My two objections to Christianity

[SebastianTorres]

Answer of all your questions above: I don’t know what is going on in a brain of other animals, but I think the answer is no, in all those cases. Why? well, the fact that their brains are much smaller or less complex may be a reason. It seems that the size and structure of the brain is directlly proportional with the functions it can develop. Brain are pretty much like computers.

 

[SebastianTorres]

I don’t know if I believe in a soul. What is a soul actually? The concept have changed in time, in different religions and among christianity itself.

 

[SebastianTorres]

Why would that mean His intervention is superfluous? Well, before the supposed “big bang”, the consecuences of gravity and other phisical forces seems to explain pretty much what we see in the space without the need of an inteligence force intervention to keep it in existence, and regarding the life on this planet, evolution theory seems to do the same.
No, I don’t think there is necessarily a contradiction between science and christianity, may be I express myself wrong, sorry for that. I mean science don’t contradict religion but makes it somhow unnecesary, so for me to believe in christianity need an extra effort, I would need a more precise evidence, something that makes me say “This is it, now I can be sure what they beleive is real!” Untill then I keep living my life and the fact that I believe or not in God doesn’t seems to affect anyrhing around me.
There was a time when I actually commited myself to beleive, I prayed every day, I do my best to lead a life according to Christ, I read the Bible and went to the Chruch, and in my everyday life the same things happened, good and bad. Then I stop praying, reading or going to church and nothing changes, the same things happened around me, good and bad things. That’s confussing and sorry if I boring you with this but maybe it helps you to understand my stance and help me to find answers. I also talked about this with a priest, but their explanations didn’t seems to to help me much.
My problem is actually deeper. My mother is a devote catholic and my father an agnostic (almost atheist). When I was a child both tried hard to influence me with their possitions. You know, those things from childhood remain graved forever. I love them both and would like both to be right but is impossible! Is one or the other, can’t be both right. As you may gess, my parents divorce when I was still very young, but their conflict remains in me.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’ve heard that before Darwin almost everybody used to took the Bible almost litterally, even catholics.

This is monumentally false. As central a figure as St. Augustine didn’t take the book of Genesis literally. That was common in the early Church.

 

[Kathleen18]

My friend
I was sorry to hear of your parents divorce. I too have divorced parents. Are you afraid that if you believe as your father does, then you are rejecting your mother? Or vice versa?
There is also a book that I would highly suggest. It is called, “The Case for the Creator.”
Be at peace, my friend.

 

[Curious11]

First objection: how do you know God isn’t loading the dice with what we understand to be random genetic mutations? How do you know God didn’t throw the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs? How do you know God didn’t guide us all the way until today? Deists believe God does not intervene in your everyday life, and that could be true, but lack of evidence of God’s intervention is not evidence of absence of such an intervention.

Second objection: i believe Catholics don’t necessarily have a literal interpretation of the Bible. They do for the gospels, I believe. Well, who says the miracles of Jesus aren’t true? Scholars believe that the New Testament was written within 90 years of the death of Jesus. Take the raising of Lazarus: the author names the man, his sisters and the place he was raised in. With such detail, it should have been very easy to visit said place and check for yourself what the locals said about such a miracle. Why would he risk people doing that? That could be interpreted as evidence that it was a historical event

 

[johnjacob2004]

Are computers more complex than human brains?
Why does evolution account for human brains but not for making computers?
What about free will? When did elements and cells pop that out into existence?
Is evolution accountable for evil?

 

[johnjacob2004]

Also a simple question…
If humans evolved from monkeys why is it that the most primitive form, monkey, and most advanced form, human, survivors but not the middle man-monkey (missing link)?

 

[johnjacob2004]

Believing fully only in evolution requires much faith…

 

[nearlycatholic]

the fool (darwin) says in his heart, there is no God (ultimate foolishness).

 

[Boler]

the consecuences of gravity and other phisical forces seems to explain pretty much

What explains gravity and other physical forces?

evolution theory seems to do the same

Evolutionary theory attempts to explain physical processes. I don’t see how, in any way, that disproves God.

I mean science don’t contradict religion but makes it somhow unnecesary, so for me to believe in christianity need an extra effort

Scientism is so ridiculous it seems to me no effort is enough to make me accept it.

but makes it somhow unnecesary

How does science explain any of those more interesting things I mentioned? Can you cut goodness with a knife? Can you weigh love on a scale? Can you put justice under a microscope?

And the argument that, “yes science explains love as chemical and neural reactions” is a cop-out. We all know we’re not referring to physiological responses or sociological patterns but rather transcendental values. And to say all we can know is what we can know by science is very narrow-minded and boring view of the world. Nor does anyone who says that actually live as if that were the case or even bother to follow such a view to it’s horrific and nihilistic conclusions.

Then I stop praying, reading or going to church and nothing changes, the same things happened around me, good and bad things.

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust?” - C.S. Lewis

I love them both and would like both to be right but is impossible! Is one or the other, can’t be both right. As you may gess, my parents divorce when I was still very young, but their conflict remains in me.

I admire your search and desire for truth, brother. Don’t let that light go out.

