Religion and Science!

[tonyrey]

Good for you! Don’t you think the Artificer sounds more like the Devil? God is certainly far more akin to an artist and a benefactor!

Unfortunately an artifice is defined as " a clever or cunning device or expedients, esp. as used to trick or deceive others."! An artefact is closer to art - but let’s leave the matter there.

But you don’t think beauty is evidence for Design…

Why do you say that?

I have the impression that you reject the evidence for intelligent Design in the universe…

 

[StAnastasia]

Unfortunately an artifice is defined as " a clever or cunning device or expedients, esp. as used to trick or deceive others."! An artefact is closer to art - but let’s leave the matter there.

I agree to drop it, noting that “artificer is an existing word and artefactor” is a neologism.

I have the impression that you reject the evidence for intelligent Design in the universe…

Tony, yes and no. Intelligent Design is not science, but of course any monotheist – and therefore any Christian – believes that the universe ultimately reflects the designs and purposes of God. I resonate with this conclusion to a lucid article on the subject that I found on the Internet:

“I believe only science should be taught in science classes. Neither theism nor atheism should be the default metaphysical underpinning to this science. I argue that there is no more room for the claim that evolution is an unplanned, unguided process than there is for the claim that we can identify clear signs of intelligent design. However, while I am in favor of protecting the integrity of science classes and the religion-neutral scientific process, I am also in favor of promoting the teaching of philosophy and philosophical questions among elementary and high school students. There is no reason at all why young people should not engage the great questions of meaning, purpose, and value at an early age. That is as important to their education as is learning what science is and how it works. There is an appropriate place for each discipline and each set of questions. Where science raises questions at the limit of its competence—questions about design, purpose, meaning, planning, directedness—let the philosophers and theologians take the lead in exploring such questions which transcend the disciplinary boundaries of the sciences. The education of our young people will be the richer for it.”

Source: stthomas.edu/law/programs/studentorgs/organizations/jlpp/publications/vol4num1/hess%20formatted.pdf

 

[tonyrey]

“a possible transitional step” and “life-like” are a far cry from demonstrating how some purely chemical processes seem to blur the line between life and non-life.
ted.com/talks/martin_hanc…_not_life.html

with equal facility I could say you’re expecting way too little…

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).

Both “animate” and “self-replication” are being used in a different sense from that applied to living organisms. The molecules still lack purpose…

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.

Your claim is unwarranted until the blobs are made to acquire the power of a living cell

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…

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.

You still haven’t explained the directiveness, orderliness and creativeness of organic activities and the psychological aspect of life

 

[tonyrey]

I agree to drop it, noting that “artificer is an existing word and artefactor” is a neologism.

All the better!

Tony, yes and no. Intelligent Design is not science, but of course any monotheist – and therefore any Christian – believes that the universe ultimately reflects the designs and purposes of God. I resonate with this conclusion to a lucid article on the subject that I found on the Internet:

“I believe only science should be taught in science classes. Neither theism nor atheism should be the default metaphysical underpinning to this science. I argue that there is no more room for the claim that evolution is an unplanned, unguided process than there is for the claim that we can identify clear signs of intelligent design. However, while I am in favor of protecting the integrity of science classes and the religion-neutral scientific process, I am also in favor of promoting the teaching of philosophy and philosophical questions among elementary and high school students. There is no reason at all why young people should not engage the great questions of meaning, purpose, and value at an early age. That is as important to their education as is learning what science is and how it works. There is an appropriate place for each discipline and each set of questions. Where science raises questions at the limit of its competence—questions about design, purpose, meaning, planning, directedness—let the philosophers and theologians take the lead in exploring such questions which transcend the disciplinary boundaries of the sciences. The education of our young people will be the richer for it.”

Source: stthomas.edu/law/programs/studentorgs/organizations/jlpp/publications/vol4num1/hess%20formatted.pdf

This is all very well in theory but in practice the vast majority of children are not - and hardly likely to be - introduced to philosophy and philosophical questions. They are left with the impression that evolution is not only an unplanned, unguided process but the** sole **explanation of our existence - thanks to the atheist propaganda of atheists like David Attenborough (with his worms in the eyes of children) and Richard Dawkins (with his omnipotent power of natural selection). And of course in the classroom atheist teachers make hay while the sun shines whereas Christian teachers are afraid to be accused of proselytism. That is why in a secular society like the UK God has largely disappeared from the scene and many girls have abortions without even knowing or considering whether it is right or wrong. Everything depends on convenience - provided you can get away with it… And that is why the Catholic Adoption Society has been forced to close down when there are hundreds of children without a family to care for them…

 

[buffalo]

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.

