Flying Spaghetti Monster, what is done to combat them?

[cheddarsox]

There is no need to do that, but they need to quit trying to “disprove” God and sowing the seeds of apostasy.

who is “they”? I have never come across a scientist who is funded to disprove God. Humans do take scientific discoveries and apply them to support or disprove all sorts of things. But that doesn’t make “science” the bad guy for gathering the information. So I am curious who “they” refers to.

Bad application of information is not the same as bad science. Just like bad application of religious teachings is not the same as religion being bad.

I just like to keep things clear, because it gets easy to point the finger of blame at some amorphous and mysterious “they” …or worse…to point it at some easy but incorrect target.

Arguements and actions are more effective when aimed at the correct target.

People often remind me here not to judge Catholicism based on the sometimes less than admirable personal behavior of some Catholics. Fair enough. Don’t judge “Science” based on the less than admirable personal behavior of some scientists.

I’m not excusing anyone’s bad or misleading behavior, just trying to keep the issues clear.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

who is “they”? I have never come across a scientist who is funded to disprove God. Humans do take scientific discoveries and apply them to support or disprove all sorts of things. But that doesn’t make “science” the bad guy for gathering the information. So I am curious who “they” refers to.

By “they” I am talking about folks I’ve run into who buy into “scientism” as opposed to honest science. I think the rest of my post makes it clear that I think science is a good thing if used properly and if not, then I am now. The Church Herself considers the work humanity does with its intellect in a right ordered manner to be a good thing and always has and I myself have defended true science against those who wish to lampoon it based on caricatures and strawmen.

I’m not aware of any scientists funded to disprove God either, although I am far from aware of everything that is going on in that field. There are big names out there like Richard Dawkins that popularize this atheistic view of science but like you, I am not going to condemn science because of a few people who misuse it. My main concern is that the average man on the street often eats this stuff up. For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine…

 

[reggieM]

It is clear that these things are neither accidental or random.

If you’re making that statement as a scientist, then there is indeed evidence that Darwinian evolutionary theory is wrong. This is a very striking and significant point. But I’m afraid that you’re running against the most dominant idea in science today. You’re actually supporting Intelligent Design theory to say that these things were not accidental or random – and I’m very glad to hear that and agree with you.

None of these people ever claim that the world we experience is the result of random chance or accident.

Again, if they aren’t the result of random chance, then they were guided, directed and/or designed by God (or an intelligent designer). It’s just unfortunate that neither you nor your scientific friends are permitted to say that in a science classroom (at least in the U.S.) under the penalty of law.

My point is that the more science studies,the more obvious the order becomes,not less.

Quite honestly, it should be that way – I only wish most scientists saw it that way. Einstein certainly saw it that way and would agree with you. Sadly, we have a materialist-atheist mindset in science education today that forbids the conclusion that you’ve raised from being taught. Clearly, there is order and clearly it is impossible that things we see could have been created by random accident. But science programs today teach, unanimously, that there was no Designer and that all things are the result of blind, random chance.

If you know your concept of God is true…then science, if it follows its own dictates, can only ever discover things that further reveal the greatness of the order behind it all.

I would take it a step further. Whether you believe in God or not, the order in the universe does not require any Faith to observe. It can be seen – it is obvious as you said, as Einstein said, as the framers of the constitution said, as anyone should see. It is obvious that it couldn’t be the product of chance.

Thus, Darwinian evolutionary theory is obviously wrong. That is clear. The Darwinists state that all things emerged through random chance.

Science studies what is here and how it works, and natural processes .

Why is God’s role in the creation of things, the design of how they work, the creation of the very natural processes that we study not relevant to science? Why must science blind itself to the Creator? How does that help science, to pretend that there is no Creator, or to imagine that natural laws do not reflect the mind of God? The more we know about God, the better we can understand the world He created.

If your concept of God is supernatural, it is beyond the realm of science

That is true. However, the Catholic concept of God is certainly not “supernatural” alone. Our God created the natural world, created the physical world, created all the ideas we use (logic, mathematics) and actually had direct action on the physical world. So the Catholic God is not just “supernatural” alone – he is the author and director of all that is natural as well.

it cannot be measured, quantified, nor will it fit into natural patterns.

