Science, Spirituality, and Religion

[reggieM]

What if God doesn’t even care about abortion and it is only mention in the Bible because the men who wrote it had a problem with abortion?

How would you know if that is true or false?

 

[lemondiesel]

How would you know if that is true or false?

I don’t but how would you know if its true or false?

If society were to come to an end, and I wrote down “Abortion is bad” and put it in a time capsule, and it was found 2000 years later, would they believe Abortion is bad? It would be in a foreign language, which would take interpreting, which is subject to false interpretation. If I wrote the Theory of the Spaghetti monster and they found it, would that become their evidence of a Spaghetti God?

My point being, how do any of us know we are actually interpreting our findings right?

 

[reggieM]

I don’t but how would you know if its true or false?

I know because God has revealed it. But more importantly, the fact you don’t know undermines your claim that everyone should “behave and live morally”. Since, in your worldview one can either oppose abortion or defend it, the notion of “lving morally” is meaningless.

My point being, how do any of us know we are actually interpreting our findings right?

We know by using reason and comparing and contrasting our findings with other truths. It’s on this basis that we reject some interpretations and accept others. In the end we know that we’re right because of the weight of evidence.

But even if there is a question of faith and not absolute proof, we should base our interpretations on some foundation. In the case of the Christian revelation through the Catholic Church, there is quite a lot of consistent logic and support for the claims that the Catholic teachings are revealed by God.

 

[lemondiesel]

Since, in your worldview one can either oppose abortion or defend it, the notion of “lving morally” is meaningless.

Which is why I believe in a Kingdom of heaven on Earth. We alone have the choice to make it heaven or hell.

In the case of the Christian revelation through the Catholic Church, there is quite a lot of consistent logic and support for the claims that the Catholic teachings are revealed by God.

Such as?

 

[reggieM]

I stated: “Since, in your worldview one can either oppose abortion or defend it, the notion of “living morally” is meaningless.”

You replied:

Which is why I believe in a Kingdom of heaven on Earth.

Ok, you believe in an earthly paradise because the notion of living morally is meaningless.

We alone have the choice to make it heaven or hell.

How well are you doing so far?

Such as?

What is your background in religious education? That is, how much and what kind have you had?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Most importantly this pseudo-religion of scientism supplants all religions. Its primary article of belief is that there is no supernatural cause for anything, not even the creation of the universe or the seeding of life into the universe. Therefore scientism is not really a religion, it is a kind of anti-religion. In a way it is a kind of Naturism which worships the natural things of the world as being the originators of themselves. Which is of course absurdly illogical.

I don’t think you’ll find many scientists who would subscribe to the idea that natural things are the originators of themselves. That is absurd. I really don’t understand where you get the idea from. I’ve never heard anyone in any contemporary academic field talk of anything being the originator of itself.

I did look up scientism on the web, and unsurprisingly found that scientists tend not to associate themselves in any way with it. It tends to be more the provenance of those cranks out on the far flung fringes of philosophy who think that going back to the dark ages might prevent another holocaust.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I know because God has revealed it. But more importantly, the fact you don’t know undermines your claim that everyone should “behave and live morally”. Since, in your worldview one can either oppose abortion or defend it, the notion of “lving morally” is meaningless.

Yes. Living morally is meaningless, that is to say that it’s relative to cultural norms, changes in circumstances and personal prejudices and opinions. Only right wing thugs deal in moral absolutes.

As you’re probably aware, far from having an abortion, the biblical view is that a rape victim should be forced to marry her attacker. What do you think is the lesser evil in this case, an abortion that terminates a blastocyst or a lifetime of physical and psychological abuse at the hands of your torturer?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

 

[Moonstruck888]

What if God doesn’t even care about abortion and it is only mention in the Bible because the men who wrote it had a problem with abortion?

Given that there is in fact no mention of abortion in the Bible, this is a very good question.

 

[excubitor]

I don’t think you’ll find many scientists who would subscribe to the idea that natural things are the originators of themselves. That is absurd. I really don’t understand where you get the idea from. I’ve never heard anyone in any contemporary academic field talk of anything being the originator of itself.

Only because they avoid the subject. However all modern science denies anything metaphysical exists at all. Therefore clearly by logic they must assume that natural physical energy or matter must have originated the universe and all that is in it.

