Religion and Science!

[Elizabeth502]

That’s not true. Maybe you just seek out the controversial threads. I am fully supportive of Catholic doctrine.

Not with regard to two original parents and non-evolved souls, you’re not. Every statement you have made about those two key doctrines has opposed those doctrines and mocked those who hold them. And then when confronted about that and asked to clarify your belief, you dodge the question, refuse to answer, or change the subject entirely.

 

[StAnastasia]

Not with regard to two original parents and non-evolved souls, you’re not. Every statement you have made about those two key doctrines has opposed those doctrines and mocked those who hold them. And then when confronted about that and asked to clarify your belief, you dodge the question, refuse to answer, or change the subject entirely.

Not true – I don’t mock at all. And I don’t oppose doctrine. I merely point out that in order to interpret that particular doctrine literally, you have to falsify the genetic evidence.

 

[grannymh]

Grannym, it is you, the interpreter of dogma, who must falsify the evidence to support your theory.** Rossum and I have been over this many times with you in the past couple of years, and yet you conveniently shove the evidence under the carpet every time**. Please do present your interpretation before the American Society of Genetics.

Emphasis mine.

For the benefit of interested readers.

The evidence which is being referred to actually pertains to rotting anatomies, both human and non-human. As long as one is studying blood and guts, evidence pertaining to any and all anatomies, extinct and extant, is legitimate for research.
Readers of actual scientific research check which anatomies are included. Knowing the anatomies does make a difference because of the various relationships between vertebrates since humans have vertebrate anatomies.

As has been said somewhere, the process of death begins at birth. The question before us is simple. Are we, humans, only a decomposing anatomy? Or are we, humans, called to share in God’s life through our spiritual powers of intellect and choice?

The point regarding scientific evidence is that humans are *both *material and non-material; *both *rational *and *corporeal; both body and soul uniquely united into one distinct human nature. Thus, we should not throw away evidence pertaining to anatomies; but rather we should look to evidence of our spiritual soul. Technically, evidence of our spiritual soul is not the same as evidence of our body. Personally, I look to the Catholic Church for information about my spiritual soul.

 

[grannymh]

Not true – I don’t mock at all. And I don’t oppose doctrine. I merely point out that in order to interpret that particular doctrine literally, you have to falsify the genetic evidence.

Regarding mockery, I do hope that what is past is past.

On the other hand, back then, I realized that Catholics need to understand the domain of science in addition to the spiritual domain of eternal life. For me, personally, what was meant as a knife turned out to be a blessing. Praise God!

The movement to change the Catholic Church includes all kinds of personal agendas and interesting methods. One of the more interesting methods is the one which sidesteps the teaching role of Catholicism. This method wants people to concentrate on just one facet of the teaching process, the so-called “interpret that particular doctrine literally.” That way, listening to the Holy Spirit as He guides the Catholic Church can be avoided.

 

[inocente]

4.bp.blogspot.com/_h-pUKym_Obw/S-QakcmYneI/AAAAAAAAAdg/ehzZkRZAnOI/s1600/circleofpowerhijr4.jpg

 

[inocente]

Is Paul only speaking to Gentiles, or is he speaking to Christian communities and pressing the need for “one shepherd and one fold” that Jesus pressed?

There’s a far grander vision. Matthew Henry’s commentary on 1 Cor 1:10 -

In the great things of religion be of one mind; and where there is not unity of sentiment, still let there be union of affection. Agreement in the greater things should extinguish divisions about the lesser. There will be perfect union in heaven, and the nearer we approach it on earth, the nearer we come to perfection. Paul and Apollos both were faithful ministers of Jesus Christ, and helpers of their faith and joy; but those disposed to be contentious, broke into parties. So liable are the best things to be corrupted, and the gospel and its institutions made engines of discord and contention. Satan has always endeavoured to stir up strife among Christians, as one of his chief devices against the gospel.

