then we have the other side, who want to believe so badly they find miracles wherever they turn. I agree there’s a lot of phony stuff out there.

 

[StAnastasia]

Yes, sorry then. I just sometimes find too many people, Catholics as well-that seem to be looking for reasons not to believe. But then we have the other side, who want to believe so badly they find miracles wherever they turn. I agree there’s a lot of phony stuff out there.

Miracles can be small incidents that change people’s lives forever. A non-believer would interpret such a miracle naturalistically, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is the effect on the believer’s life in faith.

 

[razredge]

I think miracles hardly ever happen, most of what believers think are personal miracles in their lives are mostly down to wishful thinking and luck and a strong dose of confirmation bias.

 

[edwest2]

You should learn about the Congregation for Saints’ Causes.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1100156.htm

Many miracles have occurred. These are tangible signs from God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Miracles can be small incidents that change people’s lives forever. A non-believer would interpret such a miracle naturalistically, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is the effect on the believer’s life in faith.

Our Lady of Guadalupe? What about the miracle attributed to her intercession? Fatima? The Church does not automatically endorse every claim. It investigates.

Your interpretation reduces those who experience miracles to “experiencers,” a term recently applied to those who claim contact with alien beings.

Peace,
Ed

 

[fhansen]

I think miracles hardly ever happen, most of what believers think are personal miracles in their lives are mostly down to wishful thinking and luck and a strong dose of confirmation bias.

I tend to believe God in any case generally doesn’t reveal Himself too directly or powerfully unless a person seeks Him with a pretty fair amount of faith/sincerity.

 

[StAnastasia]

Your interpretation reduces those who experience miracles to “experiencers,” a term recently applied to those who claim contact with alien beings.
Peace,Ed

Ed, only in your active imagination.

 

[inocente]

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.

Not sure about that Ed. Sometimes I look around CAF and see all the moaning about science, secularism, socialism, you name it, and wonder how Christians can be so down about everything. And it’s always the fault of some amorphous thing like science, as if scientists aren’t also human, never the fault of our theology.

New knowledge always challenges the old worldview, and it’s always been the worldview that has to change - the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not.

 

[inocente]

Do you believe God** never** intervenes?

Did God stop the Japan earthquake? Did He prevent the Holocaust?

Now this may be a Baptist thing: He intervened through Christ, otherwise it’s up to us. Looking for signs and/or rationalizing God is not big in our faith, it’s on a road to nowhere (1 Cor 1:20-31).

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

There’s philosophy that analyses beliefs, that tries to understand existence and so on. Then there’s faux philosophy that never questions its assumptions and just noodles around. Then there’s pseudo philosophy that “proves” stuff for propaganda. Matt 23:13-22.

As a scientist might say, there’s an awful lot of theorizing that’s not even wrong.

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.

We’ve been here before bro. Refusing to accept explanations and pointing out that absolutely everything can’t yet be explained isn’t a terrific argument, just a hostage to fortune when the only alternatives are non-explanations. There’s more beauty in relativity or genetics than any old-time philosopher ever dreamed of. Let’s hear a hallelujah.

 

[inocente]

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.

Certain scientists may have a bee in their bonnet when they step out of the lab, but science itself can only be neutral – God is either everywhere or nowhere, there’s no way to sift the evidence. Many scientists find great spirituality in exploring nature, and if they don’t happen to believe in God will express it in other ways. Meanwhile organized religion does its best to turn them away, they are despised and rejected of men. It’s kind of understandable if many don’t have much time for religion.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you believe God* never***

You haven’t answered the question.

Now this may be a Baptist thing: He intervened through Christ, otherwise it’s up to us. Looking for signs and/or rationalizing God is not big in our faith, it’s on a road to nowhere (1 Cor 1:20-31).

So your faith amounts to “Credo quia absurdum”?

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

forum?
There’s philosophy that analyses beliefs, that tries to understand existence and so on. Then there’s faux philosophy that never questions its assumptions and just noodles around. Then there’s pseudo philosophy that “proves” stuff for propaganda. Matt 23:13-22. As a scientist might say, there’s an awful lot of theorizing that’s not even wrong.

Who decides which is which? How do you know which category your philosophy is in?

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.

Refusing to accept explanations and pointing out that absolutely everything can’t yet be explained isn’t a terrific argument, just a hostage to fortune when the only alternatives are non-explanations.

Which explanations have been rejected?
Which explanations are non-explanations?

There’s more beauty in relativity or genetics than any old-time philosopher ever dreamed of. Let’s hear a hallelujah.

Then you shouldn’t be wasting your time and energy here but make haste to an atheist forum which demonstrates how science can in principle explain everything and reduces religious belief to absurd superstition!

 

[inocente]

You haven’t answered the question.

If God doesn’t stop disasters and didn’t prevent the Holocaust then you might just get a clue on whether I think He intervenes. Oh go on then, He intervened through Christ but otherwise:

NO

So your faith amounts to “Credo quia absurdum”?

Well, either you get Paul’s reasoning or you don’t, either you’re amazed by love or you’re not.

youtube.com/watch?v=HjCoX4tRoT8 - Stevens Creek, I Stand Amazed

Who decides which is which? How do you know which category your philosophy is in?

