Catholic Church Approves Evolution Theory?
skii
Evil Editor states in "A day is a day, no excuses",
Paragraph one that the catholic church " admits in face
of OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that evolution did
indeed happen".
Is this an official ot even unofficial catholic teaching?
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
This is in absolute error. I have the document from the Pope and Cdl
Ratzinger. This is an old saw that is dull. This tripe should be
stopped.
. . .
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53/
flora macdonald
Whatever about catholic teaching, evolution is as fundamental to
biology as the periodic table is to chemistry.
Flora
Laura Gonzalez
wrote:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in
evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are
definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.
Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined
that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I
solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things
which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards
their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons
on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).
The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars,
nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether
they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big
Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would
maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this
still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture
records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their
host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).
Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official
position on whether various life forms developed over the course of
time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so
under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation
must be ascribed to him.
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching.
It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous
biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special
creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching
authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the
present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and
discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution,
in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming
from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges
us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII,
Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or
developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that
the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not
inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
While the Church permits belief in either special creation or
developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances
permits belief in atheistic evolution.
skii
The one where apes turn into men and insects turn into birds
or are you just talking about adaptation?
"flora macdonald" <msfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b87d8d25.03040...@posting.google.com...
flora macdonald
I am writing about scientific knowledge. We have moved from the flat
earth, where Jehovah stopped the sun moving so that the Israelites
could win a battle before nightfall, to the solar system of Copernicus
leading on to our knowledge of the near universe from the Hubble
telescope.
The great age of the earth was confirmed by Lyall and other
geologists. There were many evolution theories befor Darwin-Wallace.
Lamark proposed that acquired characteristics were inherited, an
excellent example being the long length of a giraffe's neck which he
presumed arose from the giraffe stretching to eat high leaves. I have
always found this theory attractive. But I must bow to the formidable
weight of evidence that evolution arose from random variations and the
survival of the fittest (Darwin-Wallace).
Flora
skii
and not species transforming into another specie (ex.
an ape to a man because it needed to talk)?
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
JP
That is mixing a salad, Flora. No theory of evolution even attempts to
account for the necessary evolution of animating resources for the
"evolved" being. Is the animating resource of the amoeba adequate to
animate the elephant?
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
JP
See my reply on another thread.
Jerry Patterson
>It allows for the possibility that man痴 body developed from previous
>biological forms, under God痴 guidance, but it insists on the special
>creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching
>authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the
>present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and
>discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution,
>in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming
>from pre-existent and living matter夕but] the Catholic faith obliges
>us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII,
>Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or
>developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that
>the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not
>inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
>
>While the Church permits belief in either special creation or
>developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances
>permits belief in atheistic evolution.
>
JP
The position of the Church is delineated in an address by Pope John
Paul II, "Theories of Evolution," Address to the Pontifical Academy of
Sciences, October 22, 1996.
Nullen Voyd
still monkeys...
> >It allows for the possibility that man?s body developed from previous
> >biological forms, under God?s guidance, but it insists on the special
> >creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching
> >authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the
> >present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and
> >discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution,
> >in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming
> >from pre-existent and living matter?[but] the Catholic faith obliges
Pope Dilbert
"Nullen Voyd" <xaud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:17a9df53.03051...@posting.google.com...
> I heard a comedian say once, if we evolved from monkeys, WHY are there
> still monkeys...
Obviously he's not a scientist ...... or a very good comedian either.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
>I heard a comedian say once, if we evolved from monkeys, WHY are there
>still monkeys...
JP
That is an interesting question.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
Answer?
Bruno Van de Casteele
alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
>>> I heard a comedian say once, if we evolved from monkeys, WHY are there
>>> still monkeys...
>>
>>
>>
>>Obviously he's not a scientist ...... or a very good comedian either.
>>
>>
> Answer?
We did not evolve from monkeys. We just happen to have the same ancestors.
It is really stupid to think that some species evolved "more" than an other
one, thus making the latter superfluous. They just took different roads while
evolving. There is no target of "getting better", just adapting.
--
Bruno Van de Casteele brun...@puam.be
N.P. Puam [ ICQ#: CA957F ]
http://www.puam.be/
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."
L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 7
Steve C.
IS worth looking at. I CAN say that "I" have seen evidence of an acceptance
of the idea that God "may" or "could" have used an evolutionary process for
the creation of this planet, in preparation of this globe for habitation by
the "man" and "woman" that He intended to place here.
HOWEVER, (and it is a BIG "however"), it should NOT be said, in my
opinion, that the Church would logically state an acceptance of the idea
that "man" was an evolved Creation, from apes. This would not square with a
literal interpretation of Sacred Scripture, OR with PAST teachings of the
Church, as far as "I" know.
As I stated, however, I do not suggest for one moment that "I" can
properly state the Church's position on this. From a personal point of view
though, I don't have as MUCH a concern about "how" God did what He did, when
He brought all this into being; but find it much MORE profitable to focus on
what "we" or "I" do, functionally, with the life that each of us has been
granted, by Him.
It seems to me that we have an obligation to be "fruitful" and
"obedient" within the confines of "who" or "what" we are, while we have been
granted this "life" we now live. Should be spend some time considering
God's creative methods, let us not cease from concentrating on those things
that are placed before us, which God would want us to individually focus on,
which would bring glory to Him.
That's MY "ten-cent" opinion, and you may certainly say that it is not
worth much more than that, but so it goes.............
"Peace,"
A satisfied Roman Catholic convert
Richard Walker
> I wish I COULD give you the "Church's" position on this.......I suppose it
> IS worth looking at. I CAN say that "I" have seen evidence of an acceptance
> of the idea that God "may" or "could" have used an evolutionary process for
> the creation of this planet, in preparation of this globe for habitation by
> the "man" and "woman" that He intended to place here.
The way to look at it is in two pieces, first you have a basic
statement of faith, "God created the universe and he did it out of
nothing."
Second part is how and why certain physical interactions occur within
that creation. The Church has basically said that evolution, as the
current best explanation for how life arose, is not contrary to the
above statement of faith, but it also warns people against treating
evolution like a religion. Things in science are meant to be
testable *AND* discardable when/if something better and more accurate
pops up. So one should avoid having a religious attachment to
evolution and natural selection (or any other scientific idea).
