Archbishop in pot calling kettle black shock

[Remix]

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door

This is merely a factual statement. ..

I agree. Purple where were you going with that crazy post above regarding Jehovah's witness's and claims of misquotes etc.?

Many strange phenonema which at the time were attributed to the hand of God have since been fully explained by science. You would hardly expect a scientist who on getting an unexpected, even counterintuitive, result from an experiment to call in a theologian.

Many scientists are religious. Science labs around the worlds are not completely occupied by Richard Dawkins copycats. (Although there are many of these around outside of the scientific community )

Science and religion are obviously not incompatible for many people.

The ill will that's being stirred up lately between science and theology is possibly a tactic on behalf of some of the more entrenched atheists in the scientific community.

 

[Purple]

I agree. Purple where were you going with that crazy post above regarding Jehovah's witness's and claims of misquotes etc.?

Lewontin doesn’t like his observations on the limits of science to be presented in such a way that they support the existence of a god. The Jehovah's witness's quote was used to support this assertion, nothing crazy about that.

Science and religion are obviously not incompatible for many people.

Only because they choose to ignore their incompatibility.

The ill will that's being stirred up lately between science and theology is possibly a tactic on behalf of some of the more entrenched atheists in the scientific community.

So the current Popes rowing back on his predecessors position on evolution and the enemies of reason and enlightenment that seek to teach creationism in American schools have nothing to do with it? When reason and logic are attacked it is reasonable and logical to defend them.

 

[Remix]

Lewontin doesn’t like his observations on the limits of science to be presented in such a way that they support the existence of a god. The Jehovah's witness's quote was used to support this assertion, nothing crazy about that.

My quote of Lewontin was factual in nature and was stated 16 years after the event you refer to. Your attempt to link my use of this quote with an alleged misuse by Jehovah's Witness's of a completely different quote is stretching it a bit.

Only because they choose to ignore their incompatibility.

Perhaps...or perhaps they have a better understanding of the differences.

Science has nothing privileged to say about issues that matter most to human beings seeking knowledge of how to live. Like everyone else, "the scientist must decide which ends to pursue, which gods to serve, which demon will hold the very fibers of his life.' (Max Weber - Science as a Vocation ) And these are exactly the questions that the scientific method cannot answer.
- (Source Eric Cohen - The Ends of Science)

So the current Popes rowing back on his predecessors position on evolution and the enemies of reason and enlightenment that seek to teach creationism in American schools have nothing to do with it? When reason and logic are attacked it is reasonable and logical to defend them.

"There is another fundamentalism: the belief that Darwinism explains everything important about being human "

If you accept this...well that's your business. But if this is being hauled into the public square and touted as truth then no surprise if it is challenged. And long may the debate continue..

 

[room305]

Only because they choose to ignore their incompatibility.

I've often wondered about this. I'm actually typing this from a scientific conference which has representation from just about every major faith in the world. I've worked with people before who I would consider very religious and were keen observers of the various demands of their faith - be it fasting, praying, not drinking alcohol etc. Yet it in no way impacted upon their scientific ability. So it's definitely not the case that they just adopted a fairly lassiez faire attitude to the whole subject and didn't think about it much. These were people for whom religion meant a great deal. I've never understood how they managed to square that with working in this field.

That said, I've never been brave enough to ask either.

 

[Purple]

Science has nothing privileged to say about issues that matter most to human beings seeking knowledge of how to live.

I agree completely but that’s nothing to do with religion. A humanistic moral code need not be informed by science at all.

Like everyone else, "the scientist must decide which ends to pursue, which gods to serve, which demon will hold the very fibers of his life.' (Max Weber - Science as a Vocation ) And these are exactly the questions that the scientific method cannot answer.
- (Source Eric Cohen - The Ends of Science)

The same point, I still agree and it still has nothing to do with religion. “gods” and “demons” in this context could easily be metaphorical. My understanding of the above quote is that science does not teach a moral code, I agree with this. However belief in a god is not in any way required in order to develop a moral code (or whatever phrase you wish to use to describe it).

"There is another fundamentalism: the belief that Darwinism explains everything important about being human "

I have never suggested that it does, indeed I have never heard anyone else on AAM suggest it. I don’t know where you got the idea that I would agree with this. Anyway, this is all off topic.

If you accept this...well that's your business. But if this is being hauled into the public square and touted as truth then no surprise if it is challenged. And long may the debate continue..

Evolution is a fact, the exact cause and effect and path of evolution is unclear and is proposed by many theories. They are sideshows within the main event.
The teachings of the Catholic Church over the years on the age of the world, the origin of man, the way in which we reproduce, etc, etc have all been shown to be utterly wrong. This is also a fact.
Belief in the events described in the Old and New Testament do not stand up to logical scrutiny and so require the suspension of reason and any requirement for empirical proof.

Given that of the above statements are true it is deeply hypocritical of the Catholic Church to criticise any other religion or belief system based on the supernatural.
Your comment above is just muddying the water and distract from the core point.

