tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post7691695306986594281..comments2024-03-21T04:02:46.799-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: Ongoing Dialogue, Part IVLeila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-53308503597256075502015-05-11T13:00:09.815-07:002015-05-11T13:00:09.815-07:00Seems even more cruel to send your Son to die for ...Seems even more cruel to send your Son to die for a world that hates Him and would reject Him (as Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, did for us). But He did it out of infinite love. Every person has a choice of free will to enter into that divine friendship and partake of that divine life or not. It's all a choice and a matter of preference of how close a person wants to be to Christ. He takes that risk, that's how much He cares. With that preference comes the choice of Heaven or hell, generally speaking.<br /><br />RE: suffering<br />The Catholic Church has the only sound explanation for suffering, as far as how it can be redemptive and meaningful if joined to Christ's suffering. Check out the teaching on suffering. Makes great sense in the full tapestry of life, so to speak.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-82466572810603224672015-05-11T11:13:45.328-07:002015-05-11T11:13:45.328-07:00Sorry, I never read about the retraction. It wasn&...Sorry, I never read about the retraction. It wasn't much publicized. The media are lazy and have a short attention span. It seems rather cruel to create a creature and just let it be destroyed. That doesn't seem very loving. Especially since many creatures only know suffering for their brief existence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-18075890491352625842015-05-11T08:12:15.534-07:002015-05-11T08:12:15.534-07:00Night Cruller, the pope never said that. It was a ...Night Cruller, the pope never said that. It was a completely (as in, 100%) fabrication. It's proof that we must not trust the mainstream media to report correctly on the Catholic Church. You can read more, here:<br /><br /><br />http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/opinion/schlumpf-pope-dogs-go-to-heaven-controversy/<br /><br />Also, the NYTimes had to retract it as well. Completely false, 100% made up. Ask yourself: How did that false story get out there in the first place? Why did the other outlets not bother to fact check? It's really inexcusable, don't you think?<br />Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-19262074690813116332015-05-11T07:07:58.881-07:002015-05-11T07:07:58.881-07:00Animals have souls but not immortal souls. They d...Animals have souls but not immortal souls. They don't inherit everlasting life when they die. They cease to exist. This is Church teaching.<br />The ability to reason and the ability to love are what distinguish immortal souls from mortal souls.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-36984804581374409722015-05-11T05:45:07.808-07:002015-05-11T05:45:07.808-07:00What do you mean by animals don't possess immo...What do you mean by animals don't possess immortal souls? Doesn't the Catholic Church teach they do? In the news a little while back a little boy asked the Pope if his dead dog was in heaven and the Pope said yes. If the dog is buried here on earth then what part of it is in heaven? Wouldn't it be its soul? How would you interact with a dog's soul if a dog was only a body?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-84768667055567096212015-05-11T02:14:15.236-07:002015-05-11T02:14:15.236-07:00NC -Reason is above the brain, seated in the soul,...NC -Reason is above the brain, seated in the soul, along with the will and thinking/feelings/memory. We can impair reason or cloud it, of course, through drugs, or even sin. But the seat of reason is the soul, not just the brain. Again, animals do not possess higher reasoning because they don’t possess immortal souls. We possess complex memories, complex thought, we react above mere stimuli. Animals cannot reason, evaluate, or consider anything in a complex sense, because they lack the exact capability (reason itself) that is only present in rational man. You cannot converse with your dog about the events of last Thursday, because he possesses no ability to reason about a calendar, see?Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-72688825875729394682015-05-11T00:18:14.046-07:002015-05-11T00:18:14.046-07:00The mind is separate from the brain. The brain is ...The mind is separate from the brain. The brain is physical but the mind -- thoughts -- are not. Our thoughts don't purely derive from physical processes and physiological reactions to the environment. But of course, our bodies and the environment definitely have an affect on our thoughts despite the mind not being physical. For example, when a person trips, the environment has an effect on the body, and the body informs the brain, which is intricately connected to the mind -- We are informed of what has happened to our body through a physical process, but the individual mind is what decides how to react. Every person will react, at least, slightly different than anyone else in the same situation. If our thoughts came from a purely physical source then we'd be robotic, everyone in the same situation would respond in the same way, but this is not the case. A person's uniqueness is a clear indication that humans aren’t purely physical creatures. Our ability to act and react differently, and also, our ability to choose to do so, is proof that there is a part of us that can't be explained physiologically. Apply this same concept to drugs. Drugs affect our minds because they alter our body, our body let's us know, and we react. Even under the influence of some drugs people are still able to control their thoughts to an extent. Certain drugs alter the body and the brain. Cases in which the brain is affected alter a person’s state of consciousness. When a person’s state of consciousness is altered (drugs, alcohol, sleep) from it’s wakeful, alert, state of consciousness the messages received, by the mind, from the brain are very different because the brain’s perception is altered.