Science can't destroy Religion

[tonyrey]

Are you really still peddling “chance” as the only possible alternative to design?

 

[atheistgirl]

Words, definitions, arguments, apologia are important, Sarah, when one attempt to define concepts that are bigger than a breadbox.

Are they really?

Who would have thought?

The apologetics for the Orthodox Church, the Jewish Faith, the Muslim faith and the Catholic faith are all pretty convincing depending on where you are and who you are.

Great scholars, who have devoted their entire lives to studying these issues, have been swayed in directions opposed to the faith they were brought up in, or persuaded to stay in that faith.

Otherwise, Bishops like Ware - who clearly is a very studious, faithful, devout and intelligent man - wouldn’t have been convinced to reject the Catholic teaching in favor of the Orthodox teaching when he chose to leave Protestantism. Likewise the numerous people who became Catholic from other faiths, or left Catholicism for other faiths, and so on.

The combined effect of all this, on me anyhow, while very interested in the conflicting and contradictory discussions and the ideas, is to simply leave you all to it.

You might, to some people, be able to defend your position, but that’s a million miles away from being able to convince some one else of the truth of what you’re claiming.

I’m not even remotely qualified to start offering apologetics for the Orthodox faith, or any other faith. I only know what I’ve read. And just as there are people here who fancy themselves highly as apologists, with no formal Church training or qualifications and give out mis-information from time to time, I may have also read such poor aplogetics from Orthodox writers.

From what I’ve read, The Orthodox teach everyone goes to purgatory after death.

Catholics do not teach everyone goes to purgatory after death.

To me, your claims about purgatory, and the Orthodox claims about purgatory, are contradictory.

If an Orthodox Christian well versed in Orthodox apologetics would like to correct that understanding and highlight how both Catholic and Orthodox understanding of purgatory is not contradictory or in conflict, that would interesting - but seriously way off topic so better addressed in another thread I think.

On topic, I have no issue with contradictory scientific propositions and ideas. Science is self correcting - part of it’s immense beauty - but ultimately, the eternal salvation of my soul isn’t contingent on it. So I’m happy to listen to all sides and go with the consensus, based on the evidence produced by the great minds behind it.

Not so with faith. Little agreement, little consensus, conflict and contradiction abound.

When you’re on the outside looking in, and reading about the different faiths and beliefs, it’s not like the sweet music of science and scientific discovery.

It’s a cocophonos din of gongs and nails scratching on a wall.

Sarah x

 

[CopticChristian]

I’ve read so much stuff that contradicts this, for example:

Anyhow, without going into all the word games that will invariably follow, the simple fact that the Orthodox Church say they are the** one true Church **founded on Christ, and the Catholic Church headed by the Pope says it’s the **one true Church **founded by Christ, is contradiction enough.

Sarah x

Sarah,

I understand. The disunity does not help the outsider. Perhaps if and when there is union and this will help.

 

[atheistgirl]

No, Sarah.

Yes, Prmerger.

Let’s just take the teaching on purgatory.
In order to prove your point, you’ll need to proffer both teachings on purgatory and show that one says [A] and the other says [Anti–A].

See below.

In the fifth sitting (June 4) Cardinal Julian gave the following definition of the Latin doctrine on purgatory: “From the time of the Apostles,” he said, "the Church of Rome has taught, that the souls departed from this world, pure and free from every taint,—namely, the souls of saints,—immediately enter the regions of bliss. The souls of those who after their baptism have sinned, but have afterwards sincerely repented and confessed their sins, though unable to perform the epitimia laid upon them by their spiritual father, or bring forth fruits of repentance sufficient to atone for their sins, these souls are purified by the fire of purgatory, some sooner, others slower, according, to their sins; and then, after their purification, depart for the land of eternal bliss. The prayers of the priest, liturgies, and deeds of charity conduce much to their purification. The souls of those dead in mortal sin, or in original sin, go straight to punishment. [2]

The Greeks demanded a written exposition of this doctrine. When they received it, Mark of Ephesus and Bessarion of Nice each wrote their remarks on it, which afterwards served as a general answer to the doctrine of the Latins. [3]

When giving in this answer (June 14th), Bessarion explained the difference of the Greek and Latin doctrine on this subject. The Latins, he said, allow that now, and until the day of the last judgment, departed souls are purified by fire, and are thus liberated from their sins; so that, he who has sinned the most will be a longer time undergoing purification, whereas he whose sins are less will be absolved the sooner, with the aid of the Church; but in the future life they allow the eternal, and not the purgatorial fire. Thus the Latins receive both the temporal and the eternal fire, and call the first the purgatorial fire. On the other hand, the Greeks teach of one eternal fire alone, understanding that the temporal punishment of sinful souls consists in that they for a time depart into a place of darkness and sorrow, are punished by being deprived of the Divine light, and are purified—that is, liberated from this place of darkness and woe—by means of prayers, the Holy Eucharist, and deeds of charity, and not by fire. The Greeks also believe, that until the union of the souls to the bodies, as the souls of sinners do not suffer full punishment, so also those of the saints do not enjoy entire bliss. But the Latins, agreeing with the Greeks in the first point, do not allow the last one, affirming that the souls of saints have already received their full heavenly reward. [4]

That’s what contradictory means, right?

