The Mighty Thor said:
jmercer,
From a Roman Catholic standpoint are you not required to believe in the Garden of Eden story? Without the concept of Original Sin, the whole edifice of Catholicism collapses.
How do you feel about the Adam and Eve story?
I'm not sure that the whole edifice of Catholicism collapses if we don't take the Garden of Eden story literally, although it would if Original Sin were eliminated. My personal view is that I don't think the story is supposed to be taken literally - I believe it's a parable that indicates that mankind violated God's trust at some point, and therefore is no longer automatically granted a state of grace upon birth. I'm not happy about this perspective - I'd prefer something more clear-cut and concise. However, the whole Genesis book was written (or edited) by Moses, and so I really have trouble accepting it as literal fact.
(I find it amusing that fundamentalists
do take Genesis - a book written by a Pagan-turned-Jew - as the literal basis for creation.
Even the Catholic Church has stated that evolution is compatible with the existence of a Creator... which clearly indicates that the RCC doesn't take Genesis literally, either. Then again, the RCC isn't a fundamentalist organization, which is why so many fundamentalists hate it.)
The Mighty Thor said:
You seem to be a very "liberal" Catholic. When, for example, was the doctrine of Transubstantiation revoked? I don't remember ever having heard this. Indeed, I thought it was central to Roman Catholic doctrine.
Yep, I'm very liberal. I was brought up in a neutral household - my father was a lapsed Protestant, and my mother is a lapsed Jew. The neighborhood was predominately Methodist, which is a very relaxed form of Christianity, and the people who lived behind me were Shintoists. I didn't get into religion until my mid-teens, although I was intellectually curious about it prior to that, and did some research on it. Of course, I was also curious about the occult and read up on that, too. I really held no particular beliefs concerning God either way until later in life.
To answer your question - Transubstantion wasn't revoked, it's now taught that the change is spiritual, and not physical in nature.
The Mighty Thor said:
On the SETI question.
We cannot prove that ET's don't exist somewhere in the vast universe. But that statement is a far cry from saying:
ET's might exist. (fact) -- but here is the leap of faith --
Therefore we should live our lives according to arbitrary codes and rules laid down by those who believe in ET's and who say they have had personal experience that convinces them that ET's play an active, intercessionary role in human affairs, yet who can provide no valid evidence to support this.
If you are sceptical of ET's visiting this planet and interfering in human affairs, then you should be sceptical about the Christian God (and all gods) for the very same reasons.
I understand your point, but that's not an answer to the original premise and question. The SETI question isn't about conducting ourselves according to other's expectations, etc. It's about the validity of the logic (as stated by some posters here) regarding having a personal belief in God and being a skeptic.
Here's the crux of the question - there's no proof that ET exists out there. So any skeptic that participates, supports, or believes in the validity of SETI is actually performing an act of faith. (Interestingly enough, even if SETI participants are proven to be correct, their current activities are based on faith.
) According to the logic of some posters, believing that ET exists without proof is a violation of skepticism, and those individuals who do so are either hypocritical or shouldn't consider themselves skeptics.
Same shoe, different foot, is all. I suspect that the SETI question (as described above) provided some uneasy food for thought for a few of us. It was an absolutely brillant post, because it took the highly emotionally-charged topic of God out of the equation, and substituted an irreligious topic that's probably cherished by any number of people here who consider themselves skeptics.
The Mighty Thor said:
What you are doing is "bracketing off" your personal faith from the rational critique that sceptics normally apply to extraordinary claims. (This is understandable, but fallacious)
For example, you are using anecdotal evidence regarding Lazarus and Jesus to support the possibility of bodily resurrection, just as a spiritualist might use anecdotes about D.D. Home to support the reality of human levitation.
Actually, all I was doing was correcting the contention that only Jesus is supposed to have ever returned from the dead. I can't prove if bodily resurrection is possible or not, which is why it's a matter of faith, nor can I prove (or disprove) the validity of the bible. If I could prove or disprove any of it, it would be a matter of fact.
The Mighty Thor said:
edited to add: Thank you (and the others who have faith) for the frank debate which has remained pretty civil so far. This is a topic of immense importance. Contrary to the opinions of those sociologists like Marx and Durkheim, religion is not fading away in the modern world. It is a powerful political and social force. We should be cautious about its utility, though, and look to history to see how religion can be a divider rather than a unifier.
Someone once said that Communism and Christianity have one thing in common -- great ideas, terrible implementation. 
I utterly agree, and I thank you (and everyone else) for the frank and calm treatment in this thread. Sadly, I suspect that I've compromised my credibility with some of you here by my postings on this subject. Having said that, it would truly be hypocritical of me to conceal my viewpoint about God and pretend that it's different than it is... and I'm not by nature a deceitful person anyway.
