Ask a Catholic

[Teuthida]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

Where in this process is the evolutionary purpose for morality, good/evil, and the search for a higher purpose? None of these things provides an evolutionary advantage. Time wasted worrying about right and wrong and our purpose in life is energy uselessly devoted to tasks that do not increase our chances for survival. In fact, many would say that they impair our survival in some circumstances (for those that take option 1 in the absurdist belief structure). It would seem that evolution and survival of the fittest should have seen this as a worthless adaptation and stamped it out long ago. Yet, humanity still struggles with these questions after millennia.

Morality, the concept of good and evil, and the search for a higher purpose has no explanation in a universe without God.

It's been forever since I took biology (actually going back to college in a few months to continue the bio degree I abandoned a decade ago in favor of art) so looking forward to having a proper debate on evolutionary once I'm refreshed.

Worrying about trivial things such as if there is good or evil in the world is for people who have time to do so. (I personally don't believe in good and evil. They're just man-made labels.) Once civilizations begun to arise, and you had a bit of downtime, of course the human mind would wonder about these things. Would be as simple as four cave men sitting around a fire after a successful day hunting and chatting about why things are the way they are. Wondering about the way things are gives rise to new ideas, and new ideas gives rise to better techniques of solving the pressing problems.

As for morality. It is ingrained. You want your genes to pass on. That is the ultimate goal. And if not you, then genes similar to yours, so you would also care about your family such as cousins. And so on. Not sure at which point humans began to care for those distinctly related from themselves. Altruism can be beneficial though.

So I would say it's more altruism, rather than morality, since many different species exhibit that. Rather than give you hazy memories of biology class I'd refer you read up on this. It's quite interesting. It's basically do unto others. Do something for someone else and expect to get treated in kind. If someone holds out, then the whole thing can collapse. Take vampire bats. If a bat returns home after a night of bloodsucking but didn't get enough blood, another will feed the bat a share of the blood it collected. So if sometime in the future it happens to the giving bat, it can expect to receive blood on one of its bad nights.



Oh, saw this video yesterday.
http://www.wimp.com/wecould/

Acts more like Jesus than most Christians.

And that's a great part of what I have trouble with. It seems more people use religion to divide and hate rather than love. You don't need to believe to believe in religion to be a good person.

[Combine 017]

I dont see why they cant be, but if they are I would assume the act of a giant laser being fired upon them would be considered an act of aggression.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Combine 017

I dont see why they cant be, but if they are I would assume the act of a giant laser being fired upon them would be considered an act of aggression.

Okay, so in other words you accept the idea of a god as long as it isn't the one who revealed himself through Jesus, the Bible, and the early Christians?

[Combine 017]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

Okay, so in other words you accept the idea of a god as long as it isn't the one who revealed himself through Jesus, the Bible, and the early Christians?

I never rejected the idea of a god, I just think of it as unlikely. But no, my idea of a god isnt the one that was an incredibly elaborate plan to hide the fact that Mary cheated on Joseph and was really convincing about it, or a 2000 year old book detailing the creation of the 14 billion year old Universe, and with absolutely no other god like events between then and now.

[Seth]

Catholicism was the scourge of Europe for over a thousand years.

I'm not saying many of the clergy weren't brilliant contributors to the western cultural ethos.

What I'm saying is that, there's a reason Protesters didn't give up on their right to read the Bible. Even if Rome insists the Latin Vulgate is the final say on doctrinal integrity(a farce), that doesn't erase history, Textus Receptus and the practicing forms of Christianity that predated the pagan cultural infusion of the Roman Church.

[Seth]

How about let's flip this and



Ask a Protestant.





I will posit that Protestantism was the actual catalyst for the Age of Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment was marked by an emphasis on the scientific method and reductionism along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy – an attitude captured by the phrase Sapere aude, "Dare to know".

My family escaped France during the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre. I take separation of church and state super duper seriously.

Gavin McInnis and other Catholics would prefer to flick prayer beads and light candles whilst ignoring the books.


really though, Protestantism is effectively dead. Well almost. There's still freedom in the west. Too bad the UN is in charge of net neutrality. That's a bummer.




I would encourage everyone to read the gospels. Set one of your homepage tabs to biblegateway.

Spiritual nourishment.