You wrote: “That said, the dogma, “Evolution proves there is no God” shares both those traits. It is religion, and it is not science.”
___________________
My response: [Macro] Evolution does not prove there is no god, i.e. a creator of the universe. If macro-evolution has occurred, however, it is contrary to the ridiculous fairy-tale myths of creation of the universe in the Bible, and the equally laughable Adam and Eve creation myth in the Bible. Macro-evolution is therefore contradictory of the Bible, and Christianity in particular. Nevertheless, macro-evolution does not per se disprove “religion,” if you mean that term broadly to include belief in a supernatural deity that created the universe. However, macro-evolution certainly is not dependant upon the existence of a supernatural creator of the universe. To say that macro-evolution is itself a religion is not logical.
“[Macro] Evolution does not prove there is no god, i.e. a creator of the universe.”
True, but there are many who hold that it does.
“If macro-evolution has occurred, however, it is contrary to the ridiculous fairy-tale myths of creation of the universe in the Bible”
What would you think if an ordinary, average third-grader began to denigrate special relativity on the grounds that he found it counter-intuitive? And did so, moreover, in a very unpleasant and scornful way?
Your statement demonstrates that your understanding of Christian theology is on a par with an ordinary, average third-grader’s understanding of special relativity. I’m sorry for the harshness of that statement. I make it not to denigrate, but to try and get my point across.
“Macro-evolution is therefore contradictory of the Bible, and Christianity in particular.”
Macro-evolution is contradictory of a child’s understanding of the Bible and Christianity. It conflicts in no way with theology at a level of sophistication suitable for adults...which I would venture to guess you have never encountered.
“However, macro-evolution certainly is not dependant upon the existence of a supernatural creator of the universe.”
Dependence is completely irrelevant. You have said nothing useful or pertinent there.
“To say that macro-evolution is itself a religion is not logical.”
That’s a bad sign. Did you really miss the difference between saying that macro-evolution is itself a religion and saying that the dogma that evolution disproves the existence of God is a religious proposition? Two very different matters.
“My response: Ah, thank you. So you concede that Catholic doctrine IS, in fact, incompatible with modern Biology.”
You seem unwilling to grasp the concepts involved. Nothing in Catholic doctrine contradicts any part of biology, nor does any biological fact contradict any part of Catholic doctrine. This is because biology deals with a part of the physical world, while theology deals with the spiritual.
You wish to demand that God be subject to the laws of biology, when He himself established those laws, which are as they are, and remain as they are, only because He wills it. God is not subject to the laws of biology; they are subject to Him.
“But you want a special pass for your doctrine because it belongs to the realm of “supernatural exceptions to the laws of science.”
There’s that child’s understanding again. I’m beginning to see that you do not wish to develop any part of an adult’s understanding, probably because it would be inconvenient to the shallow, puerile arguments you find so compelling.
You want a universe in which the laws of science are the ultimate authority, and all is subject to them. However, you do not live in such a universe.
“That’s not cannibalism?”
To a little child it seems so. To an adult with an adult’s understanding, no.
“And you didn’t address my point about the little conflict that poses with “modern Biology” as you call it, when you consider that the math involved in the fact that the Eucharist has been performed daily around the world for a couple thousand years.”
That’s not even a rational argument. There’s nothing to address, because it’s gibberish. Do you really imagine that a God who can create clusters of galaxies would have a problem with a bit of transubstantiation?
“Let’s face it, it is as futile to try to reconcile biology (including evolutionary biology) with theology”
It only seems so to you, because you insist on these ridiculous misrepresentations of theological principles.
“Your reference to agnostics and atheists as “God-haters” is more than just inaccurate — it shows a deep bias that reveals your lack of objectivity.”
Good grief, a person like you has the gall to mention objectivity? Truly, wonders never cease. The term “God-haters” is perfectly accurate, and shows a bias only toward the truth.
“Well, I do.”
That’s because you have no understanding of what you question—or rather, revile. You are like a third-grader shooting spitwads at special relativity.
“I suggest to you that there is nothing rational about a supernatural entity that hides the ball except to a select few “special” (or “chosen”) people.”
And I suggest to you that you are so far from understanding any of this that I will not be able to do much here.
You know, what’s really eating away at you is that you haven’t been one of the “special” (or “chosen”) people,” and you can’t stand the notion that others may have been preferred over you. And there again we encounter that child’s understanding, because the people to whom God reveals himself are not “special” (or “chosen”)” in the way you mean. If anything, they are entrants in the Special Olympics of spirituality, special in the sense that they need extra help.
Further, he doesn’t hide the ball. He merely allows the obdurate to deny the existence of the elephant in the living room.
“Why would a supernatural entity that needs worshipping”
And there’s that child’s understanding again. God doesn’t need your worship. You need Him.
“hide” its existence to begin with, or reveal its existence to only a few members of its creation?”
The world is a machine to turn us into something. For the machine to work, we must be free to accept good or evil, without undue coercion. That is why God is at the same time blatantly present and deniable.
“It makes no sense”
Ever read “Flatland?” You are a two dimensional consciousness trying to understand a multidimensional phenomenon. You insist on looking at it in a way that makes no sense. If you used right reason, you wouldn’t have that problem.
“Why in the hell would a supernatural being go to the trouble of hiding secret messages revealing “truths” in a Bible “code” when delivering tablets with “handwritten” instructions gets the point across so much more efficiently and effectively?”
No “Bible code” is any part of any recognized Christian denomination.
“My response: Baloney. See above.”
There is nothing above that remotely justifies your a priori denial of the testimony of (at the very least) tens of thousands of witnesses. You deny it solely because you have concluded that it is impossible. Circular reasoning.
“Furthermore, God does not speak to people. Period.”
Oh yes, my bitter little God-hater, He does. But you’ll never forgive Him for talking to others and not you, will you?
“Your point about schizophrenics proves MY point.”
Not even remotely. It is quite possible to distinguish between hallucination and a genuine personal revelation.
“The reason no one truly gets a clear and unambiguous message from God is not all that difficult to understand.”
So, we’re going to add factual error to lack of comprehension, are we? People very definitely do get clear and unambiguous messages from God. That is one key factor in evaluating their validity.
“in this latest post, you have finally resorted to the last line of defense I typically get from the Christian apologist, after all else fails.”
There’s no “finally.” I wrote those notes in one sitting. Further, the only thing that has failed is the attempt to reason with you on a subject pertaining to which you are unwilling to be rational.
“It’s at this point, I always point out that I was raised as a Christian, confirmed as one after taking classes, attended blah blah blah.”
I am reminded of the movie, “A Fish Called Wanda.”
Jamie Lee Curtis: “Oh, right. To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I’ve known sheep that could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you’re an intellectual, don’t you, ape?”
Kevin Kline: “Apes don’t read philosophy.”
Curtis: “Yes, they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it. Now, let me correct you on a couple of things, okay? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not, ‘Every man for himself.’ And the London underground is not a political movement.”
I don’t care what courses you sat through or what pages of what books you turned. Your remarks demonstrate that you didn’t understand what was placed before you.
“But alas, despite all that, you, oh wise one, diagnosed my disbelief as a result of a “child’s understanding of religion” based on what obviously is the result of my not truly having really read and understood the Bible as only you can.”
Trying to misrepresent 2,000 years of the intellectual work product of the best minds in Western Civilization as merely a matter of what I can do is so lame as to be beneath contempt. You haven’t understood the Bible as any reasonably intelligent adult could be expected to do, if he made a sincere effort.
“that I must have an unhappy life to be such a “God hater” and tool of the Devil himself”
Do you imagine yourself happy? You sound bitter and stunted.