Question about philosophy, religion & science

[Dimebag]

The Earth is not the center of the universe?

Maybe now religion agrees with this, but only after many hundreds of years of tomfoolery. Maybe in another few hundred years they will agree with evolution, the big bang theory and others. But that's only if their god whispers in the popes ear again, and says,"hey you know in the bible where I said "Insert biblical fallacy here"? I was just pulling your leg, but only because I thought you couldn't handle the knowledge."

The Catholic Church already does accept evolution.
Despite that, they have not bothered to revise their book!!!!
This is why science and religion will never be compatible.

That's a good point Chaz. Since the church considers the bible to be the word of God and a reflection of truth, surely in light of evidence which is contrary to ideas in the bible, those should be amended as they were in the past with alternate versions, wording changes and the like, especially since they concede that they are wronging in believing something contrary to evolution. Surely that information should be made accessible to Catholics through their single guiding text.

[John]

That's a good point Chaz. Since the church considers the bible to be the word of God and a reflection of truth, surely in light of evidence which is contrary to ideas in the bible, those should be amended as they were in the past with alternate versions, wording changes and the like, especially since they concede that they are wronging in believing something contrary to evolution. Surely that information should be made accessible to Catholics through their single guiding text.

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate a little (bearing in mind it's just my interpretation of the counter-arguments).

The Catholic Church considers the word of God to be the basis of it's teaching and The Bible is only considered one source of this. It is not considered to be a science textbook though so there's no need to rewrite Genesis to instruct on cosmological theories when its purposes include certain moral lessons and conveying the idea that everything is ultimately derived from God.

Here's what Pope Leo XIII had to say about it:

it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people

I doubt anyone who isn't religious will be convinced but I thought it was worth citing it anyway.

Catholicism has never been as dogmatic about scripture as many protestant churches are which is why most Christian fundamentalists are treated with suspicion by most Catholics and members of the more mainstream Protestant churches.

[chaz wyman]

That's a good point Chaz. Since the church considers the bible to be the word of God and a reflection of truth, surely in light of evidence which is contrary to ideas in the bible, those should be amended as they were in the past with alternate versions, wording changes and the like, especially since they concede that they are wronging in believing something contrary to evolution. Surely that information should be made accessible to Catholics through their single guiding text.

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate a little (bearing in mind it's just my interpretation of the counter-arguments).

The Catholic Church considers the word of God to be the basis of it's teaching and The Bible is only considered one source of this. It is not considered to be a science textbook though so there's no need to rewrite Genesis to instruct on cosmological theories when its purposes include certain moral lessons and conveying the idea that everything is ultimately derived from God.

But to hold that the Bible is the word of God, AND accept evolution they are either saying that God does know how he created the earth's species, that God is incoherent - or that lies and contradictions are okay.


Here's what Pope Leo XIII had to say about it:

it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people

I doubt anyone who isn't religious will be convinced but I thought it was worth citing it anyway.

Catholicism has never been as dogmatic about scripture as many protestant churches are which is why most Christian fundamentalists are treated with suspicion by most Catholics and members of the more mainstream Protestant churches.

But paradoxically Protestantism was the route to science and modernism.
Humans are confused.

[John]

But to hold that the Bible is the word of God, AND accept evolution they are either saying that God does know how he created the earth's species, that God is incoherent - or that lies and contradictions are okay.

I think it might be claimed that the Bible offers a spiritual rather than scientific explanation of things so it should sometimes be regarded as allegorical. Of course, that could be viewed as a bit of a cop-out to get round the bits that just don't make any sense given the evidence but it might also make us wonder why God making the world in 6 days is to be regarded as allegorical but his son becoming human and then rising from the dead isn't. Especially when rising from the dead readily lends itself to allegory anyway.

[chaz wyman]

But to hold that the Bible is the word of God, AND accept evolution they are either saying that God does know how he created the earth's species, that God is incoherent - or that lies and contradictions are okay.

I think it might be claimed that the Bible offers a spiritual rather than scientific explanation of things so it should sometimes be regarded as allegorical.

But if that is the case it begs the question, why 'god' as not made things more clear by using allegories about the way the universe is rather than confuse the people with untruths.
Maybe you could tell me what is the allegorical content of God made the heaven and earth in 6 days? Why would he say that?

