Catholic Church admits Bible is BS

[Jaymoss]

My Father is a physicist and he said to me that we understand the laws of physics pretty well here but as for the laws for the rest of the universe we really have no idea

---------- Post added at 15:46 ---------- Previous post was at 15:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

Maybe light was there all the time, and the 'big bang' blew away the dark that was hiding it?

But science will have you think time began with the big bang. Yes, it is a human construct but forever in all directions space and time is pretty hard to fathom isn't it

A scientist can always question my faith and I can always question theirs with a "where did that come from"

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

My Father is a physicist and he said to me that we understand the laws of physics pretty well here but as for the laws for the rest of the universe we really have no idea

---------- Post added at 15:46 ---------- Previous post was at 15:44 ----------



But science will have you think time began with the big bang. Yes, it is a human construct but forever in all directions space and time is pretty hard to fathom isn't it

A scientist can always question my faith and I can always question theirs with a "where did that come from"

A question that i have is who or what created god.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Where did the light come from?

With the bang, obvs

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

A question that i have is who or what created god.

What if and just suspend your disbelief for a second that there is a single creator of everything. A being that is infinite.

Yes your question is valid and also infinite and unanswerable unless there is something or someone capable of being the start point

Originally Posted by ianch99

Good to know. I assume that this is the standard approach with the JW church then?

---------- Post added at 10:07 ---------- Previous post was at 09:27 ----------



Sounds like a self-validating argument. You fail, however, to cover the case where parents attempt to not impose a specific world view (to the best of their ability) and encourage awareness and discussion of many. You also, deliberately, conflate an anti-faith atheist parent imprinting their view with a faith parent doing the same, they do not cancel each other out and does not validate the process.

I understand you have to validate your parenting choices because your faith demands it but that does not make it appropriate in a wider, societal context. The way I see it is that all individuals have the right to determine their own journey in life and not have one imprinted on them during their formative years. There is nothing patronising about the proposition that children can be conditioned during their early years. To imply that young children have the ability to process cogent argument and debate complex issues and so determine their own choices is a weak argument.

Of course, we have centuries of historical precedence to backup & reinforce your position but history does show us that change is possible. I also think that raising this point for discussion & debate does not merit your pejorative response.

If I fail to account for your favoured scenario, it’s because in my experience, that scenario simply doesn’t exist - even in cases where parents think that’s what they’re doing.

Children always, always, absorb their parents’ ethical framework and worldview, even if parents actively avoid discussion of it, because children observe it in action every moment of every day, from birth. You simply cannot bring up a child without inculcating in that child your own view of human dignity, care for the environment and some sense of how you arrive at your value judgments.

I have made no distinction between active and passive atheism in the home because it makes no practical difference. You bring up your children with a certain ethical framework, whether or not at the same time you give them a critique of alternative ethical frameworks, regardless of whether those alternatives are based in religious faith. If you don’t recognise that you are doing this, you are doing your children a disservice.

Children are not simply miniature adults. They are immature, in the truest sense of the term, and their very nature requires they are taught, ideally by example as much as instruction, how to make sense of the world around them and how to relate to it, what their responsibilities are in it and what wider society owes them. Insisting on their ‘right to determine their own journey in their formative years’ sounds terribly progressive but is actual nuts, and a recipe only for poorly grounded young people who have been left to infer what’s right and wrong with minimal guidance. There’s a term for that: it’s “chaotic home environment” and its consequences are seldom good.

Children actively seek guidance about how to make sense of the world. It is a given in Western culture (and many others) that it is the parents’ responsibility to do this, with varying levels of support from extended family to and wider community, in accordance with family and cultural tradition - unless something has gone wrong and the child is in manifest danger. Only then does the State intervene. You offer your proposed alternative as seemingly morally superior, but it isn’t.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

What if and just suspend your disbelief for a second that there is a single creator of everything. A being that is infinite.

Yes your question is valid and also infinite and unanswerable unless there is something or someone capable of being the start point

And that's the difference between science and faith - science wants to know the answer to the question, and faith asks you to not to be concerned about the answer, just to suspend your disbelief.