The conflict arises, I think, in the fact that a lot of non biologists
have invested themselves emotionally (ie, religiously) in the idea of
evolution, making it like some idol or icon to act as their opposition
to religion in general. These folks could no more make practical use
of evolution and natural selection than they could properly design and
replace mirrors in the hubble space telescope; yet they are extremely
attached to its accuracy. THAT is the problem, in a nutshell.
Steve C.
questions of life, can be difficult for the most learned individuals in any
generation or time.
Certainly as we discover more scientific evidence of one particular
thing or another, we should not be as Ostrich's (sp?), and stick our "heads
in the sand" as it were. If a pertinent fact or two shows a particular
truth to be reasonable, there is room for adapting our understanding of
these things accordingly.
My focus is in how these new truths affect the stalward ones that we
know are key to a stable and joy-filled walk with the Lord. It would seem
highly unlikely that any truth that would be revealed over time, could
possibly change the message of a loving God, who died for our Redemption,
and who desires to fill us with His Holy Spirit, and bring us home to Heaven
to live with Him forever.
Beyond the question of where "I" or "you" stand in our relationship to
God, the rest is not only periferal, but somewhat a waste of useful time, of
which we have very little on this earth. We have much to accomplish in
terms of "bringing glory to God, and so very little in the way of
opportunity, as we are but four-score and seven in duration.
Best to leave the diagnostics to those who are called to such a Charism,
and focus on the things that matter more.
Was it Joshua who said: "as for me and my house, we will serve the
Lord."? I for one, will spend my days trying to honor that statement of
intent, and ask God LATER, "how" He did what He did.
"Peace"
-your wacky Catholic brother
Bruno Van de Casteele
alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
> Was it Joshua who said: "as for me and my house, we will serve the
> Lord."? I for one, will spend my days trying to honor that statement of
> intent, and ask God LATER, "how" He did what He did.
And what if there is no "later"? Or if you don't believe in it? Do you have
to shut up?
--
Bruno Van de Casteele brun...@puam.be
N.P. Puam [ ICQ#: CA957F ]
http://www.puam.be/
"There is a very good saying that if triangles invented a god,
they would make him three-sided."
Baron de Montesquieu
Steve C.
"And what if there is no "later"? Or if you don't believe in it? Do you have
to shut up?"
Not being sure in what "spirit" this reply was offered; and not fully
comprehending the meaning of what you are trying to say, I won't assume to
be answering it the way that you would necessarily have wished, but here
goes:
"Later" is definitely not promised to any of us, and certainly "later"
none of this discussion WILL matter much. Having said that, I would presume
that you would understand that "later" is not necessary to give much
credence to, unless you are pragmatically inclined.
Is our faith such that we MUST be pragmatic in our approach? I suppose
there IS some arguement in that direction, but the question origionally
asked, had to do with hind-sight, and not future-speculation.
Even a pragmatist would concede that looking back with too much
intensity is useless, to SOME degree. (Short of, that is, putting into
practice more appropriate responses in repeated situations in which we erred
before).
We can do nothing about what God did; we can do nothing about what God
WILL do, except perhaps to live our lives in accord with His wishes for us,
so that we might hope for a life with Him in Heaven. Therefore, the
"hind-sight" part of this question, is somewhat useless as to whether we
came from Apes or not.
If future-speculation is what you are after, I would suggest that I
"hope" that God will continue to reveal His Spirit within each of us, more
evidently, each passing day; and I will continue to believe that God DOES
answer prayer, and offer His Hand of Mercy to each of us, according to His
Divine Will, as we need it. For this journey we take here and now, is the
only one we are offered, for committing ourselves to the God who has offered
us Redemption through His Son.
In light of this kind of reasoning, does it MATTER whether we came from
Apes or not?! I think not.
I hope that helps, Bruno
"Peace"
Richard Walker
> God, the rest is not only periferal, but somewhat a waste of useful time, of
> which we have very little on this earth. We have much to accomplish in
> terms of "bringing glory to God, and so very little in the way of
> opportunity, as we are but four-score and seven in duration.
I take issue with the idea that exploring the nature of creation is a
waste of useful time. God did not make us the way we are just to
wander around like the other animals, even being nice while wandering.
We improve ourselves as individuals, and as a species in total, each
generation grasping another slice of the mystery of creation. Truth
is always a good thing. As we learn more of the truth each century,
we can understand just a little bit more of the design of God.
As to bringing glory to God, there is vast opportunity. Choose to
take it.
Bruno Van de Casteele
alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
> If future-speculation is what you are after, I would suggest that I
> "hope" that God will continue to reveal His Spirit within each of us,
> more evidently, each passing day; and I will continue to believe that God
> DOES answer prayer, and offer His Hand of Mercy to each of us, according
> to His Divine Will, as we need it. For this journey we take here and now,
> is the only one we are offered, for committing ourselves to the God who
> has offered us Redemption through His Son.
uhuh. But I must have misphrased my question. I was refering to those who do
not believe. For them there is no later (and certainly not in your sense of
it), so what are they left with? Just this life, and just looking back and
trying rationally (I hope) to make sense of it.
> In light of this kind of reasoning, does it MATTER whether we came
> from
> Apes or not?! I think not.
Absolutely not, since we do not come from the apes. But since we share a
common ancestor, yes it matters. Not because of some New-Age "closeness" with
our "monkey-brothers", but because of knowing evolution (and our position in
it) is knowing the world and nature we are in.
That said, I have no problem that you interpret it differently. However, that
is first of all a matter of faith, and secondly, doesn't really matter until
after you die. In the mean time, all we are left with is this life and this
world. Which in itself is already worth it, but that's another point.
--
Bruno Van de Casteele brun...@puam.be
N.P. Puam [ ICQ#: CA957F ]
http://www.puam.be/
"I think I think; therefore, I think I am."
Ambrose Bierce
Steve C.
"I was refering to those who do not believe. For them there is no
later.........."
It is commonly understood, in both Protestant AND Catholic circles,
that ideed there IS a "later" for the "Saved" and the "unsaved." That a
destiny awaits all of us. Some to spend "eternity" in Heaven, and some to
spend "eternity" apart from God, (be that "hell" or some other form of
eternal destination of seperation from the presence of God.
Our souls are eternal spirits, according to Scripture and the teachings
of the Magesterium. So in THAT respect at least, I would differ with your
evaluation of man. But I do agree with the rest of your posting.