Of course, that could be viewed as a bit of a cop-out to get round the bits that just don't make any sense given the evidence but it might also make us wonder why God making the world in 6 days is to be regarded as allegorical but his son becoming human and then rising from the dead isn't. Especially when rising from the dead readily lends itself to allegory anyway.

Eh? What allegory?

[John]

But to hold that the Bible is the word of God, AND accept evolution they are either saying that God does know how he created the earth's species, that God is incoherent - or that lies and contradictions are okay.

I think it might be claimed that the Bible offers a spiritual rather than scientific explanation of things so it should sometimes be regarded as allegorical.

But if that is the case it begs the question, why 'god' as not made things more clear by using allegories about the way the universe is rather than confuse the people with untruths.
Maybe you could tell me what is the allegorical content of God made the heaven and earth in 6 days? Why would he say that?

Well there's more in Genesis than the Creation Myth but I've read arguments that claim it was just meant to be a simple way of getting over the message that God created everything. I'm only playing Devil's Advocate though because it's patently absurd on any literal reading and we probably need a theologian to offer a more robust defence.

Of course, that could be viewed as a bit of a cop-out to get round the bits that just don't make any sense given the evidence but it might also make us wonder why God making the world in 6 days is to be regarded as allegorical but his son becoming human and then rising from the dead isn't. Especially when rising from the dead readily lends itself to allegory anyway.

Eh? What allegory?

Sorry, I just meant that the idea of resurrection, rebirth, redemption etc., are common themes often represented by allegory or metaphor in the arts so why should we believe that the creation story is allegory but Jesus' resurrection isn't? I notice that I no longer seem to be playing Devil's Advocate.

[chaz wyman]

But to hold that the Bible is the word of God, AND accept evolution they are either saying that God does know how he created the earth's species, that God is incoherent - or that lies and contradictions are okay.

I think it might be claimed that the Bible offers a spiritual rather than scientific explanation of things so it should sometimes be regarded as allegorical.

But if that is the case it begs the question, why 'god' as not made things more clear by using allegories about the way the universe is rather than confuse the people with untruths.
Maybe you could tell me what is the allegorical content of God made the heaven and earth in 6 days? Why would he say that?

Well there's more in Genesis than the Creation Myth but I've read arguments that claim it was just meant to be a simple way of getting over the message that God created everything. I'm only playing Devil's Advocate though because it's patently absurd on any literal reading and we probably need a theologian to offer a more robust defence.

You misunderstand. I was arguing in the assumption that the Bible is the word of God, then you have to ask why he would explain things in this childish way.

Of course, that could be viewed as a bit of a cop-out to get round the bits that just don't make any sense given the evidence but it might also make us wonder why God making the world in 6 days is to be regarded as allegorical but his son becoming human and then rising from the dead isn't. Especially when rising from the dead readily lends itself to allegory anyway.

Eh? What allegory?

Sorry, I just meant that the idea of resurrection, rebirth, redemption etc., are common themes often represented by allegory or metaphor in the arts so why should we believe that the creation story is allegory but Jesus' resurrection isn't? I notice that I no longer seem to be playing Devil's Advocate.

By posing that these are stories made up to express an allegory, one has to ask (even if the bible is not the word of god), to what real thing do they refer in an allegorical fashion?
There is no re-birth resurrection of redemption in any meaningful sense in our lived experience, though there may be experiences we might choose to attempt to see that way. It seems that it remains a matter of choice to accept these fictions, then.

[Greylorn Ell]

Other than not agreeing, what can philosophy, science and religion mutually agree upon? Can the three of the reach a common conscensus?

I think not.

I wrote a book describing ideas that could possibly fit into your mutual agreement category.
Philosophers cannot accept it, for its ideas require the understanding of a few simple physics concepts that they will not examine, and may be incapable of comprehending. Religionists cannot agree because the dogma already programmed into their brains acts as a filter for contrary ideas. Science camp-followers share the same kinds of dogma-filtered minds as religionists.

I don't know about actual scientists. None have read the book and I doubt that any ever will, because its ideas contradict their beliefs and opinions.

Moreover, most scientists are atheistic. Atheism is actually a variety of theology, in that atheists merely disbelieve in the same God that religionists believe in, so atheism adds yet another level of filters to the scientific mind.