Modern miracles: Science meets sainthood

This is very interesting, as I suffered for years with crippling back pain that was so severe that at times I was unable to rise from bed in a timely enough manner to take care of vital biological functions. I no longer have that problem even though I ignored the urging of two surgeons to put myself in their hands. Was it a miracle, hardly, because no plea was made to a deity and none was expected because I am a non-believer in such things.

Looking at the phenomenon throughout verifiable history, I have observed that such pleas for divine intervention, even for small things like making a foul shot in a basketball game, don't fall outside the realm of being statistically possible. The big things that happen could fall within the statistic probabilities as many diseases with real physical manifestations are in fact psychosomatic, which have been cured by psychology, or invoking the placebo effect where the patient is cured by forces he perceives will cure him, even when these forces are believed by the patient to be imaginary. It is not hard, then, to imagine that a person with a psychosomatic affliction, or something real that his belief triggers necessary immune response, could be aided by his belief that prayer will help.

Now, I still have problems with cases where the intervention of a loving god could have made a huge difference in the fate of great masses of his "children" that did not happen, even in the face of hundreds of millions of prayers being offered to ask for the requested help. There are any number of instances in the Bible where god intervened to help individuals, or groups to overcome great adversity so that they could prevail, but when the action of this divine creature could have been as little as placing a small blood clot unobtrusively in an artery of say someone like Adolf Hitler, it did not happen, much to the regret of Humanity, not to mentioned the 50, or so, million who died (many horribly) as a result of this megalomaniac's desire to rule the world. If this deity does play favorites, some of his favorites seem to be some of the most evil people who have ever lived, who have caused many of the faithful immense suffering as a by-product. I shall remain sceptical.

Thanks, Michael for opening up an interesting area. As many will no doubt comment without actually reading your article, it illustrates the fusion of Faith and Science that, for Catholics, does not pose as difficult tensions as people often incorrectly assume. The requirements for a miracle are actually quite strict and propositions treated with a healthy degree of skepticism.

David, as you are a uncompromising atheist, you still have not addressed my question as to the Penrose Number, that is, the chance that God does not exist, according to Sir Roger Penrose, one of the worlds most highly acclaimed mathematicians/physicists is 1 in 10 to the 10123rd power. That is, 1 chance in 10 with 10123 zeros after it. How do you reconcile your position with this recognized genius?

With regard to you human evaluation as why God might cure a cold, but, in your view, not prevents millions of deaths, you seek to understand God's permissive will, which is impossible by the finite human mind.

Is your only explanation for these incredible cures the placebo effect? Also, I have some news, God may cure non-believers so that they may become believers. You've read the New Testament - Jesus did this all the time.

Lastly, not sure if you mention this before, but how did life begin? Was it by the infusion of cells from aliens from another planet like Richard Dawkins hypothesized? Where did those aliens come from?

The force of the universe is entropy - massive disorder. How then, in light of this force, could life have begun, and flourish?

Your being skeptical, David, is not yours alone, nor without justification; but it has been the subject of intense reflection by persons with far greater intellectual acumen and intensity of focus than I can bring to it. Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas; Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Rabbi Hoeschel, are the first to come to mind.
There is one miracle however that my skepticism doesn't know to handle. It is the answer to the scientific question:"Why is there something, rather than nothing?" Modern astrophysics seems to say that from a point of "no dimensions"
the cosmos as we know know it emerged some 13.7 billion years ago. Both space (3-dimensions) and time (itself) came into existence in that instant.
Since all human conceptual thought requires a prior sensory experience, then there can be no conceiving of a reality prior (other than) to the cosmos. This necessarily includes God and/or attributes of God. If we deny to God the power to act within God's own creation, aren't we being rather foolish, and if we do accept the possibility of this "intervention", aren't we also accepting the possibility of the Incarnation of God into his own creation as a limited (temporally, 33yrs and spatially, Galilee and Judaea) human being?
And should we not reread the keynote address put onto the lips of Jesus by Mark in the earliest of the written Gospels when he says:
"Change the way you think about reality ['Metanoiesete'] because the Kingdom of God is within you. Believe this good news." [Mk. 1:15]
That initial point of no dimensions, is within.

Just because a quantum mathematician calculated the odds of a randomly occuring universe supporting life as we know it to be 10^10123 to 1 , doesn't mean that some sort of magic being must have created it. It just means that we're extremely lucky.
As far as the quote from Justin saying that this article "illustrates the fusion of Faith and Science that, for Catholics, does not pose as difficult tensions as people often incorrectly assume.", I say, go see the Creationist Museum in Kansas, and tell me THAT isn't creating some tension. Or ask a stem cell researcher if religious fanatics aren't creating "tension" for them.

KJR - I believe I have addressed your concerns about the figures your genius has come up with in a previous question. To further elucidate the point, I find that basing ones hope on proving the mathematical probability of there being a god to be subject to how we view the numbers, which can themselves be deceptive. I can present a simple mathematical progression that, without trickery or manipulation, will lead to an illogical answer. Try this; Three men enter a hotel in need of a room. They inquire at the desk as to the price for the night's lodging and are informed by the desk clerk that a room for the three will cost them $30. for the night. Each man coughs up $10. each and the men head up to the room. After they leave the desk, the clerk realizes that he over-charged the men by $5. and calls the bell-hop over and instructs him to take five one dollar bills up to the gentlemen. In the elevator, the bell-hop decides that it would be difficult for the gentlemen to split five dollars between them and simplifies the matter by tucking two singles into his pocket. When he reaches the room, he informs them that they were overcharged and hands each one of them a one dollar bill, meaning that each man has now paid $9. for their share of the room. three X $9. = $27., plus the two the bell-hop tucked into his pocket = $29. . Where did the other dollar go? Now I realize that if one looks at the data of the above scenario from a different angle, it will also logically add up to $30., and I believe it is the same when interpreting the effects involved in large numbers when one considers the angle from which the mathematician approaches the figures. I still remain sceptical.

