Science & Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter epiphany08
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The idea that your family and friends will **never **be with you again doesn’t bother you in the slightest? Who are you trying to kid?
Which family and friends? You mother at 10 years old, 15? 20? 30? when? My father had dementia before he died. I’d rather not have him in that state again, certainly not for eternity.

What if your mother wants to be 20, and you want her to be 35? Who gets to pick? What if you Grandmother wants her to be 10, because she liked her as a little girl?

Your question is not as simple as it may appear to be.

rossum
 
How on earth do you reach that conclusion? Faults are not always culpable…
.
Because earlier you also said
It’s incredible how people can deny the evidence of the Gospels which teach us how to live according to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity yet they readily swallow NeoDarwinism which purports to be a metaphysical theory, has no moral significance and is rejected by many biologists…
It sounded like the Gospels **exclusively **teach us these values and if you reject the Gospels you reject morality but that was my interpretation of what you said which could be wrong.The key word is “exclusively” - whichis a false deduction from my statement.
In general I find many teachings of the Gospels good but I also find many of the teachings of Buddhism and other religions/philosophies good.
No ideology has a monopoly of the truth but the vast majority have objective moral principles and values.
 
The idea that your family and friends will **never **
Age is irrelevant to spiritual reality.
My father had dementia before he died. I’d rather not have him in that state again, certainly not for eternity.
You are assuming a** physical **condition endures after death and determines a person’s spiritual state… Is that a Buddhist teaching?
Your question is not as simple as it may appear to be.
The issue is whether we survive after death not the precise nature of our spiritual state…
 
I seriously doubt that any of them personally wrote one word of the Gospels. Even if they were eye-witnesses, it doesn’t prove anything in the Gospels is true. I’m not even convinced it is certain they even existed.
I don’t intend to mock the Gospels. It’s just what I believe. In general my intention is not to mock religion. Not believing something isn’t equal to mocking something. I know no one said I did but I just wanted to make it clear.
This will take you through it.

The Gospels are Historical
 
It’s hardly surprising because the anti-religious crew have opted for a philosophy of despair. There’s nothing to look back to, into or forward to when you have blind, unquestioning faith in the hypothesis that we are just sparks in the dark… :rolleyes:
Oh yes, believing in such a totally depressing view of life is so attractive that we reject liberty, equality, love, eternal bliss, and everything good for the sheer thrill of believing in meaningless despair. Yeah, right.

Just because you know nothing of the nature of, and evidence for, evolution and cosmology (as is evident from your comments) doesn’t mean the rest of us are equally self-blinded, nor that we have “nothing to look back to, into or forward to”; we have lives like yours, full of people we love and who love us, exciting things to learn and teach, pleasures and joys to match our sorrows. Have you always basked in the bliss of being Catholic? Have you ever been an atheist? If not, you know nothing about how it feels, and teach us nothing but your own ignorance.
 
It’s incredible how people can deny the evidence of the Gospels which teach us how to live according to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity yet they readily swallow NeoDarwinism which purports to be a metaphysical theory, has no moral significance and is rejected by many biologists… :rolleyes:
Yes, and we can look at the history of Christianity, with its persecutions of pagans, Jews, and heretics, its burning of pagan temples and alleged witches, its widespread fear and hatred of other creeds, its constant wars between Christian nations, and so forth, and marvel at how well its precepts “teach us how to live according to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity” (ironically the slogan of the ferociously anti-Catholic French Revolution).

At least you recognize that evolution “has no moral significance” instead of being the hotbed of eugenics and Nazism. But while you’re reading science, read some Church history.

Virtually the only biologists who reject evolution do so from fanatic clinging to archaic and scientifically absurd literalist readings of Genesis. Their opinion, while anthropologically interesting, is scientifically worthless.
 
Oh yes, believing in such a totally depressing view of life is so attractive that we reject liberty, equality, love, eternal bliss, and everything good for the sheer thrill of believing in meaningless despair. Yeah, right.

Just because you know nothing of the nature of, and evidence for, evolution and cosmology (as is evident from your comments) doesn’t mean the rest of us are equally self-blinded, nor that we have “nothing to look back to, into or forward to”; we have lives like yours, full of people we love and who love us, exciting things to learn and teach, pleasures and joys to match our sorrows. Have you always basked in the bliss of being Catholic? Have you ever been an atheist? If not, you know nothing about how it feels, and teach us nothing but your own ignorance.
Please share your hopes as to what happens when you die.
 
That’s not the fault of Christ’s teaching but of those who reject it or do not follow it even when they profess to accept it.
Isn’t it amazing how many they are, though. Wonder why that is…
 
Isn’t it amazing how many they are, though. Wonder why that is…
Because the teachings of Christ are hard to practice. Most humans cannot live them. However, the Church is a hospital for sinners. Everyone in it is a sinner. The difference being, we fail, we repent and try again and again. Some of us do better than others.

The failures though have real consequences.
 
Not when you realise that Hell is self-inflicted. At least you have an opportunity to demonstrate that you are capable of unselfish love and that life is not “a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing” - the words of a character who rejected God and was dominated by a lust for power:
.
I think one reason I can’t believe is because I was raised without religion(although I was baptized). The majority of people who believe in Christianity were raised as Christians so they just believe no matter how absurd some stories(for example Adam and Eve or Noah’s Ark) are.
I’m so convinced that man evolved over billions of years from first single cell organism to the first mammals, hominids and finally first humans, that it is just impossible to believe the Adam and Eve story.
The evidence of evolution is overwhelming and I can’t force myself to believe stories that seem like children’s stories to me. To believe in the actual existence of Adam and Eve is just as hard for me to believe that Santa Claus exists and flies with a sled through the air.

I don’t intentionally NOT believe the stories of the Bible. I just can’t fool myself into believing.
Please share your hopes as to what happens when you die.
It doesn’t really matter what a person hopes. I could hope that I will end up with 72 virgins like some Muslims do but wishful thinking isn’t enough to believe.
 
The idea that your family and friends will **never **be with you again doesn’t bother you in the slightest? Who are you trying to kid? :rolleyes:
My main concern in that regard is I want to say goodbye before I die. Bc I expect those goodbyes to be forever.
 
Age is irrelevant to spiritual reality.
How do I tell spiritual reality from ordinary reality? In ordinary reality age is relevant. How do I determine what is, and what is not a correct description of spiritual reality?
You are assuming a** physical **condition endures after death and determines a person’s spiritual state… Is that a Buddhist teaching?
Buddhist teaching is that a person includes both physical and non-physical elements. AIUI, Christian teaching is similar. Don’t some people get resurrected glorious bodies?
The issue is whether we survive after death not the precise nature of our spiritual state…
Since we are changing throughout our lives, the question is which one of the various different versions of ourselves we are during our lives is the one which reflects our spiritual state. Which spouse do people with more than one marriage have? Like Jackie Kennedy-Onassis; she had two husbands. What’s the deal there?

