Why do scientists want to prove we are an accident?

[StrawberryJam]

Probably at the same indoctrination school you went to, only that poster didn’t get completely brainwashed.

That **personal attack **does not help the OP understand the question they are asking.
I would not attend a school that did not teach Science.

 

[valentino]

It appears to me that few have ever actually met a scientist or worked in a scientific field. Many atheists I know haven’t the slightest understanding of the scientific process and have an occupation that has nothing to do with science, but arrogantly speak of it as if they’re experts. I think these are the sort of people you’re getting your knowledge from.

Of course there are atheist scientists, and agnostic scientists, etc. But there’s more religious ones than you would think. The vast diversity that the word “scientist” encompasses is impossible to generalize the way people do. Scientists, in general, make absolutely no attempt to “prove we are an accident.” If you read pop science magazines I can understand why you’d think that they make such an attempt. But the vast vast vast majority of scientific research going on right now has NOTHING to do with spirituality or existence in even the most remote of ways. For example I’m currently doing Alzheimer’s research. I’m still just a student but I network with a ton of scientists. I don’t know of a single instance of research at my University (which is a research University) that concerns itself in any way shape or form with spirituality or our origins. Granted such research does indeed exist, absolutely it does, but to showcase that work as the typical work of science is pure fantasy at the hands of media outlets.

You present the word “scientist” in a somewhat distancing way, but in reality these people aren’t much different than your typical business man, or mail carrier, or next door neighbor. If you saw a scientist in the supermarket you probably would have no idea. There are Christians in my lab. I can wear a cross around my neck to work no problem. Some of the women in my lab have young children and I sometimes overhear them discussing which local Catholic school they’re going to send their kids to.

And please stop using the word “prove” in relation to science. Science does not prove. It falsifies hypotheses, and supports hypotheses. That is all it is capable of doing. During my first two years we would lose a significant portion of points on our lab reports if we used the word “prove” anywhere in our papers.

The Scientific Method is a myth. This was dictated to me in my first year, by scientists. There are many different “methods” which can be utilized in the process of science, none of which are universal. Many, perhaps even most, breakthroughs are the result of sheer chance, not a standardized protocol. Science is not a nebulous crystal ball without flaw capable of revealing anything. It’s a man made construct used in our current paradigm to help us solve highly specific puzzles. Rarely does it ever go as planned.

I highly recommend Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for anyone interested in how science ACTUALLY works, as opposed to the perverted fantasy that people like Dawkins put forward.

Ive read the post but its not really getting at the point.I realize that their are scientists of faith and athiests scientists.It makes no difference.No one is actually trying to prove were accidents either.What I trying to say is that "SOMe"scientists say that man came from the dust of the stars(and everything else on earth)which originated in the big bang.Now no one as yet has made the bold statement that they know or can prove how the big bang was started.Its an infinite dense particle which exploded and cause everything.They don’t give the credit to God(or a some creator)but say they don’t know as of yet what caused it or how this super dense particle came to be.Now getting to my point.Since man has no creator and he came from the stars they are in reality saying everything is an accident.We’re accident.Everythilng is an accident because there was nothing that created the first things.The big bang is an accident.or if you like a mystery.But scientists(some,many)do try to prove we came from the dust of stars.Now why do they want to prove this?If it could be proved,so what?What’s the point?how would it change anything?how would it change you?

 

[valentino]

I completely agree with Iron Donkey on everything he has said. To me, it also sounds like you are trying to force a wedge between science and religion when it is not so.

This video is from a very inteligent Catholic priest who has multiple degrees in Philosophy and Theology and has inspired me in many ways. I think he can help you understand here:

