Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Film: Creation (2009)
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 31 of 39 (613777)
04-27-2011 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by KellyWilson
04-26-2011 11:05 PM


Re: Not the OP
KellyWilson writes:
You can't be suggesting that what have we learned since Tennyson has rendered his observations about waste obsolete.
Nor can you be suggesting that because language is poetic it conveys nothing.
Nor can you be suggesting that the hard facts of science contradict what Tennyson intends to convey.
Because you can't be suggesting any of these things, you'll understand if I question entirely the relevance of your last comment.
Might I suggest we cease conversing on this subject?
I'm not sure why I can't be suggesting any of those things.
I can suggest that I do not see the waste he alludes to, and that he could have been wrong.
Of course I am not suggesting that poetic language conveys nothing, but it does not convey science.
And yes, I can be suggesting that the hard facts of science contradict what he is saying.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by KellyWilson, posted 04-26-2011 11:05 PM KellyWilson has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 39 (613803)
04-27-2011 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by KellyWilson
04-26-2011 11:12 PM


You don't know anyone who believes God is omni-benevolent and accepts the reality of evolution? Well, I don't know what you intend to convey with your ID as a "Catholic Scientist" but perhaps I might refer you to Pope Benedict. I can't imagine you would assert him as being alone in this view.
If you look at the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the Nature and Attributes of God, you won't find the word 'omni-benevolent'. Too, the page on Divine Attributes doesn't mention it. That page does have this at the bottom, from the Vatican Council:
quote:
The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church believes and professes that there is one living and true God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will and in all perfection Who, being One, singular, absolutely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, is to be regarded as distinct really and in essence from the world most blessed in and from Himself, and unspeakably elevated above all things that exist, or can be conceived, except Himself.
We could look to the Nicene Creed, but that doesn't mention omni-benevolence either.
This is the typically held view of Catholics for example, that God is omni-benevolent, and that evolution is a reality.
Now, I'm not saying that nobody in Catholicism thinks that god is omni-benevolent, or even that there is nowhere that it is mentioned, but I do think we can say that its not really a big deal. It isn't something I remember being specifically taught during my Catholic education. What I was trying to convey, was that the people who promote god as being omni-benevolent are the same ones who deny evolution. For the ones who accept evolution, omni-benevolence isn't really a big deal. And I was trying to use the word in the same context that you were, because in the way that Catholics typically use omni-benevolence, there is no issue/contradiction with the "wasteful design" that you bring up. Like I said, they allow for a little more variety than a stict absolutley-no-evil-allowed that the people who promote god as omni-benevolent usually mean.
The issue I raise runs slightly deeper than the typically heard articulations of the problem of evil, and the main reason is because of the existence of what appears to be waste and death, long prior to the emergence of humans...
I see. One solution to the problem of evil is through the freewill of mankind so this "wasteful design" being before man doesn't fit with that.
I don't see why this "wasteful design" necessarily suggests the malevolence that would be a problem for omni-benevolence. Can you expound that claim a bit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by KellyWilson, posted 04-26-2011 11:12 PM KellyWilson has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by KellyWilson, posted 04-27-2011 3:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
KellyWilson
Junior Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 04-24-2011


Message 33 of 39 (613811)
04-27-2011 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by New Cat's Eye
04-27-2011 2:06 PM


Catholic Scientist, that's a fair enough observation you make regarding the absense of omni-benevolence in certain official articulations of the Church's faith.
But I don't think we can say, particularly I don't think the Catholic (of which I am one...) can say that it is not really a big deal.
Your observation about its absence raises an important distinction brought to light in something like Rahner's editted work "Sacramentum Mundi." At times articulations about God betray a greater interest in philosophical speculation than in biblical revelation. I don't want to give the impression of disinterest in philosophy, but Christianity to someone like Ratzinger is "not a philosophical speculation...but is a Revelation."
Your quote is from the first Vatican Council. Consider the Second, however, and you'll see, I think, evidences of this distinction.
Now, I wouldn't myself see perceived "wasteful design" as necessarily suggesting malevolence, because I don't think one has to view death as evil. Catholic (and particularly Franciscan) motivated theological antropology, especially surrounding the Medieval speculations as to whether humans might have died had they not sinned, brings to light a possible reconciliation.

