Scientific Atheism

[tonyrey]

Science is how existence functions, if you’re outside of science, you don’t exist.

Existence? The existence of everything? How do you know that?

You wouldn’t try to prove a case in court by saying “uh…well…have faith?” and that nonsense is nonsense where ever you apply it, and YOU KNOW IT.

Would you stand up in court and say I have** faith** that science can in principle explain everything? That is nonsense and YOU KNOW IT!

 

[Mersenne]

Existence? The existence of everything? How do you know that?

That’s how science is defined. I know that this is confusing, because you are use to how religion works, and you are not familiar with how science differs. You imagine that science is a series of esoteric witchcraft, a random assortment of gizmos and unexplained proclamations from white tower pool gazers. However, though that is how religion works, that is not how science works. Science is simply the explanation of how things function.

Would you stand up in court and say I have** faith** that science can in principle explain everything? That is nonsense and YOU KNOW IT!

Of course that would be nonsense. But again, you are projecting. Never did I say you should believe me because “I have faith.” That is just a delusion that you have constructed.

 

[VociMike]

Nope, there’s tons of evidence. The basic idea of god contradicts all of science.

Nonsense. The basic idea of God is totally divorced from science. Science deals with what is natural, the material world. God is supernatural, immaterial. The two are orthogonal, if you like.

Just start with the inverse squared law and work your way out from there.

No, start with “why is there an inverse squared law?” And then keep working not out, but back. And you will at some point arrive at a dead end, a wall beyond which “it just is”.

I mean, we all understand that Santa Clause can’t be real, he violates how we know the world works. So why then is it acceptable to make even more grandiose claims about an all powerful invisible space dad?

Is there some secret agreement that atheists adhere to that insists they have to be snarky? Can you find no other way to communicate your ideas than with sarcasm and ridicule?

And saying he’s “outside of science” isn’t an argument any more then simply declaring “Santa is magical.” That’s not an argument, that’s an evasion, an evasion that most people learn is nonsense by the time they’re 9. You can’t be “outside of science” Science is how existence functions, if you’re outside of science, you don’t exist. You can’t be “outside the universe” the universe is everything that exists, if you’re outside the universe, you don’t exist.

No, the universe is everything that exists in the natural, material, matter and energy and laws that govern them sense. You may declare (without any evidence) that there is nothing else, but saying it doesn’t make it true.

Nope, there’s tons of evidence, so much evidence you couldn’t even read it all in a lifetime.

So give me the evidence that accounts for the existence of the material world. Give me the natural first cause/explanation/reason/origin. And then the discussion is over and you’ve won. But there is no such evidence, and there cannot be. The first explanation cannot be explained, surely you can grasp that. The natural world cannot explain itself, surely you see the logic in that. There must be something from which the understanding of the natural world flows, and which itself is outside of that understanding. This is basic stuff.

Versus a bunch of fiddling bronze age nobodies who simply declared themselves right, and a few people for some bizarre reason still believe them.

Oh, there’s the must-be-snarky-to-stupid-theists thing again. I bet you convince a lot of people that way, right? I know it makes me more inclined to take your ideas seriously.

 

[Mersenne]

Nonsense. The basic idea of God is totally divorced from science. Science deals with what is natural, the material world. God is supernatural, immaterial. The two are orthogonal, if you like.

You intentionally took what I said out of context. In context your response makes no sense.

No, the universe is everything that exists in the natural, material, matter and energy and laws that govern them sense. You may declare (without any evidence) that there is nothing else, but saying it doesn’t make it true.

No, the universe is defined as everything that exists. If you think there are “material” and “non-material” aspects of the universe, whatever the heck that is even suppose to mean, then you obligated to provide the evidence of such a thing. You cannot assume it from the start.

So give me the evidence that accounts for the existence of the material world.

That’s a loaded question that assumes the existence of a non-material world.

Give me the natural first cause/explanation/reason/origin.

Time, in all practical ways, goes back infinitely.

The first explanation cannot be explained, surely you can grasp that. The natural world cannot explain itself, surely you see the logic in that. There must be something from which the understanding of the natural world flows, and which itself is outside of that understanding. This is basic stuff.

Special Pleading. Basic stuff.