The very fact that some refuse to accept anything other than a
scientific premise for all that "is," leaves them in the camp of the
fatalists who seem to think that indeed if there IS no "God" then there is
no moral responsibility; no eternal repercussion for things done that might
go against moral law, since moral law, to them, is mute.
Obviously the consequences of moral irresponsibility ARE adverse, and
ARE received with a certain degree of disapproval; if for no other reason
than the fact that there is STILL a high percentage of people in this world
that approve of and defend the rights of individuals, and the conducting of
oneself in a dignified and respectful way in respect to the "others" in
their human communities.
If we are to make comparisons to apes, we COULD suggest that by
observing the studies done by various people, of ape society, (Jane Goodall
at the very least), we see the evidence of a sense of community hierarcy;
community responsibility; loyalty; compassion, and other traits that yes,
ARE, echoed in our human circles.
You also made the following quoted assertion:
"all we are left with is this life and this world. "
We were given, as humans with a soul, MORE than you contend, I'm
afraid. We have been promised a "Comforter" (mostly accepted as being the
Holy Spirit), if we are willing to follow the leadership of a creator. This
places us in a position of service to more than ourselves. To accept a
Spiritual premise to life, is to realize a responsibility that takes us into
a realm of service to OTHERS. We are not traveling solo on this world. The
concept of apostleship, or discipleship demands that we view our journey as
one of loyalty to the ideals of the One who gave us this life. His were the
values of bringing Glory to His Father, and taking care of those He was
given, (as he states in the Garden of Gethsemene, just prior to his arrest).
Ours is a comprehension of something greater than ourselves; something
wider than the planet's edges; something vaster than the confines of this
galaxy. In what ways we have an effect on that which we have placed in, is
only limited by what God allows us to achieve. Our concept of what we are
responsible for, and what we have the burden of improving on, is limited
only by our understanding of "who" we really ARE, as created beings.
This is why such questions about evolution begin, in the FIRST place.
BECAUSE man understands, (even man apart from God), that there is something
greater than what we know, going on here. It is inate to all of us, by
God's design, (whether we acknowledge being created or not), that we might
have an internal spiritual void within our inner-most self, which we would
seek to fill and satisfy.
We try many things, to find a filler for that spiritual void. Some of
us turn to drugs; some to numerous marriages; some to education-saturation,
but all do search. Even Darwin was ultimately searching compulsively, not
acknowledging that the "Creator" of Darwin would have been calling him to
learn of Him), for an answer to the origins of all this.
Allow me a second to work backwards for a response to something else I saw
in your post that I thought worth responding to:
" so what are they left with? Just this life, and just looking back......."
Where, in your statement, is the hope? Where is the sense of
anticipation that we can have, concerning what is to COME? If life were so
fatalistic as to be over at the time of death, how wasteful would all this
be?!
It is true that we live inside a shell that we call "our bodies," and
that we cannot crawl out like a Hermit Crab, and find another. Yes, even
the Hermit Crab cannot get out of his OWN skin, but can only change its
outer shell. How many times I would have wished I could shake off the
responsibility for this particular humanoid carcass I was given, and inhabit
the carcass of a Lance Armstrong, for example; or a Arnold Schwartzenager;
or a Bob Hope, (living to 100); but this exsistence is not about whether or
not we have a durability to survive. I support, (obviously), that our
exsistence, such as it may be, with all its physical limitations and woes,
is not meant exclusively for physical survival, but for Spiritual service.
We shake off this shell one day, when we enter INTO the Spiritual
realm. Scripture tells us that "flesh and blood cannot enter into the
kindom of Heaven" and we know that we "shall be changed" and that we "shall
be like Him." So we care for what we have been given, while it functions
for us, in this world for which it was designed, and spend our time, using
it for the Glory of the Creator who gave it to us. Not for just making it a
vessell to be lusted for, on the beaches; or gawked at in a pageant or
muscle show. We don't care for it, simply because it "is," but so that we
can use it sucessfully for living.
To concentrate on service, is to look ahead at what we can achieve,
through the grace that we are given, FOR something; for SOMEONE; for FUTURE
events in our lives as well as the lives of others around us, who is also
benefit in the present, AND in the future, as a result of the service we
give, while here.
Moving into pure Catholic thought on this, our lives of service to
others, doesn't even end THERE. We are taught that we have the opportunity
to be of service to others through intercessory means, even AFTER the "now"
of exsistence. That we can be actively participating in the care for those
who are still the "Church Militant." (or "here on earth"). How great is our
opportunity to think in "future" terms!
-your ad-nausium Catholic brother
Bruno Van de Casteele
alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
(I will be commenting here and then. Forgive me if I cut too much of your
text and lose the going of the argument)
> You wrote:
>
> "I was refering to those who do not believe. For them there is no
> later.........."
>
> It is commonly understood, in both Protestant AND Catholic circles,
> that ideed there IS a "later" for the "Saved" and the "unsaved." That a
> destiny awaits all of us. Some to spend "eternity" in Heaven, and some
> to spend "eternity" apart from God, (be that "hell" or some other form of
> eternal destination of seperation from the presence of God.
Yes yes, I know that. You are indeed correct in saying that for those
religions, there is a later for everyone.
I was refering to those who do not believe in it. You might say that these do
not have the correct faith or so, but nevertheless, they are stuck with what
they do not believe in. So, what can they do but scientifically analyse data
and make theories? Even more, those theories seem to have some ground in
reality, as time and again, these theories are either corroberated or
replaced by a better theory. For you "later", we only have some vague and
ancient texts (i cut that sentence from you).
(cut)
> fatalists who seem to think that indeed if there IS no "God" then there
> is no moral responsibility; no eternal repercussion for things done that
> might go against moral law, since moral law, to them, is mute.
Yes, fatalists have indeed a problem, but not all people without a god are
fatalists. They might even be considered very moral persons.
(snip)
> If we are to make comparisons to apes, we COULD suggest that by
> observing the studies done by various people, of ape society, (Jane
> Goodall at the very least), we see the evidence of a sense of community
> hierarcy; community responsibility; loyalty; compassion, and other traits
> that yes, ARE, echoed in our human circles.
that is true indeed. Community, but also the bad things: raping, fighting,
killing, ...
