B
benjamin1973
Guest
I dunno. This looks like a lot of stuff that people made up. How do you support any of this if you don’t already believe it?
- Status
A
anon65111186
Guest
What part of it seems made up and why?
B
benjamin1973
Guest
All the stuff that isn’t evolution! 
I have no problem with people adhering to their religious traditions, or even holding God ultimately responsible for all that is. But when religious scriptures are quoted as an authority to stand against a scientific theory, then I have a problem with that for two reasons:
I have no problem with people adhering to their religious traditions, or even holding God ultimately responsible for all that is. But when religious scriptures are quoted as an authority to stand against a scientific theory, then I have a problem with that for two reasons:
- It begs the question, since those who do this are attempting to disprove evolution because they see it as an attack against their religious beliefs, in particular Biblical scripture. In this case, quoting scripture (or church doctrine) as an authority is illogical.
- It imposes a very human interpretation on God’s activities in the actual world, which is ironic: if you rigidly adhere to people’s ideas about God, then you are worshiping an idea, rather than an actual entity. There must be room for God’s plan in everything around us. Surely you can’t see the idea of evolution, and all the conflict between the church and so-called “atheists,” as anything but part of God’s plan, at least if you’re Catholic.
Last edited:
A
anon65111186
Guest
I know what you mean, the Church though does not condemn evolution through and through, only coming to certain conclusions not even implied directly by evolution, just philosphical positions related to evolution, not evolution itself.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
I’m developing more respect for the Catholic community overall. There seems to be a lot more latitude and open thinking than I’ve experienced from other kinds of Christian in other forums.
My philosophy is pretty open to a philosophical God. Sometimes I even wonder if the creepiness of QM is a hint that the Universe is a lot more “aware” than a classical materialism could have thought.
But when new ideas and information come into conflict with scripture, how are we to take that? Should those old texts be considered the immalleable word of God, or should they be taken as the writing of people ABOUT God, but revealing human limitations of understanding?
It seems to me that a true faith shouldn’t be faith in the literary truth of scripture, but faith in the living power of God to work in the world at all times, including today. If so, then all the movements around the world, including an increased understanding of evolution, must be part of God’s influence and will.
Why assume we will be punished for continuing in our path for knowledge, when we could as easily assume that God is feeding us that knowledge because we are finally developed enough to receive it?
My philosophy is pretty open to a philosophical God. Sometimes I even wonder if the creepiness of QM is a hint that the Universe is a lot more “aware” than a classical materialism could have thought.
But when new ideas and information come into conflict with scripture, how are we to take that? Should those old texts be considered the immalleable word of God, or should they be taken as the writing of people ABOUT God, but revealing human limitations of understanding?
It seems to me that a true faith shouldn’t be faith in the literary truth of scripture, but faith in the living power of God to work in the world at all times, including today. If so, then all the movements around the world, including an increased understanding of evolution, must be part of God’s influence and will.
Why assume we will be punished for continuing in our path for knowledge, when we could as easily assume that God is feeding us that knowledge because we are finally developed enough to receive it?
A
anon65111186
Guest
That’s the point of the back and forth on this thread, there are a group of us who stand with the church in saying evolution is compatible with scripture, those who think evolution is wrong have to condemn the Church as wrong, that the devil has infiltrated the Church, in order to make their position tenable.
That of course, goes against the Catholic spirit, which is one of humility and trust in the Church, that God protects the Church from all error on matters of faith and morals, when she speaks authoritatively on those subjects.
I for one, don’t think science and scripture, or science and the faith can ever be incompatible. Because God is the author of creation (the object of study in science) and of the Church and of the faith which He has revealed.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Full disclosure, though it’s probably pretty obvious-- I’m not Catholic.
However, due to some of the quirkiness of Physics and philosophical problems with mind/matter dualism, there’s plenty of room in my philosophy for a God. But I have to say this-- to say “I have faith” and then not to trust observations or good inferences made from them seems incompatible. A faith that feels confronted by truth isn’t really faith at all, in my opinion. God is infinitely greater than Man. Why, then, should men insist on taking the simplest possible view on God. Why not just allow ourselves to be completely blown away by all the wondrous things in the Universe, and to get to work the busy and enjoyable pursuit of understanding that must be screaming truth from every particle in the Cosmos if we can only learn to understand it.
However, due to some of the quirkiness of Physics and philosophical problems with mind/matter dualism, there’s plenty of room in my philosophy for a God. But I have to say this-- to say “I have faith” and then not to trust observations or good inferences made from them seems incompatible. A faith that feels confronted by truth isn’t really faith at all, in my opinion. God is infinitely greater than Man. Why, then, should men insist on taking the simplest possible view on God. Why not just allow ourselves to be completely blown away by all the wondrous things in the Universe, and to get to work the busy and enjoyable pursuit of understanding that must be screaming truth from every particle in the Cosmos if we can only learn to understand it.
A
anon65111186
Guest
I figured so, but kudos for engaging with Catholics here and being open to discussion. Have you ever thought of becoming Catholic?
You’re right and I and the Church would agree with you, God is infinitely greater than Man, and so although we can know God, we have a limited knowledge because of our limited, finite nature and intellect.
Even things we have learned about God we can forget, that is how fragile and fallen our nature is. We need God to continually remind us of His presence, love, forgiveness, truth. We can all too easily forget God and His power and truth, and rely too much on our own faculties, which are imperfect.
