Why do scientists want to prove we are an accident?

[Planty_Business]

Animals survive without them.

Those animals survive in different environmental contexts than we do. Those animals may also have features that allow them to survive without the ability to reason that we do not have. For instance, carnivorous animals have a genetic makeup such that they can tear and digest raw meat from dead prey. They do not require the ability to cook their food. Early humans, at least those in the context where they needed to eat meat as opposed to a strictly herbivorous diet, had no such assets. They needed the ability to reason to build fires and cook their meat. I am not an evolutionary biologist by any means, so consult one if you want to know more about this subject.

But the power of reason is** ultimately **an accident?

Yes, if not inevitable given such a long timeframe where organisms are bound to inherit genetic mutations of extremely diverse varieties.

It is not a cosmological but a philosophical question.

I am not a philosopher, either.

Can you explain how?

Neuroscience is a complicated subject with which I am not acquainted. Just because my common sense may tell me that this cannot be explained, it doesn’t mean my common sense is right in that regard. I would have thought it impossible for DNA to replicate itself had I not taken middle school science classes. Perhaps this is the same.

All neuroscientists know is that electrical impulses are **related **to thoughts… It merely suggests a relationship.

Right, and all evolutionary biologists know is that natural selection is related to the evolution of life on Earth.

For you intentions are illusions… So all human actions are based on illusions?

Well, intentions are the “middle man” in the equation here. The only reason I (or, if you insist, my brain) has the intention (an illusion) to eat food is based on the fact (not illusions) that food is necessary for my survival, and my brain recognizes that fact. So while my actions are based on the illusions of intentions and desires, they are also based on facts that influence my brain states (and, in turn, what I perceive as intentions).

You pretend you know thought is a natural process of the brain, both in humans and other animals: “That’s simply a fact.” Isn’t that dishonest and arrogant?

I have no reason to think that there is any magical, spiritual element to thought, but yes, I suppose you could say I am not justified in claiming “knowledge” here, any more than I would be justified in claiming that I know God doesn’t exist.

So you are powerless?

In a strictly determinist sense, yes, I am powerless, but that does not rid me of my autonomy; many determinist philosophers of free will have provided explanations for why a lack of “free will” in the conventional sense of the word does not entail moral nihilism.

It means you throw magic into the mix, as materialists do!

The idea that matter and energy could have come into existence from nothing is no more absurd than the idea that an immaterial being could bring matter and energy into existence from nothing - especially when the immaterial being in question is a logically incoherent concept.

No one can explain God but the Supreme Being is a far more reasonable explanation than purposeless particles.

So magic makes more sense to you than the idea that the universe could have come into existence without any intent or design? Neither explanation is “reasonable” if it cannot be proven in any way. You are just using your common sense, which tends to be an unreliable tool in scientific matters such as determining the origin of the universe.

 

[Planty_Business]

“If” is the key word… Can you explain how it arose?

Could you actually do some research of your own instead of asking a non-scientist about scientific matters? *Talkorigins.org is a superb resource for people who are skeptical of evolution and abiogenesis, and who want answers to their questions about those matters.

The question is what type of evolution. Blind or Designed? What is more effective?

If we have sufficient evidence to conclude that evolution needs no design - natural selection does the “designing” - then this is an irrelevant question. *Designed evolution would not include junk DNA, vestigial organs, and abysmal flaws in the “design” of certain organisms, all of which we see in Earth’s organisms.

Complex organisms are more vulnerable than simple ones.

Could you please provide a link to Hawking’s exact statement on this matter?

So you prefer an existence without development?

If that development requires unnecessary suffering on the part of innocent animals that can experience pain, yes.

Is suffering the worst evil?

It is only an “evil” if there is intent behind it, and if God exists, he intended for billions of animals to suffer. *Unnecessary suffering inflicted on innocent creatures is the greatest evil, yes.

Imagination is not a valid substitute for fact.

Sure, but given an omnipotent God, my imaginary world should be possible.

You haven’t shown it is unnecessary.

You haven’t shown that it is necessary! *What is necessary about death?

I accept it as a necessary transition to the afterlife - without which nothing makes sense.

