The way you deliver your belief on atheism and "God is a disease" is enough for any person with a sense of reason to discard immediately. Your not passionate with what you believe and are very uncomfortable while conducting your response to Fr. Barron's video. It's clear that you don't truly believe what you are saying, but you are using it as justification for the life your trying to live
@jdale287 Because you cannot cite an iota, a scintilla, a whit of verifiable evidence for the existence of any of the countless gods invented by humans over the course of centuries, you choose to mount a personal attack against people like godless evangelist, who has made a sincere and compelling video in response to Barron, whose arguments are utterly without merit. When will a supernaturalist give me verifiable evidence as opposed to ad hominem attack, speculation, and evidence-free assertion?
I'm pleased that you and others have elected to counter Barron's arguments.While his videos on the fine points of supernaturalism are of no interest to me, his videos attacking brilliant scientists like Prof. Hawking and philosophers such as Dan Dennett who happen to disagree with him are disingenuous.I believe that Barron perverts philosophy to serve his need for supernaturalism. He justifies his belief in spirits by asserting that it's equivalent to philosophical speculation about intangibles.
(4) European countries are of course becoming progressively more secular. One is tempted to think that the LACK of a separation between supernaturalism and governance---and the long history of resulting sectarian strife---is a major factor in this. One certainly sees incredible levels of sectarian strife in the Middle East, where there actually exist theocracies and pseudo-theocracies, namely Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
@BrentGrainger2000 I am actually with you all the way. When politics are bound up in religion, political questions do become religious questions. I think your observation about Europe vs. USA is quite to the point. Nevertheless, in the US, I think, we have to remember that while at a Federal level religious legislation is forbidden, power once devolved much more into local governments, which tended to operate on more religious grounds. This seems fine to me, since a community of persons...
...who all know each other would seem justly able, if they so choose, to live together according to established rules based upon common beliefs. I am thinking right now of my favourite American exemplars, the nearly homogeneous, tiny, Indiana village. The crisis of secularism only becomes a crisis when it becomes so large that it is impersonal. A nation can perhaps never again be a village. Nevertheless, an unaffiliated federal framework can cohere these local communities.
@NihilNominis Another example of common group supernaturalism would be the Amish or the Quakers, both of whom form small enclaves in the midst of the larger society. The U.S. government is entirely accepting of such isolated groups except when they violate U.S. law, as did the Mormons with their insistence on Bible-mandated polygamy.
One fascinating characteristic of U.S. supernaturalism is that the center of "universal" Christianity has changed. Not many decades ago, (contd)
@NihilNominis (2) the north east (New England) was strongly Catholic (Boston area) and Protestant (Vermont etc.). Much like Europe, as the area has become much better educated and economically advanced, it has also become far more secular. In contrast, our southern states are now the center of Evangelical Christianity, with strong Catholicism as well. The south is by far the least educated and economically backward of any area in the U.S. A skeptic like myself is very tempted by the data!
@BrentGrainger2000 Beware statistics; 97% of them can deceive you! ;-) It is possible that the economic advancement and education are in fact the cause of the secularisation, but it is equally possible that there is some third cause responsible for both of them. After all, when the Spanish missions were in place, the natives were economically and educationally advancing, but Christianity was on the rise. Likewise, the USSR brought Russia forward, but actively destroyed religiosity.
It can also be the opposite story of St. Benedict. In his life of the the Saint, Gregory the Great (himself a very well trained philosopher and rhetorician) that Benedict was moved to foreshorten his studies and go live an eremetical life, lest he lose his soul by the bad example of his fellow students. Religious truth can content people with little education: "Quia non cognovi litteraturam, introibo in potentias Domini." So it seems a secularising trend could lead to discontent, to more.
I think that also presents a third possibility for interpretation, namely, that the secularizing trend causes the economic and educational flourishing. That wouldn't surprise me, actually. People are very clever, and they can do whatever they focus on well. When one's whole existence has been reduced to the intra-mundane, it does not surprise me that one would learn all one could about the world, and become very good at producing useful and pleasant things in abundance.
@NihilNominis Yours is an interesting twist on this! Correlation indeed is not causation. And, of course, there is education and there is education. History shows that the education of native peoples in concepts of western supernaturalism increases belief in that brand of supernaturalism---often with an admixture of the native type of supernaturalism. Think of the native peoples throughout Latin America and the Caribbean---as well as Africa today. (contd)
@NihilNominis On the other hand, education in concepts of modern science and mathematics, as well as a non-supernaturalist interpretation of history and the arts, is likely to lead away from supernaturalism. Indeed, the data so indicate.The average educational level in New England is far higher than in the deep south in the U.S.
I do think that there's another factor, especially for Europe.Most European countries provide universal health care, thereby removing a huge source of anxiety (contd)
@NihilNominis I think, but without sufficient evidence to make a firm conclusion, that supernaturalism thrives when anxiety levels due to economic and other threats are high. Supernaturalism provides anxiolysis and comfort in the face of adversity. Knowing that one's government will provide a basic condition of life---decent health care--goes far in removing that major source of anxiety.
No matter the interpretation, the secularization of Europe is undeniable.
@BrentGrainger2000 I think your conclusions can still hold valid whilst not invalidating the supernaturalist premise. I mean, your thesis has been and continues to be that supernaturalism in most people is a complex means of reducing anxiety. I think that is largely so. I've been to too many funerals that resulted in canonisations of the deceased to think otherwise. Nevertheless, often this flies in the face of actual religious dogma so much that they must be separate.
(3) I often point out to my supernaturalist friends that the U.S. Constitution has done a great deal to PROMOTE religion because it has prevented bickering supernaturalists from enacting laws to persecute each other---which, if history is any guide at all, they would most certainly do. Inate within supernaturalism is a distrust and hatred of "the other"---perhaps because of competing ideas (contd)
It's always amazed me that the very term "theology," meaning the study of some god or other, is in reality the study of nothing at all. Like philosophy, it relies only on speculation, never on verifiable evidence. It never provides falsifiable explanations,unlike science. I think of theology in the same way that I think of masturbation---perhaps fun for those who are limited to it as an activity, but utterly unproductive
"Curing the mental disease known as god?" No, even if you are right in suggesting that religion or theistic belief is not belief in any real thing, its ubiquity among men in all ages suggest that it has at least been adaptive, and it is certainly not anything atypical or a malfunction. No one calls the confirmation bias a disease. It is a psychological tool for sorting through a great deal of input efficiently and (typically) rooting out BS. If belief is psychology, it's no disease.
@NihilNominis Belief in some god or other as adaptive? In the past? Probably. Now? Probably not. Humans have advanced a great deal from the time when everyone thought that the actions of nature were caused by unseen forces that had to be propitiated. We've advanced from the time when humans buried young children at the corners of a building to appeal to their gods for safety. We've also advanced from thinking that a Jew reanimated. Great book: "The Science of Superstition" by Bruce Hood.
@BrentGrainger2000 That doesn't make religion a disease. Nevertheless, your appeal to propitiating forces to cure disease and burying children at streetcorners is ill-placed. Superstition is far removed from true religion. There is a place for miracles, but not for talisman and juju. Catholic philosophy does not fear naturalistic chains of causation. In fact it appropriates them as threads leading back to the ultimate Cause, and as manifestations of Providence. We look at reality as it is.
@NihilNominis In my view, supernaturalism in all of its forms---religious and secular---is cut from exactly the same cloth. All rely upon "belief" without verifiable evidence and all come from exactly the same underlying genetic propensity in H. sapiens for agency and control, even if such has no evidence for its existence. Interestingly, "religiousity" has a well-documented underlying genetic basis, with its exact form influenced by environment. Catholicism is as superstitious as the others.
@ContrabassClar In some sense, it is true, there is arational belief which unites what you call supernaturalist worldviews. Nevertheless, this arationalism does not pertain to the same category of belief. A Catholic theologian believes arationally what he cannot discover by any means else. A superstitious man, for instance an astrologer, believes in causes within nature which are unobservable, which differ from the observed causes, and which can be manipulated.
@NihilNominis The general consensus in the scientific community is that religious belief is a bi-product and is not adaptive. Even though the evolved cognitive mechanisms that it hijacks (like confirmation bias and many more) certainly are adaptive. A bi-product can be called an advantage if it serves society, like reading and writing or music, or a disease if it doesn't, like religion today. (But that may not have been true of religion thousands of years ago.)
@godlessevangelist I've been thinking about the concept of religion as a "disease." It's actually quite a fascinating "take' on this. So, going back to definitions, a disease is a 'disorder of structure or function." This would include pathologies of brain and body, of course. If religion is a delusion, then it follows that it is a disorder of thinking, which indicates a disorder of the brain.That indicates a disease. Indeed, the propensity to this delusion has a very strong genetic component.
@godlessevangelist Forgive my ignorance of the relevant distinctions. Whether or not it still serves advantage seems to be the substance of our debate, so I will obviously not concede that point, but my vocabulary was certainly not technically conceived.
i suggest that u should read and research more about philosophy. you are trying to refute that father who are very well prepared in arguments, a master of of reasoning. it seems that you can engage in a more rational way, though you claim seemingly that you are rational. i feel sorry to you. no offense.
i suggest that u should read and research more about philosophy. you are trying to refute that father who are very well prepared in arguments, a master of of reasoning.
@boknoy1977 Can you give me a specific example of what I've stated is wrong, or are you just going to stick to vague ad hominem statements? Your comment was a kin to me telling you you have bad breath.
How I checkmated Father Barron. I engaged him by messaging. Our discussion topic was the argument from contingency. Fathers strategy is to have you defend your position, which is easy for him to attack. Therefore, your tactic has to be get him to defend his position. Once you are on the offense and making the burden of proof rest on him then he runs out of wiggle room on the slippery slope. He then goes silent, which I consider no moves to make, i.e. checkmate, game over, I win.
@buffalowycowboy That's been my observation too. One can go on for quite a number of exchanges, with Barron spouting his limited philosophical jargon and speculation, as if it were "true." And then with one powerful argument---usually dealing with science or evidence---that he can't refute, he shuts down. If you pursue, he blocks you. He seems thin-skinned, if not cowardly, and certainly anti-intellectual. But..he's a religionist after all.
@BrentGrainger2000 that father makes sense, i think so, he argues not much in the perspective of religion, i think he speaks about philosophy by citing the some philosophers. his argument is not just for the sake of argument. it is well grounded in philosophy. i think better than us.
@boknoy1977 Wrong. Barron distorts philosophy for his own purposes. He cites two of the most self-centered, self-loathing philosophers of all time, Camus and Sartre, as examples of "good atheists." That's simply hokum. Then he DELIBERATELY fails to cite philosophers like Kai Nielsen and Bertrand Russell, two self-actualized, brilliant, atheistic philosophers. Barron is sophomoric in his approach. He distorts. And like all supernaturalists, he is quite simply, delusional.
@BrentGrainger2000 what i am just telling that that father makes sense. he makes his point very clear. you try to refute it, but you simply fail to do it. watch your response again. pls make a good argument.
of course that father makes own argument according to the particular issue. he cant discuss all at once in youtube.. at least he did it rationally and intellectually sound.
@boknoy1977 What argument? Please tell me! He says that there are good and bad atheists. The good ones hate themselves. The bad ones rejoice in the beauty of the Cosmos and live wonderful lives. This isn't an argument. It's stupid sophistry. And Barron is an ideologue. His statements don't even come up to the standard of intelligent argument---let alone compelling argument.
@boknoy1977 “at least he did it rationally and intellectually sound.” This is untrue, all of his arguments of evidence are logically unsound, that is they “beg the question”.
@boknoy1977 Friend, you are wrong. When arguing with Father he denies “the argument from contingency” of Leibniz or the criticisms of Hume and Kant. He is not a philosopher, he is a theologian and makes shit up as he goes along.
@buffalowycowboy Right on, Buffalocowboy. He makes shit up as he goes along. Theology is as far from philosophy as parapsychology is from science. Thology relies on evidence EVEN LESS than philosophy does, which is to say, not at all!
@BrentGrainger2000 The sacred science relies explicitly on revelation as its first principles. It is thus from one perspective the most, from another the least, certain of sciences, and the highest or lowest. From the perspective of faith, it's obvious that theology pertains to what is most important. Of empiricism, perhaps not. Nevertheless, theology itself deals with matters which are expressly beyond reason's ability to grasp. To that extent it is neither testable or verifiable.
@NihilNominis Call it a form of idealism if it makes you feel better. There is some philosophical theology, but that is not what either of us is talking about.
