Dexter_Morgan - On your particular comments regarding the Catholic Church, it is in no danger of ending up as Deism. The essential doctrinal truths of the faith (i.e. things like Christ, salvation, grace, etc.) have remained unchanged (though through time further developed/explained) for the past two millenia. Specific thoughts on scientific issues are not part of the doctrine of the Church and as a result they are subject to change to meet current scientific knowledge.

@ dexter

I'm not sure the exact issue that you think is a strawman (but I'll admit to being a little fuzzy as I can't breath through my nose right now). I do not deny that there are religious organizations that fervently fight for just the ideals that you suggest. What I deny is that this is "religion" fighting against "science".

Religion and science are distinct from one another yet there has never been anything that I have seen to support the notion that scientific advance is a religious retreat. The Christians among you advance right alongside you with every new scientific advance. Indeed we both advance with every cultural advance. To suggest that religion is retreating is in my estimation inaccurate. The fundamentals of the Christian faith are basically what they have been. Surely people have reinterpreted Scripture as new information comes along. Philosophers have done the same with their philosophies. That does not mean in any sense a retreat. Instead it's an advance. It's another opportunity to see the world for what it is. I assert that GOd has nothing to fear from science. I've seen nothing to suggest the disinterested god of Deism in what we've discussed, and there is certainly nothing to suggest atheism. The subtle notion of religion "in retreat" in the face of science is no less a reiteration of the conflict as the idea of religious persecution of scientists. One proposal suggests a rage against science and an attempt "to hold science back" the other proposal casts religion in more of an impotent slide into becoming inconsequetial.

You can see how both would serve an atheistic model or at least mode of argument. Interestingly enough both seem to discount any real excitment or commitment on the part of religious communities for science. That's what is truly unfortunate. It leads to an environment in which Christians are characterized as "unscientific" and even possessing a lower intelligence. That kind of stereotype is just never a good thing for the groups stereotyped or the groups that hold the stereotype. Over the years Christians have been committed scientists and are responsible for great gains in the field. Unfortunately there are those on both sides of this argument that would like to see that cease. That would be a great loss in my opinon.

Bingo- thanks nola for saying in a couple of sentences what would have taken me half a book. :-)

good night all I'm going to go look for the NyQuil

@nola2172, there are Catholics who fervently believe that the Catholic church ceased being the Catholic church after the Second Vatican Council. It's liberalization is a bone of contention for many. The Second Vatican Council was the 21st ecumenical council... these councils are central to the change and splintering of the church over time. As Wikipedia outlines: "Due to schisms, the acceptance of these councils varies widely between different branches of Christianity. Those churches that parted ways with the others over christological matters accept the councils prior to their separation; the Church of the East only accepts the first two, the Oriental Orthodoxy Churches the first three, as Ecumenical. Prior to the East-West Schism the united Western and Eastern Churches held the first eight Ecumenical councils (meeting from the 4th to the 9th century). They accept as Ecumenical the same first seven but differ on the identity of the eighth. While the Eastern Orthodox Church has not generally accepted any later synod as Ecumenical, the Roman Catholic Church continues to hold Ecumenical Councils of those bishops in full communion with the Pope and has counted twenty-one to date. Anglicans and some Protestants, most commonly Lutherans, accept either the first seven or the first four as Ecumenical councils."

Admittedly my suggestion that mainline religion such as Catholicism is headed on a long road to Deism is not well argued by me... perhaps as you say, certain "essential doctrinal truths of the faith" will always remain... but aren't disagreements on some of what were considered doctrinal truths what caused the historical splits of the church?

