Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Philosophy
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #601  
Old May 9, '12, 1:57 am
tonyrey tonyrey is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: March 30, 2009
Posts: 17,610
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Powerful evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by buffalo View Post
It's happening folks...........


Seeing Past Darwin I: The Machine Metaphor



The gradual crumbling of the Darwinian consensus, and the rise of a new theoretical outlook in biology is one of the most significant but underreported news stories of our time.*


It’s a scandal that science journalists have been so slow to pick up on this story. For, make no mistake about it, the story is huge. In science, they don’t come any bigger.


The story is this:
The official explanation of the nature of living things—and therefore of human beings—that we’ve all been led to believe in for the past 60 or 70 years turns out to be dead wrong in some essential respects.


What have we been so wrong about? It’s complicated, but in a phrase, it’s this:
The machine metaphor was a mistake—organisms are not machines, they are intelligent agents.
Scientific materialism has a mechanomorphic view of reality! We are supposed to be mindless machines.....
  #602  
Old May 9, '12, 2:14 am
tonyrey tonyrey is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: March 30, 2009
Posts: 17,610
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Powerful evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TS Aquinas View Post
Couple questions about this article,




To play devil's advocate, can there be a demonstration of this response?



Is this really the Darwinist argument or an over generalization? Is this backed by biological evidence or just mere assumptions? Seems way too stupid for a coherent person to accept which makes me question if that is the Darwinian claim at all.
There is plenty of evidence on this forum that materialists (with scientists in their ranks) regard living organisms as biological machines. They regard the mind as the product of the electrical activity in the brain - which leaves no room for any other explanation but a complex calculating machine!

An influential book by the British philosopher Gilbert Ryle published in 1949 sums up their view perfectly.

Its title: The Concept of Mind

Its key phrase: The Ghost in the Machine !
  #603  
Old May 9, '12, 7:21 am
Gaber Gaber is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: April 8, 2012
Posts: 1,043
Religion: Ronin Catholic
Default Re: Powerful evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyrey View Post
I have not claimed to be (or not to be) a contemplative because it is a personal matter and I don't divide people into categories. Nor is it relevant to a philosophical discussion which should be concerned solely with the issue at stake - not with the experiences of individuals or whether they are "enlightened".
So, it being a personal matter, we ought not let the successes of the contemplatives influence our less informed outlooks. Nor should we bring our own experience or the questioning of it, or the explication of it to a "philosophical discussion." Were, pray, does material for such a discussion come from, then, we leaving out what in the end is the actual participation in and resolution to philosophy?


Quote:
According to you Jesus was anthropomorphic because He referred to God as His Father and our Father. He also committed the "error" of pointing to the beauty of lilies in field - which exceeds that of Solomon in all his glorious array - as evidence of Design. In other words He attributes their beauty not to impersonal processes but to divine wisdom and power which are reflected to a minute extent in human creativity.
Yes, Toneyrey, He did, unfotunately. But He knew, Himself, what He meant while using the means He had inherited as a culture and language to speak to the level of awareness He was awash in. His own desciles didn't understand Him, by His own admission. And there is always Mark 4:33.34 which is always convenientlydiscounted by so many. And He spoke in parables. Here we are trying to communicate directly about the substance behind public teaching. Not so well, I see.

And what constitutes "error" in pointing put the beauty of Nature? Don't get it. and there you go again, claiming that that is evidence of "design." How do you get there from that? And of course, being made in His image and likeness, we would have such creativeity. But that is again an anthropomorphization useful until it is seen past. But it can't be seen past until the work is at least attempted.

Quote:
We don't create God in our image. He creates us in His image. Christian doctrine is not anthropomorphic but deomorphic.
Afar as I can see, Buddhism is deomorphic, not Christianity, which is the epitome of religious anthropomorphization. And any mental construct we have about God is creating God in our own image, because we only have ourselves as a model.
  #604  
Old May 9, '12, 8:23 am
buffalo's Avatar
buffalo buffalo is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: June 7, 2004
Posts: 28,427
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Powerful evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TS Aquinas View Post
Couple questions about this article,




To play devil's advocate, can there be a demonstration of this response?



Is this really the Darwinist argument or an over generalization? Is this backed by biological evidence or just mere assumptions? Seems way too stupid for a coherent person to accept which makes me question if that is the Darwinian claim at all.
Yes - evo is all about natural selection.
__________________
IDvolution - God "breathed" the super language of DNA into the "kinds" in the creative act. Buffalo

"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is a thought of God."

“Science presupposes the trustworthy, intelligent structure of matter, the ‘design’ of creation.”

"A man of conscience, is one who never acquires tolerance, well- being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion, at the expense of truth."
Pope Benedict XVI

  #605  
Old May 9, '12, 11:39 am
tonyrey tonyrey is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: March 30, 2009
Posts: 17,610
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Powerful evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaber View Post
Quote:
I have not claimed to be (or not to be) a contemplative because it is a personal matter and I don't divide people into categories. Nor is it relevant to a philosophical discussion which should be concerned solely with the issue at stake - not with the experiences of individuals or whether they are "enlightened".
So, it being a personal matter, we ought not let the successes of the contemplatives influence our less informed outlooks.
The successes of the Christian contemplatives did not lead them to reject the teaching of Jesus that the beauty of the lilies is evidence of the wisdom, power and love of our Father in heaven - which is the Christian concept of Design.
Quote:
Nor should we bring our own experience or the questioning of it, or the explication of it to a "philosophical discussion." Were, pray, does material for such a discussion come from, then, we leaving out what in the end is the actual participation in and resolution to philosophy?
You have not explained how personal experience is relevant to - or disproves - Design.

Quote:
Quote:
According to you Jesus was anthropomorphic because He referred to God as His Father and our Father. He also committed the "error" of pointing to the beauty of lilies in field - which exceeds that of Solomon in all his glorious array - as evidence of Design. In other words He attributes their beauty not to impersonal processes but to divine wisdom and power which are reflected to a minute extent in human creativity.
Yes, Toneyrey, He did, unfotunately.
You mean He misled everyone! Deliberately or accidentally?
Quote:
But He knew, Himself, what He meant while using the means He had inherited as a culture and language to speak to the level of awareness He was awash in. His own desciles didn't understand Him, by His own admission. And there is always Mark 4:33.34 which is always convenientlydiscounted by so many. And He spoke in parables. Here we are trying to communicate directly about the substance behind public teaching. Not so well, I see.
In other words you are rejecting in favour of your own interpretation the face value of the words of Jesus which are accepted by the Catholic Church and Protestant denominations as fundamentally true.
Quote:
And what constitutes "error" in pointing put the beauty of Nature? Don't get it. and there you go again, claiming that that is evidence of "design." How do you get there from that? And of course, being made in His image and likeness, we would have such creativeity. But that is again an anthropomorphization useful until it is seen past. But it can't be seen past until the work is at least attempted.
What was the intention of Jesus when He referred to the beauty of the lilies?

Quote:
Quote:
We don't create God in our image. He creates us in His image. Christian doctrine is not anthropomorphic but deomorphic.
Afar as I can see, Buddhism is deomorphic, not Christianity, which is the epitome of religious anthropomorphization.
The only pretext for regarding Buddhism as deomorphic is that it has a thousand gods!

Quote:
And any mental construct we have about God is creating God in our own image, because we only have ourselves as a model.
1. All our beliefs are mental constructs which are true or false according to whether they correspond to reality.

2. You haven't even presented a mental construct of God, let alone refuted the orthodox Christian doctrine.

3. If God has created us in His image it is reasonable to believe we resemble Him even if only to a miniscule extent.

4. The Supreme Being cannot lack consciousness or insight or purpose because then we would be superior in those respects - which is absurd.

5. If you contend that all our descriptions of God are false you need to explain why they are false and why you believe in God at all.

6. To believe in the Unknowable is verging on a rejection of God because the Unknowable could be some version of physical energy.
  #606  
Old May 9, '12, 5:10 pm
Gaber Gaber is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: April 8, 2012
Posts: 1,043
Religion: Ronin Catholic
Default Re: Powerful evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyrey View Post
The successes of the Christian contemplatives did not lead them to reject.... which is the Christian concept of Design.
You have not explained how personal experience is relevant to - or disproves - Design.
That is a wonderful way to evade doing the necessary work to see another viewpoint for yourself. I dont reject the teachings of Jesus regarding the symbology He had to use regarding something rather more subtle. And how in the name of Heaven do you leap to all that being evidence for what amounts to a diminution of Deity? My explanation has been offered all along: find the "off' switch for your discursive mind and see what shifts in your comprehension of mind/Mind and Source.
Quote:
You mean He misled everyone! Deliberately or accidentally?
No, of course not. Why would He do that, even if He knew some were/are not ready for the greater implicatio of His work?? But He wasn't speaking to you directly, & were you there, & one of the infinetesmally small number who stuck around long enough to listen to more than a few stories, He might have taken you aside with the others & told you all, as it described in Mark. But here we are, two millenia later, still laying stories on to the stories in a way which fits what we wish to believe, and what is convenient for us in order to distance ourselves from any real expereince of the meaning behind those stories.
Quote:
In other words you are rejecting in favour of your own interpretation the face value of the words of Jesus which are accepted by the Catholic Church and Protestant denominations as fundamentally true.
No. The face value has a function, as do the parables. Why would they be rejected? But why would they not be penetrated either? And what I am pointing to is neither my idea nor an interpretation. It is not an intellectual construct.
Quote:
What was the intention of Jesus when He referred to the beauty of the lilies?
Perhaps it was to get someone like you or me or anyone to get past theories of design or whatever & simply expereince the Being or Source of that beauty and wonder?
Quote:
The only pretext for regarding Buddhism as deomorphic is that it has a thousand gods!
That's Hinduism, not Buddhism. Please keep in context, or this is uselessly diverted as it has been so often.
Quote:
1. All our beliefs are mental constructs which are true or false according to whether they correspond to reality.
All of our beliefs are mental constructs approximating either experiencible and repeatable dynamics of our limited form of encounter as persons with Reality, and are thus more or less fictions convenient to consensus experience in our bandwith of perception/expression. The basis of that narrow bandwidth can be experienced and inform one's interpretation of what thoughts run through he mind as "serving suggestions" no matter how profound. Some small portion of those suggestions can point beyond the limitations of the discursive mind to Reality. But those are usually sumarily rejected as they necessarily are contrary to the sense interpretation of appearance.
Quote:
2. You haven't even presented a mental construct of God, let alone refuted the orthodox Christian doctrine.
Why would I attempt a mental construct of the Ineffable??? If you haven't been to NYC and I wished to share that experience with you, or demnstrate that you could have it yourself, would I hand you a picture post card of Central Park or the Bonx, or the Village, and inform you "OK, now you;ve been there!" B and S. I'd hand you a map, or advise you to get a ticket and go. Telling you about it can only inform you that I am enthusisitic about theplace. And again, I'm not refuteing, nor do I want to refute anything. I am offerig an invitation to anyone who wishes a more foundational expereince to do the work. If you dont want to go to NYC, then forget about it. Or enjoy the post cards. Ultimately, it matters not a whit.

Quote:
3. If God has created us in His image it is reasonable to believe we resemble Him even if only to a miniscule extent.
Yes, I keep saying that that Image and Likeness is what this whole thing is about. And it is more than a matter of resemblance, it is the substance of what we are. And why just believe it? Why nor know it?
Quote:
4. The Supreme Being cannot lack consciousness or insight or purpose because then we would be superior in those respects - which is absurd.
The "Supreme Being IS--Consciousness itself, and awareness is the image and likeness of That. Find the Spource of your awareness and you will make a magnificent discovey!!! And when you do that, you will understand with pelucid clarity why I insist that there is no other purpose than to BE. But until you see that, there is no other option for you than to believe that there is purpose. It is part of the paradigm of sense limitation.
Quote:
5. If you contend that all our descriptions of God are false you need to explain why they are false and why you believe in God at all.
I don't believe in God, I know God is ALL in all. How can any description of God, of Divine Infinitude, do anything but fall utterly and miserably short of Reality??? Throw all the adjectives you wish at any noun name of God and you will inevitably have only words. But if you have gone beyond your mind, those words might have a useful referent. Otherwise you only have a promise of future fulfillment of what you always already in essence are.
[/quote]6. To believe in the Unknowable is verging on a rejection of God because the Unknowable could be some version of physical energy. [/quote]You are taking an instance of mental gymnastic for the Unmistakable. Fear if you wish. Discovery is inevitable. The Unknowable is exactly that. There is no need to believe in it, it is an expereince and a condition of mortal mind. You don't know what you mentally can't. But who says all you have is your mind?
  #607  
Old May 10, '12, 9:46 am
tonyrey tonyrey is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: March 30, 2009
Posts: 17,610
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Powerful evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaber View Post
That is a wonderful way to evade doing the necessary work to see another viewpoint for yourself. I dont reject the teachings of Jesus regarding the symbology He had to use regarding something rather more subtle. And how in the name of Heaven do you leap to all that being evidence for what amounts to a diminution of Deity? My explanation has been offered all along: find the "off' switch for your discursive mind and see what shifts in your comprehension of mind/Mind and Source.No, of course not. Why would He do that, even if He knew some were/are not ready for the greater implicatio of His work?? But He wasn't speaking to you directly, & were you there, & one of the infinetesmally small number who stuck around long enough to listen to more than a few stories, He might have taken you aside with the others & told you all, as it described in Mark. But here we are, two millenia later, still laying stories on to the stories in a way which fits what we wish to believe, and what is convenient for us in order to distance ourselves from any real expereince of the meaning behind those stories.No. The face value has a function, as do the parables. Why would they be rejected? But why would they not be penetrated either? And what I am pointing to is neither my idea nor an interpretation. It is not an intellectual construct.
Perhaps it was to get someone like you or me or anyone to get past theories of design or whatever & simply expereince the Being or Source of that beauty and wonder?
That's Hinduism, not Buddhism. Please keep in context, or this is uselessly diverted as it has been so often.All of our beliefs are mental constructs approximating either experiencible and repeatable dynamics of our limited form of encounter as persons with Reality, and are thus more or less fictions convenient to consensus experience in our bandwith of perception/expression. The basis of that narrow bandwidth can be experienced and inform one's interpretation of what thoughts run through he mind as "serving suggestions" no matter how profound. Some small portion of those suggestions can point beyond the limitations of the discursive mind to Reality. But those are usually sumarily rejected as they necessarily are contrary to the sense interpretation of appearance.
Why would I attempt a mental construct of the Ineffable??? If you haven't been to NYC and I wished to share that experience with you, or demnstrate that you could have it yourself, would I hand you a picture post card of Central Park or the Bonx, or the Village, and inform you "OK, now you;ve been there!" B and S. I'd hand you a map, or advise you to get a ticket and go. Telling you about it can only inform you that I am enthusisitic about theplace. And again, I'm not refuteing, nor do I want to refute anything. I am offerig an invitation to anyone who wishes a more foundational expereince to do the work. If you dont want to go to NYC, then forget about it. Or enjoy the post cards. Ultimately, it matters not a whit.

Yes, I keep saying that that Image and Likeness is what this whole thing is about. And it is more than a matter of resemblance, it is the substance of what we are. And why just believe it? Why nor know it?
The "Supreme Being IS--Consciousness itself, and awareness is the image and likeness of That. Find the Spource of your awareness and you will make a magnificent discovey!!! And when you do that, you will understand with pelucid clarity why I insist that there is no other purpose than to BE. But until you see that, there is no other option for you than to believe that there is purpose. It is part of the paradigm of sense limitation.
I don't believe in God, I know God is ALL in all. How can any description of God, of Divine Infinitude, do anything but fall utterly and miserably short of Reality??? Throw all the adjectives you wish at any noun name of God and you will inevitably have only words. But if you have gone beyond your mind, those words might have a useful referent. Otherwise you only have a promise of future fulfillment of what you always already in essence are.
Philosophy is not concerned with subjective experiences but objective facts. The experiences which have enlightened you can be discussed on the forum for non-Catholic Religions. I wish you well.

God bless.
  #608  
Old May 10, '12, 10:11 am
Gaber Gaber is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: April 8, 2012
Posts: 1,043
Religion: Ronin Catholic
Default Re: Powerful evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyrey View Post
Philosophy is not concerned with subjective experiences but objective facts. The experiences which have enlightened you can be discussed on the forum for non-Catholic Religions. I wish you well.

God bless.
That I have, and you have, subjective experiences is itself an "objective" fact. And philosophy includes ways of discerning that claim that there is only subject/Subject. And I do not practice a religion. In any case, I wish you well as well. Nice chatting with you Thanks.
  #609  
Old May 10, '12, 11:16 am
tonyrey tonyrey is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: March 30, 2009
Posts: 17,610
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Powerful evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaber View Post
That I have, and you have, subjective experiences is itself an "objective" fact. And philosophy includes ways of discerning that claim that there is only subject/Subject. And I do not practice a religion. In any case, I wish you well as well. Nice chatting with you Thanks.
You would still have the opportunity to discuss your ideas about God. Or perhaps you could start a thread on this forum.
  #610  
Old May 11, '12, 4:28 am
tonyrey tonyrey is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: March 30, 2009
Posts: 17,610
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Powerful evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyrey View Post
You would still have the opportunity to discuss your ideas about God. Or perhaps you could start a thread on this forum.
If you do so it may be transferred to another forum depending on how your question is phrased....
  #611  
Old May 11, '12, 7:14 am
Gaber Gaber is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: April 8, 2012
Posts: 1,043
Religion: Ronin Catholic
Default Re: Powerful evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyrey View Post
You would still have the opportunity to discuss your ideas about God. Or perhaps you could start a thread on this forum.
Thank you for your good intentions!

Discussing ideas "about" God is what religionists do. I'm not a religionist, and I'm only trying to point to an experience which is attainable and is at the root of religion and what religion is necessarily an intellectual abstraction of. Wthout that experience, there can only be "discussion" about ideas about God. With that experience, there can be exegiesis that can point for others a way to see something ineffable and fundamental. That would more properly belong in, I think, the philosoapy section, as that line of activity is usally called "philosophy," that word deriving from linguistic and experiential roots meaning "love of wisdom."
  #612  
Old May 11, '12, 5:42 pm
tonyrey tonyrey is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: March 30, 2009
Posts: 17,610
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Powerful evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaber View Post
Thank you for your good intentions!

Discussing ideas "about" God is what religionists do. I'm not a religionist, and I'm only trying to point to an experience which is attainable and is at the root of religion and what religion is necessarily an intellectual abstraction of. Wthout that experience, there can only be "discussion" about ideas about God. With that experience, there can be exegiesis that can point for others a way to see something ineffable and fundamental. That would more properly belong in, I think, the philosoapy section, as that line of activity is usally called "philosophy," that word deriving from linguistic and experiential roots meaning "love of wisdom."
In my opinion the discussion of experiences which transcend "intellectual abstraction" comes into the category of spirituality rather than philosophy. The only way to find out the moderators' view is to start a thread on the subject!
  #613  
Old May 12, '12, 6:21 pm
tonyrey tonyrey is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: March 30, 2009
Posts: 17,610
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Powerful evidence for Design?

1. We can be certain of nothing except our uncertainty!

2. Our certainty is not based on certainty about the material world.

3. Our certainty is based on our power of reason.

4. Our certainty is also based on the principle of contradiction.

5. All knowledge consists of thoughts based on logical principles.

6. Logical principles cannot exist by Chance.

7. Therefore knowledge and logical principles are evidence of Design!
  #614  
Old May 12, '12, 11:32 pm
Gaber Gaber is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: April 8, 2012
Posts: 1,043
Religion: Ronin Catholic
Default Re: Powerful evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyrey View Post
In my opinion the discussion of experiences which transcend "intellectual abstraction" comes into the category of spirituality rather than philosophy. The only way to find out the moderators' view is to start a thread on the subject!
OK, so there is no spiritual aspect to design. Glad we are clear on that. Thanks.
  #615  
Old May 13, '12, 3:04 am
tonyrey tonyrey is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: March 30, 2009
Posts: 17,610
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Powerful evidence for Design?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaber View Post
OK, so there is no spiritual aspect to design. Glad we are clear on that. Thanks.
Claims to privileged spiritual enlightenment are irrelevant in a philosophical discussion of Design.
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8569Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: Kellyreneeomara
5241CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4436Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3896Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3876SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany
3463Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3318Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3237Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3171For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: eschator83



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 2:41 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.