F
Fran65
Guest
I would like to than CatsAndDogs for his/her responses. You did a much better job than I would have done and clearly have far more patience than me!
God Bless
God Bless
- Status
F
Fran65
Guest
May I refer you to CatsAndDogs responses for that answer and dialogue.
There are competing theories in many areas of science. For example, there are several theories of the origin and purpose of dark matter. There are several theories for the purpose and function of sleep. There are several theories for the cause and treatment of depression. There are several theories for the cause and management of global warming. Each theory has evidence. Scientists and others ‘choose’ which theory they believe in (have faith in) based on personal preference for the evidence and the explanation; and, of course, whether they produced the evidence or not
Many non scientists are naive and do not fully understand the way in which science works in practice. For example, there are many, many thousands of studies that are not published because they did not support the hypothesis, or because they are not ‘interesting’ enough or because they conflict with the aims of the funding body (think bigpharma).
A lot. But that’s a personal opinion and I do not mean to be patronising when I say it.
Its clear to me that you also think that I am ‘missing’ something.
N
Nullasalus
Guest
I think Catsanddogs is providing some good replies here. But there’s one small thing I want to take issue with.
Science is, while fantastic in many respects, still fraught with limits. Fran65 gives further good summary of this, but believe it or not, there really are limits to science. Important ones to realize.
As Catsanddogs said, no. Seeing something, even something amazing, even something that everyone else sees, is not itself ‘science’. Seeing a magician do a trick is not ‘science’, nor does performing a trick that no one can figure out amount to a scientific demonstration of magic. And if science attempts to investigate but cannot explain something, this does not become a revelation of science.
Science is, while fantastic in many respects, still fraught with limits. Fran65 gives further good summary of this, but believe it or not, there really are limits to science. Important ones to realize.
L
Leela
Guest
Hi CatsAndDogs,
Can I call you Cats for short?
If all you meant by God was “existence” then we would have no disagreement. I suspect that you mean something more than that?
Best,
Leela
Can I call you Cats for short?
So the only evidence that could possibly contradict the existence of God is if everything ceased to exist? This sounds to me like a way of saying that your belief in God is not based on evidence.
If all you meant by God was “existence” then we would have no disagreement. I suspect that you mean something more than that?
I think this is a poor analogy. If your dog were 100% dog and also 100% cat it would be more to the point. Also, when you say that Jesus is the Son of God, do you mean “son” in the same way as “mother” in “the mother of all cuteness”? I doubt it.Is that a question, or a statement?
My dog is 100% dog.
My dog is 100% cute.
My dog is the mother of all cuteness!
How is the Holy Trinity, or my dog, contradictory?
Best,
Leela
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Tellme,
As far as I know, Einstein did not believe in a personal God. Can you point me to info on his research and conclusions about God?
Best,
Leela
L
Leela
Guest
Hi CatsAndDogs,
Either these things are true or they are not. Either we have convincing evidence for these claims, or we don’t.
Christians are making claims about history that no historian could make, about cosmology that no cosmologist could make, about physics that no physicist could make, about biology that no biologist could make. If any of these people tried to make such claims within their respective fields of study, their colleagues would say, where is your evidence?
Best,
Leela
If there is no evidence for God, then God is irrelevent at best. Maybe you could tell science what to look for?
People claim all the time that they got what they wanted because their prayers were answered. Christians believe in praying for the sick to be healed. Does it work? There must be some way of knowing depending on what it is supposed to do.
Saying that Jesus rose from the dead is a scientific claim. Saying that Mary ascended bodily into heaven is a scientific claim. Saying that God created the universe is a scientific claim. Saying that various miracles actually occurred and continue to occur is a scientific claim. Saying that Jesus had no earthly father is a scientific claim.
Either these things are true or they are not. Either we have convincing evidence for these claims, or we don’t.
Christians are making claims about history that no historian could make, about cosmology that no cosmologist could make, about physics that no physicist could make, about biology that no biologist could make. If any of these people tried to make such claims within their respective fields of study, their colleagues would say, where is your evidence?
You seem to be saying that the existence or nonexistence of God makes no pragmatic difference. If the world would be the same with or without God, then God would be irrelevent.
Christians believe that God intervenes in the natural world. If so, there will be evidence.
Best,
Leela
B
buffalo
Guest
I would refine that to empirical proof.But God does leave proof of Himself, although that proof is not scientific.
:shamrock2:
B
buffalo
Guest
Here is how the Catechism states it:
II. WAYS OF COMING TO KNOW GOD
**31 ** Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.
**32 ** The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.
As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.7 And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: “See, we are beautiful.” Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?8
**33 ** The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God’s existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the “seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material”,9 can have its origin only in God.
**34 ** The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10
**35 ** Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
But of course!
