Undoubtedly atheists are far less tolerant of religions than perhaps ther were decades ago. Religion was stronger in those times. I think it is condescending to say to atheists their non-belief is really belief disguised. I an atheist after lots of reflection and discourse and discussion. I have not entered into this lightly and I do not say God doesn't exist merely that I see no evidence of it. I would not say to you that your beliefs are a function of the fact that you don't believe really!
What kind of "loving god" would make "salvation" dependent on "faith" without verifiable evidence of any kind? What kind of "loving god" would deprive 1.2 billion Hindus Indians of the "right religion," consigning them to torture in hell for eternity, according to the NT? What kind of "loving god" would permit the suffering of hundreds of millions of innocent children throughout the world every year? Calling such a god "mysterious" is tiresome, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible.
@sciencelives2000 Since when were you an expert on biblical exegesis? Jesus died for all and desires that all be saved. Apart from Peter ((NT) the Catholic Catechism and Vatican 2 Lumen Gentium e.g.utterly refute your contention. What are you and your ilk doing about the millions suffering while you live in your comfortable science bubble.. I know from work with them what many Christians are doing for them. The verifiable evidence warcry is tiresome and irrelevant.
@kajakpaddler92 So there is no objective ground for morality, no purpose to the universe, we all just come into being randomly and pass out of being, and the entire universe just winds down until it dissolves into oblivion. Where, precisely, is the "meaning" in all this?!
@wordonfirevideo as a student of physics, I'll say ... nope there is no purpose for the universe... just get over it... you are not the pinnacle of everything. As for morality, I think it's pretty clear that we dont get it from the Bible...
@wordonfirevideo no you've proven that you didn't read my coment... the fact that the universe is not some kind of "cosmic Big-Brother" doesnt mean that my life is meaningles (which is what you said)
@kajakpaddler92 Very well said! The utter and complete arrogance of supernaturalists who claim that their supernaturalism----accepted with NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE WHATEVER---makes their lives meaningful and purposeful is completely beyond my ken. Perhaps this very arrogance is one of the best possible arguments against supernaturalism?? Of course, no supernaturalist could possibly understand that level of irony because they remain so sadly immersed in evidence-free thinking. Enjoy your life!!!
@sciencelives2000 It is clear that you are philosophically and religiously (what's wrong with the word "religious"?) ignorant. If metaphysics meant physics it would not be metaphysics. Can you see love,pain and fair under your microscope (if indeed you are a scientist). What have you to say to the very many religious respected scientists in the world of various religious persuasions - are they nutty, studpid or just intellectually dishonest?
@GordonSou The tone of your remarks is so loving and kind---so lacking in ad hominem attack and so filled with verifiable evidence----that I'm forced to conclude that you must be a supernaturalist. Am I correct?
@sciencelives2000 Your god is rationalism (not reason, mind). Your response is pure waffle - not a rational response to my points. Rationalists live in a metaphysical cave (see Plato's Republic Bk 7). Staying with the metaphor, my kind of love is to help people like you turn your heads round so you realize that you are looking at your own shadows, which you mistake for reality.
@GordonSou I'm curious. How far would you, as a supernaturalist, go to show me your "love?" Thomas Aquinas developed a detailed philosophical defense for the torture and burning of those who were unorthodox because he felt that it was the best way to "love" them. Would you agree with his philosophy? Just curious.
@sciencelives2000 You are still waffling. You still have not responded to either of my two replies yesterday which deal with facts, not rhetoric. Give me the precise reference to Aquinas, I'll cheerfully look it up in my library and reply to the only specific I have yet heard from you. Is that how you do your "science"?
@GordonSou Your petulant demand for my response to your inane assertions displays your arrogance. Nonetheless, because you obviously don't know Aquinas very well, I will supply you with the reference. He is quite clear. A recovering Catholic, like myself, who denies the "doctrines" of the Church is declared a heretic. Heretics "deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death."Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2.
@sciencelives2000 What is petulant about expecting a response? Callling my comments inane is not a response. What precisely are you doing for the millions of suffering in your cosy suburb while thousands of dedicated Christians are in the front line with them?
For any others interested the reference to the Summa is IIaIIae,q11a.3. Your quote is selective - making no reference to the call to tolerance, welcoming the repentant and the fact that the civil authoritiies dealt
@GordonSou (2) with death penalties because of the unhappy closeness of Church and State which no Catholic defends today. You ignore the reality stated that theft attracted the death penallty i.e. the historical setting.Incarnational Church means it is sometimes historically condtioned.
More to the point it seems you are "recovering" from your misunderstanding of the Catholic Church and its Magisterium. Theological opinion does not represent the Deposit of Faith - Aquinas" views ...
@GordonSou (3) are not doctrine. Error is not heresy. There have been two official catechisms in the 2 milennia history of the Church - The Roman Catechism published in the 16th century and the 1992 CCC. Get a copy of each, look up error and heresy in both and learn what you are criticizing before sharing your confusion in public. Try being honest - are you seriously suggesting any Christian believes heretics should be subjected to criminal penalties?
@GordonSou Such sophistry! Such historical revisionism! For anyone interested, I'd urge Googling one word: INQUISITION. Supernaturalists enjoy taking credit for what they consider "good stuff" in history, but defend the "bad stuff" by saying that no supernaturalist would do that today. Oh, by the way, I'm certainly pleased that you wouldn't advocate torture and execution for apostates and heretics today. Is that progress, or what!?! :-)
@sciencelives2000 After all these exchanges you still have not responded to any of my points or questions regarding your silly comment on 1.2bn Hindus; your moral hypocrisy regarding the world's poor or how you stand with the many religious scientists in the world.
Your only attempt to extricate yourself from compulsive waffle is to give a distorted report on Aquinas; Summa and demonstrate your ignorance of and pathological prejudice against the Catholic faith. When I point.
@GordonSou this out to you instead of taking the opportunity to disabuse yourself of your ignorance you respond with more emotional waffle and are silly enough to invite us to join in more of your deluded prejudices with the old, tired chestnut - the inquisition. Anyone that does seriously take you up on looking into this will see just how shallow your history is, never mind your religious understanding.
@sciencelives2000 No discomfort here. I appreciate the opportunity which you have given me to demonstrate how empty your position is. Not so much personally (although if this has helped you that is good) but ideologically, philosophically, theologically and from a good old "common sense" perspective. If I was reading these comments I would be asking myself - Why doesn't he (you) respond to the issues - they are not difficult?
@kajakpaddler92 Well then tell me, precisely, where you think this "meaning" comes from. I mean, you can invent all sorts of subjective fantasies, but if the universe is just dumbly there and you and everyone you love will eventually die and fade into oblivion, Sartre had it right: la vie est absurde. You can divert yourself with little activities and pursuits, but to dignify that with the term "meaning" strikes me as ridiculous.
@wordonfirevideo little activities??? you think that studying relativity, solving physics problems, doing experiments with an atom you think that that's a "little activity"? try it yourself and see what you get! For me it's one of the greatest things of life, and that's what I'm devoting my life to. Im sorry that you cant apreciate the material world, I'm sorry that you need an Almighty dictator for that.. let me correct you: La vie n'est pas absurde si on sais la comprendre!
@kajakpaddler92 First of all, I'm afraid you've got to work on your French a bit! Second, you can find all of the subjective delight you want in doing science experiments, but it's more than a stretch to say that this provides "meaning" when you will die and stay in your grave and the universe turns away from you with utter indifference. So I mean, knock yourself out doing science experiments, but you're not going to convince me that this somehow magically makes your life "meaningful."
@kajakpaddler92 Well said! I might add just a little twist. As a scientist myself, I've found that non-scientists have no conception whatever of the amazing power of discovering new things about the Cosmos. I don't blame them for their lack---but I see it repeatedly. For Einstein, a man who rejected the "childish superstition" of a personal god and who found the concept of afterlife quite ridiculous, the ability and privilege of understanding the Cosmos, even a bit, was far more than enough.
@kajakpaddler92 Many contemporary philosophers have developed coherent, compelling systems of thought leading to "meaning" and "purpose" without the necessity of the delusion of some god or other. You know in the deepest recesses of your mind that you value living in the NOW and need no imaginary spirits. We are so fortunate to be able to contemplate the Cosmos. For Einstein, and for me, that alone is much more than sufficient for enduring meaning. We all die. Not all of us truly LIVE!
@wordonfirevideo I'll add though, my life as an atheist is FULL of meaning, in that I feel happy I have a familly to which I'm accountable to, I can love I can have compasion even learn about the universe, and I'm an atheist how do you explain that? am I just lying...
@badpanda84 Yeah. To worship God means to orient one's whole life to the unconditioned good, to that which alone can satisfy the deepest longing of the heart. Worship of God is precisely where meaning is found.
It seems to me that science, philosophy, and the fine arts all constitute routes to the understanding of the Cosmos and ourselves. All three are open to verifiable evidence For science, such evidence is foundational, but all of philosophy and art are certainly informed by such evidence Supernaturalism, on the other hand, has no need whatever for verifiable evidence. its assertions require no such evidence. Indeed, supernaturalists often reject verifiable evidence as of no consequence whatever.
@Biologist1947 What do you mean by "evidence?" I find that it's a term that the advocates of scientism throw around all the time but rarely define. The metaphysician, for example, is operating in a perfectly rational framework, but he is not looking for the kind of "evidence" that a scientist looks for. In a similar way, an historian looks for his own kind of "evidence." Most of the claims of Christianity are either metaphysical or historical, which means they are rational, if not scientific
@wordonfirevideo Please note that I was very careful to use the term VERIFIABLE evidence.Science, philosophy, and the arts are all informed by VERIFIABLE evidence Supernaturalism doesn't rely on verification. If we were to examine Mormonism, you most certainly would doubt the writings of Joseph Smith, no matter how many attest to their dictation by Moroni. Countless examples of compelling cult figures, charlatans, etc. exist. No verification is required by supernaturalists. Hence, my point.
@wordonfirevideo As you know, historical verifiability utilizes different standards from contemporary verifiable evidence For history, multiple, contemporaneous sources are extremely important for credibility. Even there, one must always be aware of reporting bias, dubious hearsay, etc. Given that, the existence of Joseph Smith is quite verifiable. His writings are verifiable. That Mormonism has grown exponentially in numbers from 6 people in 1830 to 14 M in 2012 is verifiable. (contd)
@Biologist1947 We have four documents, in the genre of ancient biography, attesting to Jesus, more documentary evidence than we have for almost any other ancient figure. There are indeed some attestations to him outside of the Gospels--in Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny--but the Gospels themselves provide rich, multiple attestation for Jesus, his life, miracles, and resurrection. What I suspect in you is really an anti-supernaturalist bias.
@wordonfirevideo (2) Those kinds of historical events are entirely credible and verifiable by valid contemporaneous sources. Where you would disagree about Mormonism is whether Smith's writings were dictated by Moroni and whether the narrative and theology in them are historically accurate--despite the attestations of thousands of individuals contemporary to Smith who wrote that they are and staked their very lives on what they saw as "facts" about them. So, with that abundant historical (contd)
@Biologist1947 But friend, you're begging the question! You're saying that only purely natural events are "credible," and hence, presto-chango, the Gospels are unreliable. Rid yourself of your anti-supernaturalist bias, and you might find yourself compelled by these densely-textured witnesses from the ancient world.
@wordonfirevideo No NT document is contemporaneous with the events. The Roman historians that you cite were arguably altered--and none speak of NT "miracles." The "densely-textured witnesses" that you speak of are much like the Book of Mormon--a powerfully written document, accepted as the word of god by millions, but which you refuse to accept, based upon lack of historical credibility. I have no anti-supernaturalist bias---I have a firm pro-verifiable, documented, independent evidence bias.
@Biologist1947 So I'm gathering you would accept as a complete fabrication a book written in the year 2000 about the Kennedy assassination, even if that book were based on the recollections of eye-witnesses. And if you found four texts on the Kennedy assassination, all agreeing in the essentials of the story, but all written around the year 2000, you would reject them as fabrications. Just sayin'...
@wordonfirevideo You reject the Book of Mormon despite its contemporaneous eyewitness. Why? It is powerfully written. Millions accept it as valid / verified and hundreds died affirming its contents. It was written less than 200 years ago, as opposed to 2000. We have two presidential candidates for nomination by the GOP who adamantly affirm its veracity. What is it about the Book of Mormon that makes you incredulous? Your answer is likely to be similar to what makes me question the NT.
@Biologist1947 Thanks to you and Fr Barron for this engaging dialogue. "Controversy" used to be regarded as an importantant means to further understanding and all too often comments on the net are reduced, at best to half baked uninformed opinions screamed at the other or rudeness and denigration which is unedifying and demeaning.
It will not surprise you if I say that I agree with Fr Barron but it is clear that you have taken the trouble to inform yourself and your comments are..
@GordonSou expressed coherently. I hope you both pursue this conversation which is both good example and thought-provoking. I won't buy into the Mormon issue - I believe the fulness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church and that non-Catholics are, in a manner which I cannot understand, loved by Christ and that he desires that all be saved.
