Original Sin?

Quote: FrGamble

So much depends on what you consider real answers. If you think the only real answers are related to the scientific menthod then yes science can and does answer such things. By FAR the vast overwhelming amount of questions we have deal not with the migratory pattern of butterflies or what stars are made of. The real questions we ask are: Why am I so lonely? Am I lovable? Does life have meaning? Why am I unhappy? Does she love me? Can I trust him? Is there a God? Is there life after death? These real questions have real answers and science has never given an answer to them.

Religion - 1 zillion
Science - zero

As I said, the only thing religion can do is offer harder questions once science answers previously unanswered questions.

And we actually do have a lot more information of many things you consider the province of religion. And we will have even more on them in the future.

Like a mythical beast, some of these thing like "life after death", or a "god" are claimed to be known by religion, with virtually no evidence worth more than evidence of ghosts or UFOs.

The Catholic Church is really no more valid than crystal gazers and fortune tellers as far as supernatural gifts.

Yes harder questions that are the most important questions and the ones science can't answer. Look I have nothing against science but you would be naive and have an exaggerated view of the role of science if you thought it could answer these higher questions about purpose and the meaning of life.

Quote: FrGamble

role of science if you thought it could answer these higher questions about purpose and the meaning of life.

Religion doesn't 'answer' those questions,
it simply does what science does, throws
out theories. There are as many religious
answers to purpose and meaning of life
as there are grains of sand on a beach.

You have glommed onto one you like so
you think everybody else should like it
as much as you do. It doesn't work that
way. Everybody finds their own purpose
and meaning, be glad you found yours
and quit thinking you're some gods
personal spokesperson, no matter what
misdirection you've been fed by the Vatican.

Quote: FrGamble

Pursuing science without the guidence of philosophy and religion has shown that it leads to human misery and destruction.

Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Science is a tool. It can be used for good or evil. Saying that religion should "guide" (as in, dictate) what scientists study is making the horrid assumption that scientists are amoral and will destroy the world without the Church to control them.

I'd like you to point out such an instance, of some human misery and destruction that was caused by science not having been controlled by the Church.

Quote: FrGamble

Yes harder questions that are the most important questions and the ones science can't answer.

And neither can religion. It can only pretend to. Religion is hypocritical and dishonest in purporting to have the answers.

Quote: FrGamble

It is not a scientific matter at all but it is a factual and logical matter.

That rules out theology.

Quote:

I just simply dislike his philosophy. He was a faithful Christian that I don't think ever realized how devastating his reconstructing reality after radical doubt on himself was to the faith.

So Descartes is having dinner at a sidewalk cafe in Paris.

The waiter asks "Would Monsieur care for dessert."

Descartes answers "I think not," and promptly vanishes.

Quote:

I don't think we need fear, mass causilties of innocents, and the destruction of our world to achieve geopolitical stability.

WWI was a horrible quagmire that cost the lives of millions of people. This fear of mass casualties of innocents and widespread destruction did not prevent another, bloodier war a few years later.

The thing about nuclear weapons is that if both sides have them, winning a war is impossible. This is so precisely because they're so destructive. But also because they're relatively small, mobile and easy to hide.

Quote: stinkingliberal

Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Science is a tool. It can be used for good or evil.

That is a better way of saying what I was trying to say, thanks.

Quote:

Saying that religion should "guide" (as in, dictate)

No, as is guide, that was the word I chose. Some sense of morality should guide science don't you think?

Quote:

....what scientists study is making the horrid assumption that scientists are amoral and will destroy the world without the Church to control them.

None of this follows logically. How do you get from thinking that science needs moral guidelines to assuming that I think all scientists are mad, horrid, and bent on the destruction of the world? You have some very strange thoughts.

Quote:

I'd like you to point out such an instance, of some human misery and destruction that was caused by science not having been controlled by the Church.

I want to reiterate that I'm not advocating for anything like control by the Church. However, if they were listening to the Church they never would have created nuclear weapons for one. I continue to pray that that scientists will not delve into the cloning of human beings or some of the other strange and dangerous things that are now possible.

Quote: stinkingliberal

And neither can religion. It can only pretend to. Religion is hypocritical and dishonest in purporting to have the answers.

My point is that science cannot even pretend, and they shouldn't. It is the role of philosophy and religion to at least attempt to answer these real and important questions. They are not being dishonest in purporting to have the answers, they are proposing answers for your consideration.

Quote: FrGamble

They are not being dishonest in purporting to have the answers, they are proposing answers for your consideration.

But their answers are just suggestions,
nothing more. They aren't really answers
at all. You wish they were true, but have
no idea if they are or not.