Oh, there’s the must-be-snarky-to-stupid-theists thing again. I bet you convince a lot of people that way, right? I know it makes me more inclined to take your ideas seriously.

Not responding and using “snarkieness” as an excuse is just evasion, you did it twice, because you know you don’t have an answer. And for the record, I have no delusions about changing your mind. I know that you are the type that will never believe anything other then what you now believe, most people like you are even willing to admit as much, you take pride in believing the unbelievable, even, much like the 9/11 terrorists. But for the meantime and for anyone else, I’m going to call a stone a stone and a tree a tree, and I’m going to call your so-called evidence “fiddling bronze age nobodies who simply declared themselves right” because that’s all the evidence you have thus far presented.

 

[VociMike]

You intentionally took what I said out of context. In context your response makes no sense.

Ad hominem. I most certainly did not intentionally do this, and how could you possibly know otherwise?

No, the universe is defined as everything that exists. If you think there are “material” and “non-material” aspects of the universe, whatever the heck that is even suppose to mean, then you obligated to provide the evidence of such a thing. You cannot assume it from the start.

I do not assume it, I point to the evidence (which you of course reject) for it. And to define the universe as including God (assuming he exists) is not useful in any fashion. Science studies the universe, and science is very clear that it has nothing to say about the supernatural, including the non-existence of the supernatural.

Time, in all practical ways, goes back infinitely.

No, time goes back some 14 billion years. Surely that is common knowledge by now.

Special Pleading. Basic stuff.

A very uncommunicative response.

Not responding and using “snarkieness” as an excuse is just evasion, you did it twice, because you know you don’t have an answer.

More ad hominem, assigning to me manipulative actions based on bad motives. And in fact I did respond. That’s what all those words I typed were.

And for the record, I have no delusions about changing your mind. I know that you are the type that will never believe anything other then what you now believe, most people like you are even willing to admit as much, you take pride in believing the unbelievable, even, much like the 9/11 terrorists. But for the meantime and for anyone else, I’m going to call a stone a stone and a tree a tree, and I’m going to call your so-called evidence “fiddling bronze age nobodies who simply declared themselves right” because that’s all the evidence you have thus far presented.

Ah, bringing in the 9/11 terrorists now. Very persuasive. Is that the 21st century addendum to Godwin’s Law?

But please, I am still waiting for you to demonstrate your explanation/cause/reason/origin of the universe. And if you say “it just is” then you are confirming that your position is one based on faith. Which it must be, even if you deny it.

 

[geoformeo]

Nope, there’s tons of evidence. The basic idea of god contradicts all of science.

Really? In what way? Why would the One who made the universe (and thus science) be restricted to being outside the physical universe? Or is it your idea of God that contradicts all of science?

Just start with the inverse squared law and work your way out from there.

I think VociMike answered this one quite well. Your “evasion” to his response shows that you have no valid response. So how did the inverse squared law get there? Or entropy? Or conservation of mass or energy? Please, answer me this one: if the natural laws are all that exist, then what keeps them immutable? What (shall I say Who?) enforces these laws? After all, how can a law enforce itself?

I mean, we all understand that Santa Clause can’t be real, he violates how we know the world works. So why then is it acceptable to make even more grandiose claims about an all powerful invisible space dad?

Always picking on Santa, aren’t you guys! Too bad its a poor analogy. God is not a simple explanation about where presents come from on Christmas morning, He is the reason for and explanation of existence itself. Certainly you are old enough to know “where you came from,” which had a cause. The natural laws could not cause their own existence, unless you are willing to make an assertion that is… “outside of science.” Science does not and can not prove the origin of the natural laws by using the natural laws themselves. That is absurd.

And saying he’s “outside of science” isn’t an argument any more then simply declaring “Santa is magical.” That’s not an argument, that’s an evasion, an evasion that most people learn is nonsense by the time they’re 9. You can’t be “outside of science”

Boy, where to start with this one? Scientific reality is based upon what can be objectively observed and quantified through experimentation, no? A simple question: Does your mind exist? Yes. Yet can you observe or quantify your mind? No (if you beg to differ, do explain your rationale). Therefore, by simple scientific rationalization, your mind doesn’t exist because it is technically “outside of science.”

Science is how existence functions, if you’re outside of science, you don’t exist. You can’t be “outside the universe” the universe is everything that exists, if you’re outside the universe, you don’t exist.

