If you can be a good person without God then why need Him?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PelagiathePenit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
Were you aware that the Catholic faith does not view the Bible as its source of dogma/doctrine?

It is not our source for “good morals”–that’s quite clear.
Click to expand...
That wasn’t clear to me no. Thanks for informing me.
 
PRmerger said:
What things are scientifically false in the Scriptures?
Click to expand...
Genesis has a whole host of contradictions.

The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite. 1:1-2:3

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn’t make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be “the evening and the morning” on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? 1:3-5

Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11
  1. In an apparent endorsement of astrology, God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used “for signs”. This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read “the signs” in the Zodiac in an effort to predict what will happen on Earth. 1:14
skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html
 
Winterwolf00 said:
Genesis has a whole host of contradictions.

The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite. 1:1-2:3

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn’t make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be “the evening and the morning” on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? 1:3-5

Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11
  1. In an apparent endorsement of astrology, God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used “for signs”. This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read “the signs” in the Zodiac in an effort to predict what will happen on Earth. 1:14
skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps if you were on a Fundamentalist forum the above statements would be troubling.

But you are on a Catholic forum, in dialogue with Catholics (mainly). As such, we do not subscribe necessarily to the idea that Genesis describes a literal account of how the world began.
 
Winterwolf00 said:
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn’t make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be “the evening and the morning” on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? 1:3-5
Click to expand...
Indeed. This is a great example used by one of our Church fathers, St. Augustine, way back in the 4th century.

He maintains that the inspired writers were clearly using phenomenological language, not literal language, when describing the creation of the universe, for, obviously, there can’t be light unless there’s the sun. Conclusion: we do not take Genesis literally.

rtforum.org/lt/lt47.html
 
PRmerger said:
Well, perhaps if you were on a Fundamentalist forum the above statements would be troubling.

But you are on a Catholic forum, in dialogue with Catholics (mainly). As such, we do not subscribe necessarily to the idea that Genesis describes a literal account of how the world began.
Click to expand...
That is rather convenient for you I suppose.
Either way however it cannot be considered valid according to science.
 
Winterwolf00 said:
That is rather convenient for you I suppose.
Click to expand...
Well, only in the way that you would tell the police officer, “I was home during the murder. Here’s my proof. See this security videocam.”

I suppose he could say, “That is rather convenient for you”, but it would be an otiose statement, no?
Either way however it cannot be considered valid according to science.
Click to expand...
A valid source for scientific treatise on how the universe began?

Right.

It’s no more a valid source for this than your love letters to your wife would be a valid source.

But then again, no one is claiming it’s a valid source. At least, no Catholic on this thread that I’ve seen.
 
I’m really not sure where this whole scientific inaccuracy branch is going, but Catholics don’t subscribe to Sola Scriptura. I’m not sure if you were under the impression all Christians believe everything in the Bible or else, but that’s not accurate. Catholics don’t believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis for one, nor are we required to believe that the Bible is a scientific textbook, because it isn’t. We would know, seeing as the Catholic Church determined the canonical texts in the first place.
 
Winterwolf00 said:
That is rather convenient for you I suppose.
Either way however it cannot be considered valid according to science.
Click to expand...
One might say it is rather convenient for you to take a literalist reading of Genesis as the only one possible since it confirms your bias about Christianity by imposing your bias upon Genesis. Which came first, the convenience or the accusation of convenience?

So you don’t suppose that light itself had to be created before the Sun? Light does not merely come from the Sun. You realize that, no? Why is it contradictory to science to claim that God created light or the possibility of lighted conditions (the day) before he created the Sun? Perhaps the inspired author was referring to the condition in all the universe where stars light up the planets in their respective systems as a general phenomenon before specifically creating this Earth and this Sun. Strictly speaking, THAT would be a scientific requirement, no?

A creator would need to create the form or “archetype” of the phenomena before specifically creating any one instance of it, right?

The problem with you fundamentalists, whether of the theist or atheist variety, is that you have no imagination whatsoever. And the problem with amateur skeptics is that they are in denial with respect to every belief they currently do not hold. Try inverting the skepticism and apply it full force to what you “think” is true. It might get you out of the restricted eggshell that has become your worldview. Baby birds do it all the time and they discover the limited world within their narrow field of view gives way rather easily to a much larger and richer reality.

Think of what birds do to get out of their eggshell as God’s prescription for what victims of narrow-minded world views ought to do. The baby bird has every reason to be skeptical concerning what is outside its shell and its skepticism only confirms its bias since its current place of residence only serves to reinforce what it believes about its world. Skepticism is clearly not helpful to a bird in a shell regarding what it ought to do next, correct? The only way out for the bird is to be skeptical of skepticism itself, correct?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Hamlet, scene v
 
Peter_Plato said:
One might say it is rather convenient for you to take a literalist reading of Genesis as the only one possible since it confirms your bias about Christianity by imposing your bias upon Genesis. Which came first, the convenience or the accusation of convenience?

So you don’t suppose that light itself had to be created before the Sun? Light does not merely come from the Sun. You realize that, no? Why is it contradictory to science to claim that God created light or the possibility of lighted conditions (the day) before he created the Sun? Perhaps the inspired author was referring to the condition in all the universe where stars light up the planets in their respective systems as a general phenomenon before specifically creating this Earth and this Sun. Strictly speaking, THAT would be a scientific requirement, no?