Aquinas is beautiful: "As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else." (Summa Theologica I.1.8)
@NihilNominis It is however obvious to anybody that *what* theology *claims* to deal with would be, if true, of the utmost importance. "Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason..." (ST I.1.1). It deals with the end of Man and of Creation, of the purpose of the universe, and the usual list of ultimate questions. It is not an "easy answer" to them. It is in fact the only possibility of answering them. If it is bunk, Man's end is sex.
@NihilNominis When theology has been tested, it ends up a miserable FAILURE! You should review the scientific studies on the efficacy of "prayer." There are several very well-controlled, careful studies---mostly Christian in orientation b/c of the "promises" of the the god of the Christians. In each case, NO effect was found---or even a borderline negative effect, counter to the requests of the prayerful petitioners. Theology ain't anything like science, bud. It's hokum.
@BrentGrainger2000 I am aware of these studies. They do not, I'm afraid, comprise a test of theology. It would be nice if they did. God answers prayers, it has *always* been taught, as He wills it, for the spiritual, not mundane, good of man. He will not heal every sick person; it was His providence which ordained their sickness. This is not the sort of thing the Church has ever taught could be proved about God. Man's rational knowledge of God is like Anthony Flew's. More needs faith.
@NihilNominis I think you're pretty bright, so I don't need to connect this explicitly, but just to remove ambiguity in my argument: You cannot verify a science by verifying a contradictory premiss. If the studies had shown that revealed theology was empirically testable and demonstrable, ironically, that would have shown the assumptions of Catholic theology wrong. It's irksome, I know. It has irked a great many for a long time. But they did find it important nonetheless.
@NihilNominis Of course the scientific method can't "prove" a negative. Indeed, it can prove NOTHING AT ALL! That's part of the brilliance of the method, and part of its success. Scientists work to find verifiable evidence. Well-verified evidence is called a "fact," but it is always PROVISIONAL.From the eivdence, scientists create robust, predictive, broad, falsifiable, PROVISIONAL explanations (theories). If the the theories have broad consensus, they are said to be "true." (contd)
@ContrabassClar I am aware of the scientific epistemology. I have a great respect for it, and I have no difficulty holding at once in my mind all of its valid conclusions unadulterated and maintaining religious belief in God, happily passing over the incompetent and unqualified metaphysical musings of physicists, the biogeneses of biologists, and the speculations of anyone else who irresponsibly attempts to use the methods of his science to examine the principles upon which it rests.
@NihilNominis The verifiable evidence of God which you have sought is evidence of God's bending to, capitulating to, the demands of a human will presented in a formally acceptable way. You have already equated all supernaturalism, and so you have equivocated between God and magic. The very concept of magic and superstition is repugnant to the religious understanding of the Sovereign God, who knows what is best, and who brings it about infallibly, not cowing to our demands for immediate goods.
@NihilNominis So your particular god has decided not to provide verifiable evidence of its existence---in order to test us? My, my what a mean-spirited monster of a god you must worship!
Why do theologians rely on so much sophistry? Any objection to their particular god is met with obfuscation, justification, denial, and rationalization (in the worst sense). Don't you guys grow weary of such stupidities? Don't you ever long for VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE? (contd)
@NihilNominis (2) Your "arguments" don't even reach the level of rational discussion. Repeatedly, you continue to make assertions about the way your god works, or that only "faith" is important, or whatever. Don't you realize that such arguments hold sway only for the already deluded? They appear to be merely unadulterated sophistry to the objective person.They fail to reach even the very, very low standard of philosophical discourse. If your notions provide you with anxiolysis, fine. (contd)
@BrentGrainger2000 I realise that theology is impossible, indeed stupid, in the absence of faith. I also am also literate enough to realise that your assertions about the philosophical viability of faith are myopic and unsubstantiated, and that whether you like it or not the world does indeed grapple seriously with questions of faith as questions of faith, to be sought as questions of faith, and it does not attempt to reduce them to questions of science.
@NihilNominis But these are questions of the nature of God. As to His existence, not as a doting machine to His faithful flock, but rather as the First Cause and intelligence behind the existing Universe--that is a question more within the domain of reason. Hence my initial statement: those aspects of God which it pertains to reason to understand, as they have always been held, correspond well with those attributes Anthony Flew came to accept late in his life.
@NihilNominis (2) This is similar to the genes that we've found that correlate with inherited propensities such as sexual orientation, musicality, etc. There is strong evidence that your particular propensity to have "faith"---unsupported, non-evidentiary belief---is determined, apparently in large measure, by inherited factors. Please distinguish this from the tendency of children to adopt the specific "faith" of their parents (99%)---a cultural phenomenon. (contd)
@BrentGrainger2000 Even the mediaevals in their primitive medical theories believed that once physical constitution greatly influenced one's personality, and hence one's propensity for religious belief. It was, I believe, the melancholics who were supposed to be most apt at the contemplative religious life. My point in saying this is that a lot of the questions "raised" by science were raised by pre-modern beliefs, and the thoughtful man of faith should have grappled with them long ago.
@NihilNominis As to the cultural phenomenon of religion, yes, people do tend to believe and cling to articles of faith as they have been taught. The thing is this, however: India's crumbling Hindu regime notwithstanding, it is monotheism by and large which survives, in various forms. Religious belief is not a mere static passed down from father to son. It changes, at times, it converts entirely. Most religious in the world agree on a surprising number of points, in spite of outliers.
Then again, many of these religious are based on snatches of the same revelation. Additionally, although one could conceivably construct a philosophical justification in which appearance does not co-incide with reality, and replace all naturalistic causal chains with pagan gods, paganism by and large does not stand up to the philosophical scrutiny that monotheism does. Paganism relies on constant direct divine intervention in reality. Monotheism holds it meaningful, but keeps nature intact.
@NihilNominis Thank you for the admission, not often made by your fellow supernaturalists, that everything reduces to what you refer to as "faith" and what I, frankly refer to as delusional thinking not based on verifiable evidence. I do understand that such delusions are anxiolytic---hence they are very common in the populace, correlated, of course, with a genetically determined proclivity toward "religiousity." By the way, genes have been found which correlate with such thinking. (contd)
@NihilNominis In my view, you are one step closer to breaking the spell of your delusion than the average supernaturalist. Most of them think that there is verifiable evidence for their belief. You understand that there is none. You are clever at rationalizing this lack of evidence, but you do understand its absence. Someone like Barron would have us believe that evidence exists, when it does not. Perhaps at some point you will realize that you don't require the delusion to be fulfilled.
@BrentGrainger2000 I have faith for reasons of grace. I'm no living saint, but I've seen enough crazy s--t go down to make me believe. For me, it's like St. Paul says, "How shall they believe without a preacher?" And that's just it. Christian doctrine has never suggested that we should discover these truths about God by any other way; not through empirical research, not even through abstract philosophical speculation. And every thoughtful Christian has held this view through the ages.
@NihilNominis To me, there aren't many (any) new questions in modern science that challenge belief in any new ways. The faith is perennial and its challenges are perennial. Even your last point, that I don't require the delusion to be fulfilled. A good Thomist will tell you that man has a natural end and a supernatural end, and that it is possible for man to be truly happy in a natural sense without fulfilling his supernatural end.
@NihilNominis They tell you this to answer the problem that Heaven is at once the happiness and highest end of man, and a gratuitous gift. They hold that to deprive man of the beatific vision of God is not to deprive him of anything strictly necessary to his nature, and so is not unjust. Hence, here I stand, knowing that as man I do not require my beliefs to be fulfilled, but believing in them all the same, grateful for the gift of faith which, if untrue, makes me of all men most to be pitied.
@NihilNominis You are obviously a far more thoughtful supernaturalist than most others, who readily adopt the supernaturalism of their tribe and use it both for anxiolysis and social cohesion. You are also far more centered in what I call your delusion and what you call your faith. To your credit, you don't become miffed when challenged (as Barron does when his cherished positions are threatened). Personally, as a very well-trained, highly skeptical scientist, (contd)
@NihilNominis (2) I find it impossible even to entertain the acceptance of the vast array of supernatural propositions that religionists apparently accept without question or supportive verifiable evidence of any kind. It boggles my mind.
You spoke of monotheism---the so-called religions of the desert---which have been so successful in terms of numbers of adherents---though Islam is certainly the fastest growing of any of them. (contd)
@NihilNominis (3) Does it not bother you that intrinsic to the Islamic world view is violence toward "the other?" Moreover, while the Enlightenment and Enlightenment philosophy certainly steered organized Christianity from similar violent tendencies, the sectarian strife in the Middle East is the single greatest threat to civilization today. Here I speak of nuclear conflict between Iran and Israel---countries dominanted by monotheism. All of that bothers me a great deal. (contd)
@NihilNominis (4) While I'm quite willing to allow individuals to reside in delusion if it makes them "happy," I am NOT willing to stand idly by without protest when those delusions lead to the involvement of religious delusion in legislation and public policy. The history of both Christianity and Islam betrays a contemptible authoritarianism and condemnation of "the other," which arises directly from the theistic delusion, in my view.
@BrentGrainger2000 I very much appreciate this thoughtful discussion, so I'll begin by thanking you for it. As to the questions at hand: I see the political question both ways very easily. As I said before about theology, it pertains to that which is, if true, most important. The essential human urge, then, to enshrine religion at the centre of a society is quite intelligible. It also has the potential, as you point out, to bring about social cohesion readily, and so is also usefully so put.
@NihilNominis By the same token, even questions of atheism aside, it is apparent from the history of the Church alone that the human capacity for error is astounding and boundless, and that heresy's destructive effects are multiplied a hundredfold when a society has been politically founded on religious orthodoxy, since the political mechanisms meant to defend orthodoxy are easily hijacked and turned against it. We see that over and over: in Arianism, iconoclasm, and throughout the Reformation.
@NihilNominis Islam bothers me a great deal, though I can understand its popularity. It presents a belief which has been rationalised with much the same thorough scholasticism as Catholicism, as I have learnt in many discussions with Muslims, but it is a belief and a religion based upon duty, obligation, and reward, which meets modern man, I think, more readily than the charity and conversion of heart demanded by Christianity. It is thus vigorous, appealing, and monolithic.
@NihilNominis So to sum up, whilst I obviously await in hope what is quite literally the reign of God visibly on Earth, for the moment I am content with a society that is not confessional. I think, however, that enforced secularism, rather than simple institutional non-affiliation, amounts to a kind of affiliation, and so find myself against that. To use an innocuous example, a truly unaffiliated society can neither compel nor forbid a person to wish others a merry Christmas.
It is not a Soviet government, tolerating religion for a time but attempting to impose its own non-religious values on the society. It is a social contract between people geographically proximate and confessionally disparate, providing a framework for economic and political co-operation, the enforcement of those laws and that public order common to all men, and a cultural context within which man's spiritual search is respected and fostered, without having to become a political conflict.
@NihilNominis You have said it very well. The ideal, it seems to me, is maximum RESPONSIBLE freedom. Neither the burning of heretics by Thomist-encouraged Christians in Europe nor the stoning of Muslim women caught in adultery is desirable. But neither is governmental control of supernaturalist choice, as long as that choice is innocuous. I, of course, maintain that responsibility comes not from a longing for some pie in the sky bye and bye reward but rather from an understanding (contd)
@NihilNominis (2) and rational assessment of our world and our Cosmos---relying heavily on science for that vital evidence. We can then make the best rational decisions possible, aiming to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals and especially for the planet, which is our species' only home so far. The great difficulty that I have with the supernaturalist focus on pie in the sky is not that it's falsely anxiolytic, but that it can easily ignore real solutions in the now.
@BrentGrainger2000 Granted. Hence it has always struck me that Christ should so emphatically command that we give to the poor, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, here and now, as something intimately bound up with that "pie in the sky" which he promises. And isn't it just so that Christianity believes that the "pie in the sky" is not something only to be imagined and hoped for, but that it is a share in the Divine Life which is actually possessed on earth by souls in a state of grace.
@NihilNominis As to the burning of heretics, that seems an example of man's difficulty separating the ideal from the real. In a perfect, confessional state, a crime against religion is a crime against the state, and the state upholds those doctrines which are true and salutary for the soul. Consequently, heresy in the perfect state is a kind of murder, and a kind of treason, and dealt with in kind. In fact, what we see is that states do not preserve religion, and that these devices...
...instituted to uphold the faith are often turned towards its destruction and the persecution of the faithful. Hence we see the Mass outlawed in Zurich under Zwingli, by a city-state which had authority over those matters. We see burnings of Catholics as heretics under Calvin in Geneva, and the atrocities that Henry wrought in England. All of these were accomplished with methods the Church supported and thought would protect Her from harm. In fact, they are easily abused, dangerous tools.