Kelly Wilson
Musings @ kellyjwilson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-27-2011 2:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-27-2011 3:41 PM KellyWilson has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 39 (613815)
04-27-2011 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by KellyWilson
04-27-2011 3:19 PM


But I don't think we can say, particularly I don't think the Catholic (of which I am one...) can say that it is not really a big deal.
Its not a big deal in the sense that it really doesn't come up very much and they aren't making it a point to teach it enough so that the average student remembers hearing about it. Certainly, less of a big deal than, say, masturbation...
Your observation about its absence raises an important distinction brought to light in something like Rahner's editted work "Sacramentum Mundi." At times articulations about God betray a greater interest in philosophical speculation than in biblical revelation.
If you want to go Biblical, then we do have this:
quote:
Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Oh, and that whole part about killing everything in a flood. Those would seem to be better candidates for a problem with omni-benevolence than nature being wasteful.
Your quote is from the first Vatican Council. Consider the Second, however, and you'll see, I think, evidences of this distinction.
Anything in particular? Quote it.
Now, I wouldn't myself see perceived "wasteful design" as necessarily suggesting malevolence, because I don't think one has to view death as evil.
Then what were you going on about in the Opening Post (OP)?
Catholic (and particularly Franciscan) motivated theological antropology, especially surrounding the Medieval speculations as to whether humans might have died had they not sinned, brings to light a possible reconciliation.
Except that its rediculous to think that humans might have not died if they hadn't sinned. A better reconciliation, would be that god really isn't omni-benevolent. And that makes sense in the light of god being Just, as he'd have to be "not-good" to badness itself to maintain justice. You know, the whole damning people to hell for eternity.
Personally, I don't like that "omni" prefix on any qualities as it adds more confusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by KellyWilson, posted 04-27-2011 3:19 PM KellyWilson has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by KellyWilson, posted 04-27-2011 5:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
KellyWilson
Junior Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 15
Joined: 04-24-2011


Message 35 of 39 (613834)
04-27-2011 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by New Cat's Eye
04-27-2011 3:41 PM


With all do respect, I don't see much point going on here.
To me, this borders on the incredible. That it would be so difficult to figure out what I am seeking here...
A part of me wants to think you are winding me up. But I don't think you are.
Which means I appreciate your sincerity, but find this a meaningless exercise.
Who would have thought it would be so difficult to seek out people who hold to two very specific characteristics, and ask them how they hold such characteristics together in light of perceived waste.
As a serious concluding question, is this sort of discussion representative of what takes place here on EVCForum?

Kelly Wilson
Musings @ kellyjwilson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-27-2011 3:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Jon, posted 04-27-2011 6:22 PM KellyWilson has not replied
 Message 37 by arachnophilia, posted 04-27-2011 7:06 PM KellyWilson has not replied
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-28-2011 10:47 AM KellyWilson has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 39 (613837)
04-27-2011 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by KellyWilson
04-27-2011 5:46 PM


As a serious concluding question, is this sort of discussion representative of what takes place here on EVCForum?
Not at all. Go ahead and jump into some of the other ongoing threads here if you want a genuine feel of how discussion unfolds at EvC.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by KellyWilson, posted 04-27-2011 5:46 PM KellyWilson has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 37 of 39 (613838)
04-27-2011 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by KellyWilson
04-27-2011 5:46 PM


KellyWilson writes:
Who would have thought it would be so difficult to seek out people who hold to two very specific characteristics, and ask them how they hold such characteristics together in light of perceived waste.
this board has a long-running problem. we are extremely short on creationists. those that stick around generally fall into one (and only one) of two categories:
  1. ardent cranks who fail to see basic logic, and
  2. those that do see basic logic, and begin to come over to the evolutionist side
those that would meet your two very specific characteristics are a tiny subsection of that second group, which by nature is transitory and non-conformist. these are not people that fall into a specific category by definition, and who are constantly re-examining and adapting their own ideas. this means you really aren't very likely to meet people who hold those ideas simultaneously on this board.
you will, however, meet a lot of people who understand evolution, and a few of those who are vaguely theistic and/or even christian. however, by and large, most of that grouping (jar, myself, etc) seem to reject the notion of omni-benevolence. that said, i mentioned in my previous response that i once did hold those two ideas simultaneously, and explained (perhaps uncharitably) my rationale. i provided a link where you can find a whole debate i participated in regarding theodicy.
i'm sorry that this is not a sufficient response, or what you were looking for. but this is perhaps the best discussion you can get on a board populated by a lot of strictly rational thinkers, a few cranks, and a very nuanced middle ground.
As a serious concluding question, is this sort of discussion representative of what takes place here on EVCForum?
i think this discussion is fairly productive and interesting. i'm sorry it's not what you had in mind. but as i said, it's a bit like asking "how do people who believe in a flat earth explain NASA?" you kind of have to expect that people are going to respond "the earth isn't flat."

