R
ricmat
Guest
So what is your answer to these questions StA? How does God relate to the world? (A short summary would be useful).
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
I agree. However, understanding the complete picture would help.
I have heard people respond to difficult ways in uneducated ways by saying something like - we don’t believe that stuff anymore - which is just as damaging.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
C
cassini
Guest
Let me start with the fraud. The fraud was/is that Newton’s theory that a rotating earth would cauisae it to be oblate. Thus when they forged an oblate earth it was portrayed as proving the earth rotates. Hecd2 would have you readers believe this was acomplished. Now before I show the fraud, I want all to see an even bigger fraud, – think up a theory, make a prediction abouit it, and if the prediction happens to be shown to be true, offer the prediction as PROOF for your original theory. That is heliocentric science for you.
Now read how Newton was ‘proven’ correct in his heliocentric theories:
‘Experimental evidence supporting this idea [that the earth is shaped like an orange] came in 1672 as a result of a French expedition to Guiana. The explorer [Jean Richer (1630-96)] found that a pendulum clock that kept good time in Paris lost 2½ minutes a day at Cayenne near the Equator. At that time no one knew how to interpret the observation; but Newton’s theory that gravity must be larger at the poles (because of its closer proximity to the Earth’s centre) than the Equator was a logical explanation.
It is possible to determine whether or not the earth is an oblate spheroid by measuring the length of an arc corresponding to a geodetic latitude differences at two places along the meridian (the ellipse passing through the Poles) at different latitudes, which means at different distances from the Equator.’ —
Encyclopaedia Britannica, chapter: Earth, p.535.
Measuring a piece of a meridian line does not, of course, suffice for the earth’s whole circumference. Nevertheless, the Earthmovers, we see, were/are determined to have their way, and all are led by the nose to accept Newton’s theory is correct. Thus they keep repeating everywhere:
‘He [Newton] argued that the Earth at an early pastry stage would bulge out about this distance [14 miles]. This bulge had not yet been observed. A short time later, measurements of the earth confirmed the prediction.’ —E. M. Rogers: Physics… p.325.
in 1700 King Louis XIV of France approved Cassini’s last great expedition. With the aid of his son Jacques Cassini and others, he measured the arc of meridian from Paris north to Dunkirk and south to the boundary of Spain, and, in addition, he conducted various associated geodesic and astronomical operations that were reported to the Academy. The Cassinis knew that it would be virtually impossible to measure every kilometre of meridian from Pole to Pole at the time. At best, all that could be achieved was a partial measurement. Consequently they decided to measure where it was most convenient, restricting their efforts to Europe in the northern hemisphere.
The results showed the length of a meridian degree north of Paris was 111,017 meters or 265 metres shorter than one south of Paris (111,282 meters). This suggested that if this trend occurred in the southern hemisphere, the earth has to be a prolate spheroid, not flattened at the poles as Newton proposed, but the opposite, slightly pointed, with the equatorial axis shorter than the polar axis, that is, kind of egg-shaped.
In 1720, the Cassinis published their findings.
This finding, of course, was completely at odds with Newton’s theory. Nevertheless, incredibly, or should it be, predictably, in spite of the Cassinian figures, and we are talking about one of the most respected measurer in Europe at the time, the British scientists William Whiston (1667-1752), John Keill (1671-1721) and John Theophilus Desaguliers (1683-1744) continued to acclaim Newton’s theory as true. Then, in 1732, at the Paris Academy of Sciences, Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis joined Newton’s supporters to be followed by the prominent scientist Clairout. Indeed, such was their quest for a bulging earth that they decided to try to falsify Cassini’s figures and thus clear the way for a triumphant Newtonianism. To this end they decided they would conduct a new survey that they believed would show Cassini’s measurements as erroneous. This time though, they would measure two points on earth where the differences would be greatest if it were an orange shape, at the Equator and at the Poles. This they claimed would confirm the Newtonian theory.
C
cassini
Guest
Continued:
In 1735, with Government finance, one group went to Peru under Pierre Bouguer and Charles Marie La Condamine and a year later another group went to Lapland under Maupertuis. The polar expedition, after the conditions nearly killed them, completed its mission by 1737. Measuring only one baseline, 14.3 kilometres (8.9 miles) long, they ‘found’ their bulge. On hearing this, Voltaire, that infamous Antichrist, dubbed Maupertuis:
‘ “Marques of the Arctic Circle,” “dear flattener of the world and of Cassini,” and “Sir Isaac Maupertuis”, for his vindication of Newton.’ —T.L. Hankins: Science and the Enlightenment, Cambridge books, 1985, p.39.