rossum
 
If we had unquestionable eyewitness writings of the life and teachings of Jesus, they would be handy. But that word “eyewitness” implies an assumption which many modern scholars have questioned. That is a thread to itself.
But you, om the other hand, I presume have no eyewitness evidence of what motivates atheists to reject God, unless you’ve read, as I have, some of their testimonies. What I find there is an inability to resolve the contradictions or explain the nonsense of the Bible. Since you’ve called tham “imagined contradictions,” that means you have not even recognized the strength of the challenge they pose to Christian faith, which other ex-Christians as well as myself have been unable to meet. But just for fun, explain to me how the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke can be reconciled without any contradiction. Then tell me whose account of what the disciples did right after the resurrection is correct, because they can’t both be right.
I believe that Luke and Matthew, as well as Mark and John, wrote about the things they witnessed from their own individual perspectives, similar to the way journalists of today report about the things they’ve witnessed. But if a handful of journalists, though, were to write about a certain event from exactly the same perspective, using exactly the same words and idiomatic expressions, then a person could reasonably suspect that the journalists had worked together to make up a fictitious story. However, Luke, Matthew, Mark, and John wrote about the things they saw from their own individual point of view, using different words and idiomatic expressions, just as we would expect from any conscientiously objective journalists writing about an event. And although Luke, Matthew, Mark, and John reported differently from each other the things that they each saw and heard, their words are not contradictory as some have imagined; on the contrary, their words are quite complementary.
Your space travel analogy has its conclusion jury-rigged into the examples you present. Since they all happened, it gives your conclusion a false plausibility based on the fact that you picked things people imagined which later came true. But people also once imagined there were canals on Mars built by intelligent Martians, and that life was possible on Venus. We now know both of those imaginations are impossible. So where does that leave your analogy?
I also am unsure what your point is. If it is that science is able to anticipate later discoveries, well, nobody disputes that. If it is that people once thought we could never land on the moon, but we did, therefore people who think God doesn’t exist are equally wrong, you are comparing apples and hedgehogs. The two are not comparable, because the moon landing can be achieved and confirmed by science and its technological offspring, but God cannot be so proved, as Christians have always insisted. If such a God existed, of course denying his existence wouldn’t make him go away; but by the same token, if that God does *not *exist, insisting that he does will not make him real. That argument applies to you as much as to the atheist.
Since Christians believe in God, they naturally can posit the existence of God, who Webster defines as “the supreme or ultimate reality"; and since the world has never discovered any evidence to the contrary, it is valid. The theist posits God; the atheist posits “nothing.” And since the laws of physics state that from nothing comes nothing, nothing therefore has no power to create anything. God, by virtue of His omnipotence and omniscience, has the power to create the physical universe of space, time, and matter from the absence of space, time, and matter, since He is eternal and not limited to space, time, and matter. Therefore, although science states that “nothing” cannot cause a thing into existence (because nothing is not something except in the land of make believe), something (the pre-existent and eternal God) can cause things into existence from nothing.
 
Isn’t it amazing how many they are, though. Wonder why that is…
It’s not amazing when you’re aware that forbidden fruit is enticing, breaking rules is exciting and the prospect of power and wealth is very inviting! 🙂
 
It’s incredible how people can deny the evidence of the Gospels which teach us how to live according to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity yet they readily swallow NeoDarwinism which purports to be a metaphysical theory, has no moral significance and is rejected by many biologists…
You are confusing the** teaching** of Jesus with the **behaviour **of those forget, neglect and reject His teaching…
Virtually the only biologists who reject evolution do so from fanatic clinging to archaic and scientifically absurd literalist readings of Genesis. Their opinion, while anthropologically interesting, is scientifically worthless.
You are confusing NeoDarwinism with evolution…
 
It’s hardly surprising because the anti-religious crew have opted for a philosophy of despair. There’s nothing to look back to, into or forward to when you have blind, unquestioning faith in the hypothesis that we are just sparks in the dark…
A non sequitur.
Just because you know nothing of the nature of, and evidence for, evolution and cosmology (as is evident from your comments) doesn’t mean the rest of us are equally self-blinded, nor that we have “nothing to look back to, into or forward to”; we have lives like yours, full of people we love and who love us, exciting things to learn and teach, pleasures and joys to match our sorrows. Have you always basked in the bliss of being Catholic? Have you ever been an atheist? If not, you know nothing about how it feels, and teach us nothing but your own ignorance.
Your illogical diatribe is another non sequitur…
 
But you agree that anyone who is eagerly looking forward to - or couldn’t care less about - disappearing forever is abnormal…
I’m certainly a minority so I’m not going to disagree with you there. I prefer “peculiar” or “unusual” to abnormal though. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top