R
- Status
D
Damascus
Guest
Thats what I mean. You dont have a question. You are only giving us a book list.
D
Damascus
Guest
Read any books about redecorating? Or cooking? Personally I could use a few suggestions.
E
estesbob
Guest
Peter Singer , huh? I dont think Ill bite. You remind of of a character in another book-“The Hobbit”, Bilbo is saved when these characters argue so long about how to cook him the sun rises and the sunlight turns them into stone…
I’m outa here.
D
Damascus
Guest
Sorry op. I did not realize who Peter Singer was until estesbob mentioned it - somehow I missed him on your list. Wow. His views are not compatible with Catholic thought. Um, wish you the best! Have a nice evening!
Asta la bye bye!
Asta la bye bye!
R
rightandreason
Guest
We as Catholics need to address issues such as science and creationism. In fact we have quite a substantial amount of science scholars who can defend creationism, intelligent design very well. We should not just dismiss this topic cavalierly as if it is of no consequence. People such as ribozyme bring up a relevant question. What are we as Catholics doing to bring the faith to those that hold no faith? Sadly, we are not doing enough. Of course we, cannot force anyone to believe, however we can bring substantial evidence to people who are seeking for Truth.
I would like to recommend reading 3 books on the topic of Intelligent Design. Here they are. Uncommon Dissent edited by William A. Dembski. It is a book filled with several scholars of our day who make a good argument for intelligent design. The Design Revolution by Dembski, and Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton. Anyone who is truly interested in science should be willing to read these books and then weigh the evidence. These three books are well written and provide some good insight into this topic, which I believe can help bring people to the Catholic faith. Take care and God bless.
I would like to recommend reading 3 books on the topic of Intelligent Design. Here they are. Uncommon Dissent edited by William A. Dembski. It is a book filled with several scholars of our day who make a good argument for intelligent design. The Design Revolution by Dembski, and Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton. Anyone who is truly interested in science should be willing to read these books and then weigh the evidence. These three books are well written and provide some good insight into this topic, which I believe can help bring people to the Catholic faith. Take care and God bless.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
1. Certainly it’s unnecessary to explain biology by God - because God is not an explanatory device. God is God whether explanation is required or not: God does not exist in order to be used as an explanation for anything; to think He does, is to make Him exist for the sake of man, whereas man exists for Him: specifically, for the greater glory of Jesus Christ, for Whom & by Whom all things are created. The “god-of-the-gaps” idea is fundamentally idolatrous, because it puts God, the Sovereign Lord of all created being, in man’s place, & man in the place of God. To do this, is to commit the sin of Lucifer. God is Lord - man, is not. BTW - it makes no sense to speak of “[c]reation”, without speaking of a Creator.
- God is the Cause of all things, not their explanation.
- God is not a “something” we believe in to explain what is not yet known or coherent or clear in things - we believe in God as the Creator of things that are clear & coherent & known, as of the things that are not. God will not be disproved by advances in knowledge, because that sort of “god” is not the God we believe in
- God is to be believed even when there seems to be absolutely not a shred of evidence for God; even if there seems to be nothing but evidence *against *God
Because God is the evidence for God. we must have faith in God, even when faith in God looks like madness - because God is is infinitely Living, True & Real. And this faith we have by God’s grace alone, for the sake of His Son for Whom all things exist - God cannot be discerned by science, because the sciences can discern only created things - & God is not created; He is the Creator of all things visible & invisible - He is transcendent, & Holy.
- So, He cannot be located within the universe, because He is not an object in it: He & and it are related & as Creator to creation; He is not like it at all, but it resembles Him; the likeness is asymmetrical
- I’m as sceptical as any, but the arguments of those who try to exclude God by concentrating on His works never cease to amaze me: this is exactly what St. Paul pillories in Romans 1.18-32. It’s a bit like denying man can exist because there are machines which run on auto-pilot. God is far more necessary to all creatures than we are to the things we make. Atheists disprove atheism every time they argue against the God Whose Goodness alone upholds them in being.
- God is a very specific being, of whom we can say specific, true, things - not a vague blur somewhere “out there” in the galaxies. He is known definitively in Jesus Christ, & anyone who wants a clear, final, definitive revelation of the nature, purpose, & character of God must go to Christ. God is not a little, manipulable, irrelevant plaything man can trifle with; any more than He is a mere concept.
