How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@michiman57 Sure, I would be more than happy to answer any questions you have about the Catholic philosophy and faith that you have to the best of my ability. I am still in the early years of studies, but have a good ground at least to get you started. :) The understanding of the consistency of the Catholic faith has come from asking 'why' and getting straight answers are consistent. Even the protestant philosophies are not completely consistent from the studying of them that I have done.
I always wanted to ask Fr. Coyne how can he believe in Jesus as being the son of god. I looked for his view on that. Found nothing concrete. In the "evolution of life in the universe" he seems to indicate that he does not really believe in that. Is that correct?
@symplythebest There is a wonderful YouTube video in which Richard Dawkins interviews Fr. Coyne. You can find it easily. Coyne is a truly charming man---you'll like him immediately. The interview is mutually respectful---the conversation of 2 smart scientists who clearly respect one another. Pay close attention to Coyne's discussion of miracles. He seems embarrassed but affirms his belief in the miracles of the Nicene Creed. Judge for yourself how he really feels from his body language.
Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest who held the title of monsignor, proposed and gave evidence for what would become known as the Big Bang theory. He was highly respected by Albert Einstein and the two met multiple times to discuss theories. Msgr. Lemaitre and Father Coyne both are good representations of how the Church is not anti-science.
what i also found out is that religious belief has been declining across 137 developed countries over the 20th centuries. you are free to research all this information and correct me. but in general... it is not looking good for you theists since the world is getting more and more sophisticated.
i just did some research on science and religion. turns out science and religion does not go together. a study in 2008 has shown people with higher IQ are less likely to believe in god than people with low IQ . the percent of leading scientists who hold religious beliefs has been declining from around 30% in 1914 to less than 10% in 1998. and only about 3% - 7% of university student are religious.
@michiman57 what does your statement 'does not go together' mean? are you suggesting they aren't the same thing? bravo. we all hold that to be true. faith and reason are two DIFFERENT wings of the same bird (truth.) not all truth can be known by the scientific process. only that which is sensed can be known in this way. other truths cannot. Theology is a study of truths by a process no less rigorous than the scientific method.
@FaithandReason101 religions are the ancient equivalent of science. they used religion as primitive means to understand the world they live in, nothing more. if a god really did create us, there would be complete peace on earth and everybody would believe in the same religion. theres thousands of religious cults out there. none of them have any evidence to support their belief. they cant all be right. tell me, what makes your religion the true religion?
@michiman57 For the thousandth time: religion is not science, primitive or otherwise. Science deals with the causal relations between events and objects in the empirical world; religion deals with the unconditioned ground of existence as such. Therefore, science and religion have entirely different methods and aims.
@michiman57 I would say that religion as an institution itself is a thing of the material, where God does not have a "certain religion" in the way that he revealed to us that we "must follow X religion." We must first use our reason as to what the purpose of religion is. Religion should bring us closer and closer to the true God and is not an end in itself. (Just the same as marriage, priesthood, etc.) It should be the best vehicle that we in the material form have of bringing us closer to God.
@michiman57 The reason, in a nutshell, why we have what we now call Catholicism is because of the people who were inspired by Jesus who claimed to be God in the flesh, and who we now understand to be fully God and fully man. They were so driven by the fact of his resurrection and his teaching that they couldn't help but spread it and realized the peace and joy that his teachings brought. In a nutshell the Church has built on that over the past 2000 years.
@michiman57 For myself personally, I have come to a greater love of the Church because of the rationale and consistency behind the modern day teachings. One would ask why and would be able to get a very rational and consistent answer. I have also found that the Church is the best way to grow closer to God. We must understand that all these institutions are run by people w/ a fallen nature & do make mistakes, but that takes nothing away from the truth in, and behind, any teaching.
@BeatMasterPhil other religions in their views think their religion is consistent and think yours is wrong. i want you to prove me your religion is right. and i also want you to prove me other religions are wrong. theres hundreds of religions out there. only one can be right and they all think theirs is the right one, just like you. so prove it to me
there are many things science cannot describe. But rather than face these facts, people have taken these failures as an excuse to deny the reality of everything that does not fall under science's domain, by beating everything into its shape just to save current physical theory. Dennett, for instance, denies consciousness even exists. But does it ever occur to him that physical theory might suffer from severe limitations?--Apparently not.
@scotttebben Like a whole army of others on these forums, you have no idea what serious religious people mean by "faith." Newman explained that faith is the "reasoning of a religious mind." Faith is never below reason, though it passes beyond reason. The Catholic tradition has never driven a wedge between faith and reason.
@wordonfirevideo Ah, but who gets to define reason? Catholics are required to accept the church’s claims based on church authority, not reason. The church decides what constitutes reason based on the church’s agenda, their interpretation of what they consider to be scripture, what they've defined as sacred tradition etc. Is it reasonable to presume that a traditional belief must be true? If so, George Coyne would claim that the sun orbits the earth every day.
@quantumystery Nonsense! The Church reverences all forms of reason--mathematics, science, philosophy, etc.--inasmuch as they participate in the Logos, the divine reason, made manifest in Christ.
If I own the definition of reason then whatever I happen to believe is reasonable by definition. Right? Isn't that the circular reasoning game that all the churches play?
Actually thats a game that everybody plays, reason does not represent anything. Its just simply whatever its correct use is, Wittgenstein showed this in language.
@UncannyRicardo Yeah, we all tend to think that our views reflect reason and that those who disagree with us don't get it. The scientific method attempts to control for this prejudice by requiring demonstrable evidence. There's no such restriction in religion. Religious "truth" is whatever the religious poobahs say. That's why there's so many religions; that's why all religions morph over time.
@quantumystery Don't let anyone fool you. The "revealed" religions are intrinsically and inextricably authoritarian at their very core. Whether the authority is an inviolate, "inspired" text or an ex cathedra pronouncement, or a stated Nicene creed, those religions as part of their very natures have a belief system that cannot be challenged in its "essential" points without the challenger becoming a heretic---a dissenter. "Freedom of thought" within such religions is a contradiction in terms.
@bassclarinet2000 "Essential" points of theology are a moving target and Catholicism is an example. You don't have to look back to Medieval times. Catholic doctrine has changed dramatically in my lifetime regardless how the spin masters deny it.
@quantumystery Well the authoritarian figures of Catholicism would undoubtedly argue that the "essential" points of their theology are immutable. And yet, as you point out, one can find innumerable examples of highly pragmatic change in the "mutable" portions of theology The authorities declare unilaterally mutable & immutable, which is certainly a handy method. This whole analysis distinguishes authoritarian relligion from science, which always probes, questions, falsifies, and surprises.
@scotttebben I would suggest just the opposite is true. There are many, many theists engaged in the sciences. There are no atheists seriously engaged in theology as a discipline. Who, then, is burying their heads in the sand?
@PhoenixLament87 Especially when the proponents of the New Atheism only talk about Fundamentalists as their reference points and refuse to accept that they are wrong.
""god" supposedly prevented decay" or violated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics"
--The 2nd Law is not violated because it only applies in closed systems, and the earth is not a closed system because it receives energy from the sun, you dolt. Heck, we don't even know if the universe is a closed system
"Science does not permit magical explanations"
--Science does not deal w/ the supernatural at all--So?
My goodness, this must be a difficult concept for dedicated theists. Let me reiterate: "god did it"---or ANY variation on that explanation---is NOT A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION. Period. Whether "god" supposedly prevented decay or violated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is immaterial. Science does not permit magical explanations, thank you very much. It is for this very reason that the scientific method is the single most powerful tool for the discernment of the Universe ever invented by humans.
Nothing in science pushes God out. It is funny how often these physicists shoot themselves in the foot when they say things like, "It seems Einstein was doubly wrong: Not only does God play dice with the world; he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen."--Stephen Hawking.
Well, heck! Since even Hawking thinks God would have the freedom to cause what would otherwise be random states of affairs in the natural world, then theism is not incompatible with science. duh!
Did it ever occur to you that science is also product of the brain? Science is great at making precise measurements and testing predictions for the advancement of technology, but in terms of formulating Theories to tell us the truth about things, science has failed more times than we can count. See "Superseded Scientific Theories" for an exhaustive list of all the past theories abandoned as false.
I know that you like politics, so one final point. My prediction: you will find scentists less accommodating in future to Christianity. B/c political power & funding are in the control of theists in the U.S., scientists have tended to downplay the clear inconsistencies between sceince and religion. Also, religionists gain if science "supports" their belief or at least does not refute it. Well, in my view, the two are inextricably at odds and are impossible to reconcile Remember my prediction.
Fr. Barron is right. After all, no scientist can explain what it's like to see yellow to a blind person, or what it's like to fall in love to a person who has never fallen in love. Even after we give purely physical description of these phenmena in terms of behavior, structure, and function, it is still the case that no one can convey the qualitative aspect of those 1st-person experiences to someone who has never had them. Some things are beyond the domain of science to describe.
(contd)You presumably take those 3 NT events very seriously, though I'm not at all sure that George Coyne does, based upon his Dawkins YouTube interview. "God did it" is no explanation for those dedicated to science. If an event occurs in the natural world, it is in the purview of science. My point:: as long as Christians have "faith" that those NT events actually occurred, science and Christianity will be forever at odds if only b/c science does not alter its explanations to account for them.
I can't believe Clarinet is still living in the Dark Ages of early 20th century philosophical determinism. With the advent of quantum mechanics, determinism has been widely abandoned by scientists and philosophers alike. No one thinks effects follow from their causes "by necessity" anymore, but only probabilitically. This has been empirically verified over and over again!
Determinism is dead. Even Hawking thinks so: "It seems Einstein was doubly wrong: Not only does 'God" play dice with the world; he sometimes throws them where they can't be seen."
If the well-developed, widely accepted and never otherwise violated scientific explanations that 1) human parthenogenesis cannot occur, 2) human corpses once dead remaini dead, & 3) corpses do not ascend without observable propulsion to the sky are not violated by the 3 NT "events," NOTHING could negate scientific explanations! Why is priest-scientist Coyne so uncomfortable re: miracles if apologist Barron's explanations are so compelling for the compatibility of science and Christianity?
@theclarinet1234 Friend, you're the one forcing this into a stark either/or. I'm with you: the overwhelming statistical probability is that virgins don't give birth and dead bodies don't come back to life. But God, who is responsible for the intelligibilities and describable rhythms within nature, can certainly work, on very rare occasions, in a surprising manner. I've also suggested that your strict determinism is kind of "old science." Postmodern science is much more open to novelty.
@wordonfirevideo While scientists very much enjoy novelty and surprise,and modern physics is filled with them, as is biology, those elements of novelty and surprise are either 1) fit into current explanations or 2) trigger the creation of NEW explanations. So which is it for NT human parthenogenesis, reanimation of corpses, and skyward movement of a reanimated corpse? Clearly, they cannot be fit into old explanations. Either science must take the NT events seriously---or not! (contd)
@theclarinet1234 The miracles of the New Testament are best understood as proleptic events, which is to say, manifestations of the future, or better, of God's deepest intentions vis-a-vis his creation. Or look at it along the lines suggested by Thomas Aquinas. As the first cause of all motion and existence, God typically works through secondary causes, but in some rare cases, for his own purposes, he chooses to work directly. None of this "contradicts" science.