Many more scientists have simply been deists, Crazy, not just Christians, though there have been some of those to.

actually... a generic theism would be more appropriate in my idea of where mainline religion is headed than deism... I misspoke.

dexter you are correct, if you reference the Great Schism as one such instance. That is a logical fallacy btw Crazy, just because something has happened consistently yada yada therefore means that it will continue to be so. Come on, I realize you are sick, but please don't resort to that kind of logic. As for my example of Islam v Christian during a certian time period in examining scientific development, I would still argue that the politics of religion and not the essential psychological/doctrinal underpinnings are what allowed for the Scientific Revolution. We must also note the effect of the Enlightenment, which was very much intellectual and anti-religious in nature on this Revolution in reason over traditional superstitions namely of the Catholic church.

dexter, only because deism is a little too specific, yes you did, it's ok, we make mistakes. i should say the same for Crazy and his argument in agreeing with nola

Dexter_Morgan - As to whether or not certain things were doctrine (such as geocentrism), in short, they were not, just as our current understanding of physics/biology is not doctrine either. Rather, the Church, when asked about scientific matters, will explain what it believes to be most plausible given the current body of scientific knowledge combined with its understanding of theological truth. This opinion, however, is not doctrinal, but rather the Church's best attempt to answer questions that have been asked.

On the whole council issue, I will agree that there have been disagreements in the past. However, the point I was making is that within the Catholic Church (not any of the other churches), the doctrine has remained consistent throughout its history. Various dissident groups (such as those that reject the Second Vatican Council) do not represent the views of the Church proper, and if you look at the Catholic and Orthodox churches as an example, their doctrine is extremely similar on all but a few technical issues. I can not really say much about the various Protestant groups (because I am not that familiar with them and there are a lot of them), so I will refrain from adding anything on that particular topic.

Ottovanbis - To say that Catholicism is superstitious in some sort of opposition to reason is to not only insult the Church itself, it is also completely false. Reason is central to the Catholic faith.

Much of the anti-religious component of the Enlightenment (and I personally find this term to be pretty ridiculous, but I will use it anyway) was based on a rejection of the Church because the anti-religious proponents did not like the Church's teachings (there were also a number of political issues in play), and when you don't like something, it is a lot easier to demonize and condemn it than to actually argue with it.

Also, note that the rapid period of scientific advancement started during the Renaissance with the direct support of the Church, and was continued during the Englightenment period, it did not start during the Enlightenment. The rejection of the Church by some was not a scientific issue at all; it was a purely philosophical and theological one in which "science" was somethings thrown in to help create an artifical sense that the Church did not support science, when in fact there is no historical basis for this whatsoever.

@otto

Sure there have been deists and people with any number of other religious backgrounds. That has little to do with the very real presence of many Chrsitians and their contributions in science. Some names right off the top of the head would be Newton, Kepler, Gallileo. There have been many preists that were scientists as well. I said tons of scientists were Christians throughout. To assert that there were more Deists (I'd like to see you prove that one btw) is no refutation of the point that lots of scientists have been Christian and made significant contributions to science.

Here's list of Jesuits alone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists

34 of them and it took only a second or two to come up with those.

As to the supposed logical fallacy, I believe I said it would be a shame if Christians were to abandon scientific research. I have no more knowledge of the future than you do. Not that you'd be above the occasional ad-hominem yourself though, eh?


C'mon it's not so hard, otto. Just repeat after me Christians can be smart and do good things, our Chirstianity actually helps us do so according to most of us.

@ dexter

I really don't see generic theism being a trend either. Muslims are no closer to sharing the same faith with Jews that they were in 600AD. That is even a faith with a historic and theological link. Science just doesn't

Gallileo is a terrible example as he was found guilty of heresy by the church for his theories and all his works were confiscated.

It's kind of hard to follow this conversation, but I'd agree that militant atheists are just as bad as religious extremist. Although I will admit that many important scientists were religious, I don't think you can back up claims such as "The Christians among you advance right alongside you with every new scientific advance."


I would also agree that science and religion don't need to contradict each other. At this point in time, we have enough unanswered questions that there is still the possibility of a god, so it would be hypocritical of someone to claim they are being scientific to simply dismiss it. However, personally, I don't think that warrants paying much attention to a book that is thousands of years old. It certainly doesn't justify trying to undermine sound science (such as evolution) with religious-backed creation theories.

