Questions about simultaneous believers in evolution and punishment/reward-based afterlife

[Arugula Latte]

It seems there must be many people who accept that humans evolved from various forms of primates but yet also believe that there is a Heaven and Hell (and perhaps Purgatory). I imagine a lot of Catholics would fit this description. So, how far back do they imagine the Heaven/Hell system goes? Are only members of homo sapiens eligible, or would they take Neanderthals or even prior primates? Or, does the whole thing only kick in only after Jesus's birth, approximately 198,000 years after modern humans appeared? Also, at what point did modern humans become eligible for Heaven or Hell? Was there some primitive human who bashed in his neighbor's skull with a rock but was not cast into Hell because his brain wasn't sufficiently developed to know right from wrong, but then perhaps his nephew with the slightly more advanced bigger brain WAS accountable for his actions and pissed off Yahweh enough to throw him on the burning lake for all eternity?

I'm just curious as to how this is all explained.

[ZombieHorde]

1. Interesting question. nt

[SheilaT]

2. Because there is no real conflict between science and faith.

That's a myth put out there by the religious extremists.

Keep in mind that science and evolution describes as best as is known, how the universe and then life evolved after the Big Bang. It makes absolutely no statement about how the Big Bang came about, or what might have caused it. Basically, science is completely agnostic about the possibility of a higher power, god, supreme deity, flying spaghetti monster, or whatever that could possibly be in charge. From the perspective of science something could be in charge, or something might be in charge, or that might be nothing at all in charge. It doesn't know and doesn't worry about that.

For the believers, science very well explains all sorts of things. But for them, there's some other stuff going on, including the continuation of our consciousness after the body dies. This is NOT the same thing as "the God of the Periphery", the invoking of God to explain whatever we currently don't fully understand and explain out there in the real world. It's a system that stands, I'm going to say outside but that might be the wrong word, of science. It doesn't contradict any of science whatsoever, just allows for something else out there.

[cbayer]

3. What a great analysis.

Continuing to perpetuate the divisive concept that science and religion are in conflict, and that one can embrace one but not the other, does not make sense and does not lead to sincere questions of people of faith.

[Arugula Latte]

7. That's fine but I was just wondering about a specific context

because a lot of people do believe in the traditional conception of Heaven and Hell, and I'm trying to understand how they can incorporate that into a belief in evolution, if, as you say, there is no conflict.

Or is it more of a "don't think too much about it -- just have Faith" type of thing?

[SheilaT]

54. You'll have to hope that someone who

believes in a traditional heaven and hell responds.

[skepticscott]

32. That would only be the case if "faith"

makes absolutely no truth claims about factual matters in the physical world which conflict with evidence and scientific understanding. I suspect you know perfectly well that's not the case. As do the folks calling this a "great analysis". Simply consigning anything stemming from "faith" that conflicts with science to some "supernatural" realm that renders it immune to critical examination is no answer at all, just the typical special pleading that religion always demands in order to keep from being laughed at.

[SheilaT]

55. I am aware of that.

However, I'm not addressing the claims that too many religions make. I'm addressing those who understand science and still believe in things that are considered irrational.

For me, there is no conflict. I also feel absolutely no need to explain my beliefs or to convince others to believe as I do.

[skepticscott]

70. So all you really seem to be saying after all

is that there is no conflict between science and YOUR faith (or that even if there is, you're just going to ignore it) which is a rather different thing than the blanket statement you made originally. You do seem to recognize that there are conflicts between science and the claims and beliefs of many religions.

Not much of an analysis after all.

[SheilaT]

80. Clearly for you there is a huge conflict.

Fine. The question posed in the OP was directed at those who were comfortable with both.

[skepticscott]

101. Did I say "huge conflict" anywhere?

Of course not. And I wasn't responding to the OP, I was responding to your (patently false) claim that there is NO real conflict. A claim you now seem to be backpedaling from.

[edhopper]

98. You are wrong about this

there are many physicist who do delve into the origins of the Big Band. And not a one of them give any credence to some intelligent entity being the "first cause" ( a troublesome concept to begin with).

When you say science is agnostic, well yes, it completely ignores any higher power because such a concept has no validity within any working framework, based on all evidence available. And all evidence points to there NOT being such an entity.
So no, from the perspective of science, given all we know about the cosmos, there is nothing to give weight to any consideration that something is in charge. A God that has impact on the Universe does contradict science. It is outside of science the way any fictional account is outside science.
If you want to argue that God created the Universe and then disappeared, fine, though you have zero evidence to support it and a host of further questions if you claim it is true.

The OP's question is quite a bit more problematic for anyone who believes in God.
Why he waited 14 billion years to create a sentient species is just one.

[cbayer]

99. All evidence points to their not being a god?

Like what evidence?

And let's say there is a god. How can you conclude that he/she/it waited 14 billion years to create a sentient species? Do you have the firm knowledge that there is no other life? Do you imagine that humans are at the very top of the evolutionary chain?

[edhopper]

103. The Universe functions quite well

without interjecting God.
And there is ample evidence that supernatural phenomena does not exist.
The fact that there is zero evidence for the existence of God, and God runs counter to everything we do know about the Cosmos, is all current evidence.

Yes I am am open minded, no I am not credulous to baseless claims.

There is no "top" in evolution.

[cbayer]

104. The fact that it functions quite well,

or at least we think it does, without a god provides zero "evidence" that there is not a god, which is what you claimed to have had.

There is ample evidence that supernatural phenomena do not exist? All supernatural phenomena? Are you sure? Are you positive that there are not phenomenon in this or other universes that far exceed our ability to comprehend them? Or that don't fit our current, and probably very primitive, notions of science?

I agree that there is zero evidence of a god. There is also zero evidence of there not being a god. So, if some (actually the vast majority) of people believe that there is and they aren't infringing on anyone else's rights of beliefs, why would any one else give a damn?

Just to be right?

Your baseless claims is another's truth. Who are you to say otherwise?

There is no "top" in evolution. Exactly. That's why it seems ludicrous to me to firmly claim that there is not be something much more highly evolved than us. Whether that's a god or not, I have no freaking idea.

Nor do I particularly care.

[trotsky]

105. Yeah, there's ample evidence.

There is not a single phenomenon for which we had postulated a natural explanation but for which we now have a supernatural one that fits the evidence better.

Not. A. Single. One. Can you prove me wrong? Can you find just one example?

Instead, we have thousands upon thousands of examples of the reverse. That's a preponderance of evidence. An avalanche, even.

The reason why people will continue to argue against religious belief, despite your best efforts to shame and silence them from doing so, is that falling back to supernatural explanations, believing in things despite the lack of any physical or rational evidence, is what has led humans to some of their worst abuses, both against nature and against each other.

All people should be free to say, "I think you are WRONG" to someone else. No one should be given a pass for a bad idea simply because they say "But it's part of my religious beliefs!" Even if the belief doesn't appear to directly harm anyone, it gives support to the concept that religious beliefs are special. They don't need to be supported. They don't need evidence or proof or even reasoning to back them up.

I will fight you every step of the way cbayer, when you empower the religious right and their theocratic agenda by attacking even reasonable criticism of irrational, unsupported beliefs.

[rug]

113. "I will fight you every step of the way"

Oh, the melodrama.