- On the contrary, God is (in the words of Dorothy Sayers) “really real” - it is man who is the unreal thing. God is too real to be perceived by any means except those He Himself offers us: we cannot go up to Him, but He can, & has, & does, come down to us, most especially in the person of Jesus Christ Our Saviour & Lord. ##
Then pray (if you want to pray) - pray despite yourself; tell God what you’ve told us. Faith cannot grow & transform us if it is not exercised; the habit of prayer cannot become second nature to us if we do not pray.
It is no fault of God that men (such as Christians) do wrong; wrongdoing is so far from pleasing to Him, that He utterly forbids it. But for God’s grace, Christianity would vanished long ago. It is not kept in being by man, or anything in him (!!!), but by the faithfulness and mercy and graciousness of God. It cannot be discredited by our sins, because it is not founded on our virtues; virtues that we would not have in the first place, but for the grace of God, Who is alone Good & alone Strong.
Agreed - though there are exceptions, AFAICR - as to the explanation: 
BTW - nice signature ##Well isn’t that funny.
“Don’t debate them, you won’t convince them.”
Isn’t the point of dialogue to learn???
What is this ‘scientist’ afraid of?
Usually when I hear someone advise me not to talk to someone it is because they do not want me to hear something.
R
ribozyme
Guest
Well, it seems that if you debate a young-Earth creationist, their opinion would not change, no matter what evidence is presented.
If I gave you the name of that scientist, you would not use quotation marks when calling him a scientist. I find it offensive to him that you refer to him like that. He told me not to debate because science is not conducting in a blog-like fashion, and when I showed him our dialogue between myself and a creationist, he said that what he was warning me about. I’ll give you a hint about the scientist’s identity: he pioneered “continuous in vitro evolution.”
E
edward_george
Guest
Can you be so sure that God doesn’t exist?
T
tdgesq
Guest
This is my first post here, so I really can’t say whether this forum has done a credible job giving the answers you are looking for to atheists/agnostics. A book I would urge you to read is The Science Before Science by Anthony Rizzi. Although he is a theoretical physicist and not a biologist, he gives a very good overview of the limitations of the empiriometric sciences and the necessity of philosophy to answer the basic questions about knowledge and being.
Here are just a couple of thoughts for you. What explains freedom of the will? Perhaps you are a determinist and believe that everything (including the human being) is governed only by genetics and environment. That’s fine, but why is that we act like we are not completely determined in this way? Why is it that we believe that we are morally responsible for our actions and for others? What makes us believe that every human being has dignity? How do we decide when we should or should not engage in a particular act? Perhaps you think these questions are nonsense, but that doesn’t explain why humanity has struggled with them since the beginning of recorded history.
Let me tell you what I believe. I believe there is more to the world than just atoms. I believe that with respect to human beings, the immaterial is involved, and it does not follow the same causal laws that would essentially make us slaves to nature. If you are interested in exploring these questions further, I urge you to pick up Rizzi’s book.
Here are just a couple of thoughts for you. What explains freedom of the will? Perhaps you are a determinist and believe that everything (including the human being) is governed only by genetics and environment. That’s fine, but why is that we act like we are not completely determined in this way? Why is it that we believe that we are morally responsible for our actions and for others? What makes us believe that every human being has dignity? How do we decide when we should or should not engage in a particular act? Perhaps you think these questions are nonsense, but that doesn’t explain why humanity has struggled with them since the beginning of recorded history.
Let me tell you what I believe. I believe there is more to the world than just atoms. I believe that with respect to human beings, the immaterial is involved, and it does not follow the same causal laws that would essentially make us slaves to nature. If you are interested in exploring these questions further, I urge you to pick up Rizzi’s book.
G
Ghosty
Guest
I am an atheist convert to Catholicism. What particular issues do you have that you want to see addressed? There’s no atheist positions I know of that aren’t dealt with by the Summa Theologica.
Truth be told, converting atheists isn’t really much of a priority because atheists, in the sense of those who deny a spiritual reality, are very much in the minority in the world, especially in times past. There’s never been much of a need to address atheism as such until very recently, and it’s still a very minor need. Even when there is such a need, most of the philosophical arguments for atheism were dealt with long ago, even as far back as the Church Fathers, so there’s not much “re-treading” of that ground being done apologetically.