 

[Remix]

I've often wondered about this. I'm actually typing this from a scientific conference which has representation from just about every major faith in the world. I've worked with people before who I would consider very religious and were keen observers of the various demands of their faith - be it fasting, praying, not drinking alcohol etc. Yet it in no way impacted upon their scientific ability. So it's definitely not the case that they just adopted a fairly lassiez faire attitude to the whole subject and didn't think about it much. These were people for whom religion meant a great deal. I've never understand how they could square that with working in this field.

That said, I've never been brave enough to ask either.

A good book is "The Language of God" by Francis Collins.

This guy is an honoured scientist and was the leader of the Human Genome Project.

It's the story of how he - doing research at the very forefront of science - came to believe in God. Early in his career he concluded that religion had no "foundational truth". This was following interactions with "one or two aggressive atheists"

An agnostic or atheist most of his life and from a non-religious family he writes how he was struck by many aspects of our world and the universe that made it impossible for him to continue to deny a creator.

It's very well written and thought out - and with all the rhetoric flying about nowadays regarding faith and science, his I think is a welcome voice of reason.

 

[room305]

A good book is "The Language of God" by Francis Collins.

I shall definitely have to check it out. I will say as an avowed atheist I have no problem with the concept of deism - a belief in the existence of a supernatural being or even a supernatural creator of the universe. It's not implausible as Thomas Hobbes has often wrote.

The effects we acknowledge naturally, do include a power of their producing, before they were produced; and that power presupposeth something existent that hath such power; and the thing so existing with power to produce, if it were not eternal, must needs have been produced by somewhat before it, and that again by something else before that, till we come to an eternal, that is to say, the first power of all powers and first cause of all causes; and this is it which all men conceive by the name of God, implying eternity, incomprehensibility, and omnipotence.

However I reject absolutely any ideology that posits that this being takes an active interest in the affairs of man, intervening in our affairs, revealing himself through scripture, caring what particular incantonation of his names is used, what our sexual proclivities are etc.

It's huge leap from looking at the wonders of the universe and saying "there must be a God" to saying "I better not eat fish this Friday or God will be angry and will deny me eternal life" ...

 

[Remix]

I shall definitely have to check it out. I will say as an avowed atheist I have no problem with the concept of deism - a belief in the existence of a supernatural being or even a supernatural creator of the universe. It's not implausible as Thomas Hobbes has often wrote.



However I reject absolutely any ideology that posits that this being takes an active interest in the affairs of man, intervening in our affairs, revealing himself through scripture, caring what particular incantonation of his names is used, what our sexual proclivities are etc.

It's huge leap from looking at the wonders of the universe and saying "there must be a God" to saying "I better not eat fish this Friday or God will be angry and will deny me eternal life" ...

That's fine - that's your right and you can relax about that. As someone pointed our earlier - the church proposes not imposes.

(For example, Larry Craig in the news for his public toilet activities was not hauled off to jail and charged by a group of vatican enforcers. He was arrested following ongoing complaints by members of the public who planned to use the toilet for its "intended purpose" but found themselves being solicited or harassed.)


Another point I've heard that springs to mind is that atheists invest a lot of time attacking a god that hardly anyone believes in.

 

[polaris]

That's fine - that's your right and you can relax about that. As someone pointed our earlier - the church proposes not imposes.

You're giving the impression that militant atheism is browbeating/bullying a meek and gentle religious community who just want to be left alone to worship their respective Gods in private.

While it has thankfully declined in Ireland in recent years, religions still impose a rigid control on the lifestyle/freedoms of millions wordwide. One or two uncompromising atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens have appeared in recent years and they are accused of being unreasonable, offensive and of sowing discord!!

 

[Remix]

You're giving the impression that militant atheism is browbeating/bullying a meek and gentle religious community who just want to be left alone to worship their respective Gods in private.

While it has thankfully declined in Ireland in recent years, religions still impose a rigid control on the lifestyle/freedoms of millions wordwide. One or two uncompromising atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens have appeared in recent years and they are accused of being unreasonable, offensive and of sowing discord!!

In Catholicism, the method of freedom has been completely embraced:
"The Church imposes nothing; she only proposes." - That came from the vatican itself!
Pretty much sums up all of modern christianity I would think. And it ain't going away anytime soon.

As John Neuhaus has put it:
"Religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is a bull market because it is now evident that homo religiosus, man in search of transcendent meaning, is irrepressible"

Maybe this is why Dawkins , Hitchens etc are so p***ed off and angry. Religion was supposed to gradually wither away, darn it!, and we should be paying more attention to them, the poor things:

Christopher Hitchens
picks up the rice in a church
where a wedding has been.
Lives in a dream . . .

All the lonely doubters,
where do they all come from?
All the lonely doubters,
where do they all belong?

