Science and Theology, the sequel

04/10/2008 10:41:25 AM · #376

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't remember how you answered #2 (I think you said there could be). Shutterpuppy is contending that Science can answer everything. At least that's what I took away from his answer.

I agree that science might eventually be capable of answering all that is answerable, but I'll bet Shutterpuppy would agree that not every question has an answer and that simply offering an answer to such a question (with nothing to back it up) isn't really an answer.

If the implication behind "back it up" is something within the Scientific domain, then I disagree. Philosophy has its own set of rules which allow for assumptions and derives a rationally logical conclusion. The assumptions do not have to be provable in a scientific sense and can still provide useful answers. Think morals and ethics.

Science and scientific inquiry and argument may not be able to definitively answer questions of morality and ethics, but I would argue that they can certainly inform the debate.

To provide one example, when animals were simply thought to be automatons -- without soul, without feeling, and without the ability to suffer -- no one thought to talk about "animal rights" or to worry whether the everyday treatment of animals was moral or ethical. (Although, growing up on a ranch it bemuses me how anyone who has ever interacted with animals could believe that they do not have very real and very observable emotional lives.) However, as we gain greater understanding of the physiological nature of emotion generally, our connection and close relationship to "nonthinking animals", particularly other mammals, and look for and discover true emotional responses in animals, the moral and ethical questions of our treatment toward animals are formed, refined, and informed. The ultimate answer to what constitutes moral treatment toward animals, or even whether we have a moral obligation to animals in the first place, will not be found in a lab or a mathematical formula, but as the information provided by the scientific inquiry becomes available it must be considered in any rational and reasoned debate on the subject.

Science may similarly inform the moral debate in all instances, in my observation. I cannot think of a single case where it would not be so.

Further, while science and scientific inquiry, strictly defined may not be the vehicle for moral and ethical answers, as an atheist and a materialist, it is my job to insist upon rational, reasoned, evidence-based argument when matters of moral and ethics are discussed. Assertions and arguments must be open to reasoned attack. Nothing can be "sacred" - that is, beyond reproach or challenge. And mere proclamations of truth are to be given short shrift.

As I've said before - there is no ultimate meaning beyond what we ourselves make. Science, rational debate, and reason are the best tools we have to decide and debate what the ultimate meaning we make should be.

04/10/2008 10:44:34 AM · #377

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
As an atheist, I would much rather have a Christian religion that emphasize works, or at least treats works and belief equally, rather than an exclusive or predominate emphasis on belief. The person who does good for the wrong reasons is still doing good.

"Works" has been a point of contention for many (both in and outside). The best way to describe the compatibility of works with faith, is that faith is the catalyst by which works are done. Since the "heart" is what is judged (according to scripture), the physical works are not the measure of a "good" vs "bad" believer, thus works are not what earns one salvation (aka a place in God's pressence). Rather it is "faith" in God's mercy that gets rewarded. As a matter of consequence (like any condemned whose been pardoned), works would likely follow as a result.

Works are not required, they simply follow as a matter of intent on the part of the believer, when the message is internalized into the heart.

The relationship of works and faith can be difficult to grasp. It is ultimately easier to judge works - peer to peer (or even as an adversary).

I am very familiar with the ins and outs of the faith versus works debate/issue/kerfuffle. The point of my prior post was the recent research seems to be indicating that there are potentially troubling outcomes created by the strong emphasis on "salvation through grace alone" type of approach.

Message edited by author 2008-04-10 10:45:01.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

04/10/2008 10:48:26 AM · #378

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
while 66 sounds impressive out of the gate, it sounds a lot less impressive when you consider that more than 6,000,000 people visit Lourdes each year, 66 starts to look like a pretty small and insignificant number. You might expect to see quite a few more, just on grounds of statistical chance.

I would basically agree here that statistically, some would expect a higher percentage. And I would add, that many of the claimed miracles (non-authenticated) coule have "other" explainations. Likewise, it does seem odd that the bulk preceeded the 1950's with little activity since. These are all logical questions to address to any claims of this nature. Equally logical (in my opinion), is the unfettering lengths to which these claims were scrutinized, and thus for me at least, impart less a rush to capitilize on the part fo the Church, which adds to the credibility.

