This is really cool, Billy!
Wegs, can you explain it to me in simple layman terms, because it goes right over my head.
jan.
Any atheists here who were once believers?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
Wegs, can you explain it to me in simple layman terms, because it goes right over my head.
jan.
I will try my best, Jan.
@ Balerion:
Three main points to make:
1) TOE says while not an entirely random occurrence, chance plays a huge role - Catholics don't believe that
2) Catholics believe humans have souls -- TOE doesn't support that (when did this "occur" by the way in the evolutionary process?) lol
3) Catholics believe that humans evolved as "special" -- TOE doesn't support that
So, what does the Catholic Church support exactly in terms of evolution?
I believe the Bible to be metaphorical at best and one big lie at the worst. But, the Catholic Church can't admit that, but as the inconvenient truths of science continue to emerge, it will be interesting to watch just how often the Catholic Church "changes its mind."
With all due respect, as an atheist, you should agree.
@ Balerion:
Three main points to make:
1) TOE says while not an entirely random occurrence, chance plays a huge role - Catholics don't believe that
2) Catholics believe humans have souls -- TOE doesn't support that (when did this "occur" by the way in the evolutionary process?) lol
3) Catholics believe that humans evolved as "special" -- TOE doesn't support that
So, what does the Catholic Church support exactly in terms of evolution?
I believe the Bible to be metaphorical at best and one big lie at the worst. But, the Catholic Church can't admit that, but as the inconvenient truths of science continue to emerge, it will be interesting to watch just how often the Catholic Church "changes its mind."
With all due respect, as an atheist, you should agree.
Billy is a big proponent of the conviction that we don't have free will.
So am I, although one needs to be careful of what one is actually referring to.
My issue with BillyT is his fairly blanket disdain for the idea of emergentism, which he says is "clearly false" - with not so much as a "because..." by way of explanation.
I'd quite like him to support it - not his own RTS theory (which sounds like game-theory designed around the Total War series) but specifically the "clearly false" nature of emergentism.
That is if I understood his comment properly.
No one knows if free will exists or not.
That's because those are your words, not mine.
You need to stop running away from your own comments. You said you respect fundamentalists for not being "hypocrites" (a word you're misusing here, by the way), and then when prompted to give an example of belief under pressure that you find worthy of respect, you cited fundamentalists rejecting evolution because it goes against their beliefs.
Now stop trying to throw smokescreens and let yourself be held accountable for your own fucking comments.
That's your own fundamentalist position speaking, the one that insists upon a literal interpretation of the bible.
It isn't called hypocrisy of any sort, since there's nothing hypocritical about it. If you want to get technical, the Catholic Church supports "theistic evolution," which is basically the theory of evolution with God sprinkled in here and there. It does not functionally conflict with the actual theory of evolution.
That's because he's got the free will to say so. Oh wait, he doesn't!
Heh. Ah, we've been over this a dozen times. I am an axiomatic proponent of free will, obviously.
Incorrect. There is no official position on random mutation from the church.
There's no conflict, since evolution doesn't address this imaginary realm that the soul exists in.
Another irrelevancy, since it doesn't conflict in any functional way with the science of evolution. In fact, I'm sure everyone would agree that humans are special, just not for the same reason.
The science of it. It doesn't disagree with random mutation or natural selection. It takes no position on the various details.
I believe the Bible to be metaphorical at best and one big lie at the worst. But, the Catholic Church can't admit that, but as the inconvenient truths of science continue to emerge, it will be interesting to watch just how often the Catholic Church "changes its mind."
The Church does not take a fundamentalist view of the Bible. There is a difference between believing the book is inerrant--which is what the Church believes--and literal--which they don't.
Don't straw man.
Not accurate. For a few decades, I tried to find how we could have genuine free will, in brain than is 100% deterministically controlled, and finally gave up - that, if we have it as all assume, is just one of those mysteries beyond human mental capacity, like learning calculus is for a turtle.
