Re: So what do Catholics believe about Exogenesis?

On May 24, 1:01 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 24, 10:38 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>

The first human that was "spiritually aware" (whatever that means)
bears no necessary relation to the first actual human being. The first
human that was "spiritually aware" could have been a Neandertal which
later went extinct, or some other hominid species that wasn't actually
human. In any case, the hominid *population* in question would have
been only *slightly* more intelligent than it's predecessor
populations (since there was an active selective bias toward larger
brain size). They would have had only a slightly more developed sense
of "spirituality" than their ancestors, and even THIS is only on
average. A specific hominid wouldn't fit the bill.

Non sequitur. If spiritual awareness actually evolved, there had to
be a first mutation that took place in one individual. And don't
automatically assume that spiritual awareness is closely linked to
intelligence. There may be no connection between them.

I should actually have been more careful and say that the *capability*
of being spiritually aware behaves as I've shown above. The actual
"spiritual awareness" is not defined by genetic information, but
*memetic* information rather. Eventually, individuals that were
*capable* of ancestor worship or nature god hypothesis actually got
around to doing so (and this has nothing to do with whether or not
they were homo sapiens sapiens or some other hominid). This is only
dependent on the culture of their social group, not on their DNA
makeup.


As science doesn't delve into spirituality, it's
really an apples/oranges thing.

Sure it does. We can certainly examine what makes people think there
is something spiritual in the first place. Clearly there is no
evidence for it.

Of course not. Why would you *expect* to find direct evidence for
it?

If something actually is purported to play such an intricate role in
the formation of our universe, you don't think it's odd that not a
trace of it can be found? The fact that people believe in it anyway is
a very interesting (and scientific) question. The supernatural was
*originally* used for ancestor worship, and to explain ordinary
phenomena that were totally misunderstood by early cultures (rain,
thunder, earthquakes, the sun, etc). As those ordinary phenomena
became more and more understood, the supernatural simply changed face.
There are still people that put "God in the gaps" of our
understanding, or have just postulated that God and/or the
supernatural exist anyway, even without any evidence to support the
claim. Very fascinating.

Originally, spirituality was a way of coping with
death (ancestor worship) and the gaps in the species' understanding
(nature gods). It evolved (it's a meme after all) to something we have
today, after a few tens of thousands of years. You can claim all you
want about a plane of existence that doesn't actually affect our
universe in any demonstrable way. Literally. You can literally claim
ANYTHING you want. God created the universe. There's turtles all the
way down. Field mice are performing a science experiment to develop
the ultimate question (the ultimate answer being, of course, 42). If
this is what you mean by "spirituality", then of course science can't
touch it because it doesn't seem to touch us in any demonstrable way.

Obviously, spirituality means different things to different people/
religions/etc. It's not based on a single, monolithic idea. Perhaps
the problem is that you're trying to distill all things spiritual into
one little nugget. I doubt that's possible.

I'm placing them all into the category of "metaphysics", that is,
things that cannot be proven true or false and don't have any
demonstrable and repeatable affect on our world.


And before you say it, let's not confuse spirituality with humanism.

Okay. *shrug* And your point would be..................?

It was mostly a joke, but one based in reality. Many people jump in
with "the world is beautiful therefore the supernatural exists,
morality can't exist without divine retribution, if you don't believe
in God you can't love, etc etc" as proof that the supernatural exists.
You should see the arguments that some theists bring up. Did you
happen to catch Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, by any chance? Tweedle-
dee and Tweedle-dum. They are absolutely absymally delusional, and I
think they took a look at the "Top 5 Worst Arguments Made By Theists"
and said "hey, gee, these look like a great idea".


and/or actually commit any actual sin, then the
"taint" that Adam's blood carries is non-existent because he himself
is non-existent, therefore the concept of original sin is inconsistent
with the theory of evolution.

As the concept of original sin is part of a religious belief, and the
theories that describe evolution are part of science, why would one
*expect* the two to be consistent?

The concept of original sin is a religious belief based on an
observable fact.

Oh? Which "observable fact" do you think original sin is based on?

The existence of a "first man or men" that disobeyed God who single-
handedly caused the world to "fall from grace" and for who's sins, all
of humanity must pay the price and suffer.

How do you propose to "observe" this? Note that, if you search for
something and don't find it, that's not an "observable fact."

The fact that we show that it's not a defined concept given current
observational evidence makes it an observable fact. I could say "the
first black US President told you that you could go to college for
free" but since we observe that there have been no black US presidents
means that the fact that he said you could go to college for free is
also false (or technically, irrelevant).


Disprove the observable fact, and the concept is
eliminated unless they redefine what it is (which means it's basically
meaningless because they simply have no idea what it actually is, but
merely put it in the gaps of our understanding... gaps close,
assertions have to get smaller).