I think you are a sincere person but you want to force a "fourth dimension" into a three dimensional worldview. In our conversation I felt ...
@GordonSou (3) a common sincerity but faith blocked us. We Catholics accept many reasons for atheism (See Vatican II and CCC) including fault on our part but while some aspects of religion are accessible to reason eg existence of God, the heart of Christianity is a deep, mystical and personal relationship with Christ in faith. As Augustine wrote - God became man that men might become gods - divinized as the Desert Fathers put it. Compared with this the rest is dust. I pray
@GordonSou I nearly forgot to mention something to you in my previous post. If you're really interested in the historicity of the New Testament, I recommend viewing the YouTube videos of Prof. Bart Ehrman, noted biblical scholar and commentator. He possesses enormous expertise and understanding of the NT, as well as the literature and history of the early centuries of Christianity. His videos will give you an understanding of the origins of the books of the NT, and their literary basis.
@Biologist1947 Bart Ehrman is a second-rate scholar with a deep prejudice against Christianity (born in reaction to his former fundamentalism) and whose works have been largely repudiated by mainstream academe. For a summary of the critiques against him, I'd recommend Ben Witherington.
@wordonfirevideo Thanks Father Barron. And thank you for your wonderful contribution to the New Evangelization - especially as we approach the Year of Faith. I have brought your excellent apostolate to the attention of some friends down here (Australia) and, as the MCs say, may God be your only reward.
@GordonSou Thanks for your kind words.You are a person sincere in your beliefs.Rather than refer to myself as an atheist, i.e., one who perceives insufficient evidence for the existence of any god, I refer to myself as a skeptic, one who values verifiable evidence as the gold standard for "knowing."As both a scientist and professional musician, I cherish the arts and the power of intelligent philosophical speculation as well. Understanding religion is critical b/c it is tied to cultural values.
@Biologist1947 Thanks for bit of background on yourself. The key word is "understanding" religion which places it out there. That has its place but we seek knowledge in the Hebrew/biblical sense. Its helpful to understand my wife (though I never shall completely) but if that was the total of our relationship it would be pretty impoverished. Eros and, much less agape, is not a question of mere understanding.
We speak of faith seeking understanding and Newman said a thousand ...
@GordonSou (2) questions do not make one doubt. The need to broaden the scope of our vision is nicely expressed in Plato's Republic Bk 7 (the cave) but we also get deep insights into wisdom (as opposed to mere knowledge) in The Apology, Crito and Phaedo. I was introduced to these and Roman philosophers such Cicero and Boethius at 19. Francis Bacon said that a lititle philosophy leads one away from religion but when he grows deep in philosophy he return to it.
@GordonSou East with no religious education I was drawn to Theravadin Buddhism which taught me religion is "existential" . If you are dying with a poisoned arrow stuck in you you do not discuss details about the arrow - you pull it out. Later I discovered the breadth of mysticism in Huxley's Perennial Philosophy
and deeper in Eckhart and John of the Cross (and others) - also Evelyn Underhill's magisterial Mysticism. Inevitably I was being led, with my free acquiescence, to the ...
@GordonSou Catholic Church. Faith seeking understanding in 37 years of study of dogmatic, biblical, moral and spiritual theology and sacramental life invites one to an interior life which is not irrational but suprarational. Yet I found the Catholic Church so richly incarnational - matter matters - God took on flesh, beauty is important in all its forms, some of the greatest philosophers continue to be at home here and I have met Christ in his poorest in 4 continents.
@GordonSou Thanks for the background on yourself. Yours is a most interesting journey. While, as you've gathered, I find insufficient evidence for the acceptance of the existence of any of the countless gods ever invented by human kind, one ignores religion at one's decided peril. The major religions of the world spring from specific cultures and influence those cultures. If one has any hope of understanding world politics, one must understand religion and the desire of humans to invent them.
@Biologist1947 Even with a cursory study of comparative religion you must surely know that all great religious traditions make a distinction between God and gods. Your refusal to be open to a transcendent reality (which is your right) ignores the accumulalted wisdom of millennia and the witness of the most inspiring lives. I cannot see how you insist on the need for religions when your position makes no sense to those ..
@GordonSou who practice those religions. Your comments suggest that men and women of towering intellect and often heroic virtue are too stupid to see through their own naivite. This very consideration led me as a young man to embark on a serioius enquiry into the sources because even given the arrogance of youth it struck me as incredible hubris if I would not at least listen to a Plato or Cicero, an Augustine or Aquinas, a Buddha or Lao Tzu. Otherwise our ignorance is invincible.
@Biologist1947 I don't usually do brief but I'll try. I meant to add to my last comment that to advocate religious education throughout the world when you think religion is fake i.e. quaint cultural curiosities invented by creative imaginations is analogous to saying all children should be vaccinated against pollio but you believe the vaccine is merely a placebo.
@GordonSou Respectfully, you miss my point. While I do think that religions are inventions of the human imagination---some designed brilliantly---they obviously exist, they arise from cultural traditions, and they decidedly influence those traditions. Every person ought to understand global politics and economics and this requires an understanding of the major religions of the world. Even the most ardent skeptic probably encounters supernaturalist belief on a daily basis---it's inescapable.
@Biologist1947 From your comments in this conversation it seems you have diligently enquired into what new atheists think about religion but that you are not well versed in theology or metaphysics i.e. you do not know in depth the teachings of the religions themselves or classic philosophy, Thomism etc. More importantly, by your own admission you have no EXPERIENCE, ascetically or mystically, of religion (one cannot experience in this sense what one believes to be fiction).
@GordonSou (2) Apart from its most primitive forms religion is existential and mystical (as indicated throughout my comments but also common knowledge). Therefore it seems to me that your position is rather like that of a person who has never held a tennis racquet offering his services as coach to a tennis champion i.e. the billions of believers in the world and the giants of philosophy.
This seems an elitist approach based on rather shaky foundations.
@GordonSou Actually, what you don't realize is that I am a one-time fervent Catholic theist. As I matured, I realized that there is not a scintilla of verifiable evidence for any god, and certainly not for the Catholic approach to supernaturalism. The science of psychology shows us that mystical experiences are common but the underlying neurology for them is unclear at this point in time. The experiences themselves are well-documented across cultures and of course across all religions.
@Biologist1947 I still can't understand how you can presume that you are more "mature" and more intelligent than Socrates, Augustine, Aquinas, Lao Tzu, Shankara, St Francis of Assisii, St John of the Cross, Gandhi, Chesterton, Bl John Paul II, Pope Benedict et al so that you can be so dismissive of their writings and their lives.
Whatever you were you cannot have delved deeply into these unless yours is a case of invincible ignorance. As a former Catholic you will know this is
@GordonSou (2) is not a pejorative but a theological term.
Who knows what so blocks faith ... the late Fr Thomas Dubay wrote a most enlightening book on this subject - Authenticity to do with discernment when even
intelligent people given the same realities and facullties come to opposite conclusions. In Buddhism scepticism is listed as one of the "five hindrances" to enlightenment. Not a bar on questioning but on closing the mind and the heart.
@GordonSou Argument from authority is not compelling. Scientists do not argue from authority. They argue from verifiable evidence and falsifiable explanations. That is one of the essential differences between supernaturalism, as it is often practiced, and science. Scientists enjoy finding verifiable evidence that is in opposition even to long-established ideas. We search for it. We try diligently to FALSIFY even our most cherished notions. Science PROGRESSES ONLY in that way. (contd)
@Biologist1947 I haven't been talking about authority - what has mystical got to do with authority? I am talking about man as a spiritual being with a spiritual faculty responding to the spiritual reality which we call God (not gods - that is something different). You seem to want to look at everything under a microscope but reality is bigger than that. As a musician you must intuit that but you have made a god of rationalism.
@GordonSou Your arguments are not compelling. Supernaturalists often use arguments that I refer to as "if only you." Nope. I have acknowledged that a desire for supernaturalism, magic and superstition---invisible agency---and its consequent anxiolysis exists in many people. We find it represented in every form of supernaturalism that we know about. But such does NOT CONSTITUTE verifiable evidence for the existence of any of the countless gods invented by human beings over the centuries.
@GordonSou (2) There is nothing more wonderful than the surprise---for in the SURPRISE is a new approach, a new idea, a new possibility. Supernaturalism, as it is practiced in most religions, relies on revelation and authority, either from a text or from individuals. Science relies on verifiable evidence and falsifiable explanations. We elevate the scientists who challenge our most cherished ideas and award them Nobel prizes. Einstein is honored in part b/c he destroyed Newtonian cosmology
@Biologist1947 Revelation and authority (of God's revelation) are part of religion but mystical union with God in Western theology, divinization in Orthodox, goes beyond, without denying this. That is the heart of religion which you insist on leaving out of the equation because it does not fit in your limited algebra. The world elevates scientists for being great scientists - not for being fhalf-baked philosophers or theologians.
@Biologist1947 You surely know that there are very many respected scientists in the world who actively belong to various religions. As you insist that a religious perspective (in the proper sense, a belief in God, worship, prayer etc) is incompatible with the proper perspective of scientists (you have consistently spoken as if on behalf of scientists) are you saying your religious colleagues lack professional integrity or intellectual honesty?
@GordonSou Are you trying to trap me? LOL. You'll have to be much more clever than that!
Of course there are supernaturalist scientists who separate their private supernaturalism from their work as scientists. The most famous is Francis Collins. On the plus side, Collins is a wonderful opponent to the Christian fundamentalism that would deny Evolution.
Supernaturalism provides many psychological crutches to its adherents and becomes very tempting to them, even to some scientists. (contd)
@Biologist1947 I'm interested in truth not trapping:) You have consistently said that the perspective of a scientist precludes a "supernaturalist" perspective. You don't answer my question by simply saying they don't apply their religion to their science. Of course they don't - that's been my thesis all along. Either science and "supernaturalism" are compatible because they deal with separate aspects of reality or or the Christian/Muslim etc scientist lacks intellectual honesty
@GordonSou You are sort of acknowledging this by referring to schizophrenic - but if they have no pathological condition (schizophrenia) you really mean intellectual dishonesty.
@GordonSou Come on! Unless you check definitions, your arguments will be even less compelling than usual. "Schizophrenic" definition: "characterized by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements."
Supernaturalist scientists split their supernaturalism from their science. Still, as I pointed out before, supernaturalism among scientists is in precipitous decline. As I myself awoke from my own personal supernaturalist delusion, they are awakening from theirs as well!
@Biologist1947 The coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements would hardly be considered healthy - but I don't want to split hairs. They split their supernaturlism from their science because they understand the obvious - they are different - otherwise sooner or later the inner conflict would tell. Anyway, as much as I appreciate the sort of robust debate we are having I suspect we have exhausted it. At least we have managed to debate it - no small thing today!
@GordonSou I still urge you to Google Francis Collins and read about him. He is the quintessential example of the supernaturalist scientist. The most revealing conclusion that I've reached after reading many of his quotes is that he doesn't claim that supernaturalism can be defended successfully either on the basis of verifiable evidence or philosophical speculation. For him, supernaturalism is experiential---"faith" is the arbiter. His conversion story is completely consistent with that.
@GordonSou You may be interested in checking Google references to Francis Collins. His supernaturalism has been the subject of much discussion among his fellow scientists. You will find many quotes from him in which he relates how a frozen waterfall triggered his supernaturalism. You will also find quotes in which he states quite simply that there is no verifiable evidence whatever for his god and that his supernaturalism is based quite simply on faith.
@GordonSou The trend, of course, is that fewer and fewer scientists, especially biologists, physicists and cosmologists are supernaturalists.
Even if some cling to supernaturalism in their private lives, they know that their science disallows supernaturalism as a valid explanation for their findings and therefore you will never see it mentioned in their scientific publications.
In essence, such scientists separate their science from their supernaturalism.
@Biologist1947 My references to the mystical nature of religion was not to "mystical experiences" by which spiritual theology refers to locutions, visions etc. In Catholic and Orthodox spiiriitual theology the word mystical has much deeper meaning which I could not attempt to explain in a forum such as this and which is certainly well outside the competence of psychology. Like many, perhaps when a Catholic you did not pray, study and reflect deeply enough. With prayers.
@Biologist1947 Well, for one thing, it is based on the personal, mystical experience of one man, whereas Christianity rests upon the very public career of Jesus of Nazareth, including his resurrection, which was attested to by a multiplicity of people. Further, there are 27 texts clustering around Jesus that bear a consistent witness to him.
@wordonfirevideo Aren't there far, far more than a mere 27? Aren't the 27 you cite (3^3 not chosen by accident) the ones selected as "true"centuries after they were written--the others brutally suppressed? Weren't they selected only AFTER the predominant view was established for a union of Hebraic messianism with the cult of Mithras? Finally, even if the Book of Mormon is the view of one mystic, why is it less valid / verifiable, simply because it is one book? Millions believe it.