I became very interested in how 3D visual perception could be achieved, from a 2D retinal image or even a photograph. First part of that problem is how can, before you know what you are viewing, the 2D CONTINUOUS illumination field stimulating your retina can be "parsed" into separated objects to, in later stages, be identified. I won a full year "sabbatical leave" from work at APLJHU, with pay and spent it in the cognitive science department of JHU, researching visual perception and soon realized the accepted POV is clearly false and extremely vague. ("Perception "emerge" after many stages of neural processing" - that is only "hand waving" and clearly false - dreams are visual experiences with eyes shut in the dark!)
By the end of that year I had created what I call the Real Time Simulation, and out of it fell the fact that IF, as it suggests, "I" and not a material body, but an information only, then the natural laws do NOT constrain information. I.e. genuine free will is possible for one who is pure information. However, I tend to think free will is a universal illusion, because it has been shown by micro-electrode studies that decisions, and solutions to problems are made, even seconds BEFORE consciousness learns of them.
I made a thread on this, I will try to find, called something like: "Consciously, you will be the last to know."
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry then. I just remember how vigorously you threw Libet at us, so I got the impression you're really convinced by him.
Thanks. I had forgotten his name. Now I find the thread: Free will, Ha! You’re the last to know “your decisions"
But can't make sciforums leave page 4 to get link to OP. I am quoted on page four as saying the evidence keeps building up that we don't CONSCIOULSY have free will. And I do lean to that point of view, but still am agnostic about it. here is link (still works) to the Economists article very persuasive that is the case:
http://www.economist.com/node/13489722
Here is post 70 of that thread quoting me:
SUMMARY: The evidence just keeps piling up that free will BY YOUR CONSCIOUS SELF is an illusion.
Probably humans, like much lessor animals, are just very complex biological machines. Here is a popular account of some recent findings:
"... The electrical activity of the volunteer’s brain (his brainwave pattern, in common parlance) was recorded by the EEG from the button’s press. Each volunteer was given 30 seconds to read the puzzle and another 60 to 90 seconds to solve it. ...
Some people worked it out; others did not. The significant point, though, was that the EEG predicted who would fall where. ... Moreover, the difference was noticeable up to eight seconds before the volunteer realised he had found the solution. Dr Sheth thinks this may be capturing the “transformational thought” (the light-bulb moment, as it were) in action, before the brain’s “owner” is consciously aware of it.
There is a precedent for such observations of unconscious thought in action. In the 1980s Benjamin Libet of the University of California, San Francisco, showed that simple decisions, such as when to move a finger, are made about three-tenths of a second before the brain’s owner is aware of them, and subsequent work has found that the roots of such decisions can be seen up to ten seconds before they become conscious. But this is the first occasion that such a long lead time has been shown for more complex {problem solving} thought processes.
This finding, combined with Libet’s, {suggests} conscious thought, it seems, does not solve problems.* Instead, unconscious processing happens in the background and only delivers the answer to consciousness once it has been arrived at. ..."
From popular account at: http://www.economist.com/node/13489722
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
The leaders of all the major, non-fundamentalist sects of Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions have told their flocks that the Bible is best taken as a collection of metaphors rather than a history book, or worse yet a science book. Even the Pope.
Jesuit universities (that's Pope Francis's order, they specialize in education) have been teaching evolution for decades, and since plate tectonics was discovered they also teach that.
You're quite a bit behind the information curve there. There are certainly fundamentalists among Catholics as among all Abrahamist sects, but the church is a hierarchy and the leaders teach the metaphorical approach and expect their priests to abide by that.
Metaphors are powerful and useful. They distill reality into sound bites, just like the six o'clock news. I love Jesus because most of the teachings attributed to him (he was a real retard concerning economics
) are good advice. I put him in the same category as Winnie the Pooh, Frodo Baggins and Kermit the Frog. I love them all, they are all good influences in my life, and they are all metaphors.Unfortunately the church is not as hip about social issues as it is about science. Women are still second-class citizens. The Catholic Church is the world's largest phallocracy.
