|
Post by Hemingway on Nov 7, 2008 9:14:23 GMT
Dear Hemingway, So are you saying that you do not believe in God and Eternal Life? I am saying that once all the data for and against the existence of an omniscient being has been examined the results should lead one to the "doubtful" end of the scale. There isn’t enough data to prove conclusively the existence or non-existence of such a being, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that such a beings existence is highly unlikely. I find it hard to comprehend how people can believe in god if they have examined all the evidence "for" and "against". In most cases, I would suggest, staunchly religious people have not examined rational explanations as to why and how we have come to exist on this little rock in outer space. The supernatural explanation is so much more accessible and requires no proof whatsoever. That’s where "faith" comes into play for the theist. Its comforting to think that there is an invisible man in the sky who looks after us. Its comforting to think that when we die we'll see all our loved ones again. Humans are always looking for something to believe in. I have chosen science and rational thinking. In my opinion the religious have chosen a fairytale. A nice story to be sure but a fairytale nonetheless. But as I say, I don’t look down on you in any way for that. I suppose if I'm honest, I just believe that you have been "misinformed" for want of a better word and that this misinformation is much more comforting to you than reality. Given the choice most humans take the easier more comforting path. I believe thats the path you have chosen. Everyone loves a happy ending.
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix II on Nov 9, 2008 23:21:17 GMT
What about the evidence of the Body and Blood of Christ which he left here on us for us to consume to become like Him and for the forgiveness of sin? Does not forgiveness and unity with Christ appeal to you? No. To me, it's just bread and wine and a superstitious myth. And it seems to mean little to you too, for if you truly believe that taking communion can make you more like Christ, you would have desisted from lying to the members of this site by now, but you haven't. I
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Nov 10, 2008 16:43:04 GMT
Dear Hemingway, So are you saying that you do not believe in God and Eternal Life? Dear Mel, What about the evidence of the Body and Blood of Christ which he left here on us for us to consume to become like Him and for the forgiveness of sin? Does not forgiveness and unity with Christ appeal to you? Stephen. How on earth does a wafer and a cup of wine prove to me that their is a god who created everything? That is simply not evidence as you suggest it to be. And just for the record, eternal life would probably appeal to most people regardless of religion, however just because its appealing does not make it so.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 11, 2008 18:51:02 GMT
The big question is not whether an omniscient God exists - it is whether God intervenes in creation and cares for us. I admit this is a more difficult one to prove than the proposition which Hemingway puts forward, but it's the real issue at stake - a remote Creator who left the Universe entirely to its own devices would not be God in the Christian sense of the word. Meanwhile, here's a little starter for Hemingway: If reason is simply the product of irrational random processes, why does Hemingway place any faith in its conclusions? And by the way, what counts as evidence for Hemingway? Quite a lot of clever people including many physical scientists have believed in a God, whether Christian, pantheist or Deist. Why do you think they were so self-evidently mistaken? (This of course cuts both ways, as there have been many clever atheists, so I admit it doesn't prove anything. I'm trying to elucidate Hemingway's intellectual approach. I would never speak as contemptuously of Darwin's atheism as Hemingway does of, let us say, Newton or Pasteur's beliefs.)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 11, 2008 18:54:12 GMT
By the way, since some atheist posters here are saying all catholics deny evolution let me put it on record that I'm a theistic evolutionist. I appreciate that this raises various theological questions about God's goodness, human suffering and the question of in what sense scripture is reliable, but it seems undeniable to me that evolution has taken place. Modern genetics would make no sense if it hadn't. We Catholics should imitate the openness to discovery of that poor believer in fairytales, Dom Gregor Mendel OSB.
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix II on Nov 12, 2008 1:45:55 GMT
By the way, since some atheist posters here are saying all catholics deny evolution let me put it on record that I'm a theistic evolutionist. Nice to hear it Hibernicus, but I'm not aware of any atheist posters here who hold that Catholics cannot be evolutionists. Personally, I have stated on several occasions that I see the theory of evolution and Christianity as completely compatible (the incompatibilty exists only in the minds of some Christians). And while I wouldn't want to put words in anyone else's mouth, I suspect that most, if not all of the atheists here would agree on this point. I
|
|
|
Post by hackenslash on Nov 12, 2008 3:02:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 12, 2008 9:24:56 GMT
Yes it is a shame when faith is played against Science in this way. There are many Christians of all denominations that accept Evolution because the evidence is undeniable at this stage.
