Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Griz_ · **#81** by **Griz_** » Oct 30, 2014 7:46 pm

Well, there you have it. Ray says the pope is not a Christian and furthermore does not believe in Jesus.

Spearthrower · **#82** by **Spearthrower** » Oct 30, 2014 7:46 pm

Aca wrote:I'll just put this here.....

Comfort, because when you're wrong about something and publicly show yourself to be completely fucking clueless - the very best way of tackling that is to continue to publicly show that you're completely fucking clueless, and maybe chuck in the notion that the Pope isn't Christian at the same time! :lol:

Spearthrower · **#83** by **Spearthrower** » Oct 30, 2014 7:48 pm

Ray Comfort wrote:If you think bears shit in woods, you probably aren't a Christian!

John Platko · **#84** by **John Platko** » Oct 30, 2014 10:53 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Well I'll try not to disappoint you. Reading the Bible can be tricky, what with all the errors and all. And sometimes, try as I might, I am simply unable to come up with any good interpretations of a story. Take this Adam, Eve, and a snake story, I know of no good interpretation of it. I'm convinced that whoever wrote it imagined a bad idea and then wrote a crappy story about it. And then there's this story about a guy who almost killed his son - but that one I got figured out, the moral of that story is don't even think about doing something like that.

So effectively the only way in which you're a Christian is that you believe that God possesses the characteristics ascribed to it by Christianity.

That the Bible's no true guide or of divine origin, but a collection of scratchings by various people over centuries, some of which happen to touch on eternal truths about the human condition.

I wouldn't phrase it like that, it does more that touch on eternal truths, it contains enough to give the astute reader deep insight into the human condition.

As you've already shown how malleable your concept of God is, I would be surprised that someone would still consider themselves Christian, but then it's you, so it's understandable.

Thomas Jefferson said:

http://www.monticello.org/site/research ... us-beliefs

"I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

He seemed OK with who he was.

I'm a Catholic Christian. We Catholics have differing views on what that means- and that's a good thing.

Spearthrower · **#85** by **Spearthrower** » Oct 30, 2014 11:39 pm

John Platko wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Well I'll try not to disappoint you. Reading the Bible can be tricky, what with all the errors and all. And sometimes, try as I might, I am simply unable to come up with any good interpretations of a story. Take this Adam, Eve, and a snake story, I know of no good interpretation of it. I'm convinced that whoever wrote it imagined a bad idea and then wrote a crappy story about it. And then there's this story about a guy who almost killed his son - but that one I got figured out, the moral of that story is don't even think about doing something like that.

So effectively the only way in which you're a Christian is that you believe that God possesses the characteristics ascribed to it by Christianity.

Why are you shaking your head to a direct question?

Is it meant to represent 'no'?

John Platko wrote:

That the Bible's no true guide or of divine origin, but a collection of scratchings by various people over centuries, some of which happen to touch on eternal truths about the human condition.

I wouldn't phrase it like that, it does more that touch on eternal truths, it contains enough to give the astute reader deep insight into the human condition.

I disagree: the most it shows is that which preoccupies us today also preoccupied us a couple of millenia ago. The messages only still relate because of the weight of history and because they are continuously reinterpreted in light of new situations.

John Platko wrote:

As you've already shown how malleable your concept of God is, I would be surprised that someone would still consider themselves Christian, but then it's you, so it's understandable.

Thomas Jefferson said:

http://www.monticello.org/site/research ... us-beliefs

"I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

He seemed OK with who he was.

Right, but how about you?

John Platko wrote:I'm a Catholic Christian. We Catholics have differing views on what that means- and that's a good thing.

But you've avoided every question I posed which should have produced more substance than just applying a label to yourself. Further, subscribing to the largest group of Christianity is contradictory to the notion of Jefferson being a cult of one.

In what way can you justify your claim to being a Christian?

