J
Jim_Baur
Guest
emotel!
Many, many, many thanks!
Many, many, many thanks!
- Status
E
emotel
Guest
He is a leading, and very famous, Evolutionary Psychologist.
World war II is over, Pol Pot and Stalin have passed into history. The good guys are winning. The UN has published a charter of human rights. We all know that the human races is flawed. That just makes our task more difficult. It doesn’t relieve us of it.
Why do you imply that those trait are invisible to science when clearly they are not? You spoke of Evolutionary Psychology - that’s the science of how human psychology evolved and it accounts for the traits you mention.
Isn’t “history” a part of science? Are scientists somehow prohibited from looking at history and drawing conclusion as you did there? I think not.
Well I don’t think I’m up the job of saving the planet single handedly.
However, I do want to make a contribution to that and to try to persuade others to do the same. For that we need a good model of reality.Here’s something that Darwin got right. This is the paragraph that explains what has been called “The best idea that anyone ever had” because it explains life on earth.
Charles Darwin:
Emotel.
E
edwest2
Guest
I think your attempt to explain reality, as you put it, needs to go beyond science. While it is true that much is studied, it all still gets filtered. You seem to think everything can be placed in two columns: Column A, things we should do and Column B, things we should not do; all, of course, under the watchful eye of science.
The results of scientific inquiry do not simply get left on a desk for all to see, they are distributed and distorted by ideologues who each have their own agenda. In the United States, science is regularly corrupted and manipulated by those in power.
Currently, atheists are attempting to sweep away all religion from public discourse, fearing, of course, that claims of God being involved in evolution would diminish their influence and potential growth. I am not against people choosing what they want to believe, but I am against science being used as an ideological weapon. If the facts speak for themselves, then that should be good enough. But the evidence here, and elsewhere is clear: universal lobbying for the acceptance of evolution among the faithful is the goal.
According to the Catholic Church, some form of evolution occurred but it was guided infallibly by God.
Peace,
Ed
The results of scientific inquiry do not simply get left on a desk for all to see, they are distributed and distorted by ideologues who each have their own agenda. In the United States, science is regularly corrupted and manipulated by those in power.
Currently, atheists are attempting to sweep away all religion from public discourse, fearing, of course, that claims of God being involved in evolution would diminish their influence and potential growth. I am not against people choosing what they want to believe, but I am against science being used as an ideological weapon. If the facts speak for themselves, then that should be good enough. But the evidence here, and elsewhere is clear: universal lobbying for the acceptance of evolution among the faithful is the goal.
According to the Catholic Church, some form of evolution occurred but it was guided infallibly by God.
Peace,
Ed
R
reggieM
Guest
You’re saying that science knows no limits and that all of the universe can be comprehended through scientific means. This would mean that we live in a rational universe that can be entirely understood through logic and the scientific method.
Science requires certain conditions (a rational universe) to operate correctly. The origin of the universe itself cannot be evaluated by science. We know that philosophically. Whatever happened before the universe existed is beyond the reach of science to evaluate. We could know about what happened through communication from God – who was there when it happened. God could teach us and show us what happened, while science could not do so.
That’s the first point of mystical theology – namely, that God has communicated himself to mankind. He has spoken to people and he still speaks to people. Many teachers have said that they have heard God speaking to them. Science will say that there is no empirical evidence that this is true (dismissing miracles, prophecies and other manifestations of the supernatural).
What can science say about the afterlife? Only that there is no evidence that there is anything after death. There have been people who have returned from the dead to explain what they saw. How can science deny the reality of what a person saw when clinically dead? It’s beyond the range of what science can perceive. But the reality may be just as the revived-person says. There may be judgement, heaven, hell and the communion of saints. How can science rule this out conclusively? For those who have seen it, that is certainly knowledge that they possess.
When God proves to a person that He does exist (through a miraculous healing or event in the person’s life) – this is certain knowledge.
Why do you believe that science is the only method that can be used to know something?
I’ve heard from some theistic evolutionists here that science cannot say such a thing since science is reserved only to the study of natural causes & effects. Science cannot speak about various sources of knowledge either (supposedly) since that is a philosophical consideration. For example, a discussion on the limits of logic itself is a philosophical question. As are questions on the nature of a concept like infinity.
