Re: So what do Catholics believe about Exogenesis?


@*%&(@^%) Google Groups!!!

Re-sending this reply -- hopefully it's not redundant -- again.


On May 24, 3:03 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 24, 1:01 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 24, 10:38 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<...>

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.

That is a HUGE assumption on your part. The capability of being
spiritually aware could have developed in any manner of ways.

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.

Again, this a a collection of assumptions. Maybe it worked that way,
and maybe it didn't. If you're thinking of anything like a scientific
basis, you need to start thinking of a properly formed hypothesis,
predictions, observations, yadda yadda etc. Otherwise, all you have
is a list of unsupported assumptions that have no more merit than
anybody else's unsupported assumptions.

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.

You didn't answer the question. If a spiritual world (realm,
dimension, etc) existed, why would you *expect* to find direct
evidence for it?

<...>

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.

Pardon?? Maybe you didn't mean that the way it sounded, but... why
would you be expecting to find evidence for "things that cannot be
proven true or false and don't have any demonstrable and repeatable
affect on our world"? From that, it sounds like you're making demands
for evidence that you know can't be found.

Or was that not what you meant?

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".

Oooookay, well relax, I do not fit into that particular group of
illuminutties.

<...>

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.

Damn man, you could break a chicken's neck with the circularity of
that. The "observable fact" is that it's not 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).

Wow, total disconnect there. The first is an example of the lack of
observable evidence. The second is just a false statement. Totally
different concepts.

<...>

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.

That it is nonsensical *to you* does not make it false. Given what
you've said above, I'm not surprised you find it nonsensical, with the
way you've approached it.

-- If a spiritual world exists, you seem to expect to find direct
evidence for it, yet you do not explain *why* you expect to find
evidence for it.

-- You are expecting (or not expecting?) to find evidence for
something for which no evidence can exist?

I'm not surprised that you're confused... I'd be surprised if you
*weren't* confused.

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

Hey, you're the one that Gerrymandered this mess... *you* answer the
question.

<...>

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.

NAK... listed below are statements concerning the nature of the earth/
universe, not the nature of God. Different concept.

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).

Speaking of a fourth grade reading level, you are aware of course that
the above are not Catholic dogma? Wasn't that the original target of
this dart-throwing exercise?

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

In this case, various sects of Christianity.

If you want to be taken seriously, do serious research. Saying
"various sects of Christianity" isn't any different than saying that
you pulled it out of your ass.

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?

Do you realize this has -0- to do with the purported topic of this
thread?

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?

The only thing you've shown is your ability to throw random darts in
random directions with no more apparent aim other than to say "theists
are poopieheads." You could have said that in one sentence and saved
yourself a lot of typing time.

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)

Correction -- evolution is not a *proven* science. It is supported by
a preponderance of evidence.

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).

Obviously, what you *don't* know about the RCC could fill volumes.
Catholic schools teach evolution, from the elementary to the
university level. They have done so at least since the 1960's.

If you want to criticize something, make at least *some* attempt to
understand it. Right now, you come off sounding like some boob who
has a bug up his ass concerning the RCC, without knowing what they
really believe. That's like shining a spotlight on "Ignorance breeds
bigotry."

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.

The chicken just dove for cover...

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.

And this is a problem for you because ...........?

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.

Careful with that broad brush, you might get some on you.

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?

So, it makes religion weaker because you choose to believe so? That
might work for you, but...

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 you dodge the question with a ad-hom smokescreen. That says it
all.

Maintaining that incorporating knowledge into science strengthens the
science, but that incorporating the *same* knowledge into religion
weakens the religion, is absurd, unless you can support your
reasoning. You have not done so.

<...>

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.

Wrong, as explained above.

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:

Fromhttp://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]"

That's the nice thing about statistics: you can make them say anything
you want. I wish I could meet all these creationist Catholics. Where
are they hiding?

That's the problem with a McKnowledge source like Wikipedia. It's
very unreliable. That they have such a mediocre handle on how
statistics and polls work says a lot.

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.

And 70 percent of the American public can't find New Jersey on a map.
Yes, poor education and ignorance are a problem in America.

Do you propose to fight ignorance with ignorance?

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).

(Psst -- this isn't a Web site. It's a Usenet newsgroup.)

Fighting against irrational claims is a necessary part of modern
science, unfortunately.

Actually, the business of science is science.

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.

Which also had diddly to do with the (purported) topic of this thread.

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?

Dude, try to focus. Complain about one thing at a time. Learning
something about what your trying to criticize would be a good first
step.


.

Relevant Pages
Loading