Did you know that if you go to Lourdes and pray for a miracle you actually have LESS of a statistical chance that you will be cured than if you don't?

The reason for this is because so many terminal cases go to Lourdes as a last resort.

From a scientific perspective, there are a certain number of people who go into remission without explanation. It is a fact. Their religions and whether they pray are irrelevant to that number. What IS relevant is Lourdes, which has been billed as the location in France where miracle cures are there for the taking. Now, if this was true, and prayer had any effect on whether someone goes into spontaneous remission, one would expect the number of "miracles" at Lourdes to be higher than in the normal population.

Just because someone inexplicably got better, does not make it a miracle. otherwise Lourdes' numbers would be MUCH better than the normal observable facts.

Face it, it is something you WANT to see, not reality.

As always, I have to question anyone who claims that curing some old guys back pain is a miracle, when there is so much injustice, abuse, and downright EVIL perpetrated by the catholic church.

And for anyone interested in the actual statistics, currently there are 67 "miracles" that have been "verified" by the catholic church as coming from Lourdes. When you consider that millions of people have gone there, the number of remissions is actually staggeringly low.

The take home is: stick with your doctors, cuz god ain't listening.

The number is 10 with 10123 . That is, a billion x a billion x 10,000. 1 chance in that many zeros. Can't you come up with something stronger than that? Penrose has no particular religious affiliation, but came up with this from a scientific perspective... based on rule of entropy, probability, and scientific principles, NOT dogma.

kelli.... rotflmao.

KJR, just because an obscure mathmatical construct can be used to create a psuedoproof for a God, doesn't mean it proves your God, or any other personal God for that matter.

Heck, Penrose's equation could be skewed to prove the concept of a multi-verse where there are infinate sub universers contained in the mass of even larger universes. Theoretically these universes could all contain differing laws of physics and matter and we just happen to be one that contains the necessary materials for our forms of life. Others could be completely devoid of life, and still others could be teaming with a different kind of life.

Is any of this provable at the moment? No, but neither is your miracle filled deity.

Not too long ago, I lost my mother, the mass was filled and we shall remember her and pray for her as long as we live. I also lost my dog. i just burried a hole and burried him. The next day I got another. When we believe in God, life is so different.

KJR - You have asked me to produce an explanation of where it all began. In all honesty, I have to admit that "I don't know.....YET!". This is not admitting defeat, but admitting that just because we as a species have evolved to the point where we can ask the question, does not mean that we have evolved to the point where we have been able to determine the answer, if that is ever going to be possible. Religion has come into being as an answer to our seeming need to have answers, even if the answers we end up accepting are nothing but the accumulated myths and superstitions of our ancestors that have been dogmatized, institutionalized and mounded into something we have the arrogance to call "Ultimate Truth". Religion presupposes answers to questions we are only now gaining the means to investigate. We are far from reaching that point, but not as far as those who wear the blinders of absolutism and inflexibility inherent in religious dogma.

I think the notion of a "miracle", which is almost always an anecdotally reported event, makes no sense from a rational point of view, because we are almost never in a position to determine what the initial facts were, let alone whether the reported change rationally comports with those facts. Certainly the disappearance of an intractable back pain would appear to be the least likely candidate for certification. Not only do a large proportion of the population have back pain, but a large number have great difficulty getting a medical person to believe the pain exists, and when they are diagnosed, they often get a "guestimate" of the cause because few cases are amenable to a definite and clearly determinable cause. I was surprised at my own sense of finality and doom when I herniated a disk late in life, but was more surprised when after inquiries I heard that the excruciatingly painful event might heal itself. It did. This was no miracle, any more than the ordinary miracle of life, but I was thankful (to God) that I had healed. I regarded it as a miracle only in a very vernacular sense, and it hadn't occurred to me to pray to God or seek the intercession of some great biochemist during the period of distress when my body failed. Perhaps it is time for the Church to abandon mumbo-jumbo explanations which can only be misunderstood. If Cardinal Newman was a great Christian, recognition should not depend upon some guy's chance back pain a century later, and even if the healing was a result of that man's faith, such faith should not be seen as derivative of Newman's writing. The Christian church should have no place for shamans or saints.

For those with faith, no explanation is necessary.
For those without, no explanation will suffice.

KJR said "The number is 10 with 10123 . That is, a billion x a billion x 10,000. 1 chance in that many zeros. Can't you come up with something stronger than that? Penrose has no particular religious affiliation, but came up with this from a scientific perspective... based on rule of entropy, probability, and scientific principles, NOT dogma. kelli.... rotflmao."
Uh....right. I don't even know what you're trying to say here, your logic is so flawed and lacks any common sense. Are you asking for a less improbable calculation for the random existence of our universe? You claim that there was no dogma in this calculation, yet Roger himself claims that "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance. " That sounds like a bias to me. And ONE quantum physicist makes a calculation (and he's known for making some major errors in his calculations in the past) and suddenly, there must be a god? What?? By your insane leaps of logic, his calculation could be used to prove that the universe was barfed out by a giant pink unicorn. Thanks for giving ME a good laugh today!!

