Science knowldege religion bible

[inocente]

He prefaced this with a story about himself being dreadfully sick for months, and unable to obtain a cure from the practitioners within his own profession. A friend suggested that he try homeopathy. He had already dismissed that healing method as absurd, but was desperate enough to visit a homeopath and take the inexpensive tablets that were prescribed. He returned to normal health in 3 days.

You’re right as usual. Perhaps a comparison between a snake-oil salesman and a scientifically trained doctor would have been better, the difference being about verification. But having looked at Dr. Weil’s website, I’m not sure how to categorize him, given his frequent requests for money.

The homeopathy cure may be a brilliant breakthrough or it could have worked for him as a placebo. But a lot of the evidence for alternative medicine is anecdotal, and there don’t seem to be many long-term follow-up studies. I too might try homeopathy or faith healers as a last resort, but it would be useful to know the ratio of negative outcomes. In some cases there is a definite whiff of “I had a premonition and didn’t fly and then the plane crashed, wow” when we never hear about all the “I had a premonition and didn’t fly and the plane didn’t crash, oops” (= a variation on Fenyman’s grandma theme).

But on the OP, my answer is it depends on whatever result we want, somewhat akin to debating whether Beyonce or Bach makes the best noise. To take an extreme example, acupuncture has a reasonable track record and may date from the Neolithic in China, surviving in the face of various religions (again, I’m an ignoramus and only going on Wikipedia). Whether the traditional acupuncture sites are optimal and whether we currently understand how it might work, those Stone Age guys used a certain amount of experimental science, even if their theory, ethics and methodology weren’t up to much. Nor, it has to be said, did it lead them to a cure for middle-aged spread.

Incidentally, I also like to use Dave’s Insanity Sauce. It’s great on vegetables, and you can dilute it with a reference to chili sin carne.

 

[inocente]

greylorn - just in case you took the last line of #61 in umbrage , it wasn’t directed anywhere in particular.

 

[4Horsemen]

Jumping off the theoretical level (which races past me at the speed of light) into the practical realm, I just want to comment on the unreliability of the homeopathic method for serious diseases such as cancer. A close friend, who went through various kinds of homeopathic treatments (including coffee enemas) for her breast cancer, didn’t make it and passed away. However, the tumor was deep and couldn’t be operated on after a period of time of growth. Nonetheless, she died “in the odor of sanctity” accepting her decision and giving it to God.

As for Christian/Catholic men and women with doctorate degrees in the field of science, there may be statistical information, but from personal association, I found that there were more astrophysicists who believed in God (in the Christian sense) working for NASA and Boeing on the space station and related fields in space technology than non-believers, this according to a close relative who has a PhD in mechanical engineering with an undergraduate degree in Engineering Mechanics Astronautics and has worked for Boeing. Of course it’s only hear-say, but, hey, can anybody prove it one way or another?

As for the origin of theoretical physics and other sciences including evolution, the Church has approved the study of the sciences since reason is the basis for all study. It’s true that in earlier times, the Church often met with opposition and was misunderstood. It’s also been shown that the hierarchy was slow to approve certain scientific findings.

This article was noted on another thread:

blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/12/catholic-priest-proposes-new-model-for-creation/

(Father LeMaitre was mentioned above, but I thought the article may cast some more light on the history of science).

 

[edwest2]

A little research will reveal that what came before synthetic modern medicines were herbs and other natural substances. That is why scientists are still searching in jungles and in the ocean for natural substances to use against cancer and other illnesses.

Herbs were used because they worked. Ancient Egyptians understood how to use honey to protect wounds from infection and promote healing.

God bless,
Ed

 

[greylorn]

You’re right as usual. Perhaps a comparison between a snake-oil salesman and a scientifically trained doctor would have been better, the difference being about verification. But having looked at Dr. Weil’s website, I’m not sure how to categorize him, given his frequent requests for money.