With those kinds of numbers involved, even a one-in-a-million recovery should occur more than 66 times. The few apparently verified events may indeed be miraculous in the sense of beating long odds, but needn't be miracles in the sense of a ghostly entity intentionally picking out a handful of winners from this annual lottery of the faithful. Chances are, you could find as many miraculous recoveries among visitors to Disney World.

Message edited by author 2008-04-10 10:52:33.

Flash

Nikon D700

04/10/2008 10:59:46 AM · #379

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
while 66 sounds impressive out of the gate, it sounds a lot less impressive when you consider that more than 6,000,000 people visit Lourdes each year, 66 starts to look like a pretty small and insignificant number. You might expect to see quite a few more, just on grounds of statistical chance.

I would basically agree here that statistically, some would expect a higher percentage. And I would add, that many of the claimed miracles (non-authenticated) coule have "other" explainations. Likewise, it does seem odd that the bulk preceeded the 1950's with little activity since. These are all logical questions to address to any claims of this nature. Equally logical (in my opinion), is the unfettering lengths to which these claims were scrutinized, and thus for me at least, impart less a rush to capitilize on the part fo the Church, which adds to the credibility.

With those kinds of numbers involved, even a one-in-a-million recovery should occur more than 66 times. The few apparently verified events may indeed be miraculous in the sense of beating long odds, but needn't be miracles in the sense of a ghostly entity intentionally picking out a handful of winners from this annual lottery of the faithful. Chances are, you could find as many miraculous recoveries among visitors to Disney World.

Which you posted previously, the last time we had this discussion. My point was the "due care" exercised by the Church, to counter the implication that they are zealots and without any reason or capacity for challenging thought.

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

04/10/2008 11:02:33 AM · #380

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
... a direct reference to the photographable "light" of this energy... The evidence of it is in the documented lab controlled photos.

I'd like to see a link these lab studies.

Bruce Siddle (PPCT Management Systems Inc) is where I first learned of the Etheric sense and its evidence through photography. I will research some old material.

Message edited by author 2008-04-10 11:03:05.

04/10/2008 11:09:01 AM · #381

Originally posted by Flash:

My point was the "due care" exercised by the Church, to counter the implication that they are zealots and without any reason or capacity for challenging thought.

Um... the "due care" is to make sure a miraculous recovery did indeed take place. My point is that such a "miracle" of long odds is no different or more likely to occur at Lourdes than among visitors to Disney or McDonald's. It would be a greater miracle if you didn't find one-in-a-million stories among many millions of people.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

04/10/2008 11:09:39 AM · #382

Shannon,

Forgive me for 2 things, (1) this is a bit off topic and (2) perhaps you've answered this at some point in this threads past or another thread.

I remember you saying you send you kids to Catholic School, or religion classes within the Catholic Church (I forget exactly). Why would you do that? We would you set your children up to possibly be influenced by something that you are absolutely certain is 100% false? Wouldn't this be like sending your kids to a terrorist training compound and hoping they learn that terrorism is wrong? Perhaps an extreme example, but I'm certain you believe christians have been, and can be just as dangerous.

I ask respectfully ... no digs intended

04/10/2008 11:19:43 AM · #383

Originally posted by hopper:

I remember you saying you send you kids to Catholic School, or religion classes within the Catholic Church (I forget exactly). Why would you do that?

Answered earlier in this thread-

Originally posted by scalvert:

...my kids all attend "religious education" so they'll have the cultural background and knowledge to form their own opinions some day.

From a practical standpoint, you pretty much have to know and follow local custom to avoid being an outcast. Imagine a kid in Tehran expressing disbelief in Allah. It isn't that much different here (as amply demonstrated by Bush's stated opinion of atheists). I'm sure you'd (eventually) let your kids observe Halloween, even though you probably don't really believe evil spirits rise from the dead on that day. I suspect that many prominent scientists (like Einstein) probably didn't believe either, but were well aware of the potential consequences of admitting so.

Message edited by author 2008-04-10 11:22:29.