@wordonfirevideo I understand that various theologians have interpreted those events in ways that make them less "physical" and I've read some of those interpretations. Ultimately, the events either happened in the physical world or they did not. Science deals with all physical events, even by its most conservative definition. If they occurred, science MUST deal with them. "God did it" is simply not an acceptable SCIENTIFIC explanation for anything--but it is yours. Hence my point.
@theclarinet1234 Fine: certain very rare events within the physical universe cannot be fully and adequately explained by the sciences. To say otherwise is to succumb to scientism or scientific imperialism. "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophies..."
@wordonfirevideo Yes, there are many things science cannot describe. But rather than face these facts, people have taken these failures as an excuse to deny the reality of everything that does not fall under science's domain, by beating everything into its shape just to save current physical theory. Dennett, for instance, denies consciousness even exists. But does it ever occur to him that physical theory might suffer from severe limitations?--Apparently not.
@wordonfirevideo Then count me proudly "guilty" of scientism! The scientific method is undoubtedly the most powerful tool that we humans have ever invented to discern the Universe and partially to overcome our flawed brains. A modest proposal: At your next lunch with George Coyne, ask him about miracles. I'd enjoy having the discussion with him myself. I certainly respect him and based on the Dawkins interview, find him incredibly forthcoming about his own doubts, which is refreshing indeed.
"Laws say 1) human parthenogenesis cannot occur,"
--No Law says this. The Law ONLY stipulates that bodies decay under such and such conditions. But if God intervenes suspending those very conditions, then no Law is violated.
"2) human corpses once dead remaini dead"
--No Law says this. The Law only says that bodies will never come come back so long as they continue to decay. But if God prevents a body from decaying, no Law is violated when it comes back to lfie.
"3) corpses do not ascend without observable propulsion"
--No Law in biology or any other science even comes close to saying this. This is your philosophical pre-scientific bias--that "if I cannot observe it, it doesn't happen". But nothing is more arrogant, self-defeating, and outright false.
Take the resurrection. That dead men stay dead is a widely observed fact, but it is not, in the ordinary scientific use of the term, a law of nature that dead men stay dead. The laws involved in the decomposition of a dead body are all at a much more fundamental level, of biochemical and thermodynamic processes. Laws only describe the workings of nature when left to itself in ideal conditions, but there is nothing within those laws themselves that exclude God from intervening.
There is no reason to suppose miracles are "violations" of natural law. After all, natural laws apply only in those IDEAL cases where there are no interfering conditions. For instance, without interference an object will fall to the ground due to gravity. But if a person steps in to catch the object in flight, the object won't touch the ground. We wouldn't call this interference a "violation of law." Same with God. God can make things happen in the world w/o violating natural law. Examples:
"God never wrought a miracle to convince atheism, because His ordinary works convince it. It is true that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion: for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no farther; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity."--Francis Bacon
The more that I think about this (even restricting our discussion to Christianity) the more I think that science and religion are inevitably at odds, despite the views of charismatic George Coyne. Human parthenogenesis, the reanimation of a corpse, and the unaided movement of a resurrected corpse upward to the sky are ESSENTIALLY scientific claims. It is not possible to disentangle such claims from the totality of scientific evidence. Science and religion cannot coexist intellectually.
@theclarinet1234 Why would a handful of extremely rare exceptions to the statistical probabilities undermine our reliance in the vast majority of cases on those probabilities?
@wordonfirevideo Come on! Even a non-scientist should see immediately that all three of those events violate nearly every formulated law of physics, chemistry and biology. An example:. If scientists found even ONE violation of E=mc2, all of modern physics would crumble and an entirely new mathematics for the Universe would be required. Similarly, if even one of those three events, as described in the NT, ACTUALLY occurred, all of science would require revision to accommodate it.
@theclarinet1234 Absolutely not! The progressive edge of science today is exploring the possibility of motion beyond the speed of light E=mc2 is a statistical probability, not an iron law. The universe is a stranger and more magical place than determinists imagine. Take a look at John Polkinghorne's speculations concerning the puzzles and paradoxes of quantum mechanics and their implications for miracles and God's action within the universe.
@wordonfirevideo Polkinghome is completely unconvincing---no evidence---& don't get hung up on my one example. Those 3 events violate virtually everything that we know about physics, chemistry & biology. If they ocurred as reported, all of science would require revision to accommodate/explain them. The mathematical models that we use to predict the behavior of matter and energy would be WRONG! In the YouTube interview with Dawkins, even Coyne REJECTS miracles except those (contd)
@wordonfirevideo (contd) of the Nicene creed, which he must ostensibly accept in order to continue to be an RCC priest. Check that interview. Coyne is very uncomfortable with the whole miracle concept b/c he knows that the acceptance of the 3 miracles requires a major revision of science. (I'm not talking about medical miracles of low probability---I'm talking about those 3 major miracles.) Ultimately, he relies on faith in an interventionist god who suspended science to do what it wanted.
@wordonfirevideo Added note: E=mc2 is not a statement that prohibits motion faster than the speed of light. It is an equation that states that matter and energy are equivalent and interconvertible. Again, if ONE example were found where energy and matter were not equivalent, all of physics would require MAJOR revision. The quantum speculations of Polkinghome or just that--SPECULATIONS--no evidence, no experiment, and indeed are at odds with what we currently understand of quantum theory.
@theclarinet1234 Yes, but Einstein took the speed of light to be an incontrovertible constant, which is why the equation works. And John Polkinghorne is an Anglican priest and Cambridge particle physicist. Take a look at his books and find plenty of scientifically respectable evidence for his positions. But we're actually straying far from the original point, which his that the author of the intelligibilities within nature can occasionally suspend them or work around them for his purposes.
@wordonfirevideo That is indeed the point. And it is the reason that science and Christianity are intrinsically and irrevocably at odds. Please check the Coyne / Dawkins interview. It is highly revealing. Coyne is very uncomfortable with any discussion of miracles. Science seeks verifiable evidence leading to explanations about the Universe. If those 3 NT miracles are indeed bona fide evidence, then all scientific explanations for the world as we know it are WRONG--and they must be revised.
@wordonfirevideo Continuing the thought: Now, when Christians make pronouncements about the so-called "supernatural" world, a case (not credible to me) can be made that science has nothing to say about such pronouncements. But these 3 NT miracles "occurred" in the physical world---and as such they are forever entangled with the physical Universe, and come under the unarguable purview of science. If they "occurred," they violate so many scientific explanations that HUGE revisions must be made.
Please come give the homilies at my church. All the priest at my church does is talk about abortion/homosexuality. I much prefer listening to more intellectual and philosophical talks.
The world's religions hold many more contradictions than similarities. Even if we examine the monotheistic, Abrahaminic religions, we find that the conception of god is different in each. The Jewsih Yahweh is a warrior god, capable of wrecking havoc on enemies. The Christian god is triune, which is absolutely anathema to the Islamic Allah. In fact, the Q'uran specifies torture for anyone believing in a triune god. If god exists, it must not care whether it's defined uniformly by religionists.
Another way to think about this is that religionists reside in a culture of "faith"--a willingness, even desire, to accept stuff without evidence, however irrational it may seem. Scientists reside in a culture of "doubt"--willing to question everything, to be skeptical of everything, where "truth" is always provisional. Scientists know that the human brain is flawed and use the scientific method to overcome some of its flaws.Coyne's god must be by faith b/c his science is surely skeptical.
@Mike96727 Mike, please do me a favor and read John Henry Newman's Grammar of Assent or the first several questions of Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae. You have a woefully inadequate understanding of what sophisticated Christians mean by "faith" and you continue to propagate it. Fundamentalists might drive a wedge between faith and reason, but Catholics don't.
@Mike96727 You are so correct. As brilliant cosmologist Lawrence Krauss says so beautifully: "Scientists love mysteries. They love not knowing. That's a key part of science---the excitement of learning about the Universe.And that again is so different from the sterile aspect of religion where the excitement is apparently knowing everything." Each of the thousands of the world's religions is convinced that it has "answers" but the answers are often contradictory, inconsistent, or antithetical.
@theclarinet1234 More atheist dogma. Do you even know how to put together a substantive position that is at least valid? You vomit your empty rhetoric with ZERO facts.
@theclarinet1234 "Each world's religion is contradictory, inconsistent, or antithetical."
--I challenge you to give me ONE instance of 2 official Catholic teachings that are logically inconsistent. Here's how you prove your conclusion. Find 2 official claims the Church makes, and then WITHOUT STRAWMANNING those 2 claims, proceed to CHARITABLY deduce a logical contradiction from those 2 claims as premises. Only THEN will you have succeeded in saying anything worthwhile at all. Dunce.
There something that confuses me in this video, you say that natural processes (like evolution) cannot disprove the existance of God. But what about the other way around? For example, Dr. William Lane Craig uses the Big Bang and fine tuning of the universe (natural processes) as evidence for God. Do you mean that arguments from nature for and against God's existence are invalid?
I've done further research on George Coyne. It seems that he was fired from the directorship of the Vatican Observatory by Benedict over the issue of Intelligent Design (ID). Coyne is an avid, vociferous OPPONENT of ID because he sees ID as beneath the Christian god. Does anyone know about this? Of course, Coyne's dismissal may be denied by both Coyne and Benedict. At any rate, Coyne's opposition to ID is readily apparent in his YouTube interview with Richard Dawkins, which I recommend.
@theclarinet1234 actually that was a rumor. Coyne even debunked it himself, saying that its was "simply not true".Look it up on wiki under retirement.
@theclarinet1234 The Church does not support ID theory. You act like this stuff with Fr. Coyne is news. It is not. You always attack the Church without even the slightest clue as to what it actually teaches. See,
catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0811fea4.asp
Don't bother replying to me without first having read this.
@grunderlyme As a recovering Catholic, I understand RCC teaching far better than you think. Of course, the RCC does not embrace ID NOW...key word, NOW. It resisted Evolution for many, many decades, however. As is typical of the RCC, and many other relgions, it altered its views with time. Ex: Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin. I like Coyne. As he ultimately admits in his Dawkins interview, though, his notion of his god is based on faith. His discussion of miracles is so very revealing!
@theclarinet1234 "It resisted Evolution for many, many decades."
--False. The Catholic Church never "resisted" evolution or Darwin. Read your Aquinas. The creationism and ID is contrary to Aquinas teaching that the change and development of organisms proceeds according to certain natural propensities and powers WITHIN the organism itself, NOT requiring the intervention of God into natural affairs. You obviously DON'T know the history of the Church's intellectual thought. Get an education.
@grunderlyme Come on now! The RCC was so uncomfortable with human evolution from an ape- like ancestor that it developed a whole theology around "special evolution" for humans. Of course, even today no RCC leader wants to speculate abut exactly the evolutionary stage where its god put a soul in the hominid...but...by some magic, at some unknown point, they maintain that a soul was certainly added to the mix! You'll note that Coyne carefully avoided definition in his discussion with Dawkins.
@theclarinet1234 "The RCC was so uncomfortable with human evolution from an ape- like ancestor that it developed a whole theology around "special evolution" for humans."
--False. Evolution is only evolution of the body, and says nothing about the soul. But the Church has always believed in the existence of the soul. So why should it feel threatened by evolution of the body at all? You're not making any sense. There's simply no motivation to feel threatened by this cosmogony. Read Aquinas!!
@grunderlyme How amusing! Coyne certainly disagrees with you about the "soul" concept. I rarely agree with Mr. Barron about anything but in his appreciation for Dr. Coyne, he and I are in complete agreement. Coyne is so honest. If all religionists simply said: "My god is about faith"---there'd be a lot less conflict with science. The growing conflict with science occurs when religion makes extraordinary claims about the world. Extraordnary claims require extraordinary evidence.
