Descendant Of Charles Darwin Becomes A Catholic Apologist

[CatholicsAreKewl]

If a scientist allowed their faith mentality to bleed over into how they handle scientific questions, then there would be a problem and your argument would have more ground. However that is not the case and if it is, those scientists are in error. 

They are allowing their faith to determine physical ideas which cant happen.

 

 

It seems like youre arguing that beause a particular scientist might believe in God or the toothy fairy etc, that means that they use that same mode of thinking and apply it to everything else. Not true.

 

It is possible to be a scientists AND believe in God without it altering how you operate in your field. 

 

I know. I'm not saying religious scientists are any less capable of doing their jobs. I just find it weird that they separate these ways of thinking. Walk into the lab with one mindset and step out with another. 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Contrary to popular opinion, sciences are flawed and fallible. They are prone to human error just as much as any other field of knowledge. I'm not saying this to dismiss scientific fields (since I am in one myself) but because sciences are being misunderstood and put on a pedestal when they shouldn't be. 

 

I forgot to answer this part! You're right, science is flawed at times. The fact that you, a researcher, can say this is fantastic. But science allows for these mistakes to be corrected. It's not like we'll never get past these errors. Religion is different. You have to have faith that certain beliefs are unchanging and never prone to error. I don't think i'll ever hear you say (see you type), "Sometimes the pope is wrong when he's speaking ex cathedra". This way of thinking isn't compatible with the skeptical approach of a scientist.

Edited July 17, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Ice_nine]

some things are outside of the realm of empirical science, of course they'd have to "walk out" with another perspective because you need different tools to assess different problems. Do you bemoan the fact that a scientist uses a different method to analyze, for example, the quality of artistic works? Or how much he loves the people in his life and how much they love him/her? Or whether his life has any meaning?

 

Must he approach each of these questions empirically? You seem to be indicating there's some type of cognitive dissonance that happens when a scientist steps out of the lab, but in reality if a scientist used the scientific approach for all of life's quandaries he/she would most likely be an insufferable bastard.

 

Hey babe I'd love to propose to you, but first I need to take some brain scans and make sure the results are consistent with love and loyalty etc.

 

Erm, these sound waves are not consistent with the appropriate logarithm associated with beautiful and complex music. Ergo, this song suuuuuuuuuuucks bro.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Catholicsarekewl - It seems like youre comparing everything to science and saying that because it doesnt fit in there, then its not something to "believe" in. 

 

Im curious to how you cope with anything else you encounter besides faith.

Sorry, i didn't see this part of your comment. It's hard to bring science together with a belief in something that's not proven (or provable). I manage to cope fine. Give me an example, though. 

[KnightofChrist]

EMILYANN! Oh my goodness, this our first argument?  :o
 
I know faith isn't a science. It is a belief in something without proof. This isn't scientific, EmilyAnn. That doesn't make your faith wrong but it does make it incompatible with the way of thinking one should adopt as a scientist. Literature does not require us to believe in something we can't prove. I can be a Sherlock Holmes enthusiast and a chemistry teacher. There's no contradiction in those ways of thinking. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well enough...
 
Let's say you know professor x. Professor x teaches bio/chem/bio-chem and is famous for his research on y. You notice that professor x is into alchemy, wears power balance bracelets, and has a shrine to Athena in his office. Do you find this at all puzzling? Why? Why not?
 
For your psychology experiments, do you ever accept articles on faith when you do a literature review? No, you make sure to investigate what methods the authors used, whether their work has been peer reviewed, etc. You have to approach everything skeptically. Why don't you apply this sort of skepticism to your religious beliefs?
 
Faith is not an area of human knowledge. Faith is a belief in something without proof. Faith in God is as scientific as faith in astrology. Faith = not compatible with science.

Faith is a science, it's a study of knowledge, but for the lack of a better term it's just not material science, like Chemistry for example.

Is atheism also incompatible with the way of thinking one should adopt as a scientist? Can the Professor X be a devote Marxist, Communist, or identify with any number of militant atheistic ideologies? Or would those also not be compatible with science?

Faith is indeed a area of knowledge, faith does not need empirical proof, but I'm not convinced the whole of faith has no factual proof of any kind.

