Science & Religion

[Lui]

This from a guy who supports the evolutionary fairytale?

Lol, this from a guy who believes in fairy-tales like Jonas living inside a giant tuna, Noah’s Ark, dinosaurs and man living together like the Flinstones and other fairy-tales as historical facts

By the way all Catholics are creationists by definition.

I mean YECs or Intelligent Design disciples.

 

[SGWessells]

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.

But what if the assertion one disagrees with IS doctrine?

I don’t expect all religions to hang together perfectly intellectually (and a good thing, too). But when a religion claims to be the only religion specifically set up by God and guaranteed by the Logos (i.e. reason, among other things) of God to be kept from officially teaching error, I do expect it to hang together intellectually, perfectly, or change its claim. The more awesome your claim, the more powerful your proof must be.

I don’t expect Catholicism to make perfect sense to every believer, only to me. In fact, I would be satisfied with imperfect sense. But to me, it doesn’t. There is an impressive cohesion and depth to it, which one would expect from such a long history and so many brilliant minds, but I can’t make it work.

 

[SGWessells]

Maybe not measurement … but what about the experience of the numinous or the sublime …

Einstein alludes to it … so the experience does not seem limited to the “ignoramuses” …

Einstein did not believe in a personal god, either.
The experience of the numinous is a long way from "God is one essence but three persons, maker of heaven and earth, and “Jesus Christ, only Son of the father,Ggod from God, light from light, consubstantial with the father” etc. Numinousness can be experienced; the Trinity is one of the more elaborate boxes into which people have tried to stuff the numinous, without success, since humanity began.

 

[SGWessells]

Somehow, you’ve connotated my clarification of what evolution theory is as me supporting
ID.

You don’t believe the universe is designed by an intelligent being? But I get it; you refer to the “scientific” theory called Intelligent Design, not the general concept. But neither fits the bill, IMHO.

 

[StAnastasia]

By the way all Catholics are creationists by definition.

Absolutely – that’s a point I make at the beginning of all my public presentations. The ancient Christian doctrine of creation was been hijacked by Young Earthers at the turn of the 20th century, and I am attempting to help reclaim it. A lucid treatment is Christopher B. Kaiser, Creation and the History of Science (1991).

 

[Elizabeth502]

But what if the assertion one disagrees with IS doctrine?

You would be surprised at how many Catholics who are diligent (not rebellious) about their faith practices and beliefs, do struggle with at least one doctrine, if not more than one. The difference between them (us) and you, is that we (1) we don’t assume that there’s a left-brain resolution to that, which will fit neatly into our rationalistic desires, and (2) we let go of what we cannot analyze to our satisfaction, or synthesize with what we are sure of.

I don’t expect all religions to hang together perfectly intellectually (and a good thing, too). But when a religion claims to be the only religion specifically set up by God and guaranteed by the Logos (i.e. reason, among other things) of God to be kept from officially teaching error, I do expect it to hang together intellectually, perfectly, or change its claim. The more awesome your claim, the more powerful your proof must be.

No. The more powerful your truth must be. Truth itself (Himself) “proves.”

And part of that awesomeness consists in unresolved mystery. We’re not intended, with finite minds, to comprehend magnificently the magnificent mysteries of existence and the cosmos, of which we believe a higher mind than ours is the creator, originator, author, and center. The mysteries will not be ultimately resolved until the end times, which to me is perfectly logical, as well as a very exciting prospect.

I don’t expect Catholicism to make perfect sense to every believer, only to me. In fact, I would be satisfied with imperfect sense. But to me, it doesn’t. There is an impressive cohesion and depth to it, which one would expect from such a long history and so many brilliant minds, but I can’t make it work.

“Making it work” denotes human intellectual effort as the effective approach, but faith is a theological virtue that is more about apprehension than comprehension. Very often, believers experience that understanding follows faith. And faith is not a matter of earnest intellectual effort, but earnest spiritual effort (prayer, reflection, reading, openness). In faith, God acts on us; we do not act on God.

“Making it work” also assumes that the object of “work” is small enough to be conquered by the human mind, which is counterintuitive when it comes to the complexities of existence, humanity, cosmos, soul, etc.

 

[Lui]

Absolutely – that’s a point I make at the beginning of all my public presentations. The ancient Christian doctrine of creation was been hijacked by Young Earthers at the turn of the 20th century, and I am attempting to help reclaim it. A lucid treatment is Christopher B. Kaiser, Creation and the History of Science (1991).

On the other hand it is tricky when Buffalo uses the term creationist because he is a YEC, When he implies that all Christians are creationists it almost sounds like he is trying to imply that that all Christians are YECs which is a bit difficult to distinguish in which way he uses it.

 

[StAnastasia]

On the other hand it is tricky when Buffalo uses the term creationist because he is a YEC, When he implies that all Christians are creationists it almost sounds like he is trying to imply that that all Christians are YECs which is a bit difficult to distinguish in which way he uses it.

