In the beginning
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
This 'being in the sky' sort of comment is exactly the Richard Dawkins sort of attitude that shows how 'scientific atheists' look down on those who disagree with them as non-thinking and superstitious.
Its not a 'being in the sky'. Its a spiritual reality that extends beyond the physical/material world/universe. Think of gears: the greater wheel of 'spirit' turns the lesser wheel of 'nature' -- is not turned by it. If I like to consider and to reason that perhaps nature is not all there is, it gives me no less credibility than if I consider/reason that nature IS all there is.
What the 'anthropic principle' says is: Because this universe is so finely-tuned beyond all reasonable odds of chance to support (carbon based) life, there must be countless other universes with different tuning, that could not support life as we know it. Therefore the fact that life exists here, in this universe, is not such a huge coincidence because ... wait for it ... if it hadn't happened this way, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.
How scientific is that? You're talking about enormous, impossible odds, re-multiplied.
Yet, because the existence of a greater 'spiritual reality' is considered to be beyond even the possibility of discussion, the anthropic principle is quoted as the present pinnacle of scientific philosophy.
By the same brilliant minds that would apply Occam's Razor in any other circumstance?
Last edited:
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
Where are you getting this? The principle is a philosophical position based on our current scientific notions, but it's not a scientific theory in any way or form. People will think is is more or less likely than other positions but it's all based on opinion, I mean that the likelihood of this principle can't be statistically determined.
I also want to point out that you're simplifying the principle as it includes many variations of itself including strong and weak ones. There might even be versions that doesn't exclude a divine force, I'm not that informed, you should look it up!
That's what I said, it's a principle and a philosophy?
As the anthropic principle is proposed as the only way, against the possibile odds of chance, of excluding the possibility of divine force, I rather doubt there's a version that includes divine force. So I look forward to checking that out.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
My bad, I must have read it wrong. Don't wake up and type, people!
Devils' Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 393
- Points
- 83
Lux said "Is it any better to believe in multiple universes when there's no evidence then?"
There is evidence for them. That is how the physics is working out. There is no proof of them. Difference. To your point though, no it is not better, or worse, to believe in the multi-verse than there is to believe in a deity. No proof of either. As you say, with no evidence to guide us, we must make up our minds for ourselves.
Which a great many people think as well. In order for there to be a meaning to living, there must be a MEANING to living. A reason to be here that makes being here mean something. A great many, I would go so far as to say most, people are uncomfortable with the concept that the only reason to be here is to procreate so that the species continues on forward. It seems a very cold and sterile (apt word here) kind of reality. It also takes the relevance away from the individual and puts it on the species instead. You yourself are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that you have offspring. (Which makes me completely extraneous, as I have never had children)!
The difference for me is that I can perceive reasons for relevance in the above scenario. Best way I can describe it is that difference between an outer reason for existence (a deity that gives meaning to life) and an inner reason for existence (a personal perception that gives meaning to life).
There is evidence for them. That is how the physics is working out. There is no proof of them. Difference. To your point though, no it is not better, or worse, to believe in the multi-verse than there is to believe in a deity. No proof of either. As you say, with no evidence to guide us, we must make up our minds for ourselves.
Which a great many people think as well. In order for there to be a meaning to living, there must be a MEANING to living. A reason to be here that makes being here mean something. A great many, I would go so far as to say most, people are uncomfortable with the concept that the only reason to be here is to procreate so that the species continues on forward. It seems a very cold and sterile (apt word here) kind of reality. It also takes the relevance away from the individual and puts it on the species instead. You yourself are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that you have offspring. (Which makes me completely extraneous, as I have never had children)!
The difference for me is that I can perceive reasons for relevance in the above scenario. Best way I can describe it is that difference between an outer reason for existence (a deity that gives meaning to life) and an inner reason for existence (a personal perception that gives meaning to life).
Devils' Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 393
- Points
- 83
In point of fact that is completely accurate! If one mixes blue paint and yellow paint, it is not a coincidence that you get green paint. You get green paint because that is what happens when you mix blue and yellow. An oversimplification to be sure. Still the parallel holds.
Devils' Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 393
- Points
- 83
By the by, you seem to have a very big problem with this concept. Could you delve into your unhappiness with this. You may not agree with it, and there is nothing wrong with that. But the sentence itself, especially the underlined, is a simple logical argument. It makes perfect sense to me as an outcome of prior circumstances.
That's a good point to which I don't have a good answer. Except that if I was a militant atheist using the anthropic principle to prop up my argument, that would be fine?
Although what it's really saying is that in an infinity of universes, there is one where a monkey playing with a typewriter has written the complete works of Shakespeare just by chance.
But as a 'theist’ I'm being a bit picky and ridiculous for observing that although the anthropic argument is very clever, the fact it can't be observed or proven (combined with the gargantuan series of coincidences it tries to explain away) makes it far more of a complete logical cop-out than my own 'theist' argument for even the possibility of any discussion about 'spiritual’ forces?
Sorry, that was a very long sentence.
