Repetition and argument from exclamation marks.
).Somehow I knew you’d confuse evidence with explanation. MRI evidence is enough by itself to show that the mind is in the brain. You have no contrary evidence and your theory has no explanatory power, all you can do is criticize. But the problem with arguing against science is that every day a bit more knowledge is gained, the explanation becomes more tangible, and all you can do is retreat.
The evidence is it’s the brain does the thinking. You not being able to explain it isn’t a cue to give up and plea for ISTEs
.They show that fewer and fewer people are satisfied by ISTEs.
Yes it does, a lot of scientists are interested in self-perception, e.g. an old favorite:
BIG philosophical question bro. According to I think therefore I am the self is the thing doing the thinking, i.e. the brain. But when reading a novel the thing doing the thinking extends our self to the hero and when playing a video game it extends it to our avatar, we become our avatar. So the concept of self is squidgy, perhaps even it’s an illusion. Jesus asks us to be selfless, perhaps He knows the ego is an illusion.
Are you saying it’s better to stagnate?
You rushed into defining your INTE without stopping to think that the brain is not an invented thingamajig, it’s real and sits between your ears, or so I’ve been told.
It’s not a theory, it’s evidence. When a piano falls on your head, I don’t need to know the minute detail of its exact trajectory.
Again, you’re confusing theory with evidence.
Pretty pictures from MRI scanners have nothing to do with neo-Darwinism, we just look and see the evidence, that can’t be a conspiracy.
Cognitive neuroscience.
Which is where we came in. I’m content to leave it there as we’re going in circles bro.
Yes, the tragedy is that people like Edwest2 and other ID proponents here do not realize just how much damage is done to apologetics, i.e. to the salvation of souls, by the ID movement. They mean well, but in the meantime they fuel destruction – exactly the opposite from their certainly good intentions.Die creationism, die!!
Why don’t creationism just die. The only thing it has done for the human race is deceive atheists in to thinking they have the perfect excuse.
I’m happy to go on but don’t feel we’re communicating any more. For example, you say the self doesn’t appear in any scientific papers, I link to just one piece of work which proves you wrong and instead of acknowledging that, you now want a precise definition of self when you can see from the work that it’s totally unnecessary.
That’s a respectable position. The problem is the far greater numbers who don’t take to ID because of any evidence or merit in the idea itself but purely as a negative reaction to prop up their worldview, leaving a strong impression that Christians can’t cope with reality.
Welcome Jon.
There are many people who “believe in ID” but have no idea what it is.
Wow. You have a sample of 1 to support your position. That’s impressive.
Is it a prerequisite for atheist conversion that they accept the resurrection? If atheists demand a scientific church, it would seem to me that this would be a significant barrier.
God intervenes. Certainly you get that. Creation is intervention. Miracles are intervention. LOVE requires intervention, it is not a hands-off process.
First you have to ask you self what it means for there to be a bible. This is to ask a very reasonable and necessary question. Is our religion based purely on the face value of the bible alone, or is the bible in fact a theological and allegorical tool (with many contextual layers of the literal and historical) for the purpose of expressing and preserving an underlying belief system which already existed long before there ever was a bible; scripture being the expression of a faith rooted in the divine mystical experience of God and the spiritual reflection of that knowledge. Or is the bible simply an historical document, the purpose of which was merely to chronicle amazing tales of the miraculous which we are commanded to see as absolutely literal, a literalism upon which we must base our whole religious identity even at the expense of reason and evidence to the contrary? What is the purpose or intention of the bible? What came first: the religious tradition and spiritual culture in which scripture became prominent, or was it the bible? In what sense or context do we interpret the bible. In light of what history exactly?
No scientific theory argues against the possibility of the resurrection. No scientific theory argues against the possibility of miracles. Science presents no barriers to a reasonable and honest faith that respects the objective evidence which is shared to us in the spirit of intellectual development. All responsible scientists will tell you that the applied sciences have nothing to say about the supernatural, accept in special cases where the scientific method is used (sometimes by the command of wise religious leaders) to determine whether or not a physical explanation is more reasonable than an alleged miracle; especially when that miracle is contrary to the components of the Catholic faith. When the physical evidence happens to give a better explanation than the apparent miracle, it is the responsibility of any moral person to speak up about it so that we are not hoodwinked by desperate religious fundamentalists such as yourself. Therefore your response is ludicrous, since it is proposing that we should have a gullible faith that has no intellectual responsibility to science.
I’m not a geocentrist, flat earthist, or young earth creationist. I’m not aware of any posters here at CAF that actually fit all those categories, although there may be some.
Thats a philosophical idea or ideal shared among some scientists; but it is not science. I am sure you can find some deluded scientists who do not know where science ends and philosophy starts. That doesn’t reveal anything about the subject of science itself, and the fact remains that science cannot prove any theory that goes beyond the objective evidence. A scientists can only go as far as the evidence. The scientific method does not reveal the assertion of universal naturalism as being true, and many honest and trustworthy scientists will tell you that universal naturalism is an ideology not a science, and that in fact it is impossible to prove with the scientific method that the only thing that can exist is physical reality, and those scientists who say otherwise are not doing science but instead philosophy. Science can explain the functional aspects of physical causes according to recognized laws of behavior, but it cannot explain by definition of its epistemological limitations why physical laws - as a whole - exist. That is a metaphysical questions; not a scientific one.
It does not follow from the fact of being an engineer that you are not a desperate religious fundamentalist. There may very well be in existence engineers that are religious fundamentalists. Titles don’t impress me.
Such as? Explain one true scientific theory that contradicts a core teaching of the Catholic faith.
There is no scientific theory that contradicts the idea or the possibility of a resurrection empowered by a transcendent divine entity. You assert otherwise without giving a thorough demonstration of a real scientific theory that you haven’t confused with somebodies opinion just because they are wearing a lab coat.
You are misrepresenting the power of science. People who reject the faith over science do not truly understand the faith. People who reject science for the Catholic faith, do not understand the true nature of their Catholic faith or science.
If you are none of these, then perhaps you can explain why you feel that science contradicts the faith?
This was just to show that I personally know someone whose situation stands for the plainly obvious and universal. Or do you think that an atheist who is thoroughly informed about evolution could convert if s/he thought that belief in biological ID was required for accceptance of the Catholic faith? Dream on.
Of course all this is true, and I agree. But that is beside the point of the question if interventionist biological ID is true or not.
You only say that because you haven’t followed my thoughts very well as I explained them on this board over time.BTW - you seem to equate “God intervening” with ID.
I agree with the above. However, scientists regularly opine about how “this or that” is a religious delusion because science says it can’t be so.
I am an engineer. This is a fact.
That human intelligence “emerged” via evolutionary processes. That morality “emerged” via evolutionary processes. That there is no purpose to the universe. That humans are merely advanced animals and nothing more. Science says these things are True. The Church says they are “not True.” No doubt, you will define for your own arguments that “science is speaking beyond it’s capabilities.” So tell that to the scientists. Regardless of whether or not it is “really science”, these “incompatibilities with what scientists are saying” in fact become stumbling blocks to atheists converting because they contract Church teaching.
I am very familiar with lab coats. And scientific arguments.
I don’t know any Catholics who reject “science” (generic). Should we reject embryonic stem cell research even though the scientific community is overwhelmingly for it? Of course.