really? Didn't God lay the Jewish law down with Moses on Mt. Sinai?  I'm speaking of the Ten Commandments which were but an expression of the natural law which God has written on evey man's heart and which every man can know if he listens to the voice of reason and conscience.

The Ten Commandments apply to all men for all time and for this reason God wrote them on stone to signify they are durable and to last for all ages.

posts 358

I tend to agree. Wasn't it Pascal who said, there are two classes of men, those who are afraid to find God and those who are afraid to lose Him?

Atheism is a sin against the First Commandment.

LEAUKI POSTS 353

Man o man, this is a mouthful..but somehow I believe it!

MAKESHIFTWINGS POSTS 363

Almighty God is real and science confirms this every step of the way...true science that is.

There cannot be any inherent conflict between science and religion, Christianity. Not only does science not contradict religion, but religion can shed new light on our knowledge, since the source of all knowledge is God. I think this whole idea of pitting religion and science as mutaully incompatible is pure bunk!  

The fundamental reality is that Christian theology was essential to the rise of science. Think about it, science is a natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine. Christianity depicts God as a rational, responsive, dependable, unchangeable and omnipotent Being and the universe and all that's in it is His personal Creation. He created us for Himself and He created the universe for us.

The natural world was thus understood to have a rational, lawful, stable structure, inviting human understanding and comprehension. Science consists of an organized effort to explain natural phenomena.  Christians developed science becasue they believed it could and should be done. Study ALfred Nother Whitehead, philosopher and mathematician, of the landmark, Principia Mathematical, which creditied medieval theology for the rise of science. He pointed out the insistence of "the rationality of God" which produced the belief the search of nature could onnly result in the vindication of the Faith. He was correct. Think about it....before the "age of enlightenment", few scientists saw any conflict between religion and science.

Things are changing. Modern science in physics, biochemistry, genetics etc. contains ever more compelling evidence that only Creator God could have made life possible. Science is to describe the laws of nature, the reality of it all. Such laws are expected to be within a created universe, but not from randomness and chaos. Heavens, if the universe behaves randomly, science couldn't exist.

Here's a thought....the conflict isn't between science and religion or science and God or science and the Church...the conflict is of the true scientist with the sciolist, the pretender, who has a little scientific knowledge, and seeks to refute the unchangeable laws of God as they apply to religion and morality.

Incorrect: science has many origins, from Grecian thought, ancient Chinese mathematics and so on. Even a rudimentary knowledge of the history of science shows this (Servants of Nature, by Pyenson and Sheets-Pyenson, is quite a good synthesis). Falling back on theological tracts is not proof that that theology actually 'created' science, just that the individual author sought to co-opt it. Most Christian scientists were well aware of the Athenian roots of their 'natural philosophy.' When aristotelian categories and the concept of a 'golden age of knowledge' were called into question by the advance of science and widening remit of its inquiry, Christian scholars were forced to scramble for explanations. Meanwhile Bacon, admittedly a somewhat religious man, rebuilt (almost literally) the method of scientific enquiry on empiricist grounds, a method which is now totally divorced from the introspective and speculative nature of theological study and the laughable farce of 'Christian Science', a doctrine with no more empirical or practical credibility than homeopathy - the two use similar methods to determine the root cause of illness, that is: pure theory. (So long as I'm referencing, see Ben Golacre's recent Bad Science.)

Also, what is the division between what you call 'science' and 'true science'? Would I be corrct in assuming the latter is only practiced by Christians?

Yes, many early scientists believed they were 'studying God's work.' This doesn't detract from the sheer fact that their findings caused no end of trouble for religious thought. Originally man was above nature, but then it appears he is fact part of natural systems. The Great Chain of Being is discredited, the earth is no longer there for man to exploit. The age of the earth is supposed to be ascertainable through biblical study, but then geologists find interesting discrepencies and, to cap it all, the sun is discovered to be a nuclear reactor, rather than a burning ball of fuel.
Religion may not be inherently opposed to science, but its job as an interpretation of the workings of the universe has been consistently eroded by scientific advances (God of the gaps, etc. etc.).
Your argument to the contrary has no facts behind it, merely rambling, quasi-fanatical polemic.

Good: That which conforms to the will of God.

Evil: That which opposes the will of God.

Neutral: That is neither with God's will nor against it.

Lula posts:

Actually, I think it's the work of anti-Christians obsessed by what Father Wasmann in "The Problem of Evolution" calls "an absolute theophobia, a dread of the Creator" and consequently of God's Church.

MN ONE

Granted. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I was speaking of science as an organized, sustained enterprise "that arose only once in human history. And where did it arise? In Europe, in the civilization then called Christendom." And why did modern science develop here and nowhere else? Pope Benedict argued it was due to Christianity's emphasis on the importance of reason."  Dinesh Souza, "What's So Great About Christianity", in his chapter entitled, Christianity and Reason: The Theological Roots of Science.

