Religion and Science!

[John21652]

No. Altruism is a behavioural pattern that has both genetic and environmental roots. There is evidence that altruistic behaviour goes way back: “Chimpanzees have now shown they can help strangers at personal cost without apparent expectation of personal gain, a level of selfless behavior often claimed as unique to humans. These new findings could shed light on the evolution of such altruism, researchers said.” http://www.livescience.com/4515-selfless-chimps-shed-light-evolution-altruism.html

Hmmmm.

In post post #571 you wrote, quite specifically, that "…Anatomical modernity of Homo sapiens arrived 200,000 years ago; behavioral modernity some tens of thousands of years later, with the evolution of altruism and the dawn of moral and spiritual consciousness." Clearly, then, you were telling us that altruism evolved tens of of thousands of years after the appearance of anatomically modern humans. Yet in the post above, to which I’m responding, you state there is evidence that altruism existed ‘way back’, whatever that means? Notwithstanding, you are saying that altruism is a very recent phenomena and is a part of “behavioural modernity”.

I’m not sure what your reference to the state is about, but yes – altruism seem to have been very early. There is even evidence that some pre-modern Homo sapiens survived into adulthood with serious disabilities, suggesting that they were valued as individuals and cared for by the group, rather than abandoned.

And here you contradict your earlier statement that tells us altruism is a recent phenomena.

My reference to the state is an inference taken from your post #157, in which you point out that altruism turned up someten of thousands of years after the appearance of anatomically modern man. Even allowing for the vagueness of your time spans, that statement would place altruism almost fairly and squarely in the context of mankind organising itself into permanent settlements, based around agriculture. Hence, we can infere from your statements that altruism is indeed a characteristic of modern and settled man. However, evidence would suggest that altruism is indeed increasingly being replaced by the role of the state.

Biologically we are at least as success as Homo neanderthalensis, although since they interbred with Homo sapiens they live on in us (at least those of us who are European or Asian).

How do you arrive at us being at least as biologically successful as Neanderthals? They were around for a whole lot longer than we have been.

Yes - probably a significant degree of altruism. See the general discussion at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB411.html

Well then, if Neanderthals probably had “…a significant degree of altruism.” as part of their nature’s, then why is it that altruism supposedly only appeared in anatomically modern humans “tens of thousands of years” later?

 

[cornbread_r2]

Empathy apparently displayed by rats.

 

[StAnastasia]

And I have been looking forward to you sharing your beliefs about the Fall otherwise known as Original Sin. I believe that is about the place where science and Catholicism intersect.

Granny, we’ve been over and over and over this topic in the last couple of years. Let’s agree to disagree!

 

[Fran65]

Empathy apparently displayed by rats.

The problem with labelling this behaviour as empathy is that this involves a whole raft of difficult to prove assumptions about what is going on cognitively and socially with these animals.

It is perfectly possible that releasing a rat from the same pack is simply an evolved strategy. It is adaptive because in the longer term it may make it more likely that both rats will survive.

This is also true for sharing food.

Labelling these behaviours as ‘empathy’ is pure anthropomorhism.

And that is not to diminish the value and beauty of our ratty friends - of whom I have had several.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, we’ve been over and over and over this topic in the last couple of years. Let’s agree to disagree!

I disagree with your secular or “new” theology which seeks to change basic doctrines of the Catholic Church.

I disagree with the message you give Catholics that it is o.k. to deny doctrines on human nature because they are not approved by the world’s scientists.

I disagree with the sidestepping of the supernatural.

I disagree with the snide remarks about the creditability of Catholicism.

I disagree with the misuse of science by considering it the source for spiritual truths.

I will continue to defend human nature, itself, against the inroads of the modernist, secular, “new” theology.

 

[grannymh]

Undoubtedly there was an original sin. For those who do not interpret the forbidden fruit story literally, the time and place and circumstances of that “original sin” are lost in the mists of prehistory. Anatomical modernity of Homo sapiens arrived 200,000 years ago; behavioral modernity some tens of thousands of years later, with the evolution of altruism and the dawn of moral and spiritual consciousness.

StAnastasia

What about those people who abide by the teaching of the Catholic Church? How do they respond to the Divine Revelation in the first three chapters of Genesis?

 

[grannymh]

Granny, we’ve been over and over and over this topic in the last couple of years. Let’s agree to disagree!

I disagree with your secular or “new” theology which seeks to change basic doctrines of the Catholic Church.

I disagree with the message you give Catholics that it is o.k. to deny doctrines on human nature because they are not approved by the world’s scientists.

I disagree with the sidestepping of the supernatural.