[dimbear]

106. It is simply not true that the vast majority believe there is a god.

Not true. Just in atheist China alone we have something like 15% of the whole human race not believing. Now add in mostly atheist Buddhists and western seculars........non-belief adds up fast.

[cbayer]

107. Most of the data I have seen say that somewhere around 80 - 85% of the world's population

consider themselves theists of some kind and that's conservative. Other studies put it much higher.

We can squabble about whether that's a "vast majority" or not, but it's a pretty significant number. Even if it's off by 10%, it's still a lot.

Who am I to argue with them. They believe. Others don't.

I honestly don't care. I just don't think you can dismiss that many people with a wave of your "rational" hand. They may be right or they may be wrong. I don't think I will ever know.

If you have data that is different that what I have seen, please feel free to share it.

BTW, the latest data I could find for "atheist China" is that about 42% consider themselves atheist or agnostic. So to use the whole population to make your case would be erroneous.

[trotsky]

108. What you actually said, cbayer, was this:

"if some (actually the vast majority) of people believe that there is and they aren't infringing on anyone else's rights of beliefs"

Do a majority of people believe AND don't infringe on anyone else's rights or beliefs? Really?

I think you need to prove your claim. Please cite some statistics backing it up. If you refuse, I think any reasonable person will have to conclude it was pulled out of the air because you're growing increasingly desperate to attack and silence those you do not wish to participate in any discussions here.

[edhopper]

109. at one time

The vast majority of people believed that the sun went around the earth.
Who are we to say they were wrong.

[trotsky]

110. Silly ed.

Didn't you get the memo that argumentum ad populum is a valid form of reasoning now?

[cbayer]

111. At the time, you couldn't have said they were wrong because you had no

basis to say so.

But you can now.

When you have the evidence to refute their claim, you will be in an entirely different position.

[trotsky]

112. If I'm wrong, and god exists, may god strike me down.

Still waiting.

[edhopper]

136. But they were wrong.

So you admit that the majority of people, when they have nothing to go on but their on experience can be completely and utterly wrong about something.

Without a single example that shows that a God or entity has had any effect on the physical Universe, we are left with people believing something with nothing to verify it. They believe because they believe.

[cbayer]

137. As it turned out, they were wrong.

But without any evidence to the contrary, no one could have reasonably challenged their concept.

Of course the majority of people can be completely and utterly wrong about something. I would wager that there are things we believe now, that will eventually be show to be wrong. Things about the cosmos, for instance.

So what? If you don't believe in god, why do you give a crap is someone else does? Why would you be so intent on proving them wrong (and you right) when you have zero ability to actually do that?

What a hollow achievement that would be. You are absolutely correct. People believe because they believe.

[trotsky]

140. Because people right now are making policy decisions based on their belief in gods, cbayer.

Policy decisions that affect all of us - and I really don't think it needs to be pointed out to you that not all of those decisions end up being ones that we on the left agree with.

But by legitimizing god belief as "just another way of knowing" and excluding it from analysis and doubt, as you frequently do, you empower ALL those using it as their justification - not just the friendly liberals.

BTW - I can tell you still haven't bothered to read this Asimov piece - The Relativity of Wrong. Asimov was in no way one of the "New Atheist" dinosaurs you wish would go extinct - so please, consider reading that essay. It may help prevent you from making some of the reasoning errors you just did.

[AlbertCat]

151. So what? If you don't believe in god, why do you give a crap is someone else does?

Please stop with the naive notion that this is how humans and their societies work.

We give a crap because religions are attacking science in schools and effecting legislation as well as a lot of other stuff that directly contradicts your "We leave each other alone" baloney.

Why do Christians care if there's a 20 ft cross in a national park or the "Ten Commandments" on a courthouse lawn? Those places aren't churches. Who cares if religious symbols are there or not?

But they do, Blanche, they do!

[cbayer]

152. First of all, it's if not is.

Actually, that is all.

[AlbertCat]

154. Actually, that is all.

Aaaaaaaaaand.... the inevitable retreat! Happens every time.

I wondered how long that would take.


BTW.... I cut and pasted the subject line from your post.... You misused "it" and "if"

[cbayer]

157. People inevitably retreat from you? Now that's a shock.

You have a nice life.

[AlbertCat]

171. People inevitably retreat from you? Now that's a shock.

No dear, YOU retreat whenever your dreck gets debunked.... what a shock! This is like the 20th time I've seen you do it.

And I do have a nice life....thank you very much.

[Fumesucker]

155. Eratosthenes measured the diameter of the Earth to within a few percent 200 years before Christ

So yeah, the poster could have said the flat Earthers were wrong for about two thousand years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

[cbayer]

156. Were he Eratosthenes, which he most assuredly is not.

Has anyone done anything similar to challenge people's belief in a god or gods?

I don't think so.

[Fumesucker]

159. You aren't Eratosthenes either

So I assume you performed the experiment yourself to show that the world isn't flat?

The world certainly looks flat, unless one performs the experiment themselves then surely one must believe the evidence of one's own senses?

Anything else would be illogical.

[cbayer]

160. Not sure where you are going with this.

I live on the water and the earth doesn't look flat at all.

But I do have the advantage of 20-20 hindsight.

Your senses may give you a distinctly different experience than mine or anyone else's.

Unless or until there is some evidence that either makes it more or less likely that there is a god or gods, I will leave that belief to each individual.

[AlbertCat]

173. until there is some evidence that either makes it more or less likely that there is a god or gods

There is....because science shows the supernatural to be utterly superfluous. The god hypothesis is an utter failure. It can't even make it to the Theory phase.

[AlbertCat]

172. Has anyone done anything similar to challenge people's belief in a god or gods?

Epicurius?

Lucretius?


Long before Christians sent us into the Dark Ages.

[Jim__]

158. According to Stephen Hawking, you have no justification to say they were wrong.

An excerpt from The Grand Design:

A famous example of different pictures of reality is the model introduced around A.D. 150 by Ptolemy (ca. 85–ca. 165) to describe the motion of the celestial bodies. Ptolemy published his work in a treatise explaining reasons for thinking that the earth is spherical, motionless, positioned at the center of the universe, and negligibly small in comparison to the distance of the heavens.

This model seemed natural because we don't feel the earth under our feet moving (except in earthquakes or moments of passion). Ptolemy's model of the cosmos was adopted by the Catholic Church and held as official doctrine for fourteen hundred years. It was not until 1543 that an alternative model was put forward by Copernicus. So which is real? Although it is not uncommon for people to say Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe. The real advantage of the Copernican system is that the mathematics is much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.

These examples bring us to a conclusion: There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we adopt a view that we call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. This provides a framework with which to interpret modern science.

Though realism may be a tempting viewpoint, what we know about modern physics makes it a difficult one to defend. For example, according to the principles of quantum physics, which is an accurate description of nature, a particle has neither a definite position nor a definite velocity unless and until those quantities are measured by an observer. In fact, in some cases individual objects don't even have an independent existence but rather exist only as part of an ensemble of many.

Of course, Hawking could be wrong. But, given his record, he gets the benefit of the doubt. Before believing that he is wrong, I'd like to hear a serious argument rebutting what he says.