Science would have to “understand” that all of the great literature of the world written by authors who affirm the supernatural, God and personal mysticism is a body of knowledge based on things that are “not true”.
Again, science cannot evaluate non-empirical knowledge. Your approach here (unless you consider philosophy a branch of science) would deny philosophical truths. Actually, it would deny mathematical truths. I can discover mathematical truths that science cannot know – because science does not explore mathematical truths.
This is pretty simple. You’re claiming that science is the only valid method of gaining knoweldge about anything. Science cannot (and did not) create the rules of logic. Those rules were discovered and known without the need for science.
We could talk about something like “great art”. Given your view (if I haven’t misunderstood it) scientists should be telling us what great art is and how to create it – and not artists and musicians.
Science cannot answer the questions, “what is the greatest conceivable thing”? Or what is “moral perfection”?
I don’t know but I think it says something about you that in responding to a philosophical or theological concept all you can think of is taking drugs.Why does that make me think of poppies?
This assumes that mystics cannot design airplanes?
Ok, you haven’t used any of the methods recommended by spiritual teachers in a variety of traditions but instead your only effort at finding God is through posting and reading an internet site. That’s better than trying laboratory experiments, but to conclude that there is “no evidence” that God exists based on a shallow and uninformed approach to this question is a sign of insincerity and lack of appreciation for the serious issues of life.
You’ve mentioned that you’ve had 15 years of Catholic schooling, but I’m not surprised that you don’t know the first thing about how to encounter God and discover his presence.
The methods that you should use include prayer, meditation/contemplation (this takes a good deal of practice), fasting, spiritual reading (learning from the masters of the spiritual life), submission to guidance, practice of the virtues (humility is the first) and work at moral improvement.
You first pray and fast for insight from God about your own moral flaws and flaws of character.
The human soul must be pure in order to receive knowledge of the presence and existence of God. Purification comes from fasting and mortification of appetites.
R
reggieM
Guest
Physicist Gerald Schroeder from his book, “The Hidden Face of God” points out that the non-physical (in this case “information”) is an essential part of the universe.
E
emotel
Guest
How do you know that is true? If such corruption was to be prosecuted under the law then it would be necessary to collect and verify objective evidence. In other words the scientific approach. Simply expressing a belief, or a belief that others believe would not be sufficient.
Of course science get misused but it remains the best tool we have for determining the truth. That is why criminal and disaster investigations all look to science for explanations and not to religion.
I seek the truth. If evolution is in error then attempts should be made to sweep those errors away. If religious people misrepresent and misunderstand evolutionary theory then they bear false witness if they promote opposition based on error and misconception.
Science does not fear the truth it works very hard to discover it and lay it before the world. There’s a maxim that says:
Falsehood abhors enquiry
The truth invites it.
So science invites enquiry and the religions should do likewise if they claim truth and the moral high ground of integrity.
Why is the position so vague? How does it fit with the Adam and Eve story?
It seems clear that the Church knew nothing about evolution until science discovered it and developed a powerful theory explaining how it works. If the Church now accepts this in part then why didn’t the Church know about that before science did?
Isn’t that evidence that the information the Church has that it didn’t get from science is limited. How did the Church come to know that God guided evolution? What is the basis for that claim? Or is it just an unsubstantiated belief?
Why is there no explanation of how Adam and Eve fit into the evolutionary scheme of things?
Emotel.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
It is, as you must know, a blasphemy to attribute imperfection to God. And the IDers actually assert that God literally designed the universe.
I have a religious objection to it. If you weaken the definition to mere “intent” as the Church does, it’s OK. But if you assert that God actually designed parts of nature, you have given Him a grave insult.
And as you know, genetic algorithms now being used by engineers show that God was right; design is a weaker method than evolution.
E
emotel
Guest
Yes but there’s a problem with that. How do you know that God created the Universe rather than Allah or Satan? How do you establish that you have a high integrity communications channel via which you engage in secure conversations?
Science says more than that. It knows that many people “hear voices” that are not correlated with sound waves in their ears. It even knows which drugs induce such effects and bans their use because of that. It also knows that the experience is very real perception for the person involved and not a made-up story because it can see the relevant areas of the brain being activated.
Here’s how.