Please don’t adopt such a condescending tone when you reply to me. Thanks.

So, if you could provide the teaching from the Orthodox Church (any of the churches will do) and the teaching from the CC, and then show where one says [Not-A] or [Anti-A] on this, you will have proved your point.

You will not be able to do it.

See above.

I just have.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Sarah,

I understand. The disunity does not help the outsider. Perhaps if and when there is union and this will help.

Well, if you guys are going to convince me about something the very salvation of my soul depends on, it sure would help if you were all singing off the same hymn sheet

I’m currently being very taken with the Orthodox faith, and doing quite a bit of reading up around it.

I love the Icons.

I could maybe become an Orthodox Christian for artistic reasons only

Sarah x

 

[Charlemagne_II]

atheistgirl

Not so with faith. Little agreement, little consensus, conflict and contradiction abound.

When you say the above, do you mean to imply there is no disagreement or lack of unanimity among scientists? If so, you do not know much science. The scientific community is loaded with scientists arguing with each other.

According to your premise that lack of unity among religions shows the uselessness of religion, would you also say the lack of unity among scientists shows the uselessness of science?

Would you also say that the lack of agreement among physicians about how to treat a disease shows the uselessness of medicine?

Would you also say the lack of agreement among economists about how to run the economy shows the uselessness of economics?

Would you also say the lack of agreement between Einstein and Heisenberg shows the uselessness of nuclear physics?

 

[atheistgirl]

When you say the above, do you mean to imply there is no disagreement or lack of unanimity among scientists? If so, you do not know much science. The scientific community is loaded with scientists arguing with each other.

I know. I said a few posts back, that’s part of the beauty of science, and I also said my soul’s salvation doesn’t depend on their arguments, contradictions or agreements.

According to your premise that lack of unity among religions shows the uselessness of religion, would you also say the lack of unity among scientists shows the uselessness of science?

The salvation of my soul doesn’t depend for anything on them.

They can say the world is flat but having flown around it, I know it isn’t. They can say my cellphone works by carrot atoms bouncing off the hiney of a big rabbit that hides behind Pluto, and argue about that among themselves, I don’t care - makes no difference to me so long as my call gets through.

But the salvation of my soul does apparently likely depend on me believing the right theology.

Sarah x

 

[inocente]

Excuse me for laboring at what you have already said … which is that metaphysics is for people in ivory towers who like to sit still and think deep.

I think you’re misunderstanding me, I’m not decrying abstract thought. What I actually said was that all knowledge cannot be divined out of thin air just by thinking really hard, the operative word being all.

These days it’s obvious that even the most brilliant team couldn’t have worked out everything in quantum physics or designed a jumbo jet in 1766 just by thinking really hard, and it’s obvious because we’re all used to a progression in science and technology. But before modern science it doesn’t seem to have been obvious that there are many areas where carefully testing an idea against objective reality is essential before being able to make further progress.

Astronomy, which developed in a number of civilizations often for religious purposes, was a driver for making accurate observations and trying to make sense of them, but it seems to have needed a bit of an intellectual leap to get from there to applying the methods more generally.

It also seems to have been difficult to realize that metaphysical views get in the way when studying nature and can safely be split away or ignored completely. Especially after that separation, metaphysics doesn’t seem to be much use nor ornament. You’re welcome to change my view, maybe you could start by listing the top five metaphysics contributions to knowledge in the last hundred years, but only including cases where the knowledge is firm (isn’t just one of many alternative views) and came purely from thinking really hard.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident …” (not requiring scientific proof)

Just in passing, I think “self-evident” might consciously be being used to give contrast with all the societies which evidently hadn’t found them self-evident.

 

[inocente]

But the salvation of my soul does apparently likely depend on me believing the right theology.

There are a few optional twiddly bits but the right theology is basically let your conscience be your guide. Keep this to yourself though, as it’s been known to frighten quite a few horses.

 

[atheistgirl]

There are a few optional twiddly bits but the right theology is basically let your conscience be your guide.

I can do no other.

Keep this to yourself though, as it’s been known to frighten quite a few horses.

Sarah x

 

[davidv]

There are a few optional twiddly bits but the right theology is basically let your conscience be your guide. Keep this to yourself though, as it’s been known to frighten quite a few horses.

This guide is only as good as its formation.

