Hunger proves we have a need for food. We can see and measure food - it exists. Our need for a belief in the supernatural is in my view based on our need to see order and purpose in our lives - we cannot see God but rather we invent the idea of an order- of a creator. Our hunger for a creator does not mean one exists.
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.
@sciencelives2000 If God showed us verifiable evidence (which there is all around us if you really think about it), it would be like Him forcing us to believe. God is like that millionare who's seeking sincere friends who aren't just there to use him for his money.
@SplatteredRemnants Again, incredible sophistry! What has changed since the 1st century, when iron age Jews were treated, by their own reports only, to multiple "miracles?" For some reason, your god saw fit to demonstrate its power and majesty to these folks, but not to us? Why might that be? Aren't we also in need of miraculous demonstrations? If belief is critical for "salvation," shouldn't we also be treated to such displays of prowess? Such unfairness! They got the "miracles!"
@sciencelives2000 There are miracles all around us to this day. As for why God chose those people over the rest of the world, I'm no expert, but perhaps it had a lot to do with Mary and her perfect life? I'm sure if Mary was Asian and in Asia, God would've chosen those people. That's just my own speculation though.
@SplatteredRemnants Show me one, well-documented, scientifically verifiable "miracle." Just one that couldn't be easily explained by a thoughtful university freshman science major. There is not a scintilla, not an iota, not a whit of verifiable evidence for the existence of any of the countless gods ever invented by humans over the centuries, including yours.
When science has tried to find evidence, say for the efficacy of intercessional prayer, none could be found in repeated experiments.
@sciencelives2000 But religion and science are not the same things, so what is the point? They each have their place. As for the other gods, I'd agree and say they are all purely mythical. The only difference between my God and theirs, is that mine is also rooted in history, where as the others are not. Even Jews recognize Jesus as a historical figure.
@sciencelives2000 But you're not really answering the most important question that I have for scientists who believe this world came from nothing. If there is no purpose and all of this was created by accident, how any of you can pretend to have meaning in your life when you should know better, as a scientist?
@SplatteredRemnants That's the first time you've posed that question to me. I have 2 types of thoughts:
1) How can you as a supernaturalist find any type of meaning from Iron Age myths written by dudes who knew less about the Cosmos than we'd expect from a 6th grader today? How can you suspend judgment and without verifiable evidence of any kind think that you have "meaning" for your life in these documents? How can you think that your god, whom you think exists, but for which you (contd)
@SplatteredRemnants (2) not a shred of verifiable evidence magically provides meaning to your life?
2) As for me, as a scientist, my life is literally filled with meaning and fulfillment with every breath I take. Einstein said it well. He rejected a "personal god" as "childish superstition." But he found immense joy and considerable satisfaction in his study of the beauty of the Cosmos. That was more than enough for him. It's more than enough for me. There is no need for invented myth.
@sciencelives2000 So even if you had the kind of evidence you were looking for, Faith is still a huge part of the puzzle regardless and we'd still probably be having this very same discussion.
@SplatteredRemnants I've no quarrel whatever with "faith" as a justification for supernaturalism. Supernaturalists simply need to admit it. I have a major quarrel with the use of science, philosophy, or biased, in authenticated historical accounts as a justification for supernaturalism.
@sciencelives2000 You're also leaving out that science if forever changing. Even scientists acknowledge that they may not have all of the answers today, but may someday. So if there's no scientific proof of miracles today, who's to say there won't be 50 years from now? Who's to say you won't be re-evaluating the way you look at things scientifically 20 years from now if some new method is discovered? Science isn't very stable.
@SplatteredRemnants I would rephrase your remarks like this---and they become an excellent counter to Dr. Barron: Scientists readily acknowledge that we don't have all the answers. There's no incontrovertible evidence that the Cosmos arose from nothing , though, given what we know of physics and mathematics, such a thing is entirely plausible. Who's to say that 50 years from now, as Cosmology matures, that we won't have much greater certainty that the Cosmos arose from nothing, without magic?
@sciencelives2000 Science is forever changing. Scientists go back to things in certain instances that they've believed for several years as true, to be false and offer new meanings to previous discoveries. Science also doesn't even know much about what is in our own ocean here on earth, how does it even begin to know anything about the cosmos or meaning of life?