Something like that?
Devils' Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 393
- Points
- 83
Agreed. Though a militant 'anyone' is not going to get much respect from me, nor much of my attention.
I would think that as a 'theist' you are indeed NOT being picky or ridiculous for having serious issues with the anthropic version of reality.
Being a theist, it makes sense to me that you would find a deity based version the more reasonable explanation.As I have stated before, neither seems any more reasonable or unreasonable than the other. I come from a fairly unusual point of view though. I'm not a theist per se because though I do believe in the intrinsic godliness of all reality I do not believe in a God as a separate, distinct entity from the rest of reality.
And I'm not an atheist either because I DO believe in a living spiritual universe. Thus an anthropic creation is a spiritual creation to me.
Any more than 'you' are a separate, distinct entity from your own nerves and tissues, and thoughts and emotions, perhaps?
Who could have a problem with that?
'In a sacred manner I live. To the heavens I gazed. In a sacred manner I live. My horses are many.' (Old Sioux song)
Justin Swanton
Established Member
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 27
- Points
- 18
Wandering into the thread rather late, let me just point to a couple of sites that seem relevant to the subject matter.
First, here is an interesting tract from Catholic answers that quotes early Church Fathers on the literal or non-literal sense of Genesis. Most didn't take the 7 days literally.
Secondly, here are the replies from the Pontifical Biblical Commission on how literally a Catholic needs to take Genesis. They are nuanced. Here is the relevant extract from the replies:
First, here is an interesting tract from Catholic answers that quotes early Church Fathers on the literal or non-literal sense of Genesis. Most didn't take the 7 days literally.
Secondly, here are the replies from the Pontifical Biblical Commission on how literally a Catholic needs to take Genesis. They are nuanced. Here is the relevant extract from the replies:
III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Answer: In the negative.
IV: In the interpretation of those passages in these chapters which the Fathers and Doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful, without prejudice to the judgement of the Church and with attention to the analogy of faith, to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to each one?
Answer: In the affirmative.
V: Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?
Answer: In the negative.
VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense?
Answer: In the affirmative.
VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?
Answer: In the negative.
VIII : In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
Answer: In the affirmative.
Answer: In the negative.
IV: In the interpretation of those passages in these chapters which the Fathers and Doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful, without prejudice to the judgement of the Church and with attention to the analogy of faith, to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to each one?
Answer: In the affirmative.
V: Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?
Answer: In the negative.
VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense?
Answer: In the affirmative.
VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?
Answer: In the negative.
VIII : In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
Answer: In the affirmative.
I won't accept anyone telling me what I'm allowed to believe. Not even if he wears a red cap In Rome.
That's what ISIS do now, and what the Catholic Church (well, the Dominican order) did during the Inquisition.
The lion shall lay down with the lamb and eat grass like an ox. (Isaiah).
It obviously applies to the perfect spiritual, not the imperfect natural 'dimension'. Imo.
There'll never be a perfect world. Nature will never be perfect. Perfection is to be found in Spirit. Not nature?
I understand it's nuanced. And I'm not disputing the actual conclusion of the above post. (@Justin Swanton -- What a great Catholic Forum. Thank you!)
Genesis explains how and why nature devolved from spirit.
Via some sort of intermediate 'astral' dimension.
Imo, that's my reading
That's what ISIS do now, and what the Catholic Church (well, the Dominican order) did during the Inquisition.
The lion shall lay down with the lamb and eat grass like an ox. (Isaiah).
It obviously applies to the perfect spiritual, not the imperfect natural 'dimension'. Imo.
There'll never be a perfect world. Nature will never be perfect. Perfection is to be found in Spirit. Not nature?
I understand it's nuanced. And I'm not disputing the actual conclusion of the above post. (@Justin Swanton -- What a great Catholic Forum. Thank you!)
Genesis explains how and why nature devolved from spirit.
Via some sort of intermediate 'astral' dimension.
Imo, that's my reading
Last edited:
To survive in this imperfect dimension of nature we're forced to have to kill to live. Even if just tiny living organisms in the water we have to drink to stay alive. This is 'original sin'.
So, Genesis explains this, imo?
So, Genesis explains this, imo?
Last edited:
Justin Swanton
Established Member
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 27
- Points
- 18
Well, as a Catholic I personally have no problem with the nature of the Church as the final arbiter on fundamental questions of Faith. The Bible, as Cardinal Newman put it, is no match for the wild living intellect of man. You can make it say pretty much whatever you want it to. It needs someone with the proper authority to decide what the problematic passages mean. The point about Catholicism is that Christ didn't write a book. He founded an organisation which would have the job of transmitting his teachings intact to future generations, and he guaranteed the organisation wouldn't fail in its job. "The gates of hell will never prevail against it." "I am with you all until the end of time." And so on. This is all well-trodden territory.
