This has a new significance with the Pope scandal

[vermicious knid]

I had never seen this whole thing before. I have seen clips of the crowd jeering and Sinead walking off looking broken, and that was such an innacurate partial picture. Such strength. How many people could do this?

This was two weeks after the SNL thing. Apparently the plan was to sing a different song, and this was an impromptu decision.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CCk2YQS8vaw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CCk2YQS8vaw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Tango]

You might appreciate this very recent Q&A with Sinead:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/04/29/DI2009042902200.html

[vermicious knid]

Thanks. This is unbelievable:


Sinead O'Connor: When my father was 5 he was told a story by his priest... that a boy he knew had died without having been to confession, and was sent to hell... and priest claimed how he knew this was.. his bedroom burst into flames one night... and when the fire was put out there were two little handprints in the bottom of the bed, the boy had come "screaming back from hell" to have his confession heard... when they finish investigating sexual abuse, then it will be corporal punishment.. and then psychological abuse such as my father endured >>> are these things representative of Christ> No.

[LukeA]

I guess that whole celibacy thing isn't working out for those guys, huh?

[Ghost_Tracker]

I'd just like to mention that I feel it's a mistake to stereotype any group because of a few bad apples. The Catholic church has literally hundreds of thousands of priests; it's a given that some of them are gonna be bad eggs. Yes, their handling of this has been inexcusable and they seem pretty ignorant when it comes to these things, i.m.o. But on the flip side, the only thing they've ever preached at my Mom's old church down the street is that "it would be nice if people could be nice to each other, JUST for a change," and that they would appreciate it if people would keep in mind that they're having a bake sale this coming weekend. They're actually very liberal; you'd be surprised. And I know the response would probably be, "well yeah of COURSE you wouldn't know," but everything really does seem very innocent there. And just as a precaution, no staff member or clergy person is ever allowed to be in a room alone with a minor with the door shut. They're making a very loud point that "this will NEVER happen HERE."

By the way - current Catholic "dogma" is that Adam and Eve NEVER happened, that evolution may have happened, and that the Universe was created through the Big Bang. Look into it, it's true. Don't believe everything you hear about what their positions are; they're VERY open to modern times in some ways, and not as "stuck in the stone ages" as the stereotype makes them out to be.
In general, I mean.

[LikeAWillow]

By the way - current Catholic "dogma" is that Adam and Eve NEVER happened.

Without original sin, Jesus died for no reason. I find it very hard to believe the church threw out the creation story.

[nailatixela]

Without original sin, Jesus died for no reason. I find it very hard to believe the church threw out the creation story.

I don't know if it's 100% thrown out...but, GT is correct. They have acknowledged the likeliness of evolution and at the same time spoke against the complete truth of creation. :shrug:

But are most Catholics even aware of this? No. Ugh.

[LikeAWillow]

From Catholic.com

It is equally 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).

***

As insane as the Adam and Eve story is, they've got to hold to it. When Adam and Eve go out the window, so goes the entire faith: that God created man to fill the void left by the fallen angels, that man himself then fell through the first man and woman, that God, in his mercy, sent his Son to redeem that sin, and that one day, Christ will come again to unite the kingdoms of Heaven and Earth and fulfill the original plan. I would say that it's a delicate line to walk, but that's not true-- it's an impossible one. It's interesting to see how they try to do it, though.

[Ghost_Tracker]

Without original sin, Jesus died for no reason. I find it very hard to believe the church threw out the creation story.


It says in a footnote in my Mom's Catholic Bible - this was published in 1970 by the way so assuming it's still "policy," it's been that way for some time - something along the lines of how original sin is something we're all born with, automatically, and doesn't hinge on it starting with two specific people. I suppose it would depend on who you ask, of course. I'm sure there's Catholic Priests who believe, tooth-and-nail, in the Creation story as written, and who believe that the earth is 10,000 years old. But I believe most of them, at least in America, would tell you that it's an allegory, and that church members are perfectly free to take it that way.

Here's exact quotes of two of the footnotes, to try to give the general idea:

"According to the highly artificial literary structure of Genesis Chapter 1, God's creative activity is divided into six days to teach the sacredness of the sabbath rest on the seventh day of the Israelite religion."

"[This section] shows how God brought an orderly universe out of primordial chaos."

(In other words, "don't sweat the details - just get that he made order out of disorder.")

There's two completely conflicting creation stories in Genesis, you know. There's just no way to get around that, i.m.o. I see here that a footnote for Chapter 2 says that it's "much older than Chapter 1."

There's also a diagram of the earth the way they pictured it back then - it says, "This was the same prescientific concept of the universe as that held by the Hebrews' pagan neighbors."

Did you know that the Vatican has its own astronomical observatory? With a Jesuit Priest who's a Ph.D. in Astronomy? I've seen him asked about it, and he emphasizes how he feels that it's "the search for knowledge" that's important, and that things are the way they are "to make us ask questions." The Vatican funds his work and as near as I can make out, they don't give him any hassle at all, even though he's a "mainstream" astronomer who obviously believes in the Big Bang Theory. I think maybe overall, their reaction is "WOW isn't this COOL!? Shows just how powerful God must really be!" I've also seen him asked if he feels there's life on other planets and his answer is a simple, "We just plain don't know," which I'd say is pretty much 100% true.

Anyway certain things are dogma but I think people would be surprised what is and what really isn't, these days. The middle ages were a loonnnng time ago, and these people have cable tv too. ;)


P.S. - I saw the posting above. Define, "impermissable." ;) Believe it or not, the leadership of the church and the Priests - in general - DO have minds of their own. I have no doubt that the Pastor at my mom's old church down the street would tell some little old lady, "Of COURSE creation happened exactly as written," if he felt that would make her feel better. Does he believe it himself? I really, really doubt it. And I asked the other Priest there his opinion once and he said that it's considered to be an allegory. Naturally there's a lot of different opinions within the church on this, being such a large organization. And I'm sure plenty of Catholics online - including those "high up the totem pole" - are posting those opinions. They're certainly free to do so, as is the Astronomer I mentioned above, who clearly believes in the Big Bang Theory.

By the way, I haven't read it yet, but there's a book at the library that I saw - written by an Astronomer - called "The Big Bang Never Happened." I personally believe in it, myself - but I'm sure even the most hard-core Astronomer would admit that it is, ultimately, just a theory. :)

[LikeAWillow]

It says in a footnote in my Mom's Catholic Bible - this was published in 1970 by the way so assuming it's still "policy," it's been that way for some time - something along the lines of how original sin is something we're all born with, automatically, and doesn't hinge on it starting with two specific people.