<br /><br /> Our minds aren't physical but this doesn't mean that the mind is unaware and separate from what goes on inside and outside our bodies. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11645883364967918561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-59850064354444132162015-05-10T18:07:56.647-07:002015-05-10T18:07:56.647-07:00That's the brain. You're confusing a facu...That's the brain. You're confusing a faculty of the human person (reason) with a physical object (brain).<br /><br />Drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep, poor diet, those all impact the body physiologically; they directly affect the brain. Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-62406979888524887612015-05-10T17:56:36.686-07:002015-05-10T17:56:36.686-07:00If the mind is immaterial then why does general an...If the mind is immaterial then why does general anesthesia work on it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-3029517132078948172015-05-10T17:53:48.141-07:002015-05-10T17:53:48.141-07:00People confuse the brain (material) with the mind ...People confuse the brain (material) with the mind (immaterial). Our own Stacy Trasancos, Ph.D, has addressed this on her blog (stacytrasancos.com). Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-64005979039712575202015-05-10T17:33:17.570-07:002015-05-10T17:33:17.570-07:00Reason happens in the mind. The mind is immateria...Reason happens in the mind. The mind is immaterial (reasoning, judgment, intellect).<br />Dogs do not reason to get a treat. They know who holds the food. They're smart enough to survive, but not smart enough to reason. They don't reason morally or otherwise. They go by cues. They go by senses and what they pick up through those limited senses. They do not solve algebra or reason about morals of fairy tales, right?<br /><br />Miracles defy logic. They're not set up as science tests or hypotheses. Science "has to prove something over and over" because that is the scientific method. A convergence of agreeable data, from many sources all calibrated to measure for the same thing is what makes up a working theory. A one time shot in the dark is not scientific.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-8372639255690492352015-05-10T16:08:32.615-07:002015-05-10T16:08:32.615-07:00How is reason immaterial? Reasoning happens in the...How is reason immaterial? Reasoning happens in the brain. The brain is material. I haven't seen anything without a brain be able to reason. It's like saying digestion is immaterial. Dogs are simpler than humans. They can't explain a painting but they can reason to get a treat. It's just a matter of degree. Australopithecus and Homo Erectus must have been able to reason in order to build fire and make tools, but they probably couldn't explain a painting. Why does science have to prove something over and over but if somebody says something is a miracle then you believe it even if it's a one time occurrence. It seems religion has low standards of evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-35359907881619240672015-05-10T16:06:55.442-07:002015-05-10T16:06:55.442-07:00"
Maybe this thread should start taking off i..."<br />Maybe this thread should start taking off in the direction of “proof” of God. Might be an exercise worth doing."<br /><br />I agreeJohannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07861467738117604139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-16002764687744326202015-05-10T15:48:56.188-07:002015-05-10T15:48:56.188-07:00* Dogs
To finish my point re: Scripture - the Cat...* Dogs<br /><br />To finish my point re: Scripture - the Catholic Church does not say that people evolved from apes, or that animals reason. The Church acknowledges that animals have souls but not immortal souls.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-47019367329337786882015-05-10T15:46:26.712-07:002015-05-10T15:46:26.712-07:00Again , reason is immaterial. It cannot "evo...<i>Again </i>, reason is immaterial. It cannot "evolve" from a biological/chemical process. Thoughts cannot be captured, illustrated with a graphite pencil, measured, or weighed, right? That's science. Reason is a gauge of the mind - a capacity, a faculty. Dog's use their senses to learn tricks or commands and they learn stimulus/reward. Sit, get a treat. Fetch, get a treat. It all relates to food or reward. <i>Not to reason </i>. They don't <i> reason how to do so or why to do so </i>. See? What exactly were they measuring for in this dog test? How many times did they run this? Were they trying to prove reason by a stimulus/reward model? Wrong model. They need to show him a Caravaggio painting and ask him what he thinks of the brush stroke technique. Have the dog show his reason that way. See? Higher thoughts. Not obedience = treat.<br /><br />The St. Anthony story is a miracle, science doesn't explain that at all. Scripture talks about the Lord opening the mouth of the donkey in the book of Numbers, too (ref: Num 22:28).Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-90153446216033485722015-05-10T14:51:27.080-07:002015-05-10T14:51:27.080-07:00It's not just science. The Catholic Church pro...It's not just science. The Catholic Church probably also believes it. The Catholic Church teaches the story of "St. Anthony and the Real Presence". I won't get into the whole story but the donkey is starved for three days and is about to go each a bunch of hay. St. Anthony takes out a eucharist and commands the donkey to worship God. The donkey turns around and "kneels" before the eucharist.There's also a story about St. Francis preaching to birds about God. What would be the point if they couldn't reason?