John Platko · **#86** by **John Platko** » Oct 31, 2014 12:08 am

Acetone wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Griz_ wrote:
John Platko wrote:

Surely you'll acknowledge that imagination plays an important role in science - right?

My religious process is that I imagine (or contemplate what others have imagined) and then I check to see if what I imagine fits in with what I or others observe. Sometimes I need to do an experiment to sus things out.

Yes, imagination is crucial in science but only when forming a hypothesis. It is irrelevant in arriving at a conclusion. You're doing it backwards.

I don't see how. I imagine and form a hypothesis. Then I check my hypothesis against generally accepted observations of reality. Sometimes I do an experiment or two as necessary. This then lends validity to my hypothesis or not. Where do you think I'm going wrong?

Can you explain to me one of these hypotheses and outline how you would conduct an experiment?

A most excellent question.

One hypotheses I have had after thinking some observations over: If God is good, God can't be omnipotent. (I've noticed many atheists seem to have had a similar hypothesis at times.) Some may prefer: There is no omnipotent good God. It's a bit crisper.

I checked my hypothesis against generally accepted observations of reality. Is everything as one might expect given my hypothesis? If we are God's children, does our reality match what we would expect from an all good and all powerful parent? Would a good parent under any circumstance let their child be raped, for example, if they had the power to prevent it.

Recording observations like this can be very helpful but sometimes the best way to see how the rubber of my hypothesis hits the road is to use my hypothesis to make a prediction and see if it comes true. If God is good but not omnipotent then I should experimentally find that very bad things still happen (independently of my praying or not- I mean what kind of good parent would only protect their children from harm if they beg their parents to protect them.) Sure enough, my hypothesis holds water on the personal experiments I have done. And the Catholic Church has conducted a massive experiment at Lourdes where very sick people come to be healed by our hypothetically good omnipotent God. And while there is religious evidence that some miracles have occurred, 69 recognized cures out of millions of people strongly suggests God is not very powerful when it comes to curing many human illnesses.

Soooo, I'm pretty sure that every good God can't be omnipotent.

That's the general idea of how I go about my religious practice.

John Platko · **#87** by **John Platko** » Oct 31, 2014 12:19 am

trubble76 wrote:
John Platko wrote:
trubble76 wrote:
John Platko wrote:

I don't have the power to shrink God. I do have the power to refine how I imagine God by trying to reconcile my image of God with reality. Like science, this is an iterative process- and there's nothing wrong with that.

I agree that your god is a figment of your imagination but as you seem to acknowledge this, why continue to believe in it?

For the efficiency of my mental process, especially involving areas concerning morality and psychology. I seem to recall writing a paper about that some time ago, now where did I put that - hmmm it must be around here somewhere.

I'm not sure that I agree with you that being deliberately wrong aids efficiency of your mental process. Surely aiming for not being wrong at all would be better at achieving that goal?

It's not about being deliberately wrong. More like being randomly wrong which causes branches to knew idea spaces where new good ideas can be mined. And being able to locate previously mined areas discovered by great religious thinkers so that I can better understand and explore the space they have mapped out.

I don't think that your process bears any similarity to science, it surprises me that you do. There is nothing of science in any of the imagined gods in the world.

Surely you'll acknowledge that imagination plays an important role in science - right?

My religious process is that I imagine (or contemplate what others have imagined) and then I check to see if what I imagine fits in with what I or others observe. Sometimes I need to do an experiment to sus things out.

If what you did was scientific, then you would get the same results as everyone else. What I think you may be doing is fabricating a flimsy, made-in-china crappy knock-off, a bit like how ID sort of pretends to be science but isn't.

I wouldn't want to give the impression that religion = science. But some scientific practices are useful to religious practice. When you're imagining stuff it's good not to loose sight of reality.