Re the Inquisition, it did not actually try to force people to become Catholics. Non-catholics in Catholic territories like Spain were never obliged to convert. But the big difference between society then and now - which created the Inquisition - was that society then was not secular. It was understood by Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Protestants, everybody, that the government of a region had to conform to and actively uphold the religion of the majority of that region's population. The idea of a government being indifferent to and above religion was simply incomprehensible.
So when anyone began to teach a new religion in a Catholic region everybody knew what would happen next. Once the preachers had gathered enough converts, they would invariably form an army and go to war to seize political control. Calvin did this in Geneva. Luther encouraged the German princes to do this in Germany. The Albigensians three centuries earlier did this in southern France. And there is nothing quite as savage and brutal as a religious civil war. The 30 Years War in Germany cost half the population their lives.
A modern day equivalent would be Marxist guerrillas. They have an ideology which is specifically tied to political control, and they are willing to take any means necessary, no matter how brutal, to implement their ideology. I don't think you need me to give any examples from the Rhodesian war to know how this panned out.
The Inquisition was set up to prevent this kind of horror from happening. When it was founded, Jews or Muslims were free to continue in their religions without harassment, however they were allowed no politically prominent role in society and they were above all not allowed to make converts from Catholicism. If they stepped past those bounds then they were arrested, but even then surprisingly few were actually executed. Compare the executions of the Spanish Inquisition during its 350 year history with the death toll of ISIS and regimes like the USSR, Germany, Cambodia, Communist China, etc. They run into the tens of millions. The Inquisition? About 4000 in total - roughly 12 a year.
The lion shall lay down with the lamb and eat grass like an ox. (Isaiah).
It obviously applies to the perfect spiritual, not the imperfect natural 'dimension'. Imo.
There'll never be a perfect world. Nature will never be perfect. Perfection is to be found in Spirit. Not nature?
I understand it's nuanced. And I'm not disputing the actual conclusion of the above post. (@Justin Swanton -- What a great Catholic Forum. Thank you!)
Genesis explains how and why nature devolved from spirit.
Via some sort of intermediate 'astral' dimension.
Imo, that's my reading
This introduces the problem of imperfection in the material, created universe. My own take is that God created the universe as imperfect from day one, including all the aberrant behaviour in animals species (Lyall Watson is good on this) that can only be qualified as 'evil'. I have a theory about this, but perhaps it deserves a separate thread.
Last edited:
Devils' Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 393
- Points
- 83
Justin my issue with your post #74 is that it rather states that various portions of the Bible are to be accepted literally, while other sections are to be accepted metaphorically. The latter mostly to do with what science has proven to be impossible in the biblical version. This strikes me as a way to convenient work around how to explain the Bible in modern times.
This comment also give me pause. You accept the Catholic explanation of what is literal and what not because you are Catholic. A Jew or a Muslim, or a Buddhist and so on would accept different versions of reality versus myth depending of their own belief systems. This points out rather dramatically that the ultimate arbiter depends on which religion one accepts as their own. And if we are picking and choosing, then there obviously is no ultimate arbiter.
This comment also give me pause. You accept the Catholic explanation of what is literal and what not because you are Catholic. A Jew or a Muslim, or a Buddhist and so on would accept different versions of reality versus myth depending of their own belief systems. This points out rather dramatically that the ultimate arbiter depends on which religion one accepts as their own. And if we are picking and choosing, then there obviously is no ultimate arbiter.
The Church may state its dogma.
I have the choice whether or not to embrace it.
I can reject, for instance a literal reading of Adam and Eve, if I want to. The 'Church' -- ie: mostly invested-interest professionals -- may state what IT believes -- and I can go with that if it touches truth in me, as do the words of Christ as recorded -- but no CHURCH has THE RIGHT to tell me what I may believe. I will never abrogate this right.
The Church is there to catch and counsel. Not to impose ridiculous blind belief.
Imo
Sorry.
Last edited:
Justin Swanton
Established Member
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 27
- Points
- 18
The point is that there is no conflict between the Bible and scientifically established fact. Since even the early Christian writers were not unanimous in maintaining a literal seven days one can't affirm that that was a Christian teaching overturned by science. A real Adam and Eve, ancestor of all humans, is however a Christian (or at least Catholic) teaching, and I've yet to see anything in science that refutes it.
Well, yes, of course. What is religion? Primarily a source of information about God and God-related realities that can't be deduced by science alone (and if it's not that then it's just a collection of comforting bedtime stories). Anyone discussing a religious subject will necessarily speak from the standpoint of his religion. If he doesn't have a religion then it's difficult to see how he can be anything other than non-committal or sceptical. Take Adam and Eve. Did they really exist? Science has nothing to say on the subject. Answering the question will depend on which religion, if any, one comes from.
Which leads to the next question: "What right does my religion have to act as arbiter? Does it actually have divine backing? If so, can it prove it?" Because, of course, if dozens of different religions have dozens of different answers on fundamental religious questions, then only one is the true arbiter (God can't contradict himself) or none are.
Without an arbiter everyone is free to pretty much make up their own religion without ever having an objective reason to believe it is true.
Last edited: