Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[Pico and ME]

I would be interested in hearing about those experiences in your life that contributed to your belief in God. I have my own theory about how this usually starts with people and tried to express it in another discussion, but was accused of attacking someones 'faith' when you got into the discussion. All you had to do was say that your life experiences led you to your faith and then the discussion was over. It shouldn't be that way, otherwise I could say something like 'my experiences have led me to believing that we really didn't land on the moon' and that would be that.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

snip~ All you had to do was say that your life experiences led you to your faith and then the discussion was over. It shouldn't be that way, otherwise I could say something like 'my experiences have led me to believing that we really didn't land on the moon' and that would be that.

Yes, that would be that, unless one (or both) of the parties is trying to convince the other they are wrong, rather than just learning why they feel the way they do.

[tw]

The Pope is infallible? Not according to actions of the current 'infallible' pope. From the NY Times of 24 Jan 2009:

Pope Reinstates Four Excommunicated Bishops
The four reinstated men are members of the Society of St. Pius X, which was founded by a French archbishop, Marcel Lefebvre, in 1970 as a protest against the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council, also called Vatican II. Archbishop Lefebvre made the men bishops in unsanctioned consecrations in Switzerland in 1988, prompting the immediate excommunication of all five by Pope John Paul II.

Later that year, Benedict, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, sought to regularize the church’s relationship with the society. And as pope, he has made reinstating the Lefebvrists an important personal cause.

Appreciate the statements that caused these bishops to be excommunicated by an infallible pope.

Pope Benedict XVI, reaching out to the far-right of the Roman Catholic Church, revoked the excommunications of four schismatic bishops on Saturday, including one whose comments denying the Holocaust have provoked outrage. ...

Among the men reinstated Saturday was Richard Williamson, a British-born cleric who in an interview last week said he did not believe that six million Jews died in the Nazi gas chambers. He has also given interviews saying that the United States government staged the Sept. 11 attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan. ...

Indeed, even though the Society has given no public signs that it would reverse its rejection of Vatican II, one Vatican official, speaking on condition of anonymity on Saturday because talks were continuing, said that the Vatican was willing to discuss making the group a personal prelature. Pope John Paul II did the same with another conservative group, Opus Dei.

In a public statement Saturday, the Vatican said that the pope would reconsider whether to formally affirm the four men as full bishops, but it referred to the men by that title. It said talks would seek to resolve the “open questions” in the church’s relationship with the society.

Either Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict is wrong. One was fallible. Religion's premise (that underpins that entire religion) is really speculation. Religion re-labels as theory what science defines as speculation - also called junk science. Religion's theory is even contradicted by experimental evidence: an infallible pope made a mistake.

There is no 'theory' of creationism. That speculation uses the same reasoning that says a pope is infallible. To have a theory, one must first have sufficient evidence that the theory even exists. Experimental evidence even suggests creationism is false.

Even the concept of a soul is nothing more than wild speculation. No different from the same logic that proved Saddam had WMDs. We feel Saddam had WMDs. Therefore that is a fact? We feel that god created woman from a man's rib. Therefore that is a fact? Hardly. It does not even meet the definition of theory.

The only man and only woman had two sons. So how did they have grandsons. Did Cain or Abel do their mother? Or did they do their unmentioned sisters? Or maybe religious 'facts' and 'theories' are really nothing more than parables or fairy tales?

Religion is full of beliefs that even contradict knowledge and reality – that even justified massacres. This is why religion is only a relationship between one man and his god(s). Nothing more. No wonder the fallible pope is somehow still infallible.

[richlevy]

There are apparently a few prophecies out there that imply that Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) is the next to last pope before the 'final pope'. With this kind of rigid dogmatism mixed with realpolitik, picking up the worst of both worlds, they may be right.

Unfortunately, there are fewer and fewer Holocaust survivors walking around with their numbers still tattooed on their arms to remind us. It's possible that people will forget, especially if the current pope chooses expediency and condones the denial of what happened. Considering the fact that he himself experienced the Holocaust from the other side, you would think he would be able to correct these idiots.

http://www.catholic-pages.com/grabbag/malachy.asp

[Griff]

Originally Posted by richlevy

There are apparently a few prophecies out there that imply that Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) is the next to last pope before the 'final pope'. With this kind of rigid dogmatism mixed with realpolitik, picking up the worst of both worlds, they may be right.

I've been easing away from the church for some time. For me Benedict is my last Pope. This obscenity just reinforces my decision.

