What is your justification for believing in a God?

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

^

I think you are misinterpreting the cannons and the catholic interpretation of the bible. Apparently Lamaitre the catholic priest and physicist who envisioned the big bang theory disagrees with you as well. You should read some of what - he - a catholic priest and scientist had to say on this issue. It falls inline more with what my friend believes and completely contradicts your interpretation.

 

If a catholic priest can envision the big bang and still believe in god and also avoided excommunication then your perspective must be wrong.

 

You may think it isn't sensible for someone to be religious and I personally think being an atheist makes even less sense. If you're going to have an opinion about something that cannot be explained at all - like the origin/purpose of the universe, why not have a positive one.

 

Honestly, if one wants to be truly scientific, my position is the only logical position to take - which to clarify is the position that - I don't have a opinion one way or the other. God to me is like the concept of Alien life. It may or may not be out there (who knows) no point in deciding with insufficient evidence. Atheists and religious people are just different sides of the same coin. From my perspective neither of you are "sensible" from a scientific standpoint, but science isn't

meant to explain the subjective and things like love, faith, and religion fall squarely in the realm of subjectivity - so good luck telling catholics that they aren't catholic if they accept evolution or the big bang theory.. I think you will find that many of them don't care much about your perspective of how they should interpret their religion and it's relevant texts..

 

 

"Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

-

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ns/world_news-europe/t/pope-creation-vs-evolution-clash-absurdity/

 

Sorry about the double post. Nacigating this site on the iPhone is not ideal and the connections is so slow that fixing the qbove is not worth it...

 

Cheers

Edited September 5, 2011 by spin-1/2-nuclei

[Iggy]

Spin, I believe you literally misunderstood everything I said and I would suggest you read my post again.

 

I think you are misinterpreting the cannons and the catholic interpretation of the bible.

It is not my interpretation. It is the Catechism -- the official text of the Catholic chruch's teachings.

 

Apparently Lamaitre the catholic priest and physicist who envisioned the big bang theory disagrees with you as well.

Lamaitre and his Pope believed that the big bang was consistent with Genesis. Your friend, according to you, believes that science and objective reality contradict the Bible. It is the latter that I said contradicts catholic doctrine -- not the former.

 

If a catholic priest can envision the big bang and still believe in god and also avoided excommunication then your perspective must be wrong.

The priest would have to say "The big bang is correct and it debunks the bible" to be on par with your friend and to relate to what I said.

 

You may think it isn't sensible for someone to be religious...

I said nothing of that sort.

 

I personally think being an atheist makes even less sense... I don't have a opinion one way or the other. God to me is like the concept of Alien life. It may or may not be out there (who knows)

You and I both appear to be weak, or negative, atheists.

[ponderer]

Pretty much everything you just said is wrong.

 

All you've shown is an incapability of understanding an alternative point of view and your desire to proselytize.

 

If what I conjectured about you is wrong then it would seem you are trolling.

 

If so, you caught something.

 

I understand the atheist point of view completely. I understand many things completely.

 

I don't proselytize. I have no calling from God to proselytize. I have been in a church perhaps a handful of times in the past twenty years, for weddings and funerals.

 

This is a discussion forum about religion, so surely discussions about the existence of God, in a thread about the existence of God, cannot be considered proselytizing.

Don't be so dismissive. I am giving you the goods, straight up. The problem with the atheist point of view is that although it all seems very reasonable, it is wrong. The atheist point of view is based on scientific theory and experience. The theory that explains everything has not been shown. For the scientific community, it is always a work in progress. This work cannot progress beyond a certain stage without belief in God, because the explanation ultimately will require God. Any explanation that seems to require God will be quickly dismissed out of hand, without closer examination. It is an impass. It is the ultimate barrier to further understanding. You must first accept that God exists, before you can access the greater scientific knowledge. The answer will never be found by atheist scientists.

[doG]

This work cannot progress beyond a certain stage without belief in God, because the explanation ultimately will require God. Any explanation that seems to require God will be quickly dismissed out of hand, without closer examination. It is an impass. It is the ultimate barrier to further understanding. You must first accept that God exists, before you can access the greater scientific knowledge. The answer will never be found by atheist scientists.