This discussion seems to be saying that "Christians are okay... if they reject creationism". I think that if someone is a creationist that is a valid viewpoint, it may seem like a scientific cop out, however faith is personal and supersedes logic. If someone is convicted that the Bible is true and reads Genesis from a creationist standpoint that is fine. Science suggests evolution, however it doesn't exclude creationism. It is a personal choice though it shouldn't be taught in school.

The conviction in ones faith is not something that can be expressed in terms of logic either. Faith is just that, if it could be proven then there would be no reason to doubt it. To be a Christian is a decision individuals make based on their experience with the Church, and if that belief stems a literal reading of Genesis, who are we to say that it is a stupid position to take. Many very intelligent people subscribe to creationism. That doesn't make it right, and it can't be proven, but it shouldn't make somebody stupid, or disqualify their opinions on other issues. (I know many professionals, Doctors, Engineers, Scientists etc. who are creationists).

@abgemacht - On a totally different note, Galileo never turned away from Christianity. The Catholic church however has a history of being oppressive to new science, this began changing after the Reformation with Martin Luther when Christians could read the Bible in their own language and began to think for themselves with more localized churches.

We're all part of a computer thesize of a planet that was designed by the amazing computer known as Deep Thought to compute The Ultimate Question after the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything came out as-

42!

;)

@KK

"however faith is personal and supersedes logic."

But to what degree? If someone said it was their faith that the seasons change based on if Persephone was living with her mother or Hades? What if someone's faith told them that global warming was due to a decrease in pirates?

You can always make the argument that people can believe whatever they want, but when people in power teach these ideas as if they were truth, I believe it can be very harmful.

Obviously, evolution isn't understood as well as the seasons, but I think it is mature enough of a theory that creationism is an unnecessary crutch.

@KaptinKool, I have little problem with someone being a Creationist... it is certainly their right to believe anything they want to. It is suggestive that our science education could be better, but alas, some people will believe on faith things that are directly contradicted by evidence. My very intelligent nephew (graduated high school two years early - is studying to be a software engineer) is a creationist... it blows my mind, but I realize that one can be smart and believe some very odd things. So - that is fine... until they try to insert that religious belief into our science curriculum. Belief in God and belief that God created the universe and belief in evolution guided by God... each of these things are fine and not in contradiction with the evidence - still not a science topic - but not contradicting the evidence at least... on the other hand, creation of the universe in 6 days 6000 years ago is another matter entirely... not only is it outside of science, its actually hostile to it. Creationism asks us to deny physics, geology, biology, history, archeology...

@obiwanobiwan, I knew *that*! Of course we all know the answer: "What do you get if you multiply six by nine?" (in base 13)... And remember, there is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. (good stuff)

@abgemacht - I definitely agree that there has to be a reasonable line, and I am not going to speculate on what that line might be.

As far as "Creationism vs. Evolution" goes. Creationism is the notion that the world could have been created by a supreme being in a mature state several thousand years ago. This can not be proven, but it also can't be disproven. It may not be entirely logical, but within a faith perspective I think it is a reasonable assertion.

When people believe anything they want to that is in direct contradiction to evidence that is commonly known as delusion or insanity... until you label it as faith... as a religion... then it is special and beautiful and to challenge them on it is hateful and intolerant.

@dexter morgan - I don't think that Creationism should be implemented into our school system (the same way I don't want to learn about Hindu creation stories), but I don't think that Creationism denies physics, geology, biology, history, archeology etc. Creationists would most often refer to a mature creation (there are various theological theories here that I don't really want to get into) where the world was created 6000 years ago but would be in a state as though it was billions of years old. Again there is no scientific reason to believe this, it is simply a statement of faith by some Christians, and it doesn't negate how science impacts us today or how it is conducted.