youtube.com/watch?v=B8yRWrUjnL8

Im not trying to force a wedge between anything.Im asking a simple question.Since science today teaches we are created from the dust of stars and there was nothing behind that creation(God,or higher being)creation according to them started with the big bang which had no creator but just happened(or at least its a mystery which can’t be explained).So science does try to prove that we came from the dust(which is in essence an accident since it was planned)and that we are an accident.My question is why do they want to prove we are an accident or that we came from the dust of stars?What if they could prove it (which they can’t)what difference would it make?How would it change anything?How would it change you?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Ive read the post but its not really getting at the point.I realize that their are scientists of faith and athiests scientists.It makes no difference.No one is actually trying to prove were accidents either.What I trying to say is that "SOMe"scientists say that man came from the dust of the stars(and everything else on earth)which originated in the big bang.Now no one as yet has made the bold statement that they know or can prove how the big bang was started.Its an infinite dense particle which exploded and cause everything.They don’t give the credit to God(or a some creator)but say they don’t know as of yet what caused it or how this super dense particle came to be.Now getting to my point.Since man has no creator and he came from the stars they are in reality saying everything is an accident.We’re accident.Everythilng is an accident because there was nothing that created the first things.The big bang is an accident.or if you like a mystery.But scientists(some,many)do try to prove we came from the dust of stars.Now why do they want to prove this?If it could be proved,so what?What’s the point?how would it change anything?how would it change you?

How can a Scientist give credit to a God or call humans accidents?

You have accused Scientists of not giving credit to God, and you have accused Scientists of calling humans accidents. I see nothing in the way of evidence or understanding of the Scientific Method for you to make such silly claims.

I have tried to find out where you get these ideas from, yet you won’t give us that.

Why not tell us all what you expect and why you are dissapointed.

 

[valentino]

Let’s start with the false premise that scientists want to “prove” we (I assume he means humans) are an accident.

Let’s go OP. Show us where scientists are out to do this and how.

Question:do not scientists say we came from the dust of stars which originated in the big bang?Don’t they try to prove this?Don’t they try to prove we are accidents just like all of creation is an accident which just came about by an exploding super dense particle?Say they could prove that we had no purpose that we’re all products of the big bang?(of course we couldn’t have a purpose because no one created us)A rock can’t evolve into a toad then into a man and nnow it has purpose.That makes no sense.So what would it change if they could prove that we are an accident(have no purpose)?how would it change you?How would it change people,their lives?If it doesn’t change you or people’s lives what’s the point?
/

 

[StrawberryJam]

Question:do not scientists say we came from the dust of stars which originated in the big bang?Don’t they try to prove this?Don’t they try to prove we are accidents just like all of creation is an accident which just came about by an exploding super dense particle?Say they could prove that we had no purpose that we’re all products of the big bang?(of course we couldn’t have a purpose because no one created us)A rock can’t evolve into a toad then into a man and nnow it has purpose.That makes no sense.So what would it change if they could prove that we are an accident(have no purpose)?how would it change you?How would it change people,their lives?If it doesn’t change you or people’s lives what’s the point?
/

I asked you before, and I asked you a second time. I will ask again.

Science has not nor can or desires to prove what is outside of it’s ability to do.

To make the claim that Scientists have tried or do try to prove humans are accidents is missing what Science is all about.

If you don’t understand Evolution or Science in general, please don’t make others think Science is what you believe it is.

I never let non catholics think Catholics worship Mary.

Stop being part of the problem. Stop making up strawmen.

 

[a_theist91]

No biological scientist worth his salt is trying to prove that you are an accident. Additionally some specificity would be nice.
They do however advocate the theory of evolution which states that you are the culmination of natural selection up to this point for your environment.
Its not natural accident.
Its natural selection. Various traits and genetic factors were selected by circumstances in your ancestors’ surroundings which made certain traits favorable over others.
Take for example your ability to locate the general origin of a sound. Your ears, disability notwithstanding, are so well tuned, along with your brain, that if a noise is produced on your left side, your brain notes the difference in miliseconds that the vibrations in the air reached your left ear before your right. Doubt it? Think of the last time a loud noise startled you. You almost certainly instantly focused your attention on the general direction of the noise. You directed your attention before your rational mind could even contemplate what had happened, and for good reason. If that noise had been a predator, the time it would take you to consciously locate its origin would have been enough for said beast to have closed the distance and overcome you.
Unfortunatley, millions of your lesser adapted relatives succumbed to just such a circumstance. Those of them who could more instantly react to signals from their environment such as the example I put forth stood a better chance to survive that encounter, and go home and vigorously create new offspring with that same ability.
Thus that trait became something all humans share.
Go ahead and test it.
Startle someone from behind, on either the right or left side. I guarantee you they will, without hesitation turn around to face directly the place that noise came from, and before their conscious mind could process all that sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What I trying to say is that "SOMe"scientists say that man came from the dust of the stars(and everything else on earth)which originated in the big bang.

