T
- Status
R
rose_kelly
Guest
If you are interested in anything I have to say about Hitler, you can view my comments on this thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13749727#post13749727
The only reason I mentioned him on here was because of the post referring to him earlier.
His interest in occultism and its association with Nazi ideology has been documented. Sketchy information, but with enough detail to suspect it.
T
tonyrey
Guest
“family and fiends” is an unfortunate typo which makes it sound as if the Devil keeps them busy and fulfilled!
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
The word is applied to a wide range of dispositions. Dictionaries, being books that express usages, will offer a wide range of definitions depending on what works they include in their literary corpora. When ever someone applies the label to them self unless there’s already familiarity with the person I think it is necessary to ask the individual about what s/he means when s/he uses the word. Their disposition could be apatheistic (they don’t know if there is a God or not and are not really concerned with it), simply not convinced of any god concepts but open to consideration, totally against any and all god concepts, or more.
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
“Great minds think alike”! I’ve just made much the same point but less effectively…
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
I think you know deep down this is not logical.
You cannot say that a scientific hypothesis is the only kind of hypothesis that merits consideration. A philosophical hypothesis may also merit consideration.
The truth is that abiogenesis by intelligent design is more believable than abiogenesis by chance.
The reason, as philosophy would tell us, is that we have the known experience of observing that things of the greatest complexity are designed - computer programs, for example. We have no knowledge of things of the greatest complexity simply arising from pure chance. The irreducible complexity of the first living cell in all of creation defies the explanation of creation by pure chance. All scientists admit this. Many scientists admit the difficulty of arguing abiogenesis by chance, but they (especially the atheistic ones) hold fast to their cherished belief that it must be so or else they would have to acknowledge the existence of an Intelligent Designer … a philosophical concept they will not tolerate on the grounds that it is not scientific … although abiogenesis by chance “must obviously be able to be tested empirically or it is a fallacy” (your words, not mine). Miller-Urey is a far, far cry from abiogenesis being tested by chance.
Francis Crick was so puzzled by the immense complexity of DNA/RNA coding that he found no better explanation than that life must have been seeded on Earth by extra-terrestrials. In other words, by Intelligent Design.
Yes, God is an extra-terrestrial!
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
This what I am hearing from you:
There is no such thing as a philosophy of science.
You know that is not true. Newton and Einstein were both great philosophers of science, and both drew philosophical conclusions from their scientific observations.
Nicolaus Copernicus Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System
“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”
Johannes Kepler Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motions
“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”
Galileo Galilei Laws of Dynamics
“The Holy Bible and the phenomenon of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”
Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton
Benjamin Franklin Electricity, Bifocals, etc.
”Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped.
James Clerk Maxwell Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations
“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen none that will not work without God.”
Lord William Kelvin Laws of Thermodynamics, absolute temperature scale
“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”
Charles Darwin Theory of Evolution
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).
Louis Pasteur Germ Theory
“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”
Max Planck Father of Quantum Physics
“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”
J.J. Thompson Discoverer of the Electron
“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”
Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
“In the course of my life I have been repeatedly compelled to ponder the relationship of these two regions of thought (science and religion), for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”
Arthur Compton Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist
“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man.”
Max Born Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”
Paul A.M. Dirac Quantum Physicist, Matter-Anti-Matter
“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”
George LeMaitre Father of the Big Bang Theory,
“There is no conflict between religion and science.” Reported by Duncan Aikman, New York Times, 1933
Albert Einstein Special and General Theories of Relativity
“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”
I
inocente
Guest
And I didn’t.
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
I really try to think of the other people on this forum as sincere, intellectually honest, intelligent people. But responses like this one make that tough.
First: “Newton and Einstein were both great philosophers of science, and both drew philosophical conclusions from their scientific observations.”
Nowhere did I object to generating philosophical ideas and conclusions from scientific findings. In fact I was suggesting the exact opposite. Specifically, in the scenario I sketched out, the scientist is suggesting that we do try to generate a philosophical conclusion from science-data. If the scientist invalidated the philosopher’s prediction, it would not only invalidate the prediction, but also the philosophical scaffold that led the philosopher to believe that he was making a valid prediction in the first place. The problem with the conversation wasn’t the scientists’ line, it was the philosopher’s special pleading in the last line.
