Given the principles of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, do you think belief in the supernatural will die out or become a m

[rossum]

Given the inadequacy of the principles of evolution, natural selection, blah blah blah to explain the supernatural or explain how/why universe/life exist, it is unlikely belief in the supernatural to die out.

Here is a slightly amended version of your post, which makes basically the same point:

Given the inadequacy of the principles of chemistry, valency, blah blah blah to explain the supernatural or explain how/why universe/life exist, it is unlikely belief in the supernatural to die out.

Your point is applicable to almost all of science, not just to biology. Cosmology might eventually explain the origin of the universe, but it will not explain the supernatural. All the supernatural is outwith science.

Are you saying that we should reject all of science, except perhaps cosmology, because it does not explain enough?

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

It is there, honest guv. It’s sunlight refracted and reflected by water droplets. It’s most intense at around 42º which is why you only see the arc of droplets at that angle. I think they do, since otherwise their brains would need extra circuits to filter out a rainbow. Dogs see fewer colors than us, but birds see more. But agreed they seem to take it for granted. Rainbows involve water, white light, reflection and refraction, all of which must have existed since A&E (for instance take away reflected light and people wouldn’t be able to see anything, take away refraction and their eyes couldn’t focus). So I think it would require God to intervene to prevent any weather where rainbows could form. . . . [/INDENT]

You say you disagree and yet agree.
The rainbow is the sun seen through a mist.
Like hope is God seen through our tears.

Researching retinal anatomy and physiology as well as behaviour, we can conclude that some animals see colours, some similar to ours, others not. But, to actually see, the creature needs some sort of cerebral cortex, which is “hard wired”, malleable in animals only to some extent, and greatly so in human beings. Animals are not instinctually “programmed” to see rainbows. It would be fruitless to argue a point that I may be incapable conveying any more clearly than I have.

Believe what you will.

At any rate, both rainbows and hope exist within the context of human relationships.
The former is a mental phenomenon arising from our participation in physical universe,
The latter is an aspect of our spiritual nature, that which is an image of God.

We see through the eyes of faith. It is hard to imagine that at some point in history some people did not see rainbows. However, consider that the supernova of 1054, visible even during the day for the greater part of a month, is documented in both Eastern and Arabic writing, but not in any European history. What we see is heavily “processed”, influenced by expectation and meaning. Even more incredible is that some people do not see what is most obvious, the existence of God and the metaphysical. However, if we do pursue the truth of our origins that spiritual reality will not die out but become ever clearer.

 

[ericc]

Here is a slightly amended version of your post, which makes basically the same point:

Given the inadequacy of the principles of chemistry, valency, blah blah blah to explain the supernatural or explain how/why universe/life exist, it is unlikely belief in the supernatural to die out.

Your point is applicable to almost all of science, not just to biology. Cosmology might eventually explain the origin of the universe, but it will not explain the supernatural. All the supernatural is outwith science.

Are you saying that we should reject all of science, except perhaps cosmology, because it does not explain enough?

rossum

Science does not attempt to operate in the supernatural domain and therefore should/could not be used to measure its effectiveness in that domain. I am not anti-science. I think the OP misapply knowledge of the sciences to the wrong subject.

 

[grannymh]

Here is a slightly amended version of your post, which makes basically the same point:
Given the inadequacy of the principles of chemistry, valency, blah blah blah to explain the supernatural or explain how/why universe/life exist, it is unlikely belief in the supernatural to die out.
Your point is applicable to almost all of science, not just to biology. Cosmology might eventually explain the origin of the universe, but it will not explain the supernatural. All the supernatural is outwith science.

Are you saying that we should reject all of science, except perhaps cosmology, because it does not explain enough?

rossum

The problem with some Catholics on this thread is that they do not understand that the material realm has never been and will never be part of the duly proclaimed Catholic doctrines. Genesis 1:1 creation story refers to a supernatural being Who is the Divine Creator God. What is created is the material realm.

The next item, which has apparently disappeared from current Catholic reasoning, is the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth. Even free speech is currently hard to understand when it comes from the mouth of a high ranking Catholic person.

I have done my best to explain this since I landed on CAF. It is generally ignored.

The next point which is difficult for some Catholics occurs when an element of science intersects with a major Catholic doctrine. This becomes complicated because some Catholics do not recognize what is reality in the first three exciting chapters of Genesis. One small example is catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-you-absolutely-need-to-understand-about-evolution

The reason that the supernatural will not die out is because it is recognized in the legends of ancient peoples. From what I see, the sense of the supernatural is part of human nature starting from day one. The supernatural could be pink unicorns. Still that is a sense of the supernatural.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The problem with some Catholics on this thread is that they do not understand that the material realm has never been and will never be part of the duly proclaimed Catholic doctrines. Genesis 1:1 creation story refers to a supernatural being Who is the Divine Creator God. What is created is the material realm.