I have been intermittently following your exchange with Billy, and my best guess as I've tried to understand it is:
Billy believes "I" is part of our awareness, how our brains consciously process the "I." IOW, the "I" only manifests itself through our own awareness? While you feel the "I" is the actual physical self?
His illustration a page back (I think?) is referring to how he believes the "I" is basically the output of information that our brains process. While you believe the "I" is the physical self, whether we have awareness or not.
Pardon me though if I'm off base, just my best guess for now.
This is interesting.
I'm not.
I'm not using it incorrectly. They believe the Bible to be literal truth. There once was a time when the Catholic Church taught this, as well. But, when it became inconvenient for them to continue such teachings, The Catholic Church as you put it...'changed its mind.' Fundamentalists have always believed the Bible and still do believe it to be literal truth. Which is why they reject the theory of evolution, because it conflicts with Scripture. Thus, they are not 'faithful' to Scripture when it suits them.
Yes, that's right. I'm not supporting their beliefs, I'm respectful of them as being authentic in their beliefs, even when it gets tough to do so.
No smokescreens.
So, the early Catholic Church that wrote the Bible, purposely wrote it as a metaphor? Riiight. It was written as the literal Word of God, ALL of it. And at one time, the Catholic Church taught it as such.
The Catholic Church doesn't accept Darwin's theory of evolution, as is, without modifying it. If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
[On an entirely unrelated note, I read today that Darwin, in his later years, was a self-acknowledged agnostic.]
Close, but no cigar. I believe humans (probably some of the higher animals too) evolved a real time understanding of their environment - not one that emerge after a fraction of a second delay associated with many stages of neural processing and signals traveling down axons. I think our ancestors in Africa did this about 50,000 years ago, so were much better in battles with other humanoids that still perceived their environment with at least 0.1 second delay.
I.e. were much better at ducking a thrown rock headed for them, so killed off all others, even the bigger brained, and much stronger Neanderthals. I.e. my RTS view of perception explains the "out of Africa" event (and may dozens of other mysterious facts from at least half dozen other fields).
"We," I believe are not aware directly of our environment, so "I" is not based on sensory awareness. We are aware of a simulation, very accurate usually as evolutionary selection has forced that, if not on drugs etc. This simulation is based on the sensory information, but slightly projects it ahead in time to be a Real Time version. "We" are also part of that RTS, when not in deep sleep. (When our body is in deep sleep we don't exist - the parietal RST is not "running" then.) If "we" were not part of the simulation - a creation of and in it, but observers from the outside, "we" would not have a real time understanding of the environment.
As I believe "I" exist in my dreams, when external stimuli are absent or greatly suppressed, (little or no awareness of the environment.) "I" am not based on sensory awareness, but part of the same process "I" am aware of. (This is why you did not win the cigar. If by "awareness" you were referring to the strange world the "free running" RTS with body in sleep (not deep sleep) creates, then I owe you a cigar.)
As your body does not actually jump out of windows even if "you" dream you are doing that, there has been little or no evolutionary pressure limiting your dreams, to conform to reality. I think this is part of why we dream. I.e. to think outside the box of what we consciously think is possible. Although, I never wake up, "knowing the solution" to problem that stumped me the prior eve, I do often see a way out of the "conceptual box" I was in and soon find the solution.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes you are.
Who is "they?" The Catholic Church does not teach the bible as literal truth. And even if it once did but now doesn't, that doesn't make them hypocrites. Hypocrisy is when a person (or institution) acts in a way that contradicts what they say, not when they change their position.
That's not quite what you're saying. You're saying you respect them for remaining ignorant on purpose, for continuing to believe in their myths even when those myths have been shown false. You respect them for shunning education in favor of ignorance. What, exactly, is worth respecting about any of this?
It doesn't matter what the early Catholic Church did or didn't teach (and they certainly did not write the bible). And there is no "it" in terms of the bible; it isn't a single book, but rather a collection of texts ranging from poetry to letters. So any claim that there is a single genre or purpose within is silly, and a sign that someone doesn't know their biblical scholarship. To the point, yes, they teach that there are passages within the bible that are not meant to be taken literally, such as metaphor and poetry.