@NihilNominis We agree that the persecution of heretics is abhorent. We do not agree that the state should have any involvement with supernaturalism at all. The U.S. Constitution, written by Enlightenment thinkers like Jefferson, comes fairly close to what I consider the ideal. Of course, religion continues to be part of U.S. elections---and no avowed skeptic could ever be elected to high office. Such is the power of supernaturalism. If there were an impermeable wall between (contd)
@NihilNominis (2) all religions and the state, all supernaturalists and skeptics would remain free from persecution. Protestants who so boldly translated the Bible into English would not have been burned under Bloody Mary and Catholics who opposed Anglicanism under Elizabeth would have been free. Similarly, supernaturalists of any type would be free under all totalitarian regimes. In my view, the greatest freedom is obtained ONLY with COMPLETE separation of supernaturalism from governance.(cont)
@NihilNominis (3) Finally, it has always amazed me that supernaturalists of the Christian persuasion are perfectly content that their god intervened in the physical world OFTEN at the time that their god was supposedly incarnate, but doesn't now. It readily answered their prayers then---but clearly, by any objective standard, does not do so now. How can you live with such delusion? It mystifies me. But then---superstition is at its essence irrational---I should expect nothing else!
@BrentGrainger2000 He doesn't answer prayers in any testable way. That is to say He is not a healing, money-bestowing, sports-victory-providing machine. That in no way suggests that He does not answer prayers. To the contrary, He answers prayers like any personal being answers requests, sometimes with a yes, sometimes with a no, for His own reasons. But He does most verily answer.
@NihilNominis Who taught that your god answers prayers only for spiritual benefit? Certainly not your god, Jesus!!!! Whether your god ever existed, or was entirely a fabrication of the NT writers, they put words in his mouth--repeatedly!!---that "prayers" would be answered. Indeed, that, together with the promise of "eternal life" was the brilliant hook that helped to sell Christianity as a mystery religion to the ignorant and the gullible. It worked as a sales gimmick, but didn't deliver.
@ContrabassClar He does everything for the salvation of souls. That is exactly what the New Testament teaches, and that is most plainly presented in the agony of Christ in the Garden. Our Lord Himself prayed that He would not have to suffer death on the Cross. What happens to Him? He must suffer all the same! Why? For the salvation of souls.
You can cite "moving mountains" against that all you like; the record is there; plainly the text does not mean what you thought it meant.
@NihilNominis If Christ's prayers in the New Testament, on textual evidence alone, were surveyed, one might well equally conclude that prayer is ineffective. Some of His prayers are answered as He prays that they might be. Some are apparently given as examples of the great gulf between human will and divine Providence. God always says to us as He said to Job, "Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth?" What we pray for seems good for us. It may not be. Faith trusts.
@NihilNominis (2) The studies on prayer find NO EVIDENCE whatever for the efficacy of prayer. Indeed, that is the simple, unalloyed point. As a skeptic, I find not a shred, not a scintilla, not an iota of VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for the existence of any of the countless gods invented by human beings over the course of the centuries. I conclude that the acceptance of any such god is superstitious, precisely because it is without verifiable evidence.Theology, the study of such gods, is masturbatory.
@ContrabassClar every commits immoral acts, even you... yet eugenics separates the weak from the strong, Hilter took eugenics to more of an extreme, but the Rockefellers were fond of eugenics also. science permits an individual to prevent or take life either by embroic stem cells or by contrception.
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS Science tells us how morals and ethics have evolved. Science helps us to understand whether a particular behavior might promote the biological well being of humans. Scientists practice eugenics constantly. You should have specified HUMAN eugenics.So the question is really: does the manipulation of the human genome contribute to the well-being of humans? Correct? The answer is yes, it does, in many cases. For example, the law forbids the marriage of first cousins.(ctd)
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS Science tells us how morals and ethics have evolved. Science helps us to understand whether a particular behavior might promote the biological well being of humans. Scientists practice eugenics constantly. You should have specified HUMAN eugenics.So the question is really: does the manipulation of the human genome contribute to the well-being of humans? Correct? The answer is yes, it does, in many cases. For example, the law forbids the marriage of first cousins.(ctd)
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS The Church? What gives the church any moral authority? How could you possibly assign moreal authority to people who delberately ENABLED the sexual abuse of young boys? They cared much more about the reputation of their precious little institution than they cared about the well being of children. The majority of the bishops of the church were contemptible. And you want to give them moral authority? Are you kidding me?
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS You need to learn to ask your questions precisely. I think that you mean human eugenics, because scientists practice eugenics all the time. Ever morsel of food that you consume is the result of plant and animal eugenics. Indeed, science informs us of the genetic consequences of certain types of human reproduction---hence the law forbids the marriage of first cousins. That is eugenics, informed by biology, and mandated by law.
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS Au contraire, mon ami!!! Science, more specifically evoltuionary biology and animal biology, have shown us where our "rules" of behavior---our seystems of ethics and morality---are actually derived. You don't think they're derived from scripture do you?? Why not Sharia law? All advanced social animals have evolved a propensity to have rules of behavior in their groups---morals / ethics / laws/ standards of conduct / whatever. It's in our genes, bub---it's in our genes.
I never care about Barron's videos on the fine points of the magic of Catholicsm. What I do care about is his perversion of scientific thinking and the scientific method---and his total misrepresentations of the way science works. I suspect that he's never had a university level science course. Indeed, when I've suggested that he knows no science---a conclusion where he himself supplies the evidence---he becomes offended and blocks me. Quite interesting!
@ContrabassClar Yes, Contra. Barron has blocked me too. It seems as if he is the most thin-skinned YouTuber! He purports to want a free exchange of ideas, but as soon as he's countered in an effective way, he blocks the commentator, as if to protect people from thinking. But, then, religion has always been opposed to free thought---by its very nature. Very sad, indeed. Part of the delusion.
Father has excommunicated (blocked user) me under two screen names. However you still have direct contact with him, by sending a message from his channel. He does read them and responsed. I have had a long conversation with him regarding his beloved agrument from contingency. He is a very condescending, and because he has (STD) very arrogant.
@buffalowycowboy In my experience, the vast majority of RC priests are arrogant and pompous. The entrenched clericalism of the RCC teaches priests that they are "specially chosen" to do the magic of converting a cracker to flesh. Worse, RC's actually believe that crap. Barron is particularly arrogant---and that leads him to make all of these very expensively produced videos. Normally, folks not backed by RCC-raised money can't afford all of the glitz. Catholicism is a profitable business!
@ContrabassClar again just as you agree is fallacious to try to you spiritualism in science, i agree also. yet dont you think its just as fallacious to try to apply science to another field it doent apply to.
@bassclarinet2000 also if you think science will be able to explain everything as we mover further in the future you're subscribing to the school of philosophy called positism
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS Philosophers love to give names to ideas that they don't like. And then they get to publish their speculative absurdities so that other philosophers can debate stupidly with them. The history of science shows that there is nothing that it has tackled that has not given way, at least partially, to its method of inquiry. Its past success is the best indication of future success. The scientific method is the most successful method of inquiry ever invented by humans.
@bassclarinet2000 also upon which premise do you look upon the bible as an authority for scince. ii certainly dont, its only authority is in faith and morals
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS The Bible is authoritative in nothing at all---no more authoritative than the Q'uran or any other "scripture." It was written by men of the Iron Age or before. Indeed, I don't subscribe to "authority"---I ascribe to verifiable evidence and falsifiable explanations.
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS Indeed, prior to the Enlightenment, science as we know it today, did NOT exist. Superstition, magic, and supernaturalism served to stifle the development of science---"my god did it" or "my god willed it" or "let's not do anything about that because my god would be offended" were the predominant---and utterly ridiculous---explanations. The Enlightenment brought us modern science, and with it, a tripling in the average human lifespan in merely 200 years.
@buffalowycowboy did Hilter act like a Catholic Christian? yes or no and also what proof can you provide me for your claim the Pope supported the evils of nazism?
I wouldnt say that about present day china with the atheism martyring religious, and what about hilter and stalin and other atheist who kill millions. Please be intellectually responsible
Hilter was a Christian Catholic and was support by the Pope. The Nazi belt buckle said “God with Us”. Hilter was heavly influenced by Martin Luther threatise “Against the Jews”. Stalin was just power hungry and had nothing to do with religion.
@buffalowycowboy As an aside, you might enjoy knowing that Stalin was a seminarian at one point. I'd speculate that he learned about the manipulation of the ignorant masses directly from studying the very effective techniques of the Orthodox church!
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS No, bud, supernaturalism and science are ALWAYS mutually exclusive and utterly contradictory. Science relies on verifiable evidence to create robust, predictive, broad, falsifiable, provisional explanations. Supernaturalism is fundamentally superstitious. Evidence is unimportant to it. All that matters is dogma as promulgated by authority---whether the authority is an ancient text written by ignorant flat-earthers, a gaudily-dressed Roman prelate, or some bigoted imam.
Good ole Father Barron just excommunicated (block user) two of us from his videos/channels. He is self righteous sanctimonious and very thin skinned. His every comment/dialog is “circular”, why would be believe anything that he says?
Gary Lenaire, "An Infidel Manifesto" page 225 "Many imperfect deities were gradually transformed into one perfect deity: God. Many imperfect human books were edited into one perfect book: the Bible."
"A History of God" by Karen Armstrong and in the introduction page xix she writes "that human beings are spiritual animals and there is a case that Homo sapiens is also Homo religious."
Karen Armstrong writes:
“Men and women started to worship gods as soon as they became human; they created religion at the same time as they created works of art...it seems that creating gods is something that human beings have always done.”
Another youtube philosopher presenting an argument that is completely unbalanced. It's so intellectually dishonest when someone comes along and paints this 'black white' view of the world. At least the 'old' atheists that Barron was talking about did the work of reading/understanding that which they were attacking and understood full well the implications of a godless world (Nietzche predicted a bloody 20th century as humans pretended for the throne of a dead God etc.). These new guys are fluff.
@steelyman40 Fluff, huh? You might read Bertrand Russell and Kai Nielsen. My hunch is that you are the quintessesnce of "fluff." If you think this response to Barron is unbalanced, you might look into the numbers of heretics, apostates, atheists, and skeptics that your "holy church" imprisoned, tortured, robbed of property, and burned at the stake, merely for asserting ideas contrary to the "Christian" power structure. You complain about the new atheists? You ain't seen nothing, bud.
@ContrabassClar SWEET! I love this part of the debate! You tally up all the people bad Christians have killed in the name of the Church and I tally up all the people who've been killed in the name of "reason", "progress" etc.(French revolution, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao--all warm fuzzy atheists btw). then you say "these victims are the reason I hate religion"...then I say 'what about the people who've been killed in the name of 'reason'--giving that up too?" and it's spelled "response"
@ContrabassClar This is where you have me tally up the people killed by bad Christians and I have you tally up all the people killed in the name of "reason" and "progress" (French Revolution, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao-warm and fuzzy atheists all). You ask me if I'm giving up religion because of the crimes of some christians, I say no. I ask you if you're giving up a love of 'progress' or 'reason' because it was abused by people...you stare blankly. moving on. Also, it's spelled "response".
@steelyman40 What???? I've no interest in tallying anything at all. You don't get it do you that the rise of the new atheists is in part a rebellion against the utter failure of supernaturalism?
@ContrabassClar I know how you feel. I''ve no interest in going to the gym, but I have to if I don't want to get bloaty.Of course I understand that the rise of atheism is a reaction against religion.I disagree with mischaracterizations--and I've drawn for you a perfectly fine analogy between 'religion' and 'reason'...if you give up religion because it's been abused you MUST give up reason, too...and 'progress'. Also, before we go there, I LOVE science--physics specifically. CU.
@steelyman40 No! It doesn't bother me a whit that religionists have used their religion to do evil. That's only to be expected---given the dogma of most religions ( I exclude certain religions such as Janism, for example). I reject supernaturalism, magic, and superstition because there is not an iota of verifiable evidence to support any of their claims.
@ContrabassClar LOL! Ok...so if you don't have verifiable proof of the existence of something, you're not going to believe in it! I respect that. You're a big boy and you don't need to believe in stuff if it isn't verifiable and you can't reproduce it and refute a thesis or two. "Science" is your saviour. Great.So..what about love? Can I prove it to the standard of scientific proof? Also, why does religious belief improve people's lives? Issues of sacrifice, turn the other cheek, love enemy etc.
@steelyman40 You wouldn't even ask that question if you knew any science, at least biology and neuroscience. First, "love" is mediated by a variety of hormones, not the least in importance is oxytocin (Google it). 2nd, altruistic behaviors have apparently been selected by evolutionary processes to enhance individual survival. Google: "altruism in animals" Evidence is accumulating that indicates that affiliative human behaviors are selected by evolutionary processes---completely natural.