The homeopathy cure may be a brilliant breakthrough or it could have worked for him as a placebo. But a lot of the evidence for alternative medicine is anecdotal, and there don’t seem to be many long-term follow-up studies. I too might try homeopathy or faith healers as a last resort, but it would be useful to know the ratio of negative outcomes. In some cases there is a definite whiff of “I had a premonition and didn’t fly and then the plane crashed, wow” when we never hear about all the “I had a premonition and didn’t fly and the plane didn’t crash, oops” (= a variation on Fenyman’s grandma theme).

But on the OP, my answer is it depends on whatever result we want, somewhat akin to debating whether Beyonce or Bach makes the best noise. To take an extreme example, acupuncture has a reasonable track record and may date from the Neolithic in China, surviving in the face of various religions (again, I’m an ignoramus and only going on Wikipedia). Whether the traditional acupuncture sites are optimal and whether we currently understand how it might work, those Stone Age guys used a certain amount of experimental science, even if their theory, ethics and methodology weren’t up to much. Nor, it has to be said, did it lead them to a cure for middle-aged spread.

Incidentally, I also like to use Dave’s Insanity Sauce. It’s great on vegetables, and you can dilute it with a reference to chili sin carne.

Enjoyable post! Thanks!

I’ve been studying alternative medicine for decades, have even learned some techniques and invented others which have proved to be remarkably effective. If you choose to study and experiment, you’ll get a broader picture of the subject. You seem open to study, and I believe that you will appreciate what you learn, so long as you read both proponents and skeptics alike, and also learn some things that you can personally try out on those you care for. You might prove to be gifted.

Your comments about the negative and unspoken sides of this issue are valid. However, the placebo effect is far more powerful than the AMA has acknowledged. Likewise, the attitude of the healer. Whenever I’m doing some of my tricks (only on friends, never for money) I make it clear to them that what I do will help. As a result I do not know if they got better because of the power of suggestion (highly unlikely with most techniques) or because of the combination of the work and the suggestion, or because of the work.

In these instances, I don’t care, since I only did the work to obtain a result, not to promote a personal agenda.

Just so you know, I’ll go to any style of practitioner, but am conscious of quality. Many doctors are incompetent, and so are many alternative practitioners. Years ago I studied neurosurgery for a book and was able to obtain copies of medical reports from a neurosurgery OR nurse who worked at a university hospital, with names expunged. I rated the surgeons based upon their reports, found one butcher, one superb surgeon, and two in between. Her personal assessments agreed with mine.

Running around in a body full of aftermarket parts, I’ve become highly conscious of practitioner quality.

My only complaint to your post is your juxtaposition of Beyonce and Bach. She makes noise— Bach created music. But no matter. A man who uses Dave’s sauce is entitled to considerable forgiveness of sins, having already done penance.

I’ll bet that the sacrament of Confession would be a lot more effective at reducing sin if, instead of, “Three Hail Marys,” the tab was, “Three drops of Dave’s, on the tongue, here and now.”

 

[greylorn]

greylorn - just in case you took the last line of #61 in umbrage , it wasn’t directed anywhere in particular.

The notion never occurred to me. Had it, given the thoughtfulness of your post, I’d have figured that I was having another excessively ornery day.

 

[greylorn]

A little research will reveal that what came before synthetic modern medicines were herbs and other natural substances. That is why scientists are still searching in jungles and in the ocean for natural substances to use against cancer and other illnesses.

Herbs were used because they worked. Ancient Egyptians understood how to use honey to protect wounds from infection and promote healing.

God bless,
Ed

Yes. I’ve used herbs to good effect for decades. They are best, IMO, when incorporated into foods.

By the way, dog owners should teach, or allow, their dogs to lick wounds. Most will do it instinctively for those they recognize as alpha-dogs, unless prevented. There are excellent natural antibiotics in the saliva of a healthy dog.

This does not apply to cats, which are a source of parasites and mysterious afflictions.

 

[greylorn]

Jumping off the theoretical level (which races past me at the speed of light) into the practical realm, I just want to comment on the unreliability of the homeopathic method for serious diseases such as cancer. A close friend, who went through various kinds of homeopathic treatments (including coffee enemas) for her breast cancer, didn’t make it and passed away. However, the tumor was deep and couldn’t be operated on after a period of time of growth. Nonetheless, she died “in the odor of sanctity” accepting her decision and giving it to God.