Here's exact quotes of two of the footnotes, to try to give the general idea:

"According to the highly artificial literary structure of Genesis Chapter 1, God's creative activity is divided into six days to teach the sacredness of the sabbath rest on the seventh day of the Israelite religion."

"[This section] shows how God brought an orderly universe out of primordial chaos."



Would you be willing to post the quote of the footnote that speaks to original sin occurring without Adam and Eve? The two you posted focus on the literary aspects of the creation process, but they don't deal with Man's need for redemption. I'm really interested to see what it has to say. Thank you :)



There's two completely conflicting creation stories in Genesis, you know.

Would you be able to direct me to the second story here as well? I know that there are two different versions of Eve's origin (one pits her as the subservient creation spawned from Adam's rib; the other casts her in a more equal light), but I've never heard a mention of an entirely separate story.

[LikeAWillow]

P.S. - I saw the posting above. Define, "impermissable." ;)

Dude, we're both Catholic. Did "impermissable" not come right after "da-da" and right before "ma-ma" for you?

As far as I know, the Catholic.com website works to post the guidelines of Catholic dogma. I wish that the church was more accepting of varying opinions within its structure, but I think the host of democratic senators who can't receive Communion in certain churches will tell you that our form of organized religion loves to cling to a defined right and wrong.

[Ghost_Tracker]

From Catholic.com

[. I would say that it's a delicate line to walk, but that's not true-- it's an impossible one. It's interesting to see how they try to do it, though.


Personally I feel that it's an extremely easy line to walk when you realize that it's an allegory, and that the tiny little details aren't important when compared to the whoppingly huge important concept, that man is imperfect as-is and needs help 'cause we'll NEVER make it alone.

And - just opinion of course but - it REALLY IS true that we can't. Think about the TIME FRAME of this. Some people feel that without Christianity, Rome never would have fallen. They WOULD have found the bomb sooner or later, and then you have Russia, China and Rome all with the bomb. That's "checkmate in five moves." There's another thing too - The original colonists left because of religious persecution. Okay, sure, that was bad - but they left BECAUSE of CHRISTIANITY. That led to the U.S., and the U.S. defeated Germany in WW II. Germany would have gotten the bomb too. They almost HAD it, in fact. Again, a situation with two or three evil empires - Germany, Russia (maybe), and Japan - and they all have the bomb. No way, jose.
Just give them a few paltry hundreds or thousands of years, and they'll use it, fer sure. Original sin? Who needs it when you have bombs sitting around that can blow up the whole world.... So maybe from that point-of-view, the take-home message is MUCH more important than the details - that man is imperfect and needs to trust God more than his own knowledge or what he *thinks* is true. Primordial man was arrogant to think that he could just keep on making powerful empires and stronger and stronger weapons - but that path automatically leads to the bomb, and that leads to extinction. And yes, assuming there is a God and all that, I really do feel that the bomb was a heavy player in all this - how could it NOT be?
I think there's even some indications that it is in the Bible - everywhere you look, the take-home message is, "Chill, mankind, you DON'T have all the facts and you're headed down a REALLY bad path here - TRUST me that that's true." Obviously primeval man never could have envisioned something the size of an atom being able to blow up an entire city.
Just some thoughts. :)

[Ghost_Tracker]

I think the host of democratic senators who can't receive Communion in certain churches will tell you that our form of organized religion loves to cling to a defined right and wrong.

You'd almost think there's some dissention in the ranks... ;)

With my Mom's church down the street being so "liberal," maybe it skews my percepton a little bit of the larger organization, higher-up. But I still feel that they're not AS conservative as the stereotype makes them out to be. I have a sneaky feeling that the truth is "somewhere in-between." ...... :nod:


P.S. - I can also tell you that the Official policy at that church is that ANY Catholic can receive communion; unless they "feel they should not due to certain reservations or beliefs which conflict with Church teaching."
They just simply aren't that strict about it, seems to be the bottom line - anybody who has any questions about it "is encouraged to talk to a Priest about it." We actually had a little meeting about it a while back where the Priest asked our opinions about it; and he ended up deciding that if ANYONE came up to receive communion, he had no right to deny it to them.

P.S. II - Granted this church may be more "liberal" than others, but again, ANYONE is welcome there, including gays, trans-gender people, etc. Lesbian couples go there together. Some people drive for literally 35 miles to get to this place, even though there might be another place within a mile or so. And like I mentioned, as far as I know there's NO heat from the Bishops or any other higher-ups. If asked, I'm sure that the Bishops would say that they consider it to be "a large, thriving, vibrant church." :)

[LikeAWillow]

Personally I feel that it's an extremely easy line to walk when you realize that it's an allegory, and that the tiny little details aren't important when compared to the whoppingly huge important concept, that man is imperfect as-is and needs help 'cause we'll NEVER make it alone.
)

I appreciate your thoughts, but I can only offer a question in response: if original sin is allegorical, why did Jesus die to erase it?

That's the question that the Catholic.com response, my own belief that it's an impossible line, and the entire Nicene Creed hinge on.

[LikeAWillow]

P.S. II - Granted this church may be more "liberal" than others, but again, ANYONE is welcome there, including gays, trans-gender people, etc. Lesbian couples go there together. Some people drive for literally 35 miles to get to this place, even though there might be another place within a mile or so. And like I mentioned, as far as I know there's NO heat from the Bishops or any other higher-ups. If asked, I'm sure that the Bishops would say that they consider it to be "a large, thriving, vibrant church." :)

It sounds like a great church, but I really think it has put you out of touch with Catholicism as a whole. Here are a few links for perspective (if you read only one, make it the first link on the investigation of American nuns):

http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2009/04/vatican_investigates_doctrinal.html

On the politics of the Eucharist:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022705.html

[Ghost_Tracker]

One other thought that occurs to me - this is just a "little theory," of course -

Most people have a certain ability to "think for themselves." Some just simply don't. Or don't want to. Or feel they want to be on "solid ground." I really do feel that higher-ups in the Church are intelligent enough to understand that. (MOST of them, I mean - again, I think it's a mistake to stereotype a very large group of individuals or feel that they're all the same.) If they say "YES DAMMIT IT HAPPENED THE WAY THE BIBLE SAYS!!! TO THE LETTER! IGNORE THE FOOTNOTES WE ADDED IN THE BIBLE, THAT HAVE BEEN THERE IN EVERY SINGLE PRINTING SINCE 1970!!! CREATION HAPPENED AS-IS, ADAM AND EVE HAPPENED, EVERYTHING HAPPENED STRICTLY THAT WAY DAMBIT!!!" - -- Then those who need that "concrete surface" to stand on, will have it, and those who are able to think for themselves will have the understanding to realize that it's a "wink-wink" kind of a thing. That's my perspective on it, anyway. :)


Of course, I could be wrong and maybe there WAS in fact an Adam and Eve and the Earth is 10,000 years old and evolution never happened. In which case, paint my face red... ;)


By the way, did you know there's Jesuit M.D.'s? I bet M.D.'s, almost for sure, would pretty much have to believe in evolution. There's many differerent groups within the church; it's a VERY large organization with millions of individuals.

