T
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
No – I don’t here “devil” in “artificer.” I hear “skilled artist or technician.” To each his own.
Why do you say that?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Why?
Perhaps not, but that is an ambiguity with which science lives.
No.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Granny, I didn’t have much time today to research this, but I did find an interesting book: Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers–From Plato to the Present, by John W. Cooper. amazon.com/Panentheism-Other-Philosophers—Plato-Present/dp/0801027241/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323059986&sr=8-1
Monotheisms – including Christianity – have at any historical stage had to couch their conception of God in terms drawn from the surrounding philosophical culture, whether that of intertestamental Judaism, Platonism, Aristotelianism, or any other philosophy. I suspect that a view akin to panentheism has permeated many different theologies, both Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic. One scholar even suggests that Thomas Aquinas is the panentheist par excellence. I’m interested in this topic and will do some more research this week.
Richard blows hard, but can be taken down in discussion.
Well, divine transcendence is a core element of both Hebrew and Christian Theology. Divine immanence was not foreign to the Old Testament but took on an infinitely greater depth with the Incarnation.
Sure!
I
inocente
Guest
Short clip of Richard Feynman on the beauty in knowledge – youtube.com/watch?v=zSZNsIFID28
I
inocente
Guest
I think you’re expecting way too much from such simple systems. The work demonstrates inanimate matter becoming animate all on its own. This in itself is remarkable to watch, and as it’s a work in progress we can expect to see these very simple systems increase in complexity until they achieve self-replication all on their own (self-replication isn’t particularly difficult).
Once the whole sequence has been recorded, all those with eyes to see from age 12 upwards will know for sure that the Interventionist Designer has lost yet another contract to God Almighty, the greater God who made the physical law perfect in the first place and so never needed to cobble together special creations.
Not sure if you’re saying that knowledge blinds us from all that is significant, that learning is evil and ignorance is bliss, or just that anyone with a different view to you is perforce a moron. Bro.You obviously favour a mechanistic explanation which is supposed to put “quite a few more nails in the coffin of biological Intelligent Design” (to quote some one who shares your opinion) without even bothering to consider the directiveness, orderliness and creativeness of organic activities and the psychological aspect of life, as if they are insignificant…
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
inocente
**The work demonstrates inanimate matter becoming animate all on its own. **
No, it doesn’t. The speaker admits within one minute of his talk that this will be an experiment. You know, the sort God would design with supremely greater intelligence.
**The work demonstrates inanimate matter becoming animate all on its own. **
No, it doesn’t. The speaker admits within one minute of his talk that this will be an experiment. You know, the sort God would design with supremely greater intelligence.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Inocente, what would be your criteria for categorically ruling out God’s participation in the process of bringing life out of inanimate matter?
I
inocente
Guest
500 years ago the only tenable game in town for most of the scientifically minded was that everything was specially created. Since then we’ve found out that galactic clusters were not specially created, nor galaxies, nor stars, nor oxygen, nor the Earth, nor the mountains, nor the rivers, nor the grasses, nor the birds, nor diphtheria … there seems to be a trend here.
I think the Interventionist Designer was always a substitute religion, a temporary aberration while we went though a phase of knowing very little to our current state of knowing a bit more. God participates in everything, if you want to put it that way, how could He not, He’s God!
G
grannymh
Guest
StAnastasia,
Who and what were you referring to when you wrote “Richard blows hard, but can be taken down in discussion.” in post 476?
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Say what you will about Richard Dawkins, to the best of my knowledge, he has never threatened to assault anyone for merely holding a different opinion.
If anyone is interested in having their stereotypical views of him challenged, here’s an interview he conducted with George Coyne, former head of the Vatican Observatory – and another with Anglican theologian Alister McGrath.
G
grannymh
Guest
That does not include verbal attacks.
However, I am glad you took my intention to wash his mouth out with soap – for his ridicule of religion – seriously. You made my day.
Imagine a little old granny, clutching a bar of soap, hobbling up to Richard Dawkins…
Kidding aside. I do respect accomplishments in the biological sciences. And I accept many of the theories.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
While you might think that’s a hilarious image, it evokes in me the most visceral response and always has. It’s what adults threaten children with – children who’ve had the temerity to give voice to their thoughts – just another form of thought control.That does not include verbal attacks.
However, I am glad you took my intention to wash his mouth out with soap – for his ridicule of religion – seriously. You made my day.
Imagine a little old granny, clutching a bar of soap, hobbling up to Richard Dawkins…
Kidding aside. I do respect accomplishments in the biological sciences. And I accept many of the theories.
So what are you saying, that you would attempt to shut him up if you were physically able?
P
PRmerger
Guest
If an adult ever threatened to wash a child’s mouth out with soap for “the temerity to give voice to their thoughts” that would be horrific.
However, most parents threaten this when a child has made a* vulgar* comment. Not for simply saying, “I think President Obama is a nice man!”
And who could argue that some of Mr. Dawkins comments are indeed vulgar.
NB: While I appear to be an apologist for the “I’m going to wash your mouth out with soap!” methodology of parenting, I am not.
Just wanted to clarify something.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Richard Dawkins. He can spout vitriol against religious belief. In a discussion once he told me that Catholics were not interested in science, and I had to show him from history and from contemporary practice that this simply is not the case.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Kids say the funniest things. During the 2004 presidential campaign, I arrived at school to pick up my older son. He came running excitedly out of school yelling, “Dad, there’s a Republican in our class!” Of course, I would never have washed his mouth out for saying that…
P
PRmerger
Guest
How vulgar!
(NB to those who have hyperfocused political sensitivities: this
icon indicates I am only joking.)
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Inocente, what do you mean by “specially created”? How do you know God has not created the entire universe, employing secondary causes to achieve His desired ends?500 years ago the only tenable game in town for most of the scientifically minded was that everything was specially created. Since then we’ve found out that galactic clusters were not specially created, nor galaxies, nor stars, nor oxygen, nor the Earth, nor the mountains, nor the rivers, nor the grasses, nor the birds, nor diphtheria … there seems to be a trend here.
OK – this somewhat answers my earlier question. I affirm the idea of God participating in the creation of everything. I just see no way to test for it scientifically.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Hey, it shows he was becoming politically aware in fourth grade.How vulgar!)
G
grannymh
Guest
Hey, in my generation, the term washing one’s mouth out with soap was used in regard to nasty, disrespectful language.
I am sincerely sorry that I caused a “most visceral response”, especially when it relates to “thought” control. I tell my grandkids that they can say anything to me;
but, they better not lie to me.
Not physically able. I wish I were intellectually able to present him with the reality of both the material *and *spiritual worlds. I wish I could show him the beauty and good of the scientific world when it is not being used to put down other people’s beliefs.
Talk about thought control! Some, not all, people like to use science as a weapon to control Catholic thinking. Talk about a “most visceral response”. That is mine when I read all the posts about "granny’s theory of human origin as if Catholic doctrines were total nonsense. Talk about disrespectful language. It is used to ridicule basic doctrines which I support.
As soon as I wrote that, I realized that I would be immediately jumped on because some, not all, people, including Catholics, consider the Catholic Church the big daddy of thought control which needs to be changed in accord with modern science and changing cultures. These promoters of “new” theology apparently do not understand how the visible Catholic Church operates on earth. It doesn’t matter how often the truth regarding Catholicism is posted, some, not all, of these “new” Catholics will choose to ignore it.
In closing, I wish to assure everyone that I have hung up my soap. Sometimes, it is better to ride off into the sunset.
Blessings,
granny
The human person is worthy of profound respect.
- Status