Not so fast....

Robert Jastrow commented on the Bib Bang theory which holds that the universe began in a colossal explosion appears to be expanding--thus invalidating the Steady State theory of the universe--and he believed therefore that it must have had a beginning. But some scientists are loathe to concede the possibility of a First Cause at work in the universe. Like every one else these scientists have human biases which color their judgment:

From Jastrows, "Have Astronomers found God": "Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind--supposedly a very objective mind--when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out the sceintist behaves the way the rest of us dowhen our belief are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases....

I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon that cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; it the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe and every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause.

Einstein wrote, "the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation." This religious faith of the sceintist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be tramatized. As usual, when faced with trauma, the mind reacts by ignoring the implications; in science this is known as "refusing to speculate"--or trivializing the origin of the world by calling it the big bang as if the universe were a firecracker.

Now, we would like to pursue the enquiry further back in time, but the barrier to progress seems insurmountable. It is not a matter of another year, another decade of work, another measurement or another theory. At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of Creation.

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak, and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

I disagree with your conclusions.

Science is identified with physical science ie astronomy, botany, chemistry, geology, zoology and the like. Science deals with ascertained facts, which it compiles, classifies, and attempts to explain by some working hypothesis that may or may not be true. The Chruch has no quarrel with the proved facts of science, which she accepts on the authority of various specialists.

The Chruch was not sent "to teach all nations" the distance between the earth and the sun, the action of acids, or the composition of rocks. In the name of science however, she warns us not to accept erroneous guesses (and I'll get to that later) of some scientists as positive facts. St.Augustine warns us, "ought not to make rash assertions or to assert what is not known as known."

If dissension arises, St.Agustine advises the theologian, "Whatever scientists demonstrate to be true, we must prove to be reconciled with our Scriptures, and whatever they assert contrary to those Scriptures, we must either prove to be false or we must, without the slightest hesitation, believe to be true. ....The Holy Ghost did not intend to teach men the essential nature of the things of the visible universe, things in no way profitable to salvation."

The Church far from hindering the pursuits of science fosters and promotes them in many ways. She acknowledges the freedom of science to use their own principles and methods. The Chruch isn't afraid of fresh discoveries for we have faith in the Creator of all phenomena.  

LULA POSTS 407

MN ONE POSTS:

True science is practiced by true scientists who don't have a materialist or atheistic ideology to push. I'm talking about the  true science of micro-evolution and pseudo science of macro-evolution, Darwinism.  

Lula:

"Here's a thought....the conflict isn't between science and religion or science and God or science and the Church...the conflict is of the true scientist with the sciolist, the pretender, who has a little scientific knowledge, and seeks to refute the unchangeable laws of God as they apply to religion and morality."

And how many humans have the hubris to claim that they understand such things, and then use their alleged understanding to justify hatred and oppression of entire classes of people?

Religion, when you get right down to it, is a human institution. Whether it's established  as inspired by a divine being or by people who believe in a non-existent divine being, it's still driven by humans. Humans who have agendas and prejudices. Who love, hate, and fear various aspects of humanity and the world. I find it difficult to believe that any of these humans have a special line to a god (in the case of Christianity) who claims to have a personal relationship with everyone who comes to him.

I find it difficult to believe that a sprawling church* driven by numerous political and social agendas can ethically and morally insert itself between people and their relation with god, and dictate to them what the unchangeable laws of god are, especially when these unchangeable laws are so frequently used as a weapon against entire swaths of the population.

Especially when so much interpretation of these unchangeable laws is based on interpreting words that have been translated over and over again, repeatedly, with words taking on a different context over time (Leauki's already gone over this with you in the discussion about the flood and Noah's ark on his blog) and, again, political and social agendas driving some of the biblical translations.

How can any flawed human pretend to be able to derive moral and religious absolutes from such a subjective source?

* And it isn't a sprawling church, it's many churches, each with their own interpretations and beliefs that are all presented as the unchangeable laws of god.

hahaha

Almighty God has told mankind very clearly why He created man, what is the destiny, and what man must do in order to attain that destiny. He sent the Old Testament prophets to teach man His will and after that He sent His own Divine Son, Himself, God Incarnate, Jesus Christ, and Christ sent the Catholic Church..a Chruch still teaching with the infallible authority of God in our very midst. It doesn't get any better than this on this side of Heaven.

As to flawed, all religious people, including the Pope, sin. But they do not call vice virtue. They know they sin. Sins don't dispense people from the duty to pay due honor to God through practice of religion. Tax-payers are drunkards, but that doesn't exempt them from paying their taxes. If some are hypocrites that's not due to the teachings of the Chruch. Blame them, not the religion or the Church. they must give up what is evil, not what is good their religious practice through the Church.  