[LikeAWillow]

One other thought that occurs to me - this is just a "little theory," of course -

Most people have a certain ability to "think for themselves." Some just simply don't. Or don't want to. Or feel they want to be on "solid ground." I really do feel that higher-ups in the Church are intelligent enough to understand that. (MOST of them, I mean - again, I think it's a mistake to stereotype a very large group of individuals or feel that they're all the same.)

We're having two separate arguments, so I'm going to stop :laugh: . I'm not concerned with most people. You said the church had dismissed the Adam and Eve idea. I said I doubt the Vatican had or would ever dismiss the story and gave my reasons why. I cited an outline of doctrine to back this up, and I'm waiting on you to cite doctrine that says they have officially abandoned it. Whether or not each individual Catholic believes the story in their heart of hearts is irrelevant.

The Catholic religion depends on the notion of original sin of the first humans and its need to be erased. It'll be a cold day in hell when they call that a wink-wink-nudge-nudge.

[Ghost_Tracker]

I appreciate your thoughts, but I can only offer a question in response: if original sin is allegorical, why did Jesus die to erase it?

That's the question that the Catholic.com response, my own belief that it's an impossible line, and the entire Nicene Creed hinge on.


Because it's not original sin that's allegorical, it's the stories told in order to help early man understand it which are. Original sin is a concept (i.m.o.) which essentially means, "Man thinks he knows better than God but he doesn't, he doesn't have all the facts. ALL people have this fault, which inevitably - sooner or later - will lead to their destruction. This was true from the first man all the way to people of today." (I'm sure even hard-core evolutionists would agree that SOMEWHERE in there, there was a "first man" and "first woman.")
I really do feel that ALL of the leadership, up to and including the Pope, would agree that understanding that is MUCH more important than the details, because as you said, it's a VERY important concept in the whole theology.
Man is, by definition, imperfect. According to Christianity, that's why Jesus was sent. And so i.m.o. nothing falls apart logically whether or not Adam and Eve really existed. It's the take-home message which is important and that *is* Catholic Dogma. :)

Just to "qualify" what's hopefully obvious, all of this is of course my own personal opinion and perspective on it. I'm sure there's plenty who would claim something totally different. But "that's my story and I'm stickin' TO it!" lol!


In my opinion, what's much more central and important to Catholic teaching is a simple willingness to take "a leap of faith." In a way it's the same story over and over - for example Jesus in the boat during the storm - even with him right there WITH them, and after all they had already seen, they were freaking out. He was like, "Sigh! - - Okay, let's try it AGAIN!!! Have faith!" and then he calmed the waters. The take-home message, every single time, is "Man doesn't have the whole picture -
so take a leap of faith and trust God."

[jaycee]

Because it's not original sin that's allegorical, it's the stories told in order to help early man understand it which are. Original sin is a concept (i.m.o.) which essentially means, "Man thinks he knows better than God but he doesn't, he doesn't have all the facts. ALL people have this fault, which inevitably - sooner or later - will lead to their destruction. This was true from the first man all the way to people of today." (I'm sure even hard-core evolutionists would agree that SOMEWHERE in there, there was a "first man" and "first woman.")
I really do feel that ALL of the leadership, up to and including the Pope, would agree that understanding that is MUCH more important than the details, because as you said, it's a VERY important concept in the whole theology.
Man is, by definition, imperfect. According to Christianity, that's why Jesus was sent. And so i.m.o. nothing falls apart logically whether or not Adam and Eve really existed. It's the take-home message which is important and that *is* Catholic Dogma. :)

Just to "qualify" what's hopefully obvious, all of this is of course my own personal opinion and perspective on it. I'm sure there's plenty who would claim something totally different. But "that's my story and I'm stickin' TO it!" lol!


In my opinion, what's much more central and important to Catholic teaching is a simple willingness to take "a leap of faith." In a way it's the same story over and over - for example Jesus in the boat during the storm - even with him right there WITH them, and after all they had already seen, they were freaking out. He was like, "Sigh! - - Okay, let's try it AGAIN!!! Have faith!" and then he calmed the waters. The take-home message, every single time, is "Man doesn't have the whole picture -
so take a leap of faith and trust God."

Here's a word from a "hard-core evolutionist" (please explain what that means - I've also heard the term Ultra-Darwinist thrown about) - it isn't very meaningful to talk of a "first" man or woman. If you were to line up a series of, say, all your female or male ancestors and look back starting from where you are today, you would observe an overall continuum of change such that there isn't a meaningful barrier/separation between ancestral species. We are able to give our fossilised ancestors species names, such as Homo habilis, because the overall common feature set of the fossils we find and study is sufficiently different from ours to deserve a different name. But if you had all the intermediates from H. h. to Homo sapiens before you, you would come across many ambiguous cases where you couldn't meaningfully class them as being in either one (in which case you'd probably invent a new class, but that will still create new intermediate ambiguities between those classes). These in fact do arise from time to time. Anyway, it's really a lot like mixing paint - how much black paint can you add to a bucket of white paint before it becomes gray?
As for faith... well, I could go on about this for a long time, but let's just say that "belief that x is true doesn't mean x is true". Sure, something can feel true to you, but that doesn't mean it has any correspondence with reality. You have to appeal to empirical evidence before you can begin to feel confident in any belief you may have, and still be prepared to have it overthrown (such overhauls are a property of good science over the past centuries). Faith isn't enough, as it's always a blind stab in the dark.
Also, to say that you're sticking to your story is to concede that no amount of evidence that may conflict with your preconceived beliefs will change your mind. Are you sure that's a stance you want to defend? Or do you not need to defend it anyway?
As for sins, well, Christians have a habit of being obsessed with sin, of which some don't even deserve to be categorised as such - homosexuality and masturbation being prime examples, of course.
Okay, I'm done for now...

[TrueFaith77]

Thanks. This is unbelievable:


Sinead O'Connor: When my father was 5 he was told a story by his priest... that a boy he knew had died without having been to confession, and was sent to hell... and priest claimed how he knew this was.. his bedroom burst into flames one night... and when the fire was put out there were two little handprints in the bottom of the bed, the boy had come "screaming back from hell" to have his confession heard... when they finish investigating sexual abuse, then it will be corporal punishment.. and then psychological abuse such as my father endured >>> are these things representative of Christ> No.