@wordonfirevideo (3) evidence, you, yourself, do not find those reports credible---even with the martyrdom experienced by many Mormons adhering strongly to their beliefs. Similarly, given that there are no INDEPENDENT reports of NT "miracles," the supporting documents were all written 20 to 60 years following the supposed events, relying on hearsay, the similarities of NT reports to contemporary mystery religions, as well as the tendency of humans (as shown by Mormonism) to accept (contd)
@wordonfirevideo (4) ideas without verifiable evidence if such ideas appeal strongly to them or satisfy particular psychological needs, I don't find the NT reports historically credible. Please note that you and I actually have a very similar approach to history. You apply that approach to Mormonism---very effectively, I might add. I apply the approach to all of history---insisting on adequate, documented, independently verified evidence-- BOTH about Mormonism and about Christianity.
Leave it to people of faith and especially a man with a clerical collar on to claim how any atheist should act. If it's so easy to say that atheists have no logical arguments then why have not these arguments (some of which are literally thousands of years old) been addressed to the satisfaction of either side? I will never willingly place myself under the authority of a revealed religion nor will I consider any cleric or spokesman an authority on what it is to be a human being.
@Mudflappus No. I'm saying that some atheists are illogical. Others, like Sartre and Camus, are consistent. My point is that the consistent, logically compelling, atheists are those who know that, without God, life is absurd.
The idea that life is absurd without god is an opinion of "deep" sadness. Allow me for a moment to follow something here. No god = no good. no good = no evil. no evil = no pain. no pain = no experience to no reason. Okay now try this no god = no reason for martyrdom, no martyrdom = no basic need for genocide at least religiously. Now granted mine needs less steps because my point is easy to take. Now try god. god,good,evil,pain,experience,joy,safety or of course eternal pain... OUCH sucks...
Dificilmente encontrare otro individuo tan repugnante como este desquiciado individuo llamado Barron. Nunca pense que era posible concebir tanta tonteria como las que habla este charlatan desvergonzado. Nomas le fata que diga que la tierra y la luna son cuadradas o triangulares.
Por favor gente eduquense para que les laven el cerebro estos charlatanes con sus cuentos chinos de que existe un amigo invisible llamado dios.
I watch this insane man called Father Barron on tv today 1/11/2012
These are actual words said by Barron, he made the fallowing assertion:
"God can't be known! even by the saints in heaven,but we must try to know him "
What an absolutely absurd affirmation, it alone is flagrant evidence of his irrationality & the irrationality of Christianity, and those who believe the nonsense that is religion!
@wordonfirevideo With respect, you ignore two very important things in your argument. 1) The ideas of philosophers are surely influenced by their personalities. Sartre and Camus were both examples of narcissism and negativity. That influenced their views of a life without supernaturalism.Their lives would be MEANINGLESS even with some form of supernaturalism! 2) Dennett, Nielsen and DOZENS of other philosophers make coherent arguments and live lives FULL of meaning, power, and productivity.
Have I understood you correctly? You seem to be saying that our disatisfaction with the material world is symptomatic of a desire for God? How so? Dont we simply have desires that are driven by evolution to make us need? One of those needs is to find an explanation for our existence - hence we invent Gods. Not wishing be in anyway disrespectful to you personally Father but why is your God any more real that that of Muslims, Hindus etc. Aren't they all a function of our desire for an explanation?
Father you seem to suggest that things that are popular are bad or somehow frivolous and unjustified. Atheism is growing in popularity because it offers people something religion cannot - realism and rationality.
However, life is about more than human longevity. This is denied to the great majority on this planet. Science does not feed the millions of children in Third World countries dying of TB because of malnutrition, hundreds of thousands of whom are fed and educated thanks to the Catholic organization Marysmeals, and many more by Salesians, Missionaries of Charity etc etc. Science does/can not carry the emaciated body of the dying to Kalighat or comfort the blind, crippled orphan in Daya Dan.
@GordonSou Scientism is merely the totality of attitudes of scientists as we do our work. And what are those attitudes? Quite simple actually. Using the tools available to us, we seek VERIFIABLE evidence and use that evidence to create robust, broad, predictive, provisional, yet FALSIFIABLE explanations for that evidence, DISALLOWING supernaturalism, superstition, and magic as valid explanations. It is the latter clause that bothers supernaturalists, I suspect, but that IS science.
@Biologist1947 I agree with your definitiion of scientism as one definition. The other, which is clearly intended from the context of the comments is "the excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques". Apart from the unnecessary use of block capitals in your response, which tend to distract rather like shouting in a discussion, I think your description of science (not scientism) is reasonable. Serious religious people are not "bothered" by science ...
@GordonSou ...2" disallowing supernaturalism, supersition and magic as valid explanations." Quite the contrary: science, precisely because it is science, deals with natural phenomena in the manner you describe. Religion, which I understand you to mean by supernaturalism, is not the proper sphere of science and its methods,no more than ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics,which are properly the subject of philosophy.
I take it that your silence with regard to the other fourteen sentences
@GordonSou ...3 in my comment imply either agreement or, more likely, a remarkable inability to consider that perhaps the countless philosophers, theologians and educated lay people who for milennia and to this day held deep religious conviction are not insane or stupid. It is a dead end to seek answers to religious or philosophical questions through science and vice versa.
@GordonSou The definition of "scientism" that I provided is the definition that we scientists ourselves use. Frankly, you'll find the word on the editorial pages of major scientific publications such as "Scientific American." Your false definition is one that threatened philosophers and theologians use often. It's really quite sad. Your assertion that religious people are not "bothered" by science should be compared with the list of court cases brought by creationists in the U.S. Not bothered?
@Biologist1947 The definition which I gave is that of the Oxford Dictionary (both English and American) and, as I stated, they also accommodate your definition. I was not aware that the Oxford dictionary was compiled by "threatened philosophers and theologians".
"Rellilgious people" comprise billions of people of different religions. The billion plus Catholics are explicitly and emphatically taught that the first chapter of the bible is neither an historical nor scientific ...
@GordonSou ..2 treatise but an expression of theological truths. Read any Cathollic commentary on the bible or the Catholic Catechism.The billions comprising Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists are not even privy to the Bible. Only a smalll minoriity of Protestant fundamentalists read Genesis 1 literally. It is theologically irrelevant whether God creates in 6 days or billions of years. But the theological truths (amenable to faith and reason) are of immeasurable relevance to homo sapiens.
@GordonSou Your implication is that Evangelical Christians in the United States are not serious religionists? They'd probably disagree with you. Most of them are EXTREMELY threatened by evolutionary biology---so much so that the acceptance of evolutionary theory has become a litmus test for their politicians! The disagreements among supernaturalists is one of the most potent arguments indicating that supernaturalism is entirely a matter of opinion, rather than in any way evidence-based.
@Biologist1947 With respect to my Evangelical brethren if they believe Genesis 1 is to be read literally they are at odds with the rest of the monothesits in the world. I would disagree with a biologist who said the fact of evolution disproves (the metapahysical issue) that God exists or that there must be an ultimate cause of causes (which we call God - Aristotle, Aquinas etc). I also disagree that the world was created in 6 days because the Bible says so. No contradiction ...
@GordonSou --2 one is dealing with a scientifc issue (unless it exceeds its legitmate boundaries and attempts philosophical speculation) and the other a philosophical issue (unless it exceeds its proper boundaries).
Maybe the American Protestant Evangelists you mention are objecting to scientists trying to be philosophers - I don't know, I'm an Englishman living in the antipodes.
@GordonSou As an Anglophile I heartily respect English sensibilities! Nonetheless, I'd encourage you to study U.S. politics and the influence of religionists on our politics. Evangelical Christians in the U.S. are insistent upon: 1) denying evolutionary theory; 2) prohibiting its instruction in public schools; 3) creating every barrier imaginable to its acceptance in American culture; 4) using it as a litmus test for politicians; and 5) using the courts to block the teaching of evolution.
@Biologist1947 Re your last sentence - the subject of natural religion deals with the universal reality of religious experience. As a Catholic I believe (eg Vatican II Lumen Gentium) that all religions contain some truth because man is essentially a religious (as well as rational and animal) being. The fulness of religious truth I believe is the subject of revealed relilgion- in the mystery of Christ, amenable to many in ways I cannot know. But many for sure like to argue.
@GordonSou I'd encourage you to read Daniel Dennett, one of my favorite philosophers. YouTube is filled with his videos as well. He is most thoughtful, a genuine philosopher, but also respectful of verifiable evidence. He has much to say about the origins of supernaturalism in our evolutionary past as a species. He doesn't denigrate supernaturalism, but he does provide a framework for its understanding. You'd find it most interesting, I believe. Have fun in your continuing quest!
@Biologist1947 Thank you. I will get hold of a copy of Dennett's work on Amazon. In our discussion I think what has been most important is not that we naively insist that we must agree but that we have engaged in a genuine dialogue, with goodwill, mutual respect and a mutual quest for the truth rather than merely to "win an argument." May I also suggest The Dialectics of Secularization, a dialogue between Jurgen Habermas and Joseph Ratzinger and reciprocate your good wishes.
@GordonSou One of Dennett's primary recommendations, based upon philosophy informed by science, is that ALL children be taught about ALL of the world's religions--their prohibitions, their requirements, their creeds, their gods, their history, their music, their culture. Religions ARE important. Children show know about ALL of the major religions of the world. It should be a FUNDAMENTAL part of everyone's education. This is in remarkable agreement with your ideas.
@Biologist1947 The world desperately needs human solidarity, acceptance. We will not all agree and share the same worldview but we must endeavour to better understand what the other truly believes or thinks and not our half-baked prejudices and I suspect Dennett is aiming at that. But we need to avoid indifferentism and syncretism confusing children with the idea that all religions are the same.
Religions are not merely doctrines and customes. Ultimately one engages the same ..
@GordonSou Please help me to understand how helping kids to become fully familiar with all of the world's major religions in any way advocates for a particular religion, or for that matter, advocates for the equivalency of all of them? Learning about them would display both their differences and similarities, placing children, as they mature, in a position to choose the one (or none) that is most compelling for me. Such a choice constitutes maximum freedom for the individual, does it not?
@Biologist1947 As a convert to Christianity after a long journey I can resonate with your comment to some degree. But even studies in high schools here in Australia have shown that comparative religion in the curriculum results in religious confusion. How much more so with younger kids who do not have the cognitive or psychological acuity for comparative religion. I think this problem is partly because It is difficult enough to properly understand even one religion: it's an ...
@GordonSou ..2 ongoing process. More importantly, as I try to explain in my earlier comment, religion is not just a though system. It is almost meaningless without faith. You cannot simultaneously believe that Christ is God and you are called to participate mystically in his life and also believe he iss just a prophet.
A Child is formed, not just taught, to BE a Christian, Muslim etc. Moreover, this formation involves the supernatural element of infused faith, which I ...
@GordonSou ..2 realized is problematic for the atheist.
Your suggestion has the attraction of respecting the freedom of the child but he has this anyway. Not even God forces us against our freedom, no matter what men have wrongly attempted in His name to the contrary. Many young Christians (and other religions) do turn from religion as they are growing up and many return.
We don't give our young children ethical options but that doesn't stop them making their own choices later.
@GordonSou Because religion is so important culturally, I continue to agree with Dennett despite your thoughtful comments. You are an example of one who has journeyed to a different type of supernaturalism and I honor your experience. I have great confidence, however, in kids to understand complex cultural differences, and in learning about them, to respect them and to make rational decisions for themselves. I think that religion should be taught routinely as part of units on world culture.
@GordonSou ..2 Godhead if a monotheist but how he does that is essential to his religious identity. A Catholic, eg, participates in the Church's sacramental life believing that thereby God communicate His life (grace). One can/does not expect a Muslim to do/believe this. It would equally be insincere for a Catholic to participate in Ramadan.
Because practice of religion should go to the core one's identity and is not a mere cultural curiosity or even ideology I think, especially ..
@GordonSou As it happens today, and Dennett describes beautifully, by far the VAST majority of individuals adopt the supernaturalist beliefs of their family and their culture. Occasionally, rarely, individuals diverge from that path. Under Islam, and at one time under Christianity, such apostasy would result in the execution of the person---something you'd agree is shameful. With universal education, individuals would acquire much more freedom and be less culturally limited, would they not?
@GordonSou ..3 especially in a pluralist world, educated intra-religious dialogue and dialogue with agnostics/atheists is urgent and essential - our human dignity, justice and peace demand nothing less of us. But authentic dialogue does not mean we must discard core beliefs held in conscience in an attempt at false ecumenism or solidarity and such education I believe is appropriate no earlier than college age and should respect a legitimate pluralism in worldviews.
@GordonSou We don't wait until college age to teach world history, do we? how about world cultures? science? mathematics? music? art? Why would we possibly wait until college age to expose children to the immense diversity of global religious concepts? Don't we trust them to make the proper decision for themselves about what they choose to accept? Your proposal would be very much like not exposing kids to others of different races until college b/c they weren't sufficiently mature until then.
