Pope @ world. "God isn't magic"

[Pirian]

I'd be pretty quick to agree to your sentiments of "they're saying god is RIGHT BEFORE the creation of the universe and god is RIGHT BEFORE chemistry became biology"... until physics has a solid model on the creation of the universe and chem/bio has a solid model on the origins of replicating molecules. But I also don't give a shit about learning where the religious point of view is coming from lol. I don't get that side of the debate so I'm not about to debate something where I don't know both sides just as well

That is exactly why "the god of the gaps" is generally accepted as a logical fallacy - the line is pushed further and further back as more and more is known. The argument can be made that this has stifled innovation because as soon as the problem reaches a point where the individual doesn't see a solution, falling back on "oh well this is the realm of the gods from here" stops the individual from continuing, and there is pretty good evidence to back that up.

Maybe you're more familiar with this because my only exposure to these religious guys is the debates I watched purely to hear more science so you can help me out - but haven't these guys always refuted those points made by Krauss & co.? They don't even go down that road afaik. I'm under the impression that this argument of ours has been presented to religious guys and it's been refuted, no? I'd just feel like I'm putting words into their mouths if I were to go and say I know all the answers before I took the time to understand theirs

To be honest, the arguments put forward by each individual debating any given theologian seems be very consistent between their debates, and those same arguments are articulated in their respective books in more depth. In contrast, the theologians seem to be the ones that are always coming up with new ideas to try and challenge scientific reason, but never seem to be able to get past the old arguments of the non-faithful. It has been my experience that if the theologians argument doesn't boil down to "you have to have faith that this is the right answer" then it is outright refuted in full, but that is, by definition, the difference between science that is backed by observational data and faith backed by...well, faith.

[Sepukku]

I was raised as a Catholic and my mother and all her siblings were Catholics to the max, like Catholic School K-8 and all but I migrated away from the church cause of all the craziness the past 15 or so years beginning with the Pedo Priests and Christianity being used (twisted, a more apt term, by non-Christian believers acting as alleged Christians) in America to crush some very pro-Christian concepts, such as trying to make sure the sick have access to healthcare. My confirmation was even presided over by a guy who is now a Cardinal, but I haven't been to church since like 10th grade. But I feel like the church is really starting to move back in a positive direction these past couple years even FOX can't ruin. I may raise my future children as Christians, and perhaps even Catholics, after all

[Thunder]

That is exactly why "the god of the gaps" is generally accepted as a logical fallacy - the line is pushed further and further back as more and more is known. The argument can be made that this has stifled innovation because as soon as the problem reaches a point where the individual doesn't see a solution, falling back on "oh well this is the realm of the gods from here" stops the individual from continuing, and there is pretty good evidence to back that up.

Ya, I wasn't clear with that first part. I should have quoted the part you bolded too because I understood that's what you were saying in the first post of yours

Curious though, what's the evidence for it stifling innovation? Is it the dark age's impact on technological growth? Because ya, in the past I think it has but I'm not so sure about it stifling innovation anymore. Not everyone's gotta be working in the realm of science to further our understanding and living conditions. Our janitors can believe in whatever they want and still do a good job and live a happy life as far as I'm concerned

To be honest, the arguments put forward by each individual debating any given theologian seems be very consistent between their debates, and those same arguments are articulated in their respective books in more depth. In contrast, the theologians seem to be the ones that are always coming up with new ideas to try and challenge scientific reason, but never seem to be able to get past the old arguments of the non-faithful. It has been my experience that if the theologians argument doesn't boil down to "you have to have faith that this is the right answer" then it is outright refuted in full, but that is, by definition, the difference between science that is backed by observational data and faith backed by...well, faith.

And yeah, that's about all I get from the theologians before I stop listening. But I admit I just don't get it. The Craig guy seems to think he's got solid "proofs" on the matter, though and has more than 1 book about it all. I just don't feel right admitting victory in the name of science when the theologians are so adamant that they've answered that discussion point.

[hey]

This makes even less sense then there being a god that runs on magic. It's not even a god without magic.

[Priran]

[Pirian]

Curious though, what's the evidence for it stifling innovation? Is it the dark age's impact on technological growth? Because ya, in the past I think it has but I'm not so sure about it stifling innovation anymore. Not everyone's gotta be working in the realm of science to further our understanding and living conditions. Our janitors can believe in whatever they want and still do a good job and live a happy life as far as I'm concerned

Hitchens was a great writer so you should read his books regardless, but God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything is a pretty good place to start in this regard; even more so if you've liked the ideas he has presented during his religious debates, because they are so much more thoroughly explicated there.

Lets skip the dark ages since you don't seem concerned with them. Newton was a devout person his entire life, and those religiously inclined like to point to him when showing that faith doesn't hinder technological growth. This completely overlooks the fact that Newton, while at the very edges of perturbation theory, gave up and surrendered the rest to God. If that's still a little too long ago then we can look at the religious Right in the US banning all stem-cell research coming from fertilized eggs. People can argue morality of the issue, but that is stifling innovation, regardless. There are others, but if you are really interested in learning then read. You already know their names, now go read their books. It really is a much better resource than some nameless person on the internet spouting off uncited claims.