Note the Mason Voltaire’s need to ‘flatten’ Cassini and perhaps we can grasp the conflict ongoing between the two forces in the Melchisedech battle of Principalities and Powers.
As a reward Maupertuis was invited to Berlin by the King of Prussia, and appointed President of the Academy there. So, did that settle the matter? Well no, for if one reads the small print one finds:
‘This result… proved that the Earth was flattened at the Poles. Later, large errors were found in the measurements, but they were in the “right direction.” ’ Encyclopaedia Britannica, p.535
Errors ‘in the right direction’, he says? See how there is a ‘right’ result and a ‘wrong’ result in modern science. If it can be made endorse Copernicanism, then it’s ‘right’, if not, it’s ‘wrong’.
Ten years later, after measuring two baselines, one 12.2 and 10.3 kilometres (7.6 and 6.4 miles), La Condamine and his group emerged from the Amazon with their mission accomplished, confirming Newton’s theory of course. But again, in the small print we read:
‘Bouguer and La Condamine could not agree on one common interpretation of the observations mainly because of the use of two baselines and lack of suitable computing techniques.’ —Encyclopaedia Britannica, p.535
Nevertheless, as mentioned heretofore, such things mean nothing to the Copernicans for they still churn out their programme:
‘The source of these astronomical discoveries is, as we have emphasised, the Newtonian System of the World. Among the many consequences of universal gravitation treated in that part of the Principia is the fact that the earth must be flattened at the poles, that is, its shape is that of an oblate spheroid. In France Giovanni Domenico Cassini, director of the Paris Observatory, and his son Jacques, who succeeded him in the position, were misled by erroneous geodetic measurements’ …’Kramer: The Nature and Growth of Modern Math, p211.
See how they do it. Simply state Cassini’s original measurements are the erroneous ones and that will suffice for their purpose.
In 1909 the geophysicist Hayford presented the world with ‘the most accurate’ measurements, since adopted internationally for use in all data concerning the form of the earth.’ ( Larousse Encyclopedia of Astronomy, p.79.) He gave an oblateness of 1/297 based on figures of an equatorial radius of 6,378,388 metres (3,963 miles) and a polar radius of 6,356,912 metres (3,950 miles), giving an oblateness of 21,474 metres (13.42 miles).
‘So that settled it?’ I can hear you ask. Well not really, for we then find them having to admit:
‘Finally one more point must be noted. Although the above data refer to an ellipsoid of revolution, this may not be the actual shape of the Earth. Accordingly to Helmert, we could postulate an ellipsoid with three unequal axes, two situated equatorially and nearer to each other than to the polar axis. It will be the task of future geophysicists to decide whether this is so.’ — Larousse Encyclopedia of Astronomy, p.79.
Given the abuse of geodsy to ‘prove’ the earth rotates, who could take any of them serious anymore, let alone take oblateness as proof for a rotating earth.
In 1735, with Government finance, one group went to Peru under Pierre Bouguer and Charles Marie La Condamine and a year later another group went to Lapland under Maupertuis. The polar expedition, after the conditions nearly killed them, completed its mission by 1737. Measuring only one baseline, 14.3 kilometres (8.9 miles) long, they ‘found’ their bulge. On hearing this, Voltaire, that infamous Antichrist, dubbed Maupertuis:
‘ “Marques of the Arctic Circle,” “dear flattener of the world and of Cassini,” and “Sir Isaac Maupertuis”, for his vindication of Newton.’ —T.L. Hankins: Science and the Enlightenment, Cambridge books, 1985, p.39.
Note the Mason Voltaire’s need to ‘flatten’ Cassini and perhaps we can grasp the conflict ongoing between the two forces in the Melchisedech battle of Principalities and Powers.
As a reward Maupertuis was invited to Berlin by the King of Prussia, and appointed President of the Academy there. So, did that settle the matter? Well no, for if one reads the small print one finds:
‘This result… proved that the Earth was flattened at the Poles. Later, large errors were found in the measurements, but they were in the “right direction.” ’ Encyclopaedia Britannica, p.535
Errors ‘in the right direction’, he says? See how there is a ‘right’ result and a ‘wrong’ result in modern science. If it can be made endorse Copernicanism, then it’s ‘right’, if not, it’s ‘wrong’.