The First Vatican Council (1879) was largely about the defence of reason against the heresy of fideism, which placed faith in antognism to reason. Many great Catholic philosophers such as the Jesuits Rickaby and Joyce and laymen Maritain and Gilson were prominent in 20th century, not to mention Cardinal Karol Wojtyla (later Pope John Paul II) internationally recognized in the school of Husserlian phenomonolgy.
Many of the Church Fathers (first seven centuries AD) were philosophers. Much of Western culture, including classic philosophy) was preserved during the so-called Dark Ages and the barbarians civilized by Benedictine monks. This love of wisdom and respect for reason has continued through the ages in the Catholic Church (and other religious traditions as with the Islamic philosophers of medieval times Avicenna and Averoes) to the present.
There are many scientists who are committed to religions of various persuasions. The Pontifical Institute of Science is in constant dialogue with science. It would be more helpful if instread of creating false dichotomies we recognized what is common to us as human beings and with goodwill together addressed the many challenges which confront us.
Science is good and the proper use of our God given reason is a gift and responsibility.
Whatever science has done to prolong human longevity does not detract from any of the facts I mentionted. It should not be an either or situation of science or religion. Science is legitimate when it remains within its own sphere dealing with natural phenomena with instruments proper to that and likewise religion is legitimate when it remains within its own sphere. Scientism betrays science and fundamentalism betrays religion.
What makes the bible the pillar of truth? Do you know who wrote it? How many times has it been altered to support political agendas in history? Do you believe in life outside our planet? Why label logical thinking as atheism? Buddhism is the only practical and logical spiritual practice as it focuses on bettering oneself; the religions that worship figures who were most likely extraterrestrials hinder Human development and create an environment for submission and fear.
Let's see if I understand your argument? There are two types of atheists / skeptics? Type 1 accept the ideas of self-loathing, self-centered philosophers like Camus and Sartre. They also despise themselves and find no meaning in life. These are the GOOD atheists. Type 2 accept the notions of Nielsen, Dennett, and scores of others who embrace life, find fulfillment and meaning without a god, contribute to the world, etc. These are the BAD atheists. What an incredible taxonomy indeed!
@Biologist1947 Call them "good" and "bad" if you like, but those aren't the terms I used. I spoke of some atheists as logically consistent and others as logically inconsistent. The logically coherent position is that which Sartre articulated: if there is no God, life is absurd.
@wordonfirevideo A "logically coherent position" is apparently strictly a matter of opinion in philosophy. The opinion of many other---self-actualized and well-respected--philosophers is that atheism / skepticism is not only logically coherent, but it is "true" in the way that philosophers use that term and that life is far more fulfilling and meaningful without any god. A good book: "Philosophers Without Gods" by Louise Antony. Clearly, "logical coherence" is a matter of opinion in philosophy.
@wordonfirevideo But Satre's view is simply that - an opinion.You cannot assert that this is any more consistent or logical than "God exists life is wonderful" - again that is unverifiable opinion. You speak as though the facts of God's existence are evident for all to see. If they were we would have no need of theology - "the art of conviction against physical evidence."
@Mrmentalmadness123 It is useful to remember that Sartre and Camus were chosen carefully as examples of "thoughtful" atheists.Both were narcissistic, self-loathing, very unhappy men. I'd make a strong case that regardless of their atheism, both would have been miserable humans. Scores of brilliant philosophers make coherent, compelling arguments that life without supernaturalism is far more fulfilling because it is a deeply rational approach to exist in the NOW. Try Kai Nielsen and Dan Dennett.
@Biologist1947 I disagree. Lots of religious people are unhappy humans also. Also, why do you think there are "thoughtless" atheists. Atheism takes comtemplation and thought. Religion is the mindless acceptance of dogma with no evidence.
@Mrmentalmadness123 I think you miss-read me entirely. Sartre and Camus, atheistic philosophers, were both deeply unhappy, self-loathing, narcissistic men.They were chosen as examples of "thoughtful" atheist philosophers for this video precisely because they WERE so unhappy. Fulfilled, positive, optimistic atheist philosophers, such as Nielsen and Dennett, both fine thinkers, were deliberately not even casually mentioned in this video, for obvious reasons. I belong to the Nielsen camp.
@Biologist1947 I think that what Sartre and Camus, were doing was addressing the pros along with the cons of a worldview, and accepting the worldview in spite of the heavier weight of the cons. Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris have a more "Commercial" Atheism, where only the benefits are presented. All the negatives are subsided by excuses. Ultimately, the beneficial worldview (Atheist or Theist) promotes an inauthentic view. I think that is what was being grasped here.
@Stitchman3875 I've read Dennett and Nielsen carefully, and several others in not quite as much depth. Nielsen, and especially Dennett, describe the benefits of supernaturalism at length, both to societies (cultures) and to individuals.Biologicallly,even a cursory examination provides compelling rationale for the selection of "religiousity" in H. sapiens.I think that modern skeptical philosophers both realize and articulate the benefits of theism---but remain unconvinced that any god exists.
@Biologist1947 In discussing Sartre and Camus' philosophy, I'm afraid the biological inferences are irrelevant. The arguments of the end run around life and it's meaning or absurdity rests in the field of existentialism for which life is required to have a deeper meaning than simply the survival of species. Necessity, rationale, etc. are placed on a back burner, in favor of a need for deeper meaning. These are issues, skeptics cannot address.
@Stitchman3875 The other issue to take to task especially with the subject matter of this video, and the concepts it presents, is that biological explanations are linear answers to ideas that are abstract in nature. Linear answers fail here because they attempt to fit one concept into all scenarios the abstract presents. Because of the variations of degrees and perspective, the infinite possibility negates the relevancy of skepticism, biology, hence science ends and philosophy begins.
@Stitchman3875 Do "linear" answers fail here? Dennett would certainly disagree. Nielsen doesn't deal to any great extent with the evolutionary heritage of the "supersense" or the proclivity of H. sapiens for invisible agency and its adaptive value, but he does deal with the existential issues involved in common, workable morality and ethics---something frequently cited by theists as requiring supernaturalism. Bottom line for me: "logical coherence" is clearly a matter of philosophical opinion.
@Biologist1947 In philosophy, there is no real "bottom line". But in addressing the concepts in this video, when meaning is sought after in light of the concepts presented, we are talking about Existentialism, which is not the field of philosophy that Dennett addresses, ergo, his opinions are of a different nature. Morality, ethics, etc are irrelevant to the discussion of this nature because as I mentioned, they only address the mutualistic cause of survival.....
@Stitchman3875 In Existentialism, the necessities are put aside and in goes toward the nature of the individual. If morality is to be discussed, then the question would be "Is this really your morals, or are you just following rules for another cause?" Sartre and his constituents are addressing matters of this nature in that regard. But what they ultimately are getting at is to say beyond all empirical concepts, what is the actual meaning. This is what linear answers do not address.
@Stitchman3875 We are in agreement. "Logical coherence" is indeed a matter of philosophical opinion. "In philosophy, there is no real 'bottom line.'"---as you say so well. I focus on "logical coherence" because as you see from Fr. Barron's own comment above, that is his fundamental objection to philosophies that maintain that there is insufficient evidence (or insufficiently compelling speculation) for the existence of any god.
@Biologist1947 I'm afraid you are missing my point completely. You are using the wrong tools to address what Father Barron is referring to. In using Sartre and Camus, as examples, he is saying that the core is being addressed to which evidence is irrelevant. Speculations of the "logically coherent" variety are irrelevant as well, because as I mentioned, they provide only linear, one dimensional answers. These answers leave much to be desired do to the subjective nature of the concept .....
@Stitchman3875 Because of this subjectivity, answers are not "in your face" as evidence and "logic" would attempt to lead you to. These ideas cannot be addressed in terms of their physical components but must also take to consideration the nonphysical ideas which cannot be inferred by any real empirical investigation. The answers are infinite and provide a number of possibilities, therefore "logical coherence" does not work here.
"Hunger proves the existence and reality of food. It doesn't mean that food is some kind of subjective projection or an illusion"
Then you have never met people with eating disorders. Food CAN absolutely be used as a substitute for something else. Bulimia does not prove the existence of food. It proves the existence of some deeper problem.
"Our desires are not misleading us"
Yes, but to call them 'sins' and twist them into a so-called 'desire for God' is exactly the same as an eating disorder
@Hufflewaffle A distortion is always named and known from the standpoint of that which is normal. Is there a distorted desire for God? Sure: its called fanaticism or fundamentalism. But like an eating disorder, it's a distortion of something very good and very real.
The way I see it (in my own experience), when we go from religion to atheism, there is a temporary feeling of "No meaning", but I think life is about overcoming that problem, re-evaluating your old morals according to your new moral standard (which is most likely your own ultimate happiness), living life accordingly, and also seeking to be at peace with the fact that after you die, your brain stops working, and therefore, you stop existing (to yourself at least).
@VanessaTexasGal Well said! One of the great "selling features" of modern supernaturalism is the promise of pie in the sky bye and bye---but only if you acknowledge the "correct" god and behave in thought, word, and deed as that god ordains---as interpreted by men (almost always) who possess a direct line to that god. Rationally determining one's own meaning, living in the now, and in the "not knowing" is so very very much better!
@wordonfirevideo I know that churchmen want to take credit for the rise of Enlightenment science. I've heard the arguments before. But the history is clear. Enlightenment thinkers and the chruch were constantly at odds---one need look no further than our own T. Jefferson and B. Franklin. My longevity point remains and even you can't dispute it. Pre-Enlightenment Europe was superstitious and supernaturalistic. "god did it" was the dominant explanation and it hindered science.
Undoubtedly atheists are far less tolerant of religions than perhaps ther were decades ago. Religion was stronger in those times. I think it is condescending to say to atheists their non-belief is really belief disguised. I an atheist after lots of reflection and discourse and discussion. I have not entered into this lightly and I do not say God doesn't exist merely that I see no evidence of it. I would not say to you that your beliefs are a function of the fact that you don't believe really!
Mrmentalmadness123 1 day ago
What kind of "loving god" would make "salvation" dependent on "faith" without verifiable evidence of any kind? What kind of "loving god" would deprive 1.2 billion Hindus Indians of the "right religion," consigning them to torture in hell for eternity, according to the NT? What kind of "loving god" would permit the suffering of hundreds of millions of innocent children throughout the world every year? Calling such a god "mysterious" is tiresome, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible.
sciencelives2000 6 days ago
@sciencelives2000 Since when were you an expert on biblical exegesis? Jesus died for all and desires that all be saved. Apart from Peter ((NT) the Catholic Catechism and Vatican 2 Lumen Gentium e.g.utterly refute your contention. What are you and your ilk doing about the millions suffering while you live in your comfortable science bubble.. I know from work with them what many Christians are doing for them. The verifiable evidence warcry is tiresome and irrelevant.
GordonSou 6 days ago
The Way, the Truth and the Light. Thank you Farther. God bless you
mZaoa 1 week ago
wooow, what a fallacy! lol "there is no god" therefore "life is meaningless". Precisely because life is finite, it has such a meaning to many of us.
kajakpaddler92 1 week ago
@kajakpaddler92 So there is no objective ground for morality, no purpose to the universe, we all just come into being randomly and pass out of being, and the entire universe just winds down until it dissolves into oblivion. Where, precisely, is the "meaning" in all this?!
wordonfirevideo 1 week ago
@wordonfirevideo as a student of physics, I'll say ... nope there is no purpose for the universe... just get over it... you are not the pinnacle of everything. As for morality, I think it's pretty clear that we dont get it from the Bible...
kajakpaddler92 1 week ago
@kajakpaddler92 Well, I'd be happy to "get over it," but the problem is that you've just proven my point!
wordonfirevideo 1 week ago
@wordonfirevideo no you've proven that you didn't read my coment... the fact that the universe is not some kind of "cosmic Big-Brother" doesnt mean that my life is meaningles (which is what you said)
kajakpaddler92 1 week ago
@kajakpaddler92 Very well said! The utter and complete arrogance of supernaturalists who claim that their supernaturalism----accepted with NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE WHATEVER---makes their lives meaningful and purposeful is completely beyond my ken. Perhaps this very arrogance is one of the best possible arguments against supernaturalism?? Of course, no supernaturalist could possibly understand that level of irony because they remain so sadly immersed in evidence-free thinking. Enjoy your life!!!
sciencelives2000 6 days ago
@sciencelives2000 It is clear that you are philosophically and religiously (what's wrong with the word "religious"?) ignorant. If metaphysics meant physics it would not be metaphysics. Can you see love,pain and fair under your microscope (if indeed you are a scientist). What have you to say to the very many religious respected scientists in the world of various religious persuasions - are they nutty, studpid or just intellectually dishonest?