You present this as if it's an unquestionable fact and it's not. Further, advocating that others must believe as you do is proselytizing.

[iNow]

If what I conjectured about you is wrong then it would seem you are trolling.

 

If so, you caught something.

 

I understand the atheist point of view completely. I understand many things completely.

 

Your own words suggest otherwise, and despite your claims to accurately understand the non-belief position, what you type betrays your ignorance. When I said, "Everything you just said is wrong," it was in direct response to the below post you previously made:

 

I would suggest that you want to believe in God <snip> You want to believe because it makes sense, not because you are being told. You would like someone to make sense of it for you. The things that people who believe in God say, and the writings do not seem to make sense to you. Many of these people take it on faith, but still do not know what it is they see. The messages and rituals are confusing. <snip> When you have grown your seed, you will find that in the end, it has not matured and you are old and bitter, but if somehow you can succeed, when you finally understand the universe, you will find God is staring back at you, then you will see him everywhere. You will have your proof, but not the proof you expected. Then will your eyes be open.

 

 

So, given your response here:

 

I don't proselytize. I have no calling from God to proselytize.

 

It sure appears that you have zero concept of what it means to proselytize, or perhaps alternatively you are lying to both me and also yourself. You might alternatively call this evangelization, but even if that's the case the difference is so minimal as to be irrelevant.

 

 

 

This is a discussion forum about religion, so surely discussions about the existence of God, in a thread about the existence of God, cannot be considered proselytizing.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. It's as if you're saying "because today is tuesday, bananas are yellow." Regardless of the central topic of the thread, it is absolutely possible that one's contribution to it can accurately be considered proselytizing.

 

 

Don't be so dismissive. I am giving you the goods, straight up. The problem with the atheist point of view is that although it all seems very reasonable, it is wrong.

Prove it. I dare ye. People have been trying and failing to do exactly that for millenia.

 

The "atheist point of view" is truly that there is at present no good reason to believe in god(s), nor in the abrahamic mythologies, since there is no evidence in its favor. I trust that it would be equally insulting to you if I said that "the problem with Ponderer's lack of belief in Thor and Apollo is that, although it seems very reasonable, it is wrong."

 

You apparently cannot fathom how silly you sound to someone who does not share your delusion, despite the fact that hold the exact same position I do for 99.99% of the world's other gods.

 

 

 

 

The atheist point of view is based on scientific theory and experience. The theory that explains everything has not been shown.

Have you ever met a strawman argument which you didn't like?

 

 

For the scientific community, it is always a work in progress. This work cannot progress beyond a certain stage without belief in God, because the explanation ultimately will require God.

Nope, no proselytization here. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

 

 

 

 

You must first accept that God exists, before you can access the greater scientific knowledge. The answer will never be found by atheist scientists.

Uhuh. I'll perhaps be less dismissive when you stop spouting such unfounded nonsense as this.

 

 

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

Spin, I believe you literally misunderstood everything I said and I would suggest you read my post again.

 

I disagree. If there has been any misunderstanding it's you misunderstanding me. *you* are interpreting that catholicism doesn't allow - *apparent* - contradictions between the bible and science. This is not the case. Catholics like my friend believe in the bible - and yet they readily accept that carbon dating is valid and thus he age of the earth in the bible cannot be as *currently interpreted* by mankind.. this doesn't mean that they do not believe what their god says in the bible (in fact they believe their god to be capable of miracles).. thus, it is you that has misunderstood pretty much everything that I've said.

 

I understand you quite well, unfortunately, you are the one failing to see the difference between literally feeling like the bible is wrong (not the case with my friend) and accepting that science has debunked some claims stated in the bible (carbon dating and the age of the earth claims made in the bible). Thus as I said before, my friend believes in miracles and his god being all powerful... Thus, while he accepts that the age for the earth reported in the bible can't possibly be right according to carbon dating - from a scientific perspective - his faith based perspective allows for him to say to himself (but god is all powerful, works in mysterious ways, and I have no right to questions his authority yada yada)..

 

Hence what I've been saying and saying about compartmentalization..

Cheers

[A Tripolation]

I understand the atheist point of view completely. I understand many things completely.

