[karajorma]

That probably would be the best way to do it, but even then, the impact would be somewhat limited.  That passage from Genesis would probably come up only once a year in the normal cycle of readings, at least for Sunday Mass; in fact, I'm not sure if it's read outside of the Easter Vigil service.  A priest could choose to focus his homily for that week on that particular aspect, but it wouldn't have a place on a weekly basis.  It would definitely be better than nothing, though.

Don't underestimate the effect though. People who view the Genesis story as being literally true often do so because it was the first explanation they heard and it's been reinforced by years of other exposure to stories from the same source that they believe. If they hear right from the start that it's a simplified version they'll be more receptive to hearing the real explanation at some later point than they would if they're left to form and reinforce their own opinion of it.

We can't do much about this generation's idiots but maybe we can prevent the next generation being idiots if they hear at an early enough age that Genesis isn't literally true.

I'm not really sure how much active "embracing" any particular religious faith can truly accomplish, though.  In the broadest sense, science and religion exist to answer different questions, or at least different aspects of the same questions.  I don't think any particular denomination of Christianity could, or even should, become something like an active cheerleader for science as a whole, as it wouldn't fit into the role that religion plays in people's lives.  Stating something like, "Scientific research is a way to understand the universe that God created," and leaving it at that, is probably in the best interest of all concerned, as it acknowledges the importance of science without intruding on it.

My problem is that it doesn't acknowledge the importance of science. It allows the individual to decide whether science is important or not. The result is you get lots of Catholics who argue that Adam and Eve must be real individuals and that the Earth can only be 6000 years old.

And my problem is that the source of the bad information is religious. However if a scientist tells them that it is wrong you get idiots thinking that science is in some way "against" religion. The information that it's wrong needs to come from the same source that the bad information came from, i.e the Church. Which is why I have such a problem with the Church's refusal to take a stand on the issue. They are the source of the problem (no bible, no YEC after all) but they're not willing to deal with the fallout.

Only if you're trying to share the same bed.

Whenever religion tries to explain how the universe works, it is trying to share the same bed. The Catholic Church might not be as bad as others but it's certainly hovering around the bedroom making unhelpful comments.

[Turambar]

Don't they also think that a virgin gave birth, and that a guy came back from the dead?

[bobbtmann]

We also drink his blood and eat his body every Sunday.

[Thaeris]

Don't they also think that a virgin gave birth, and that a guy came back from the dead?

Congratulations on blatant trolling. If you have something meaningful to express or share besides any ill-tempered animosity, please feel free to share that instead.

[General Battuta]

Don't they also think that a virgin gave birth, and that a guy came back from the dead?

Congratulations on blatant trolling. If you have something meaningful to express or share besides any ill-tempered animosity, please feel free to share that instead.

Actually, y'know, it is trolling and it's uncivil, but I do have to stand up for the right to not take Christianity (or any religion) seriously without actively hating it.

All that said, not hating someone or a group of someones doesn't preclude poking fun at them.

"[. . .] even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his [beliefs] as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge."
H. L. Mencken, "Aftermath," The Baltimore Evening Sun (covering the infamous Scopes Trial)

So I dunno. Might be one of those things that has to be taken in good fun.

Tricky line.

[Flipside]

You know, if I was God, and I wanted to create a Universe, I'd just install a few basic laws and let things work themselves out, after all, it's not as if God has mortality or anything to worry about. I'm open to the concept of God, just not as open to the Humanocentric version of Him If there is a God, he sure didn't create the entire universe to give us somewhere to stand.

I suppose it's easier to say 'On the first Day, God made Light', than to say, 'In the first few picoseconds, Hydrogen atoms started to form, and through the laws of Gravity the Lord had induced, over a period of several billion years, they got together, started fusing, and created light'. Gotta remember this stuff was written 4000 years ago

Edit : And to be honest, 'Gravity is the effect of God on the Universe' is probably as good a shot in the dark as any other explanation, and like Dark Matter, it's not really a problem we've solved to the satisfaction of Science.

[IronBeer]

"If you do it right, people can't be sure you've done anything at all."

[Liberator]

If there is a God, he sure didn't create the entire universe to give us somewhere to stand.

Why not?  If you were an immortal, all-powerful being with nothing to do and no one to talk to, wouldn't you use your omnipotence to create something to do and someone to talk to?  Man exists because God created us to have someone to relate to on His level(sort of), the Angels for all they're power and majesty are soulless servants, which while not bereft of free will are bound to His will and are nothing more than incredibly power servitors.  Mankind has a soul and is capable of relating to God in way that Angels aren't.

[Herra Tohtori]

You know, if I was God, and I wanted to create a Universe, I'd just install a few basic laws and let things work themselves out, after all, it's not as if God has mortality or anything to worry about. I'm open to the concept of God, just not as open to the Humanocentric version of Him If there is a God, he sure didn't create the entire universe to give us somewhere to stand.