 

[inocente]

Well, that’s just your opinion, not necessarily true. We have no warrant to believe that there was any physical existence before the Big Bang, since there was no time before the Big Bang in which anything physical could exist.

It isn’t my opinion, cosmologists are disagreed about whether the physical clock started at zero or reset to zero. Lemaître himself said it could be either, that there could be time before the Big Bang.

Those currently working on a potential “before” include Andre Linde, Laura Mersini-Hougton, Param Singh and Roger Penrose. If you’re certain they’re wasting their time then I’m sure they’d be delighted to see your math.

 

[StAnastasia]

It isn’t my opinion, cosmologists are disagreed about whether the physical clock started at zero or reset to zero. Lemaître himself said it could be either, that there could be time before the Big Bang. Those currently working on a potential “before” include Andre Linde, Laura Mersini-Hougton, Param Singh and Roger Penrose. If you’re certain they’re wasting their time then I’m sure they’d be delighted to see your math.

Add to that my Jewish cosmologist friend from U. C. Santa Cruz, Joel Primack, co-discoverer of dark matter.

 

[inocente]

Then the physical universe tells us nothing about God?
inocente;8627080:

I guess the philosophical issue is that ”spiritual powers like insight, freewill, conscience and capacity for love” haven’t tended to lead to conclusions that are common across all peoples and religions.
tonyrey;8629580:

So?

So … religions disagree on what the physical universe tells us about God.

 

[inocente]

All you need to do is to present the “evidence” from a research paper including the citation and then you can specifically point out the actual evidence that specifically contradicts the doctrine of two sole parents of humanity.

On a technical note, in science it’s up to the person presenting a hypothesis to provide the supporting evidence, so for instance you would need to present evidence for your hypothesis, it isn’t going to get into the text books just because no one presented contradictory evidence. I mean think of it - you could claim any manner of things if it weren’t like that. It would be mayhem out there, mayhem.

 

[StAnastasia]

On a technical note, in science it’s up to the person presenting a hypothesis to provide the supporting evidence, so for instance you would need to present evidence for your hypothesis, it isn’t going to get into the text books just because no one presented contradictory evidence. I mean think of it - you could claim any manner of things if it weren’t like that. It would be mayhem out there, mayhem.

Inocente, the North American “Earth Diver myth” – namely, that earth was formed when a muskrat dived to the bottom of the sea and brought up mud in his paws – lacks supporting evidence. Likewise, “Young Earthism,” “Intelligent Design,” and the origin of the human species from a single breeding pair lack supporting evidence. None of these theories have traction within the scientific community, and for this reason they are not yet included in science textbooks.

StAnastasia

 

[inocente]

Inocente, the North American “Earth Diver myth” – namely, that earth was formed when a muskrat dived to the bottom of the sea and brought up mud in his paws – lacks supporting evidence.

That’s a great story and is obviously true as the same myth exists in Eurasia and India.

*In one of the oldest and most widespread myths, found everywhere but in the Southwest and on the Arctic coast, the earth is covered by a primeval sea. A water creature—such as a duck, muskrat, or turtle—plunges to the depths of the sea and returns with a lump of mud that becomes the earth, which is often supported on the back of a turtle. This Earth Diver myth also exists in northern Europe and Asia, which suggests that the Native American versions may be survivals of ancient myths shared with distant Asian ancestors.

mythencyclopedia.com/Mi-Ni/Native-American-Mythology.html#ixzz1f7JDGFXa*

 

[grannymh]

On a technical note, in science it’s up to the person presenting a hypothesis to provide the supporting evidence, so for instance you would need to present evidence for your hypothesis, it isn’t going to get into the text books just because no one presented contradictory evidence. I mean think of it - you could claim any manner of things if it weren’t like that. It would be mayhem out there, mayhem.

Tiny correction. I refer to Catholic doctrine and not to a scientific hypothesis. It is up to science to rule out scientific possibilities. I believe that is called scientific falsification.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

It isn’t my opinion, cosmologists are disagreed about whether the physical clock started at zero or reset to zero. Lemaître himself said it could be either, that there could be time before the Big Bang.

