How Does Theology Protect Science?
The other day on Leila’s blog, Little Catholic Bubble, I made the statement, “Science is a sphere unto itself with its own methods, but it falls under the umbrella of theology.” Someone named Jennifer asked how theology pertains to the sphere of science. “I don’t see how the two relate nor how science, most notably modern science including the laws of nature, physics and chemistry, could fall under the umbrella of knowledge of things divine?”
Good question, and I promised her an answer. I would not have been able to answer that question before I studied theology. I would not have been able to answer it as a scientist. Then again, I would not have made the initial statement back then either. I forget how incredibly foreign this concept would have been to me, and this is one area I hope to devote more writing towards clarifying. I spent a great deal of time studying science, but not fully understanding my drive to seek the truth about the natural world. Studying the history of the Catholic Church and the University was like flipping on a light switch. I could finally see how theology and science fit together — united in a hierarchy.
Some Historical Facts About the University
(Gathered and paraphrased from the links to The Catholic Encyclopedia, New York: Robert Appleton Company. Digitized by New Advent.)
- Universities began in the Middle Ages (fall of the Roman Empire to mid-15th century).
- They were started by the Catholic Church, united throughout Christendom, often in cooperation with civil authority.
- The dialectical method (Aristotelian systematic logic) was applied to theological questions and developed into Scholasticism.
- All sorts of questions were examined with utmost subtlety and logical rigor.
- Doctrine and theology were cast into this systematic form most recognizable in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas (i.e. Summa Theologica).
- A school in Bologna became the first university (1088 A.D.), the new movement affected the teaching of theology, philosophy, civil and canon law.
- Bologna was famous as a school of arts and legal science; it became a center of systematic study and prestige.
- This consortium magistorum included professors of theology, law, medicine, and arts (philosophy).
- Teachers of the same subject formed smaller groups, “faculties” designating a discipline or branch of knowledge.
- The faculties were organized to deal with the sciences and the work of teaching.
- Science, back then, did not refer to the restricted meaning used today, but in the general sense of Aristotle and St. Aquinas.
- Aristotle defined science as sure and evident knowledge obtained from demonstrations.
- St. Thomas defined science as the knowledge of things from their causes.
- Thus, in the first universities, science comprised the entire curriculum of studies.
- Specialized research became the aim of university work.
- As a result, the departments of science multiplied.
- The faculty of philosophy included everything that did not belong to theology, medicine, or law.
- This is where the terms Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts, and Doctor of Philosophy came from, which are still in use today.
- The spirit was one of co-operation. The unity of faith and of hierarchical jurisdiction held the unity in the university (universitas) throughout Cristendom.
Catholic means universal, the university represented teacher and student united, disciplines united, all in a search for truth. The science of faith is called theology. If science is knowledge of things from their causes, per St. Thomas, then theology is the highest science since it is knowledge about the ultimate cause of all things, with God as its object and revelation as its principle.
Hopefully this brief history sheds light on the opening statement, “Science is a sphere unto itself with its own methods, but it falls under the umbrella of theology.” Why is this important to understand? Consider the psychological mindset of the Christian West, compared to any other mindset past or present.
The Christian Mindset
Theology, the study of doctrine derived from Divine Revelation, informed man that he was created by God, in the image and likeness of God with an intellect and a will. He was created to learn, to seek the truth, and he was able to recognize truth if it was demonstrated with certainty. He also knew from Divine Revelation that the universe was created by God with order, he expected to be able to study that order and discover it. He also knew from Divine Revelation that the universe had an absolute beginning and everything in it was moving toward an absolute end. Thus, he believed that matter and motion could be observed and measured, and that his culture and academic ability could progress. He also knew from Divine Revelation that he was made with a free will to choose to good or evil, and he knew that choosing evil led to a bad end and choosing good led to a good end. The Christian pursued virtue throughout his life, or at least he knew he ought to do so. He knew he was a social animal, a rational animal, eternally responsible for his choices.
