Science & Religion

[Lui]

It is not the same thing.

Then explain the difference. You’re saying that a child that repeatedly gets raped by her perverted dad should still honor him?

Btw, instead of just giving short statements like “The commandment is Honor your father and mother”, it would be easier if you directly explain “it says **honor **which isn’t the same thing because…” That would save me trying to guess what your point is

 

[buffalo]

Then explain the difference. You’re saying that a child that repeatedly gets raped by her perverted dad should still honor him?

Btw, instead of just giving short statements like “The commandment is Honor your father and mother”, it would be easier if you directly explain “it says **honor **which isn’t the same thing because…” That would save me trying to guess what your point is

The major point is one needs to fully understand the teachings of Catholicism before repeating them from the skeptics bible. Hopefully, that is not the bible your parents used and then taught you.

We can go through all your objections point by point. This forum has many knowledgeable posters who can help if you are truly interested.

 

[levinas12]

Whether truth is “satisfying” or not seems irrelevant to the main question, which is: offered an unsatisfying reality, what do we do? Hold our noses and swallow, or take refuge against a sea of troubles behind a myth that makes us happy? I have struggled with this all my life, bouncing back and forth between true but depressing and false but satisfying. My current phase is the former. Whatever we decide, it seems obvious that the degree of satisfaction a belief gives has nothing whatsoever to do with how true it is, only with how true it is believed to be. Another depressing truth is that the more a philosophy satisfies, the less certain we can be that it is true, for two reasons. One is our desire for it to be true influences our readiness to accept and defend it; the other is that such philosophies or religions are not generally amenable to the kind of certainty science offers. They depend on reason, intuition, prior programming, and other factors more vulnerable to subjective bias. That is why I tend to distrust such solutions to the extent that they attract me. If I believe something that depresses me, at least I know I’m not fooling myself in order to feel happier.
For the record, I have loathed and avoided science most of my life, except for occasional brief forays into popular physics. I am a poet and painter who feels much more at home in the realm of art and literature than physics and chemistry. But my pesky mind won’t let me alone. It insists on questioning every religion I adopt – and there have been several – until I either justify it or leave. This pattern has made me very skeptical of religious claims, since I have at one time believed them all passionately myself, and used similar arguments to defend them.
I also note that the truths of art and culture are more metaphorical, wispy, and elusive than those of scientific precision. This makes them fun to play with, but maddening as a guide to reality. Just when the secret is about to be unveiled, it slips away, or Oz the Great and Powerful turns into a little man behind a curtain pushing buttons and pulling levers. Now that’s depressing.

 

[levinas12]

Whether truth is “satisfying” or not seems irrelevant to the main question, which is: offered an unsatisfying reality, what do we do? Hold our noses and swallow, or take refuge against a sea of troubles behind a myth that makes us happy? I have struggled with this all my life, bouncing back and forth between true but depressing and false but satisfying. My current phase is the former. Whatever we decide, it seems obvious that the degree of satisfaction a belief gives has nothing whatsoever to do with how true it is, only with how true it is believed to be. Another depressing truth is that the more a philosophy satisfies, the less certain we can be that it is true, for two reasons. One is our desire for it to be true influences our readiness to accept and defend it; the other is that such philosophies or religions are not generally amenable to the kind of certainty science offers. They depend on reason, intuition, prior programming, and other factors more vulnerable to subjective bias. That is why I tend to distrust such solutions to the extent that they attract me. If I believe something that depresses me, at least I know I’m not fooling myself in order to feel happier.
For the record, I have loathed and avoided science most of my life, except for occasional brief forays into popular physics. I am a poet and painter who feels much more at home in the realm of art and literature than physics and chemistry. But my pesky mind won’t let me alone. It insists on questioning every religion I adopt – and there have been several – until I either justify it or leave. This pattern has made me very skeptical of religious claims, since I have at one time believed them all passionately myself, and used similar arguments to defend them.
I also note that the truths of art and culture are more metaphorical, wispy, and elusive than those of scientific precision. This makes them fun to play with, but maddening as a guide to reality. Just when the secret is about to be unveiled, it slips away, or Oz the Great and Powerful turns into a little man behind a curtain pushing buttons and pulling levers. Now that’s depressing.

Thank you for this posting. Your devotion to the truth, no matter where it leads, brings to mind Bertrand Russell or Albert Camus (now there’s an interesting juxtaposition).

Forums are a bit weird in the sense that you are having a conversation with people you don’t know. It’s not like, say, a coffee bar that the campus philosophy class might frequent everyday where people may really get to know each other. On the other hand, I find the interaction helpful and I feel

 

[Lui]

The major point is one needs to fully understand the teachings of Catholicism before repeating them from the skeptics bible. Hopefully, that is not the bible your parents used and then taught you.