Well the natural laws can be measured. Certainly, probabilities can be measured. God’s work was to actually create the natural patterns themselves. We see that some things came into existence in a way that no natural law can explain. That is also a measure of God’s work. That is relevant to science.

it’s scary and threatening, so they fight it.

Well, no. My fear is of atheistic Darwinism. That is scary and I will fight it. You have already shown that it is false (from your scientific perspective). I am frightened by false ideas masquerading as truth (and taught with religious fervor).

If No uncovered truth or knowledge can possibly disprove God.

On a personal note, I think you should spend some time reading how atheistic scientists believe that they have, indeed, disproved the existence of God. They do this by using Darwinian evolutionary theory. If you are convinced that they cannot win that argument, I would hope that you would use your talent to engage in that debate and convince Darwinists that they are wrong. To me, that is more essential than the argument you seem to be giving here (that science is not to be feared).

There is much to fear in the abuse of science by the dominant voices in the scientific community. Science is the primary means used today for the spread of atheism (and actually of hatred of God – as this Flying Spaghetti Monster thread pointed out in the beginning).

 

[reggieM]

We’ve gone too far to simply stop and say…“and the rest was all done by the Christian God”

The concept of God is and will be challenged.

cheddar

I think just the contrary is happening now and that’s what I’m very excited and glad about – namely, that the concept of evolution is being challenged, not the concept of God.

That is why there’s a debate now, when years ago there was practically none. The concept of God has, indeed, been “challenged” by science (which refutes your previous point that religious belief has nothing to fear from science).

The fact is, Darwin used his theory as an attempt to eliminate God and religion entirely – even though he held a faint belief in both. Darwin’s followers “challenged” religion to the point that atheism became dominant in science.

Do you not find it amazing that atheism is 40 times more prevalent in scientific circles than it is in the general public?

So, this is nothing new – science has been used to attack religion for centuries. Since Darwin, science has been used as the ultimate proof that God does not exist.

But the new thing is – the thing that has changed radically – is that more people are questioning evolutionary science and seeing that there is little support for the theory. Evolution is a theory under crisis right now – it has been used to promote (through force of law now) totally ridiculous ideas pretending to be science.

More people are seeing that now. Some highly qualified scientists are seeing that also. It’s science that is facing the crisis now, not God.

 

[cheddarsox]

I think just the contrary is happening now and that’s what I’m very excited and glad about – namely, that the concept of evolution is being challenged, not the concept of God.

The fact is, Darwin used his theory as an attempt to eliminate God and religion entirely – even though he held a faint belief in both. Darwin’s followers “challenged” religion to the point that atheism became dominant in science.

Do you not find it amazing that atheism is 40 times more prevalent in scientific circles than it is in the general public?

But the new thing is – the thing that has changed radically – is that more people are questioning evolutionary science and seeing that there is little support for the theory. Evolution is a theory under crisis right now – it has been used to promote (through force of law now) totally ridiculous ideas pretending to be science.

More people are seeing that now. Some highly qualified scientists are seeing that also. It’s science that is facing the crisis now, not God.

Darwin came up with a theory of evolution, the theory had advanced and changed a great deal since then.Darwin did not use the theory in an attempt to eliminate God or religion.

It is sort of like what is oft quoted here about the Catholic church…“not one in a hundred people who say they hate the CC do, they hate what they think the CC is.” I find that to be true of evolution. Many argue against it, but have no clue about the actual theory itself. They’ve heard it doesn’t mesh with their concept of God, and nuff said. Or they heard it’s all about random chance…nuff said.

There are elements of randomness in it, no doubt, and that is enough to scare many people away.

I will not pretend that evolution does not challenge many people’s universal sense of order.

The concept of God is challenged by science. I agree. There are certain concepts of God that don’t mesh with the things we’ve discovered about the universe. If people have decided that they know what God is, and that concept of God is challenged by our observations of the universe…then people will have to decide which belief to place their faith in…or be willing to entertain a new concept of what God is.

That is the third alternative. Allow for changing concepts. While the nature of the Divine may be unchanging, what we know of the nature of the Divine may very well change. It is not the Divine that is challenged, as much as it is our specific concepts of the Divine.

The real battle is in our own hearts.

I don’t find it amazing that atheism is so prevalent in science. Because we live in a very dualistic society…the only options that many see available to them is Christian “God” or nothing. So…when what is observed does not seem to support the traditional teaching of the Christian God and how He operates, the other option is atheism.

I posit that there are other options. That indeed, there is Divine order, that indeed the Divine is being revealed to us, and that we need to be willing to trust, grow and incorporate this revelation into our understandings of the Divine.

But this is incompatible with Christianity, which states that everything God has to say has been said in the person of Jesus. So…there is the dilemma.

Time will tell how it will play out.

Catholics are more willing than many Christian faiths to work scientific discovery into their accepted teaching.

It is hard as a scientist, to be trained to and employed to observe carefully and treat those observations as reliable, and then to be told by the same culture…ok, but then…in the rest of your life, forget what you observed and only believe the world that is described in the Bible.

When it comes to tech and medicine…rely on your observations, but otherwise, believe what the church teaches…even if it is counter to what you observe. That is the dualistic dilemma that scientists are often up against.

Literally, for sanity and integrity’s sense, they end up leaving their churches, where they have been villified as the bad guys for challenging God…by the same people who lap up the benefits of the scientists work. You can see how this can make a person sceptical, and even reactionary.

In science, when a new understanding comes to light, it is challenged, but when it is found to be reliable, a place is made for it. Once upon a time all living things were classified as either plant or animal, but as we learn more about them, new catagories arose, now there are other “kingdoms” of organisms created to fit what we know of life. Our society will eventually find a way to fit what we know of the universe together with it’s understandings of religion, or it will reject either science or religion.

Science does not disprove theism, but some of its findings do challenge specific concepts of God, and traditional understandings of how God worked. Personally, I don’t think science will ever discover anything that is counter to the true nature of the Divine. The Divine is not challenged, my understanding of the Divine is challenged.

cheddar

 

[ComradeAndrei]

It is hard as a scientist, to be trained to and employed to observe carefully and treat those observations as reliable, and then to be told by the same culture…ok, but then…in the rest of your life, forget what you observed and only believe the world that is described in the Bible.

When it comes to tech and medicine…rely on your observations, but otherwise, believe what the church teaches…even if it is counter to what you observe. That is the dualistic dilemma that scientists are often up against.

The issue is that one should not place so much trust in themselves and their abilities. It is the pride of Man to think that a tool that God deigned to grant us can dare to challenge God’s own revealed Truth.

Literally, for sanity and integrity’s sense, they end up leaving their churches, where they have been villified as the bad guys for challenging God…by the same people who lap up the benefits of the scientists work. You can see how this can make a person sceptical, and even reactionary.

Well, faith demands that we place our trust in God and His Church. The Catholic should know that his Faith admits all that is truth, because the author of all truth is God Himself. Therefore there can never be any real conflict between Revelation and the natural truths we discover if those natural truths are indeed true.

 

[reggieM]

I agree with ComradeAndrei’s comments on this.

Darwin did not use the theory in an attempt to eliminate God or religion.

Darwin stated that his theory was designed to eliminate God’s role in creation. That was the purpose of it – to explain the development of species through purely natural means – without any intervention, help, guidance or design by God. Darwin’s followers have taken that message and enhanced it.

Many argue against it, but have no clue about the actual theory itself.

Well, I’ll suggest that you’ve misunderstood the theory itself if you think that there is a place for God the Creator & Designer within Darwinian evolutionary theory. What precisely did God do within evolution? How is that comprehended in science today?

Or they heard it’s all about random chance…nuff said.

Once again, what else besides random chance and natural selection is evolution all about? What role does God play in Darwin’s theory?

There are elements of randomness in it, no doubt, and that is enough to scare many people away.

Again, it is nothing but random chance. There is no purpose or direction other than chance and natural selection. Evolutionary theory does not include the idea that God directed things. Random chance and natural selection are the only two drivers of evolution – there is nothing else.

The concept of God is challenged by science. I agree.

I would like to know more, specifically, about what you mean. How does science challenge the concept of God? I believe this indicates that science, does indeed have something to say about God and it is not entirely separate. Science can attack God and religion – right in the classroom. But religion is not permitted a rebuttal.

people will have to decide which belief to place their faith in…or be willing to entertain a new concept of what God is.

What new concept of God do you have, other than the Catholic concept? How did science move you to have a new concept of God and what specifically does that mean?

the only options that many see available to them is Christian “God” or nothing.

What other options do you see? How is your conception of God different than the Christian teaching on God?

Christianity,… states that everything God has to say has been said in the person of Jesus.

Where does Catholicism say that? You may be right, but I have never seen that before.

It is hard as a scientist, to be trained to and employed to observe carefully and treat those observations as reliable

You are trained to treat observations as reliable – but the same scientists will say that the Shroud of Turin, the Resurrection of Christ, the Stigmata of St. Francis or St. Pio, the miracles of Lourdes and Fatima, the resurrections worked by St. Peter and other Saints through history, the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, the Tilma of Guadaloupe and many others are unreliable. Or that science cannot comment. But what does science really know about nature if those miracles can not be included as part of life itself? What do those miracles say about our own power to understand nature and reality? I will suggest that the same God who worked those miracles I mentioned can create miracles in nature which science will never understand.

Literally, for sanity and integrity’s sense, they end up leaving their churches

You’re saying that the scientists see the truth, but the Christian Church tells them they have to believe a lie. So, they are obviously correct to leave that church.

where they have been villified as the bad guys for challenging God…

Just to reaffirm this – you’ve contradicted the point that scientists, supposedly, do not have anything to say about God. Here, it is obvious, that they “challenge God”. I agree with you. They also use a lot of assumptions about nature that deny the belief that there is a God.

Science does not disprove theism

Certainly, but I’m concerned with how you’ve changed the terminology to “theism”. To me, this indicates a lot about your belief. Of course, science says nothing about “theism” because the theistic-God really does nothing. It is a god that (supposedly) exists outside of all things and has zero interaction, influence or presence in the universe or on the earth with human beings. It is a “god” that does nothing and does not need to exist. But scientist “permit” this kind of God, for those people foolish enough to need this kind of fairy tale. But the Theistic God is a non-existent being – at least in terms of having anything to do with purpose, direction or meaning of life. That kind of God cannot be detected at all in nature or in any aspect of the world.

 

[Mirdath]

It does not have a control nor is it reproducible in the lab.

Actually, it has. Scientists have grown their own antibiotic-resistant bacteria strains.

And the controls? They’re the extinct species that could not adapt.

This kind of dehumanizing rhetoric presented as fact needs to be kept away from young students studying hard sciences and should never be given the same imprimatur as the hard science of physical evolution.

How is it dehumanizing to admit that ‘human’ is, after all is said and done, the state of being a self-aware, social animal? At our worst we are kill more mindlessly than the bloodiest predator; at our best we create structures and buildings to put the bower-bird to shame. We are animals, and the only thing we have saying otherwise is one out of many religions whose beliefs we codified and wrote down. A litle egotistical, isn’t it?

My point here is that the soft science oif evolution you present as matter of fact is absolutely nothing of the sort and actually part of a philosophy of dehumanizing man to an animalistic caricature with absolutely no basis in fact.

And my point is that the religious beliefs you present as matter of fact is absolutely nothing of the sort and actually part of a philosophy trying to raise man to some kind of angelic caricature with no basis in truth.

If you wish, this is a free country. Ruminate and speculate all you want on the possibility of origins of emotions just do not present your ruminations as science to young students, do not cloak them under the actual hard science done in fossils etcetera in working with the physical science of evolution.

So, what would you teach? ‘God did it, now be quiet and let’s move on to demography and statistics’? That’s completely unacceptable. Even if the theory hasn’t been around for long, with the soft sciences every little bit added to the pool helps.

How is it you speak for non-theists? And since you ascribe humor and say also it is only that that may separate us from the animals, is not evolution then the be all and end all of your own existence? Which is far more than the bible is for me. After all my faith is in God, not the bible. And he reveals himself in myriad ways, through scripture, Tradition, with the people he created in his image, in the sunset and on and on reflecting a deeper and deeper understanding of Him and ourselves.

By being, in fact, a non-theist. Nor is evolution the acme of my existence; I exist to exist.

But for the non-theist existence all boils down to survival responses, save perhaps humor. Fortunately it is as without foundation as it is without faith, hope or charity.

Spoken like a true non-non-theist Not only are there more emotions that are not or have moved beyond the realm of survival responses, there’s really more to life than that. It’s hard to quantify – sort of an innate ‘joy-of-being’ if you will.

Faith, hope, and charity are what we make of them, non-theist and theist alike. Your religion does not make you faithful, hopeful, or charitable: take some responsibility into your own hands!

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Where does Catholicism say that? You may be right, but I have never seen that before.