What am I trying to say? You summarily dismiss a world renown scientist with no particular religious affiation who has scientifically calculated that the chance of "god", however you want to define that, is less than 1 in 10,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ... (10123 zeros in total), and you dismiss that bold statement out of hand as "we're just lucky, I guess". That is the laugh of the day.

Was Einstein a quack too?

[Einstein] On whether science and religion are at odds: "The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

How about:
Sir Issac Newton?
Faraday?
Copernicus?
Mendel?

and the scores of scientific Nobel laureates?

The good news about this though Kelli - someday you'll find out for sure... good luck.

Rudy,

I'm not sure where that came from but that basically sums up the difference of opinion going on in this blog right now.

For me personally after living with God for many years I decided (actually I believe it was my wife and swat teams praying for fifteen years) to give God a chance. Since that time my belief in God has grown slowly but steady. It sounds maybe corny to some but I continue to become more joyful and content as I draw closer to God . I continue to draw closer to Jesus through daily prayer, regular Mass attendance, regular reception of the Sacraments, serving God in a wonderful minstry during most of my free time and doing my best to avoid sin.

I have seen a few almost instant conversions but of course most require at least a little bit of an open heart and mind. Most who decide to never ask God to show Himself to them will sadly never know Him while on earth. Conversing with God and being persistent is necessary to receive the gift of Faith. If any self proclaimed sceptic/atheist with an open heart and mind prayed persistently that God would manifest Himself to them He would.

Peace and Blessings

KJR,

What happened to ontheleft? I haven't heard from him since I asked my first question after answering his first of me.

Peace and Blessings

Proud2B.. don't know, I am sure the VOTF blog will bring him back...

Also, check out Fr. Robert Spitzer's "Five Pillars of the Spirtual Life" on DVD. It is awesome. I hope he becomes the new face along with Fr. Fessio of the Jesuit community in this country..

sednuf - I lost my father and skipped the funeral. He was what he was and I was not the only family member to skip it. My dog however, was a loss that I still feel today. She was always there, always knew my mood and when she could make it better and never once in her life hurt anyone or anything. I wish I could say the same for the man who made my mother's life such a misery. Such is the nature of life.

Ah, David, things are becoming a little clearer.. Without a solid father figure, it is not surprising that you reject the concept of an "all loving" father. You post is sad, and too bad on many levels ....

You stated about your dog: "She was always there, always knew my mood and when she could make it better and never once in her life hurt anyone or anything"

Interesting, we would describe God the Father with the same attributes.

Wow, KJR, could you BE any more patronizing to everyone on here? Now, for the last time, I'm going to explain what is being said so EVEN YOU can understand:

1) My name is not "kelli", so stop assuming that. That's just plain rude.
2) No one is claiming Penrose to be a quack. Questioning the accuracy of his calculation is different from dismissing him. Einstein (and other's) theories are testable and proven. Penrose's calculations are arbitrary, since we don't know the exact origins of life (yet) we can't say he's absolutely correct.
3) BEYOND THAT, no one is disagreeing that life occuring as we know it is rare. The Earth had billions of years without any life. What IS being said is that just because something extremely rare happened, it does not mean it supernatural.
4) You compare your god to a dog? Last time I checked, you could see, hug, and interact with a dog. The dog interacts with you directly in return. Not so much for imaginary friends.

KJR - Lets not devolve into pap psychology. The religious position is far more vulnerable to critical dissection when placed against the template of modern psychoanalysis. Second, my dog was real.

Right on, David.

I too have grappled over the many contradictions that are associated with healing.I have experienced a miraculous healing of my own, but have also struggled with other areas where my health was failing and God seemed to reply, "I will not remove this from you, my grace is sufficient for you".
I have shared some of these experiences in a book , which I believe will help many to accept or at least come to terms with some of these contradictions. Should you be interested you can find more details at http://www.eloquentbooks.com/TooMuchBaggageforthePromisedLand.html
Dan Berriman

David,

I deal with may young people whose parents mainly Dads where incredibly hurtful to those who they were supposed to love the most. The thought of someone loving his dog more then his Dad breaks my heart. Even though you may think it's useless I will pray at daily Mass for you and healing for the hurt he caused you and your family.

You are a genuinely decent person. As a Christian I feel I am called to tell you to start conversing with God with an open heart and mind. Ask Him to show you he is real. Read and meditate on the Gospels. Read what the Catholic Church teaches actually occurs at Mass and go on Sunday's (or more) for a few months.

Peace and Blessings

David - my point was that you had no faith formation, nor nurturing example in your father, which is tragic. Therefore, you atheism is not surprising to me under those circumstances. My point about your dog was that the things that she did which were humanly satisfying to you (dogs do that) are similar attributes, though on a microscopic scale as we experience with God.

David - how does the origin of life square with the constant and powerful force of entropy? As Penrose opined, the force of entropy in the universe gave the origin of life (my gosh, look how advanced it is) essentially a "nil" chance of happening, lest developing, in the sense that an ant could not swim up the Mississippi river... (pardon my mundane analogy).