GordonSou 6 days ago
@GordonSou The tone of your remarks is so loving and kind---so lacking in ad hominem attack and so filled with verifiable evidence----that I'm forced to conclude that you must be a supernaturalist. Am I correct?
sciencelives2000 6 days ago
@sciencelives2000 Your god is rationalism (not reason, mind). Your response is pure waffle - not a rational response to my points. Rationalists live in a metaphysical cave (see Plato's Republic Bk 7). Staying with the metaphor, my kind of love is to help people like you turn your heads round so you realize that you are looking at your own shadows, which you mistake for reality.
GordonSou 5 days ago
@GordonSou I'm curious. How far would you, as a supernaturalist, go to show me your "love?" Thomas Aquinas developed a detailed philosophical defense for the torture and burning of those who were unorthodox because he felt that it was the best way to "love" them. Would you agree with his philosophy? Just curious.
sciencelives2000 5 days ago
@sciencelives2000 You are still waffling. You still have not responded to either of my two replies yesterday which deal with facts, not rhetoric. Give me the precise reference to Aquinas, I'll cheerfully look it up in my library and reply to the only specific I have yet heard from you. Is that how you do your "science"?
GordonSou 5 days ago
@GordonSou Your petulant demand for my response to your inane assertions displays your arrogance. Nonetheless, because you obviously don't know Aquinas very well, I will supply you with the reference. He is quite clear. A recovering Catholic, like myself, who denies the "doctrines" of the Church is declared a heretic. Heretics "deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death."Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2.
sciencelives2000 5 days ago
@sciencelives2000 What is petulant about expecting a response? Callling my comments inane is not a response. What precisely are you doing for the millions of suffering in your cosy suburb while thousands of dedicated Christians are in the front line with them?
For any others interested the reference to the Summa is IIaIIae,q11a.3. Your quote is selective - making no reference to the call to tolerance, welcoming the repentant and the fact that the civil authoritiies dealt
GordonSou 5 days ago
@GordonSou (2) with death penalties because of the unhappy closeness of Church and State which no Catholic defends today. You ignore the reality stated that theft attracted the death penallty i.e. the historical setting.Incarnational Church means it is sometimes historically condtioned.
More to the point it seems you are "recovering" from your misunderstanding of the Catholic Church and its Magisterium. Theological opinion does not represent the Deposit of Faith - Aquinas" views ...
GordonSou 5 days ago
@GordonSou (3) are not doctrine. Error is not heresy. There have been two official catechisms in the 2 milennia history of the Church - The Roman Catechism published in the 16th century and the 1992 CCC. Get a copy of each, look up error and heresy in both and learn what you are criticizing before sharing your confusion in public. Try being honest - are you seriously suggesting any Christian believes heretics should be subjected to criminal penalties?
GordonSou 5 days ago
@GordonSou Such sophistry! Such historical revisionism! For anyone interested, I'd urge Googling one word: INQUISITION. Supernaturalists enjoy taking credit for what they consider "good stuff" in history, but defend the "bad stuff" by saying that no supernaturalist would do that today. Oh, by the way, I'm certainly pleased that you wouldn't advocate torture and execution for apostates and heretics today. Is that progress, or what!?! :-)
sciencelives2000 5 days ago
@sciencelives2000 After all these exchanges you still have not responded to any of my points or questions regarding your silly comment on 1.2bn Hindus; your moral hypocrisy regarding the world's poor or how you stand with the many religious scientists in the world.
Your only attempt to extricate yourself from compulsive waffle is to give a distorted report on Aquinas; Summa and demonstrate your ignorance of and pathological prejudice against the Catholic faith. When I point.
GordonSou 5 days ago
@GordonSou this out to you instead of taking the opportunity to disabuse yourself of your ignorance you respond with more emotional waffle and are silly enough to invite us to join in more of your deluded prejudices with the old, tired chestnut - the inquisition. Anyone that does seriously take you up on looking into this will see just how shallow your history is, never mind your religious understanding.
GordonSou 5 days ago
@GordonSou I fully understand how frustrating all of this must be to a supernaturalist. You have my condolences on your discomfort.
sciencelives2000 5 days ago
@sciencelives2000 No discomfort here. I appreciate the opportunity which you have given me to demonstrate how empty your position is. Not so much personally (although if this has helped you that is good) but ideologically, philosophically, theologically and from a good old "common sense" perspective. If I was reading these comments I would be asking myself - Why doesn't he (you) respond to the issues - they are not difficult?
GordonSou 5 days ago
@kajakpaddler92 Well then tell me, precisely, where you think this "meaning" comes from. I mean, you can invent all sorts of subjective fantasies, but if the universe is just dumbly there and you and everyone you love will eventually die and fade into oblivion, Sartre had it right: la vie est absurde. You can divert yourself with little activities and pursuits, but to dignify that with the term "meaning" strikes me as ridiculous.
wordonfirevideo 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wordonfirevideo "Yeah. To worship God means to orient one's whole life to the unconditioned good""
Just to clarify -- when you say unconditioned good -- is that diffrent from merely doing good works without expecting any reward
badpanda84 6 days ago
@wordonfirevideo little activities??? you think that studying relativity, solving physics problems, doing experiments with an atom you think that that's a "little activity"? try it yourself and see what you get! For me it's one of the greatest things of life, and that's what I'm devoting my life to. Im sorry that you cant apreciate the material world, I'm sorry that you need an Almighty dictator for that.. let me correct you: La vie n'est pas absurde si on sais la comprendre!
kajakpaddler92 6 days ago
@kajakpaddler92 First of all, I'm afraid you've got to work on your French a bit! Second, you can find all of the subjective delight you want in doing science experiments, but it's more than a stretch to say that this provides "meaning" when you will die and stay in your grave and the universe turns away from you with utter indifference. So I mean, knock yourself out doing science experiments, but you're not going to convince me that this somehow magically makes your life "meaningful."
wordonfirevideo 6 days ago
@kajakpaddler92 Well said! I might add just a little twist. As a scientist myself, I've found that non-scientists have no conception whatever of the amazing power of discovering new things about the Cosmos. I don't blame them for their lack---but I see it repeatedly. For Einstein, a man who rejected the "childish superstition" of a personal god and who found the concept of afterlife quite ridiculous, the ability and privilege of understanding the Cosmos, even a bit, was far more than enough.
sciencelives2000 6 days ago
@kajakpaddler92 Many contemporary philosophers have developed coherent, compelling systems of thought leading to "meaning" and "purpose" without the necessity of the delusion of some god or other. You know in the deepest recesses of your mind that you value living in the NOW and need no imaginary spirits. We are so fortunate to be able to contemplate the Cosmos. For Einstein, and for me, that alone is much more than sufficient for enduring meaning. We all die. Not all of us truly LIVE!
sciencelives2000 6 days ago
@wordonfirevideo I'll add though, my life as an atheist is FULL of meaning, in that I feel happy I have a familly to which I'm accountable to, I can love I can have compasion even learn about the universe, and I'm an atheist how do you explain that? am I just lying...
kajakpaddler92 1 week ago
@wordonfirevideo
As opposed to the meaning of life being to worship and sing praised to God for all eternitiy???
where is the meaning or purpose in that
badpanda84 1 week ago
@badpanda84 Yeah. To worship God means to orient one's whole life to the unconditioned good, to that which alone can satisfy the deepest longing of the heart. Worship of God is precisely where meaning is found.
wordonfirevideo 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wordonfirevideo "Yeah. To worship God means to orient one's whole life to the unconditioned good"
Is that specific to any particular relgion?? -- but that logic a Buddist who devotes his life to charitable works can find meaning in life.
And so could an atheist who dose charitable works.
I dont see what God or relgion has to do with the meaning of life
badpanda84 6 days ago
Comment removed
Biologist1947 1 week ago
It seems to me that science, philosophy, and the fine arts all constitute routes to the understanding of the Cosmos and ourselves. All three are open to verifiable evidence For science, such evidence is foundational, but all of philosophy and art are certainly informed by such evidence Supernaturalism, on the other hand, has no need whatever for verifiable evidence. its assertions require no such evidence. Indeed, supernaturalists often reject verifiable evidence as of no consequence whatever.
Biologist1947 2 weeks ago
@Biologist1947 What do you mean by "evidence?" I find that it's a term that the advocates of scientism throw around all the time but rarely define. The metaphysician, for example, is operating in a perfectly rational framework, but he is not looking for the kind of "evidence" that a scientist looks for. In a similar way, an historian looks for his own kind of "evidence." Most of the claims of Christianity are either metaphysical or historical, which means they are rational, if not scientific
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo Please note that I was very careful to use the term VERIFIABLE evidence.Science, philosophy, and the arts are all informed by VERIFIABLE evidence Supernaturalism doesn't rely on verification. If we were to examine Mormonism, you most certainly would doubt the writings of Joseph Smith, no matter how many attest to their dictation by Moroni. Countless examples of compelling cult figures, charlatans, etc. exist. No verification is required by supernaturalists. Hence, my point.
Biologist1947 2 weeks ago
@Biologist1947 Do you consider historical accounts of Julius Caesar "verifiable?"
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo As you know, historical verifiability utilizes different standards from contemporary verifiable evidence For history, multiple, contemporaneous sources are extremely important for credibility. Even there, one must always be aware of reporting bias, dubious hearsay, etc. Given that, the existence of Joseph Smith is quite verifiable. His writings are verifiable. That Mormonism has grown exponentially in numbers from 6 people in 1830 to 14 M in 2012 is verifiable. (contd)
Biologist1947 2 weeks ago
@Biologist1947 We have four documents, in the genre of ancient biography, attesting to Jesus, more documentary evidence than we have for almost any other ancient figure. There are indeed some attestations to him outside of the Gospels--in Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny--but the Gospels themselves provide rich, multiple attestation for Jesus, his life, miracles, and resurrection. What I suspect in you is really an anti-supernaturalist bias.
wordonfirevideo 1 week ago
@wordonfirevideo (2) Those kinds of historical events are entirely credible and verifiable by valid contemporaneous sources. Where you would disagree about Mormonism is whether Smith's writings were dictated by Moroni and whether the narrative and theology in them are historically accurate--despite the attestations of thousands of individuals contemporary to Smith who wrote that they are and staked their very lives on what they saw as "facts" about them. So, with that abundant historical (contd)
Biologist1947 2 weeks ago
@Biologist1947 But friend, you're begging the question! You're saying that only purely natural events are "credible," and hence, presto-chango, the Gospels are unreliable. Rid yourself of your anti-supernaturalist bias, and you might find yourself compelled by these densely-textured witnesses from the ancient world.
wordonfirevideo 1 week ago
@wordonfirevideo No NT document is contemporaneous with the events. The Roman historians that you cite were arguably altered--and none speak of NT "miracles." The "densely-textured witnesses" that you speak of are much like the Book of Mormon--a powerfully written document, accepted as the word of god by millions, but which you refuse to accept, based upon lack of historical credibility. I have no anti-supernaturalist bias---I have a firm pro-verifiable, documented, independent evidence bias.
Biologist1947 1 week ago
@Biologist1947 So I'm gathering you would accept as a complete fabrication a book written in the year 2000 about the Kennedy assassination, even if that book were based on the recollections of eye-witnesses. And if you found four texts on the Kennedy assassination, all agreeing in the essentials of the story, but all written around the year 2000, you would reject them as fabrications. Just sayin'...
wordonfirevideo 1 week ago
@wordonfirevideo You reject the Book of Mormon despite its contemporaneous eyewitness. Why? It is powerfully written. Millions accept it as valid / verified and hundreds died affirming its contents. It was written less than 200 years ago, as opposed to 2000. We have two presidential candidates for nomination by the GOP who adamantly affirm its veracity. What is it about the Book of Mormon that makes you incredulous? Your answer is likely to be similar to what makes me question the NT.
Biologist1947 1 week ago
@Biologist1947 Thanks to you and Fr Barron for this engaging dialogue. "Controversy" used to be regarded as an importantant means to further understanding and all too often comments on the net are reduced, at best to half baked uninformed opinions screamed at the other or rudeness and denigration which is unedifying and demeaning.
It will not surprise you if I say that I agree with Fr Barron but it is clear that you have taken the trouble to inform yourself and your comments are..
GordonSou 1 week ago
@GordonSou expressed coherently. I hope you both pursue this conversation which is both good example and thought-provoking. I won't buy into the Mormon issue - I believe the fulness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church and that non-Catholics are, in a manner which I cannot understand, loved by Christ and that he desires that all be saved.
I think you are a sincere person but you want to force a "fourth dimension" into a three dimensional worldview. In our conversation I felt ...
GordonSou 1 week ago
@GordonSou (3) a common sincerity but faith blocked us. We Catholics accept many reasons for atheism (See Vatican II and CCC) including fault on our part but while some aspects of religion are accessible to reason eg existence of God, the heart of Christianity is a deep, mystical and personal relationship with Christ in faith. As Augustine wrote - God became man that men might become gods - divinized as the Desert Fathers put it. Compared with this the rest is dust. I pray
for you
GordonSou 1 week ago
@GordonSou I nearly forgot to mention something to you in my previous post. If you're really interested in the historicity of the New Testament, I recommend viewing the YouTube videos of Prof. Bart Ehrman, noted biblical scholar and commentator. He possesses enormous expertise and understanding of the NT, as well as the literature and history of the early centuries of Christianity. His videos will give you an understanding of the origins of the books of the NT, and their literary basis.
Biologist1947 1 week ago
@Biologist1947 Bart Ehrman is a second-rate scholar with a deep prejudice against Christianity (born in reaction to his former fundamentalism) and whose works have been largely repudiated by mainstream academe. For a summary of the critiques against him, I'd recommend Ben Witherington.
wordonfirevideo 1 week ago
@wordonfirevideo Thanks Father Barron. And thank you for your wonderful contribution to the New Evangelization - especially as we approach the Year of Faith. I have brought your excellent apostolate to the attention of some friends down here (Australia) and, as the MCs say, may God be your only reward.
GordonSou 1 week ago
@GordonSou Thanks for your kind words.You are a person sincere in your beliefs.Rather than refer to myself as an atheist, i.e., one who perceives insufficient evidence for the existence of any god, I refer to myself as a skeptic, one who values verifiable evidence as the gold standard for "knowing."As both a scientist and professional musician, I cherish the arts and the power of intelligent philosophical speculation as well. Understanding religion is critical b/c it is tied to cultural values.
Biologist1947 1 week ago
@Biologist1947 Thanks for bit of background on yourself. The key word is "understanding" religion which places it out there. That has its place but we seek knowledge in the Hebrew/biblical sense. Its helpful to understand my wife (though I never shall completely) but if that was the total of our relationship it would be pretty impoverished. Eros and, much less agape, is not a question of mere understanding.
We speak of faith seeking understanding and Newman said a thousand ...
GordonSou 1 week ago
@GordonSou (2) questions do not make one doubt. The need to broaden the scope of our vision is nicely expressed in Plato's Republic Bk 7 (the cave) but we also get deep insights into wisdom (as opposed to mere knowledge) in The Apology, Crito and Phaedo. I was introduced to these and Roman philosophers such Cicero and Boethius at 19. Francis Bacon said that a lititle philosophy leads one away from religion but when he grows deep in philosophy he return to it.
Serving in the Far ...
GordonSou 1 week ago
@GordonSou East with no religious education I was drawn to Theravadin Buddhism which taught me religion is "existential" . If you are dying with a poisoned arrow stuck in you you do not discuss details about the arrow - you pull it out. Later I discovered the breadth of mysticism in Huxley's Perennial Philosophy
and deeper in Eckhart and John of the Cross (and others) - also Evelyn Underhill's magisterial Mysticism. Inevitably I was being led, with my free acquiescence, to the ...
GordonSou 1 week ago
@GordonSou Catholic Church. Faith seeking understanding in 37 years of study of dogmatic, biblical, moral and spiritual theology and sacramental life invites one to an interior life which is not irrational but suprarational. Yet I found the Catholic Church so richly incarnational - matter matters - God took on flesh, beauty is important in all its forms, some of the greatest philosophers continue to be at home here and I have met Christ in his poorest in 4 continents.
GordonSou 1 week ago
@GordonSou Thanks for the background on yourself. Yours is a most interesting journey. While, as you've gathered, I find insufficient evidence for the acceptance of the existence of any of the countless gods ever invented by human kind, one ignores religion at one's decided peril. The major religions of the world spring from specific cultures and influence those cultures. If one has any hope of understanding world politics, one must understand religion and the desire of humans to invent them.
Biologist1947 1 week ago
@Biologist1947 Even with a cursory study of comparative religion you must surely know that all great religious traditions make a distinction between God and gods. Your refusal to be open to a transcendent reality (which is your right) ignores the accumulalted wisdom of millennia and the witness of the most inspiring lives. I cannot see how you insist on the need for religions when your position makes no sense to those ..
GordonSou 1 week ago
@GordonSou who practice those religions. Your comments suggest that men and women of towering intellect and often heroic virtue are too stupid to see through their own naivite. This very consideration led me as a young man to embark on a serioius enquiry into the sources because even given the arrogance of youth it struck me as incredible hubris if I would not at least listen to a Plato or Cicero, an Augustine or Aquinas, a Buddha or Lao Tzu. Otherwise our ignorance is invincible.
GordonSou 1 week ago
@Biologist1947 I don't usually do brief but I'll try. I meant to add to my last comment that to advocate religious education throughout the world when you think religion is fake i.e. quaint cultural curiosities invented by creative imaginations is analogous to saying all children should be vaccinated against pollio but you believe the vaccine is merely a placebo.
GordonSou 1 week ago
Comment removed
Biologist1947 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GordonSou Respectfully, you miss my point. While I do think that religions are inventions of the human imagination---some designed brilliantly---they obviously exist, they arise from cultural traditions, and they decidedly influence those traditions. Every person ought to understand global politics and economics and this requires an understanding of the major religions of the world. Even the most ardent skeptic probably encounters supernaturalist belief on a daily basis---it's inescapable.
Biologist1947 1 week ago
@Biologist1947 From your comments in this conversation it seems you have diligently enquired into what new atheists think about religion but that you are not well versed in theology or metaphysics i.e. you do not know in depth the teachings of the religions themselves or classic philosophy, Thomism etc. More importantly, by your own admission you have no EXPERIENCE, ascetically or mystically, of religion (one cannot experience in this sense what one believes to be fiction).
GordonSou 1 week ago
@GordonSou (2) Apart from its most primitive forms religion is existential and mystical (as indicated throughout my comments but also common knowledge). Therefore it seems to me that your position is rather like that of a person who has never held a tennis racquet offering his services as coach to a tennis champion i.e. the billions of believers in the world and the giants of philosophy.
This seems an elitist approach based on rather shaky foundations.
GordonSou 1 week ago
@GordonSou Actually, what you don't realize is that I am a one-time fervent Catholic theist. As I matured, I realized that there is not a scintilla of verifiable evidence for any god, and certainly not for the Catholic approach to supernaturalism. The science of psychology shows us that mystical experiences are common but the underlying neurology for them is unclear at this point in time. The experiences themselves are well-documented across cultures and of course across all religions.
Biologist1947 1 week ago
@Biologist1947 I still can't understand how you can presume that you are more "mature" and more intelligent than Socrates, Augustine, Aquinas, Lao Tzu, Shankara, St Francis of Assisii, St John of the Cross, Gandhi, Chesterton, Bl John Paul II, Pope Benedict et al so that you can be so dismissive of their writings and their lives.
Whatever you were you cannot have delved deeply into these unless yours is a case of invincible ignorance. As a former Catholic you will know this is
GordonSou 1 week ago
@GordonSou (2) is not a pejorative but a theological term.
Who knows what so blocks faith ... the late Fr Thomas Dubay wrote a most enlightening book on this subject - Authenticity to do with discernment when even
intelligent people given the same realities and facullties come to opposite conclusions. In Buddhism scepticism is listed as one of the "five hindrances" to enlightenment. Not a bar on questioning but on closing the mind and the heart.
GordonSou 1 week ago
@GordonSou Argument from authority is not compelling. Scientists do not argue from authority. They argue from verifiable evidence and falsifiable explanations. That is one of the essential differences between supernaturalism, as it is often practiced, and science. Scientists enjoy finding verifiable evidence that is in opposition even to long-established ideas. We search for it. We try diligently to FALSIFY even our most cherished notions. Science PROGRESSES ONLY in that way. (contd)
Biologist1947 1 week ago
@Biologist1947 I haven't been talking about authority - what has mystical got to do with authority? I am talking about man as a spiritual being with a spiritual faculty responding to the spiritual reality which we call God (not gods - that is something different). You seem to want to look at everything under a microscope but reality is bigger than that. As a musician you must intuit that but you have made a god of rationalism.
GordonSou 1 week ago
@GordonSou Your arguments are not compelling. Supernaturalists often use arguments that I refer to as "if only you." Nope. I have acknowledged that a desire for supernaturalism, magic and superstition---invisible agency---and its consequent anxiolysis exists in many people. We find it represented in every form of supernaturalism that we know about. But such does NOT CONSTITUTE verifiable evidence for the existence of any of the countless gods invented by human beings over the centuries.
Biologist1947 1 week ago
@GordonSou (2) There is nothing more wonderful than the surprise---for in the SURPRISE is a new approach, a new idea, a new possibility. Supernaturalism, as it is practiced in most religions, relies on revelation and authority, either from a text or from individuals. Science relies on verifiable evidence and falsifiable explanations. We elevate the scientists who challenge our most cherished ideas and award them Nobel prizes. Einstein is honored in part b/c he destroyed Newtonian cosmology
Biologist1947 1 week ago
@Biologist1947 Revelation and authority (of God's revelation) are part of religion but mystical union with God in Western theology, divinization in Orthodox, goes beyond, without denying this. That is the heart of religion which you insist on leaving out of the equation because it does not fit in your limited algebra. The world elevates scientists for being great scientists - not for being fhalf-baked philosophers or theologians.
GordonSou 1 week ago
@Biologist1947 You surely know that there are very many respected scientists in the world who actively belong to various religions. As you insist that a religious perspective (in the proper sense, a belief in God, worship, prayer etc) is incompatible with the proper perspective of scientists (you have consistently spoken as if on behalf of scientists) are you saying your religious colleagues lack professional integrity or intellectual honesty?
GordonSou 1 week ago
@GordonSou Are you trying to trap me? LOL. You'll have to be much more clever than that!
Of course there are supernaturalist scientists who separate their private supernaturalism from their work as scientists. The most famous is Francis Collins. On the plus side, Collins is a wonderful opponent to the Christian fundamentalism that would deny Evolution.
Supernaturalism provides many psychological crutches to its adherents and becomes very tempting to them, even to some scientists. (contd)
Biologist1947 1 week ago
@Biologist1947 I'm interested in truth not trapping:) You have consistently said that the perspective of a scientist precludes a "supernaturalist" perspective. You don't answer my question by simply saying they don't apply their religion to their science. Of course they don't - that's been my thesis all along. Either science and "supernaturalism" are compatible because they deal with separate aspects of reality or or the Christian/Muslim etc scientist lacks intellectual honesty
GordonSou 1 week ago
@GordonSou You are sort of acknowledging this by referring to schizophrenic - but if they have no pathological condition (schizophrenia) you really mean intellectual dishonesty.
GordonSou 1 week ago
@GordonSou Come on! Unless you check definitions, your arguments will be even less compelling than usual. "Schizophrenic" definition: "characterized by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements."
Supernaturalist scientists split their supernaturalism from their science. Still, as I pointed out before, supernaturalism among scientists is in precipitous decline. As I myself awoke from my own personal supernaturalist delusion, they are awakening from theirs as well!
Biologist1947 1 week ago
@Biologist1947 The coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements would hardly be considered healthy - but I don't want to split hairs. They split their supernaturlism from their science because they understand the obvious - they are different - otherwise sooner or later the inner conflict would tell. Anyway, as much as I appreciate the sort of robust debate we are having I suspect we have exhausted it. At least we have managed to debate it - no small thing today!
GordonSou 1 week ago
@GordonSou I still urge you to Google Francis Collins and read about him. He is the quintessential example of the supernaturalist scientist. The most revealing conclusion that I've reached after reading many of his quotes is that he doesn't claim that supernaturalism can be defended successfully either on the basis of verifiable evidence or philosophical speculation. For him, supernaturalism is experiential---"faith" is the arbiter. His conversion story is completely consistent with that.
Biologist1947 1 week ago
@GordonSou You may be interested in checking Google references to Francis Collins. His supernaturalism has been the subject of much discussion among his fellow scientists. You will find many quotes from him in which he relates how a frozen waterfall triggered his supernaturalism. You will also find quotes in which he states quite simply that there is no verifiable evidence whatever for his god and that his supernaturalism is based quite simply on faith.
Biologist1947 1 week ago
@GordonSou The trend, of course, is that fewer and fewer scientists, especially biologists, physicists and cosmologists are supernaturalists.
Even if some cling to supernaturalism in their private lives, they know that their science disallows supernaturalism as a valid explanation for their findings and therefore you will never see it mentioned in their scientific publications.
In essence, such scientists separate their science from their supernaturalism.
I find it schizophrenic.
Biologist1947 1 week ago
@Biologist1947 My references to the mystical nature of religion was not to "mystical experiences" by which spiritual theology refers to locutions, visions etc. In Catholic and Orthodox spiiriitual theology the word mystical has much deeper meaning which I could not attempt to explain in a forum such as this and which is certainly well outside the competence of psychology. Like many, perhaps when a Catholic you did not pray, study and reflect deeply enough. With prayers.
GordonSou 1 week ago
@Biologist1947 Well, for one thing, it is based on the personal, mystical experience of one man, whereas Christianity rests upon the very public career of Jesus of Nazareth, including his resurrection, which was attested to by a multiplicity of people. Further, there are 27 texts clustering around Jesus that bear a consistent witness to him.
wordonfirevideo 1 week ago
@wordonfirevideo Aren't there far, far more than a mere 27? Aren't the 27 you cite (3^3 not chosen by accident) the ones selected as "true"centuries after they were written--the others brutally suppressed? Weren't they selected only AFTER the predominant view was established for a union of Hebraic messianism with the cult of Mithras? Finally, even if the Book of Mormon is the view of one mystic, why is it less valid / verifiable, simply because it is one book? Millions believe it.