The next item, which has apparently disappeared from current Catholic reasoning, is the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth. Even free speech is currently hard to understand when it comes from the mouth of a high ranking Catholic person.

I have done my best to explain this since I landed on CAF. It is generally ignored.

The next point which is difficult for some Catholics occurs when an element of science intersects with a major Catholic doctrine. This becomes complicated because some Catholics do not recognize what is reality in the first three exciting chapters of Genesis. One small example is catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-you-absolutely-need-to-understand-about-evolution

The reason that the supernatural will not die out is because it is recognized in the legends of ancient peoples. From what I see, the sense of the supernatural is part of human nature starting from day one. The supernatural could be pink unicorns. Still that is a sense of the supernatural.

You are absolutely right Granny. Materialists are trapped in a box with slits for seeing things. The supernatural is to big and glorious for their tiny little minds.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Science does not attempt to operate in the supernatural domain and therefore should/could not be used to measure its effectiveness in that domain. I am not anti-science. I think the OP misapply knowledge of the sciences to the wrong subject.

I think the biggest question science could try and answer is this, did the universe and life come into existence by purely natural causes? Or did it need a creator God?

 

[rossum]

I think the biggest question science could try and answer is this, did the universe and life come into existence by purely natural causes? Or did it need a creator God?

I think the biggest question theology could try and answer is this, did the creator God come into existence by purely natural causes? Or did it need a meta-creator meta-God?

Theology asserts that it has an answer to this question, but has done no investigation to show evidence that their claimed answer is correct. At least science is looking for possible answers to the question: multiverse, string theory, branes etc.

At the very least, theology cannot answer the question of what caused life, since it asserts that the creator God is a “living” God. A God that is already living cannot cause the first living thing. At best He/She/It/They can cause the second living thing.

For any X we can always ask, “what caused X”.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

I think the biggest question science could try and answer is this, did the universe and life come into existence by purely natural causes? Or did it need a creator God?

The material world of science is not intended to declare Catholic doctrines based in the eternal spiritual world. The material world can only present evidence.

It is time for Catholics to actually teach and share Catholic doctrines based in the eternal spiritual world. It is time for Catholics to speak about God and God’s plan for us.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I think the biggest question theology could try and answer is this, did the creator God come into existence by purely natural causes? Or did it need a meta-creator meta-God?

We have faith and trust that God always was, always is and always will be. Faith means we have no proof.

For any X we can always ask, “what caused X”.

Because we are here today, something had no beginning, or something did not come from anything. Science seems to avoid the question by looking at multiverse, string theory, an infinite regress of causes, etc.

How did multiverse come into existence? Did it need a meta-creator meta-multiverse, and what caused that?

Or do these multiverse take on God like qualities? They always were, always are and always will be.

 

[grannymh]

I think the biggest question theology could try and answer is this, did the creator God come into existence by purely natural causes? Or did it need a meta-creator meta-God?

Theology asserts that it has an answer to this question, but has done no investigation to show evidence that their claimed answer is correct. At least science is looking for possible answers to the question: multiverse, string theory, branes etc.

At the very least, theology cannot answer the question of what caused life, since it asserts that the creator God is a “living” God. A God that is already living cannot cause the first living thing. At best He/She/It/They can cause the second living thing.

For any X we can always ask, “what caused X”.

rossum

Catholic theology has already answered those questions.

 

[grannymh]

Humans are capable of choosing Catholic theology.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[inocente]

You say you disagree and yet agree.
The rainbow is the sun seen through a mist.
Like hope is God seen through our tears.

Very poetic. Reminds me of John Lennon’s “God is a concept by which we measure our pain”.

Except a rainbow is always in the opposite direction to the Sun - it’s sunlight reflected back from a mist. So your line should be more like “hope is God reflected back from our tears”. Which has its own poetry.

*Researching retinal anatomy and physiology as well as behaviour, we can conclude that some animals see colours, some similar to ours, others not. But, to actually see, the creature needs some sort of cerebral cortex, which is “hard wired”, malleable in animals only to some extent, and greatly so in human beings. Animals are not instinctually “programmed” to see rainbows. It would be fruitless to argue a point that I may be incapable conveying any more clearly than I have.

Believe what you will. *

I saw what you were saying, but didn’t agree. It often turns out that other species can do what we’re told only humans can do. For instance, other primates recognize faces, and even some species of wasp can (of other wasps). Human eyes cannot distinguish yellow frequency light from red + green, other species can tell them apart. And horses and swallows are not “programmed” to see concrete walls but they realize they’re there all the same.

*At any rate, both rainbows and hope exist within the context of human relationships.
The former is a mental phenomenon arising from our participation in physical universe,
The latter is an aspect of our spiritual nature, that which is an image of God.