I may be weird, but I don't see what's wrong with this story or how it constitutes psychological abuse.

[Ghost_Tracker]

As for faith... well, I could go on about this for a long time, but let's just say that "belief that x is true doesn't mean x is true". Sure, something can feel true to you, but that doesn't mean it has any correspondence with reality. You have to appeal to empirical evidence before you can begin to feel confident in any belief you may have,


Well, it seems valid for people to believe only in concrete things that they have in front of them. Where I run into trouble, personally, is when people start talking about "concrete" because it's made of "hard matter." "Matter," of course, being . . . well - an energy wave and a mathematical construct. One which can have its momentum measured - *or* its location - but not both at the same . . . uhm . . . "time." Time, of course, being something concr- uhm, a mathematical construct that doesn't actually exist physically. But of course you can trust your eyes with - welllll, you can form theories based on photons hitting your retin- uhm, light waves - well, they're both waves and particles at the same TIME, see, and . . . well then they cause electrical IMPULES in the BRAIN which lead to "consciousness," and . . . well no, I can't explain what consciousness is, science has NO idea what that is and probably never will but . . .


You have your faith, and I have mine... ;)

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE science - but it's a faith too.
Have you ever personally done any of the experiments which led to these beliefs?
It's a faith.

By the way, "science" practically doesn't exist any more, as such. In "Science," work is supposed to be independently reproduced before it's accepted as "true." That's almost never done these days, and yet findings are taken as valid and used to form further theories which are again rarely reproduced independently.

It's a faith-based perspective based on partial, unsubstantiated evidence. Some of which is overwhelming.
For example, the fact that you can't move more than 186,282 miles in one second's worth of . . . uhm . . time.
By "move" of course, I mean through "space," which is uhm . . . uhm . . . well, it's a mathematical CONSTRUCT, see, and . . .

"Also, to say that you're sticking to your story is to concede that no amount of evidence that may conflict with your preconceived beliefs will change your mind. Are you sure that's a stance you want to defend? ...

Yes. :nod:


By the way, another fun little thing to think about - and of course, don't take this the wrong way, I'm not pointing my finger at you and you and saying "YOU'RE DAMNED! YOU'RE GOING TO BURN IN HELL!" I'm just shooting the you-know-what here and trying to explain my way of viewing things. - - One place where I run into difficulty is when so-called "logical" people start telling me "logic doesn't prove there's a God." For me, the logic is actually very simple - Suppose there were as high as a one in ten chance that if you don't do something as easy as saying the word, "Yes," you would burn in hell for all eternity. I don't mean for a paltry trillion years. I don't mean for a short period of time like ten to the hundredth power years. We're talkin' for eva. Versus just simply believing that there may have been a conscious impetus behind the Big Bang - the cause of which remains completely 100% unexplained - and that that being might care about us. Considering the fact that MANY physicists who have all the available data believe that there HAS to be a God, that's enough for me. Considering that if I'm right, good things could happen and I'll avoid possibly horrific consequences, and considering that if I'm wrong, I'll never know, there's everything to gain and nothing to lose.
It's the path of least resistance... ;)
(And for me, the "simplist possible explanation, all else being equal," is that there's a God.)

Those are my thoughts on it all, anyway. :)

[Tango]

You might enjoy this op/ed by Maureen Dowd in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28dowd.html?src=me&ref=homepage

Nope?

[LikeAWillow]

Thank you so much for the link. If the church were willing to follow any of her suggestions, from priests marrying to women being allowed to fill the role of priest, I think the church might be able to turn the term "fallen-away Catholic" to "returned again." Or prodigal son Catholic. Whatevs.

Really, though, I like to hope this latest scandal is the nail in the coffin of the church's unsustainable adherence to a failed model. I don't really believe it, but I like to hope.

[daniellaaarisen]

Fun fact: my English teacher thought it would be fun to analyze Sharon Olds' "The Pope's Penis" in class last week. He sniggered the entire time. I go to Catholic school.

[jaycee]

Well, it seems valid for people to believe only in concrete things that they have in front of them. Where I run into trouble, personally, is when people start talking about "concrete" because it's made of "hard matter." "Matter," of course, being . . . well - an energy wave and a mathematical construct. One which can have its momentum measured - *or* its location - but not both at the same . . . uhm . . . "time." Time, of course, being something concr- uhm, a mathematical construct that doesn't actually exist physically. But of course you can trust your eyes with - welllll, you can form theories based on photons hitting your retin- uhm, light waves - well, they're both waves and particles at the same TIME, see, and . . . well then they cause electrical IMPULES in the BRAIN which lead to "consciousness," and . . . well no, I can't explain what consciousness is, science has NO idea what that is and probably never will but . . .


You have your faith, and I have mine... ;)

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE science - but it's a faith too.
Have you ever personally done any of the experiments which led to these beliefs?
It's a faith.

By the way, "science" practically doesn't exist any more, as such. In "Science," work is supposed to be independently reproduced before it's accepted as "true." That's almost never done these days, and yet findings are taken as valid and used to form further theories which are again rarely reproduced independently.

It's a faith-based perspective based on partial, unsubstantiated evidence. Some of which is overwhelming.
For example, the fact that you can't move more than 186,282 miles in one second's worth of . . . uhm . . time.
By "move" of course, I mean through "space," which is uhm . . . uhm . . . well, it's a mathematical CONSTRUCT, see, and . . .

"

Yes. :nod:


By the way, another fun little thing to think about - and of course, don't take this the wrong way, I'm not pointing my finger at you and you and saying "YOU'RE DAMNED! YOU'RE GOING TO BURN IN HELL!" I'm just shooting the you-know-what here and trying to explain my way of viewing things. - - One place where I run into difficulty is when so-called "logical" people start telling me "logic doesn't prove there's a God." For me, the logic is actually very simple - Suppose there were as high as a one in ten chance that if you don't do something as easy as saying the word, "Yes," you would burn in hell for all eternity. I don't mean for a paltry trillion years. I don't mean for a short period of time like ten to the hundredth power years. We're talkin' for eva. Versus just simply believing that there may have been a conscious impetus behind the Big Bang - the cause of which remains completely 100% unexplained - and that that being might care about us. Considering the fact that MANY physicists who have all the available data believe that there HAS to be a God, that's enough for me. Considering that if I'm right, good things could happen and I'll avoid possibly horrific consequences, and considering that if I'm wrong, I'll never know, there's everything to gain and nothing to lose.
It's the path of least resistance... ;)
(And for me, the "simplist possible explanation, all else being equal," is that there's a God.)