Ten years later, after measuring two baselines, one 12.2 and 10.3 kilometres (7.6 and 6.4 miles), La Condamine and his group emerged from the Amazon with their mission accomplished, confirming Newton’s theory of course. But again, in the small print we read:
‘Bouguer and La Condamine could not agree on one common interpretation of the observations mainly because of the use of two baselines and lack of suitable computing techniques.’ —Encyclopaedia Britannica, p.535
Nevertheless, as mentioned heretofore, such things mean nothing to the Copernicans for they still churn out their programme:
‘The source of these astronomical discoveries is, as we have emphasised, the Newtonian System of the World. Among the many consequences of universal gravitation treated in that part of the Principia is the fact that the earth must be flattened at the poles, that is, its shape is that of an oblate spheroid. In France Giovanni Domenico Cassini, director of the Paris Observatory, and his son Jacques, who succeeded him in the position, were misled by erroneous geodetic measurements’ …’Kramer: The Nature and Growth of Modern Math, p211.
See how they do it. Simply state Cassini’s original measurements are the erroneous ones and that will suffice for their purpose.
In 1909 the geophysicist Hayford presented the world with ‘the most accurate’ measurements, since adopted internationally for use in all data concerning the form of the earth.’ ( Larousse Encyclopedia of Astronomy, p.79.) He gave an oblateness of 1/297 based on figures of an equatorial radius of 6,378,388 metres (3,963 miles) and a polar radius of 6,356,912 metres (3,950 miles), giving an oblateness of 21,474 metres (13.42 miles).
‘So that settled it?’ I can hear you ask. Well not really, for we then find them having to admit:
‘Finally one more point must be noted. Although the above data refer to an ellipsoid of revolution, this may not be the actual shape of the Earth. Accordingly to Helmert, we could postulate an ellipsoid with three unequal axes, two situated equatorially and nearer to each other than to the polar axis. It will be the task of future geophysicists to decide whether this is so.’ — Larousse Encyclopedia of Astronomy, p.79.
Given the abuse of geodsy to ‘prove’ the earth rotates, who could take any of them serious anymore, let alone take oblateness as proof for a rotating earth.
C
cassini
Guest
continued:
As to the the great astronomers of the Copernican revolution:
‘Copernicus hardly bothered with stargazing, relying on the observations of Hipparchus and Ptolemy. He knew no more about the actual motions of the stars than they did. Hipparchus’s Catalogue of the fixed stars and Ptolemy’s Tables for calculating planetary motions were so reliable and precise that they served [the needs’ – A. Koestler, The sleepwalker, p.73.
So, Copernicus used the data of the geocentricists.
It was however the supposed LAWS of Kepler that established the H system on the road to victory: VICTORIOUS ASTRONOMY and all that. But let us now see into his story:
In 1598 Kepler decided to leave Gratz for fear of being confronted by the new authorities there. For two years he journeyed through Germany to Prague, the city where Tycho de Brahe was then working. Anxious to pursue his obsession with astronomy and astrology he asked Tycho to employ him. Like all the Copernicans before him, Kepler wanted access to the most accurate astronomical data to be had, and, as is usual, this data was to be found only in the work of the sensible astronomers, the geocentricists. Tycho sent Kepler a wonderful letter, writing: ‘Come not as a stranger but as a friend; come and share in my observations with such instruments as I have with me.’
Kepler obviously took the Danish astronomer literally and joined him at the observatory at Benatek Castle in 1600. Tycho was busy at the time observing the planet Mars, ‘the difficult planet’ as they called it, because no matter how hard they tried no circular orbit could be plotted that fitted the observations. Kepler however, assigned to a mere servant’s job, assisting in compiling the vast amount of data recorded - all of which had to be hand-written - soon began to doubt Tycho’s invitation to share all his secrets. Tycho was aware of Kepler’s philosophy for Kepler had sent him a copy of his Mystery of the Cosmos. Who knows, but perhaps at the time the one-eyed de Brahe knew Kepler was a ‘sleepwalker’, more interested in creating fantasies rather than building proper astronomical knowledge and recalled what Aristotle used to say of such ideologically minded Pythagoreans:
‘They do not with regard to the phenomena seek for their reasons and causes but forcibly make the phenomena fit their opinions and preconceived notions and try to reconstruct the universe.’
In a fit of rage Kepler accused Tycho in a letter of treating him like a servant, hiding important data from him. Tycho, perhaps seeing in Kepler some promise, was patient with him. Kepler, realising his only hope of fame and glory lay with the data of Tycho’s, repented and wrote the following in an apologetic letter:
‘Most Noble Tycho;
How I enumerate or rightly estimate your benefits conferred on me? For two months you have liberally and gratuitously maintained my whole family and I… You have done me every possible kindness; you have communicated to me everything you hold most dear…. I cannot reflect without consternation that I should have been so given up by God to my own intemperance as to shut my eyes on all these benefits; that, instead of modest and respectful gratitude, I should indulge for three weeks in continual moroseness towards all your family, in headlong passion and the utmost insolence towards yourself…Whatever I have said or written…against your excellency…I declare and confess to be groundless, false, and incapable of proof.’
Nevertheless, Kepler left the castle, returning to Germany. Here he fell into hard times, suffering from sickness and poverty. On hearing of his plight, Tycho again extended a hand of kindness, inviting him to return to the observatory and continue his work.
In 1601, not long after Kepler’s arrival, Tycho fell ill with a ‘mysterious’ malady and died. At last Kepler had it all, every jot and tittle of de Brahe’s life’s work. It was then he got the job as Imperial Mathematician to Emperor Rudolph II of Bohemia. The Emperor though, considered Kepler more as an astrologer than astronomer, and accordingly the Sleepwalker was kept busy providing horoscopes for the whole royal court.
Galileo did get the credit for discovering the four moons of Jupiter : Big deal, but this advanced H not one iota. Then:
‘He [Galileo] made a telescope through which he saw the phases of the planet Venus which provided direct proof of the Copernican theory that the planets [including the earth] revolve around the sun.’ — George Smoot, Wrinkles in Time, 1993, p.22.
Again nonsense. Tycho Brahe had established the planets orbit the sun in his G system, so when Galileo confirmed this why don’t they say he confirmed Tycho’s system? Because they were about the H fraud stupid.
So you see this grand Copernican revolution was no more than one fraud after another.
As to the the great astronomers of the Copernican revolution:
‘Copernicus hardly bothered with stargazing, relying on the observations of Hipparchus and Ptolemy. He knew no more about the actual motions of the stars than they did. Hipparchus’s Catalogue of the fixed stars and Ptolemy’s Tables for calculating planetary motions were so reliable and precise that they served [the needs’ – A. Koestler, The sleepwalker, p.73.
So, Copernicus used the data of the geocentricists.
It was however the supposed LAWS of Kepler that established the H system on the road to victory: VICTORIOUS ASTRONOMY and all that. But let us now see into his story:
In 1598 Kepler decided to leave Gratz for fear of being confronted by the new authorities there. For two years he journeyed through Germany to Prague, the city where Tycho de Brahe was then working. Anxious to pursue his obsession with astronomy and astrology he asked Tycho to employ him. Like all the Copernicans before him, Kepler wanted access to the most accurate astronomical data to be had, and, as is usual, this data was to be found only in the work of the sensible astronomers, the geocentricists. Tycho sent Kepler a wonderful letter, writing: ‘Come not as a stranger but as a friend; come and share in my observations with such instruments as I have with me.’
Kepler obviously took the Danish astronomer literally and joined him at the observatory at Benatek Castle in 1600. Tycho was busy at the time observing the planet Mars, ‘the difficult planet’ as they called it, because no matter how hard they tried no circular orbit could be plotted that fitted the observations. Kepler however, assigned to a mere servant’s job, assisting in compiling the vast amount of data recorded - all of which had to be hand-written - soon began to doubt Tycho’s invitation to share all his secrets. Tycho was aware of Kepler’s philosophy for Kepler had sent him a copy of his Mystery of the Cosmos. Who knows, but perhaps at the time the one-eyed de Brahe knew Kepler was a ‘sleepwalker’, more interested in creating fantasies rather than building proper astronomical knowledge and recalled what Aristotle used to say of such ideologically minded Pythagoreans:
‘They do not with regard to the phenomena seek for their reasons and causes but forcibly make the phenomena fit their opinions and preconceived notions and try to reconstruct the universe.’