I hope that there was not an extended and obscure pun intended in this.

Scents and solvents applied to armpits, which females imagine do not have a proper scent, flow through the skin and into lymph nodes connected to breasts. The perfume and deodorant industries claim, “NO CONNECTION,” but the women who have graced my life learned that these things were unnecessary, and none have contracted breast cancer.

One died recently of leukemia, after years of work with pottery, chemical glazes, and paint.

As for Christian/Catholic men and women with doctorate degrees in the field of science, there may be statistical information, but from personal association, I found that there were more astrophysicists who believed in God (in the Christian sense) working for NASA and Boeing on the space station and related fields in space technology than non-believers, this according to a close relative who has a PhD in mechanical engineering with an undergraduate degree in Engineering Mechanics Astronautics and has worked for Boeing. Of course it’s only hear-say, but, hey, can anybody prove it one way or another?

Prove, no? And does it matter, except to try for a point? My opinions are from experience, not hearsay. I took no polls, but have been intensely focused upon the relationship between religion and science since my university days, and have never shied from confrontational conversations. I respected the men with whom I worked, and as a result, I took every opportunity to engage them in metaphysical conversations.

Atheism is the world’s fastest growing religion. This is not a good sign.

As for the origin of theoretical physics and other sciences including evolution, the Church has approved the study of the sciences since reason is the basis for all study. It’s true that in earlier times, the Church often met with opposition and was misunderstood. It’s also been shown that the hierarchy was slow to approve certain scientific findings.

Yes, almost. Galileo was both understood and met with severe opposition.

I know that the Church gives lip-service to science, and even has a panel of people who are supposedly versed in these things who meet, discuss, and advise the theocracy. But that is not relevant.

What would be relevant? The Church recognizing that the physical universe is the primary, perhaps only true Bible, and studying it with a view to actually applying its ineffable wisdom to religious dogma. IMO, of course.

When I was a Catholic, I tried to promote this concept. Even got an audience with a certified theologian. One of the most disheartening and discouraging experiences of my life.

This article was noted on another thread:

blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/03/12/catholic-priest-proposes-new-model-for-creation/

(Father LeMaitre was mentioned above, but I thought the article may cast some more light on the history of science).

Excellent article! Thank you for the reference. It contained historical information of which I was unaware. I like Menzel’s understanding (because it is similar to my own), with respect to the distortion of space around the Big Bang’s precursor, which, according to everything we actually know, would have been the mother of all black holes, inextricably bound by the space around it.

Readers of the article (recommended to all posters to this thread) may note a significant omission. Two actually.

1. What caused it to exist?
2. What caused it to blow up?

 

[greylorn]

greylorn:

Traditional religious beliefs are based upon the words of men. Other men came along and said that these words of men were actually the words of the Creator of the Universe, and a lot of men believed them. Clearly, you are one link in this long chain of agreement.

I’d rather be a “link” in beliefs based on Biblical inerrancy and tradition than on the words of men–scientists and pseudo-intellectuals who have no proof of anything outside their provincial realm of thought.

Reply 1 of 2 to Post 4-47.

I understand your feelings and your point.

I also assume that you would not care to be a link in a long chain of Bible-based errors. You’d probably say the same thing about the Kuran if you’d been raised and educated as a Muslim, for Islam believes the exact same truths about its sacred writings. So do Mormons. Etc. When I was a Catholic, your words would have come from my mouth.

Are you aware of exactly why you accept the Bible as inerrant? Men have declared it to be inerrant. That is the only source of the “inerrancy” claim, unless you know something I do not.

Now, please consider my point. It is quite simple, and I do not expect you to muster a worthy argument against it.

I am not a great admirer of scientific thought on issues relating to the spiritual. While they can be extraordinarily brilliant within and without the ranges of their expertise, they’ve been programmed to take the same approach to religion as Muslims take to infidels in general, albeit less violent.

You’ve identified the pseudo-intellectuals quite well. I regard them as science’s camp followers. They don’t know squat, but are good at quoting scientists. I regard them as irrelevant to any field of study, except for their political support which has much to do with the level of support from the general populace. But, these are pretty much a type of person, those with well programmed brains and negligible analytical skills.