You made an interesting point until you talked about how the religions around today survived using immoral fears of Heaven and Hell. Like many atheists, you built a straw man, demonstrated ignorance of the history of the Church and completely missed the positive impact of the Christian revolution. In short, it survived because it is in the main a positive in the world (founded Universities, argued for the importance of the rights of the individual--which was a VERY revolutionary idea etc.etc.
By your argument mr. anti-evangelist, the curse of religion (looking for the eternal source) due to our higher consciousness, would necessarily make philosophy also a "disease..." for philosophy also considers what the ultimate source of things are. And if philosophy is a disease--why so is science!--which it establishes.
You misunderstand the difference between a dog being startled and a man asking why. It is not a matter of degree but a matter of kind. No amount of extra-sensory power or sheer cognitive, computational faculties can produce the question: why? The self-awareness that comes with "why" is more than animal, it produces the infinite lack which Fr. Barron considers the proof of God.
My point is: If you throw this argument out, not only religion goes, but philosophy. And if phil. goes; science too.
@roryscanlon Barron's "infinite lack" or "quest for the ultimate perfection" is a poor excuse for evidence. First, self-actualized humans don't possess this need for the perfect. They're sufficiently centered to appreciate the PRESENT, the NOW, with no need for "pie in the sky bye and bye." Einstein, genius and mystic, found the Cosmos more than sufficent--no need for the superstition of an imagined, personal invisible sky wizard or continuation after death. Life was much,much more than enough.
@BrentGrainger2000) well the anti-evangelist here does see the infinite lack in our natures, and claims that it is a disease of our consciousness. My point was that if that's right then philosophy too is a disease.
Also einstein did see the need for God, because he believed in God.
@roryscanlon Einstein's god didn't resemble your personal, vindictive, intervening god in the least! Read his comments. His was closest to the god of Spinoza---but not identical. The intelligibility of the Cosmos is shown in the verifiability of evidence and in the predictive quality of our explanations. Intelligibility is not taken on faith---as you accept your supernaturalism---it is based on consistency, constancy, and reliability--far, far beyond chance coincidence. You know no science.
@ContrabassClar --believing in the philosophical god is a first step... an insight which is certainly not derived from predictive evidence (experiment). Nor is intelligibility a matter of predictive evidence alone; it is the capacity to put things into words, based upon self-reflection, and the intuition of truth. Prediction, i.e. overwhelming probability does not demonstrate intelligibility.
what makes "chance coincidence" unreasonable?-- That "x" is intelligibility.
@roryscanlon Mere philosophical speculation! I realize that's what philosophers do, but you have no evidence whatever for any of it. On the other hand, I have abundant evidence for self-awareness in animals (Google: mirror test). Scientists have complex mathematical models to assess "chance coincidence." If suddenly Newton's Laws ceased to be predictive, scientists would wonder about intelligibility of the Cosmos--and we'd do experiments to determine what happened. (contd)
@ContrabassClar ) well you shouldn't assume to know what I have and have not learned.
For philosophy all you need is logic, experience and the desire to know. Philosophers don't laugh at each other (although they do satirize and make jibes), because they learn from each other. And scientists ought not to laugh either, for it is this mixture of logic and experience (plus mathematic) which forms the very foundation of their discipline.
@roryscanlon The intelligibility of the Cosmos is demonstrated with verifiable evidence every microsecond. Again you make all sorts of philosophical assertions without evidence. Is that mindset the reason that you so easily accept supernaturalism without an iota of verifiable evidence of any kind?
@ContrabassClar 2) how do you know that the prediction of results against a controlled environment gives evidence to a theory? what is it that gives this probabilistic evidence weight? --these are philosophical questions.
whenever a discipline becomes self-conscious it asks philosophical questions.
the nature of "intelligiblity" is not a matter of external evidence, for intelligibility is what makes evidence have any weight!
@roryscanlon Because you've obviously never studied comparative animal psychology, and probably not even biology, how can you possibly understand the capabilities of animals? And if you know nothing about other animals, how can you possibly even begin to understand the human animal? Yet, you make one assertion after another. That aspect of philosophy has always mystified me. I don't understand how philosophers keep from laughing hilariously at each other.
@ContrabassClar 3) also the "supernatural," beyond nature, is clearly not about evidence. If it were controlled by verifiable laws it would be "natural".
many philosophers are confusing, doubtless. but the understanding of logic (what it is) is important. for instance... why do you say, I need to know about other animals to know the human animal!? I am an human animal! Why would I ask a squirrel to tell me who I am?
the lack of self-reference in modern science mystifies me.
@roryscanlon It mystifies you because you know so little science! If you had even elementary biology, you would have studied the evidence that all life on earth is as ONE. All life is descended from a common ancestor. Bonobos and chimps are our closest biological relatives. The study of bonobo and chimp biology provides enormous insight into the human. Surely, you've done "compare and contrast" essays in your literature courses. The power of "compare and contrast" is enormous (contd)
@ContrabassClar Its not the link between monkeys and fish and cells and men that fogs my vision, so much as the "lack of self-reference" of modern science.
If science has such a powerful capacity for understanding, why don't scientists wonder where this capacity, to ask questions, came from? or what it is to ask after causes? For this is all a species of causation.
i.e. what is it about comparing and contrasting that produces insight?
@roryscanlon Supernaturalists of the ordinary sort constantly make claims that the supernatural impinges or affects the natural world. Example: prayer is encouraged in virtually every religion, with the expectation that some change would happen in the natural world. Does it? No. The experimental evidence is compelling. But supernaturalist philosophers continue to urge prayer in spite of the data. That's only one example of how philosophy is disconnected from reality and is therefore (contd)
@roryscanlon As neuroscientists find with meditation and other altered states of consciousness. What scientist do NOT find is any change in the physical world. These are well-controlled, double blind experiments that find no influence of the "supernatural" on the natural, despite the promises of "gods."
@roryscanlon (3) persist in philosophizing---or questioning--and not even BOTHER to find the latest scientific data? How can philosophers lack basic curiousity? It's amazing to me. The questions that trouble you are so easily informed by a bit of reading--a bit of study---a few courses. The difference between the cosmologist and the philosopher is one simple word: EVIDENCE. Frankly, that is the reason that philosophers have such a bad rep in the scientific community.
@ContrabassClar Don't you need to observe, experimentally manifest, the construction of life, or establishment of self-conscious in order to prove it fits your theory. Thats what you mean by evidence right.
I can also come up with Possible ways that life could arise from chemicals but you would not like that. Nor would you like to hear the reputation of scientists in philosophical circles... but hopefully we can pass beyond our circles a bit. Otherwise there's no point.
@ContrabassClar 2) cells will never be observed to be born from a cosmic soup (not to say motivated scientists aren't trying)... is because it is impossible for life to emerge from death without some higher, immaterial, force. No amount of mixing of forces or energies or surfaces and molecules can give rise to an organism which has its own principle for development within itself--just as a pile of saw dust is not a tree...
Unless(!) there were a force other than random movement at work.
@roryscanlon Show me the proof of a requirement for an "immaterial force." You just know no science: no biology, no biochemistry, no molecular biology. And you make that absurd assertion with no evidence? You might as well assert that because we can't observe it, humans arose 4,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden! But perhaps you think that too? If you do, discussion with you is hopeless. Please speak with a good biologist at any university near you. And read Nick Lane's "Life Ascending."
@ContrabassClar 3) The issue I'm raising comes out in your argument. Sure we can look for a link from monkeys to pre-humans, or from chemicals to cell-like entities. Postulating a middle state Pre-self-conscious, life-Like--makes it seem as if the gap b/w life and death, consciousness and sentience, is bridgeable by 'evidence.'
It is not bridgeable: the pre-human would either be human or not. The cell-like entity would be alive or not. You'd have to postulate another bridge, ad infinitum.
@roryscanlon 4) the modern scientist, as I understand it, looks at How things work in order to find laws of relationship in the universe. Laws which give experimental wonder, and technological benefit. Laws which give an inkling of what things are.
The philosopher asks "What is...?" in order to understand what it is for that thing, say "laws," to exist in the first place. We look for the logical structure of mind and reality. In order to give an inkling of "why..."
@roryscanlon No, as long as philosophers persist in wilfull ignorance of science, we cannot work "hand in hand." Throughout our discussions, I've observed repeatedly that you have no knowledge of even elementary biology, chemistry, and physics. Why is it that an undergraduate majoring in natural science MUST acquire a working knowledge of the humanities, but a philosophy major doesn't need basic science? Can you explain that? Please take a good bio course and read "Life Ascending."
@ContrabassClar an immaterial force is necessary for life because "organization" itself--the fact that a living being works upon itself, controls its relationship to its environment and establishes patterns of growth and production is not materially explicable. the order itself is what establishes the existence of the organism, not the mere, inert matter.
A living thing has a life of its own. Processes, like mathematical formulas, are dead.
@roryscanlon That is not proof! That isn't evidence! That's ridiculous assertion founded on an utter lack of knowledge of modern biology, biochemistry and molecular biology! You know no chemistry either or otherwise you wouldn't claim that "mere inert matter" is not extraordinarily complex. No wonder scientists find most philosophers ignorant and stupid. Please, please take a course! Just one! Biology? Chemistry? Physics? You're making a foolish ass of yourself buddy. It's sad.
@ContrabassClar I've taken all those courses. Can you not see that I disagree??
Complexity is not the same thing as life... throwing millions of object into a whirlwind (very complex) does not make that whirlwind alive! It must order itself to be alive!
You don't even seem to recognize the existence of other forms of knowledge! Its not that you reject the findings of philosophers, but you reject the very existence of philosophy!
Perhaps I am not even allowed to disagree with you?
@roryscanlon Whether you've taken a course or not, you do not UNDERSTAND biochemistry, biology, and molecular biology. If you did, you WOULDN'T disagree because you would understand the perfectly reasonable evolution of life from inanimate materials. It's so very, very easy to understand the scenario from basic biochemistry. Have you read "Life Ascending" by Nick Lane? The problem with philosophy, over and over, is that EVIDENCE is unimportant. It's so very sad.
The way you deliver your belief on atheism and "God is a disease" is enough for any person with a sense of reason to discard immediately. Your not passionate with what you believe and are very uncomfortable while conducting your response to Fr. Barron's video. It's clear that you don't truly believe what you are saying, but you are using it as justification for the life your trying to live
jdale287 1 week ago
@jdale287 Because you cannot cite an iota, a scintilla, a whit of verifiable evidence for the existence of any of the countless gods invented by humans over the course of centuries, you choose to mount a personal attack against people like godless evangelist, who has made a sincere and compelling video in response to Barron, whose arguments are utterly without merit. When will a supernaturalist give me verifiable evidence as opposed to ad hominem attack, speculation, and evidence-free assertion?
BrentGrainger2000 1 week ago
I'm pleased that you and others have elected to counter Barron's arguments.While his videos on the fine points of supernaturalism are of no interest to me, his videos attacking brilliant scientists like Prof. Hawking and philosophers such as Dan Dennett who happen to disagree with him are disingenuous.I believe that Barron perverts philosophy to serve his need for supernaturalism. He justifies his belief in spirits by asserting that it's equivalent to philosophical speculation about intangibles.
BrentGrainger2000 2 weeks ago
(4) European countries are of course becoming progressively more secular. One is tempted to think that the LACK of a separation between supernaturalism and governance---and the long history of resulting sectarian strife---is a major factor in this. One certainly sees incredible levels of sectarian strife in the Middle East, where there actually exist theocracies and pseudo-theocracies, namely Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
BrentGrainger2000 3 weeks ago
@BrentGrainger2000 I am actually with you all the way. When politics are bound up in religion, political questions do become religious questions. I think your observation about Europe vs. USA is quite to the point. Nevertheless, in the US, I think, we have to remember that while at a Federal level religious legislation is forbidden, power once devolved much more into local governments, which tended to operate on more religious grounds. This seems fine to me, since a community of persons...
NihilNominis 3 weeks ago
...who all know each other would seem justly able, if they so choose, to live together according to established rules based upon common beliefs. I am thinking right now of my favourite American exemplars, the nearly homogeneous, tiny, Indiana village. The crisis of secularism only becomes a crisis when it becomes so large that it is impersonal. A nation can perhaps never again be a village. Nevertheless, an unaffiliated federal framework can cohere these local communities.