I suppose it's easier to say 'On the first Day, God made Light', than to say, 'In the first few picoseconds, Hydrogen atoms started to form, and through the laws of Gravity the Lord had induced, over a period of several billion years, they got together, started fusing, and created light'. Gotta remember this stuff was written 4000 years ago

Edit : And to be honest, 'Gravity is the effect of God on the Universe' is probably as good a shot in the dark as any other explanation, and like Dark Matter, it's not really a problem we've solved to the satisfaction of Science.

Well, there was a moment in the prehistory of the universe where the free electrons were almost in an instant bound to atomic orbitals when temperature dropped past certain point, and this allowed universe to become transparent for the first time in its history.

Arguably, the principles of electromagnetism emerged from the jumble of natural constants almost instantly after the emergence of space-time with energy in it, so it's up to you which you consider the "birth of light".

To me, the only possible truly divine being would be the consciousness of everything. It would exist everywhere (although in an infinite universe, this truly boggles the mind - a finite universe not so much), be conscious of everything (though this is debatable - are we conscious of our brain cells?), technically be capable of everything (well, in a limited sense - it would at the very least be capable of anything that happens in the universe), and probably also exist at all times simultaneously though whether or not it would be conscious of all times is unlikely considering the quantum effects, and its ability or willingness to intervene directly on the functions of the universe on material level would be debatable.


Therefore to me the question of God's existence is whether universe is conscious of itself or not. In the absence of evidence to one direction or another, I'm inclined to draw a line with Occam's razor and say that the existence of such superconsciousness is an unnecessary complication and unfounded assumption, so on the baseline I do not expect such consciousness to exist. However it would be scientifically unsound to outright deny the possibility of such consciousness existing, so who knows?

After all,
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

And this would be good to remember whenever getting involved in discussions involving yours or other peoples' belief systems.


Note that my definition of universe is literally everything that exists, so if God exists it must be part of everything (belong to the universe aka interact with other existing stuff in one way or another).

Why not?  If you were an immortal, all-powerful being with nothing to do and no one to talk to, wouldn't you use your omnipotence to create something to do and someone to talk to?  Man exists because God created us to have someone to relate to on His level(sort of)

I might do something like that, but:

-why do you assume there would be nothing to do and no one to talk to?
-why do you assume he would have any other than passing interest to his creations before moving on to other things?

I get what you mean by equals. In my point of view, if some powerful being existing in known universe or in wider context of existence that decided to form up a solar system and guide the formation of life and civilizations on a single planet would certainly be worthy of respect with regards to ability and power, but on a personal level it would still be a personality existing in the universe just like we are - possibly with much more ability to affect reality than us, and probably with a lot of knowledge, but nevertheless a consciousness on more or less equal terms.

Even if said being were to approach me in some way and prove him being the maker of our solar system, I wouldn't really consider him The God. Maybe a god, for practical purposes of definition, but more in the sense the ancient greeks or hindus considered their deities rather than the current mystic interpretations of the God of abrahamic religions.

All in all, I don't trust any of the religions on Earth to be superior to each other - I view them all as belief systems originating from people, and people can be wrong no matter how many other people are convinced that they are right. They all have equal proof of divine origins in my point of view. Some have ideologies I can be more or less in agreement of, some not so much.

Perhaps the biggest thing I disapprove of in religions is that most of them tend to assume that right and wrong are set by some god or another, and that one can not be a good person or do the right thing without divine guidance. I find it insulting to human consciousness.

The Angels for all they're power and majesty are soulless servants, which while not bereft of free will are bound to His will and are nothing more than incredibly power servitors.  Mankind has a soul and is capable of relating to God in way that Angels aren't.

What about Lucifer?

Is the whole Satan gig part of God's plan?

[Flipside]

If there is a God, he sure didn't create the entire universe to give us somewhere to stand.

Why not?  If you were an immortal, all-powerful being with nothing to do and no one to talk to, wouldn't you use your omnipotence to create something to do and someone to talk to?  Man exists because God created us to have someone to relate to on His level(sort of), the Angels for all they're power and majesty are soulless servants, which while not bereft of free will are bound to His will and are nothing more than incredibly power servitors.  Mankind has a soul and is capable of relating to God in way that Angels aren't.

But then why create an entire Universe? Especially considering the tools for reaching into that Universe is a discpline that frequently comes to loggerheads with Religion? Why, if God is so totally without fault, can he create an entire universe for a single race, that cannot even agree on who He is, what He represents, or even what His laws are? Maybe God has a plan, maybe he doesn't, but the evidence suggests, at least to me, that the idea that the universe, even concpetually, rotates around the existence of humanity is simply the human need to feel important. It certainly raises a lot of questions when we find Extra Terrestrial life, such as 'if God made the Universe for us, what are they for?'. We are faced with two choices, they are either there because we aren't special, at least, no more special than any other race, or, that they were put there for our benefit in some way.

