tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post7858029558963436076..comments2023-10-20T21:46:49.945+08:00Comments on Philippine Commentary: Blessed Galileo Galilei, Pray for us!Deany Bocobohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-2648534806196837122009-10-11T01:53:38.268+08:002009-10-11T01:53:38.268+08:00Proving that atheism confers evolutionary fitness ...<i>Proving that atheism confers evolutionary fitness is bound to fail.</i><br /><br />will an "atheist meme" even survive, based on the social darwinistic concept of how memes evolve conceptualised by dawkins? if not, it must be a poor, weak meme, to begin with.<br /><br />inodoro ni emilieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-78074464258894527572009-10-07T13:39:40.923+08:002009-10-07T13:39:40.923+08:00I am not doubting the scientific fact of human ind...<i>I am not doubting the scientific fact of human induced climate change (as some blog commentators have accused me of doing so). I am appalled by some folks making climate change as an evil.</i><br /><br />Climate change has visited this planet many times over millions of years. It is not "evil" but there's simply something evil in human-induced global warming.<br /><br />Nature and the earth biota is simply larger than humans and for us to significantly contribute, to the destruction of several species is rather immoral. Esp. when we persist in our ways despite awareness of the issue.<br /><br />In the not-so-distant future we could be able to come up with a technological solution to human-induced global warming. In the meantime, however, we are losing plant and animal species. How less beautiful is Earth without Polar bears, Arctic foxes, etc.?Jesusa Bernardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13216156182443307139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-5946902937676903372009-10-05T14:16:46.534+08:002009-10-05T14:16:46.534+08:00Science cannot go against Scripture but it goes ag...Science cannot go against Scripture but it goes against the erroneous interpretation of Scripture.Ben Vallejohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02963290696331676531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-25831032319092441002009-10-05T11:45:08.383+08:002009-10-05T11:45:08.383+08:00Poor G, he was indeed a very pious man but the Chu...Poor G, he was indeed a very pious man but the Church still believed that time that the earth is flat...<br /><br />These two science and religion could live together, but religion only opposes and combats science when it already run against its teachings whatever religion it may be. For the catholic church however, there are three sources of its beliefs: scriptures, tradition and the magisterium. And when science goes against these three, then there will be more Galileo failing from the line of sainthood.elmothttp://www.pinoysoundingboard.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-4943133382775177282009-10-04T19:00:39.687+08:002009-10-04T19:00:39.687+08:00Theists can find absolutely no consolation in Eins...Theists can find absolutely no consolation in Einstein, at least those familiar with his original writings on "God". However, mathematicians agree with the "theology" of Einstein, and so do I, but I can assure you that Einstein was a compleat, if quite diplomatic atheist.<br /><br />Now of course the RCC is "the most Darwin-friendly" religion around--but that is only because they are not fools who would question Medicine or Physics or Aerodynamic Engineering in favor of miraculous cures, suspended laws of nature or the flight of angels. <br /><br />But the obverse is not necessary: Science does not have to respect "Religion" for there is a multiplicity of religion, all with separate and indeed exclusive magisteria (or so they claim). Science--while divers, contentious, and literally always ultimately wrong--is self-correcting, self-checking, not at all defensive about "not knowing" the answers and the explanations. This is very different than Religion. Any religion. In that, Science has an integrity that Religion does not have.Deany Bocobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-7874798479144425232009-10-04T18:52:53.906+08:002009-10-04T18:52:53.906+08:00Blackshama,
The basic position you are presenting ...Blackshama,<br />The basic position you are presenting is a variant of the "Separate Magisteria" idea. But when you say Science can answer the "Why" but not the "Why us?" question, I am puzzled. It is actually easy for Science to explain to the residents of Provident Village WHY THEM in terms of the points raised by the good Mr. Palafox whose research into Frost's urban planning of Manila contains much of the answer to why them.<br /><br />As to the suggestion that GG be made a saint as a first gesture that the RCC "has the stomach for it" I think that is a brilliant suggestion, but I must remind you that I myself have already observed that there IS a patron saint in the CAtholic pantheon worthy of interceding for scientists (my own personal favorite): ST. THOMAS THE DOUBTER (whose apocryphal gospels ought to be made canonical and you would have your wished for "saint" and "scientist" --though of course Thomas' historicity becomes suddenly a scientific question.Deany Bocobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.com