|
What's up with creationism?
|
@Athrock: Sir Isaac Newton was a practicing alchemist. Therefore his work in physics furthered his alchemy beliefs?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
 (January 16, 2016 at 3:59 pm)athrock Wrote: That Fr. Lemaitre might be considered the "Father" of the big bang theory is no rumor, and the reason that Christians (Catholics especially) like to remind folks of this fact is because there seems to be a genuine canard that the Christian faith is incompatible with cutting edge science. Precisely.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh (January 16, 2016 at 4:05 pm)Stimbo Wrote: @CL: Again with all due respect, what is the relevance of bringing up Lemaître's religious beliefs, if not to co-opt his astrophysics accomplishments into larger Catholicism? Again, to show that there is no conflict between being Catholic and accepting evolution to those who seem to think there is.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
But his work as an astrophysicist was nothing to do with being a Catholic priest. So again, where is the relevance?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(January 16, 2016 at 4:10 pm)Stimbo Wrote: But his work as an astrophysicist was nothing to do with being a Catholic priest. So again, where is the relevance? I'm not sure what is so hard to understand. Yes, his work as a scientist and his work as a priest were 2 separate vocations. The fact that he could be both things at the same time without compromising each position shows that the Church takes no issue whatsoever with the acceptance of evolution. There is no conflict between the 2. That's the point.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh (January 16, 2016 at 4:08 pm)Stimbo Wrote: @Athrock: Sir Isaac Newton was a practicing alchemist. Therefore his work in physics furthered his alchemy beliefs? Lol what? That's not what he said at all.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh  RE: What's up with creationism?
January 16, 2016 at 4:24 pm
(This post was last modified: January 16, 2016 at 4:31 pm by Anomalocaris.)
Any system of make belief that is willing to make minor alterations to accommodate overwhelming pressure of evidence in order to perpetuate itself can always be made to seem compatible with science.
But this compatibility is superficial because although on the surface, they may for a while appear to avoid arguments over points of fact, fundamentally they purposes are diametrically the opposite. Science is ultimately about dispelling the make belief, so as to inform belief with facts. Catholicism, or any shade of Christianity, or Islam, is about perpetuating its own make belief as much as it can get away with, so as to influence people's minds with groundless bullshit as much as it can get away with. That some sects may make tactical concessions on facts which it previously long denied does not in any way alter what the aim of the existence of the cults of Jesus or Muhammad had always been Eventually, this conflict will come to a head, because either Catholicism must resign itself to dying, or it must resist further progress in science.  (January 16, 2016 at 4:20 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(January 16, 2016 at 4:10 pm)Stimbo Wrote: But his work as an astrophysicist was nothing to do with being a Catholic priest. So again, where is the relevance? While it might not be a problem for individual Catholic's, it does present a conflict with the creation story in the book that the religion presents as the word of god. RE: What's up with creationism?
January 16, 2016 at 4:38 pm
(This post was last modified: January 16, 2016 at 4:40 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(January 16, 2016 at 4:34 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:(January 16, 2016 at 4:20 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm not sure what is so hard to understand. Yes, his work as a scientist and his work as a priest were 2 separate vocations. The fact that he could be both things at the same time without compromising each position shows that the Church takes no issue whatsoever with the acceptance of evolution. There is no conflict between the 2. That's the point. That is true. If a person accepts evolution, they cannot simultaneously believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh (January 16, 2016 at 4:38 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(January 16, 2016 at 4:34 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: While it might not be a problem for individual Catholic's, it does present a conflict with the creation story in the book that the religion presents as the word of god. So, then you must acknowledge that there is a conflict between religion and science, especially when it comes to the truth of religious text. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
| Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
| Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
| Evolution and Creationism | PerennialPhilosophy | 33 | 5640 |
March 23, 2016 at 2:57 am Last Post: robvalue |
|
| why creationism doesn't work. | dyresand | 4 | 1890 |
November 17, 2014 at 11:06 pm Last Post: dyresand |
|
| Experiments that demonstrate creationism. | Zidneya | 21 | 4364 |
October 10, 2014 at 5:20 pm Last Post: Lemonvariable72 |
|
| Young Earth creationism | Baqal | 33 | 5452 |
July 10, 2014 at 2:45 am Last Post: Mudhammam |
|
| An original argument against creationism | Nerd | 52 | 17386 |
March 20, 2013 at 6:57 am Last Post: smax |
|
| Anti Creationism Argumentative Paper. | jess_essential | 16 | 9680 |
April 27, 2012 at 11:01 pm Last Post: Tea Earl Grey Hot |
|
| How should science deal with creationism? | Darwinian | 16 | 7287 |
September 8, 2009 at 8:53 pm Last Post: Edwardo Piet |
|