[Phage0070]

"From the beginning, Christianity has understood itself as the religion of the Logos, as the religion according to reason...It has always defined men, all men without distinction, as creatures and images of God, proclaiming for them...the same dignity. In this connection, the Enlightenment is of Christian origin and it is no accident that it was born precisely and exclusively in the realm of the Christian faith....It was and is the merit of the Enlightenment to have again proposed these original values of Christianity and of having given back to reason its own voice... Today, this should be precisely [Christianity's] philosophical strength, in so far as the problem is whether the world comes from the irrational, and reason is not other than a 'sub-product,' on occasion even harmful of its development—or whether the world comes from reason, and is, as a consequence, its criterion and goal...In the so necessary dialogue between secularists and Catholics, we Christians must be very careful to remain faithful to this fundamental line: to live a faith that comes from the Logos, from creative reason, and that, because of this, is also open to all that is truly rational." -- Pope Benedict XVI

The Pope makes an interesting argument here, which has some interesting consequences to the original topic. Basically what he seems to be saying is that the widespread concept of rational thinking arose in Western society and so is of exclusively Christian origin. He goes on to say that it is important for Christians to maintain that reality is the way it is for a reason, rather than reason being a byproduct of existence. Thus, he concludes that Christians should be open to rational thought.

From this we can deduce the following: Not only should a Catholic be open to the reasonable explanations provided by evolutionary science but they should base their entire belief system on reason. In my view the Pope is basically shooting the Catholic faith in the foot because faith is, by definition, unreasonable. Thoughts?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Phage0070

The Pope makes an interesting argument here, which has some interesting consequences to the original topic. Basically what he seems to be saying is that the widespread concept of rational thinking arose in Western society and so is of exclusively Christian origin. He goes on to say that it is important for Christians to maintain that reality is the way it is for a reason, rather than reason being a byproduct of existence. Thus, he concludes that Christians should be open to rational thought.

From this we can deduce the following: Not only should a Catholic be open to the reasonable explanations provided by evolutionary science but they should base their entire belief system on reason. In my view the Pope is basically shooting the Catholic faith in the foot because faith is, by definition, unreasonable. Thoughts?

Rational thinking exclusively Christian origin? humph. What about the Greeks? Or the Egyptians? Or any other myriad ancient cultures that predate Christianity?

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Phage0070

From this we can deduce the following: Not only should a Catholic be open to the reasonable explanations provided by evolutionary science but they should base their entire belief system on reason.

"Evolutionary Science" does not provide a reasonable explanation for how the universe explodes out of nothing, how life is created from non life, or how amoebas evolve into men.

The evidences that "Evolutionary Scientists" use can be reasonably proved to be at least open to question (the speed of light, carbon dating), fraudulent (Lucy) or outright wrong (gillslits in foetii, moth experiments).

Origins is a religious discussion, regardless of which side you're on.

[tw]

Originally Posted by richlevy

There are apparently a few prophecies out there that imply that Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) is the next to last pope before the 'final pope'.

Originally Posted by Griff

For me Benedict is my last Pope. This obscenity just reinforces my decision.

See. Elect a black man as president and the world comes to an end. Now to find proof in a bible.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by richlevy

There are apparently a few prophecies out there that imply that Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) is the next to last pope before the 'final pope'.

Wow - just like Doctor Who!

[tw]

As Pico and ME noted:

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

I have my own theory about how this usually starts with people and tried to express it in another discussion, but was accused of attacking someones 'faith' when you got into the discussion.

Another fundamental problem with beliefs based only in speculation: the believer has no reason to justify (be confident in) their belief. A believer must fall back to emotional attachment and outbursts. A resulting emotional suspicion and cynicism redefines those questions, instead, as an attack. Why? Religion should only be a relationship between one and his god(s). Therefore anyone else's questions or doubts are completely irrelevant - harm no one - insult no one.

Does religion also not teach to turn the other cheek? Of course. One secure in his own religion is never threatened or insulted - if religion is really only about that man / god(s) relationship.

Religious beliefs don't meet the definition of 'theory'. Religious rhetoric (ie the pope is infallible or that virgins await martyrs) only meets the definition of wild speculation or junk science. And yet the religious will even violate their sixth commandment to ‘defend’ their religion from threats that only ask damning questions and that threaten no one.

"What is a god?" The question broke down into the inevitable problem - what is a fact and how do we know anything? Why would people confuse a 'theory' called evolution with 'wild speculation' called creationism? Creationism is defined by the same reasoning that also proved "The Force". No wonder religious leaders in the early days of Star Wars called it a pagan religion. “The Force” was a potential religion and therefore a threat. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed so that Luke Skywalker could save the universe.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by tw

Does religion also not teach to turn the other cheek?

Not all religions do, no.