 

[johnjacob2004]

We can argue back and forth all you want to…
All you theories on evolution and such are theories and require much faith… Einstein won the Nobel prize for his “static universe” theory, but later changed his opinion and thought the “Big Bang” was a better theory…
Evolution, Darwinism, they seem like “stop gaps” for the creation of a conscience… the randomness of conscience coming from a lower cell life being sounds hard to believe

 

[Pobreton]

Hola Sebastián.

Ya te respondieron a las principales objeciones aquí arriba, en el penúltimo comentario. Pero, parece que tú mismo ya estás resolviendo algunos de estos problemas:
“¿Cómo supero el cientificismo de corte ateísta postmoderno?” Por el lenguaje que utilizas (“Theism”) lo más simple sería: ¿Qué dice Aristóteles?
“¿Cómo paso de la causa inmóvil al Cristianismo (antes del Catolicismo)?” Ve a los neoplatónicos (suponiendo que ya hay familiaridad con las bases de esa escuela) de ahí a Agustín y a la literatura de los Padres de la Iglesia.
“¿Cómo llego, después de esto, al Catolicismo (en caso de que no lo haya hecho ya en ese momento)?” Lee a Aquino y a sus seguidores (incluyendo contemporáneos accesibles como J. Haldane, etc.)

Darwin se expresa en términos claros (en su correspondencia) respecto a que no existe ninguna incompatibilidad entre su TEORÍA y una visión teísta de la realidad. Una figura prominente del campo de la botánica en USA era muy amigo suyo, esa persona era cristiana, no recuerdo su nombre. Hay correspondecnia entre ellos, también.

Respecto a la Biblia, perdón, pero no entiendo muy bien cuál es el obstáculo que se te presenta (solamente leí algunos de los comentarios ya que son más de 50). En términos muy generales te recuerdo lo que el Doctor de la Iglesia menciona: La Biblia no es un libro de filosofía natural.

¡Saludos!

 

[TheButler]

This is why evolution is bad… I keep on saying it. It is incompatible with the Faith and it causes scandal.

Not at all. If you were the Creator would you create something static or something that is able to improve upon itself, ever adapting, ever perfecting, even if it takes millions of years? Surely the latter would be more satisfying and demonstrate real talent?

 

[TheButler]

We can argue back and forth all you want to…

All you theories on evolution and such are theories and require much faith… Einstein won the Nobel prize for his “static universe” theory, but later changed his opinion and thought the “Big Bang” was a better theory…

Evolution, Darwinism, they seem like “stop gaps” for the creation of a conscience… the randomness of conscience coming from a lower cell life being sounds hard to believe

Nothing in Creation is static. Change is part of Creation. You have changed since yesterday. Your hair is longer, your finger nails are longer, you have grown skin, you have lost skin. You have moved from A to B. No organism stays the same.

The universe is the same. Planets move, solar systems move, galaxies move. Change is part of Creation. Without change only comes stagnation and stagnation (e.g. stagnant water) is not conducive to healthy life.

 

[TheButler]

I’ve seen those claims, from Stephen Hawking, for example. And it’s silly. He proposes that something can come from nothing,

What about something existing before nothing? Did mathematics exist before Creation? Did 6x7=42 beforehand? Did PI exist before the Big Bang?

Mathematics might be a human construct but even before Creation the Creator moved upon plural waters with a singular face. According to Genesis numbers in their most basic form existed so therefore mathematics existed. If mathematics existed then Creation didn’t come from nothing. But then you can’t touch mathematics. Mathematics is not tangible. Yet it existed. Therefore something can exist and not be there.

 

[SebastianTorres]

Thanks Boler, you made a great point here.
Let’s say I accept the possibility of an intelligent Creator, that don’t contradicts science at all. Why should I trust Christianity among all other tousands of religions around the world? Or other forms of monoteism? Just because I born in a “geographically catholic” country (Argentina)? Why christian and not deist, panteist or something else? Are in your opinion the Gospels so trustworthy, to fully believe the christian form of monoteism and not, for example, other abrahamic religions?
By the way I started to read Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis and it throws so much light over this question, but I would like to know your opinion as convinced catholic christian.

 

[SebastianTorres]

Making a fool someone who thinks different from you is not ok in my opinion, and don’t validate your point. The same thing do atheist, and I don’t like when I see it.

 

[SebastianTorres]

As far as I know, that’s not what the theory says. Monkeys are not primitive forms of us, but us and them evolve from a common ancestor, just in different ways according the environment and other factors.
For some scientist, the chimpancee is some how an intermediate form between monkeys and us, genetically speaking.

 

[SebastianTorres]

Althrough the morality of the catholic is one of the things that attracts me most to the church, specially regarding family values, and the lack of morality is one of the things that I hate most in the enemies of the church, I still beleive that good and evil are relative concepts.
What is good for me is bad for others. You may say “there are unversal goods for all mankind” and you’re right, but even those universal values are relative if we take in consideration all Creation. For example, for a creature that feeds on us or take us as enemies, our common good is bad. Maybe my logic is wrong, I’m not a philosopher, if so please give me your opinion.