NihilNominis 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis Another example of common group supernaturalism would be the Amish or the Quakers, both of whom form small enclaves in the midst of the larger society. The U.S. government is entirely accepting of such isolated groups except when they violate U.S. law, as did the Mormons with their insistence on Bible-mandated polygamy.
One fascinating characteristic of U.S. supernaturalism is that the center of "universal" Christianity has changed. Not many decades ago, (contd)
BrentGrainger2000 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis (2) the north east (New England) was strongly Catholic (Boston area) and Protestant (Vermont etc.). Much like Europe, as the area has become much better educated and economically advanced, it has also become far more secular. In contrast, our southern states are now the center of Evangelical Christianity, with strong Catholicism as well. The south is by far the least educated and economically backward of any area in the U.S. A skeptic like myself is very tempted by the data!
BrentGrainger2000 3 weeks ago
@BrentGrainger2000 Beware statistics; 97% of them can deceive you! ;-) It is possible that the economic advancement and education are in fact the cause of the secularisation, but it is equally possible that there is some third cause responsible for both of them. After all, when the Spanish missions were in place, the natives were economically and educationally advancing, but Christianity was on the rise. Likewise, the USSR brought Russia forward, but actively destroyed religiosity.
NihilNominis 3 weeks ago
It can also be the opposite story of St. Benedict. In his life of the the Saint, Gregory the Great (himself a very well trained philosopher and rhetorician) that Benedict was moved to foreshorten his studies and go live an eremetical life, lest he lose his soul by the bad example of his fellow students. Religious truth can content people with little education: "Quia non cognovi litteraturam, introibo in potentias Domini." So it seems a secularising trend could lead to discontent, to more.
NihilNominis 3 weeks ago
I think that also presents a third possibility for interpretation, namely, that the secularizing trend causes the economic and educational flourishing. That wouldn't surprise me, actually. People are very clever, and they can do whatever they focus on well. When one's whole existence has been reduced to the intra-mundane, it does not surprise me that one would learn all one could about the world, and become very good at producing useful and pleasant things in abundance.
NihilNominis 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis Yours is an interesting twist on this! Correlation indeed is not causation. And, of course, there is education and there is education. History shows that the education of native peoples in concepts of western supernaturalism increases belief in that brand of supernaturalism---often with an admixture of the native type of supernaturalism. Think of the native peoples throughout Latin America and the Caribbean---as well as Africa today. (contd)
BrentGrainger2000 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis On the other hand, education in concepts of modern science and mathematics, as well as a non-supernaturalist interpretation of history and the arts, is likely to lead away from supernaturalism. Indeed, the data so indicate.The average educational level in New England is far higher than in the deep south in the U.S.
I do think that there's another factor, especially for Europe.Most European countries provide universal health care, thereby removing a huge source of anxiety (contd)
BrentGrainger2000 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis I think, but without sufficient evidence to make a firm conclusion, that supernaturalism thrives when anxiety levels due to economic and other threats are high. Supernaturalism provides anxiolysis and comfort in the face of adversity. Knowing that one's government will provide a basic condition of life---decent health care--goes far in removing that major source of anxiety.
No matter the interpretation, the secularization of Europe is undeniable.
BrentGrainger2000 3 weeks ago
@BrentGrainger2000 I think your conclusions can still hold valid whilst not invalidating the supernaturalist premise. I mean, your thesis has been and continues to be that supernaturalism in most people is a complex means of reducing anxiety. I think that is largely so. I've been to too many funerals that resulted in canonisations of the deceased to think otherwise. Nevertheless, often this flies in the face of actual religious dogma so much that they must be separate.
NihilNominis 2 weeks ago
(3) I often point out to my supernaturalist friends that the U.S. Constitution has done a great deal to PROMOTE religion because it has prevented bickering supernaturalists from enacting laws to persecute each other---which, if history is any guide at all, they would most certainly do. Inate within supernaturalism is a distrust and hatred of "the other"---perhaps because of competing ideas (contd)
BrentGrainger2000 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
BrentGrainger2000 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's always amazed me that the very term "theology," meaning the study of some god or other, is in reality the study of nothing at all. Like philosophy, it relies only on speculation, never on verifiable evidence. It never provides falsifiable explanations,unlike science. I think of theology in the same way that I think of masturbation---perhaps fun for those who are limited to it as an activity, but utterly unproductive
BrentGrainger2000 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
BrentGrainger2000 4 weeks ago
"Curing the mental disease known as god?" No, even if you are right in suggesting that religion or theistic belief is not belief in any real thing, its ubiquity among men in all ages suggest that it has at least been adaptive, and it is certainly not anything atypical or a malfunction. No one calls the confirmation bias a disease. It is a psychological tool for sorting through a great deal of input efficiently and (typically) rooting out BS. If belief is psychology, it's no disease.
NihilNominis 4 weeks ago
@NihilNominis Belief in some god or other as adaptive? In the past? Probably. Now? Probably not. Humans have advanced a great deal from the time when everyone thought that the actions of nature were caused by unseen forces that had to be propitiated. We've advanced from the time when humans buried young children at the corners of a building to appeal to their gods for safety. We've also advanced from thinking that a Jew reanimated. Great book: "The Science of Superstition" by Bruce Hood.
BrentGrainger2000 4 weeks ago
@BrentGrainger2000 That doesn't make religion a disease. Nevertheless, your appeal to propitiating forces to cure disease and burying children at streetcorners is ill-placed. Superstition is far removed from true religion. There is a place for miracles, but not for talisman and juju. Catholic philosophy does not fear naturalistic chains of causation. In fact it appropriates them as threads leading back to the ultimate Cause, and as manifestations of Providence. We look at reality as it is.
NihilNominis 4 weeks ago
@NihilNominis In my view, supernaturalism in all of its forms---religious and secular---is cut from exactly the same cloth. All rely upon "belief" without verifiable evidence and all come from exactly the same underlying genetic propensity in H. sapiens for agency and control, even if such has no evidence for its existence. Interestingly, "religiousity" has a well-documented underlying genetic basis, with its exact form influenced by environment. Catholicism is as superstitious as the others.
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar In some sense, it is true, there is arational belief which unites what you call supernaturalist worldviews. Nevertheless, this arationalism does not pertain to the same category of belief. A Catholic theologian believes arationally what he cannot discover by any means else. A superstitious man, for instance an astrologer, believes in causes within nature which are unobservable, which differ from the observed causes, and which can be manipulated.
NihilNominis 4 weeks ago
@NihilNominis The general consensus in the scientific community is that religious belief is a bi-product and is not adaptive. Even though the evolved cognitive mechanisms that it hijacks (like confirmation bias and many more) certainly are adaptive. A bi-product can be called an advantage if it serves society, like reading and writing or music, or a disease if it doesn't, like religion today. (But that may not have been true of religion thousands of years ago.)
godlessevangelist 3 weeks ago
@godlessevangelist I've been thinking about the concept of religion as a "disease." It's actually quite a fascinating "take' on this. So, going back to definitions, a disease is a 'disorder of structure or function." This would include pathologies of brain and body, of course. If religion is a delusion, then it follows that it is a disorder of thinking, which indicates a disorder of the brain.That indicates a disease. Indeed, the propensity to this delusion has a very strong genetic component.
BrentGrainger2000 2 weeks ago
@godlessevangelist Forgive my ignorance of the relevant distinctions. Whether or not it still serves advantage seems to be the substance of our debate, so I will obviously not concede that point, but my vocabulary was certainly not technically conceived.
NihilNominis 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i suggest that u should read and research more about philosophy. you are trying to refute that father who are very well prepared in arguments, a master of of reasoning. it seems that you can engage in a more rational way, though you claim seemingly that you are rational. i feel sorry to you. no offense.
boknoy1977 1 month ago
i suggest that u should read and research more about philosophy. you are trying to refute that father who are very well prepared in arguments, a master of of reasoning.
boknoy1977 1 month ago
@boknoy1977 Can you give me a specific example of what I've stated is wrong, or are you just going to stick to vague ad hominem statements? Your comment was a kin to me telling you you have bad breath.
godlessevangelist 3 weeks ago
How I checkmated Father Barron. I engaged him by messaging. Our discussion topic was the argument from contingency. Fathers strategy is to have you defend your position, which is easy for him to attack. Therefore, your tactic has to be get him to defend his position. Once you are on the offense and making the burden of proof rest on him then he runs out of wiggle room on the slippery slope. He then goes silent, which I consider no moves to make, i.e. checkmate, game over, I win.
buffalowycowboy 1 month ago
@buffalowycowboy That's been my observation too. One can go on for quite a number of exchanges, with Barron spouting his limited philosophical jargon and speculation, as if it were "true." And then with one powerful argument---usually dealing with science or evidence---that he can't refute, he shuts down. If you pursue, he blocks you. He seems thin-skinned, if not cowardly, and certainly anti-intellectual. But..he's a religionist after all.
BrentGrainger2000 1 month ago
@BrentGrainger2000 that father makes sense, i think so, he argues not much in the perspective of religion, i think he speaks about philosophy by citing the some philosophers. his argument is not just for the sake of argument. it is well grounded in philosophy. i think better than us.
boknoy1977 1 month ago
@boknoy1977 Wrong. Barron distorts philosophy for his own purposes. He cites two of the most self-centered, self-loathing philosophers of all time, Camus and Sartre, as examples of "good atheists." That's simply hokum. Then he DELIBERATELY fails to cite philosophers like Kai Nielsen and Bertrand Russell, two self-actualized, brilliant, atheistic philosophers. Barron is sophomoric in his approach. He distorts. And like all supernaturalists, he is quite simply, delusional.
BrentGrainger2000 1 month ago
@BrentGrainger2000 what i am just telling that that father makes sense. he makes his point very clear. you try to refute it, but you simply fail to do it. watch your response again. pls make a good argument.
of course that father makes own argument according to the particular issue. he cant discuss all at once in youtube.. at least he did it rationally and intellectually sound.
boknoy1977 1 month ago
@boknoy1977 What argument? Please tell me! He says that there are good and bad atheists. The good ones hate themselves. The bad ones rejoice in the beauty of the Cosmos and live wonderful lives. This isn't an argument. It's stupid sophistry. And Barron is an ideologue. His statements don't even come up to the standard of intelligent argument---let alone compelling argument.
BrentGrainger2000 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boknoy1977 “at least he did it rationally and intellectually sound.” This is untrue, all of his arguments of evidence are logically unsound, that is they “beg the question”.
buffalowycowboy 1 month ago
@boknoy1977 Friend, you are wrong. When arguing with Father he denies “the argument from contingency” of Leibniz or the criticisms of Hume and Kant. He is not a philosopher, he is a theologian and makes shit up as he goes along.
buffalowycowboy 1 month ago
@buffalowycowboy Right on, Buffalocowboy. He makes shit up as he goes along. Theology is as far from philosophy as parapsychology is from science. Thology relies on evidence EVEN LESS than philosophy does, which is to say, not at all!
BrentGrainger2000 1 month ago
@BrentGrainger2000 The sacred science relies explicitly on revelation as its first principles. It is thus from one perspective the most, from another the least, certain of sciences, and the highest or lowest. From the perspective of faith, it's obvious that theology pertains to what is most important. Of empiricism, perhaps not. Nevertheless, theology itself deals with matters which are expressly beyond reason's ability to grasp. To that extent it is neither testable or verifiable.
NihilNominis 4 weeks ago
@NihilNominis Call it a form of idealism if it makes you feel better. There is some philosophical theology, but that is not what either of us is talking about.
Aquinas is beautiful: "As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else." (Summa Theologica I.1.8)
NihilNominis 4 weeks ago
@NihilNominis It is however obvious to anybody that *what* theology *claims* to deal with would be, if true, of the utmost importance. "Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason..." (ST I.1.1). It deals with the end of Man and of Creation, of the purpose of the universe, and the usual list of ultimate questions. It is not an "easy answer" to them. It is in fact the only possibility of answering them. If it is bunk, Man's end is sex.
NihilNominis 4 weeks ago
@NihilNominis When theology has been tested, it ends up a miserable FAILURE! You should review the scientific studies on the efficacy of "prayer." There are several very well-controlled, careful studies---mostly Christian in orientation b/c of the "promises" of the the god of the Christians. In each case, NO effect was found---or even a borderline negative effect, counter to the requests of the prayerful petitioners. Theology ain't anything like science, bud. It's hokum.
BrentGrainger2000 4 weeks ago
@BrentGrainger2000 I am aware of these studies. They do not, I'm afraid, comprise a test of theology. It would be nice if they did. God answers prayers, it has *always* been taught, as He wills it, for the spiritual, not mundane, good of man. He will not heal every sick person; it was His providence which ordained their sickness. This is not the sort of thing the Church has ever taught could be proved about God. Man's rational knowledge of God is like Anthony Flew's. More needs faith.
