Ask a Catholic

[henryp]

I'm not sure what you mean. Where do I want to go?

Evolution doesn't "say" anything, and clearly we don't all value each other. It's an explanation for the fact that we do, on the whole, value each other. That isn't to say that this notion of value is itself a "good thing". It's an observation.

First off, I'm speaking in very generic terms.  I'm talking very casually and haphazardly about how people think rather than in 'battle mode' where every point needs to be analyzed and defended.

Where I'm saying "you" want to go (casually speaking), is that if someone says "Why be good?" they would like to conclude that an answer exists for everyone.   Because we're taught people should be good whole lives.  So when the discussion comes up, that's often the starting point.  

I've been taught we're all supposed to be good, now I just need a way to arrive at that conclusion.  
vs.
Should "good" even be a priority when deciding how to behave?

That's what I think happens with a lot of religious people, is that they start with an assumption that skips over a lot of questions that need to be answered first.  

This would explain why people are changing so little as religion falls out of favor.  Because most of the conclusions are ingrained already.  Nobody is saying "Whoops, the entire foundation of our belief system is gone, time to rebuild from the ground up."  Instead a compartmentalized area containing the God and Religion stuff is cut out, but everything else more or less stays the same.

[LastPoet]

First off, I'm speaking in very generic terms.  I'm talking very casually and haphazardly about how people think rather than in 'battle mode' where every point needs to be analyzed and defended.

Where I'm saying "you" want to go (casually speaking), is that if someone says "Why be good?" they would like to conclude that an answer exists for everyone.   Because we're taught people should be good whole lives.  So when the discussion comes up, that's often the starting point.  

I've been taught we're all supposed to be good, now I just need a way to arrive at that conclusion.  
vs.
Should "good" even be a priority when deciding how to behave?

That's what I think happens with a lot of religious people, is that they start with an assumption that skips over a lot of questions that need to be answered first.  

This would explain why people are changing so little as religion falls out of favor.  Because most of the conclusions are ingrained already.  Nobody is saying "Whoops, the entire foundation of our belief system is gone, time to rebuild from the ground up."  Instead a compartmentalized area containing the God and Religion stuff is cut out, but everything else more or less stays the same.

What I think is you are suffering from the dunning-kruger effect. Trying really hard to be superior to everyone else, and while that is easy to do online in a forum, there is a long way to show yourself as anything of worth in real life. You wouldn't survive a week on earth without other humans.

I am good because it is the best for me. It pays 10x more to be good than all the trouble of being bad. Surely we all get fooled, but I prefer to give trust to other people, than to go deep into darkness. Also, I am too lazy to be evil.

[Randy Carson]

Some questions for you:

What do you think about the pope? Do you agree him on everything or don't care? Something in between?

Pope Francis has maintained a fairly conservative line of doctrinal issues while pushing a more...liberal...social agenda. Okay, that's not a surprise. The biggest challenge for me is that he does not speak with the same precision with which John Paul or Benedict spoke, and his off the cuff remarks seem to make headlines almost daily.

What do you consider yourself politically? Conservative? Liberal?

I have voted a straight Republican ticket in every election since 1980.

How do you deal with catholics who disagree with you on some issues?

I show them the correct teaching of the Church from the Catechism and other sources, and I trust them to the mercy of God.

[henryp]

First off, I'm speaking in very generic terms.  I'm talking very casually and haphazardly about how people think rather than in 'battle mode' where every point needs to be analyzed and defended.

Where I'm saying "you" want to go (casually speaking), is that if someone says "Why be good?" they would like to conclude that an answer exists for everyone.   Because we're taught people should be good whole lives.  So when the discussion comes up, that's often the starting point.  

I've been taught we're all supposed to be good, now I just need a way to arrive at that conclusion.  
vs.
Should "good" even be a priority when deciding how to behave?

That's what I think happens with a lot of religious people, is that they start with an assumption that skips over a lot of questions that need to be answered first.  

This would explain why people are changing so little as religion falls out of favor.  Because most of the conclusions are ingrained already.  Nobody is saying "Whoops, the entire foundation of our belief system is gone, time to rebuild from the ground up."  Instead a compartmentalized area containing the God and Religion stuff is cut out, but everything else more or less stays the same.

What I think is you are suffering from the dunning-kruger effect. Trying really hard to be superior to everyone else, and while that is easy to do online in a forum, there is a long way to show yourself as anything of worth in real life. You wouldn't survive a week on earth without other humans.

I am good because it is the best for me. It pays 10x more to be good than all the trouble of being bad. Surely we all get fooled, but I prefer to give trust to other people, than to go deep into darkness. Also, I am too lazy to be evil.

I'll bite.  Superior to everyone else at what?  
--
This little sequence was a mistake.  I was trying to illustrate a point, but I blew it by using a sloppy example, and people want to argue about the example's sloppiness rather than the point that I didn't really get across.
--
You're good because it is the best for you.  Which means your motivation isn't being good, it's doing what's best for you.  So if what's best for you in some instances was doing bad, or abstaining from what is good, you'd do that instead, right?  If so, we're in complete agreement on what should be motivating our behavior.

 

[henryp]

What I think is you are suffering from the dunning-kruger effect. Trying really hard to be superior to everyone else, and while that is easy to do online in a forum, there is a long way to show yourself as anything of worth in real life. You wouldn't survive a week on earth without other humans.

I am good because it is the best for me. It pays 10x more to be good than all the trouble of being bad. Surely we all get fooled, but I prefer to give trust to other people, than to go deep into darkness. Also, I am too lazy to be evil.

I'll bite.  Superior to everyone else at what?  
--
This little sequence was a mistake.  I was trying to illustrate a point, but I blew it by using a sloppy example, and people want to argue about the example's sloppiness rather than the point that I didn't really get across.
--
You're good because it is the best for you.  Which means your motivation isn't being good, it's doing what's best for you.  So if what's best for you in some instances was doing bad, or abstaining from what is good, you'd do that instead, right?  If so, we're in complete agreement on what 'should' be motivating our behavior.

 

[robvalue]

Wallym: OK it seems I misinterpreted your response, my apologies.

[henryp]

Wallym: OK it seems I misinterpreted your response, my apologies.

Definitely on me.  

[Longhorn]

Randy, don't know if anybody asked already or if you've already said it, but are you a creationist?

[Randy Carson]

Randy, don't know if anybody asked already or if you've already said it, but are you a creationist?

Well, words sometimes get fuzzy on the Internet, so I'd want your definition.

But as I understand the word, yes, I believe that God created all things out of nothing and that He used evolution as the means by which the earth as we see it today arrived at its current state. This is one of the acceptable options for creation according to Catholic doctrine.

Now, my opinion is that man evolved from an ancestor of some sort which was NOT human (as you and I are human) but very close. You may agree with that. But this is key (and I freely admit that I may be wrong and that I may change my opinion without public notice), I think that at some point, God chose one male and one female of these ancestors and breathed into them a HUMAN spirit instead of an animal spirit which others of the species received. This pair, from which all humans are descended, are the man and woman we refer to as Adam and Eve.

But there may have been others on the planet who were like them in every other respect except for the nature of the spirit which they received.

I'd also have to think about whether the DNA evidence suggests that we are NOT descended from a single female, etc. But I'm not as concerned with HOW God did it as some people seem to be.

[nihilistcat]

Do priests go easy with the little boys if it's their first time taking it up the poop shoot?