I agree that science is how existence functions, but it has nothing to say about why existence functions or where it came from. Apparently you’ve been outside of science so you can declare with certainty that you don’t exist outside of science. Care to enlighten me on this experience of yours?

Versus a bunch of fiddling bronze age nobodies who simply declared themselves right, and a few people for some bizarre reason still believe them.

Oh the arrogance and ignorance! My friend, do realize that your own existence was contingent on the reproductive success of some of these “fiddling bronze-age nobodies” who had to survive in far worse conditions than you or I could ever dream of. Why are hatred and contempt such core tenets of the First Church of Atheism?

May God bless you on your quest for truth.

 

[Mersenne]

Ad hominem. I most certainly did not intentionally do this, and how could you possibly know otherwise?

You clearly don’t know what an ad hominem is.

I do not assume it, I point to the evidence (which you of course reject) for it.

You have presented no such evidence.

And to define the universe as including God (assuming he exists) is not useful in any fashion. Science studies the universe, and science is very clear that it has nothing to say about the supernatural, including the non-existence of the supernatural.

No, you are misinformed. Logic excludes the possibility of the existence of the supernatural for reasons I already laid out. Reasons you have conveniently ignored by simply saying “you’re snarky” which is an ad hominem. Until you respond without the ad hominems, my points go uncontested.

No, time goes back some 14 billion years. Surely that is common knowledge by now.

In a way, but time slows as you approach the first moment so it, as I said, in all practical sense, goes back infinitely.

A very uncommunicative response.

A short response, but a communicative one none the less. Your response, however, is uncommunicative, another evasion.

More ad hominem, assigning to me manipulative actions based on bad motives. And in fact I did respond. That’s what all those words I typed were.

I consider a response a reasonable content filled typed words, not just non-sense or ad hominems. You really should look up ad hominem. Explaining your fallacies and mocking you is not an ad hominem. What you are doing, using “you’re snarky” as some kind proof that I’m wrong, is a perfect example of ad hominem.

Ah, bringing in the 9/11 terrorists now. Very persuasive. Is that the 21st century addendum to Godwin’s Law?

But please, I am still waiting for you to demonstrate your explanation/cause/reason/origin of the universe. And if you say “it just is” then you are confirming that your position is one based on faith. Which it must be, even if you deny it.

I presented it, you have thus far only evaded my responses.

 

[Mersenne]

Really? In what way? Why would the One who made the universe (and thus science) be restricted to being outside the physical universe? Or is it your idea of God that contradicts all of science?.

I presented an example as to how he contridicts science, but you pulled it out of my quote, and responded to it by itself in a nonsensical manner.

I think VociMike answered this one quite well.

Then you’re not really reading what I’m saying. His response, while a clever zigger, did not really address the point I made, and was thus ignored, as I probably should have done from the moment he began taking my statements out of context.

So how did the inverse squared law get there? Or entropy? Or conservation of mass or energy? Please, answer me this one: if the natural laws are all that exist, then what keeps them immutable? What (shall I say Who?) enforces these laws? After all, how can a law enforce itself?

You are conflating two different meanings of the word law. A natural law is not like a speed limit. The question “who enforces these laws” makes no sense. A law is like a theory. It’s an idea that has predictive and explanatory power. The question “who enforces ‘an idea that has predictive and explanatory power’?” makes no sense.

Always picking on Santa, aren’t you guys! Too bad its a poor analogy. God is not a simple explanation about where presents come from on Christmas morning, He is the reason for and explanation of existence itself.

How does the enormity of what is being explained somehow allow bad reasoning to suddenly be used? If that magical reasoning is bad when trying to explain presents on Christmas Eve, it is even worse when you are trying to explain the presents, the tree, the chimney, the sunrise, the stars, the moon, and everything else. Adding more stuff to explain doesn’t make supernatural explanations any less automatically invalid.

The natural laws could not cause their own existence, unless you are willing to make an assertion that is… “outside of science.” Science does not and can not prove the origin of the natural laws by using the natural laws themselves. That is absurd.

Again, as stated before, given what natural laws are, your statement makes very little sense.