[edhopper]

161. His point is that until we had observations that disrupted Ptolomey

he could not be proved wrong and supplanted by the Copernican model. But if you want to think that at one time, the sun circled the earth and the stars were attached to celestial spheres, which then transmuted into the Universe we know today, in some Sheldrakian cosmic shift, more power to you.

[Jim__]

162. No, that is not his point.

... Although it is not uncommon for people to say Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe. The real advantage of the Copernican system is that the mathematics is much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.

... There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we adopt a view that we call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. This provides a framework with which to interpret modern science.

His point, explicitly stated, is that we cannot know reality. The best we can do is create a model that can make accurate predictions.

Note Hawking's use of verb tense. Proved is past tense. Can and is are present tense. Of course, you can try arguing that neither Hawking nor his editors have mastered elementary grammar. But even that leaves the fact that his point is that there is no theory-independent concept of reality.

His point is that until we had observations that disrupted Ptolomey <sic> he could not be proved wrong and supplanted by the Copernican model. But if you want to think that at one time, the sun circled the earth and the stars were attached to celestial spheres, which then transmuted into the Universe we know today, in some Sheldrakian cosmic shift, more power to you.

All your post demonstrates is that you don't follow Hawkings argument.

[edhopper]

163. Your saying my view of the model of his statement is wrong?

Doesn't that contradict what you are interpreting him as saying?

Actually I think he is explaining why physicists use a mathematical model to understand the Universe, rather than a picture. And that we do not have anywhere near a complete understanding.

But if you want to believe that somehow the Ptolemian model of the solar system actually existed at some point. Rather than the notion that it fit within man's working understanding at the time, fine. You can join the Hollow Earth folks as well as the Velikovskians and Von Danikens and have a "anything can be real" party.

Do you think if you asked Hawkins; "So 1000 years ago, the Earth stood still while the sun circled it?" He would answer that it did?
Would he also agree that until recently the Earth was only 6000 years old and animals did not evolve? I doubt it.

[Jim__]

165. I didn't say anything about "the model of his statement" never mind your view of it.

But if you want to believe that somehow the Ptolemian model of the solar system actually existed at some point. Rather than the notion that it fit within man's working understanding at the time, fine. You can join the Hollow Earth folks as well as the Velikovskians and Von Danikens and have a "anything can be real" party.

Do you think if you asked Hawkins; "So 1000 years ago, the Earth stood still while the sun circled it?" He would answer that it did?
Would he also agree that until recently the Earth was only 6000 years old and animals did not evolve? I doubt it.

I hate to be obvious, but the Ptolemaic model of the solar system did exist. People used that model for about 1400 years.

The remainder of your post makes even less sense. I haven't said anything about Hollow Earth folks, Velikovskians or Von Danikens. But I can understand why you'd want raise these distractions. You certainly haven't made any substantive arguments.

What I said in my post #158 was:

Of course, Hawking could be wrong. But, given his record, he gets the benefit of the doubt. Before believing that he is wrong, I'd like to hear a serious argument rebutting what he says.

I haven't seen anything like a serious argument from you, either attempting to rebut what Hawking said or to raise any case that I'm misinterpreting him.

I have also not made any attempt to state what Hawking might say if asked a particular question. What I have done is provided a direct quote and link to statements that are contained in Hawking's book. For the sake of simplicity, the gist of Hawking's statement is:

... one can use either picture as a model of the universe. The real advantage of the Copernican system is that the mathematics is much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.

I've already gone over the fact that when Hawking was talking about the past, he used the past tense - e.g. proved. In the quote, he is using present tense. We both know that either - in the above citation - refers to the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems.

Are you claiming that Hawking is wrong? Can you make an argument showing how he is wrong?

[edhopper]

166. The Ptolomaic model existed. yes

but the solar system it described, with the Earth at the center, did not. Or do you believe that the solar system actually was like that before we adopted the Copernican model?

I think I was pretty clear on what I think Hawkins is saying about the use of mathematical models.

Obviously you disagree.

I don't believe for one second that Hawkins thinks the Universe changes as we change our models. What do you think he is saying?

I think he would agree that it has functioned under the same basic laws since the Big Bang.

He is talking about models we use, not the actual universe.

[Jim__]

168. "He is talking about models we use, not the actual universe."

Once again:

These examples bring us to a conclusion: There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality.

We can only talk about the universe in terms of the models we use.

And, according to Hawking:

... one can use either <the Ptolemaic or Copernican> picture as a model of the universe.

Both the Ptolemaic and Copernican models are valid.

You seem to think that you can talk about the actual universe outside the confines of a model. But, according to Hawking, There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. You can't talk about the actual universe outside the confines of a model.

[edhopper]

170. If he is saying this, as you say

(and I of course, don't agree with your interpretation) then he is wrong. But I think he is just using this to illustrate the current views of sub atomic physics, which obviously is not fully understood and can only be approached by models.

Did objects fall at different speeds while we used the Aristotelian model of gravity and then suddenly fall at the same rate after Galileo?
Did the sun suddenly stop and the Earth begin to orbit it after Copernicus.
Or do you disregard the notion that a reality actually exists.
I think an actual physical Universe does exist and it is immaterial how we conceive it. The Earth has orbited the Sun for 5 billion years as the Sun circles the Milky Way. Greeks thinking it didn't happen that way is inconsequential to the fact of it.

What is it you are actually saying about the Universe.

[Jim__]

176. *If* he is saying this?

He is saying this:

This model seemed natural because we don't feel the earth under our feet moving (except in earthquakes or moments of passion). Ptolemy's model of the cosmos was adopted by the Catholic Church and held as official doctrine for fourteen hundred years. It was not until 1543 that an alternative model was put forward by Copernicus. So which is real? Although it is not uncommon for people to say Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe. The real advantage of the Copernican system is that the mathematics is much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.

These examples bring us to a conclusion: There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we adopt a view that we call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. This provides a framework with which to interpret modern science.

My interpretation is wrong? I've presented the basis for my understanding of what he said. If he is not claiming that either the Ptolemaic or Copernican system can be used as a model, then he is getting elementary grammar wrong. For any number of reasons, not the least of which is the remainder of that excerpt, I doubt this is the result of a grammatical error. You have not made any argument to establish a different interpretation of what he is saying.

But I think he is just using this to illustrate the current views of sub atomic physics, which obviously is not fully understood and can only be approached by models.

Really? He's misrepresenting the potential use of the Ptolemaic System to teach us about subatomic physics?

Have you actually read the full excerpt? Notice how he describes a good model:

A model is a good model if it:
1. Is elegant
2. Contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements
3. Agrees with and explains all existing observations
4. Makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.

Notice what is not a criteria: the model matches the actual universe. Can you guess why?

As to your questions:

Did objects fall at different speeds while we used the Aristotelian model of gravity and then suddenly fall at the same rate after Galileo?
Did the sun suddenly stop and the Earth begin to orbit it after Copernicus.
Or do you disregard the notion that a reality actually exists.
I think an actual physical Universe does exist and it is immaterial how we conceive it. The Earth has orbited the Sun for 5 billion years as the Sun circles the Milky Way. Greeks thinking it didn't happen that way is inconsequential to the fact of it.

They show that you do not understand what Hawking is saying. Neither he nor I believe the universe is in any way dependent upon the model we use to describe it. Our changing models reflect a change in our understanding of the universe, they have no effect on the underlying reality. Scientific theories are known to be underdetermined. Multiple, seemingly contradictory, models can explain the set of observations.

