Religion and Science!

[StAnastasia]

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.

Form? Perhaps some souls are fat, and other are skinny; some are male and some female, some are gay and some straight; some are black and other white, hispanic, asian.

 

[buffalo]

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.

The soul is the animating principle. I draw your attention to the 3 bolded parts.

**II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE” **
362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore *willed *by God.
363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human *life *or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.
364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 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.
366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235
367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.236 The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.238
368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one’s being, where the person decides for or against God.239

229 Gen 2:7
232 Cf. 1 Cor 6:19-20; 15:44-45.
235 Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis: DS 3896; Paul VI, CPG § 8; Lateran Council V (1513): DS 1440

 

[StAnastasia]

The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 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.

Interesting theory. I wonder how this works in the case of truly intersexed persons. Does the soul reflect the dual sex organs, or the person’s DNA? In the case of XXY or XYY persons, I wonder if the soul reflects the DNA and body parts, or the DNA and body parts reflect the soul. Fascinating questions.

 

[inocente]

Form? Perhaps some souls are fat, and other are skinny; some are male and some female, some are gay and some straight; some are black and other white, hispanic, asian.

I think it’s originally from Aristotle or Thomas, but it definitely says it in the Catechism:

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.

 

[inocente]

The soul is the animating principle. I draw your attention to the 3 bolded parts.

Well, if Catholicism defines the soul as a kind of gasoline then I stand corrected, but the following appears to be talking about somewhat more:

CCC 363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person. But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

 

[StAnastasia]

I think it’s originally from Aristotle or Thomas, but it definitely says it in the Catechism: 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.

Right, but the operative word is “form.” I wonder if that term is mean figuratively rather than literally. In that case, “form” does not refer to the physical (e.g., shape, size, color, metabolic rate) but to something other.

 

[tonyrey]

                             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?

In many schools it is not taken seriously, as one might expect in a largely secular society. There are quite a few people who don’t know what happened on Christmas Day! The present government’s policy seems to be to phase it out:
independent.co.uk/news/education/schools/losing-our-religion-could-re-teaching-die-out-2308062.html
telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8377367/Warning-over-decline-of-religious-education-in-schools.html

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

The teachers don’t need to make an explicit declaration. They simply present the evolutionary theory as if no further explanation is required…

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

There cannot be any control over comments made by teachers in the course of their work but the posts to this forum by English atheists give you some idea of the prevailing mentality fostered by academics like Richard Dawkins who promulgates the notion that religion is evil and RE is child abuse! The following passage will give you an insight into the message and influence of the National Secular Society:

"The law requires that Religious Education is taught in all maintained schools. For many years it was the only compulsory topic in the curriculum. The legal requirements governing religious education were set out in the Education Reform Act of 1988 and confirmed by the Education Acts of 1996 and 1998.

In all community schools and all foundation and voluntary schools without a religious character (in England and Wales), the content of religious education lessons is controlled by LEA-convened bodies called SACREs (Standing Advisory Committees on Religious Education). Unfortunately, SACREs are completely dominated by religious interests. Meanwhile, faith schools are free to teach their own RE syllabus which is permitted by law to be confessional and need not even mention the existence of any other denomination or belief.

Legally, if a parent or guardian requests it, pupils can be withdrawn from RE. However, particularly in faith schools where religious instruction can become cross curricular and creep into other subjects such as Geography and History, withdrawal is wholly impractical. More information on withdrawal from RE and Collective Worship can be found here.

The NSS would like to see all SACREs dismissed and complete reform of RE. We campaign for a completely new and unbiased Religious Education syllabus that is part of the National Curriculum and properly caters for pupils that are non-religious. Religious groups should have minimal (name removed by moderator)ut and any syllabus should be determined by independent academics without a religious agenda.

Secularists particularly object to religion being taught in schools as fact. If there is to be religious education, pupils should be taught about world religions in an unbiased way. They should also be made aware of secular world views such as secular humanism and atheism."

secularism.org.uk/religious-education.html

 

[tonyrey]

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.

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

[/QUOTE]

 

[StAnastasia]

In many schools it is not taken seriously, as one might expect in a largely secular society. There are quite a few people who don’t know what happened on Christmas Day!

Same ignorance here.

The teachers don’t need to make an explicit declaration. They simply present the evolutionary theory as if no further explanation is required…

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

There cannot be any control over comments made by teachers in the course of their work but the posts to this forum by English atheists give you some idea of the prevailing mentality fostered by academics like Richard Dawkins who promulgates the notion that religion is evil and RE is child abuse!