That’s an orthodox statement. From the newer Catechism-

God has said everything in his Word

65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behaviour but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.27

The Church is entrusted with the Deposit of Faith, God has revealed everything to us.

Certainly, but I’m concerned with how you’ve changed the terminology to “theism”. To me, this indicates a lot about your belief. Of course, science says nothing about “theism” because the theistic-God really does nothing. It is a god that (supposedly) exists outside of all things and has zero interaction, influence or presence in the universe or on the earth with human beings. It is a “god” that does nothing and does not need to exist. But scientist “permit” this kind of God, for those people foolish enough to need this kind of fairy tale. But the Theistic God is a non-existent being – at least in terms of having anything to do with purpose, direction or meaning of life. That kind of God cannot be detected at all in nature or in any aspect of the world.

That is the god of Modern philosophy, a place holder to shield against charges of atheism. It also has a very Kantian perspective, “god” might exist but we can’t know anything about him/her/it/them because we cannot say anything about substances and essences. This is a convienient way of undercutting traditional Scholastic and Catholic thought, but only if you are willing to restrict yourself in order to make things fit into this Deistic and anti-clerical vision.

Faith, hope, and charity are what we make of them, non-theist and theist alike. Your religion does not make you faithful, hopeful, or charitable: take some responsibility into your own hands!

We are not pelagians, and no one pulls themselves up by their own bootstraps when it comes to the theological virtues. These virtues are not contingent upon our own merits and efforts. Any faith, hope and charity that anyone has is completely thanks to the grace of God.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Actually, it has. Scientists have grown their own antibiotic-resistant bacteria strains.

And the controls? They’re the extinct species that could not adapt.

Actually it hasn’t, but if you consider that proof we’re on non reconcilable ground since the theory requires an entire transpeciation at a macro level in accordance with environment and time and has not been demonstrated as well as an extinction. This has never been observed much less tested for cause and effect and variables.

How is it dehumanizing to admit that ‘human’ is, after all is said and done, the state of being a self-aware, social animal? At our worst we are kill more mindlessly than the bloodiest predator; at our best we create structures and buildings to put the bower-bird to shame. We are animals, and the only thing we have saying otherwise is one out of many religions whose beliefs we codified and wrote down. A litle egotistical, isn’t it?

Checkout some of the regimes that have used and use eugenics and darwinian logic. I don’t think we can pursue this meaningfully. We are talking metaphysics here and value judgements.

I find it insulting to be called an animal, so can we take out the "we there. Thanks.

And my point is that the religious beliefs you present as matter of fact is absolutely nothing of the sort and actually part of a philosophy trying to raise man to some kind of angelic caricature with no basis in truth.

Unfortunately, your understanding of Catholicism is lacking, which makes it difficult to debate meaningfully with you the lack of merits of scientism versus the merits of the faith that shaped our civilization. Catholicism recognizes man fully because it does not limit itself to the scientism you propose, neither angelic nor demonic, but fully fallen man, with some great thinkers of the last two thousand years adding their brilliance and beauty to the Church.

By the way, christian western civilation is an accurate portrayal providing the founding fathers to create the greatest constitution ever made–sort of a proof in the pudding there.

So, what would you teach? ‘God did it, now be quiet and let’s move on to demography and statistics’? That’s completely unacceptable. Even if the theory hasn’t been around for long, with the soft sciences every little bit added to the pool helps.

I would teach grade school children skills I mentioned. Logic would help a bit. Let’s teach what we know not what we think and let’s leave scientism out of the classroom.

By being, in fact, a non-theist. Nor is evolution the acme of my existence; I exist to exist.

I exist to exist is at best circular and meaningless at worst implies selfishness characteristic of dogeatdog darwinism. Please compare to the lives and writings of the Saints.

Spoken like a true non-non-theist Not only are there more emotions that are not or have moved beyond the realm of survival responses, there’s really more to life than that. It’s hard to quantify – sort of an innate ‘joy-of-being’ if you will.

Faith, hope, and charity are what we make of them, non-theist and theist alike. Your religion does not make you faithful, hopeful, or charitable: take some responsibility into your own hands!

As a Catholic, my life and soul is in my hands for all eternity to accept or refuse the freely given gift of Jesus’ sacrifice for the expiation ogf my sins.