And yeah, that's about all I get from the theologians before I stop listening. But I admit I just don't get it. The Craig guy seems to think he's got solid "proofs" on the matter, though and has more than 1 book about it all. I just don't feel right admitting victory in the name of science when the theologians are so adamant that they've answered that discussion point.

The thing about debaters is that they are not trying to convince each other - they are trying to convince you. You also have to remember, that at their very core, these people have faith and that is what drives them, but many are also well-educated. They are plagued by cognitive dissonance that drives them to bridge the gap, because without that bridge they have to admit that there is no good reason to believe what they believe except that they have faith, and as scientists and self-proclaimed people of reason, that isn't good enough.

There is never victory. Religion is nothing if not tenacious, and while many people like to believe that education is the panacea - it's not.

[Thunder]

Hitchens God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

Of those guys I listen Carroll and Hitchens are the only ones whose books I didn't read but were probably my favorite debaters. Weird, just ordered it though so I'll have it down by the end of the month, thanks man

The thing about debaters is that they are not trying to convince each other - they are trying to convince you.
There is never victory.

Haha, you're absolutely right. Just last month I was at a talk where a similar point was made - in media a debate is never really a debate between the two people but more about positioning the audience against the opposition. Plus, I'm pretty sure they make it clear it's for the audience and not themselves. But those god dammed scientists make it seem like they're actually trying to convince the religious guy lol

[Marootsoobutsu]

Lets skip the dark ages since you don't seem concerned with them. Newton was a devout person his entire life, and those religiously inclined like to point to him when showing that faith doesn't hinder technological growth. This completely overlooks the fact that Newton, while at the very edges of perturbation theory, gave up and surrendered the rest to God.

I really hate this example. I don't deny that folks have just "This is the end, I don't know, here's God," but it seriously doesn't apply to Newton. Why?

Because Newton never really *CARED* about math. He was essentially socially-bullied into publishing Principia and Optics, and his great passion was alchemy. His ambitions were essentially position. He wanted to be (and eventually was), treasurer. He didn't stop pushing boundaries because he just "Here's God!". He did "Here's God's place", because he didn't WANT to keep doing that stuff. He WANTED to be treasurer. He WANTED to turn lead into gold. He jealously guarded what he discovered/invented/created/figured out/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, and he was incredibly bitter toward people who challenged him.

But he didn't WANT that. He hated people challenging him all the time. He HATED people questioning every little thing he ever said. He didn't quit because he had profound faith (his faith was frankly closer to Jefferson's, or at the least more Deistic, than most people really get)... he used God as an excuse because he really didn't *CARE* about math and the scientific method as we have it.

[Pirian]

Spoiler: show

I really hate this example. I don't deny that folks have just "This is the end, I don't know, here's God," but it seriously doesn't apply to Newton. Why?

Because Newton never really *CARED* about math. He was essentially socially-bullied into publishing Principia and Optics, and his great passion was alchemy. His ambitions were essentially position. He wanted to be (and eventually was), treasurer. He didn't stop pushing boundaries because he just "Here's God!". He did "Here's God's place", because he didn't WANT to keep doing that stuff. He WANTED to be treasurer. He WANTED to turn lead into gold. He jealously guarded what he discovered/invented/created/figured out/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, and he was incredibly bitter toward people who challenged him.

But he didn't WANT that. He hated people challenging him all the time. He HATED people questioning every little thing he ever said. He didn't quit because he had profound faith (his faith was frankly closer to Jefferson's, or at the least more Deistic, than most people really get)... he used God as an excuse because he really didn't *CARE* about math and the scientific method as we have it.

I'm not going to claim to know a whole lot about Isaac Newton, but I am going to claim to be quoting individuals that do. I could say that you don't become the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge by not caring about mathematics, but I would be risking a step into claiming something I have no authority to. What you say about his interests do run mostly concurrent with what I understand, but you're talking about an individual that, in his free time, synthesized Calculus in less than a year. From everything you said, one would have expected somebody like this to have completed these works and simply not published them, but he didn't.

I would love to learn something new, and if you can provide sources that make the claim then I will consider it further, but once again, you're not really arguing with me; you're arguing with all those I'm parroting. Who are you? You're nobody, but neither am I. At the same time, I am not claiming to know the mind of Newton. Everything that I said is pretty well established as accepted convention. Most notably, I cannot recall having heard atheists claim Newton as anything other than devout. The only thing that I can say is that if what you said about what Newton wanted were as clear-cut as you seem to believe it then the religious apologists and theologians would use it as a counterargument. Again, I'm not arguing the facts of his interests, or his reasons for publication, or even his abrasive personality; merely his established religiosity.

[ringthree]

this is the opposite of news, the catholic church has openly supported the theory of evolution and big bang for years and years and years and years

100% correct.