[Liberator]

But then why create an entire Universe? Especially considering the tools for reaching into that Universe is a discpline that frequently comes to loggerheads with Religion?

It only comes to loggerheads because men(racial generic not gender specific) on both sides want to, on some level, disprove the other and prove their superiority.  Note your spelling, "Religion".  You used a capital R, when the correct usage is lowercase.  This tells me you view religion(not any particular one, just religion in general) as an entity to be interacted with rather than a method of thought or action, which generally speaking is backwards or at least sideways from the way it is generally.

Why, if God is so totally without fault, can he create an entire universe for a single race, that cannot even agree on who He is, what He represents, or even what His laws are?

We don't know for a fact that we are the only race in the universe.  I've sometimes had the troubling thought that maybe we're the First or the Last.  Either way, the only thing we know is that we are the only one within the local area of about 30-40LY since that's how long we've been looking.  And that's assuming they use radio or some other long wave form of light to communicate.  See the above for my thoughts on why we can't agree on who He is.  To put it simply, He is the Creator, and his Law is quite possibly the simplest thing in the world.  We teach it to our children before they're actually able to comprehend it and they usually forget it by the time it matters.  It is simply, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  I can't say that I follow this law completely, but I try.

Maybe God has a plan, maybe he doesn't, but the evidence suggests, at least to me, that the idea that the universe, even concpetually, rotates around the existence of humanity is simply the human need to feel important. It certainly raises a lot of questions when we find Extra Terrestrial life, such as 'if God made the Universe for us, what are they for?'. We are faced with two choices, they are either there because we aren't special, at least, no more special than any other race, or, that they were put there for our benefit in some way.

We are here to learn.  The more we learn, the more we understand, the more God reveals his face to us.  Not literally, but the more we learn about the Universe, both Out There and Down Here, the more it becomes obvious that the universe is structured, not this chaotic place that is scary and horrible, but a place of wonder and beauty that is as much a work of art as it is a physical reality.

What about Lucifer?

Is the whole Satan gig part of God's plan?

Possibly, only He knows.  The War in Heaven(HA! Here's a plug for you Battuta!) could not have happened had He not allowed it.

[Flipside]

I actually consider Religion to be an organisation, rather than a mode of thought, Religion is merely the conveyance of those forms of belief. The way you interact with a belief system is via a Religion, which has a core unit (in Christian Terms) as a Church, or a congregation. But then, to me, Religion was never a 'mode of thought', quite the opposite in fact, very often it's an excuse for not thinking, because 'God did it' is a perfectly acceptable answer to these people, and that's fine, if people are happy with that then good for them, my problem arises when they get annoyed that their truths aren't good enough for everyone, just as I get annoyed when Religion is attacked for not being scientific in its approach, it's just another way of saying 'Your truth isn't my truth'.

I'd agree that belief is something you cannot really interact with, it is something based on the immaterial, and I'm not sure where anyone would start to interact with a concept based entirely on the perceptions of the person holding it, but if Religion, the 'commercialisation' of belief, cannot be interacted with, then I'd say that is a big problem, because it means it's an output only device, and it hinges entirely on the assumption that not only are the people at the top somehow are in direct contact with God, but also that their belief tally precisely with your own personal ones, which is never the case. Remember you are dealing with humans here, first and foremost.

And I think that's where I and religion fell out, if anything, what we have learned about the Universe through science places me even more in awe of the Universe around us than I was before, as Neil Armstrong put it, "When you can fit the entire world under your thumbnail, you don't feel big, you feel very, very small". But Religion (with a capital R) doesn't like this, because some of what we are learning contradicts what they want people to believe. This doesn't reduce God, it cannot reduce faith, but it does reduce the influence of those in charge of Religions and that, in my own opinion, is far more what the whole Evolution/Creationism, Humanocentric Universe and other Religious/Scientific clashes are really about, and, in fairness, not just on the side of Religion, the names 'Al Gore' and 'Richard Dawkin' come to mind.

Edit: I'll add here that many organised Religions built a house of cards for themselves by fossilising their beliefs, if you close the door on fluidity of opinion, thought and questions, then what you are effectively doing is creating a stillwater while an ever changing river of change rolls past. Stillwater is nice sometimes, it doesn't change, it's calm, there's no unpleasant surprises, but eventually it becomes stagnant and simply becomes a source of hot-gases. Religion needs the odd instillment of fresh thinking, the odd review of its role and what it considers to be the truth. The world has changed, our minds have expanded, either through evolution, or because God designed them that way.