Science knows that in a normal person the correlation between what the brain perceives and the external world is usually reliable and there are obvious evolutionary pressures that act to ensure that. However, even normal see things in the many optical illusions that do not correspond to reality. The illusions are designed to defeat the brain’s inference engine in some way and fool the brain into presenting a false image. They are great fun and very instructive. My favourite is the Dragon Illusion:
grand-illusions.com/opticalillusions/dragon_illusion/
If you follow the instructions carefully an engaging little dragon emerges and he moves when you do. The video shows what to expect if you do the construction correctly.
So even in perfectly normal people, science doesn’t deny the reality of the perception experienced, that is real enough as the illusions (and Dreams) demonstrates. What it knows is that such perception can occur without the existence of a corresponding external reality. It’s just the brain doing the best it can with the information it has.
As for “clinical death” well, here’s what I found about that:
Clinical Death:
As the brain is deprived of oxygen it begins to malfunction and generate perceptions that do not correspond to external reality. These are remembered if the rescueres are successful and the person is lucky enough to recover.
So science doesn’t deny the reality of the perceptions, it denies that those perceptions are correlated with external reality. They are illusions.
Science cannot prove the non-existence of those things. It knows how illusions are perceived and it knows that a person who’s brain has been deprived of oxygen is very likely to experience illusory perceptions that do not correspond to external reality.
I attended a Charismatic healing session recently and it was obvious to me that hypnotic suggestion techniques were in use. Science now has a model of how hypnosis works and there is little doubt that it does. There is also little doubt that because of the highly integrated nature of mind and body , making the mind feel good can affect the efficiency of the immune response to infection. That’s why Doctors tell their patients to relax and try not to worry.
Because “knowing something” involves the collection of information about it and we know that information can be corrupted, distorted and even generated in the brain as a perception experience that does not correspond to external reality. The scientific method shows us how to avoid corrupting the data with subjective assumptions that are not justified.
I don’t agree. The scientific model of the human being is very extensive and we know a great deal about how we work. Our senses collect information about the external world , encode it and pass it on to our brains. This can be fooled by the optical illusions.
We can conceive of a “system boundary” or conceptual bubble enclosing a person and consider the information that crosses it. There is also the genetic information in DNA inherited from the parents that results in historically informed instincts, pre-dispositions and inclinations.
As for the likes of infinity, well mathematics is a branch of science and the Universe is probably finite but unbounded. So the mathematical infinity doesn’t model anything physical, its just a conceptual limit and not a place or metric that describes anything real.
Since there is a singular lack of consensus between then mystics of history we can make a simple logical deduction. If “n” mystics present n mutually incompatible statements about reality then at least (n-1) of them must be wrong. Truth cannot contradict truth. We can also say that the (n-1) incorrect statements are evidence that mystics usually get things wrong. We should therefore be very sceptical about anything any mystic says.
Mathematics is a branch of science. I can prove the theorem of Pythagoras and use it a a model for physical triangles. I can prove that the square root of 2 is an irrational number but that doesn’t correspond to anything physical. However, it is still a scientific conclusion.
I don’t know of any “philosophical truths” that lie outside science?
No the discovery process WAS science.
Yes and they do just that. They study the mechanisms by which human emptional experiences are generated by music and pretty pictures. The also know that the appreciation of art is highly subjective because people’s emotional responses are different. They therefore explain why beauty is “in the eye of the beholder”.
Who said that it can? Not me.
Be fair now. Drugs are known to produce the mystical effects you are talking about. As are various mental illnesses. The perceived effects do actually occur in peoples brains but they don’t correlate with external reality. They are generated internally by the brain. Also I haven’t mentioned drugs before so it is clear that taking them is not all I can think about.
If they know the science and don’t use what they take to be their mystical powers then they can. However, such a mix of knowledge and discipline is unlikely. If they did use the mystical rather than the science then the result would be very dangerous.
I am very sincere in my search for the truth. If you see evidence that I am missing then tell me about it.
I did try all those things during the 15 years but none of them worked.
Emotel.
B
buffalo
Guest
So God did not know what the outcome would be? What man would look like?
C
Camron
Guest
I think that the biological sciences have come a long way in explaining our origins from pre-existing creatures. The psychological make-up, however, leaves a lot to be desired in my opinion. I think that many are making grave errors if they think they can use evolutionary psychology to explain all human behaviors.
I suppose that depends on how open to revelation you are. Some things are revealed, if you can accept it. Other things are reasonable inferences based on the data available.
That’s good.