I'm not sure, but I think you're touching on areas where some
Christians (especially YECs) seem to want to find physical evidence to
support their beliefs. They are a distinct minority. To some
Christians, searching for "evidence" in that manner borders on heresy,
as it indicates a lack of faith.

Then tell me why original sin should exist, if no "Adam" existed?

As we have not determined that "an Adam" never existed, the point is
moot.

The very concept is undefined and nonsensical. Something that is
nonsensical cannot exist. Such as a being that can create a rock so
big it cannot lift it. It's nonsense. It's just an ill-defined
concept.

So I'll ask it again: Tell me why original sin should exist, if no
"Adam" existed.


For that matter, the concept of
God isn't consistent with science, any more than French conjugation is
consistent with science.

Any predictions about God's nature that impact reality are falsifiable
(and by and large all have been falsified).

I'd be curious to see a list of these "falsified" predictions. Do
they by any chance include the age of the Earth? Perhaps you're
assuming (incorrectly) that all Christians believe in a literal 6-day
creation a few thousand years ago?

It's a prediction about God's nature, which was FALSIFIED.

With all due respect to your caps, please list a few of these
predictions that were "falsified?"

I guess the huge list in the following paragraph wasn't enough for
you? I'll list them again.

1) 6 day creationism that occurred 10,000 years ago.
2) The fact that the first thing in the universe that was created was
light, then the earth, then the stars, etc.
3) That the world was covered in a global flood.
4) That the world stopped on it's axis a few thousand years ago.
5) That human beings were made from dust and ribcages.
6) That someone eating an apple caused carnivores to exist.
7) That human beings walked with dinosaurs.

Laugh all you want. There are plenty of people around that still
believe in these things. You can either recognize that they exist and
are a problem, or ignore the problem and claim they're not "really"
Christian or whatever. If you're not one of them, I applaud you and am
very glad you can actually get past a fourth-grade reading level
(unlike the vast swaths of the US population that can't).

Also please indicate which major
faith(s) made these predictions?

In this case, various sects of Christianity.


Don't think
for a second that people didn't at one time (and in some cases, still
do) think the universe was created in 6 days in the order specified in
Genesis, that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe,
that the stars were a "firmament", that evolution was false, that the
world stopped spinning around it's axis at one point, that the world
was covered in a global flood, etc. Theists (particularly Christians)
did NOT think these concepts were wrong until we PROVED they were
wrong (falsified). In fact, religionists actively struggled AGAINST
scientific progress because it disagreed with their notions (and they
STILL do).

You realize, of course, that we are no longer living in the Middle
Ages? Things have changed a bit since then, both in religion and
science.

Some people haven't noticed. Or are you blind to that fact? Have you
seen a US evangelical church? Do you realize that 44% of the US
population still believes evolution is false?


So let's not put on overly rosy glasses about what happens
when the beliefs of a theist are proven to be false. Many will
continue to hold on to beliefs that are falsified because they will
not accept them to be disproven.

True, but again, don't lump all religions into the same basket. The
title of the thread is about Catholic belief, but much of what you've
said has nothing to do with Catholicism.

You asked me for things that religions have stated that have been
disproven. I gave you a list of things that science has disproven, and
some religions changed their minds. You don't see how this answers
your question?

Do you want to actually ask the question "What does Catholicism
*currently* believe that science has disproven?" Well, for starters,
that evolution isn't a proven science (it is) and that intelligent
design might still be true (it isn't). But aside from that, finally
and thankfully, not much. But let's see, remind me how long it took
the Church to admit that the earth goes around the sun and Galileo was
right? Yes. Several hundred years (JPII finally got around to it in
the mid-1990's). The fact that the Catholics happen to have changed
their stance on their previous uninformed claims about the world
around us is exactly what I've been talking about.... they RECOGNIZE
that their claims were wrong, and (thankfully) changed their minds
(what that says about a religion supposedly inspired by God is your
own interpretation). So like I said... very often science disproves
claims of religion. What they do with their beliefs after they're
shown to be wrong is their own business. Some religions change
doctrine (or "suggestions", or whatever you want to call what they
tell all their adherents to follow). Not all religions do the same. A
huge number do not, in fact.


Sure, some will accept actual
verifiable scientific fact as showing that aspects of their faith are
wrong. Good. That's a good thing. I applaude them for their
sensibility and efforts. However, when THEOLOGY is based on a
falsifiable assertion, and the assertion is falsified, at BEST you can
perform some unconvincing theological acrobatics to wriggle out of the
rock that was thrown on it, but usually they fail.

Our knowledge of the world changes. Science changes with it. So do
religions. And you think this is a problem because .........?

I think this is a problem because some do not (which you appear to be
totally oblivious to). I guess that point isn't getting through to
you.