Biologist1947 1 week ago
@wordonfirevideo (3) evidence, you, yourself, do not find those reports credible---even with the martyrdom experienced by many Mormons adhering strongly to their beliefs. Similarly, given that there are no INDEPENDENT reports of NT "miracles," the supporting documents were all written 20 to 60 years following the supposed events, relying on hearsay, the similarities of NT reports to contemporary mystery religions, as well as the tendency of humans (as shown by Mormonism) to accept (contd)
Biologist1947 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo (4) ideas without verifiable evidence if such ideas appeal strongly to them or satisfy particular psychological needs, I don't find the NT reports historically credible. Please note that you and I actually have a very similar approach to history. You apply that approach to Mormonism---very effectively, I might add. I apply the approach to all of history---insisting on adequate, documented, independently verified evidence-- BOTH about Mormonism and about Christianity.
Biologist1947 1 week ago
Leave it to people of faith and especially a man with a clerical collar on to claim how any atheist should act. If it's so easy to say that atheists have no logical arguments then why have not these arguments (some of which are literally thousands of years old) been addressed to the satisfaction of either side? I will never willingly place myself under the authority of a revealed religion nor will I consider any cleric or spokesman an authority on what it is to be a human being.
Mudflappus 2 weeks ago
@Mudflappus No. I'm saying that some atheists are illogical. Others, like Sartre and Camus, are consistent. My point is that the consistent, logically compelling, atheists are those who know that, without God, life is absurd.
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago
The idea that life is absurd without god is an opinion of "deep" sadness. Allow me for a moment to follow something here. No god = no good. no good = no evil. no evil = no pain. no pain = no experience to no reason. Okay now try this no god = no reason for martyrdom, no martyrdom = no basic need for genocide at least religiously. Now granted mine needs less steps because my point is easy to take. Now try god. god,good,evil,pain,experience,joy,safety or of course eternal pain... OUCH sucks...
josephdtibbs 2 weeks ago
Dificilmente encontrare otro individuo tan repugnante como este desquiciado individuo llamado Barron. Nunca pense que era posible concebir tanta tonteria como las que habla este charlatan desvergonzado. Nomas le fata que diga que la tierra y la luna son cuadradas o triangulares.
Por favor gente eduquense para que les laven el cerebro estos charlatanes con sus cuentos chinos de que existe un amigo invisible llamado dios.
Patambo2000 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
#1
I watch this insane man called Father Barron on tv today 1/11/2012
These are actual words said by Barron, he made the fallowing assertion:
"God can't be known! even by the saints in heaven,but we must try to know him "
What an absolutely absurd affirmation, it alone is flagrant evidence of his irrationality & the irrationality of Christianity, and those who believe the nonsense that is religion!
Patambo2000 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
#2
Since you religious folks are to slow to understand what his assertion means, I 'll tell you.
It basically means all of his own words, and all he claims about God, is meaningless!
Since by his own assertion he knows absolutely nothing about the being in discussion!
Patambo2000 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo With respect, you ignore two very important things in your argument. 1) The ideas of philosophers are surely influenced by their personalities. Sartre and Camus were both examples of narcissism and negativity. That influenced their views of a life without supernaturalism.Their lives would be MEANINGLESS even with some form of supernaturalism! 2) Dennett, Nielsen and DOZENS of other philosophers make coherent arguments and live lives FULL of meaning, power, and productivity.
Biologist1947 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Biologist1947 2 weeks ago
Have I understood you correctly? You seem to be saying that our disatisfaction with the material world is symptomatic of a desire for God? How so? Dont we simply have desires that are driven by evolution to make us need? One of those needs is to find an explanation for our existence - hence we invent Gods. Not wishing be in anyway disrespectful to you personally Father but why is your God any more real that that of Muslims, Hindus etc. Aren't they all a function of our desire for an explanation?
Mrmentalmadness123 2 weeks ago
Father you seem to suggest that things that are popular are bad or somehow frivolous and unjustified. Atheism is growing in popularity because it offers people something religion cannot - realism and rationality.
Mrmentalmadness123 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
my IQ dropped 30 points by watching this video
NovemDecem 2 weeks ago
Book of what? Cohelck? Is this in the Bible? Someone please correct me here
savioblanc 2 weeks ago
@savioblanc coheleth is the author of the book of Ecclesiastes, and yes its in the bible.
rytsign69 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@savioblanc coheleth is the author of the book of Ecclesiastes, and yes its in the bible.
rytsign69 2 weeks ago
I think we have a childish atheism becos we have a childish christianity.
savioblanc 2 weeks ago
A great video I came across for the scientism debate: Merleau-Ponty - The World of Perception and the World of Science (English Subtitles)
roryscanlon 2 weeks ago
However, life is about more than human longevity. This is denied to the great majority on this planet. Science does not feed the millions of children in Third World countries dying of TB because of malnutrition, hundreds of thousands of whom are fed and educated thanks to the Catholic organization Marysmeals, and many more by Salesians, Missionaries of Charity etc etc. Science does/can not carry the emaciated body of the dying to Kalighat or comfort the blind, crippled orphan in Daya Dan.
GordonSou 3 weeks ago
@GordonSou Scientism is merely the totality of attitudes of scientists as we do our work. And what are those attitudes? Quite simple actually. Using the tools available to us, we seek VERIFIABLE evidence and use that evidence to create robust, broad, predictive, provisional, yet FALSIFIABLE explanations for that evidence, DISALLOWING supernaturalism, superstition, and magic as valid explanations. It is the latter clause that bothers supernaturalists, I suspect, but that IS science.
Biologist1947 2 weeks ago
@Biologist1947 some evidence: Stephen Hawking's view of Heaven: A response (video)
roryscanlon 2 weeks ago
@Biologist1947 I agree with your definitiion of scientism as one definition. The other, which is clearly intended from the context of the comments is "the excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques". Apart from the unnecessary use of block capitals in your response, which tend to distract rather like shouting in a discussion, I think your description of science (not scientism) is reasonable. Serious religious people are not "bothered" by science ...
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou ...2" disallowing supernaturalism, supersition and magic as valid explanations." Quite the contrary: science, precisely because it is science, deals with natural phenomena in the manner you describe. Religion, which I understand you to mean by supernaturalism, is not the proper sphere of science and its methods,no more than ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics,which are properly the subject of philosophy.
I take it that your silence with regard to the other fourteen sentences
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou ...3 in my comment imply either agreement or, more likely, a remarkable inability to consider that perhaps the countless philosophers, theologians and educated lay people who for milennia and to this day held deep religious conviction are not insane or stupid. It is a dead end to seek answers to religious or philosophical questions through science and vice versa.
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou The definition of "scientism" that I provided is the definition that we scientists ourselves use. Frankly, you'll find the word on the editorial pages of major scientific publications such as "Scientific American." Your false definition is one that threatened philosophers and theologians use often. It's really quite sad. Your assertion that religious people are not "bothered" by science should be compared with the list of court cases brought by creationists in the U.S. Not bothered?
Biologist1947 2 weeks ago
@Biologist1947 The definition which I gave is that of the Oxford Dictionary (both English and American) and, as I stated, they also accommodate your definition. I was not aware that the Oxford dictionary was compiled by "threatened philosophers and theologians".
"Rellilgious people" comprise billions of people of different religions. The billion plus Catholics are explicitly and emphatically taught that the first chapter of the bible is neither an historical nor scientific ...
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou ..2 treatise but an expression of theological truths. Read any Cathollic commentary on the bible or the Catholic Catechism.The billions comprising Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists are not even privy to the Bible. Only a smalll minoriity of Protestant fundamentalists read Genesis 1 literally. It is theologically irrelevant whether God creates in 6 days or billions of years. But the theological truths (amenable to faith and reason) are of immeasurable relevance to homo sapiens.
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou Your implication is that Evangelical Christians in the United States are not serious religionists? They'd probably disagree with you. Most of them are EXTREMELY threatened by evolutionary biology---so much so that the acceptance of evolutionary theory has become a litmus test for their politicians! The disagreements among supernaturalists is one of the most potent arguments indicating that supernaturalism is entirely a matter of opinion, rather than in any way evidence-based.
Biologist1947 2 weeks ago
@Biologist1947 With respect to my Evangelical brethren if they believe Genesis 1 is to be read literally they are at odds with the rest of the monothesits in the world. I would disagree with a biologist who said the fact of evolution disproves (the metapahysical issue) that God exists or that there must be an ultimate cause of causes (which we call God - Aristotle, Aquinas etc). I also disagree that the world was created in 6 days because the Bible says so. No contradiction ...
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou --2 one is dealing with a scientifc issue (unless it exceeds its legitmate boundaries and attempts philosophical speculation) and the other a philosophical issue (unless it exceeds its proper boundaries).
Maybe the American Protestant Evangelists you mention are objecting to scientists trying to be philosophers - I don't know, I'm an Englishman living in the antipodes.
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou As an Anglophile I heartily respect English sensibilities! Nonetheless, I'd encourage you to study U.S. politics and the influence of religionists on our politics. Evangelical Christians in the U.S. are insistent upon: 1) denying evolutionary theory; 2) prohibiting its instruction in public schools; 3) creating every barrier imaginable to its acceptance in American culture; 4) using it as a litmus test for politicians; and 5) using the courts to block the teaching of evolution.
Biologist1947 2 weeks ago
@Biologist1947 Re your last sentence - the subject of natural religion deals with the universal reality of religious experience. As a Catholic I believe (eg Vatican II Lumen Gentium) that all religions contain some truth because man is essentially a religious (as well as rational and animal) being. The fulness of religious truth I believe is the subject of revealed relilgion- in the mystery of Christ, amenable to many in ways I cannot know. But many for sure like to argue.
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou I'd encourage you to read Daniel Dennett, one of my favorite philosophers. YouTube is filled with his videos as well. He is most thoughtful, a genuine philosopher, but also respectful of verifiable evidence. He has much to say about the origins of supernaturalism in our evolutionary past as a species. He doesn't denigrate supernaturalism, but he does provide a framework for its understanding. You'd find it most interesting, I believe. Have fun in your continuing quest!
Biologist1947 2 weeks ago
@Biologist1947 Thank you. I will get hold of a copy of Dennett's work on Amazon. In our discussion I think what has been most important is not that we naively insist that we must agree but that we have engaged in a genuine dialogue, with goodwill, mutual respect and a mutual quest for the truth rather than merely to "win an argument." May I also suggest The Dialectics of Secularization, a dialogue between Jurgen Habermas and Joseph Ratzinger and reciprocate your good wishes.
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou One of Dennett's primary recommendations, based upon philosophy informed by science, is that ALL children be taught about ALL of the world's religions--their prohibitions, their requirements, their creeds, their gods, their history, their music, their culture. Religions ARE important. Children show know about ALL of the major religions of the world. It should be a FUNDAMENTAL part of everyone's education. This is in remarkable agreement with your ideas.
Biologist1947 2 weeks ago
@Biologist1947 The world desperately needs human solidarity, acceptance. We will not all agree and share the same worldview but we must endeavour to better understand what the other truly believes or thinks and not our half-baked prejudices and I suspect Dennett is aiming at that. But we need to avoid indifferentism and syncretism confusing children with the idea that all religions are the same.
Religions are not merely doctrines and customes. Ultimately one engages the same ..
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou Please help me to understand how helping kids to become fully familiar with all of the world's major religions in any way advocates for a particular religion, or for that matter, advocates for the equivalency of all of them? Learning about them would display both their differences and similarities, placing children, as they mature, in a position to choose the one (or none) that is most compelling for me. Such a choice constitutes maximum freedom for the individual, does it not?
Biologist1947 2 weeks ago
@Biologist1947 As a convert to Christianity after a long journey I can resonate with your comment to some degree. But even studies in high schools here in Australia have shown that comparative religion in the curriculum results in religious confusion. How much more so with younger kids who do not have the cognitive or psychological acuity for comparative religion. I think this problem is partly because It is difficult enough to properly understand even one religion: it's an ...
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou ..2 ongoing process. More importantly, as I try to explain in my earlier comment, religion is not just a though system. It is almost meaningless without faith. You cannot simultaneously believe that Christ is God and you are called to participate mystically in his life and also believe he iss just a prophet.
A Child is formed, not just taught, to BE a Christian, Muslim etc. Moreover, this formation involves the supernatural element of infused faith, which I ...
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou ..2 realized is problematic for the atheist.
Your suggestion has the attraction of respecting the freedom of the child but he has this anyway. Not even God forces us against our freedom, no matter what men have wrongly attempted in His name to the contrary. Many young Christians (and other religions) do turn from religion as they are growing up and many return.