@SplatteredRemnants Well, you've got part of it right. One of the wondrous qualities of science, as compared to supernaturalism, is that it is always OPEN to new verifiable evidence and to new thinking about that evidence. The part that you don't have correct is that you underestimate how much is actually understood about the Cosmos and about biology. May I suggest some university level courses in the sciences? You might really enjoy them!!
@sciencelives2000 The thing is, religion is also somewhat "open" but not in the same way as you're thinking. Obviously, there are great mysteries that mere mortal men cannot understand about a very complex God. Religious people do not claim to have all of the answers in some instances, and we recognize that some day some of those mysteries may be revealed to us. Religion and science are starting to sound a lot alike, no?
@SplatteredRemnants Supernaturalism isn't open at all! Supernaturalists rely on authority, either from written texts or from the pronouncements of those persons in authority. May I suggest that you think this through more carefully? Science rejects authority. The only things important in science are verifiable evidence and robust, broad, predictive, falsifiable, always provisional explanations. Science awards Nobel Prizes to those who have destroyed previous conceptions of "reality."
@sciencelives2000 Okay so if you believe that this world was created by accident via some kind of scientific explanation, why don't we see other worlds that are just like ours? Isn't repeatability a huge part of any scientific method?
@SplatteredRemnants You're wasting your time trying to have a rational dialogue with this fellow. I tried it a week ago. He claims Christians and the New Testament believe 1.2 bn Hindus are condemned to eternity in hell, blames God for suffering chilldren but is not prepared to take any responsibility himself, he refuses to respond to say how his bigoted ideology which he graces with the name of science explains the very many respected scientists who hold serious religioius
@GordonSou (2) beliefs, on the same day that he is tellling me about his own heresy (it transpires he is a disaffected - so-called "recovering" Catholic, hence the virulence in his anit-religious stance) he has the hypocrisy to tell Fr Barron he would be ashamed to use the word "heresy" in this forum. With blatant selectivity he quotes Aquinas' Summa Theologica and in the same comment demonstrates his utter confusion about the nature and teachings of the Catholic Church. His only
@GordonSou (3) response to questions and challenges is to call them inane, waffle endlessly and repeat the mantra - "verifiable evidence". Electrons and quarks cannot be seen or directly observed at all (hence they are called "theoretial entitiies" by philosophers of science) yet the new atheists see nothing inconsistent in their double standards here or where they demand a higher standard of "evidence" in religion than in, for example, morality and politics.
@sciencelives2000 You speak so much about verifiable evidence, I am beginning to think if it would even matter if you had any (which you already do, you just do not realize it). People in Jesus' day who witnessed miracles and spent time with him and who were close to him, even could not process what it was they were seeing some of the time.
@SplatteredRemnants There is not a scintilla of verifiable evidence that any of those first century "miracles" ever occurred. Nor is there an iota of evidence that miracles occur in our own time. You speak of those miracles as if they occurred. You have no verifiable evidence, whereas we do have evidence for the plausibility of many other explanations for them.
@sciencelives2000 Oral tradition and history are part of the evidence. Also, eyewitness accounts should be worth something; they're enough to put a man to death in the U.S. so I don't see why you shouldn't value them as well, historically speaking.
@SplatteredRemnants Eyewitness accounts of a crime have a measure of credibility---though everyone understands that our sense are easily deceived.
If someone testified in court today that a corpse had been reanimated, additional, verifiable evidence would be required for the witness to be believed by anyone.
We DO have evidence for MANY other planets, some of them with the characteristics required to support life. I'd encourage you to study cosmology and astronomy--you might enjoy it!
@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?
@SplatteredRemnants I'd encourage you to read the historical records more carefully. Yours is an old, much-worn excuse made by Catholic supernaturalists trying to lay the blame for the torture and burning of heretics at the feet of the secular authority. While in some cases, only the secular authorities had the "power" to torture and burn, they did so at the bequest of the charming clerics who conducted the "examinations." No amount of sophistry can excuse this monstrous behavior.
@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...
@kajakpaddler92 If there is absolutely no purpose or meaning to the universe, how can you claim that your life is full of purpose and meaning? That, at least to me, makes no sense and sounds like complete and utter oxymoronism.
If life is meaningless and will forever be meaningless, why even bother to "understand the Cosomos?" There's no meaning in it! ;)
@SplatteredRemnants As I said, I sorry for you If you cant see the meaning of life without believing in an almighty DICTATOR, I'm really sorry, I mean it... you've destroyed your own humanity to the point that you cant see the beauty of the world, i pitty you...
@kajakpaddler92 You're forgetting that I'm quoting you here when you say that as a student of physics, there is no purpose in life. So again, with you being a physicist who's found that there is no purpose in this world, how you can sit there and claim to have meaning and purpose in your own life?
@SplatteredRemnants because the way the guy I was talking to had a very diferent definition of what purpose means, that's why I can claim that. I should have been more specific, and said that there is no purpose "has you understand it" but there is a purpose in my life. why? because I decide wheter or not there is purpose in my life, and in this particular case I decided that the purpose of my life is to learn about the natural world, threfore there is purspose.
@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.
Thanks you
svt283 4 hours ago
Hunger proves we have a need for food. We can see and measure food - it exists. Our need for a belief in the supernatural is in my view based on our need to see order and purpose in our lives - we cannot see God but rather we invent the idea of an order- of a creator. Our hunger for a creator does not mean one exists.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 day ago
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 5 days 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 1 week 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 1 week ago
@sciencelives2000 If God showed us verifiable evidence (which there is all around us if you really think about it), it would be like Him forcing us to believe. God is like that millionare who's seeking sincere friends who aren't just there to use him for his money.
SplatteredRemnants 1 day ago
@SplatteredRemnants Again, incredible sophistry! What has changed since the 1st century, when iron age Jews were treated, by their own reports only, to multiple "miracles?" For some reason, your god saw fit to demonstrate its power and majesty to these folks, but not to us? Why might that be? Aren't we also in need of miraculous demonstrations? If belief is critical for "salvation," shouldn't we also be treated to such displays of prowess? Such unfairness! They got the "miracles!"
sciencelives2000 1 day ago
@sciencelives2000 There are miracles all around us to this day. As for why God chose those people over the rest of the world, I'm no expert, but perhaps it had a lot to do with Mary and her perfect life? I'm sure if Mary was Asian and in Asia, God would've chosen those people. That's just my own speculation though.
SplatteredRemnants 1 day ago
@SplatteredRemnants Show me one, well-documented, scientifically verifiable "miracle." Just one that couldn't be easily explained by a thoughtful university freshman science major. There is not a scintilla, not an iota, not a whit of verifiable evidence for the existence of any of the countless gods ever invented by humans over the centuries, including yours.
When science has tried to find evidence, say for the efficacy of intercessional prayer, none could be found in repeated experiments.
sciencelives2000 1 day ago
Comment removed
SplatteredRemnants 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sciencelives2000 But religion and science are not the same things, so what is the point? They each have their place. As for the other gods, I'd agree and say they are all purely mythical. The only difference between my God and theirs, is that mine is also rooted in history, where as the others are not. Even Jews recognize Jesus as a historical figure.
SplatteredRemnants 1 day ago
@sciencelives2000 But you're not really answering the most important question that I have for scientists who believe this world came from nothing. If there is no purpose and all of this was created by accident, how any of you can pretend to have meaning in your life when you should know better, as a scientist?
SplatteredRemnants 1 day ago
@SplatteredRemnants That's the first time you've posed that question to me. I have 2 types of thoughts:
1) How can you as a supernaturalist find any type of meaning from Iron Age myths written by dudes who knew less about the Cosmos than we'd expect from a 6th grader today? How can you suspend judgment and without verifiable evidence of any kind think that you have "meaning" for your life in these documents? How can you think that your god, whom you think exists, but for which you (contd)
sciencelives2000 1 day ago
@SplatteredRemnants (2) not a shred of verifiable evidence magically provides meaning to your life?
2) As for me, as a scientist, my life is literally filled with meaning and fulfillment with every breath I take. Einstein said it well. He rejected a "personal god" as "childish superstition." But he found immense joy and considerable satisfaction in his study of the beauty of the Cosmos. That was more than enough for him. It's more than enough for me. There is no need for invented myth.
sciencelives2000 1 day ago
@sciencelives2000 So even if you had the kind of evidence you were looking for, Faith is still a huge part of the puzzle regardless and we'd still probably be having this very same discussion.
