Science & Religion

[epiphany08]

And when “we” prayed, what happened? Either it rained, or it didn’t. When it rained, the gods got the credit, even though it may also have rained on the fields of the village over the hill, where nobody prayed; so it would have rained whether we prayed or not.
If it doesn’t rain, that didn’t ever in a single instance mean that prayer was considered useless. Instead, we invented reasons: the gods were angry, which meant that animals, children, or the mean old woman down the road, who had obviously put a curse on us, were sacrificed. After that, same as above.
When people learned about the environment, they also invented irrigation, which made farming manageable, more widespread, and fed a lot more people than prayer ever did. I think that result could excuse a little arrogance (presuming we are justified in the assumption that there was any; and what about the arrogance of the local shaman, shaking his rattle and shrieking his prayers and accepting the payment and gratitude, and enjoying the fear, of the villagers even though all his tricks and mumbo-jumbo had absolutely no effect?

God does not shower you with rain if you ask for rain. He doesn’t give you food if you ask for food. Instead, he teaches you to find a solution; in this case, like you said, irrigation & fishing. But what happened when people did learn those things, was God thanked for it? No, like I said, people became arrogant attributing all their success to themselves. And as for local shamans, I suggest you to speak with some native Africans. You’d be surprised at some of the stories you hear. I’m an open minded individual, I don’t dismiss anything just because I don’t understand it personally.

The problem with understanding with your heart is that nobody’s heart has any sense, or ability to discern what is likely from what is merely liked. My mother feels and understands from her heart that aliens from a distant galaxy dwell among us, guiding us to the next level of spiritual enlightenment which will result in an age of peace, love, and rock n’ roll for everyone. No amount of reasoning can convince her that this is a pathetic delusion. I have known people whose heart told them that they could channel power into an earring to deflect the influence of God on their soul. I’m not making this up. That’s what relying on the heart, without guidance from the intellect, will lead you. I don’t think that’s an improvement.
Ideally, of course, we should have both; but each in its proper sphere; the heart for feeling and loving, the intellect for understanding and guiding the heart to love’s proper object.

Your mother’s belief is actually comforting to me whether you believe it or not. Hard to explain where I’m coming from but nonetheless she believes it with good intentions. Its hard to understand where belief originates from, some from the mind, others from the heart. You seem to be well adept at reasoning with the mind but it will only tell you so much. I use to be like you until my personal experiences shaped my perception of the world. Now I view things in a much larger scale with the attitude that truly nothing is impossible in this world.

You ended with a great sentence in which I agree. You should have both and at times they may conflict with each other. It is your decision to then decide which you side with. I generally side with the heart though irrational. It is just what I believe and it has guided me through many situations which seemed impossible for a good outcome. That is where faith comes in.

So when the Nazis took pregnant women and used them for vivisection, or threw living children into the fires of the crematorium, or picked particular prisoners to load those too weak to stagger by their own power to the gas chambers to carry them there in wheelbarrows, knowing that it may well be their turn tomorrow? Or forced to throw still living victims into the flames; and systematically starved, murdered, tortured, and brutalized God’s own people, the apple of his eye, he did it so they would LOVE him? Can a sane person really mean this?
And how’d that work out for him? Ever read holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel’s book “Night”, about how his experience taught him that a god couldn’t possible exist? I’m sure he wasn’t the only one led to that conclusion.

You may think what the Nazi’s did was unfathomably cruel and I agree. However, you must understand it from a larger scale. Their whole existence is doomed for future generations because of what they did. There is a purpose to everything, maybe you won’t understand it now but eventually it will serve its purpose. Look at the Jewish people now and where they stand as a community. Do you consider them to be happy, successful, flourishing? Or are many still bent on the torture of the holocaust? And if they are, do you think its a good reminder to them of God and how He is able to make your life the worst nightmare imaginable but then make you the most powerful community in the world?

I’d like to know what your definition of a sane person is. If its a person who always thinks as majority then no, I am not sane.

I have in fact read that book. The part where his father was beaten and he was standing in line but too afraid to do anything really stuck out to me. His conviction that God did not exist at that time happens to many people. Ask any religious person whether his faith has ever been in question and if he tells you no then I can almost guarantee you he is lying. You should ask Elie Wiesel today whether or not he believes in God. I wouldn’t be surprised if he gave you a different answer.

 

[epiphany08]

Religion: Any that can convince me it is the truth

I noticed your religious status. Frankly, no one can persuade you to believe in God. Often times there is a misconception about you choosing God or God choosing you. If you truly have the desire to understand and to get to know God then your best hope would be to pray to him. Still it is his decision and not everyone is granted. Maybe after your prayer certain experiences will come into your life changing everything that you know today. You will then see the world in a whole different light. This I speak from personal experience. I was a very rational, realistic, and critical person. A chain of events occurred to me have changed my whole outlook. Like I said, if you truly desire to know, which it seems like you do, pray to Him with your upmost sincerity. You may be surprised at what you find.

 

[epiphany08]

There are a lot more things believed in this world that are false, and have no evidence to support them. Without evidence based on reason and empirical testing, how are you going to tell the difference? The way most people will do it is by going with what they feel best believing – a notoriously unreliable and dangerous method. Why dangerous? Because when their pet beliefs are threatened, especially by a more reasonable fact, they have no rational defense, and so resort to distortion, misrepresentation, character assassination, and at the last resort, force. Examples abound, especially in religious conflict, because the emotions are so intense and the need for reassurance so deep.

I don’t always accept the views of the church. You seem to know history quite well and understand the relationship between government, church and governance. Like I have stated previously, my religious beliefs are a personal thing. It comes through personal experience. I don’t claim to know more than the church but frankly it doesn’t matter to me. I know enough to be content. Belief is only bad when you decide so. Often people believe in things against their conscience because it is more rational to them. If you read my first post starting this thread you would understand science is simply a tool, it cannot explain religion and for those that rely on science to explain religion, your going to hit a wall. There are many things science cannot explain and will most likely never be able to. Don’t use your rational thought of what you know today to try and explain things because what we actually know could be .1% of the way things are. Often times when you are looking for the truth it gets buried in a pile of rubble. The truth is generally very simple but it is hard to find.

 

[tonyrey]

Wow, I should check out the media more often. I had no idea that the culture was becoming so sensible.

You have obviously been brainwashed by atheist propaganda into believing you are no more than a biological machine which is inexplicably capable of controlling itself and arriving at the conclusion that it is no more than a biological machine produced by purposeless molecules …

 

[Kismetji]

You have obviously been brainwashed by atheist propaganda into believing you are no more than a biological machine which is inexplicably capable of controlling itself and arriving at the conclusion that it is no more than a biological machine produced by purposeless molecules …

Such a false conclusion can only come about through the one-sided view of reason as inhering only in the senses. The senses do not give us any real knowledge.

 

[shoe]

Me neither, Lui. But if we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, then Cain had to have married his sister. Or maybe a niece. God wasn’t so strict about incest in those days. So much for unchanging morality.

In the beginning, marrying within a family was not forbidden since the human genetic line was extremely pure. But later, when the continued breeding of closely related individuals began to cause genetic problems, it was forbidden (Leviticus 18:6-18).

 

[Lui]

In the beginning, marrying within a family was not forbidden since the human genetic line was extremely pure. But later, when the continued breeding of closely related individuals began to cause genetic problems, it was forbidden (Leviticus 18:6-18).

I’ve already mentioned that but what about the rest?

I’ve already once been explained that the genes of Adam and Eve were so perfect that incest made sense(speaking about sense in the whole Adam and Eve theory is ironic already) as gross as it may seem. The thing is it says no where in Genesis that all these women that showed up to marry the sons were their sisters.
The story is so badly written that people just have to guess what happened.

I find the explanations people come up with quite hilarious. A story can be as far-fetched as possible but there is always some sort of explanation and if one runs out of explanations the word MIRACLE appears

Does the Bible explain how the first squirrels, skunks, lions, zebras etc appeared. Did God also create one couple from which the rest came from or did he make 100 skunks, 100 elephants, 100 toads etc?

 

[tonyrey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWessells
The only refuge anyone with any pretensions to rationality has is to call Genesis metaphorical. But that your church forbids you to do.