We don't give our young children ethical options but that doesn't stop them making their own choices later.
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou Because religion is so important culturally, I continue to agree with Dennett despite your thoughtful comments. You are an example of one who has journeyed to a different type of supernaturalism and I honor your experience. I have great confidence, however, in kids to understand complex cultural differences, and in learning about them, to respect them and to make rational decisions for themselves. I think that religion should be taught routinely as part of units on world culture.
Biologist1947 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou ..2 Godhead if a monotheist but how he does that is essential to his religious identity. A Catholic, eg, participates in the Church's sacramental life believing that thereby God communicate His life (grace). One can/does not expect a Muslim to do/believe this. It would equally be insincere for a Catholic to participate in Ramadan.
Because practice of religion should go to the core one's identity and is not a mere cultural curiosity or even ideology I think, especially ..
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou As it happens today, and Dennett describes beautifully, by far the VAST majority of individuals adopt the supernaturalist beliefs of their family and their culture. Occasionally, rarely, individuals diverge from that path. Under Islam, and at one time under Christianity, such apostasy would result in the execution of the person---something you'd agree is shameful. With universal education, individuals would acquire much more freedom and be less culturally limited, would they not?
Biologist1947 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou ..3 especially in a pluralist world, educated intra-religious dialogue and dialogue with agnostics/atheists is urgent and essential - our human dignity, justice and peace demand nothing less of us. But authentic dialogue does not mean we must discard core beliefs held in conscience in an attempt at false ecumenism or solidarity and such education I believe is appropriate no earlier than college age and should respect a legitimate pluralism in worldviews.
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou We don't wait until college age to teach world history, do we? how about world cultures? science? mathematics? music? art? Why would we possibly wait until college age to expose children to the immense diversity of global religious concepts? Don't we trust them to make the proper decision for themselves about what they choose to accept? Your proposal would be very much like not exposing kids to others of different races until college b/c they weren't sufficiently mature until then.
Biologist1947 2 weeks ago
The First Vatican Council (1879) was largely about the defence of reason against the heresy of fideism, which placed faith in antognism to reason. Many great Catholic philosophers such as the Jesuits Rickaby and Joyce and laymen Maritain and Gilson were prominent in 20th century, not to mention Cardinal Karol Wojtyla (later Pope John Paul II) internationally recognized in the school of Husserlian phenomonolgy.
GordonSou 3 weeks ago
Many of the Church Fathers (first seven centuries AD) were philosophers. Much of Western culture, including classic philosophy) was preserved during the so-called Dark Ages and the barbarians civilized by Benedictine monks. This love of wisdom and respect for reason has continued through the ages in the Catholic Church (and other religious traditions as with the Islamic philosophers of medieval times Avicenna and Averoes) to the present.
GordonSou 3 weeks ago
There are many scientists who are committed to religions of various persuasions. The Pontifical Institute of Science is in constant dialogue with science. It would be more helpful if instread of creating false dichotomies we recognized what is common to us as human beings and with goodwill together addressed the many challenges which confront us.
Science is good and the proper use of our God given reason is a gift and responsibility.
GordonSou 3 weeks ago
Whatever science has done to prolong human longevity does not detract from any of the facts I mentionted. It should not be an either or situation of science or religion. Science is legitimate when it remains within its own sphere dealing with natural phenomena with instruments proper to that and likewise religion is legitimate when it remains within its own sphere. Scientism betrays science and fundamentalism betrays religion.
GordonSou 3 weeks ago
What makes the bible the pillar of truth? Do you know who wrote it? How many times has it been altered to support political agendas in history? Do you believe in life outside our planet? Why label logical thinking as atheism? Buddhism is the only practical and logical spiritual practice as it focuses on bettering oneself; the religions that worship figures who were most likely extraterrestrials hinder Human development and create an environment for submission and fear.
osgangstarrr 3 weeks ago
Let's see if I understand your argument? There are two types of atheists / skeptics? Type 1 accept the ideas of self-loathing, self-centered philosophers like Camus and Sartre. They also despise themselves and find no meaning in life. These are the GOOD atheists. Type 2 accept the notions of Nielsen, Dennett, and scores of others who embrace life, find fulfillment and meaning without a god, contribute to the world, etc. These are the BAD atheists. What an incredible taxonomy indeed!
Biologist1947 3 weeks ago
@Biologist1947 Call them "good" and "bad" if you like, but those aren't the terms I used. I spoke of some atheists as logically consistent and others as logically inconsistent. The logically coherent position is that which Sartre articulated: if there is no God, life is absurd.
wordonfirevideo 3 weeks ago 6
@wordonfirevideo A "logically coherent position" is apparently strictly a matter of opinion in philosophy. The opinion of many other---self-actualized and well-respected--philosophers is that atheism / skepticism is not only logically coherent, but it is "true" in the way that philosophers use that term and that life is far more fulfilling and meaningful without any god. A good book: "Philosophers Without Gods" by Louise Antony. Clearly, "logical coherence" is a matter of opinion in philosophy.
Biologist1947 3 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo But Satre's view is simply that - an opinion.You cannot assert that this is any more consistent or logical than "God exists life is wonderful" - again that is unverifiable opinion. You speak as though the facts of God's existence are evident for all to see. If they were we would have no need of theology - "the art of conviction against physical evidence."
Mrmentalmadness123 2 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 It is useful to remember that Sartre and Camus were chosen carefully as examples of "thoughtful" atheists.Both were narcissistic, self-loathing, very unhappy men. I'd make a strong case that regardless of their atheism, both would have been miserable humans. Scores of brilliant philosophers make coherent, compelling arguments that life without supernaturalism is far more fulfilling because it is a deeply rational approach to exist in the NOW. Try Kai Nielsen and Dan Dennett.
Biologist1947 2 weeks ago
@Biologist1947 I disagree. Lots of religious people are unhappy humans also. Also, why do you think there are "thoughtless" atheists. Atheism takes comtemplation and thought. Religion is the mindless acceptance of dogma with no evidence.
Mrmentalmadness123 2 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 I think you miss-read me entirely. Sartre and Camus, atheistic philosophers, were both deeply unhappy, self-loathing, narcissistic men.They were chosen as examples of "thoughtful" atheist philosophers for this video precisely because they WERE so unhappy. Fulfilled, positive, optimistic atheist philosophers, such as Nielsen and Dennett, both fine thinkers, were deliberately not even casually mentioned in this video, for obvious reasons. I belong to the Nielsen camp.
Biologist1947 2 weeks ago
@Biologist1947 I think that what Sartre and Camus, were doing was addressing the pros along with the cons of a worldview, and accepting the worldview in spite of the heavier weight of the cons. Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris have a more "Commercial" Atheism, where only the benefits are presented. All the negatives are subsided by excuses. Ultimately, the beneficial worldview (Atheist or Theist) promotes an inauthentic view. I think that is what was being grasped here.
Stitchman3875 3 weeks ago
@Stitchman3875 I've read Dennett and Nielsen carefully, and several others in not quite as much depth. Nielsen, and especially Dennett, describe the benefits of supernaturalism at length, both to societies (cultures) and to individuals.Biologicallly,even a cursory examination provides compelling rationale for the selection of "religiousity" in H. sapiens.I think that modern skeptical philosophers both realize and articulate the benefits of theism---but remain unconvinced that any god exists.
Biologist1947 3 weeks ago
@Biologist1947 In discussing Sartre and Camus' philosophy, I'm afraid the biological inferences are irrelevant. The arguments of the end run around life and it's meaning or absurdity rests in the field of existentialism for which life is required to have a deeper meaning than simply the survival of species. Necessity, rationale, etc. are placed on a back burner, in favor of a need for deeper meaning. These are issues, skeptics cannot address.
Stitchman3875 3 weeks ago
@Stitchman3875 The other issue to take to task especially with the subject matter of this video, and the concepts it presents, is that biological explanations are linear answers to ideas that are abstract in nature. Linear answers fail here because they attempt to fit one concept into all scenarios the abstract presents. Because of the variations of degrees and perspective, the infinite possibility negates the relevancy of skepticism, biology, hence science ends and philosophy begins.
Stitchman3875 3 weeks ago
@Stitchman3875 Do "linear" answers fail here? Dennett would certainly disagree. Nielsen doesn't deal to any great extent with the evolutionary heritage of the "supersense" or the proclivity of H. sapiens for invisible agency and its adaptive value, but he does deal with the existential issues involved in common, workable morality and ethics---something frequently cited by theists as requiring supernaturalism. Bottom line for me: "logical coherence" is clearly a matter of philosophical opinion.
Biologist1947 3 weeks ago
@Biologist1947 In philosophy, there is no real "bottom line". But in addressing the concepts in this video, when meaning is sought after in light of the concepts presented, we are talking about Existentialism, which is not the field of philosophy that Dennett addresses, ergo, his opinions are of a different nature. Morality, ethics, etc are irrelevant to the discussion of this nature because as I mentioned, they only address the mutualistic cause of survival.....
Stitchman3875 3 weeks ago
@Stitchman3875 In Existentialism, the necessities are put aside and in goes toward the nature of the individual. If morality is to be discussed, then the question would be "Is this really your morals, or are you just following rules for another cause?" Sartre and his constituents are addressing matters of this nature in that regard. But what they ultimately are getting at is to say beyond all empirical concepts, what is the actual meaning. This is what linear answers do not address.
Stitchman3875 3 weeks ago
@Stitchman3875 We are in agreement. "Logical coherence" is indeed a matter of philosophical opinion. "In philosophy, there is no real 'bottom line.'"---as you say so well. I focus on "logical coherence" because as you see from Fr. Barron's own comment above, that is his fundamental objection to philosophies that maintain that there is insufficient evidence (or insufficiently compelling speculation) for the existence of any god.
Biologist1947 3 weeks ago
@Biologist1947 I'm afraid you are missing my point completely. You are using the wrong tools to address what Father Barron is referring to. In using Sartre and Camus, as examples, he is saying that the core is being addressed to which evidence is irrelevant. Speculations of the "logically coherent" variety are irrelevant as well, because as I mentioned, they provide only linear, one dimensional answers. These answers leave much to be desired do to the subjective nature of the concept .....
Stitchman3875 3 weeks ago
@Stitchman3875 Because of this subjectivity, answers are not "in your face" as evidence and "logic" would attempt to lead you to. These ideas cannot be addressed in terms of their physical components but must also take to consideration the nonphysical ideas which cannot be inferred by any real empirical investigation. The answers are infinite and provide a number of possibilities, therefore "logical coherence" does not work here.
Stitchman3875 3 weeks ago
"Hunger proves the existence and reality of food. It doesn't mean that food is some kind of subjective projection or an illusion"
Then you have never met people with eating disorders. Food CAN absolutely be used as a substitute for something else. Bulimia does not prove the existence of food. It proves the existence of some deeper problem.
"Our desires are not misleading us"
Yes, but to call them 'sins' and twist them into a so-called 'desire for God' is exactly the same as an eating disorder
Hufflewaffle 1 month ago 2
@Hufflewaffle A distortion is always named and known from the standpoint of that which is normal. Is there a distorted desire for God? Sure: its called fanaticism or fundamentalism. But like an eating disorder, it's a distortion of something very good and very real.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago 8
The way I see it (in my own experience), when we go from religion to atheism, there is a temporary feeling of "No meaning", but I think life is about overcoming that problem, re-evaluating your old morals according to your new moral standard (which is most likely your own ultimate happiness), living life accordingly, and also seeking to be at peace with the fact that after you die, your brain stops working, and therefore, you stop existing (to yourself at least).
VanessaTexasGal 1 month ago
@VanessaTexasGal Well said! One of the great "selling features" of modern supernaturalism is the promise of pie in the sky bye and bye---but only if you acknowledge the "correct" god and behave in thought, word, and deed as that god ordains---as interpreted by men (almost always) who possess a direct line to that god. Rationally determining one's own meaning, living in the now, and in the "not knowing" is so very very much better!
bassclarinet2000 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo I know that churchmen want to take credit for the rise of Enlightenment science. I've heard the arguments before. But the history is clear. Enlightenment thinkers and the chruch were constantly at odds---one need look no further than our own T. Jefferson and B. Franklin. My longevity point remains and even you can't dispute it. Pre-Enlightenment Europe was superstitious and supernaturalistic. "god did it" was the dominant explanation and it hindered science.
bassclarinet2000 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sciocco
Are you a relimuppet that switches to being an atheist and then quickly switch back to being a relimuppet again?
I know fuckos like you you keep moving the goalposts in the conversation in order to look credible
sonykroket 1 month ago
@sonykroket
relimuppet! What the fuck Man-up wanker............
Antitossers 1 month ago
Comment removed
sonykroket 1 month ago
@Sciocc0
Why are you argueing and responding to me if you have nothing else to report than wannabe smartass nitpicking
sonykroket 1 month ago
"Priests are not to be reasoned with, they are to be locked up." - Nietzsche
ast453000 1 month ago