Science, soul and free will

[SirJosephPorter]

Only one? You're letting me off lightly. I'll give you the two easiest ones: the age of the earth and the global deluge. The official line not very long ago was that the earth is about 6000 years old, and there was, within the tenure of humanity here, once a flood that covered the entire planet. Both claims we now know to be false. Any literal reading of the Bible will give you multiple empirical claims we know to be false.

As you say, there are several. Let me add two more. For a long time Church held on to the geocentric view of the universe. Earth was the center of everything, everything revolved around earth.

That is why church was pissed off so much when Galileo observed four of Jupiter’s moons circling Jupiter and concluded that everything does not revolve around earth. Church forced Galileo to recant, under the threat of persecution, perhaps burning at the stake (as they did indeed burn some scientists at the stake).

The other was electricity. Before scientists explained electricity, the official line was that electricity was the tool of the Devil. This one was particularly awkward for the Church. Many times electricity would fall on the church building, to the Church’s embarrassment, because to the tall steeple. Church had difficult time explaining why electricity, tool of the Devil, landed so often on God’s house, on church buildings.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The bible dosen't mention six thousand years does it? The flood happened Sinister, have some respect for the brains of your ancestors man, where do you think your own intellect came from, a test tube?

According to science, it came from primordial ooze. As one character in Gilbert and Sullivan’s ‘Mikado’ said,

“I am a person of particularly haughty descent. I can trace my ancestry all the way back to the primordial protoplasmic globule.”

 

[SirJosephPorter]

To be fair Galileo had it wrong too, having the Sun at the centre of the universe. rather than a minor star, in an obscure galaxy, amongst billions of others of the same. But hey, if science were wrong about that, maybe they're wrong about other things as well, like the Big Bang and the expanding entropic universe, superstrings, Darwinism and a lot of other things. Who knows. :smile:

Coldstream science was wrong, is that so surprising? Science has been wrong many times and will be wrong many times again in future. Scientists do not claim to know everything.

But Church claims to know everything. Not only that, when it had the power to do so, it tried to suppress any kind of dissent, and disagreement with its views with an iron fist. When somebody takes such an absolutist position, it is particularly damaging when he (or the Church) is proved wrong.

Anyway, recently Catholic Church admitted that it was wrong to persecute Galileo. It took them 500 years to admit it. Let us hope it doesn’t take them 500 years more to admit that they are wrong in persecuting homosexuals today.

 

[coldstream]

Coldstream science was wrong, is that so surprising? Science has been wrong many times and will be wrong many times again in future. Scientists do not claim to know everything.

But Church claims to know everything. Not only that, when it had the power to do so, it tried to suppress any kind of dissent, and disagreement with its views with an iron fist. When somebody takes such an absolutist position, it is particularly damaging when he (or the Church) is proved wrong.

Anyway, recently Catholic Church admitted that it was wrong to persecute Galileo. It took them 500 years to admit it. Let us hope it doesn’t take them 500 years more to admit that they are wrong in persecuting homosexuals today.

Actually the Church does not claim to know everything, just everything about Faith and Morals. And the Church is open to the on going revelation of the Holy Spirit, and it was in that vein that it recanted the condemnation of Galileo.. but i can guarantee you they won't change their tune on homosexuality, nor will God. :smile:

 

[AnnaG]

Actually the Church does not claim to know everything, just everything about Faith and Morals. And the Church is open to the on going revelation of the Holy Spirit, and it was in that vein that it recanted the condemnation of Galileo.. but i can guarantee you they won't change their tune on homosexuality, nor will God. :smile:

It knows everything about faith perhaps. Morals differ from one part of the planet to another.
Um, I always thought ghosts were rarely heard, were unintelligible when heard, and had very little effect on anything save some needles in sensing equipment,
It doesn't matter if a church doesn't like homosexuality or does, except to the faithful. The simple fact is, is that homosexuals shouldn't be judged by anyone else. No-one is perfect. Everyone "sins".

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It doesn't matter if a church doesn't like homosexuality or does, except to the faithful. The simple fact is, is that homosexuals shouldn't be judged by anyone else. No-one is perfect. Everyone "sins".

Surely that isn’t the party line of the far right, Anna. Aren’t you committing blasphemy? You will be voted out of the far right club. It is not enough to agree with far right on the issues of abortion and trashing Canada (in both these issues you do the far right proud), you must agree with them on everything, otherwise you will be voted out of the club.

 

[AnnaG]

It doesn't matter if a church doesn't like homosexuality or does, except to the faithful. The simple fact is, is that homosexuals shouldn't be judged by anyone else. No-one is perfect. Everyone "sins".