@theclarinet1234 ""My god is about faith"---there'd be a lot less conflict with science."
--What conflict? Faith and reason are perfectly compatible. The only conflict I know is the creationist/ID debate, which is an illusory debate to begin with. No conflict exists except in your own mind, clarinet.
--But what makes God's existence "extraordinary"? This is entirely unqualified. This stupid platitude floating around the internet is an entirely subjective judgment of yours coined by Carl Sagan. It doesn't mean a damn thing. Even if an event is improbable, that doesn't mean it is extraordinary. My winning the lottery is improbable, but I would hardly say it was "extraordinary." Try again.
@grunderlyme Hmm..What makes a god's existence extraordinary,? Well, throughout history, gods have been invented by the thousands, so the act of CLAIMING itself is not extraordinary. But, an invisible friend who sees and cares about everything we do especially when we're naked? If an unmedicated psychotic talked about his invisible, caring, all-knowing buddy, who wanted to reward or punish him, I'd consider the claim pretty damned extraordinary in the overall picture of things.
@theclarinet1234 "But, an invisible friend who sees and cares....extraordinary in the overall picture of things."
--Your trite caricature of religion misrepresents the very thing you do not understand, and is a direct reflection of your own 1-dimensionality. What is extraordinary is your superficial disregard for the fundamental human longing for the unconditioned ground of all Truth, Beauty, and Goodness which has fueled the wonder of all science, philosophy, and mysticism. Get real.
@grunderlyme Still won't answer the question, huh? MOST of my religionists friends would be lost without their invisible buddy who watches over them, answers their prayers, is responsible for the good stuff in their lives (though the devil is responsible for the bad--interesting), and promises them eternal life when they die. You may call this "superficial" but I'd wager that the VAST majority of religionists would not! In your own words: "get real!"
@theclarinet1234 Your understanding of the Church's 2000 year intellectual tradition is equivalent to a 4-year-old's understanding of mathematics. Your repeated mistakes regarding the Church's relationship to evolutionary biology and Aristotelian Naturalism testifies to this fact.
@theclarinet1234 And this still doesn't tell me why such a God is "extraordinary." This is obviously your irrational opinion since I've proven the contrary. I've already given two philosophical arguments for such an all powerful, intelligent first-cause of the universe for which you continue to ignore. You ignore them because you lack a cogent rebuttal. Clearly, the case is closed in this forum.
--What is extraordinary is the belief that God does NOT exist in spite of the hard evidence in the fine-tuning of the universe's constants and the Big Bang itself, both of which overwhelmingly confirm God's existence. In fact, it is not merely extraordinary to deny the existence of God, it is outright implausible and without justification.
I recommend that anyone interested in this subject view the series of YouTube videos that portray a conversation between Richard Dawkins and George Coyne. Even I, as an atheist scientist, could see Coyne's sincerity and genuine honesty. He is a man of integrity. At the end of the interview, all becomes clear, however. Coyne admits that his belief in a god is faith. His god is not shown by science or philosophy. His god is because of faith--his faith.
@ballyboneman Hello! I think I might be your American counterpart! I viewed your profile and we seem to very similar in cultural views and even musical taste. Good to know you're out there! The universe feels less lonely!
The universe is teeming with life? Most of it is empty space and only one planet out of the many we have found has life. Earth is an oasis in the cosmic desert, not a blade of grass in the cosmic lawn.
@wordonfirevideo My point still stands; the fact that there's so little actual life in the universe and the improbability of the circumstances required shows that the universe is not a massive hotbed of potential for life.
@Blarghonius Again, I didn't say "life." Take a look at George Coyne's reflections on the way in which the universe in its totality is increasingly marked by fecundity and creativity.
@Blarghonius "My point still stands; the fact that there's so little actual life in the universe and the improbability of the circumstances required shows that the universe is not a massive hotbed of potential for life."
Yes, it is a series of extremely improbable events that gave rise to human life. Usually when we see a series of improbable things leading to a desired outcome, it raises an eyebrow and we take it as a sign of intention, rather than blind chance.
@Mystagogia87 That's completely illogical. If something has a chance of happening without help and it does happen, how does that indicate that some outside party caused it to happen?
@Blarghonius When a series of unlikely events happens and results in a desired outcome, we usually take it as a sign that it wasn't accidental. If we play 20 hands of poker, any 20 hands I deal myself are equally unlikely. But if I deal myself 20 royal straight flushes and I win all your money, you wouldn't accept me saying it happened by chance. Likewise, in our universe we see a series of extremely unlikely events leading to the valuable outcome of human life.
@Mystagogia87 That proves nothing. It is still entirely possible that 20 royal flushes are dealt in a row to one person; the probability of that happening without cheating is still above zero. You can assume that if an unlikely event happens that something helped it along, but there is no way to tell without looking for further evidence if that is actually true.
@Blarghonius If I dealt myself 20 royal straight flushes in a row and took your money, yes, it's merely possible it happened by chance, but you would definitely think I was cheating! You couldn't prove it, but you'd believe it very strongly, and rightfully so. Nobody would accept chance as an explanation there; cheating is more plausible. The odds of that happening are nothing compared to the odds of human life arising. We shouldn't apply a double standard and accept "chance" there, either.
@Mystagogia87 Your comparison of the origin of the universe and "20 royal straight flushes in a row" is a bad one. The big bang happened once, not 20 times. Yes the chances of it happening were extremely low, but that doesn't mean that "God did it."
@mthouser123 There was indeed a series of improbable events leading to human life AFTER the big bang. I'm saying we wouldn't accept chance elsewhere with such a valued outcome.
@Mystagogia87 So are you now trying to say that the universe is fine tuned for us? Do you realize that we only exist in a very very very small portion of the universe, the rest is very hostile to life.
@mthouser123 The argument from fine-tuning does not say that the universe is fine-tuned for life to be everywhere. It says it is fine-tuned for life to be possible.
I wasn't talking about the fine-tuning of the constants specifically. I was just talking about the series of extremely improbable events that happened to yield conscious life. I was referencing events, not constants.
@mthouser123 "fine tuned for us? Do you realize that we only exist in a very small portion of the universe, the rest is very hostile to life."
--You dummy. I already told you this is irrelevant. You don't listen. You are conflating two different conditional probabilities here!! (1) the probability that life exists given a certain location somewhere in the universe, and (2) the probability that life exists given that the atheist single universe is true. Fine-tuning is about the (2), not (1)!
@Mystagogia87 Your analogy makes no sense as you're comparing a situation with people to one that doesn't. You are using the notion that people consider those who do too well at poker are cheaters and applying it to another, completely unrelated situation.
@Blarghonius NO, the fine-tuning argument is deductively valid argument, not an argument by analogy at all, which is inductive. So it cannot even fail on those grounds of being a faulty analogy. Those analogies are merely illustrations to help you understand the real principle at stake doing all the work. The fine-tuning argument relies on a perfectly plausible principle of confirmation we use every day, not to mention in trials by jury, which says,...[next]
@Blarghonius .Given any 2 hypothesis H1 and H2 and observation O, if O is more likely under H1 than H2, then O confirms H1 while disconfirming H2. Since a life-permitting universe is much more likely given a God wanted to create it than given the atheist single universe hypothesis (random chance), this life-permitting universe confirms the former while disconfirming the latter. This isn't an inductive arg by analogy, but deductively valid. The conclusion follows necessarily from true premises
@grunderlyme O is the formation of angular ice crystals, H1 is that God did it, and H2 is that water naturally forms rigid, angular structures when it freezes due to its polar nature. H1 appears more likely unless one takes the time to look at the entire picture.
There are parts of this planet where very little life can survive. The sun causes cancer. Completely natural events like tornadoes and earthquakes threaten living things. Do you really think Earth was perfectly crafted for life?
@Blarghonius "Earth was perfectly crafted for life?"
--The conditions of the earth are certainly such to make it life-permitting. Who ever said anything about "perfectly"? Besides, this is a red-herring. U are conflating 2 diff conditional probabilities. (1) the probability life exists given a certain location in the universe, and (2) the probability that life exists given the atheist single universe hypothesis. The evidence of fine-tuning is about the astronomical unlikelihood of 2, not 1
@grunderlyme The evidence of fine-tuning is nonexistent because all of creation after it was created can be accounted for by forces with no bias. Gravity is why planets formed into vaguely round shapes, for example.
@Blarghonius No. There is nothing in the the Law of Gravity that says the values of the constants are necessarily the ones we MUST have. Can you please tell me what Law or Theory warrants that conclusion that is not some speculative tautology on your part? You offer no reason for thinking this, when there is EVERY reason to think these values could have been otherwise. Both the Laws and Fine-Tuned Constants could have been otherwise. Even Physicist Paul Davies says [next].....
@Blarghonius Physicist Davies says: "Even if the Laws of physics were unique [for which there is no evidence], it doesn't follow that the physical universe itself is unique...that the constants of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions..There is nothing in present ideas about "Laws & Conditions" remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics imply uniqueness. It seems that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise."
@Blarghonius Not only are you correct, there, but in addition, the argument from "fine tuning" so often used by religionists is unconvincing because it fails to account for other possibilities. First, there is no evidence whatever that ALL life MUST be based on the same chemistry that we have on Earth. 2nd, the possibility of alternate universes cannot be excluded. 3rd. it's a dangerous, and egotistical, argument to maintain that because we "wonderful" humans exist, "god did it" for us!
@theclarinet1234 "argument from "fine tuning" is unconvincing because it fails to account for other possibilities."
--You dummy. What matters for the empirical adequacy of a hypothesis is not whether it is possible to bring evidence against it in the future, but whether there is current evidence in its favor. And there is overwhelming evidence that the universe is fine-tuned. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, your rebuttal is nothing more than speculative.
@theclarinet1234 "there is no evidence ALL life MUST be based on same chemistry"
--Likewise, there's no evidence the Law of Gravity is the same outside what we can see. Insofar as we know, all life requires carbon, and rests on very delicate balance of initial conditions to get it started. That all life throughout the universe requires the same conditions to get it started is a well-supported conjecture until you give me good reason to think otherwise. I'm pretty sure most biologists agree.
@theclarinet1234 "2nd, the possibility of alternate universes cannot be excluded."
--This is "M-Theory" a possibility which has no effect on the fine-tuning argument for several reasons. (1) Rather than being a theory, M-theory is more like a set of changing ideas for which there is zero evidence, and for which Roger Penrose criticizes as "fantasy." Second,...
@theclarinet1234 ....[cont] (2) M-theory, even if true, is still logically consistent with Design, since it only makes it more likely that "some" universe is life-permitting, not that THIS universe is life-permitting. The evidence of a our life-permitting universe doesn't confirm M-theory, because it is no more likely the probability that THIS universe is life-permitting given M than ~M. So the evidence so confirms design, not M. Third,.....