I disagree with the snide remarks about the creditability of Catholicism.

I disagree with the misuse of science by considering it the source for spiritual truths.

I will continue to defend human nature, itself, against the inroads of the modernist, secular, “new” theology.

 

[inocente]

It is despicable to describe a dead man as being in his dotage - especially when he knew far more about the subject than you ever will… You clearly have a vested interest in writing him off without even refuting his reasoning.

More bluster? Did you even read the first-hand account I linked from the NYT? Here it is again:

But as I discovered, a conversation with him confuses more than it clarifies. With his powers in decline, Antony Flew, a man who devoted his life to rational argument, has become a mere symbol, a trophy in a battle fought by people whose agendas he does not fully understand. - nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html

Anyway, I already said I’m not going to play football with the reputations of the dead. As far as Flew’s reasoning goes, if he has an ace argument for Christianity then by all means repeat it, but I remember only a somewhat second-rate invented deist god-of-the-gaps. As his obituary says:

But believers waiting to welcome this most prodigal of sons back into the fold were to be disappointed. Flew’s conversion did not embrace such concepts as Heaven, good and evil or the afterlife – let alone divine intervention in human affairs. His God was strictly minimalist – very different from “the monstrous oriental despots of the religions of Christianity and Islam”, as he liked to call them. God may have called his creation into existence, then, but why did he bother? To that question, it seemed, Flew had no answer. - telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html

The sentence presupposes that life exists…

Indeed.

Do you genuinely believe that a tree or an animal or a person is adequately explained as a molecular structure?

So. First time round you answered the question with a question, second time you answered a different question, and now you answer the question with a question again.

I was only after a clarification of what you yourself said, but if you’re having so much trouble then I set you free, think nothing of it, de nada.

 

[inocente]

If you are arguing against deathbed conversions, why are you a Baptist? You sound more like an atheist.
tonyrey;8670242:

I have had that impression for a long time…

Given your fondness for the phrase argumentum ad hominem it might be useful for you to decide whether you just made a classic ad hominem.

*An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.

Ad hominem arguments work via the halo effect, a human cognitive bias in which the perception of one trait is influenced by the perception of an unrelated trait, e.g. treating an attractive person as more intelligent or more honest. People tend to see others as tending to all good or tending to all bad. Thus, if you can attribute a bad trait to your opponent, others will tend to doubt the quality of their arguments, even if the bad trait is irrelevant to the arguments. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem*

I have had that impression for a long time…

So do you believe Christ died on the cross to enable us to form little cliques and play games about who is and isn’t a True Christian[sup]®[/sup]? Do you think for even one moment Christ (or me for that matter) is the slightest bit interested in your opinion about who is a True Christian[sup]®[/sup]?

 

[inocente]

Yeah, but that sweater on the female model is to die for.

Forsooth, thou art verily a fashion victim.

 

[inocente]

Oh, no. I don’t think babies will be blind or deaf in heaven. :nope:

My opinion is that those with Down syndrome are perfect. But that doesn’t translate to are perfect.

I’ve been trying to follow the discussion about original sin, but get easily lost as we Baptists believe in original innocence, i.e. we are born clean and individually fall into sin.

My naive understanding of original sin is that before the Fall, Adam had human nature, and after he had human nature plus original sin, or put another way human nature wounded by original sin; and this wound is transmitted through the generations.

I’m wondering what exactly is meant here by human nature, since while we share characteristics we are also each unique. If someone is blind from birth, we could say either that being blind is not what was intended in their human nature, a fault to be rectified in heaven, or else it is integral to their own unique nature, to be valued and cherished as part of them.

Note: the use of the phrase “we Baptists” assumes I’m still allowed to hold my own beliefs rather than have certain CAF posters dictate them to me.

 

[StAnastasia]

What about those people who abide by the teaching of the Catholic Church? How do they respond to the Divine Revelation in the first three chapters of Genesis?

By all means, they are free to interpret these chapters in a literal sense.

 

[StAnastasia]

At any rate, surely you know what “anomalous” means. And you must know what “genetic mutation” is, so…Exactly. And anomalous genetic mutation did not occur until after the Fall. Are you not a Catholic? Why are you feigning nescience on this? I mean exactly what the Catholic Church means by “the Fall”. It is the pathos of the human condition wrought by the sin of Adam.

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.

Below my signature I attach the message of the Clergy Letter Project, a statement affirming the compatibility of theological and scientific perspectives on the world, that has been signed by over 13,000 Christian clergy, including Roman Catholic priests. http://theclergyletterproject.org/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm

Prayerfully yours,
StAnastasia

“We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as ‘one theory among others’ is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator…. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.”