So it sounds like you are asking why do there exists scientist that would use stellar nucleosynthesis and super nova nucleosynthesis and other cosmic processes to explain the formation of matter into the elements and why do there exists scientists that would say that our physical bodies are composed of physical matter that existed in the universe prior to us being born?

They don’t give the credit to God(or a some creator)but say they don’t know as of yet what caused it or how this super dense particle came to be.

“I don’t know” is an intellectually honest reply when one doesn’t have an explanation.

Now getting to my point.Since man has no creator and he came from the stars they are in reality saying everything is an accident.

You said that they say “they don’t know as of yet what caused it.” How did you infer from a declaration of a lack of knowledge that one is declaring to have knowledge that there was no entity involved? An unknown is just that, nothing less, nothing more.

We’re accident.

Is “Lack of intention” an appropriate definition to use for accident in this context?

Everythilng is an accident because there was nothing that created the first things.

I don’t think that conclusion has been reached yet (or if it has I some how missed it).

The big bang is an accident.or if you like a mystery.But scientists(some,many)do try to prove we came from the dust of stars.

Interest in the origins of the universe and of one’s self have long been a thing for which man kind has had interest.The explanations left behind from people in various cultures still survive. Some adopted children also try to find information on their biological parents to know about where they came from. To get the answer to part of your question you must first ask “why do people tend to have an interest in their origins?” Once you have the answer to that then you must ask “why do some people turn their sights to things beyond earth to seek an explanation for our existence.” Some one else has already pointed out that seeking the explanation isn’t the same as trying to prove something.

If you want to know why a specific scientist has a certain belief on our origins then you may have a better chance of getting results if you ask that scientist (if he or she is still alive) or read some of the publications that he or she left behind. I know Carl Sagan (1934-1996) believed we all have stars in our ancestry. But I’ve never gone into his work. He left behind a video series and a book (among other material) that may give some insight to his beliefs.

If it could be proved,so what?What’s the point?

This is a guess, but “the point” would be to satisfy a curiosity.

 

[valentino]

I asked you before, and I asked you a second time. I will ask again.

Science has not nor can or desires to prove what is outside of it’s ability to do.

To make the claim that Scientists have tried or do try to prove humans are accidents is missing what Science is all about.

If you don’t understand Evolution or Science in general, please don’t make others think Science is what you believe it is.

I never let non catholics think Catholics worship Mary.

Stop being part of the problem. Stop making up strawmen.

I thank you for your patient responses.But its obvious we can’t agree on what scientist’s like to prove.I say they have theories(which must all try to be proved)which say that man is accidental since he had no creator and they go on to try and prove that creation came from the big bang.You say they don’t try to prove anything.You have a right to your belief.Its just that we differ.thanks again.End of story.

 

[valentino]

No biological scientist worth his salt is trying to prove that you are an accident. Additionally some specificity would be nice.
They do however advocate the theory of evolution which states that you are the culmination of natural selection up to this point for your environment.
Its not natural accident.
Its natural selection. Various traits and genetic factors were selected by circumstances in your ancestors’ surroundings which made certain traits favorable over others.
Take for example your ability to locate the general origin of a sound. Your ears, disability notwithstanding, are so well tuned, along with your brain, that if a noise is produced on your left side, your brain notes the difference in miliseconds that the vibrations in the air reached your left ear before your right. Doubt it? Think of the last time a loud noise startled you. You almost certainly instantly focused your attention on the general direction of the noise. You directed your attention before your rational mind could even contemplate what had happened, and for good reason. If that noise had been a predator, the time it would take you to consciously locate its origin would have been enough for said beast to have closed the distance and overcome you.
Unfortunatley, millions of your lesser adapted relatives succumbed to just such a circumstance. Those of them who could more instantly react to signals from their environment such as the example I put forth stood a better chance to survive that encounter, and go home and vigorously create new offspring with that same ability.
Thus that trait became something all humans share.
Go ahead and test it.
Startle someone from behind, on either the right or left side. I guarantee you they will, without hesitation turn around to face directly the place that noise came from, and before their conscious mind could process all that sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

But if we are created by nothing by definition we are an accident of the big bang.The big bang has no creator so the big bang is an accident by definition.Its just a one time occurance which no one can explain.

