OT: Frank and Dave's Philosophical Kebab Emporium

neither do believers pretend that to know everything. They also continually seek answers.

 

It depends how you define unconscious. I'm guessing you have a favourite definition from a scientist I would prefer to say subconscious in the context I think you mean and don't know how you could possibly measure the speed.

Also how does one Catholic priest defining creationism as pseudoscience or 'nonsense' as you say, affect me? 99% of all Catholic priests could say Creation Week was a story to describe what happened and not to be taken literally [and actually I have heard more than one priest say that] and it wouldn't affect my beliefs.

As Dave has said neither religion nor science has all the answers, some put total faith in science, others in faith, others in both! It's what makes life interesting.

 

Ok, subconscious works for me too. And this priest is a qualified astro-physicist, not Father Ted.

 

Which goes along nicely with what I said about science and religion don't need to conflict.

And if it was Father Ted why would his opinion be any less valid? You don't need to be an expert in a field to hold a valid view - look at us

 

I mostly agree with this Dave. However, scientists with religion tend to espouse a very liberal brand of their chosen religion. I've met a few religious scientists - they are rather few and far between in my experience - and the ones I've met have expressed that their religion is usually very personal and mostly lacking in doctrine. In fact, I'd probably 'label' (if I had to) them as Deist rather than conventional theists.

I also agree (mostly) with JB that some people go too far in ascribing human emotions to other animals. Anthropomorphising nature is a cardinal error which is not just restricted to laypeople - I've seen it happen to scientists too, when they are not too careful. Although, as Darwin noted in one of his books, animals do show similarities in behaviour and anatomy to humans, and any differences are usually in extent rather than novelty. Evolution would fix traits which would benefit the individual and, by extension, the species. Nature is a continuum and therefore behaviour approximating differing levels of 'human consciousness' will be observed in animals, those most closely related should hypothetically show the closest similarities in not just anatomy but behaviour. Terminology linked with human behaviour should not really be used on other animals but, having said that, it becomes less clear-cut the closer to humans the animals are genealogically.

 

Lads it's quite fn simple either religion adapts or it doesn't. If it does not it dies

Most but not all religions are thousands of years old and beat little similarity to their origins

Science adapts with new understanding and proofs etc

Therefore for some nut to claim evolution is wrong is basically nailing the coffin of his religion

The core truth of a religion is based not on a story but on human interaction and morality. If the central message of respect, decency and mystery of creation holds then who cares if Adam and Eve was a child's story told thousands of years ago or not? To draw a line before modern technology is to become a dying breed

 

they are slowly adapting aren't they?

think but not sure, but they have female priests? (might be a dif position vicar, monk etc) that only men was allowed before. and also don't they now accept gay priests/vicars as well?

 

There are female vicars but no female Catholic priests - yet. It's being discussed as an option. I don't know of any openly gay Catholic priests but there must be some and it wouldn't make a difference anyway as Catholic priests are celibate. I know some branches of the Anglican church are against gay clergy maybe in foreign countries, I'm not clued up enough on it tbh.

 

It depends I am in us today on the way home. Half this f'n ****hole refuse to believe in anything but the literal words in the bible... It's backward

 

It's called excommunication. There are lots but they are gagged and threatened to keep in line

 

JB, I've always wanted to hear a Catholic's view on transubstantiation. I don't suppose you could elaborate on the topic, and perhaps in the process you could explain it to those who are ignorant of the idea? I've known ex-Catholics, whose views will be obvious, but I've never had the chance to query the topic with a practicing Catholic.

 

Transubstantiation is belief that when you receive Holy Communion the bread and wine isn't changed 'in form' to Christ's body and blood, i.e. it's not actually changed into flesh and blood, but we believe [I believe] that Christ is present 'under the species' of bread and wine, were species means physical properties.

Things have both a physical reality and a metaphysical reality. The physical is what you can see and touch, the metaphysical is what exists beyond the perception of our senses. For example I can hold a piece of bread and feel it or taste it, if I go out of the room the bread doesn't cease to exist because it is beyond my senses, it still exists. So the Communion bread doesn't change physical form but Christ is present in a metaphysical sense, transubstantiation. It's very difficult to get your head around but for those who struggle with that concept, at it's most basic - Communion, the taking of bread and wine, is practised in remembrance of the Last Supper.

There are instances when we talk about a person being totally transformed when no physical changes seem apparent, it's the metaphysical which has changed. We truly believe they are different without being able to say how. It's all really hard tbh for someone like me to explain as I have limited scientific knowledge - terms, phrases etc. If you take a medicine prescribed by a doctor you can truly believe you are taking a cure. The cure is metaphysical, the physical is the form it takes. It's interesting that placebos also illicit cures, there's something going on beyond what the physical properties of the placebo actually are. Is it faith that you are going to be cured and that faith is powerful enough to make your body heal? I have faith that the bread I eat 'contains' something similar, a life giving force, if you like. There's probably lots of scholastic doctrinal explanations if you look, I've tried to give a very simple, personal view.