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-33462872821071240112015-05-10T14:34:01.979-07:002015-05-10T14:34:01.979-07:00Does it matter whether it was by smell or sight? T...Does it matter whether it was by smell or sight? The dog had to put two and two together by linking the command with the unfamiliar object. Is it a law of nature that animals can't reason? If man evolved from lower animals did he one day suddenly develop the ability to reason or more likely did it evolve over time?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-56420743964826096712015-05-10T08:05:34.202-07:002015-05-10T08:05:34.202-07:00"Animals lack the capacity to reason" Ho...<i>"Animals lack the capacity to reason" How do you know this? On NOVA Science Now several years ago Neil Degrasse Tyson interviewed a man with a Border Collie that knew 1000 words. In a little experiment Prof. Tyson told the dog to find "Darwin", a doll the dog had never seen before. The doll was placed with several other dolls that the dog knew the names of. The dog was able to identify the doll Prof. Tyson asked for by deduction. Isn't deduction reasoning?</i><br /><br />This is your complete data set? A guy brings a new doll (new to the dog’s very sensitive nose) into the mix and the dog supposedly “deduces via reason” the doll by name? Scent was most likely the tool. It was not through complex thoughts as to how he recognizes this new doll by name, see? The dog cannot sit and reason aloud with anyone about the doll.<br /><br />Anyhow, is your point here the idea that we can run a test once and prove something? If that’s the case, then you have to say ‘yes’ across the board to only one test about everything, everywhere. What happens if you run the test again and the dog doesn’t find the doll?<br /><br />You’re not proving out a mass data set with this. You’re saying “once” proves it’s not a fluke(?) Not robust at all. <br /><br />Ex: I pitch one ball with a baseball and the batter hits a double. Therefore, all my pitches will result in the batter hitting doubles. No. <br /><br />The dog would have to illustrate reason, not just show sense perception (sense of smell).Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-72465358065143028862015-05-10T06:23:28.906-07:002015-05-10T06:23:28.906-07:00"Animals lack the capacity to reason" Ho..."Animals lack the capacity to reason" How do you know this? On NOVA Science Now several years ago Neil Degrasse Tyson interviewed a man with a Border Collie that knew 1000 words. In a little experiment Prof. Tyson told the dog to find "Darwin", a doll the dog had never seen before. The doll was placed with several other dolls that the dog knew the names of. The dog was able to identify the doll Prof. Tyson asked for by deduction. Isn't deduction reasoning?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-91263845502342141942015-05-07T14:37:02.638-07:002015-05-07T14:37:02.638-07:00Emily,
Right on. Reason, itself, is the gauge. A...Emily,<br />Right on. Reason, itself, is the gauge. And this ties to the false notion that we can “see moral behavior” in action. No, we cannot see morals in animals’ actions-- and not even in human action.<br /><br />One can only observe nature and give an account of it. One cannot posit anything beyond that. It would be completely unscientific. <br />The animal is breathing. The animal is fighting. The animal is sharing food. That’s as far as observations go. <br /><br />Animals lack the capacity to reason, so therefore they cannot make moral choices, <b>because morality lies in the consideration of the thought (reasoning) before the act of the will. </b> <br />You (animal) can’t reason? Then you (animal) cannot act morally or immorally.<br /><br />A wolf does not share a slab of meat with the pack because he has <b>deliberated</b> that he ought to do so. He did not think beforehand, “I should really share this meat because it is the right thing to do.” He does not even have that ability. He cannot consider a thing. He behaves in accordance with the hierarchy of the group, according to nature, for means of survival. Morality cannot be supposed simply because of his actions.<br /><br />For that matter, morality cannot even be judged by mere human actions. It’s all in the precipitating thoughts and purpose <i>before the act </i>. Do we work at the soup kitchen because it’s going to earn us approval from someone we like, or do we serve out of love for neighbor? Animals can’t reason like that. <br /><br />Maybe this thread should start taking off in the direction of “proof” of God. Might be an exercise worth doing.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-49352551750107133842015-05-07T12:16:11.168-07:002015-05-07T12:16:11.168-07:00I suppose my first comment was a bit off the subje...I suppose my first comment was a bit off the subject of truth. Let me rectify that. <br /><br />It seems that many people here believe in objective truth, great! Is it an objective truth that humans have thoughts? I'd say so! <br /><br />Thoughts are immaterial, they are also an objective truth. so ruling out what's an objective truth or not by means of physical proof is a contradiction in itself because we already know of a nonphysical objective truth. <br /><br />Just a thought! lol ;) Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11645883364967918561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-63718963268778123192015-05-07T11:52:01.687-07:002015-05-07T11:52:01.687-07:00Hello everybody,
let me introduce myself,