 

You really don't.

 

I don't proselytize. I have no calling from God to proselytize.

 

If your god is the Judeo-Christian God, then it doesn't matter if you feel called or not. You're supposed to actively try to gain converts. Anyways, you are proselytizing.

 

The theory that explains everything has not been shown.

 

And this proves God how?

 

For the scientific community, it is always a work in progress. This work cannot progress beyond a certain stage without belief in God, because the explanation ultimately will require God.

 

Unless the universe actually IS the result of cumulative natural processes and no such entity that could be described as "God" exists. And before you accuse me of being a close-minded atheist, know that I'm a Christian.

 

Any explanation that seems to require God will be quickly dismissed out of hand, without closer examination. It is an impass. It is the ultimate barrier to further understanding. You must first accept that God exists, before you can access the greater scientific knowledge. The answer will never be found by atheist scientists.

 

I do not think that belief in a divine entity, or lack thereof, makes you any better or worse than someone who holds the opposite view you do. I doubt my belief in God will suddenly gain me the insights into math and string theory that Brian Greene has. That's what you're saying. You realize it's quite obtuse, correct?

[Iggy]

I disagree. If there has been any misunderstanding it's you misunderstanding me. *you* are interpreting that catholicism doesn't allow - *apparent* - contradictions between the bible and science. This is not the case.

Deep breath... If the science is done properly... if it is what St. Augustine called "clear and certain reasoning" and the Catechism calls "truly scientific"... and scripture is not interpreted wrong, then there can be no apparent contradiction. That is indeed the Catholic position.

 

The option that you introduce -- that God transcends logic and reasoning therefore no apparent confluence between the two is needed -- is dead set against well established Catholic doctrine.

 

while he accepts that the age for the earth reported in the bible can't possibly be right according to carbon dating - from a scientific perspective - his faith based perspective allows for him to say to himself (but god is all powerful, works in mysterious ways, and I have no right to questions his authority yada yada)..

I'm sure that is fine if your friend believes that. The Catholic position would be that carbon dating cannot contradict scripture and if it appears to then carbon dating and scripture should both be questioned to find the solution. Pope Leo XIII says what many others have said:

 

Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself...

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

Deep breath... If the science is done properly... if it is what St. Augustine called "clear and certain reasoning" and the Catechism calls "truly scientific"... and scripture is not interpreted wrong, then there can be no apparent contradiction. That is indeed the Catholic position.

 

The option that you introduce -- that God transcends logic and reasoning therefore no apparent confluence between the two is needed -- is dead set against well established Catholic doctrine.

 

 

I'm sure that is fine if your friend believes that. The Catholic position would be that carbon dating cannot contradict scripture and if it appears to then carbon dating and scripture should both be questioned to find the solution. Pope Leo XIII says what many others have said:

 

Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed.

Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned;

truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself...

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

 

Again you've misunderstood what I've said because the above in no way contradicts anything I've been saying or anything that my friend believes.

 

Atheists and religious people are just different sides of the same coin. From my perspective neither of you are "sensible" from a scientific standpoint, but science isn't

meant to explain the subjective and things like love, faith, and religion fall squarely in the realm of subjectivity - so good luck telling catholics that they aren't catholic if they accept evolution or the big bang theory.. I think you will find that many of them don't care much about your perspective of how they should interpret their religion and it's relevant texts..

 

To be more clear, I have no knowledge of a reprint of the bible to include the big bang or evolution, nor a change in the age of the earth etc, etc. There are no asterisk next to portions of the bible with corresponding footnotes stating that XY or Z apparently contradicts science thus we will stop teaching this as truth until a decision can be made. By your logic this is what all catholics do, and since it isn't, that surely means that you've misunderstood the inner workings of the church.

 

That is simply because as I have been saying and saying you cannot apply the scientific method and the rigorous requirements of objective reasoning to matters that are purely subjective. Catholics in church are often taught not to question the bible, that is not for the individual catholic to do, that is for the Pope etc, and since my friend is an individual catholic and not the Pope he is forced to compartmentalize things that contradict what he knows to be scientifically valid - and yes those contradictions stand because there has been no reprint of the bible and the Pope has not called for footnotes to be placed next to creationism and genesis, has he?