You’ll note that religions are an equally comfortable harbor for the intellectual mindless.

Finally, my point.

Religions have totally abdicated their proper job, which includes interpreting all information, especially God’s one absolutely genuine Bible, to the understanding of God and His purposes.

They have abandoned this work to those who call themselves scientists, and have been dreadfully slow at admitting the validity of scientific discoveries. Even then, they refuse to apply those discoveries to their beliefs, preferring the writings of the ignorant ancients.

By default, religions have abandoned what should have been their ultimate triumph of learning, to atheists. IMO they should be ashamed, every one,

There is nothing anti-Christian about these opinions. They are derived from the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14 or thereabouts if enough neurons are still firing). The Church is the lowest of the three servants (having been demoted from a high place according to parable about the master’s dinner table). Rather than doing anything with the talent given it, it buried that talent so as to keep it secure— exactly what the Church has done with its original body of Christ’s teachings. Other servants expanded upon their understandings, and the one who did so most successfully was rewarded.

 

[greylorn]

I agree. Men could never ever create this wonderful universe with its physical laws based upon empirical knowledge and reason itself. Even scientific knowledge is built on the faith that the universe is coherent and that it is possible for the human mind to acquire knowledge of the world. Because of the rationality of the universe, we find it to be in God’s nature to exist–since non-existence is a negation of what we perceive all around us-- and thus we find God’s perfect nature to be at the root of all logical ideas and propositions, including scientific theorems and ideas.

Reply 2 of 2 to Post 4-47.

Not exactly. Logic exists independently of any mind, however intelligent. God has no control over it. He cannot change the rules. Logic is a pure abstraction, which, as such, exists independently of its discovery. In the most natural state of existence, namely a null universe lacking either substance or mind, logic would be as valid as in our intelligently engineered universe full of stuff— the only difference being that in a null universe, logic would not be known for lack of any mind to discover it. (These arguments apply to math as well, since it is also a pure abstraction derived from logic.)

Moreover, scientific theorems and ideas could also have been developed by an “imperfect” Creator. Perfection is not essential to the discovery of brilliant ideas, as humans have demonstrated.

Can you give some examples?

My favorite is the writings of Mary Magdalene. Gnostic stuff. The only writings of a true contemporary and immediate follower of Jesus, one who washed his feet. Nevermind that the Church neglected to grant her the status of apostle.

We can trace Scriptural accounts written by the Essenes all the way from 200 B.C. to 68 A.D. Many were found intact in 11 caves. The book of Isaiah is comparable to what is now in print. See more on the Dead Sea Scrolls at the following website: (I included one point of interest I found amusing).

centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html

"Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls actually appeared for sale on June 1, 1954 in the Wall Street Journal. The advertisement read — “The Four Dead Sea Scrolls: Biblical manuscripts dating back to at least 200 BC are for sale. This would be an ideal gift to an educational or religious institution by an individual or group. Box F206.”

(I was able to view the Dead Sea Scrolls which were loaned to the Milwaukee Museum. Also, some of the oldest and most decorative bibles like the Illuminated Bible.

When I visited that Museum, the scrolls were not there, and I’d have been too young to appreciate them. So far, I’ve found the Gnostic writings, at least those which were not destroyed by the early church, a rich source of historical context for the development of modern beliefs, which IMO are barely reflective of Christ’s original teachings.

 

[Abu]

greylorn
I know that the Church gives lip-service to science,

Really? How fatuous.

“The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.

“These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.” The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 22-23].

“First of all, classical learning did not provide an appropriate model for science. Second, the rise of science was already far along by the sixteenth century, having been carefully nurtured by religiously devout scholastics. Granted, the era of scientific discovery that occurred in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was marvelous, the cultural equivalent of the blossoming of a rose. But, just as roses do not spring up overnight, and must undergo a long period of normal growth before they even bud, so too the blossoming of science was the result of centuries of intellectual progress.” catholicleague.org/research/catholicism_and_science.htm Catholicism and Science by Rodney Stark (from Catalyst 9/2004)].