Kellmoops, pardon me for misstating your pseudonym.

proud2bcatholic - I have no real issues with my father. I realize what he was and what his motivations were and have, by his example, become the exact opposite of what made him so unappealing as a parent. If my problems were with my mother, then there would be cause to worry in the same way I always (after learning the hard way) that one must avoid women who don't get along with their fathers. I assume that the same applies to men who don't get along with their mothers and the relationships they later develop with women. We are more influenced negatively with a bad relationship with the parent of the opposite sex than we are by a bad relationship with the same sex parent and I believe (by experience) that we may even benefit when we strive to not become what our same sex parent ended up being.

As to your praying for me, there are already so many doing that that if your beliefs are somehow correct, I may end up being the only practicing heathen to get into heaven, which would be a good thing because I would have some really tough questions to ask your god.

David,

I pray I'll see you there. I will have a few questions as well but anticpate when I see God face to face I won't bother asking them.

I'm not sure what your getting at with respect to the same sex vs different gender parents. When I was a child almost everyone in my genuinely diverse city neighborhood was raised by a full time Mom and Dad. Obviously there are many bad heterosexual parents but there is no question in my mind parents of each gender serve a much different purpose to their children and the best case scenario by far is to have aloving Mom and Dad whom stay married.

Peace and Blessings

proud2becatholic - It is not surprising that you won't be asking questions of your god in the eternal Disneyland that you expect when you die, especially considering all the suffering he has allowed us in the here and now, and throughout history, because you are asking no questions of him here. Those seeking truth never stop asking questions until they meet the finality of the grave we ALL shall not escape. Wishing won't change that.

David,

Although I spend a good amount of time praising God, asking for forgiveness, and thanking Him for the many blessings I have. I also ask for his intercession and to provide me wisdom and understanding. I am actually constantly searching the truth which is the reason for my continued conversion and the more joy and contentment I feel in my heart.

Obviously it's Ok for people to disagree but from my point of view it has nothing to do with wishing but trust in the one and only God who I now know personally.

I did pray for you today and will continue to pray you give God a chance.

Peace and Blessings

proud2bcatholic - So much certitude, so little proof. I truly do not understand the mind of one who can invest themselves in such a commitment to what for the rational thinkers, is little more than rubbish. You baffle me and at the same time arouse a bit of anger that there can exist among us so many who feel the same way. As a species we should have already evolved beyond the need for such foolishness and committed ourselves to improving the short amount of time we have on this Earth rather than wasting time preparing for an afterlife that has virtually no chance to exist.

David - you slam us who believe yet you come up with NOTHING regarding to how life begun. Whether or not you accept this foolishness does not absolve you of your utter failure to come up with an explanation as to how life began. How is you summary dismissal and failure to offer your proof not "foolish". The burden of proof to disprove God is on you.

"Virtually no chance to exist?" .... How ironic that you slam believers but you cannot disprove anything.... Who is spouting rubbish?

KJR - It is you who demand answers for questions that we, as a species, have yet to discover. It would be dishonest of me to give you an answer that has no basis in fact. I have speculations, that considering the direction that "String Theory" is taking speculative thought, are not as outrageous sounding as they once seemed even to me but, such speculations hardly can be put forward because of their spurious nature, to refute your less than (but somehow highly subscribed to) speculations based on the accumulated myths and superstitions of your less than sophisticated ancestors. The need for answers to our questions is the power behind the appeal of religion and is also its weakness, because superstition and myth are always subject to assault by the movement of intellectual curiosity to find what is actually true, making the "truths' of the past seem like just so much rubbish. The driving force behind Humanity's success is the struggle to learn and expand our knowledge in the face of our chauvinistic belief that we somehow deserve to have it all laid out in a neat little package of ritual and valueless "Ultimate Truths" that are becoming less relevant the more we learn. You have to get over the notion that it is a sin to say, "I don't know.....YET!".

KJR - One other point. No one can prove that a god, or gods, does not exist for one simple reason, it violates the first law of logic. You cannot prove a negative assertion. I can no more prove that your god does not exist than you could prove that the forth moon of the third planet in the Alpha Proxima star system is not covered with a three foot layer of French Brie, if I demanded that you do it. My assertion is absurd, BUT, because asking you to disprove it , like your god assertion, is beyond the laws of logic and not in a good way. The burden of proof rests clearly and ONLY on the head of those making the positive assertion and as you have found, that cannot be achieved in a rational way without invoking the great escape clause called "Faith", which has no value in logic.

David,

Are you saying that anyone who believes in God or an afterlife doesn't think rationally?

I respect your opinion but also know the chances of you ever understanding can only come by asking God through prayer.

I believe it is probably time for me to cease this discussion with you as I don't feel it's Christian to anger you.

Peace and Blessings

proud2bcatholic - I'm not saying that it doesn't seem rational to you, but it doesn't meet the standards of logic. That you wish me to supplicate myself at the altar of superstition and myth to achieve understanding of the truth of your argument is not a measure of my lack rationality, but clearly of yours. I find that absolutists always frame things in terms of "my way, or the highway", and your invitation for me to vacate this forum is little more than your wish that I do your censoring for you, so that you will not have to exercise that option that has, in the past, served your and other's religions so well. What is to be learned of value, if we do not interact?

David,

I regret if you felt I was asking you to leave as that was not my intent. I am fairly new to the blogging but without people like yourself coming in to talk against God and/or the Church I'd be posting to myself. It has also given me opportunity to discuss the truth of what the Church actually teaches and stands for.