 

"For my part, when I received those taking part in your academy's plenary assembly on October 31, 1992, I had the opportunity with regard to Galileo to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences (cf. AAS 85 1/81993 3/8, pp. 764-772; address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, April 23, 1993, announcing the document on The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: AAS 86 1/81994 3/8, pp. 232-243)."

 

Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2000/03/Truth-Cannot-Contradict-Truth.aspx#ixzz1XA0ITxzK

 

"Pope John Paul II also said:

"A theory is a meta-scientific elaboration, which is distinct from, but in harmony with, the results of observation. With the help of such a theory a group of data and independent facts can be related to one another and interpreted in one comprehensive explanation. The theory proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified. It is constantly being tested against the facts; when it can no longer explain these facts, it shows its limits and its lack of usefulness, and it must be revised." - http://atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/evolution.htm\'>http://atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/evolution.htm\

 

"None of this necessarily means that Pope John Paul II accepted evolution as a fact and it certainly doesn’t mean that Catholics are required to accept evolution as a fact. Instead, the address was meant to lay out for Catholics a basis for accepting evolutionary theory. There are many scientific facts that the Catholic Church doesn’t require Catholics to accept — that the Sun in as the center of the solar system and that the Earth is round, for example. The truth of these statements is obvious to everyone, but that doesn’t make them appropriate for religious doctrine either." - http://atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/evolution.htm

 

According to the above you're still missing something critical in how the church and catholics interpret what Pope John Paul said. Catholics are taught, for the most part, that god is all powerful and mankind cannot explain or understand his ways, etc..

 

Thus, I maintain that you continue to grossly misinterpret the subjective via your attempts to square peg round hole objective reasoning as a tool to understand matters which by their very nature cannot be explained scientifically - since the goal post can always move in a subjective argument - just ask 3 different people to define the same thing.. the rightness or wrongness of it depends on the individual you are asking. This is why individual catholics are taught to get their interpretations from the Pope and even the Pope's interpretations change from one Pope to another, and as it stands now no revisions of the bible to include evolution, or big bang, or the sun being the center of the universe have been planned so I guess this Pope and all Pope's before him have spoken... Strange, given that we've been to space and know exactly where the sun is, isn't it? Guess you might want to inform all of the Popes that they themselves are not catholic.

 

Cheers

 

*note I meant to say the earth is not the center of the universe not fixed and revolves around the sun.

Edited September 6, 2011 by spin-1/2-nuclei

[Iggy]

Again you've misunderstood what I've said because the above in no way contradicts anything I've been saying or anything that my friend believes.

 

If you don't see a direct contradiction between the following two statements then there is no point in us perusing this further.

 

while he accepts that the age for the earth reported in the bible can't possibly be right according to carbon dating - from a scientific perspective - his faith based perspective allows for him to say to himself (but god is all powerful, works in mysterious ways, and I have no right to questions his authority yada yada)..

 

Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself... http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html

[chilehed]

Remember, this is the religion section of Science Forums. You can't make a claim like "God can be visible" without a testable, repeatable experiment to provide evidence.

You seem to have no problem with saying that Sophocles was visible without having such recourse. Why the special pleading?

 

And yet I remain unconvinced. The natural reasoning is simpler and doesn't require all the hoop-jumping and paradoxical contortions required for an omnipotent Abrahamic god.

The natural reasoning concludes that God is omnipotent. It’s a conclusion, not a presupposition. Have you never read the Summa Theologicae or the Summa Contra Gentiles?

 

No they don't. You claimed, "There is good evidence that miracles have occurred, and miracles are possible only if he exists." Your conclusion doesn't follow your hypothesis as it should in deductive reasoning. Instead, your argument (that miracles have occurred) relies on its own proposition, making it circular reasoning. Miracles CAN have other explanations, so it doesn't follow that God exists because of them.

You’re committing an error of definition. By definition miracles are not explainable by natural means, therefore only God can cause them.

 

None of them can't be explained by natural means.

And you say that because you’ve investigated them as carefully as has the board of inquiry? You’re intimately familiar with the details of those particular cases?