Not so. Time began with the Big Bang. Please cite a relevant passage from Roger Penrose. John Farrell in his book The Day without Yesterday cites this passage from Lemaître’s “The Primeval Atom.”

“We can compare space-time to an open conic cup … The bottom of the cup is the origin of atomic disintegration; it is the first instant at the bottom of space-time; the now which has no yesterday because, yesterday, there was no space.”

What source can you offer that Lemaître thought there could be time before the Big Bang?

You have to use his own words, not somebody else’s.

By the way, expressions like “could be” or “possible” are relatively useless in science without any supporting evidence. On a far-away planet there could be purple people-eaters. You know, aliens who abduct humans and bring them home for a wiener roast.

But that hardly constitutes science.

 

[tonyrey]

Inocente, the North American “Earth Diver myth” – namely, that earth was formed when a muskrat dived to the bottom of the sea and brought up mud in his paws – lacks supporting evidence. Likewise, “Young Earthism,” “Intelligent Design,” and the origin of the human species from a single breeding pair lack supporting evidence. None of these theories have traction within the scientific community, and for this reason they are not yet included in science textbooks.

StAnastasia

There is plenty of evidence for Intelligent Design but science does not recognise the existence of **personal **activity and is restricted to impersonal objects. It therefore presents an inadequate view of reality - highlighted by the existence of SETI. It may be regarded as unscientific but it is based on sound principles of discerning intelligent activity - which is highly important and significant in one’s attitude to life…

 

[tonyrey]

So … religions disagree on what the physical universe tells us about God.

Religions disagree on many aspects of reality.

 

[tonyrey]

Please explain what, how, who, when in regard to a basic consensus as in the statement: “There must be a basic consensus of doctrines if a church is to be a church.”

The answers to who, how, what, when, where, and why will distinguish the Catholic Church from other churches which consider consensus as part of their democratic freedom to interpret Scripture. I am concerned that the freedom of consensus by vote may leave out the role of the Holy Spirit to protect Divine Revelation. Whereas, consensus by vote in a major Catholic Church council is not solely in the hands of the voters.

What I am personally finding out from CAF is that there is the assumption that people, Catholics and others, know how the visible Catholic Church operates on earth. This assumption is an exaggeration.

The consensus obviously depends on the claims of the Church in question. There is far greater latitude of opinion in the Church of England, for example, than in the Church of Rome.

The need for a consensus does not imply that the Church was founded on a consensus! The basic consensus of doctrines has been safeguarded by the Church since the time of the Apostles.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey
**
The need for a consensus does not imply that the Church was founded on a consensus! The basic consensus of doctrines has been safeguarded by the Church since the time of the Apostles. **



Indeed, the Church was founded by Christ the King, not Christ the President.

He made his own throne from which to rule. He was not elected by consensus.

 

[StAnastasia]

That’s a great story and is obviously true as the same myth exists in Eurasia and India. In one of the oldest and most widespread myths, found everywhere but in the Southwest and on the Arctic coast, the earth is covered by a primeval sea. A water creature—such as a duck, muskrat, or turtle—plunges to the depths of the sea and returns with a lump of mud that becomes the earth, which is often supported on the back of a turtle. This Earth Diver myth also exists in northern Europe and Asia, which suggests that the Native American versions may be survivals of ancient myths shared with distant Asian ancestors.]

I don’t think there is a talking snake in this story, but there is a talking muskrat or duck.

 

[StAnastasia]

There is plenty of evidence for Intelligent Design but science does not recognise the existence of **personal **activity and is restricted to impersonal objects. It therefore presents an inadequate view of reality - highlighted by the existence of SETI. It may be regarded as unscientific but it is based on sound principles of discerning intelligent activity - which is highly important and significant in one’s attitude to life…

Tonyrey, not scientific evidence. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. That’s barking up the wrong tree!