@theclarinet1234 (3) Even if there are other universes, this still doesn't affect the argument. Let L = the statement, "our universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent, physical life, G = the hypothesis that God exists and wanted to create this life-permitting universe, N = the hypothesis that naturalism is true, and M = the multiple universe hypothesis. Fine-tuning arguments for God's existence can be interpreted as containing a premise that states, Pr(L|G) >> Pr(L|N)...[cont]
@theclarinet1234 ...[cont] Since, again, G is compatible with M and N is compatible with ~M, how could M be relevant to the fine-tuning argument? Since we don't know M to be true, we can't simply equate Pr(L|N) with Pr(L|N&M), or Pr(L|G) with Pr(L|G&M). In effect, consistent with Bayes's Theorem and the Rule of Total Evidence, we have to use a weighted average formula that takes into account both Pr(L|N&M) and Pr(L|G&M), as well as Pr(L|N&~M) and Pr(L|G&~M)....[next]
@theclarinet1234 (4)The fine-tuning argument compares the probability of fine-tuning given theism to the probability of fine-tuning given naturalism (or atheism), not to naturalism combined with the auxiliary hypothesis of multiple universes. Like I said, Mutliple universes=M is compatible with God, and ~M is compatible with naturalism. So in the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is simply no reason why M, even if true, should give us reason for thinking Pr (L|G) > Pr (L|N) is false.
@theclarinet1234 ...[cont]....Finally, (5) Even if M-theory were true, whatever mechanism generates many universes itself has to be fine-tuned to generate whatever proportion of universes we find in the World-Ensemble. So M-theory just kicks the very same problem up one level. One only has to think of the odds of different possible universe generators there could be. More than ever we would wonder why there was life rather than none at all.
@theclarinet1234 "it's a dangerous, and egotistical, argument to maintain that because we "wonderful" humans exist, "god did it" for us!"
--I don't see what is so "dangerous" about the argument. In any case, what you just said is obviously not the argument anyway. Strawmanning people gets you nowhere.
@Blarghonius "O is the formation of angular ice crystals, H1 is that God did it, and H2 is that water naturally forms rigid, angular structures when it freezes due to its polar nature. H1 appears more likely"
-- I disagree. It seems just as (if not more) likely that angular crystals would form given the natural conditions necessary to make that happen than if God wanted to do that himself w/o natural law. After all, since this happens according to natural necessity, God is superfluous.
@Blarghonius "That proves nothing. It is still possible 20 royal flushes are dealt in a row to one person;"
--Of course, but it's not about proof. It's about under which hypothesis is the evidence more likely or expected. Though it is possible to randomly deal 20 straight flushes in a row, it is certainly LESS likely than if the dealer is rigging the deck in the player's favor. If you were security, you would be fired from your job for not noticing this fact and not doing anything about it.
@Blarghonius There's always a chance that an explosion in a publishing house will produce the complete unabridged works of Shakespeare., right? Or, if this won't do it, let's speculate that an infinite number of explosions in an infinite number of publishing houses will get the job done, right?
@billybagbom What makes no sense to me is that you are willing to deny that chance can cause certain things to occur while you subscribe to a view that somehow has all the answers, can be considered correct without evidence, and just happened to not have been written by men from a time when scientific understanding was non-existence, but by a being that breaks nearly every known scientific law just by existing.
@Blarghonius I believe in the reality of chance. It is not a tangible "thing" within the universe, nor is it sovereign over all "things," but I think its reality is evident. Perhaps God exists, not as a "thing" within the universe, but as the sovereign cause of all things, including randomness, which God permits because he is just that powerful as not to be threatened by it. If an author invents a whole world within her story, does her existence violate every condition that she herself created?
@billybagbom Yes, perhaps. Until you have proof, that's a belief and not science.
To the second part, not always. Nonfiction and realistic or historical fiction books show this. Also, a book is a physical object that presents a mental image; it does not create matter or energy.
@Blarghonius As to your first point: I wasn't denying the distinction between science and religion. I was affirming that a relgious worldview is broader than a strictly empirical one, because it can take account of intangible realities. Your second point mistakes my use of illustration for a claim of scientific proof. I was not saying books create matter or energy; I was saying that they might help you understand what Christians are saying before you charge in with dogmatic presuppositions..
@billybagbom Just because your view is broader doesn't make it better. There's no point on expanding your view if there's nothing out there to see but blank space and indefinite "maybes".
Dogmatic presuppositions and acting logically and following the evidence are also not the same thing.
@Blarghonius "There's no point on expanding your view if there's nothing out there to see but blank space and indefinite "maybes"."
--Talk about a dogmatic and self-defeating assumption. If it were "useless" to try to expand your knowledge no further than what you can now see with our eyes because there's "nothing out there to see," then you obviously think you already know everything. Indeed, asking questions about things we don't yet know in science and philosophy would be useless.
@grunderlyme If there is something outside our scope of knowledge, there is some evidence out there that will lead to it. There is nothing like that for the existence of a creator as the formation of our world is best described as being accomplished by non-sentient forces; there was a great amount of evidence that lead to that conclusion. The goal of science is not to reach out into the dark and claim that some things are true, but to walk along the trail of evidence towards knowledge.
@Blarghonius "If there is something outside knowledge, there is some evidence out there it."
--This is only true for empirically verifiable hypotheses. However, you explicitly claimed even for empirical hypotheses that "there is nothing outside what we can see." But how can you possibly know this? You obviously have no experience of things outside your knowledge, so you cannot know things don't exist for which you lack the experience. Your claim is self-defeating.
@Blarghonius "There is nothing like that for the existence of a creator as the formation of our world is best described as being accomplished by non-sentient forces"
--False. There is overwhelming evidence for God's from Fine-Tuning.
But even if there were no current evidence, why do you continue to assume there is no evidence at all? You cannot possibly know there is "no evidence existing out there," when there is no evidence for this very claim. Once again, your claim is self-defeating.
@Blarghonius "science is not to reach out the dark claim some things are true, but to walk along evidence"
--Exactly, so stop saying "there is nothing like that for a creator" when you have no evidence that you will not encounter more evidence in the future.
How do you empirically verify that only empirically verifiable things are true?
You continue to assume this Positivist claim in your discussion, but ironically enough, you cannot verify it. Once again, your claim is self-defeating.
Actually Science and Religion cannot both exist as facts.
Religion have never been about facts, it always have been about beliefs and faith. Science is the pursuit of facts and religion is the pursuit of happiness. The problem comes when religions pose as facts or even pose as science when it is really not.
@Neosaigo No! This is the "scientism" that I complain about: you're trying to draw religion into science or reduce it to science. Science and religion deal with reality, but in qualitatively different ways. That's why they are compatible and not competitive.
@Neosaigo True, you either accept the facts and evidence, experience them for yourself, or you take it on faith, just believing that what the other equally frail human being is telling you is true. Science and faith cannot coexist. You have to be in serious denial not to see and accept physical proof.
Father Barron, how can God be the answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" when God already existed prior to the creation of everything else that is?
You might as well ask, "Why is there a God rather than not?" and we realize God doesn't answer the question.
@elguanteloko The more precise formulation would be: why should a contingent universe exist? Contingent things--things that come into being and pass out of being--require a causal explanation. Endless appeal to other contingent things wouldn't solve the problem; therefore we have to arrive at some non-contingent reality. This is what we call "God." Do you see now why the question, "why is there a God rather than not?" is just silly?
@elguanteloko Yes, I did get the point--which is why I put the question in more precise form, namely, why should a radically contingent universe exist?
@wordonfirevideo I agree with someone posing that question but the point is that that same question also includes God since God is something. I provided a very precise argument and if you disagree with it then you can attack the premises or the inference.
Again, the question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is not answered by God since a necessary being is also a thing. Saying that "because he is necessary" is highly unsatisfactory.
@elguanteloko Friend, you're just hung-up on Heidegger's formulation. Stay with what I've said twice now: how does a contingent universe exist? The answer--if we are to avoid a hopelessly infinite regress--is some self-exixsting reality. This is what Catholic theology means by "God." I'm not just positing God's necessity; I'm making an argument for it.
@wordonfirevideo Father, you do realize I was addressing a very specific issue here, right? Namely, that the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is asked leaving God out of the "something" group. That's it. "Why does God have X nature and not Y nature?" would be another way of approaching what I'm saying. Let's grant God's existence, why does God exist rather than not? If you tell me something of his nature you'll be begging the question ("Why does God have nature X?").
@wordonfirevideo You didn't respond to my arguments but just went on and restate the cosmological argument several times. Do you seriously not see what I was getting at? I can't say if you did or didn't because you simply ignored the arguments I presented.
To say that there is non-contingent stuff (being, if you want and granting the conclusion of the Cosmological Argument) does NOT answer the question since God is something and "why is there God (something) rather than not?" still applies.
Father Barron: Your critique pf the intelligent design argument puzzles me. I know that you love St. Thomas Aquinas and appreciate his Five Ways to prove the existence of God, even if you don't fully agree with their efficacy.. Wasn't one of them the argument from design to Designer? How does St. Thomas differ from the ID advocates in his basic approach here?
This has been flagged as spam show
The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 2 days ago
@michiman57 Sure, I would be more than happy to answer any questions you have about the Catholic philosophy and faith that you have to the best of my ability. I am still in the early years of studies, but have a good ground at least to get you started. :) The understanding of the consistency of the Catholic faith has come from asking 'why' and getting straight answers are consistent. Even the protestant philosophies are not completely consistent from the studying of them that I have done.
BeatMasterPhil 4 weeks ago
I always wanted to ask Fr. Coyne how can he believe in Jesus as being the son of god. I looked for his view on that. Found nothing concrete. In the "evolution of life in the universe" he seems to indicate that he does not really believe in that. Is that correct?
symplythebest 1 month ago
@symplythebest There is a wonderful YouTube video in which Richard Dawkins interviews Fr. Coyne. You can find it easily. Coyne is a truly charming man---you'll like him immediately. The interview is mutually respectful---the conversation of 2 smart scientists who clearly respect one another. Pay close attention to Coyne's discussion of miracles. He seems embarrassed but affirms his belief in the miracles of the Nicene Creed. Judge for yourself how he really feels from his body language.
Biologist1947 2 weeks ago
@Biologist1947 Thanks!
symplythebest 2 weeks ago
The Church has faults and failings but I still love her and She is still very much needed in our world.
spokaenette 2 months ago in playlist Father Barron 3
Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest who held the title of monsignor, proposed and gave evidence for what would become known as the Big Bang theory. He was highly respected by Albert Einstein and the two met multiple times to discuss theories. Msgr. Lemaitre and Father Coyne both are good representations of how the Church is not anti-science.
SociallySacred 2 months ago
what i also found out is that religious belief has been declining across 137 developed countries over the 20th centuries. you are free to research all this information and correct me. but in general... it is not looking good for you theists since the world is getting more and more sophisticated.
michiman57 3 months ago
i just did some research on science and religion. turns out science and religion does not go together. a study in 2008 has shown people with higher IQ are less likely to believe in god than people with low IQ . the percent of leading scientists who hold religious beliefs has been declining from around 30% in 1914 to less than 10% in 1998. and only about 3% - 7% of university student are religious.
michiman57 3 months ago
@michiman57 what does your statement 'does not go together' mean? are you suggesting they aren't the same thing? bravo. we all hold that to be true. faith and reason are two DIFFERENT wings of the same bird (truth.) not all truth can be known by the scientific process. only that which is sensed can be known in this way. other truths cannot. Theology is a study of truths by a process no less rigorous than the scientific method.
