Science & Religion

[tonyrey]

I am so tempted to make the obvious joke, but I will be nice .

A machine is nothing but its constituent parts and an energy source. It is not aware of itself, has no nervous system or brain areas which stimulate reactions of fear, joy, anger, and so on. It has no appreciation of beauty, no love or hate, no instincts or subconscious drives, so it cannot be a person no matter how biological it is (assuming there could be such a thing). I think your confusion comes from dividing the human being into two separate and non-interacting segments, the material or physical part, which you regard as analogous to a machine, and a “spiritual” part, or soul, in which reside all the specifically human attributes I mentioned. But the two are not separate; each has measurable effects on the other, which are well documented. Stress, for example, can affect our physical as well as emotional well-being; whether certain genes activate at certain times can affect our emotions and thought patterns. You seem to think that denying a non-material component to thought leaves no agency or inner source from which actions you attribute to the soul, such as thought, emotion, and will, can emerge. That’s why you call a materialist a “biological machine,” But neurology and molecular biology have revealed an interweaving of psychology and physiology which is quite fascinating.

What exactly is the soul in your scheme of things?

 

[tonyrey]

Human parents have not always existed - if evolution is true…

How do you reach the conclusion that “emerging hominids” were rational and moral? Did they also have free will, insight into the nature of the universe and the capacity for unselfish love?

 

[tonyrey]

Evolutionists in your sense of the term don’t believe in good and evil at all!

I specified “in your sense of the term” (not addressed to you of course). I don’t think you are sceptical about religion to the extent of regarding science as having the last word when it comes to interpreting reality - but I may be mistaken…

 

[SGWessells]

Beautiful! Perhaps you will be an ID advocate soon.

Nope. Been there, done that. ID has repeatedly been shown to be religion, not science, not only in the scientific community but in the courts. ID proponents are as free as anyone to submit papers to peer-reviewed journals or present them at scientific conferences and symposia, but don’t bother to do so; they’d rather grandstand to the groundlings who are often unschooled in the sciences and easier to fool. ID conducts no original research, and proposes no scientific mechanism whereby it may be tested and confirmed. The science it has put out has been consistently refuted and shown to be unsubstantiated. It is religion hypocritically masquerading as science, and has been repeatedly exposed as such in court cases like Kitzmiller in PA and similar cases in Arkansas and Louisiana. In the first two cases, I have read the judges’ decisions, in which it was noted that ID supporters repeatedly lied and tried to conceal the religious nature of their position so they could more easily sneak their sectarian religious doctrines into science classes, where they don’t belong, and cripple our students’ ability to understand and advance in the world. Yet they have the nerve to accuse evolutionists of trying to impose the “religion” of evolution! Such hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Creationism has no scientific credibility whatsoever. Posters on this thread have repeatedly pointed out that science cannot investigate spiritual and non-material phenomena, so there’s no way a scientific proof of a spiritual creator can be found. You just have to live with it.
In short, there is virtually no chance of my becoming an ID zealot. I was once, but in the immortal words of the Monty Python newt guy, “I got better.”

 

[tonyrey]

People believe what they want to believe.

This goes for people who believe science is the sole and most important form of knowledge…

 

[tonyrey]

Nope. Been there, done that. ID has repeatedly been shown to be religion, not science, not only in the scientific community but in the courts. ID proponents are as free as anyone to submit papers to peer-reviewed journals or present them at scientific conferences and symposia, but don’t bother to do so; they’d rather grandstand to the groundlings who are often unschooled in the sciences and easier to fool. ID conducts no original research, and proposes no scientific mechanism whereby it may be tested and confirmed. The science it has put out has been consistently refuted and shown to be unsubstantiated. It is religion hypocritically masquerading as science, and has been repeatedly exposed as such in court cases like Kitzmiller in PA and similar cases in Arkansas and Louisiana. In the first two cases, I have read the judges’ decisions, in which it was noted that ID supporters repeatedly lied and tried to conceal the religious nature of their position so they could more easily sneak their sectarian religious doctrines into science classes, where they don’t belong, and cripple our students’ ability to understand and advance in the world. Yet they have the nerve to accuse evolutionists of trying to impose the “religion” of evolution! Such hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Creationism has no scientific credibility whatsoever. Posters on this thread have repeatedly pointed out that science cannot investigate spiritual and non-material phenomena, so there’s no way a scientific proof of a spiritual creator can be found. You just have to live with it.
In short, there is virtually no chance of my becoming an ID zealot. I was once, but in the immortal words of the Monty Python newt guy, “I got better.”

