Origin of God's Morality.

[Archaeopteryx]

Considering that Theology is the science of the divine, yes, there is.

That's what the religious might like to say, but it's a dubious assertion at best.

 

[Davian]

I don't toss out anything. Especially God.

It seemed that you tossed out modern evolutionary theory, as your religion requires a literal Adam and Eve, and I suspect modern cosmology is out as well, as "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth" is diametrically opposed to a universe where the Earth was formed only after billions of years of stellar nucleosynthesis.

In other words, you're too lazy to read the book.

Not at all. Books are subject to interpretation, and I would not make the assumption of what you actually believe. Best that you lay that out yourself, for accuracy, so that you cannot claim that I am misrepresenting your position.

I will prove it to the satisfaction of anyone who wants to know.

That wants to know what?

Apparently, that's not you.

What I want to know is an accurate description of reality.

No, because they aren't the theory of how the universe began.

Telling me that your acceptance of scientific theories is based on your religious beliefs, not scientific reasons.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

I have seen this; this is what, for you, takes precedence over science. Got it.

I didn't do so at all.

You may not have done so intentionally, but you did. You said "God is an absolute, he is the definition of unfalsifiable."

Have you been reading up on the concept at all? Do you see what you did there?

My faith is the farthest thing from anti-science.

Talk is cheap.

Davian: An apt analogy. To Hamlet, Shakespeare is non-existent.

And yet he exists.

And your Hamlet analogy fails.

And, you find yourself in a forum in which your god, for the purposes of discussion, is only hypothetical.

 

[Davian]

If it was "my" opinion, I would say it's my opinion. But it's not my opinion.

Then you disagree with these "many Christians" that you claim to speak for? How does that work?

Considering that Theology is the science of the divine, yes, there is.

But you do not mean "science" in the common vernacular, do you? You don't have a actual evidence that you can present in a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, correct?

If I could prove God, it wouldn't be God.

I am not asking that you prove "God". I would ask if you have something, even small, that might demonstrate that we are not simply talking of a character in a book.

I have evidence, which I've pointed out, but you don't accept it as evidence.

Before we even get to the evidence, I'd like to see you define in some testable manner some component of your theology, so that we have some means of evaluating said evidence.

I believe we're done here.

Okay.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Where did I claim LITERAL truth?

You don't believe in a literal flood story?

If that's the case, then sorry I misunderstood you.
But then again, if you don't buy into the literal flood story, then what was your point about geology and the flood? Because this is rather confusing...

 

[DogmaHunter]

a couple of Christians? So what? Christians have been wrong. Other Christians have succeeded.

See?

Again in this post, you seem to certainly imply to be buying into a LITERAL understanding of the Noah flood tale...

So, which is it?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Certainly not in the way you use the word 'believe'. Do I 'believe' in stellar nucleosynthesis? No, I accept is as a plausible scientific theory supported by evidence. If it were falsified tomorrrow, and replaced with a more accurate theory, I would not lose sleep over it.

Great.

To rephrase, can you present this evidence in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis that might be in support of your religious beliefs?

Ah. moving the goal posts...

Other than timescales, did anything really change?

Neither do I.

See above.

I do not know what you mean by this. Are you trying to equate scientific 'belief' with religious belief? I do not see how they compare.

Are you trying to say theology isn't a science?

 

[Root of Jesse]

I understand well what you believe; that's not the issue. The issue is that you refuse to present a case justifying what you believe as true, even though this forum is suited to that purpose. Moreover, despite implying that we are intellectually obligated to share your theological commitments, you have done nothing to establish this obligation. Neither has civilwarbuff, who left the conversation when this was pointed out to him. Unfortunately, apologists like yourself often shift the blame for this onto their audience, conjuring a litany of excuses on the fly.

I doubt very much you understand what I believe...
I have not stated that you are intelectually obligated to share my theological commitments. Theology is a science. I have stated that all mankind has an obligation to be and do good. Even a paranoid schizophrenic and a mass murderer, if they examine themselves, knows that they should.
You can't even commit to that, so why should I bother to go forward? That wasn't a theological or religious statement, though all the major religions would agree with it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

In mutually incompatible ways.