Perhaps we share a lot more than we know! I read some scientific reports
about homosexual apes.
(snip)
> This is why such questions about evolution begin, in the FIRST place.
> BECAUSE man understands, (even man apart from God), that there is
> something greater than what we know, going on here. It is inate to all
> of us, by God's design, (whether we acknowledge being created or not),
> that we might have an internal spiritual void within our inner-most self,
> which we would seek to fill and satisfy.
> We try many things, to find a filler for that spiritual void. Some
> of
> us turn to drugs; some to numerous marriages; some to
> education-saturation, but all do search. Even Darwin was ultimately
> searching compulsively, not acknowledging that the "Creator" of Darwin
> would have been calling him to learn of Him), for an answer to the
> origins of all this.
no you are comparing different things. Knowing how the world works is NOT the
same as finding happiness or filling a void by marriages or drugs. It is
based on the neutral wondering about how everything in this world works,
probably on the basis of laws. Please note that I write "this", since in
search for this, there is no need to go outside of this world. There is more
than enough for us humans to do here.
(cut)
> Where, in your statement, is the hope? Where is the sense of
> anticipation that we can have, concerning what is to COME? If life were
> so fatalistic as to be over at the time of death, how wasteful would all
> this be?!
very wasteful! But that does count for our monkey-brother and for any
bacteria out there. So nature at least (that I will admit) is not the place
to find meaning at all.
But is that longing for 'it can't be over' correct? Perhapse we really *want*
it not to be over, but that doesnt yet prove that there is something.
No, even more, seeing that death is unavoidable and that it might be done
after it, is a very good and inspiring reason to make the best out of it.
Yes, this is also getting drugged and making love to a thousand woman. I do
not agree on these activities. But I find that it's also a good reason to do
things you really like (like painting, having a beer on a summer evening with
friens, ...), and care about those around you. After all, their life will end
too, but in the mean time, let's make the best out of it. We are, after all,
stuck with each other on this small planet.
(snip)
> To concentrate on service, is to look ahead at what we can achieve,
> through the grace that we are given, FOR something; for SOMEONE; for
> FUTURE events in our lives as well as the lives of others around us, who
> is also benefit in the present, AND in the future, as a result of the
> service we give, while here.
yes, but as I mentioned above, it is not necessary to presuppose a
supernatural or spiritual realm to do what you suggest. Future on earth,
after all, seems a lot different thatn future in that spiritual realm. And
though you consider the first one to be a preparatory thingie for the second,
I think that the first one is in effect already worth it. No matter what and
if something comes after it.
So even if people are graced and there is some Comforter and Perfect Being
waiting is, I think it would be best to act and do as if (no, not "as", it
IS) this life in itself is already worth it. After all, doing something
because you get something nice afterwards (a candy, an icecream) might be ok,
but doing something because the act in itself is worth it, is better.
Steve C.
you wrote:
"I was referring to those who do not believe in it."
I was aware, of course, those who you were referencing, but would say in
another way, that which I was attempting, (albeit poorly I guess), that
those who would, like the Ostrich, stick their heads in the proverbial sand,
would still face the inevitable outcome of one day, facing their creator.
"Ignorance is no excuse" would apply here.
you wrote:
"they are stuck with what they do not believe in. So, what can they do but
scientifically analyze data and make theories?"
I understand and agree that they are left with very little else,
however I would modify or qualify this statement a bit with reference to my
first response in this post. Further, I would humbly suggest to you that
those who fit into this category can, and HAVE been quite dangerous in our
societies, by virtue of coming up with some cockamamie ideas that lead
OTHERS astray as a result. Certainly SOME "scientific good" can and does
come out, from time to time, but there has been a much larger preponderance
of error that has really fouled the air of reason and logic.
you wrote:
"but not all people without a god are fatalists. They might even be
considered very moral persons."
In the sense that those who I would label as "fatalists" have no hope
beyond their wallets, and their self-motivated quest for getting their names
in the history books, (for that is all they could hope to achieve, short of
leaving a biological legacy), they truly DO operate within the definition of
"fatalistic people."
Your statement is really a two-parter, I believe, because "morality" is
something that is on a different level than "outlook" on life. To practice
"moral" behavior, IS possible for the fatalist as well as the "believer" in
God. It is just that I see a tendency for the "fatalist" to have LESS of a
sense of responsibility for "morality." Put another way, (to belabor the
point perhaps), would be to say that a person who is disinterested in the
moral side of life, is more likely to be an atheist, or agnostic, (which is
really what we are saying when we call a person a fatalist). I don't
necessarily think that it holds a heck of a lot of water to say that there
can be "spiritual fatalists" out there, (not suggesting that you said this
but..........) who, knowing that they can share eternity with "God" in
"Heaven," would look at that possibility with a sense of dread. That IS, of
course, unless they realize that they have not lived a life that is
"pleasing" to their Creator, and have that inner sense of knowing which
tells them that they are destined for an eternal "separation" from God.
Then "I" TOO, would be a fatalist!
you wrote:
"......... our monkey-brother and for any bacteria out there."
At first read, I giggled a bit, at your description of "our monkey
brother." After thinking more soberly about this above quote, I would only
respond that our "monkey-brother" (according to Scripture, antiquated or
not, and the Majesterium), does not have a soul, and therefore is not part
of the consideration of an eternal consequence.
Likewise the various "bacteria" out there, which have certainly made
their mark on mankind and this planet over the years, in various ways, but
for whom ALSO, there is no "eternal hope."
To me, this makes it necessary to NOT include these two forms of life
as part of the bigger view of this question of evolutions validity and the
followers of such a view.
you wrote:
"But is that longing for 'it can't be over' correct? "
As stated in my previous post, it is a longing or quest, or innate desire
of man, placed there by our Creator God, who intended that we might search
Him out, and know Him. Therefore it is not a question for me, at least, as
to whether or not it is "correct" or not. For anything that "God" would do
with us, His creation, is not something I would consider to be an
intentional error, or a built in flaw, for the purpose of leaving us "less
than perfect" lest we become arrogant and bitter. But rather that, in
sensing a desire to "know" of our Creator, we might come into fellowship
with Him, and know His Love and Mercy for us.
