How to have strong faith in a world of Carbon dating, Dinosaurs, Science, Atheist Debaters

[Rhubarb]

This is a remarkable case of cafeteria science. Evolutionary “science” of MAN is incompatible with Catholic dogma, so the only way to accept both is to make up silly events that have no Biblical or “scientific” basis. Better to accept one or the other and not sit on the uncomfortable fence.

I do love the idea of a theological monkey with language, society, technology, and rationality but no soul though. A wonderfully cruel and deliciously arrogant belief. Evolution is silly, evolution of Man is abominable.

Well… Evolution is the foundational theory of biology. And it is what has allowed us to make such great advancements in particularly medicine. We see life changing following the models that the theory of evolution provides. There are fungi and bacteria whose primary source of food is diesel fuel. Diesel fuel hasn’t been around for more than, what, 150 years maybe? We see it in antibiotic resistant strains of diseases. And if I were a biologist I’m sure I could rattle off numerous more examples. As far as scientific theories go, hardly any can match evolution for its accurate models, explanatory power, and usefulness.

Oh, also, it doesn’t conflict with your faith. It says nothing about salvation, or your connection to God. I’m always shocked when Christians, whose primary teacher (and also god) taught almost exclusively in parables, insist that the book written millennia ago be literal and single-layered.

 

[Reepicheep]

I guess the reason I ask this is because I’m a relatively new member of my church, although my mum is a practicing Catholic, I’ve never really had that much insight into Christianity as a whole, I spend years of my life curious about God but have always struggled with faith, one needs to understand the amount of time that I’ve been exposed to the world of science which often consists of many atheist’s looking for answers without a creator.

Simply put, I want to believe in God but I don’t have much faith.

First suggestion; less youtube and more Scripture. Read the Catholic catechism while you’re at it. Fill your mind with the truth.

Second: you don’t have to believe Young Earth Creationism to be a Catholic.
In the beginning (about 14 billion years ago) God created the Universe and (about 4 billion years ago) the Earth.

Many millions of years went by and many life forms inhabited the Earth over time.
Then, at some point, we don’t know just when: the Earth became ‘waste and void’ --a desolate wasteland-- and ‘darkness was upon the face of the deep’.

We don’t know what happened here, and we don’t know just when, but the Genesis account was of God renewing the Earth. This ended with His creation of Mankind–Adam and Eve. The rest of Genesis gives us an account of the early history of Mankind.

The idea that to believe in God and Christ you have to believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old is a modern fantasy.

Another thought that might help. The Bible is not a book. It is a library. There are more than seventy books in it, and they were composed over thousands of years.
Context matters. Some of theses books are history, some are poetry, some are books of song or prayer. Some might be stories meant to teach moral lessons. The Gospels are accounts (mostly eyewitness or evidence collected from eyewitnesses) of Christ’s life and teaching. The Epistles are a collection of messages written to various churches during the first generation after Christ.
One does not evaluate a poem, a collection of songs and a historical document by the same standards. Context matters.

And finally, if watching youtube disturbs your faith, don’t watch youtube.

May God bless you and keep you safe. :knight1:

 

[Wesrock]

Gradualism in evolution would mean what we discussed - that the difference between animal and man is one of physical mutations alone. That by mutations, a non-human becomes human. This is done through one or many mutations, gradually as a population changes due to inheritance. This is what all the mainstream evolutionary literature states.

Gradualism depicts evolution as a constant but steady change over time. Last I heard, it had fallen out of favor and punctuated equilibrium is where it’s at. That an equilibrium is reached, speciation stops, but then ar some point (probably a disruption of some sort) there’s a rapid spurt of changes.

Just as we need to remove Aquinas’ outdated cosmology examples from his metaphysics, we need to do the same with materialist bias in the physical sciences. We do change over time by mutations. We physiologically did evolve from other species and share a common biological ancestor with apes and monkeys and mammals and vertebrates and all life. Speciation has occurred this way. It can’t explain understanding of universals in the intellect, though.

 

[NonTimendum]

Oh, also, it doesn’t conflict with your faith. It says nothing about salvation, or your connection to God. I’m always shocked when Christians, whose primary teacher (and also god) taught almost exclusively in parables, insist that the book written millennia ago be literal and single-layered.

Sadly, it does if one begins to think about the implications of the faith. If one is satisfied with single-layer theology then calling the whole thing allegory is perfectly compatible. If one desires Truth then one is left with a far more difficult challenge.

I’m always shocked that people don’t consider the theological implications behind the rejection of so many fundamental truths. I’m also shocked that people can just say “allegory! allegory!” But then (with a straight heart) slink away when asked to specify those allegorical truths beyond the normal, trite and simplistic, overly jargonistic puedo-explanations that pass for exegesis these days.

I have never been called to have faith in science or scientists.

 

[Casilda]

kolbecenter.org

Catholic resources defending the six day creation as recorded in the Bible. Lots of theological, philosophical, scientific and historical resources. There is a metaphysical impossibility for human evolution.

 

[edwest2]

Well… Evolution is the foundational theory of biology. And it is what has allowed us to make such great advancements in particularly medicine. We see life changing following the models that the theory of evolution provides. There are fungi and bacteria whose primary source of food is diesel fuel. Diesel fuel hasn’t been around for more than, what, 150 years maybe? We see it in antibiotic resistant strains of diseases. And if I were a biologist I’m sure I could rattle off numerous more examples. As far as scientific theories go, hardly any can match evolution for its accurate models, explanatory power, and usefulness.

Oh, also, it doesn’t conflict with your faith. It says nothing about salvation, or your connection to God. I’m always shocked when Christians, whose primary teacher (and also god) taught almost exclusively in parables, insist that the book written millennia ago be literal and single-layered.

The starting assumption is not true.

the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/

Ed

 

[Bradski]

Seriously, spend some time and inform yourself, because you are woefully ignorant and are only giving ammo to the atheists by being intentionally ignorant.

There are those Catholics who are well educated. There are those who are ignorant. And then there are those, as you say, who appear to be intentionally ignorant.

We take all this into consideration when discussing matters with Catholics. It doesn’t detract from Catholicism itself.

 

[reggieM]

Gradualism depicts evolution as a constant but steady change over time. Last I heard, it had fallen out of favor and punctuated equilibrium is where it’s at. That an equilibrium is reached, speciation stops, but then ar some point (probably a disruption of some sort) there’s a rapid spurt of changes.

Just as we need to remove Aquinas’ outdated cosmology examples from his metaphysics, we need to do the same with materialist bias in the physical sciences. We do change over time by mutations. We physiologically did evolve from other species and share a common biological ancestor with apes and monkeys and mammals and vertebrates and all life. Speciation has occurred this way. It can’t explain understanding of universals in the intellect, though.

I respect your point of view, Wesrock. I disagree with some of your conclusions, but that’s about as far as I can go for now. I take a more critical view of evolutionary claims. But I certainly agree that we need to remove the materialist bias from scientific interpretations.

 

[reggieM]

The starting assumption is not true.

the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/

Ed

from the article:

Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

It’s the media, the education, the science, the large community of athiests with tons of video’s all over youtube putting doubt in our mind’s.

Surely it was easier to have faith in the past compared to now, is our generation therefore going to get a greater reward given that all these things go against us?

People say it’s wrong to ask for a sign, but i’m struggling to have faith after learning the things i did at school and on youtube via documentaries.

I admit that my frame of mind upon asking this question is fustrated and angry.

Just pray. Watch this: Prayer ~ Fr. Ripperger

Pray, and if you want to discuss the science with somebody, first learn the basics and then read the book that troubles you. Let the subject sit with you and then discuss it with somebody who has both strong faith and a good understanding of the subject.

Take physics for example: there are so many alternative explanations for why quantum physics is the way it is that if you study it enough you will come to grasp with your gut and intuition why, after WWII, the profs in graduate schools and the people running the atomic project would say what they did to the younger physicists who asked about the truth of particular explanations of quantum mechanics. The “youngster” would spell out what he had heard and then run alternative explanations to the prof, and then the prof would sit back for a minute or two, puff thoughtfully on his pipe, and then say, “Hmm . . . that’s all very interesting . . . now shut-up and compute.”

Most quantum mechanical explanatory activity is more or less sterile, and even Nobel physicists (if memory serves, Steven Weinberg for one) say so.

Pray and see where that takes you. Who knows, maybe it will be you who comes up with a great reconciliation. And if not, then no harm done, just shut-up and compute.

I (I’m not a physicist) play with different explanations, and I usually hold several of them in my mind at once. They don’t trouble me; I just think I’m fooling around with more than one idea at a time. I don’t have to come to any conclusions.