It was under this mental landscape that universities grew in the Middle Ages, the mindset that man was made for truth and virtue. It came from theology and theology guided the other disciplines, protecting them from falsehood or vice. Consider what would happen to academic institutions if the search for truth no longer operated under the Christian mindset. What kind of strange laws would scientists conjure up in world without a beginning and end? How would scientists ever prove anything if man could not recognize truth? Science would just be some swirling quagmire of opinion.
Further, would the scientist operate with humility and honesty in facing up to the truth, wherever it led, if he had no reason to pursue virtue? Or would he artfully leave humility undefined, calling himself a humble scientist for the sake of his image? Would he fail to even recognize anything beyond him which ought to humble him? Would he deny the necessity of honesty? Would he trade sincere virtue, devoid of objective reference points, into whatever posture a hidden agenda demanded? Would not that greedy trade-off elevate the scientist to a god of his own? Is not elevating one’s self to omniscience the highest form of hubris? Is not it the worst perversion of science — to turn it into omniscience?*
It is incongruous to assume that man, lacking any belief in an ordered universe with a beginning and an end, or an intellect that could discover that order while held to virtuous standards, would have ever organized such united, massive, and excellent institutions directed toward a greater good beyond himself. Where are the atheist universities with institutional continuity throughout a rich history aiding the progress of humanity? That alone highlights the importance of theology and how it provides a protective umbrella to all scientific study, even if the word “science” today is only recognized in a truncated form of its fuller meaning. Any search for truth requires humility, honesty, and many other virtues if the search for truth is genuine — for the search, even for a physicist or chemist in a laboratory, is still a search within the universe that God created.
*From Questions on Science and Religion, Father Stanley L. Jaki, Real View Books, p. 50-51.
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Comments (231)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- How Does Theology Protect Science? | CATHOLIC FEAST | February 18, 2013
- Would There Be Science Without Christianity? : Stacy Trasancos | March 27, 2013
- Lip-Smacking Monkey Talk and Catholic Doctrine : Stacy Trasancos | April 10, 2013
Excellent!
Another way of looking at the relation is by picking up a telescope.
Some will pick it up and look through the wrong end, reducing what they see in the process. Others will pick it up correctly, look in the right end, expanding what they see.
Catholic theology allows us to see what science sees, but without the diminished returns of its often self-imposed, reductive methodologies.
“It is incongruous to assume that man, lacking any belief in an ordered universe with a beginning and an end, or an intellect that could discover that order while held to virtuous standards, would have ever organized such united, massive, and excellent institutions directed toward a greater good beyond himself. Where are the atheist universities with institutional continuity throughout a rich history aiding the progress of humanity?”
Why is this incongrous?
Why does this assume that one must believe in god to believe in an ordered universe?
Because it doesn’t follow, that’s what incongruous means.
You have “ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight.”(From Wisdom 11:21)
^^^That was always the Christian understanding of the universe. It was expected that we’d find order.
I’m not sure how the atheist just knew we’d find it, except that it is there. That still doesn’t explain where it came from or why it is there. Maybe an atheist will offer an explanation. I’ve read the arguments often given, but they still come down to one premise, and “It just happened” isn’t an argument. It’s a statement.
in·con·gru·ous
[in-kong-groo-uhs] Show IPA
adjective
1.
out of keeping or place; inappropriate; unbecoming: an incongruous effect; incongruous behavior.
2.
not harmonious in character; inconsonant; lacking harmony of parts: an incongruous mixture of architectural styles.
3.
inconsistent: actions that were incongruous with their professed principles.
Stacy, I don’t see your definition here. But why doesn’t it follow though? Why do you think that one could not come to the same conclusions without a belief in god?
“I’m not sure how the atheist just knew we’d find it, except that it is there”
Perhaps the atheist didn’t know where to find it, perhaps they just got lucky? Trial and error? Scientific study?
Like I said, incongruous.
Since you asked the same question again, see above.
