REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But do you agree that there has to be SOMETHING that's "uncreated"? (How can you NOT agree? After all, we're here! But you tend to do exactly what you claim that I do - look at everything thru your worldview glasses )

And looking at it impartially, (IOW, leaving behind YOUR preconceived notions about things ) doesn't it make more sense to say that the complexity we see in the world comes from an intelligent uncreated being, rather than an unintelligent uncreated mass of goo operated on by chance forces?

You don't have to conclude God made things, of course, but really, can you drop YOUR preconceived notions enough to see that the first alternative makes more sense? You can claim that later supporting evidence supports the latter alternative, of course.

I was making a comparison. To me, saying this being that lived in a void by itself beyond time itself, created everything as we see it today from nothing at all is as valid as saying that we were all shat out of a giant tortoise. To me... both are fairy tales and have no basis in fact or truth. I don't deny you the right to believe that we were shat out of a giant tortoise, or that we were spun from the web of a magical golden spider or whatever... that's your own choice.

For me, I'll stick to the evidence at hand (direct or indirect) and connect it to the most probable line of our history.

[Rían]

Yes, I see that you were making a comparison. And quite a bad one, IMO, of course but I hope to get to that sometime this year *sigh - I need more time - how 'bout you?*

This is an entirely different question, tho - do you agree that there has to be SOMETHING that's "uncreated"?

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And anyway, just adding more time and a different location doesn't remove the original problem - there's NO difference that I can see - the question is still: which matches the observed data more, creationism or evolutionism? Amount of time does nothing to remove the considerations involved, right? And I just don't see the evidence for the critical and unproven parts of evolutionism. And the people that believe in evolution the strongest are those that have a tremendous religious vested interest in it being true - IOW, the atheists and agnostics. Personally, I have no religious vested interest in evolution being false. I disbelieve evolution independent of my belief in God. IOW, if the evidence was ever uncovered that supported evolution, it would not contradict the evidence that has led me to conclude that God exists.

so, if evolution was proven... it might put doubts upon the adam and eve story being factual as opposed to allegorical... but you would still believe god to be the creator at some point along the way?

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
so, if evolution was proven... it might put doubts upon the adam and eve story being factual as opposed to allegorical... but you would still believe god to be the creator at some point along the way?

Well, it works for the Pope....

[Katie of the Golden Wood]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
so, if evolution was proven... it might put doubts upon the adam and eve story being factual as opposed to allegorical... but you would still believe god to be the creator at some point along the way?

That could work. I mean, you can believe in the Big Bang, with that tiny, crazily dense ball of matter that exploded into everything, but still believe in God. Otherwise where did that little ball of matter come come. Even physics says you can't make something out of nothing.

Katie

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
so, if evolution was proven... it might put doubts upon the adam and eve story being factual as opposed to allegorical... but you would still believe god to be the creator at some point along the way?

But evolution CANNOT be proven, so it's a moot question. (IOW, it's outside of scientific proof when you're talking about something in the past.)

Now some of the mechanisms required for evolution might possibly be demonstrated one day, but that doesn't "prove" that evolution happened, either. But as of right now, the main mechanisms required for evolution to have taken place have not ever been demonstrated. And I suppose if the main mechanisms were demonstrated, I would give it a higher possibility of having occurred. But it's just not a big deal to me. My main passion in this area is to make sure that people know that evolution is NOT "proven" by any means, nor are the main mechanisms proven or even observed. So many people think that evolution is "proven", when it is decidedly NOT proven.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Well, it works for the Pope....

On that little error...

[Drgnslyer]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But evolution CANNOT be proven, so it's a moot question. (IOW, it's outside of scientific proof when you're talking about something in the past.)

Now some of the mechanisms required for evolution might possibly be demonstrated one day, but that doesn't "prove" that evolution happened, either. But as of right now, the main mechanisms required for evolution to have taken place have not ever been demonstrated. And I suppose if the main mechanisms were demonstrated, I would give it a higher possibility of having occurred. But it's just not a big deal to me. My main passion in this area is to make sure that people know that evolution is NOT "proven" by any means, nor are the main mechanisms proven or even observed. So many people think that evolution is "proven", when it is decidedly NOT proven.

*Twitch twitch* Took me a couple times to soak that in...


There truly is little reason to debate weather evolution or creationsim is more legitimate than the other...neither has, or can be properly proven, ultimately it comes down to where a person's faith lies, provided they have faith of some kind...weather they think we are the miraculous by-product of a pile of sludge, or the miraculous by-product of a bored yet well meaning god.