NihilNominis 4 weeks ago
@NihilNominis I think you're pretty bright, so I don't need to connect this explicitly, but just to remove ambiguity in my argument: You cannot verify a science by verifying a contradictory premiss. If the studies had shown that revealed theology was empirically testable and demonstrable, ironically, that would have shown the assumptions of Catholic theology wrong. It's irksome, I know. It has irked a great many for a long time. But they did find it important nonetheless.
NihilNominis 4 weeks ago
@NihilNominis Of course the scientific method can't "prove" a negative. Indeed, it can prove NOTHING AT ALL! That's part of the brilliance of the method, and part of its success. Scientists work to find verifiable evidence. Well-verified evidence is called a "fact," but it is always PROVISIONAL.From the eivdence, scientists create robust, predictive, broad, falsifiable, PROVISIONAL explanations (theories). If the the theories have broad consensus, they are said to be "true." (contd)
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar I am aware of the scientific epistemology. I have a great respect for it, and I have no difficulty holding at once in my mind all of its valid conclusions unadulterated and maintaining religious belief in God, happily passing over the incompetent and unqualified metaphysical musings of physicists, the biogeneses of biologists, and the speculations of anyone else who irresponsibly attempts to use the methods of his science to examine the principles upon which it rests.
NihilNominis 4 weeks ago
@NihilNominis The verifiable evidence of God which you have sought is evidence of God's bending to, capitulating to, the demands of a human will presented in a formally acceptable way. You have already equated all supernaturalism, and so you have equivocated between God and magic. The very concept of magic and superstition is repugnant to the religious understanding of the Sovereign God, who knows what is best, and who brings it about infallibly, not cowing to our demands for immediate goods.
NihilNominis 4 weeks ago
@NihilNominis So your particular god has decided not to provide verifiable evidence of its existence---in order to test us? My, my what a mean-spirited monster of a god you must worship!
Why do theologians rely on so much sophistry? Any objection to their particular god is met with obfuscation, justification, denial, and rationalization (in the worst sense). Don't you guys grow weary of such stupidities? Don't you ever long for VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE? (contd)
BrentGrainger2000 4 weeks ago
@NihilNominis (2) Your "arguments" don't even reach the level of rational discussion. Repeatedly, you continue to make assertions about the way your god works, or that only "faith" is important, or whatever. Don't you realize that such arguments hold sway only for the already deluded? They appear to be merely unadulterated sophistry to the objective person.They fail to reach even the very, very low standard of philosophical discourse. If your notions provide you with anxiolysis, fine. (contd)
BrentGrainger2000 4 weeks ago
@BrentGrainger2000 I realise that theology is impossible, indeed stupid, in the absence of faith. I also am also literate enough to realise that your assertions about the philosophical viability of faith are myopic and unsubstantiated, and that whether you like it or not the world does indeed grapple seriously with questions of faith as questions of faith, to be sought as questions of faith, and it does not attempt to reduce them to questions of science.
NihilNominis 4 weeks ago
@NihilNominis But these are questions of the nature of God. As to His existence, not as a doting machine to His faithful flock, but rather as the First Cause and intelligence behind the existing Universe--that is a question more within the domain of reason. Hence my initial statement: those aspects of God which it pertains to reason to understand, as they have always been held, correspond well with those attributes Anthony Flew came to accept late in his life.
NihilNominis 4 weeks ago
@NihilNominis (2) This is similar to the genes that we've found that correlate with inherited propensities such as sexual orientation, musicality, etc. There is strong evidence that your particular propensity to have "faith"---unsupported, non-evidentiary belief---is determined, apparently in large measure, by inherited factors. Please distinguish this from the tendency of children to adopt the specific "faith" of their parents (99%)---a cultural phenomenon. (contd)
BrentGrainger2000 4 weeks ago
@BrentGrainger2000 Even the mediaevals in their primitive medical theories believed that once physical constitution greatly influenced one's personality, and hence one's propensity for religious belief. It was, I believe, the melancholics who were supposed to be most apt at the contemplative religious life. My point in saying this is that a lot of the questions "raised" by science were raised by pre-modern beliefs, and the thoughtful man of faith should have grappled with them long ago.
NihilNominis 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis As to the cultural phenomenon of religion, yes, people do tend to believe and cling to articles of faith as they have been taught. The thing is this, however: India's crumbling Hindu regime notwithstanding, it is monotheism by and large which survives, in various forms. Religious belief is not a mere static passed down from father to son. It changes, at times, it converts entirely. Most religious in the world agree on a surprising number of points, in spite of outliers.
NihilNominis 3 weeks ago
Then again, many of these religious are based on snatches of the same revelation. Additionally, although one could conceivably construct a philosophical justification in which appearance does not co-incide with reality, and replace all naturalistic causal chains with pagan gods, paganism by and large does not stand up to the philosophical scrutiny that monotheism does. Paganism relies on constant direct divine intervention in reality. Monotheism holds it meaningful, but keeps nature intact.
NihilNominis 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis *one's physical constitution...
NihilNominis 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis Although apparently not literate enough to re-read my own posts for doubling and other redundancies. ;-)
NihilNominis 4 weeks ago
@NihilNominis Thank you for the admission, not often made by your fellow supernaturalists, that everything reduces to what you refer to as "faith" and what I, frankly refer to as delusional thinking not based on verifiable evidence. I do understand that such delusions are anxiolytic---hence they are very common in the populace, correlated, of course, with a genetically determined proclivity toward "religiousity." By the way, genes have been found which correlate with such thinking. (contd)
BrentGrainger2000 4 weeks ago
@NihilNominis In my view, you are one step closer to breaking the spell of your delusion than the average supernaturalist. Most of them think that there is verifiable evidence for their belief. You understand that there is none. You are clever at rationalizing this lack of evidence, but you do understand its absence. Someone like Barron would have us believe that evidence exists, when it does not. Perhaps at some point you will realize that you don't require the delusion to be fulfilled.
BrentGrainger2000 4 weeks ago
@BrentGrainger2000 I have faith for reasons of grace. I'm no living saint, but I've seen enough crazy s--t go down to make me believe. For me, it's like St. Paul says, "How shall they believe without a preacher?" And that's just it. Christian doctrine has never suggested that we should discover these truths about God by any other way; not through empirical research, not even through abstract philosophical speculation. And every thoughtful Christian has held this view through the ages.
NihilNominis 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis To me, there aren't many (any) new questions in modern science that challenge belief in any new ways. The faith is perennial and its challenges are perennial. Even your last point, that I don't require the delusion to be fulfilled. A good Thomist will tell you that man has a natural end and a supernatural end, and that it is possible for man to be truly happy in a natural sense without fulfilling his supernatural end.
NihilNominis 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis They tell you this to answer the problem that Heaven is at once the happiness and highest end of man, and a gratuitous gift. They hold that to deprive man of the beatific vision of God is not to deprive him of anything strictly necessary to his nature, and so is not unjust. Hence, here I stand, knowing that as man I do not require my beliefs to be fulfilled, but believing in them all the same, grateful for the gift of faith which, if untrue, makes me of all men most to be pitied.
NihilNominis 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis You are obviously a far more thoughtful supernaturalist than most others, who readily adopt the supernaturalism of their tribe and use it both for anxiolysis and social cohesion. You are also far more centered in what I call your delusion and what you call your faith. To your credit, you don't become miffed when challenged (as Barron does when his cherished positions are threatened). Personally, as a very well-trained, highly skeptical scientist, (contd)
BrentGrainger2000 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis (2) I find it impossible even to entertain the acceptance of the vast array of supernatural propositions that religionists apparently accept without question or supportive verifiable evidence of any kind. It boggles my mind.
You spoke of monotheism---the so-called religions of the desert---which have been so successful in terms of numbers of adherents---though Islam is certainly the fastest growing of any of them. (contd)
BrentGrainger2000 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis (3) Does it not bother you that intrinsic to the Islamic world view is violence toward "the other?" Moreover, while the Enlightenment and Enlightenment philosophy certainly steered organized Christianity from similar violent tendencies, the sectarian strife in the Middle East is the single greatest threat to civilization today. Here I speak of nuclear conflict between Iran and Israel---countries dominanted by monotheism. All of that bothers me a great deal. (contd)
BrentGrainger2000 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis (4) While I'm quite willing to allow individuals to reside in delusion if it makes them "happy," I am NOT willing to stand idly by without protest when those delusions lead to the involvement of religious delusion in legislation and public policy. The history of both Christianity and Islam betrays a contemptible authoritarianism and condemnation of "the other," which arises directly from the theistic delusion, in my view.
BrentGrainger2000 3 weeks ago
@BrentGrainger2000 I very much appreciate this thoughtful discussion, so I'll begin by thanking you for it. As to the questions at hand: I see the political question both ways very easily. As I said before about theology, it pertains to that which is, if true, most important. The essential human urge, then, to enshrine religion at the centre of a society is quite intelligible. It also has the potential, as you point out, to bring about social cohesion readily, and so is also usefully so put.
NihilNominis 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis By the same token, even questions of atheism aside, it is apparent from the history of the Church alone that the human capacity for error is astounding and boundless, and that heresy's destructive effects are multiplied a hundredfold when a society has been politically founded on religious orthodoxy, since the political mechanisms meant to defend orthodoxy are easily hijacked and turned against it. We see that over and over: in Arianism, iconoclasm, and throughout the Reformation.
NihilNominis 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis Islam bothers me a great deal, though I can understand its popularity. It presents a belief which has been rationalised with much the same thorough scholasticism as Catholicism, as I have learnt in many discussions with Muslims, but it is a belief and a religion based upon duty, obligation, and reward, which meets modern man, I think, more readily than the charity and conversion of heart demanded by Christianity. It is thus vigorous, appealing, and monolithic.
NihilNominis 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis So to sum up, whilst I obviously await in hope what is quite literally the reign of God visibly on Earth, for the moment I am content with a society that is not confessional. I think, however, that enforced secularism, rather than simple institutional non-affiliation, amounts to a kind of affiliation, and so find myself against that. To use an innocuous example, a truly unaffiliated society can neither compel nor forbid a person to wish others a merry Christmas.
NihilNominis 3 weeks ago
It is not a Soviet government, tolerating religion for a time but attempting to impose its own non-religious values on the society. It is a social contract between people geographically proximate and confessionally disparate, providing a framework for economic and political co-operation, the enforcement of those laws and that public order common to all men, and a cultural context within which man's spiritual search is respected and fostered, without having to become a political conflict.
NihilNominis 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis You have said it very well. The ideal, it seems to me, is maximum RESPONSIBLE freedom. Neither the burning of heretics by Thomist-encouraged Christians in Europe nor the stoning of Muslim women caught in adultery is desirable. But neither is governmental control of supernaturalist choice, as long as that choice is innocuous. I, of course, maintain that responsibility comes not from a longing for some pie in the sky bye and bye reward but rather from an understanding (contd)
BrentGrainger2000 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis (2) and rational assessment of our world and our Cosmos---relying heavily on science for that vital evidence. We can then make the best rational decisions possible, aiming to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals and especially for the planet, which is our species' only home so far. The great difficulty that I have with the supernaturalist focus on pie in the sky is not that it's falsely anxiolytic, but that it can easily ignore real solutions in the now.
BrentGrainger2000 3 weeks ago
@BrentGrainger2000 Granted. Hence it has always struck me that Christ should so emphatically command that we give to the poor, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, here and now, as something intimately bound up with that "pie in the sky" which he promises. And isn't it just so that Christianity believes that the "pie in the sky" is not something only to be imagined and hoped for, but that it is a share in the Divine Life which is actually possessed on earth by souls in a state of grace.
NihilNominis 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis As to the burning of heretics, that seems an example of man's difficulty separating the ideal from the real. In a perfect, confessional state, a crime against religion is a crime against the state, and the state upholds those doctrines which are true and salutary for the soul. Consequently, heresy in the perfect state is a kind of murder, and a kind of treason, and dealt with in kind. In fact, what we see is that states do not preserve religion, and that these devices...
NihilNominis 3 weeks ago
...instituted to uphold the faith are often turned towards its destruction and the persecution of the faithful. Hence we see the Mass outlawed in Zurich under Zwingli, by a city-state which had authority over those matters. We see burnings of Catholics as heretics under Calvin in Geneva, and the atrocities that Henry wrought in England. All of these were accomplished with methods the Church supported and thought would protect Her from harm. In fact, they are easily abused, dangerous tools.