[D44kpunk]

agree with the not news thing, only thing that was new knowledge to me about this after seeing it on reddit is that a catholic guy was the first one to theorize the big bang

[ringthree]

What are you going on about? It is literally the definition of the "god of the gaps". Direct quotes of Francis from the article:



He's saying that something had to start everything, and that's where Christianity steps in. That is a scientific gap of knowledge that religion is trying to fill. None of the religious scholars advocate it as "god of the gaps" because it's a well known fallacy and easy to argue against, but just because they've abandoned the name doesn't mean they've abandoned the ideas.


I guess as an aside: I've seen the vast majority of the debates by all the big name debaters (including all those listed), and I've read most, if not all, of their books. I'm familiar with many of the current (past 10 years or so) arguments by religious theologians, as presented in debate form. That doesn't make me an expert or even knowledgeable, but it does make me at least generally informed, I think.

No, it is different from that, and you have to be specifically obtuse to ignore it.

The argument isn't that as we find out more scientifically, the farther that god recedes. The argument is that while we gain more understanding of our world, we do not gain more understanding of why properties exist. For example, we understand that gravity is the attraction of masses (very generally speaking), but the cause of this attraction is because of inherent properties down to the atomic level. The argument is that God (the creator, whatever) is the one that assigns these values. While we can gain more knowledge about the fundamental scientific functions of our universe, we can't understand how or why these values were made to exist.

[ringthree]

I was raised as a Catholic and my mother and all her siblings were Catholics to the max, like Catholic School K-8 and all but I migrated away from the church cause of all the craziness the past 15 or so years beginning with the Pedo Priests and Christianity being used (twisted, a more apt term, by non-Christian believers acting as alleged Christians) in America to crush some very pro-Christian concepts, such as trying to make sure the sick have access to healthcare. My confirmation was even presided over by a guy who is now a Cardinal, but I haven't been to church since like 10th grade. But I feel like the church is really starting to move back in a positive direction these past couple years even FOX can't ruin. I may raise my future children as Christians, and perhaps even Catholics, after all

Benedict was a social experiment. I am almost convinced of this.

[Tyrath]

Oh look, another PR move by the catholic church.

[ringthree]

Oh look, another PR move by the catholic church.

Yep, over two hundred years of support of and contribution to the study of evolution and it's a recent PR move.

Seriously, does anyone read anymore? Does anyone understand that the first developed theory of evolution was created by Catholics?

[BaneTheBrawler]

YEAH BUT RELIGION IS BAD HOW COULD THEY POSSIBLY HAVE DONE ANYTHING GOOD EVER?

[Tyrath]

Yep, over two hundred years of support of and contribution to the study of evolution and it's a recent PR move.

Seriously, does anyone read anymore? Does anyone understand that the first developed theory of evolution was created by Catholics?

That's nice. That doesn't change the fact that catholics continue to hold on to a set of belief that in major parts are contradictory to scientific theories and reality. Remember that talking snake? Oh, you don't actually believe in that part of the bible? If you start cherry picking and say you don't actually buy into certain bits, then why the fuck follow the book at all?

YEAH BUT RELIGION IS BAD HOW COULD THEY POSSIBLY HAVE DONE ANYTHING GOOD EVER?

No one said this, I just think it does more harm than it does good. Religious people can certainly be good and do many good things, but on the whole their doctrine is full of shitty things. Which again, makes me question why they cling so desperately to such a shitty and unproven set of ideas anyway.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Honestly though if you're gonna get worked up about people who could be doing better, why not direct that energy where it will be most effective? Write letters to politicians; some of them still care. Write letters to their donors; they have shareholders to keep placated. Catholicism is not the monolith it once was; the Pope isn't going to sway anyone who didn't already agree with him. The only thing he can change is getting people to admit their true beliefs.

[ronin sparthos]

It's good PR. These tenets may have been status quo in terms of the giant rulebook but from this thread alone it's clear that people still don't know these things and that evolution / big bang / motherfucking science is accepted within the Catholic faith, even if some people disagree with the shoehorned in Jesus at the end of the equation.

Means you might sway some people back to church or pick up some new members. Nothing really controversial. Undercuts the ant-religious idea that all theists are nutballs who think dinosaurs were once pack animals or that the Grand Canyon was formed in about 5 minutes.

The Church has lost power so it has to play defensive until it regains its strength and becomes the corrupt, bloated organization from which Protestants sprung forth again. Sorry about sanctioning colonization, genocidal regimes and mass paranoia, yo.

[Tyrath]

Honestly though if you're gonna get worked up about people who could be doing better, why not direct that energy where it will be most effective? Write letters to politicians; some of them still care. Write letters to their donors; they have shareholders to keep placated. Catholicism is not the monolith it once was; the Pope isn't going to sway anyone who didn't already agree with him. The only thing he can change is getting people to admit their true beliefs.

Oh absolutely, I can definitely do more than I do. But really, all I came in here was to call a spade a spade. Catholic church has officially believed in evolution for a long time. The contradictory notions of that not withstanding, this is nothing but a PR move. As are most of the "shocking" modern things he has been coming out with since taking over the papacy.

Which by the way, the Catholic Bishops showed their true colors on the whole welcome the gays thing.