Even Friedrich Nietzsche (‘God is dead’) wrote: “Strictly speaking there is no such thing as science ‘without any presuppositions’… a philosophy, a ‘faith’, must always be there first, so that science can acquire a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method, a right to exist… It is still a metaphysical faith that underlines our faith in science.” (Genealogy of Morals III, 23-24).

By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation based on the Catholic mind sanity can return –
Mainstream Media Recognizes Adult Stem Cell Research Far Ahead Of Embryonic
WASHINGTON, DC, August 3, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
Earlier this year California’s Institute for Regenerative Medicine quietly changed its focus, after years of fruitless work and the expenditure of billions of dollars, from embryonic stem cell research to adult stem cell research. The institute cited adult stem cell treatment as responsible for dozens of positive results and all-out cures for maladies ranging from spinal cord injury, to Alzheimer’s, to type I diabetes.

Los Angeles-based Investor’s Business Daily magazine commented that, “Five years after a budget-busting $3 billion was allocated to embryonic stem cell research, there have been no cures, no therapies and little progress. We are pleased to see California researchers beginning to put science in its rightful place.”

Elio Sgreccia, emeritus head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, told Radio Vatican, "Despite the efforts that are made to deny it, science continues to show us that the embryo is a human being….”
[lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10080304.html]](http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10080304.html])

 

[greylorn]

I’m going to reply to the stuff where there’s something to reply to.

You’ve made it especially difficult for me to reply to your post #4-51 by neglecting site formatting standards. I’m sure that they are documented somewhere. By putting my comments and yours betwixt the same quote/quote pairs, you’ve failed to distinguish between them in a distinct and readable format. Color does not do that job. Proper use of QUOTE does. You can figure that out.

It will take me an hour just to copy and properly format your material for a reply, and I don’t care to spend the time with it.

However, I will reference one of your points towards the end of your last Aquinas quote, in which he associates form with matter.

Physics incorporates a more general concept of form, which some see as abstract, and which would be abstract except for their proven utility. Matter is but one form of the real stuff of the universe, energy. The true “forms” are expressed in mathematical form, such as kinetic and gravitational energy, chemical energy, electromagnetic energy, etc. Matter is only a subset of these things.

While I think that Aquinas and I would have a good and profitable conversation, first, he’d need to come up to speed. As I’ve noted time and again on various CAF posts, the ancient thinkers were IGNORANT. That is not a synonym for stupid. Aquinas was brilliant, but he was ignorant of physics.

The quote you included has him making statements reflective of his ignorance (as just noted) and drawing conclusions therefrom.

I’m willing to discuss serious metaphysical issues with you because your ignorance is curable. But when you ask me to argue with Aquinas, you are asking me to argue with an ignorant dead man. While I trust that by now his ignorance has been cured and he has moved onward, perhaps to instruct the primitives on a different planet, I’d be a fool to argue with him.

I’d only be arguing with equally ignorant people who would be telling me what Aquinas would have said by way of counter argument. Not worth my time.

The general bulk of your complaints have been addressed in other posts on a variety of related threads, and are well explained in the book I’m close to publishing.

There were some unnecessary elements of discourtesy in your reply. Please do not reprise that act.

 

[greylorn]

I responded to a post that I believe you made - something to the effect that we cannot assign attributes to God.

I replied with the list of attributes we have assigned to God.

What is my agenda? Simply to get you to single any of them out and find out how we know. In other words there is much depth and history to how we arrived at them.

Yes, and in my reply I made it pretty clear that IMO the majority of those attributes are incorrect.

---

There is also great depth and history behind these beliefs:

Phlogiston theory.

The earth is flat.

There are dozens of gods, all of them forms of matter.

Apollo escorts the sun around the earth on his chariot.

The earth is the center of the universe.

To conclude a small point—
Truth is not determined by historical precedent.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, and in my reply I made it pretty clear that IMO the majority of those attributes are incorrect.

---

There is also great depth and history behind these beliefs:

Phlogiston theory.

The earth is flat.

There are dozens of gods, all of them forms of matter.