[Nuke]

science and religion are both wrong! blatant madness! thats where its at

[Flipside]

I thought that was the system we were currently using

[TrashMan]

My problem is that it doesn't acknowledge the importance of science. It allows the individual to decide whether science is important or not. The result is you get lots of Catholics who argue that Adam and Eve must be real individuals and that the Earth can only be 6000 years old.

And my problem is that the source of the bad information is religious. However if a scientist tells them that it is wrong you get idiots thinking that science is in some way "against" religion. The information that it's wrong needs to come from the same source that the bad information came from, i.e the Church. Which is why I have such a problem with the Church's refusal to take a stand on the issue. They are the source of the problem (no bible, no YEC after all) but they're not willing to deal with the fallout.

There's also plenty of idiots who think religion is against science.

The stance of the Church is just as it should be.

[TrashMan]

I'm inclined to draw a line with Occam's razor and say that the existence of such superconsciousness is an unnecessary complication

I never got the impression the universe tries to be simple and avoids complications. After all, low math is simpler than high math. Science and physics would be simpler without quantum mechanics and x dimensions.
As far as I'm concerned, Occams Razor is as useful in Real Life as broken condom.

[Bob-san]

My problem is that it doesn't acknowledge the importance of science. It allows the individual to decide whether science is important or not. The result is you get lots of Catholics who argue that Adam and Eve must be real individuals and that the Earth can only be 6000 years old.

And my problem is that the source of the bad information is religious. However if a scientist tells them that it is wrong you get idiots thinking that science is in some way "against" religion. The information that it's wrong needs to come from the same source that the bad information came from, i.e the Church. Which is why I have such a problem with the Church's refusal to take a stand on the issue. They are the source of the problem (no bible, no YEC after all) but they're not willing to deal with the fallout.

There's also plenty of idiots who think religion is against science.

The stance of the Church is just as it should be.

Those that think a religious institution should take a formal stand on all scientific issues are severely misguided. In fact, the Church had already done that centuries ago. The reason they stopped is because science advances more quickly with each passing year.

Seven generally-accepted rules of science...
1) Learn by observation
2) The same rules apply everywhere
3) Simple is best
4) Knowledge is imperfect; it changes over time
5) Knowledge is reproducible, experiments are repeatable
6) Proof is rare
7) Knowledge is falsifiable

So why would the Church, especially in the 21st Century, take a hard stand on any recent issues in science? Odds are that everyone has it's wrong; the most accepted hypothesis or theory is going to need significant revision and possibly multiple replacements before moving to become a more established theory or maybe, just maybe, a law.

[Herra Tohtori]

And, conveniently, you dropped the end of that sentence.

I'm inclined to draw a line with Occam's razor and say that the existence of such superconsciousness is an unnecessary complication and unfounded assumption, so on the baseline I do not expect such consciousness to exist.

Occam's razor as such doesn't actually say anything about complexity, it deals with unfounded assumptions. However, as it happens, assuming something and trying to shoehorn observations into the assumption often leads to much more complex models than the reality itself is, which is the reason I brought complexity into the argument.

In this case, obviously, not assuming the superconsciousness to exist means there's no need to try and figure out how such a thing could be possible in the context of our knowledge about the universe.

By contrast, assuming that such consciousness does exist would require to either disregard the question "how is this possible" in material sense and accept a mystical explanation of some sort, or alternatively start to figure out some theory of information relay so that the consciousness could form from the universe's structures themselves, which is a perfect analogy to developing complex models of epicycles and deferents to explain observations in a geosentric view of world - one would need to probably develope entire new branches of (pseudo)science to explain how an assumed phenomenon (superconsciousness) could possibly exist.

The stance of the Church is just as it should be.

Which one's? I was not aware of the existence of a sincle Church with a capital C. Is it some sort of ecumenic congregation of churches or what?

[Aardwolf]

Don't they also think that a virgin gave birth, and that a guy came back from the dead?

Congratulations on blatant trolling. If you have something meaningful to express or share besides any ill-tempered animosity, please feel free to share that instead.

Nah, that's not trolling. Well it might have been intended as such, I have no idea, but...

Regardless, the bible does state that a virgin gave birth, and that a guy came back from the dead. And any number of other completely impossible things which have never happened since, i.e. never happened to begin with, because they're impossible. The bible is the big book of Christian myth lore, and there are people who claim that the entirety of it is fact. Then there are the people who claim that some of it is fact (like the existence of God, and Jesus, and even though it's not in the bible at all, the Trinity), and that they can just ignore the rest of it even though it's still part of the bible (or isn't, if you're talking about the Trinity) and a lot of it has been around even longer.

Looking over what I've written... I'm probably going to be accused of trolling in a few seconds.

[StarSlayer]

He was only "mostly dead."  Try finding that option government paperwork.