Lui, I do recommend Kaiser’s book, as I have found it quite helpful. It is simply wrong for Young Earthers to claim that they have a monopoly on the term “:creationist.” Here is a quote from another Internet article I’ve found useful and borrowed for lectures:

"In fact, the “creation or evolution” dichotomy is needless and false, based upon a category mistake. For example, if I held up an grapefruit and asked, “Is this fruit yellow or is it spherical?”, the sentence would make no sense, because “yellow” and “spherical” are not contradictory, but complementary descriptions of the fruit.

The question “Do you believe in creation or evolution?” has the same problem. Like color and shape, “creation” and “evolution” do not occupy competing categories, but are complementary ways of looking at the universe. “Creation” is a philosophical concept: it is the belief that the universe depends for its existence upon something or some being outside itself. As a philosophical term, “creation” is an empirically untestable belief that makes no claims about how or when the world came to be, or even whether creation was a determinate “act” or an event in time. It is a philosophical tenet compatible with the theological doctrines of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and other monotheistic religions. (A contrary and equally untestable philosophical assertion would be that the universe is uncreated, or self-subsistent.)

ncse.com/religion/god-evolution

 

[guanophore]

I wish you guys would decide once and for all whether you want science to include the spiritual or ignore it. Thank you.

Do you think that science is capable of examining that which is “spiritual”? Wondering how a scientist would define that…

Anyway, why would it matter what “spiritual” people thought? Can’t scientists investigate whatever their hearts desire?

Science is well within its rights to declare false any theology which makes statements which science can test and disprove; among which is the dogma that the human species is descended from one breeding pair of first-humans.

Hmm. Wonder where science gets those “rights”.

That is the problem with the church painting itself into a corner by claiming infallibility for some teachings. When science disproves them, it puts the members in the difficult position of denying either their church or their reason.

This is absolutely false. God can do anything He wants, including things that science may deem impossible or “false”. Believing in miracles does not negate science, nor does accepting things can happen beyond the realm of science to explain or validate mean one must abandon their reason.

I agree that the doctrine of original sin depends on the common descent of all humans from a single pair who fell into sin. However, I think human evil is much more plausibly explained by genetics, inheritance from primate ancestors, and psychology. If original sin has to go along with Adam and Eve east of the Eden of demonstrable fact, then good riddance to it.

As it turns out, your ideas about plausible explanations don’t really hold a candle to what God has revealed to us about His creation.

 

[tonyrey]

Is it beyond the realm of possibility that one of them was inspired? Or does a scientist rule that out on principle?

Aren’t there “Eureka!” moments even in science? Can they in principle be explained scientifically?

 

[grannymh]

We are human beings. Emerging hominids are our forbears. You’d need to talk to scientists like anthropologists or archaeologists or geneticists to get your bearings on the distinction. From what I know , Homo sapiens sapiens attained anatomical modernity about 200,000 years ago, and behavioral modernity some time after that.

"There is considerable debate regarding whether the earliest anatomically modern humans behaved similarly to recent or existing humans. Modern human behaviors characteristic of recent humans include fully modern language, the capacity for abstract thought and the use of symbolism to express cultural creativity. There are two opposing hypotheses regarding the origins of modern behavior. Some scholars argue that humans achieved anatomical modernity first, around 200tya, and only later did they adopt modern behaviors around 50tya. This hypothesis is based on the limited record of fossils from periods before 50tya and the abundance of human artifacts found after 50tya. Proponents of this view distinguish “anatomically modern humans” from “behaviorally modern humans”.

“The opposing view is that humans achieved anatomical and behavioral modernity simultaneously. For example, proponents of this view argue that humans had evolved a lightly built skeleton during the transition to anatomical modernity, and this could have only occurred through increased human cooperation and the increased use of technology, traits characteristic of modern behavior.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans

In other words, Adam and Eve are the real sole founders of the human species because they are **behaviorally **the same as you and I. Therefore, the Catholic Church is correct when it teaches that all humans descended directly from two real people.

It is Catholic monogenism which assures you and me that we do have a spiritual soul. Having two single people as the parents of all humanity insures that the real Jesus
Christ died for all real people because there is no doubt about whom we descended from.

 

[grannymh]

Lui, I do recommend Kaiser’s book, as I have found it quite helpful. It is simply wrong for Young Earthers to claim that they have a monopoly on the term “:creationist.” Here is a quote from another Internet article I’ve found useful and borrowed for lectures:

"In fact, the “creation or evolution” dichotomy is needless and false, based upon a category mistake. For example, if I held up an grapefruit and asked, “Is this fruit yellow or is it spherical?”, the sentence would make no sense, because “yellow” and “spherical” are not contradictory, but complementary descriptions of the fruit.

The question “Do you believe in creation or evolution?” has the same problem. Like color and shape, “creation” and “evolution” do not occupy competing categories, but are complementary ways of looking at the universe. “Creation” is a philosophical concept: it is the belief that the universe depends for its existence upon something or some being outside itself. As a philosophical term, “creation” is an empirically untestable belief that makes no claims about how or when the world came to be, or even whether creation was a determinate “act” or an event in time. It is a philosophical tenet compatible with the theological doctrines of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and other monotheistic religions. (A contrary and equally untestable philosophical assertion would be that the universe is uncreated, or self-subsistent.)

ncse.com/religion/god-evolution

Of course, all the talk about “creation or evolution” sidesteps the real truth that God is the Creator of all, including the** invisible** spiritual soul.