Apollo escorts the sun around the earth on his chariot.

The earth is the center of the universe.

To conclude a small point—
Truth is not determined by historical precedent.

Which attributes are incorrect and why?

 

[inocente]

A Beyonce-style medley for you.

I rated the surgeons based upon their reports, found one butcher, one superb surgeon, and two in between.

My old doctor’s dictum was “All surgeons are butchers, try everything else first, they are the last resort and even then you’re better off dead”.

'll bet that the sacrament of Confession would be a lot more effective at reducing sin if, instead of, “Three Hail Marys,” the tab was, “Three drops of Dave’s, on the tongue, here and now.”

There is another penance too. Get a smidgeon on your hands, wash them as many times as you like, then touch your eye. It’s a macho excuse though when watching tear-jerker movies.

Atheism is the world’s fastest growing religion. This is not a good sign.

Rabbi Sacks uses Darwin to joke that atheism must soon die out.

Religions have totally abdicated their proper job, which includes interpreting all information, especially God’s one absolutely genuine Bible, to the understanding of God and His purposes.

Having learned god-of-the-gaps in comparative religion at age 16, this abdication and the accompanying war still bemuses me.

…how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved. Dietrich Bonhoeffer

My favorite is the writings of Mary Magdalene. Gnostic stuff.

I have The Essential Gnostic Gospels (Alan Jacobs) but he omits some books and seems to lose something in the paraphrasing. Do you know of another translation?

Some parts are noodle (or else go right over my head) but others run deep to me, e.g. the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the line (and then the following lines):

I pondered. ‘I never saw you descend, now I see you ascend. Why does my mind deceive me since you are part of me?’

 

[greylorn]

Which attributes are incorrect and why?

It looks like you did not bother to read my first reply.

The reasons for my conclusions are explained in my book, coming soon. They are also noted in various CAF posts pertinent to the subject. I’ve no interest in repeating myself, so if you really want your question answered, you’ll need to do the research.

 

[buffalo]

It looks like you did not bother to read my first reply.

The reasons for my conclusions are explained in my book, coming soon. They are also noted in various CAF posts pertinent to the subject. I’ve no interest in repeating myself, so if you really want your question answered, you’ll need to do the research.

Post #58? Are you kidding me?

Just pick out a few and elaborate.

Show the history and reason that the Catholic claim is made, then do your best to show how the supporting information is in error.

 

[4Horsemen]

I hope that there was not an extended and obscure pun intended in this.

(lol! of course I should have said pun not intended!)

We may never realize how many dangerous elements, including medicines that cure or alleviate symptoms and all kinds of solvents, are in our medicine cabinets and but we can only stake our faith in science and hope for the best. We are mostly “true believers” when it comes to scientific “advancement.” I’d rather trust medical doctors than medicine men.

Prove, no? And does it matter, except to try for a point? My opinions are from experience, not hearsay. I took no polls, but have been intensely focused upon the relationship between religion and science since my university days, and have never shied from confrontational conversations. I respected the men with whom I worked, and as a result, I took every opportunity to engage them in metaphysical conversations.

Atheism is the world’s fastest growing religion. This is not a good sign.

To tell you the truth, I’m trying to figure out where you’re coming from. In the category “Religion” you’ve placed “physics” which I deem more science than religion. Also, “heterodoxical theism” which I’d need an explanation for. It’s apparent you bellieve in God or a god(s) since you lament the growth of atheism. It would appear that you lean to Gnosticism since you often mention the Gnostic texts of Mary Magdalene (Thomas and Judas?) which makes me think of Dan Brown and The DaVinci Code and his other tome Angels and Demons .

To understand your point of view, I’d like to ask a few questions, if you care to answer.

1. What is your idea of God? (From what I read, it seems you equate the universe with God, or else, you call it the true bible–whatever that means).
2. What is your idea of the redeeming work of Jesus Christ? Do you believe there was a distinction between Jesus who suffered on the cross and the Chrisst who was the transcendent Savior?
3. Do your religious beliefs revolve around pantheism?

(I may think of more. So far these will suffice).