Those are my thoughts on it all, anyway. :)

(I feel shattered! I did the most elaborate reply to this at lunch time today, but I must've pressed preview, not send! :rolleyes: Well, let's see if I can write a shorter reply anyway - the last attempt was convoluted.)
The current cornerstones of physics, Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity, are both mathematically rigorous and outstandingly accurate in their predictions (one part in 10^12 for Quantum Electrodynamics, e.g. the Helium nucleus has a mass of 4.001506179127 with an error of +62 for the last two digits, and one part in 10^14 for GR seems familiar in this experiment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_J0737-3039). Of course what QFT and GR say about reality is so far removed from our everyday experience of "middle world" (medium distances, times, speeds etc.) that we're lucky we can understand either of the theories at all! Although I'm perplexed when you speak of science currently not understanding consciousness, and it therefore probably never will - if scientists knew everything they'd be out of a job! :laugh: Fortunately for us though, the universe becomes ever more incredible and elaborate as we probe further, so scientific investigation is unlikely to end any time soon!
Now, to conclude that science is a faith because, as Newton described it, we're seeing further by "standing on the shoulders of giants", is ridiculous. Although I've performed but a mere handful of the experiments past scientists would've done, the fact that I'm using a computer to type this response is evidence enough that science is progressing. If you still consider that faith, then you might as well have faith in surviving a jump off a ten-story building and landing on the pavement below!
Are you really sure independent verification/falsification isn't much performed anymore? One of the more interesting (at least to me) displays of refutation and subsequently revealed fabrication is the "discovery" of element 118 http://www.webelements.com/ununoctium/). Can you give me any good examples of unsubstantiated/lazy/bad science?
Ah, yes, Pascal's wager - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager. Feel free to read it, as nothing I can say here will add to that informative repository.
(As a side, sometimes I'm questioned as to how I can trust Wikipedia, my favourite initial source of information. Well, basically, I've often enjoyed looking up articles about which I know quite a bit, and the information contained within has been incredibly accurate, especially considering it's so easily edited. So knowing that, I can infer (to a point - I check some other references depending on how critical the information is), that Wikipedia pages from which I learn new information are accurate.)
You say many physicists believe in a god/s. I expect most of them are pantheists like Einstein, but in the cases that their not, their god is still so far removed from the gods of most religious people that, should they describe precisely what their god is like to a church (mosque, etc.) congregation, they'd be branded atheists. And perhaps rightly so! :laugh:
Your god, simple? Really, any entity powerful and intelligent enough to create a universe like this one couldn't be described as anything other than complex! You've posited complexity to explain complexity! Your god's existence demands explanation! Who created God? (Oh, wait, eternal, never created... got it... although it still does nothing to remove the issue of complexity...)
I think that covers everything, although I'll leave one last comment to ponder over. (It relates to Pascal's Wager.) You say you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by believing in God (although not Allah, Yahwe, Vishnu, or Zeus). I disagree. Consider that the number of possible combinations of DNA that would lead to what we'd call a sentient human ranges in at least billions of billions, and yet only billions of people are lucky enough to be born at all! If we're so lucky, wouldn't you want to learn as much as possible about the place in which we make our brief visit through the best methods of inquiry? Basically, I see it this way - devote your life to religion, and you spend your time obsessing over sin, death, and the afterlife; devote your life to science, maths, and philosophy, and you discover unexpected wonders and beauty in the universe well beyond anything any human-made fairytale could ever offer!
(Phew! That was long... and arguably better than my first effort, fortunately! :))

[louielouie2000]

Fun fact: my English teacher thought it would be fun to analyze Sharon Olds' "The Pope's Penis" in class last week. He sniggered the entire time. I go to Catholic school.

Oh, no wonder we get along and understand one another so well... I went to a private Christian middle and high school myself!

[vermicious knid]

I may be weird, but I don't see what's wrong with this story or how it constitutes psychological abuse.

You don't think telling that story to a child would petrify him and change the way his mind works? And not just a story, but something presented as an actual occurance? Surely children can do without the thought that at any moment they could be transported to hell to burn for eternity. . . unless you're a good boy. That is sick.

[TrueFaith77]

You don't think telling that story to a child would petrify him and change the way his mind works? And not just a story, but something presented as an actual occurance? Surely children can do without the thought that at any moment they could be transported to hell to burn for eternity. . . unless you're a good boy. That is sick.

That would be sick if your description had anything to do with the story that was told. The story was about failing to confess, not sinning. We are all sinners, but the soul that does not release shame, guilt, sin, hurt to a forgiving and loving God will, indeed, remain in torment--a torment rather vividly dramatized in the priest's tale.

[vermicious knid]

Okay, I'll just leave you to your belief that there is a hell full of children burning for eternity.

[TrueFaith77]

Do not put words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about my beliefs--the nature of which are none of your business. I was referring to how the story told by the priest accurately reflects Catholic conceptions of "confession" and "Hell." In other words, I was merely summarizing since you didn't seem to get it the first time.

[jaycee]

Thanks. This is unbelievable:


Sinead O'Connor: When my father was 5 he was told a story by his priest... that a boy he knew had died without having been to confession, and was sent to hell... and priest claimed how he knew this was.. his bedroom burst into flames one night... and when the fire was put out there were two little handprints in the bottom of the bed, the boy had come "screaming back from hell" to have his confession heard... when they finish investigating sexual abuse, then it will be corporal punishment.. and then psychological abuse such as my father endured >>> are these things representative of Christ> No.

I think it's fair to say that that would seem pretty scary to a five year old child. It reminds me of part of a story elaborated on in "The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara). Anyway, this seems to me to be another effective avenue for encouraging the child to join Christianity so he can be absolved of future sins, etc., and then regularly give cash to the collection plate at church as an adult, which should instead be relying on the wealthy Vatican conglomerate to supply funds.
Also, has anyone considered that confession seems to replace the more decent notion of making up for your mistakes? I mean, sure, one can make mistakes (who hasn't?) and feel guilty, but isn't it better to learn how to avoid similar incidences, and hopefully find a way to repair the damage, rather than tell someone about what you've done and leave it at that? Confession really is just a pointless waste of time (although admittedly religious practices generally are) that could be better spent doing something nice for the person that was on the receiving end of your indecency. Let alone that if confession makes the confessor feel less guilty about what they've done... well, that's not necessarily a good thing - wouldn't it be better to "carry the burden" as a reminder to avoid similar mistakes?
As for going to hell if you don't confess... well, hell's a non-existent pagan abstraction (this pagan bit needs citation - I can't remember where I read this... anyone care to help?), so fortunately none of us non-Catholics have to worry about it when we die.