SplatteredRemnants 1 day ago
@SplatteredRemnants I've no quarrel whatever with "faith" as a justification for supernaturalism. Supernaturalists simply need to admit it. I have a major quarrel with the use of science, philosophy, or biased, in authenticated historical accounts as a justification for supernaturalism.
sciencelives2000 1 day ago
@sciencelives2000 You're also leaving out that science if forever changing. Even scientists acknowledge that they may not have all of the answers today, but may someday. So if there's no scientific proof of miracles today, who's to say there won't be 50 years from now? Who's to say you won't be re-evaluating the way you look at things scientifically 20 years from now if some new method is discovered? Science isn't very stable.
SplatteredRemnants 1 day ago
@SplatteredRemnants I would rephrase your remarks like this---and they become an excellent counter to Dr. Barron: Scientists readily acknowledge that we don't have all the answers. There's no incontrovertible evidence that the Cosmos arose from nothing , though, given what we know of physics and mathematics, such a thing is entirely plausible. Who's to say that 50 years from now, as Cosmology matures, that we won't have much greater certainty that the Cosmos arose from nothing, without magic?
sciencelives2000 1 day ago
@sciencelives2000 Science is forever changing. Scientists go back to things in certain instances that they've believed for several years as true, to be false and offer new meanings to previous discoveries. Science also doesn't even know much about what is in our own ocean here on earth, how does it even begin to know anything about the cosmos or meaning of life?
SplatteredRemnants 1 day ago
@SplatteredRemnants Well, you've got part of it right. One of the wondrous qualities of science, as compared to supernaturalism, is that it is always OPEN to new verifiable evidence and to new thinking about that evidence. The part that you don't have correct is that you underestimate how much is actually understood about the Cosmos and about biology. May I suggest some university level courses in the sciences? You might really enjoy them!!
sciencelives2000 1 day ago
@sciencelives2000 The thing is, religion is also somewhat "open" but not in the same way as you're thinking. Obviously, there are great mysteries that mere mortal men cannot understand about a very complex God. Religious people do not claim to have all of the answers in some instances, and we recognize that some day some of those mysteries may be revealed to us. Religion and science are starting to sound a lot alike, no?
SplatteredRemnants 1 day ago
@SplatteredRemnants Supernaturalism isn't open at all! Supernaturalists rely on authority, either from written texts or from the pronouncements of those persons in authority. May I suggest that you think this through more carefully? Science rejects authority. The only things important in science are verifiable evidence and robust, broad, predictive, falsifiable, always provisional explanations. Science awards Nobel Prizes to those who have destroyed previous conceptions of "reality."
sciencelives2000 1 day ago
@sciencelives2000 Okay so if you believe that this world was created by accident via some kind of scientific explanation, why don't we see other worlds that are just like ours? Isn't repeatability a huge part of any scientific method?
SplatteredRemnants 1 day ago
@SplatteredRemnants You're wasting your time trying to have a rational dialogue with this fellow. I tried it a week ago. He claims Christians and the New Testament believe 1.2 bn Hindus are condemned to eternity in hell, blames God for suffering chilldren but is not prepared to take any responsibility himself, he refuses to respond to say how his bigoted ideology which he graces with the name of science explains the very many respected scientists who hold serious religioius
GordonSou 7 hours ago
@GordonSou (2) beliefs, on the same day that he is tellling me about his own heresy (it transpires he is a disaffected - so-called "recovering" Catholic, hence the virulence in his anit-religious stance) he has the hypocrisy to tell Fr Barron he would be ashamed to use the word "heresy" in this forum. With blatant selectivity he quotes Aquinas' Summa Theologica and in the same comment demonstrates his utter confusion about the nature and teachings of the Catholic Church. His only
GordonSou 6 hours ago
@GordonSou (3) response to questions and challenges is to call them inane, waffle endlessly and repeat the mantra - "verifiable evidence". Electrons and quarks cannot be seen or directly observed at all (hence they are called "theoretial entitiies" by philosophers of science) yet the new atheists see nothing inconsistent in their double standards here or where they demand a higher standard of "evidence" in religion than in, for example, morality and politics.
