Religion and Science!

[PRmerger]

He believes medication would rob him of a core part of his personality, and again I think that should be his choice.

Indeed.

The question is about what constitutes our identity. Being “how we were to be from the beginning" is what we might have been in a parallel universe, but it’s not us or what got us into heaven.

Yes. As St. Augustine said, “O happy fault which gained for us so great a redeemer!”

It is a “happy” wound to our soul in that we can then be redeemed from it.

It’s a question about whether God loves us for who we are or for who we might have been.

It’s…yep, both/and.

Do not fear, for I have redeemed you;
I have summoned you by name; you are mine.
When you pass through the waters,
I will be with you;
and when you pass through the rivers,
they will not sweep over you.
When you walk through the fire,
you will not be burned;
the flames will not set you ablaze.
…]
Since you are precious and honored in my sight,
and because I love you - Isaiah 43

Gorgeous!

 

[inocente]

Relating Catholicism to my worldview, I may not be in sync with other Catholics when it comes to which teaching is the base or foundation for the Catholic Church. My guess is that others would say that God’s existence is the prime motivator for Catholicism. For me, the foundational teaching is about human nature which is an unique unification or composite of both the spiritual and material worlds. Practically speaking, both God’s existence and the existence of humans are both basic, primary truths of Catholicism.

That’s deep. I guess you could extend it to say that all religion is about God and our response, as in Ratzinger’s “The first Thou that—however stammeringly—was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world.”

*So the original question, what is human nature, remains.

What do think about the material and spiritual world being united as a single nature?
Or maybe we need to first establish what the material and spiritual worlds are in real life?*

We tend to part company here, with you thinking I’m dippy and me returning the compliment. To me there is no immaterial reality, no spiritual substances, no demons or other spirits, God created a physical universe, anything else is strictly inside our imaginations, so with only one world there is automatically a single nature.

But if for the sake of novelty we just concentrate on where we might agree , I guess we could start by saying that spiritual signifies our deepest thoughts and feelings about ourselves and about God, with me being fairly content to stop there and you perhaps wanting to go much further. Possibly.

 

[inocente]

I believe you get a choice in heaven. But, like the metaphor I used in the Stephen Fry discussion (I searched today and reviewed–so I am certainly not going by memory here of a conversation we had from July! ) it’s akin to a little boy, who loves his toy truck, asking his parents, “When I get married can I bring my toy truck to bed with me?”

I suppose he can, but why would he want to?

Sounds a bit 1984-ish . The boy’s toy truck will never be and was never part of him, while Fry’s bipolar and (say) Stevie Wonder’s blindness are integral to them. You can say that their nature diverges from the perfect human nature, but then I can’t speak Chinese or see what Picasso saw or do loads of things. So why does Fry have to conform to some model of human nature, why can’t Fry have his own nature? (I’m not questioning the entire idea of human nature, but rather the extent to which an individual must conform to others’ expectations).

 

[grannymh]

But if for the sake of novelty we just concentrate on where we might agree , I guess we could start by saying that spiritual signifies our deepest thoughts and feelings about ourselves and about God, with me being fairly content to stop there and you perhaps wanting to go much further. Possibly.

I am content to start “by saying that spiritual signifies our deepest thoughts and feelings about ourselves and about God,” because I believe what you said is basic to human nature. And we are looking for common ground where we might agree.

Curiosity about the world, life, and death is basic in human nature. Curiosity is part of the instinct for survival in both humans and animals. What is it about our human feelings, which do include curiosity, that would lead us to think deep thoughts about ourselves and about God? Is it natural curiosity? Or is it a result of something we sense? Or is it both? For me it would be curiosity. What about you?

I do like the concept that spiritual signifies our deepest thoughts and feelings about ourselves and about God. “signifies” is a good word. Thank you.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you think Oppenheimer is lying in his account? Do you have contrary evidence that Flew was in fine fettle?

Flew had come to his conclusion long before that interview… You are continuing to denigrate a man when he is dead and unable to defend himself.

And I did refute his reasoning – I said “I remember only a some what second-rate invented deist god-of-the-gaps”, and to parse that, his “reasoning” amounted to not understanding how stuff happened and inventing his own god to make the stuff happen.

Do you regard that as a rational refutation?

I already challenged you (“if he has an ace argument for Christianity then by all means repeat it”), so go on then, if he has an ace argument for Christianity then by all means repeat it.

You have not refuted his acknowledgment that the DNA information system is evidence for Design.

tonyrey #495: “You still haven’t explained the directiveness, orderliness and creativeness of organic activities and the psychological aspect of life”

That remains a fact and you have obviously not bothered to glance at the online text to which I referred…

inocente #504: “I don’t understand what you mean. Could you start by explaining the directedness and psychological aspect of an olive tree’s life?”

