Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design - good take on this issue

[Thalassa]

Once you realize religious people aren't the only ones who do that, I think you'll have a much more balanced perspective. It has more to do with the fact that there are a vast portion of people in society who vehemently cling to their own beliefs, be it in God or something else (like the environment), and both try to impress their views upon others in various ways. Not all religious people are like that. I wouldn't even say that a majority are like that. I would say that, religious or not, it is likely in the collective character of a certain generation, the boomers, that makes them take a position of values and defend it tooth and nail. Religious boomers, atheist boomers, intellectual boomers, environmentalist boomers, same thing. Our parents are the ones who yell and grip their world views with ever fiber of their being until the day they stubbornly die. Then INTPs like you take your experiences with your parents and your other elders and project that upon everyone as if it actually applies there, when it doesn't. It seems like half the INTPs on this forum are Catholic/Christian butthurt.

You're right - not all religious people are like that, and all people who are like that aren't religious. Take straight edge punks for example. No religious basis there, usually, and sometimes they beat people to death for drinking a beer in their presence.

Or what about the vegans who take serious issue with anyone who ingests or uses animal products, who not only lecture and judge, but sometimes physically attack people for wearing leather or fur?

It's not about religion, dude. It's just some people's personalities, and they WILL find a "cause" - religious or not - to be belligerant about. And many religious or spiritual people are respectful or keep to themselves.

 

[Shimmy]

Once you realize religious people aren't the only ones who do that, I think you'll have a much more balanced perspective. It has more to do with the fact that there are a vast portion of people in society who vehemently cling to their own beliefs, be it in God or something else (like the environment), and both try to impress their views upon others in various ways. Not all religious people are like that. I wouldn't even say that a majority are like that. I would say that, religious or not, it is likely in the collective character of a certain generation, the boomers, that makes them take a position of values and defend it tooth and nail. Religious boomers, atheist boomers, intellectual boomers, environmentalist boomers, same thing. Our parents are the ones who yell and grip their world views with ever fiber of their being until the day they stubbornly die. Then INTPs like you take your experiences with your parents and your other elders and project that upon everyone as if it actually applies there, when it doesn't. It seems like half the INTPs on this forum are Catholic/Christian butthurt.

I'm not exactly a fan of Richard Dawkins either (to take another point of view). The guy's got humor and a quick wit I find funny, his one-liners are amazing, but his radicalism in wanting to destroy religion I do not support.

I think some people here seem to think that I'm a religion basher. And I am, but it's not just religion. I bash everything that in one way or another seeks to condemn the liberties people take, rather then put them into perspective. I think, on this forum I've at least bashed Most of the world's organised religions, G. W. Bush's foreign policies, Dutch drugs policies, etc.

I throw them all in one heap labelled "Things that restrict individual freedom for the worse".

 

[Sniffles]

At least you don't come to me with the "Because it's in the bible", or "Because the pope says so" arguments.

Well that would be rather pointless since you're obviously not Catholic or even Christian. Even then, a rational explanation of the Church's position is needed even within an intra-Catholic dispute. Ironically Catholicism is criticised by other Christians for being overly rationalistic in explaining itself.

As for the condom argument. The article states that 'condoms alone are not a good way to stop the spread of AIDS', and that 'recommendations would be to distribute condoms along with taking other measures'. I think this could, at worst, be interpreted as 'condoms don't add to public health' (everything between ' and ' is paraphrased). On the other hand, nowhere does it say that distributing condoms doesn't add to public health. The pope on the other hand says, condoms -> more AIDS, due to a decrease in awareness of the risks and an increase in the numbers of sexual partners. Which to me seems like a fair enough and plausible conclusion, worth further research.

I hope you still agree with me up to here, since I think so far I'm not touching anything the Catholic church wouldn't be fully endorsing. Up until so far

Now here's the part that you might find a little bit on the edge. The subject is worth further research, not worth agreeing with blindly. The pope bans condoms, not because they don't necessarily stop AIDS, but because he is trying to control the sexual morale of people. If there would be a reliable and cheap medicine for AIDS available tomorrow, do you think the pope would say, thank god, now we there is no more practical reason to ban condoms! I think nothing would change for him, and his "abstinence, not condoms" agenda. He'd just find another petty reason why he is right, and others are wrong.