Faith is compatible with science, in that it is not incompatible with science. I know atheistic propaganda says other wise, but it doesn't make it true. Perhaps if you are indeed an atheist this is what is causing you to concluded faith is not compatible with science the way you are doing. I don't believe faith or lack of faith should be mixed in with scientific experiment. But outside of that scientists should be able to personally consider and say that "looking at the evidence I believe it infers that there could be a creator" or "... that there may be no creator." And still be a respected scientist. But today it seems only the former is allowed, while the latter is subject to attack.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

some things are outside of the realm of empirical science, of course they'd have to "walk out" with another perspective because you need different tools to assess different problems. Do you bemoan the fact that a scientist uses a different method to analyze, for example, the quality of artistic works? Or how much he loves the people in his life and how much they love him/her? Or whether his life has any meaning?

Yay, thanks for joining in. This is a good point. But I would argue that any artistic analysis is subjective. There could be some made-up method for deciding good art vs. bad art but I think it's caca. All of these other examples you mentioned can be tested. We have a scientific understanding of love. Meaning is subjective. In fact, some psychologists recommend creating your own reality/purpose/meaning. I honestly think it's an approach that favors self-delusion. Not cool with that, but I digress. Faith in a deity is different because it is belief in an actual being without proof. 

 

 

Must he approach each of these questions empirically? You seem to be indicating there's some type of cognitive dissonance that happens when a scientist steps out of the lab, but in reality if a scientist used the scientific approach for all of life's quandaries he/she would most likely be an insufferable bastard.

 

 

Well, having a skeptical and rational view of things isn't all that bad. I'm not saying we should ignore our creativity, feelings, and emotions. But a scientist, in my ideal world, would be skeptical about psychic readings the same way he would skeptical about any other scientific findings. 

 

 

Hey babe I'd love to propose to you, but first I need to take some brain scans and make sure the results are consistent with love and loyalty etc.

Tell me when you're done with the brain scans. You're worth the wait. 

 

 

Erm, these sound waves are not consistent with the appropriate logarithm associated with beautiful and complex music. Ergo, this song suuuuuuuuuuucks bro.

 

Lol. I'm not saying we have to analyze everything scientifically. Some notes sound good together. We can test this by putting 1038120 children in a room and playing different notes together and surveying them (the children) afterwards. I'm not saying we SHOULD but we at least have that possibility. We can't even attempt that sort of testing with faith in a higher power. Let's say I tell you that hearing a D flat note will make your heart skip a beat. Would you believe my claim or would you want evidence? 

Edited July 17, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Faith is a science, it's a study of knowledge, but for the lack of a better term it's just not material science, like Chemistry for example.

Maybe we're looking at different definitions of faith. I'm specifically referring to a belief in something unproven. 

 

 

 

 

Is atheism also incompatible with the way of thinking one should adopt as a scientist? Can the Professor X be a devote Marxist, Communist, or identify with any number of militant atheistic ideologies? Or would those also not be compatible with science?

Atheism is a lack of belief in a God. It doesn't necessarily imply anti-theism. I don't associate Christianity with Fascism or Nazism. Tying atheism up with marxism or communism is just as silly. Let's not get into this argument (unless you REALLY want to). I don't like hearing it from either side. 

 

 

Faith is indeed a area of knowledge, faith does not need empirical proof, but I'm not convinced the whole of faith has no factual proof of any kind.

Please explain this. I'm definitely using a different definition of faith than some posters on this thread are.

 

 

Faith is compatible with science, in that it is not incompatible with science. I know atheistic propaganda says other wise, but it doesn't make it true. Perhaps if you are indeed an atheist this is what is causing you to concluded faith is not compatible with science the way you are doing. I don't believe faith or lack of faith should be mixed in with scientific experiment. 

 

 

Atheistic propaganda, haha! That's so cool. I didn't think we had propaganda. 

 

But outside of that scientists should be able to personally consider and say that "looking at the evidence I believe it infers that there could be a creator" or "... that there may be no creator." And still be a respected scientist. But today it seems only the former is allowed, while the latter is subject to attack.

