Comments for The Dawkins Challenge at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 91 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Thu, 20 Jun 2013 03:15:09 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-dawkins-challenge.html#comment-12503 This article is absolute muck. If you watch, on Youtube, all of these exchanges mentioned (instead of cherry-picking things that seem to prove your point), you'll see that the author of this article engages in what I like to call the "fallacy of meta-equivocation"--that is, he takes Dawkins notion of moving outside "common sense," and then tapdances into lambasting him for not understand the "same idea" in Catholic sense. And that is just garbage thinking and writing. Plain and simple. These two men--Dawkins and Pell (or Carroll, in this article) are not at all defending the same idea of "common sense" and "moving outside of it." To this author, moving outside common sense means "believing that a cracker and booze become the flesh and blood of a man--but in some mysterious way that it can never be proven or tested, and continues to look and smell and taste the same. But somehow it just is flesh and blood." Dawkins idea of moving away from common sense means understanding that our concept of time, space, and matter are not infinite things and that the quantum physics that led to the development of our universe are mind boggling--because they preceded the laws we all are familiar with today. So Dawkins is not a hypocrite; rather, he's just not embarassingly and blindly superstitious. It's the author of this article who can't smell what he's shovelling. - Atheist Thu, 19 Jul 2012 04:40:29 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-dawkins-challenge.html#comment-12477 How strange that an intellectual Catholic such as this author can equate faith and reason. Martin Luther declared famously that "Reason is the enemy of faith" and of course he was right.Faith is a belief in an unlikely event which can never be proved,the more unlikely the event,the greater the faith-so the inanity of transubstantiation fits in well in this context. - nick Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:47:20 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-dawkins-challenge.html#comment-12023 How scientific is it to claim that science can explain everything? Could you apply the scientific method to prove your hypothesis, "Everything can be explained by Science"? How can a methodology that relies on the senses explain what lies beyond the senses? How can measurements taken based on the senses be used to measure phenomenon that lie outside of our senses? The reliance on science to explain everything is about as wise as the carpenter that claims he can build anything with just a saw. The failure of the Hellenists to discover the Truth matches the ultimate failure of the scientists in the same realm. However, the tools of each of those trades and the discoveries of those sciences gives us a greater appreciation of the revealed Truth. That is the way to look at this. Where Dawkins fails spectacularly is in his self-imposed constraints in employing all the tools available. He is curious to learn the Truth and he is one of the great scientists of our time. Yet he persists in compromising his own rules when it comes to the seeking an understanding of the Truth. In Christ An Anonymous Fool. - An Anonymous Fool Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:58:18 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-dawkins-challenge.html#comment-12014 "written by Otaycec, June 15, 2012 Dawkins is trying to squeeze the unfathomable expanse of existence into the very limited paradigm that is the scientific method." You don't appear to understand that: 1. Dawkins prents the scientific consensus, not just his own quixottic world view. 2. The business of science is to ex[lore all phenomena, of every kind, everywhere, ie "more than is dreamed of in your philosophy". 3, Dawkins asks for Catholic honesty; so please tell us where the scientific method ends, and what are the limite of the natural world beyond which science cannot go, and where would you place these limits, and why?--and also what have you antiscientists discovered that we have not? - Reginald Le Sueur Mon, 18 Jun 2012 02:19:00 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-dawkins-challenge.html#comment-12009 I nearly got thrown out of Sunday school in second grade when I asked for proof that the host and wine turn into flesh and blood. That it what we we told - not some secret "substance" of Jesus - (You're not allowed to call him Christ because that assumes the answer) Worst yet I then asked why anyone would want to be a cannibal? Needless to say as soon as possible I left these baseless claims and moved on to learn more about the real world and real people. To be an "informed catholic" is an oxymoron. If you want to have "informed" catholics, try having them read "The Greatest Story Ever Told" - Dawkins version - so you can have an honest intellectual discussion about when and how human flesh came to be. - robert_d Sun, 17 Jun 2012 12:26:21 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-dawkins-challenge.html#comment-12006 Trying to be academic and intellectual about faith ie 'pretending to know something that you do not know' is foolish. For some humans to act as though they know