04/10/2008 11:23:24 AM · #384

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by hopper:
I remember you saying you send you kids to Catholic School, or religion classes within the Catholic Church (I forget exactly). Why would you do that?

Answered earlier in this thread-
Originally posted by scalvert:
...my kids all attend "religious education" so they'll have the cultural background and knowledge to form their own opinions some day.

From a practical standpoint, you pretty much have to know and follow local custom to avoid being an outcast. Imagine a kid in Tehran expressing disbelief in Allah. It isn't that much different here (as amply demonstrated by Bush's stated opinion of atheists). I'm sure you'd (eventually) let your kids observe Halloween, even though you probably don't really believe evil spirits rise from the dead on that day.

I'd also note that for a true appreciation of western/English literature, culture, and history, one needs a decent background in the Bible and comparative religion. Imagine trying to study or learn about India without studying Hinduism. This, among other reasons, is why I continue to read the Bible and other religious texts. They are, if nothing else, great works of human literature that have had enormous influence on our world and culture.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

04/10/2008 11:24:25 AM · #385

fair enough

is there discussion of what they've learned? how do you handle that?

Originally posted by scalvert:

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/10/2008 11:26:41 AM · #386

Originally posted by Flash:

Bruce Siddle (PPCT Management Systems Inc) is where I first learned of the Etheric sense and its evidence through photography. I will research some old material.

Okey dokey. The only forms of aura photography I'm aware of are Kirlian, where film in direct contact with the subject is exposed by electric charges (even inanimate objects like coins will exhibit this type of aura) and special "aura" cameras, which use fiber optics to produce the characteristic colors. Hopefully, you have something new.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/10/2008 11:28:47 AM · #387

Originally posted by hopper:

Shannon,

...I remember you saying you send you kids to Catholic School, or religion classes within the Catholic Church (I forget exactly). Why would you do that? We would you set your children up to possibly be influenced by something that you are absolutely certain is 100% false?

I see nothing wrong with Shannon's stance in this regard, and it clearly demonstrates that he does not harbour the fear that some people of religious convictions seem to demonstrate. The fact that he is letting his children develop and eventually make up their own minds is truly laudable, and I commend him for that.

Originally posted by hopper:

Wouldn't this be like sending your kids to a terrorist training compound and hoping they learn that terrorism is wrong? Perhaps an extreme example, but I'm certain you believe christians have been, and can be just as dangerous.

No... it would be more akin to having your children being involved in social studies in an effort to learn about some of the intricacies of other cultures. There exists a monumental amount of difference between learning about scriptures and training on how to kill and maim individuals.

Ray

04/10/2008 11:29:38 AM · #388

Originally posted by hopper:

is there discussion of what they've learned? how do you handle that?

Not much, and I handle the questions as I would any other story. The oldest is just starting to "secretly" doubt Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny on her own. FWIW, my wife teaches the class at our local Catholic church.

Message edited by author 2008-04-10 11:31:08.

trevytrev

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

04/10/2008 11:45:34 AM · #389

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by hopper:
is there discussion of what they've learned? how do you handle that?

Not much, and I handle the questions as I would any other story. The oldest is just starting to "secretly" doubt Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny on her own. FWIW, my wife teaches the class at our local Catholic church.

Is your Wife a Catholic and is she a believer? I ask b/c usually the Catholic schools have catholic individuals as teachers. I would also add that many non-believers go to Catholic Schools here in St Louis b/c the education is better than the public school system. Trevor~

04/10/2008 11:50:52 AM · #390

Originally posted by trevytrev:

Is your Wife a Catholic and is she a believer?

Yes and probably. She's sort of evasive about it, and I'm not going to confront her on her beliefs.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

04/10/2008 11:53:43 AM · #391

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Science and scientific inquiry and argument may not be able to definitively answer questions of morality and ethics, but I would argue that they can certainly inform the debate.

I can agree with that. Your example with animal treatment, however, is more of an example of the application of the ethic rather than the ethic itself. In other words, Science is mute on whether emotional (just using the word you used) beings should be afforded different treatment than automatons, but it can help us decided which animals fall into which categories.

trevytrev

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

04/10/2008 11:54:33 AM · #392

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by trevytrev:
Is your Wife a Catholic and is she a believer?