 

 

Well, that's the thing. There is no proof of a creator. Scientists are skeptical about claims without proof. Since the existence of God isn't proven and is possibly unprovable, I argue that faith in God isn't compatible with science. 

Edited July 17, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[KnightofChrist]

Maybe we're looking at different definitions of faith. I'm specifically referring to a belief in something unproven.

I suppose so, but that doesn't make my statement incorrect.
 
 
 

Atheism is a lack of belief in a God. It doesn't necessarily imply anti-theism. I don't associate Christianity with Fascism or Nazism. Tying atheism up with marxism or communism is just as silly. Let's not get into this argument (unless you REALLY want to). I don't like hearing it from either side.

Atheism includes more forms than just negative Atheism. Marxism and Communism are types of Atheist ideologies, there are those that label it just anti-theism. But Atheistic anti-theism (ie: Marxism, Communism) is a positive form of Atheism, which is also known as Militant Atheism. Nazism was more pagan that it was a Christian ideology, Fascism can be a type of Christianity that worships the State. The trouble would go back to having different understanding of reality not just definitions. Most atheists do not accept objective or absolute truth, most Christians do. There can be a objective truth of what Christianity is and is not. Nazism would not be a true form of Christianity nor Fascism, because they are perversions of it, they pervert many of its main tenants. Atheism has no main tenants save for the disbelief in deities. But there's no real way to know which form is the true form. It would seem contradictory for an atheist that rejects object/absolute truth to state Militant/Positive forms of Atheism are not true forms of Atheism.
 
 

Please explain this. I'm definitely using a different definition of faith than some posters on this thread are.

Perhaps I will when you are able to answer my question about Professor X, that you have not answered. I do assume you would be ok with him being a Militant atheist but not a Christian. But I would like you to prove or disprove that assumption.
 
 
 

Atheistic propaganda, haha! That's so cool. I didn't think we had propaganda.

 
Most certainly, Ricard Dawkins for example would be a Atheist propagandist.
 

Well, that's the thing. There is no proof of a creator. Scientists are skeptical about claims without proof. Since the existence of God isn't proven and is possibly unprovable, I argue that faith in God isn't compatible with science.

I argue that most of that is simply anti-theistic atheism bringing you to those conclusions. Edited July 17, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Ice_nine]

Empirical data is not the only type of proof that exists (experiential evidence, philosophical or logical proofs etc also exist) but since the enlightenment it has become the preeminent form of reasoning and anything that cannot be proven by empirical means becomes suspect. Another characteristic of our current epoch, it seems, is to claim everything that cannot be tested empirically as "subjective." Therefore the evidence concerning the existence of God, the life of Christ, and all things related is at its core unscientific . . .

 

 

you know what it's freaking hot here and there's a pool outside so maybe I'll come back later and get back to whatever the hell point I was trying to make, but this laptop is burning up and it's supposed to be in the 90's this whole week so no promises.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I suppose so, but that doesn't make my statement incorrect.

 

Faith = belief in something unproven. I don't know if it's a study of knowledge. 

 

 

 

 

Atheism includes more forms than just negative Atheism. Marxism and Communism are types of Atheist ideologies, there are those that label it just anti-theism. But Atheistic anti-theism (ie: Marxism, Communism) is a positive form of Atheism, which is also known as Militant Atheism. Nazism was more pagan that it was a Christian ideology, Fascism can be a type of Christianity that worships the State. 

 

I think you're confusing it. Atheism does not include Marxism and Communism. Marxist-Leninist atheism came from Marxism-Leninism. Atheism is merely a disbelief in a God. It's not like we have a holy book that tells us what ideologies to follow. The difference with Fascism is that it got the blessings and support of the Roman Catholic Church. It's not like we have some Atheist pope to tell us that Marxism-Leninism is kosher. Either way, I don't like where this argument is going. People assume that religion or a lack of is responsible for the horrible atrocities in the world. It's a game of death toll numbers. Neither side will win this. 

 

The trouble would go back to having different understanding of reality not just definitions. Most atheists do not accept objective or absolute truth, most Christians do. There can be a objective truth of what Christianity is and is not. Nazism would not be a true form of Christianity nor Fascism, because they are perversions of it, they pervert many of its main tenants. 