 

[Planty_Business]

Welcome to the forum!

The existence of God does not imply that everything happens for a reason. There is an element of chance within the framework of Design. In an immensely complex system unwanted coincidences are bound to occur.
Not if one of God’s intentions is that we choose how to live!
Do you prefer being an insignificant, valueless freak of nature with no raison d’etre, free will or responsibility?

But if certain things happen for no reason, where is the justice in that? Surely God, being omniscient, knew that everything that has happened in the universe would happen. If God is a reasonable being, as I am sure you believe, then he let the events of the universe play out in this way for some reason. The problem I see is that there doesn’t seem to be any reason that God couldn’t have designed a “universe plan” with less unnecessary suffering. For example, according to the story of Adam and Eve, God intentionally placed the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden, knowing that Adam’s and Eve’s eating its fruit would have disastrous (to say the least) consequences. Why was it necessary to do this? Was it a test of faith or conscience? If so, then couldn’t God have decided to give a less severe punishment? After all, according to the story, Adam and Eve couldn’t have had any conscience whatsoever before the Fall, since they hadn’t eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Is this story supposed to imply that moral knowledge is a bad thing? There may be something to that lesson (responsibility can be a burden), but then why did God even give us a choice to do something that would doom us?

I don’t want to get into a big argument about free will and how far God is willing to go to defend it, but I do have to wonder why God would make sin appear so attractive in that story - and in our own lives. Couldn’t God have, for example, given humans a weaker sex drive, at least prior to marriage?

Anyway, onto your next remark. This is related to what I just wrote above. I understand that God, if he exists, wants us to be free to make our own choices and accept the consequences of those choices. However, again, why did God make some sins appealing? And for that matter, I don’t buy this idea that free will necessarily results in suffering. Here’s why: You believe that there is free will in heaven, correct? After all, free will is a good thing, and heaven is supposedly the greatest conceivable state of existence for humans. If that is true, then there is a paradox here. Free will must be in heaven, but suffering must not be in heaven. Therefore, free will could, conceivably, exist in a world without suffering. God could have designed such a world instead of this one. Oh, wait, he did, according to Catholics. Hmm…

Lastly, I think you’re being a tad melodramatic here. In a naturalistic world, I am not a “freak” of nature, and neither are you. Trust me, I had the same cynical attitude toward a world without God when I was a Catholic. But then I realized that truth was more important than comfort. I know you don’t think metaphysical naturalism is the truth, but suppose it is. Suppose you discover that you were wrong about your religious beliefs. Would you honestly think of yourself as a freak? Would you think that the people you love are freaks? Would you look at this world, this majestic cosmos full of myriad natural wonders and a rich culture, and say to yourself, “Meaningless! Worthless! Disgusting! All of it! I am nothing more than a horrible accident, some ugly product of chance.”

No, you wouldn’t. You know better. You are a mature person, and you realize that accidents can be beautiful. Look at a child, for instance. As far as we know, that child’s parents did not consciously choose exactly when to conceive him/her. They did not choose his/her genes, or talents, or weaknesses, or personality. Does the fact that that child was not a product of conscious design make him/her a freak? Even if you disagree that a human child is, technically, an accident, what about the random coincidences that you do acknowledge? Are they all repulsive and meaningless to you? If so, well, you are far more difficult to please than I am. Life is what you make of it, God or no God.

 

[a_theist91]

But if we are created by nothing by definition we are an accident of the big bang.The big bang has no creator so the big bang is an accident by definition.Its just a one time occurance which no one can explain.

we are not accidental in the true sense of the word. we didnt arise just becuase. human evolution, and the conditons which gave rise to human development were put in motion by the creation of the universe a truly vast, and seemingly infinite body. with a true sense of the nature of infinity the conditions which led to human evolution were bound to arise, by probability, not accident.

 

[tonyrey]

But if certain things happen for no reason, where is the justice in that?

The inevitability of irrational events is unrelated to justice.

Surely God, being omniscient, knew that everything that has happened in the universe would happen. If God is a reasonable being, as I am sure you believe, then he let the events of the universe play out in this way for some reason.

So that we can choose what to believe and how to live.

The problem I see is that there doesn’t seem to be any reason that God couldn’t have designed a “universe plan” with less unnecessary suffering.
Can you explain how that is possible?