Boy, where to start with this one? Scientific reality is based upon what can be objectively observed and quantified through experimentation, no? A simple question: Does your mind exist? Yes. Yet can you observe or quantify your mind? No (if you beg to differ, do explain your rationale).

There is an entire field of science dedicated to explaining and quantifying the mind. Not only in the sense of psychology, but even in the sense of raw consciousness, there are specialists dedicated to such stuff.

I agree that science is how existence functions, but it has nothing to say about why existence functions or where it came from

The how/why statement is common but wrong. “Why does the sun rise” is a perfectly valid question in science, it explains why just as well as how.

Apparently you’ve been outside of science so you can declare with certainty that you don’t exist outside of science.

When did I claim that I was basing my assertion on personal experience. I presented a logical proof. Point out the flaw in my logic if you can find one, but making out my argument to be something it is clearly not is dishonest.

Oh the arrogance and ignorance! My friend, do realize that your own existence was contingent on the reproductive success of some of these “fiddling bronze-age nobodies” who had to survive in far worse conditions than you or I could ever dream of.

If I ever have to survive in the desert with bronze tools, I will take their opinion on that particular task more seriously. But I’m not going to trust my modern life to the minds of people who were still flabbergasted by the sun.

 

[geoformeo]

I presented an example as to how he contridicts science, but you pulled it out of my quote, and responded to it by itself in a nonsensical manner.

Explain to me where there is an example of God contradicting science in your statement: “The basic idea of god contradicts all of science. Just start with the inverse squared law and work your way out from there. I mean, we all understand that Santa Clause can’t be real, he violates how we know the world works. So why then is it acceptable to make even more grandiose claims about an all powerful invisible space dad?” Again, what “god” are you attacking? My God is omnipotent and created the universe and all science. Therefore, there can be nothing within science that contradicts Him. So again, I ask you, where is the apparent contradiction? Or are you just simply arguing by personal incredulity?

You are conflating two different meanings of the word law. A natural law is not like a speed limit. The question “who enforces these laws” makes no sense. A law is like a theory. It’s an idea that has predictive and explanatory power. The question “who enforces ‘an idea that has predictive and explanatory power’?” makes no sense.

Really. Funny how I was taught that scientific laws are substantially different from scientific theories. Your definition of “an idea that has predictive and explanatory power” is the definition of a theory, in science. A scientific law is a statement about the physical world which has been proven by observation and experimentation time and again to be definitively true, and by definition cannot be falsified. Scientific laws are natural truths. Truth cannot contradict truth. But this begs the question: “Why are the natural laws immutable?” which science cannot address. If you’re arguing for atheism using science, you’d better get your science right.

How does the enormity of what is being explained somehow allow bad reasoning to suddenly be used? If that magical reasoning is bad when trying to explain presents on Christmas Eve, it is even worse when you are trying to explain the presents, the tree, the chimney, the sunrise, the stars, the moon, and everything else. Adding more stuff to explain doesn’t make supernatural explanations any less automatically invalid.

Who is using bad reasoning here? There is no physical explanation for the origin of the universe and the natural laws. How can you use the natural laws to explain the process by which the natural laws were brought into existence? If they weren’t even in existence yet, how could they possibly shed any light on the process which brought them into existence, which would, by definition and necessity, be supernatural.

There is an entire field of science dedicated to explaining and quantifying the mind. Not only in the sense of psychology, but even in the sense of raw consciousness, there are specialists dedicated to such stuff.

Care to offer any links for this field of science? You should actually check out the field of neurotheology, and in particular the book Why God Won’t Go Away by neuroscientists Newberg and D’Aquili. The mind is an immaterial entity that somehow stems from the material brain and cannot be quantified.

The how/why statement is common but wrong. “Why does the sun rise” is a perfectly valid question in science, it explains why just as well as how.

No. First off, scientifically speaking, the sun doesn’t “rise.” A scientific explanation for sunrise involves detailing “how” the natural laws provide the observed effect. Answering why would require answering the more basic question: “Why are the natural laws the way they are?” which again cannot be addressed by science.

When did I claim that I was basing my assertion on personal experience. I presented a logical proof. Point out the flaw in my logic if you can find one, but making out my argument to be something it is clearly not is dishonest.