Personally, I would not want the deaths of Holocaust victims to “make sense”, otherwise Hitler was justified in killing them.

He did! Evolution by intelligent selection. You’re a psychopath if you regard suffering as the supreme evil which destroys the value of all life on this planet.

God “intelligently selected” 98% or so of all life on Earth from the first organism to now for extinction?

Your third statement here is laughable, by the way. *Giving a care about who suffers unnecessarily is anything but psychopathic.

Mathematics is based on logic not emotion.

So? *That doesn’t mean that it is logical to conclude that something is beautiful. *Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. *Nothing can be objectively beautiful, even if the Golden Ratio seems beautiful to some people.

Why on earth do we want better reasons if we have evolved solely to survive? According to you survival doesn’t depend on reasons but biological facts.

As I have already said, humans evolved with the ability to be self-aware and conscious of the world around us. *That ability does have survival value - it allows us to make more intelligent choices to increase our chances of survival - but one of its fruits, the search for better reasons, does not increase chances of survival. *It’s the same principle as I illustrated about why humans have the capacity to do science and philosophize.

“To pretend I do **know **something I don’t is dishonest and arrogant”!

Sure, but I am not pretending to know - I do know that the explanation for why the earth seems fine-tuned for us only insofar as it allows us to survive (not live comfortably, as one would expect given a benevolent creator) is that evolution only preserves genes that make survival easier, not life easier.

“explained” or “claimed”?

It is a claim that an evolutionary biologist can back up.

What is the “something besides survival”?

Our desires for knowledge, I suppose.

 

[TheWatcher]

No.My parents were Catholic so when I finally decided for myself that God was real and truelly love me more than anyone else could I sought out how not to sin.After years of struggle and going to many different churches i decided that the Catholic Church is the one and only true church of Christ.I can only prove what i know about.There is much I don’t know about.Actually i can’t prove very much because when I learn something I forget where I learned it. Im not good at quoting bible verses and telling chapters and verse and that sort of thing…But I do know what I believe to be true.I read the bible off and on(never have read the complete OT.I read much Catholic literature and non Catholic literature.I only examine verses from the bible or readings from other sources that are really relavant to my faith in God(or Jesus)I believe that God really wants me to understand Him.I don’t know if that is the same in your case and I don’t believe that is the case with most people.Most Catholics believe in Jesus and follow the rules of the Church but don’t really take much time in really understanding why many of the rules are put in place.I don’t think they necessarily have to.We’re all called to a certain type of life.Most Catholics to a married life,some to priesthood(or nun) ,some to contemplative(monks.)This is just my opinion but I don;t think anyone is called to the single life.Their single because they never met the right partner and also they were never called to the religious life.

I guess I don’t understand why you have a difficult time understanding that scientists look at the world in the same way; they look at data points, they make theories and test them. They sometimes find a theory that appears to fit really well; sometimes they fail miserably.

Just like you said you studied and collected information, you made theories and found churches that might fit- you tested them by attending them. After a few “failures”- church (theories) that didn’t fit well, you found one that did. (Catholic)

 

[Faithdancer]

It’s not that scientists want to prove that we are accidents, per se. It is just the conclusion that some scientists have reached. Personally, I think that the idea of a universe in which everything happens for a reason is disturbing, in that it robs us of our moral integrity. If God’s will is sovereign, and God intended for the events of the universe to play out in such a way that Adolf Hitler committed genocide, then I have no reason to condemn Hitler’s actions. I like being an accident, for the same reason Catholics probably think God likes being an accident.

God likes being an accident? Huh? You lost me there!

 

[Faithdancer]

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.

Just want to clarify (and I’m former medical laboratory scientist, now an exercise scientist)- good scientific investigation, i.e. research, doesn’t prove anything. It can only reject or accept the null hypothesis. I may not remember much from the dreaded introduction to research classes that start out science grad programs, but I’ll always remember that, it was beaten into us!

 

[Faithdancer]

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 wrote a graduate paper on this topic once, for a class on Milton, which was of course mostly a class on Paradise Lost.
I believe the test was of obedience, primarily. I also believe, and this was the main argument of my paper, that God expected Adam and Eve to disobey. That they were “given the choice to do something that would doom us” is because God did not want them to remain blindly obedient puppets, in Eden for all eternity. By giving mankind free will, God gives mankind the opportunity to fail, but also to learn from failure, to rise above sin and become more sentient, more angelic. We always have the opportunity to do good, despite our past failures, so long as we live.