You seem to be confusing - like so many others - Creationism with ID…

 

[tonyrey]

And note, the issue is not whether human beings can grasp the distinction between good and evil, but whether we alone can do so.

Your concept of good and evil is idiosyncratic. It seems to be what suits or doesn’t suit people - mainly a matter of survival.

Their ancestors. And before them, their genetics and social interactions.

So genetics and social interactions are the sole foundation of morality?

 

[tonyrey]

That wasn’t from Wikipedia. If you feel more comfortable by saying it is a theory that is composed of pretty much undeniable facts, so be it

A theory is capable of more than one interpretation. There is a slight difference between NeoDarwinism and evolution by Design…

 

[SGWessells]

Will you apply this same statement to the evolution claims? I hear so often that if it is possible it is probable and must have happened.

Are you referring to assertions like, “X behavior could have been selected for, or enhanced survival chances, for reason Y”? Or what specifically? I have read several books on evolution and never seen its factuality based on anything but well-established and repeatedly tested observations across many related fields of scientific investigation. It is as firmly established as scientific knowledge can be, so to overthrow it would require an enormous pile of evidence in biology, paleontology, genetics, embryology, geology, anthropology, cosmology, molecular biology, and several other fields, which I’m pretty sure you don’t have or you would have posted it already.

 

[StAnastasia]

What exactly is the soul in your scheme of things?

Inter alia The “soul” is the capacity to enter into mutual relationship with God, and to grow in grace in that relationship.

 

[Lui]

Creationism has no scientific credibility whatsoever.

Obviously. Creationism can be compared to illusionists/magicians. Illusionists trick people in making something seem real which is based on distraction and other methods. Creationists use the same tactics. If you ask a creationist a direct question, he distracts you with a counter question or other tricks he has up his sleeve. Both, illusionists and creationists, are aware that they are working with tricks(lies) which is why it is useless to have a discussion with them. That’s like trying to outsmart the guy on the street with the 3 nutshells and the pea underneath. It’s always a scam so you can’t win. The only option you have is to walk away.

 

[SGWessells]

In my view, the set of evolutionary models used to establish a minimum number of ancestral breeding pairs are not incompatible with a theological notion that humanity is descended from a single pair of human beings. It can be envisioned that God had interacted with a single upraised human couple, whom are representative of humanity, bestowing upon them special spiritual or divine gifts. These spiritual gifts came with the capacity to discern and experience evil — one associated with unfortunate consequences. The resulting effects of their flawed relationship from their moral choice would spread to and through their offspring as their subset of the existing population came to dominate.

That just restates the Eden myth using pseudo-scientific language. It is just as much based on mere assumption and speculation as its original in Genesis, and is outside the parameters of science. We can suppose anything we want; proving it is another matter.

 

[Elizabeth502]

SGWessells, It is not necessary to be intellectually convinced of every facet of faith, and the structure of every religious argument in order to be a member in good standing of the Catholic Church. What is necessary is not to actively oppose doctrine (to foment disbelief by oneself or with others).

The fallacy that you seem to be operating on, and frankly what many modernists also operate on, is that a religion must hang together intellectually, perfectly, and within a rational system that makes impeccable sense to each individual believer, in order to have credibility as a religion. (And if that ideal of perfection is not reached, some believers absent themselves from their responsiblity to adhere to doctrine entirely.) But religion ultimately is neither a rational exercise nor a rational experience. People’s encounters with the divine are supra-rational - outside rationality. They can’t be “proven.” They are not material. No religion can be so reduced.