FaithandReason101 3 months ago
@FaithandReason101 religions are the ancient equivalent of science. they used religion as primitive means to understand the world they live in, nothing more. if a god really did create us, there would be complete peace on earth and everybody would believe in the same religion. theres thousands of religious cults out there. none of them have any evidence to support their belief. they cant all be right. tell me, what makes your religion the true religion?
michiman57 3 months ago
@michiman57 For the thousandth time: religion is not science, primitive or otherwise. Science deals with the causal relations between events and objects in the empirical world; religion deals with the unconditioned ground of existence as such. Therefore, science and religion have entirely different methods and aims.
wordonfirevideo 3 months ago
@wordonfirevideo alright what makes your religion the true religion of god?
michiman57 3 months ago
@michiman57 I would say that religion as an institution itself is a thing of the material, where God does not have a "certain religion" in the way that he revealed to us that we "must follow X religion." We must first use our reason as to what the purpose of religion is. Religion should bring us closer and closer to the true God and is not an end in itself. (Just the same as marriage, priesthood, etc.) It should be the best vehicle that we in the material form have of bringing us closer to God.
BeatMasterPhil 2 months ago
@michiman57 The reason, in a nutshell, why we have what we now call Catholicism is because of the people who were inspired by Jesus who claimed to be God in the flesh, and who we now understand to be fully God and fully man. They were so driven by the fact of his resurrection and his teaching that they couldn't help but spread it and realized the peace and joy that his teachings brought. In a nutshell the Church has built on that over the past 2000 years.
BeatMasterPhil 2 months ago
@michiman57 For myself personally, I have come to a greater love of the Church because of the rationale and consistency behind the modern day teachings. One would ask why and would be able to get a very rational and consistent answer. I have also found that the Church is the best way to grow closer to God. We must understand that all these institutions are run by people w/ a fallen nature & do make mistakes, but that takes nothing away from the truth in, and behind, any teaching.
BeatMasterPhil 2 months ago
@BeatMasterPhil other religions in their views think their religion is consistent and think yours is wrong. i want you to prove me your religion is right. and i also want you to prove me other religions are wrong. theres hundreds of religions out there. only one can be right and they all think theirs is the right one, just like you. so prove it to me
michiman57 2 months ago
"Science does not permit magical explanations,"
--Then scientists should stop saying the universe popped into existence from nothing at all, which is worse than magic.
grunderlyme 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
there are many things science cannot describe. But rather than face these facts, people have taken these failures as an excuse to deny the reality of everything that does not fall under science's domain, by beating everything into its shape just to save current physical theory. Dennett, for instance, denies consciousness even exists. But does it ever occur to him that physical theory might suffer from severe limitations?--Apparently not.
grunderlyme 4 months ago
Faith is to man what sand is to an ostrich!
scotttebben 5 months ago
@scotttebben Like a whole army of others on these forums, you have no idea what serious religious people mean by "faith." Newman explained that faith is the "reasoning of a religious mind." Faith is never below reason, though it passes beyond reason. The Catholic tradition has never driven a wedge between faith and reason.
wordonfirevideo 5 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Ah, but who gets to define reason? Catholics are required to accept the church’s claims based on church authority, not reason. The church decides what constitutes reason based on the church’s agenda, their interpretation of what they consider to be scripture, what they've defined as sacred tradition etc. Is it reasonable to presume that a traditional belief must be true? If so, George Coyne would claim that the sun orbits the earth every day.
quantumystery 4 months ago
@quantumystery Nonsense! The Church reverences all forms of reason--mathematics, science, philosophy, etc.--inasmuch as they participate in the Logos, the divine reason, made manifest in Christ.
wordonfirevideo 4 months ago 5
@wordonfirevideo Who gets to define divine reason?
If I own the definition of reason then whatever I happen to believe is reasonable by definition. Right? Isn't that the circular reasoning game that all the churches play?
quantumystery 4 months ago
@quantumystery
Actually thats a game that everybody plays, reason does not represent anything. Its just simply whatever its correct use is, Wittgenstein showed this in language.
UncannyRicardo 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UncannyRicardo Yeah, we all tend to think that our views reflect reason and that those who disagree with us don't get it. The scientific method attempts to control for this prejudice by requiring demonstrable evidence. There's no such restriction in religion. Religious "truth" is whatever the religious poobahs say. That's why there's so many religions; that's why all religions morph over time.
quantumystery 3 months ago
Comment removed
quantumystery 3 months ago
@quantumystery Don't let anyone fool you. The "revealed" religions are intrinsically and inextricably authoritarian at their very core. Whether the authority is an inviolate, "inspired" text or an ex cathedra pronouncement, or a stated Nicene creed, those religions as part of their very natures have a belief system that cannot be challenged in its "essential" points without the challenger becoming a heretic---a dissenter. "Freedom of thought" within such religions is a contradiction in terms.
bassclarinet2000 2 months ago
@bassclarinet2000 "Essential" points of theology are a moving target and Catholicism is an example. You don't have to look back to Medieval times. Catholic doctrine has changed dramatically in my lifetime regardless how the spin masters deny it.
quantumystery 2 months ago
@quantumystery Well the authoritarian figures of Catholicism would undoubtedly argue that the "essential" points of their theology are immutable. And yet, as you point out, one can find innumerable examples of highly pragmatic change in the "mutable" portions of theology The authorities declare unilaterally mutable & immutable, which is certainly a handy method. This whole analysis distinguishes authoritarian relligion from science, which always probes, questions, falsifies, and surprises.
bassclarinet2000 2 months ago
@scotttebben I would suggest just the opposite is true. There are many, many theists engaged in the sciences. There are no atheists seriously engaged in theology as a discipline. Who, then, is burying their heads in the sand?
PhoenixLament87 2 months ago 3
@PhoenixLament87 Especially when the proponents of the New Atheism only talk about Fundamentalists as their reference points and refuse to accept that they are wrong.
Stitchman3875 2 weeks ago
"the scientific method is the single most powerful tool for the discernment of the Universe ever invented by humans."
--More ridiculously unjustified and false atheistic dogma.
grunderlyme 5 months ago
"god did it" is NOT A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION"
--Ya think? It is not meant to be!
""god" supposedly prevented decay" or violated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics"
--The 2nd Law is not violated because it only applies in closed systems, and the earth is not a closed system because it receives energy from the sun, you dolt. Heck, we don't even know if the universe is a closed system
"Science does not permit magical explanations"
--Science does not deal w/ the supernatural at all--So?
grunderlyme 5 months ago
My goodness, this must be a difficult concept for dedicated theists. Let me reiterate: "god did it"---or ANY variation on that explanation---is NOT A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION. Period. Whether "god" supposedly prevented decay or violated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is immaterial. Science does not permit magical explanations, thank you very much. It is for this very reason that the scientific method is the single most powerful tool for the discernment of the Universe ever invented by humans.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
Nothing in science pushes God out. It is funny how often these physicists shoot themselves in the foot when they say things like, "It seems Einstein was doubly wrong: Not only does God play dice with the world; he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen."--Stephen Hawking.
Well, heck! Since even Hawking thinks God would have the freedom to cause what would otherwise be random states of affairs in the natural world, then theism is not incompatible with science. duh!
grunderlyme 5 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 5 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 5 months ago
In short, Clarinet's "scientism" is completely unjustified.
grunderlyme 5 months ago
Did it ever occur to you that science is also product of the brain? Science is great at making precise measurements and testing predictions for the advancement of technology, but in terms of formulating Theories to tell us the truth about things, science has failed more times than we can count. See "Superseded Scientific Theories" for an exhaustive list of all the past theories abandoned as false.
grunderlyme 5 months ago
I know that you like politics, so one final point. My prediction: you will find scentists less accommodating in future to Christianity. B/c political power & funding are in the control of theists in the U.S., scientists have tended to downplay the clear inconsistencies between sceince and religion. Also, religionists gain if science "supports" their belief or at least does not refute it. Well, in my view, the two are inextricably at odds and are impossible to reconcile Remember my prediction.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
Fr. Barron is right. After all, no scientist can explain what it's like to see yellow to a blind person, or what it's like to fall in love to a person who has never fallen in love. Even after we give purely physical description of these phenmena in terms of behavior, structure, and function, it is still the case that no one can convey the qualitative aspect of those 1st-person experiences to someone who has never had them. Some things are beyond the domain of science to describe.
grunderlyme 5 months ago
(contd)You presumably take those 3 NT events very seriously, though I'm not at all sure that George Coyne does, based upon his Dawkins YouTube interview. "God did it" is no explanation for those dedicated to science. If an event occurs in the natural world, it is in the purview of science. My point:: as long as Christians have "faith" that those NT events actually occurred, science and Christianity will be forever at odds if only b/c science does not alter its explanations to account for them.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
I can't believe Clarinet is still living in the Dark Ages of early 20th century philosophical determinism. With the advent of quantum mechanics, determinism has been widely abandoned by scientists and philosophers alike. No one thinks effects follow from their causes "by necessity" anymore, but only probabilitically. This has been empirically verified over and over again!
grunderlyme 5 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 5 months ago
Determinism is dead. Even Hawking thinks so: "It seems Einstein was doubly wrong: Not only does 'God" play dice with the world; he sometimes throws them where they can't be seen."
grunderlyme 5 months ago
(1) There is no extant Natural Law in biology or any other science that says God cannot raise people from the dead.
(2) There is no Natural Law in biology or any other science that says onces a body dies, God cannot raise it from the dead.
(3) There is no Natural Law in biology that says the supernatural cause of bodies ascending into the sky, must itself be observable.
I challenge you to cite me these alleged Laws you say exist, EXACTLY AS STATED. You're making shit up
grunderlyme 5 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 5 months ago
If the well-developed, widely accepted and never otherwise violated scientific explanations that 1) human parthenogenesis cannot occur, 2) human corpses once dead remaini dead, & 3) corpses do not ascend without observable propulsion to the sky are not violated by the 3 NT "events," NOTHING could negate scientific explanations! Why is priest-scientist Coyne so uncomfortable re: miracles if apologist Barron's explanations are so compelling for the compatibility of science and Christianity?
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Friend, you're the one forcing this into a stark either/or. I'm with you: the overwhelming statistical probability is that virgins don't give birth and dead bodies don't come back to life. But God, who is responsible for the intelligibilities and describable rhythms within nature, can certainly work, on very rare occasions, in a surprising manner. I've also suggested that your strict determinism is kind of "old science." Postmodern science is much more open to novelty.
wordonfirevideo 5 months ago
@wordonfirevideo While scientists very much enjoy novelty and surprise,and modern physics is filled with them, as is biology, those elements of novelty and surprise are either 1) fit into current explanations or 2) trigger the creation of NEW explanations. So which is it for NT human parthenogenesis, reanimation of corpses, and skyward movement of a reanimated corpse? Clearly, they cannot be fit into old explanations. Either science must take the NT events seriously---or not! (contd)
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 The miracles of the New Testament are best understood as proleptic events, which is to say, manifestations of the future, or better, of God's deepest intentions vis-a-vis his creation. Or look at it along the lines suggested by Thomas Aquinas. As the first cause of all motion and existence, God typically works through secondary causes, but in some rare cases, for his own purposes, he chooses to work directly. None of this "contradicts" science.
wordonfirevideo 5 months ago
@wordonfirevideo I understand that various theologians have interpreted those events in ways that make them less "physical" and I've read some of those interpretations. Ultimately, the events either happened in the physical world or they did not. Science deals with all physical events, even by its most conservative definition. If they occurred, science MUST deal with them. "God did it" is simply not an acceptable SCIENTIFIC explanation for anything--but it is yours. Hence my point.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Fine: certain very rare events within the physical universe cannot be fully and adequately explained by the sciences. To say otherwise is to succumb to scientism or scientific imperialism. "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophies..."
wordonfirevideo 5 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Yes, there are many things science cannot describe. But rather than face these facts, people have taken these failures as an excuse to deny the reality of everything that does not fall under science's domain, by beating everything into its shape just to save current physical theory. Dennett, for instance, denies consciousness even exists. But does it ever occur to him that physical theory might suffer from severe limitations?--Apparently not.
grunderlyme 5 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Then count me proudly "guilty" of scientism! The scientific method is undoubtedly the most powerful tool that we humans have ever invented to discern the Universe and partially to overcome our flawed brains. A modest proposal: At your next lunch with George Coyne, ask him about miracles. I'd enjoy having the discussion with him myself. I certainly respect him and based on the Dawkins interview, find him incredibly forthcoming about his own doubts, which is refreshing indeed.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
"Laws say 1) human parthenogenesis cannot occur,"
--No Law says this. The Law ONLY stipulates that bodies decay under such and such conditions. But if God intervenes suspending those very conditions, then no Law is violated.
