Religion and Science!

[inocente]

DNA is the basis of an information system that convinced Antony Flew after a lifetime of atheism of the absurdity of materialism…

Don’t know, he was getting old and frail and there were question marks.

*Do you believe “sustained” implies “explained”? *

Metabolism is a far better explanation than life force. Vitalism was disproved a long time back.

Your argumenta ad hominem don’t alter the fact that you have not explained how life is explained scientifically…

I’m saying that in this case non-scientific explanations will be pushed into more and more qualifications as the science progresses. For a scientific explanation of life, the Wikipedia article is a good place to start: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Do you consider a molecular structure to be in the same category as a tree? Do you deny that an animal (or a person for that matter) has a psychological aspect? Or are all forms of life in principle scientifically explicable?

I think the stickies might just say “Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so”.

 

[grannymh]

For those readers
**who are a tad confused by some previous posts regarding the soul – **
Here is the official Catholic teaching. This is not the same as the “new” theology which is being promoted in various places.

Catholic teaching is that the soul is spiritual. This means that it is non-material; therefore, there is no “gender” which is a material designation. Et cetera, et cetera.

Catholic teaching is that God immediately creates the spiritual soul. This means that it is not “produced” by the parents who are responsible for genetic anatomy. The soul does not somehow evolve along with the cerebellum. Because of the immediate creation of the soul, there is no need for something preceding it.

Some of the Catholic doctrines being denied by a particular scientific theory are as follows: God created humans, you and me, in His own image. We occupy a unique place in His creation. In our own single nature, both the spiritual *and *material worlds are one unity. The doctrines being denied as a result of accepting a particular scientific theory because the world’s scientists accept the theory, are those concerning human nature, original Sin, goal of human life, and the need for a Salvific event.

My apology in advance for not being able to fully participate in this thread at this time. I am working on an Adam and Eve project for a major publication.
Note to StAnastasia: this is not going to a scientific journal; nonetheless, curious scientists will have access to it.

Readers who would like to know about their human nature – paragraphs 355 - 421 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition has some very interesting and compelling information.

link: scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[inocente]

I’m more of an Ann Taylor Loft type lady myself.

That apparel is entirely unsuited to plowing. Denim overalls and stout boots are preferable, worn with a jaunty black beret on formal occasions.

I like your new blog. On your theme of Matt 23:9 here’s Matthew Henry: Pride was the darling, reigning sin of the Pharisees, the sin that most easily beset them, and which our Lord Jesus takes all occasions to speak against. For him that is taught in the word to give respect to him that teaches, is commendable; but for him that teaches, to demand it, to be puffed up with it, is sinful. How much is all this against the spirit of Christianity!

 

[inocente]

What further explanation should they offer in a science class? All scientific knowledge is provisional.
tonyrey;8663201:

I have yet to hear of that statement being made in any science lesson in school, let alone in a lesson about evolution.

It was said to me, aged about twelve in general science class. I remember the lesson because it was the first time a teacher ever invited us to make up our own minds based on reason and evidence rather than how important we thought he was or what the textbook said. Suddenly we were adults!

 

[StAnastasia]

Not sure how this is different. Either “in the beginning” as Scripture says, this person was intended to be a male, or she was intended to be a female. Then sin/disordered genetics/anomalous division etc etc etc occurred. So the soul is what this person was “in the beginning”.

In the case of XY females, they have male DNA, but female bodies, because the fetus was insufficiently supplied with male growth hormones during gestation. I’m not sure what “intended” means in this case. If God “intended” a male to be born, it would seem that either (1) a lapse in divine intention led to the birth of a female, or (2) God changed the divine mind part way through gestation, or (3) the sinfulness of the parents was visited by God upon the gestating baby, who now must carry the cross of celibacy and loneliness for her parents’ sin.

 

[StAnastasia]

My apology in advance for not being able to fully participate in this thread at this time. I am working on an Adam and Eve project for a major publication. Note to StAnastasia: this is not going to a scientific journal; nonetheless, curious scientists will have access to it.

Cool! How will they have access to it? Will it be in a theology or philosophy journal?

 

[tonyrey]

DNA is the basis of an information system that convinced Antony Flew after a lifetime of atheism of the absurdity of materialism…

An argumentum ad hominem which doesn’t get to grips with the issue and also reveals your metaphysical orientation.

Do you believe “sustained” implies “explained”?

Metabolism is a far better explanation than life force. Vitalism was disproved a long time back.

A beautiful example of begging the question! Metabolism is “the set of chemical reactions that occur in living organisms in order to maintain life".
BTW You are the only one in this thread who has thought of vitalism.

Your argumenta ad hominem don’t alter the fact that you have not explained how life is explained scientifically…

I’m saying that in this case non-scientific explanations will be pushed into more and more qualifications as the science progresses. For a scientific explanation of life, the Wikipedia article is a good place to start: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life.