I also understand that anything anyone writes in these blogs in 99.9% of cases will not change another persons mind or opinion. Although I take my God and my Church seriously my intent was never to evangelize in these blogs. These blogs for me are more a way to kill some time when I am slow at work. I also believe if I met you at a function we would probably evne be able to make small talk and be cordial to one another. Of course I believe if I continue to pray and someone opens their hearts even a little the Holy Spirit might just come pouring in. Remember I've seen some instant conversions in my life.

When i said I wanted to cease speaking with you it was when the word anger came up. I by no means want to be the source of someone becoming angry. You might not believe me but I speak the proverbial truth. In other words keep on chatting my friend.

God Bless

proud2bcatholic - Glad to hear that. I have many religious acquaintances and of those, many do not even know I am a committed non-theist. I also have friends who are religious, I admit they are not as much so as you, whom I can spend time with over a bottle of wine or in each other's presence when traveling, who enjoy bantering back and forth, with both of us realizing we will not convert the other and our friendship is not threatened. Right now my biggest hope is to convince KJR that it is actually a requirement that rational thinkers don't have an explanation for the origins of life, or else they would themselves be a religion, as we haven't even come close to uncovering that answer yet.

Oh David - silly of you to think that because you don't have an answer that you are necessarily not a rational thinker. Your comment is not rational, and you don't pay attention to your own posts.

YOU are the one who has summarily dismissed the concept of God as only for those who have no rationality. Now isn't that irrational?

Unbelievable that a major metropolitan daily is publishing this anti-science nonsense as "news."

KJR - You seem to be retreating behind the wall of denial that religionists so often construct for themselves, or buy into, so that they can overlook the flaws inherent in absolutist belief systems that lose their coherence in the face of new knowledge. I dismiss the notion of their being a god/gods, or other such creatures, because there is not now, nor has there EVER been the slightest amount of verifiable or demonstrable proof that a god/gods exists, or has EVER existed.

There has been evidence throughout history, writings from eyewitnesses, and a world renown scientist who has basically stated that is it near a 1 in infinity chance that there is no "higher power". You reject all of that, that is fine, but to say that there is no evidence or proof of God, well, is a downright stupid comment, of an elitist who is in major denial and is trying to justify a position with absurd comments, like "there is no proof". It may not be enough for YOU, but the evidence does exist, and is overwhelming to most rational people, including Einstein.

KJR - "Because I say so" answers are not valid. "Because I wish it to be so" answers, are not valid. Until you can dump proof of the existence of this god creature on the table for all to see, it is pointless to waste our valuable short time on this planet supplicating ourselves before a mountain of dogma, superstition and institutionalized lies.

David,

Thank you for making the effort to come into religious chat rooms and straighten us foolish Jesus freaks out. You are a true humanitarian.

But please don't let everyone know as the majority of time, talent, and treasure helping the poorest of the poor and the hungriest and the most destitute are these mind controlled Bible believing Christians. Especially those darn Catholics serving those in need with there ministries all over the world. Scientifcally this has been proven statistically so Shhhhhhhh.

If we don't keep them busy they might take over the world and then what do you have? People taking care of other people and thinking of others before themselves. Less handing out of bubble gum flavored condoms and more prayer back in schools. And that would just be the beginning. If you have any soul, oops sorry, heart? man you'll cease immediately! The morality of our country is most certainly improving as we continue to remove God from society. I implore you to hit your knees and pretend to pray or end times, oops another big bang is a coming.

Henway - I realize that religion has been busily trying to formulate ways to silence the opposition ever since the secularization of governments stopped the former, tried and true, practice of killing us, and throwing up all the "good" a religion does as a defense is an effective means of belittling someone who utters thoughts that your Church (or any church) does not want heard, if that is all you've got. That you would think putting superstition into school curriculum is a positive idea, just shows how far out of touch you are with what is a responsibility to put actual knowledge into our children's minds.
If you feel a need to make a list of the "good works" done by your church, you should also realize that such lists can be compiled that can show absolutely evil things that have also been done in the effort to further the spread of your ideas and ideals that don't show them in the gleaming light you seem to think they deserve. I know you like to wrap yourself in the cocoon of righteousness and infallibility, but you, your church and virtually everyone and every grouping of people on the planet is not deserving of that distinction. I am here, not because I need to gain an understanding of you, because I have known you, or those like you, all my life, but to let you gain an understanding that there are people like me, who do not inhabit your cloistered world and who also do not have horns protruding from their heads the way non-believers are usually portrayed by religion.

David: What do you think of Thomas Aquinas' statement,
"All we can know about God is THAT God is, and WHAT God isn't.
Isn't it the unsatisfactoriness of knowing THAT God is what people mistake for the anticipated hope that we might know WHAT God is. Words about God are simply "signs" which are inadequate to an undefinable Being. No one swims at a sign for Nantasket!
If God is a creator of all spatial and temporal reality, would one prohibit God from the possibility of making a human of Him/Herself with all the limitations of time and space that we live under?

Charlie - If Thomas Aquinas hadn't started that statement with the unsupportable supposition "THAT God is" , for which he offers no proof, if may have been twist-able into a logical statement, but it would still fall short of validating a creature he spent all his life trying (and failing) to give substance.