We can go through all your objections point by point. This forum has many knowledgeable posters who can help if you are truly interested.

My parents didn’t teach me from any bible. My mother went to an all girl Catholic school with nuns as teachers so I guess she knows a thing or two about Catholicism She rejected her faith though, probably based on the cruel behavior of the nuns she often told me about.
My father’s opinion is that religion is fraud based on superstition.
We spent Sundays in the various museums of New York, like the Museum of Natural History or the Met(he worked there), where he explained the work of the artists to me or the history of prehistoric life which he thought was more valuable than teaching me about stories he thinks are fiction like a guy living in a fish.
I’m not really interested in going through my objections. I was only being polite and answered your questions.

 

[buffalo]

My parents didn’t teach me from any bible. My mother went to an all girl Catholic school with nuns as teachers so I guess she knows a thing or two about Catholicism She rejected her faith though, probably based on the cruel behavior of the nuns she often told me about.
My father’s opinion is that religion is fraud based on superstition.
We spent Sundays in the various museums of New York, like the Museum of Natural History or the Met(he worked there), where he explained the work of the artists to me or the history of prehistoric life which he thought was more valuable than teaching me about stories he thinks are fiction like a guy living in a fish.
I’m not really interested in going through my objections. I was only being polite and answered your questions.

Those mean old nuns… Chalk that up to a bad experience - but a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Are you interested in pursuing the truth wherever it leads?

 

[Lui]

Those mean old nuns… Chalk that up to a bad experience - but a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Are you interested in pursuing the truth wherever it leads?

I think the nuns weren’t the only reason. She probably just thinks that it’s nonsense.
I personally consider Intelligent Design as the opposite of truth and one of the worst forms of human ignorance. No thanks.

 

[buffalo]

I think the nuns weren’t the only reason. She probably just thinks that it’s nonsense.
I personally consider Intelligent Design as the opposite of truth and one of the worst forms of human ignorance. No thanks.

So you are steadfast in your obstinance.

Please explain why you consider ID to be the opposite of truth.

 

[Lui]

So you are steadfast in your obstinance.

Please explain why you consider ID to be the opposite of truth.

I believe I already did in the past and we don’t have to go over this again and again. You have 20.000 posts+ which you probably spent most of the time convincing people of your ID philosophy that all serious scientists reject. Let’s just leave it at that. You believe in Noah’s ark and a young earth, and I believe in Science and evolution:thumbsup:

 

[levinas12]

Whether truth is “satisfying” or not seems irrelevant to the main question, which is: offered an unsatisfying reality, what do we do? Hold our noses and swallow, or take refuge against a sea of troubles behind a myth that makes us happy?

It’s seems that I’m always using ambiguous words. What I meant by “satisfying” is not primarily connected with “happiness” but with “disclosure”.

For example, one of my favorite Picasso paintings is “First Steps” which depicts a child’s first attempt at walking. One eye of the child is frightened; the other eye, joyful. The mother is arched over the child with loving solicitude. This painting discloses a truth inaccessible to science.

Likewise, myth. Consider, for example, Aphrodite. Her “world” provides what you might call a phenomenology of the erotic. She “unifies” many different experiences - from the giggling sunlit waves of the Mediterranean to the tragic nature of sexual desire (at least sometimes). In this way, Aphrodite is a vehicle of a truth outside science.

So what I’m after could be loosely termed: existential truth. And this is what I meant by “satisfying”.

 

[buffalo]

I believe I already did in the past and we don’t have to go over this again and again. You have 20.000 posts+ which you probably spent most of the time convincing people of your ID philosophy that all serious scientists reject. Let’s just leave it at that. You believe in Noah’s ark and a young earth, and I believe in Science and evolution:thumbsup:

I am curious - ask your mother if during her Catholic education she took philosophy class.

 

[tonyrey]

I brought up lying because it is more clear-cut example of the **effects **

Having lived in Africa for many years I know that lying is often a habit or a self-defence stratagem. The point is that it is wrong not because we think it is but because it has harmful effects. It is objectively evil even if people are not aware of the fact: so evil is not just a human convention but a fact of life.

 

[SGWessells]

Please share your hopes as to what happens when you die.

Ah yes, the prime selling point. First of all, I don’t know anything more than anybody else about what, if anything, happens after I die. A lot of people pretend to know because they’re scared. That is one of the two major motivations for the development of religions, the other being that vague and maddening sense of what Rudolf Otto called “the numinous” – that sense of Someone Greater than We Are somewhere “out there” which we can neither explain nor dismiss.
I used to hope for Heaven because Jesus died for my sins. Since I now find that exceedingly improbable, I do not hope for anything. I appreciate your concern, but I’ve already read the New Testament.