I don’t even like typing out my whole ID!Is it REALLY a surprise that God is simply an axiomatic belief considering what “God” means?
Only, and I can’t emphasize the importance of the words “only” in this sentence enough, ONLY if one does not understand what “God” means can one POSSIBLY say that God “might not” exist as God qua God.
Yes, that is tautological, but it’s also TRUE! And even though it is a tautology it DOES have meaning other than simply as only a statement of identity (as “a=a”).
God has given me, personally, evidence of God. That evidence is not “transferable” to anyone else. It means NOTHING to anyone else, other than as a possible pointer toward what I think would be a good thing for them to experience.
I assure you, if God hadn’t proved His existence after I’d done what needed doing to get His “proof” I wouldn’t believe in His Church which verifies that I’m “not alone” in what God says He is, though I would continue to believe in Him (in a severely more simplistic way, being most likely in the “deistic” way) simply because God qua God (God as God) is a necessary component of reality to me, and always has been.
God is more than just the “ordering principle”. He is more than the deistic “disinterested watchmaker”.
Existence is what God “does”, not what He is.
God is where existence is from, God is not (created) from our perception of existence.
God does not need to be proved existent. God proves that existence is needed.
(( Now that I’ve had my “word game” fun for the morning, I’ll try to work on my alliteration and rhyming skills. Perhaps see what kind of iambic-pentameter I can whip up!
)):shamrock2:
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Why do you think that “human-ness” and “God-ness” would be mutually exclusive within a single person?
Dog-ness and cat-ness are mutually exclusive because they are both instances of a single characteristic (physical machinery [species]). Human-ness and God-ness are not instances of a single characteristic. Those two “-nesses” can coexist in a single person.
The real (interesting!) question is: Why is it that you think that those two “-nesses” are mutually exclusive? On what do you base that conclusion?
Yeah, that was a bit hyperbolic! <chuckle, chuckle, chuckle!>But, the “Mother of all cuteness” is an expression of superlative attribute (cuteness of dog) and not a biological relationship, just as the expression “Son of God” is an expression of superlative attribute (begotten-ness of God) which is also not a biological relationship, so they are actually more similar than even I thought they were when I was formulating that “quasi- attempt-at-humor”.
:shamrock2:
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
God IS irrelevant to “science” (scientific reasoning), but not to persons DOING “science”, aka “scientists”.
Don’t confuse the tool with the craftsman, or vice versa!
Science qua science (science as the tool and receptacle of physical knowledge suitable for engineering) shouldn’t (MUSTN’T!) be interested in God, because God can usurp any of His rules by which the machinery of the universe (all the non-person parts) works, and is therefore not of use in any way regarding making the machinery of the universe do what we humans want to do physically.
The great and consistent machinery of the universe is for us to use in ways that are good.
But how do we know what is good? That comes only from seeing TRUTH, and specifically does NOT come from seeing how things WORK!
Science is used to make engineering possible by seeing how things work. But there is no way for science to find what is good, because science does not deal with “goods and bads” but only with “works and doesn’t work”.
Now, when something is seen to work in such a way that the product of that working is seen as good (assuming it actually IS good as checked against public revelation) then we have a case where the “scientists” involved have used their religious reasoning to check the moral value of their scientific finding.
Scientists mustn’t ONLY do science, but rather they must do PERSONHOOD, which means that they must use scientific reasoning when it is called for (discovering how things work) and religious reasoning when it is called for (discovering whether what works is good).
How is it not “evil” for a person to become unbalanced and seek only that which works without seeking whether that which works is good or not?
:shamrock2:
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Does prayer work? Yes.
Why does it work? Because what was “answered” was the wisest occurrence that could possibly happen which furthers our good as persons and as mankind.
What prayer does is to align those praying with God’s will. Does it “change” God’s will? No. God will always do what is best for us. But what are the effects of prayer, and what are the effects of not praying?
Praying helps us align ourselves with God’s (inevitable) will. That is, whatever happens is seen as what is best to happen, and we participate in hope that the (probably small) chance of what we want to happen could actually happen.
Not praying gives us no participation in God’s will (the inevitable happening) because we choose to see the inevitable as a hopeless inevitability which probably won’t happen as we wish and therefore will NOT be “for our best”.
Praying reconciles us with what happens in seeing that it is for the best. (…assuming either positive or negative outcome)
Not praying annoys us with what happens as being NOT for our best (as it didn’t satisy our “need”). (…assuming a negative outcome)
(( The non-pray-er, who gets a positive outcome to a “wished for” happening, is SURPRISED by it and attributes it to “luck”, or other superstitious cause, and has the view reinforced that the world is “ruled” by randomness and/or “the fates”, and by “the fates” is meant “the inscrutable mechanism of the world which is deterministic but SO freakin’ complicated that there’s no accounting for things happening on a human level that it’s just silly to be anything but mildly bemused by whatever happens”. ))
Now, praying is not an excluding substitution for action to bring about a good that is best handled by physical action!