something that we 'non believers' cannot know for some reason is arrogant and presumptious. To say substantiation needs more than science to be explained is ok if you can produce some evidence as to what that is. Please share it with us lesser mortals! - Rick Baker Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:50:01 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-dawkins-challenge.html#comment-11999 You write: "A scientific analysis of the consecrated host and wine would only detect these external appearances." Then how can we tell whether a Eucharist was consecrated properly or not? Presumably, going through the motions of communion using an ordinary wafer is not the same as receiving communion, with the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So it's important to make sure that the host has been properly consecrated. How can one do that? - arensb Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:42:37 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-dawkins-challenge.html#comment-11993 Although, Lanciano goes unmentioned here -- why? - enness Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:42:39 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-dawkins-challenge.html#comment-11992 I don't understand, if there is God, why you think He would necessarily fit neatly under a microscope. - enness Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:30:13 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-dawkins-challenge.html#comment-11987 Dawkins is trying to squeeze the unfathomable expanse of existence into the very limited paradigm that is the scientific method. He is like a moth flying around a light bulb and claims the sun does not exist because it cannot be seen. - Otaycec Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:25:40 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-dawkins-challenge.html#comment-11983 Dawkins use science and reason, and accept "imaginary" thinking in physics, to understand reality. William Carroll use theology, another form of imaginary thinking, and philosophy to make old fairy tails sound real. - Terje_S Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:39:12 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-dawkins-challenge.html#comment-11982 As one who follows a timeless tradition well over 5,000 years old - the Hindu Dharmic tradition - I find these questions naive and ill-informed. Well before these arguments began the ancients had decided that a question by itself has no utility unless it is being used to drive in a conclusion that is already resolved. So "why" is meaningless. - kanaadaa Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:28:03 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-dawkins-challenge.html#comment-11980 This article has been reposted on the Richard Dawkins site. Some of the comments there are very interesting. - Sara Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:12:58 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-dawkins-challenge.html#comment-11974 written by T.G. McCowan, June 14, 2012 "No Adam and Eve. No original sin. No need for billions of humans to be sent to be tortured. Do you actually believe there was a REAL Adam and Eve?" No, of course not -- that's my point. If the archbishop himself does not believe there was a "real" Adam and Eve, then what's the basis of his belief in original sin and then what did Jesus die for? - Sara Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:05:37 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-dawkins-challenge.html#comment-11971 "written by MarkM, June 13, 2012 A lot of good comments. As for me, I truly to not understand why an atheist would care what a little old Catholic like me thinks or believes. I hear this comparison...atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby. I don't collect stamps, but I certainly don't begrudge those who do. Nor to I harass them. Nor do I buy all the stamps so they can't enjoy them. Nor do i get antsy when a collector friend tells me wbout th rare misprint he just got. Nor do i go out to find verbal challenges in case i encounter a stamp collector. Nor do I give it the slightest thought, in fact." Mark... an athiest wouldn't care what a little-old Catholic like you thinks or believes if it didn't happen to have a real, sizeable affect on his life. Christian belief has a massive affect on our politics. An athiest trying to win high political office today is about as likely as a black person winning high political office in the 1800's. Many of our laws are biased by religious beliefs of some and restrict the rights of all. If stamp collecters were the only people viable for pubic office in this country and wrote laws that everyone has to follow predicated on their stamp-collecting habits... if Stamp collecters flew airplanes into the buildings you work in because they thought people there were collecting the wrong stamps... or if they perpetuated ridiculously endless conflicts in far-flung lands that our stamp collecting leaders felt compelled to send your son to die and your tax dollars to be wasted, you might feel differently about stamp collectors. Understand? - Crafty B Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:30:34 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-dawkins-challenge.html#comment-11970 written by Rick DeLano, June 13, 2012 Since the premise