Your “logical proof” is not one that is valid, because your premise that “if you’re outside of science, you don’t exist” cannot be validated. Again as VociMike pointed out before, science itself is silent about the existence or lack thereof of supernatural entities. You are once again retreating to an argument from personal incredulity because you refuse to acknowledge another frame of reference and the limits of your own frame of reference.

If I ever have to survive in the desert with bronze tools, I will take their opinion on that particular task more seriously. But I’m not going to trust my modern life to the minds of people who were still flabbergasted by the sun.

And I’m sure “modern” people 4000 years from now will be making a similar statement about the dummies of our “modern” world.

May God bless you and grant you His peace.

 

[Mersenne]

Explain to me where there is an example of God contradicting science in your statement: “The basic idea of god contradicts all of science. Just start with the inverse squared law and work your way out from there. I mean, we all understand that Santa Clause can’t be real, he violates how we know the world works. So why then is it acceptable to make even more grandiose claims about an all powerful invisible space dad?” Again, what “god” are you attacking? My God is omnipotent and created the universe and all science. Therefore, there can be nothing within science that contradicts Him. So again, I ask you, where is the apparent contradiction? Or are you just simply arguing by personal incredulity?

I explained why you cannot use “he created science” or “he’s outside the universe” as an excuse.

Really. Funny how I was taught that scientific laws are substantially different from scientific theories. Your definition of “an idea that has predictive and explanatory power” is the definition of a theory, in science. A scientific law is a statement about the physical world which has been proven by observation and experimentation time and again to be definitively true, and by definition cannot be falsified. Scientific laws are natural truths.

You are somewhat incorrect. The difference is not as concrete as you think, though I did say “a law is like a theory” not identical to. But, for example, a theory is also proven by observation and experimentation time and again, and laws have predictive and explanatory power, and most importantly, laws most certainly can be falsified. But you are missing the point. Scientific laws are the result of our observations about how the world functions. Knowing that, asking “who enforces these laws” makes no sense.

Truth cannot contradict truth. But this begs the question: “Why are the natural laws immutable?” which science cannot address.

Science can certainly address that. Natural laws are immutable because if we find them to be wrong, then they’re not laws. That’s simply how they’re defined. That’s like asking why squares have 4 sides.

If you’re arguing for atheism using science, you’d better get your science right.

Before you start insulting other people, you better make sure you’re not the one in error.

Who is using bad reasoning here? There is no physical explanation for the origin of the universe

Yes there is.

How can you use the natural laws to explain the process by which the natural laws were brought into existence?

Again, given what natural laws are, it makes no sense to ask how natural laws were brought into existence.

Care to offer any links for this field of science?

No, I’m not going to provide links to prove psychology and neurology exist. You are clearly not arguing honestly if you are demanding that.

You should actually check out the field of neurotheology, and in particular the book Why God Won’t Go Away by neuroscientists Newberg and D’Aquili. The mind is an immaterial entity that somehow stems from the material brain and cannot be quantified.

YOU should actually check out the field of neurotheology, and not just take the claims of psuedoscientists as fact. Check out some accepted established neuroscience and psychology. It’s very interesting stuff, and far more complicated and fascinating then this ghosts and goblins ****.

No. First off, scientifically speaking, the sun doesn’t “rise.” A scientific explanation for sunrise involves detailing “how” the natural laws provide the observed effect. Answering why would require answering the more basic question: “Why are the natural laws the way they are?” which again cannot be addressed by science.

No, why are there waves in the ocean, why is the sky blue, etc; are all perfectly valid scientific questions. Your insistence that starting a question with “why” automatically makes it theological is just absurd.

Your “logical proof” is not one that is valid, because your premise that “if you’re outside of science, you don’t exist” cannot be validated.

That wasn’t my premise, that was my conclusion.

Again as VociMike pointed out before, science itself is silent about the existence or lack thereof of supernatural entities.

Wrong

You are once again retreating to an argument from personal incredulity because you refuse to acknowledge another frame of reference and the limits of your own frame of reference.

Nope, I argued with logic. Ignoring my logic and simply claiming I argued from incredulity is a lie.

And I’m sure “modern” people 4000 years from now will be making a similar statement about the dummies of our “modern” world.