A creator would need to create the form or “archetype” of the phenomena before specifically creating any one instance of it, right?

The problem with you fundamentalists, whether of the theist or atheist variety, is that you have no imagination whatsoever. And the problem with amateur skeptics is that they are in denial with respect to every belief they currently do not hold. Try inverting the skepticism and apply it full force to what you “think” is true. It might get you out of the restricted eggshell that has become your worldview. Baby birds do it all the time and they discover the limited world within their narrow field of view gives way rather easily to a much larger and richer reality.

Think of what birds do to get out of their eggshell as God’s prescription for what victims of narrow-minded world views ought to do. The baby bird has every reason to be skeptical concerning what is outside its shell and its skepticism only confirms its bias since its current place of residence only serves to reinforce what it believes about its world. Skepticism is clearly not helpful to a bird in a shell regarding what it ought to do next, correct? The only way out for the bird is to be skeptical of skepticism itself, correct?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Hamlet, scene v
Click to expand...
There are so many things wrong with what you said I’m not even sure where to start.

I admit though that you did make me laugh with the ‘fundamentalist’ comment.
 
Winterwolf00 said:
There are so many things wrong with what you said I’m not even sure where to start.
Click to expand...
Already, in your short stay here you have made this comment twice in different contexts.

I think it wouldn’t be too irrational for a reader to conclude that this is actually your way of avoiding dealing with the statements that you actually find incontrovertible.
I admit though that you did make me laugh with the ‘fundamentalist’ comment.
Click to expand...
There is a great deal of truth, as well as irony, in that so many come here objecting to our beliefs using some rather fundamentalist paradigms.

To wit: what could be more fundamentalist than, “Science Alone”, no?
 
PRmerger said:
Already, in your short stay here you have made this comment twice in different contexts.

I think it wouldn’t be too irrational for a reader to conclude that this is actually your way of avoiding dealing with the statements that you actually find incontrovertible.

There is a great deal of truth, as well as irony, in that so many come here objecting to our beliefs using some rather fundamentalist paradigms.

To wit: what could be more fundamentalist than, “Science Alone”, no?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘Science Alone’.
I think it wouldn’t be too irrational for a reader to conclude that this is actually your way of avoiding dealing with the statements that you actually find incontrovertible.
Click to expand...
No that tends to be my response when someone posts a wall of text.
 
Winterwolf00 said:
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘Science Alone’.

No that tends to be my response when someone posts a wall of text.
Click to expand...
We have a belayer and rope available if you are frightened of heights. :whackadoo:

But, then there is always a risk :stretcher:
 
Winterwolf00 said:
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘Science Alone’.
Click to expand...
Anyone who embraces the view that Science is the only method we have for apprehending truth.

It’s a fundamentalistic, narrow-minded, tunnel visioned viewpoint.

It is also self-refuting, because Science hasn’t proven that Science is the only method we have for apprehending the truth.
 
PRmerger said:
Anyone who embraces the view that Science is the only method we have for apprehending truth.

It’s a fundamentalistic, narrow-minded, tunnel visioned viewpoint.

It is also self-refuting, because Science hasn’t proven that Science is the only method we have for apprehending the truth.
Click to expand...
It’s a fundamentalistic, narrow-minded, tunnel visioned viewpoint.
Click to expand...
Amusing, but no.
To quote Tim Minchin.
“Science adjusts it views based on what’s observed, faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.”
It is also self-refuting, because Science hasn’t proven that Science is the only method we have for apprehending the truth.
Click to expand...
Nor was it ever claimed, however denying the fruits of the Scientific Method is just living in denial.
 
Winterwolf00 said:
Amusing, but no.
Click to expand...
Well, if it’s not a fundamentalist POV to believe Science alone provides the answers to reality, please cite a study that demonstrates this.

Peer-reviewed and repeatable studies only, please.
To quote Tim Minchin.
“Science adjusts it views based on what’s observed, faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.”
Click to expand...
That’s not what faith is. Maybe it’s a kindergartner’s definition, but it’s definitely not the Catholic view on it.
Nor was it ever claimed, however denying the fruits of the Scientific Method is just living in denial.
Click to expand...
Very Catholic, this.

Especially since the Catholic Church is the birthplace of the Scientific Method. 👍

newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1011-locklin
 
PRmerger said:
Well, if it’s not a fundamentalist POV to believe Science alone provides the answers to reality, please cite a study that demonstrates this.

Peer-reviewed and repeatable studies only, please.

That’s not what faith is. Maybe it’s a kindergartner’s definition, but it’s definitely not the Catholic view on it.

Very Catholic, this.

Especially since the Catholic Church is the birthplace of the Scientific Method. 👍

newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1011-locklin
Click to expand...
  1. Again that wasn’t claimed, so I’m not going to justify your strawman.
  2. That might not be your definition but that is the honest one.
  3. A highly questionable source, and patently false seeing as how the Scientific Method as it is known today was developed during the Islamic Golden Age.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top