My religion nourishes my faith, my hope and my charity. You see I am a prodigal son unfortunately so I have both a control and a test case. The answer is Catholicism works.

Peace

 

[Curiouse]

I must admit, I laughed out loud when I saw the Sistine Chapel depiction. It’s heresy, but it’s funny heresy…

 

[Curiouse]

Well guys, technically they’re right. DON’T FLAME ME! But we have just as much of a chance as proving that our God exists as they do of proving the existance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I admit it’s heresy, but it’s funny heresy…

 

[reggieM]

Well guys, technically they’re right. DON’T FLAME ME! But we have just as much of a chance as proving that our God exists as they do of proving the existance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I admit it’s heresy, but it’s funny heresy…

Coriouse – I think you really should think about that. It’s important to become very familiar with the lives of the Saints. Consider how they (in every generation) proved that God exists, and how they converted thousands of people based on those proofs.

We can even see in in Scripture itself. For example, what event converted the Roman jailer when Paul and Silas were imprisoned?

Do you feel that Jesus’ resurrection says nothing more about the existence of God than that website says about a Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Well guys, technically they’re right. DON’T FLAME ME! But we have just as much of a chance as proving that our God exists as they do of proving the existance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I admit it’s heresy, but it’s funny heresy…

Something worth thinking about . . .

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c1.htm#II

 

[cheddarsox]

Darwin stated that his theory was designed to eliminate God’s role in creation. That was the purpose of it – to explain the development of species through purely natural means – without any intervention, help, guidance or design by God. Darwin’s followers have taken that message and enhanced it.

His purpose was to study the NATURAL processes and not default to “divine intervention” as was so often done. Defaulting to divine intervention is not good science, which be definition studies natural processes. He did not set out to prove God didn’t exists, but how the natural processes take place. If science does not do that, it is all too easy to stop looking at the natural processes and say “and then supernatural stuff takes place” when the going gets tough. Instead, the role of science is to not bother with the supernatural, because they are beyond what science studies. Do you want scientists to study the natural processes, or, when they get too close to the bone for you…to stop and say…“divine intervention”?

I don’t know how much you know about DNA, genetics, cellular processes, etc. The thing is, we have observed these amazing natural processes at work. We are able piece together astoundingly complex processes at work at these levels that are mindblowing. Yet many people say…scientists say it’s all random chance…as if we are talking about a rolling die here. It’s just not like that. While there are places where random aspects come into play, the systems are so intricate that in no way can the process be written off as random. It’s like saying that playing a board game is totally random, yes, there are times you roll the dice, but you also follow the path on the board, and follow the rules of the game, etc. It’s not a complete hodgepodge.

Disciplines of study used not to be as compartmentalized as they are now. There are good and bad aspects of the change.But, for science to cease to use the divine as a reason that things happen has led to a tremendous gain in knowledge in many areas. We no longer attribute the cause of disease to “sin” or demons, etc. We go beyond that and seek the natural factors at work. That does not rule out that sin and demons may have a part to play, but the part they play is not the realm of modern science. For good or ill, that is how we have arranged things. Surely sinful behavior plays a role in many ills…stds, alcoholism, obesity, lung cancer…etc, but there is still something to be gained by studying the natural factors at work.

It does appear that an overwhelming percentage of the time, natural factors are involved in how/why things happen. It appears that if a deity exists, most of the time, it uses natural ways to accomplish its work, or at least allows natural processes to continue.

It seems you would like the discipline of science to include theism somehow. I’m not sure how a scientist would decide when to offer “God” as the cause of a thing. I think an impasse has been reached in that area. Some theists feel that when a scientific observation doesn’t mesh comfortably with their understanding of how the universe is ordered, scientists should be willing to step aside and let theology prevail. Who’s theology? I suggest we let scientists do their work, and hash out the theology within our faith systems.

When I teach, (not currently in the public system) I discuss these dilemmas with my students. And we talk about how sometimes science does observe things that do not mesh with cultural or religious understandings, and the conflicts that arise. We look at some of the situations in the past, and how they have been dealt with, and discuss some of the current conflicts.

 

[cheddarsox]

Well, I’ll suggest that you’ve misunderstood the theory itself if you think that there is a place for God the Creator & Designer within Darwinian evolutionary theory. What precisely did God do within evolution? How is that comprehended in science today?