Parents try to warn their children about all the dangers in the world, and the consequences of bad choices, but ultimately parents realize that these living, thinking creatures they have brought into the world are not little robots, and are going to learn their own way, in their own time, and go through a long phase (called adolescence) of rejection of parental values, seemingly stubborn defiance, all in the formation of their own individuality, the essential human need to feel independent. Then, later in life, in their 20s or 30s, they realize that maybe their parents weren’t so ignorant after all, maybe they could have spared themselves some grief if they had actually listened to parents, teachers, counselors, ministers, etc. At this point of realization they have matured as independently thinking human beings. Parents may lose faith in their ability to positively influence their child’s maturation; they go through the “what did I do wrong” phase. But in most cases of healthy and successful maturation, parents really do have a strong influence on who their child has become as an adult. Educational psychology supports the idea that parents generally have a strong influence on their child’s belief systems, but that this doesn’t become apparent until later adolescence and adulthood, .

But I digress. I believe that God, being much wiser than human parents, knew that Adam and Eve would disobey. Without that disobedience, they could not learn, and could not grow. Because of their disobedience, they knew good and evil, or moral knowledge. They then had a much greater opportunity to do good, or to do evil, in many areas of their lives. Their choices become much more varied and complex than, “eat the apple? or don’t eat the apple?” Although fundamentally every choice is to either take an action, or to take not take that action.

It is important to understand that in Catholic dogma, unlike Calvinist dogma, Adam and Eve were not irrrevocably doomed, nor is any other human being. When we confess, repent of our sins, make atonement and do better, live by the Golden Rule, and live in communion with God, not apart from him, we are doing good, and are saved. Not saved from mortality, but from eternal separation from God. This is fundamental to the Catholic catechism- it is being apart from God forever, not fire and pitchforks, that is the fate of the “damned.”

In sum, I believe:
Did God think Adam and Eve would disobey? Most likely.
Did God want Adam and Eve to learn from the consequences of their disobedience?
Most definitely.
Does God want all the rest of us to stop rebelling, to accept that he exists and loves us in infinite measure, and to come home, just as a loving parent of a prodigal child wants?
Absolutely.

 

[Faithdancer]

If life began without a creator God and no God existed, it would be interesting. I think people would strive to keep the earth in better shape and just explore everything we possibly can.

There would still be morals in our world since people can have morals without a God. It would be essential for survival.

We should make the most of our lives.

I’m not attacking you whatsoever, Arkadin, but I’ve heard this argument that morals are necessary for survival, and I just don’t buy it. Certainly not in the sense of complex moral systems, such as those which have arisen in most great civilizations throughout history. And there are many examples of societies which were peaceful, “moral” societies that were conquered or wiped out by violent, “amoral” groups of people. In these cases, strongly moral behavior was disadvantageous to survival. Jesus himself preached humility, compassion, mercy, tolerance, self-sacrifice- all qualities considered highly moral, however that did not enhance his physical survival in his earthly body- quite the contrary. But of course, that was the plan!

 

[inocente]

I’m not attacking you whatsoever, Arkadin, but I’ve heard this argument that morals are necessary for survival, and I just don’t buy it. Certainly not in the sense of complex moral systems, such as those which have arisen in most great civilizations throughout history.

Hi Faithdancer.

This may be unfair but on the face of it you appear to be equating moralities other than your own with amorality.

A lot of basic morality is built-in, for instance incest leads to nonviable offspring and so we evolved to not be attracted to our siblings and instead be disgusted by the idea, and as a result we label it immoral. But as social animals hard-wired rules alone don’t cut it so we also evolved with a capability to make moral decisions, and this allows us to make common agreements on whatever we deem moral. It can then be argued that all moral systems, no matter how sophisticated, are driven by survival. In this view, debating on CAF can be seen as individuals trying to sway others’ opinions to aid the survival of their tribe and attract new members, and associating a given moral code with a belief in God can be seen as an enforcement regime to aid the survival of the tribe. And so on.