[edhopper]

177. So what you are saying simply is

that my saying the Ptolemaic model is wrong is incorrect because it served the people who used it for their observations.

Rather than it was an obviously incorrect model of the actual Universe.

But does that negate my original point, that what a majority of people believe does not add any veracity to the reality of that belief.

We can go on and debate what the definition of "wrong" is, but that seems superfluous to issue at hand in this thread.

[Jim__]

178. No. That's not what I'm saying, and that's not what Hawking is saying.

Yet again:

This model seemed natural because we don't feel the earth under our feet moving (except in earthquakes or moments of passion). Ptolemy's model of the cosmos was adopted by the Catholic Church and held as official doctrine for fourteen hundred years. It was not until 1543 that an alternative model was put forward by Copernicus. So which is real? Although it is not uncommon for people to say Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe. The real advantage of the Copernican system is that the mathematics is much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.

These examples bring us to a conclusion: There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we adopt a view that we call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. This provides a framework with which to interpret modern science.

And again:

A model is a good model if it:
1. Is elegant
2. Contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements
3. Agrees with and explains all existing observations
4. Makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out.

The Ptolemaic model is a valid model because it meets all of the criteria; and specifically, it meets the criteria 3 and 4. Now, we can make better predictions today because we've worked on our current model for the last 400 years. If the Ptolemaic model had been worked on for the last 400 years, it would also be making better predictions than the old model.

Again, from Hawking:

The real advantage of the Copernican system is that the mathematics is much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.

There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Our only understanding of the universe is through a model. If 2 models match criteria 3 and 4 equally, they are equally valid. I'm accepting Hawking's word that: the real advantage of the Copernican system is that the mathematics is much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest. That implies that criteria 3 and 4 are equally met.

[edhopper]

179. Okay

so either it makes no difference to you if the Sun goes around the Earth or visa versa, as long as whatever you are measuring at the time is accurate. Or you don't think there is an actual knowable Universe with a true physical make up.

If all you want to do is argue the philosophy of scientific theory, with no bearing on the reality it might describe, I find that worthless within the context of this thread.

[Jim__]

180. It's not my claim, it's Hawking's claim.

Last edited Mon Jul 29, 2013, 05:34 AM - Edit history (1)

And, no, you still don't get what he's saying. As to its worth within the context of this thread, it is evidence, from one of the world's leading experts on the topic, that your certainty that other people were wrong is misplaced.

[edhopper]

181. I simply don't agree with your interpretation of what Hawking is saying

I also look at the religious component to the lasting belief in the Ptolemaic view, which has nothing to do with scientific models.

Those who followed the Aristotelian model of falling objects were wrong as well. Those who didn't know about evolution and thought God created all creatures in full were wrong. Those who thought medicine was about the four humors were wrong. Those who thought matter was made of the four elements were wrong. Those who thought that matter could not be created or destroyed were wrong. No matter how well the model worked for their limited understanding at the time.

Just because a model of something fits within a belief system doesn't make it true.

So yes they were wrong, wrong then, wrong know.

If Hawking is saying that, he is wrong as well, I just don't think that is what he is saying. You could be wrong about how you read it. (or are you the only one who can't be wrong)

And to the context of this thread, let me accept your point, nobody can ever be called wrong (you really want to go with that?) Maybe not, but a more accurate better model can overtake the previous one when the evidence and facts no longer make it tenable. Well it seems to me the old model of a Universe created by a god and having a supernatural component no longer fits the observable nature of the Universe. It is a model that no longer works with what we know. They might not have been wrong 500 years ago, but today, their model is dysfunctional.

[Jim__]

182. Yes, what Hawking is saying conflicts with your beliefs.

You say you don't accept my interpretation. I provided a detailed description of my reading of Hawkings statement, including the grammatical evidence of his meaning. Hawking provided his arguments for the claim that he makes. You provided no rational explanation of why you reject what Hawking says. The simplest explanation is that Hawking's statement conflicts with your beliefs, therefore you reject his claim.

And to the context of this thread, let me accept your point, nobody can ever be called wrong (you really want to go with that?) Maybe not, but a more accurate better model can overtake the previous one when the evidence and facts no longer make it tenable. Well it seems to me the old model of a Universe created by a god and having a supernatural component no longer fits the observable nature of the Universe. It is a model that no longer works with what we know. They might not have been wrong 500 years ago, but today, their model is dysfunctional.

The only person who is claiming nobody can ever be called wrong is you. The fact that some things have been wrong in the past does not imply that all things in the past were wrong. So, your argument in paragraph 2 of post 181 doesn't have any relevance to this discussion.

I don't know whose belief system you are referring to in your post. Neither Hawking nor I believe in a god created universe. So, talking about god-created universes does nothing to address the claim that Hawking has made. Your argument seems limited to refuting creationist beliefs. I haven't seen anyone in DU making any creationist claims. To refute a rational argument, you need a rational counter-argument. You haven't even made an attempt at raising a rational refutation of Hawking's statement.

[edhopper]

186. I am expanding the claims to different models

are you now saying that there are people who have been wrong and only the specific models mentioned by you and Hawking get the exemption of wrongness.

Because this started with me claiming that just because a number of people believe in a particular God, it doesn't mean they aren't wrong.

[AlbertCat]

150. that there is not be something much more highly evolved

That's not the definition of a god...or the supernatural.

You don't get to make up definitions.

[Lordquinton]

135. This was probably mentioned

But when it comes to science, you're asking that question wrong. It's not "Link to proof that there isn't a god" it's "Where's your proof there is so I can repeat the tests and confirm it" which has never been done. You can speculate all you want, but until there is verifiable proof, it's all pondering, and nothing Science needs to worry about.

[cbayer]

138. I understand that.

I don't think theological questions can be answered using scientific methods. Two different things entirely.

So lack of proof is equivalent to lack of disproof in this case. No one is reasonably able to take a hard stand on either side of the question and be right.

Some people believe. Some people don't. Some don't care.

There is, indeed, nothing science needs to worry about.

[AlbertCat]

153. So what? If you don't believe in god, why do you give a crap is someone else does?

Except, when something that is supposedly essential for this universe is shown to be superfluous, completely unneeded and with absolutely zero proof of even the smallest kind, the odds are on it not being there.

We cannot see or feel or even find much of an interaction with Dark Matter and have no idea what it even is. BUT we know it's there because of its effects (gravitational) on huge objects in the universe. We don't even get that for gods. Besides, it's easy to see how notions of god evolve and gods can be better explained by human behavior and mind processes than by physics (except the physics of those brain processes) IOW, there are more compelling notions about god being made up than real.

[AlbertCat]

149. All evidence points to their not being a god?

To begin with, it's "there" not "their"

And as far as science is concerned, gods are superfluous. All supernatural elements are superfluous. The Universe looks and acts just as it would if there were no gods. The "god hypothesis" is a failure and doesn't even make it to the "theory" phase, but just dies as a guess.

[cbayer]

4. Question about posts like this that feign sincerity and curiosity.

What do you hope to get from this?

[Arugula Latte]

6. I honestly am wondering how it has traditionally been explained.

I'm gathering that it just isn't explained (?).

