Vatican astronomer likens creationism to superstition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neil_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In response to post 257. Free will bespeaks rationality. The example you gave of the babies simply points out physical handicaps which override the ability to reason. This does not mean that they do not have an immortal - rational soul, because they do as the immortal and rational soul is the principle of human life. Animals do not have this. Their soul ( a soul is a principle of life) is mortal and irrational. i.e., it does not have the ability to reason, and ceases to exist at the time of death. Thus, they do not have free will. They react instinctively which is inherent to their survival actions. We could get into intelligent design here, but I am not going there, as that is not the purpose of this thread.
Deacon Ed B
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
In response to post 257. Free will bespeaks rationality. The example you gave of the babies simply points out physical handicaps which override the ability to reason. This does not mean that they do not have an immortal - rational soul, because they do as the immortal and rational soul is the principle of human life. Animals do not have this. Their soul ( a soul is a principle of life) is mortal and irrational. i.e., it does not have the ability to reason, and ceases to exist at the time of death. Thus, they do not have free will. They react instinctively which is inherent to their survival actions. We could get into intelligent design here, but I am not going there, as that is not the purpose of this thread.
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
Deacon B, what is the evidence that all humans and only humans have immortal souls? (And I don’t want evidence from a scripture composed by humans, as that would be circular.)

Petrus
 
Stephen_LB said:
You have not yet addressed the problem at 247. Explain why all the instances in 247 are not science. I have to assume, for example, that your position is that forensic science is not science since it uses the same method of ID. Inasmuch as everyone else agrees that it is science, the burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...
I pointed out how you have misunderstood what I said. Since you have not addressed that problem once I pointed it out and chose to persist in your line of argument, I must conclude that you have willfully misrepresented my meaning as an evasion to addressing the issue being discussed. Hence, there is no good reason for me to respond to your “straw man” argument. I would be wasting my time if I addressed your fallacious scenario, and you would still not have a leg to stand on.

Furthermore, a comment by the Deacon made me realize that this I.D. discussion I jumped into is not what this thread is about. The thread is supposed to address Creationism. Hence, I am withdrawing from any further discussions of I.D. in this thread.
 
itinerant1 said:
I pointed out how you have misunderstood what I said. Since you have not addressed that problem once I pointed it out and chose to persist in your line of argument, I must conclude that you have willfully misrepresented my meaning as an evasion to addressing the issue being discussed. Hence, there is no good reason for me to respond to your “straw man” argument. I would be wasting my time if I addressed your fallacious scenario, and you would still not have a leg to stand on.

Furthermore, a comment by the Deacon made me realize that this I.D. discussion I jumped into is not what this thread is about. The thread is supposed to address Creationism. Hence, I am withdrawing from any further discussions of I.D. in this thread.
Click to expand...
The subject matter under discussion was methodological naturalism. I know that you are attracted to the paradigm you have presented, and it does have many things to recommend it. I even agree with many aspects of it, inasmuch as I am a Thomist realist. Even so, it is both arbitrary and irrelevant to the subject matter. Methodological naturalism is an anomaly. That fact is on record for anyone who cares to investigate it. You can check any textbook on the philosophy of science, and, until 15 years ago, you will see absolutely no discussion of methodological naturalism. If you read books on the history of the philosophy of science, (try Losee’s A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science) you will see absolutely no mention of it. Until recently, the subject was of no interest to philosophers of science.

Historically, some Christian scientists were in favor of searching for natural causes, because they were looking for a tool, or, if you like, a method to explore nature in a special way. In some cases, it was a response to the mechanistic metaphysics of their time. In other cases, there were practical reasons, such as certain special cases in medicine. Some Christians felt that we should “prefer” natural causes, as well we should. It was not a once and for all mandate for practicing science a certain way, even for the science of medicine. There was no “line of demarcation” to separate science from non-science.

Methodological naturalism is a social and political ploy to rule out ID, nothing more. It is an “ad hoc” rule. If it wasn’t important until 25 years ago, then it isn’t important now, except as strategy for making anti-ID bias look respectable. Fortunately, science can be inhibited by ideologues for only so long. Recently, a new book entitled, “The Spiritual Brain,” a neuroscientist has provided evidence for the existence of non-material minds. By your standards, he is not a scientist and his subject matter is out of bounds.
 
drpmjhess said:
Deacon B, what is the evidence that all humans and only humans have immortal souls? (And I don’t want evidence from a scripture composed by humans, as that would be circular.)

Petrus
Click to expand...
How do you expect someone to show evidence of a soul, since the soul is spiritual. Physical evidence, I cannot show you. I can cite the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2000 years, and the Jewish faith in the Old Testament. Even the Jews had some who did not believe in life after death. Some in the New Testament have that same belief. I pray for these. If there is no life after death, than the incarnation, the crucifixion and the resurrection would be a sham. I for one will not ever claim that. If you believe in Jesus, then read the New Testament. That will tell you Jesus became man and died for mankind. Not the animal kingdom. I dont know where you are coming from with your question, but it in itself bespeaks to me a lack of faith. What I am telling you is not a circular argument, but one based on Philosophy and Theology.
Deacon Ed B
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
How do you expect someone to show evidence of a soul, since the soul is spiritual. Physical evidence, I cannot show you.
Click to expand...
Some time back there were people who tried to measure soul. They weighed people just before and just after they died in an attempt to measure the weight of the soul. Didn’t work so good. Pretty silly.
 
drpmjhess said:
Deacon B, what is the evidence that all humans and only humans have immortal souls? (And I don’t want evidence from a scripture composed by humans, as that would be circular.)

