Science & Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter epiphany08
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ASimon said:
Nope, still not an assumption. An assumption is the philosophical bedrock on which a hypothesis is formed. “There is (or probably is) no God” is not the opening move in my argument - it’s the conclusion itself. The assumption would be along the lines of “When there’s nothing to be seen, felt, or in any way tested for, it’s silly to go on presuming that there’s something there regardless.”

And to repeat the real point - even if I were to concede that atheism is an assumption (I don’t), that’s one versus the waterfall of assumptions that theism must assert to square itself with reality.

Finally, this…

is basically incoherent. The Universe must have been designed because I’m capable of articulating an argument that it might not have been? If you say so.
Click to expand...
Which leads to the question - Is the universe intelligible?
 
ASimon said:
If you mean “understandable through the intellect,” then sure, at least some of it is.
Click to expand...
I agree - the universe is intelligible. The pagans thought otherwise and not worthy of study.

Catholics knew the world to be intelligible and thus the rise in science.
 
buffalo said:
There are many disbelieving Catholics who have lost their faith and subscribed to scientism. This does not mean it to be false, simply secularism has taken hold.
Click to expand...
Is it a Catholic teaching that Catholics HAVE to believe in a 10000 year old earth or the historical story of Jonah surviving 3 days in the stomach of a shark(or other large fish)?
I don’t think people lose faith and believe in scientism(does this word officially exist?). People have always questioned the story of Jonah as a story that actually took place because even 2000 years ago they thought it was a bit far-fetched.
Also I don’t get why you have the need to take every detail of the Bible as historical fact and can’t just accept some things as symbolism.
 
rossum said:
I am sure that St Anastasia is well enough versed in biology not to make this assumption. How do you think DNA testing works? Humans all have different DNA, so the couples in the population would have been different.

rossum
Click to expand...
The term “identical” is not confined to DNA. The issue is whether they were human beings…
 
ASimon

The assumption would be along the lines of "When there’s nothing to be seen, felt, or in any way tested for, it’s silly to go on presuming that there’s something there regardless.

Once upon a time there was no way to see, feel, or in any way test for the existence of atoms. Must it be a silly presumption then to infer they might exist?

I think the really silly presumption would have been to assume they do not exist.

That is the silly assumption you are making about God.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Once upon a time there was no way to see, feel, or in any way test for the existence of atoms. Must it be a silly presumption then to infer they might exist? I think the really silly presumption would have been to assume they do not exist.
That is the silly assumption you are making about God.
Click to expand...
This is a “God-of-the-gaps” argument. Are you arguing that some day there may be a way to see, feel, or otherwise test for the existence of God?
 
Lui said:
Is it a Catholic teaching that Catholics HAVE to believe in a 10000 year old earth or the historical story of Jonah surviving 3 days in the stomach of a shark(or other large fish)?
I don’t think people lose faith and believe in scientism(does this word officially exist?). People have always questioned the story of Jonah as a story that actually took place because even 2000 years ago they thought it was a bit far-fetched.
Also I don’t get why you have the need to take every detail of the Bible as historical fact and can’t just accept some things as symbolism.
Click to expand...
Catholics understand a literal understanding of Scripture, that is, what the author intended to convey. We also respect the original understanding and teaching of the Church. (what the Church always understood). Today many interpret Scripture as it just fell out of the sky and we have to apply modern methods to figure out what it all means. This modernistic approach is suspect.

Scientism means conforming Scripture to what science is saying. One problem with this is that we all know science is provisional. You can see the issue here…

And yes - Catholics have tested verses that seem to need more explanation.

Some verses are symbolic.

God tells us through St. Paul: “Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophesying, but test everything; hold fast what is good, abstain from every form of evil.” (1Thess 5:19-22)

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
 
buffalo said:
I agree - the universe is intelligible. The pagans thought otherwise and not worthy of study.
Click to expand...
You mean pagans like 8th-century BCE mathematician Baudhayana, who is credited with the earliest writing describing the Pythagorean theorem? Or pagans like Zhang Heng, 2nd-century CE Chinese astronomer who constructed the first instrument to record earth-quakes?
 