In your mind.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That's what the religious might like to say, but it's a dubious assertion at best.

It is a field of study, just as biology and geology.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It seemed that you tossed out modern evolutionary theory, as your religion requires a literal Adam and Eve, and I suspect modern cosmology is out as well, as "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth" is diametrically opposed to a universe where the Earth was formed only after billions of years of stellar nucleosynthesis.

It is impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).

Not at all. Books are subject to interpretation, and I would not make the assumption of what you actually believe. Best that you lay that out yourself, for accuracy, so that you cannot claim that I am misrepresenting your position.

That wants to know what?

What I want to know is an accurate description of reality.

Telling me that your acceptance of scientific theories is based on your religious beliefs, not scientific reasons.

I have seen this; this is what, for you, takes precedence over science. Got it.

And your religion is science, quite obviously.

You may not have done so intentionally, but you did. You said "God is an absolute, he is the definition of unfalsifiable."

Have you been reading up on the concept at all? Do you see what you did there?

Talk is cheap.

And your Hamlet analogy fails.

As does your general argument.

And, you find yourself in a forum in which your god, for the purposes of discussion, is only hypothetical.

Actually, that's not true.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Then you disagree with these "many Christians" that you claim to speak for? How does that work?

I don't know many Christians (atheists, either, for that matter) who agree on everything. What I know is that we have a complete body of the teaching of Jesus in the Catechism.

But you do not mean "science" in the common vernacular, do you? You don't have a actual evidence that you can present in a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, correct?

I am not asking that you prove "God". I would ask if you have something, even small, that might demonstrate that we are not simply talking of a character in a book.

Sure. Look at a flower. Look at a small child. Look at an ocean.

Before we even get to the evidence, I'd like to see you define in some testable manner some component of your theology, so that we have some means of evaluating said evidence.

The Catechism.

Okay.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You don't believe in a literal flood story?

If that's the case, then sorry I misunderstood you.
But then again, if you don't buy into the literal flood story, then what was your point about geology and the flood? Because this is rather confusing...

You obviously don't know how truth is conveyed. Regarding Adam and Eve, evolution can be reconciled with science. I understand that you don't see it, but they can.
Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).
Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

Regarding the flood, I have shown that there are different points of view in earth science, that one such points to a worldwide flood, and one doesn't. I understand that you and others disagree. I don't care that you disagree. The same is true with AGW. There are those who read the facts one way, and those who read the facts another way. I don't care. Frankly, I don't care much about the flood at all. But I believe the Bible to be true for what it is intending to convey. That's not literalistically. It's what it conveys.

 

[Root of Jesse]

See?

Again in this post, you seem to certainly imply to be buying into a LITERAL understanding of the Noah flood tale...

So, which is it?

Literal, yes. Litearlistic? No.
Most often what our culture means by the phrase "reading Scripture literally," would be more correctly rendered "reading Scripture literalistically," that is, taking each word at face value apart from its literary context. Such an approach drains the life out of language; such readers leech the meaning out of Scripture. For example, a literalistic take on the phrase, "Her eyes are as bright as diamonds," would claim that her eyes provided a similar luminescence as diamonds. Such a wooden reading misses the poetic thrust of the simile the radiant beauty that flashes through her eyes.

An interpretation guided by a one-dimensional view of words may not only fail to glean the true meaning, but may reap the tares of a wrong-headed interpretation.
Context is crucial, and that is why knowing the literary context of what we're reading is vitally important. In Scripture, God speaks through men in a human fashion. In order to understand what God is communicating, we must carefully search for the intention of the sacred authors. That is why the Church stresses the importance of knowing the literary genres of Scripture: "In determining the intention of the sacred writers, attention must be paid, inter alia, to 'literary forms for the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts,' and in other forms of literary expression" (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, no. 12). In short, we are not to take the Bible literalistically, but literarily.