For example, according to the story of Adam and Eve, God intentionally placed the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden, knowing that Adam’s and Eve’s eating its fruit would have disastrous (to say the least) consequences. Why was it necessary to do this? Was it a test of faith or conscience? If so, then couldn’t God have decided to give a less severe punishment? After all, according to the story, Adam and Eve couldn’t have had any conscience whatsoever before the Fall, since they hadn’t eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Is this story supposed to imply that moral knowledge is a bad thing? There may be something to that lesson (responsibility can be a burden), but then why did God even give us a choice to do something that would doom us?

It implies that we have been given the power to distinguish and choose good or evil, i.e. to love or not to love. Without that power we are not persons.

I don’t want to get into a big argument about free will and how far God is willing to go to defend it, but I do have to wonder why God would make sin appear so attractive in that story - and in our own lives. Couldn’t God have, for example, given humans a weaker sex drive, at least prior to marriage?

Sin is attractive because it appears to liberate us from our obligations. The lust for power is at the root of all evil.

Anyway, onto your next remark. This is related to what I just wrote above. I understand that God, if he exists, wants us to be free to make our own choices and accept the consequences of those choices. However, again, why did God make some sins appealing?

How could all sins be equally appealing?!

And for that matter, I don’t buy this idea that free will necessarily results in suffering. Here’s why: You believe that there is free will in heaven, correct? After all, free will is a good thing, and heaven is supposedly the greatest conceivable state of existence for humans. If that is true, then there is a paradox here. Free will must be in heaven, but suffering must not be in heaven. Therefore, free will could, conceivably, exist in a world without suffering. God could have designed such a world instead of this one. Oh, wait, he did, according to Catholics.

There is suffering in heaven! All love entails suffering because love entails compassion. But in heaven it is insignificant in the context of the joy, glory and perfection of God.

Lastly, I think you’re being a tad melodramatic here. In a naturalistic world, I am not a “freak” of nature, and neither are you. Trust me, I had the same cynical attitude toward a world without God when I was a Catholic. But then I realized that truth was more important than comfort. I know you don’t think metaphysical naturalism is the truth, but suppose it is. Suppose you discover that you were wrong about your religious beliefs. Would you honestly think of yourself as a freak? Would you think that the people you love are freaks? Would you look at this world, this majestic cosmos full of myriad natural wonders and a rich culture, and say to yourself, “Meaningless! Worthless! Disgusting! All of it! I am nothing more than a horrible accident, some ugly product of chance.”

Without any religious beliefs I would look at this majestic cosmos full of myriad natural wonders and say “It does not make sense to attribute all this beauty, harmony and purpose to purposeless processes”!

You are a mature person, and you realize that accidents can be beautiful. Look at a child, for instance. As far as we know, that child’s parents did not consciously choose exactly when to conceive him/her. They did not choose his/her genes, or talents, or weaknesses, or personality. Does the fact that that child was not a product of conscious design make him/her a freak? Even if you disagree that a human child is, technically, an accident, what about the random coincidences that you do acknowledge? Are they all repulsive and meaningless to you? If so, well, you are far more difficult to please than I am.

Random coincidences are exceptions which occur within the framework of order and Design. This view is distinct from the view that life is the product of Chance and Necessity.

Life is what you make of it, God or no God

.
Life is what you make of it because God has given us the power to choose what to make it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

a theist
**
the conditions which led to human evolution were bound to arise, by probability, not accident.**

Christians agree with this in that they see God ordering a universe that is destined to produce life.

But how do you know about life’s probability other than by observing that life exists?

Why were we “bound to arise” in your words? Why isn’t it just as credible to believe that in a universe without God we should be shocked indeed to observe life as we know it?

 

[valentino]

we are not accidental in the true sense of the word. we didnt arise just becuase. human evolution, and the conditons which gave rise to human development were put in motion by the creation of the universe a truly vast, and seemingly infinite body. with a true sense of the nature of infinity the conditions which led to human evolution were bound to arise, by probability, not accident.

All things tend toward randomness.Its a law of physics.Its called entropy.It goes against physics to have the universe to go from an random state(from the explosion of the big bang there was total randomness).But now we are going in the opposite direction.We are now an ordered state.It doesn’t happen…A simple experiement:ttake the letters which spell seven.Drop them from a roof top.How many times would you have to drop them for them to fall in order to spell seven?