“Where are the atheist universities with institutional continuity throughout a rich history aiding the progress of humanity?”
Hmmm, generally they were burned at the stake, or forbidden to hold any position of authority?
I’m not seeing any connection between science and Catholicism, other than the one you’re asserting.
The Greeks are our framework for western civilization; should we worship Zeus?
Stacy, I asked again because you didn’t answer it.
I guess it’s not just the atheist that cannot answer questions.
Mjeck,
Can you cite your sources? Civil authorities burned people at the stake, but that ended a long time ago (even though even in the US civil authorities still put people to death), and I don’t know of any atheists organizing their own universities. Probably more Christians have been martyred than atheists, even today.
There is no denying that the sciences, as disciplines, were born of Christianity. You could argue that they might have been born elsewhere for other reasons, but the historical fact is what it is. Out of the Christian mindset came science, for the reasons I mentioned in the article.
“There is no denying that the sciences, as disciplines, were born of Christianity.”
The bible isn’t a science book, so how is that possible?
Facilitated, sure …born from? …a bit of a stretch, Stacy.
Are you aware of the huge Islamic science contribution at the same time?? Didn’t they invent zero?
Where you came from, where you are, and where you are going are not the same.
“There is no denying that the sciences, as disciplines, were born of Christianity.”
Yes there is. The shortest of detours to google will turn up a wealth of pre-christian scientific institutions. Try “history of science,” a search someone who writes for a living might have been well advised to perform before posting such drivel in public, and with so little effort.
No, but like so often before, and no doubt so many times to come, you don’t mean what you say. What you mean is “There is no denying that [what I chose to call the scientific disciplines in my self-aggrandizing, personal-religion-specific sense] were born [of my personal-religion].” This is not a new tactic for religious people, just so you know.
Also, for a woman who has the temerity to devote an entire blog post to “schooling an atheist on grammar,” as if you win internet points by beating one man at syntax (it’s almost as if religious people labor under an inferiority complex, I wonder why?), this is a pretty bold statement: “Because it doesn’t follow, that’s what incongruous means.”
Here, I’ll fix it for you; “Because it doesn’t follow, that’s what incongruous means [when you talk to a religious fundamentalist. You see, when you argue with me, words mean what I want them to mean, even if the laziest of bloggers/readers/writers could check my assertions against the truth and find out that I am talking out both sides of my face. God made me, and he made English, therefore I am right.]”
*EDIT*
It took me three and one quarter seconds to find a bare, bare outline of how badly you misrepresent your case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science
Mjeck,
“The bible isn’t a science book, so how is that possible?”
Please reread the OP, the second part.
“Facilitated, sure …born from? …a bit of a stretch, Stacy.”
Then where was it born? I’m not talking about a list of societies where this or that invention or discovery was made, I’m talking about the sciences, as defined above, as disciplines unto themselves, as defined entities of study organized into disciplines with authorities to teach and students to learn and scholars to further the defined field. Much of the approach was taken from Aristotle’s methods, and Aristotle made a lot of progress in what they called natural philosophy. Natural philosophy became many different disciplines, but it was the Catholic Church, through her Universities, that defined and promoted these disciplines. The Catholic Church started the University, you get that part, right?
“Where you came from, where you are, and where you are going are not the same.”
I’m trying to dispel the oft repeated, hugely erroneous myth that the Catholic Church is an enemy of science.
“Please reread the OP, the second part.”
I don’t see anything on how the bible can be taken as a scientific book.
From what you’re saying, much of the Catholic Churches advances on science came from the Greeks.
If Atheist science comes from the Catholic Church science, and the Catholic Church science is taken from the Greeks, then how are the disciplines born from Christianity?
Refined, perhaps? Facilitated, perhaps?
I think you’ve over-stated your case.
Longshanks,
Wikipedia is only as good as its references, and many of those are decidedly anti-Catholic.