Surely that isn’t the party line of the far right, Anna. Aren’t you committing blasphemy? You will be voted out of the far right club. It is not enough to agree with far right on the issues of abortion and trashing Canada (in both these issues you do the far right proud), you must agree with them on everything, otherwise you will be voted out of the club.

*Yawns*
So:?:

 

[coldstream]

Everyone "sins"

That's right, Anna, but there is an important distinction here. In true knowledge of moral absolutes, which do exist, and are accessible through faith.. one knows one sins.

Catholics go to Confession (the Sacrament of Penance) to gain absolution, or should, but first they have to acknowledge that sin. Our society has now put out the lie that homosexuality is not a sin, in fact bears no consequences. And yet every culture and religion uniformly condemn it as just that. Human reason and conscience assesses it as such, also.

What favours are you doing anyone by telling them that what they are doing, which is causing them so much misery and futility, ruining their health and lives, alienating them from family.. something that is purely behavioural and willful and within their ability to cast out.. is natural and inevitable.

That is a lie, worse its a damn lie.. and will cause immeasurable suffering where it becomes legitimized and celebrated.

 

[AnnaG]

That's right, Anna, but there is an important distinction here. In true knowledge of moral absolutes, which do exist, and are accessible through faith.. one knows one sins.

Catholics go to Confession (the Sacrament of Penance) to gain absolution, or should, but first they have to acknowledge that sin. Our society has now put out the lie that homosexuality is not a sin, in fact bears no consequences. And yet every culture and religion uniformly condemn it as just that. Human reason and conscience assesses it as such, also.

BS, some cultures just accept it as it is. And religion doesn't matter to some of us. If gov'ts were to cater to the religious people's whims, they would have to cater to the non-religious people's whims, too. Unless it's a theocracy. But as strong a theocracy as Iran can't even control its people that much.

What favours are you doing anyone by telling them that what they are doing, which is causing them so much misery and futility. ruining their health and lives.. something that is purely behavioural and willful and within their ability to cast out.. is natural and inevitable.

That is a lie, worse its a damn lie.. and will cause immeasurable suffering where it becomes legitimized and celebrated.

Misery and futility? I know of a few homosexual couples who are neither in misery nor is what they have futile. That comment of yours is purely subjective, projective, and contradicts the evidence.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So:?:

So I am used to finding myself on the opposite side of issues from you, on issues such as abortion. You believe human life begins at conception, I think we don’t know when it begins, you think Canada is practically a third world country (with a third world health care system), I think it is one of the best, if not the best countries in the world (with a very good health care system)

It is just that if I find myself agreeing with you (that gays are human beings and should be treated with dignity), I begin to worry.

 

[AnnaG]

So I am used to find myself on the opposite side of issues from you, on issues such as abortion. You believe human life begins at conception, I think we don’t know when it begins, you think Canada is practically a third world country (with a third world health care system), I think it is one of the best, if not the best countries in the world (with a very good health care system)

It is just that if I find myself agreeing with you (that gays are human beings and should be treated with dignity), I begin to worry.

Wrong
Wrong.
And I don't care if you worry or not.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

That's right, Anna, but there is an important distinction here. In true knowledge of moral absolutes, which do exist, and are accessible through faith.. one knows one sins.

Coldstream, we come back to the same problem. What are these moral absolutes, and who decides? Does the Pope decide? Protestants think that it is a moral absolute that one must not make a graven image of Jesus; it is one of their Commandments. If you break that Commandment, you are bound straight for Hell. Are they right, is that a moral absolute? Are all the Catholics including the Pope headed for Hell?

Or Protestants say that good works are not necessary for Salvation. Are they right, and are Catholics wrong in thinking that good works matter when it comes to Salvation. Who decides? Do you or the Pope decide and we are all supposed to obey what you or the Pope says?

 

[Ron in Regina]

Go figure, eh? With AnnaG being an Atheist and for Gay Rights, I don't think
she'll qualify for entry into the Far Right Club. I guess I won't be able to vouch
her in, sign her up for a membership card, or teach her the secret handshake.

 

[coldstream]

Coldstream, we come back to the same problem. What are these moral absolutes, and who decides? Does the Pope decide? Protestants think that it is a moral absolute that one must not make a graven image of Jesus; it is one of their Commandments. If you break that Commandment, you are bound straight for Hell. Are they right, is that a moral absolute? Are all the Catholics including the Pope headed for Hell?

Or Protestants say that good works are not necessary for Salvation. Are they right, and are Catholics wrong in thinking that good works matter when it comes to Salvation. Who decides? Do you or the Pope decide and we are all supposed to obey what you or the Pope says?