John Platko · **#88** by **John Platko** » Oct 31, 2014 12:29 am

Spearthrower wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Well I'll try not to disappoint you. Reading the Bible can be tricky, what with all the errors and all. And sometimes, try as I might, I am simply unable to come up with any good interpretations of a story. Take this Adam, Eve, and a snake story, I know of no good interpretation of it. I'm convinced that whoever wrote it imagined a bad idea and then wrote a crappy story about it. And then there's this story about a guy who almost killed his son - but that one I got figured out, the moral of that story is don't even think about doing something like that.

So effectively the only way in which you're a Christian is that you believe that God possesses the characteristics ascribed to it by Christianity.

Why are you shaking your head to a direct question?

I don't see a question mark there. Do you?

Is it meant to represent 'no'?

John Platko wrote:

That the Bible's no true guide or of divine origin, but a collection of scratchings by various people over centuries, some of which happen to touch on eternal truths about the human condition.

I wouldn't phrase it like that, it does more that touch on eternal truths, it contains enough to give the astute reader deep insight into the human condition.

I disagree: the most it shows is that which preoccupies us today also preoccupied us a couple of millenia ago. The messages only still relate because of the weight of history and because they are continuously reinterpreted in light of new situations.

John Platko wrote:

As you've already shown how malleable your concept of God is, I would be surprised that someone would still consider themselves Christian, but then it's you, so it's understandable.

Thomas Jefferson said:

http://www.monticello.org/site/research ... us-beliefs

"I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

He seemed OK with who he was.

Right, but how about you?

On a good day I'm ok with myself. Other days - not so much.

John Platko wrote:I'm a Catholic Christian. We Catholics have differing views on what that means- and that's a good thing.

But you've avoided every question I posed which should have produced more substance than just applying a label to yourself. Further, subscribing to the largest group of Christianity is contradictory to the notion of Jefferson being a cult of one.

In what way can you justify your claim to being a Christian?

I subscribe to the majority of teachings of JC as best I can understand them. I think they generally offer a path to the future. It's pretty much the same way I'm an American. I subscribe to the majority of our laws and Constitution but I'm not happy with all of it. And so it goes.

Spearthrower · **#89** by **Spearthrower** » Oct 31, 2014 1:36 am

John Platko wrote:
I don't see a question mark there. Do you?

You're quite right, it was meant to - but it was in the interrogative, and you still haven't answered.

John Platko wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

Right, but how about you?

On a good day I'm ok with myself. Other days - not so much.

Clearly, I am not asking how you feel, or whether you enjoyed a walk in the park last month.

Do you not appreciate that this kind of answering without answering is highly obstructive to any level of discourse? You've done it with all the difficult questions in this thread, and you specifically appeared to try to bury (crap on) my post earlier with meaningless contentions which were already addressed in the post itself. I am going to try to keep going for a little while longer, but if you continue to frustrate attempts at honest communication, then I will just mentally block you in future as someone unwilling to engage on a genuine level.

John Platko wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
But you've avoided every question I posed which should have produced more substance than just applying a label to yourself. Further, subscribing to the largest group of Christianity is contradictory to the notion of Jefferson being a cult of one.

In what way can you justify your claim to being a Christian?

I subscribe to the majority of teachings of JC as best I can understand them.

Let's ignore for the moment that you once again didn't address my point about how this contradicts your prior sentence - I am not sure consistency is very important to you.

But why would you do subscribe to the teachings of Jesus when you already described the narrative around Jesus as dubious?

John Platko wrote: I think they generally offer a path to the future.

A quick hint: all paths lead to the future. It's unavoidable.

John Platko wrote: It's pretty much the same way I'm an American. I subscribe to the majority of our laws and Constitution but I'm not happy with all of it. And so it goes.

But just as you appreciate that breaking a an American laws would result in penalization under that justice system, the requirements of Christianity are far more stringent and the justice system is absolute.

From my attempt at divining your divining, I would guess you don't believe in hell, would I be correct in that divination?