 

Hmm I'm not sure about your second sentence. It's possible that most do not accept objective or absolute truth but I don't know. What Christianity is and is not is actually pretty subjective. You have no right to tell someone they are not Christian based on your definition of the term. Fascism was supported by the Catholic Church in 1929, remember? Are you going to claim that Mormons aren't Christian because they believe Jesus went to North America? Are you going to claim that the Westboro Baptists aren't Christian? They would say the same about you.

 

Atheism has no main tenants save for the disbelief in deities. But there's no real way to know which form is the true form. It would seem contradictory for an atheist that rejects object/absolute truth to state Militant/Positive forms of Atheism are not true forms of Atheism.

 

Atheism is a lack of belief in a God. We don't need to have a "true" form. You're making the mistake of thinking of a lack of belief as a religion. These groups are atheist in that they don't believe in a God. That doesn't mean I agree with their extremism. 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps I will when you are able to answer my question about Professor X, that you have not answered. I do assume you would be ok with him being a Militant atheist but not a Christian. But I would like you to prove or disprove that assumption.

 

What? By "militant atheism" do you mean "let's legally ban religion/kill religious people"? If so, I don't see much of a problem science-wise. I see a bit of a moral issue. There is a difference between saying "God does not exist" and "there is no proof of God's existence". I would press someone if they told me they knew for a fact that God didn't exist. 

 

 

 

Most certainly, Ricard Dawkins for example would be a Atheist propagandist.
 

I argue that most of that is simply anti-theistic atheism bringing you to those conclusions.

 

Don't mix Richard Dawkins with the groups you mentioned earlier. He does not believe in a legal restriction on religion. I think of the writings of Dawkins as propaganda as much as I think of the apologetics section of Phatmass as propaganda. It's possible that both are, I just don't really think of them in that way. 

Edited July 17, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[KnightofChrist]

Faith = belief in something unproven. I don't know if it's a study of knowledge.

I reject your limited definition tainted by Atheism, I hold a view that is more in line with Webster's or its more common understanding.
 
 
 

I think you're confusing it. Atheism does not include Marxism and Communism. Marxist-Leninist atheism came from Marxism-Leninism. Atheism is merely a disbelief in a God. It's not like we have a holy book that tells us what ideologies to follow. The difference with Fascism is that it got the blessings and support of the Roman Catholic Church. It's not like we have some Atheist pope to tell us that Marxism-Leninism is kosher. Either way, I don't like where this argument is going. People assume that religion or a lack of is responsible for the horrible atrocities in the world. It's a game of death toll numbers. Neither side will win this.

I'm not confused. I am being fair, there is more than one type of atheism, it can be more than just a simple disbelief in deities. It can be positive or it can be negative it can be militant or passive. When one rejects objective truth one is left with relativism, Lenin's view and definition of Atheism is no more wrong or right than yours, or anyone else. I'm not trying to compare death tolls, I'm merely trying to point out this single minded idea that positive atheism doesn't exist is false.
 
 

Hmm I'm not sure about your second sentence. It's possible that most do not accept objective or absolute truth but I don't know. What Christianity is and is not is actually pretty subjective. You have no right to tell someone they are not Christian based on your definition of the term. Fascism was supported by the Catholic Church in 1929, remember? Are you going to claim that Mormons aren't Christian because they believe Jesus went to North America? Are you going to claim that the Westboro Baptists aren't Christian? They would say the same about you.

 
To an atheist I'm sure Christianity appears subjective, but I am not an atheist. I believe in objective truth and morality. There is only one true Church and that is the Catholic Church. It was an error of some Bishops to support a false form of Christianity that worshiped the state under Fascism, but it was wrong for them to do so based on Christian tenets. Mormons are not Christians, because they reject the trinity. Westboro Baptists exist it seems to continually break the greatest commandment, their form of Christianity is false.
 
 

Atheism is a lack of belief in a God. We don't need to have a "true" form. You're making the mistake of thinking of a lack of belief as a religion. These groups are atheist in that they don't believe in a God. That doesn't mean I agree with their extremism.