Tonyrey: “You are misinformed”

“According to a decision of the Biblical Commission in 1909, the literal historical sense [of Genesis 1-3] is not to be doubted in regard to the following facts:
a) That the first man received a command from God in order to test his obedience;
b) That through the temptation of the devil in the form of a serpent, he transgressed the divine commandment;
c) That our first parents were shut out from the original condition of innocence…
The mythological explanation, and the purely allegorical explanation (of the Alexandrines) are to be rejected” Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 1952, p. 104-5.

Are those decisions no longer in force? Have they become yet another teaching the church has changed, like religious liberty and the ban on ecumenism?

It is true, however, that the Church says the word “day” need not be interpreted as a literal 24 hour period, so you’re off the hook there. I should have said “your church forbids you to do in regard to certain doctrines which science finds as impossible as the others.”

Can you explain how science finds it impossible that the first man received a command from God via his conscience, was tempted to commit a grave offence by an evil power, was guilty of a premeditated crime - probably murder - and was caught up in the vortex of conflict and bloodshed which has subsequently engulfed the human race? Or do you consider that science has established beyond all doubt that we are biological machines immune to temptation and devoid of moral responsiblity because free will and evil are illusions in a purposeless universe?

NB Not all scientists are atheists…

 

[tonyrey]

Such a false conclusion can only come about through the one-sided view of reason as inhering only in the senses. The senses do not give us any real knowledge.

Precisely! All knowledge begins at home, i.e. with our thoughts, feelings and perceptions…

 

[tonyrey]

How do you explain the urge to survive?"

Is instinct self-explanatory and self-created? Can you observe your mind?

If design is only an appearance then intelligence is also only an appearance!

That does seem to be true of some people at least.

It is certainly true of those who believe they are mindless and have only a lump of issue in the skull…

How would you prove that colours are essential for survival?

I never said “essential.” They can be useful, though, for example in a species of Colobus monkeys in the Ugandan rain forest evolved the ability to distinguish the red color of leaves when they are at their most nutritious stage of development. (See Sean Carroll, The Making of the Fittest, ch. 4). The chimpanzees on the forest floor go for he yellow fruits which are part of their diet. Insects see into the ultraviolet range, which we do not, so that a flower which appears to us as solid yellow looks to the honeybee like a star pattern radiating out from its center like a guidance system leading them to where the pollen is (and incidentally propagating the flower species as well).

If colours are not essential there is no reason why they exist. Natural selection is strictly utilitarian and doesn’t cater for unnecessary luxuries like truth, beauty, justice or love…

How were membranes transformed into feathers?

The membranes of flying squirrels weren’t, of course, but similar membranes in the ancestors of birds would perform the same useful function. They would be transformed into feathers by random mutation operating under natural selection for millions of years, same as every other morphological feature. There are several fossils of intermediate species illustrating this process, including the famous archaeopteryx.

Your faith in the power of the combination of time and chance is touching but unrealistic. Do you rely on it rather than intelligence to make your decisions for you? After all, in your scheme of things intelligence is only the accidental product of far more powerful forces which have determined what you are and how you will behave - right down to the very last thought and action you have made, are making and will make… Like everyone else you are an irrational cog in a purposeless system. To put it more concisely, a spark in the dark!

 

[grannymh]

Elizabeth, why is the human “soul” any less special or marvelous if God called it into existence through the divinely created process of evolution? Why is the “soul” more special if God magically “poofed” it into existence 70,000 years ago? Aren’t humans pretty special no matter how God did it?

For your information. The spiritual does not evolve.

 

[tonyrey]

You have unwittingly hit the nail on the head! It is impossible to find out from fossils anything about the precise number of our ancestors but that’s not the real issue. It is an undeniable historical fact that a person must have grasped* for the first time***

A myth is not a legend!

That’s progress, Tony; good for you. Unfortunately, your logic has yet to prove that this happened in only one person…

Do you believe many individuals made the first choices of evil simultaneously? That seems to go against the law of probability…

… who would not ever have died if he had not disobeyed it.

Spiritual death is not to be taken lightly - unless of course you’re a materialist whon rejects anything but what you can see, hear, taste, touch and smell…

…or that the feeling of guilt came from God, not some other source.

The **feeling **was not superimposed but the result of moral insight.