 

[valentino]

a theist
**
the conditions which led to human evolution were bound to arise, by probability, not accident.**

Christians agree with this in that they see God ordering a universe that is destined to produce life.

But how do you know about life’s probability other than by observing that life exists?

Why were we “bound to arise” in your words? Why isn’t it just as credible to believe that in a universe without God we should be shocked indeed to observe life as we know it?

Exactly Christians see this.

 

[Nimzovik]

Originally Posted by a_theist91 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
we are not accidental in the true sense of the word. we didnt arise just becuase. human evolution, and the conditons which gave rise to human development were put in motion by the creation of the universe a truly vast, and seemingly infinite body. with a true sense of the nature of infinity the conditions which led to human evolution were bound to arise, by probability, not accident.

All things tend toward randomness.Its a law of physics.Its called entropy.It goes against physics to have the universe to go from a random state(from the explosion of the big bang there was total randomness).But now we are going in the opposite direction.We are creating unity and unrandomness.

Perhaps he is reffering to the ‘infinity monkey.’ If -as quantum theory may suggest- there is a whole new universe created for each time the monkey makes a yes no decision - (Why not? We are talking about infinity here-yes?) -then give the ape a type writter. Eventually after scaninng enuff universes one would find a universe where the gorilla typed out the Guttenburg Bible. As with monkey - so with life and randomness.

Of course there is a fallacy here. One could give a rock a type writter and NO Guttenburg Bible would be written no matter how many universes one scans. Perhaps the Monkey is like the rock in regard to the limitations as defined by being a monkey (or a rock.) Perhaps also so with the primordial soup and randomness -eh? :banghead:

Note also. If as quantum theory may indicate- that there are virtually an infinite number of an individual - then which (individual) would be judged on which merits on judgement day? Perhaps the individual in each universe is not judged per se. Perhaps the totality of the individuals would be judged? The ‘construct’ of the individual -if you will? That is too many of the indviduals (the ‘construct’) said yes to sin too many times? :banghead::whacky::coolinoff: Aspirin please!

 

[Planty_Business]

The inevitability of irrational events is unrelated to justice.

It is related if those irrational events cause innocent humans to suffer. Natural disasters, for instance.

So that we can choose what to believe and how to live.

Great! Now if only God didn’t expect me to either believe in him and love him or burn for eternity!

It implies that we have been given the power to distinguish and choose good or evil, i.e. to love or not to love. Without that power we are not persons.

So you’re saying that Adam and Eve were not truly human until they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? If that’s true, and if it is also true that eating from that tree was a sin, then does not that imply that being human is a bad thing? Maybe that is true. Maybe we would be happier without any moral responsibility. I don’t know. But according to Catholicism that is false, which contradicts the implications of the Genesis story.

Sin is attractive because it appears to liberate us from our obligations. The lust for power is at the root of all evil.

But why did God give us that lust for power (or sexual lust, in the case of the example I gave)? God supposedly designed Adam and Eve. He knew all their personal preferences and desires. So he had no excuse whatsoever not to create the proverbial Pandora’s Box with such an attractive form. Why was it the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why not the Disgusting Puddle of Sewage of Good and Evil? Satire aside, that would seriously be a more prudent choice if God did not want humans to sin.

How could all sins be equally appealing?!

Why are all sins not unappealing? That was the question I was asking. Why didn’t God create me with as much a sense of disgust toward unchaste sexual activity as my sense of disgust toward slavery, murder, or rape? It’s not a complicated question.

There is suffering in heaven! All love entails suffering because love entails compassion. But in heaven it is insignificant in the context of the joy, glory and perfection of God.

You and I obviously have very different definitions of “love”. Certainly, self-sacrifice is a great display of love. But it is not the greatest, nor is it necessary for true love. By your logic, if Adam and Eve had never sinned, love would not exist. That is preposterous. Love is an emotion of utmost benevolence and desire for the well-being of the beloved. That does not entail suffering in any way. If there is suffering in heaven, then I do not want to go to heaven.

Without any religious beliefs I would look at this majestic cosmos full of myriad natural wonders and say “It does not make sense to attribute all this beauty, harmony and purpose to purposeless processes”!