I know that the Church gives lip-service to science, and even has a panel of people who are supposedly versed in these things who meet, discuss, and advise the theocracy. But that is not relevant.

What would be relevant? The Church recognizing that the physical universe is the primary, perhaps only true Bible, and studying it with a view to actually applying its ineffable wisdom to religious dogma. IMO, of course.

When I was a Catholic, I tried to promote this concept. Even got an audience with a certified theologian. One of the most disheartening and discouraging experiences of my life.

No, the Church doesn’t give “lip-service to science.” although the Church is not in the business of running science labs. If you’ve read any of Pope Benedict’s papal audiences as well as his Regensberg Address, you will find a Holy Father who considers hightly the work of scientists and sees the intimate connection between faith and reason.

Excellent article! Thank you for the reference. It contained historical information of which I was unaware. I like Menzel’s understanding (because it is similar to my own), with respect to the distortion of space around the Big Bang’s precursor, which, according to everything we actually know, would have been the mother of all black holes, inextricably bound by the space around it.

Readers of the article (recommended to all posters to this thread) may note a significant omission. Two actually.

1. What caused it to exist?

1. What caused it to blow up?

Maybe another Einstein will come along with a new theory, a bigger model that explains every physical property and how these properties work together to form the four elements of space, time, energy and matter. The ultimate epistomological answer is the action of God. How He did it is the subject of science.

Blessings,
4

 

[4Horsemen]

Reply 1 of 2 to Post 4-47.

I understand your feelings and your point.

I also assume that you would not care to be a link in a long chain of Bible-based errors. You’d probably say the same thing about the Kuran if you’d been raised and educated as a Muslim, for Islam believes the exact same truths about its sacred writings. So do Mormons. Etc. When I was a Catholic, your words would have come from my mouth.****

Someone mentioned somewhere that when Archbishop Sheen was told by former Catholics that they had left the Church, the good archbishop would ask, “And what was your sin?” (Now I don’t know if this is true or not).

Are you aware of exactly why you accept the Bible as inerrant? Men have declared it to be inerrant. That is the only source of the “inerrancy” claim, unless you know something I do not.

 

[4Horsemen]

Reply 2 of 2 to Post 4-47.

Not exactly. Logic exists independently of any mind, however intelligent. God has no control over it. He cannot change the rules. Logic is a pure abstraction, which, as such, exists independently of its discovery. In the most natural state of existence, namely a null universe lacking either substance or mind, logic would be as valid as in our intelligently engineered universe full of stuff— the only difference being that in a null universe, logic would not be known for lack of any mind to discover it. (These arguments apply to math as well, since it is also a pure abstraction derived from logic.)

I should have said “philosophical ideas”, perhaps, instead of “logical ideas” , yet, reason is the basis of both, which is what I meant. The concept that is reason points to that which is reasonable. It is reasonable to conclude that humans are creatures created by a Master Builder (Creator). That was my point.

Moreover, scientific theorems and ideas could also have been developed by an “imperfect” Creator. Perfection is not essential to the discovery of brilliant ideas, as humans have demonstrated.

The “brilliant ideas” you are referring to are only what is being discovered by our minds as that which is inherent in creation–created by the Creator who is Perfection (check out that post with all God’s attributes again). If He weren’t Perfect, there could be no laws of nature. Everything would be unintelligible. In fact, there would be no creation.

My favorite is the writings of Mary Magdalene. Gnostic stuff. The only writings of a true contemporary and immediate follower of Jesus, one who washed his feet. Nevermind that the Church neglected to grant her the status of apostle.{/Quote]

The model of the Christian woman is Mary, the Mother of Jesus. In her humility, she accepted her Son’s authority as God Incarnate.

When I visited that Museum, the scrolls were not there, and I’d have been too young to appreciate them. So far, I’ve found the Gnostic writings, at least those which were not destroyed by the early church, a rich source of historical context for the development of modern beliefs, which IMO are barely reflective of Christ’s original teachings.

The special exhibit was in June of 2010.
I really can’t comment on the Gnostic writings, and I’m sure there are scholarly people on this board who know why these writings were not included in Scripture.

Blessings,
4