Ahimsa said:
You mean pagans like 8th-century BCE mathematician Baudhayana, who is credited with the earliest writing describing the Pythagorean theorem? Or pagans like Zhang Heng, 2nd-century CE Chinese astronomer who constructed the first instrument to record earth-quakes?
Click to expand...
There are exceptions to ever rule. 😉

In general pagans thought the universe to be random and unpredictable, therefore not worthy of study.
 
StAnastasia

**This is a “God-of-the-gaps” argument. Are you arguing that some day there may be a way to see, feel, or otherwise test for the existence of God? **

Yes, not in a scientific way but in an experientail way.

As a Catholic you also must believe this. Are you a Catholic or aren’t you?

Do you believe you have experienced the Body and Blood of Jesus when you receive Holy Communion?

It is just plain silly to believe that God cannot be believed to exist if we cannot detect Him using scientific methods.
 
Lui said:
Obviously, just like the conclusion if I can’t prove Adam and Eve didn’t exist without a doubt that means they did exist is a wrong conclusion.
Click to expand...
This is the original statement from post 916. “The conclusion is Peter Pan **must **exist then:rolleyes:”

Emphasis mine.

A better way to say this, in keeping with scientific observation, is that the evidence does not warrant the leap to an universal exclusion of two founders of humanity. Therefore, there is the possibility that the two founders existed.

In other words, the conclusion cannot absolutely rule out the possibility of two founders; therefore it is possible to have two founders of the human species.
 
grannymh said:
This is the original statement from post 916. “The conclusion is Peter Pan **must **exist then:rolleyes:”

Emphasis mine.

A better way to say this, in keeping with scientific observation, is that the evidence does not warrant the leap to an universal exclusion of two founders of humanity. Therefore, there is the possibility that the two founders existed.

In other words, the conclusion cannot absolutely rule out the possibility of two founders; therefore it is possible to have two founders of the human species.
Click to expand...
Jumpin in here…

When discussing the improbable odds about protein folding or search targets in general it is often countered with - yes, but it is possible, even though the odds are against. (As if 10 to the 150th to one odds are an argument that is actually did happen. :()

What is good for the goose…
 
ASimon said:
That there is no God is not an assumption - it is a truth claim made based on the quality of the evidence presented for the opposite view.
Click to expand...
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.

Some interpreters of science do not accept the spiritual principle in human nature.
All that says is that those who do not accept spirituality could become atheists. This decision on the part of a person does not have the power to eliminate a transcendent, pure spirit, personal God. The decision also does not change basic human nature which is* both* matter and spirit.

Regardless of individual beliefs, the human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
tonyrey said:
You are assuming:
  1. All the couples were identical.
  2. Human nature is entirely biological.
  3. God **never **intervenes.
Click to expand...
Actually, the down-the-road and around-the-curve assumption is that God does not exist, period.
 
rossum said:
Huff’s reasoning is laid out in great detail in the paper. If you think it is incorrect, then show us your contrary reasoning, together with supporting data. The full human genome is available for anyone to study. Huff has done that. You need to do the same if you are to have any traction in this argument.

You are assuming that the copy of the Bible you have in front of you is the same as the copy that Moses, and others, wrote originally. Does that assumption invalidate all of Christianity? Many assumptions are reasonable; show us why Huff’s assumptions are unreasonable.

rossum
Click to expand...
Actually, the real human genome is only available from individuals. A University of Chicago PhD candidate has posted his on the internet which can be downloaded. He was telling us that part of the result is that people have contacted him because of mutual similarities. The “sample” human genome is made up from sequences from different people since there is no one person who is the same as all people.

My assumption is that places like GenBank will offer an individual personal genome based on the requirements of the research. Currently, there is a paper which used whole genomes, but I have not read it yet.
 
StAnastasia said:
Don’t make up lies about me. You know perfectly well that I never said science is infallible!
Click to expand...
Maybe it is the one statement that two human parents could not have founded humanity which is close to infallible? 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top