I may not have run across them.

The following passage will give you an insight into the message and influence of the National Secular Society:

The NSS would like to see all SACREs dismissed and complete reform of RE. We campaign for a completely new and unbiased Religious Education syllabus that is part of the National Curriculum and properly caters for pupils that are non-religious. Religious groups should have minimal (name removed by moderator)ut and any syllabus should be determined by independent academics without a religious agenda.

Secularists particularly object to religion being taught in schools as fact. If there is to be religious education, pupils should be taught about world religions in an unbiased way. They should also be made aware of secular world views such as secular humanism and atheism."

The above sounds reasonable to me for a state-funded school.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

You don’t have to agree. You just have to know what’s considered vulgar and what’s not.

Clearly, you do know that you can’t use the f-word. Whether you agree that it’s vulgar or not is irrelevant. You know enough not to use it here.

That’s all I’m saying.

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.

'kay.

That there are some things that you find vulgar that another may not is irrelevant in this context.

You still have to abide by some abstract concept of vulgarity–something that is not spelled out for you here–and you seem to get it. Even though no one has told you what’s considered vulgar here and what’s not. How? Because there’s some generic (here perhaps “universal” would apply) code of non-vulgarity that all of us members here on the CAFs understand.

 

[PRmerger]

Madam, your use of the H word stepped over a boundary.

Clearly not. It’s still up for all to read, right?

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.

Methinks you did! Egads!

And methinks that since you realized you did, you prove my point rather nicely!

BTW, as far as being a hippy: I’ve never been a fan of birkenstocks and peasant skirts and underarm hair. Eeeww.

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

 

[PRmerger]

Interesting theory. I wonder how this works in the case of truly intersexed persons. Does the soul reflect the dual sex organs, or the person’s DNA? In the case of XXY or XYY persons, I wonder if the soul reflects the DNA and body parts, or the DNA and body parts reflect the soul. Fascinating questions.

I wonder, too. My suspicion is that the soul reflects that which the human person was originally made to be, before sin/disease/mutation/anomalous genetics intervened.

So in the case of a boy with Klinefelter Syndrome–XXY–I suppose that his soul reflects that which he truly is: a male human person.

 

[cornbread_r2]

You don’t have to agree. You just have to know what’s considered vulgar and what’s not.

Clearly, you do know that you can’t use the f-word. Whether you agree that it’s vulgar or not is irrelevant. You know enough not to use it here.

That’s all I’m saying.

You originally disagreed with this statement: “Disrespect, vulgarity and nastiness are relative terms that derive their meanings from the perspective of the view of their beholders.” #500

Please note that my statement, in context, was not specific to CAF alone.

Nevertheless, whether or not I agree to what’s considered vulgarity here or on any other forum isn’t irrelevant at all – it’s my whole point – that different people have different definitions for that term. That I choose to conform to what I assume to be CAF’s standard is what’s irrelevant. All that demonstrates is that I’m clever enough to figure out what CAF’s standard seems to be – it in no way demonstrates that there is one and only one interpretation for the term “vulgarity” universally. That everyone who joins CAF might intuitively understand not to go hurling f-bombs left, right and center is also irrelevant in that I could direct you to another website where hurling f-bombs is pretty much a requirement and that that intuition would not apply there.

I agree that an abstract – vulgarity – exists. I disagree that there is only one definition for it.

 

[PRmerger]

You originally disagreed with this statement: “Disrespect, vulgarity and nastiness are relative terms that derive their meanings from the perspective of the view of their beholders.” #500

Please note that my statement, in context, was not specific to CAF alone.

Nota bene! *

it’s my whole point – that different people have different definitions for that term.

We are agreed, then, on your “whole point”.

That I choose to conform to what I assume to be CAF’s standard is what’s irrelevant. All that demonstrates is that I’m clever enough to figure out what CAF’s standard seems to be –

Heh. And it demonstrates exactly what I claim: that there is some sense of what’s vulgar and what’s not. You know it’s vulgar. I know it’s vulgar. Thus, neither of us says vulgar things on the CAFs.

it in no way demonstrates that there is one and only one interpretation for the term “vulgarity” universally.

Perhaps you were under the misapprehension that I believe that "there is one and only one interpretation of the term “vulgarity” universally?

I do not. :nope:

That everyone who joins CAF might intuitively understand not to go hurling f-bombs left, right and center is also irrelevant in that I could direct you to another website where hurling f-bombs is pretty much a requirement

Then, we would all agree that that website sports vulgarity, no?

I agree that an abstract – vulgarity – exists. I disagree that there is only one definition for it.