David: Consider your statement that Thomas was trying to "validate God as a CREATURE". Substance is existent as matter created from NOTHING 13.7 billion years ago. God is NO THING, and thus inconceivable in 3-dimensions and time.
It is very humbling but realistic to believe in an inconceivable Being. Even more wonderful to believe that this Being has made communication more accessible by living and talking on earth. Not being able to believe this is understandable, but believing in this is the key to opening the Good News, that this God is within us, you and me and everyone. (Mark 1:16)

charlie - That is a very nice fairy-tale. I guess some people need a crutch to keep them from understanding the reality that we are just mere animals who have evolved to the point where we are able to ask the question "Why?", but not evolved enough to realize we have not evolved enough (YET) to figure out the answer to those question. If you need the delusion of your invented deities to give meaning to your life, then you have lost the very essence of what our evolution accomplished, by trying to halt, or mitigate it, with your simple, chauvinistic, superstitiously derived, pat answers.

David,

If you really believe the poor, hungry, sick, diseased would be better cared for without the Church that your not near as bright as you try and make yourself out to be. Like every organization, industry, club, grouping of any people there will always be humans that will commit terrible wrongs associated with those groups. If your not willing to admit that incredible amounts of good are being done by those associated with the Catholic Church and instead just talk about what those in her name do wrong then frankly you become ontheleft.

I could talk about the good done by an organization that lifted an entire country out of a malaise of depression and defeat, restored their purpose, gave them direction, put people to work, rebuilt infrastructure and created new infrastructure that gave them renewed national pride, but I would not hold all these accomplishments up as a defense for all the other things the National Socialist Party (aka NAZI Party) did in Germany in the name of their god. If you wish to ram at us the "good" and organization is doing for its justification, you are going to have to answer as well for the bad. You cannot have it one way and think that that will polish a few warts into respectability.

David: [ad #50] Ouch! You really know how to chop a guy up.
I am no scholar, but I think that your regarding me as a simple, chauvinistic, superstitious, delusional creator of a fairy tale God goes too far. You seem to put a lot of weight on the success or failure to "prove" God's existence as a critical support of what you consider you will or won't believe. Instead of putting the onus on believers, prove to me using scientific phenomena that there is no God.
Explain to me why there is something, rather than nothing. Or do you simply leave that off the table as something science eventually, given our heightening evolutionary skills, will explain in the future.
I fully accept the scientific possibility that all cosmic mass and energy evolved from no thing at a point of no dimensions 13.7 billion years ago. The big question is "Why?" Could it possibly be that like you and me, the cosmic evolution is the expression in time and space of Love Itself, and that the perfect human expression of that Love occurred in the pouring out of it on the cross? Greater love no man has, than that he lay down his life for his friends. And since that event, we are now called his friends. [John 15:13]

Charlie - I believe I already explained to KJR why the onus of proof is on the person making the positive assertion and why it is impossible to logically refute a negative assertion. I suggest you read previous posts here and in a couple of other threads that clearly addresses why one cannot answer that type of question whether it entails disproving a god, or disproving that the third moon of the fourth planet in the Alpha Proxima star system is covered with a three foot layer of French Brie.

As to your demand that I lay out why we are here and where it all came from, that would entail laying out a rationale that has no basis in fact, just like your rationale is. It would be as dishonest of me to suppose I could explain everything, as it is for you to do it with your ancestor's compilation of myths and superstitions you seem so fond of touting. The rational mind has no problem with the concept of not having the answers to everything and for having the curiosity to continue to search for those answers, unlike the religionist who has his comfortable lies to to comfort him and destroy that part of his psyche that we find our most important feature. For a greater understanding of what a logical argument entails, I suggest you search, "Logic, negative assertion", I'm sure you will gain a greater understanding of how your first question of me was an absurd request from a logical perspective.

David, I accept the possibility that God does not exist. As Richard Dawkins has argued (along with others), "there is not a shred of evidence" that supports the Judeo-Christian understanding of God. We live in a world of accelerated advances in science, technology, and information, and we have consequently become more skeptical toward that which is unempirical. There is also some credibility to the claim that God is a subjective psychological construct developed to help palliate our existential fears and anxieties.

With that said, I also accept the possibility that God does exist. This is not because that possibility gives my life value, meaning, and purpose, but because I live in a universe that I cannot begin to fully appreciate nor understand. Philosophical arguments like the First Cause argument or reference to the Anthropic Principle are interesting, yet for a person of fair, balanced, and rational faith these arguments do not tip the scale with iron certitude.

Regarding faith, to take a blind leap without personal exploration is foolish; however, expecting iron certitude as a theist or an atheist is simply unrealistic. The limits of our humanness cannot satisfactorily plunge the depths of the cosmos and its origins to award us the privilege to speak in absolutes.

Faith is a calculated risk -- calculated in that it ought to be grounded in a personal exploration of both sides of the argument; risk in that the best we can acheive is that the existence of God is either more or less probable. Both theists and atheists are people of faith, standing on opposite sides of the fence. Both believe, but neither can be objectively certain. I like to think of Werner Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in this case: that we can never be quite certain about the behavior of electrons. Similarly, on the macroscopic and microscopic levels, our capacities for logic and science cannot compete (now and maybe forever) with the mysteries of existence.

Perhaps it is the life experiences you have referenced or your calculation of the evidence, but your posts reflect a strong anti-religion, anti-God position. I respect that. But you also seem bent on insulting the intellect and faith of those who disagree with you, which is not in the spirit of fair and balanced dialogue among those who disagree.

For all, these forums ought to be a place of exploration and open conversation, not a place to ridicule and proselytize.

David,

Agreed. Individuals and groups that have done evil such as the pedohile Priest scandal and coverup should be accountable for their actions to the full extent of the Law and will be by God. See we can agree.

Are you willing to say something that is most certainly true that without people acting in the name of the Church serving their fellow man our current world would not have near as many of the destitute being helped?

