bizarre twist: Atheistic Science to become Religion

[Lawdog]

Ratzinger Warned in April 1st Lecture - "Very Soon It Will Not Be Possible to State That Homosexuality...is an Objective Disorder"

ROME, Italy, July 28, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In the conclusion of Cardinal Ratzinger’s lecture, now Pope Benedict XVI, delivered on April 1st, the eve of John Paul II’s death, the then Cardinal strongly denounced the European Enlightenment culture and its increasing dogmatism against religion, Christianity and freedom.

The Cardinal expressed his belief that the reasons given by the architects of the EU Constitution for excluding God from the document—that the mention of God or recognition of the Christian roots of the continent might offend those of other religions—doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

“The affirmation that the mention of the Christian roots of Europe injures the sentiments of many non-Christians who are in Europe, is not very convincing, given that it relates, first of all, to an historical fact that no one can seriously deny…It is not the mention of God that offends those who belong to other religions, but rather the attempt to build the human community absolutely without God,” said the Cardinal.

Instead, Ratzinger continued, it is obvious that the exclusion of religion from the public sphere is rather the result of the imposition of Enlightenment dogma, which dogma falsely professes the ideals of freedom and tolerance. Indeed, one of the inevitable consequences of what Ratzinger called the ‘Culture of Rights’, as divorced from its Judeo-Christian roots, is that “the concept of discrimination is ever more extended, and so the prohibition of discrimination can be increasingly transformed into a limitation of the freedom of opinion.”

“Very soon,” said the Cardinal in a chilling prophesy that is already coming to fulfillment in many Western nations, including Canada, “it will not be possible to state that homosexuality, as the Catholic Church teaches, is an objective disorder in the structuring of human existence.”

According to Ratzinger it is “obvious that the ill-defined or undefined concept of freedom, which is at the base of this culture, inevitably entails contradictions…A confused ideology of freedom leads to dogmatism, which is showing itself increasingly hostile to freedom.”

Ratzinger concluded by expressing his strong doubt that the Enlightenment culture will ever provide a common cause for men. “We have to ask ourselves,” says the Cardinal, “if it is really complete in itself, to the degree that it has no need of a root outside itself.” The implied answer, of course, is no, the Enlightenment culture without the firm foundation of Europe’s roots in Christianity can only devolve into a pseudo and dogmatic religion, ultimately restrictive of freedom.

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

It is interesting that the article does not mention atheism or science.

Science is not atheistic. Science takes no position on theism, or more accurately it is indifferent to theism. Science is the pursuit of knowledge and its methodology depends entirely on evidence. And without evidence science can do nothing – hence the reason science is silent concerning theism.

I’m pleased though that his statements indicate a strong recognition of the decline of Christianity. Had it been at a mediocre level then I doubt it would have been mentioned. But certainly the statistics across Europe show a massive decline in church attendance and a greater tolerance for the ideas of others. This is significant progress.

The freedom to choose what to believe should be a fundamental right of every individual. What the pope wants is a return to the oppressive stagnation of Christian closed minded indoctrination. Those times are past, hopefully forever. The world is waking up at last, although with declining levels of education the USA is sliding backwards with its apparent and corresponding increase in religious belief.

 

[Hapsburg]

Ratzinger scares me. He reminds me too much like Palpatine.
I like palpatine though, but Ratzinger is just nuts.

 

[Lawdog]

Modern Scientists are generally Atheistic/Agnostic. To take no position on theism is to positively deny the Messiah. Science has done this, but it should not have, that was not they way it was meant to be.

Modern science, as many here have demonstrated, demands scientific proof of something (God/Christ) that is not proper to its study.

 

[Hapsburg]

It's possible that a deity of some kind existed at one point, and started things in motion that led to the Big Bang, and just observed, not really meddling with things...that, to me, makes the most sense, and also is a compromise between the two feuding ideological camps: theism and athiesm.
But, I don't think that Christ was a messiah. I think he was a very intelligent person, a smart man, who had good ideals, but got involved in some kind of messianic sect of Jusaism, which used him as a martyr, which, well, turned into Christianity...

 

[Cris]

Hapsburg - why is it possible? I think you mean that "we can speculate that...".

But that is Deism. Pretty much atheism but with a god at the begining of everything and never seen again. I never quite understood the attraction of such a religion.

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

Modern Scientists are generally Atheistic/Agnostic.

This is inevitable because the discipline of science demands a close adherence to evidence whereas religion does the opposite. It is very difficult to mentally switch contexts between the two paradigms.

To take no position on theism is to positively deny the Messiah.

That is false. The absence of a belief is not the same as believing the proposition is false, one may simply not know.

Science has done this, but it should not have, that was not they way it was meant to be.

Your terminology is somewhat bizarre. Science is primarily a methodology for establishing knowledge and its primary instrument is evidence. If there were evidence for gods then science could become involved.

Modern science, as many here have demonstrated, demands scientific proof of something (God/Christ) that is not proper to its study.

That is the very essence of science. You need to take a basic course in science.

 

[Hapsburg]

Hapsburg - why is it possible? I think you mean that "we can speculate that...".

But that is Deism. Pretty much atheism but with a god at the begining of everything and never seen again. I never quite understood the attraction of such a religion.

To me, it makes more sense than christianity, yet helps kinda answer "what created the big bang", because if you believe that the big bang happened, you have to ask "what created the matter that was condensed that eventually 'banged'", a deity of some sort is a simple and easy answer. Then you have to ask youself "who created that?" and so on.
I'd rather not care about how the universe works, at all, but this forum is making me care...

 

[superluminal]

Why is there something instead of nothing?