Not within the scientific theory itself. I don’t expect science to do my religion for me. But, I study the science and I see all manner of evidence of the Divine. The system is so complex and amazing, I see the Divine revealed in it. It is not the job of science to explain what is discovered in a theological context, that is what religions do. But I can use scientific discoveries to bolster my faith.

Once again, what else besides random chance and natural selection is evolution all about? What role does God play in Darwin’s theory?

Again, it is nothing but random chance. There is no purpose or direction other than chance and natural selection. Evolutionary theory does not include the idea that God directed things. Random chance and natural selection are the only two drivers of evolution – there is nothing else.

you act as if natural selection and genetics are a mere nothing. That these astoundingly complex processes are just something to be shrugged at. Eh, no big deal. Have you taken time to study either? Evolution is not some simple game of marbles. That is like saying that Jesus is nothing but some kid born in a stable.

I would like to know more, specifically, about what you mean. How does science challenge the concept of God? I believe this indicates that science, does indeed have something to say about God and it is not entirely separate. Science can attack God and religion – right in the classroom. But religion is not permitted a rebuttal.

I think that certain scientific findings do challenge the traditionaly theology of some religions. If illness was once believed to be caused by sin or angering the dieties, and then science discovered germs (which seem to show no faith preferences) that challenged some theological beliefs. If a faith taught that God created all creatures exactly as we see them out of mud, or by merely speaking a word, and then science uncovers evidence of evolution, that challenges a belief about God. Without even mentioning a diety by name, merely by discovering things that do not fit with certain belief systems, science challenges 'God". Apparently, by not saying anything about God at all, some feel that alone is a way in which science challenges God. And of course religion has the opportunity to rebut. It does so all over the place, in media, in churches, on line. My husband is approached constantly to take part in debates, newpaper articles, etc where religious ideas rebut science ideas.

 

[cheddarsox]

How is your conception of God different than the Christian teaching on God?

I am a pantheist. That is as much as I will say in the context of this thread on the subject. I have been accused, when aswering this type of question in a thread, of merely being here to prostolytize my own faith. If you want to know anything about my faith, you can PM me.

You are trained to treat observations as reliable – but the same scientists will say that the Shroud of Turin many others are unreliable. …I will suggest that the same God who worked those miracles I mentioned can create miracles in nature which science will never understand.

I have seen scientific investigations of some of these miracles. Sometimes, natural explanations account for some of the aspects, other times, scientists say they don’t know, or have no natural explanation. What would you have them say other than that? To make a theological claim would depend on the faith of the particular scietist involved. I know a man who is a scientist who worked on the Shroud of Turin, and it greatly affected his faith and his life. Scientists are humans, they have lives outside the lab. Their work affects their lives and beliefs. They don’t publish their personal feelings in scientific journals.

Science does not claim to know everything about nature. There is so much we do not understand and can’t explain. But to say that everything we do not currently understand has a supernatural cause…is to cease to do science. If we said that 200 years ago, or 100 years ago, think of all the discoveries we would not have bothered to make. We don’t know what the limits of our understanding is. For science to move forward and continue to discover, it must assume that there are natural causes for things, otherwise there is no point in continuing. If we just decide that from here on out everything is “God”, then science ends. How do you propose to decide when we’ve come to the end of natural cause and the beginning of supernatural cause? What criteria will you use?

You’re saying that the scientists see the truth, but the Christian Church tells them they have to believe a lie. So, they are obviously correct to leave that church.

If their churches say that they cannot believe what they have discovered and still be Christians, then the person/scientist has to decide to either go with what they’ve discovered, or denounce it and stay in the faith. The irony is, that the very people who put them in that position, are the ones who are benefitting from many scientific discoveries. They want the technology, and the medical advancement. They are willing to accept that science is right about all those things. but when science discovers something that makes them uncomfortable…they expect science to “not go there”.

Understanding DNA function and genetics is allowing us to make some medical advances…unfortunately, understanding those same things…also bolsters evolution.

Here is a real, regular scenario…my husbands students will regularly argue in class, write him letters, or use their research papers to argue with him that evolution is bad, terrible, atheistic, false, anti-Christian, anti-human…etc. etc.Then, they come to him for references to get into grad school or med school, using the same knowledge of genetics, ecology, etc…that they denounced him for…to further their careers.

People love the information when it serves them, but they hate it when it makes them have to deal with hard issues.