At least we’ve moved away from the Adam and Eve legend where God only told them not to eat a fruit (O, the horror of fruit eating!) to speculation about the general rise of conscience.

How do you explain it? As an unfortunate mistake?

 

[tonyrey]

*Every week in the media there are news items which give the impression that **all ***

Do you believe that **all **your thoughts, beliefs, emotions and decisions - without exception -can be explained in terms of brain activity? Are you a biological machine?

 

[tonyrey]

How would you prove that colours are essential for survival? They’re not.

Birds did not evolved from flying squirrels.
I know. But the question of the origin of feathers is still relevant…

[/QUOTE]

 

[Lui]

I know. But the question of the origin of feathers is still relevant…

It’s like everything in evolution…it evolved slowly over time just like whales developed fins from legs. Birds directly evolved from dinosaurs.

 

[grannymh]

grannymh wrote: "The quality of the evidence (that God does not exist) is meager. Because, obviously, scientific evidence is limited to the material/physical world. God is spiritual. "

Which does not stop many posters from whining that science does not recognize God’s role in running the world. Well, it can’t. Get over it.

For your information, I have a deep respect for science.

 

[grannymh]

So a “true belief” can be based on a mere possibility?

In the science domain, a “true belief” can be based on mere possibility. For fun, look up primordial soup in Wikipedia. Ooops, just checked Google and it looks like primordial soup is under abiogenesis. Talk about true belief. There are many examples of scientists who truly believe their theory.

A possibility exists independently. Scientists are free to deny it.
However, Catholicism goes beyond the science realm when it officially declares a doctrine for belief…

So because science cannot exclude the possibility that invisible leprechauns infest your basement, you are perfectly reasonable if you dig it up looking for pots of gold?

For your information. Catholicism does not have any doctrines about leprechauns.

So, in regard to looking for pots of gold, I can freely refuse to do so. And a scientist is also free to check out his basement.

And you claim to stand for common sense?

Of course. People who actually read science research understand the limitations. In fact, some researchers list some of the limitations they encountered.
And other researchers list the limitations of previous research in order to contrast their newer research.

Science does not have to account for every minute of every day to dismiss the possibility of a single pair of individuals being the sole parents of the human race.

Science research is free to speculate independently about what happened or did not happen millions of years. But since science cannot rule out every possibility, those who truly believe in a God can truly believe that He creates the spiritual soul which truly distinguishes the human species from all other species.

Do recall that we both know that science is limited to the material/physical world and therefore cannot submit the spiritual to laboratory testing.

All it has to do is show from the current evidence that this is impossible, as rossum said in post 996.

My point is that current evidence pertains to a limited conclusion stated in the actual research paper. Is there a problem with that?

 

[grannymh]

Archaeology has even more recently shown that the Bible “history” is full of holes (if you’ll pardon the expression).

Love your holy sense of humor.

Catholic doctrine regarding Adam does not include the place where he lived. Thus, archaeology discoveries are great but irrelevant when it comes to Catholic teaching about human origin.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s like everything in evolution…it evolved slowly over time just like whales developed fins from legs. Birds directly evolved from dinosaurs.

So your mind directly evolved from mindless dust - extremely slowly of course…

That explains a lot.

 

[inocente]

In the science domain, a “true belief” can be based on mere possibility. For fun, look up primordial soup in Wikipedia. Ooops, just checked Google and it looks like primordial soup is under abiogenesis. Talk about true belief. There are many examples of scientists who truly believe their theory.

Playing with words granny. You surely know by now that science is provisional, certainly not about “true beliefs”, and that hypotheses are tested on evidence alone. Neither science nor I dare say the Church exults the highly improbable. Your pet belief that humanity started from a single pair is certainly possible, but only in the same way it’s possible that somewhere there are stealthy fairies wearing top hats, riding dragons and speaking Klingon – possible but way unlikely.

Question to all Catholics – why do fossils and old creation myths have such a hold on you guys? The thread is about science and religion yet it seems you can find nothing at all in Christ that’s relevant, instead it’s like you’re part of some new age cult of adam-and-eve-ism. How come Catholicism can’t drag itself away from the first couple of pages of the OT and find something useful to say to the world?