Then, again, we are agreed!

 

[StAnastasia]

So in the case of a boy with Klinefelter Syndrome–XXY–I suppose that his soul reflects that which he truly is: a male human person.

Possibly. It would be more difficult to determine the gender of the soul with an XXYY person, or with a tetragametic chimera.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Heh. And it demonstrates exactly what I claim: that there is some sense of what’s vulgar and what’s not. You know it’s vulgar. I know it’s vulgar. Thus, neither of us says vulgar things on the CAFs

I know that CAF considers the f-bomb to be vulgar. That does not mean that I consider the f-bomb to be vulgar. In order to survive here, it’s enough for me to simply know what CAF considers to be vulgar.

Let’s look at another example.

You walk up to me on the street, take off one of your non-Birkenstocks and show me the sole. I’m thinking: “How odd”, and go about my business. Do that in Baghdad, Iraq however and you’d most likely have to fight or flee. In the US it means nothing, in Baghdad you couldn’t be more disrespectful. Is showing someone the bottom of your shoe inherently, objectively disrespectful? Nope. It’s only disrespectful in the context of the Middle East.

I think I know from where our disagreement stems. In the above example, if you had undergone sensitivity training prior to your Iraq vacation and been informed of that particular social convention then, yes, you would know that that action is considered disrespectful by them. You would know that they view it differently. Would you take care not to show the bottom of your shoes to anyone once you returned to the States? I’m guessing not – because you know we don’t view as disrespectful. In this case, disrespect depends on the perspective of the beholder.

You may have the last word on the subject. I’m way under my quota of vulgarities and need to spend some time elsewhere.

 

[PRmerger]

In order to survive here, it’s enough for me to simply know what CAF considers to be vulgar.

You may have the last word on the subject. I’m way under my quota of vulgarities and need to spend some time elsewhere.

Nah. It appears that you agree with me on the issue of what’s vulgar–you “simply know” what CAFs considers to be vulgar because there’s a tacit understanding of what’s vulgar-- so we’re good.

 

[PRmerger]

Possibly. It would be more difficult to determine the gender of the soul with an XXYY person, or with a tetragametic chimera.

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”.

 

[tonyrey]

In many schools it is not taken seriously, as one might expect in a largely secular society. There are quite a few people who don’t know what happened on Christmas Day!

That indicates how effective religious education is in state schools…

The teachers don’t need to make an explicit declaration. They simply present the evolutionary theory as if no further explanation is required…

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

I have yet to hear of that statement being made in any science lesson in school, let alone in a lesson about evolution. Children are given the impression that natural selection alone is the driving force of development and physical processes alone account for our existence. The Darwinian version of evolution is taught as an indubitable fact and no mention is made whatsoever of the fact that it is an inadequate explanation.

There cannot be any control over comments made by teachers in the course of their work but the posts to this forum by English atheists give you some idea of the prevailing mentality fostered by academics like Richard Dawkins who promulgates the notion that religion is evil and RE is child abuse!

I may not have run across them.

I shall look up some examples for you.

The following passage will give you an insight into the message and influence of the National Secular Society:

The NSS would like to see all SACREs dismissed and complete reform of RE. We campaign for a completely new and unbiased Religious Education syllabus that is part of the National Curriculum and properly caters for pupils that are non-religious. Religious groups should have minimal (name removed by moderator)ut and any syllabus should be determined by independent academics without a religious agenda.

Secularists particularly object to religion being taught in schools as fact. If there is to be religious education, pupils should be taught about world religions in an unbiased way. They should also be made aware of secular world views such as secular humanism and atheism."

The above sounds reasonable to me for a state-funded school.

Presumably you agree that in a Catholic school:

1. The teaching of Catholicism should be given minimal (name removed by moderator)ut?
2. The Catholic RE syllabus should be determined by independent academics without a religious agenda?
3. No reasons should be given why the Catholic Church is the holy, apostolic Church founded by Jesus?
4. No reasons should be given why belief in God is far more reasonable than atheism?
5. No reasons should be given why abortion and euthanasia are crimes against humanity?
6. Moral education should have no religious foundation?
7. Prayers should be forbidden in RE lessons?

 

[inocente]

Right, but the operative word is “form.” I wonder if that term is mean figuratively rather than literally. In that case, “form” does not refer to the physical (e.g., shape, size, color, metabolic rate) but to something other.

I think it comes from the theory of forms, where ideas (forms) are more fundamental to reality than materials, which may or may not then lead on to PR’s interpretation (post #524).

If only there was a theologian we could ask.