It is not mandatory to give money to the Catholic Church. Scientific research is imposed upon me through taxes though.
again what does that have to do with the argument? im talking to the audience of those interested in metaphysics, it should be understood in reference to that arguemnt, im not talking about applied scientific research, im talking about science as a tool for forming an answer to the ultimate question of origins.
Science does not test for God. It tests in specific areas of study. Why should anyone’s taxpayer money fund research for God?
Of course there are many Catholics involved. The Catholic church built modern science.
I was referring jokingly (hence the big grin) to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences whose members are atheist or agnostic.
Metaphysics and philosophy should be taught. I find most atheists lacking in history and philosophy.
I don’t object to it being taught. I don’t object to it being paid for. But I do object to the double standard that then, science should not be taught with taxpayer money. Oh well, I think we agree more than we disagree. I am simply more open, and have nothing to fear.
I do not object to empirical science in the science class. But is should be limited to that. If you want to teach a philosophy like evolutionism or creationism it should be done in philosophy class. In addition a good understanding of how philosophy and metaphysics teach students to be able to discern for themselves.
You think spending on science is above scrutiny and accountability?
Don’t worry, I agree. I think it speaks volumes about what I have learned here. Go at it, have fun.
Evolution is the current predominant scientific theory for how life came to be in the state that it is. In science when something reaches the official designation of theory it is fairly certain that it is correct, but it lacks the ability to be tested, repeated, in a laboratory. Evolution is not a philosophy and your calling it such betrays your prejudice in this discussion.
I don’t know, I’ve seen some pretty worthless threads on the net.
Yes, yes, yes. We’ve heard this tired, old “God of the gaps” cliché a hundred times. Hear me: it is really, really WORTHLESS. IMHO, Warpspeedpetey is saying two things in his OP:
What does this cheap shot mean? Since it is sheerly insipid, and we see it for what it is, you don’t have to bother to answer.
no it doesnt, but scientists do propose theories appertaining to it, theoretical physics examines such issues non stop. atheists propose such theories here all the time as alternatives to theistic approaches, i am pointing out the bald impossibility of those alternatives.
again, i dont get the reference, what research?
can you refute the truth of my argument?
aww, come on, i think the argument of the OP is right. if it is it would be a philosophical game changer. it overturns some fundamental assumptions we have, a natural cause isnt possible, that invalidates alternatives to theism that are based in the hard sciences.
You need to realize two things. First, the most widely used high school biology book in the United States was written by a Catholic! Second two, Two, TWO Popes have stated that the theory of evolution is not at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
YESSSSSSS!!! Let’s gather all those evil books and BURN THEM!!! Then we can gather all the disciples of that evil religion (remember, evolution is really a religion) and BURN THEM!!! Then God can prevail and the world will become Eden again!!!