 

It's a way of thinking, it's a world view, it effects how you live your life. It can be positive or it can simply be negative. But there is more than just the simply negative form of it. It can be positive and it can be militant.
 
 

What? By "militant atheism" do you mean "let's legally ban religion/kill religious people"? If so, I don't see much of a problem science-wise. I see a bit of a moral problem. There is a difference between saying "God does not exist" and "there is no proof of God's existence". I would press someone if they told me they knew for a fact that God didn't exist.

Yeah just a little bit of a moral problem. But the question dealt with could a Militant Atheist be a professor if a Christian cannot or is advisable not to be. I again suppose your answer is yes, and it would be better if there were no moral problems. Still that is hypocritical, and if you are truly suggesting Christians or those with a faith cannot or should not be scientist that is a bit bigoted.
 
 

Don't mix Richard Dawkins with the groups you mentioned earlier. He does not believe in a legal restriction on religion. I think of Dawkins as propaganda as much as I think of the apologetics section of Phatmass as propaganda. It's possible that both are, I just don't really think of them in that way.

Apologetics can be propaganda. Propaganda can take different forms some good some bad. Edited July 17, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I reject your limited definition tainted by Atheism, I hold a view that is more in line with Webster's or its more common understanding.

There are multiple definitions of faith. I actually looked it up. I wasn't sure which one you were going by. But... I mean, don't you pride yourself on believing something that is hard to believe? Isn't that what faith is about? I'm not trying to force my definition on you, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

 

 

I'm not confused. I am being fair, there is more than one type of atheism, it can be more than just a simple disbelief in deities. It can be positive or it can be negative it can be militant or passive. When one rejects objective truth one is left with relativism, Lenin's view and definition of Atheism is no more wrong or right than yours, or anyone else. I'm not trying to compare death tolls, I'm merely trying to point out this single minded idea that positive atheism doesn't exist is false.

 

 

 
There are different types of Atheism but I think you're trying to group us all together. We're basically saying we don't believe in a higher power. Different people have different ways of approaching this disbelief. They might form their own groups (Atheism + is an example of this). I don't really co-sign atheist groups that prop up with certain ideologies. I think of them as religion with a deity cut out. 

 

To an atheist I'm sure Christianity appears subjective, but I am not an atheist. I believe in objective truth and morality. There is only one true Church and that is the Catholic Church. It was an error of some Bishops to support a false forms of Christianity that worshiped the state under Fascism. Mormons are not Christians, because they reject the trinity. Westboro Baptists exist it seems to continually break the greatest commandment, their form of Christianity is false.

 

 

 
Mormons reject the trinity? How interesting. I actually find it amusing that your definition of Christianity is based on acceptance of the trinity while a Muslim's definition of Christianity tends to be the opposite.  I also find it interesting how Christianity in America is a somewhat politicized term that became popularly used during the pro-life movement to gather different groups together. People wouldn't really identify as "Christian" before, but rather as "Catholic" or "Baptist" etc. Jimmy Carter was the first president to call himself a Christian, the other presidents referred to themselves by their sects, but didn't use the term "Christian" in reference to themselves until recently (the term "christian nation" was still used, though). 
 
 

 

 It's a way of thinking, it's a world view, it effects how you live your life. It can be positive or it can simply be negative. But there is more than just the simply negative form of it. It can be positive and it can be militant.  

 

 

 

I agree. This argument can apply to virtually anything.

 

Yeah just a little bit of a moral problem. But the question dealt with could a Militant Atheist be a professor if a Christian cannot or is advisable not to be. I again suppose your answer is yes, and it would be better if there were no moral problems. Still that is hypocritical, and if you are truly suggesting Christians or those with a faith cannot or should not be scientist that is a bit bigoted.

 

 

 

 
 I never said the religious cannot or should not be scientists. I just said I wasn't sure how they managed to do it. I still stand by my claim that belief in a being whose existence is unproven/possible unprovable is not compatible with a scientific way of thinking. I would say outright denial of God's existence is also not a scientific way of dealing with this issue. In fact, I don't believe any of the big atheist figures nowadays claim there isn't a God. Their argue why they don't believe in a God and point out contradictions in religious beliefs about a higher power. 