Are there any particular areas you think could or should be more closely addressed? As an atheist convert I’d be happy to see what kind of work could be done
Peace and God bless!
Truth be told, converting atheists isn’t really much of a priority because atheists, in the sense of those who deny a spiritual reality, are very much in the minority in the world, especially in times past. There’s never been much of a need to address atheism as such until very recently, and it’s still a very minor need. Even when there is such a need, most of the philosophical arguments for atheism were dealt with long ago, even as far back as the Church Fathers, so there’s not much “re-treading” of that ground being done apologetically.
Are there any particular areas you think could or should be more closely addressed? As an atheist convert I’d be happy to see what kind of work could be done
Peace and God bless!
But you do not know that. And there is always more information on both sides of the argument to be found.
It would seem to me that avoiding a debate on the basis that you can’t win is a poor excuse.
It looks to me more like there is a fear of one type of information or the other. You made a blanket statement in your earlier post, “But a scientist (through an e-mail correspondence) has advised me not to debate creationists and religious apologists because I am unlikely to convince anyone.” and now you are trying to qualify it to only “young-Earth creationists.”
Are you backing down from the position of this “scientist?”
You are correct, I would not use quotes. If I had a name, quotes would be unnecessary. As it is, I have no other way to identify them. I use quotes because I also have reason to doubt they are a scientist. Part of being a scientist is being open to new information and understandings. Advising not to debate is not conducive to that. Therefore “scientist” it is.
My apologies if this really offends you.
I
inJESUS
Guest
No human being can convince an atheist. Only God does if the person wants to know God.
Belief in God is not an obligation. It is a choice. You choose to believe then he’ll answer. If you choose not to believe, He won’t oblige you.
Belief in God is not an obligation. It is a choice. You choose to believe then he’ll answer. If you choose not to believe, He won’t oblige you.
R
ribozyme
Guest
Hmm… well it could apply to some other groups not only regarding young-Earth creationists. For example, since this is a Catholic message board, I am sure it has garnered its fair share of fundamentalists Christians. I must ask you how many of them still retain their incorrect misconceptions of Catholics such as the accusation of being Mary worshippers. Some of them change their views, some would not no matter what arguments are presented.
Well, I’ll give you another hint about the scientists idenity. Jonathan Sarfati (in the same exchange that I showed to him and alluded to on this thread), like yourself, has doubted that he is a scientist:
Sarfati:
Nope, he is not man of faith. As far as I am concerned, he does not believe in a personal God.
Sarfati:
Well, according to this, he is not a real “scientist” because he uses evolution in his research, and I mean that quite literally.
Look for that exchange on the Internet and you will figure out who the scientist is.
He did not directly say to me not to debate creationists and religious apologists though. But from my exchange with Sarfati, his advice was suppose to deter me from not partcipating in those exchanges. I wished I followed it; Sarfati misrepresented the work regarding in vitro evolution and said some rather demeaning comments directed to scientists that I admire. He said that debating people in manners regarding science in a blog and forum like format is counterproductive. He did not say anything directly about religion, but it could apply to debating religion too.
Ghosty and Gottle, I thank you for your thoughtful comments. I will think about what you have said.
M
mflaschner
Guest
I’m one of those once-atheist converts to Catholicism.
I transitioned from “there is no god, I don’t give a flying flip what any of you crazies say” to a resounding “Alleluia!!” on the day of my baptism/confirmation.
As others in this thread have pointed out, I was not moved to believe in God’s truth through coersion from my friends, nor by reading through this forum. The Holy Spirit moved me to become curious about a topic [religion] that I once regarded as something “weak people used as a crutch to deal with reality.” Now I realize how strong one must be to follow Christ and I’m working harder every day to be a better Christian [read: Catholic].
–
I transitioned from “there is no god, I don’t give a flying flip what any of you crazies say” to a resounding “Alleluia!!” on the day of my baptism/confirmation.
As others in this thread have pointed out, I was not moved to believe in God’s truth through coersion from my friends, nor by reading through this forum. The Holy Spirit moved me to become curious about a topic [religion] that I once regarded as something “weak people used as a crutch to deal with reality.” Now I realize how strong one must be to follow Christ and I’m working harder every day to be a better Christian [read: Catholic].
–
- Status