Just to reaffirm this – you’ve contradicted the point that scientists, supposedly, do not have anything to say about God. Here, it is obvious, that they “challenge God”. I agree with you. They also use a lot of assumptions about nature that deny the belief that there is a God.

• Science* has nothing to say on the subject of God. Scientists are human and many, on their own time, not in scientific journals, do challenge God, while many support God, and use their assumptions about nature to do so.

Certainly, but I’m concerned with how you’ve changed the terminology to “theism”.

I think you are confusing “theism” belief that deity exists, with Deism, the watchmaker concept of God. Theism is just a belief in any concept of God, as atheism is the belief that there is no God of any sort.

Not all people who believe in deity, believe in the Christian God, yet they are still theists, in that they believe in some type of Divine. Depending on which theology a person believes in, different scientific discoveries will either support, or challenge their concept of “god”.

 

[Mirdath]

Unfortunately, your understanding of Catholicism is lacking, which makes it difficult to debate meaningfully with you the lack of merits of scientism versus the merits of the faith that shaped our civilization. Catholicism recognizes man fully because it does not limit itself to the scientism you propose, neither angelic nor demonic, but fully fallen man, with some great thinkers of the last two thousand years adding their brilliance and beauty to the Church.

How do I manage to keep getting this thrown at me when I call out someone else? Anyway, no, I know about the fall of humanity and all; your constructions were a little flat there though. No matter.

By the way, christian western civilation is an accurate portrayal providing the founding fathers to create the greatest constitution ever made–sort of a proof in the pudding there.

You mean deists and Protestants?

I would teach grade school children skills I mentioned. Logic would help a bit. Let’s teach what we know not what we think and let’s leave scientism out of the classroom.

Forget grade school; I’m in agreement with you there. What would you teach someone studying physics, geology, or sociology in college?

I exist to exist is at best circular and meaningless at worst implies selfishness characteristic of dogeatdog darwinism. Please compare to the lives and writings of the Saints.

At the level I intended it it implies not-taking-you-seriously. If lack of belief in God means I have no raison d’etre, let it be so; I’ll live in the model of what I perceive to be living well, act responsibly, justly, and mercifully, and die with grace and dignity when my time comes. I need no god to tell me that.

My religion nourishes my faith, my hope and my charity. You see I am a prodigal son unfortunately so I have both a control and a test case. The answer is Catholicism works.

Whatever it nourishes, at the end of the day it is yours – and even by your belief, you will be judged by those attributes. ‘My belief didn’t nourish them enough!’ won’t be an excuse then.

I’m an ex-Catholic; add me to your datasheet. My answer is that Catholicism doesn’t ‘work’, however you define that, for me.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

take some responsibility into your own hands!

It’s never the teachings of Christ that do not work, it’s us. I can see I’m failing to assist you here. Hopefully others will be helped by our discussion. It was good for me to go over these issues at least, if only to let me know I need more charity.

 

[PhilVaz]

mirdath << Satanic? Please, now you’re just ranting. It was written by a human, is a scientific theory with evidence backing it up… where do you get Satan? And apparently you only do when the theory that ‘good traits are preserved’ goes outside of biology. >>

Yea, it is written, thus saith young earther Henry Morris:

“The solid evidence for the above sequence of events [on Nimrod and his priests, to plan with evil spirits their long-range strategy against God] is admittedly tenuous…If something like this really happened, early in post-diluvian history, then Satan himself is the originator of the concept of evolution.” (Morris, The Troubled Waters of Evolution 1975, p. 74-75)

“Behind both groups of evolutionists [theistic and nontheistic] one can discern the malignant influence of ‘that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world’ (Rev 12:9). As we have seen, it must have been essentially the deception of evolution which prompted Satan himself to rebel against God, and it was essentially the same great lie with which he deceived Eve, and with which he has continued to ‘deceive the whole world’.” (Morris, The Twilight of Evolution 1963, p. 93)

Thus saith too flat earthers:

“I believe the real source of Modern Astronomy to have been SATAN,” wrote flat-earther David Wardlaw Scott (1901, p. 287). “From his first temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden until now, his great object has been to throw discredit on the Truth of God.” John Hampden agreed, calling the spherical theory “that Satanic device of a round and revolving globe, which sets Scripture, reason, and facts at defiance” (1886, p. 60).



The Evolution of Bible-Science

Phil P