The Adult Atheist Thread

[left]like Thomas Aquinas. He is often times quoted only because of his 5 ways in proving God's existence. Anyone interested in a very systematic metaphysics should read his work.

True enough. When I was younger, maybe 15 16, a Bible scholar priest talked about the Genesis, and told that us that it wasn't to be understood literally. He even argued, and I believe as well as other priests, that Evolution can be true but still not outside creation. Evolution after creation. He also emphasized that the book of Genesis is not a myth, but rather a symbolical story of what happened and is happening to the world. It doesn't really account for the literal creation of the world.

That priest was mostly right: the story should not be read literally, and the Genesis story should in no way be taken as a contradiction of science, namely evolutionary science.

However, his argument about Genesis not being a myth is interesting. Isn't a myth, by at least one of it's meanings, "a symbolical story of what happened and is happening to the world".

Myth is sometimes used to mean 'a belief or story that is not true'. But this is not the only use, and this definition is also more modern than the others. The older English definition is something like 'a traditional story which explains or justifies a spiritual practice'.

Genesis is most certainly a myth: one of the most widely read myths in the world.

Sorry, just thought I'd chip in to this bit. It's best to find an article or piece that summarises Aquinas' work instead of tracking down the original. The fellow chooses to right in the form of a prayer, which doesn't make for a very enjoyable read. Still, carry on.

I'm sorry, but maybe you are suggesting Augustine. In case you are so sure its Aquinas, well, I have lectures of his Metaphysics, Theodicy, and cosmology.

I am indeed mistaken, it was Anselm that was the intended target. My apologies, the two have similar names in my mind, and the two articles are right next to each other in the textbook. It's probably wrong to generalise such a thing and, once again, sorry. Aquinas' writings in the Summa Theoligica are seemingly some of the more coherent of the writings from that time, though those prayers may have to be looked into now.

I'm just bothered by people who ultimately explain all things through science.

Moral law for me is transcendental and absolute. I'm just bothered by people who ultimately explain all things through science.

That first statement might have much to do with the second. If you take a stance 'X is absolute', you'll never be satisfied with any point of view that tends to contradict that view. This is not an issue of the limitations of science; this is a limitation of your philosophy: you have already decided you know, without proof or perhaps even evidence, some fundamental truth. Where can you go from there but to protest against those who are more sceptical? I'm not surprised such people bother you; they bother everyone who claims to know without reason some absolute truth - that's why there's so many threads on this forum by annoyed theists reasserting their absolutes.

What I'm trying to say that we are not only animals that run the course of nature ONLY through instincts, there also moral issues that are not to be understood purely in a mechanistic way.

How come it isn't not a limitation of science? Science is for the observable. I understand and respect that science is the tool for exploring the natural world and the observable. But then a human being isn't ultimately and solely grounded by scientific precepts. What I'm trying to say that we are not only animals that run the course of nature ONLY through instincts, there also moral issues that are not to be understood purely in a mechanistic way. God or no-God is not the issue. I'm not even saying science is inadequate, it's just not its domain.