If there is a god then clearly we are discovering how it did things. If there is a god then it created us using evolution and we are discovering that for ourselves. If there is no god then we are also discovering how the universe can produce us without a guiding hand. Evolution does not disprove or prove god, it just shows that the model of life works perfectly well without that assumption. It is this and this alone that sets it against the faithful.
Alas there are the SaintStephens and Redmonds of this world who do no see it this way. They see their interpretation of scripture and religion as being 100% correct and if science contradicts that then too bad for science. The scriptures say we were created instantly and that the universe revolves around the earth, and no amount of evidence can go against that because it’s "True".
It never occurs to them that their interpretation of scripture might be the fault. It never occurs that even if there if a god, it really did do everything, then we are discovering how it did it and our reading of scripture has to be informed by that. To them the reverse is true and their reading of reality is informed by scripture. The diatribes they produce show how damaging that can be.
In their world it is not god that is perfect and unchangeable therefore, but it is themselves and their reading of scripture that is perfect and unmoveable. They look at the commandment that says do not worship false idols and they search the world for such idols, not realising that it is they themselves they are worshiping as a false idol. They are the ones they are assuming are perfect and without error, not the scriptures or their god.
I second the link to Kenneth Miller, Catholic and Biologist. He is possibly one of the clearest and skilled speakers and one of the most intelligent biologists that are currently on the public speaking circuit today. I like Richard Dawkins and his work, but I would take a Kenneth Miller over 100 Dawkins any day when speaking on this topic publicly or bringing it to the public. It was one of those little impossible dreams of mine that Miller would take over from Dawkins in the Oxford chair. He would have been amazing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Nov 12, 2008 23:21:06 GMT
It never occurs to them that their interpretation of scripture might be the fault. It never occurs that even if there if a god, it really did do everything, then we are discovering how it did it and our reading of scripture has to be informed by that. To them the reverse is true and their reading of reality is informed by scripture. You are right, and it takes us into very deep waters where someone far better educated in philosophy than me (perhaps someone like Hibernicus) could guide us. Even if we all (believers and non-believers) were to accept for the sake of argument that the Bible is the word of God, it is still human language and as such is just not capable of describing the thoughts, reasons and actions of an infinite being. Human language can only try to suggest or hint at the mind of a being like that. The Apocalypse of St John reads like a human being trying to describe in concrete terms something he has seen that is indescribable, and struggling unsuccessfully with words in doing so.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Nov 13, 2008 2:43:27 GMT
By the way, since some atheist posters here are saying all catholics deny evolution let me put it on record that I'm a theistic evolutionist. I appreciate that this raises various theological questions about God's goodness, human suffering and the question of in what sense scripture is reliable, but it seems undeniable to me that evolution has taken place. Modern genetics would make no sense if it hadn't. We Catholics should imitate the openness to discovery of that poor believer in fairytales, Dom Gregor Mendel OSB. While I agree with you Hibernicus I dont agree with you on Fr Mendel, he was an augustinian not a benedictin,
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 25, 2008 19:03:21 GMT
Thanks for the correction Monkeyman. I ought to pay less attention to deductions from insufficient evidence (I thought I had read somewhere that he was an abbot and assumed he was a Benedictine) and give more attention to seeking out the proper authorities, but it's hard to keep up standards with limited time and in the heat of discussion. The fact that Hazel refers to God as "it" rather than "Him" makes my point about the issue at stake being whether we think of God as personal and as engaged in a personal relationship with us. An impersonal deity is not the Christian God at all. (BTW before anyone raises the issue of why God should not be referred to as "Her", God is neither male nor female but seems to prefer masculine terminology, perhaps because female deities are associated with pantheistic earth-cults - though there are also some very nasty forms of paganism, like Evolan occultism, which involve gnostic hatred of the female and the earth. Perhaps we Catholics could have a discussion sometime, back in our section of the forum, on such matters as the use fo feminine imagery for God in the Bible, the Bibilcal image of Sophia as personification of God's wisdom, and the ways in which the Virgin Mary and female saints assist our understanding of God.) I'm not trained in philosophy I'm afraid - I'm only a dabbler, my training is in history. I agree we could do with some philosophers here. Logging out now for the night - I've been catching up on postings since I was last here a fortnight or so ago. Best wishes,