All discussions about religion devolve to the concept of "Faith". That which is believed in the absence of any supportable evidence. That faith itself has become the basis of religion belies the major flaw in using it to construct institutions that have such a profound effect on both the believer and the non-believer, with the history of the treatment of non-believers ,(or doctrinally "wrong" believers of other's superstitional beliefs), not being religion's finest attributes. That humans cannot get past the idea that they don't need an explanation for things we have not yet been able to discern is the fault of individuals who refuse to open to not only the possibilities, but also the limitations that are not intellectually served by tying so many of us to delusional superstition and myths.

Faith is a crap shoot and the dice are shaved by our fear and need for "truths" that are just made-up rubbish that has been given the mantle of respectability by being incorporated into our social structure. It is well past the time when we should have moved beyond such notions, in as much as our technology has now made it possible for so many religions to achieve their stated and in some cases, highly anticipated end to the world, that their "sacred" texts mandated. Quite frankly, you scare the living hell out of us because of your irrationality and nebulous motives you seem willing, if given half a chance, to impose on all of us.

David, you are right. I'm sorry for not having read all the previous blogs and making you have to repeat yourself. I will leave this blog the wiser and grateful to you for having shared your insights with me.
Please know, however, that I am not trying to "prove" God, nor touting belief in my ancestors' myths and superstitions. It is my belief that any "words about God" must necessarily be simile or metaphors or parables or myths. A myth is not a fiction, but rather an attempt to express a reality which is too difficult to otherwise
explain. E.g., the sun doesn't really "rise" and "set", yet we still use this simple expression to refer to this daily event. The "Big Bang" is this kind of myth. In the N.T., Jesus was forced to use parables for the same reason. Humans also feel the need to have a "more concrete" , more conceivable "God", and so religions have frequently acquiesced by focusing more on signs, and miracles in order to ground their belief in sensible reality. In doing so, this is referred to in Hebrews (5:12) as being milk-fed before receiving meat. Because of this, the "believer" tends to regard the inconceivable, ineffible God as non- existent. When Buddhist, Muslim, and Christian writers treat of this "mystical" approach to divinity, they are frequently dismissed as heretics, or at the least, very dangerous to read.
I think it was Karl Rahner who said, "The Immanent God is the Transcendent God", and thus prayer is like air coming in and air going out.
Thanks, David.

Of course humans "cannot get past the idea that they don't need an explanation for things we have not yet been able to discern." Leaving this more debatable discussion of religion aside, the disciplines of science (in fact, the scientific method itself) are built upon a quest to discover answers to that which we don't understand. Curiosity is a basic human inclination and to explore our curiosity is only natural.

I disagree that faith is a "crap shoot." That is a Straw Man argument. Reducing faith to a game of chance is equivalent to what Blaise Pascal proposed in his wager from the 1600’s. While it is true that there is risk involved in faith (as in trust), a mature discernment of faith rationally explores and weighs the evidence before making a commitment. Anything less surrenders the capacity to think for yourself; that is, an unexplored faith is similar to superstition.

Finally, using loaded language, resorting to sweeping generalizations, and employing ad hominem attacks is a discredit to the intellectual nature of this conversation. Most theists (and atheists) are not delusional, irrational, nor do they feel compelled to impose their worldview on others.

David my friend,

Imposing beliefs on another are never effective. This i definetely frowned upon by any in the Catholic Church who are following what She truly stands for. Just like trying to mae an alcoholic stop drinking it can't be done. The individual needs to decide on their own first.

I find it highly unlikely you would find anyone in my community scary. Most people do not adher to the Church as we do but we still love them, do not judge them and are to clear on the concept to try and force any belief on them.

Whatveer people in your past made you feel this way or are doing it now are certainly not behaving as Jesus wants.

henway - The Church, (any church and any religion) pushes the idea of free choice in coming to their doctrine, but it is more like giving an alcoholic his first drink and then asking him to make the choice as to whether he wants another, as his brain lights up with the glow that came from that first fix. Most religionists don't choose religion, they just swallow what is handed to them as a child, or fall into it at a moment of weakness because something, or someone, let them down and out.

David,

I respectfully disagree. Most who hear the truth of the Church don't initially follow it. I'm not sure where you've been where you have seen these people's brains light up but it doesn't sound anything like what I have seen in my now several years involvement with an Orthodox Catholic Community.

I have seen some instant conversions but this had nothing to do with a theology teaching but people just finally feeling the presence of God in their lives. They where obviously at least somewhat open and that’s all the Holy Spirit needed.

Most people (which Jesus made clear in scripture would be the case) don’t pay attention to Jesus and teachings of Religions at all. For those that are open it doesn’t come from being Bible bashed but from their own commitment to prayer and a Christian Life.

Or maybe as you’ve stated before I’m just delusional and/or brainwashed. I apologize as I need to run as the chip the Nuns placed in my ear is starting to buzz.

Love ya man.

Henway - It is not unusual for the addict to stand in defense of his need for the drug that controls his mind. Religion has been accurately described as the "Opiate of the masses" by a notable Leftist (Karl Marx), and as "Rubbish" by a noted Rightist (Ayn Rand). Many of us in the center feel the same way and think you need the cure only opening up your mind and casting off your irrational fears can provide.