In other words, I don't think it is a cruel joke of God's doing, to
leave us wondering. Remember that we were created, (according to
Christian/Catholic teaching), in perfection. We were, at one time, in
perfect communion with God. We, at one time, did not have the penalty of
disease, sin, and death. Once our forefathers disobeyed God, THEN we became
corruptible. THEN we were given the penalty of illness, and death.
you wrote:
"Yes, this is also getting drugged and making love to a thousand woman."
(at least NOW I can be sure that "Bruno" is a male!!)(LOL)
you wrote:
"I think it would be best to act and do as if (no, not "as", it IS) this
life in itself is already worth it. "
I agree wholeheartedly with appreciating what we have been given. After
ALL; consider the fact that "out of the thousands/millions/billions (I'm not
a biology major), of eggs in our mother's wombs, "we" were the ONE egg to be
given life, which became "us." What a privilege to be granted a chance to
even KNOW "reality!"
you wrote:
" doing something because the act in itself is worth it, is better."
At least NOW I can say that one of your character traits is "moralistic!"
There is hope for you yet!!
Steve C.
you wrote:
"I take issue with the idea that exploring the nature of creation is a
waste of useful time."
If you are going to paraphrase a statement of mine, please do it
accurately. I said it was "somewhat" a waste of time. I do agree that to
study and discover is very useful. The thrust of my comment was intended to
point more strongly toward the "spiritual" aspects, rather than the purely
scientific.
you wrote:
" Truth is always a good thing. As we learn more of the truth each century,
we can understand just a little bit more of the design of God."
Amen!
Jerry Patterson
brunovd...@puam.kotnet.org (Bruno Van de Casteele) wrote:
>On 23 mei 2003, the Dasein known as Jerry Patterson posted in
>alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
>
>>>> I heard a comedian say once, if we evolved from monkeys, WHY are there
>>>> still monkeys...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously he's not a scientist ...... or a very good comedian either.
>>>
>>>
>> Answer?
>
>We did not evolve from monkeys. We just happen to have the same ancestors.
>It is really stupid to think that some species evolved "more" than an other
>one, thus making the latter superfluous. They just took different roads while
>evolving. There is no target of "getting better", just adapting.
JP
From what did we evolve? Did what animates the pre-evolved body evolve
into the metamorphosed body? How? If not, why not?
Jerry Patterson
JP
May our Lord continue to bless you.
The position of the Church on evolution is delineated in an address by
Bruno Van de Casteele
alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
>>We did not evolve from monkeys. We just happen to have the same
>>ancestors. It is really stupid to think that some species evolved "more"
>>than an other one, thus making the latter superfluous. They just took
>>different roads while evolving. There is no target of "getting better",
>>just adapting.
>
> JP
> From what did we evolve? Did what animates the pre-evolved body evolve
> into the metamorphosed body? How? If not, why not?
BRUNO
I'm sorry, I do not understand your second question.
The first one is easy enough: from monkey-human type of things. And before
that some other mammal. And before that (well, you get the point).
But the second question: I don't really see what you mean by metamorphosis or
pre-evolved body. Bodies are never pre-evolved, they are in the proces of
evolving, always. But what do you mean by metamorphosed body?
--
Bruno Van de Casteele brun...@puam.be
N.P. Puam [ ICQ#: CA957F ]
http://www.puam.be/
"Dedicate yourself to the good you deserve and desire
for yourself. Give yourself peace of mind. You deserve
to be happy. You deserve delight."
Hannah Arendt
Bruno Van de Casteele
alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
> Bruno:
>
> you wrote:
>
> "I was referring to those who do not believe in it."
>
> I was aware, of course, those who you were referencing, but would say
> in
> another way, that which I was attempting, (albeit poorly I guess), that
> those who would, like the Ostrich, stick their heads in the proverbial
> sand, would still face the inevitable outcome of one day, facing their
> creator. "Ignorance is no excuse" would apply here.
>
BRUNO
Yes, I agree on that. But your presupposition is that you are right, while
others might be saying that THEY are right (for instance by reincarnating, or
nothing at all happens). That was what I was refering to.
So really, there is no inevitable outcome.
> you wrote:
>
> "they are stuck with what they do not believe in. So, what can they do
> but
> scientifically analyze data and make theories?"
>
> I understand and agree that they are left with very little else,
> however I would modify or qualify this statement a bit with reference to
> my first response in this post. Further, I would humbly suggest to you
> that those who fit into this category can, and HAVE been quite dangerous
> in our societies, by virtue of coming up with some cockamamie ideas that
> lead OTHERS astray as a result. Certainly SOME "scientific good" can and
> does come out, from time to time, but there has been a much larger
> preponderance of error that has really fouled the air of reason and
> logic.
BRUNO
Why yes, you are right. Atom bombs and such are indeed the result of a
scientific (but heavily state-sponsored) effort. However, you could consider
the search for knowledge in itself as a neutral thing (though in my opinion
it isn't). It's what people do that is wrong.
But there is indeed no such thing as a "neutral" science. However, since you
mention it, the same counts for religion: it has a very bad record of killing
or repressing people, just because they have the wrong opinions. And while
religious people do good things, non-religious people do too. And at least
science has cured or helped an enormeous amount of people (like penicillin,
...)
> you wrote:
>
> "but not all people without a god are fatalists. They might even be
> considered very moral persons."
>
> In the sense that those who I would label as "fatalists" have no hope
> beyond their wallets, and their self-motivated quest for getting their
> names in the history books, (for that is all they could hope to achieve,
> short of leaving a biological legacy), they truly DO operate within the
> definition of "fatalistic people."
BRUNO
No, I disagree on that definition. There might be people neurotically trying
to get "known" or to do something so that they will be remembered. However,
even strict rationally speaking, this is not a correct view point. In fact,
there aren't that much people getting remembered in history books, so one
might consider another option in life: just do your best and see what's it
worth. Perhaps some people (friends, family, ...) will remember you, and tell
stories about you. This might be called some "worldly immortality", and
strictly speaking, this is the only thing that you can see from other people.
A life after death is not "seen" by others, so you cannot be certain of it.
In fact, considering the many theories and theologies, you cannot be certain
at all.
(snip)
>
> you wrote:
>
> "......... our monkey-brother and for any bacteria out there."
>
> At first read, I giggled a bit, at your description of "our monkey
> brother." After thinking more soberly about this above quote, I would
> only respond that our "monkey-brother" (according to Scripture,
> antiquated or not, and the Majesterium), does not have a soul, and
> therefore is not part of the consideration of an eternal consequence.