In a fit of rage Kepler accused Tycho in a letter of treating him like a servant, hiding important data from him. Tycho, perhaps seeing in Kepler some promise, was patient with him. Kepler, realising his only hope of fame and glory lay with the data of Tycho’s, repented and wrote the following in an apologetic letter:
‘Most Noble Tycho;
How I enumerate or rightly estimate your benefits conferred on me? For two months you have liberally and gratuitously maintained my whole family and I… You have done me every possible kindness; you have communicated to me everything you hold most dear…. I cannot reflect without consternation that I should have been so given up by God to my own intemperance as to shut my eyes on all these benefits; that, instead of modest and respectful gratitude, I should indulge for three weeks in continual moroseness towards all your family, in headlong passion and the utmost insolence towards yourself…Whatever I have said or written…against your excellency…I declare and confess to be groundless, false, and incapable of proof.’
Nevertheless, Kepler left the castle, returning to Germany. Here he fell into hard times, suffering from sickness and poverty. On hearing of his plight, Tycho again extended a hand of kindness, inviting him to return to the observatory and continue his work.
In 1601, not long after Kepler’s arrival, Tycho fell ill with a ‘mysterious’ malady and died. At last Kepler had it all, every jot and tittle of de Brahe’s life’s work. It was then he got the job as Imperial Mathematician to Emperor Rudolph II of Bohemia. The Emperor though, considered Kepler more as an astrologer than astronomer, and accordingly the Sleepwalker was kept busy providing horoscopes for the whole royal court.
Galileo did get the credit for discovering the four moons of Jupiter : Big deal, but this advanced H not one iota. Then:
‘He [Galileo] made a telescope through which he saw the phases of the planet Venus which provided direct proof of the Copernican theory that the planets [including the earth] revolve around the sun.’ — George Smoot, Wrinkles in Time, 1993, p.22.
Again nonsense. Tycho Brahe had established the planets orbit the sun in his G system, so when Galileo confirmed this why don’t they say he confirmed Tycho’s system? Because they were about the H fraud stupid.
So you see this grand Copernican revolution was no more than one fraud after another.
C
cassini
Guest
Thank you StA, a gallant conclusion. You are indeed a worthy and gracious opponent. We can ask, what have we achieved on this very popular thread? Well here is my view. We have established that when one states the truism that there cannot be any discrepancy between faith and science, the statement can no longer be used as an authority because nowadays there are descrepancies in what one considers Catholic faith and descrepancies in what one considers to be true science.
We have demonstrated that there are currently two belief systems in vogue within Catholicism today. For one Catholic, one’s faith determines the truth of faith and science and for the other science determines the truth of faith and science.
The term FAITH AND SCIENCE can no longer be used as though all agree what the Catholic faith is and as though we all agree what science is.
I suggest then that somebody ring Rome and tell them our findings and that this term should no longer be part of any papal statements or opinions.
N
Namesake
Guest
Science only provides a probable explanation of how nature works. Science doesn’t determine the truth of faith and not even the truth of science. Just probability through evidence.
G
grannymh
Guest
Regarding the discussion about God being in or out of science textbooks:
This is the “granny theory” – Section One, Part A.
When faith and science are seen as a complementary relationship, the assumption is that when the subject is science, faith is implied, not denied. When the subject is faith, science is support, not deterrence.
This is the “granny theory” – Section One, Part A.
When faith and science are seen as a complementary relationship, the assumption is that when the subject is science, faith is implied, not denied. When the subject is faith, science is support, not deterrence.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
more rhetoric, and no evidence.
have you decided simply not to engage anyone that asks for evidence?
faith as a theological concept is entirely separate from the concept of science.
faith as in ‘my religion’ does not determine the evidence of science
nor does science determine my faith in my religion.
your conclusions lack credibility because your premises lack credibility
if you want some credence than provide evidence that your premises are correct. all the rhetoric in the world does not overcome what all can plainly see.
O
Orogeny
Guest
There should be ZERO science textbooks that mention God as a cause. To do so would to leave the realm of science. Science textbooks are for teaching science.How about you name ONE that mentions Him?
Peace
Tim
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
faith must be implied, with no Creator a universe solely based on scientism would make us nothing more than collections of nanoscale machines completely at the mercy of of the laws of mathematical determinism.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Pure fantasy on your part. Your reply to my questions about the measured value of g PROVES that either you are ignorant of the science or you are willing to make untruthful statements to protect your fantasy world. Which is it?