"2) human corpses once dead remaini dead"
--No Law says this. The Law only says that bodies will never come come back so long as they continue to decay. But if God prevents a body from decaying, no Law is violated when it comes back to lfie.
grunderlyme 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"3) corpses do not ascend without observable propulsion"
--No Law in biology or any other science even comes close to saying this. This is your philosophical pre-scientific bias--that "if I cannot observe it, it doesn't happen". But nothing is more arrogant, self-defeating, and outright false.
grunderlyme 5 months ago
Take the resurrection. That dead men stay dead is a widely observed fact, but it is not, in the ordinary scientific use of the term, a law of nature that dead men stay dead. The laws involved in the decomposition of a dead body are all at a much more fundamental level, of biochemical and thermodynamic processes. Laws only describe the workings of nature when left to itself in ideal conditions, but there is nothing within those laws themselves that exclude God from intervening.
grunderlyme 5 months ago
There is no reason to suppose miracles are "violations" of natural law. After all, natural laws apply only in those IDEAL cases where there are no interfering conditions. For instance, without interference an object will fall to the ground due to gravity. But if a person steps in to catch the object in flight, the object won't touch the ground. We wouldn't call this interference a "violation of law." Same with God. God can make things happen in the world w/o violating natural law. Examples:
grunderlyme 5 months ago
"God never wrought a miracle to convince atheism, because His ordinary works convince it. It is true that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion: for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no farther; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity."--Francis Bacon
grunderlyme 5 months ago
The more that I think about this (even restricting our discussion to Christianity) the more I think that science and religion are inevitably at odds, despite the views of charismatic George Coyne. Human parthenogenesis, the reanimation of a corpse, and the unaided movement of a resurrected corpse upward to the sky are ESSENTIALLY scientific claims. It is not possible to disentangle such claims from the totality of scientific evidence. Science and religion cannot coexist intellectually.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Why would a handful of extremely rare exceptions to the statistical probabilities undermine our reliance in the vast majority of cases on those probabilities?
wordonfirevideo 5 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Come on! Even a non-scientist should see immediately that all three of those events violate nearly every formulated law of physics, chemistry and biology. An example:. If scientists found even ONE violation of E=mc2, all of modern physics would crumble and an entirely new mathematics for the Universe would be required. Similarly, if even one of those three events, as described in the NT, ACTUALLY occurred, all of science would require revision to accommodate it.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Absolutely not! The progressive edge of science today is exploring the possibility of motion beyond the speed of light E=mc2 is a statistical probability, not an iron law. The universe is a stranger and more magical place than determinists imagine. Take a look at John Polkinghorne's speculations concerning the puzzles and paradoxes of quantum mechanics and their implications for miracles and God's action within the universe.
wordonfirevideo 5 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Polkinghome is completely unconvincing---no evidence---& don't get hung up on my one example. Those 3 events violate virtually everything that we know about physics, chemistry & biology. If they ocurred as reported, all of science would require revision to accommodate/explain them. The mathematical models that we use to predict the behavior of matter and energy would be WRONG! In the YouTube interview with Dawkins, even Coyne REJECTS miracles except those (contd)
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@wordonfirevideo (contd) of the Nicene creed, which he must ostensibly accept in order to continue to be an RCC priest. Check that interview. Coyne is very uncomfortable with the whole miracle concept b/c he knows that the acceptance of the 3 miracles requires a major revision of science. (I'm not talking about medical miracles of low probability---I'm talking about those 3 major miracles.) Ultimately, he relies on faith in an interventionist god who suspended science to do what it wanted.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Added note: E=mc2 is not a statement that prohibits motion faster than the speed of light. It is an equation that states that matter and energy are equivalent and interconvertible. Again, if ONE example were found where energy and matter were not equivalent, all of physics would require MAJOR revision. The quantum speculations of Polkinghome or just that--SPECULATIONS--no evidence, no experiment, and indeed are at odds with what we currently understand of quantum theory.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Yes, but Einstein took the speed of light to be an incontrovertible constant, which is why the equation works. And John Polkinghorne is an Anglican priest and Cambridge particle physicist. Take a look at his books and find plenty of scientifically respectable evidence for his positions. But we're actually straying far from the original point, which his that the author of the intelligibilities within nature can occasionally suspend them or work around them for his purposes.
wordonfirevideo 5 months ago
@wordonfirevideo That is indeed the point. And it is the reason that science and Christianity are intrinsically and irrevocably at odds. Please check the Coyne / Dawkins interview. It is highly revealing. Coyne is very uncomfortable with any discussion of miracles. Science seeks verifiable evidence leading to explanations about the Universe. If those 3 NT miracles are indeed bona fide evidence, then all scientific explanations for the world as we know it are WRONG--and they must be revised.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Continuing the thought: Now, when Christians make pronouncements about the so-called "supernatural" world, a case (not credible to me) can be made that science has nothing to say about such pronouncements. But these 3 NT miracles "occurred" in the physical world---and as such they are forever entangled with the physical Universe, and come under the unarguable purview of science. If they "occurred," they violate so many scientific explanations that HUGE revisions must be made.
theclarinet1234 5 months ago
Please come give the homilies at my church. All the priest at my church does is talk about abortion/homosexuality. I much prefer listening to more intellectual and philosophical talks.
afw8g 6 months ago
@afw8g My Church gets first dibs, being that I asked first, hahahahahaha
Stitchman3875 5 months ago
The world's religions hold many more contradictions than similarities. Even if we examine the monotheistic, Abrahaminic religions, we find that the conception of god is different in each. The Jewsih Yahweh is a warrior god, capable of wrecking havoc on enemies. The Christian god is triune, which is absolutely anathema to the Islamic Allah. In fact, the Q'uran specifies torture for anyone believing in a triune god. If god exists, it must not care whether it's defined uniformly by religionists.
theclarinet1234 6 months ago
Another way to think about this is that religionists reside in a culture of "faith"--a willingness, even desire, to accept stuff without evidence, however irrational it may seem. Scientists reside in a culture of "doubt"--willing to question everything, to be skeptical of everything, where "truth" is always provisional. Scientists know that the human brain is flawed and use the scientific method to overcome some of its flaws.Coyne's god must be by faith b/c his science is surely skeptical.
Mike96727 6 months ago
@Mike96727 Mike, please do me a favor and read John Henry Newman's Grammar of Assent or the first several questions of Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae. You have a woefully inadequate understanding of what sophisticated Christians mean by "faith" and you continue to propagate it. Fundamentalists might drive a wedge between faith and reason, but Catholics don't.
wordonfirevideo 6 months ago 2
@Mike96727 You are so correct. As brilliant cosmologist Lawrence Krauss says so beautifully: "Scientists love mysteries. They love not knowing. That's a key part of science---the excitement of learning about the Universe.And that again is so different from the sterile aspect of religion where the excitement is apparently knowing everything." Each of the thousands of the world's religions is convinced that it has "answers" but the answers are often contradictory, inconsistent, or antithetical.
theclarinet1234 6 months ago
@theclarinet1234 More atheist dogma. Do you even know how to put together a substantive position that is at least valid? You vomit your empty rhetoric with ZERO facts.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@theclarinet1234 "Each world's religion is contradictory, inconsistent, or antithetical."
--I challenge you to give me ONE instance of 2 official Catholic teachings that are logically inconsistent. Here's how you prove your conclusion. Find 2 official claims the Church makes, and then WITHOUT STRAWMANNING those 2 claims, proceed to CHARITABLY deduce a logical contradiction from those 2 claims as premises. Only THEN will you have succeeded in saying anything worthwhile at all. Dunce.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
There something that confuses me in this video, you say that natural processes (like evolution) cannot disprove the existance of God. But what about the other way around? For example, Dr. William Lane Craig uses the Big Bang and fine tuning of the universe (natural processes) as evidence for God. Do you mean that arguments from nature for and against God's existence are invalid?
300killjoy 6 months ago
I've done further research on George Coyne. It seems that he was fired from the directorship of the Vatican Observatory by Benedict over the issue of Intelligent Design (ID). Coyne is an avid, vociferous OPPONENT of ID because he sees ID as beneath the Christian god. Does anyone know about this? Of course, Coyne's dismissal may be denied by both Coyne and Benedict. At any rate, Coyne's opposition to ID is readily apparent in his YouTube interview with Richard Dawkins, which I recommend.
theclarinet1234 7 months ago
@theclarinet1234 actually that was a rumor. Coyne even debunked it himself, saying that its was "simply not true".Look it up on wiki under retirement.
300killjoy 6 months ago
@theclarinet1234 The Church does not support ID theory. You act like this stuff with Fr. Coyne is news. It is not. You always attack the Church without even the slightest clue as to what it actually teaches. See,
catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0811fea4.asp
Don't bother replying to me without first having read this.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme As a recovering Catholic, I understand RCC teaching far better than you think. Of course, the RCC does not embrace ID NOW...key word, NOW. It resisted Evolution for many, many decades, however. As is typical of the RCC, and many other relgions, it altered its views with time. Ex: Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin. I like Coyne. As he ultimately admits in his Dawkins interview, though, his notion of his god is based on faith. His discussion of miracles is so very revealing!
theclarinet1234 6 months ago
@theclarinet1234 "It resisted Evolution for many, many decades."
--False. The Catholic Church never "resisted" evolution or Darwin. Read your Aquinas. The creationism and ID is contrary to Aquinas teaching that the change and development of organisms proceeds according to certain natural propensities and powers WITHIN the organism itself, NOT requiring the intervention of God into natural affairs. You obviously DON'T know the history of the Church's intellectual thought. Get an education.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme Come on now! The RCC was so uncomfortable with human evolution from an ape- like ancestor that it developed a whole theology around "special evolution" for humans. Of course, even today no RCC leader wants to speculate abut exactly the evolutionary stage where its god put a soul in the hominid...but...by some magic, at some unknown point, they maintain that a soul was certainly added to the mix! You'll note that Coyne carefully avoided definition in his discussion with Dawkins.
theclarinet1234 6 months ago
@theclarinet1234 "The RCC was so uncomfortable with human evolution from an ape- like ancestor that it developed a whole theology around "special evolution" for humans."
--False. Evolution is only evolution of the body, and says nothing about the soul. But the Church has always believed in the existence of the soul. So why should it feel threatened by evolution of the body at all? You're not making any sense. There's simply no motivation to feel threatened by this cosmogony. Read Aquinas!!