This is provably unanswerable. The proof is in infinite regression. Think about it.

A exists. B caused A. What caused B? C. What caused C? D...

There cannot be an ultimate cause. See proof above. This means that the universe is uncaused. It simply is, always has been, and always will be. I see this as proof that our universe must be cyclic in nature.

For if this is a one shot deal, then what caused it? Ad infinitum. Therefore I conclude that what we see is one of an infinity (past and future) of universes.

EDIT: Maybe I should post this in philosophy?

 

[Hapsburg]

Good point.
I still say deism makes more sense than Christianity...

 

[superluminal]

Okey Dokey.

 

[Hapsburg]

Well, at least in Deism, you can incorporate Evolution, the Big Bang, and other things that makes sense, and still have closure.
'Course, I'm still undecided, but athesim seems to be the most rational course...
...problem is, humans are often irrational, erratic, strange, and illogical, it's part of our nature...

 

[superluminal]

It's a species character flaw...

 

[Hapsburg]

Yes...so, we are prone to make irrational decisions on how things came about.
It is really best to just not care about how and why the universe works, but that is quite hard to do at SciForums...

 

[Lawdog]

So what do you all say....will Atheistic Science become a psuedo-religion?

Is it already?

Is there a sort of unspoken acknowledgement that
one cannot be christian or pagan or muslim and also be a serious scientist?

no debate here from me...just want to read what you think.

 

[superluminal]

So what do you all say....will Atheistic Science become a psuedo-religion?

Is it already?

No, and no. The definition of religion includes faith and supernatural effects. And there is no such thing as "atheistic' science. It's just science. It has nothing to say about the supernatural.

Is there a sort of unspoken acknowledgement that
one cannot be christian or pagan or muslim and also be a serious scientist?

Not at all. Many christians read the bible as a guiding philosophical text and accept Jesus on emotional and moral (dubious) grounds. They understand that the bible is not a science textbook.

They may not be 'christians' in your world, but that's what they call themselves.

Fundies cannot be scientists.

Don't know enough about pagans or muslims.

 

[Lawdog]

Lawdog,

That is false. The absence of a belief is not the same as believing the proposition is false, one may simply not know. .

I hold firm on this, Absence of belief in God is denial of God, and sin as well. How can this be? The creator put knowledge of God in every human heart and mind, as well as evidence everywhere in creation. Therefore absence of God's existance is active denial of that positive certitude of knowledge, in every case where the faculty of reason is sufficiently developed (which excludes certain children and disabled), and as such is a lie, which is sin. One must actively deny Gods existance in order to sustain absence of belief. evil is the absence of Good. Belief in God is a good open to all who are fit for it, therefore absence of belief is an evil, both morally and socially.

To see evidence of the Messiah, even if it seems somewhat doubtable, and still deny obstinately that the Messiah
could have and can exist, is also sin.
Why? Because the human person is in need of God, just as a man lost at sea is in need of a recue. If he spots what might be the smoke from a ship upon the horizon and refuses to act based on the principle that he should not burn trees, he does injustice to himself, he commits himself to starvation and death. This is sin.

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

I hold firm on this,

Despite all the mainstream definitions of atheism. You should at least try to understand what it is you are criticizing. Try this thread for reference –

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679

Absence of belief in God is denial of God,

No that is incorrect. I do not know if a god exists or not and therefore it makes no sense to deny it.

The creator put knowledge of God in every human heart and mind,

If true then it apparently forgot to tell everyone who can think for themselves.

as well as evidence everywhere in creation.

There is no evidence of a creator. Everything we know can be explained through evolutionary processes.

Therefore absence of God's existance is active denial

You mean absence of belief of its existence. And no that is obviously not active denial. Read the reference material I have supplied and return when you understand the basic concepts of atheism vs theism, or at least understand what is meant by atheism.

One must actively deny Gods existance in order to sustain absence of belief.

No again. One may simply not find the theist claims believable. That is not the same as believing gods do not exist.

evil is the absence of Good.

No. Evil is the result of deliberate actions.

Belief in God is a good open to all who are fit for it,

No, belief in a god is the action of an irrational mind. Irrationality is detrimental to survival and is hence a bad thing.

therefore absence of belief is an evil, both morally and socially.

No. Absence of belief in gods is a fully rational and justifiable philosophical position. To attempt to convince others as you do of an indefensible irrational position without meaningful evidence is at best simple self delusion or most likely deliberate deceit – either way your position is socially and morally corrupt.

To see evidence of the Messiah, even if it seems somewhat doubtable, and still deny obstinately that the Messiah
could have and can exist, is also sin.

But you can’t show that he ever existed. You lost that argument remember. Don’t try and twist it and be a sore loser.

Because the human person is in need of God,

Incorrect. I have no need of a god neither does anyone else on this planet.

just as a man lost at sea is in need of a recue. If he spots what might be the smoke from a ship upon the horizon and refuses to act based on the principle that he should not burn trees, he does injustice to himself, he commits himself to starvation and death. This is sin.

Total gibberish.

 

[Lawdog]

You know that im right and logically justified in these assertions, and that evidence does exist and is constantly being supplied to you. Reason concerning objective Reality requires openess to recieving belief in God. To go against this is repugnant to Reason and Human Dignity, and must be sustained by an act of the Will for suspension and warpage of the Intellective Faculty.

 

[spidergoat]

Because the human person is in need of God, just as a man lost at sea is in need of a recue.

This need, as you experience, has been placed there by there very theology you believe. The need or wish for a ruler is weakness. Nature needs no outside control. Science may very well be the religion of the future, at least it's miracles are real and repeatable.