[LikeAWillow]

. Anyway, this seems to me to be another effective avenue for encouraging the child to join Christianity so he can be absolved of future sins, etc., and then regularly give cash to the collection plate at church as an adult, which should instead be relying on the wealthy Vatican conglomerate to supply funds.
Also, has anyone considered that confession seems to replace the more decent notion of making up for your mistakes? I mean, sure, one can make mistakes (who hasn't?) and feel guilty, but isn't it better to learn how to avoid similar incidences, and hopefully find a way to repair the damage, rather than tell someone about what you've done and leave it at that? Confession really is just a pointless waste of time (although admittedly religious practices generally are) that could be better spent doing something nice for the person that was on the receiving end of your indecency. Let alone that if confession makes the confessor feel less guilty about what they've done... well, that's not necessarily a good thing - wouldn't it be better to "carry the burden" as a reminder to avoid similar mistakes?
.

B. False.

Confession isn't the way you make it sound. The actual name of the sacrament is Reconciliation, to "settle or resolve." That resolution doesn't come from only speaking your sins aloud; after a Catholic confesses, the priest recommends a penance to amend for the sin. This is the most important aspect of the rite, and you've left it out of your dismissal of Confession as a whole. If you've hurt someone, the penance is almost always to find a way to redeem yourself, to apologize to the person, to swallow your pride and go back to them like a decent human being.

[jaycee]

B. False.

Confession isn't the way you make it sound. The actual name of the sacrament is Reconciliation, to "settle or resolve." That resolution doesn't come from only speaking your sins aloud; after a Catholic confesses, the priest recommends a penance to amend for the sin. This is the most important aspect of the rite, and you've left it out of your dismissal of Confession as a whole. If you've hurt someone, the penance is almost always to find a way to redeem yourself, to apologize to the person, to swallow your pride and go back to them like a decent human being.

Granted, this new information makes confession sound mildly more worthwhile... that said, I don't consider Catholic morality to be of high value (it spends too much time worrying about things people do in private, which harm no-one), although that's only a partially related matter I guess. :shrug:

[LikeAWillow]

that said, I don't consider Catholic morality to be of high value (it spends too much time worrying about things people do in private, which harm no-one),

We're completely agreed on that. I'm not actually a Catholic believer in the..traditional sense. I like the Old Testament because I'm an English major, and I love a good story. I like the New Testament because I'm fascinated by power and morality, and I don't think there's anyone in history whose had more of either than Jesus. I like the rituals because I'm overdramatic, and nothing makes me happier than a good show. Occasionally these three things combine to make me post way too often in a thread about the Pope.

[Ghost_Tracker]

(I feel shattered!...., I see it this way - devote your life to religion, and you spend your time obsessing over sin, death, and the afterlife; devote your life to science, maths, and philosophy, and you discover unexpected wonders and beauty in the universe well beyond anything any human-made fairytale could ever offer!
(Phew! That was long... and arguably better than my first effort, fortunately! :))

Well, interesting reply. :)

Here's the way I read it though, honestly -

"Nature is complex and wondrous, therefore there is no God. Although after 100 years of solid effort, neuroscientists are COMPLETELY unable to explain consciousness (and have as much as flat-out said that we probably never WILL be able to because we don't have enough intelligence to and it's not really "quantifiable") - we may SOME day, therefore there is no God. Believing takes time and effort (VERY untrue for most, i.m.o.) therefore there is no God. God may be different than we view him, therefore there is no God.

:shrug: Just 'cause something seems logical doesn't mean it is. ;)

And yeah, look into it, MUCH science is unverified these days. Like I said above, I LOVE science and think most of it is completely 100% valid. But as most scientists would assure you, it's a specific world-view which is based on a desire that the world behave a certain way - "logically" - and that it be "controllable" by man, and "predictable." It's not based on what is or is not "true," but rather on which theories point to which OTHER theories with the highest degree of probability.
For example, if Carl Sagan picks up a stick, it will fall to the ground, *EVERY* time.
Probably! :lol:

[jaycee]

We're completely agreed on that. I'm not actually a Catholic believer in the..traditional sense. I like the Old Testament because I'm an English major, and I love a good story. I like the New Testament because I'm fascinated by power and morality, and I don't think there's anyone in history whose had more of either than Jesus. I like the rituals because I'm overdramatic, and nothing makes me happier than a good show. Occasionally these three things combine to make me post way too often in a thread about the Pope.

Fair enough I guess. :)
And forgive me if I ever sound aggressive - it's out of passion for the universe, truth, philosophy, ethics, etc., and out of annoyance at superstition.

[jaycee]

Well, interesting reply. :)

Here's the way I read it though, honestly -

"Nature is complex and wondrous, therefore there is no God. Although after 100 years of solid effort, neuroscientists are COMPLETELY unable to explain consciousness (and have as much as flat-out said that we probably never WILL be able to because we don't have enough intelligence to and it's not really "quantifiable") - we may SOME day, therefore there is no God. Believing takes time and effort (VERY untrue for most, i.m.o.) therefore there is no God. God may be different than we view him, therefore there is no God.

:shrug: Just 'cause something seems logical doesn't mean it is. ;)

And yeah, look into it, MUCH science is unverified these days. Like I said above, I LOVE science and think most of it is completely 100% valid. But as most scientists would assure you, it's a specific world-view which is based on a desire that the world behave a certain way - "logically" - and that it be "controllable" by man, and "predictable." It's not based on what is or is not "true," but rather on which theories point to which OTHER theories with the highest degree of probability.
For example, if Carl Sagan picks up a stick, it will fall to the ground, *EVERY* time.
Probably! :lol:

Well, let's see if I can clear up any uncertainties in my wording.
Nature is complex and wonderous - well, that should go without saying! But then to posit complexity to explain complexity gets you nowhere.
Consciousness is but one of a great many scientific mysteries of our time. Why this should be considered special evidence for the godditit hypothesis (in comparison to, say, the unknown sources of dark matter/energy, which are yet to be considered anything other than natural, yet-to-be explained phenomena by religious minds) eludes me.
My point is because we may understand something better someday, you shouldn't insert God into the gap in the meantime. The gap ends up closing, and counts against any notion of a deity. Basically, scientists just admit their current ignorance, or offer possible solutions, and then get on with finding answers - a rather humble perspective that gives every reason to keep investigating, unlike "godditit".
Believing doesn't take time and effort, but religious practices do (especially for Muslims, with their five timed daily prayers) - time that could be better spent on things like helping people and pondering existence. Here's an appropriate quote:
"To an evolutionary psychologist, the universal extravagance of religious rituals, with their costs in time, resources, pain and privation, should suggest as vividly as a mandrill's bottom that religion may be adaptive."
Marek Kohn (although I can't pinpoint the original source of his statement... this was taken from "The God Delusion")
He forgot to mention "an annoyingly pervasive meme". :laugh:
I'll quote again for this one:
"Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong."
Christopher Hitchens (again unknown original source - I'm getting bad at this - but this was taken from the umss website, http://www.umss.org/chalk_quotes/)
Now, what you say about logic is quite right - I can make the untrue but consistent logical argument...
1. All cats have six legs.
2. I have a cat.
Conclusion - My cat has six legs.
I would still ask you to give me some examples of untested science. Of course, if it all was really untested, the likes of String Theory would've easily become mainstream by now as scientific truth. Let alone that no-one would've bothered to invest any part of the $6 billion in the LHC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider) if modern day scientists really behaved that way. So far as the evidence I currently possess tells me, and what little of it I've shared here (space constraints, obviously), science is still chugging along as skeptically as it has in the past. By contrast, you've presented no evidence to suggest otherwise.
:lol: Now comes the point where I'm seemingly going to go against the grain of everything I've been saying - indeed scientists come up with "paradigms" which basically tell the universe how it ought to behave. Compare, for example, the Einsteinian paradigm and the Quantum Mechanical paradigm. The first posits gravity to be smooths warps and curves in space-time caused by the presence of mass, while the second posits particle exchange on a volatile space-time. Two very different ways of viewing the universe, to be sure! :laugh:
So, what is it about scientific beliefs that separate them from superstitious beliefs? Why, if both classes basically tell the world how it ought to behave, should scientific beliefs be considered superior, or "more true"? Well, first try making a computer or aeroplane out of superstition, and then try again with science. No points for guessing which method will prevail. :D
Phew! That seems to cover it all...

[jaycee]

I've just been reading some quotes - http://www.umss.org/chalk_quotes/. Most of them are gems. Here's a few favourites:

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith; we need believing people.
- Adolf Hitler

I’d like to start a religion. That’s where the money is.
- L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-Galileo Galilei

To the Muslims, Christians and Jews: It’s just a little thing really, but do you think that when you’ve finished smashing up the world and blowing each other to bits and demanding special privileges while you do it, do you think that maybe the rest of us could, sort of, have our planet back?
- Marcus Brigstocke, British comedian

If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion.
- Edmond de Goncourt

And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence
- Bertrand Russell

There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the Dark Ages.
- Ruth Hurmence Green

Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not.
- Richard Dawkins

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality
-George Bernard Shaw

When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn’t work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
- Emo Philips

The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church
- Ferdinand Magellan

As people become more intelligent they care less for preachers and more for teachers
- Robert G. Ingersoll

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.
- Gene Roddenberry

Belief in the supernatural reflects a failure of the imagination.
- Edward Abbey

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
- Steven Weinberg, Nobel prize-winning physicist

I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence.
- Doug McLeod

It is not as in the Bible, that God created man in his own image. But, on the contrary, man created God in his own image.
- Ludwig Feuerbach

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
- Christopher Hitchens

It will yet be the proud boast of women that they never contributed a line to the Bible.
- George W. Foote

You do not need the Bible to justify love, but no better tool has been invented to justify hate.
- Richard A. Weatherwax

God should be executed for crimes against humanity.
- Bryan Emmanuel Gutierrez

Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains.
- Robert G. Ingersoll

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for Atheism ever conceived.
- Isaac Asimov

I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
- Mark Twain

I’m a polyatheist – there are many gods I don’t believe in.
- Dan Fouts

Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour.
- Don Hirschberg

Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma.
- Sam Harris

Atheists will celebrate life, while you’re in church celebrating death.
- Anonymous

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish.
- Anonymous

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.
- Anonymous

Blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the Creator of human intelligence.
- Anonymous

And if this doesn't make you laugh in agreement, nothing will:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
- Richard Dawkins

[Ghost_Tracker]

Well, first try making a computer or aeroplane out of superstition, and then try again with science. No points for guessing which method will prevail. :D
Phew! That seems to cover it all...


Try making a computer that can do what the human mind can do... ;)

Any-hoo, the basis of my thinking with all this stuff is this:

1.) Whatever consciousness is, it is somehow necessary for lipids and proteins to exist (with the properties they have, of course), and to interact with each other in the way they do, in order for consciousness and self-awareness to be possible. To me at least, it seems clear that the odds of a universe arising which has those properties are so low to make the supposition laughable. As they said in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," the odds are "as close to zero as makes for no odds." It just simply had no reason to happen, when there were literally an infinite number of other possibilities. And yet - and yes I know you're gonna think I'm making a circuitious, self-defeating argument here - but logic ain't everything, is it . . . - - - Consciousness (in a "human" sense) is NOT possible without those two types of molecules.

2.) It's simply not necessary for self-awareness to exist in the first place. In fact, it's evolutionarily a VERY bad idea. There's been BILLIONS of years for it to be weeded out. (selected against.)

3.) Come to think of it, "good" is evolutionarily a very bad idea. And yes, I know about social things supposedly causing more individuals to survive. Give it a few billion years, though, and it should be gone. It wasn't. (Yes, I admit this one's definitely shaky, but it's something that just occurred to me just now.)

4.) I don't think people in their WILDEST dreams would have been able to dream up Christ as a myth. Not with so much consistency. And there IS more consistency than inconsistency. And even a "cursory" reading of the Bible shows that there's remarkable connections between the Old Testament and the New Testament. These people just simply weren't that organized; they didn't have the mental ability, or the time, to be that consistent. (And yes, I know ALL about the Epic of Gilgamesh and all that; I just simply don't think it's relevant. It's similar, maybe it's even the same story. That doesn't invalidate it.)

5.) Order shouldn't exist. Plain and simple, there's no reason for it, in any sense of the word.

6.) Also - why should it be possible to make a tv set? Or a computer? Again, out of literally infinite possibilities, it seems REMARKABLY convenient. I actually consider nature to be quite KIND, compared to the way it could be. I honestly don't think that's random, it seems to me that "the simplest explanation" is that it didn't happen randomly, when again, the odds against such a random occurence are so microscopically low.

7.) In my opinion, the "time" argument is actually self-defeating. Give it an infinite amount of time, and a God will (somehow) "poof" into existence who is powerful enough to go back in time and create the Universe. So to say that time exists (in SOME way) is to say that God exists.

8.) Why, in a BILLION years, should there be 11 or 12 dimensions? (This was "proved" mathematically as early as the 1800s.) It just again seems remarkably complex to me, when nature "all by itself" clearly abhors complexity.