 

[SGWessells]

Charlemagne II wrote: "I’ve read quite a bit of Church history. Unlike yourself, I don’t get my Church history from atheist websites. "

I have never read anything about Church history on an atheist website. I have read Catholic church histories by Daniel-Rops, Gasquet, Belloc, Newman, Philip Hughes, Bokenkotter, and lots of others, as well as histories from other viewpoints.
Sorry your atheist experience was miserable. A lot of people find awe, joy, and fulfillment in atheism, if one can believe their writings (and I don’t see any reason why not). My feelings are similar to yours, though not so one-sided; but, then, I am an agnostic, not an atheist. Your posts gave me the impression, as do some others, that atheism inevitably led to misery and hopelessness, which I know is not the case, which is the reason for my question. I apologize if it seemed arrogant.
I propose a truce: let’s both of us try to avoid making assumptions about the other’s state of knowledge, past experiences, or sources of knowledge, okay? That way, even when we disagree, we can be civil.

 

[SGWessells]

It’s seems that I’m always using ambiguous words. What I meant by “satisfying” is not primarily connected with “happiness” but with “disclosure”.

For example, one of my favorite Picasso paintings is “First Steps” which depicts a child’s first attempt at walking. One eye of the child is frightened; the other eye, joyful. The mother is arched over the child with loving solicitude. This painting discloses a truth inaccessible to science.

Likewise, myth. Consider, for example, Aphrodite. Her “world” provides what you might call a phenomenology of the erotic. She “unifies” many different experiences - from the giggling sunlit waves of the Mediterranean to the tragic nature of sexual desire (at least sometimes). In this way, Aphrodite is a vehicle of a truth outside science.

So what I’m after could be loosely termed: existential truth. And this is what I meant by “satisfying”.

Thank you, that is much clearer, and I agree with you about all those modes of truth. The problem with myth is that it is necessary because the truth it conveys is vague, elusive, and more apparent to the intuition than the intellect. That makes it more vulnerable to subjective bias and emotional desires, which makes it a poor vehicle for understanding how the universe works, and how to harness its forces to better human life. I have been writing poetry for over forty years, so I know something about the use of myth and symbolism, and the kinds of truth they do, and do not, convey. I think the world would be a poorer place without either kind, but I also think each works best in the sphere for which it is suited…

 

[levinas12]

Thank you, that is much clearer, and I agree with you about all those modes of truth. The problem with myth is that it is necessary because the truth it conveys is vague, elusive, and more apparent to the intuition than the intellect. That makes it more vulnerable to subjective bias and emotional desires, which makes it a poor vehicle for understanding how the universe works, and how to harness its forces to better human life. I have been writing poetry for over forty years, so I know something about the use of myth and symbolism, and the kinds of truth they do, and do not, convey. I think the world would be a poorer place without either kind, but I also think each works best in the sphere for which it is suited…

Yes.

 

[SGWessells]

I ran across an article this morning which I thought might be of interest. It is on a site presenting “science from a Christian perspective,” so it is not an atheist or secular site. It does, however, present the evidence for dating the earth at about 4.5 billion years old. I do not intend to imply, nor do I believe, that anyone posting here believes otherwise, but since this is a thread dealing with science and religion, it would increase our knowledge. Enjoy.

asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

 

[buffalo]

I ran across an article this morning which I thought might be of interest. It is on a site presenting “science from a Christian perspective,” so it is not an atheist or secular site. It does, however, present the evidence for dating the earth at about 4.5 billion years old. I do not intend to imply, nor do I believe, that anyone posting here believes otherwise, but since this is a thread dealing with science and religion, it would increase our knowledge. Enjoy.

asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Just in the last month it was published that the rate of radioactive decay is determined by the sun and changes. I am awaiting to see where this goes.

 

[SGWessells]

Just in the last month it was published that the rate of radioactive decay is determined by the sun and changes. I am awaiting to see where this goes.

Do you have a source for that? I would like to look into it. Does the rate change enough to turn 4.5 billion years into 6,000? Do all teh rates change, or just some? As the link I sent points out, there are also other indicators of earth’s age as well as radiometric dating, all of which corroborate each other.
Thanks.

 

[buffalo]

Do you have a source for that? I would like to look into it. Does the rate change enough to turn 4.5 billion years into 6,000? Do all teh rates change, or just some? As the link I sent points out, there are also other indicators of earth’s age as well as radiometric dating, all of which corroborate each other.
Thanks.

No it doesn’t. If I remember it was a fraction of a percent. It had always been thought to be a constant, but now we know it is not. What we do not know is what it was in the past. We will have to wait and see what they come up with.

**Radioactive decay rates vary with the sun’s rotation: research

****Laws of physics must be rewritten: Mysterious sun particles alter radioactive decay on Earth **