All done and dusted - without a hint of qualification… How dogmatic can one get?

Do you consider a molecular structure to be in the same category as a tree? Do you deny that an animal (or a person for that matter) has a psychological aspect? Or are all forms of life in principle scientifically explicable

?r

I think the stickies might just say “Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so”.

It is not self-evident that a tree or an animal or a person is adequately explained as a molecular structure - unless one is a materialist who believes they are all molecular machines which happen to exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever.

 

[StAnastasia]

Catholic teaching is that the soul is spiritual. This means that it is non-material; therefore, there is no “gender” which is a material designation. Et cetera, et cetera.

This is intriguing: the soul is the “form of the body,” but not so much so that it has anything to do with what the body looks like, or how it acts or feels. Perhaps souls are neuter. And yet, when we pray for bodiless souls in purgatory, such as our dead parents, we are praying for them as gendered, not as neuter beings. If they have no bodies until the general resurrection, and if souls themselves are neither male nor female, how are souls gendered in the months and years in between? Perhaps we remember them as female or male only as a courtesy nod to their once having “possessed bodies,” rather than as being intrinsically male or female. Fascinating conundrum!

Quoting the CCC:

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

 

[PRmerger]

That apparel is entirely unsuited to plowing. Denim overalls and stout boots are preferable, worn with a jaunty black beret on formal occasions.

Ah. So this attire, I suppose, would not be conducive to good plowing in your opinion?

http://ficdn.fashionindie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/58979_2_468.jpg

 

[PRmerger]

I like your new blog.

shaw:

On your theme of Matt 23:9 here’s Matthew Henry: Pride was the darling, reigning sin of the Pharisees, the sin that most easily beset them, and which our Lord Jesus takes all occasions to speak against. For him that is taught in the word to give respect to him that teaches, is commendable; but for him that teaches, to demand it, to be puffed up with it, is sinful. How much is all this against the spirit of Christianity!

Indeed.

It is, I’ll warrant, a sin that most of us who think we have some degree of intelligence struggle with. Rather, I’ll speak for myself and say that it is indeed something that “easily besets” me.

Quote from the late, great Archbishop Fulton Sheen:

Only two classes of people found the Babe: the shepherds and the Wise Men; the simple and the learned; those who knew that they knew nothing, and those who knew that they did not know everything.

He is never seen by the man of one book; never by the man who thinks he knows. Not even God can tell the proud anything! Only the humble can find God!

 

[PRmerger]

In the case of XY females, they have male DNA, but female bodies, because the fetus was insufficiently supplied with male growth hormones during gestation. I’m not sure what “intended” means in this case.

It means God’s antecedent will, as contrasted with his permissive will.

If God “intended” a male to be born, it would seem that either (1) a lapse in divine intention led to the birth of a female, or (2) God changed the divine mind part way through gestation, or (3) the sinfulness of the parents was visited by God upon the gestating baby, who now must carry the cross of celibacy and loneliness for her parents’ sin.

Or, the Catholic answer is
4) God’s antecedent will was for the baby to be a , but sin/anomalous cell division/malignant genetics caused it to not be so. As Jesus says, “in the beginning it was not so.” But God permits that which God permits.

 

[StAnastasia]

It means God’s antecedent will, as contrasted with his permissive will.

This sounds like gobbledegook. Are you saying God changes the divine mind from time to time? That She would really like X to happen, but She is content for Y to happen if X doesn’t work out?

Or, the Catholic answer is 4) God’s antecedent will was for the baby to be a , but sin/anomalous cell division/malignant genetics caused it to not be so. As Jesus says, “in the beginning it was not so.” But God permits that which God permits.

This is wishy washy. Are you suggesting that God willed for the baby to be a boy, but that He was incapable or unwilling to influence the hormonal bathing of the fetus sufficiently to ensure its phenotype would reflect its genotpye? And what is this connection of sin with anomalous cell division? I thought Jesus dismissed the sin-disease connection in John 9:3.

 

[PRmerger]

This sounds like gobbledegook.

Heh. That calls to mind a conversation between my 2 DDs last year. 18yr old DD was discussing a physics problem with her classmate over the phone and 8 yr old DD walked by and said, “This sounds like gobbledegook.”

I suppose to an 8 yr old an 18 yr old’s discussion of physics would sound like, well, gobbledegook.

Are you saying God changes the divine mind from time to time? That She would really like X to happen, but She is content for Y to happen if X doesn’t work out?

She? God has revealed to us a theological language by which we are to understand him.

The pronoun “she” has never been part of this language.

It is an innovation that defies the 2000 year (plus! as we include Judaism as our past) tradition of theological language.

God is not a she. The Scriptures describe God as Father. Now, it’s true that perhaps there’s one or two maternal references to God (something about God wanting to be a mother hen?) but the entire language of Scripture refuses the concept of God as a she.