GordonSou 6 hours ago
@sciencelives2000 You speak so much about verifiable evidence, I am beginning to think if it would even matter if you had any (which you already do, you just do not realize it). People in Jesus' day who witnessed miracles and spent time with him and who were close to him, even could not process what it was they were seeing some of the time.
SplatteredRemnants 1 day ago
@SplatteredRemnants There is not a scintilla of verifiable evidence that any of those first century "miracles" ever occurred. Nor is there an iota of evidence that miracles occur in our own time. You speak of those miracles as if they occurred. You have no verifiable evidence, whereas we do have evidence for the plausibility of many other explanations for them.
sciencelives2000 1 day ago
@sciencelives2000 Oral tradition and history are part of the evidence. Also, eyewitness accounts should be worth something; they're enough to put a man to death in the U.S. so I don't see why you shouldn't value them as well, historically speaking.
SplatteredRemnants 1 day ago
@SplatteredRemnants Eyewitness accounts of a crime have a measure of credibility---though everyone understands that our sense are easily deceived.
If someone testified in court today that a corpse had been reanimated, additional, verifiable evidence would be required for the witness to be believed by anyone.
We DO have evidence for MANY other planets, some of them with the characteristics required to support life. I'd encourage you to study cosmology and astronomy--you might enjoy it!
sciencelives2000 20 hours 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week ago
@GordonSou I fully understand how frustrating all of this must be to a supernaturalist. You have my condolences on your discomfort.
sciencelives2000 1 week 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 1 week ago
@sciencelives2000 The only problem was that the Inquisition was conducted by the Government, not the Catholic Church.
SplatteredRemnants 1 day ago
@SplatteredRemnants I'd encourage you to read the historical records more carefully. Yours is an old, much-worn excuse made by Catholic supernaturalists trying to lay the blame for the torture and burning of heretics at the feet of the secular authority. While in some cases, only the secular authorities had the "power" to torture and burn, they did so at the bequest of the charming clerics who conducted the "examinations." No amount of sophistry can excuse this monstrous behavior.
sciencelives2000 1 day 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 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""
Just to clarify -- when you say unconditioned good -- is that diffrent from merely doing good works without expecting any reward
badpanda84 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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
@kajakpaddler92 If there is absolutely no purpose or meaning to the universe, how can you claim that your life is full of purpose and meaning? That, at least to me, makes no sense and sounds like complete and utter oxymoronism.
If life is meaningless and will forever be meaningless, why even bother to "understand the Cosomos?" There's no meaning in it! ;)
SplatteredRemnants 1 day ago
@SplatteredRemnants As I said, I sorry for you If you cant see the meaning of life without believing in an almighty DICTATOR, I'm really sorry, I mean it... you've destroyed your own humanity to the point that you cant see the beauty of the world, i pitty you...
kajakpaddler92 1 day ago
@kajakpaddler92 You're forgetting that I'm quoting you here when you say that as a student of physics, there is no purpose in life. So again, with you being a physicist who's found that there is no purpose in this world, how you can sit there and claim to have meaning and purpose in your own life?
SplatteredRemnants 1 day ago
@SplatteredRemnants because the way the guy I was talking to had a very diferent definition of what purpose means, that's why I can claim that. I should have been more specific, and said that there is no purpose "has you understand it" but there is a purpose in my life. why? because I decide wheter or not there is purpose in my life, and in this particular case I decided that the purpose of my life is to learn about the natural world, threfore there is purspose.
kajakpaddler92 1 day 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 1 week ago
Comment removed
Biologist1947 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Biologist1947 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 3 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 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
my IQ dropped 30 points by watching this video
NovemDecem 3 weeks ago
Book of what? Cohelck? Is this in the Bible? Someone please correct me here
savioblanc 3 weeks ago
@savioblanc coheleth is the author of the book of Ecclesiastes, and yes its in the bible.
rytsign69 3 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 3 weeks ago
I think we have a childish atheism becos we have a childish christianity.
savioblanc 3 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 3 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 3 weeks ago
@Biologist1947 some evidence: Stephen Hawking's view of Heaven: A response (video)
roryscanlon 3 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 3 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 3 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 3 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