@dexter morgan - I am not asserting that Evolutionary is incorrect, or that they are drawing false conclusions from current research. I am saying that because some people are Christians (due to experiences that can't be conveyed, and seem to non-believers as irrational) they choose to believe (not all Christians) that the world was created in a mature state at a certain time. You can criticize it all you want, but I think that a proper Creationist (who doesn't claim it to be a science) is taking a perfectly reasonable stance.

*Evolution

@KaptinKool, how about Last-Thursdayism? That is the notion that the world could have been created by a supreme being in a mature state last Thursday. This cannot be proven, but it also can't be disproven. Really - it can't. Within a faith perspective, anything can be a reasonable assertion.

Anything that asks me to believe that the universe was created with light beams already in transit and fossils in place is about as absurd. Anything that asks me to believe that trees that bear fruit were created before the sun and moon and stars and that birds were created before mammals (they weren't) and that livestock was created before crawling creatures is not going to get much respect from me... at least not after they've been informed that these ideas are in direct conflict with reality.

"faith is personal and supersedes logic"

Why? To me logic supersedes faith. Show me something that disproves something I believe and I'll happily abandon it for a wider view of the world. Why should I select what I want really really bad over what is? Faith I can fly is never going to help me when I jump out the window. Give me reality any day of the week. Faith in real things (success coming from hard work, etc.) is one thing... how does faith in untrue things help you? Even more so, how does faith in untrue things supersede logic? I mean, I do understand that it sometimes short-circuits logic... but is it actually of more value?

@dexter morgan - you are correct in saying that Last-Thursdayism is possible, and no one is asking you to become a Creationist. So we must examine the philosophic merits of creationism.

First of we define philosophy:
- philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.

Then we must see what it is that makes a philosophy valid:
-the vast majority of philosophies are considered to be valid if they do not:
(1) self-contradict
(2) contradict things we know to be true

Valid philosophies actually don't even require any subscribers to be considered valid. Creationism meets the criteria to be considered a valid philosophy, and so even if you reject it from lack of the Christian faith and a commitment to conventional science, it is still a valid philosophy whether you like it or not. Just like Last-Thursdayism.

@dexter morgan - I am referring to faith in the religious sense. Faith in what can't be proven or disproven by science. This is a faith you have as well (subtly), you can't disprove "God" (though you have no reason to believe there is one), but you would still say that though it can't be proven you are reasonably certain there is no God.

@dexter morgan - BTW I am also very committed to logic, that is the primary reason I decided to get into Engineering, I just think that especially when it comes to religion you have to look at it from a philosophic eye.

@KaptinKool, while I understand that Creationism satisfies #1 - it doesn't (to my knowledge) contradict itself, I would dispute #2. I see at least that you are consistent in your argument, though, as you agree that Last Thursdayism is in the same category as Creationism... but where you would say that either are possible, I would say that neither are... well, not in any useful way, at least. One could also posit that they are the only person in the universe and everything is a dream or an illusion for their personal benefit... one could also posit that God moves by painstaking conscious effort every electron and photon and he just happens to make it all match physical laws... but he could at any time decide that objects will suddenly fall up instead of down. By these sort of wide open criteria, please name to me a philosophy that *fails* to be valid... what is an example of a philosophy that contradicts things we know to be true in a provable way... more than creationism or Last Thursdayism do. Seems to me that some test of absurdity must be applied... and assuming that a universe would be created with photons in transit and fossils in place is absurd. Mind you, I admit that old earth creationism (one that is not tied to 6 days and an age of 6000 years) is a valid philosophy... but I really can't buy that young earth creationism is. If you are claiming that it does not contradict things we know to be true, I suggest that the only way you can do that is to posit that we cannot know anything.

"@dexter morgan - BTW I am also very committed to logic, that is the primary reason I decided to get into Engineering, I just think that especially when it comes to religion you have to look at it from a philosophic eye."

@KaptinKool, why the difference? Why not use logic across the board? You don't use mysticism or faith when designing a bridge (at least I hope not), why should you use those things elsewhere? Why wouldn't logic apply?