I was a hard-core atheist for more than 30 years, but eventually I came back to the church. And do you know what I do? I pray, I shut-up and compute, and I just consider that I can entertain more than one idea at once and that I don’t have to come to any conclusions.

Relax, don’t over-think it, don’t try to solve the world’s problems, and keep it simple. And all these people who think they have the one simple true answer . . . I promise you they don’t. And if you live long enough, you will know that that is true.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

What do you think?

I am asking you, stop avoiding the question!

Do you think all Scientists are atheists?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Most leading scientists are:

nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html

Ed

This is a correspondance from 1998.
It is not peer reviewed survey material.

Come up with something peer reviewed and current. As we both know, research must be peer reviewed and current.

But for the record, anytime I was in the states, which this survey claims to cover, either in DC or any other part of the states, any Mass attendance or discussions thereof, with leading scientists revealed most believed in God.

In my own Country, at that time, any scientists , leading, or your garden variety, I knew , or knew of, believed in God. This includes such eminant people as the Cassini Crew and the Mars Explorer teams.

So this contradicts your correspondance from that era.

 

[peaceandmercy]

Just pray. Watch this: Prayer ~ Fr. Ripperger

Pray, and if you want to discuss the science with somebody, first learn the basics and then read the book that troubles you. Let the subject sit with you and then discuss it with somebody who has both strong faith and a good understanding of the subject.

Take physics for example: there are so many alternative explanations for why quantum physics is the way it is that if you study it enough you will come to grasp with your gut and intuition why, after WWII, the profs in graduate schools and the people running the atomic project would say what they did to the younger physicists who asked about the truth of particular explanations of quantum mechanics. The “youngster” would spell out what he had heard and then run alternative explanations to the prof, and then the prof would sit back for a minute or two, puff thoughtfully on his pipe, and then say, “Hmm . . . that’s all very interesting . . . now shut-up and compute.”

What really got to me the most was the ‘virtual Particle’ theory, something out of nothing.

Most quantum mechanical explanatory activity is more or less sterile, and even Nobel physicists (if memory serves, Steven Weinberg for one) say so.

Pray and see where that takes you. Who knows, maybe it will be you who comes up with a great reconciliation. And if not, then no harm done, just shut-up and compute.

I (I’m not a physicist) play with different explanations, and I usually hold several of them in my mind at once. They don’t trouble me; I just think I’m fooling around with more than one idea at a time. I don’t have to come to any conclusions.

I was a hard-core atheist for more than 30 years, but eventually I came back to the church. And do you know what I do? I pray, I shut-up and compute, and I just consider that I can entertain more than one idea at once and that I don’t have to come to any conclusions.

Relax, don’t over-think it, don’t try to solve the world’s problems, and keep it simple. And all these people who think they have the one simple true answer . . . I promise you they don’t. And if you live long enough, you will know that that is true.

What really got to me the most was the ‘Virtual Particle’s’ theory, something out of nothing.

 

[Wesrock]

You see the truth. You’ve even expressed it somewhat. But when it comes to drawing that dreadful conclusion, you back away. You can’t bring yourself to say that the evolutionary biology community is simply wrong on this point. Am I right?

I might as well declare the Earth flat, accept an Aristotlean cosmology, and think that God the Father has wings, sits on a literal throne in the highest heaven and once grappled bodily with a Leviathan in the ocean.

There is sufficient evidence for the evolution of man at this time that it would be irrational of me to reject it.

The Bible is not a science textbook, we are not Fundamentalists, and I accept all Catholic doctrine and dogma.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

What really got to me the most was the ‘Virtual Particle’s’ theory, something out of nothing.

Yes, but they always go back to nothing. Not only that, but these particles have a definite maximum range: lifetime * speed_of_light = max_range. They’re just good for interactions, for explaining forces, and that’s about it. Are there exceptions? Yes, sometimes the particles get to stick around, but if they do, they must be paid for. The first law of thermodynamics is still enforced, i.e., there is still an absolute prohibition on getting something for nothing.

The beginning of the universe was a bit different, but the first law existed then too, it’s just that the initial hyper-expansion was tied up with a phase change.

As things get stranger and stranger, and farther away from our experience, do they sometimes look like they might violate the first law? Yes, but again, you probably shouldn’t worry, but just keep in mind that whatever you read will probably be countered by somebody else. Don’t worry about it. You probably will not solve the problem under discussion and neither will the person attempting to put forward his idea of what the ultimate answer is. Just be patient and sooner or later you will probably see whatever idea you are currently troubled by floating dead in the water, drifting down the endless river of new thoughts and ideas, down to the deep blue sea . . .