 

[StAnastasia]

Note: the use of the phrase “we Baptists” assumes I’m still allowed to hold my own beliefs rather than have certain CAF posters dictate them to me.

Inocente, check out the ISSR and the Clergy Letter Project to which I make reference in the previous post.

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

I’ve been trying to follow the discussion about original sin, but get easily lost as we Baptists believe in original innocence, i.e. we are born clean and individually fall into sin.

My naive understanding of original sin is that before the Fall, Adam had human nature, and after he had human nature plus original sin, or put another way human nature wounded by original sin; and this wound is transmitted through the generations.

I’m wondering what exactly is meant here by human nature, since while we share characteristics we are also each unique. If someone is blind from birth, we could say either that being blind is not what was intended in their human nature, a fault to be rectified in heaven, or else it is integral to their own unique nature, to be valued and cherished as part of them.

Note: the use of the phrase “we Baptists” assumes I’m still allowed to hold my own beliefs rather than have certain CAF posters dictate them to me.

I do not ask you to believe what I will say. I only ask if you can understand what I am saying. I do not ask you to change your worldview. I only ask that we find some common terminology in order to understand, not necessarily accept, my worldview as a Catholic.

If you are agreeable to the above, may we begin by what is meant by human nature?

 

[StAnastasia]

I disagree with your secular or “new” theology which seeks to change basic doctrines of the Catholic Church.

I agree – I don’t do that. “Secular theology” is your slander.

I disagree with the message you give Catholics that it is o.k. to deny doctrines on human nature because they are not approved by the world’s scientists.

Another lie – that is not my message.

I disagree with the sidestepping of the supernatural.

I agree!

I disagree with the snide remarks about the creditability of Catholicism.

More slander.

I disagree with the misuse of science by considering it the source for spiritual truths.

Another Grannymh lie.

I will continue to defend human nature, itself, against the inroads of the modernist, secular, “new” theology.

Good plan. That’s precisely why I chose theology for a career.

 

[grannymh]

Two questions found in post 621.
What about those people who abide by the teaching of the Catholic Church? How do they respond to the Divine Revelation in the first three chapters of Genesis?

By all means, they are free to interpret these chapters in a literal sense.

While StAnastasia’s answer is correct in that anyone can deny Catholic teachings; however, the question above does not address those Catholics who prefer science as their reference point for spiritual truths. It addresses those people who abide by the teaching of the Catholic Church. (The word abide is used in its definition “to accept without objection”)

This is a good example of sidestepping supernatural Divine Revelation. It also sidesteps the belief issues of Catholics by not answering the second question. Notice that the response to the two questions is to substitute the first three Chapters of Genesis (the context) for the specific object of Divine Revelation.

Those who are familiar with Catholic Doctrines know that Divine Revelation is expressed in Scripture. They also know that the Catholic Deposit of Faith takes precedence over modernist, independent, personal interpretations of Scripture. (The word modernist refers to those who wish to change Catholic doctrines to conform to the modern material world.)

 

[PRmerger]

Empathy apparently displayed by rats.

Empathy, perhaps.

But heroic virtue ala Maximilian Kolbe? Not so much.

For someone to display the types of behavior limned by the Catholic saints, one must use some other sort of explanation (infusion of the Divine Light) to provide apologia for this type of behavior. Not evolution. Not biology. Not science.

 

[PRmerger]

My naive understanding of original sin is that before the Fall, Adam had human nature, and after he had human nature plus original sin, or put another way human nature wounded by original sin; and this wound is transmitted through the generations.

Yes! You understand this better than most Catholics I do believe.

I’m wondering what exactly is meant here by human nature, since while we share characteristics we are also each unique. If someone is blind from birth, we could say either that being blind is not what was intended in their human nature, a fault to be rectified in heaven, or else it is integral to their own unique nature, to be valued and cherished as part of them.

The Catholic answer: both/and.

 

[tonyrey]

It is impossible to defend belief in a loving Father if He is directly responsible for the colossal amount of indiscriminate and futile suffering on this planet. The world is out of God’s control for two reasons: choice and chance…

That is the key word! I agree with everything you have written but the fact remains that the universe is out of God’ direct control. For one thing His Will is not done by human beings when they torture, rape and kill. That is the element of choice on their part, not God’s…
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:

Why is there any misery at all in the world? Not by chance surely. From some cause then. Is it from the intention of the Deity? But he is perfectly benevolent. Is it contrary to his intention? But he is almighty. Nothing can shake the solidity of this reasoning, so short, so clear, so decisive…

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 **system in which there are an immense number of sentient beings pursuing different goals.