[cbayer]

8. Sorry, not buying it.

You have revealed too much about yourself and how you feel about religion and religious people to claim that you are genuinely curious.

There is a great answer from SheilaT in this thread. I doubt that it will sate your "curiosity" because I don't think it is at all what you were looking for, but it's a great answer nonetheless.

Have fun! I am sure that this thread will exceed all expectations.

[okasha]

9. "Please help me understand"

and "I honestly want to know/understand" are dead giveaways.

[cbayer]

11. "I am so confused by this" and "i guess there is no answer"

Mocking is such a puerile area of entertainment.

[defacto7]

63. You are the one mocking,

and you are playing mind reader and judge as well. Your shit's still hitting the fan cbayer. You seem to conclude from imagination what people are thinking and their intention whenever you don't get what you want, then you mock. Projection much.

[cbayer]

86. Who are you? Haven't seen you around much before.

Mind reader? Hardly.

If a member has repeatedly and consistently shown themselves to be hostile to a certain group, whether they be women, GLBT people, people of color, religionists, etc, etc,. it doesn't take a mind reader to predict how they will behave in the future.

My shit's still hitting the fan? What shit? What fan? You seem to be referring to something from the past, but I don't recall having interacted with you. Are you part of the group that thinks I am a homophobe? Or are you part of the group that thinks I'm an anti-atheist? Or have you merely aligned yourself with the group that just has personal animosity towards me?

Feel free not to answer any of that.

Nothing that you describe is projection, by the way.

[goldent]

62. The "hey everybody, look what I've done" thread in the Atheist safe haven is revealing as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123016564

I mean, come on, does it have to be this transparent?

[defacto7]

64. Your response is about as childish as it can get.

It this all the religion group has to offer? Mocking, childish tantrums? Tattle tattle? Mind reading? The religion group has digressed to no end with remarks like these.

[goldent]

79. I'm with you on this!

Except I don't think it has digressed -- I imagine it pretty much has always been this way. That is probably much of its appeal.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. I don't think SheilaT's post answers the question in the OP at all

It basically says "I don't think or care about that question".

To try and answer the OP, from what I've seen: Catholic doctrine says that God , at some point in the evolutionary history of humans, gave a group of them a soul, and it would be from that point that the destination of the soul in heaven, or anywhere else, would be considered (just as an embryo has to get a soul - after the point at which identical siblings can form from a dividing egg, I presume). I don't think they have committed themselves to a particular point in history, so you couldn't say whether Neanderthals were included (if you asked them now, I'd guess they say they were, since DNA evidence is showing some Neanderthal in most of us, and I doubt they'd like to contemplate humans mating with soulless beings).

[cbayer]

12. I can't speak for her, but what I read is that she finds the question

completely inane.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. So you think "your question is completely inane" is a "great answer"?

And, even more, "a great analysis"? Have you ever been a teacher? I hope not.

Let's get official about this - the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

359 "In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear."224

St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . The first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. The first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life. . . The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: "I am the first and the last."225

360 Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for "from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth":226
...
366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235
...
374 The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ.

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice".250 This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life".251

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm

[cbayer]

14. No, I think her explanation for why it is inane is a good answer.

You hope I've never been a teacher? Ad homs already?

That's so not you.

I don't disagree that the catholic church may have an answer for this question. They have lots of answers for questions that I don't find very credible. They use concepts that many other kinds of christians don't use.

I do, however, agree with Sheila that religion and science are different animals that do not need to be reconciled.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. It's your dismissive attitude to a question - that to not answer it is 'great'

which really comes across as un-teacherly. No, it's not an 'ad hom'; it's a criticism of your attitude that you show in this thread.

The OP is not about whether religion and science need to be reconciled; it's about at what point in evolution does heaven - or any afterlife - enter into things. It's a serious question, which the Vatican has thought and taught about; and I'd say anyone who takes their Christianity seriously has to address it too. Do all animals have immortal souls? If not, then at some stage they must have started (and, if they do, then what make humans especially 'in the image' of God?)

[cbayer]

18. Acknowledging that a question is inane and explaining why is not dismissive.

Did you think I was trying to be "teacherly"? Not everyone feels the need to take that approach, muriel. Saying you hope I am not a teacher is not a criticism of my attitude, it's an attack on my personal communication style.

Her answer resonated with me and I gave her some support and feedback for it. That's my opinion and I'm permitted to express it.

The OP is flame bait. The question is insincere. No one has to take it seriously.

But perhaps the vatican's explanation will satisfy that sincere curiosity expressed in the OP. Asked and answered, then.

[Arugula Latte]

15. I'll give you an example.

People who believe in the Big Bang and are also religious can reconcile it by saying "God started/created/caused/whatever the Big Bang."

For some reason I started thinking about this issue and I realized I'd never heard much explanation in the way you hear other scientific topics explained/reconciled with traditional religion.

But, it seems that just asking questions gets some people upset.

[cbayer]

17. Uh, huh.

No. Just asking questions do not get some people upset. Asking questions with an ulterior motive gets some people upset, particularly if it is an opportunity to call people's beliefs fucking stupid.

Your views on religion and the religious are crystal clear. I do not believe you are curious at all. I think you hope for an opportunity to belittle and ridicule, and you may well get it, but I'm still going to call you on it.

Why in the world anyone would bother to give an honest answer to someone who clearly finds their beliefs a great source of material to mock baffles me, but it might happen.

[Arugula Latte]

20. Is this not a forum for discussion about religious topics?

Seems to me if you had an answer you would give it. I think they are perfectly legitimate questions. I was interested to see if anyone had a response or had thought about this issue, as I've never read much or perhaps anything about it.

I guess I popped the protective bubble that's supposed to shield and protect delicate Christianity from questioning.

[cbayer]

23. Why would I have an answer?

You've popped nothing. But I would wager that was your objective.

Best of luck to you!

[Arugula Latte]

25. This forum has religious people who post.

I thought there might be a conventional explanation for this issue. But, apparently I was rude to even bring it up. *smelling salts!*

[cbayer]

30. Muriel supplied the conventional catholic explanation in this thread.

Is that good enough for you?

[Arugula Latte]

61. Yes, actually.

That was the kind of thing I was looking for. A glimpse into the mindset.

I'm not religious but I do like to understand where different groups are coming from. The fundies are one thing (and actually easy to figure out because, let's face it, they're simpletons), but the people who mix education, belief in science and "faith" interest me because they have a more complex mix of beliefs.

[cbayer]

85. Well, you know, this is about the most honest post I have seen from you in this thread.

If you really are interested, I think there are some really interesting religionists that post here who could give you some true insights into the complexity of how they perceive the world. I am also very interested in those people.

I'm not so interested in fundamentalists of any stripe. They take their script from dogmatic literature of one kind or another. They get their talking points from charismatic leaders. They embrace only one way of seeing the world.

And that goes for believers and nonbelievers.

I am sorry if I have been too tough on you here. You have presented yourself previously as pretty hostile towards religion and religious people, but if you are actually sincere, then I apologize.

[okasha]

29. And your post got exactly the kind of response

you predicted.

This type of ploy is so obvious, you've got to wish someone would come up with an original angle now and then.

[cbayer]

31. I think there used to be a great deal more of this before some smart people, both

believers and non-believers, started hanging around and supplying some push back.

[okasha]

35. Truth.

It also helps to ignore posters who substitute tantrums for argument.

[MrModerate]

44. By which you mean . . .

"Asking tough questions of believers is either unfair or unserious."

And you wonder why nonbelievers consider you fools?

[cbayer]

47. Nonbelievers considering all believers to be fools would be, well,

like believers considering all non-believers to be fools. Both erroneous and bigoted.

[MrModerate]

57. Anyone who, when faced with a straightforward question . . .

Falls back on the "he's not being serious, so I won't answer" ploy — is a fool. At least as a working definition.

Does that characterize "all believers?" Probably not.

[cbayer]

83. OMG! What a freaking brilliant debate technique!

Ask a question that can't be answered, then attack those who can't answer it.

I guess one would be a fool to fall for that.

[okasha]

59. Wrong.

I mean we've all seen this ploy before and recognize it for what it is.

And no, I don't wonder. Nor, my dear, do I give a damn.

[Arugula Latte]

60. Asking rather straightforward question is a "ploy."

Got it.

Wow, some thin skins around here.

[okasha]

90. Nope.

Just some people who have been around the block more than once and have read a few of your posts.

[MrModerate]

67. Yes, the 'ploy' is to ask a question that *you* don't want to answer . . .

Because you'd be walking into a rhetorical trap where attempting an answer would highlight the goofiness of the beliefs associated with it.

I think we all recognise the utter intellectual poverty such a point of view represents. And what it says about religion generally.

Interestingly enough, several posters here have responded to the OP's question with sincere answers, and a couple of those responses are at least logically consistent.

So apparently some religious people don't agree that ducking tough questions is essential to sustaining their faith.

Not you, however.

[okasha]

91. The question isn't directed to me,

since I'm a pagan and believe neither in hell nor the Christian version of heaven.

And you accuse other people of "mind reading?" Do yourself a favor. Don't set up as the successor to The Amazing Kreskin.

[MrModerate]

114. Pagan-schmagan.

You have defended the concept of 'a ploy' several times in this thread.

Your personal religious beliefs (or absence thereof) are of zero interest to me.

However, intellectual dishonesty is another matter, and I call you on that.

Based on the evidence of your own postings.

[okasha]

117. Ploy it was.

Ploy it is.

Ploy it will be the next time someome tries it.

[MrModerate]

119. And 'smug' will be the attitude you adopt should anyone question you.

Is it any wonder that people are losing patience with religious piffle?

[okasha]

123. Oh my.

It's not smugness, sweetie.

It's that I'm laughing at you and your attempt at a male primate dominance display.

[MrModerate]

124. Wow. Anthropoligist *and* clairvoyant

Got any more tricks?

[okasha]

127. Yep.

I spent many years as a spelling Nazi, marking up research papers so bloodily they could only be identified by DNA.

The word you want is "anthropologist."

[MrModerate]

129. Interesting, since I'm an editor by trade, and yet . . .

Still make spelling mistakes.

And I was rethinking my canard, and it really should have been 'primatologist.'

[defacto7]

65. Hear, hear!

[d_r]

52. different people think different things

I was brought up southern baptist. When I was 11 or 12 I asked the preacher what happened to all the people who lived before the Christians found them, like the Polynesians before contact with Europeans. Would they go to hell just because they never heard of Jesus? He answered that he thought God knew what was in everyone's hearts. I got the impression he viewed it not as a one-size fits all thing, but as an individualized scale. For example, some people don't think that animals go to Heaven, some people think their dogs do, and so on. People have different takes on it, so I think asking how it is explained would get you a lot of different answers.

[ZombieHorde]

33. I don't see how SheilaT's reply answers the questions.

I know the Catholic Church accepts evolution, but I do wonder when they think people started getting souls, since nonhuman animals do not have souls according to official Catholic doctrine, if I remember my Sunday School correctly.

[cbayer]

37. The Catholics do have an answer, as has been given by both rug and muriel in this thread.

Sheila's answer, on the other hand, gives a very different perspective and one that I think makes sense for a lot of people.

[ZombieHorde]

38. I did not say that the Catholics did not have an answer, I said that I did not know their answer.

Did you read the answer Rug linked too? It's pretty bad.

I saw Muriel's answer after you mentioned it to me, he or she doesn't seem to know where the line is drawn.

I hope Sheila's answer makes sense to someone, because it seems to be answering a completely different question to me.

[cbayer]

39. As I read it, she is saying that it is not a valid question.

And for many, I think that is true.

There's no need to draw a line. That's the point.

Do we know everything there is to know about evolution? Have things greater than us evolved over time?

Can we understand how that might challenge our current ideas about evolution? I think not.

Asking believers to draw bright lines is a trap intentionally set.

[rug]

76. What?!? You don't ike Pius XII's encyclical?!?!

I am dismayed.

[MrModerate]

42. You 'doubt' the questioner's sincerity, but refuse to answer the question . . .

Because you can't.

And by the way, the OP doesn't have to be a person of faith to be allowed to ask such questions. You, however, need to be secure in your faith to attempt to answer them.

Just brushing off the question reveals *you* to be the troll.

I am unshocked.

[cbayer]

43. I wouldn't even pretend to be able to answer the question.

I don't believe in just about anything in his premise, so it's going to be hard to corner me.

It's not that he isn't a person of faith. It's that he has a very negative attitude towards people of faith, going so far as to call them some pretty ugly names. He has no regard for them and is highly unlikely to value a single thing they say.

The question, in light of this, is insincere.

Are you really calling me a troll? You might want to reconsider that.

[skepticscott]

45. You have the same negative attitude towards fundamentalists, cbayer

and have called them some pretty ugly names.

Your hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness never ceases to amaze.

[trotsky]

77. It's been quite enjoyable seeing multiple people call her behavior out on this thread.

Maybe there's hope.

[MrModerate]

46. Which comes back to you saying . . .

The question doesn't need to be answered (or even examined) because you doubt the questioner's sincerity.

Hint: butter almost certainly does melt in your mouth.

[cbayer]

48. That is correct. It doesn't need to be answered... by anyone.

I love butter.

[okasha]

50. A single loyal trooper

answers the bugle call!

[defacto7]

66. That seems to be you!

[trotsky]

78. LOL!

It does indeed.

[okasha]

92. Nope. That's Mr. Moderate

being Brave Horatius at the Bridge. (And what an awful poem that is. Thank gods I only remember one line.)

[MrModerate]

58. Highlighting the fact that religion can't even be effectively defended by its adherents . . .

And that some (many?) religionists imagine that they can see into another's "soul" and determine whether their concerns are genuine or not.

Or genuine enough to be responded to based on whatever theology you're currently peddling.

This intellectual dishonesty is, I'd say, one of the major reasons that people who are raised in one religion or another manage to escape when they reach the age of reason (whenever that may be).

Of course, many never do.

[cbayer]

84. More of this freaking brilliant debate technique.

This is very much a "When did you stop beating your wife?" kind of question.

Religion does not need to be defended by its adherents. The fact that it is attacked by some does not necessitate defense.

I've never meant a religionist that felt they could see into someone's soul and I base my determination of one's sincerity on previous behavior - much better way.

You've clearly read the same books as some others here. The term "intellectual dishonesty" is very, very tired.

At any rate, welcome to the religion group. You will find some comrades here.

[MrModerate]

146. For something that doesn't need to be defended . . .

I see an awful lot of defensiveness from religionists in this thread. Curious, that.

With regard to 'seeing into people's souls' didn't a noted religionist by the name of Bush reveal that superpower some years ago? Surely he's not the only one.

As to the OP's question, I've found a couple of pretty good answers here, the most direct of which was, roughly, "God had a plan and executed it accordingly," which for a nonbeliever like me is a pretty good comeback.

And the term "intellectual dishonesty" never grows tired, because it's refreshed with new lavings of twaddle each and every day.

[dimbear]

5. The ability to ignore skullcrushing paradoxes also developed slowly over time.

It's all part of the balance of nature. Heaven/hell, darkness/light, yin/yang, religion/logic.

[rug]

19. Assuming this s a legitimate question, you can read Humani Generis for a Catholic perspective.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

It was written in 1950.

[Arugula Latte]

22. Okay, thank you.

It's a longer piece so I'll have to read it later tonight or tomorrow.

[MrModerate]

68. I made it to paragraph (chapter? verse?) 5 . . .

And then I felt my throat closing up and my vision dimming.

I cannot read such nonsense without running, screaming, from the building.

I seriously thought I could engage in spirited debate with believers in this forum, but I can't. I do not have the fortitude to stand in front of a firehose of utter claptrap and remain able to engage in rational discussion.

I'd sooner argue with a three-year-old about the Easter Bunny (which such conversations resemble).

If you happen to be a person of faith, I bow to the nimbleness of a mind that can believe 7 impossible things before breakfast.

Me, I'm mired in reality and I just can't transform fairy stories into truth, no matter how much I might want to.

[rug]

72. Well, aren't you special.

I guess I'll just have to muddle on.

[okasha]

93. The whole point is that he's "special."

He's not here to debate, he's here to reassure himself that he is so very, very, superior to "fools."

But you gotta love the pomposity. Sort of like a member of the House of Lords with a few single malts under his belt and a ramrod up his. . . .er. . . .spine.

[MrModerate]

121. No reassurance required, thanks.

However, I'm happy to call myself superior to those trying to live inside a hallucination.

As for debate, there has been next to no debate on the question that the OP raised. Just a lot of bargain-basement snark about the poster's 'sincerity.'

Or perhaps that's how you define debate?

[okasha]

125. I bet it itches

under that wig.

[MrModerate]

126. That movie running on the inside of your eyelids?

It just got panned on 'Rotten Tomatoes.'

My favorite comment was "a wank-fest for the simpleminded."

[okasha]

130. Oh dear.

I didn't realize you were underage.

[MrModerate]

131. Hey, your eyelids, no problem. n/t

[MrModerate]

118. The operative word being 'muddle.' n/t

[rug]

120. I'm sorry I can't apply reason like you so I too can be running, screaming, from the building,

vision ever dimming.

[MrModerate]

122. Look out for the front steps.

[cbayer]

87. How will we go on?

You seriously thought your could engage in spirited debate with believers in this forum? So you strove to accomplish that by coming into the one flame bait thread that is running and attacking them and their beliefs?

How's that working out for you?

I don't know who called you into this thread, but I can guess.

[MrModerate]

116. Hmm. Paranoid much? n/t

[cbayer]

139. Nope. Any other psychiatric diagnoses you want to throw out there?

[MrModerate]

141. Well perhaps I should have dumbed down my diagnosis for you . . .

Because 'jerk,' 'twit,' or 'little snot' would have served as well.

[cbayer]

142. Well, bless your little heart, MrModerate.

You have really shown your intellectual superiority with that one.

This dumb jerk/twit/little snot wishes you all the best in the future.

[MrModerate]

143. I trust you'll be sending me a scan . . .

of the top of your head, so I can add it to my collection of scalps.

Thanks awfully.

[rug]

144. That must be a mighty small collection.

[MrModerate]

145. Most are about 5 inches across . . .

. . . although guys tend to say that theirs are larger.

I can trim to fit.

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. And, as a significant followup, this from 2004:

Particularly this paragraph:

70. With respect to the immediate creation of the human soul, Catholic theology affirms that particular actions of God bring about effects that transcend the capacity of created causes acting according to their natures. The appeal to divine causality to account for genuinely causal as distinct from merely explanatory gaps does not insert divine agency to fill in the “gaps” in human scientific understanding (thus giving rise to the so-called "God of the gaps”). The structures of the world can be seen as open to non-disruptive divine action in directly causing events in the world. Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention. Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called “an ontological leap...the moment of transition to the spiritual.” While science can study these causal chains, it falls to theology to locate this account of the special creation of the human soul within the overarching plan of the triune God to share the communion of trinitarian life with human persons who are created out of nothing in the image and likeness of God, and who, in his name and according to his plan, exercise a creative stewardship and sovereignty over the physical universe.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

[rug]

73. That is significant.

The one area where I see a potential conflict is polygenism, the evolution of humans in separate groups.

The doctrine is that, while evolution does not conflict with the notion of creation, a basic tenet of Christianity is that at some point God intervened and made two hominids human beings, in the sense that they then had all the attributes of humanity including a soul and consciousness. At that point they became the image of God. As the OP asks, it is unknown when that point was reached. It may well have been Neanderthal. In any event, it's interesting that our species is called homo sapiens sapiens, the wise wise man, while Neanderthals are classified as homo sapiens neanderthalis.

The potential conflict between theology and biology is that the rejection of polygenism as a theological construct means that all humans descend from those two individuals and not from separated groups. From this flows the doctrines of original sin and the need for redemption. Aside from all the other implications, what does this say should intelligent extraterrestrial life ever be encountered?

Interesting stuff.

[okasha]

95. The split into two species may not last, though.

Taxonomists go through cycles of "lumping" and "splitting," and right now they're in a "lumping" mood. Jaguarundis, who are about the size of your average house cat, are now in genus puma, and your granny's teacup Chihuahua is Canis lupus. Red Riding Hood should be Afraid. Very afraid.

[rug]

96. You're right.

I think I remember reading something recently about how common Neanderthal genes are in modern humans. The theory is that Neanderthals did not go extinct but interbred.

[okasha]

184. I read an article a while ago--

not sure whether it was in National Geographic or Archaeology-- discussing the DNA work on Hsn and the conclusion that it was neanderthalensis genes that intruduced red hair to the Hss lineage.

[rug]

185. Ooh, I can't wait to till that to a certain redhead I know.

[Humanist_Activist]

164. My understanding is that Neanderthals, Florensis, and us, Homo Sapiens Sapiens...

are contemporary species, more or less, and cousins, not descendants, that branched off relatively recently from Homo Erectus, or possibly other, earlier, species. That's three different modern human species(Modern as in all 3 existed withing the past 30,000 years or so), that we know about(Florensis was only discovered in the past 15 years or so). In the case of differences between them all three used tools, displayed advanced cultural traits, etc. From a cognitive point of view, at least in the case of Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis, cognitive differences, and genetic ones, were minute, and right now the controversy is how much did Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens Sapiens of northern Europe interbreed, if at all.

[rug]

167. I hadn't heard of Florensis but being contemporaries is the likeliest case.

[Humanist_Activist]

169. Florensis is an island species, they are better known as the "hobbit" species...

I think average height for them is about 3 foot or so, several individuals were discovered in southeast Asia, estimates of the age of their remains is within the past 50,000 years or so.

[rug]

174. Oh, ok, now I remember them.

There was quite a hubbub at the time.

[edhopper]

175. They lived in the Shire

if I recall from my reading, and had very big feet.

I remember a debate some years ago about whether Neanderthals could speak. Had to do with their throat anatomy. I think the recent consensus is that they had speech. (just not a lot to say )

[Humanist_Activist]

183. I heard about that debate, I remember reading a science fiction book written around that time...

that had a fictional story in it about Neanderthals being resurrected through cloning, and only communicating using a sophisticated sign language. Frankly, I think it was an erroneous debate, our closest living relatives LOVE vocalizing, hell they don't want to shut up sometimes, no reason to think our shared ancestors with them are mute, very few mammals are mute as it is, vocalizations are one of the most common ways to communicate, why would Neanderthals be any different?

[Warren Stupidity]

75. Which sort of answers the question asked by the op.

It seems there was a non intrusive intervention that put "soul" into humanoids, and that before this singularity we were soul-less, and after, soul-ful. No wonder none of the religious want to discuss the issue.

[edhopper]

81. You agree with this?

"5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism."

This is some seriously illogical crap.

[rug]

82. No, and I'm surprised at the typo "principle' instead of "principal".

I wouldn't call it illogical though. It's more informed by Cold War 1950 and uniformed by facts.

[edhopper]

97. Okay

just ignorant bullshit then.

[rug]

100. That paragraph is.

[edhopper]

102. I was only referring to it.

This time

[dimbear]

21. Simple question. When did heaven open for business? You might think

Darwin thought up evolution in the morning and this poser in the afternoon; I wager it was the other way around.

Six word question. Let's allow twelve or even twenty for the response, to be fair.

[rug]

74. I'll name that tune in one.

Always.

[hrmjustin]

24. I don't believe in hell so I think we all go to heaven in the end.

[Arugula Latte]

26. Do you think only modern humans are there, or do you think it goes farther back?

If so, how far back? Also, do you think other types of animals are in Heaven?

[hrmjustin]

28. Interesting question.

I tend to believe our pets go with us because heaven to me would not be complete without my pets. I think if it is pleasing to the Glory of God to have other animal and lifeforms there then they are there. Just because we have souls does not mean we get the joy of heaven only.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

27. You can create your own heaven or hell by your thoughts.

To quote philosopher Lin Yutang:

"How can I be tortured in hell if I don't have a body?"



Science and religion/philosophy are about different subject matter.

[cbayer]

36. I agree.

My worst tortures have definitely come from my own thoughts. I don't think anything could create the kind of hell I have been known to create for myself.

Of the kind of heaven.

[cbayer]

34. OMG! You did not just do that!

Troops should be arriving soon. Make sure the scorekeepers have a good view.

[okasha]

40. Yes, she did!

How does that old hymn go?
"Throw out the lifeline!
Throw out the lifeline!
Someone is sinking todaaaaaaaay!"

[cbayer]

41. Funny joke (well, funny to me at least).

My other half once asked me what the first thing I should do would be if he fell overboard.

I looked serious for a moment, then said "Write your obituary".

[okasha]

49. Many year ago, when I was a new birder,

my Audubon group was out at a friend's ranch during spring migration. We were going through a wooded section, and even the experienced members were identifying life (never seen before) birds right and left. Three of us had just made the first sighting in our county of a rare and endangered Golden Cheeked Warbler. I turned to one of my friends and said, "You know, if somebody dropped dead in front of me just now, I think I'd just step over him and keep going."

She looked at me as if I'd just lost my mind and said, "Of course! If he were dead we couldn't do anything for him, and we could still get the next bird."

[struggle4progress]

51. My religious views are not views about the nature of the natural world: they are views

about the stance I should take towards living my life in the world

These views do not compel me to adopt any particular view of history; rather, they compel me to seek an appropriate view of the present moment

I am inclined in many cases to consider a scientific perspective, because my experience of the world seems largely to be an experience of a natural material world, including that I and/or my neighbors seem to suffer under certain natural material conditions or if certain natural material prerequisites are not met: that people can burn, drown, and starve, for example, seem simply to be facts of the world, and to approach such facts appropriately I feel required to adopt certain natural material perspectives

Philosophical questions interest me only insofar as they help me make my thinking clearer. The questions you are asking do not seem to me of any interest, not merely because I would not know how to "check" whether an "answer" were "correct" in some sense, but more importantly because I would not know what to do with such an "answer" if I had it

[dimbear]

53. You vote 'pass,' but do you in any way resent the asking of the question?

Isn't it fully within the arena here?

[struggle4progress]

56. ?

[MrModerate]

69. So your view of religion . . .

(which doesn't seem to have much religion in it), is that it's a useful aid to philosophy, but doesn't really need to deal with actual human experience.

Well, at least you're less likely than some others to do horrible things to adherents of the "wrong" religion.

But if I were you, I'd take my philosophy straight, and pass on the religion chaser.

[struggle4progress]

88. I think I prefer to describe my own religious views -- and to let you describe your own but not mine

[MrModerate]

115. Your call, of course . . .

But if you post such views on a discussion board, there's a chance they're going to be discussed.

And if they seem to be illogical, that's likely to be noted as well.

[struggle4progress]

132. In your #69, you misrepresented my views, but now I suspect you're just trolling.

In my #51, I tried to indicate that a question could only be of interest if one knew how to "check" whether an "answer" were "correct" in some sense and (perhaps more importantly) if one know what to do with an "answer" if one obtained an "answer"

So let me ask: what use could one actually make of a purported "answer" to the question in the OP?

[MrModerate]

134. I *interpreted* your views. This is not identical to misrepresenting them.

And I still think I've got the way of it. You, of course, may disagree.

And I reject the notion that questions are only useful if the answers can be 'checked.' Both asking and attempting to answer questions have value apart from any content they may contain.

As to what one might do with 'answers,' I'd say a million things, among which might be:

• Get a glimpse of the intellectual underpinnings of a faith
• Delight in the fact that there is an answer (right, wrong, or indifferent) to a difficult question
• Delight in the fact that someone is bold enough to even try an answer

-or-

• Verify that faith is an extremely tattered robe with many holes in it that simply can't be filled
• Have a laugh

The list could go on infinitely.

[DavidDvorkin]

89. This is a great question.

[el_bryanto]

94. One answer - while evolution was used to create animals, possibly including man

Man's actual first beginnings were as something different than other animals.

A similar question is do Dogs and Cats and Monkeys and Dolphins have souls, and if so are they subject to damnation? I think they probably do have souls, but are not capable of sinning and so are not subject for damnation. It's not until you get to a creature with free will and the ability to decide right from wrong that the concept of punishment comes in.

Then again, I don't believe in a literal hell either.

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

147. Anyone who lives with dogs knows they have a sense of right and wrong.

[edhopper]

148. But cats don't

[Jenoch]

128. "...at what point did modern humans become eligible for Heaven or Hell?"

If a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody there to hear it, did it make a sound?