Here is the latest. Many scientists are only interested in materialism and not being interested in philosophy.

Looking at this survey it is no surprise that science reasons some of the conclusions it does. It has too.

God: theism or atheism?

     Accept or lean toward: atheism         2136 / 3226 (66.2%)              Accept or lean toward: theism         599 / 3226 (18.5%)              Other         491 / 3226 (15.2%)

The bias should concern all of us.

 

[tonyrey]

Here is the latest. Many scientists are only interested in materialism and not being interested in philosophy.

Looking at this survey it is no surprise that science reasons some of the conclusions it does. It has too.

God: theism or atheism?

     Accept or lean toward: atheism         2136 / 3226 (66.2%)              Accept or lean toward: theism         599 / 3226 (18.5%)              Other         491 / 3226 (15.2%)

The bias should concern all of us.

Your post is confirmed by what has happened in the UK…

 

[tonyrey]

It is not my intention to get into a “Design” discussion. However, appreciating beauty is a part of human nature and as such can be enjoyed by anyone and everyone regardless of their personal beliefs.

If you lived in a society as secular and intolerant of religion as the UK - with millions of abortions and the Catholic Adoption Society forced to close down when there are hundreds of children without a family to care for them you might be of a different opinion. We need every weapon at our disposal…

 

[cornbread_r2]

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.

Though that’s certainly magnanimous, I don’t need an apology for causing a response of any kind. All I’m looking for is an acknowledgement that threatening a physical assault on someone for their opinions is not appropriate.

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.

If you’re saying now that you really meant that you’d just like to talk with Dawkins then fine, but that’s not what you wrote initially. If you had, you wouldn’t have read the first peep out of me. The gulf between certain scientific theories and certain theological positions is so wide and deep that scientists don’t have to actively put down anyone’s beliefs. The mere existence of contradictory scientific evidence is enough it seems to put some people’s theological noses out of joint.

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.

[snip]

For the record, I’d like it to be noted that I haven’t commented on anyone’s theological position.

Disrespect, vulgarity and nastiness are relative terms that derive their meanings from the perspective of the view of their beholders. One person’s vulgarity is another person’s colorful language. Physical assault – especially of the kind I was referring to – the laying of hands on someone else’s body in an effort to punish them for or discourage them from offering their opinion of someone else’s opinion is much, much less subjective and cannot, IMO, ever be justified. Might does not make right. It really doesn’t make any difference to me how deeply held or cherished the offended’s opinions are – verbal or written offense can never rise to the same level of severity as physical assault. Can a brother get an “Amen”?

Have a good one.

 

[PRmerger]

Disrespect, vulgarity and nastiness are relative terms that derive their meanings from the perspective of the view of their beholders.

I think there is a general consensus about what constitutes disrespect, vulgarity and nastiness.

Heck, here on the forum you know what boundaries to stay within, even though there is no written minutiae which details: Posters are allowed to say , but not .

Given that there is no sticky on what considered disrespect, and that the majority of posters get along rather nicely without moderator intervention, one could conclude that disrespect, vulgarity and nastiness are NOT relative terms.

 

[cornbread_r2]

I think there is a general consensus about what constitutes disrespect, vulgarity and nastiness.

Heck, here on the forum you know what boundaries to stay within, even though there is no written minutiae which details: Posters are allowed to say , but not .

Given that there is no sticky on what considered disrespect, and that the majority of posters get along rather nicely without moderator intervention, one could conclude that disrespect, vulgarity and nastiness are NOT relative terms.

Just because I’m able to accurately assess and conform my behavior to whatever might be CAF’s enforced standards on vulgarity doesn’t mean that I agree with CAF’s definition of vulgarity or that it agrees with mine or that those standards apply universally. For instance, I think the epitome of vulgarity is book burning, but I’d be willing to bet that I could start a thread on CAF (but not elsewhere) advocating the destruction of heretical works with few objections. In that case, my notion of vulgarity could very well be another person’s notion of honorable duty.

 

[inocente]

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?

By specially created I mean created by intervention. My main argument would be that if God is that than which no greater can be conceived, then the God who has no need to intervene is greater than a god who does.