I have a feeling we'd be having this discussion regardless. You seem eager to lavish praise on the stupid for being stupid, and that doesn't require any particular view of the evolutionary theory.
EoDEo
Registered Senior Member
Slow down. Stop. Think. Listen. Look. Feel.
Using logic alone is not the best option. You were gifted with a mind capable of most complex thoughts. Left side to analyze logic and details and the right side to intuitively grasp the whole picture. One without the other is weak. United, you can do incredible things.
Don't let words disconnect you from what you know to be true.
Using logic alone is not the best option. You were gifted with a mind capable of most complex thoughts. Left side to analyze logic and details and the right side to intuitively grasp the whole picture. One without the other is weak. United, you can do incredible things.
Don't let words disconnect you from what you know to be true.
@ Balerion:
Before we go further, why do you feel that Fundamentalists are 'stupid?'
Secondly, I should have stated 'assembled the Bible', not 'written.' (I think you knew what I meant, but, I shouldn't assume.)
There was a point in history when the Catholic Church taught that the Bible was to be taken literally. All of it.
For anyone interested, just some history behind the Bible, in one link.
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/1l.htm
And from wikipedia:
Early reaction to Darwin:
Catholic concern about evolution has always been very largely concerned with the implications of evolutionary theory for the origin of the human species; even by 1859, a literal reading of the Book of Genesis had long been undermined by developments in geology and other fields.No high-level Church pronouncement has ever attacked head-on the theory of evolution as applied to non-human species.[15]
Even before the development of modern scientific method, Catholic theology had allowed for biblical text to be read as allegorical, rather than literal, where it appeared to contradict that which could be established by science or reason. Thus Catholicism has been able to refine its understanding of scripture in light of scientific discovery.[16][17] Among the early Church Fathers there was debate over whether God created the world in six days, as Clement of Alexandria taught,[18] or in a single moment as held by Augustine,[19] and a literal interpretation of Genesis was normally taken for granted in the Middle Ages and later, until it was rejected in favour of uniformitarianism (entailing far greater timeframes) by a majority of geologists in the 19th century.[20] However modern literal creationism has had little support among the higher levels of the Church.
The Catholic Church delayed official pronouncements on Darwin's Origin of Species for many decades.[21] While many hostile comments were made by local clergy, Origin of Species was never placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum;[22] in contrast, Henri Bergson's non-Darwinian Creative Evolution (1907), was on the Index from 1948 until it was abolished in 1966.[23] However, a number of Catholic writers who published works specifying how evolutionary theory and Catholic theology might be reconciled ran into trouble of some sort with the Vatican authorities.[24] According to the historian of science and theologian Barry Brundell: "Theologians and historians of science have always been struck by the seemingly enigmatic response of Rome when it did come; the authorities were obviously unhappy with the propagation of 'Christianized evolution', but it seems they were not willing or able to say so straight out and in public".[25] H.L. Mencken observed that:
[The advantage of Catholics] lies in the simple fact that they do not have to decide either for Evolution or against it. Authority has not spoken on the subject; hence it puts no burden upon conscience, and may be discussed realistically and without prejudice. A certain wariness, of course, is necessary. I say that authority has not spoken; it may, however, speak tomorrow, and so the prudent man remembers his step. But in the meanwhile there is nothing to prevent him examining all available facts, and even offering arguments in support of them or against them—so long as those arguments are not presented as dogma.[26]
19th century reception among Catholics[edit]
The first notable statement after Darwin published his theory appeared in 1860 from a council of the German bishops, who pronounced:
"Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that the opinion of those who do not fear to assert that this human being, man as regards his body, emerged finally from the spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith."
Bolded for emphasis by me. The Bible (Genesis as well) was once taught as literal truth. When it became (and becomes) ''inconvenient,'' the Catholic Church ...'changed (changes) its mind.'
