Dan S de Merengue,

I stated explicitly that I agreed with you concerning "magic", only objected to using it as part of an argument against a theory recognised by most specialists (which I am not and neither - it seems - are you) in the field of biological evolution, some among them theists some atheists.

>> I say it's mysterious because its a process we don't see now, a process no one has ever seen, and those who proclaim its truth sound unconvincing …<<

There are many things in biology, cosmology, particle physics (QM) that are totally mysterious to a non-specialist and to some degree also to a specialist. Neither you nor I have ever seen not only species evolving but also Napoleon or the Bing Bang, however this does not impact on the truth value of what biologists, historians or cosmologists tell us about them.

>> our public institutions will heavy handedly favour one creation account over another <<
Here I agree, although I would use “world view” instead of “creation account” since atheists do not ascribe the term "creation account" to their beliefs.

>>Yet no one here is wanting to give the religious any special privileges<<

Again I tend to agree, but exactly because of that we need to know explicitly what it is that they do not want to give special privileges to.

>> I'd like to challenge your notion of categorising faith as concerning the WHY questions, with science asking HOW things work in reality.<<

This is not my but a rather standard distinction, in a nutshell, between what religion and what natural science are all about. Of course, it is shallow as would be any one-sentence description of the difference.

>> Actually, the Christian faith is terribly concerned with answering questions concerning the nature of reality. <<

Again, I agree, however I wrote “Science tries to explain how the physical reality WORKS, not WHY it works like that” etc, which is a statement about the PHYSICAL world (God’s creation). Your “reality” apparently refers to what others call Ultimate Reality that science has no access to.

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You wrote :

« I thought that the concept of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God predated Christianity. »

I am terribly sorry. I was in a hurry and sent my reply to Ojnab instead of to you.

I realised my mistake immediately but had used-up all my posting credits and had to wait several hours before being able to post again.

Here is my reply :

« That is also my understanding, but the Catholic church modified that concept by recognizing Jesus of Nazareth as the son of God, born of the Virgin Mary who was impregnated by the Holy Ghost, and by introducing the Trinitarian doctrine of God defined as three consubstantial persons. »

My apologies, once again.

.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« … “Holding the view”, “most certain sign” etc are not the same thing as “evidence”. The Church does not use that word even when talking of Jesus, including Christ’s Resurrection, although it is bounding on Catholics to believe in them, unlike the Lourdes miracles. »

I have noticed that the word “evidence” is absent from the vocabulary of the Vatican in particular (but not from the Catholic Encyclopaedia). It is so systematic that it is obviously a deliberate strategy. I observed similar strategies in major organisations during my professional career. For example, the French national electricity company, Electricité de France, never employed the word “risk” in any of its correspondence, documents, publications or communications. Nobody in its organisation was authorised to make any admission or even suggestion of risk under any circumstances on anything.

The burden of proof of risk was left to anybody wishing to invoke EDF’s responsibility which, of course, does not mean that there was no such thing as risk.

By the same token, the fact that the Vatican bans the word “evidence” from its vocabulary, does not mean that there is no such thing as evidence.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines evidence as follows :

« The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid (example : “the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination”). Signs or indications of something (example : “there was no obvious evidence of a break-in”). »

It appears, therefore, that “most certain sign” means “evidence”. I find it surprising that the Church should assert the contrary. It is usually more prudent than that.

Also, George, you indicate that “it is bounding on Catholics to believe … in Jesus, including Christ’s Resurrection … unlike the Lourdes miracles.”

Entry N° 156 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) attests that Catholics are expected to believe in the miracles performed by Jesus and the saints. Would you please indicate the texts authorising Catholics not to believe in the Lourdes miracles ?

Link to the CCC:

http://stgabrielparish.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catechism-of-the-CatholicChurch-2nd-Edition.pdf

.

Dear Dan.

<<Every worldview or faith, even the secular, needs a good creation myth.>>

The need for a creation myth comes from curiosity, not faith.

A man of faith should not waste their time and effort on silly worldly questions such as how this world came about. Who cares? the world is here, it's a fact, like it or not - and religion is meant to severe our attachment to it, so that the world doesn't stand in our way to God.