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool – Richard Fenyman (scientist and atheist )

Which explanations have been rejected?
Which explanations are non-explanations?

E.g. suggesting life couldn’t possibly start, thrive and develop independently by ignoring the evidence in favor of the non-explanation “God done it”. Or that the Earth must be the center of the universe because some important guy once might have said so. Or that polygenesis is wrong because it would mean reprinting some books (sorry grannymh ). That kind of stuff.

Then you shouldn’t be wasting your time and energy here but make haste to an atheist forum which demonstrates how science can in principle explain everything and reduces religious belief to absurd superstition!

I’ll stick with Dick Fenyman if you have no objections:

*Western civilization, it seems to me, stands by two great heritages. One is the scientific spirit of adventure — the adventure into the unknown, an unknown which must be recognized as being unknown in order to be explored; the demand that the unanswerable mysteries of the universe remain unanswered; the attitude that all is uncertain; to summarize it — the humility of the intellect. The other great heritage is Christian ethics — the basis of action on love, the brotherhood of all men, the value of the individual — the humility of the spirit.

These two heritages are logically, thoroughly consistent. But logic is not all; one needs one’s heart to follow an idea. If people are going back to religion, what are they going back to? Is the modern church a place to give comfort to a man who doubts God — more, one who disbelieves in God? Is the modern church a place to give comfort and encouragement to the value of such doubts? So far, have we not drawn strength and comfort to maintain the one or the other of these consistent heritages in a way which attacks the values of the other? Is this unavoidable? How can we draw inspiration to support these two pillars of western civilization so that they may stand together in full vigor, mutually unafraid? Is this not the central problem of our time? - calteches.library.caltech.edu/49/2/Religion.htm*

(It’s worth reading the whole thing for an honest attempt to unravel religion vs. science).

 

[razredge]

You should learn about the Congregation for Saints’ Causes.

Peace,
Ed

Yes, I know but I’m not so sure - for example look at Lourdes, there’s only been 70 or so approved miracles in the past 150 years and they get something like 80,000 pilgrims each year (if not closer to a million) - with such a multitude of pilgrims you are bound to get a few ‘miracles’ each year due to spontaneous remission or some other kind of natural process.

If the healings really were supernatural you’d expect to see far more of them - as surely more than 70 people in 150 years are holy or prayerful enough to warrant a miracle.

And as the skeptics always point out, there are no truly astounding healings that occur - there have been no cases of regrown limbs or anything.

Our Lady of Guadalupe? What about the miracle attributed to her intercession? Fatima? The Church does not automatically endorse every claim. It investigates.

Peace,
Ed

Our Lady of Guadalupe is a pious fraud so I definitely don’t believe in that.
But Fatima probably has the best claim to the occurence of truly supernatural events - but I’m a bit unsure about the Marian messages - seem very much a product of the time - why don’t these visions of Jesus & Mary every say something truly profound or revelatory.

Your interpretation reduces those who experience miracles to “experiencers,” a term recently applied to those who claim contact with alien beings.

Interestingly enough - I find the paranormal phenomena with the strongest evidence for it are UFO sightings.

Did God stop the Japan earthquake? Did He prevent the Holocaust?

Yes - it becomes pretty problematic if not impossible to reconcile the problem of evil with a God who intervenes and grants favours to believers.
(Of course there are always those who think the Holocaust, 9/11 etc. are divine punishments for sin…)

 

[fhansen]

These two heritages are logically, thoroughly consistent. But logic is not all; one needs one’s heart to follow an idea. If people are going back to religion, what are they going back to? Is the modern church a place to give comfort to a man who doubts God — more, one who disbelieves in God? Is the modern church a place to give comfort and encouragement to the value of such doubts? So far, have we not drawn strength and comfort to maintain the one or the other of these consistent heritages in a way which attacks the values of the other? Is this unavoidable? How can we draw inspiration to support these two pillars of western civilization so that they may stand together in full vigor, mutually unafraid? Is this not the central problem of our time? - calteches.library.caltech.edu/49/2/Religion.htm

(It’s worth reading the whole thing for an honest attempt to unravel religion vs. science).
I’m not sure what Fenyman’s getting at here. Is he commenting on the relationship of science and religion, or of atheism and religion? The first would have no contradiction while the latter relationship is contradictory by it’s nature.

 

[inocente]

I’m not sure what Fenyman’s getting at here. Is he commenting on the relationship of science and religion, or of atheism and religion? The first would have no contradiction while the latter relationship is contradictory by it’s nature.

Science. The first two sentences of the quote “These two heritages are logically, thoroughly consistent. But logic is not all; one needs one’s heart to follow an idea.” We have two valuable and logically consistent heritages – humility of the intellect from science and humility of the spirit from Christ. So he asks the stupid (i.e. top dollar) question. Why can’t we take what’s spiritual from science into church, and vice versa? Do these two heritages have to be mutually exclusive or is there a third way where both may have to give up something in order to gain much more?

He never worked out an answer, but it’s a great question to ask.