 

Thanks, JB. I was under the impression that doctrine was that it actually physically changes upon consumption, but your explanation makes more sense philosophically.

Interesting how this metaphysical idea you're describing would mesh with what we know about the universe using science. I mean, we can't physically see molecules or atoms with our senses an yet we can detect/visualise them with tools which we have invented, SEMs, TEMs, etc. Would this mean they exist in both a metaphysical and physical way, like the bread in another room of your example? Also, would the act of viewing them change them from metaphysical to physical - a sort of philosophical version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle - or would the objects possess both metaphysical and physical forms simultaneously, somewhat like schrodinger's gedankenexperimental cat?

 

If you can view something it surely must have physical form.

The whole area of metaphysics is interesting. For instance characters in books are metaphysical. Then there are the metaphysical questions like What are the 'laws' of nature? Are there laws of nature? What are numbers? You could turn yourself inside out trying to answer them

 

An interesting and real interpretation of transubstantiation which is one of the major schisms between Catholic and Protestant traditions. Like you, I believe that the 'gifts' become Holy without any physical transformation.

In your discussion on change, I would put re-birth at the very top of the list. Whilst I do not like the term born again myself it does mark the passage from being the member of a church and having a personal relationship with God through Jesus. However, I still can't speak in tongues and I'm not really sure about the concept. As for the healing ministry I take a very simplistic view. God heals but does so normally through the provision that he has already made via doctors and nurses. I don't deny mircales but then I don't seek the theatrical.

 

That's one for the Charismatics.

 

Speaking in tongues is a funny one. My brother is a born again Christian (BAC) and they talk in tongues and heal through touch, etc. Various forms of channeling the holy spirit or something i gather. I've seen the children in BAC churches copying adult who have had 'seizures' because the holy sprit has 'taken them'. They writhed around for a bit, then looked up to observe the adults for a bit (perhaps to see if praise or condemnation came their way), and then did it some more. Seemed like clear 'learned behaviour' to me. Perhaps they learn to rationalize it in later life? Talking in tongues just sounds like jibberish.

One time the ministry I was visiting in Detroit (USA) had a Nigerian BAC over and one of the congregation apparently spoke the Nigerian word(s) for 'praise him'. Sounded like a coincidence to me. About 100 or more people making random noises for about 5 minutes or more (felt a lot longer to me!), and I'd be surprised if more foreign words and / or phrases were not hit on, tbh! Religion to me seems to have far too many type I errors for my liking. There seems to be a certain frowning upon sceptical thinking and the critical faculties. I'm all for open-mindedness, but you really need to witness 'faith healing' and 'raptures' and 'talking in tongues' in person to really see how transparent it seems. I've seen them on many occassions (in Canada, USA and UK) and there has been no convincing evidence for me. The practitioners seemed too enjoy themselves and attached a certain significance to the events so I'm happy for them, but, for a sceptic, they just seem like shallow rituals, not that far removed from communion or confession. I appreciate that religious people will obviously view these topics in vastly different ways but I'd wager even some of the more liberal and religious of the posters here would have their doubt on the validity of some of the things I've witnessed in ministries and churches around the world.

 

[video=youtube;vIbcqgXh5-4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIbcqgXh5-4[/video]

 

As I have already stated, I don't speak in tongues and I do not seek healing via the "laying on of hands". However, if another believer feels led to pray for my healing I would welcome it. I too have witnessed 'going down in the Spirit' but I do not understand it. Therefore, at least as far as some of the more theatrical elements of the charismatic churches are concerned I cannot be accused of being a devotee. However, it would be fairly easy for me to identify some elements of scientific research that would also appear to be at the extreme. eg talking to dolphins as just one example or considering human thought as merely the end result of a chemical reaction.

Faith has never limited itself in the way the science does - for me faith takes over where knowledge fails. Therefore I fail to understand how type 1 errors can be applied to it. The fact that the majority of the readers of this thread have never perused an academic paper does not appear to stop them from having an opinion - even though they don't understand the evidence.

 

always thought that was the other way round.

faith from what i have seen relies on the bible to spread or defend any view it holds ie a book!, where as science looks beyond that looking for answers, its not held back by some rules it has/supposed to follow.

can see why science and religion do not have a great relationship, religion doesn't like to be challenged on anything, but its acceptable to insult a scientist with a theory, as then of course you need facts to defend it not faith.

not sure i see your last point, do we need to have some academic qualification to have an opinion on here? from what i can see ccc is the only qualified one on here, but that doesn't mean he is more right than anyone else (sorry ccc lol) but he obviously understands the process better, but doesn't make his opinion any more correct than anyone else, unless backed up by facts obviously, sorry i mean faith