You know perfectly well that “psychological” applies to animal life. Do you think psychology is in the same category as astrology? Are persons mindless, molecular mechanisms? If not why not?

I’ve repeatedly said I’m Baptist, it’s been on my profile from day one (and note my classy new sig).

Anyone can put anything on a profile but whether it corresponds with his posts is another matter. I am not the only one who has noticed inconsistency…

So are you going to apologize (not hard for a Christian) or do I report you?.

Your threat merely confirms that you’re more interested in making personal attacks than answering the topic…

 

[grannymh]

It follows logically from the materialist’s view that all living organisms are molecular mechanisms which react according to physical laws so that distress is no more than a set of amoral, meaningless and purposeless chemical reactions - unless you can explain how naturalism differs from materialism…

Pardon me, but this sounds like giving people permission to kick their dogs.

 

[PRmerger]

Sounds a bit 1984-ish . The boy’s toy truck will never be and was never part of him,

I dunno. Sometimes with children their attachment to things is akin to an appendage.

To illustrate this I conjure up a sad image: that of a funeral of a child in which a beloved toy is placed on top of the child’s casket. The beloved toy speaks of this child’s essence, no?

However I understand your point and will concede that perhaps the analogy fails in that the toy is not part of the child’s ontological being.

While Fry’s bipolar and (say) Stevie Wonder’s blindness are integral to them.

Yes, but to ask if they can still be bipolar/blind in heaven speaks to an impoverished understanding of heaven.

Again, (sorry!) I must go to my toy truck analogy. This boy has NO IDEA about the joys of the marital embrace, so to him, if he can’t have his toy truck, NOTHING will make him happy in the bedroom.

Until he gets there.

You can say that their nature diverges from the perfect human nature, but then I can’t speak Chinese or see what Picasso saw or do loads of things. So why does Fry have to conform to some model of human nature, why can’t Fry have his own nature?

Of course he can! If he wants to celebrate and embrace his bipolar disorder, then, to the degree that he is consonant with the moral law, I say, go for it! (IOW, if by “celebrating and embracing his biplar disorder” he thinks he must stay up for 36 hours (violating the natural order of sleep), then I profess that he ought not “celebrate and embrace” in this fashion.)

 

[grannymh]

While it can be useful to debate science-deniers such as yourself, I must move on. I have to finish writing my chapter on evolution and Catholic theology (for an edited book) and I need to take my son to rowing practice. I invite you to visit the homepage of my core organization, the International Society for Science and Religion (issr.org.uk/) and check out the many links we offer to papers, discussions, and statements on issues at the interface of theology, religion, and science.

This is the aim of your link (post 622) to the ISSR: “Our central aim is the facilitation of dialogue between the two academic disciplines of science and religion, one of the most important current areas of debate in terms of understanding the nature of humanity.”

Since you are writing “my chapter on evolution and Catholic theology (for an edited book)” what is Catholic theology’s position on the nature of humanity?

 

[tonyrey]

Pardon me, but this sounds like giving people permission to kick their dogs.

It is not **permission **to do anything but recognition of the logical consequences of materialism. In an accidental universe everything is meaningless and valueless. If only matter exists nothing matters!

 

[tonyrey]

That is the key word! I agree with everything you have written but the fact remains that the universe is out of God’ direct

United we stand but divided we fall.

When natural disasters occur they are not willed by God but due to the laws of nature without which life wouldn’t exist. That is the element of chance overlooked by Hume:

Doesn’t God will the laws of nature?

Certainly. He is ultimately responsible for everything…

Ironically it is the intention of the benevolent Almighty that chance events occur because they are the inevitable consequence of the interplay of natural laws. It is absurd to expect harmful coincidences never to occur in an immensely complex physical

Quite true.

It is refreshing to know that you don’t fall (like John Calvin) into the trap of believing every event - including every horrific disaster and deformity - is **directly **willed by God. That is a superb recipe for atheism!

 

[John21652]

…

Since you are writing “my chapter on evolution and Catholic theology (for an edited book)” what is Catholic theology’s position on the nature of humanity?

I look forward to this answer!

 

[inocente]

Your threat merely confirms that you’re more interested in making personal attacks than answering the topic…

Well, I guess saying I’d report you at least gave you pause to finally post about my views rather than about me, but too late.

I don’t know if there’s a conspiracy flu bug doing the rounds, but as with Charlemagne II I’m putting you on ignore. The pair of you dreamed up the most bizarrely irrational conspiracy theory in history – that it would be worth my while to learn all there is to know about being a Baptist, to link the songs Baptists sing, to understand the gospel and quote scripture, and to post as a Baptist for twenty months when all the time I’m really something else. Stunningly ridiculous.