BRUNO
well, it was in fact meant as a tongue-in-cheek remark, so giggling is no
problem here :-)
Point is, those animals and us have their differences, but you can also say
that they too can have pain as us, etc. Most of the time this is just
antropocentrism, so I wouldnt make an argument about it.
However, there is as much indication that we have a soul as that (other)
animals have one.
> Likewise the various "bacteria" out there, which have certainly made
> their mark on mankind and this planet over the years, in various ways,
> but for whom ALSO, there is no "eternal hope."
> To me, this makes it necessary to NOT include these two forms of
> life
> as part of the bigger view of this question of evolutions validity and
> the followers of such a view.
BRUNO
"followers" sounds too much as a religious term. I must object to that
terminology. Evolution is not some theory one adopts or not, it is soundly
based in research and data. It might be wrong, it might not be the absolute
"truth" (as scientific theories might change), but that is not the point
here. Since it is not absolute and it is not "truth", that sets it apart from
religion.
Secondly, evolution depends on all animals. If, for instance, a species could
be shown to not have evolved at all, or existing in contradiction to the know
evolution-theories (hypothetically), that theory could have been dealt a
serious blow. So even the smallest species is important in the big view.
> you wrote:
>
> "But is that longing for 'it can't be over' correct? "
>
> As stated in my previous post, it is a longing or quest, or innate
> desire
> of man, placed there by our Creator God, who intended that we might
> search Him out, and know Him. Therefore it is not a question for me, at
> least, as to whether or not it is "correct" or not. For anything that
> "God" would do with us, His creation, is not something I would consider
> to be an intentional error, or a built in flaw, for the purpose of
> leaving us "less than perfect" lest we become arrogant and bitter. But
> rather that, in sensing a desire to "know" of our Creator, we might come
> into fellowship with Him, and know His Love and Mercy for us.
BRUNO
No, again there is a presupposition of what you are asserting or showing
here. If the desire to know is built-in by God, then by definition, our only
goal could be to know him better.
But let's not press the point. If I suppose you are right, then God should
allow some liberty in using that "knowing"-thing. After all, if we are only
driven to 'know' God, then a lot of people are just misunderstanding it.
Perhaps you'd argue that they are using it wrong, but I for instance think
that one cannot be blamed for using what they have got. So, one might seek
some internal or spiritual thing, while others might try to know how nature
is working. The case could be made that there is no difference at all between
the religious and non-religious person.
> In other words, I don't think it is a cruel joke of God's doing, to
> leave us wondering. Remember that we were created, (according to
> Christian/Catholic teaching), in perfection. We were, at one time, in
> perfect communion with God. We, at one time, did not have the penalty of
> disease, sin, and death. Once our forefathers disobeyed God, THEN we
> became corruptible. THEN we were given the penalty of illness, and
> death.
BRUNO
It strikes me as funny that we should be held accountable for what our
grandfathers did.
(snip)
> I agree wholeheartedly with appreciating what we have been given.
> After
> ALL; consider the fact that "out of the thousands/millions/billions (I'm
> not a biology major), of eggs in our mother's wombs, "we" were the ONE
> egg to be given life, which became "us." What a privilege to be granted a
> chance to even KNOW "reality!"
BRUNO
I agree with that completely. Let me rephrase it: there are a lot of female
eggs, but millions and millions of sperm. Considering that a femile egg is
only fertile about 24 hours, that is indeed a wonder.
It's no miracle...
> you wrote:
>
> " doing something because the act in itself is worth it, is better."
>
> At least NOW I can say that one of your character traits is
> "moralistic!"
> There is hope for you yet!!
BRUNO
Yes, thank you. That was indeed the point I was making...
--
Bruno Van de Casteele brun...@puam.be
N.P. Puam [ ICQ#: CA957F ]
http://www.puam.be/
"Dedicate yourself to the good you deserve and desire
Steve C.
"followers" sounds too much as a religious term. "
Well, after ALL............this IS a "Catholic forum" and I would assume
that the discussions we would have in this forum ARE indeed, "religious" in
nature.
I surrender..............you win................I loose...............
-your willing participant in bantor
Bruno Van de Casteele
alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
> "followers" sounds too much as a religious term. "
>
> Well, after ALL............this IS a "Catholic forum" and I would
> assume
> that the discussions we would have in this forum ARE indeed, "religious"
> in nature.
ok, point thaken, but I was trying to make a point...
> I surrender..............you win................I
> loose...............
no way... I think we had almost an agreement here :-)
If we were discussing this on a summer evening somewhere, I'd buy you another
beer :-)
--
Bruno Van de Casteele brun...@puam.be
N.P. Puam [ ICQ#: CA957F ]
http://www.puam.be/
If a man were beset by green demons, and took
his problem to the church, a priest would pray
for the sickness in his soul. If he took his
problem to the doctor, a psychiatrist would
probe for the sickness in his mind. But only a
consulting philosopher would pick up a stick and
Steve C.
"If we were discussing this on a summer evening somewhere, I'd buy you
another
beer :-)"
Make it a Budweiser, and you've got a DEAL!!
-your wacky Catholic brother
P.S.: I think my brain needed a rest for a bit...........been "under the
weather" over the last week. Perhaps another time.
Jerry Patterson
brunovd...@puam.kotnet.org (Bruno Van de Casteele) wrote:
>On 26 mei 2003, the Dasein known as Jerry Patterson posted in
>alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
>
>>>We did not evolve from monkeys. We just happen to have the same
>>>ancestors. It is really stupid to think that some species evolved "more"
>>>than an other one, thus making the latter superfluous. They just took
>>>different roads while evolving. There is no target of "getting better",
>>>just adapting.
>>
>> JP
>> From what did we evolve? Did what animates the pre-evolved body evolve
>> into the metamorphosed body? How? If not, why not?
>
>BRUNO
>I'm sorry, I do not understand your second question.
>The first one is easy enough: from monkey-human type of things. And before
>that some other mammal. And before that (well, you get the point).
>But the second question: I don't really see what you mean by metamorphosis or
>pre-evolved body. Bodies are never pre-evolved, they are in the proces of
>evolving, always. But what do you mean by metamorphosed body?
JP
Perhaps my wording was awkward. Something animated the monkey-human.