David my friend

Here we go again with the fears. Since obviously from you reading what ten of my posts you know more then I about myself what fo I irrationally fear? And Also again with the right and left. Let's try this and please read it slooowwly. The Catholic Church is not a political organization. Also it probably deson' surprise you that what Karl Marx and Ayn Rand though about my religion is a big factor in my life. So what am I afraid of?

Citing Marx....? And Ayn Rand, a radical athiest? Ah, it becomes clearer David....

Henway - Death is your fear and the invented afterlife is the way you delude yourself into denying your fear. Of course if you are going to have an everlasting life after death, you need all the supporting delusions to give it the rationale necessary to to pull off your self deception. This, if you are true to form, you will also deny and you will cite your delusions to support your denial.

The Catholic Church has always been a political machine. It is the rise of secular rule that has forced religion into a secondary role, which hasn't stopped them from trying to influence politics, sometimes here in violation of the Separation Clause of the Constitution, as in the abortion question.

KJR - Karl Marx and Ayn Rand represent the extreme opposites in the political and social spectrum. That they were both A-T-H-E-I-S-T-S is commendable, even though those of us in the compassionate slightly left of center are just as likely to embrace the rational position. The American Atheist Association surveyed their members and found, strangely enough, that the majority considered themselves Republican, but that was before the Republican Party allowed themselves to become the mouth-piece of the Taliban type Christian Right.

David,

So although I don't feel afraid I am afraid but just to delusional to realize it. Of course I will disagree but I'm sure your take is that is also because I'm delusional. I know your take is something like being delusional means I am hurting myself and society? How so?

So where do we stand now. I think I'm right and sane and you think I'm wrong and delusional. You think your right and I think your wrong but unclear on the truth. Hey isn't this where we started?

Love ya man.

Henway - If the foundation upon which you stand is a manure pile and yet you stand there proudly declaring it sweet smelling, then yes, you are delusional.

Aw shucks you sweet talker. Hey what's that smell. Air freshener anyone?

Love ya man. Have a wonderful weekend.

I realize I'm coming very late to this discussion, perhaps after you've moved away from these posts. Still, I'm disappointed that no one responded to #14, who offered in post 55 a reasonable reformulation of faith as calculated risk. While I prefer "belief" (about God) to the more emotion-and commitment-laden "faith," I agree with him that a blind leap in the direction of theism or atheism serves no one well. But in post 57, we’re back to faith as “that which is believed in the absence of any supportable evidence.” Of course, you’re free to disagree with the idea of faith as calculated risk, but to simply ignore that and revert to defining faith as inherently irrational prevents this discussion from evolving into a genuine dialogue.

I've spent a good deal of my adult life coming to the calculated risk--and continually re-evaluating this position-- that God does exist, and I practice Catholicism as an expression of my belief and faith. It's hard not to be insulted by those who dismiss my hard-earned conclusion as “irrationality and nebulous motives” or “simple, chauvinistic, superstitiously derived pat answers.” Likewise, I imagine it’s hard not to be insulted by theists who label atheists as “uncompromising,” or “an elitist who is in major denial.”

This brings me to another point #14 brings up. That poster challenges us to avoid several fallacies I’ve seen both sides resort to in this (and most other) discussions about God’s existence. Straw men, loaded language, sweeping generalizations, ad hominem attacks, as well as appeals to (transferred) authority—these don’t foster dialogue, they displace it.

I don’t think we should expect to convince anyone to believe that God does or does not exist in this medium. But we could at least listen and respond to each other without relying on clichés and fallacies.

Edzz - I was a religionist as a child. It was what I was told to believe and I did. On the very first "Phil Donahue Show" he had Madelyn Murry O'Hair as his guest. She said things that made me so mad that I wanted to smash the TV. I couldn't understand why she felt it so important to say so many horrible things about religious belief and decided on the spot that I hated her but, I grew up.

As time passed, the things she said haunted me, rolled over in my head and planted a seed I will always be thankful for, doubt. The doubt became a search for truth, without qualification. No unsubstantiated information would be swallowed and if there was no answer, so be it, maybe I hadn't earned the answer yet. Soon, it became apparent that no one had earned that right and that anyone who claimed to have all answers was nothing but a lying charlatan. Inevitably I became an Atheist and I have nothing but pride that I was able to rise above the comfortable lies religionists use to delude themselves and face the world from a rational stand-point. My "in your face" style (much like Ms. O'Hair) didn't make people love me, but like Ms. O'Hair, I made them think. There are many who have gotten back to me, or that I've met at Atheist conventions (finally had the honor to meet and thank Ms. O'Hair at one) who have thanked me for causing the same awakening that I received and nurtured from watching that Phil Donahue show almost 50 years ago.

Thanks for your reply, David. I'm not sure what your point is in telling me how you arrived at your position. Or, at least, I don't see that this recent posting replies to the point I made, with reference to #14, about faith/belief as "calculated risk." Namely, that not all theists claim to have all the answers. I certainly make no such claim, so it seems I've avoided being a lying charlatan. Of course, we disagree as to whether or not I am delusional or face the world rationally.

As I wrote earlier, I continually re-evaluate my thinking theism; that is, like you, I value doubt in my search for truth. In fact, my own doubt has been inspired by priests and theologians, one of whom wrote that “doubt makes us look for better answers than the ones we have now.”

Also like you, I have taken seriously the ideas of Madelyn Murray O’Hair—she makes me think, too, although obviously I’ve come to a different conclusion than she and you.

I’m leaving in the morning for several weeks, so maybe this is a good time for me to sign off from this conversation. Thanks for your stimulating ideas.