 

If those same boards of inquiry had, using the same methodology, concluded that the cures were the result of inoculation with an extract of a tropical fungus, you’d be perfectly happy to accept that conclusion.

 

And your example is from a site that has ample reason to lean heavily towards miraculous cures.

Argumentum ad hominem.

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

@iggy

 

Did you not see the word interpret in your own quote?

Shrugs

 

Moreover, as I've been saying but you failed to read and thus quoted out of context, the church makes the interpretations not the individual catholics, thus the word of god and that of the church are not for the individual to question.

 

This is why my friend, as a scientist, is forces to compartmentalize. It may take the church 50 years to skate around the interpretation of the age of the earth as reported in the bible, my friend kinda has to get science done during that time.

 

You're comparing apples and oranges and that is what makes this discussion futile.

 

Cheers

[DevilSolution]

To go with the flow?

To congregate with a "responsible" group of people?

Because of a spiritual or God experience you had?

To find a "good" girl?

Because you were just raised that way?

Because it just makes sense, in a philosophical sort of way?

Just to be on the safe side?

Because it was written?

 

I see no "None of the Above", seems similar to an electoral form tbh

 

The "belief" in god is the "belief" in or of existence, if by all conceivable logic one comes to the conclusion that their existence is somehow false or void of purpose or penultimately existence of life itself is pointless then generally so will their belief in a "god", there can be a good argument made for this when god is defined in these terms (existence and purpose).

Personally my justification is simply my belief in my own conscious existence, this doesnt create any super natural being that must have some great design to its creation. It simply rationalises conscious existence as the highest plane of the spiritual hierarchy, hence creating a "god".....space and time constrain the rest.

 

God is a concept we attach to the manifestation of our alter ego, its going from what *"is"* too what should *"be"* without any definite definition of what *"be"* is, we simply stamp *god* onto it and feel some sense of righteousness from it. (Religion works on a similar premise however it has a constraining undertone as well as a sense of solidarity)

 

on a side note, the internal belief system doesnt require justification, usually the justification we use for our beliefs are sub-conscious and arent actually accessible by our conscious self. An example of this is that you have a belief that cats are intrinsically evil by nature but justification for this is un-determined, yet consciously you still dislike cats, it could be that a cat bit you at an early age, it could be an irrational fear of cats, either way you dont know why you believe cats are evil, so any justification is only a conscious attempt at explaining the sub-conscious (false assertion).

 

Ovcourse alot of beliefs are based on conscious perceptions, such as your belief the shop will be open by 9:00am. God doesnt come into this "perceptual evidence" category, unless you know something 99.9% of the sane part of society doesnt.

 

summary:

God exist's by its own definition (each to his own)

No justification of God is required (entering the sub-conscious)

Religion causes a set strand of idealism which then causes conflicts without compromise (its not who's Right, but who's Left)

The original question super imposes religion when declaring god (and so the seed was planted)

 

I apologise for my bad grammar.

 

Final note "Because it just makes sense, in a philosophical sort of way?", i presume most people would admit to being in this group but this too is false.

We all subconsciously rationalise our existence and purpose its just that we struggle to understand it. So it rarely "just makes sense" but it would feel instinctively natural, your still consciously confused as to why you believe.

Perhaps a more appropriate tag would be "I believe in god but i find it hard to rationalise why"

[ponderer]

Evil bible says that Jesus spoke to them in parables lest they be healed. The NIV says that He spoke to them in parables because they have already hardened their hearts, to me meaning that they would choose not to understand if He spoke to them about heaven directly. I may be wrong, if I am, please explain it to me, I don't want any more than anyone else to follow a false religion.

 

 

Blind faith? Sort of, but not completely. Many sections of the Bible have been supported by archeology and written records. Also, many have been supported through science. (note: not the same as proving false or dealing with miracles.) How so? For instance, times such as when a baby is to be circumcised, how to wash your body after messing with dead people, closely approximate what science seems to recommend today. By history, things such as cities which have been discovered that were mentioned in the Bible. If you want more items, ask me, or better yet, google them or do some other research in sites that claim to support the Bible. Then check with sites that don't on the same things. My conclusion is that there is substantial evidence for the Bible.

