Evolution and the Pope

Quote: FrGamble

- for anything to exist there has to be something, be it a cause or a force or a being, that uniquely did not need to be created. A spiritual, all-powerful, unmoved mover or first cause..

You think this way because you can't wrap
your mind around the concept that the
universe has been here forever and always
will be here. We can't see it clearly because
we're trapped in time and space. We think
we see beginnings and endings because we
have limited perception.

Quote: Evenbob

You think this way because you can't wrap
your mind around the concept that the
universe has been here forever and always
will be here. We can't see it clearly because
we're trapped in time and space. We think
we see beginnings and endings because we
have limited perception.

There is exactly the same amount of evidence for the universe being created vs the universe was here forever.

Quote: Dalex64

There is exactly the same amount of evidence for the universe being created vs the universe was here forever.

The universe itself is the evidence. You can't
find a creator because there isn't one. Occam's
Razor, the simplest answer is usually the correct
one. Also, realizing it's always been here (and
you'll always be here in one form or another)
makes it a much more interesting and exciting
place. It makes you slow down, what's the hurry.

But this type of thinking doesn't control the masses
or fill the collection plate. Fire and brimstone, that
will make them cower and keep them in line.

Quote: FrGamble

I agree with almost everything in the above post, except of course for the comments about theology.

No surprises there.

Quote:

Would you go one step further with me in saying that not only can philosophy not be used to measure a black hole or cure cancer, but science cannot be used to determine the morality of some action or the beauty of a work of art?

Not in any meaningful way. Such things are hard to define in ways that are quantifiable, and the results obtained don't lend themselves to theorizing.

This does not mean one cannot apply the methods of science to philosophical areas like ethics or esthetics, or politics. For one thing one can, and should, observe the action and judge its results.

FrG, this is a pointless discussion because in order
for your religion to function, you have to believe
the way you do, you have no choice. And that's
fine, the Church isn't hurting people anymore
and it gives them something to do. Religion is
a colorful addition to life, how boring it would
be if we were all the same.

I'm reminded of two jokes about the drift the topic has taken:

First: the university president is remonstrating the head of the physics department about the budget: "Look at this! Mass spectrometers! Particle detectors! Lasers! Electromagnets! Why can't you be like the math department? All they ask for is paper, pencils and erasers! Or like the philosophy department? they don't' even ask for erasers."

The second is an anecdote concerning the American poet John Ciardi. Once when stopped by a police officer he was asked about his occupation. He replied "By God, sir, I'm a poet." the officer then asked "Self employed?"

Upon hearing of this, Isaac Asimov, who was a friend of Ciardi's and collaborated on a book of Limericks with him, told him "John, you should have said 'No, I'm a research poet for Union Carbide'."

Ok. That's not related, but every time I think about it, for some reason I picture the title "Research Philosopher" neatly embossed on a professor's door at some prestigious university.

I really don't think any discussion about the beginning of all things could possibly be pointless. We should all spend more time thinking about how we got here and why is there something rather than nothing. I also think the discussion has been good in pointing out that observable science is not the only way to prove something, nor the only source of truth. I think the lines between a created universe and an eternally existing universe have been drawn and many of the probabilities based on science and philosophy leaning towards an eternal, spiritual, all-powerful, and non-contigent cause for all things has been laid out. We are still waiting for any type of evidence or probability that the universe is eternal, but in an eternal universe I guess we can wait around a little longer.

Quote: FrGamble

We are still waiting for any type of evidence or probability that the universe is eternal, but in an eternal universe I guess we can wait around a little longer.

And we're not waiting for proof of a creator?
You think you proved it? Tell me again, all I
saw were guesses and wishful thinking. Why
is this so important to you? Just accept on faith
that there is a god and move on. Isn't that
what your 'faith' is all about?

That's the difference between you and me. I
feel no need to convince anybody of anything.
There's no hurry, none at all. If you're patient,
everything unfolds in its own time, sooner or
later. If not in this life, in another one. Eternity
is a really long time.

Quote: Evenbob

The universe itself is the evidence. You can't
find a creator because there isn't one. Occam's
Razor, the simplest answer is usually the correct
one. Also, realizing it's always been here (and
you'll always be here in one form or another)
makes it a much more interesting and exciting
place. It makes you slow down, what's the hurry.

But this type of thinking doesn't control the masses
or fill the collection plate. Fire and brimstone, that
will make them cower and keep them in line.

More guesses and wishful thinking.

Quote: FrGamble

We are still waiting for any type of evidence or probability that the universe is eternal, but in an eternal universe I guess we can wait around a little longer.

A few years back on of the science magazines, maybe Scientific American, carried an article with the premise that in many billions of years it would be impossible to learn from scratch how the universe began. Suppose a newly sentient race evolves in, oh, perhaps 10 billion years time, and begins to look around. The ratios of Helium to Hydrogen would have changed, as would the very size of the universe, and the intensity of the microwave background radiation, and many other things. So the evidence might be lost in the new conditions.

Now, considering the age of the universe, we've come to the party rather late. If the 13+ billions years of the universe's age were one year, all of human history occupies the last second of December 31st.

I can't help but think: what key evidence has degraded to the point we can't even see it or recognize it any more? Further, what key evidence has been entirely lost?

Mind, we couldn't be much older as a species than we are. The Sun formed when the universe was over 8.5 billion years old, and the Earth followed shortly after that. But life formed much later, I think about less than 2 billion years ago (??). Complex, land-dwelling life is a lot more recent, with large animals, capable of large brains, having arisen under 500 million years ago only.

Given all that, I keep getting the feeling we just got here and still have only a dim idea of what the universe is and where it came from.

And to think in the XIX century reputable scientists believed they'd discovered pretty much all that was relevant or important, and the work of science was largely done <shakes head>...