My name ...Hello everybody,<br />let me introduce myself,<br />My name is Emily (obviously), I'm 21, and a practicing catholic. I haven't read all the comments yet, but I'll try to catch up. Thus far I've learned a lot from all involved in the discussion.<br /><br />I'd like to add to Nubby's last post:<br />Morality isn't a physical thing that is capable of evolution, thought also, is nonphysical. Sure there are many different parts of the brain that are active when a person is thinking, but science can't deduce the exact words or ideas that are going through a person's head. Thought is immaterial. <br /><br />One of the logical proofs of God's existence is the existence of thought. How can something that can't be explained by a chemical balance or bodily instincts (such as emotions, reflexes, etc.), something that cannot actually be seen or deduced to the point of its origin, be merely the product of evolution? It can't!<br /><br />Humans are material; we can feel, see, smell, taste, hear. These senses are how we take in the physical world. But then, what of our thoughts? OUR THOUGHTS ARE IMMATERIAL, THEY'RE NOT ORDINARY, THEY'RE EXTRAORDINARY. How can we claim that something physical like ourselves is capable of holding something nonphysical within us, but that all other things that are nonphysical -- God, spirits, morality, etc.-- can't be in existence because we can't physically prove it. Preposterous!<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11645883364967918561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-62648971243206518532015-05-04T04:50:03.295-07:002015-05-04T04:50:03.295-07:00Lurkers,
It's typical to be called names or to...Lurkers,<br />It's typical to be called names or to get accused of a "tone" or to be accused of desiring ridiculous things like an "ego rush" (whatever that is), when you're trying to laser through to get to the actual logic of a point and the opposing party can't supply the answer. <br /><br />Sheila,<br />Did you really think that after 500 comments (and my five years of commenting here) that I really didn't quite grasp how atheists <i>think</i>? Or were you having too much fun working their defense, without your ego involved, of course? You were over-talking points that were not relevant to the main point. And you keep insisting evolution gives rise to morality by describing what you want to believe about group behavior. You have not posited any evidence that that = morality. It's conjecture. And why are you trying to build a quasi-defense for non-believers? They all know that we completely understand their line of thinking. And it is not defensible against logic.<br /><br />Is there anyone out there who can point us to:<br />The Moral Gene<br />the physical attributes of morality<br />the physical length, width, depth of morality<br />an illustration of what physical morality looks like?<br /><br />No to all of it because morality is not a physical thing. It's not given by evolution. And, again, when someone posits that as casual <i>fact</i>, that is being intellectually dishonest. Evolution doesn't give rise to morals. One should never insert that because, <i> again </i>, descriptions of human or animal behavior are in no way indicative of anything moral, and descriptions are not morals. Morals are deliberations of the mind with purpose behind them.Nubbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972118374098863290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-38472013733096712872015-05-03T17:57:15.917-07:002015-05-03T17:57:15.917-07:00"Or does your example lead people to think th..."Or does your example lead people to think that Christians are closed-mined, unwilling to listen, and addicted to the ego rush of being right?"<br /><br />I am BEGGING to have someone answer so that I CAN listen, lol. How close-minded of me to invite a dialogue and expect that people hang with us until we exhaust the subject and come to some point of clarity, even if the end is, "Yes, our morality is necessarily subjective" (although then I'd like to explore the implications thereof.)<br /><br />And really "addicted to an ego rush of being right"? How bout just an <i>answer</i> to a <i>question</i> so that we can move on? <br /><br />It reminds me of a statement that a wonderful young gay man who comments on this blog told me I could tell the Catholic ladies to whom I was giving a talk on Truth. Here is what this young man said for all, even though we agree on .... not much:<br /><br /><i>“Even if I don't like what you (Leila) might say, it's more helpful and formative than hearing "I love you and support whatever you choose to do". Not a perfect analogy, but when a kid goes near the hot stove, you tell him clearly to not touch it, because this gives me a clear option and an understanding of the situation. Telling that kid, "well, touch or don't touch it, I support you either way". No! The kid doesn't need to burn his hand to learn that it's a bad idea to touch hot stoves. <br /><br />It's the same way with adults, though, even if we add a lot more complexity and nuance. In our personal, social, and cultural debates we need to set up strong positions that we can argue with passion and vigor so that our conversation can <b>move somewhere</b>. Accepting a soft pluralistic "we love everyone and support what you do" cannot move society and if anything it would be detrimental. I appreciate Catholicism so much not only for its historical integrity but also because it’s not afraid to be passionate, compassionate, and intellectual while pushing its views. </i><br /><br />What a breath of fresh air! Zach, I love you.<br />Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-76373484754034595962015-05-03T17:48:54.570-07:002015-05-03T17:48:54.570-07:00And even if it feels "mean", I think tha...And even if it feels "mean", I think that vigorous questioning and thought and philosophical dialogue still have a place in this world. I am sure I am in the minority, but thank the Lord, the Church agrees. Man, I miss Chesterton, and I never even met him, lol. Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.com