The Blasphemy Challenge

It won't, don't worry. You have been given all that you need, a conscience. There is no religion required.

Unless you can prove that there is no God, no creator of nature, there is no conflict. Making stuff up and deciding to investigate whether it could be true, is exactly what scientists do. I am not a fundamentalist, remember. There are many, many ways to incorporate spirituality into one's life. I have chosen to do that, and I will continue to do so.I am not going to continue in this vein any longer. If there is something you would like to discuss about atheist indoctrination, this would be the place to do it.

There is nothing wrong with cognitive behaviour research, or even with the results of the research. There is nothing about it which contradicts what I believe or which makes me squirm. It is however a science, and we still have a choice about whether or not we will incorporate our findings into a philosophy. When I ask for a 'motive' in morality, I am asking what you or anyone have done with this knowledge. Science is facts, and the fact is, that our minds should not take refuge in facts unless they cohere with our reality. The idea of a morality based on survival is not suitable any longer because as thinking individuals we have surpassed this stage. We have enough intelligence to survive. We have the intelligence to seek altruistic relations when their is a common goal. This is an extremely deep subject which goes far beyond the scienctific explanations. I usually work on ideas from the ground up, and I must reason things out instead of just giving you an answer. Religious people will often start with an answer which is reliant upon the reasoning of someone else. The only thing to do is to see if the answer matches the evidence. So far, there are very few areas where I see a potential conflict between the Christian faith and acceptance of scientific evidence. There are dangers, yes, but I see them not so much for christians, but for the world if it lost christianity and had to rely ONLY on science. It is very tough stuff, but hopefully it will be revealed on a relevent thread.

I think they are, but I guess I am talking consciously versus subconsciously. In the Catholic church, for example, evolution is accepted and taught, but for every new developement in evolutionary theory, these facts must be checked against what is 'revealed' by God in other ways. It is not a question of abandoning one for the other. If the doctrine of original sin is to be upheld, it must be done even if we discover that life did not start with two individuals, and Adam and an Eve on which to 'blame' sin. There are definitely ways to do this 'melding' of science and philosophy on a conscious level.If we do not start out with a particular philosophy, I do think that on some level all facts and experiences continue to shape and guide us into our own view. If I duscuss the origins of man or of life, and the scientific answers are not useful or practical in daily life, they must be incorporated into a larger philosophy. The idea of altruistic behaviour as a survival skill is wonderful, but so out-dated to me. It does not 'fit' into my daily life or my decision making in any conscious way. I think 'love thy neighbor' has long ago shifted from an idea which helps survival, to a coscious recognition of the rights and value of other men. I can easily make decisions based on the equality of men by asking how I would like to be treated, without any of the ambiguity of 'what does this mean for survival'.

Ah, I think you edited while I was replying... Precisely. It is easy to spot those which don't. Purposelessness.

But I said 'our reality'. I don't know what else that could mean but 'our perception' of such. The beauty of a rainbow is evident without science, and yes, using the scientific method has opened up a whole new world of beauty without proving or disproving that which has already been visible. Could science make a rainbow ugly, unlucky, or not a smile from God? No, but we can. Science like-wise can not complain if we take morality and give it meaning as the only tool we have to save us from destruction of spirit. With, of course, beauty. Beauty is reality, and goodness is beauty. Of course they are subjects to our perceptions, and yet so objective that we will always continue to seek them.

Yes. The RCC as most religions, proclaims itself to be 'truth'. It is a philosophy which is pre-provided. If I call it 'reality' it is to give it the benefit of the doubt while I check actual facts against it. If they do not cohere, one or the other must go. It is obvious that many forms of Biblical literalism toss facts out the window in favor of 'reality'. The point is that for you and others, the RCC is not reality, but you must still check facts against your own philosophy. A living philosophy will be forever evolving this way, and I do believe that people will often choose to ascribe to no pre-made view while waiting for the facts to come in. In the mean-time, one can hardly put off having a philosophy for life, even if it as simple as 'live for the moment'.And yes, I think that religion has a utilitarian purpose, and I would not want to replace usefulness with mere knowledge. It is good to see if the knowledge can be useful for creating a fuller picture.

I am glad that someone has finally caught on. But yes, a friend, and not a student, because I have worked out my philosophy from the ground up, and can recognize a kindred spirit at long last, only because I have been down the same road. I am still stuck in the 'curious' terms land between expressing an idea and presenting it an understandable terms.

I would like this to be so. I am not informed enough to know if this is a vain hope. I imagine that when it seems clear that one way MUST disprove another, or that Aristotle's ideas are on their way to conclusively ending the 'battle', (whilst anything transcendant can never be proven} there is a sort of panic which ensues in spiritual minds. Nowadays, you can study science, or religion, and the thought is that one needn't interfere with another. Yet, where before religion may have overstepped itself in answering scientific questions, now it is thought that science is interfering in religious questions.So, we either meld the two, and find that they are leading to One result, which makes a good case for a creator.Or, we seperate the two, and find they are leading to two Results, which is a good case for dualism, and essentially the same case of the flesh versus the spirit. The God, or Mammon, etc.Even so, that is NOT seperation, anymore than it is in religion. It is still a choice between two very real realities. If we prove that science has all the answers, we can not disprove the possibility of another answer. All things which are seen, studied, and created, may be very easily self-sustaining and self-sufficient. Yet, if there is a soul and a spirit realm which is not part of creation, we can only use what HAS been created to obtain any knowledge of this, even if what HAS been created was made also for another purpose.I hope this makes sense. I do understand that Aristotle is for now, winning. But I think this may be simply because we have not explored this area enough, and not that we have disproved Plato. We are just a bit bored with him and of exploring the unprovable.