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by KellyWilson, posted 04-27-2011 5:46 PM KellyWilson has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Jon, posted 04-27-2011 8:09 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 39 (613839)
04-27-2011 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by arachnophilia
04-27-2011 7:06 PM


Reconciliation Attempted
i think this discussion is fairly productive and interesting. i'm sorry it's not what you had in mind. but as i said, it's a bit like asking "how do people who believe in a flat earth explain NASA?" you kind of have to expect that people are going to respond "the earth isn't flat."
Indeed. Anyone who's given much thought to the question Mr. Wilson is asking has likely already come to a conclusion that requires discarding one of the premises. Thus, finding anyone who actually holds both arguments as truethat God is omnibenevolent (whatever that even means), and that evolution is true and somehow not benevolent (whatever that even means)1is going to be a difficult task for Mr. Wilson.
I once held to the 'tri-omni' God notion, but abandoned it as ridiculous after examining the evidence. The post I made earlier is my attempt to reconcile the notions of God with the available evidence; just like the posts you and CS have been making are your attempts to reconcile the matter of a 'tri-omni' God with the contradictory evidence.
I am rather stunned that Mr. Wilson does not find our reconciliation attempts relevant to his question.
Jon
__________
1 Obviously for a contradiction here to even exist, we need to include the omnipotent and omnipresent qualities of the traditional 'tri-omni' God.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by arachnophilia, posted 04-27-2011 7:06 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 39 (613871)
04-28-2011 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by KellyWilson
04-27-2011 5:46 PM


With all do respect, I don't see much point going on here.
Sorry to disappoint. I'll know that its totally pointless when you stop replying
To me, this borders on the incredible. That it would be so difficult to figure out what I am seeking here...
I think we all understand what you are seeking, we're just telling you that you're wasting your time looking for it.
A part of me wants to think you are winding me up. But I don't think you are.
Oh, you'll know when I'm winding you up (smileys are a hint)
Which means I appreciate your sincerity, but find this a meaningless exercise.
I figured that from the OP.
Who would have thought it would be so difficult to seek out people who hold to two very specific characteristics, and ask them how they hold such characteristics together in light of perceived waste.
Had you found those people, what did you expect to discuss with them? I can make whatever assumptions and discus this with you, but it'd help to know what direction you want to go in. As I said earlier:
quote:
The escape from the contradiction is that either god is not omni-benevolent or that said things are not really evil.
Are you just wanting to explore the explanations for why an exceedingly wasteful plan would not be evil?
I understand the premises, so what do you want to discuss?
As a serious concluding question, is this sort of discussion representative of what takes place here on EVCForum?
Yes and no. Its so diverse there's not gonna be one representative. But the approach we've taken to this is standard for what we were replying to. Just look around. Do you ever use google sitesearch? Put in some key words or topics you like and see what we've been on about. People here will discuss ANYTHING. They also take it fairly seriously and mostly are honest about it.
This place *is* awesome, though. The quality of the posters is only surpassed by the quality of the software. The owner of the site is also the software developer (its unique to this site), and whenever I try a different discussion board, I'm always dissappointed with the software. Sometimes it sucks to be spoiled. We have a lot of good experts to learn from, from archaeologist to cosmologists and from pastors to wacko religious nutjobs, so it can definately be worth your time. But you reap what you sow. You gotta give us somethign to work with. Your OP is just too limited. You're not gonna find people who fit, and there isn't enough info on what you want to discuss for others to assume the premises and follow the direction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by KellyWilson, posted 04-27-2011 5:46 PM KellyWilson has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024