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme How amusing! Coyne certainly disagrees with you about the "soul" concept. I rarely agree with Mr. Barron about anything but in his appreciation for Dr. Coyne, he and I are in complete agreement. Coyne is so honest. If all religionists simply said: "My god is about faith"---there'd be a lot less conflict with science. The growing conflict with science occurs when religion makes extraordinary claims about the world. Extraordnary claims require extraordinary evidence.
theclarinet1234 6 months ago
@theclarinet1234 ""My god is about faith"---there'd be a lot less conflict with science."
--What conflict? Faith and reason are perfectly compatible. The only conflict I know is the creationist/ID debate, which is an illusory debate to begin with. No conflict exists except in your own mind, clarinet.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@theclarinet1234 "Extraordnary claims require extraordinary evidence."
--But what makes God's existence "extraordinary"? This is entirely unqualified. This stupid platitude floating around the internet is an entirely subjective judgment of yours coined by Carl Sagan. It doesn't mean a damn thing. Even if an event is improbable, that doesn't mean it is extraordinary. My winning the lottery is improbable, but I would hardly say it was "extraordinary." Try again.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme Hmm..What makes a god's existence extraordinary,? Well, throughout history, gods have been invented by the thousands, so the act of CLAIMING itself is not extraordinary. But, an invisible friend who sees and cares about everything we do especially when we're naked? If an unmedicated psychotic talked about his invisible, caring, all-knowing buddy, who wanted to reward or punish him, I'd consider the claim pretty damned extraordinary in the overall picture of things.
theclarinet1234 6 months ago
@theclarinet1234 "But, an invisible friend who sees and cares....extraordinary in the overall picture of things."
--Your trite caricature of religion misrepresents the very thing you do not understand, and is a direct reflection of your own 1-dimensionality. What is extraordinary is your superficial disregard for the fundamental human longing for the unconditioned ground of all Truth, Beauty, and Goodness which has fueled the wonder of all science, philosophy, and mysticism. Get real.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme Still won't answer the question, huh? MOST of my religionists friends would be lost without their invisible buddy who watches over them, answers their prayers, is responsible for the good stuff in their lives (though the devil is responsible for the bad--interesting), and promises them eternal life when they die. You may call this "superficial" but I'd wager that the VAST majority of religionists would not! In your own words: "get real!"
theclarinet1234 6 months ago
@theclarinet1234 Your understanding of the Church's 2000 year intellectual tradition is equivalent to a 4-year-old's understanding of mathematics. Your repeated mistakes regarding the Church's relationship to evolutionary biology and Aristotelian Naturalism testifies to this fact.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theclarinet1234 And this still doesn't tell me why such a God is "extraordinary." This is obviously your irrational opinion since I've proven the contrary. I've already given two philosophical arguments for such an all powerful, intelligent first-cause of the universe for which you continue to ignore. You ignore them because you lack a cogent rebuttal. Clearly, the case is closed in this forum.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@theclarinet1234 "Extraordnary claims require extraordinary evidence."
--What is extraordinary is the belief that God does NOT exist in spite of the hard evidence in the fine-tuning of the universe's constants and the Big Bang itself, both of which overwhelmingly confirm God's existence. In fact, it is not merely extraordinary to deny the existence of God, it is outright implausible and without justification.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
I recommend that anyone interested in this subject view the series of YouTube videos that portray a conversation between Richard Dawkins and George Coyne. Even I, as an atheist scientist, could see Coyne's sincerity and genuine honesty. He is a man of integrity. At the end of the interview, all becomes clear, however. Coyne admits that his belief in a god is faith. His god is not shown by science or philosophy. His god is because of faith--his faith.
theclarinet1234 7 months ago
@ballyboneman Hello! I think I might be your American counterpart! I viewed your profile and we seem to very similar in cultural views and even musical taste. Good to know you're out there! The universe feels less lonely!
billybagbom 7 months ago
The universe is teeming with life? Most of it is empty space and only one planet out of the many we have found has life. Earth is an oasis in the cosmic desert, not a blade of grass in the cosmic lawn.
Blarghonius 7 months ago in playlist Philosophy-Religion
@Blarghonius I didn't say "life;" I said "fecundity" and "possibility."
wordonfirevideo 7 months ago
@wordonfirevideo My point still stands; the fact that there's so little actual life in the universe and the improbability of the circumstances required shows that the universe is not a massive hotbed of potential for life.
Blarghonius 7 months ago
@Blarghonius Again, I didn't say "life." Take a look at George Coyne's reflections on the way in which the universe in its totality is increasingly marked by fecundity and creativity.
wordonfirevideo 7 months ago
@Blarghonius "My point still stands; the fact that there's so little actual life in the universe and the improbability of the circumstances required shows that the universe is not a massive hotbed of potential for life."
Yes, it is a series of extremely improbable events that gave rise to human life. Usually when we see a series of improbable things leading to a desired outcome, it raises an eyebrow and we take it as a sign of intention, rather than blind chance.
Mystagogia87 7 months ago
@Mystagogia87 That's completely illogical. If something has a chance of happening without help and it does happen, how does that indicate that some outside party caused it to happen?
Blarghonius 7 months ago
@Blarghonius When a series of unlikely events happens and results in a desired outcome, we usually take it as a sign that it wasn't accidental. If we play 20 hands of poker, any 20 hands I deal myself are equally unlikely. But if I deal myself 20 royal straight flushes and I win all your money, you wouldn't accept me saying it happened by chance. Likewise, in our universe we see a series of extremely unlikely events leading to the valuable outcome of human life.
Mystagogia87 7 months ago
@Mystagogia87 That proves nothing. It is still entirely possible that 20 royal flushes are dealt in a row to one person; the probability of that happening without cheating is still above zero. You can assume that if an unlikely event happens that something helped it along, but there is no way to tell without looking for further evidence if that is actually true.
Blarghonius 7 months ago
@Blarghonius If I dealt myself 20 royal straight flushes in a row and took your money, yes, it's merely possible it happened by chance, but you would definitely think I was cheating! You couldn't prove it, but you'd believe it very strongly, and rightfully so. Nobody would accept chance as an explanation there; cheating is more plausible. The odds of that happening are nothing compared to the odds of human life arising. We shouldn't apply a double standard and accept "chance" there, either.
Mystagogia87 7 months ago
@Mystagogia87 Your comparison of the origin of the universe and "20 royal straight flushes in a row" is a bad one. The big bang happened once, not 20 times. Yes the chances of it happening were extremely low, but that doesn't mean that "God did it."
mthouser123 7 months ago
@mthouser123 There was indeed a series of improbable events leading to human life AFTER the big bang. I'm saying we wouldn't accept chance elsewhere with such a valued outcome.
Mystagogia87 7 months ago
@Mystagogia87 So are you now trying to say that the universe is fine tuned for us? Do you realize that we only exist in a very very very small portion of the universe, the rest is very hostile to life.
mthouser123 7 months ago
@mthouser123 The argument from fine-tuning does not say that the universe is fine-tuned for life to be everywhere. It says it is fine-tuned for life to be possible.
I wasn't talking about the fine-tuning of the constants specifically. I was just talking about the series of extremely improbable events that happened to yield conscious life. I was referencing events, not constants.
Mystagogia87 7 months ago
@mthouser123 "fine tuned for us? Do you realize that we only exist in a very small portion of the universe, the rest is very hostile to life."
--You dummy. I already told you this is irrelevant. You don't listen. You are conflating two different conditional probabilities here!! (1) the probability that life exists given a certain location somewhere in the universe, and (2) the probability that life exists given that the atheist single universe is true. Fine-tuning is about the (2), not (1)!
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@Mystagogia87 Your analogy makes no sense as you're comparing a situation with people to one that doesn't. You are using the notion that people consider those who do too well at poker are cheaters and applying it to another, completely unrelated situation.
Blarghonius 7 months ago
@Blarghonius NO, the fine-tuning argument is deductively valid argument, not an argument by analogy at all, which is inductive. So it cannot even fail on those grounds of being a faulty analogy. Those analogies are merely illustrations to help you understand the real principle at stake doing all the work. The fine-tuning argument relies on a perfectly plausible principle of confirmation we use every day, not to mention in trials by jury, which says,...[next]
grunderlyme 6 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@Blarghonius .Given any 2 hypothesis H1 and H2 and observation O, if O is more likely under H1 than H2, then O confirms H1 while disconfirming H2. Since a life-permitting universe is much more likely given a God wanted to create it than given the atheist single universe hypothesis (random chance), this life-permitting universe confirms the former while disconfirming the latter. This isn't an inductive arg by analogy, but deductively valid. The conclusion follows necessarily from true premises
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme O is the formation of angular ice crystals, H1 is that God did it, and H2 is that water naturally forms rigid, angular structures when it freezes due to its polar nature. H1 appears more likely unless one takes the time to look at the entire picture.
There are parts of this planet where very little life can survive. The sun causes cancer. Completely natural events like tornadoes and earthquakes threaten living things. Do you really think Earth was perfectly crafted for life?
Blarghonius 6 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@Blarghonius "Earth was perfectly crafted for life?"
--The conditions of the earth are certainly such to make it life-permitting. Who ever said anything about "perfectly"? Besides, this is a red-herring. U are conflating 2 diff conditional probabilities. (1) the probability life exists given a certain location in the universe, and (2) the probability that life exists given the atheist single universe hypothesis. The evidence of fine-tuning is about the astronomical unlikelihood of 2, not 1
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme The evidence of fine-tuning is nonexistent because all of creation after it was created can be accounted for by forces with no bias. Gravity is why planets formed into vaguely round shapes, for example.
Blarghonius 6 months ago
@Blarghonius No. There is nothing in the the Law of Gravity that says the values of the constants are necessarily the ones we MUST have. Can you please tell me what Law or Theory warrants that conclusion that is not some speculative tautology on your part? You offer no reason for thinking this, when there is EVERY reason to think these values could have been otherwise. Both the Laws and Fine-Tuned Constants could have been otherwise. Even Physicist Paul Davies says [next].....
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@Blarghonius Physicist Davies says: "Even if the Laws of physics were unique [for which there is no evidence], it doesn't follow that the physical universe itself is unique...that the constants of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions..There is nothing in present ideas about "Laws & Conditions" remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics imply uniqueness. It seems that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise."
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@Blarghonius Not only are you correct, there, but in addition, the argument from "fine tuning" so often used by religionists is unconvincing because it fails to account for other possibilities. First, there is no evidence whatever that ALL life MUST be based on the same chemistry that we have on Earth. 2nd, the possibility of alternate universes cannot be excluded. 3rd. it's a dangerous, and egotistical, argument to maintain that because we "wonderful" humans exist, "god did it" for us!
theclarinet1234 6 months ago
@theclarinet1234 "argument from "fine tuning" is unconvincing because it fails to account for other possibilities."
--You dummy. What matters for the empirical adequacy of a hypothesis is not whether it is possible to bring evidence against it in the future, but whether there is current evidence in its favor. And there is overwhelming evidence that the universe is fine-tuned. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, your rebuttal is nothing more than speculative.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@theclarinet1234 "there is no evidence ALL life MUST be based on same chemistry"
--Likewise, there's no evidence the Law of Gravity is the same outside what we can see. Insofar as we know, all life requires carbon, and rests on very delicate balance of initial conditions to get it started. That all life throughout the universe requires the same conditions to get it started is a well-supported conjecture until you give me good reason to think otherwise. I'm pretty sure most biologists agree.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@theclarinet1234 "2nd, the possibility of alternate universes cannot be excluded."