Yes and probably. She's sort of evasive about it, and I'm not going to confront her on her beliefs.

Cool, one thing I learned is not to make the Mrs. angry..lol..at least at my house anyway:)

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

04/10/2008 12:00:30 PM · #393

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
Bruce Siddle (PPCT Management Systems Inc) is where I first learned of the Etheric sense and its evidence through photography. I will research some old material.

Okey dokey. The only forms of aura photography I'm aware of are Kirlian, where film in direct contact with the subject is exposed by electric charges (even inanimate objects like coins will exhibit this type of aura) and special "aura" cameras, which use fiber optics to produce the characteristic colors. Hopefully, you have something new.

Since Bruce Siddle's expertise is in stress research as applied to combat enviornments and the phychological and physiological aspects of these encounters, thus with a foundation in defensive tactics (aka martial arts/philosophy) and the timimg would have placed my introduction to this concept likely around the early 90's, I doubt that I'll produce anything new. Regardless, I will pull some old material and see if specific experiments are referenced or just generally acknowledged. I specifically recall it contained within the instructor manuals for PPCT and it may have been included in his work "The Warriors Edge". I'll post an update tomorrow.

Message edited by author 2008-04-10 12:02:23.

mpeters

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/10/2008 12:11:47 PM · #394

Shannon, There are several reasons why parents choose a school to educate their children. You may feel that the Catholic school provides the best educational opportunity for them. However, considering your stance on religion--wouldn't it make more sense to send your children to public school where religions are taught side by side with secular philosophies? Again, your decision may have been made out of convenience or the quality of education available.

It seems that to allow your children to form their own opinions, a secular education would be best for them since it would expose them to many avenues of thought, theoretically from an unbiased viewpoint. I can't imagine that world religions and philosophies would be taught at a Catholic school outside of the context of Catholicism.

Not trying to dig at you, I'm genuinely interested in your reasoning.

eta: I see your response about your wife above...that may be a large part of the decision. ;)

Message edited by author 2008-04-10 12:13:03.

04/10/2008 12:15:23 PM · #395

Originally posted by mpeters:

You may feel that the Catholic school provides the best educational opportunity for them. ...I'm genuinely interested in your reasoning.

I probably wasn't clear enough... they DO attend public school. "Religious Education" is the rough equivalent of Sunday School, held just a day or two a week (at the church) after regular classes. Think of it as learning a foreign language outside of regular school. ;-)

Message edited by author 2008-04-10 12:17:59.

mpeters

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/10/2008 12:30:07 PM · #396

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by mpeters:
You may feel that the Catholic school provides the best educational opportunity for them. ...I'm genuinely interested in your reasoning.

I probably wasn't clear enough... they DO attend public school. "Religious Education" is the rough equivalent of Sunday School, held just a day or two a week (at the church) after regular classes. Think of it as learning a foreign language outside of regular school. ;-)

Ok... ;) Do you see these classes as giving Catholicism an 'advantage' in its influence on your children's development? And, theoretically, if all things were equal, would you be OK with sending your children to a full time 'religious' education?

Maybe this is distracting from the main topic of this thread... I just like to hear your perspective. I'll bow out soon. ;)

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

04/10/2008 12:34:17 PM · #397

I was an atheist until age 20, so I do have a little bit of the "view from the other side", but I never had a family as an atheist. Thank you, Shannon, for being forthcoming in your answers ... it's interesting to understand how you've decided to handle things.

04/10/2008 12:42:30 PM · #398

Originally posted by mpeters:

Do you see these classes as giving Catholicism an 'advantage' in its influence on your children's development?

Sure, but most people are already indoctrinated into the prevailing beliefs of their community, so it's not much of a net change.

Originally posted by mpeters:

If all things were equal, would you be OK with sending your children to a full time 'religious' education?

No. I don't make much of a distinction between a Catholic school and a madrasah. It's one thing to learn about another perspective, but it's a lot more difficult to distinguish story from fact when you've been taught the stories all your life from the same source where you gained most of your knowledge.