And you might even eventually see them come back in a new guise, reanimated, repaired, and doing good work. Decades will pass while you casually watch the endless interplay of different theories. You might even come to like and enjoy ideas you once hated while still easily hanging on to your faith.

 

[reggieM]

Decades will pass while you casually watch the endless interplay of different theories. You might even come to like and enjoy ideas you once hated while still easily hanging on to your faith.

Good thoughts. Theories come and go, but the thoughts of the Lord last forever.

I caution myself, also – if a pursuit of transient and often useless theories leaves me just “hanging on to” my faith – is time and pursuits better spent on things that enable Faith to carry me - with strength and confidence? Like a well-constructed bridge from this life to eternity?
Yes - I’ve got to keep building that.

At that same time, seeing science as a reverent admiration and learning about the magnificence of God’s creation. The plain old scientific method. It’s a great thing!

 

[Dorothy]

St. John Paul II’s document stated that we can accept some aspects of evolutionary theory but not all.

Amen!

 

[reggieM]

Relax, don’t over-think it, don’t try to solve the world’s problems, and keep it simple. And all these people who think they have the one simple true answer . . . I promise you they don’t. And if you live long enough, you will know that that is true.

Thank you for this very good advice.
And Fr. Ripperger - it excellent also!

 

[reggieM]

Thank you, Dorothy!

 

[Russell_SA]

It’s the media, the education, the science, the large community of athiests with tons of video’s all over youtube putting doubt in our mind’s.

Surely it was easier to have faith in the past compared to now, is our generation therefore going to get a greater reward given that all these things go against us?

People say it’s wrong to ask for a sign, but i’m struggling to have faith after learning the things i did at school and on youtube via documentaries.

I admit that my frame of mind upon asking this question is fustrated and angry.

Beliefs are not something you can choose. They are the result of your current understanding of reality and your applied logic to that data. Such as: A+B=C. A, and B are the raw data of reality, the +,= is your applied logic. C is your belief. It’s the results once you’ve analyzed the situation. Your results are not a choice you make. Such as running any physics experiment and then choosing to believe the results will not match reality. You can’t, no one can do this. So, where ever you are in your beliefs about an idea, that is where you are. You can choose to not look at more data out there about your held belief and the conversations and arguments about your held belief, but if you do look at all those and that still doesn’t change your beliefs, then it seems that belief is strongly justified to you and to you alone. To someone else those arguments and data points may actually change their beliefs, just as adding new values to the previous equation will change the results as well.

Everyone holds data at different levels of importance based on their upbringing. That is why we need multiple people to run our experiments to see where our innate biasness may have come in. Independent verification, repeatability, and falsifiability are the keys for justified beliefs. For example: you can run into people today that have been abducted by aliens. They’re stories all seem very similar in many of the facts they claim about the event, such as the aliens’ physique, atmosphere, etc. But are we justified in believing their story is actually what happened to them? Is it falsifiable? Independently verifiable? can we repeat the event? well no. So I would say, I believe they experienced something, but would I be justified in believing their explanation was the actual explanation? No I wouldn’t. Regardless of how much I personally care for this person, I still wouldn’t be justified in that. Same goes with a deity’s telepathy to it’s followers. That is all a personal experience to each of those people, but to everyone else it’s hearsay. That might have actually happened, but since we have no way to determine if that is what actually happened, then we are only justified in believing those people had an experience.

Also:
Faith is the belief in unjustified claims, by it’s applied use.
Ex: 1d6 dice rolls
Belief: The tentative conclusion based on actual evidence in reality.
Ex: I believe a value from 1 to 6 will appear when a 1d6 dice is rolled.
Hope: The desire for, out of all possible outcomes, for a specific one that is important to you.
Ex: Since I bet that the number 4 will appear, I hope that a 4 is the result from a 1d6 dice roll.
Faith: The desire for, out of all possible outcomes, for a specific one that has no evidence that result is part of the possible results.
Ex: I have faith that a 7 will result from a 1d6 roll.

Since any idea can be held, by the argument of faith, how can faith ever be a pathway to truth about reality? I have faith that event X will occur. I have faith that event X will not occur. You can hold a faith value for any position on any idea, so

1. how does it get one to understanding actual justified reality?
2. why would that ever be a virtue to hold?
3. how are the faithful any different than the gullible?