Thursday, February 14, 2013

Darwin and Religion and Lent

I have noticed that while religion seeks to debunk pure evolution and natural explanations for the world we experience, it also strictly adheres to those principles even more than people who completely reject religion.

 I had a revelation yesterday. In a similar way, atheists accept that we are made from natural means and will one day die and go back to nature. Nonbelievers do not anticipate anything after death.  They embrace "dust to dust."  But ironically, the believers, thinking specifically of Catholics in this case, who believe in eternal life and the resurrection of the dead, are encouraged to go to Ash Wednesday Mass to receive their ashes.  "Dust to dust" they say.   Fooey.  They don't believe that.    They teach our bodies will rise again. Why do they push it?

And then we have Catholics preaching openness to life, which I am all for within reason.  I find it interesting that the proponents of Darwin and naturalism believe we have gotten where we are through procreating and passing on the genes, but they are willing to use contraception to not continue this "natural" process. But Catholics, who believe that we were made this special (with reason) by divine intervention, refuse to use reason and human innovation to intervene in the natural process. Richard Dawkins says all the time that he thanks natural selection that we've gotten this far, but that he doesn't think it is most likely best to continue to choose the "survival of the fittest" mentality to make choices going forward.

So who really is following the Darwinian model?  De facto - religious.  I just find it interesting.


Anonymous said...

OH pu-leeze. As a "Catholic on the Rocks" myself, I find your comments either woefully ignorant or intentionally malicious. The fact that you run to the defense of Singer makes me think the latter but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

To imply that Catholicism supports the Darwinian model of "survival of the fittest" is like equating a surgeon and an axe-murder. I mean, c'mon, they both open up the body, right? Oh wait, one encourages healing, health, the other intentionally destroys. Remind me now, is it the Catholic Church or Peter Singer who thinks children with disabilities can be justifiably murdered?

Catholicism teaches that, sexuality, both unitive and procreative, is the most intimate and Divine way we image a Triune God NOT that it is the best way to create a superior race. But I am guessing you know that. Did you just choose to misrepresent it? Oh, and that the Church "refuses to use reason and human innovation to intervene in the natural process" now I KNOW you are just trying to twist that. Or do you consider Creighton method, sympto-thermal, etc, not good enough for the categories of "reason" and "innovative." Wait, you're right, let's just use Singer as a moral compass. I mean, he would never want to objectify people using artificial means....oh wait....

As far as dust goes, Catholicism is just pointing back to Genesis 3:19: original sin, original sentence. Without God we are nothing. Repent. Believe. Your question is like asking "why is the church so dark at the Easter Vigil if Jesus is light." Um, that's kind of the point.

It doesn't seem as if you are seeking a true dialogue about faith and God's existence so much as you are trying to say how much you hate the Catholic Church. Maybe you should change your blog name to "Catholicism Sucks".

AJL said...

Wow, that was a very angry spiteful comment that assumes to know a lot about what my intentions are. Perhaps you should look inside the peace of your soul.

As far as my blog, it is literally a place I can throw out my disjointed thoughts on my personal problems and issues I have with faith, particularly the Catholic faith. I do not hate the Catholic Church, and if you took the time to read my bio you would see, I have been a strong practicing Catholic for 18 years.

I literally have had a transformation in my paradigm of the world in the past 5 months and this is my place to vent these thoughts.

You mention Singer, but there is no mention of him in this post. I mentioned him in one other post and the point was that he was HORRIBLE morally in my opinion. My question was, is this the de facto conclusion on a secular mind frame. It is a question.

I have practiced natural family planning for my 7.5 years of marriage and I have been pregnant 7 times. One was a miscarriage, and I am currently expecting. So, let's just say I am not completely confident in the natural method. Yes, could I have practiced better? Yes, but I actually got pregnant the 2nd time when I had just had a baby 2 months prior. Obviously the natural method does not work well for people who are extremely fertile as my self. This is my problem.

As far as this post, it is an irony that I genuinely see at this point between religion and Darwinian explanations for the world.

How are you a "Catholic on the Rocks?" You seem pretty gun-ho at this point.

fRED said...

AJL - I hope you are okay. Somewhat concerned since no recent entries. Hope that you are just tired from debating via blogs.

Since you have mentioned Dawkins, you might be interested in This is obviously a pro-Catholic blog but I thought the muslim angle was interesting. The comments appear to deteriorate into a slinging match (as expected). Overall, the American Catholic blog typically tends to be conservative across the board but not stupid/ignorant.

You also might find "Deism vs Atheism and Christianity" (at be worth your time-if that is possible with 5 children.


Anonymous said...

You do seem pretty mad in this one....but you know, sometimes we get mad.
It is a weird thing, because of circumstances in my own life as well, in October I decided that perhaps I was a "natural law" theist....I mean, does God really give a rats ass about my life here on this earth?!?! I am an exhausted, over educated mom who is just trying to do better than what I had...
It is exhausting.
I will also admit that this stream of thought has hit me for almost a year now....
But I didn't make the jump.
Atheism seems too illogical to me.
I guess you could say I took Pascals Wager....
Hugs to you fellow wanderer!

AJL said...

fRED, Thanks for being concerned for me... I am fine. Just busy with life and I promised myself that I wouldn't become fanatical about being a frustrated ex-Catholic. My primary purpose with giving up the faith was to become a happier/healthier person.

To the tired momma,
I hear you. You should look into some resources on how rational pascal's wager really is. I was living on the fence of giving up faith for about 4 years. Just holding on for dear life.

Peace to you!