Acetone · **#90** by **Acetone** » Oct 31, 2014 4:11 am

John Platko wrote:
Acetone wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Griz_ wrote:

Yes, imagination is crucial in science but only when forming a hypothesis. It is irrelevant in arriving at a conclusion. You're doing it backwards.

I don't see how. I imagine and form a hypothesis. Then I check my hypothesis against generally accepted observations of reality. Sometimes I do an experiment or two as necessary. This then lends validity to my hypothesis or not. Where do you think I'm going wrong?

Can you explain to me one of these hypotheses and outline how you would conduct an experiment?

A most excellent question.

One hypotheses I have had after thinking some observations over: If God is good, God can't be omnipotent. (I've noticed many atheists seem to have had a similar hypothesis at times.) Some may prefer: There is no omnipotent good God. It's a bit crisper.

I checked my hypothesis against generally accepted observations of reality. Is everything as one might expect given my hypothesis? If we are God's children, does our reality match what we would expect from an all good and all powerful parent? Would a good parent under any circumstance let their child be raped, for example, if they had the power to prevent it.

Recording observations like this can be very helpful but sometimes the best way to see how the rubber of my hypothesis hits the road is to use my hypothesis to make a prediction and see if it comes true. If God is good but not omnipotent then I should experimentally find that very bad things still happen (independently of my praying or not- I mean what kind of good parent would only protect their children from harm if they beg their parents to protect them.) Sure enough, my hypothesis holds water on the personal experiments I have done. And the Catholic Church has conducted a massive experiment at Lourdes where very sick people come to be healed by our hypothetically good omnipotent God. And while there is religious evidence that some miracles have occurred, 69 recognized cures out of millions of people strongly suggests God is not very powerful when it comes to curing many human illnesses.

Soooo, I'm pretty sure that every good God can't be omnipotent.

That's the general idea of how I go about my religious practice.

So exactly how accurate is this answer you've obtained? How precise are your results? Can you cite p-values or other statistical test values to support your collected data? How 'experience biased' is your data? Is it reproducible? If I follow your method will I get the same results?

I mean, thanks for taking the time to write this out and I can appreciate the amount of thought I believe you've put into this specific example (probably still an ongoing 'experiment' really) but it's not really scientific. To call this science is an abuse of the word.

Darwinsbulldog · **#91** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Oct 31, 2014 4:53 am

One thing that can be challenged scientifically is the previous Pope's claim that the soul is put into the evolved pieces of human meat by god. The non-magical soul [the personality or identity of the person] CAN be investigated by science, and can be explained by science. Thus a Pope or religious person does not have to invoke god as a cause for the material soul [ie mortal], and indeed, if he does, he does not accept the science of evolution-specifically-the part where evolutionary forces and current environments can give personality to a social ape such as ourselves. Of course the [claimed] supernatural/religious aspect of the soul is not subject to science unless we include an over-active imagination of the religious mind as a psychological phenomenon.

Warren Dew · **#92** by **Warren Dew** » Oct 31, 2014 5:16 am

John Platko wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
John Platko wrote:Hmmmm. Your comment suggests to me an image of God that is a magician able to do anything. I imagine a more "limited" God. And from the OP, I imagine Pope Francis does to.

Is that view of God consistent with traditional Catholic views?

Nooooo. I was taught God was all powerful. I was taught God could do anything. However, the " thinkers" in the church seemed to have been troubled with that notion and so they limited God to being only able to do logically consistent things - but we "average" Catholics aren't taught these fine points.

So, it is indeed remarkable for me to read the Pope saying God should not be imagined as a magician that can do everything. I do believe he's on the right track with that idea. Now if he expands on the idea that we imagine all we think about God, as everyone who ever said anything about God has done, JC included, then we'll be evolving.