For instance, if the cult of Apollo REALLY REALLY REALLY thought the
sun was a god, and this cult survived to the present day (no reason it
wouldn't have, save for the advent of Christianity), what do you think
would have happened to the cult of Apollo when the sun was shown to
actually be a ball of gas that was undergoing a fusion reaction?

Mysterious are the ways of Apollo. :-)

Translation: metaphysical. Unprovable. Not affecting our universe.


Similarly, what do you think will happen when evidence is presented
that shows that God wasn't necessary to account for the creation of
new species?

If I remember correctly, such evidence was first presented around 150
years ago, give or take. Most religions managed to have survived the
event.

Some of them recognized the fact. However, many of them ignore it, and
survive by preying off the weak minded and undereducated.


It's dogmatic fact in many religions that God was
personally responsible for creating them. And when the facts are
examined that God wasn't personally responsible, what happens to that
belief? Some will accept that it was wrong and modify their theistic
assertions to be weaker ones (Well, God did it, but God did it with
evolution),

Really? How does incorporating newly discovered facts into a theology
"weaken" it?

It makes it a weaker *ASSUMPTION*. A weak assumption is a good thing
in a logical argument, in case you hadn't been aware. Weak assumptions
include "I exist", "the universe exists", "you're not all figments of
my imagination", "all of reality exist as we observe but I think God
did it anyway". Strong assumptions include "I can prove that God
exists because the moon is pretty", "I assume God made the sun out of
swiss cheese", "I assume that I'll make a million dollars next week",
"God made human beings out of dust from the earth and ribcages", etc.

Savvy?

Incorporating newly discovered facts into *science*
doesn't weaken it -- why do you think it would weaken a religion? Is
that a case of wishful thinking?

No, just a lack of reading comprehension on your part.


and a whole bunch will just deny that it occurred at all.
(In fact, 44% of the US population takes this tact, so let's not get
sanctimonious, shall we?).

Indeed -- let's not.

Which you seem to have done.


The vast majority of Christians do
not hold that belief.

I'm sure you have statistics for this? I do have statistics for the
percentage of US people (of all religions and lack thereof) that deny
evolution based ENTIRELY on theological assertions.

Well, let's start with the Catholics. (Remember them? That's who the
thread is about...)

Not all Catholics believe in evolution. The church doesn't tell them
they have to. It says they're "free to believe it and not be
excommunicated", basically.

To that add the Episcopal Church, the
Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, and I'm sure quite a few
others. Oh, and here's a sprinkling of around 10,000 or so Christian
Clergy who feel the same way:http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm

And from:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution


Religions that don't believe in evolution include the Assemblies of
God, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Free Methodist Church,
the Jehovah's Witnesses, Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, Pentecostal
Churches, Seventh-day Adventist Churches, Wisconsin Evangelical
Lutheran Synod, Christian Reformed Church, and the Pentecostal Oneness
churches.

"According to a 2006 Gallup poll,[104] about 46% of Americans believe
in strict creationism, concurring with the statement that "God created
man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000
years," and 36% believe that God guided the process of evolution. Only
13% believe that humans evolved over millions of years, without any
supernatural intervention. Belief in creationism is inversely
correlated to education; of those with post-graduate degrees, only 22%
believe in strict creationism.[104]A poll in the year 2000 done for
People for the American Way found 70% of the American public felt that
evolution was compatible with a belief in God.[105]

There are interesting divisions in public opinions about evolution
between conservatives and liberals, or people with different political
leanings. A 2005 Pew Research Center poll found that 60 percent of
Republicans are creationists, and only 11 percent express a belief in
evolution, but 29 percent of Democrats are creationists and 44 percent
accept evolution. Also, the Pew survey found that 70 percent of
evangelical Christians felt that living organisms have not changed
since their creation, but only 31% of Catholics and 32 percent of
mainline Protestants had the same opinion. A 2005 Harris Poll[106]
estimated that 63 percent of liberals and 37 percent of conservatives
agreed that humans and other primates have a common ancestry.[65]"

I'll let these facts speak for themselves. I'll highlight one : 46% of
Americans believe in strict creationism (the young earth kind, i.e.
10,000 years ago and 6 days). If that doesn't terrify you, you're not
paying attention.


I think you have a very rosy picture of the capability of human beings
to let go of their metaphysical assertions, one I do not share.

And you seem to be consumed by your own prejudices. Pity, that.

Not my own prejudice. My own experience. I live in a country that
routinely has to fight against idiots who think that evolution didn't
actually occur (that's the whole point of why this website exists).
Fighting against irrational claims is a necessary part of modern
science, unfortunately. I wish people were educated enough to simply
be happy with metaphysical statements about God, but NOOOOO, they need
to screw up science education to prove they're right too. Like I said,
you didn't see the "Cameron-Comfort" interview on ABC recently, did
you? How do you explain their HUGE popular support otherwise?

.

Relevant Pages
Loading