I’m not looking to start a discussion on evolution (banned anyway) or to start a round of reductio ad Hitlerum, just saying that from a different perspective Arkadin’s point has merit.

 

[tonyrey]

Could you actually do some research of your own instead of asking a non-scientist about scientific matters?

A summary is sufficient.

*Designed evolution would not include junk DNA, vestigial organs, and abysmal flaws in the “design” of certain organisms, all of which we see in Earth’s organisms.

Any immensely complex system entails unwanted coincidences.

Could you please provide a link to Hawking’s exact statement on this matter?

brembs.net/SWH.html

So you prefer an existence without development?

If development requires unnecessary suffering on the part of innocent animals that can experience pain, yes.

So you believe it would be better if life on earth had never existed!
Is suffering the worst evil?

*Unnecessary suffering inflicted on innocent creatures is the greatest evil, yes.

You assume it is unnecessary.

Sure, but given an omnipotent God, my imaginary world should be possible.

Omnipotence is concerned with reality not fantasy.

*What is necessary about death?

What is necessary about life?!

Personally, I would not want the deaths of Holocaust victims to “make sense”, otherwise Hitler was justified in killing them.

Human injustice is subordinate to divine justice.

God “intelligently selected” 98% or so of all life on Earth from the first organism to now for extinction?

Does extinction deprive life of all its value?

Giving a care about who suffers unnecessarily is anything but psychopathic.

It is psychopathic to regard suffering as a reason not to exist.

Nothing can be objectively beautiful, even if the Golden Ratio seems beautiful to some people.

Beauty based on logic and mathematics cannot be subjective. Harmony exists whether we recognise it or not.

As I have already said, humans evolved with the ability to be self-aware and conscious of the world around us.

You have not explained why self-awareness is necessary for survival.

Sure, but I am not pretending to know - I do know that the explanation for why the earth seems fine-tuned for us only insofar as it allows us to survive (not live comfortably, as one would expect given a benevolent creator) is that evolution only preserves genes that make survival easier, not life easier.

“It is better to Socrates dissatisfied rather than a pig satisfied”. - JS Mill

It is a claim that an evolutionary biologist can back up.

Another unsupported claim!

Our desires for knowledge, I suppose.

How did the desire for knowledge originate?

Early humans, at least those in the context where they needed to eat meat as opposed to a strictly herbivorous diet, had no such assets.

There was no need to become carnivorous. Many animals are vegetarians.

But the power of reason is ultimately an accident?

Yes, if not inevitable given such a long timeframe where organisms are bound to inherit genetic mutations of extremely diverse varieties.

The power of reason is not physical.

I am not a philosopher, either.

So what?

Neuroscience is a complicated subject with which I am not acquainted.

Then your argument is based on faith in neuroscience!

Right, and all evolutionary biologists know is that natural selection is related to the evolution of life on Earth.

Many scientists reject it as the** sole** explanation of development.

So while my actions are based on the illusions of intentions and desires, they are also based on facts that influence my brain states (and, in turn, what I perceive as intentions).

In that case “your” (= the) entire argument is derived from brain states which are unaware of they are doing! Hardly a plausible justification of a correct interpretation of reality - considering how unreliable instincts are!

In a strictly determinist sense, yes, I am powerless, but that does not rid me of my autonomy; many determinist philosophers of free will have provided explanations for why a lack of “free will” in the conventional sense of the word does not entail moral nihilism.

Whether they are right is open to doubt…

The idea that matter and energy could have come into existence from nothing is no more absurd than the idea that an immaterial being could bring matter and energy into existence from nothing - especially when the immaterial being in question is a logically incoherent concept.

You need to explain why it is logically incoherent.

You are just using your common sense, which tends to be an unreliable tool in scientific matters such as determining the origin of the universe.

It is not common sense but logic that purposeful activity which entails hindsight, insight and foresight cannot be produced by particles which lack hindsight, insight and foresight.

 

[Faithdancer]

Hi Faithdancer.

This may be unfair but on the face of it you appear to be equating moralities other than your own with amorality.