Perhaps it's the late hour I'm reading this, but I'm failing to see what exact point you're trying to make with all this. It seems you keep grasping for straws to prove that all roads lead to Roman hypocrisy. Earlier you even condemned the Church because it decided to tackle the issue of abuses of indulgences, and claimed it was because of hypocrisy. You condemn the Church for not supporting condom use, yet then claim that the Church does allow it strictly for medical purposes(actually that's a misinterpretation but oh well). But for whatever reason you're still not satisifed and claim it's all hypocrisy. If I read you correctly, above you now admit the Pope may have a plausible point in regards to condoms. Yet once again you provide more speculation about how this is all really because of hypocrisy and whatnot.

Far better arguments have been made by Catholics about corruption and hypocrisy within the Church. Karl Rahner, one of the leading theologians of the last century, noted that there was so much indifference to dogma that if tomorrow the Pope repudiated the Trinity and claimed God comes in only two forms - nobody would care. That's far more damning than anything you've brought up, since the Trinity involves the very nature of God himself and is a basic dogma of the Church(which no pope has the authority to repudiate).

 

[Shimmy]

Well that would be rather pointless since you're obviously not Catholic or even Christian. Even then, a rational explanation of the Church's position is needed even within an intra-Catholic dispute. Ironically Catholicism is criticised by other Christians for being overly rationalistic in explaining itself.




Perhaps it's the late hour I'm reading this, but I'm failing to see what exact point you're trying to make with all this. It seems you keep grasping for straws to prove that all roads lead to Roman hypocrisy. Earlier you even condemned the Church because it decided to tackle the issue of abuses of indulgences, and claimed it was because of hypocrisy. You condemn the Church for not supporting condom use, yet then claim that the Church does allow it strictly for medical purposes(actually that's a misinterpretation but oh well). But for whatever reason you're still not satisifed and claim it's all hypocrisy. If I read you correctly, above you now admit the Pope may have a plausible point in regards to condoms. Yet once again you provide more speculation about how this is all really because of hypocrisy and whatnot.

Far better arguments have been made by Catholics about corruption and hypocrisy within the Church. Karl Rahner, one of the leading theologians of the last century, noted that there was so much indifference to dogma that if tomorrow the Pope repudiated the Trinity and claimed God comes in only two forms - nobody would care. That's far more damning than anything you've brought up, since the Trinity involves the very nature of God himself and is a basic dogma of the Church(which no pope has the authority to repudiate).

Last straws? I'm not being unrealistic and stubborn to change a point of view in a discussion. I interpreted that Humanae Vitae you posted as the catholic church allows condoms if they are strictly to prevent AIDS. It says that sex (between married couples) during infertile periods is allowed, well that's obviously not intended for procreation (chapter 16). It also states that the Catholic church 'does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases' (chapter 15). But yeah, it is an interpretation, maybe I was being overly hopeful in thinking that this would also mean 'does not consider al all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to stop the spread of bodily diseases'.
As for condom use. The pope may have a plausible theory, but if you look at Thailand, condom promotion can have a positive effect as well. Like I said, the pope's claims are worth investigating by social scientists, but so should the option of condom promotion be to the pope.

Luckily a lot of people ARE indifferent to dogma, now let's abolish the concept of dogma altogether and replace it instead with a system where people are actually allowed and motivated to question things.

As for criticising the church for those changes. I'm saying the church always changes only several hundred years after it is possible, and only if it means not loosing members. I mean, if what they preach is eternal and absolute truth, wouldn't that be a little bit more important then any number of members? On the other hand, if their motives are to guide people into having a good and moral life (who are they to determine what is good and moral any way), why would they bother trying to explain the world in the first place? Scientific method seems to do this more precise any way.

As for Karl Rahner, well I'm just not trying to make a point of the nature of god in this thread.

 

[Nyx]

Luckily a lot of people ARE indifferent to dogma, now let's abolish the concept of dogma altogether and replace it instead with a system where people are actually allowed and motivated to question things.

As for criticising the church for those changes. I'm saying the church always changes only several hundred years after it is possible, and only if it means not loosing members. I mean, if what they preach is eternal and absolute truth, wouldn't that be a little bit more important then any number of members? On the other hand, if their motives are to guide people into having a good and moral life (who are they to determine what is good and moral any way), why would they bother trying to explain the world in the first place? Scientific method seems to do this more precise any way.