*wouldn't you be bored too if you didn't have anything to do?*

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
On that little error...

What little error would that be?

Pope John-Paul II said:

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/message.htm

Seems to be pretty straightforward that the Pope is accepting evolution as the most probable theory to explain the history and current state of life on Earth.

Naturally, as a trained philosopher he realises that any scientific theory, whether quantum theory or the germ theory of disease or the atomic theory of matter, cannot be 'proven' i.e. it must be held tentatively.

Nor can he possibly endorse it as "True" in the sense that Revelation (to a Christian ) is true.

It would appear that he accepts it in the same way that it is accepted in the scientific community, as far and away the strongest explanation for the "series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge".

As for this statement by James Akin :

Thus the pope's remark about the "recognition" of evolution as more than a hypothesis, according to the native French-speakers I have consulted, should not be translated "leads us to recognize" (implying that the pope is among those who so recognize it) but "has led to the recognition" (implying nothing about who makes this recognition).

That use of the passive voice in English ( i.e."has led to the recognition" ) implies nothing about the attitude of the author of the statement to the truth of the statement is simply grammatically nonsensical.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

You don't seem to have read the whole thing. The French can be read as either "new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis" or "new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution." Also, later the Holy Father refers to " rather than THE theory of evolution...SEVERAL theories of evolution". Nowhere that I see does he in fact make any sort of personal statement, but rather he says that the evolutionary theory is not flat-out contradictory to the Catholic faith, and that Catholics are free to believe in special creation or divinely-guided evolution without going against the Church.

That use of the passive voice in English ( i.e."has led to the recognition" ) implies nothing about the attitude of the author of the statement to the truth of the statement is simply grammatically nonsensical.

You are very correct; it implies nothing about the attitude of the author, whereas "leads us to recognize" does imply about the attitude of the author.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Drgnslyer
There truly is little reason to debate weather evolution or creationsim is more legitimate than the other...neither has, or can be properly proven, ultimately it comes down to where a person's faith lies, provided they have faith of some kind...weather they think we are the miraculous by-product of a pile of sludge, or the miraculous by-product of a bored yet well meaning god.

Yes, I agree it comes down to a faith issue - but I would say we are the miraculous, intentional creation (not by-product) of an incredibly awesome God that loves us tremendously (not a bored but well meaning god) .

[Insidious Rex]

And I would say that it likely doesnt come down to miracles one way of the other but instead simple unrelenting statistics. Most likely at least. There may be a more bizare explanation who knows. But in any case the science portion of it doesnt require any faith. Faith is required in beliefs for which there is no measurable evidence.

[Drgnslyer]

When you look at it tho, even belief in science has a prerequisite of faith that science is fact....when you boil anything down so long as it relates to what a person believes, it's what they decided to put their faith in. Extreme faith can be seen as fanatasism, lack of faith can be seen as indifference...it's all where it's put, and the level in which it's used.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
You don't seem to have read the whole thing. The French can be read as either "new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis" or "new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution." Also, later the Holy Father refers to " rather than THE theory of evolution...SEVERAL theories of evolution". Nowhere that I see does he in fact make any sort of personal statement, but rather he says that the evolutionary theory is not flat-out contradictory to the Catholic faith, and that Catholics are free to believe in special creation or divinely-guided evolution without going against the Church.

Actually, I did read the whole thing

A: I have run the French sentence past multiple French-speakers. Those who are native English-speakers and learned French in school have been uncertain what the correct translation is, but all of the people who have French as their native tongue have said that the most widely reported translation of the key phrase -- "more than a hypothesis" -- is undoubtedly correct and that if he had intended to say "more than one hypothesis" French idiom would have required it to be phrased a different way.

There is also a November 19, 1996 news story from the Catholic News Service (CNS) in which the matter of the correct translation was dealt with an in which the translation "more than a hypothesis" was confirmed.

Q: What did the CNS news story say?

A: It said:

"VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The English-language edition of the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, has pointed out a discrepancy in its translation of a message by Pope John Paul II on evolution.

"In this message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Oct. 23, the pope said that over the last 50 years, new knowledge has emerged that shows the theory of evolution to be 'more than a hypothesis.' His point was that evolution was now accepted by a wide range of scientific disciplines doing independent research.