Catholics are generally more favourably disposed to the Protestants than the other way around, at least the Fundamentalist brand. We tend to think of them as a lost tribe, who've missed out on the larger message of Christianity with an insipid obsession with Biblical literalism.

Our icons are not idols, they are prayed 'through' not 'to'. And yes the Pope, or better the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church, is the most reliable guide, along with Scripture, to moral absolutes. The Rock on which Christ built his Church is Peter, not Luther.

The 'Good Works', btw, are concretely scriptural. Luther had to go through rhetorical hoops to get around it to his 'Salvation through Faith Alone' credo. But there are consequences to failing to measure up. Both Catholics and Protestants accept there is a Hell, beyond the gates of which you must abandon all Hope.

When we aren't casting each other into it, we will both agree that homosexuality is a grave moral sin as well.

But as human beings we have another advantage. We have been hard wired with a conscience. At some level, we know what is right and wrong. You might try to bury it, or rationalize it away, but it's there and it will make you pay for your trespasses. God gave us any number of outs, of clues, which has left us with no excuses.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

But as human beings we have another advantage. We have been hard wired with a conscience. At some level, we know what is right and wrong.

Here I disagree with you, Coldstream, we don’t know right form wrong at some level. Right and wrong are relative terms, and vary from time to time and place to place.

Thus it is perfectly acceptable to stone a woman to death or to cut hands of a thief in Saudi Arabia, we consider it wrong. It I considered perfectly OK to put a man to death for murder in USA, we in Canada consider it to be wrong. So it varies from place to place.

At one time, it was considered perfectly acceptable to deny black and women admission to universities, to restrict blacks to menial employment, restrict women to the kitchen etc. Now we consider it to be wrong.

At one time, it was considered perfectly OK to lock up gays with long prison terms (and still is considered OK in parts of USA), now we consider it to be wrong.

Morality is relative, varies from place to place, from time to time. Only a very few things are hardwired, mainly to do with survival of the species (a perfectly Darwinian concept), e.g. murder is considered universally wrong. But other than a few things like that, morality is relative.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Go figure, eh? With AnnaG being an Atheist and for Gay Rights, I don't think
she'll qualify for entry into the Far Right Club. I guess I won't be able to vouch
her in, sign her up for a membership card, or teach her the secret handshake.

Are you handing out membership cards to the far right club, Ron?

Anyway, I was surprised to see Anna’s stand on homosexuality. She has shown herself to be strongly prolife, claiming that human life begins at conception (and quoting numerous religious right websites in support of her position), she was quite enthusiastic and gleeful in trashing Canada, its health care system, its political system (constitutional monarchy) etc. So I automatically assumed that she thinks homosexuality to be wrong.

As for her being an Atheist, there are some Atheists who are conservative. They agree with religious right over most issues, except the ones dealing with Jesus. There are several websites run by conservative Atheists.

A conservative Atheist is a rare breed, but by no means nonexistent.

 

[Ron in Regina]

If I was the one handing out the Right Wing Membership Cards, both
you and AnnaG wouldn't be getting one or being shown the secret
Right Wing Handshake I'd assume...but you know the downside of
the ass/u/me thing is that not only doesn't work it consistently, but
when it doesn't, it tends to backfire making fools out of those that
assume.

Conservative Atheists (& Agnostics) are more common than you
might think. Conservatives in favor of Gay Rights are more
common than you might think.

Very very very few people fit into any one Pigeon hole.

 

[In Between Man]

Thus it is perfectly acceptable to stone a woman to death or to cut hands of a thief in Saudi Arabia, we consider it wrong. It I considered perfectly OK to put a man to death for murder in USA, we in Canada consider it to be wrong. So it varies from place to place.

Yo do realize that considering atrocities as a relatively good or bad action actually condones the acts right?

To say that at one time, or in one place its acceptable to stone a woman only affirms that its acceptable to stone a woman here today in our land.

Relativism is completely self-refuting. You only need to get a reaction out of someone who claims relativism do demonstrate that they don't practice what they preach. Try taking something away from them. They most certainly believe in absolutes:

Is is absolutely wrong to suppress SirJosephPorter's freedom of speech???

 

[Cliffy]

Alley,

If you think it is absolutely wrong to stone a woman to death in Saudi Arabia, you should go over there and tell them so. It is only right.

 

[In Between Man]

Alley,

If you think it is absolutely wrong to stone a woman to death in Saudi Arabia, you should go over there and tell them so. It is only right.

I have blonde hair, blue eyes, and I alwayz wear my cross around my neck. It probably wouldn't be the wisest thing to do!

But you never know, maybe God will plunk me there one day. Do you think I have what it takes Cliffy???;-)