How can the church be infallible when it is made up of flawed humans? The church does not exist outside of humanity. If no one was a member of any Christian church, that church would not exist. Catholicism isn't made up of buildings and dogma, it's made up of people.

And by "flawed" I do not strictly mean that they sin in a general sense. I mean that they bring their prejudices to the table, and they make those prejudices dogma. That they introduce their own agendas and use religion as a means of influencing a large number of people to believe as they do. If you want to be more precise, I'm speaking of their specific actions, and how those actions harm people. I'm not interested in discussing "sin" because the concept of "sin" is used to control and demean entire swaths of people - to label them as "sinners" based on arbitrary, human-defined criteria.

But, I don't think you understood what I wrote if you think that I'm blaming the church for the actions of the people that make it up. That's completely backwards. Rather, I am blaming people for the actions undertaken in the name of the church. The church can't do anything without people, so it's nonsensical to hold it responsible for actions that people do. That's just like saying "the devil made them do it."

Also, how can the church hierarchy be so arrogant as to insert itself between people and their relationship with god? Why must god be interpreted for people? Why do you need a higher authority that is only represented by another fallible human being to tell you what is virtue and what is vice? Wasn't there some kind of fruit a tree of knowledge of good and evil? Doesn't this imply that humans are incapable of understanding good and evil on our own? And yet you trust other humans to be able to distinguish good and evil and instruct you as to which parts of the world fall into column A and which parts fall into column b?

Do you believe in free will at all?

And how can you rightfully claim that the church is infalliable when the words that it relies on to communicate the message have changed over time? That the various translations have themselves been shaped by identifiable human agendas?

Are you aware that the Catholic Church does not condemn evolution?

Sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin...

I'm sinning 24/7 woo hoo, woo hoo hoo !

Here we go again. One time you say "God" doesn't need our worshipbelief in him, yet to not worship or believe in him is against his very first commandment. Funny that...

Believing in a jealous God is like having an imaginary friend, who doesn't like you.

Here's what I would ask to those who consider themselves Christian: Why Christianity?  Why not Islam or Judiasm?  Why is Christianity more correct in its view of God than these other two?

So lets assume for the moment that there is a God, and he knows how things should go.  He gives humanity a single copy of this Old Testament.

Here's where the trouble starts, because with one copy, you can't really spread the word very quickly.  You'd need to make copies.  And I don't know if you know this, but they didn't have fancy schmancy copy machines back in the day... they did it all by hand.

Even if God were infallible, I don't think anyone will claim humans.  Humans make mistakes, they also have needs and desires, and will sometimes do things to fill those needs and desires that would be called 'lying' or 'forgery'.

How certain are you that the Old Testament was copied, true to the word, through many languages, political climates, and countries?  Do you accept that at least there is a possibility that people have changed the sacred texts to suit their own personal needs?

Ahhh, theologians, so quick to ignore history.
Christianity promotes reason, eh? Indeed, the emphasis on reason did help science evolve into a vibrant intellectual pursuit. But look at why your precious religion promotes reason: Aristotle, Democritus, Plato. A rich intellectual history raped by the Christian founders to co-opt a legitimate philosophy. The fact they weren't Christian was swept neatly under the carpet. As for Christianity accepting truth - the Atomist philosophers were rejected, ignored, for centuries, despite their physical philosophies corresponding more neatly with with Modern and Early Modern natural philosophy/sciences than the Christian-mysticism endorsed sypathetic magic, bloodletting and alchemy that endured in the interim.
So yeah, Christianity promoted reason, but only because it had been established by an external source that Reason was a positive, progressive intellectual framework.

As for the idea that 'true science' is somehow whatever is commensurate with religion, whilst flase science is driven by 'materialist' ideology, you are aware that so far your sources for true science are... driven by an ideology which compells them to construct a place for a god within their knowledge base. No matter that doing so is irrelevent, and introduces another cause where one is not needed. Basically, science works by finding simple causes, not by crowbaring in extra steps in the processes described. Your quotes do just this ('the big bang happened but I want it to be cuased by God so I will claim that is what happened). No real scientist was ever upset by the theory of the big bang, opposed only by valiant Christian scientists who campaigned for this 'truth' (whereby God's first work was revealed) to be accepted - to claim so is the mere revisionist history of the modern fanatic.

And no, the Church wasn't sent (wasn't sent at all) to teach the world about physical sciences, but religon's role was to explain our place in the world, and when science managed to begin doing this, explaining natural phenomena and acts previously though unnatural or miraculous (e.g. defects at birth not a violation of natural law, but in fact the actual workings of certain other natural laws). Then, religion slowly pulled back its position, fighting an admirable rear-guard action as it pretended nothing was changing (the end result is you and your bizarre ahistorical conclusions) becoming a mere 'moral guide' (ha!) but even this has since been questioned, as more sensible explanations for the source of our ethical sense emerge (Kant, Spinoza, Bentham, Hume, etc.; see also Blackburn's Being Good).