We are to pray WHILE we work, and make our work prayer.
Thank you, St. Francis, etc.!
(…and St. Escrivá!):shamrock2:
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
They can be interpreted as “scientific claims”, I suppose, but they were offered by those making those claims not as “scientific” but as “actual witness (primary or secondary)”.
Since God can override His rules as to how the mechanical universe works, and since there were no “materialistic scientists” (per se) around during those “claims”, there is no way to “do science” with those claims, and even if there were, they’d have found nothing “scientific” because they would not have been allowed to find any “scientific evidence” regarding those “occurrences”.
In fact, the reason that those things happened when they did was for precisely that reason. It eliminates a lot of unnecessary “speculation” so that we can concentrate on the important parts of what happened.
They are true. Why? Because God has said so. How can a “scientistic materialist” be assured that they are true? They can’t. For whom is that a problem? Not me!
Christians make only one claim! That God can override His rules as to how the universe works at any time.
Those scientists claim that the rules as to how the universe works are never overridden.
Who’s right? The Christian is not interested in disproving the claim of the scientists, as it’s vastly more true than not-true. If the scientist is interested in disproving that the Christian claims are true then they can try to do so.
Go for it!
But they (the scientists) wouldn’t, and the Church would say MUSTN’T, make claims that their discipline’s forbid them to make! Just as Christians are not to use theology as a base for scientific knowledge, scientists are not to use scientific theory as a base for religious knowledge.
Don’t violate your discipline!
Why would it be a good thing to violate your own principles of conduct?
Remember, the ONLY (singular) evidence that God gives us (regarding “God-stuff”) is what GOD gives us Himself to each person who asks for it and does what is necessary to get it.
We, as individuals, can’t SHOW anyone else what WE have been given. Each must get his own evidence. Those who refuse to do what needs doing to get it simply will not receive said evidence!
Is it sensible to demand from others what they can’t possibly give you?
:shamrock2:
C
crowonsnow
Guest
Prayer is a form of meditation. As such it can definitely have positive effects on people. As we all know, just the sound of another voice, even sometimes our own, can soothe. Prayer works this way.
Prayer also lets another person know that someone cares about them. This can also have very positive effects. And if the prayee is convinced that praying has some mystical healing quality, this is even better.
There have been studies conducted in which prayers were done on behalf of persons who did not know they were being prayed for. These were the typical double blind experiments. In these cases prayer was found to have no effect, which is to be expected. If it had had some effect, further experiments could have been performed.
Praying is simply how some people relax and cope.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
I’m merely saying that reality is reality. The world is as it is. There is no “world with God in it which looks like this” as opposed to a “world without God in it which looks like that”. There is one world. It is as it is.
To the scientistic materialist God IS perfectly irrelevant, and no evidence will be found for Him, because He supplies none that will satisfy said person.
But the effect of disregarding God, by not doing what needs doing to GET appropriate (non-scientific) evidence of Him, is to act more immorally (evil-ly) than by not disregarding God.
The (we) so-called “religious folks” choose to act less immorally than so-called “non-religious folks” allow themselves to act.
It’s really that simple.
:shamrock2:
L
Leela
Guest
I’m not getting any indication of what sort of evidence you are talking about. I don’t deny that people have mystical experiences if that is what you mean. Consider this excerpt from an essay:
"I recently spent an afternoon on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee, atop the mount where Jesus is believed to have preached his most famous sermon. It was an infernally hot day, and the sanctuary was crowded with Christian pilgrims from many continents. Some gathered silently in the shade, while others staggered in the noonday sun, taking photographs.
As I sat and gazed upon the surrounding hills gently sloping to an inland sea, a feeling of peace came over me. It soon grew to a blissful stillness that silenced my thoughts. In an instant, the sense of being a separate self—an “I” or a “me”—vanished. Everything was as it had been—the cloudless sky, the pilgrims clutching their bottles of water—but I no longer felt like I was separate from the scene, peering out at the world from behind my eyes. Only the world remained.
The experience lasted just a few moments, but returned many times as I gazed out over the land where Jesus is believed to have walked, gathered his apostles, and worked many of his miracles…"
Is this the sort of experience or evidence you are talking about?
Sam Harris continues:
"If I were a Christian, I would undoubtedly interpret this experience in Christian terms. I might believe that I had glimpsed the oneness of God, or felt the descent of the Holy Spirit.But I am not a Christian.