A lot of basic morality is built-in, for instance incest leads to nonviable offspring and so we evolved to not be attracted to our siblings and instead be disgusted by the idea, and as a result we label it immoral. But as social animals hard-wired rules alone don’t cut it so we also evolved with a capability to make moral decisions, and this allows us to make common agreements on whatever we deem moral. It can then be argued that all moral systems, no matter how sophisticated, are driven by survival. In this view, debating on CAF can be seen as individuals trying to sway others’ opinions to aid the survival of their tribe and attract new members, and associating a given moral code with a belief in God can be seen as an enforcement regime to aid the survival of the tribe. And so on.

I’m not looking to start a discussion on evolution (banned anyway) or to start a round of reductio ad Hitlerum, just saying that from a different perspective Arkadin’s point has merit.

I don’t see where I’ve stated any judgements about other moral systems, I do consider violent, aggressive behavior to be amoral, however.

You seem to support the argument that God is an invented concept, necessary to support a moral code that in turn, serves no other purpose than to ensure human biological survival.

 

[Faithdancer]

I don’t see where I’ve stated any judgements about other moral systems, I do consider violent, aggressive behavior to be amoral, however. And I don’t agree with the argument that God is an invented concept, necessary to support a moral code that in turn, serves no other purpose than to ensure the biological survival of a human subgroup.This argument does not support a revealed religion that espouses faith, hope, and charity. It does support atheism, however.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You seem to support the argument that God is an invented concept, necessary to support a moral code that in turn, serves no other purpose than to ensure human biological survival.

There have been gods invented while people were watching (ex: the “cargo cults”). If you are a monotheist then you might also see the gods of polytheists as being “invented.” There’s also evidence that supports the hypothesis that the concept of Yahweh evolved from stories and concepts taken from other religions the evidence of which predates the earliest known writings of Christianity such as the Enuma Elish which is believed to have been the source for the first chapter of Genesis, Gilgamesh table 11 which contains a myth of a man that made a large wooden boat to save life on earth from one of the gods, countless religions that had deity figures that were born of virgins, died, and were resurrected, and so on. Preserved writings that were later collected and published as the bible had different versions and there is evidence of those writings having evolved over time from things as simple as copy mistakes (they were written by hand) to intention insertions and changes to promote one’s agenda.

 

[inocente]

I don’t see where I’ve stated any judgements about other moral systems, I do consider violent, aggressive behavior to be amoral, however.

Then marines going into battle must be waaaaay amoral.

You seem to support the argument that God is an invented concept, necessary to support a moral code that in turn, serves no other purpose than to ensure human biological survival.

Or God exists but doesn’t dictate moral codes, which was what I intended.

 

[Faithdancer]

Then marines going into battle must be waaaaay amoral.
Yes, according to a long succession of Popes, speaking ex cathedra, the killing of one human being by another is immoral, and war itself is an evil. However, if you are speaking of self defense of a homeland against annihilation, please refer back to my original example and subsequent post in which I described a violently aggressive invader attacking a peaceful people.

Or God exists but doesn’t dictate moral codes, which was what I intended.

I disagree, God not only dictates moral codes, but in one most notable example, dictated and transcribed them Himself, onto two stone tablets.
In the New Testament, there are many, many examples of Jesus clarifying morality, including the Ten Commandments. I would say that Jesus was highly authoritative in some of these passages, and was not requesting, but dictating, how human beings should morally behave.

 

[Faithdancer]

There have been gods invented while people were watching (ex: the “cargo cults”). If you are a monotheist then you might also see the gods of polytheists as being “invented.” There’s also evidence that supports the hypothesis that the concept of Yahweh evolved from stories and concepts taken from other religions the evidence of which predates the earliest known writings of Christianity such as the Enuma Elish which is believed to have been the source for the first chapter of Genesis, Gilgamesh table 11 which contains a myth of a man that made a large wooden boat to save life on earth from one of the gods, countless religions that had deity figures that were born of virgins, died, and were resurrected, and so on. Preserved writings that were later collected and published as the bible had different versions and there is evidence of those writings having evolved over time from things as simple as copy mistakes (they were written by hand) to intention insertions and changes to promote one’s agenda.

