@Arkturos saidNotgonnasayit.
On my side, I don't mind a little falsity now and then as long as it seems beneficial in context. Too nuanced?
(My late Irish Grandmother would call that "a little white lie." And isn't that essentially what the Scripture-promoters of whatever religions have been involved with?)
Earlier today I upgraded my wardrobe a little with some thinner apparel to go along with t ...[text shortened]... a little snugger than I used to like, but I told myself: "OK, so that's more of a superhero fit." 😉
@Suzianne saidCertainly there were aspects from previous eras that bled into early America. But these things have largely been changed, and now black Americans and Indian Americans experience fantastic wealth beyond what their counterparts enjoy in places like Guatemala and Benin.
Not arguing with you about what is rather obvious.
Besides this:
The "shared American experience" hasn't exactly been this "Shining city on the hill" Reagan talked about.
I would argue it has been a net gain for everyone even though it has taken some time to work out the kinks.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidThe Catholic church's official position is acutally theistic evolution.
As Suzianne said, it trashes science.
We don't have all the answers, but creationism is antithetical to what we do know about our origins and evolution as a species.
@Philokalia saidYes, and I agree.
The Catholic church's official position is acutally theistic evolution.
But the "magic wand" creationism pushed by a lot of churches is anti-science.
@Suzianne saidI think that a lot of it actually employs a lot of philosophical thought, and some of it even causes us to think about science in new ways that can be surprising. I think it does not actively deter people to teach it alongside the official theory with some kind of caveat that it is generally not the consensus of science.
Yes, and I agree.
But the "magic wand" creationism pushed by a lot of churches is anti-science.
If something is true, what does it have to fear of competition?
@Philokalia saidWell, there's quite a difference between The Truth and statements about The Truth. 😉
I think that a lot of it actually employs a lot of philosophical thought, and some of it even causes us to think about science in new ways that can be surprising. I think it does not actively deter people to teach it alongside the official theory with some kind of caveat that it is generally not the consensus of science.
If something is true, what does it have to fear of competition?
@Philokalia saidThe Vatican has grudgingly conceded that the scientific evidence that evolution is really happening is overwhelming. The Vatican claims that God‘s hand is guiding evolution. This overlooks two crucial points. The first point is that the theory of evolution as pure naturalism explains all the phenomena we see without any divine hand guiding it, so the addition of God‘s hand guiding it adds nothing of explanatory power whatever. Secondly, there is no evidence of God‘s hand moving molecules around when chromosomes divide or a new species appears. The burden of proof is on the Vatican to show us a functioning transcendental causality detector. Until then, the addition of God has no explanatory power in the theory of evolution.
The Catholic church's official position is acutally theistic evolution.
@Suzianne saidTrue things do not contradict themselves or each other. Therefore, when we attribute a particular perspective to a topic and claim it is either scientific or religious, we are essentially attempting to define something as true by the category’s definition we choose to apply to it, science or religion, rather than whether it is simply true.
Yes, and I agree.
But the "magic wand" creationism pushed by a lot of churches is anti-science.
If we consider "natural" anything without God, we, by definition, have cast God out. This is not because He should be excluded, but because "natural” is now inherently defined without God; consequently, God cannot enter into the discussion due to the definition, not because He should be excluded. Suppose the topic is creation in contrast to something else. In that case, doing so will prevent anyone from seriously examining the questions being asked, particularly regarding the necessity of God, since the topic began with the answer, which must exclude God, it is circular, not an honest evidential position.
The truth isn’t a matter of category, so there isn’t a Christian truth or a scientific one, as if something can be true in one category but not the other. If we were discussing opinions or matters of faith, yes, because opinions vary, and faith has to do with what we are putting our faith in, the objects of our faith can be true or false. So, faith can vary, making it no different than an opinion.
Our imaginations make these distinctions, not reality. What is true will be true if we find it in our faith in science or religious faith. The truth is not divided up, so it can only be seen in one worldview, not another. If an object is true, everything, regardless of how we found it, will confirm it in reality; the truth of it will only change as the object does.
@moonbus saidI've said many times that there can be no proof of God.
The Vatican has grudgingly conceded that the scientific evidence that evolution is really happening is overwhelming. The Vatican claims that God‘s hand is guiding evolution. This overlooks two crucial points. The first point is that the theory of evolution as pure naturalism explains all the phenomena we see without any divine hand guiding it, so the addition of God‘s hand gu ...[text shortened]... ality detector. Until then, the addition of God has no explanatory power in the theory of evolution.
Therefore, everything I think about God is without evidence.
That is why it is called faith.
However, I'm not about to fully denounce evolution. We have some proof of that, at least. I believe in the hand of God doing a bit of tweaking here and there, at critical points in evolution, to keep the train moving towards humans. No, I can't prove it, and I cannot prove that God exists, either.
I find that theistic evolution is the closest to how I think it is.
@Philokalia saidYeah, and even Plato in "The Republic" said it was okay for the controllers of society to tell beneficial or medicinal lies for the good of society, but no-one else should be allowed to do that.
Then we disagree in how we define religion. Which is fine.
2 edits
@Suzianne saidMaybe similarly, I think concepts such as God the Gardener or The Patient God of Slow-cooking might be a way to reconcile our local concepts regarding The Creator (if any) and how things might have happened and developed over time in light of our scientific considerations.
I've said many times that there can be no proof of God.
Therefore, everything I think about God is without evidence.
That is why it is called faith.
However, I'm not about to fully denounce evolution. We have some proof of that, at least. I believe in the hand of God doing a bit of tweaking here and there, at critical points in evolution, to keep the train moving ...[text shortened]... rove that God exists, either.
I find that theistic evolution is the closest to how I think it is.
BTW, am I the only one to think it's quite a leap of faith or imagination to assert that the laws of physics must be constant throughout our vasty Cosmos?
@Arkturos saidYes. You'd probably have to get somewhere like a different universe or dimension to change the laws of physics, and even then it's not certain.
Maybe similarly, I think concepts such as God the Gardener or The Patient God of Slow-cooking might be a way to reconcile our local concepts regarding The Creator (if any) and how things might have happened and developed over time in light of scientific considerations.
BTW, am I the only one to think it's quite a leap of faith or imagination to assert that the laws of physics must be constant throughout our vasty Cosmos?