Apologetics can be propaganda. Propaganda can take different forms some good some bad.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree then. Maybe I'm too conservative with my use of the term. I usually use it in a negative way, whenever I feel like the work is purposely disingenuous/hiding facts. 

Edited July 17, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CatholicsAreKewl]

My mistake, I said the term "Christian" was used to gather pro-life supporters. I might be completely mistaken. It was used to gather different Christian sects together and to not alienate different sects by calling oneself a Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, etc. 

[KnightofChrist]

There are multiple definitions of faith. I actually looked it up. I wasn't sure which one you were going by. But... I mean, don't you pride yourself on believing something that is hard to believe? Isn't that what faith is about? I'm not trying to force my definition on you, correct me if I'm wrong.

 
I don't need empirical evidence to believe. But that doesn't mean faith cannot be a science/knowledge. It can be both.  
 
 

There are different types of Atheism but I think you're trying to group us all together. We're basically saying we don't believe in a higher power. Different people have different ways of approaching this disbelief. They might form their own groups (Atheism + is an example of this). I don't really co-sign atheist groups that prop up with certain ideologies. I think of them as religion with a deity cut out.

 
No, rather its kind of the other way round because you believe there is only one type of Atheism. If I were trying to lump all together, I wouldn't be pointing out there are different forms. Different groups belong to different forms, if the main branches or types are positive and negative I'm sure there are many splinter groups for each.

 
 
 

Mormons reject the trinity? How interesting. I actually find it amusing that your definition of Christianity is based on acceptance of the trinity while a Muslim's definition of Christianity tends to be the opposite.  I also find it interesting how Christianity in America is a somewhat politicized term that became popularly used during the pro-life movement to gather different groups together. People wouldn't really identify as "Christian" before, but rather as "Catholic" or "Baptist" etc. Jimmy Carter was the first president to call himself a Christian, the other presidents referred to themselves by their sects, but didn't use the term "Christian" in reference to themselves until recently (the term "christian nation" was still used, though).

 

Interesting opinion(s), I don't really share it.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I never said the religious cannot or should not be scientists. I just said I wasn't sure how they managed to do it. I still stand by my claim that belief in a being whose existence is unproven/possible unprovable is not compatible with a scientific way of thinking. I would say outright denial of God's existence is also not a scientific way of dealing with this issue. In fact, I don't believe any of the big atheist figures nowadays claim there isn't a God. Their argue why they don't believe in a God and point out contradictions in religious beliefs about a higher power.

It seemed otherwise which is why I took issue with your statements. If that's not the case I haven't much of a real problem. Meaning I just prefer not to argue the theist vs atheist debate for the millionth time again. I don't agree that belief that God exist or does not exist is incompatible with a scientific way of thinking. But to be honest I don't care much about arguing about it with someone that likely will never change their mind anyway. I agree to disagree with your opinion about compatibility with Faith or lack of faith and science.
 

I agree then. Maybe I'm too conservative with my use of the term. I usually use it in a negative way, whenever I feel like the work is purposely disingenuous/hiding facts.

Well one small point that we can agree on is good enough for me. I'll probably not reply much more, maybe, I doubt it. Like I said I've grown tired of the theist vs atheist debates. Sorry for any typos or bad grammar, wrote this fast and did not check for spelling/grammar. Edited July 17, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Socrates]

Wait, so are you saying that it is irrational but it's not regarded as a Mystery for this reason? 

 

No, that's not what I said.  Methinks you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.

 

 

It's evident you have little familiarity with the theology of the Trinity, but I'll give some weak, imperfect comparisons to help you understand my point better.

 

You can probably logically deduce from reading my online posts here that I exist, and some things about me.  However, your knowledge of me would be imperfect, and there would be some things about me, you'd only know if I or someone who personally knew me revealed them to you.  That would not mean these things were irrational.

 

 

Or to use another example concerning the limits of human understanding - the fact that your dog probably can't comprehend the finer points of astrophysics does not make that science irrational.

 

Thinking our puny human intellects are capable of grasping absolutely everything there is to know about reality - much less Ultimate Reality - seems to me supremely arrogant.