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Dec 3, 2008 11:06:54 GMT
Hibernicus, Jesus Christ referred to God as "My Father" which makes God a male. Not necessarily. It has been translated as father, but father was a term of respect used by younger people to refer to elders and Rabbi in first century Palestine.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 3, 2008 16:57:40 GMT
Gabriel: Scripture also says that in God there is neither male nor female; He is a pure spirit. Jesus chose to speak of God as male because that is best adapted to our understanding and condition but that does not mean that God is male in essence. I might add that a great deal of the most profound spiritual writing takes the view that in relation to God we should all see ourselves as female (e.g. the Song of Songs, with the Bridegroom and Bride's love as the love between God and the soul; the Rosary in which the believer is invited to identify with the Virgin Mary as model for all believers). This form of mysticism can be hideously distorted by sexual predators (the late Cardinal Groer, the Archbishop of Vienna who resigned after numerous accusations of sexual abuse, appears to have been one such) but it is still indispensable.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 3, 2008 17:04:07 GMT
Hemingway: Interesting point, though Scriture suggests that Jesus' use of it to describe his relationship with God aroused a degree of shock which implies awareness that he was making some more radical claim than a mere expression of respect. BTW we shouldn't assume that we automatically understand expressions of relationship in societies which are very different from ours. Because we are used to a society where the nuclear family is central and the extended family has little significance, many of us are inclined to take the view that the "brethren" of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels must have been siblings and that the traditional Catholic view that they were cousins must be some sort of ex post facto rationalisation to uphold belief in the perpetual virginity of Our Lady. However, those of you who have followed the recent disgraceful case whereby a Nigerian priest visiting Ireland was stripsearched and expelled although his papers and agenda were fully in order will have noticed that he aroused the immigration official's suspicions by referring to the relative he was visiting in Limerick both as his "brother" and his "cousin". Apparently the terms are used interchangeably in Nigeria, given the greater importance attached to extended family relationships there - a feature which it shares with the modern Middle East and presumably the same region in ancient times.
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Dec 4, 2008 10:02:14 GMT
many of us are inclined to take the view that the "brethren" of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels must have been siblings and that the traditional Catholic view that they were cousins must be some sort of ex post facto rationalisation to uphold belief in the perpetual virginity of Our Lady. An interesting point hibernicus. Jesus' "brothers" — James as well as Jude, Simon and Joses — are mentioned in Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 and by Paul in Galatians 1:19. Even in the passage in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities the Jewish historian describes James as "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ”. Although we know Josephus' work has been corrupted by Christians some time after it was written. Its my understanding Catholics believe that James the Just et al were cousins or half brothers of Jesus. I also understand that this belief is based heavily on a passage in an apocryphal gospel (the name of which escapes me at present as I have not researched this subject in quite some time) which seems quite odd. Protestants believe that James the Just et al were definitely half-brothers of Jesus (Joseph was married before he married Mary). Protestants believe Mary and Joseph lived as a sexually active married couple after the birth of Jesus, as they say is stated in Matthew 1:25. However many modern scholars state a belief that James was Jesus’ full brother. They base their claims on writings such as Galatians 2:9. James is described in the Liturgy of St James as "the brother of God". Some New Testament Scholars that make this claim include, James D G Dunn, John Dominic Crossan, Raymond E Brown, Robert Eisenman, James Tabor and Ben Witherington. In Galatians 1:18–19, Paul, recounting his conversion, recalls "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." However we do have writings from people such as Jerome who states: "James, who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife, as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of Mary, sister of the mother of our Lord of whom John makes mention in his book..." However this was written approximately 350 years after James the Just had died and is not a contemporary account. The problem here for Catholics is maintaining the Virginity of Mary. If Jesus is a full brother of James, Marys virginity goes out the window and a pillar of the catholic faith crumbles. However until definite empirical proof of James’ relationship to Jesus is uncovered it shall remain a point of debate.
|
|