 

Every person must find God in his own way. I will offer no proofs.

 

The best I can figure is that God wants us to have the freedom to display our inner character. He has given some basics rules and guidance, but does not want to encourage people who live by the letter of the law, and not the spirit of the law. The parables are a way of conveying spirit instead of rules.

 

We have a fundamental problem.

 

The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours."

 

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"

 

Jesus did not contend that the devil was lying about this and could not deliver, although it might be argued that this was not relevant.

 

It seems that given this premise, the leadership of all the kingdoms of the world has been given by God to the devil, and he has given this leadership to those he has chosen.

 

These are the ones who start wars, manipulate government, and screw employees and customers.

 

They would make their own rules to suit themselves and their ambitions. Any rules they do not like they want to strike down.

 

I found it interesting that Jesus came to earth because men lived by the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law.

 

Most of these people see life as a game with a set of rules called laws and regulations. They do not want to see how their actions negatively affect others. They only seem to care about the rules and stretching the laws they do not like. They seem to feel that if they can get away with something, and not get punished, that everything is OK, because they did not break any rules or get caught. Always their objective is to advance themselves at the expense of others.

 

Good Christians need no laws or regulations to do the right thing. They do what is right because it comes from the heart and they have a good heart. They do not seek to advance themselves at the expense of others, but rather would give expecting nothing in return, and not just token charitable donations intended to bolster public image.

 

Rules are only to keep those who are not good at heart in line, not to define a game. Business and government are not games and can cause serious harm when conducted by such people.

[Iggy]

@iggy

 

Did you not see the word interpret in your own quote?

Did I not use the word 'interpret' myself when i first quoted it?

 

Honestly, man -- I understand Catholic guilt more than you might guess, but I'm not the enemy here. I'm telling you what many Popes have said. I'm telling you what has been a Catholic position for over 1500 years. If your friend finds it unsuitable, then let him find it unsuitable!

 

So.. yeah, to drive the point home... you are quite right,

 

the church makes the interpretations not the individual catholics

If your friend cares to call himself a catholic then he has no business following a theology all his own. It has NEVER been consistent with catholicism to say that 'something reported in the bible can't possibly be correct according to a physical science'.

 

That idea, no matter how much it is diluted, flies in the face of every notable catholic authority who has ever spoken on the subject. Unless you can show me otherwise, and I'm sure you can't, I have no idea what more to say.

 

edit... I wouldn't mind this topic about Catholicism being split.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Iggy

[Realitycheck]

From what I've seen, Catholicism has made rather substantial efforts to bend into as much agreement with science as possible to keep up with the times, within reason conservatively, Pontifical Sciences and all. I'll find a link.

[iNow]

Catholicism has made rather substantial efforts to bend into as much agreement with science as possible

Is that a metaphor for molesting a ridiculously high number of innocent young boys?

[Realitycheck]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

 

Is that a metaphor for molesting a ridiculously high number of innocent young boys?

What can you say when they keep them all cooped up together, vowed to celibacy, but living amidst the dogma that everyone sins and everyone is forgiven?

Edited September 8, 2011 by Realitycheck

[A Tripolation]

What can you say when they keep them all cooped up together, vowed to celibacy, but living amidst the dogma that everyone sins and everyone is forgiven?

 

...REALLY? That EXCUSES their APPALLING behavior?

[Iggy]

It has NEVER been consistent with catholicism to say that 'something reported in the bible can't possibly be correct according to a physical science'.

From what I've seen, Catholicism has made rather substantial efforts to bend into as much agreement with science as possible to keep up with the times

Yes, that follows.

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

Did I not use the word 'interpret' myself when i first quoted it?

Then why are you still confused?

 

If your friend cares to call himself a catholic then he has no business following a theology all his own. It has NEVER been consistent with catholicism to say that 'something reported in the bible can't possibly be correct according to a physical science'.

 

That idea, no matter how much it is diluted, flies in the face of every notable catholic authority who has ever spoken on the subject. Unless you can show me otherwise, and I'm sure you can't, I have no idea what more to say.