 

[buffalo]

Well, if you guys are going to convince me about something the very salvation of my soul depends on, it sure would help if you were all singing off the same hymn sheet

I’m currently being very taken with the Orthodox faith, and doing quite a bit of reading up around it.

I love the Icons.

I could maybe become an Orthodox Christian for artistic reasons only

Sarah x

Are you speaking of the Eastern Churches of Greek Orthodox (the one’s that separated themselves in 1054?)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

You’re welcome to change my view, maybe you could start by listing the top five metaphysics contributions to knowledge in the last hundred years, but only including cases where the knowledge is firm (isn’t just one of many alternative views) and came purely from thinking really hard.

Why do you limit the discoveries to the last 100 years? As a matter of fact, the discoveries are ancient and still operative since they were first made by people who sat still and thought hard. All mathematics is metaphysical knowledge, as I’ve already pointed out. It was not discovered in a scientific lab but in the minds of great thinkers who knew how to think deep and hard.

Try to name **one **great scientific discovery in the last hundred years that was made without some underlying principles of mathematics.
**
Just in passing, I think “self-evident” might consciously be being used to give contrast with all the societies which evidently hadn’t found them self-evident. **

Many things that are self-evident are not self-evident to everyone. All men are created equal and loved equally, a teaching of Christ. This self-evident truth is obscured by those who would deny it as a way to prove their superior birth and their right to exploit others.

Think India.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

In Philosophy and Logical Syntax Rudolf Carnap used the concept of verifiability to reject metaphysics.

“Metaphysicians cannot avoid making their statements nonverifiable, because if they made them verifiable, the decision about the truth or falsehood of their doctrines would depend upon experience and therefore belong to the region of empirical science. This consequence they wish to avoid, because they pretend to teach knowledge which is of a higher level than that of empirical science. Thus they are compelled to cut all connection between their statements and experience; and precisely by this procedure they deprive them of any sense.”

By this test of knowledge, it would not be possible to have any truth without first making it subject to a laboratory experiment. That argument is defeated by the pure logic of mathematics, which Plato called the highest form of metaphysics.

 

[Lochias]

There are a few optional twiddly bits but the right theology is basically let your conscience be your guide. Keep this to yourself though, as it’s been known to frighten quite a few horses.

My conscience tells me that this is potentially dangerous advice. Which one of us is right?

 

[atheistgirl]

My conscience tells me that this is potentially dangerous advice. Which one of us is right?

If you’ve both informed your conscience as best you could, you’re both right, if you remain true to your conscience

From the Catechism: 1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

*1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53 *

That’s very interesting I think. Very interesting indeed. I understand the emphasis that people can and do make ill informed choices and may display a certain level of ignorance, but if you’ve done the best you can to inform your conscience (and recognize as the Catechism says this is a life long process, not a one off quick decision making process) and act accordingly, you’re good to go.

Reading this, I can see how my conscience is clear

Sarah x

 

[davidv]

If you’ve both informed your conscience as best you could, you’re both right, if you remain true to your conscience

From the Catechism: 1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

That’s very interesting I think. Very interesting indeed. I understand the emphasis that people can and do make ill informed choices and may display a certain level of ignorance, but if you’ve done the best you can to inform your conscience (and recognize as the Catechism says this is a life long process, not a one off quick decision making process) and act accordingly, you’re good to go.

Reading this, I can see how my conscience is clear

Sarah x

Being true to your conscience does not mean that you are right.

CCC:

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

 

[Lochias]

If you’ve both informed your conscience as best you could, you’re both right, if you remain true to your conscience

From the Catechism: 1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

That’s very interesting I think. Very interesting indeed. I understand the emphasis that people can and do make ill informed choices and may display a certain level of ignorance, but if you’ve done the best you can to inform your conscience (and recognize as the Catechism says this is a life long process, not a one off quick decision making process) and act accordingly, you’re good to go.

Reading this, I can see how my conscience is clear

Sarah x

Your argument: “No matter how hard I try, I can’t fill up this cup of full of water. I’ve tried and I’ve tried, but it just doesn’t stay in. I shouldn’t keep trying, there’s no point.”

At some point, you’ve lost the ability to see or feel the holes in the cup.

Solution? Realize that cups were made to hold water, and set about fixing yours.

How? By studying and practicing the techniques to recognize a faulty cup, and fix it.

You can’t take one piece of the Catechism out of context and make it mean what you want it to mean any more than you can with the Bible.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Well, this dialogue on conscience is very much off the topic of this thread.

 

[atheistgirl]

Being true to your conscience does not mean that you are right.

I never suggested it does, and I recognized informing one’s conscience is a life long duty.

But the fact remains, as stated by the Catechism, you condemn someone when you force them to act against their conscience and people are obliged to act in accordance with their conscience.

Sarah x