by logansrun 42 Replies latest jw friends
Euph,
Correct. I would add though that in the discussions I've had with Catholics I have never heard this view espoused either, but I haven't attended a Catholic Church enough to get a feel for the landscape as I have the Protestant Evangelical denominations. But as an example, are you saying you've heard a sermon on how men came from apes under God's guiding hand in a Catholic church? Just curious.
I didn't realise that was the current statement of the Catholic Church.
Being surrounded by 24hr-creation-day Young Earth Creationists (YEC), I tend to keep my views to myself. The arguments are intractible, so it's one of the few areas that I pass up.
As a Christian I have no difficulty believing the evidence that we have evolved. I find it more difficult to believe that this earth is only 6000 years old, in the face of the evidence. My question to YECs is usually simply, "why would God want to deceive us by artificially ageing the planet, etc.?".
Paint me blue and call me a science fiction addict, but I like the 2001 view of evolution.
I like the 2001 view of evolution.
I remember when I saw my first monolith like it was yesterday. I was outside just playing with some bones...
It seems persons who demand dogma are really very very insecure.Terry, do you ever think you come across as dogmatic?
I took a look in wikipedia for DOGMATIC so we would be on the same page before I answered you:
Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas) is belief or doctrine held by a religion or any kind of organization to be authoritative or beyond question. Evidence, analysis, or established fact may or may not be adduced, depending upon usage.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogmatic
In my previous post what was my position?
I gave the opinion that it seemed ridiculous to believe something and assert it to be true if you didn't have all the facts. If there is one thing I insist on for myself it is clarity when discussing anything. I like to define terms before discussions. I like to listen and ask questions. I like to challenge and be challenged.
The key to Dogma being Dogma is that what is said, taught or held to be orthodox is BEYOND QUESTION. I cannot accept such a view because so many things are subject to change and new information.
Science is always a work in progress. Consequently, there will be "new light" coming along every so often to alter and modify what is currently held to be a workable theory.
Religion, on the other hand, is not tenable with me because it is not open to change unless a tremendous outpouring of criticism makes the change politically necessary. There is no moderating process in religion by which a Loyal Opposition can persuade. It is black vs white, good vs evil. This places the dogma of a governing body at risk of being assailed by reasoned and logical argumentations.
The 16th Century Catholic Church was a sitting duck for Martin Luther's criticisms. He was not allowed to be a loyal critic. The Church was staunch and unyielding and nothing but war and schism was the fruit of that position.
Dogma and orthodoxy have one chief enemy: MODERNITY. Why? Because knowledge is gradual in accumulating facts. When facts reach a critical mass, then, something MUST change.
What does all the above have to do with me being dogmatic? I'm presenting a reasoned argument that I believe in the process of gradual discovery.
What you detect in me that is absolute and perhaps unnerving is my tone. I am fierce in challenging things which appear to be fallacious. I've been damaged by fallacy in my life. It is my enemy and the enemy of my intellect. I attack fallacy. If I am fallacious I want to know and find out as soon as possible.
I have nothing but respect for people who spend their time exchanging views.
T.
Terry:
Science is always a work in progress. Consequently, there will be "new light" coming along every so often to alter and modify what is currently held to be a workable theory.Religion, on the other hand, is not tenable with me because it is not open to change unless a tremendous outpouring of criticism makes the change politically necessary.
Oh beehave!
LOL
We're all aware that science has it's own bastions. It's human nature to try to find some stability, and this soon becomes a traditional view. Sure, these are challenged (as they are in theological circles, especially since the Reformation), but they tend to hang in there until untenable.
Even then, you'll still find poor old Uncle Fester eating his own feet and mumbling something about the "edge of the world".
It's human nature to try to find some stability, and this soon becomes a traditional view. Sure, these are challenged (as they are in theological circles, especially since the Reformation), but they tend to hang in there until untenable.
A parsing here....
Scientists are their own critics by virtue of the fact the Scientific Method requires that every theory be testable.
In your above example (Reformation) it was not the Church crticising itself. It was an unoffical cancer cell (Martin Luther) who was quickly isolated and marginalized as anarchical. (The Church, I might add was not successful this time. Does anybody recall why?)
I think worth adding here: the Church speaks from Authority. Science speaks from discovery based on investigation. Every time the church changes it damages the premise of AUTHORITY. When Science changes it affirms the method of investigation.
T.
Mega,
I just read Scott Pecks book the other day. He's a great writer, but I have to admit I found his relunctance to question whether the two "demon-possesed women" were just suffering from multiple-personality disorder, or some other psychological illness, very offputting. Sometimes I wondered if he is just a little too over-the-top emotionally to really make valid psychological assesments.
Did you read the book? Your opinion?
B.
Terry,
I didn't like your comment about Sigmund Freud. Little "Ziggy" had some nutty ideas (e.g., penis envy) but was also a genius. His ideas about the unconscious are making somewhat of a comeback. There was a Scientific American article about this about a year ago. If I had time, I'd look it up, but I have a math test in an hour.
As for sounding dogmatic: Don't worry. It's not the worth thing in the world. God loves all sinners.
B.
Terry,I didn't like your comment about Sigmund Freud. Little "Ziggy" had some nutty ideas (e.g., penis envy) but was also a genius. His ideas about the unconscious are making somewhat of a comeback.
Are you sure you aren't eyeballing my package?
:)
T.
I've been thinking about this a lot the last twenty-four hours and think I've come to some hypotheses why so many Christians -- even many "liberal" ones -- find evolution so hard to believe.
I don't think it is really the matter of literal interpretations of the Bible. In a sense, no Christian is a literalist. Even many "fundamentalist" Evangelicals will say that the "fires" of hell are symbolic of eternal seperation from God, or something to that effect.
If not Biblical literalism, what is the reason why evolution is not readily accepted in Christian circles? The reason, I speculate, is not so much theological, but psychological.
Central to the Christian faith is the idea of a personal God. In other words, a God who takes a personal interest in you. By extension, it could be said that God takes a personal, special interest in the human species. Darwinian evolution, on the other hand, seems to imply that there really is nothing special about the human species, or any species. We are the products of chance and necessity through natural selection.
This view of human's "non-specialness" would imply, by extension, that there is nothing special about you as a person. (For if there is nothing special about our species, there certainly can't be anything special about you)
Now, if I was a Christian (which I am not) I would argue that God, existing outside of time, can still look upon the human race -- and individuals of our species -- as "special" even if the process used in the creation was, from a human, finite point of view, nothing special.
Discuss.
Bradley