We see through the eyes of faith. It is hard to imagine that at some point in history some people did not see rainbows. However, consider that the supernova of 1054, visible even during the day for the greater part of a month, is documented in both Eastern and Arabic writing, but not in any European history. What we see is heavily “processed”, influenced by expectation and meaning. Even more incredible is that some people do not see what is most obvious, the existence of God and the metaphysical. However, if we do pursue the truth of our origins that spiritual reality will not die out but become ever clearer.*

I looked up that supernova, seems it’s not that clear cut and historians are still debating European records. I’d have thought people with a belief in the star of Bethlehem, and in a heaven beyond the stars, would not be blind to the skies.

But in your favor, they believed everything in the heavens was perfect, so their eyesight must have been very poor not to notice the craters on the Moon . Then Galileo came along and by one observation destroyed their belief that they were surrounded by God in his heaven and all of creation moved around them. And many Catholics tell me that as a result, we’re no longer to think of heaven as a place, it’s instead some kind of other-dimensional state of something. Seems supernatural got the short end of the stick when it came up against their rationalism.

But I doubt you’ll find any poet who doesn’t think heaven is a place:

Brothers, above the starry canopy
There must dwell a loving Father.
(Schiller, Ode to Joy)

Heaven is the place I call my home
(AKUS)

And of course, the rainbow has been renewed as a symbol for hope, hope for equality - youtube.com/watch?v=iMNtiSvQWyg

 

[inocente]

Materialists are trapped in a box with slits for seeing things. The supernatural is to big and glorious for their tiny little minds.

:ehh: That’s irrational. If they do have “tiny little minds” then God made them that way. He didn’t give them your fabulous intellectual capabilities, so there’s nothing they can do.

But I’ve seen no news headlines that Catholics have bigger minds. Are you claiming Catholics are genetically superior? That Catholics are the predestined Elect?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

:ehh: That’s irrational. If they do have “tiny little minds” then God made them that way. He didn’t give them your fabulous intellectual capabilities, so there’s nothing they can do.

But I’ve seen no news headlines that Catholics have bigger minds. Are you claiming Catholics are genetically superior? That Catholics are the predestined Elect?

The supernatural is available to all. Unfortunately, most choose to live in a box. Catholics don’t have the patent on it. Anyone who looks beyond materialism will see the supernatural.

 

[grannymh]

Rossum,

Will you kindly explain to the newbies that an entirely new unique species does not drop from the sky as a couple of fully-formed, fully-complete individuals. A new species follows the evolution process as a significant population evolving from a previous large mixed genetic population(s).

 

[simpleas]

Could someone explain what sort of supernatural things we can see?

We consider ourselves spiritual beings living in a non spiritual world, or , because we are spiritual beings we make up a spiritual world (our earth) and the supernatural is ‘another world’ beyond this world?

 

[OneSheep]

Could someone explain what sort of supernatural things we can see?

We consider ourselves spiritual beings living in a non spiritual world, or , because we are spiritual beings we make up a spiritual world (our earth) and the supernatural is ‘another world’ beyond this world?

What a lovely question, Simpleas!

What sort of supernatural things can we see? I maintain that forgiveness of enemies is supernatural. When we react to hate with love, we participate in the supernatural. When we transcend the mind, observing all of our thoughts and emotions, we participate in the supernatural.

 

[grannymh]

Could someone explain what sort of supernatural things we can see?

The Holy Eucharist, the Real Presence of Jesus Christ.

 

[rossum]

We have faith and trust that God always was, always is and always will be. Faith means we have no proof.

Then it is impolite to ask science to provide what you yourselves cannot. You have no evidence, yet you ask for evidence from science.

Because we are here today, something had no beginning, or something did not come from anything.

There is a third option: nothing comes from nothing, and what we think is something is actually a mistake on our part:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

– Steven Hawking: A Brief History of Time

A universe with a total energy of zero is, in some real sense, nothing. Nothing does not require a cause. Cosmology can get very very strange; like quantum mechanics, what is obvious in the macroscopic world is not always true in the quantum size universe immediately after the Big Bang…

Or do these multiverse take on God like qualities? They always were, always are and always will be.

Define “God like qualities”? Cause of the universe? Possibly, but that does not apply to all gods. Direct inspirer of the Prophet Mohammed? That does not apply to all gods and does not apply to the multiverse either.

As to “always” you will have to define what measure of time you are using in the multiverse, since our universe has its own measure of time, which is not the same as whatever the multiverse might have. I have seen references that up to eleven dimensions are possible in the multiverse. Defining time when you have up to eight possible dimensions to pick from is not a simple task.

rossum

 

[simpleas]

What a lovely question, Simpleas!

What sort of supernatural things can we see? I maintain that forgiveness of enemies is supernatural. When we react to hate with love, we participate in the supernatural. When we transcend the mind, observing all of our thoughts and emotions, we participate in the supernatural.

I can see your idea here, forgiveness doesn’t come naturally for most people, being able to forgive a grave wrong takes time and effort for most people, and help seems to come from a higher power.

Thanks.