 

edit... I wouldn't mind this topic about Catholicism being split.

 

I never said he follows his own theology. He believes the same things his other church members believe etc.. It isn't like he is practicing a different type of catholicism. That is NOT what compartmentalization means. For example, when you partition a hard drive between two operating systems, you aren't running different operating systems that are somehow different than they would be in any other case. This is why you are confused..

 

"While Catholics believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it is true, one cannot take individual biblical quotes or passages and say each one is literally true, Pope Benedict XVI said.

 

“It is possible to perceive the Sacred Scriptures as the word of God” only by looking at the Bible as a whole, “a totality in which the individual elements enlighten each other and open the way to understanding,” the Pope wrote in a message to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

 

In his message, the Pope said clearer explanations about the Catholic position on the divine inspiration and truth of the Bible were important because some people seem to treat the Scriptures simply as literature while others believe that each line was dictated by the Holy Spirit and is literally true. Neither position is Catholic, the Pope said.

 

“An interpretation of the sacred writings that disregards or forgets their inspiration does not take into account their most important and precious characteristic, that they come from God,” he said.

 

The Catholic position is that the Holy Spirit inspired the biblical writers so that “human words express the word of God”, he said.

 

“Through his word God wants to communicate to us the whole truth about himself and his plan of salvation for humanity,” the Pope wrote. “A commitment to discovering ever more the truth of the sacred books, therefore, is a commitment to seeking to better know God and the mystery of his saving will.”

 

 

“It is not possible to apply the criterion of inspiration or of absolute truth in a mechanical way, extrapolating a single phrase or expression,” the Pope wrote in the message released today at the Vatican."- http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/05/05/pope-insists-bibles-truth-is-found-in-its-totality/

 

Thus, I maintain that my friend is perfectly within his rights as a catholic to compartmentalize science with religion. As he told me, the man believes 100% in what he reads in the bible - and the scientists believes 100% in what he observes in the lab and never shall the two meet. You may object to his "right" to do this, but his priest certainly doesn't. This is only a problem because of YOUR interpretation of how my friend must behave to be catholic. The church surely does NOT follow your interpretation of their own laws, or they'd have tossed out the idea that there is a god long ago since science has been to date unable to prove god's existence. The Pope was in no way saying that all "truths" in the bible should be backed up by or even aligned with science before they can be taught as truths. Clearly there are exceptions like the virgin birth, and people living hundreds of years to name a few. Why haven't they called for an asterisk to be placed next to any of those statements in the bible so surely their interpretation of "truth cannot contradict truth" is not as literal as you make it out to be..

 

What you are basically saying is that actors and actresses must believe 100% that they are the person they are pretending to be on stage. Obviously that isn't true. Well the same is apparently true for a religious scientist in my friend's position. As I said before, as a man he believes 100% in what the bible says and the church etc, and as a scientist he believes what the data tells him. I see no contradiction with catholicism here, and neither does my friend or his priest.

 

Cheers

Edited September 8, 2011 by spin-1/2-nuclei

[doG]

Every person must find God in his own way. I will offer no proofs.

You'll offer no proofs because there are no proofs to offer. None, nada, zilch, zero!

[Realitycheck]

Here we go:

 

According to Gallup poll, between 1987 to 2000, 20% of Americans reported to stop going to church, but 60% reported having a mystical experience.

 

From a bit different perspective, in 2002, 80 million people reported having a "life-changing experience which changed their life around". With the economy in the dumps, I can see how that could contribute, though 9/11 was probably the biggest factor in that.

 

To sum up what I was saying about miracles, the first report is quoted from a critique on a supposedly best-selling book called "A Course in Miracles", a modern spiritual self-help book. I wonder just how far out on the branch it takes you.

 

My guess is that since its best selling, its probably pretty conservative.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Realitycheck

[chilehed]

…If your friend cares to call himself a catholic then he has no business following a theology all his own. It has NEVER been consistent with catholicism to say that 'something reported in the bible can't possibly be correct according to a physical science'.

 

That idea, no matter how much it is diluted, flies in the face of every notable catholic authority who has ever spoken on the subject. Unless you can show me otherwise, and I'm sure you can't, I have no idea what more to say.