 

[StAnastasia]

God is not a she. The Scriptures describe God as Father. Now, it’s true that perhaps there’s one or two maternal references to God (something about God wanting to be a mother hen?) but the entire language of Scripture refuses the concept of God as a she.

If it helps your spiritual life to image God exclusively as a guy, good for you. I see that you neatly sidestepped the theological problems noted by my post.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you saying God changes the divine mind from time to time? That She would really like X to happen, but She is content for Y to happen if X doesn’t work out?

Of course God cannot change. And yes, God does change! God gives us what Blaise Pascal calls “The Dignity of Causality”. We are given the dignity of changing the course of events. That’s one big reason to pray.

As it applies to genetic mutations, well, of course that’s not the result of someone’s prayer, rather it’s the result of sin, or our fallen state. And sin did change the destiny of God’s plan.

This is wishy washy. Are you suggesting that God willed for the baby to be a boy, but that He was incapable or unwilling to influence the hormonal bathing of the fetus sufficiently to ensure its phenotype would reflect its genotpye? And what is this connection of sin with anomalous cell division? I thought Jesus dismissed the sin-disease connection in John 9:3.

The only connection with sin is a reference to Original Sin–that we lost our original destiny through one man’s sin. That which was originally intended for us.

So no, I am not connecting Klinefelter’s syndrome with a mother’s failure.

As far as God willing for the baby to be a boy, yes, in this case he did. But “sin” intervened. And God permitted it.

From the beginning it was not so, says our Lord.

Have you read Pope JPII’s Theology of the Body discourse? And Christopher West’s analysis? CW talks about how we’re all driving around metaphorically in cars that have flat tires, and we think that’s normal. But, from the beginning it was not so. Our intended vehicle was a cadillac with 4 inflated tires.

 

[PRmerger]

If it helps your spiritual life to image God exclusively as a guy, good for you. I see that you neatly sidestepped the theological problems noted by my post.

See above please.

BTW: I don’t image God as a guy. As if. That’s like saying I image the ocean as an aquarium.

 

[tonyrey]

It was said to me, aged about twelve in general science class. I remember the lesson because it was the first time a teacher ever invited us to make up our own minds based on reason and evidence rather than how important we thought he was or what the textbook said. Suddenly we were adults!

Or you imagined you were!

 

[StAnastasia]

Of course God cannot change. And yes, God does change!

You just contradicted yourself!

As it applies to genetic mutations, well, of course that’s not the result of someone’s prayer, rather it’s the result of sin, or our fallen state. And sin did change the destiny of God’s plan.

Genetic mutation is not the result of sin. Genetic mutation has been with us for three and a half billion years. and in fact it was genetic mutation that led to the evolution of primates, and then of the great apes, and then of humans from the latter group.

So no, I am not connecting Klinefelter’s syndrome with a mother’s failure. As far as God willing for the baby to be a boy, yes, in this case he did. But “sin” intervened. And God permitted it.

I was not referring to Klinefelter’s syndrome, but to Swyer’s Syndrome. A baby girl is born who to all outward appearances is a girl. When she reaches puberty, however, it is discovered that she is an XY female. This has nothing to do with sin.

 

[StAnastasia]

I was not referring to Klinefelter’s syndrome, but to Swyer’s Syndrome. A baby girl is born who to all outward appearances is a girl. When she reaches puberty, however, it is discovered that she is an XY female. This has nothing to do with sin.

"During embryogenesis, without any external influences for or against, the human reproductive system is intrinsically conditioned to give rise to a female reproductive organisation. As a result, if a gonad cannot express its sexual identity via its hormones—as in gonadal dysgenesis—then the affected person, no matter whether genetically male or female, will develop both internal and external female genitalia.

“In both sexes, the commencement and progression of puberty require functional gonads that will work in harmony with the hypothalamic and pituitary glands to produce adequate hormones. For this reason, in gonadal dysgenesis the accompanying hormonal failure also prevents the development of secondary sex characteristics in either sex, resulting in a sexually infantile female appearance and infertility.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streak_gonads

 

[PRmerger]

You just contradicted yourself!

Just like we say that Jesus is True God and True Man. To the theologically immature, this seems to be a contradiction, no?

Genetic mutation is not the result of sin. Genetic mutation has been with us for three and a half billion years. and in fact it was genetic mutation that led to the evolution of primates, and then of the great apes, and then of humans from the latter group.

Anomalous genetic mutation is the result of sin, Original Sin. It is not how we were intended to be, from the beginning.

I was not referring to Klinefelter’s syndrome, but to Swyer’s Syndrome.

But I was.

A baby girl is born who to all outward appearances is a girl. When she reaches puberty, however, it is discovered that she is an XY female. This has nothing to do with sin.

Of course it does. Not personal sin, naturally, but Original Sin. It is the result of our fallen human nature. We are not how were were intended to be, from the beginning.