Alternatively it might just be that you are profoundly ignorant of other faiths and can’t conceive of a different path to yours. Whatever, I can’t prove to you that I’m a Baptist, just as you can’t prove to me that you’re a Catholic, but free speech is out the window when you sink so low as to repeatedly call me a liar about everything I believe. Incidentally, I’ve been PM’d to assure me this is all about you and nothing to do with Catholicism.

Anyway, you’re reported, copy below.

Member tonyrey is repeatedly saying that I have not disclosed my true beliefs, see his post (at the end), my reply, and his response (I’ll also reply to that post on the thread, including a draft of this message for him to see).

I’ve pointed out the sticky “It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs” and asked him to apologize but he won’t. We’ve posted to each other for many months without trouble and I don’t know why he’s suddenly got so aggressive, but it’s impossible to have a free discussion when he is calling me a liar to my core.

I wondered if you could either have a word with him, or ban me if you agree with him.

Thanks, sorry to bother you.

 

[John21652]

Well, I guess saying I’d report you at least gave you pause to finally post about my views rather than about me, but too late.

I don’t know if there’s a conspiracy flu bug doing the rounds, but as with Charlemagne II I’m putting you on ignore.
…

And I’d say you petulantly posting your report onto the thread is really, really low and poor form.

You put both toneyrey and the Mods in a terrible, almost impossible, position and very very publicly. You even publicly denigrated Charlemagne II in the process.

 

[inocente]

If he wants to celebrate and embrace his bipolar disorder, then, to the degree that he is consonant with the moral law, I say, go for it! (IOW, if by “celebrating and embracing his biplar disorder” he thinks he must stay up for 36 hours (violating the natural order of sleep), then I profess that he ought not “celebrate and embrace” in this fashion.)

For me, as none of us can know about heaven until we’re there, we can only hypothesize, and how we hypothesize tells us something about how we see ourselves. On the one hand we have an idealized portrait of the generic human, who isn’t blind or bipolar or stooped by old age or victim of teenage acne. On the other we’re all unique.

So for instance I like music, is that a toy truck? If not, then why would bipolar be a toy truck while my enjoyment of music is integral to my identity? Or if music is a toy truck, does that include prayerful music? How about a Mass setting? I love my wife and also, in a way, the two little birds who fly into the workshop every dusk to roost out of the wind (this is the third winter they’ve come back, aaahhh ). Is all or none of that love a toy truck, or is loving my wife integral to me but loving the little birds a toy truck? I think about things as a engineer, I question the value of too much theorizing. Is that part of my nature or a toy truck?

So my problem is where does it stop. OK, we can make sacrifices for the marital embrace, but how much can be sacrificed before none of me remains, with only a shell to enjoy this eternal embrace? Who decides what is me and what is a toy truck?

I don’t know the answer and am not expecting you too either, it’s just a question about what our identity actually means. A sitting on a mountain top, staring at our navel, who-am-I-really kind of question.

 

[inocente]

And I’d say you petulantly posting your report onto the thread is really, really low and poor form.

You put both toneyrey and the Mods in a terrible, almost impossible, position and very very publicly. You even publicly denigrated Charlemagne II in the process.

John, with charity you may realize that after tonyrey calls me a liar and refuses to retract I don’t much care about his position.

I’ve not put the mod in an impossible position, I thought about it. I asked her to have a word with tonyrey, whether or not she does is between her and tonyrey.

If I denigrated CII then I apologize to him, but he has been implying I’m a closet atheist for some time , see e.g. post #566 on this thread. In post #654 tonyrey refers to someone else and I take it he is referring to post #568.

So if I’m petulant then apologies all round, but I fed up of being the object of inane witch-hunts and one way or another it stops here. Maybe tonyrey will get an early Christmas present and I’ll get myself banned, but one way or another it stops here, I will not cower in a corner.

Thanks for your thoughts. I’d now like to maybe spend a little time today not having to deal with personal remarks.

 

[inocente]

I am content to start “by saying that spiritual signifies our deepest thoughts and feelings about ourselves and about God,” because I believe what you said is basic to human nature. And we are looking for common ground where we might agree.

Curiosity about the world, life, and death is basic in human nature. Curiosity is part of the instinct for survival in both humans and animals. What is it about our human feelings, which do include curiosity, that would lead us to think deep thoughts about ourselves and about God? Is it natural curiosity? Or is it a result of something we sense? Or is it both? For me it would be curiosity. What about you?

I do like the concept that spiritual signifies our deepest thoughts and feelings about ourselves and about God. “signifies” is a good word. Thank you.

It’s good we have that much in common .

I’m not sure. I think we’re complicated, and there are lots of questions about ourselves and about God where we don’t really know, and can’t really know the answers. The issue with curiosity is that we may settle for answers to satisfy our curiosity, whether or not they are the real answers.

