ForumsWEPRAsk a Catholic

57 808
saint_of_gaming
offline
saint_of_gaming
592 posts
Shepherd

I would love challenging questions about my faith if anyone is still here.

  • 57 Replies
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,259 posts
Regent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_in_Switzerland

"The 26 cantons that make up Switzerland set their public holidays independently[...]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_holidays_in_Switzerland

Re: birthrates
This whole rant is very oversimplified, but... There is in general an inverse relationship between income and birthrates. The global North has vastly profited from the global South through colonialism, slave trade etc., leaving it in many places impoverished and destabilized. This goes on to this day under a different form, through neocolonialism and "Western" interference, puppet governments, and economic exploitation. And now that some try to flee north and get a new beginning, fascism rears its ugly head again in Europe and America and instigates hate against them so that we may continue to be the only ones who profit from this parasitic situation.

I don't see how extraterrestrial settlement would solve any of this, on the contrary. Think of this: who will be going to those new shiny colonies in space? I predict this would only serve to exacerbate those issues, not solve them. A bit like the movie Elysium, but in real life (insert any other sci-fi/dystopian book/movie/etc. that comes to mind). Given our current situation this is where we would be headed. Leave the exploited labour swimming in the toxic industrial waste while Musk is building his private holiday resort on Mars.

Re: climate change and greenhouse gases
Basically the same thing as above, but also this: to do this, we would have to be able to capture all those greenhouse gases first, and A) we currently can't*, B) transporting them through space would be incredibly wasteful and impractical, C) if we could capture enough of those gases to make an impact, there would literally be no need to send them away since we could then use them for other things, and D) even that doesn't solve the problem. The problem are the emissions we're producing, and capturing atmospheric greenhouse gases without cutting emissions is a fool's errand. Space colonies won't solve anything; the problem is here on Earth, so we have to solve it here. And we have the means to do just that. We even have the means to provide enough food and shelter for every single human being on this planet. The reason we don't, is because it's not profitable. Poverty, inequality, pollution; it's a feature, not a bug. It exists because it's profitable to some, and those have enough power and influence on the political spheres to guarantee their interests. It sounds bleak, but that's how it's been for a while now. Luckily we can change this, we just need enough people to start developing a political conscience and act. And I'm saying this as someone who's been politically uninterested for most of my life

*The only way that currently seems to show some promise is capturing emissions right at the plant/factory where they're generated. This can limit our emissions, but does nothing for all the gases that are already in the atmosphere. Those fanciful hyped-up "carbon capture" turbines are, as far as I know, currently utterly useless. Like trying to dry out a lake with a spoon, only you're sweating more water than you're taking out in the process.
Solas128
offline
Solas128
144 posts
Scribe

ok

saint_of_gaming
offline
saint_of_gaming
592 posts
Shepherd

I didn't mean it as an anti-immigrant rant; I meant it as a summary of the present political situation. Catholics tend to assume that only a growth birthrate can be obedient to God/holy; hence, the interest in extra-terrestrial human settlement.

saint_of_gaming
offline
saint_of_gaming
592 posts
Shepherd

Also, if overall human population growth is inevitable it would be an empirically observable way of determining whether the Catholic faith is real or not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File:World_Population_Prospects.svg

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,259 posts
Regent

Population growth is not inevitable. And the Catholic faith is real, but probably you meant the object of that faith. Even if it was inevitable that wouldn't prove anything. There is no inherent link between population dynamics and the existence of a particular deity.

I didn't mean it as an anti-immigrant rant; I meant it as a summary of the present political situation.

Sure, I wasn't accusing you of anything, just presenting my perspective of that situation.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,259 posts
Regent

Catholics tend to assume that only a growth birthrate can be obedient to God/holy;

Why is that, anyway? And you say "tend to assume", so is it more of a loose interpretation?

Also, if space was the answer, wouldn't your God have provided for more habitable planets? Or with a planet/world actually fit for continuous growth?
saint_of_gaming
offline
saint_of_gaming
592 posts
Shepherd

True it wouldn't prove anything but it would empirically suggest it (like rubies, emeralds, sapphires and diamonds tends to empirically suggest the existence of the Trinity for instance). I'm trying to ask the hardest questions possible so I might have more to reply later. In medieval times most children tended to die of disease and the population was very minuscule, so there was plenty of room to grow for the time being at least; consequently, many people (including the Church) usually thought of anything less than the maximal possible birthrate as unnatural. When I said "tend to assume" in a Catholic sense I was speaking of the massive confusion wrought by the traditional vs. Francis split in the Church, which is going on right now. With regard to you're last questions, that is the whole circumstantial cause of this discussion.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,259 posts
Regent

Sounds to me like you answered your own question, at least in part. It wouldn't be the first time the church had to readapt its teaching to keep up with society and further knowledge. So why would they still place such value in maximal birthrates, now that we know that our world and resources are not unlimited? Population dynamics are not fixed, so we can adapt.

I don't know what the trinity has to do with gemstones, but ascribing value to an object does not make that empirical evidence for your belief; that sounds like circular reasoning. Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. In this particular example, what information would you observe/acquire and how?

saint_of_gaming
offline
saint_of_gaming
592 posts
Shepherd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemstone
" In modern use, the precious stones are emerald, ruby, sapphire and diamond, with all other gemstones being semi-precious."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemology
"but ascribing value to an object does not make that empirical evidence for your belief; that sounds like circular reasoning."
Wouldn't that make the scientific method circular reasoning then?

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,259 posts
Regent

Wouldn't that make the scientific method circular reasoning then?

No, because the scientific method is about observing and describing, not ascribing value. Value is subjective, science strives to be objective (though throughout its history, plenty of people have abused sciencey language and arguments to justify fallacious opinions).

But maybe I'm misunderstanding your point again. Still, nothing about gemstones has any link to the trinity, so I remain confused.
saint_of_gaming
offline
saint_of_gaming
592 posts
Shepherd

Would you say that classifying gemstones as major/minor as objective or not? If you answer this yes, then I was not ascribing value in the sense of a currency. Ruby, emerald, sapphire, and diamond seemed to suggest Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and God to me. Although perhaps I was leaping to the conclusion that classifying gemstones as major/minor was objective to begin with.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,259 posts
Regent

Ruby, emerald, sapphire, and diamond seemed to suggest Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and God to me.

This is what I meant. It's your subjective interpretation. I don't have a problem with it, just to be clear; all I'm saying is that this is not empirical evidence.

And no, it doesn't look like the distinction is objective. In the end any kind of classification is somewhat arbitrary, even scientific ones; however, 'precious' and 'semi-precious' appear to be defined in part based on rarity and 'beauty', which are relative and not inherent to the stones themselves.
Showing 46-57 of 57