As far as we know in modern science, evolution is most likely true. If it is true, it means God knows it, because He knows all. Evolution is a process in creation, and since God is the Creator of all creation, He must have created evolution too.
Why or how God created evolution and how it relates to His public revelation of Himself is still being worked out.
B
buffalo
Guest
Catholics are blown away by the wonders of creation. Catholics understood the universe to be intelligible and worthy of study and the Catholic Church has been a huge patron of science.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes, I would like to expand on this a little. Humans do not have the language to put God into adequate words. We do our best to describe Him and His attributes. But, we can only get so far. But, as can be seen by the lists I posted I am sure some posters are surprised by the depth of what we do know.
B
buffalo
Guest
One of the leading physicist suggested that the universe is porous (quantum physics) and it is in these pores God operates.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
The philosophical term for this is “God of the Gaps.” To atheists, it’s the complaint that the more we learn about the Universe, the more Christians push back God’s influence to keep their faith. For example, very simple people thought the sun was a god-- now, we know that the sun “rises” because the Earth is spinning.
But QM is different. Things get so very strange at the quantum level that the idea of “material” is severely stretched. In fact, I’d argue it’s so stretched that it just doesn’t work anymore. Scientists just move the goal posts: “Okay. . . so material is just a collection of energetic ‘particles’ which remain in a state of quantum superposition until they come into contact with an observer” or whatever.
For example, I know that my desk is 99.999999% (not being precise with the number of digits, but basically this) empty space. But then when we zoom in and try and look at electrons and other particles-- well, the way they behave is so slippery and ambiguous that it’s hard even to call THEM material. So you could argue that there probably is NOTHING at all that can be described as “stuff.”
To me, it seems we are living in a Universe of ideas rather than of “stuff.” Add that under certain experimental conditions, the Universe seems to have foreknowledge, or to act in ways that are independent of the causality of time. It really seems to hint at an omniscient Universe, which at least to me, though not to many scientists, seems to be a pretty good point for Christians.
I recommend Christians or Catholics try the following, and see if you don’t see real room for the idea of God in the behavior of QM particles:
It’s hard, but I feel if you can really get your brain around it, you’ll see plenty of “pores” in modern physics which a Catholic can interpret in religious terms with good effect. No need to cling to ancient scripture when modern science is so compatible with your views!
But QM is different. Things get so very strange at the quantum level that the idea of “material” is severely stretched. In fact, I’d argue it’s so stretched that it just doesn’t work anymore. Scientists just move the goal posts: “Okay. . . so material is just a collection of energetic ‘particles’ which remain in a state of quantum superposition until they come into contact with an observer” or whatever.
For example, I know that my desk is 99.999999% (not being precise with the number of digits, but basically this) empty space. But then when we zoom in and try and look at electrons and other particles-- well, the way they behave is so slippery and ambiguous that it’s hard even to call THEM material. So you could argue that there probably is NOTHING at all that can be described as “stuff.”
To me, it seems we are living in a Universe of ideas rather than of “stuff.” Add that under certain experimental conditions, the Universe seems to have foreknowledge, or to act in ways that are independent of the causality of time. It really seems to hint at an omniscient Universe, which at least to me, though not to many scientists, seems to be a pretty good point for Christians.
I recommend Christians or Catholics try the following, and see if you don’t see real room for the idea of God in the behavior of QM particles:
It’s hard, but I feel if you can really get your brain around it, you’ll see plenty of “pores” in modern physics which a Catholic can interpret in religious terms with good effect. No need to cling to ancient scripture when modern science is so compatible with your views!
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
It is difficult enough to understand the meaning that the words are trying to convey, let alone the ideas that bring those meanings together, and you claim to grasp the underlying motivations. Just another day on the Internet I suppose - very disheartening.
A
Aloysium
Guest
And that knowledge is immediate (without an intervening agency / intuitive and certain) and available, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, to all who ask.
B
buffalo
Guest
I do and have. In fact, I have mentioned this several times: Mother Mary continuously exhorts us to pray. Over and over that is her message.
Now, apply the double slit experience. An observer can influence the outcome.
Does God allow our acts and prayers to determine the course of events and the universe? We have reports of prayers changing battle (Lepanto) outcomes. We saw it in the OT when Moses had to have his arm propped up.
What if every human alive offered up prayers together? I wonder what would happen.
Now, apply the double slit experience. An observer can influence the outcome.
Does God allow our acts and prayers to determine the course of events and the universe? We have reports of prayers changing battle (Lepanto) outcomes. We saw it in the OT when Moses had to have his arm propped up.
What if every human alive offered up prayers together? I wonder what would happen.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
There would be slightly more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
B
buffalo
Guest
Which could be a good thing. 
A
Aloysium
Guest
A way of looking at it is that it is the equipment that produces the change in the result. A photon can exist as itself or as a wave in the beam of electromagnetic energy. The apparatus pulls the photon out of the wholeness of the beam of light. The lab comes as a whole made up of parts which have both a spatial and temporal nature, which is why even if you check for the photon after it passes through the slit, it appears as a particle rather than a wave.
G
Glark
Guest
I disagree. The context strongly suggests “clay” refers to inanimate matter. The obvious sense of the passage is that Adam - life - was created from clay - non life. So suggest “clay” refers to a living organism destroys the meaning of the text.
If Adam was the offspring of a pre-existing creature, why didn’t God just say so? After all, the readers (human beings) are quite familiar with the concept of living creatures producing offspring.
B
buffalo
Guest
The observer determines it.
- Status