Second: Science is not “immune” from philosophizing about. No one is arguing that it is. Science requires certain metaphysical conditions to be met in order to be successful, and its methods can be questioned by alternative epistemological theories. But that’s not relevant. The conversation I sketched out did not go like this:
Philosopher: I can use what I know about philosophy to predict the color of the sky.
Scientist: Ok, do it; make your prediction. Then we’ll verify if you’re right.
Philosopher: I deny the metaphysical prerequisites for science to be a valid epistemological method, so your scientific verification is not useful!
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
You have become truly tiresome. Philosophers do not predict. That is for weather forecasters.
The philosopher analyses and draws conclusions about human nature and human purpose.
The scientists answers the question how.
The philosopher answers the question why.
Science cannot explain how there is a God.
Philosophy explains why we can conclude there is a God.
If there is a God, there is NOTHING in science that can refute the claim.
There are, however, things in science that might be consistent with the claim.
Genesis, 1000 B.C. : "Then God said, ‘Let there be light.’”
Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.
“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
N
NM505StKate
Guest
That isn’t atheism. People can be secular humanists and be atheists. That is a bit of a strawman to claim that it is hardly a rational basis to live. Men like Aron Ra and Matt Dillahunty are atheists that show very positive ways of living.
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
This is, to me, breathtaking in the proximity of two contradictory assertions. The conclusion that there is a God is also known as a prediction, unless you knew God existed before you set out philosophizing. But if you did know God existed before you set out, your “why” when you say that philosophy explains “whys” must actually mean “philosophy provides a post-hoc justification.” But I believe that you could find very few philosophers who would agree with that.
Why are you bringing up irrelevant points? I thought my position was very clear. Do you need me to explain it again?
I was never asserting that science contradicts God, just that many philosophers claim that God does have explanatory power with respect to observable properties of this world. I’m not saying that you can’t have God because science, I’m saying that if your God-based-explanation predicts features of the universe that are contradicted by science, your God-based-explanation loses. That doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist, just that the philosophical scaffold was wrong.
You seem to be coalescing to the ultimate position that it seems to me all theologians retreat to. Specifically that their God-explanation doesn’t provide a single prediction that we can empirically verify.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
All people strive for positive ways to fulfill their lives.
As a Catholic, do you believe that atheism is going to be the positive fulfillment of life for the atheist?
If so, I would say you are probably a relativist. Is that so?
Personally, I think that many people can think they are happy when they are really miserable.
This can be true of Christians and atheists.
But I don’t see how accepting ultimate and eternal death can be as positive as accepting the prospect of ultimate and everlasting life.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
No it isn’t. Please get a hold of yourself.
N
NM505StKate
Guest
Simple. They make the most of the life they have now. This one life on a moat of dust in the vastness of space. Doing good for the sake of doing good and not for some reward that has not been shown to exist.
C
clem456
Guest
A
Aloysium
Guest
I don’t know any Christian who does good for a reward other than that found in helping their neighbour and to be pleasing God. Most of us are aware of our sinfulness, trying to lead lives dedicated to the service of others, hopeful and with faith in Christ. This discussion gets weird talking about individuals other than the religious beliefs they hold. As an approach to entering into the mysteries of existence, offering guidance in the quest for goodness, making sense of one’s life and finding the strength to cope with what life brings, atheism is as absurd as it is vague and valueless.
S
Solmyr
Guest
A great statement of Christian moral motivation.
And you don’t care about the “reward” in the hereafter? It leaves you unimpressed? Without the slightest intent to hurt your feelings… I doubt it, very much.
For atheists there are no “mysteries” of existence. We give sense and purpose to our lives. We can cope with the problems of life without the transcendental “crutch” of the hereafter. We can accept that sometimes: “life is a ‘female dog’, and then you die”. There are quite a few people around the board who keep on saying that atheism is valueless… of course I cannot express my true opinion about them, but let me say that it would not be a term of endearment. Not even close.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
If they do good for the sake of doing good only, what motivates them?
What motivates them to care for the sick, the aged, the ignorant, the poor, the imprisoned?
And where are the institutions of atheists that do all these things **without **promise of reward?
Whereas you will find thousands of Christians institutions that do these things with the promise of reward.
And what is there in atheism that even encourages these virtues? Nothing.
- Status