NihilNominis 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis We agree that the persecution of heretics is abhorent. We do not agree that the state should have any involvement with supernaturalism at all. The U.S. Constitution, written by Enlightenment thinkers like Jefferson, comes fairly close to what I consider the ideal. Of course, religion continues to be part of U.S. elections---and no avowed skeptic could ever be elected to high office. Such is the power of supernaturalism. If there were an impermeable wall between (contd)
BrentGrainger2000 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis (2) all religions and the state, all supernaturalists and skeptics would remain free from persecution. Protestants who so boldly translated the Bible into English would not have been burned under Bloody Mary and Catholics who opposed Anglicanism under Elizabeth would have been free. Similarly, supernaturalists of any type would be free under all totalitarian regimes. In my view, the greatest freedom is obtained ONLY with COMPLETE separation of supernaturalism from governance.(cont)
BrentGrainger2000 3 weeks ago
@NihilNominis (3) Finally, it has always amazed me that supernaturalists of the Christian persuasion are perfectly content that their god intervened in the physical world OFTEN at the time that their god was supposedly incarnate, but doesn't now. It readily answered their prayers then---but clearly, by any objective standard, does not do so now. How can you live with such delusion? It mystifies me. But then---superstition is at its essence irrational---I should expect nothing else!
BrentGrainger2000 4 weeks ago
@BrentGrainger2000 He doesn't answer prayers in any testable way. That is to say He is not a healing, money-bestowing, sports-victory-providing machine. That in no way suggests that He does not answer prayers. To the contrary, He answers prayers like any personal being answers requests, sometimes with a yes, sometimes with a no, for His own reasons. But He does most verily answer.
NihilNominis 4 weeks ago
@NihilNominis Who taught that your god answers prayers only for spiritual benefit? Certainly not your god, Jesus!!!! Whether your god ever existed, or was entirely a fabrication of the NT writers, they put words in his mouth--repeatedly!!---that "prayers" would be answered. Indeed, that, together with the promise of "eternal life" was the brilliant hook that helped to sell Christianity as a mystery religion to the ignorant and the gullible. It worked as a sales gimmick, but didn't deliver.
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar He does everything for the salvation of souls. That is exactly what the New Testament teaches, and that is most plainly presented in the agony of Christ in the Garden. Our Lord Himself prayed that He would not have to suffer death on the Cross. What happens to Him? He must suffer all the same! Why? For the salvation of souls.
You can cite "moving mountains" against that all you like; the record is there; plainly the text does not mean what you thought it meant.
NihilNominis 4 weeks ago
@NihilNominis If Christ's prayers in the New Testament, on textual evidence alone, were surveyed, one might well equally conclude that prayer is ineffective. Some of His prayers are answered as He prays that they might be. Some are apparently given as examples of the great gulf between human will and divine Providence. God always says to us as He said to Job, "Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth?" What we pray for seems good for us. It may not be. Faith trusts.
NihilNominis 4 weeks ago
@NihilNominis (2) The studies on prayer find NO EVIDENCE whatever for the efficacy of prayer. Indeed, that is the simple, unalloyed point. As a skeptic, I find not a shred, not a scintilla, not an iota of VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for the existence of any of the countless gods invented by human beings over the course of the centuries. I conclude that the acceptance of any such god is superstitious, precisely because it is without verifiable evidence.Theology, the study of such gods, is masturbatory.
ContrabassClar 4 weeks ago
@ContrabassClar yes human eugenics is what im particularly talking about.
PERSONALCHRISTJESUS 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar every commits immoral acts, even you... yet eugenics separates the weak from the strong, Hilter took eugenics to more of an extreme, but the Rockefellers were fond of eugenics also. science permits an individual to prevent or take life either by embroic stem cells or by contrception.
PERSONALCHRISTJESUS 1 month ago
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS Do you think that a human zygote (fetilized egg) in a petri dish is the equivalent of a one-day old human infant?
BrentGrainger2000 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar not exactly from the Bible but fron the Church herself. what about eugenics, is that moral according to science?
PERSONALCHRISTJESUS 1 month ago
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS Science tells us how morals and ethics have evolved. Science helps us to understand whether a particular behavior might promote the biological well being of humans. Scientists practice eugenics constantly. You should have specified HUMAN eugenics.So the question is really: does the manipulation of the human genome contribute to the well-being of humans? Correct? The answer is yes, it does, in many cases. For example, the law forbids the marriage of first cousins.(ctd)
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS Science tells us how morals and ethics have evolved. Science helps us to understand whether a particular behavior might promote the biological well being of humans. Scientists practice eugenics constantly. You should have specified HUMAN eugenics.So the question is really: does the manipulation of the human genome contribute to the well-being of humans? Correct? The answer is yes, it does, in many cases. For example, the law forbids the marriage of first cousins.(ctd)
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS The Church? What gives the church any moral authority? How could you possibly assign moreal authority to people who delberately ENABLED the sexual abuse of young boys? They cared much more about the reputation of their precious little institution than they cared about the well being of children. The majority of the bishops of the church were contemptible. And you want to give them moral authority? Are you kidding me?
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS You need to learn to ask your questions precisely. I think that you mean human eugenics, because scientists practice eugenics all the time. Ever morsel of food that you consume is the result of plant and animal eugenics. Indeed, science informs us of the genetic consequences of certain types of human reproduction---hence the law forbids the marriage of first cousins. That is eugenics, informed by biology, and mandated by law.
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar where in science has it given us morals? science hasnt provided us with any nor has it examined any.
PERSONALCHRISTJESUS 1 month ago
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS Au contraire, mon ami!!! Science, more specifically evoltuionary biology and animal biology, have shown us where our "rules" of behavior---our seystems of ethics and morality---are actually derived. You don't think they're derived from scripture do you?? Why not Sharia law? All advanced social animals have evolved a propensity to have rules of behavior in their groups---morals / ethics / laws/ standards of conduct / whatever. It's in our genes, bub---it's in our genes.
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
I never care about Barron's videos on the fine points of the magic of Catholicsm. What I do care about is his perversion of scientific thinking and the scientific method---and his total misrepresentations of the way science works. I suspect that he's never had a university level science course. Indeed, when I've suggested that he knows no science---a conclusion where he himself supplies the evidence---he becomes offended and blocks me. Quite interesting!
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar Yes, Contra. Barron has blocked me too. It seems as if he is the most thin-skinned YouTuber! He purports to want a free exchange of ideas, but as soon as he's countered in an effective way, he blocks the commentator, as if to protect people from thinking. But, then, religion has always been opposed to free thought---by its very nature. Very sad, indeed. Part of the delusion.
BrentGrainger2000 1 month ago
@BrentGrainger2000
Father has excommunicated (blocked user) me under two screen names. However you still have direct contact with him, by sending a message from his channel. He does read them and responsed. I have had a long conversation with him regarding his beloved agrument from contingency. He is a very condescending, and because he has (STD) very arrogant.
buffalowycowboy 1 month ago
@buffalowycowboy In my experience, the vast majority of RC priests are arrogant and pompous. The entrenched clericalism of the RCC teaches priests that they are "specially chosen" to do the magic of converting a cracker to flesh. Worse, RC's actually believe that crap. Barron is particularly arrogant---and that leads him to make all of these very expensively produced videos. Normally, folks not backed by RCC-raised money can't afford all of the glitz. Catholicism is a profitable business!
BrentGrainger2000 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar again just as you agree is fallacious to try to you spiritualism in science, i agree also. yet dont you think its just as fallacious to try to apply science to another field it doent apply to.
PERSONALCHRISTJESUS 1 month ago
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS Science isn't everything----but it is certainly ABOUT everything!
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar of course the book itself isnt authoritative, the RCC gives the bible authority.
PERSONALCHRISTJESUS 1 month ago
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS And on what authority does the RCC base its determination? Scripture? Of course! Circular!
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
*positivism
PERSONALCHRISTJESUS 1 month ago
@bassclarinet2000 also if you think science will be able to explain everything as we mover further in the future you're subscribing to the school of philosophy called positism
PERSONALCHRISTJESUS 1 month ago
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS Philosophers love to give names to ideas that they don't like. And then they get to publish their speculative absurdities so that other philosophers can debate stupidly with them. The history of science shows that there is nothing that it has tackled that has not given way, at least partially, to its method of inquiry. Its past success is the best indication of future success. The scientific method is the most successful method of inquiry ever invented by humans.
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@bassclarinet2000 also upon which premise do you look upon the bible as an authority for scince. ii certainly dont, its only authority is in faith and morals
PERSONALCHRISTJESUS 1 month ago
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS The Bible is authoritative in nothing at all---no more authoritative than the Q'uran or any other "scripture." It was written by men of the Iron Age or before. Indeed, I don't subscribe to "authority"---I ascribe to verifiable evidence and falsifiable explanations.
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@bassclarinet2000 Wow your ignorance is appauling. it wasnt until the so called enlightenment period when people bagan separating faith and science.
PERSONALCHRISTJESUS 1 month ago
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS Indeed, prior to the Enlightenment, science as we know it today, did NOT exist. Superstition, magic, and supernaturalism served to stifle the development of science---"my god did it" or "my god willed it" or "let's not do anything about that because my god would be offended" were the predominant---and utterly ridiculous---explanations. The Enlightenment brought us modern science, and with it, a tripling in the average human lifespan in merely 200 years.
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@buffalowycowboy did Hilter act like a Catholic Christian? yes or no and also what proof can you provide me for your claim the Pope supported the evils of nazism?
PERSONALCHRISTJESUS 1 month ago
I wouldnt say that about present day china with the atheism martyring religious, and what about hilter and stalin and other atheist who kill millions. Please be intellectually responsible
PERSONALCHRISTJESUS 1 month ago
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS
Hilter was a Christian Catholic and was support by the Pope. The Nazi belt buckle said “God with Us”. Hilter was heavly influenced by Martin Luther threatise “Against the Jews”. Stalin was just power hungry and had nothing to do with religion.
buffalowycowboy 1 month ago
@buffalowycowboy As an aside, you might enjoy knowing that Stalin was a seminarian at one point. I'd speculate that he learned about the manipulation of the ignorant masses directly from studying the very effective techniques of the Orthodox church!
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
Is atheism really free?
PERSONALCHRISTJESUS 1 month ago
If faith and science contradict eachother we have one of the 3 following errors:
1. Bad science
2. Bad faith
3. Both faith and science
PERSONALCHRISTJESUS 1 month ago
@PERSONALCHRISTJESUS No, bud, supernaturalism and science are ALWAYS mutually exclusive and utterly contradictory. Science relies on verifiable evidence to create robust, predictive, broad, falsifiable, provisional explanations. Supernaturalism is fundamentally superstitious. Evidence is unimportant to it. All that matters is dogma as promulgated by authority---whether the authority is an ancient text written by ignorant flat-earthers, a gaudily-dressed Roman prelate, or some bigoted imam.
bassclarinet2000 1 month ago
Good ole Father Barron just excommunicated (block user) two of us from his videos/channels. He is self righteous sanctimonious and very thin skinned. His every comment/dialog is “circular”, why would be believe anything that he says?
buffalowycowboy 1 month ago
Gary Lenaire, "An Infidel Manifesto" page 225 "Many imperfect deities were gradually transformed into one perfect deity: God. Many imperfect human books were edited into one perfect book: the Bible."
buffalowycowboy 1 month ago
"A History of God" by Karen Armstrong and in the introduction page xix she writes "that human beings are spiritual animals and there is a case that Homo sapiens is also Homo religious."
Karen Armstrong writes:
“Men and women started to worship gods as soon as they became human; they created religion at the same time as they created works of art...it seems that creating gods is something that human beings have always done.”
buffalowycowboy 1 month ago
Another youtube philosopher presenting an argument that is completely unbalanced. It's so intellectually dishonest when someone comes along and paints this 'black white' view of the world. At least the 'old' atheists that Barron was talking about did the work of reading/understanding that which they were attacking and understood full well the implications of a godless world (Nietzche predicted a bloody 20th century as humans pretended for the throne of a dead God etc.). These new guys are fluff.
steelyman40 1 month ago
@steelyman40 Fluff, huh? You might read Bertrand Russell and Kai Nielsen. My hunch is that you are the quintessesnce of "fluff." If you think this response to Barron is unbalanced, you might look into the numbers of heretics, apostates, atheists, and skeptics that your "holy church" imprisoned, tortured, robbed of property, and burned at the stake, merely for asserting ideas contrary to the "Christian" power structure. You complain about the new atheists? You ain't seen nothing, bud.