But science tells us that it does make sense. We know how it is possible to get from a singularity point of pitiless indifference to Earth in its present state over 13.7 billion years. The only reason we humans find beauty, harmony, and purpose in the universe is that we evolved to find the world beautiful, harmonious, and purposeful. The grass is not green because I find the color green to be beautiful; I find the color green to be beautiful because the grass is green. Another example is sex; the only reason we humans find sex pleasurable is that we had to evolve with an affinity for sex in order to pass on our genes.

We want to enjoy our lives as much as possible, so we give meaning to our experiences. That does not mean that the universe has objective purpose. Any purpose it does have is decided by its sentient inhabitants.

Random coincidences are exceptions which occur within the framework of order and Design. This view is distinct from the view that life is the product of Chance and Necessity.

You did not answer my question. Do you or do you not find all random coincidences ugly and meaningless simply because they are not a product of design?

Life is what you make of it because God has given us the power to choose what to make it.

If by “God”, you mean our brains, which give us consciousness, sure.

 

[davidv]

It is related if those irrational events cause innocent humans to suffer. Natural disasters, for instance.

Great! Now if only God didn’t expect me to either believe in him and love him or burn for eternity!

Why is this an unjust choice?

So you’re saying that Adam and Eve were not truly human until they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

Where was this stated. Catholic teaching indicates that their post sin condition is the diminished one, less human if you will.

If that’s true, and if it is also true that eating from that tree was a sin, then does not that imply that being human is a bad thing? Maybe that is true. Maybe we would be happier without any moral responsibility. I don’t know. But according to Catholicism that is false, which contradicts the implications of the Genesis story.

But why did God give us that lust for power (or sexual lust, in the case of the example I gave)?

God didn’t give it to us, we took it for ourselves.

God supposedly designed Adam and Eve. He knew all their personal preferences and desires. So he had no excuse whatsoever not to create the proverbial Pandora’s Box with such an attractive form. Why was it the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why not the Disgusting Puddle of Sewage of Good and Evil? Satire aside, that would seriously be a more prudent choice if God did not want humans to sin.

Sounds like you are pretending to know better than God on how to do creation. I’m going to go with God being the one who knows what was best.

Why are all sins not unappealing? That was the question I was asking. Why didn’t God create me with as much a sense of disgust toward unchaste sexual activity as my sense of disgust toward slavery, murder, or rape? It’s not a complicated question.

Why don’t you have equal disgust for all sins?

You and I obviously have very different definitions of “love”. Certainly, self-sacrifice is a great display of love. But it is not the greatest, nor is it necessary for true love. By your logic, if Adam and Eve had never sinned, love would not exist. That is preposterous. Love is an emotion of utmost benevolence and desire for the well-being of the beloved. That does not entail suffering in any way. If there is suffering in heaven, then I do not want to go to heaven.

We are on a Catholic forum discussing a topic related to Catholism. As such we ought to use the Church’s meaning of the word. If we don’t we are just strawmaning the Church’s teaching.

But science tells us that it does make sense.

No it doesn’t. It has no tools on which to base any comment about the immaterial.

We know how it is possible to get from a singularity point of pitiless indifference to Earth in its present state over 13.7 billion years.

Actually we don’t 'know" this. It is scientific conjecture and extrapolation from a limited set of facts.

The only reason we humans find beauty, harmony, and purpose in the universe is that we evolved to find the world beautiful, harmonious, and purposeful. The grass is not green because I find the color green to be beautiful; I find the color green to be beautiful because the grass is green. Another example is sex; the only reason we humans find sex pleasurable is that we had to evolve with an affinity for sex in order to pass on our genes.

We want to enjoy our lives as much as possible, so we give meaning to our experiences.

Some will do so with such vigor as to cause harm to others. Doesn’t sound like correct basis for living.

That does not mean that the universe has objective purpose. Any purpose it does have is decided by its sentient inhabitants.

The creature does not define its intended purpose. A hammer doesn’t tell the hammer maker what its purpose is.

You did not answer my question. Do you or do you not find all random coincidences ugly and meaningless simply because they are not a product of design?

If by “God”, you mean our brains, which give us consciousness, sure.

 

[tonyrey]

The inevitability of irrational events is unrelated to justice.