--This is "M-Theory" a possibility which has no effect on the fine-tuning argument for several reasons. (1) Rather than being a theory, M-theory is more like a set of changing ideas for which there is zero evidence, and for which Roger Penrose criticizes as "fantasy." Second,...
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@theclarinet1234 ....[cont] (2) M-theory, even if true, is still logically consistent with Design, since it only makes it more likely that "some" universe is life-permitting, not that THIS universe is life-permitting. The evidence of a our life-permitting universe doesn't confirm M-theory, because it is no more likely the probability that THIS universe is life-permitting given M than ~M. So the evidence so confirms design, not M. Third,.....
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@theclarinet1234 (3) Even if there are other universes, this still doesn't affect the argument. Let L = the statement, "our universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent, physical life, G = the hypothesis that God exists and wanted to create this life-permitting universe, N = the hypothesis that naturalism is true, and M = the multiple universe hypothesis. Fine-tuning arguments for God's existence can be interpreted as containing a premise that states, Pr(L|G) >> Pr(L|N)...[cont]
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@theclarinet1234 ...[cont] Since, again, G is compatible with M and N is compatible with ~M, how could M be relevant to the fine-tuning argument? Since we don't know M to be true, we can't simply equate Pr(L|N) with Pr(L|N&M), or Pr(L|G) with Pr(L|G&M). In effect, consistent with Bayes's Theorem and the Rule of Total Evidence, we have to use a weighted average formula that takes into account both Pr(L|N&M) and Pr(L|G&M), as well as Pr(L|N&~M) and Pr(L|G&~M)....[next]
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@theclarinet1234 ...[cont]..
So you'll find that M gives us absolutely no reason at all to think the statement "Pr(L|G) >> Pr(L|N)," is false.
See, Roger White's "Fine-tuning and Multiple Universes" Nous (2000) dealing w/ the same problem. He's an atheist.
And,
Brad Monton's "God, Fine-Tuning, and the Problem of Old Evidence"-British Journal of Philosophy (2006). He's also an atheist.
These free online articles by PhD Atheists arguing FOR design are published in top Peer-Reviewed Journals.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@theclarinet1234 (4)The fine-tuning argument compares the probability of fine-tuning given theism to the probability of fine-tuning given naturalism (or atheism), not to naturalism combined with the auxiliary hypothesis of multiple universes. Like I said, Mutliple universes=M is compatible with God, and ~M is compatible with naturalism. So in the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is simply no reason why M, even if true, should give us reason for thinking Pr (L|G) > Pr (L|N) is false.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@theclarinet1234 ...[cont]....Finally, (5) Even if M-theory were true, whatever mechanism generates many universes itself has to be fine-tuned to generate whatever proportion of universes we find in the World-Ensemble. So M-theory just kicks the very same problem up one level. One only has to think of the odds of different possible universe generators there could be. More than ever we would wonder why there was life rather than none at all.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theclarinet1234 "it's a dangerous, and egotistical, argument to maintain that because we "wonderful" humans exist, "god did it" for us!"
--I don't see what is so "dangerous" about the argument. In any case, what you just said is obviously not the argument anyway. Strawmanning people gets you nowhere.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@Blarghonius "O is the formation of angular ice crystals, H1 is that God did it, and H2 is that water naturally forms rigid, angular structures when it freezes due to its polar nature. H1 appears more likely"
-- I disagree. It seems just as (if not more) likely that angular crystals would form given the natural conditions necessary to make that happen than if God wanted to do that himself w/o natural law. After all, since this happens according to natural necessity, God is superfluous.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@Blarghonius "That proves nothing. It is still possible 20 royal flushes are dealt in a row to one person;"
--Of course, but it's not about proof. It's about under which hypothesis is the evidence more likely or expected. Though it is possible to randomly deal 20 straight flushes in a row, it is certainly LESS likely than if the dealer is rigging the deck in the player's favor. If you were security, you would be fired from your job for not noticing this fact and not doing anything about it.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@Blarghonius There's always a chance that an explosion in a publishing house will produce the complete unabridged works of Shakespeare., right? Or, if this won't do it, let's speculate that an infinite number of explosions in an infinite number of publishing houses will get the job done, right?
billybagbom 7 months ago
@billybagbom What makes no sense to me is that you are willing to deny that chance can cause certain things to occur while you subscribe to a view that somehow has all the answers, can be considered correct without evidence, and just happened to not have been written by men from a time when scientific understanding was non-existence, but by a being that breaks nearly every known scientific law just by existing.
Blarghonius 7 months ago
@Blarghonius I believe in the reality of chance. It is not a tangible "thing" within the universe, nor is it sovereign over all "things," but I think its reality is evident. Perhaps God exists, not as a "thing" within the universe, but as the sovereign cause of all things, including randomness, which God permits because he is just that powerful as not to be threatened by it. If an author invents a whole world within her story, does her existence violate every condition that she herself created?
billybagbom 7 months ago
@billybagbom Yes, perhaps. Until you have proof, that's a belief and not science.
To the second part, not always. Nonfiction and realistic or historical fiction books show this. Also, a book is a physical object that presents a mental image; it does not create matter or energy.
Blarghonius 7 months ago
@Blarghonius As to your first point: I wasn't denying the distinction between science and religion. I was affirming that a relgious worldview is broader than a strictly empirical one, because it can take account of intangible realities. Your second point mistakes my use of illustration for a claim of scientific proof. I was not saying books create matter or energy; I was saying that they might help you understand what Christians are saying before you charge in with dogmatic presuppositions..
billybagbom 7 months ago
@billybagbom Just because your view is broader doesn't make it better. There's no point on expanding your view if there's nothing out there to see but blank space and indefinite "maybes".
Dogmatic presuppositions and acting logically and following the evidence are also not the same thing.
Blarghonius 6 months ago
@Blarghonius "There's no point on expanding your view if there's nothing out there to see but blank space and indefinite "maybes"."
--Talk about a dogmatic and self-defeating assumption. If it were "useless" to try to expand your knowledge no further than what you can now see with our eyes because there's "nothing out there to see," then you obviously think you already know everything. Indeed, asking questions about things we don't yet know in science and philosophy would be useless.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme If there is something outside our scope of knowledge, there is some evidence out there that will lead to it. There is nothing like that for the existence of a creator as the formation of our world is best described as being accomplished by non-sentient forces; there was a great amount of evidence that lead to that conclusion. The goal of science is not to reach out into the dark and claim that some things are true, but to walk along the trail of evidence towards knowledge.
Blarghonius 6 months ago
@Blarghonius "If there is something outside knowledge, there is some evidence out there it."
--This is only true for empirically verifiable hypotheses. However, you explicitly claimed even for empirical hypotheses that "there is nothing outside what we can see." But how can you possibly know this? You obviously have no experience of things outside your knowledge, so you cannot know things don't exist for which you lack the experience. Your claim is self-defeating.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@Blarghonius "There is nothing like that for the existence of a creator as the formation of our world is best described as being accomplished by non-sentient forces"
--False. There is overwhelming evidence for God's from Fine-Tuning.
But even if there were no current evidence, why do you continue to assume there is no evidence at all? You cannot possibly know there is "no evidence existing out there," when there is no evidence for this very claim. Once again, your claim is self-defeating.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@Blarghonius "science is not to reach out the dark claim some things are true, but to walk along evidence"
--Exactly, so stop saying "there is nothing like that for a creator" when you have no evidence that you will not encounter more evidence in the future.
How do you empirically verify that only empirically verifiable things are true?
You continue to assume this Positivist claim in your discussion, but ironically enough, you cannot verify it. Once again, your claim is self-defeating.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
Actually Science and Religion cannot both exist as facts.
Religion have never been about facts, it always have been about beliefs and faith. Science is the pursuit of facts and religion is the pursuit of happiness. The problem comes when religions pose as facts or even pose as science when it is really not.
Neosaigo 7 months ago
@Neosaigo No! This is the "scientism" that I complain about: you're trying to draw religion into science or reduce it to science. Science and religion deal with reality, but in qualitatively different ways. That's why they are compatible and not competitive.
wordonfirevideo 7 months ago
@Neosaigo True, you either accept the facts and evidence, experience them for yourself, or you take it on faith, just believing that what the other equally frail human being is telling you is true. Science and faith cannot coexist. You have to be in serious denial not to see and accept physical proof.
Webzlinger 7 months ago
@Webzlinger Total caricature of religion here, friend.
wordonfirevideo 7 months ago
Father Barron, how can God be the answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" when God already existed prior to the creation of everything else that is?
You might as well ask, "Why is there a God rather than not?" and we realize God doesn't answer the question.
elguanteloko 8 months ago
@elguanteloko The more precise formulation would be: why should a contingent universe exist? Contingent things--things that come into being and pass out of being--require a causal explanation. Endless appeal to other contingent things wouldn't solve the problem; therefore we have to arrive at some non-contingent reality. This is what we call "God." Do you see now why the question, "why is there a God rather than not?" is just silly?
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
@wordonfirevideo You didn't get the point. If God is something then he fits into the question of "Why is there SOMETHING rather than nothing?
P1) God is something and (for the sake of argument) exists.
P2) The question "Why is there something at all?" includes all things that exist.
C: The question "Why is there something at all?" includes God.
(By the way, I sent you a message some time ago about theology books but you probably missed it)
elguanteloko 8 months ago
@elguanteloko Yes, I did get the point--which is why I put the question in more precise form, namely, why should a radically contingent universe exist?
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
@wordonfirevideo I agree with someone posing that question but the point is that that same question also includes God since God is something. I provided a very precise argument and if you disagree with it then you can attack the premises or the inference.
Again, the question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is not answered by God since a necessary being is also a thing. Saying that "because he is necessary" is highly unsatisfactory.
elguanteloko 8 months ago
@elguanteloko Friend, you're just hung-up on Heidegger's formulation. Stay with what I've said twice now: how does a contingent universe exist? The answer--if we are to avoid a hopelessly infinite regress--is some self-exixsting reality. This is what Catholic theology means by "God." I'm not just positing God's necessity; I'm making an argument for it.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Father, you do realize I was addressing a very specific issue here, right? Namely, that the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is asked leaving God out of the "something" group. That's it. "Why does God have X nature and not Y nature?" would be another way of approaching what I'm saying. Let's grant God's existence, why does God exist rather than not? If you tell me something of his nature you'll be begging the question ("Why does God have nature X?").
elguanteloko 8 months ago
@elguanteloko Oy vey! Friend, all i can tell you is to read my responses again. I don't know how I can be any clearer.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
@wordonfirevideo You didn't respond to my arguments but just went on and restate the cosmological argument several times. Do you seriously not see what I was getting at? I can't say if you did or didn't because you simply ignored the arguments I presented.
To say that there is non-contingent stuff (being, if you want and granting the conclusion of the Cosmological Argument) does NOT answer the question since God is something and "why is there God (something) rather than not?" still applies.
elguanteloko 8 months ago
Well said, friend. I agree:
watch?v=jUe7dFbdfFA
misterD418 8 months ago
Father Barron: Your critique pf the intelligent design argument puzzles me. I know that you love St. Thomas Aquinas and appreciate his Five Ways to prove the existence of God, even if you don't fully agree with their efficacy.. Wasn't one of them the argument from design to Designer? How does St. Thomas differ from the ID advocates in his basic approach here?
billybagbom 9 months ago