Which is why I never ask anyone to justify their faith - belief is enough for them, and I don't have an issue with that, but when they try to impose their beliefs on others, my viewpoint changes (about the person/group, not the faith).

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And that's the difference between science and faith - science wants to know the answer to the question, and faith asks you to not to be concerned about the answer, just to suspend your disbelief.

Which is why I never ask anyone to justify their faith - belief is enough for them, and I don't have an issue with that, but when they try to impose their beliefs on others, my viewpoint changes (about the person/group, not the faith).

see there is that word impose again.

Do you think science does not "impose" its beliefs on the religious? it does it a damn site more and with a damn site more force than a guy knocking on your door offering you a smile and a magazine

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

see there is that word impose again.

Do you think science does not "impose" its beliefs on the religious? it does it a damn site more and with a damn site more force than a guy knocking on your door offering you a smile and a magazine

Never had a scientist knock on my door, but i did receive a letter from the JW's last weekend something about covid- selfish people and the end of the word,can't find it now so must be in the bin.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

see there is that word impose again.

Do you think science does not "impose" its beliefs on the religious? it does it a damn site more and with a damn site more force than a guy knocking on your door offering you a smile and a magazine

Pretty sure when you trip over and fall, that’s gravity ‘imposing" on you, not science…

If you mean doctors won’t allow people to harm their children, that’s societal ethics, not science…

Originally Posted by Hugh

And that's the difference between science and faith - science wants to know the answer to the question, and faith asks you to not to be concerned about the answer, just to suspend your disbelief.

Which is why I never ask anyone to justify their faith - belief is enough for them, and I don't have an issue with that, but when they try to impose their beliefs on others, my viewpoint changes (about the person/group, not the faith).

I don’t mind justifying my faith, as long as the one asking me isn’t asking for a scientific thesis. That would be a category error. Faith and science are not the same thing, and one is no more or less valuable than the other. They are simply categorically different, and aim to do different things. Those who devised the scientific method never intended for it to be used to infer answers to questions that could not be tested by that method and they certainly never intended anyone to conclude things that cannot be tested by science are therefore false. They are simply beyond science.

If you do ask a person of faith to define faith, you won’t get a definition that sounds anything like suspension of disbelief. Christian faith, at least, is grounded in trust of a being who is personal, and worthy of that trust. At the most basic level, the teaching of Jesus, which exists in its simplest form in what’s often known as the Sermon on the Mount, is worth following because it just works. “Do to others as you would have them do to you”. A whole lot is then built on that, but as a starting point for a way of life, it just works. From that first germ of trustworthiness, faith may grow.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Pretty sure when you trip over and fall, that’s gravity ‘imposing" on you, not science…

If you mean doctors won’t allow people to harm their children, that’s societal ethics, not science…

Theories being taught as fact.

End of the day you cannot prove the big bang happened. You cannot prove life started in a primeval swamp. Science will and does impose its version of reality is correct and mine is not ergo science imposing itself upon me more than I do on it and those who have faith in it

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Theories being taught as fact.

End of the day you cannot prove the big bang happened. You cannot prove life started in a primeval swamp. Science will and does impose its version of reality is correct and mine is not ergo science imposing itself upon me more than I do on it and those who have faith in it

That's the challenge that excites scientists, just saying god did it cuts no ice.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

That's the challenge that excites scientists, just saying god did it cuts no ice.

You cannot prove he didn't

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

A major difference between a humanistic/naturalist/atheistic world view and a "religious" one is that of consequences.

In the former following or not following doesn't really matter but the latter will usually have an eternal perspective. If you believe that following your world view will lead to an eternity of punishment or better that following it will lead to an eternity of blessing then you are going to do the best you can to bring up your children in a way that will encourage the choice of eternal blessing. But children as they grow will make their own minds up. My son is growing in his faith but my daughter has moved away (sad).

I seems you are transposing perceived reality with an objective and verifiable one. You have every right to believe in whatever personal perception you can imagine but trying to impose this on others is the point of contention.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I seems you are transposing perceived reality with an objective and verifiable one. You have every right to believe in whatever personal perception you can imagine but trying to impose this on others is the point of contention.

yet you are imposing your view on them