(song shamelessly pinched from the web )

 

[Gordanus]

In Catholicism, the method of freedom has been completely embraced:
"The Church imposes nothing; she only proposes." - That came from the vatican itself!

So did papal infallibility.

 

[Berlin]

Did you hear about the dyslexic insomniac agnostic?
He sat up all night wondering if there really is a dog.

 

[MOB]

"The teachings of the Catholic Church over the years on the age of the world, the origin of man, the way in which we reproduce, etc, etc have all been shown to be utterly wrong. This is also a fact."

Hi Purple. A huge proportion of scientific teaching over the years on the same topics has also been shown to be utterly wrong.

It is less than 100 years since most scientists were absolutely sure of the existence of the wholly imaginary luminiferous ether.

It is not much longer since our doctors learned that dirt in wounds causes infection.

It is less than 30 years since children were taken away from their parents on the strength of findings of abuse from scientists spouting the accepted theories of the day, now wholly discredited.

You can't expect any large (at times monolithic) power structure to be on the leading edge of change. It is only normal for the Catholic Church to have been a voice of conservatism at various times over the years. Many in the Church today undoubtedly wish that this were not so.

A lot of what we now know to be nasty, abusive or just daft happened when the Church was very powerful in our society. A lot of our greatest social and scientific advances also happened while the Church was very powerful. We need to be rigourous about ascribing cause and effect.

 

[pat127]

Did you hear about the dyslexic insomniac agnostic?
He sat up all night wondering if there really is a dog.

Foow! Foow!

 

[redstar]

"A huge proportion of scientific teaching over the years on the same topics has also been shown to be utterly wrong.

It is less than 100 years since most scientists were absolutely sure of the existence of the wholly imaginary luminiferous ether.

It is not much longer since our doctors learned that dirt in wounds causes infection.

It is less than 30 years since children were taken away from their parents on the strength of findings of abuse from scientists spouting the accepted theories of the day, now wholly discredited.

No arguing with that. All those things you mention were indeed overthrown - by advancement in scientific methods and technologies, not any God-given revelations. It is the nature of scientific method, by investigation and analysis of evidence, to change previous teachings or findings.
By comparison, not ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE exists for the revealed 'truths' about mankinds origins, or indeed the origin of the universe IN SPITE of any evidence found by scientific investigation.

 

[MOB]

Hi redstar; I think when you refer to 'evidence' you might mean 'proof'. There is obviously plenty of evidence for the existence of god. That is not really the point: it is intrinsic to any faith-based religion that its followers take some things on faith; scientific 'proof' is not the objective; faith is.

In an era of rational scepticism, many people find this silly and even objectionable. But we currently live in a society which - like most western democracies - regards it as important that people be free to adopt and follow religious beliefs without persecution or ridicule for doing so. So even if we don't believe, the current rules of our society do require that we tolerate.

 

[polaris]

There is obviously plenty of evidence for the existence of god.

To me, evidence would be tell-tale signs or clues which might suggest the existence of a god. I would genuinely be interested if you could tell us about with this obvious evidence.

Do you believe that this evidence is to be found in the current gaps in scientific knowledge or in the irrepressibility of religious belief in the face of the onslaught of rationality?

 

[MOB]

"To me, evidence would be tell-tale signs or clues which might suggest the existence of a god. I would genuinely be interested if you could tell us about with this obvious evidence. "

Without, I hope, sounding facetious, the fact that millions of people claim to have a relationship with God is evidence (though not proof) of God's existence.

You can google 'evidence for god's existence' and you will get any amount of reading. Mind you, much of the so-called evidence which this will produce is nothing of the sort. For example, many arguments are published along the lines that if earth was a tiny bit bigger, a tiny bit further from the sun, lacking the slight wobble which gives us the seasons, lacking a particular atmosphere etc etc.. then life would not exist, and that the fortuitous confluence of so many individual elements betrays the presence of a God behind it all. This patently lacks logic.

 

[Sherman]

Without, I hope, sounding facetious, the fact that millions of people claim to have a relationship with God is evidence (though not proof) of God's existence.

No it isn't, no more than the millions of people who believe in aliens is evidence of the existence of aliens. Or the fact that Elvis lives. These facts are merely evidence that there are a lot of deluded people around.

 

[MOB]

This is getting silly.

There is an element of mad hatter's tea party about this discussion - where words mean what we say they mean.

1. Let me say it again: Evidence is not the same as proof.

2. I doubt that there are millions of people who 'believe in aliens'; but if there were, this would indeed constitute evidence in favour of the existence of aliens. Not proof; just evidence (and not very persuasive evidence at that.) And this is a poor example to give by way of refuting my point anyway; many reputable scientist believe in aliens (not alien visitation, which I suspect is what was intended)- and point to the statistical probabilities as 'proof' .

3. And if there are millions of people who believe that Elvis lives, then that is evidence too: just evidence that happens to be contradicted by other, better, more persuasive evidence.