GEORGE..<<..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.>>

I VISITED MY CONCORDance..it says
jer..32;10,..11,..12,..14,..16..
then hebrew..11;1..

of course evidences has 2

JER..32;14,..44
NEITHER WIll have prOOF OR JERRY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN LOST/LitKE THE EXTRA BOOK/ONLY THe cathoholics have..

o me the real key word is evident/the JOKE IS/THERES ONLY 7
evidently/got 2..and the next word..got 3 pages..[gues the word?

its satans realm/i tell ya
even the beast;in the stable/knows his masters voice[we know the right master/by the fruit/but good fruit/bad fruit/grow together til the good fruit do god.

CAUSE AT END TIME WE FORGAVE
but then/with a bang/satanic freewill fell down to earth/manifested all their fears[or god allowed/them/be manifested/that the joke be seen by all[see all creation//fear not one/your here for themall/who ist not my bother?

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

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

FATHER-DAN..IS IT NOT SO..that.jesus..sayeth
ye shal do greater*..meaning..we all are expected/to see our greatness/via the greatness..of other?

Yuyutsu,
Who cares how this world came about? Maybe you don't care. Many people do. The key to understanding anything comes from understanding its origin, and how it came to be. This includes the world and the life it contains.

Who cares how the world came about? God cares. He devoted many chapters, in fact a whole book, detailing the world's beginnings and the first people of faith (as well as those without faith) - the book of Genesis. The rest of the Bible contains more citations referring back to Genesis than to any other book.

George,
It's true that I'm not a specialist in many areas. Yet I'm well read enough to know that the specialists often disagree in areas such as history, evolutionary biology, and cosmology. You would be better off putting your faith in the words of God rather than in the opinion of 'experts', especially when they're not in agreement and you're going to have to choose which of them you're going to believe anyway.

The specialists out there are often in disagreement. It's at this point that the author of the article refers to 'governmental incompetence'. It is not the place of law makers to prescribe for the population their version of history, biology, or cosmology. It's not the job of government to tell us what to think or believe. This is why it concerns me when people here (not necessarily you) are making arbitrary definitions on various categories. If these things are going to be prescribed by law, then the definitions must be philosophically sound.

You say scientists explain how things work in the physical world. If that's true, then evolutionist biologists are not doing science. For evolutionists try to tell how things came to be as they are. They're offering a theory of history, how living things came to be in the forms that they are, and not necessarily how they work, or how they are currently functioning. Maybe we are just arguing about categories and definitions, but that seems to be what this thread is about.

I may not be a specialist in many things. But I have studied some theology. And I would still challenge your notion that categorises religion as investigation of the WHY, while the sciences investigate HOW things work. That's not standard. I said that was shallow. It's beyond shallow. It's just not right. The Bible addresses many concerns about what is what and how things operate. As Cornelius Van Til once said, "The Bible is authoritative on everything of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything."

Dear Dan,

<<The key to understanding anything comes from understanding its origin, and how it came to be.>>

Yes of course, but faith is not about understanding.

<<the book of Genesis.>>

Is highly misunderstood when read by contemporary modern people, who assume that the people who lived at the time it was written, had the same interests and inclinations as themselves, more specifically as if they were interested in physical and historical facts as themselves.
- Modern people fail to understand that the book of Genesis was never meant as a scientific and/or historical text-book, but rather as a moral guide.

I read the first chapter of Genesis, along with the first three verses of chapter 2, as a hymn in praise of the Sabbath, effectively saying: "look how God, despite being capable of making such wonderful things beyond what any of you can do, even He rested on the seventh day - and so should you, place a limit on creation."

I also read the third chapter of Genesis as a reminder that life on earth is not a boon or a happy affair, but a curse, born out of man's sinful curiosity to know what he never needed to know. All that man needed to remain in heaven was to have faith, to love God and obey his only command, but he was tempted to become sophisticated and is still paying the price for that.

.
 
Dear Yuyutsu,
 
.
 
You wrote :

«  A man of faith should not waste their time and effort ... 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. »
 
That may be so, but every time we walk down the street, placing one foot in front of the other, we have no doubt the ground will support us. We do it mechanically, perfectly unconscious of any risk. The thought does not even cross our minds. We walk without the slightest hesitation.

Why then do we need religion to “detach ourselves from this world” ? It should be as simple as walking down the street.

Could it be that it is not “the world” which “stands in our way to God” but, rather, our lack of conviction that there really is a god - in other words, our doubt ? It seems we do not have the same confidence in God as we do in the ground supporting us when we walk down the street.

If, as you suggest, true faith leads to total detachment from the world - physically, psychologically and spiritually – it must require an enormous amount of courage to have true faith. It is not surprising that most of us don’t make it.

I guess that explains why, despite the fact that some people I know are persuaded they have faith in God, I still cross them in the street occasionally.

Personally, I don’t blame them for not having the courage of their convictions. On the contrary, I commiserate with them - but take comfort in the thought that even if they hesitate all their lives, their total detachment from the world is inevitable.

So it must be for the majority of humanity. Whereas the tiny minority of true believers is already detached from this world and, presumably, in heavenly bliss.

As for the rest of us, the question is irrelevant.

.

 

.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for your comments. It’s amusing to see that you already studied this topic a few months ago and that we are both using the same definitions and references.

At least that facilitates mutual comprehension even if we tend to see things from a different angle and end up drawing different conclusions.

The distinction you make between the “evidence” and “evident” also occurred to me. I see it as a key to resolving the “ambiguities” posed by “contemporary philosophy (of science)” and “metaphysics” which you mention. It is also in concordance with the American priest, Rev. William Saunders’ article entitled “What should Catholics believe about the appearance of our Blessed Mother at Lourdes or other places?” which distinguishes between public and private revelation.

The difference is the same in both couples : evidence/evident and public/private. The first couple provides the key to resolving the ambiguities posed by “contemporary philosophy (of science)”. The second couple provides the key to resolving the ambiguities posed by “metaphysics”.

I don’t see any problem with the meaning of the word “evidence”. The problem is that the “evidence” must be readily observable by anyone, what the Rev. Saunders calls “public” - in other words, it must be “objective”.

A scientist, on the other hand, by a “stroke of genius”, may have a brilliant idea which enables him to see clearly something which was previously obscure. It suddenly becomes “evident” to him. For the Rev. Saunders, the religious (“metaphysical”) equivalent of the “stroke of genius”, is a “private revelation”.

Where the two paths to “knowledge” diverge, of course, is that scientific ideas are verifiable (falsifiable) whereas religious (metaphysical) revelations, whether public or private, are not.

Allow me to add that the Rev. Saunders’ article appears to be in contradiction with entry N° 156 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) which attests that Catholics are expected to believe in the miracles performed not only by Jesus but also by the saints. The Rev. Saunders classifies the latter as “private revelations” in which he considers belief is optional.

.