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar SWEET! I love this part of the debate! You tally up all the people bad Christians have killed in the name of the Church and I tally up all the people who've been killed in the name of "reason", "progress" etc.(French revolution, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao--all warm fuzzy atheists btw). then you say "these victims are the reason I hate religion"...then I say 'what about the people who've been killed in the name of 'reason'--giving that up too?" and it's spelled "response"
steelyman40 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar This is where you have me tally up the people killed by bad Christians and I have you tally up all the people killed in the name of "reason" and "progress" (French Revolution, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao-warm and fuzzy atheists all). You ask me if I'm giving up religion because of the crimes of some christians, I say no. I ask you if you're giving up a love of 'progress' or 'reason' because it was abused by people...you stare blankly. moving on. Also, it's spelled "response".
steelyman40 1 month ago
@steelyman40 What???? I've no interest in tallying anything at all. You don't get it do you that the rise of the new atheists is in part a rebellion against the utter failure of supernaturalism?
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar I know how you feel. I''ve no interest in going to the gym, but I have to if I don't want to get bloaty.Of course I understand that the rise of atheism is a reaction against religion.I disagree with mischaracterizations--and I've drawn for you a perfectly fine analogy between 'religion' and 'reason'...if you give up religion because it's been abused you MUST give up reason, too...and 'progress'. Also, before we go there, I LOVE science--physics specifically. CU.
steelyman40 1 month ago
@steelyman40 No! It doesn't bother me a whit that religionists have used their religion to do evil. That's only to be expected---given the dogma of most religions ( I exclude certain religions such as Janism, for example). I reject supernaturalism, magic, and superstition because there is not an iota of verifiable evidence to support any of their claims.
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar LOL! Ok...so if you don't have verifiable proof of the existence of something, you're not going to believe in it! I respect that. You're a big boy and you don't need to believe in stuff if it isn't verifiable and you can't reproduce it and refute a thesis or two. "Science" is your saviour. Great.So..what about love? Can I prove it to the standard of scientific proof? Also, why does religious belief improve people's lives? Issues of sacrifice, turn the other cheek, love enemy etc.
steelyman40 1 month ago
@steelyman40 You wouldn't even ask that question if you knew any science, at least biology and neuroscience. First, "love" is mediated by a variety of hormones, not the least in importance is oxytocin (Google it). 2nd, altruistic behaviors have apparently been selected by evolutionary processes to enhance individual survival. Google: "altruism in animals" Evidence is accumulating that indicates that affiliative human behaviors are selected by evolutionary processes---completely natural.
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
You made an interesting point until you talked about how the religions around today survived using immoral fears of Heaven and Hell. Like many atheists, you built a straw man, demonstrated ignorance of the history of the Church and completely missed the positive impact of the Christian revolution. In short, it survived because it is in the main a positive in the world (founded Universities, argued for the importance of the rights of the individual--which was a VERY revolutionary idea etc.etc.
steelyman40 1 month ago
Good response!
ashok755 1 month ago
By your argument mr. anti-evangelist, the curse of religion (looking for the eternal source) due to our higher consciousness, would necessarily make philosophy also a "disease..." for philosophy also considers what the ultimate source of things are. And if philosophy is a disease--why so is science!--which it establishes.
roryscanlon 1 month ago
You misunderstand the difference between a dog being startled and a man asking why. It is not a matter of degree but a matter of kind. No amount of extra-sensory power or sheer cognitive, computational faculties can produce the question: why? The self-awareness that comes with "why" is more than animal, it produces the infinite lack which Fr. Barron considers the proof of God.
My point is: If you throw this argument out, not only religion goes, but philosophy. And if phil. goes; science too.
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon Barron's "infinite lack" or "quest for the ultimate perfection" is a poor excuse for evidence. First, self-actualized humans don't possess this need for the perfect. They're sufficiently centered to appreciate the PRESENT, the NOW, with no need for "pie in the sky bye and bye." Einstein, genius and mystic, found the Cosmos more than sufficent--no need for the superstition of an imagined, personal invisible sky wizard or continuation after death. Life was much,much more than enough.
BrentGrainger2000 1 month ago
@BrentGrainger2000) well the anti-evangelist here does see the infinite lack in our natures, and claims that it is a disease of our consciousness. My point was that if that's right then philosophy too is a disease.
Also einstein did see the need for God, because he believed in God.
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon Einstein's god didn't resemble your personal, vindictive, intervening god in the least! Read his comments. His was closest to the god of Spinoza---but not identical. The intelligibility of the Cosmos is shown in the verifiability of evidence and in the predictive quality of our explanations. Intelligibility is not taken on faith---as you accept your supernaturalism---it is based on consistency, constancy, and reliability--far, far beyond chance coincidence. You know no science.
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar --believing in the philosophical god is a first step... an insight which is certainly not derived from predictive evidence (experiment). Nor is intelligibility a matter of predictive evidence alone; it is the capacity to put things into words, based upon self-reflection, and the intuition of truth. Prediction, i.e. overwhelming probability does not demonstrate intelligibility.
what makes "chance coincidence" unreasonable?-- That "x" is intelligibility.
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon Mere philosophical speculation! I realize that's what philosophers do, but you have no evidence whatever for any of it. On the other hand, I have abundant evidence for self-awareness in animals (Google: mirror test). Scientists have complex mathematical models to assess "chance coincidence." If suddenly Newton's Laws ceased to be predictive, scientists would wonder about intelligibility of the Cosmos--and we'd do experiments to determine what happened. (contd)
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar ) well you shouldn't assume to know what I have and have not learned.
For philosophy all you need is logic, experience and the desire to know. Philosophers don't laugh at each other (although they do satirize and make jibes), because they learn from each other. And scientists ought not to laugh either, for it is this mixture of logic and experience (plus mathematic) which forms the very foundation of their discipline.
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon The intelligibility of the Cosmos is demonstrated with verifiable evidence every microsecond. Again you make all sorts of philosophical assertions without evidence. Is that mindset the reason that you so easily accept supernaturalism without an iota of verifiable evidence of any kind?
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar 2) how do you know that the prediction of results against a controlled environment gives evidence to a theory? what is it that gives this probabilistic evidence weight? --these are philosophical questions.
whenever a discipline becomes self-conscious it asks philosophical questions.
the nature of "intelligiblity" is not a matter of external evidence, for intelligibility is what makes evidence have any weight!
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon Because you've obviously never studied comparative animal psychology, and probably not even biology, how can you possibly understand the capabilities of animals? And if you know nothing about other animals, how can you possibly even begin to understand the human animal? Yet, you make one assertion after another. That aspect of philosophy has always mystified me. I don't understand how philosophers keep from laughing hilariously at each other.
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar 3) also the "supernatural," beyond nature, is clearly not about evidence. If it were controlled by verifiable laws it would be "natural".
many philosophers are confusing, doubtless. but the understanding of logic (what it is) is important. for instance... why do you say, I need to know about other animals to know the human animal!? I am an human animal! Why would I ask a squirrel to tell me who I am?
the lack of self-reference in modern science mystifies me.
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon It mystifies you because you know so little science! If you had even elementary biology, you would have studied the evidence that all life on earth is as ONE. All life is descended from a common ancestor. Bonobos and chimps are our closest biological relatives. The study of bonobo and chimp biology provides enormous insight into the human. Surely, you've done "compare and contrast" essays in your literature courses. The power of "compare and contrast" is enormous (contd)
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
Comment removed
roryscanlon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ContrabassClar Its not the link between monkeys and fish and cells and men that fogs my vision, so much as the "lack of self-reference" of modern science.
If science has such a powerful capacity for understanding, why don't scientists wonder where this capacity, to ask questions, came from? or what it is to ask after causes? For this is all a species of causation.
i.e. what is it about comparing and contrasting that produces insight?
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon Supernaturalists of the ordinary sort constantly make claims that the supernatural impinges or affects the natural world. Example: prayer is encouraged in virtually every religion, with the expectation that some change would happen in the natural world. Does it? No. The experimental evidence is compelling. But supernaturalist philosophers continue to urge prayer in spite of the data. That's only one example of how philosophy is disconnected from reality and is therefore (contd)
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar) Prayer is not generally a philosophical topic.
But neuroscientists are studying the brain of a pray-er and see remarkable differences.
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon As neuroscientists find with meditation and other altered states of consciousness. What scientist do NOT find is any change in the physical world. These are well-controlled, double blind experiments that find no influence of the "supernatural" on the natural, despite the promises of "gods."
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar but I have evidence of it in my own life. Too bad its inadmissible, because its personal.
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon (3) persist in philosophizing---or questioning--and not even BOTHER to find the latest scientific data? How can philosophers lack basic curiousity? It's amazing to me. The questions that trouble you are so easily informed by a bit of reading--a bit of study---a few courses. The difference between the cosmologist and the philosopher is one simple word: EVIDENCE. Frankly, that is the reason that philosophers have such a bad rep in the scientific community.
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar Don't you need to observe, experimentally manifest, the construction of life, or establishment of self-conscious in order to prove it fits your theory. Thats what you mean by evidence right.
I can also come up with Possible ways that life could arise from chemicals but you would not like that. Nor would you like to hear the reputation of scientists in philosophical circles... but hopefully we can pass beyond our circles a bit. Otherwise there's no point.
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar 2) cells will never be observed to be born from a cosmic soup (not to say motivated scientists aren't trying)... is because it is impossible for life to emerge from death without some higher, immaterial, force. No amount of mixing of forces or energies or surfaces and molecules can give rise to an organism which has its own principle for development within itself--just as a pile of saw dust is not a tree...
Unless(!) there were a force other than random movement at work.
roryscanlon 1 month ago
Comment removed
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon Show me the proof of a requirement for an "immaterial force." You just know no science: no biology, no biochemistry, no molecular biology. And you make that absurd assertion with no evidence? You might as well assert that because we can't observe it, humans arose 4,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden! But perhaps you think that too? If you do, discussion with you is hopeless. Please speak with a good biologist at any university near you. And read Nick Lane's "Life Ascending."
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ContrabassClar 3) The issue I'm raising comes out in your argument. Sure we can look for a link from monkeys to pre-humans, or from chemicals to cell-like entities. Postulating a middle state Pre-self-conscious, life-Like--makes it seem as if the gap b/w life and death, consciousness and sentience, is bridgeable by 'evidence.'
It is not bridgeable: the pre-human would either be human or not. The cell-like entity would be alive or not. You'd have to postulate another bridge, ad infinitum.
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon 4) the modern scientist, as I understand it, looks at How things work in order to find laws of relationship in the universe. Laws which give experimental wonder, and technological benefit. Laws which give an inkling of what things are.
The philosopher asks "What is...?" in order to understand what it is for that thing, say "laws," to exist in the first place. We look for the logical structure of mind and reality. In order to give an inkling of "why..."
We can work hand in hand.
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon No, as long as philosophers persist in wilfull ignorance of science, we cannot work "hand in hand." Throughout our discussions, I've observed repeatedly that you have no knowledge of even elementary biology, chemistry, and physics. Why is it that an undergraduate majoring in natural science MUST acquire a working knowledge of the humanities, but a philosophy major doesn't need basic science? Can you explain that? Please take a good bio course and read "Life Ascending."
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar an immaterial force is necessary for life because "organization" itself--the fact that a living being works upon itself, controls its relationship to its environment and establishes patterns of growth and production is not materially explicable. the order itself is what establishes the existence of the organism, not the mere, inert matter.
A living thing has a life of its own. Processes, like mathematical formulas, are dead.
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon That is not proof! That isn't evidence! That's ridiculous assertion founded on an utter lack of knowledge of modern biology, biochemistry and molecular biology! You know no chemistry either or otherwise you wouldn't claim that "mere inert matter" is not extraordinarily complex. No wonder scientists find most philosophers ignorant and stupid. Please, please take a course! Just one! Biology? Chemistry? Physics? You're making a foolish ass of yourself buddy. It's sad.
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar I've taken all those courses. Can you not see that I disagree??
Complexity is not the same thing as life... throwing millions of object into a whirlwind (very complex) does not make that whirlwind alive! It must order itself to be alive!
You don't even seem to recognize the existence of other forms of knowledge! Its not that you reject the findings of philosophers, but you reject the very existence of philosophy!
Perhaps I am not even allowed to disagree with you?
roryscanlon 1 month ago
@roryscanlon Whether you've taken a course or not, you do not UNDERSTAND biochemistry, biology, and molecular biology. If you did, you WOULDN'T disagree because you would understand the perfectly reasonable evolution of life from inanimate materials. It's so very, very easy to understand the scenario from basic biochemistry. Have you read "Life Ascending" by Nick Lane? The problem with philosophy, over and over, is that EVIDENCE is unimportant. It's so very sad.
ContrabassClar 1 month ago