Petrus
Click to expand...
I will extend my answer from above. We believe the humans have a spiritual soul, because humans can act in a manner beyond physicality alone. Show me truth, justice, beauty, goodness, pride, things of this nature. You cannot, as they are immaterial concepts which man can understand. Since no one can do anything in a manner or plane in which they do not exist. Animals do not have this capacity in the essence of their being, man does. Thus rationality and spirituality. Immortality, I take on faith based in Jesus Christ, as his incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection would have been needless if we do not have immortal souls…
Deacon Ed B
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
I will extend my answer from above. We believe the humans have a spiritual soul, because humans can act in a manner beyond physicality alone. Show me truth, justice, beauty, goodness, pride, things of this nature. You cannot, as they are immaterial concepts which man can understand. Since no one can do anything in a manner or plane in which they do not exist. Animals do not have this capacity in the essence of their being, man does. Thus rationality and spirituality. Immortality, I take on faith.
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
Do you know that some infra-human animals are self aware? Well, they are. And that opens all sorts of other possibilities.
 
Really? Explain to me the self awareness they have and how you came to know about it.
Deacon Ed B
 
Namesake, I do not mean to be curt, but in all honesty, I really do not care what an elephant does with a mirror. Show me where animals can understand the concepts I explained to you and where they can act on those concepts. Show me how they can improve their environment. They cannot. They eat everything around them, (a survival instinct) until everything is gone and nothing left. They then wander off in search of more. Do they plant, do they harvest anything they have sewn. No they do not. They are irrational animals that act on instinct. Even a dog knows its master. This does not bespeak rationality.
Deacon Ed B
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
They are irrational animals that act on instinct. Even a dog knows its master. This does not bespeak rationality.
Click to expand...
You have a deficit, but it’s apparently not correctable. Go ahead and live in the bronze age. Cool with me.
 
As you wish and as you judge. You are in my prayers.
Deacon Ed B
 
Well Deacon, you certainly won the “How to be polite” part of the discussion.

And I’m with you all the way on spiritual soul 👍
 
Remember how scientists recently “discovered” chimps using tools?

Well, in my last trip to Africa, I discovered a chimp village but it was cleverly disguised to look like a human village. I cornered a chimp with a Rubik’s cube and he admitted to me that the reason they were hiding was so that humans wouldn’t exploit them for cheap labor.

Man = animal. Just accept whatever the secular, anti-God world throws at you. “We gots studies.” Yeah, right.

God bless,
Ed
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
How do you expect someone to show evidence of a soul, since the soul is spiritual. Physical evidence, I cannot show you. I can cite the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2000 years, and the Jewish faith in the Old Testament. Even the Jews had some who did not believe in life after death. Some in the New Testament have that same belief. I pray for these. If there is no life after death, than the incarnation, the crucifixion and the resurrection would be a sham. I for one will not ever claim that. If you believe in Jesus, then read the New Testament. That will tell you Jesus became man and died for mankind. Not the animal kingdom. I dont know where you are coming from with your question, but it in itself bespeaks to me a lack of faith. What I am telling you is not a circular argument, but one based on Philosophy and Theology.
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
Clearly you didn’t answer my question. What is the evidence – not drawn from scripture – that all humans, and only humans, have immortal souls? If you base your argument solely on scripture it is more or less self-confirming: only humans have souls because the Bible says so, and the reason the Bible was written by humans is that they alone have immortal souls.

So let me ask you what the criteria of soul possession are. Is it by virtue of human DNA that we have immortal souls?
 
Namesake said:
Do you know that some infra-human animals are self aware? Well, they are. And that opens all sorts of other possibilities.
Click to expand...
Namesake, although I don’t like “infra-human” as a term, I find the whole field of animal intelligence and self awareness fascinating. I participated last year in a conference on animal morality (with both ethologists and Catholic and non-Catholic theologians). ctns.org/jkr_fellows_recent.html.

One of the most interesting theologians in this field is Celia Deane Drummond, who has double doctorates in theology and biology. In the conference she and Marc Bekoff, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (U. of Colorado) explored the contours of a theology that is more inclusive than the traditional human exceptionalism that has dominated theology for nearly 2,000 years. Check out Celias books (seven or eight of them) if you are interested in this topic, as I am.

Petrus
 
“inclusive” ? Obviously, you have fallen for secular politics and secular thinking. In theology, divine revelation is truth. You obviously have a political need to reconcile with temporary secular concepts. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

And yes, cetain things are not subject to change, no matter how many seemingly clever books are written about them. God is one of those things.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
“inclusive” ? Obviously, you have fallen for secular politics and secular thinking. In theology, divine revelation is truth. You obviously have a political need to reconcile with temporary secular concepts. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

And yes, certain things are not subject to change, no matter how many seemingly clever books are written about them. God is one of those things.
God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
What are you smoking, Ed? I never said anything about God changing – get real!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top