I would imagine so! Which only furthers my point. I hope we continue to get smarter, and that science and morality continue to advance, civil rights get better, and the standard of life continues to increase. I would be profoundly disappointed if future generations decided, for no reason, “let’s rewind the clock and only listen to a bunch of sexist, racist, unenlightened boobs about how to run the world.” So why do you take the words of a bunch of bronze age rapists and murderers as somehow scientifically and morally superior to modern thought?

 

[steve_b]

Why, no one, of course.

All these men are doing is to get folks to think for themselves, and to start asking “How does the church know these things” That, essentially, is the question. From there, people will come to realize that none of these “teachings” are based on facts or is even provable at all. Why do you want to stake your whole life, and the way you live your whole life, your mindset, your thought patterns, your whole being, on unconfirmed hearsay?
That’s the question.

It’s the age-old “god of the gaps” reasoning. If we can’t explain something right this instant, you inject god in there. It musta been god, right??

[Rm 1:]
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20* 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. So they are without excuse; 21* for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23* and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

 

[wanstronian]

[Rm 1:]
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them …blah blah blah… Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

Wuthering Heights, Chapter 1, Para 1:
“1801. - I have just returned from a visit to my landlord - the solitary neighbour that I shall be troubled with. This is certainly a beautiful country! In all England, I do not believe that I could have fixed on a situation so completely removed from the stir of society. A perfect misanthropist’s heaven: and Mr. Heathcliff and I are such a suitable pair to divide the desolation between us. A capital fellow! He little imagined how my heart warmed towards him when I beheld his black eyes withdraw so suspiciously under their brows, as I rode up, and when his fingers sheltered themselves, with a jealous resolution, still further in his waistcoat, as I announced my name.”

Incontrivertible proof that Heathcliff and Catherine Earnshaw lived on the Yorkshire Moors in the early 19th century.

Eh? What do you mean, “Wuthering Heights” is just a story book?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

This thread would make an excellent laboratory specimen of exactly why Christians, especially Catholics, should eschew trying to engage Atheists and Agnostics through rational arguments using some variation of intelligent design. Religion is a matter of Faith, and Holiness. It is not irrational to the believer, as all things are possible with God. However, for Christians to take the argument from intelligent design against the scientific community is a complete waste of time as it is not convincing. It is only useful to confirm and strengthen one’s own Faith. But that Faith must come first.

Using scientific methods to “prove” religion actually undercuts and weakens religion. It takes one down a path that looks for scientific explanations for everything in religion, when in fact religion is surrounded with miracles. So one is either embarrassed by these miracles, or tries to explain them in a scientifically acceptable fashion. This is no good.

Faith comes from within and ultimately from God. Reread Post #12 by Coles_Law. He has a better idea.

 

[steve_b]

Wuthering Heights, Chapter 1, Para 1:
“1801. - I have just returned from a visit to my landlord - the solitary neighbour that I shall be troubled with. This is certainly a beautiful country! In all England, I do not believe that I could have fixed on a situation so completely removed from the stir of society. A perfect misanthropist’s heaven: and Mr. Heathcliff and I are such a suitable pair to divide the desolation between us. A capital fellow! He little imagined how my heart warmed towards him when I beheld his black eyes withdraw so suspiciously under their brows, as I rode up, and when his fingers sheltered themselves, with a jealous resolution, still further in his waistcoat, as I announced my name.”

Incontrivertible proof that Heathcliff and Catherine Earnshaw lived on the Yorkshire Moors in the early 19th century.

Eh? What do you mean, “Wuthering Heights” is just a story book?

Like Paul said,

[Rm 1:]
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20* 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. So they are without excuse; 21* for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,

 

[edwest2]

First of all, there is actual design in nature. See Finding Design in Nature by Cardinal Schoenborn in the New York Times, available online.

Science is certainly not needed to explain everything in religion. But that doesn’t mean that it hasn’t tried to explain miracles. A recent TV special tried to explain the plagues sent against Egypt by Moses. There is a Bible Explanation Industry out there. I read an article by a priest that referred to a totally nonsensical secular explanation for the multiplication of the loaves and fishes – it was a miracle, the “miracle” of sharing (!).

And I’m positive no modern scientist could find a scientific explanation for Christ raising the dead either. But God has left physical artifacts for people to examine. And the Church declares miracles to this day, not that the secular press would report them. Candidates for sainthood need two miracles.