Can you explain how **all **suffering could be prevented?

So that we can choose what to believe and how to live.

Great! Now if only God didn’t expect me to either believe in him and love him or burn for eternity!

God expects you to believe exactly what you choose to believe! And accept the consequences. Lack of love for others leads to lack of love for you. The isolation and misery caused by selfishness is self-inflicted.

It implies that we have been given the power to distinguish and choose good or evil, i.e. to love or not to love. Without that power we are not persons.

So you’re saying that Adam and Eve were not truly human until they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? If that’s true, and if it is also true that eating from that tree was a sin, then does not that imply that being human is a bad thing? Maybe that is true. Maybe we would be happier without any moral responsibility. I don’t know. But according to Catholicism that is false, which contradicts the implications of the Genesis story.

The myth of Adam and Eve reflects the indisputable fact that at one point in history our ancestors distinguished good from evil - and deliberately chose evil.

Sin is attractive because it appears to liberate us from our obligations. The lust for power is at the root of all evil.

But why did God give us that lust for power (or sexual lust, in the case of the example I gave)? God supposedly designed Adam and Eve. He knew all their personal preferences and desires. So he had no excuse whatsoever not to create the proverbial Pandora’s Box with such an attractive form. Why was it the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why not the Disgusting Puddle of Sewage of Good and Evil? Satire aside, that would seriously be a more prudent choice if God did not want humans to sin.

1. Do you accept the reality of evil?
2. Do you deny that the lust for power is at the root of all evil?
3. Do you reject the fact that knowledge is a necessary condition of moral responsibility?

How could all sins be equally appealing?!

Why are all sins not unappealing? That was the question I was asking. Why didn’t God create me with as much a sense of disgust toward unchaste sexual activity as my sense of disgust toward slavery, murder, or rape? It’s not a complicated question.

You don’t represent the whole of humanity! Otherwise slavery, murder and rape would be extremely rare events. Is there any **reason **why you feel disgust?

There is suffering in heaven! All love entails suffering because love entails compassion. But in heaven it is insignificant in the context of the joy, glory and perfection of God.

You and I obviously have very different definitions of “love”. Certainly, self-sacrifice is a great display of love. But it is not the greatest, nor is it necessary for true love. By your logic, if Adam and Eve had never sinned, love would not exist. That is preposterous. Love is an emotion of utmost benevolence and desire for the well-being of the beloved. That does not entail suffering in any way. If there is suffering in heaven, then I do not want to go to heaven.

If you don’t want to suffer you are incapable of sincere self-sacrifice and therefore of a great display of love - which throws doubt on your professed belief in love.

Without any religious beliefs I would look at this majestic cosmos full of myriad natural wonders and say “It does not make sense to attribute all this beauty, harmony and purpose to purposeless processes”!

But science tells us that it does make sense. We know how it is possible to get from a singularity point of pitiless indifference to Earth in its present state over 13.7 billion years.

We don’t know that at all!

The only reason we humans find beauty, harmony, and purpose in the universe is that we evolved to find the world beautiful, harmonious, and purposeful.

So beauty, harmony, and purpose exist only in our imagination?

The grass is not green because I find the color green to be beautiful; I find the color green to be beautiful because the grass is green.

That is not a reason. Do you find every colour or hue beautiful?

Another example is sex; the only reason we humans find sex pleasurable is that we had to evolve with an affinity for sex in order to pass on our genes.

What is the reason we or anything else evolved at all?

We want to enjoy our lives as much as possible, so we give meaning to our experiences.

What gives us the capacity for enjoyment and the power to give meaning?

That does not mean that the universe has objective purpose. Any purpose it does have is decided by its sentient inhabitants.

So purposes exist only in the mind?

Random coincidences are exceptions which occur within the framework of order and Design. This view is distinct from the view that life is the product of Chance and Necessity.

You did not answer my question. Do you or do you not find all random coincidences ugly and meaningless simply because they are not a product of design?

Some random coincidences are not ugly but they are all meaningless in the context of Design. If you create a machine for a specific purpose and it happens to produce other effects they are meaningless in the context of your purpose.

Life is what you make of it because God has given us the power to choose what to make it.

If by “God”, you mean our brains, which give us consciousness, sure.

Did our brains choose to give us consciousness?