Indeed. If Francis is actually on that track, and he continues down it, it will soon be Catholic doctrine that God doesn't exist after all.

monkeyboy · **#93** by **monkeyboy** » Oct 31, 2014 5:26 am

John Platko wrote:
monkeyboy wrote:
Nicko wrote:What I don't get is the basis by which you decide whether or not a given biblical passage is "meant" to be read literally or allegorically. I was wondering if you could explain that to us please.

Seconded.

I too would love to know how that works. My normally perfectly adequate reading comprehension, which seems to work consistently when applied to any other book I've encountered, always seems to let me down when it comes to the bible. Not one believer has been able to explain how it works when I've asked before but they can all apparently do it.

Well I'll try not to disappoint you. Reading the Bible can be tricky, what with all the errors and all. And sometimes, try as I might, I am simply unable to come up with any good interpretations of a story. Take this Adam, Eve, and a snake story, I know of no good interpretation of it. I'm convinced that whoever wrote it imagined a bad idea and then wrote a crappy story about it. And then there's this story about a guy who almost killed his son - but that one I got figured out, the moral of that story is don't even think about doing something like that.

But I thought the moral of that particularly vile story was to demonstrate that Abraham's loyalty to god was so absolute that it came above the love he had for his only son and to introduce the notion of the sacrificial lamb because god likes the smell of BBQ. That it is a vile and repugnant way to test the loyalty of one of your followers is obvious. Surely its also totally unnecessary for a god who knows our hearts etc or can he be fooled by a good poker player? Did Abraham just bluff god knowing that god was a big softy really?

But really, how are you supposed to read the book? Why is it so open to interpretation? If its OK to interpret it however you like, why have there been so many willing to kill to impose their interpretation onto others? Why do some insist it's inerrant if others like yourself clearly disagree? Why isn't the testimony of god clear for all to understand?

Nicko · **#94** by **Nicko** » Oct 31, 2014 11:06 am

John Platko wrote:
Nicko wrote:
John Platko wrote:Accepting the science of evolution is not news for Catholics. We don't read Genesis literally.

Yeah. You guys got burned pretty bad - well not literally, it was other people who were literally burning - on that whole "heliocentrism vs. geocentrism" thing back in the day and learned your lesson. It's Protestant sects who do the biblical literalism thing as a rule.

I get that the "Garden of Eden" story can be read as a parable demonstrating the consequences of a species attaining the ability to make moral judgements. Or a parable demonstrating any number of other things for that matter.

What I don't get is the basis by which you decide whether or not a given biblical passage is "meant" to be read literally or allegorically. I was wondering if you could explain that to us please.

Why certainly! It's really rather simple. You just read the passage and sus out if it was "meant" to be read literally or not. For example, if you read a story that involves a talking snake then that's a clue that the story wasn't meant to be taken literally because snakes don't talk. And that's how I do it. Any questions?

Nope. Turns out that Griz was right.

Griz_ wrote:If it fits reality, it's literal. When it doesn't, it's allegory.

Of course, this does mean that you have conceded that Scripture is a wholly unreliable source of information, as whether or not a particular piece is allegory or the straight shit can - by the metric you have proposed - only be determined once research and investigation into the rest of reality has provided the necessary framework to sort the allegory from the straight shit. Since we do not - and likely will never have - this level of knowledge, we can basically just bin all the Bibles.

According to you, anyway.

Spearthrower · **#95** by **Spearthrower** » Oct 31, 2014 12:26 pm

Considering the arch-bish recently admitted he wasn't really sure if he believed in God, I think this represents progress! Soon, we'll get the Pope on board too.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... ence-welby

Justin Welby wrote:The other day I was praying as I was running and I ended up saying to God: 'Look, this is all very well but isn't it about time you did something – if you're there

kennyc · **#96** by **kennyc** » Oct 31, 2014 1:02 pm

Spearthrower wrote:.... I am going to try to keep going for a little while longer, but if you continue to frustrate attempts at honest communication, then I will just mentally block you in future as someone unwilling to engage on a genuine level.

....

Probably a good idea, I learned this from a couple of his early threads here, before your re-emergence from facebook hell.

kennyc · **#97** by **kennyc** » Oct 31, 2014 1:04 pm

Warren Dew wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
John Platko wrote:Hmmmm. Your comment suggests to me an image of God that is a magician able to do anything. I imagine a more "limited" God. And from the OP, I imagine Pope Francis does to.

Is that view of God consistent with traditional Catholic views?

Nooooo. I was taught God was all powerful. I was taught God could do anything. However, the " thinkers" in the church seemed to have been troubled with that notion and so they limited God to being only able to do logically consistent things - but we "average" Catholics aren't taught these fine points.

So, it is indeed remarkable for me to read the Pope saying God should not be imagined as a magician that can do everything. I do believe he's on the right track with that idea. Now if he expands on the idea that we imagine all we think about God, as everyone who ever said anything about God has done, JC included, then we'll be evolving.

Indeed. If Francis is actually on that track, and he continues down it, it will soon be Catholic doctrine that God doesn't exist after all.

We can hope, there is always hope!

John Platko · **#98** by **John Platko** » Oct 31, 2014 1:13 pm

Acetone wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Acetone wrote:
John Platko wrote:

I don't see how. I imagine and form a hypothesis. Then I check my hypothesis against generally accepted observations of reality. Sometimes I do an experiment or two as necessary. This then lends validity to my hypothesis or not. Where do you think I'm going wrong?

Can you explain to me one of these hypotheses and outline how you would conduct an experiment?

A most excellent question.

One hypotheses I have had after thinking some observations over: If God is good, God can't be omnipotent. (I've noticed many atheists seem to have had a similar hypothesis at times.) Some may prefer: There is no omnipotent good God. It's a bit crisper.

I checked my hypothesis against generally accepted observations of reality. Is everything as one might expect given my hypothesis? If we are God's children, does our reality match what we would expect from an all good and all powerful parent? Would a good parent under any circumstance let their child be raped, for example, if they had the power to prevent it.

Recording observations like this can be very helpful but sometimes the best way to see how the rubber of my hypothesis hits the road is to use my hypothesis to make a prediction and see if it comes true. If God is good but not omnipotent then I should experimentally find that very bad things still happen (independently of my praying or not- I mean what kind of good parent would only protect their children from harm if they beg their parents to protect them.) Sure enough, my hypothesis holds water on the personal experiments I have done. And the Catholic Church has conducted a massive experiment at Lourdes where very sick people come to be healed by our hypothetically good omnipotent God. And while there is religious evidence that some miracles have occurred, 69 recognized cures out of millions of people strongly suggests God is not very powerful when it comes to curing many human illnesses.

Soooo, I'm pretty sure that every good God can't be omnipotent.

That's the general idea of how I go about my religious practice.

So exactly how accurate is this answer you've obtained? How precise are your results? Can you cite p-values or other statistical test values to support your collected data? How 'experience biased' is your data? Is it reproducible? If I follow your method will I get the same results?

I mean, thanks for taking the time to write this out and I can appreciate the amount of thought I believe you've put into this specific example (probably still an ongoing 'experiment' really) but it's not really scientific. To call this science is an abuse of the word.

I would call it a religious experiment, not a scientific experiment. I have been led to believe that many atheists have found similar results when engaging in similiar experiments. And as for the great "experiment" at Lourdes, many forum members responded in previous threads weighing in on how the actual number of "cured" people didn't bode well for the capabilities of God. Finally, if it would help, I think I could find the "scientific" paper Hackenslash posted on the effectiveness of prayer in a particular medical circumstance. If nothing else, that paper demonstrates nicely how normally scientific studies need to be adjusted when religion is involved.

Finally, if you have any evidence, scientific or otherwise, that my hypothesis is wrong, please share it.