Before we go further, why do you feel that Fundamentalists are 'stupid?'
Secondly, I should have stated 'assembled the Bible', not 'written.' (I think you knew what I meant, but, I shouldn't assume.)
There was a point in history when the Catholic Church taught that the Bible was to be taken literally. All of it.
For anyone interested, just some history behind the Bible, in one link.
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/1l.htm
And from wikipedia:
Early reaction to Darwin:
Catholic concern about evolution has always been very largely concerned with the implications of evolutionary theory for the origin of the human species; even by 1859, a literal reading of the Book of Genesis had long been undermined by developments in geology and other fields.No high-level Church pronouncement has ever attacked head-on the theory of evolution as applied to non-human species.[15]
Even before the development of modern scientific method, Catholic theology had allowed for biblical text to be read as allegorical, rather than literal, where it appeared to contradict that which could be established by science or reason. Thus Catholicism has been able to refine its understanding of scripture in light of scientific discovery.[16][17] Among the early Church Fathers there was debate over whether God created the world in six days, as Clement of Alexandria taught,[18] or in a single moment as held by Augustine,[19] and a literal interpretation of Genesis was normally taken for granted in the Middle Ages and later, until it was rejected in favour of uniformitarianism (entailing far greater timeframes) by a majority of geologists in the 19th century.[20] However modern literal creationism has had little support among the higher levels of the Church.
The Catholic Church delayed official pronouncements on Darwin's Origin of Species for many decades.[21] While many hostile comments were made by local clergy, Origin of Species was never placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum;[22] in contrast, Henri Bergson's non-Darwinian Creative Evolution (1907), was on the Index from 1948 until it was abolished in 1966.[23] However, a number of Catholic writers who published works specifying how evolutionary theory and Catholic theology might be reconciled ran into trouble of some sort with the Vatican authorities.[24] According to the historian of science and theologian Barry Brundell: "Theologians and historians of science have always been struck by the seemingly enigmatic response of Rome when it did come; the authorities were obviously unhappy with the propagation of 'Christianized evolution', but it seems they were not willing or able to say so straight out and in public".[25] H.L. Mencken observed that:
[The advantage of Catholics] lies in the simple fact that they do not have to decide either for Evolution or against it. Authority has not spoken on the subject; hence it puts no burden upon conscience, and may be discussed realistically and without prejudice. A certain wariness, of course, is necessary. I say that authority has not spoken; it may, however, speak tomorrow, and so the prudent man remembers his step. But in the meanwhile there is nothing to prevent him examining all available facts, and even offering arguments in support of them or against them—so long as those arguments are not presented as dogma.[26]
19th century reception among Catholics[edit]
The first notable statement after Darwin published his theory appeared in 1860 from a council of the German bishops, who pronounced:
"Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that the opinion of those who do not fear to assert that this human being, man as regards his body, emerged finally from the spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith."
Bolded for emphasis by me. The Bible (Genesis as well) was once taught as literal truth. When it became (and becomes) ''inconvenient,'' the Catholic Church ...'changed (changes) its mind.'
They = Fundamentalists. We are talking about the ''Word of God'', here. The Catholic Church changed its entire view of Genesis from literal to metaphorical? Why? Because it felt obligated to, due to cultural pressure. The Catholic Church holds itself out to always take the moral high ground. It doesn't practice what it preaches/teaches, so yes...hypocritical.
Pope John Paul:
=================
In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.
For my part, when I received the participants in the plenary assembly of your Academy on October 31, 1992, I used the occasion—and the example of Gallileo—to draw attention to the necessity of using a rigorous hermeneutical approach in seeking a concrete interpretation of the inspired texts. It is important to set proper limits to the understanding of Scripture, excluding any unseasonable interpretations which would make it mean something which it is not intended to mean. In order to mark out the limits of their own proper fields, theologians and those working on the exegesis of the Scripture need to be well informed regarding the results of the latest scientific research.
Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of "evolutionism" as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions. He also set out the conditions on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith—a point to which I shall return.
Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.
============================