If I were a Hindu, I might talk about “Brahman,” the eternal Self, of which all individual minds are thought to be a mere modification. But I am not a Hindu. If I were a Buddhist, I might talk about the “dharmakaya of emptiness” in which all apparent things manifest. But I am not a Buddhist.
As someone who is simply making his best effort to be a rational human being, I am very slow to draw metaphysical conclusions from experiences of this sort. The truth is, I experience what I would call the “selflessness of consciousness” rather often, wherever I happen to meditate—be it in a Buddhist monastery, a Hindu temple, or while having my teeth cleaned. Consequently, the fact that I also had this experience at a Christian holy site does not lend an ounce of credibility to the doctrine of Christianity.
There is no question that people have “spiritual” experiences … Every culture has produced people who have gone off into caves for months or years and discovered that certain deliberate uses of attention—introspection, meditation, prayer—can radically transform a person’s moment to moment perception of the world."
I don’t doubt such experiences. What I doubt is that they constitute evidence that any particular religion is true.
Best,
Leela
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
But God IS of the natural world. He is that part of the natural world which contains what YOU (being too narrow in your classification of things) claim is that REAL natural world, which is merely a sub-set of the actual natural world.
Have you ever wondered why Our Virgin Mother not having birth pains when birthing Jesus is so important?
God “comes into the world” without leaving any evidence (other than evidence He wants to leave, which IS His option, obviously) that a scientistic materialist could use to definitively cause faith to be unnecessary.
The scientistic materialist is only interested in “working answers” which alleviate the need to make moral decisions, which means eliminating the need for faith, as what “good” means is perfectly settled fact (“working answers which get me what I want”) , which is not to be contested (as it is settled fact!).
The world is to be “made into heaven” by the imposition of this “materialist good”, to the scientistic materialist.
The world is to be our classroom, in which to learn the consequences of sin, and how (and why) to choose good instead of evil, to the Christian.
Both of us want heaven. Hopefully the scientistic materialist will notice that all the physical evidence of science points toward the fact that this world is a classroom, and that good is best defined as “that which makes the machinery and persons of the universe work best and tends toward the limit described by the Church.”
:shamrock2:
B
buffalo
Guest
Ok - so how does one go about searching for the “truest” religion?
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Well, since there is only one human religion, of which the Catholic Church is the most representative, it’s not surprising that you’d see the “unity” of “human religion”, being the obviously intelligent person that you are, and due to your “enculturation” you’d have a problem with any sub-culture claiming to be “most representative” of that “human religion”.
But, as Lewis suggested, it’s better to “pick one of the rooms” of the mansion of “human religion” than to linger too long in the hallway.
To choose the negative (sub)religion of scientistic materialism (atheism), which is merely Christianity without the “moral guidance” function installed properly, is to choose the worst non-satanic one available.
Though, any (sub)religion can certainly be steered by satan once revelation is deprecated, which unfortunately is an actual tenet of scientistic materialism. One must be VERY careful to guide one’s morals by some extra-(your)-religious authority (which can be tricky!) if one chooses that particular religion.
Here’s hoping you’ve got one of those!
:shamrock2:
H
Harri_Laaksonen
Guest
Interesting thread. I figured I would stir up the pot just a bit with my few cents worth, in Euros.
As a person with 3 master’s degrees, geology, divinity and business admin., I get this question just about daily.
The question is not conflict but perspective. This has been pointed out by several posts on this forum. The scientist asks “How?”. They are looking for methods and processes. The theologian asks “Who and Why?”
Science operates with a reasoning based on How questions and can not answer the Why or who. The theologian with the revealed truth of faith and Scripture and Tradition deals with the moral issues of Why and the personal issues of Who and is ill equipped to deal with the How.
Yet both are concerned with the “What?” and look at reality and attempt to come to terms with it. The When and Where questions are tied with the What and our preferred perspectives can change the value we put on those questions.
God gave us a wonderful universe to explore and the intellectual gifts with which to explore it. Let’s enjoy life and its gifts.
In Christ,
Harri
As a person with 3 master’s degrees, geology, divinity and business admin., I get this question just about daily.
The question is not conflict but perspective. This has been pointed out by several posts on this forum. The scientist asks “How?”. They are looking for methods and processes. The theologian asks “Who and Why?”
Science operates with a reasoning based on How questions and can not answer the Why or who. The theologian with the revealed truth of faith and Scripture and Tradition deals with the moral issues of Why and the personal issues of Who and is ill equipped to deal with the How.
Yet both are concerned with the “What?” and look at reality and attempt to come to terms with it. The When and Where questions are tied with the What and our preferred perspectives can change the value we put on those questions.
God gave us a wonderful universe to explore and the intellectual gifts with which to explore it. Let’s enjoy life and its gifts.
In Christ,
Harri
- Status