Those statements just show a poor understanding of Christianity. I feel like I make this point over and over again when talking about it, but I think it needs to be made in every case. There have been thousands of books written about Church dogmas and doctrine (over 2,000 years of history), and the greatest Catholic intellectuals sought God through reason. This is very important to understand. The Church has a very rich intellectual heritage, a quick Google search will confirm that. No one who understands Christianity for what it teaches would ever suppress inquiry. Actually, inquiry and reason are some of the best ways to build a strong faith.

To answer your last question "why would they bother trying to explain the world in the first place?" That is obvious. Science leaves one wanting. It is all well and good, but if not married with theology is meaningless. The two are not mutually exclusive. The Church feels a need to explain the world because although it gives the outlines for a perfectly moral life, people still want to know "why?" Unfortunately, hard logic does not really answer the "why" within us fully, because there is an ineffable quality to our minds. This quality has a hunger for truth not satiated by mere data. We are infinite minds in finite bodies...this is why the marriage of theology and science is so important.

People who vehemently criticize religion are often doing it for emotional reasons and in most cases they have failed to do a fully inquiry.

 

[Risen]

People who vehemently criticize religion are often doing it for emotional reasons and in most cases they have failed to do a fully inquiry.

It's completely emotional.

 

[ygolo]

I apologize if this ground has been covered before.

I'd like to address this particular point:

In simple summary it said that the universe is too orderly, purposeful, even beautiful to be the result of random mechanical causes; the assumption of Divine creation makes sense, it is in fact inevitable.

If used as an argument against the theory of evolution, I find it woefully lacking. Evolution is not random chance, but guided by natural selection. Each facet of an organism comes out in steps selected for from generation to generation. This process is a lot faster than "random chance."

However, if used to point out that the laws of nature in general (including evolution through variation and natural/artificial selection) are too beautiful and orderly to have come about from chance, then I believe it has much more merit.

Although, I disagree with the "inevitability" of there being an intelligent designer, I choose to believe there is one.

-------

Also, as far as intelligent design being taught in schools, I think it is perfectly acceptable in a philosophy class, but inappropriate for a biology class.

 

[Sniffles]

Last straws? I'm not being unrealistic and stubborn to change a point of view in a discussion.

It's not wrong to change your views when new evidence arrives, but to constantly change ones views at every stroke can actually be a sign of intellectual immaturity. Considered yourself warned.

I interpreted that Humanae Vitae you posted as the catholic church allows condoms if they are strictly to prevent AIDS. It says that sex (between married couples) during infertile periods is allowed, well that's obviously not intended for procreation (chapter 16). It also states that the Catholic church 'does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases' (chapter 15). But yeah, it is an interpretation, maybe I was being overly hopeful in thinking that this would also mean 'does not consider al all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to stop the spread of bodily diseases'.

What they're referring to is something like the Biorhythm method I believe. Let me say again you need to educate yourself far better on Catholic teachings and history, cause your ignornance on the matter is becoming far too clear.

As for condom use. The pope may have a plausible theory, but if you look at Thailand, condom promotion can have a positive effect as well.

Even if so, as I just pointed out to noigm, the Church's position is primarily one of moral principles. So even if condoms do work, it's still wrong. And I gave the example that killling off all people infected with the disease and burning their corpses would still be wrong, even if studies shows it does help stop the spread of the disease. You realise that practicality is a means to end, not an end in itself?

Like I said, the pope's claims are worth investigating by social scientists, but so should the option of condom promotion be to the pope.

Do you even know why the Pope is opposed to condom use in the first place? Please give a real answer, not random speculations.

I think Nyx dealt very well with the rest of your post. Seriously, your arguments here are nothing more than just silly if I maybe so blunt, especially when you keep changing targets attempting to prove your point(whatever that maybe). When in a hole, stop digging.

 

[Sniffles]

However, if used to point out that the laws of nature in general (including evolution through variation and natural/artificial selection) are too beautiful and orderly to have come about from chance, then I believe it has much more merit.

That is the basic point being made here.

 

[Shimmy]

Those statements just show a poor understanding of Christianity. I feel like I make this point over and over again when talking about it, but I think it needs to be made in every case. There have been thousands of books written about Church dogmas and doctrine (over 2,000 years of history), and the greatest Catholic intellectuals sought God through reason. This is very important to understand. The Church has a very rich intellectual heritage, a quick Google search will confirm that. No one who understands Christianity for what it teaches would ever suppress inquiry. Actually, inquiry and reason are some of the best ways to build a strong faith.

To answer your last question "why would they bother trying to explain the world in the first place?" That is obvious. Science leaves one wanting. It is all well and good, but if not married with theology is meaningless. The two are not mutually exclusive. The Church feels a need to explain the world because although it gives the outlines for a perfectly moral life, people still want to know "why?" Unfortunately, hard logic does not really answer the "why" within us fully, because there is an ineffable quality to our minds. This quality has a hunger for truth not satiated by mere data. We are infinite minds in finite bodies...this is why the marriage of theology and science is so important.

People who vehemently criticize religion are often doing it for emotional reasons and in most cases they have failed to do a fully inquiry.

People who follow a religion do so entirely based on emotions as well, it's fine to have a subjective view of the world. Then second of all, I do not attack organised religion (or individual people) for having theological, spiritual, moral and philosophical ideas in the first place. I attack those organised religions (and certain individuals) on the premiss of them thinking they hold the truth.

A Christian philosopher contemplating the world is fine. A Christian philosopher contemplating how the world should operate according to previous believes isn't. Unfortunately, organised religions tend to venture in the second option.

I understand that people will look for answers pure science can't give them, and that religion provides them with it. So did he. A religion should provide perspective, not answers.

Now I will repeat myself again, the Catholic church is not 'the evil empire', they just tend to hold their values and believes as universal "answers".

To save you the trouble of mentioning it. A scientist defending his theory at the cost of another theory despite the absence of any proof of his theory is NOT the scientist I'm defending either.

It's not wrong to change your views when new evidence arrives, but to constantly change ones views at every stroke can actually be a sign of intellectual immaturity. Considered yourself warned.

'Personal attacks on integrity' and 'warnings', whatever way they are worded are not an argument, attack the message, not the messenger. If you're annoyed in arguing with me, just stop replying to my posts. It won't hurt either of us to stop this debate entirely, but dammit, I can be as stubborn as a mule when I'm arguing.

What they're referring to is something like the Biorhythm method I believe. Let me say again you need to educate yourself far better on Catholic teachings and history, cause your ignornance on the matter is becoming far too clear.

You could be entirely right if you say I interpreted it wrong. I already basically admitted it. I think I had some hopes for an actual surprisingly progressive point of view from the Catholic church, probably just wishful thinking on my part.

Even if so, as I just pointed out to noigm, the Church's position is primarily one of moral principles. So even if condoms do work, it's still wrong. And I gave the example that killling off all people infected with the disease and burning their corpses would still be wrong, even if studies shows it does help stop the spread of the disease. You realise that practicality is a means to end, not an end in itself?

Do you even know why the Pope is opposed to condom use in the first place? Please give a real answer, not random speculations.

I think Nyx dealt very well with the rest of your post. Seriously, your arguments here are nothing more than just silly if I maybe so blunt, especially when you keep changing targets attempting to prove your point(whatever that maybe). When in a hole, stop digging.

Tell me, what ARE the pope's arguments to ban condoms? What IS the popes way to stop the spread of AIDS? I think I was being rather accurate about my opinion, now give my your answers, instead of avoiding them.

It seems you are now generally trying to attack me on the fact that I don't have all the answers as to how the world might work. You're right, I don't. I reckon however that if we (me, people with ideas, philosophers, scientists etc.) We could come a long way, especially in worldly situations like stopping the AIDS crisis.

 

[Qre:us]

The Church feels a need to explain the world because although it gives the outlines for a perfectly moral life, people still want to know "why?" Unfortunately, hard logic does not really answer the "why" within us fully, because there is an ineffable quality to our minds. This quality has a hunger for truth not satiated by mere data.

Have you ever questioned why we are hungry for answers to 'whys', as humans?

We are infinite minds in finite bodies...

Kinda agree. I wouldn't call our minds infinite, but I don't think we'll ever see the limits of the human mind in any near future.

However....how does the above naturally allow for:

this is why the marriage of theology and science is so important.

Why? I don't get the link. How does the possibility of an infinite mind tie into theology? Wouldn't it be better to explore the workings of the mind? Why are you suggesting something external to it [mind/body], like theology?

People who vehemently criticize religion are often doing it for emotional reasons and in most cases they have failed to do a fully inquiry.

People who are defending their religion are always doing it for emotional reasons, in all cases. Whenever one, a priori, picks a side, there's inevitable limits to a full inquiry, either way.

 

[Sniffles]

People who follow a religion do so entirely based on emotions as well, it's fine to have a subjective view of the world.

That may apply to some forms of religious beliefs, like Pietism for example, that's not true for religion altogether. Religion has rational aspects as well.

A Christian philosopher contemplating the world is fine. A Christian philosopher contemplating how the world should operate according to previous believes isn't. Unfortunately, organised religions tend to venture in the second option.

Are you saying philosophy should be purely theoretical and not have any practical implications?

'Personal attacks on integrity' and 'warnings', whatever way they are worded are not an argument, attack the message, not the messenger.

I'm not making personal attacks here. The inability to adhere to a certain set of principles is indeed often a sign of intellectual immaturity.

Of course when one is younger one's capacity to grasp the world is limited, so thus changing one's mind is to be expected. However, as one ages, they should be better able to grasp what exactly it is that they believe, why they believe so, and so on - at least when it comes to basic principles. This is one reason why Aristotle suggested men should not be involved in politics before the age of 30, because they too often lack the intellectual maturity to truely handle it.

You could be entirely right if you say I interpreted it wrong. I already basically admitted it.

Yes you admitted to misinterpreting the Church's message. I commend you for that. However, that should give you pause on making anymore statements about the Church's stances. Rather than do that, you seem to persist on anyways.

I think I had some hopes for an actual surprisingly progressive point of view from the Catholic church, probably just wishful thinking on my part.

The Church deals with eternal truths, so "progress" is irrelevant here. And even if it was, the begged question always is progress towards what exactly? Progress is a means of measuring how far you are in achieving a particular end; it is not an end in itself.

Tell me, what ARE the pope's arguments to ban condoms?

It stems from the concept that all human life is sacred; and that human life is conceived in the natural process of procreation. Any artifical means of precluding this process is a violation of the Natural Law. Furthermore it also involves the treating of other human life as more a means to an end than as an end in itself - that is it violates the dignitiy of human life.

That's a rough summary. This is outlined in more detail in Humanae Vitae itself.

What IS the popes way to stop the spread of AIDS? I think I was being rather accurate, now give my your answers, instead of avoiding them.

Here, from a Vatican spokesman:

"Flatly contradicting the propaganda reports in which several governments and family-planning agencies have accused the Church of curtailing AIDS - prevention program, Msgr. Suaudeau wrote that “the Catholic Church has been on the front lines in the war against AIDS in Africa.” He observed that the Church is criticized for failing to approve of the distribution of condoms, but he went on to point out that condoms have been ineffective as a means of curbing the epidemic. “One cannot hope to stop the AIDS epidemic with condoms alone,” he argued, “any more than you can hope to stop a flood with sandbags once the main dikes have broken.” The only real solution to AIDS, the Vatican official continued, lies in “convincing people to change their sexual behavior, which is the principal cause of the spread of the infection.” He added that the frightening spread of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa is abetted by turmoil in the region: the poverty, the lack of adequate sanitation, the conditions of life in refugee camps, and the spread of prostitution.

The most effective method of avoiding AIDS, Msgr. Suaudeau pointed out, is sexual abstinence. The distribution of condoms to young people, he argued, works against that choice, and in effect “continues the vicious sexual cycle which is the cause of the pandemic.”

Fight AIDS at Source Vatican Official Urges

And was pointed out earlier by Dr. Hearst, changes in sexual behavior was more effective than just simply distributing condoms.

It seems you are now generally trying to attack me on the fact that I don't have all the answers as to how the world might work.

I've not made any personal attacks on you. I've countered many of your arguments, and am now pointing out that your arguments thus far lack any real basis or significant understanding of Catholic teaching.

If you wish to inquire further about Catholic teachings, fine. But you need to lay off the speculations and conspiracy theories here.

 

[Shimmy]

That may apply to some forms of religious beliefs, like Pietism for example, that's not true for religion altogether. Religion has rational aspects as well.

Relligion isn't telling completely random things all the time, but proclaiming (arguably) universal answers is not exactly rational either.

Are you saying philosophy should be purely theoretical and not have any practical implications?

Definition of philosophy quoted from the Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary

phi·los·o·phy (f-ls-f)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

Nowhere does it says that philosophy has to have practical implementations. You have picked which personally which philosophies are useful or beneficial to you and implemented them into your life. To give you an extremely negative example of a philosophy that was implemented in the practical world, Endlösung der Judenfrage (I pick this example because I assume we don't have to argue about it's negativity, and because I think that you, me or anybody and anything either of us would ever think of sympathising with in the world would implement it, not because I want to place any association with the Catholic church).

My point being, philosophy should have practical implementations only if they allow and guarantee absolute freedom (physical and mental) for everybody, not just the minority, not the majority, but everybody.

I'm not making personal attacks here. The inability to adhere to a certain set of principles is indeed often a sign of intellectual immaturity.

Of course when one is younger one's capacity to grasp the world is limited, so thus changing one's mind is to be expected. However, as one ages, they should be better able to grasp what exactly it is that they believe, why they believe so, and so on - at least when it comes to basic principles. This is one reason why Aristotle suggested men should not be involved in politics before the age of 30, because they too often lack the intellectual maturity to truely handle it.

I would call it 'not being close minded and stubborn'. There, you've got my perspective. Start arguing semantics, or stop mentioning it altogether.
I quite enjoy practising politics and debating, and personally think that Aristotle is wrong if he said that.

Yes you admitted to misinterpreting the Church's message. I commend you for that. However, that should give you pause on making anymore statements about the Church's stances. Rather than do that, you seem to persist on anyways.

Because admitting a mistake is a reason to stop arguing altogether right? Apologies by Pope John Paul II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:rolli:

The Church deals with eternal truths, so "progress" is irrelevant here. And even if it was, the begged question always is progress towards what exactly? Progress is a means of measuring how far you are in achieving a particular end; it is not an end in itself.

May I interpret this as admitting that the Church is conservative and considers progress irrelevant?

But unfortunately, it's not so infallible!

It stems from the concept that all human life is sacred; and that human life is conceived in the natural process of procreation. Any artifical means of precluding this process is a violation of the Natural Law. Furthermore it also involves the treating of other human life as more a means to an end than as an end in itself - that is it violates the dignitiy of human life.

That's a rough summary. This is outlined in more detail in Humanae Vitae itself.



Here, from a Vatican spokesman:

A.K.A. Controlling the sexuality of people. At least this part is true, you can argue that it is out of a believe that all human life is sacred, but that doesn't change a thing for the people who don't in essence 'just believe' that contraceptions are wrong. (I won't go as far as saying that a human life is not sacred. I consider that to be true as well, I personally don't see why this has anything to do with contraceptives.)

And was pointed out earlier by Dr. Hearst, changes in sexual behavior was more effective than just simply distributing condoms.

As Dr. Hears pointed out: "Recommendations include increased condom promotion for groups at high risk, more rigorous measurement of the impact of condom promotion, and more research on how best to integrate condom promotion with other prevention strategies."

I may have misinterpreted Humanae Vitae wrong, but this direct quote from the link YOU provided me with seems pretty straight forward. So far nobody has proven to me the point that condom promotion cannot prevent AIDS if done right, or that it actually makes the crisis worse.

I've not made any personal attacks on you. I've countered many of your arguments, and am now pointing out that your arguments thus far lack any real basis or significant understanding of Catholic teaching.

If you wish to inquire further about Catholic teachings, fine. But you need to lay off the speculations and conspiracy theories here.

If you feel this is true, educate me! I don't ever want to reject information, but to be frank, it has to be in a format that appeals to my information in-taking side, instead of a format that puts my heels in the hand because I feel you are on an agenda.
Tell me about what the catholic church's teachings are, factual and without bias and I will listen, not argue. I'll ask questions about things that I'm genuinely wondering about, and will not even provide counter points if you don't want to. I think PM is the best option if you are serious about this, so we won't clog up the forums with threads that might get hijacked by cold-hard arguing, like this one. (I feel at least partially guilty.)

If you don't know where to start, with such a vague post as this, start out by telling me 'Why people believe in god', then go along with telling me 'Why there has to be a god, instead of there not being one'. I always found these questions fascinating, and they provide with both a good philosophical basis, as well as practical information about religion.

Finally I do want to point out to you, that I was raised Catholic, made a conscience choice to abolish god altogether, and that when you are saying that I lack a real basis or significant understanding of Catholic teaching, I feel you are stigmatizing me. In reaction I will say I feel that I have a completely different point of view from you and that in my opinion you just haven't been asking the same questions as me about life, we both came to different answers to our different questions. This however does not mean that I wouldn't enjoy coming to a consensus about practical implication of, at least mine, but preferably both, our answers for the part of the world besides you and me (in this thread, practical implications originally being the teaching of Intelligent Design as a science, eventhough the subject of the thread is apparently shifting to condom use ). However far our stances seem apart right now.

 

[Sniffles]

Nowhere does it says that philosophy has to have practical implementations.

Please read #8; that's referring to ethics(which is a form of practical philosophy). There's a distinction made between theoretical and practical philosophy. Examples of practical philosophy would be political and social philosophy. There's also the school of thought called Pragmatism which claims that thought only has validity when it can be out into practice.

My point being, philosophy should have practical implementations only if they allow and guarantee absolute freedom (physical and mental) for everybody, not just the minority, not the majority, but everybody.

Ok this is your philosophical perspective, but don't confuse that with the very nature of philosophy itself or its relationship to practical implications.

I would call it 'not being close minded and stubborn'. There, you've got my perspective.

Having firm principles and being stubborn or close minded are not the same.

Because admitting a mistake is a reason to stop arguing altogether right?

No, I didn't say that. You made false statements about the Church's teachings and corrected you. That should give you pause before making anymore statements like that in the future. You didn't heed that, and instead continued to make more false statements like the ones you were corrected on.

May I interpret this as admitting that the Church is conservative and considers progress irrelevant?

"Conservative" and "progressive" are irrelevant terms here, since they refer to ideological categories that arose with the French Revolution in 1789.

But unfortunately, it's not so infallible!

None of that has to do with Papal Infallibility(which has only been used twice in the entire history of the Church btw).

A.K.A. Controlling the sexuality of people. At least this part is true, you can argue that it is out of a believe that all human life is sacred, but that doesn't change a thing for the people who don't in essence 'just believe' that contraceptions are wrong.

Well truth is still true, even if nobody believes it. As far as controlling peoples sexuality; yeah it's called discipline which is a high-mark of any civilized culture.

I may have misinterpreted Humanae Vitae wrong, but this direct quote from the link YOU provided me with seems pretty straight forward.

I already addressed this point, please pay attention.

If you feel this is true, educate me!

If you wish, we can continue this via PM or another thread. Lately I've been overloaded with requests for information or questions about Catholicism and whatnot(and I'm not even talking about my one blog either).

 

[Dooraven]

I agree with the churches view on reeducating people on sex (and no I don't mean any prohibition of homosexuality, what I mean is reducing the number of casual sex, prostitution and one night stands that many people have).

But I don't understand why we can't have an overhaul in sex education and behaviour as a long term goal and yet continue distributing condoms and other preventive measures in the short term.

 

[Nyx]

Have you ever questioned why we are hungry for answers to 'whys', as humans?

Of course. I seek answers through more than one field of knowledge... in the light of one unifying factor. It is not hard to understand why we wonder "why?".

Kinda agree. I wouldn't call our minds infinite, but I don't think we'll ever see the limits of the human mind in any near future.

Sorry, I should not have worded it as such. That was an oversight on my part. I meant to say we are capable of infinite thought, and thinking about the infinite. Our minds are boundless in terms of creative thought.

Why? I don't get the link. How does the possibility of an infinite mind tie into theology? Wouldn't it be better to explore the workings of the mind? Why are you suggesting something external to it [mind/body], like theology?

Well this ties into theology.

Theology, defined as the study of God, covers psychology. I was thinking of Kierkegaard, actually, and his "paradox of faith." I definitely think this ties into psychology, and he talks a lot about this... Also, reminds me of Becker's Denial of Death.

People who are defending their religion are always doing it for emotional reasons, in all cases. Whenever one, a priori, picks a side, there's inevitable limits to a full inquiry, either way.

So the same could be said of any defense of a belief in something... besides things that are empirically, entirely provable, of course. Only accepting these things as the only knowable things leaves the mind wanting. I believe a full inquiry can be done into faith in God, as well as materialism. Each attempts to explain themselves rationally... though because neither are provable one must make a leap of faith. Both are attempting to provide the answer to the riddle of existence... which stems from an emotional background, I think. Most things that drive us do... Emotions are capable of more destruction, mental or otherwise than logic and data. Emotions make us aware of our liveliness. Logic is merely a tool, it can be used in the light of God or Creator, or whatever you want to call it, deriving monumental meaning... or it can be used purely in the light of materialism, deriving absolutely no meaning. Each human is faced with this choice... what they do this with choice is subject to many factors.

 

[Shimmy]

Please read #8; that's referring to ethics(which is a form of practical philosophy). There's a distinction made between theoretical and practical philosophy. Examples of practical philosophy would be political and social philosophy. There's also the school of thought called Pragmatism which claims that thought only has validity when it can be out into practice.



Ok this is your philosophical perspective, but don't confuse that with the very nature of philosophy itself or its relationship to practical implications.

Nowhere did I say that philosophy cannot have practical implications. I'm just saying there does not have to be one. I want to add to that, using the philosophy behind a practical idea, as a way to justify your practical implication, means you deny other practical options to take the place of your specific ones, regardless of the fact that the other practical implications have a philosophical thought behind them as well.

Having firm principles and being stubborn or close minded are not the same.

No, I didn't say that. You made false statements about the Church's teachings and corrected you. That should give you pause before making anymore statements like that in the future. You didn't heed that, and instead continued to make more false statements like the ones you were corrected on.

You say tomatoes, I say tomatoes (This doesn't work well in writing, but I think you what I mean). You conclude that I change my arguments (I haven't really changed my principles in this case, but just for the sake of honesty, yes I would do that if new information arises that shows to me I'm wrong), and call it and "intellectual immaturity", I conclude that I changed my arguments and call it "being open minded". Who is right? We don't know, we both came to the conclusion that I changed my arguments, but we call it different things. That's arguing semantics.

"Conservative" and "progressive" are irrelevant terms here, since they refer to ideological categories that arose with the French Revolution in 1789.

Yeah, and at that time we defined "conservative" as "Favouring traditional views and values", and "progressive" as "moving forward". As to why they are irrelevant terms here? Is it because the Church can't be defined in ideological (and thus subjective), because it deals in unquestionable truths?

None of that has to do with Papal Infallibility(which has only been used twice in the entire history of the Church btw).

I wasn't actually referring to Papal infallibility in particular, more so to your point that "The Church deals with eternal truths", which they come back round on later, for some reason. What, their first truth (let's pick the inequality of women for instance) wasn't eternal enough?

Well truth is still true, even if nobody believes it. As far as controlling peoples sexuality; yeah it's called discipline which is a high-mark of any civilized culture.

Well, if your moral point of view is "getting laid every single day", and you feel a bit ill one day, and you really don't want to go out to find somebody and have sex with them, but you do it anyway, because you have to because it is your moral code, then that's called discipline as well.

I already addressed this point, please pay attention.

Yeah, you did. With the addition that it should stop me from arguing at all. Sneaking in arguments like that won't work and will likely provoke me to answer them.

If you wish, we can continue this via PM or another thread. Lately I've been overloaded with requests for information or questions about Catholicism and whatnot(and I'm not even talking about my one blog either).

Do you have an 'official' function within the Catholic church, that you are spending this much time with the subject?

 

[Sniffles]

Do you have an 'official' function within the Catholic church, that you are spending this much time with the subject?

No I'm a lay Catholic.

 

[Shimmy]

No I'm a lay Catholic.

Ah, I was just interested.

 

[Into It]

Intelligent design isn't really necessary.