Besides, an interventionist god isn’t logical – if he designed the physical law and set it all in motion, why would he also need to intervene? Besides, every time science investigates anything, we find no evidence of intervention. Besides, to me an interventionist god smacks of trying to find reasons to believe, but surely Christ dying for us is more than enough.

“… Where science raises questions at the limit of its competence—questions about design, purpose, meaning, planning, directedness—let the philosophers and theologians take the lead in exploring such questions which transcend the disciplinary boundaries of the sciences. The education of our young people will be the richer for it.”

I get terrestrial and satellite TV, and while there are science programs every week, offhand I don’t remember any shows featuring philosophers or theologians outside of somewhat questionable stuff on minority “god” channels. I don’t know whether that’s because there aren’t any photogenic philosophers or because they’re just not sufficiently pro-active and interesting.

 

[inocente]

Both “animate” and “self-replication” are being used in a different sense from that applied to living organisms. The molecules still lack purpose…

Self-replication means a process by which a system makes a copy of itself. During cell division, the DNA is replicated, and I can’t see how thinking of DNA as chemicals is much different to thinking of it as part of an organism.

There’s a primitive belief in some cultures of a supernatural “life force” which separates living matter from inanimate matter, but there’s no evidence for it, we know life is sustained by metabolic processes, by chemical reactions.

Your claim is unwarranted until the blobs are made to acquire the power of a living cell

I think your problem will be that these systems don’t really need any explanation, they look alive and meet most people’s expectations (metabolism and replication), while you can only retreat into more and more complicated technicalities. For instance you could criticize the absence of RNA, and that might convince some people for a few years until the systems develop RNA by themselves. You are bound to a static position while the research will always move on a pace and repeatedly outflank you. In essence you’re trying to stop a panzer division from inside medieval castles, but wherever you build one they’ll just drive around you and advance serenely on their way.

You still haven’t explained the directiveness, orderliness and creativeness of organic activities and the psychological aspect of life

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

 

[buffalo]

There’s a primitive belief in some cultures of a supernatural “life force” which separates living matter from inanimate matter,

I

aka soul?

 

[inocente]

Heck, here on the forum you know what boundaries to stay within, even though there is no written minutiae which details: Posters are allowed to say , but not .

Madam, your use of the H word stepped over a boundary. Instead of testing our patience, wishy-washy hippy liberal feminist types should give thanks that we gentlemen graciously allow ladies a voice at all when clearly your proper role is to prepare our meals and look after the livestock.

Methinks I just stepped over a boundary.

 

[inocente]

aka soul?

Don’t think so, life force is often a kind of invisible supernatural substance which supposedly vitalizes both body and soul.

 

[buffalo]

Don’t think so, life force is often a kind of invisible supernatural substance which supposedly vitalizes both body and soul.

I am unclear here - The Catholic definition of the soul is what “animates” life.

 

[StAnastasia]

wishy-washy hippy liberal feminist types should give thanks that we gentlemen graciously allow ladies a voice at all when clearly your proper role is to prepare our meals and look after the livestock. Methinks I just stepped over a boundary.

And do this all barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Well, maybe the livestock should not be in the kitchen.

 

[inocente]

I am unclear here - The Catholic definition of the soul is what “animates” life.

The “life force” is often a kind of gasoline or electricity. It carries away the soul when we die, or else the soul flies away taking the life force with it. In either case the body is left behind and without any life fuel it dies.

I don’t believe that fits the Catholic definition - the one given to me from the CCC is that the soul is the form of the body, but I’ve never got to the bottom of exactly what that means.

 

[inocente]

And do this all barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Well, maybe the livestock should not be in the kitchen.

 

[StAnastasia]

This is all very well in theory but in practice the vast majority of children are not - and hardly likely to be - introduced to philosophy and philosophical questions.

Tony, in the US many public high schools offer philosophy and ethics; my son’s school does. We need to get busy instituting such courses. What do kids get in mandatory RE courses in UK schools?

They are left with the impression that evolution is not only an unplanned, unguided process but the** sole **explanation of our existence - thanks to the atheist propaganda of atheists like David Attenborough (with his worms in the eyes of children) and Richard Dawkins (with his omnipotent power of natural selection).

There is no evidence either that evolution is planned of unplanned, and any declaration to that effect on either side must be eliminated.

And of course in the classroom atheist teachers make hay while the sun shines whereas Christian teachers are afraid to be accused of proselytism.

Can you give examples of hay being made by atheists? Under what law or rubric are they permitted to do so?