John Platko · **#99** by **John Platko** » Oct 31, 2014 1:13 pm

Acetone wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Acetone wrote:
John Platko wrote:

I don't see how. I imagine and form a hypothesis. Then I check my hypothesis against generally accepted observations of reality. Sometimes I do an experiment or two as necessary. This then lends validity to my hypothesis or not. Where do you think I'm going wrong?

Can you explain to me one of these hypotheses and outline how you would conduct an experiment?

A most excellent question.

One hypotheses I have had after thinking some observations over: If God is good, God can't be omnipotent. (I've noticed many atheists seem to have had a similar hypothesis at times.) Some may prefer: There is no omnipotent good God. It's a bit crisper.

I checked my hypothesis against generally accepted observations of reality. Is everything as one might expect given my hypothesis? If we are God's children, does our reality match what we would expect from an all good and all powerful parent? Would a good parent under any circumstance let their child be raped, for example, if they had the power to prevent it.

Recording observations like this can be very helpful but sometimes the best way to see how the rubber of my hypothesis hits the road is to use my hypothesis to make a prediction and see if it comes true. If God is good but not omnipotent then I should experimentally find that very bad things still happen (independently of my praying or not- I mean what kind of good parent would only protect their children from harm if they beg their parents to protect them.) Sure enough, my hypothesis holds water on the personal experiments I have done. And the Catholic Church has conducted a massive experiment at Lourdes where very sick people come to be healed by our hypothetically good omnipotent God. And while there is religious evidence that some miracles have occurred, 69 recognized cures out of millions of people strongly suggests God is not very powerful when it comes to curing many human illnesses.

Soooo, I'm pretty sure that every good God can't be omnipotent.

That's the general idea of how I go about my religious practice.

So exactly how accurate is this answer you've obtained? How precise are your results? Can you cite p-values or other statistical test values to support your collected data? How 'experience biased' is your data? Is it reproducible? If I follow your method will I get the same results?

I mean, thanks for taking the time to write this out and I can appreciate the amount of thought I believe you've put into this specific example (probably still an ongoing 'experiment' really) but it's not really scientific. To call this science is an abuse of the word.

I would call it a religious experiment, not a scientific experiment. I have been led to believe that many atheists have found similar results when engaging in similiar experiments. And as for the great "experiment" at Lourdes, many forum members responded in previous threads weighing in on how the actual number of "cured" people didn't bode well for the capabilities of God. Finally, if it would help, I think I could find the "scientific" paper Hackenslash posted on the effectiveness of prayer in a particular medical circumstance. If nothing else, that paper demonstrates nicely how normally scientific studies need to be adjusted when religion is involved.

Finally, if you have any evidence, scientific or otherwise, that my hypothesis is wrong, please share it.

John Platko · **#100** by **John Platko** » Oct 31, 2014 1:19 pm

Darwinsbulldog wrote:One thing that can be challenged scientifically is the previous Pope's claim that the soul is put into the evolved pieces of human meat by god. The non-magical soul [the personality or identity of the person] CAN be investigated by science, and can be explained by science. Thus a Pope or religious person does not have to invoke god as a cause for the material soul [ie mortal], and indeed, if he does, he does not accept the science of evolution-specifically-the part where evolutionary forces and current environments can give personality to a social ape such as ourselves. Of course the [claimed] supernatural/religious aspect of the soul is not subject to science unless we include an over-active imagination of the religious mind as a psychological phenomenon.

Active imagination is at the heart of religious psychological phenomenon.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_imagination

Jung was insistent that some form of participation in active imagination was essential: 'You yourself must enter into the process with your personal reactions...as if the drama being enacted before your eyes were real'.[11]

Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Re: Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Re: Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Re: Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Re: Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Re: Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Re: Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Re: Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Re: Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Re: Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Re: Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Re: Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Re: Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Re: Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Re: Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Re: Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Re: Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Re: Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Re: Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Re: Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Re: Pope: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With Creation

Who is online