I did look up scientism on the web, and unsurprisingly found that scientists tend not to associate themselves in any way with it. It tends to be more the provenance of those cranks out on the far flung fringes of philosophy who think that going back to the dark ages might prevent another holocaust.

Of course scientists deny that they are dabbling in philosophy, therefore no scientist would claim that they were any followers of scientism. Scientism is a word I use and others like me to describe scientists and those who regard science as the source of all truth, and that no truth can exist outside what can be measured, seen or touched or observed. When I use the word scientism I also like to point out that it is a faith based system. The scientists have no proof that what they say is true, but they have faith that one day somebody will provide proof as the advancement of knowledge increases.

I also use it to describe the conventional science myths that explain things like the origin of energy and matter (big bang), the nature of the universe (cosmology) evolution, the extinction of the dinosaurs, geological formations, like rock stratas and fossils, coal and fossil fuel amongst other things. This conventional pattern of beliefs taught in high schools the world over forms a system of belief which I like to wrap up in a word Scientism is as good a word as any.

Its an anti religion in that religions seek to learn about the nature of God or gods and how they created the universe and the world. Scientism opposes the notion of God and seeks to explain the universe and the world in a way that does not admit or even speak of a God.

How can a Catholic have anything to do with a system that denies God is utterly beyond me. Why do you think they all have kittens when anyone says Intelligent Design?

 

[Moonstruck888]

When I use the word scientism I also like to point out that it is a faith based system. The scientists have no proof that what they say is true, but they have faith that one day somebody will provide proof as the advancement of knowledge increases.

That is certainly not what is occurring in science. A scientist will suspend judgement until the evidence becomes clear. When a scientist speaks about String Theory for example, he or she will discuss it as a possibility, not as an article of fact.

I really don’t see how you can have skepticism based on faith. That would break the law of non-contradiction, don’t you think?

How can a Catholic have anything to do with a system that denies God is utterly beyond me. Why do you think they all have kittens when anyone says Intelligent Design?

I wasn’t aware that any Catholic was having anything to do with a system that denies God.

I can’t help but feel your whole post has the ring of a conspiracy theory about it…

 

[excubitor]

That is certainly not what is occurring in science. A scientist will suspend judgement until the evidence becomes clear. When a scientist speaks about String Theory for example, he or she will discuss it as a possibility, not as an article of fact.

They may suspend judgement but not to the extent that they avoid deliberately and resolutely arguing that there is no God as an article of fact. They are also happy to base further scientific research and theory upon the possibilities of their first theory being correct. As a result we have a sand castle of scientific theories all built on possibilities.
Sorry that’s not good enough.

The Christian religion is built upon a foundation of unshakeable truth that does not change for thousands of years. There is none of this ifs and maybes, suspending judgement on possibilities. Yet science has the audacity to pit its vague possibilities against the absolute unchanging truths of the Christian faith. And people fall for it, and believe the possibilities of Scientists. Why?

I can’t help but feel your whole post has the ring of a conspiracy theory about it…

There is no conspiracy. Science is resolutely opposed to the notion of any metaphysical property and therefore it is resolutely opposed to any notion of God as creator. That is openly stated by all virtually all scientists.

As far as I am concerned any scientist or educator who teaches this way is an infidel and should be ignored by any Catholic. We should only listen to scientists who believe in God and in the scriptures whose words therefore are trustworthy. Scientists who deny God have a false agenda to obscure evidence of him which is plainly seen by simpler folk.

Statistics show that 9 out of 10 Americans believe in God, but this website shows that in 1998 less than 1 in 10 scientists believe in God.
stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Why then are we as Americans listening to these individuals who are clearly biased against our values and opposed to our beliefs? As far as I am concerned they are charlatans. They lie and manipulate their data. They create endless theories to explain away why their previous theories did not work out.

We see this nowhere more clearly than in the Great Global Warming farce where scientists have been tampering with the climate data so that they can continue feathering their nests as they go on endless international global warming junkets.

We see it with scientists building the 10 billion dollar Great Hadron collider to try and find dark matter that DOES NOT EXIST except in the dreams and mythology of disbelieving god hating scientists. Why don’t we just run them out of town instead of feeding them with endless government grants and distinguished positions in the schools which educate our children.

I’ve had enough.

 

[reggieM]

Only right wing thugs deal in moral absolutes.

Stated as an absolute. We’ve seen enough left-wing atheistic thugs who imposed their moral values as if they were absolutes to know that there is a contradiction here.

As you’re probably aware, far from having an abortion, the biblical view is that a rape victim should be forced to marry her attacker.

As you’re probably aware, the biblical view is that the Catholic Faith is the true religion as established by Christ, the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity. Agreed?

What do you think is the lesser evil in this case, an abortion that terminates a blastocyst or a lifetime of physical and psychological abuse at the hands of your torturer?

I think the atheism that sustains that there is no ultimate meaning or purpose is the greatest evil here.

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Please help me with the Catholic references that explain this passage – since, of course, the Bible is correctly and officially interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church.

Or perhaps you take a (heretical) Sola Scriptura view?

It would help to know where you receieved your religious eduction. That way I can deal with whatever mistaken theology you’re working from and help you through it to gain a true understanding of Catholic thought. Ok?

If you would prefer me to adopt an atheistic vantage point from which to interpret the Bible, I can do that also, but as you’ve already agreed – in atheism, “living morally is meaningless” and thus moral condemnations are self-contradictory.

 

[Moonstruck888]

They may suspend judgement but not to the extent that they avoid deliberately and resolutely arguing that there is no God as an article of fact. They are also happy to base further scientific research and theory upon the possibilities of their first theory being correct. As a result we have a sand castle of scientific theories all built on possibilities.
Sorry that’s not good enough.

Some scientists like Dawkins may do that. The vast majority quietly get on with their work. You may have noticed that many of the prominent anti-theists like Chris Hitchens and Bill Maher and George Carlin are actually not scientists at all but are in fact media celebrities.

The Christian religion is built upon a foundation of unshakeable truth that does not change for thousands of years. There is none of this ifs and maybes, suspending judgement on possibilities. Yet science has the audacity to pit its vague possibilities against the absolute unchanging truths of the Christian faith. And people fall for it, and believe the possibilities of Scientists. Why?

The Christian religion is built on a botch between Judaism and various paganistic religions that was agreed upon by a split decision vote at the council of Nicea in 325a.d.

There is no conspiracy. Science is resolutely opposed to the notion of any metaphysical property and therefore it is resolutely opposed to any notion of God as creator. That is openly stated by all virtually all scientists.

That’s a very simplistic way of looking at it.

As far as I am concerned any scientist or educator who teaches this way is an infidel and should be ignored by any Catholic. We should only listen to scientists who believe in God and in the scriptures whose words therefore are trustworthy. Scientists who deny God have a false agenda to obscure evidence of him which is plainly seen by simpler folk.

That would mean a return to the dark ages. The very computer you are typing on now is the creation of science.

Statistics show that 9 out of 10 Americans believe in God, but this website shows that in 1998 less than 1 in 10 scientists believe in God.
stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Why then are we as Americans listening to these individuals who are clearly biased against our values and opposed to our beliefs? As far as I am concerned they are charlatans. They lie and manipulate their data. They create endless theories to explain away why their previous theories did not work out.

Because if you don’t listen to them, if you let all the scientists and engineers who shape the world be bullied and coerced into abandoning their professions, the Chinese and Russians will overtake and completely dominate the USA within a generation.

Where do you think the military hardware that keeps the USA in the precarious position of world superpower comes from?

That’s right… Science.

We see this nowhere more clearly than in the Great Global Warming farce where scientists have been tampering with the climate data so that they can continue feathering their nests as they go on endless international global warming junkets.

Let’s not forget about the aliens being kept in cages in the Nevada desert and the Apollo landings that were filmed in a Hollywood studio…

We see it with scientists building the 10 billion dollar Great Hadron collider to try and find dark matter that DOES NOT EXIST except in the dreams and mythology of disbelieving god hating scientists. Why don’t we just run them out of town instead of feeding them with endless government grants and distinguished positions in the schools which educate our children.

That is scientists doing exactly what they are supposed to do, building experiments to see if the theoretical predictions that have been made are verified or falsified. Even if dark matter or the Higgs Field are proven not to exist, that’s good. One avenue of investigation is closed and others can open.

 

[Moonstruck888]

As you’re probably aware, the biblical view is that the Catholic Faith is the true religion as established by Christ, the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity. Agreed?

I think that would be an equanimical question. I think you’d have a hard job finding a Jew or a Muslim who’d agree with you there.

I think the atheism that sustains that there is no ultimate meaning or purpose is the greatest evil here.

Why?

Please help me with the Catholic references that explain this passage – since, of course, the Bible is correctly and officially interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church.

I already posted the passage. It’s Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

It would help to know where you receieved your religious eduction. That way I can deal with whatever mistaken theology you’re working from and help you through it to gain a true understanding of Catholic thought. Ok?

I don’t really think that’s something I wish to discuss with a complete stranger.

If you would prefer me to adopt an atheistic vantage point from which to interpret the Bible, I can do that also, but as you’ve already agreed – in atheism, “living morally is meaningless” and thus moral condemnations are self-contradictory.

Not if one arrives at a set of values himself or herself instead of taking someone elses at second hand.

 

[edwest2]

Some scientists like Dawkins may do that. The vast majority quietly get on with their work. You may have noticed that many of the prominent anti-theists like Chris Hitchens and Bill Maher and George Carlin are actually not scientists at all but are in fact media celebrities.

The Christian religion is built on a botch between Judaism and various paganistic religions that was agreed upon by a split decision vote at the council of Nicea in 325a.d.

That’s a very simplistic way of looking at it.

That would mean a return to the dark ages. The very computer you are typing on now is the creation of science.

Because if you don’t listen to them, if you let all the scientists and engineers who shape the world be bullied and coerced into abandoning their professions, the Chinese and Russians will overtake and completely dominate the USA within a generation.

Where do you think the military hardware that keeps the USA in the precarious position of world superpower comes from?

That’s right… Science.

Let’s not forget about the aliens being kept in cages in the Nevada desert and the Apollo landings that were filmed in a Hollywood studio…

That is scientists doing exactly what they are supposed to do, building experiments to see if the theoretical predictions that have been made are verified or falsified. Even if dark matter or the Higgs Field are proven not to exist, that’s good. One avenue of investigation is closed and others can open.

I am tired of hearing about the church of science. I am also tired of hearing about how much we need science to keep the Russians or Chinese away from grabbing our country. Science will heal, science will guide. It might even invent new snack foods.

This recasting of science as the great savior ignores recent history. In the 1960s I heard America’s Federal government talk with appreciation about our Judeo-Christian Heritage and about the threat from Godless Communism.

Today, belief in God is standing in the way of science, or so we’re told. I am tired of the new wave of anti-theist science. Here are a few words from Sam Harris:

secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=harris_27_2

I understand why the anti-theist propaganda machine is being cranked up to full volume today. The Technocracy must take over. I will vote against it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Moonstruck888]

I am tired of hearing about the church of science. I am also tired of hearing about how much we need science to keep the Russians or Chinese away from grabbing our country. Science will heal, science will guide. It might even invent new snack foods.

This recasting of science as the great savior ignores recent history. In the 1960s I heard America’s Federal government talk with appreciation about our Judeo-Christian Heritage and about the threat from Godless Communism.

Today, belief in God is standing in the way of science. I am tired of the new wave of anti-theist science. Here are a few words from Sam Harris:

secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=harris_27_2

I understand why the anti-theist propaganda machine is being cranked up to full volume today. The Technocracy must take over. I will vote against it.

God bless,
Ed

What do you think will happen if China keeps developing military hardware and the USA let’s her military hardware fall apart because there are no longer any scientists and engineers to maintain it?

Why do you think the USA was nothing before 1939 and the world superpower by 1945? What do you think changed?

 

[reggieM]

Why?

Again, how much do you know about the Catholic religion? I could start teaching you the basics, but that will take a considerable amount of my time.

I already posted the passage. It’s Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

I asked you a direct question about Sola Scriptura. You obviously can’t deal with it.

I don’t really think that’s something I wish to discuss with a complete stranger.

Why not? You’re here promoting atheism on a Catholic site. Why cover up your own religious background?

Not if one arrives at a set of values himself or herself instead of taking someone elses at second hand.

You’re contradicting your previous point. Whatever set of values you “arrive at” have no ultimate purpose or meaning. They are unnecessary and arbitrary in an ultimate sense. This is why you correctly stated that “living morally is meaningless”.

If whatever values you have are given by yourself, then before you gave them you were valueless. You are a being that has no ultimate purpose or value yourself. So, whatever you generated must be valued under that criteria.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Again, how much do you know about the Catholic religion? I could start teaching you the basics, but that will take a considerable amount of my time.

I know plenty about it. You can talk to me on your own terms. If there is anything I don’t recognise, I’ll google it. That is what computers are for.

I asked you a direct question about Sola Scriptura. You obviously can’t deal with it.

I see no relevance and have no interest in discussing Sola Scripture. Although the religion where I live is predominantly Sola Scripture based, I am not part of said religion, nor indeed of any religion, so to call me out on being heretical is ludicrous. Simply a statement of the obvious from a Catholic point of view.

I, of course, reject the charge of heresy on the grounds that I recognise no authority over my opinions.

Why not? You’re here promoting atheism on a Catholic site. Why cover up your own religious background?

Because I want to figure out where you’re going with this prevarication of the most flagrant kind before I tell you anything about me. Why waste a post calling an atheist a heretic? That’s perposterous. That’s like me taking a post to inform you that you’re a Christian.

You’re contradicting your previous point. Whatever set of values you “arrive at” have no ultimate purpose or meaning. They are unnecessary and arbitrary in an ultimate sense. This is why you correctly stated that “living morally is meaningless”.

If whatever values you have are given by yourself, then before you gave them you were valueless. You are a being that has no ultimate purpose or value yourself. So, whatever you generated must be valued under that criteria.

To me, there is no other criteria. All you are doing is following a set of moral standards handed to you by someone else who is fallible as you and I. To me, that kind of behaviour is unacceptable. I decide what standards I live up to. Not you, not Benedict XVI and not the Great Joo Joo up on the hill.

Unless of course, you’re claiming to be a prophet, in which case we can discuss which of us is the heretic here.

 

[reggieM]

I know plenty about it. You can talk to me on your own terms. If there is anything I don’t recognise, I’ll google it. That is what computers are for.

Ok, why do Catholics believe the first commandment is the most important and the foundation for morality?

I see no relevance and have no interest in discussing Sola Scripture on the grounds that for me to take a “heretical view” as you call it, I would need to have some kind of belief in Catholicism in the first place. Since I don’t, heresy is just a rather silly religious buzzword as far as I’m concerned.

You’re using Sola Scriptural to interpret the Bible, so you probably should take a greater interest in it. As I tried to explain before, if you want to attack Catholicism, then you shouldn’t use a point of view that we already know is heretical and laughable at the start. You end up sounding like one of the more ignorant fundamentalists that we find quite easily here on CAF.

Because I want to figure out where you’re going with this prevarication of the most flagrant kind before I tell you anything about me.

I already explained where I’m going. You’re asking questions about God. I need to know how much you have already learned to determine your bias. Thus far, I have to guess you come from a Protestant background and you don’t have any formal education in Catholic theology.

To me, there is no other criteria. All you are doing is following a set of moral standards handed to you by someone else.

You’re putting the focus on my belief, but it’s really yours that was up for question. It doesn’t matter what I believe. You acknowledge that there is no ultimate meaning. We can determine the final value of your claims at the very beginning of the discussion – they equal nothing.

To me, that kind of behaviour is unacceptable.

Again, you’re attacking me now to take the attention off of your own beliefs. Again, a being which is ultimately unnecessary and an accidental product of blind, indifferent, unintelligent natural processes states that something is “unacceptable”. Again, this is a meaningless distinction.

I decide what standards I live up to.

You must create standards knowing that they have no ultimate purpose and there is no ultimate reason for you to create any standards at all. It’s a meaningless exercise in the end.

Not you, not Benedict 16th, not the Great Joo Joo up on the hill.

You’re making attacks on irrelevant entities. It strikes me as an unstable and hyper-defensive position. You create some transient and ultimately meaningless “standards” which cannot be measured or evaluated finally. Your only criteria for success in life is that you achieved the goal of nothingness. Therefore, any standards you create will bring you to that goal – no matter how incoherent, illogical or evil (by Christian standards) they may be.

 

[reggieM]

Unless of course, you’re claiming to be a prophet, in which case we can discuss which of us is the heretic here.

I just caught this later. Could you explain what you mean here?