Unless you think that was a physical source of animation, it was
immaterial. If it was immaterial, there is no theory and certainly no
evidence, of its metamorphose to animate adequately, the evolved
human.
If you think that which animated the monkey was a physical source, is
there any evidence that it was identified as the source of animation,
including instinct? And, where is that source within the body?
By "metamorphosed body" I mean the evolved body. If you think there is
no such thing as a non evolved body, then there was no first body.
Since that means there was no beginning, how did we get from eternity
into time?
Bruno Van de Casteele
alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
> JP
> Perhaps my wording was awkward. Something animated the monkey-human.
> Unless you think that was a physical source of animation, it was
> immaterial. If it was immaterial, there is no theory and certainly no
> evidence, of its metamorphose to animate adequately, the evolved
> human.
>
> If you think that which animated the monkey was a physical source, is
> there any evidence that it was identified as the source of animation,
> including instinct? And, where is that source within the body?
Before making any comments, I would like to know some more. It might be that
we are miscomprehending each other.
What do you mean with "animated"? Is it getting bodies in motion (but then
every animal is animated), or is it a spiritual matter?
If it's spiritual, I see no problem either. It's our brain...
> By "metamorphosed body" I mean the evolved body. If you think there is
> no such thing as a non evolved body, then there was no first body.
> Since that means there was no beginning, how did we get from eternity
> into time?
I agree, every body has evolved. From the first sort-of animals to the entire
range we know now.
--
Bruno Van de Casteele brun...@puam.be
N.P. Puam [ ICQ#: CA957F ]
http://www.puam.be/
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyse his delusion
is called a philosopher."
Ambrose Bierce
Steve C.
time...........lol............go get em, Kid!
-distorted mind
Jerry Patterson
brunovd...@puam.kotnet.org (Bruno Van de Casteele) wrote:
>On 29 mei 2003, the Dasein known as Jerry Patterson posted in
>alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
>
>> JP
>> Perhaps my wording was awkward. Something animated the monkey-human.
>> Unless you think that was a physical source of animation, it was
>> immaterial. If it was immaterial, there is no theory and certainly no
>> evidence, of its metamorphose to animate adequately, the evolved
>> human.
>>
>> If you think that which animated the monkey was a physical source, is
>> there any evidence that it was identified as the source of animation,
>> including instinct? And, where is that source within the body?
>
>Before making any comments, I would like to know some more. It might be that
>we are miscomprehending each other.
>What do you mean with "animated"? Is it getting bodies in motion (but then
>every animal is animated), or is it a spiritual matter?
>If it's spiritual, I see no problem either. It's our brain...
JP
By animated I mean that the body functions in accordance with the
properties of its genus. Vital.
>> By "metamorphosed body" I mean the evolved body. If you think there is
>> no such thing as a non evolved body, then there was no first body.
>> Since that means there was no beginning, how did we get from eternity
>> into time?
>
>I agree, every body has evolved. From the first sort-of animals to the entire
>range we know now.
JP
I don't believe there was a being of one genus that metamorphosed into
another genus.
Bruno Van de Casteele
alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
> JP
> By animated I mean that the body functions in accordance with the
> properties of its genus. Vital.
>
>>> By "metamorphosed body" I mean the evolved body. If you think there is
>>> no such thing as a non evolved body, then there was no first body.
>>> Since that means there was no beginning, how did we get from eternity
>>> into time?
>>
>>I agree, every body has evolved. From the first sort-of animals to the
>>entire range we know now.
>
> JP
> I don't believe there was a being of one genus that metamorphosed into
> another genus.
I still might not understand it: are you saying that the genus of a human is
different than that of any animal? That is wrong. Humans are no more or no
less animals than all the other ones. Humans are just *a* product of
evolution. Not the culmination of it, though one might say that we are indeed
a very special and very succesful one.
--
Bruno Van de Casteele brun...@puam.be
N.P. Puam [ ICQ#: CA957F ]
http://www.puam.be/
"Conservatism is not a devotion to stasis but a
determination to bring the best of the past with us
into the unknowable future."
John Derbyshire
Jerry Patterson
brunovd...@puam.kotnet.org (Bruno Van de Casteele) wrote:
>On 05 jun 2003, the Dasein known as Jerry Patterson posted in
>alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
>
>> JP
>> By animated I mean that the body functions in accordance with the
>> properties of its genus. Vital.
>>
>>>> By "metamorphosed body" I mean the evolved body. If you think there is
>>>> no such thing as a non evolved body, then there was no first body.
>>>> Since that means there was no beginning, how did we get from eternity
>>>> into time?
>>>
>>>I agree, every body has evolved. From the first sort-of animals to the
>>>entire range we know now.
>>
>> JP
>> I don't believe there was a being of one genus that metamorphosed into
>> another genus.
>
>I still might not understand it: are you saying that the genus of a human is
>different than that of any animal? That is wrong. Humans are no more or no
>less animals than all the other ones. Humans are just *a* product of
>evolution. Not the culmination of it, though one might say that we are indeed
>a very special and very succesful one.
JP
It seems that you think that life, thoughts, emotions, instincts,
will, etc., are solely physical. Is that true? Your answer to this
question is of the utmost importance as it determines the path of our
discussion.
Bruno Van de Casteele
alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
> JP
> It seems that you think that life, thoughts, emotions, instincts,
> will, etc., are solely physical. Is that true? Your answer to this
> question is of the utmost importance as it determines the path of our
> discussion.
Bruno
Yes they are physical. For life, the matter is clear: one lives and one dies,
one eats and one... well, you get the point. Instincts are only there to help
survival, so no doubt there.
Thoughts? Yes, I consider them physical too, they take place in our brains.
Please note, thoughts can do a lot of things, like transcend the one human
they take place in. But that doesn't make them more than physical.
Emotions? That's physical too. At least, they have physical attributes.
And so on. I see no point in looking for these things outside the physical
realm, as they are perfectly matched and explained in it. Humans can and will
transcend this purely physical (natural) level, because they find that
important (or so), but that doesnt make these capabilities non-physical.
--
Bruno Van de Casteele brun...@puam.be
N.P. Puam [ ICQ#: CA957F ]
http://www.puam.be/
"Das Elend als Gegensatz von Macht und
Ohnmacht wächst ins Ungemessene zusammen mit
der Kapazität, alles Elend dauernd abzuschaffen."