The current problem regarding atheism is the false claim that only the material world exists and that religion amounts to superstition and belief without evidence. As the disciples said in the Bible, if Christ has not risen from the dead then our faith is in vain. So it is not blind faith but something based on something that actually happened.

God bless,
Ed

 

[steve_b]

This thread would make an excellent laboratory specimen of exactly why Christians, especially Catholics, should eschew trying to engage Atheists and Agnostics through rational arguments using some variation of intelligent design. Religion is a matter of Faith, and Holiness. It is not irrational to the believer, as all things are possible with God. However, for Christians to take the argument from intelligent design against the scientific community is a complete waste of time as it is not convincing. It is only useful to confirm and strengthen one’s own Faith. But that Faith must come first.

Using scientific methods to “prove” religion actually undercuts and weakens religion. It takes one down a path that looks for scientific explanations for everything in religion, when in fact religion is surrounded with miracles. So one is either embarrassed by these miracles, or tries to explain them in a scientifically acceptable fashion. This is no good.

Faith comes from within and ultimately from God. Reread Post #12 by Coles_Law. He has a better idea.

**159 **Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

 

[wanstronian]

Like Paul said,

[Rm 1:]
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20* 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. So they are without excuse; 21* for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,

So if Emily Bronte had put a note at the beginning of the chapter, “This really happened, honest” would that give it the same credibility? If not, explain to me the difference. You can’t, because there isn’t one.

It’s funny - I don’t know what you look like, but I find it quite easy to imagine you sitting there with your arms folded and a smug look on your face, thinking that by highlighting a section of text in red you’ve proved a point.

Incredible.

 

[wanstronian]

First of all, there is actual design in nature. See Finding Design in Nature by Cardinal Schoenborn in the New York Times, available online.

Would Cardinal Schoenborn be a religious gentleman, perchance?

Science is certainly not needed to explain everything in religion. But that doesn’t mean that it hasn’t tried to explain miracles. A recent TV special tried to explain the plagues sent against Egypt by Moses. There is a Bible Explanation Industry out there. I read an article by a priest that referred to a totally nonsensical secular explanation for the multiplication of the loaves and fishes – it was a miracle, the “miracle” of sharing (!).

Infinitely more likely than feeding 5,000 people with a few mangy fish and some loaves of bread. Come on, see sense here! The most likely explanation for this ‘miracle’ is misreporting. Have you never encountered exaggeration? Chinese whispers mean anything to you?

And I’m positive no modern scientist could find a scientific explanation for Christ raising the dead either.

No, for an extremely good reason.

But God has left physical artifacts for people to examine.

Such as? (although I’m already regretting asking)

And the Church declares miracles to this day, not that the secular press would report them.

Why would they not?

Candidates for sainthood need two miracles.

I can see the committee meeting now: “George, does this qualify as a miracle?” “I think so - everyone says it was a nasty fall, but he just got up and walked away.” Will three minor miracles do, or one great big fat one?

The current problem regarding atheism is the false claim that only the material world exists and that religion amounts to superstition and belief without evidence.

As long as your ‘evidence’ is The Bible, then you are opening yourselves up to criticism, and rightly so.

As the disciples said in the Bible, if Christ has not risen from the dead then our faith is in vain. So it is not blind faith but something based on something that actually happened.

NO - it is based on something that is written in a book. By the same token you should believe that Dan Dare had a few run-ins with the Mekon.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

**159 **Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

You don’t say what you are quoting, but I hope you haven’t missed the point of my post. I am NOT saying that Faith and reason are incompatible, just that one can not prove beliefs through scientific arguments like those from intelligent design. That tactic actually weakens and debases Faith. It also is scoffed at by scientific Atheists and Agnostics.

 

[steve_b]

So if Emily Bronte had put a note at the beginning of the chapter, “This really happened, honest” would that give it the same credibility? If not, explain to me the difference. You can’t, because there isn’t one.

Emily Bronte writing Wuthering heights really happened just as St Paul writing Romans. Both are credible.
want:

It’s funny - I don’t know what you look like, but I find it quite easy to imagine you sitting there with your arms folded and a smug look on your face, thinking that by highlighting a section of text in red you’ve proved a point.

Incredible.

:coffeeread: I did one better, I let St Paul make the point.