"In the English-language L'Osservatore, however, the pope's sentence was translated as meaning that new knowledge has 'led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution.;

"U.S. Father Robert Dempsey, editor of the English-language L'Osservatore, said Nov. 19 that the newspaper had published an overly literal translation of the French-language message that 'obscures the real meaning of the text.'

"The pope's real meaning, he said, was that it is now possible to recognize that the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis.

"This was also the meaning provided in the official Italian translation, published Oct. 23 by the daily L'Osservatore Romano."

Q: So, bottom line, the best rendering of the statement should be what?

A: According to the native French-speakers I have consulted, the best translation is:

"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis."

(empasis added)

I agree that the Pope does not say that Catholics are required to believe in either evolution or special creationism; I think it is very clear that he is saying that the evidence since the Encyclical of Pius XII "Human Generis" in 1950 has been strongly in favour of evolutionary theory being scientifically correct.
.

4. Taking into account the state of scientific research and the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of 'evolutionism' a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return.

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Also, later the Holy Father refers to " rather than THE theory of evolution...SEVERAL theories of evolution". Nowhere that I see does he in fact make any sort of personal statement, but rather he says that the evolutionary theory is not flat-out contradictory to the Catholic faith, and that Catholics are free to believe in special creation or divinely-guided evolution without going against the Church.

That's more what the original Encyclical of Pius XII said.

And note he talks about "several theories of EVOLUTION", not "several theories of origin" or "several theories of creation".

On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

And, as it becomes clear further on, he's saying that the materialist/naturalist idea that the Universe and life are solely the products of physical forces is unacceptable, and that that particular philosophy must be rejected -but that the evidence for evolution- NOT special creation- is very strong.

However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describes and measures the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the timeline

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Drgnslyer
When you look at it tho, even belief in science has a prerequisite of faith that science is fact....when you boil anything down so long as it relates to what a person believes, it's what they decided to put their faith in. Extreme faith can be seen as fanatasism, lack of faith can be seen as indifference...it's all where it's put, and the level in which it's used.

I think its a disingenuous comparison though. Having "faith" that the physical universe as we know it isnt a big illusion in some matrix kind of way isnt nearly the same as having Faith that the particular unprovable details of one very specific religion which comes with no measurable evidence whatsoever (and in fact has reams of evidence stacked against its literal interpretation --- especially in the realm of creationism). Science takes what we can observe in nature, makes rules from those observations and applies those rules to the over all picture of existence. Its an ever opening ever refining lens on reality. Certainly not perfect but rational and used ideally with an unbiased purpose. Religion (the literal interpretation that is. not the philosophical nature of it) is by definition rigid and biased. Its a narrow point of view which when applied to nature takes all kinds of twisting and turning and ignoring to fit into the observable data. So to couple both science and religion (creationism) as equally worthy methodologies of what we observe in nature strikes me as undermining science enormously.

[Rían]

(note - "genetic burden" explained over in the creationist thread)

[Drgnslyer]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
I think its a disingenuous comparison though. Having "faith" that the physical universe as we know it isnt a big illusion in some matrix kind of way isnt nearly the same as having Faith that the particular unprovable details of one very specific religion which comes with no measurable evidence whatsoever (and in fact has reams of evidence stacked against its literal interpretation --- especially in the realm of creationism). Science takes what we can observe in nature, makes rules from those observations and applies those rules to the over all picture of existence. Its an ever opening ever refining lens on reality. Certainly not perfect but rational and used ideally with an unbiased purpose. Religion (the literal interpretation that is. not the philosophical nature of it) is by definition rigid and biased. Its a narrow point of view which when applied to nature takes all kinds of twisting and turning and ignoring to fit into the observable data. So to couple both science and religion (creationism) as equally worthy methodologies of what we observe in nature strikes me as undermining science enormously.

However with faith, that's just the thing, it cannot be truly defined, you can say what faith means, but you cannot describe the experience of faith and do it justice at the same moment. Faith simply is, either you have it in any particular area or you don't....which is likely why some people are that much more adimant about what they believe in, which is representative of their level of faith.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

GM: I've read over your post, and I still do not see that this is a personal statement of faith as much as a statement that evolution is directly opposed to Catholic faith.

It's good to see you, by the way.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
GM: I've read over your post, and I still do not see that this is a personal statement of faith as much as a statement that evolution is directly opposed to Catholic faith.

It's good to see you, by the way.

Materialist/naturalist theories of evolution ( supported by people like me )certainly are; guided evolution isn't, and I think that this is what the Pontiff is supporting.

You, too-