Dear Banjo,

>>I have noticed that the word “evidence” is absent from the vocabulary of the Vatican<<

It is absent from many vocabularies, e.g. in contemporary philosophy (of science) since the term is ambiguous (many languages cannot distinguish it from “proof”), although it is often used by those who are trapped in an 18th century (David Hume?) way of looking at (physical) reality. The word is unambiguous in everyday language but not when talking about metaphysics. So I do not see why the Catholic Church in its pronouncements should use Dawkins’ language when even secular philosophers are cautious about it.

>>the fact that the Vatican bans the word “evidence” from its vocabulary, does not mean that there is no such thing as evidence. <<

The Vatican does not “ban” any word, but if it does not speak about e.g. galaxies it does not mean there are “no such things”.

>> « The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid <<

See my comments on this definition e.g. in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15995#277837 .

>> It appears, therefore, that “most certain sign” means “evidence”.<<

I doubt any respectable court would accept as evidence what I would present only as a sign I am most certain about.

>> Catholics are expected to believe in the miracles performed by Jesus and the saints.<<

Jesus, yes (Bible); saints, not necessarily.

>> Would you please indicate the texts authorising Catholics not to believe in the Lourdes miracles ?<<

There cannot be a text “authorising Catholics not to believe” in e.g. theory of evolution. Only if you ask (e.g. a priest) you will be told that you do not have to, although there are “signs” in favour of it.

Nevertheless, you will find in e.g. http://catholicstraightanswers.com/what-should-catholics-believe-about-the-appearance-of-our-blessed-mother-at-lourdes-or-other-places/ the statement “even if the Church does give an official approval to a private revelation, the faithful are not obliged to believe in the private revelation.” And more.

geo/the roc\gorge..quote..Neither you..nor I..have ever seen..not only species evolving..but also Napoleon..or the Bing Bang>>

damm/it\george..i hate/to disagree/but..we all have seen/dawinian eovlution,..wether we know/it..or not..but re/nappy/and/the bling bang/sure\no human/materialistic-eye..ever could\but/

napolian/is..in hell;waiting to meet/any-one.[still]
and the big bang/we all cause/caused\via the atonement/the fall /dis manifest[bang/bling][sorry]

<<..however/this does not impact on the truth value of what biologists, historians or cosmologists tell us about them.>>

yes biologists*..good point/please note sir..how as we gain/ever more/..lets call it accademic bling names..titles/honours..the more narrow the focus of the thesus..and at the genus level/we see much vairiation/within species]

darwin/oliver mendal\they observed dominant/resseive gene/expressions
these all are this thing called evolution[..you may know it better as he has hid daddies face/mums eyes/hair/like great great grandma/natural vairiation/within the genus

big dog/breeds little red dog/we all seen evolution
but as dam says/pigs breed pork/[maybe he sayd it better

>>.“creation account”>>
IS EXACTLY/correct/word
a godless creation account/THEY CANT PROVE/but which simply mendalism/refutes

geo/..<<..since atheists..do not ascribe
the term "creation account"..to their beliefs.>>

the latest=selling/that-its the aliand/dun-it
[but if SO..who begat THE alians?..YET OTHER ALIENS?
TILL WE GET TO ANGELS[WHO FELL FROM THE ATONEMENT/YEP THE ANGELS DUN IT/BY REJECTING GOD

ban-johova..lets ask/atheists
who..what/DUN IT..aliens?
[lets face/it\athiests rejected god/thus the big bling/we got here
it really is satans/atheist/world..ITS THEIR REALM/..

WHATS YOUR WORD/
ATHEIST/for the creation/of woe+man?
this realm/wasnt created/by god..lord satan..wow/who would have think it.

we are..all here/be-cause we too rejected gods grace
fallen/like-as beasts..unknowing/self obsessed-bio-logical\eating/machines\..developing..a soul/accumulating/process\of mind

[once god opens..our/biased-[spliNTERD-eyes..to our PREVIOUS/LIVES.AS ENERGY/evoling away/from..its baser/beastly loGUS.
..