Should Catholics take the Bible literally? If by literal we are referring to the intention of the author, then yes, Catholics do take the Bible literally. For such a literal reading respects the author's intention it reads poetry poetically, metaphors metaphorically, and history historically. The aim of interpreting the Bible is to discern what the author intended by the words he used. For example, when we read that Jesus says it is better to lose a member of one's body than to sin, we understand that Jesus is teaching about the gravity of sin through hyperbole. We do not take Him as literally commanding dismemberment. Some misreadings can be more costly than others, which is why Origen's literalistic reading of these words of Jesus (Origen supposedly castrated himself) is an example of the consequences of interpreting words without regard for their rhetorical genre.

 

[Davian]

Ah. moving the goal posts...

Not at all. You can consider these to be another set of goalposts, or a clarification of a previous set. You are free to go back and take a run at any previous set of "goalposts".

Am I to gather that you are unwilling to present evidence in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis that might be in support of your religious beliefs?

Are you trying to say theology isn't a science?

I do not know what you mean by "science" in this context. I stated what I meant by the term in #1239; by that description, no, theology is not a science; but you might mean "science" in the colloquial sense, which is what I would call "poor science", in which your methodology lacks most of the criteria to be consider "scientific" but you could run "experiences" and "tests" and get "results", much like in astrology, reiki, or those real estate agents that bury garden gnomes upside-down in the gardens of houses they have put up for sale.

And the balance of my post? Do you concede that, other than in timescales, you have really not done anything to differentiate yourself from the YEC crowd?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not at all. You can consider these to be another set of goalposts, or a clarification of a previous set. You are free to go back and take a run at any previous set of "goalposts".

Am I to gather that you are unwilling to present evidence in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis that might be in support of your religious beliefs?

I do not know what you mean by "science" in this context. I stated what I meant by the term in #1239; by that description, no, theology is not a science; but you might mean "science" in the colloquial sense, which is what I would call "poor science", in which your methodology lacks most of the criteria to be consider "scientific" but you could run "experiences" and "tests" and get "results", much like in astrology, reiki, or those real estate agents that bury garden gnomes upside-down in the gardens of houses they have put up for sale.

And the balance of my post? Do you concede that, other than in timescales, you have really not done anything to differentiate yourself from the YEC crowd?

Not at all. I agree with them that there is reason to believe in a world wide flood, but not that we have a 6000 yearold earth.

 

[Davian]

It is impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).

This simply reinforces your position that your religion informs your science, your statements to the contrary notwithstanding.

And your religion is science, quite obviously.

You will need to explain why it seems obvious to you. Do you need for me to be seen as "having religion"? Do you perceive it as a weakness?

If you think you have a better methodology for exploring reality in a manner that reduces bias and error, feel free to present it. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, science is the worst way to investigate reality, but all the others have been tried.

As does your general argument.

What argument was that?

Actually, that's not true.

In what way is that not true? The statement of purpose for this forum states that "Expressing disbelief in God is acceptable", does it not?

 

[Davian]

I don't know many Christians (atheists, either, for that matter) who agree on everything. What I know is that we have a complete body of the teaching of Jesus in the Catechism.

That does not address what I said. My point was, I see you using the self-referential "we" without clearly stating for what group of individuals you are actually speaking for, and I can only perceive this as a [fallacious] appeal to popularity.

Sure. Look at a flower. Look at a small child. Look at an ocean.

What about them? What have they to do with demonstrating that we are not simply talking of a character in a book?

The Catechism.

Okay, start with stating your testable, falsifiable hypothesis.

 

[Davian]

Not at all. I agree with them that there is reason to believe in a world wide flood, but not that we have a 6000 yearold earth.

That is what I asked you. Do you concede that, other than in timescales, that you have really not done anything to differentiate yourself from the YEC crowd?

What of the balance of my post? Do you really think your theology is science, as per the description I posted in #1239?

 

[Davian]

It is a field of study, just as biology and geology.

..or perhaps more like astrology, or phrenology.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have not stated that you are intelectually obligated to share my theological commitments.

You implied exactly that.

Theology is a science.

In what way?

I have stated that all mankind has an obligation to be and do good. Even a paranoid schizophrenic and a mass murderer, if they examine themselves, knows that they should.
You can't even commit to that, so why should I bother to go forward? That wasn't a theological or religious statement, though all the major religions would agree with it.

If you read over what I wrote, you'd see that I already responded to this, so don't pretend that I haven't.