of Krauss and Dawkins (a universe from nothing) is utterly absurd on its face, and since they must admit that their "nothing" is actually a very special sort of "something" which incorporates both energy and gravity, why would anyone bother to debate them further? Dear Rick DeLano You wrote: "On the other hand, transubstantiation is very easily defended. God, the Creator of All, has provided us the motives of credibility through the physical Resurrection of Chjrist, to believe what He tells us. He tells us that the eucharist is His Body and Blood." Transubstantiation can not be rationally defended. That was Dawkin's point. You must presuppose that there is a Christian god to believe the magic transubstantiation. - T.G. McCowan Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:27:40 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-dawkins-challenge.html#comment-11969 "written by MarkM, June 13, 2012 A lot of good comments. As for me, I truly to not understand why an atheist would care what a little old Catholic like me thinks or believes. I hear this comparison...atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby. I don't collect stamps, but I certainly don't begrudge those who do. Nor to I harass them. Nor do I buy all the stamps so they can't enjoy them. Nor do i get antsy when a collector friend tells me wbout th rare misprint he just got. Nor do i go out to find verbal challenges in case i encounter a stamp collector. Nor do I give it the slightest thought, in fact." Mark... an athiest wouldn't care what a little-old Catholic like you thinks or believes if it didn't happen to have a real, sizeable affect on his life. Christian belief has a massive affect on our politics. An athiest trying to win high political office today is about as likely as a black person winning high political office in the 1800's. Many of our laws are biased by religious beliefs of some and restrict the rights of all. If stamp collecters were the only people viable for pubic office in this country and wrote laws that everyone has to follow predicated on their stamp-collecting habits... if Stamp collecters flew airplanes into the buildings you work in because they thought people there were collecting the wrong stamps... or if they perpetuated ridiculously endless conflicts in far-flung lands that our stamp collecting leaders felt compelled to send your son to die and your tax dollars to be wasted, you might feel differently about stamp collectors. Understand? - Crafty B Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:23:44 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-dawkins-challenge.html#comment-11968 Dearest Sara "During that discussion, Pell also said that Adam and Eve were metaphorical figures. If so, then how does he account for the original sin of eating the forbidden fruit and Jesus' need to die for us for we cannot be punished for it?" No Adam and Eve. No original sin. No need for billions of humans to be sent to be tortured. Do you actually believe there was a REAL Adam and Eve? - T.G. McCowan Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:18:27 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-dawkins-challenge.html#comment-11967 So, to bottom-line this... we have the claim of transubstantiation wherein the LITERAL body of christ is formed AT THE MOMENT of consecration. Well, that's a very simple and very testable claim. Take a group of unconsecrated wafers (yet humanly handled by priests), examine them. Take a group of consecrated wafers and quickly examine those too. Find something biological in the difference. Cells from a first century Jew would be an impressive start. DNA that clearly doesn't come from any of the examiners or handlers would be a great other start. Everything else like that seriously flawed claim "The body of Christ, present in the sacrament of the Eucharist, although real (neither symbolic nor metaphorical), is vastly different from the ordinary bodies subject to empirical analysis. It is sacramental presence and theology, aided by philosophy, that help to make intelligible what is believed." is special pleading. It's NO different from saying "It's really there, only we can't prove it empirically because our definition of IT and REALLY and THERE have been specially redefined to exclude all forms of validation and falsification. If you rely on philosophy, and assert that A and B are true and that C merely relies on A and B being true, then your argument is VALID and SOUND if (and only if) you can empirically demonstrate that A and B are true. Asserting something doesn't make it true. If it's an extraordinary claim, then it's going to need an extraordinary amount of evidence to substantiate it. - Tim from New York Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:06:34 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-dawkins-challenge.html#comment-11966 Grump said "Andrew, who made the "fundamental laws"? The Big Bang theory makes as much sense as a dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print shop." You might want to research Fr. Georges Lemaître. As for intellect being enough to find God- our intellect is sufficient to lead us to faith, but to believe one must find God with the mind and the heart. Otherwise you are trying to use your eyes to smell a freshly baked pie ;-). - George Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:02:28 +0100