M. Horkheimer & T.W. Adorno
Dialektik der Aufklärung
Jerry Patterson
brunovd...@puam.kotnet.org (Bruno Van de Casteele) wrote:
>On 09 jun 2003, the Dasein known as Jerry Patterson posted in
>alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
>
>> JP
>> It seems that you think that life, thoughts, emotions, instincts,
>> will, etc., are solely physical. Is that true? Your answer to this
>> question is of the utmost importance as it determines the path of our
>> discussion.
>
>Bruno
>Yes they are physical. For life, the matter is clear: one lives and one dies,
>one eats and one... well, you get the point. Instincts are only there to help
>survival, so no doubt there.
>Thoughts? Yes, I consider them physical too, they take place in our brains.
>Please note, thoughts can do a lot of things, like transcend the one human
>they take place in. But that doesn't make them more than physical.
>Emotions? That's physical too. At least, they have physical attributes.
>
>And so on. I see no point in looking for these things outside the physical
>realm, as they are perfectly matched and explained in it. Humans can and will
>transcend this purely physical (natural) level, because they find that
>important (or so), but that doesnt make these capabilities non-physical.
JP
It seems you think that a cause can produce an effect with properties
the cause does not possess. How does that work?
Bruno Van de Casteele
alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
> JP
> It seems you think that a cause can produce an effect with properties
> the cause does not possess. How does that work?
I do not understand your remark. Since I posit everything to happen in the
physical realm, there is no problem at all.
That, or my Aristotle is getting rusty :-)
--
Bruno Van de Casteele brun...@puam.be
N.P. Puam [ ICQ#: CA957F ]
http://www.puam.be/
"Logic is invincible because in order to combat logic, it is
necessary to use logic."
Pierre Boutroux
Jerry Patterson
brunovd...@puam.kotnet.org (Bruno Van de Casteele) wrote:
>On 11 jun 2003, the Dasein known as Jerry Patterson posted in
>alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
>
>> JP
>> It seems you think that a cause can produce an effect with properties
>> the cause does not possess. How does that work?
>
>I do not understand your remark. Since I posit everything to happen in the
>physical realm, there is no problem at all.
>
>That, or my Aristotle is getting rusty :-)
JP
Whether in the physical realm or in the immaterial realm, the
principle of cause and effect rules. In the physical realm, physics
could not exist without the predictability of cause and effect.
Otherwise, all effects would be subject to random outcomes.
Bruno Van de Casteele
alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
>>I do not understand your remark. Since I posit everything to happen in the
>>physical realm, there is no problem at all.
>>
>>That, or my Aristotle is getting rusty :-)
>
> JP
> Whether in the physical realm or in the immaterial realm, the
> principle of cause and effect rules. In the physical realm, physics
> could not exist without the predictability of cause and effect.
> Otherwise, all effects would be subject to random outcomes.
BRUNO
Ok, in that case there is no problem.
Mind you, cause and effect and randomness are not mutually incompatible. In
general, science can predict what will happen if thus and thus is present.
But it can also predict the probably outcome of a random event.
So, there is always a cause: be it a direct one, indirect or just plain dumb
luck (=coincidence). There is no strikt chain from the Big Bang to, say, me.
--
Bruno Van de Casteele brun...@puam.be
N.P. Puam [ ICQ#: CA957F ]
http://www.puam.be/
"Our language-game is an extension of primitive behaviour."
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Jerry Patterson
brunovd...@puam.kotnet.org (Bruno Van de Casteele) wrote:
>On 12 jun 2003, the Dasein known as Jerry Patterson posted in
>alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
>
>>>I do not understand your remark. Since I posit everything to happen in the
>>>physical realm, there is no problem at all.
>>>
>>>That, or my Aristotle is getting rusty :-)
>>
>> JP
>> Whether in the physical realm or in the immaterial realm, the
>> principle of cause and effect rules. In the physical realm, physics
>> could not exist without the predictability of cause and effect.
>> Otherwise, all effects would be subject to random outcomes.
>
>BRUNO
>Ok, in that case there is no problem.
>Mind you, cause and effect and randomness are not mutually incompatible. In
>general, science can predict what will happen if thus and thus is present.
>But it can also predict the probably outcome of a random event.
>So, there is always a cause: be it a direct one, indirect or just plain dumb
>luck (=coincidence). There is no strikt chain from the Big Bang to, say, me.
JP
I agree, except that prediction where the cause is unknown is a matter
of statistics. It appears that by randomness you mean the cause is not
known?
Bruno Van de Casteele
alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
> JP
> I agree, except that prediction where the cause is unknown is a matter
> of statistics. It appears that by randomness you mean the cause is not
> known?
B
Yes the cause is not known, in the since that it "just" happens. It might be
possible that the cause will be known on a later date.
Oh, and indeed, predicting the outcome of randomness is indeed statistics,
which is also a science, which means that coincidence isnt really coincidence
anymore.
--
Bruno Van de Casteele brun...@puam.be
N.P. Puam [ ICQ#: CA957F ]
http://www.puam.be/
"(Dubito, ergo) Cogito, ergo Sum."
René Descartes
Jerry Patterson
brunovd...@puam.kotnet.org (Bruno Van de Casteele) wrote:
>On 13 jun 2003, the Dasein known as Jerry Patterson posted in
>alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
>
>> JP
>> I agree, except that prediction where the cause is unknown is a matter
>> of statistics. It appears that by randomness you mean the cause is not
>> known?
>
>B
>Yes the cause is not known, in the since that it "just" happens. It might be
>possible that the cause will be known on a later date.
>Oh, and indeed, predicting the outcome of randomness is indeed statistics,
>which is also a science, which means that coincidence isnt really coincidence
>anymore.
JP
I would call statistics the most abstract form of mathematics. This, I
think, is because it does not claim to discover causes. It relies on
correlation and confidence factors to form predictions.
Bruno Van de Casteele
alt.religion.christian.catholic the following message:
> JP
> I would call statistics the most abstract form of mathematics. This, I
> think, is because it does not claim to discover causes. It relies on
> correlation and confidence factors to form predictions.
indeed, statistics can be considered a way to 'master' coincidence and
randomness.
--
Bruno Van de Casteele brun...@puam.be
N.P. Puam [ ICQ#: CA957F ]
http://www.puam.be/
"The fool thinks himself to be wise, but the
wise man knows himself to be a fool."
William Shakespeare