Peace
Tim
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
i cant believe this, but i am in total agreement here. :bigyikes:
H
hecd2
Guest
This is the Behe who admitted under oath that his definition of science that included ID must also include astrology.
That’s true.
But it seems in Behe’s latest book that it’s things that Behe doesn’t understand that have everything to do with IC.
Anyway, maybe I’m wrong. Can you tell us what IC is and give us an example that can be shown to be logically and uniquely IC?
They seem to limit it to things that are not currently understood - all the arguments that ID proponents produce such as IC, specified complexity, probability of natural explanations and the “explanatory filter” are all about inserting God into what they think are gaps in scientific understanding.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
I agree entirely. I have had a number of religious and excellent scientists amongst my acquaintance whose faith was, I am sure, strengthened by their work. It’s been an honour to know them.
The point I was making was statistical. I think that more scientists are persuaded by their work in the way I described than the way you described, but I absolutely agree with what you say.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Thank you for some very kind words in your post and you are absolutely right about rossum. To be honest however, I will have to disagree with you about some key elements of your post.
Just so.
I am specifically not making the argument from authority - I don’t think that it is right to limit anyone’s right to express their opinion on scientific or theological matters (or indeed anything at all). Whether or not those opinions are of any value or carry any weight does, of course, depend on the strength of the argument that the person can muster, which in turn depends on both the knowledge of the individual and the ultimate truth of the case.
So, I defend anyone’s right to publish an opinion on a scientific matter, even someone who is an utter ignoramus in science. I reserve the right to ignore it, and to point out, with reasons, why it’s a load of codswallop.
The same should be true of theology or philosophy (although it’s not a strictly parallel case in my view - see below). If the people attempting to point out that the philosophical opinion of the scientist is a load of codswallop fail in their attempt to do so, then it is not an acceptable fall-back for them to call foul and claim that the scientists shouldn’t be expressing those opinions in the first place. Especially where those people are making a rather telling rebuttal of the teleological argument based on their deep understanding of the natural world.
And this is where the asymmetry comes in. I certainly agree that there are objective (let’s use that word) truths to be uncovered in the natural world. Of course there is controversy, particularly in new science, but, over time, scientists are able to reach a consensus - say, since it’s relevant to this thread, that Newtonian mechanics is a good description of the sub-relativistic effects of gravity, and that one is able to predict the magnitude of the earth’s flattening using Newtonian mechanics, given the free radius, mass distribution, and angular velocity of the earth with respect to the local inertial frame of reference.
When it comes to theology, I know you believe that there are objective truths, but people just don’t seem to be able to agree on them. Which leads me to the conclusion that theological conclusions are subjective.
Perhaps, but it has forbidden people from teaching (although I do have immense respect for the Church’s contribution to learning).
Nothing has overtaken The Church in telling people what to believe, yet you yourself, think so. I do think so. I don’t think the Church has been in a position to dictate to people what t believe for centuries.
I am sure that’s broadly right, although She is in something of a tangled web with regard to bioethgics at the moment.
Well it’s fine for the Church to profess it - that is Her place in the world. But she cannot dictate it.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Thanks - they are on my list to get hold of.
I enjoy many things that have their roots in a belief in God including sacred music, architecture, poetry, painting (and not just Christian!). A while back, someone else on this list (can’t remember who) couldn’t believe that anything inspired by faith could have any meaning for me and ridiculed me for it - but I’m sure you won’t.
Alec
H
hecd2
Guest
The problem is that no-one has been able to propose a reliable process for determining which phenomena are caused by God’s direct intervention (outside the normal operation of nature) and which are not. At least, I don’t know of a test.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
B
buffalo
Guest
I do think so. I don’t think the Church has been in a position to dictate to people what t believe for centuries.
I am sure that’s broadly right, although She is in something of a tangled web with regard to bioethgics at the moment.Well it’s fine for the Church to profess it - that is Her place in the world. But she cannot dictate it.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
Catholicism is a proposition. One that you can accept or not. If you accept its premise as you learn more you realize that there are areas that offer immense guidance. Once you believe in the Church’s authority on these matters you can believe and accept its other truths without having to so critically examine them. The truth is self validating. So Catholics have no issue with submitting to her authority.
- Status