I think that when God offered His divine life to Adam and Eve, actually offering them to participate in His creation, they accepted the creative aspect of their calling all the while rejecting the moral aspect of what God actually called them to do. In using God’s creative ability against Him, I think they essentially set themselves up as “gods” in their own name, effectively telling God (by their actions) that they did not trust Him. God created them automatically trusting God but they broke this trust, via the creative aspect that God called them to, when they refused to obey.
This would be like telling someone that if they do something incorrectly it will eventually kill them. The Spirit of Truth is sufficient, given that they were created trusting God, to prevent them from acting morally outside the parameters of God’s will. But, since God also gave them the means to be co-creators in His kingdom, they effectively used their divine gift to “create” something that God Himself did not actually create—sin. This is why, I think, that when we are baptized in Christ we become co-heirs with Christ. We are indeed participating in the New Creation as 2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 6:11, and Galatians 6:15 says, because we are a New Creation in Christ.
Those things I do not know. I personally suspect approximately 70,000 years ago, but I don’t know. I do think that they had some advanced language (the Word) that probably set them apart from the other hominids around them. Indeed, to the other hominids who could also rudimentarily understand abstract concepts, Adam and Eve’s “awesome understanding” probably appeared godlike or perhaps angelic. Plus, since God breathed a soul into them, they would have a moral dimension to their lives which would probably seem strange to the hominids around them. This is all my own guesswork though.
The only thing that’s been revealed for sure is that Adam and Eve were indeed to morally responsible people (with eternal souls) who were held accountable to their actions to the point that their descendents do indeed suffer because of their sin.
Not necessarily. But I do believe that they were given exceptional insight into what their actions would produce. The agricultural society that is prevalent in the “earthly language” of the book of Genesis is hard to miss. They most certainly would have seen fruit rotting and the death of other animals by predators too. I do not subscribe to any young earth position.
I think they honestly thought that they could use their authority as co-creators to truly create a different future than the one that God to some degree revealed to them. Again, this is morally reprehensible given that they had to strictly disobey God to even take this chance.
No doubt that the serpent painted a half-truth, probably playing on what God had not revealed to them yet and pretending that God was being selfish in doing so. Nonetheless, with all that God had given them so far, they would indeed be foolish to listen to the serpent (when God had indeed done no wrong to them) and believe that God was even partially lying to them. He gave Adam and Eve dominion over the entire world (something which the devil stole from them) and was planning on also eventually bringing them into the paradise of heaven too (offering the promise to become Sons and Daughters of God, which was not completed yet).
All they had to do was reach out for the Tree of Life and they would have reached the goal that God had prepared from them (it wasn’t until after they had partaken in the Tree of Knowledge that God forbid them from eating from the Tree of Life).
What more could a person ask for?
Again, I don’t know this part. It has not been revealed in full yet. I am simply trusting that, in the fullness of time on the Day of Judgment, these questions will be answered. And, unlike Adam and Eve, I don’t see this lack of knowledge as being a reasonable excuse to not wait for God’s answers either.
R
reggieM
Guest
Barbarian said:
Emotel replied
Yes, I’d like to see what Barbarian’s answer to that is also.
R
reggieM
Guest
I said:
The methods that you should use include prayer, meditation/contemplation (this takes a good deal of practice), fasting, spiritual reading (learning from the masters of the spiritual life), submission to guidance, practice of the virtues (humility is the first) and work at moral improvement.
I’d really like to learn more about this. It’s certainly essential in the search for truth.
For any human being to receive understanding and a sense of union with the Author of the Universe itself it a great thing, obviously. It’s something that requires preparation.
The methods that you should use include prayer, meditation/contemplation (this takes a good deal of practice), fasting, spiritual reading (learning from the masters of the spiritual life), submission to guidance, practice of the virtues (humility is the first) and work at moral improvement.
15 years of praying, fasting and seeking God is a long time and a good effort. I’d really like to know more about this part of your life. Certainly, the fact that you stayed with that effort for so long says something. Normally, if a method doesn’t work, people will abandon them in a year or two – but you kept praying, fasting and asking for light and grace from God for a period of 15 years.
I’d really like to learn more about this. It’s certainly essential in the search for truth.