Every Sunday, Catholics publically profess the Nicene Creed which begins “I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.” This Creed refers to one Lord Jesus Christ --“For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven”.

Just as Jesus Christ did not evolve from one of the various populations that existed over centuries, the people He died for are not miscellaneous evolving beings from anytime, anywhere, whose free will may have already emerged from their anatomies or may not have since their population group may not have developed an awareness of God.

Praise God, that when we look in the mirror, we know exactly who we are in terms of God calling us to share in His divine life through knowledge and love. God specifically created our first, primary, individual, human ancestor to share eternally in His divine life. We know that the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” There is no doubt that God loves us, since He loved our specific first ancestor.

While some, not all, secular theologians may refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, as a handbook. This book includes the universal teachings of Catholicism. This book includes Divine Revelation.

 

[grannymh]

Absolutely – that’s a point I make at the beginning of all my public presentations. **The ancient Christian doctrine of creation was been hijacked by Young Earthers at the turn of the 20th century, and I am attempting to help reclaim it. **A lucid treatment is Christopher B. Kaiser, Creation and the History of Science (1991).

Emphasis mine.

That is sweet of you – attempting to help reclaim the ancient Christian doctrine of creation (post 1442). I did not know it was hijacked.

Some people may have lost the Christian doctrine of creation, but not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has consistently maintained the doctrine that each human being has a spiritual soul directly created by God. Maybe some people lost the doctrine of creation when they substituted 10,000 breeding pairs for the two, sole, first ancestral parents of our very own species.

 

[inocente]

Suffering is a **physical **evil.

Predators are not** morally **evil.

Predators are not morally evil.

They are not morally evil if they do not kill unnecessarily.

Speed limits

They are not **morally **responsible.

Don’t you use that distinction?

I am merely stating a fact and giving you reasons in stark contrast to your lack of commitment and conviction:

I’ve not seen any reasons yet. Lots of claims about what you believe, zero reasons. We’re in a philosophy forum, philosophy isn’t about making value claims and hoping everyone will sweetly agree, it’s about reasoning things out, and we can’t reason things out unless you give some reasons. I’m not bothered if you can’t think of any reasons, but unless you give some reasons it wouldn’t be reasonable to carry on now would it. I mean, be reasonable.

 

[inocente]

Do you think that science is capable of examining that which is “spiritual”? Wondering how a scientist would define that…

Neurotheology, also known as spiritual neuroscience, is the study of correlations of neural phenomena with subjective experiences of spirituality and hypotheses to explain these phenomena. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology

 

[inocente]

Aren’t there “Eureka!” moments even in science? Can they in principle be explained scientifically?

Since our “sub-conscious” is whirring away without our conscious awareness, it might derive an answer via intuition or via hard slog, and only then do we become suddenly consciously aware. Don’t know if that’s actually what happens, but there must obviously be an explanation (whether or not it is yet known).

 

[Ahimsa]

I’ve not seen any reasons yet. Lots of claims about what you believe, zero reasons. We’re in a philosophy forum, philosophy isn’t about making value claims and hoping everyone will sweetly agree, it’s about reasoning things out, and we can’t reason things out unless you give some reasons. I’m not bothered if you can’t think of any reasons, but unless you give some reasons it wouldn’t be reasonable to carry on now would it. I mean, be reasonable.

You’re being unreasonable.

 

[buffalo]

Lol, this from a guy who believes in fairy-tales like Jonas living inside a giant tuna, Noah’s Ark, dinosaurs and man living together like the Flinstones and other fairy-tales as historical facts

I mean YECs or Intelligent Design disciples.

Yes, I believe that miracles happen and some have been recorded.

I did not read Barney Rubble was dead and come to life after 4 days.

I didn’t believe man and dino’s lived together until soft tissue was found, more than once. So now I have to consider it.

ID would be a subset of Creation.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

You don’t believe the universe is designed by an intelligent being?

Touché!

But I get it; you refer to the “scientific” theory called Intelligent Design, not the general concept. But neither fits the bill, IMHO.

I’m not a supporter of ID and I’m not sure why you think I am. I merely reject the position a theory is intrisically a fact in of itself, althought it may be very well supported by factual observations.

 

[StAnastasia]

In other words, Adam and Eve are the real sole founders of the human species because they are **behaviorally **the same as you and I. Therefore, the Catholic Church is correct when it teaches that all humans descended directly from two real people.

Ah, again with your theory of monogenism, for which you have zero evidence. This is going to be a tough sell outside of Catholic Answers and other Young Earth Creationist circles, Granny,

The only solution I see is for you to argue that God faked the human genome to appear as though “Adam and Eve” had had thousands of generations of ancestors, while in actual fact they were magically poofed into existence in a magical garden that no longer exists because it was wiped out by a magical global flood 5,000 years ago!

That way, you could eat your cake and have it too: you could preserve the magical qualities of the “Adam and Eve” story, while still permitting Catholic, Protestant, and atheist evolutionists quietly to go about their work further consolidating the cogency of the evolutionary explanation.

StAnastasia