Faith is a gift; one can make oneself open to that gift, by suspending the demand for ultra-rational “proof.” And if faith is not obtained, it is not an indication that a religion is false, or can never be reconciled with one’s intellect. The percentage of contentedly practicing Catholics who intellectually assent to every iota of doctrine, and the platform by which each of those doctrines is based, is less than 50%, and includes many inspiring people in the priesthood and religious life who assent by will and by devotion to the aspects that are not as rationally persuasive as some other aspects are. It also includes many scientistis – physical scientists, biological scientists, medical scientists, etc. They operate on different cylinders when practicing their faith than when practicing their professions. There’s an awful lot of congruence and overlap, but there is not a perfect overlay.

 

[StAnastasia]

I specified “in your sense of the term” (not addressed to you of course). I don’t think you are sceptical about religion to the extent of regarding science as having the last word when it comes to interpreting reality - but I may be mistaken…

Not at all. Sir Arthur Eddington had a story about “scientism,” which he said was like a fisherman who let down into the sea a net with three inch holes. When he pulled it up all the fish were larger than three inches, and he confidently declared that “there is nothing in the sea smaller than three inches.” Scientism – which declares itself to have the last word on interpreting reality – is like that fisherman.

 

[StAnastasia]

How do you reach the conclusion that “emerging hominids” were rational and moral? Did they also have free will, insight into the nature of the universe and the capacity for unselfish love?

I reach that conclusion among other things because of archaeological and anthropological studies that show that humans buried their dead with provisions for an “afterlife,” and that some tribes cared for infirm or incapacitated individuals rather than just letting them die.

StAnastasia

 

[tonyrey]

Not at all. Sir Arthur Eddington had a story about “scientism,” which he said was like a fisherman who let down into the sea a net with three inch holes. When he pulled it up all the fish were larger than three inches, and he confidently declared that “there is nothing in the sea smaller than three inches.” Scientism – which declares itself to have the last word on interpreting reality – is like that fisherman.

But when there is an apparent conflict between science and religion you seem to opt for the former.

 

[SGWessells]

Evolutionists in your sense of the term don’t believe in good and evil at all!

To quote Ronald Reagan, “there you go again.” This may come as a shock to you, but many people actually have definitions of good and evil which neither derive from, nor depend on, any notion of God. Many provisions in such codes are nearly universal. I’ve never run across an evolutionist who did not believe in good and evil. I certainly do. Just because you can’t conceive of a moral system independent of a God doesn’t mean the rest of us are in the same boat. And just because people don’t believe in God doesn’t mean they don’t believe in good and evil. That’s your dichotomy, not ours.

 

[tonyrey]

I reach that conclusion among other things because of archaeological and anthropological studies that show that humans buried their dead with provisions for an “afterlife,” and that some tribes cared for infirm or incapacitated individuals rather than just letting them die.

How do you distinguish “emerging hominids” and human beings?

 

[tonyrey]

To quote Ronald Reagan, “there you go again.” This may come as a shock to you, but many people actually have definitions of good and evil which neither derive from, nor depend on, any notion of God.

You are the one who brought God into the picture! Why?

Many provisions in such codes are nearly universal. I’ve never run across an evolutionist who did not believe in good and evil. I certainly do.

You have not defined what you regard as good and evil.

Just because you can’t conceive of a moral system independent of a God doesn’t mean the rest of us are in the same boat.

Another assumption!

And just because people don’t believe in God doesn’t mean they don’t believe in good and evil. That’s your dichotomy, not ours.

Nonsense! They believe in good and evil but their concept of good and evil is often nebulous…

 

[SGWessells]

So if we can believe in gravity and say it is a scientific fact then why can we not believe in God and say its proven he exists?

Because everything that might be caused by God might, for all we know, be caused by something else. Since God is spirit, there is no way science can prove that God did it rather than something else. Gravity has other observable effects besides attracting things to earth, and these can be tested and determine how we do things, which is not the case with God. For instance, we can measure the strength of earth’s gravity by the amount of fuel needed to get the space shuttle into orbit. There is no corresponding measurement of God’s presence or activity.