9.) The Big Bang shouldn't have happened. Wasn't necessary, wastes energy, and I just honestly don't see why it would have without a little "nudge." There "should" be just absolutely nothing. Science will never be able to explain that one away.

10.) As you said, Relativity and Quantum Theory are incompatable. And yet - both are clearly true. It's NOT that they don't understand it well enough (in my opinion). BOTH are true, and yet they're incompatible. wtf? :shrug: :)

Anywho that's the "core" of some of my thinking on this. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I'll most-likely never know. Don't give up easy though do I!? lol!

[jaycee]

Try making a computer that can do what the human mind can do... ;)

Any-hoo, the basis of my thinking with all this stuff is this:

1.) Whatever consciousness is, it is somehow necessary for lipids and proteins to exist (with the properties they have, of course), and to interact with each other in the way they do, in order for consciousness and self-awareness to be possible. To me at least, it seems clear that the odds of a universe arising which has those properties are so low to make the supposition laughable. As they said in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," the odds are "as close to zero as makes for no odds." It just simply had no reason to happen, when there were literally an infinite number of other possibilities. And yet - and yes I know you're gonna think I'm making a circuitious, self-defeating argument here - but logic ain't everything, is it . . . - - - Consciousness (in a "human" sense) is NOT possible without those two types of molecules.

2.) It's simply not necessary for self-awareness to exist in the first place. In fact, it's evolutionarily a VERY bad idea. There's been BILLIONS of years for it to be weeded out. (selected against.)

3.) Come to think of it, "good" is evolutionarily a very bad idea. And yes, I know about social things supposedly causing more individuals to survive. Give it a few billion years, though, and it should be gone. It wasn't. (Yes, I admit this one's definitely shaky, but it's something that just occurred to me just now.)

4.) I don't think people in their WILDEST dreams would have been able to dream up Christ as a myth. Not with so much consistency. And there IS more consistency than inconsistency. And even a "cursory" reading of the Bible shows that there's remarkable connections between the Old Testament and the New Testament. These people just simply weren't that organized; they didn't have the mental ability, or the time, to be that consistent. (And yes, I know ALL about the Epic of Gilgamesh and all that; I just simply don't think it's relevant. It's similar, maybe it's even the same story. That doesn't invalidate it.)

5.) Order shouldn't exist. Plain and simple, there's no reason for it, in any sense of the word.

6.) Also - why should it be possible to make a tv set? Or a computer? Again, out of literally infinite possibilities, it seems REMARKABLY convenient. I actually consider nature to be quite KIND, compared to the way it could be. I honestly don't think that's random, it seems to me that "the simplest explanation" is that it didn't happen randomly, when again, the odds against such a random occurence are so microscopically low.

7.) In my opinion, the "time" argument is actually self-defeating. Give it an infinite amount of time, and a God will (somehow) "poof" into existence who is powerful enough to go back in time and create the Universe. So to say that time exists (in SOME way) is to say that God exists.

8.) Why, in a BILLION years, should there be 11 or 12 dimensions? (This was "proved" mathematically as early as the 1800s.) It just again seems remarkably complex to me, when nature "all by itself" clearly abhors complexity.

9.) The Big Bang shouldn't have happened. Wasn't necessary, wastes energy, and I just honestly don't see why it would have without a little "nudge." There "should" be just absolutely nothing. Science will never be able to explain that one away.

10.) As you said, Relativity and Quantum Theory are incompatable. And yet - both are clearly true. It's NOT that they don't understand it well enough (in my opinion). BOTH are true, and yet they're incompatible. wtf? :shrug: :)

Anywho that's the "core" of some of my thinking on this. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I'll most-likely never know. Don't give up easy though do I!? lol!

Evolution's had billions of years to whittle away at creating the human mind, and that's without any kind of guidance (the selection advantages conferred by increased intelligence are slow to be realised)! Imagine what computers humans could make within thousands of years at the current rate of development...
1) You speak of the anthropic principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) and fine-tuned universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe). Read at your leisure.
2) Self-awareness doesn't need to exist. However, to say it's an evolutionarily bad idea would be to say that, for example, the modern technological life we lead is harder than living life in the jungle, and that we have a lesser survival value with our current lifestyle. Do you think this is true?
3) Why should it disappear after a few billion years? A mixed amount of altruism and selfishness leads to an evolutionarily stable strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy).
4) So Christ isn't a myth then... what about the stories of the ancient roman religions? Or any other modern religion about which you don't believe? As for internal consistency, I recommend reading the Skeptic's Annotated Bible - http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/.
5) Our universe is at its heart mathematical. So why should it be disorderly? And how would life live in a disorderly universe? Our lives depend on order, like the cyclical seasons throughout the year.
6) That's really just the anthropic principle again.
7) Remember, you're using Newtonian conceptions of time. As weird as it sounds to those not in the Einsteinian paradigm, space and time actually started with the Big Bang - the Big Bang didn't happen in a spacial location in a temporal moment of time. (And the expansion of the universe is an expansion of space-time itself - thus why there isn't a centre of the universe, and why objects further away from us are speeding away from us at greater velocities. Try to think of our universe as being on the surface of a 4-dimensional balloon being blown up - if you do it with a 3D balloon you can see everything further away from any arbitrary point on the balloon's 2D surface speeding away from that point faster than the closer points.)
8) Yeah, I'm not a fan of extra dimensions myself. Just one of quite a few reasons why I don't like String Theory.
9) My understanding of the universe (derived from my investigations into science, mathematics and philosophy) is that it's a physical abstraction/manifestation of a piece of elegant mathematics from the Platonic Realm - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Platonism. It's fascinating, but deserves its own separate thread on the philosophy of science and maths, so I won't elaborate here.
10) Historically and presently, science has worked to unify apparently disparate fields and theories together, which usually has the pleasant side-effect of creating new insights into how the universe works. Work is being eagerly performed by theoretical physicists to unify these two antagonistic theories. Meanwhile, biologists have the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis), the combination of evolution and genetics, and chemists their unified periodic table and atomic theory. Biologists and chemists arrived at these unifications similar to how physicists will arrive at theirs.
Lastly, I don't expect you to give up! :laugh: You said quite plainly that nothing I say will change your mind. The reason I keep up this debate is for everyone on the sidelines watching us, so they can think about it, weigh up the evidence and arguments, and come to their own conclusions. Let alone that it also makes me think about everything, and forces me to continue to reevaluate my current conclusions. Besides, don't you find pondering existence enjoyable? :)

[Ghost_Tracker]

Besides, don't you find pondering existence enjoyable? :)

Yep!


:)