T
tonyrey
Guest
Good point:
This implies that there are inherent limitations in the laws of nature…
- Status
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Well it can’t. As usual you seem to have again completely misread what I said. Try again.
B
Bradski
Guest
At the risk of prompting you to quote Schopenhaur (yet again), allow me to answer a question with a question: would God be incapable of designing a world whereby all life forms are herbivorous?
Edit: Oh, hang on. He did, didn’t he. It wasn’t hard at all. He did actually design it that way. Then that idiot went and ate the apple and all of a sudden it’s dog eat dog. Literally. It’s our fault!
But I guess He had to do a recall on a lot of creatures to reconfigure their digestive systems so that they could actually eat flesh. I’m not sure if they had the necessary equipment to kill, though. Do you think he had to do a quick redesign in regard to canine teeth, talons, incisors, claws etc?
And there was me thinking it was God’s fault all along. What an idiot…
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Indeed! :clapping::dancing:The solution to the problem is that the infallible laws of nature themselves unerringly guided events to their destination and ensured that the unerring development of monocellular organisms into intelligent animals proceeded successfully to its intended destination. They are so well designed they never require supervision or assistance of any description.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Many a true word is spoken in jest…
Obviously you can’t provide us with a blueprint of a better scheme of things.
And for some reason you don’t like being reminded of Schopenhauer.
T
tonyrey
Guest
hbr.org/2009/09/how-to-handle-the-pessimist-on/Many a true word is spoken in jest…
Obviously you can’t provide us with a blueprint of a better scheme of things.
And for some reason you don’t like being reminded of Schopenhauer.
T
tonyrey
Guest
How do they govern? They are simply regularities…
G
grannymh
Guest
Someone, anyone, help me out here.The solution to the problem is that the infallible laws of nature themselves unerringly guided events to their destination and ensured that the unerring development of monocellular organisms into intelligent animals proceeded successfully to its intended destination. They are so well designed they never require supervision or assistance of any description.
It is my understanding that a law of nature is an explanation and not a “guide” which does something. Laws of nature are what makes nature intelligible to our human minds. A law of nature requires observation.
B
Bradski
Guest
Hey, you must have missed the bit where I explained that the world was originally free from all this killing and tearing and ripping of flesh. If you want a blueprint I can give you chapter and verse.
Genesis 1-29, 30
29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. tYou shall have them for food. 30 And uto every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.
So all the animals were herbivores. not like it was difficult for God. He expressly wanted the animals to live in peaceful harmony. Just like in Isaiah:
6 The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together…
Isn’t that nice. Not like it is now.
But God must have redesigned the wolf and the leopard. They aren’t built for grazing. They are built to kill. Incisors aren’t for chewing grass, they’re for ripping flesh. And the lamb soon found out that cozying up to the lion wasn’t a great way to ensure a long and happy life.
So not only could God have designed it so there was no killing, He did design it that way. And then tweaked His design so we end up with all this terror and killing.
E
edwest2
Guest
Exactly right. The primary idea being put forth here is that certain scientific ideas are carved in stone and must be accepted by all. It should be obvious to anyone reading that a great deal of time and effort is being put into what can only be called a campaign since there have been many, many threads like this in the past.Yes, I too would be filled with shock and awe if I acknowledged for the first time that life could assemble itself into being according to some fixed laws of nature. They would have to be fixed laws of nature, wouldn’t they? Because if they were not fixed laws of nature, life may never have assembled itself. In which case we would not be here to talk about this. But then we get an inherently necessary physical determinism that naturally down the road selects life. How that fixed determinism could exist without the intelligent design and providential hand of God guiding it is beyond me.
Thank you Granny. Right back at you!
Science has value but I will only agree with the Church’s point of view and study regarding this subject. This divide between two camps will continue. It must, since it appears that Catholics and other Christians cannot be left alone. That we don’t understand something. Thanks to posters I disagree with, and my own investigation, I am certainly in no position to say “I don’t get it.”
Beyond that, it is theists versus non-theists. The fault is the competing ideas that this life is all there is versus the knowledge that God creates. People posting “you’re wrong,” no matter how politely, should understand that science is not the only source of real knowledge. And I believe that some posters here know that but continue to post in the hope that we will see things their way. And why are affirmations needed from any religious leader regarding scientific matters?
Best,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Exactly. We are told about unguided processes and governing? It doesn’t work.
Best,
Ed
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
A law of nature also requires governance, that is to say, a power that makes sets the law in motion and sustains it in the purpose for which it was set in motion.
And we know who the Governor is, right?
G
grannymh
Guest
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Perhaps, but you are leaving out the part of the story where God turns himself into food for the lambs about to be devoured by those lions attempting to take Heaven by storm so that by becoming their food God effectively removes the ability of the lions to terrorize lambs any longer.
Jesus said, “Do not judge by appearances.”
Oh, I forgot, that is ALL you have to go by.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
You raise a fundamental question of concern to all posters on science at Catholic Answers.
Science has its own protocols to follow, as religion has its.
The pure protocols of science discovering its truths cannot require affirmation from religious leaders.
When religious leaders affirm anything scientific, they do not do so as affirming science, but as affirming that scientific conclusions do not stand in the way of religious truth. That is what “Nihil obstat” refers to. This is not confirmation of the scientific truth but rather an assurance that science is following its protocols and not interfering with the protocols of religion. Religious leaders have affirmed the Big Bang and Evolution not as scientific theories (because they do not have the scientific authority and expertise to do so), but as theories that in and of themselves do not interfere with the protocols of religion.
But if scientists should conclude from their studies that nothing but matter exists, and that spirit and God are delusional entities (as Dawkins certainly does), it would be the business of religion to say that not only can this conclusion not be affirmed, but it must be denied because scientists have used the protocols of scientism to deny the protocols of religion.
A scientist can deny miracles. When he does so, it is the duty of religious leaders to defend miracles. When a scientist says God cannot interfere with the processes of nature, cannot, for example, give a soul to one of the latest apes, he has ceased to be a scientist and has become a philosopher; and not a very good one at that.
G
grannymh
Guest
I have no clue since I was not commenting on a governance.A law of nature also requires governance, that is to say, a power that makes sets the law in motion and sustains it in the purpose for which it was set in motion.
And we know who the Governor is, right?
Please accept my sincere apology for being so dumb as to present my simple understanding of a law of nature …
.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Bad luck! Only Fundamentalists interpret Genesis literally.
The Church makes it quite clear:
385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or** the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures**: and above all to the question of moral evil.
417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Men aren’t built for grazing either. Nor are they built for killing.
But they have been eating plants and flesh for quite a few centuries.
Without either/both men would be non-existent.
The drama of life everywhere is ceaseless.
Do you have a problem with danger?
In hell there is more danger than anywhere else.
Best to live so as never to get there.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
I would rather think that the campaign comes from those who only feel comfortable with so-called (biological) Intelligent Design as worthy of being seen compatible with Catholic belief, and thus defend it tooth and nail (shrug).
- Status