In this case, I’d hope that you’d offer more than “it didn’t work” to sum up 15 years of spiritual effort. What spiritual writers did you follow? Did you seek guidance in the doubts about God that you had? Did you work on your moral flaws and sins which could have been an obstacle to the growth of faith? Did you imitate any of the saints in their advice for spiritual growth and increase of faith?
For any human being to receive understanding and a sense of union with the Author of the Universe itself it a great thing, obviously. It’s something that requires preparation.
E
edwest2
Guest
Blasphemy, grave insult? Who are you to say such things? Didn’t Cardinal Schoenborn title his New York Times Op-Ed pice Finding Design in Nature? Or will you just attribute that to a slip of the tongue or some conspiracy?
He refers to and quotes Pope John Paul II about this subject.
“Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of ‘chance and necessity’ are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.”
I have no idea why these so-called IDers have such importance to you. If they have done nothing or shown no scientific results, that should be the end of it. But no, some mysterious purpose compels you to bring them up over and over and over again. I suggest you stop it, since their non-results have absolutely nothing to do with anything.
Peace,
Ed
R
reggieM
Guest
Discernment of spirits as taught by St. John of the Cross or St. Ignatius (as well as the desert Fathers among many others) is the method used to determine if the communication is from Satan or not.
Christ validated as a prophet as recorded in the New Testament “by the signs he worked among them”.
I believe you’re asserting that philosophy is a branch of science, so I don’t understand your question.
If philosophy is science, then the findings of philosohpy are scientific. Thomistic philosophy, for example, would be proof that “science” has argued for the existence of the human soul, the supernatural order and the existence of God. So yes, in that case, there is no knowledge that “lies outside of science”.
Logic is considered part of the philosophic discipline, although that discipline included science at one time, true. If you believe that the academic categories that were in place during the development of the rules for logic are valid for today, then that appears to be quite different from what I’ve heard thus far from scientists here who insist that philosophy is not a scientific discipline.
R
reggieM
Guest
Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig and Heinz-Albert Becker’s Nature Encyclopedia of Life Sciences article on carnivorous plants provides a number of insights on evolution and why I found it hard to imagine that someone could say that “evolutionary theory has no weaknesses”.
Carnivorous Plants
Wolf-Ekkehard Lo¨nnig, Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
Heinz-Albert Becker, Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/carn.pdf
Carnivorous Plants
Wolf-Ekkehard Lo¨nnig, Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
Heinz-Albert Becker, Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany
math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/carn.pdf
This is a remarkable admission. The answer might lie outside of the present scientific paradigms. Evolutionary theory has no answer for it and may never have one.
As the above, “it is hard to even imagine” an evolutionary path through gradual changes since each part of the carnivorous plant is necessary for the whole function and one part would not have a reason to exist without the purpose for which it was intended in the end (to capture insects).
Michael Behe gets amazingly good press here in the Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. These plants may be a perfect example of irreducibly complex systems. We may also have the test case that causes Darwin’s theory to “absolutely break down”. Professor Behe may be right after all.
Here’s another example of the questionable ideas found in Darwinist theory. Here we have “evolutionary convergence”. The pitcher-type plant, which to develop once in the history of the universe is absurdly improbable, and which currently cannot be explained by evolution, is claimed here to have evolved separately seven separate times.
N
Namesake
Guest
Irreducible complexity hasn’t been a serious issue for quite some time and Behe isn’t at all credible. You really need to do better to offer serious arguments against evolution. These aren’t worthy of serious address because they are too much in the past.
R
reggieM
Guest
I think it would be better to send your comments to the Encyclopedia of Life Sciences since I’m just reporting on what they said (and they gave a favorable cite to Michael Behe).
Better yet, you could give an evolutionary explanation for the development of carnivorous plants (something nobody has been able to do yet).
Failing that, I think you really need to do better with some serious arguments because thus far you haven’t offered one.
N
Namesake
Guest
Here is what Lehigh University has posted about Behe on their web site.
“While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific.”
That is the official position of the place where he works and it comes officially from his department.
E
edwest2
Guest
This is simply political. Their statement is one of censorship for legitimate questions pertaining to science.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
N
Namesake
Guest
You are almost impossible. It is in no way censorship because that is not legal. He has tenure and therefore he can say almost anything he wants to say. But Lehigh can’t afford to appear to endorse his unscientific ideas. The University has to clearly show that it is interested in science and that Behe isn’t doing science when he espouses ID.
- Status