At this point I’m going to give up for today. This is a deep subject to me and I’m having trouble expressing myself after someone has implied I’m a closet atheist, I keep trying to rephrase things to show I’m not even though I keep telling myself not to worry about it. Sorry, I’ll sleep on it, maybe my brain will be back into gear tomorrow.

 

[PRmerger]

For me, as none of us can know about heaven until we’re there, we can only hypothesize, and how we hypothesize tells us something about how we see ourselves.

Well, we can hypothesize *and *look to what Divine Revelation has revealed. We Catholics get a foreglimpse of heaven (or rather, heaven comes to meet earth) at the Divine Liturgy, or the Holy Mass.

On the one hand we have an idealized portrait of the generic human, who isn’t blind or bipolar or stooped by old age or victim of teenage acne. On the other we’re all unique.

Yes, but made of the same stuff as Adam and Eve.

So for instance I like music, is that a toy truck? If not, then why would bipolar be a toy truck while my enjoyment of music is integral to my identity? Or if music is a toy truck, does that include prayerful music? How about a Mass setting? I love my wife and also, in a way, the two little birds who fly into the workshop every dusk to roost out of the wind (this is the third winter they’ve come back, aaahhh ). Is all or none of that love a toy truck, or is loving my wife integral to me but loving the little birds a toy truck? I think about things as a engineer, I question the value of too much theorizing. Is that part of my nature or a toy truck?

I believe it’s *all *a toy truck, inocente, when compared to being One with The One.

And, FWIW, I don’t believe you’re a closet atheist and would not take kindly to people questioning my own profession of faith.

However, (and this does not apply to you as you’re not Catholic), I do believe that if you’re going to identify yourself on the CAFs as a Catholic you will be causing scandal if you profess beliefs that are not consonant with the Catholic faith. And in that case, I would call you to task for claiming to be a Catholic while espousing decidedly non-Catholic theology.

 

[grannymh]

It’s good we have that much in common .

I’m not sure. I think we’re complicated, and there are lots of questions about ourselves and about God where we don’t really know, and can’t really know the answers. The issue with curiosity is that we may settle for answers to satisfy our curiosity, whether or not they are the real answers.

At this point I’m going to give up for today. This is a deep subject to me and I’m having trouble expressing myself after someone has implied I’m a closet atheist, I keep trying to rephrase things to show I’m not even though I keep telling myself not to worry about it. Sorry, I’ll sleep on it, maybe my brain will be back into gear tomorrow.

Personally, it doesn’t make any difference to me whether I am talking with an atheist or a theist. I see a discussion partner as a person with the same human nature as everyone else.

As I am a closet procrastinator, tomorrow is a great time to talk.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

I cited the following words … yours.

Imho grasping at those who supposedly saw the light in their dotage amounts to using the dead, who have no voice, as footballs.

“supposedly saw the light in their dotage”?

You are making two unfounded statements. That Antony Flew “supposedly saw,” and that he was in his “dotage.”

To repeat, the reputed atheist Flew repudiated atheism in his last book published shortly before his death, the title of which is There Is a God. So there is no “supposedly” about it. Also, people who are in their dotage don’t get to write and publish books. So he was not in his dotage.

Now the real mystery is why, as a Baptist, you would take away from him, as something ridiculous, Flew’s conversion to theism.

But your remarks are exactly the sort of argument that I have heard from any number of atheists.

Would you care to explain?

Oh, I forgot. You have me on your ignore list.

 

[inocente]

To repeat, the reputed atheist Flew repudiated atheism in his last book published shortly before his death, the title of which is There Is a God. So there is no “supposedly” about it. Also, people who are in their dotage don’t get to write and publish books. So he was not in his dotage.

Now the real mystery is why, as a Baptist, you would take away from him, as something ridiculous, Flew’s conversion to theism.

You realized I had to take you off ignore to quote you the other day. Now behave, play nice.

The real mystery is why you think Flew converted to theism. He didn’t. He was a DEIST.

Perhaps you’d like to explain why you think I should applaud a man who, even after his change of heart said: “I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins” - mail-archive.com/media-dakwah@yahoogroups.com/msg01064.html

Why do you want me, a Christian, to align myself with such buffoonery?

And of course we don’t need to recount his stunningly robust logic for his “God very different from the God of the Christian”. But let’s do it anyway, since there’s a good summary of it in the same AP report: “At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he’s best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people’s lives.”

As I remember it, that’s all he has: he can’t think of a better explanation so some vague and remote “super-intelligence” must have created everything. Unless you remember better (no one else appears to).

You’re the Catholic. Tell me why I should applaud someone who invents their own god, a “God very different from the God of the Christian”. Because at least they’re not naughty atheists? Because believing in false gods is better than not believing in any? Where’s it say that in scripture then?