..."While Catholics believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it is true, one cannot take individual biblical quotes or passages and say each one is literally true, Pope Benedict XVI said.

 

It is possible to perceive the Sacred Scriptures as the word of God only by looking at the Bible as a whole, a totality in which the individual elements enlighten each other and open the way to understanding, the Pope wrote in a message to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

 

In his message, the Pope said clearer explanations about the Catholic position on the divine inspiration and truth of the Bible were important because some people seem to treat the Scriptures simply as literature while others believe that each line was dictated by the Holy Spirit and is literally true. Neither posit on is Catholic, the Pope said.

 

An interpretation of the sacred writings that disregards or forgets their inspiration does not take into account their most important and precious characteristic, that they come from God, he said.

 

The Catholic position is that the Holy Spirit inspired the biblical writers so that human words express the word of God, he said.

 

Through his word God wants to communicate to us the whole truth about himself and his plan of salvation for humanity, the Pope wrote. A commitment to discovering ever more the truth of the sacred books, therefore, is a commitment to seeking to better know God and the mystery of his saving will....

 

Apart from the unfortunate use of the term compartmentalize, Im not sure that you guys are contradicting each other all that much.

 

Let us suppose that it was a common understanding from ancient times that tomatoes are extremely poisonous to human beings. Let us further suppose that some biblical passage could be understood to confirm that. Eventually it is absolutely proven that tomatoes are not poisonous, with no false assumptions, no ambiguous terms, no flawed logic, and overwhelming empirical evidence.

 

At that time the proper Catholic response is to recognize that one has a flawed understanding of the relevant biblical passages, and work to understand how one has misunderstood what it is that God intended to communicate in those passages. It is NOT a licit Catholic response to conclude the bible is wrong merely because ones understanding of what the text means does not square with what has been objectively determined by valid scientific means.

 

To paraphrase Robert Cardinal Bellarmine:

I say that if there were a true demonstration

(of proposition X)

, then it would be necessary to use careful consideration in explaining the Scriptures that seemed contrary, and we should rather have to say that we do not understand

(the Scriptures)

than to say that something is false which had been proven

In no way can this be reasonably referred to as compartmentalization. That term implies that theres some contradiction between the valid conclusions of theology and science, when in fact there is not.

 

But as has been noted, this is a severe digression from the topic of the thread.

Edited September 8, 2011 by chilehed

[Iggy]

Apart from the unfortunate use of the term “compartmentalize”, I’m not sure that you guys are contradicting each other all that much.

Hi Chilehed. I'm glad you joined in on that because I think you've forced me to clarify what I may have done a terrible job expressing.

 

My point of contention with Spin is predicated on a couple of things that I think have been established thus far. These things run exactly opposite to your post's resolution to our contention so I think I should set them out more clearly and see if Spin tells me just how wrong I am.

 

We've established, I certainly hope, that we are talking about the way the objective universe is -- not a mistaken impression of it like your tomato example. Things, like you say, that have no false assumptions, no ambiguous terms, no flawed logic, and overwhelming empirical evidence.

 

Also, that our interpretation of the bible, whatever it may be, is not in error. It is not a false interpretation. It is not, as Spin put it, a series of asterisks added to the otherwise obvious meaning of the text (although... and I digress... what Protestant wouldn't describe Catholicism exactly that way?).

 

The premise is that some observable fact (which is well founded by science and is empirically correct) does not agree with some scriptural truth (again, equally well interpreted). Spin's solution to that problem, and the point of my contention, is that there is no need for empirical and objective truth to agree with biblical truth because God transcends logic and materialism.

 

The Catholic position is the exact opposite. Truth cannot contradict truth. The same God who designed scripture word for word designed also the objective universe. Whether one peruses the first with faith or the second with rationalism should be led to the same God and the same truth.

 

This has been the Catholic position going back to the Greek and Latin fathers and I can certainly understand why one is forced to abandon it in this day and age especially if they made any kind of passing grade in any kind of passing school, but The truth is harsh. If you abandon the innate communion between the world and the bible then you have abandoned Catholicism.

 

In my opinion, Spin's friend could do far worse than accepting exactly that fact.