The Roman Catholic Catechism does not deny that the Holy Bible was physically written by multiple hands; in fact, this is accepted and in no way is seen as contrary to the de fide acceptance that Holy Scripture was transcribed by human beings, howsoever many, but divinely inspired. It is also quite acceptable to Catholics educated in the Catechism that religions preceding Christianity contained elements, glimpses as it were, of the truth that was fully revealed in Jesus Christ. Why? Because God is eternal, and can reveal truth whenever and to whomever He wants to- before or after the birth of Jesus Christ, on this planet or any other that is populated by sentient beings, or even to sentient beings inhabiting some parallel multiverse, if it turns out that these exists All of this is acceptable within the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The fact that different humans, in different ages, have had remarkably similar religious stories and beliefs only further strengthens the idea of a deeply human, intuitive recognition of essential truth.

 

[tonyrey]

The Roman Catholic Catechism does not deny that the Holy Bible was physically written by multiple hands; in fact, this is accepted and in no way is seen as contrary to the de fide acceptance that Holy Scripture was transcribed by human beings, howsoever many, but divinely inspired. It is also quite acceptable to Catholics educated in the Catechism that religions preceding Christianity contained elements, glimpses as it were, of the truth that was fully revealed in Jesus Christ. Why? Because God is eternal, and can reveal truth whenever and to whomever He wants to- before or after the birth of Jesus Christ, on this planet or any other that is populated by sentient beings, or even to sentient beings inhabiting some parallel multiverse, if it turns out that these exists All of this is acceptable within the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The fact that different humans, in different ages, have had remarkably similar religious stories and beliefs only further strengthens the idea of a deeply human, intuitive recognition of essential truth.

An excellent analysis of what **Catholicism really means. **It includes others wherever possible.

 

[inocente]

inocente;8179071:

Then marines going into battle must be waaaaay amoral.
Yes, according to a long succession of Popes, speaking ex cathedra, the killing of one human being by another is immoral, and war itself is an evil. However, if you are speaking of self defense of a homeland against annihilation, please refer back to my original example and subsequent post in which I described a violently aggressive invader attacking a peaceful people.

Or God exists but doesn’t dictate moral codes, which was what I intended.

For clarity, I didn’t write most of that quote - you can use the button with the text bubble icon to insert quote markers.

I take it the middle part is your reply but for instance were the French and later the US peacefully moral or violently amoral, not to say viciously immoral at times, towards Vietnam? Did God dictate the moral code of the Vietnamese before or after attempts to convert them from Buddhism? In other words arguments for a God-given moral code always seem to depend heavily on the personal beliefs of the one making the arguments.

I disagree, God not only dictates moral codes, but in one most notable example, dictated and transcribed them Himself, onto two stone tablets.

Have they been found and authenticated then?

In the New Testament, there are many, many examples of Jesus clarifying morality, including the Ten Commandments. I would say that Jesus was highly authoritative in some of these passages, and was not requesting, but dictating, how human beings should morally behave.

Yet Jesus never said a word about homosexuality.

 

[Faithdancer]

To a devout Catholic, it is irrelevant whether or not the original stone tablets are displayed in a museum somewhere, or toured like the mummy of King Tut, or have disintegrated with time and are never seen again at all by human eyes.

Yet Jesus never said a word about homosexuality.

One thing is certain- the Old Testament is clear on the wrongness of homosexuality and devout Catholics accept the Old Testament as conjoined with the New Testament in relating the word of God.

 

[Faithdancer]

An excellent analysis of what **Catholicism really means. **It includes others wherever possible.

Thank you tonyrey, I highly respect and value your opinion!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is also quite acceptable to Catholics educated in the Catechism that religions preceding Christianity contained elements, glimpses as it were, of the truth that was fully revealed in Jesus Christ. Why? …The fact that different humans, in different ages, have had remarkably similar religious stories and beliefs only further strengthens the idea of a deeply human, intuitive recognition of essential truth.

I’ve heard similar views to this expressed in some non-Catholic groups. Their interpretation of “Why” seemed to range from it being a form a confirmation to “Satan did it to throw people off” (which in some sense might be considered some form of confirmation).