People go back and call things “science” that were never called such a name, and then say, “Oh look, science started then, or then, or then.” With that approach to logic, you could argue that whoever invented the wheel invented the automobile industry.
(Your snide tone is very near the line I can tolerate, and that’s all the comment policy I’ve ever had. I have no problem discriminating against people I find too rude to tolerate.)
I was hoping someone would comment on this:
This is, in fact, Catholic doctrine. Do you find anything in it objectionable or contrary to science, or any search for truth?
I guess that depends on which definition of ‘science’ we’re using, now doesn’t it?
To be fair, after one supposes a god that intervenes in the world, along with people that can accurately interpret his voice in their heads, this all comes together very neatly indeed.
“I’m trying to dispel the oft repeated, hugely erroneous myth that the Catholic Church is an enemy of science.”
And yet you do nothing more than prove that the religious tendency to “all or nothing”, “my way or the highway” attitudes that have motivated people like you since the dawn of recorded history and gave to those “erroneous myth[s],” (ie “historical fact”) is alive and well.
To be clear, I am not saying that all religious people are closed minded or enemies of science, only those who are/were compelled to fit everything into the frames of reference they bring to the table, like you.
Okay, no more snide. I would hate for you to have to delete posts that made points you didn’t know how to deal with properly.
“With that approach to logic, you could argue that whoever invented the wheel invented the automobile industry.”
That does not follow. Wait, no, that’s incongruous. Or is it non-compos-mentis? Whatever, it don’t hardly make no sense, no ma’am.
What, exactly, is your claim here? You want to say Catholic Universities started in the middle ages when universities were started by Catholics? Fine, has anyone disputed you? You want to play in your catholic dogma sandbox and quote popes and encyclicals and blah blah blah, go for it! This is your blog! I can and do have esoteric conversations about the relative strengths of steels with various crystal structures/carbon contents. No harm, no foul.
You want to build on those arcane claims, and say that the founding of the first catholic university was the foundation of science? No dice. You want to claim that the search for knowledge and truth was born in Christianity?
Well, it’s a free country.
Incidentally, I didn’t know that wikipedia was also in on the global anti-Catholic conspiracy. I, myself, am anti-Catholic perhaps more than anti-Zeus or anti-Yahweh as a recovering catholic myself, but I hope that if I had been born a Muslim or a _______ I’d be anti-Allah anti-_______ to a slightly greater extent than anything else. In any case, there’s hardly a call to be anti-Mithras in this particular milieu.
Although his birthday was the twenty fifth of December as well, odd.
Mjeck,
“I don’t see anything on how the bible can be taken as a scientific book.”
Me neither. I’m not arguing that the Bible is a science book.
“I think you’ve over-stated your case.”
I can live with that. I’ve read arguments both ways (obviously there are people who lose their breakfast over that statement), and more and more I don’t think it is an overstatement. For now, if I’ve convinced you that the Church is not an enemy of science, I’m happy.
Andre,
“I guess that depends on which definition of ‘science’ we’re using, now doesn’t it?”
Yes, very much. I’m careful to define terms I’m using. That’s why I made the distinction in the beginning and end of the article about the fuller meaning of science, and the truncated meaning.
“To be fair, after one supposes a god that intervenes in the world, along with people that can accurately interpret his voice in their heads, this all comes together very neatly indeed.”
To my understanding as a theology student, individual experience has never been a basis for the exposition of doctrine.
“Yes, very much. I’m careful to define terms I’m using. That’s why I made the distinction in the beginning and end of the article about the fuller meaning of science, and the truncated meaning.”
Look, when you’re presenting Catholic doctrine and then asking if there’s anything objectionable or contrary to science, and then defining science as born of Catholic doctrine…I don’t know what sort of response you think you’re going to get. You’ve not taken care to define terms so much as redefined terms to fit your needs. I don’t think that’s how it’s supposed to work.
“To my understanding as a theology student, individual experience has never been a basis for the exposition of doctrine.”
I’m curious as to how that statement applies to various authors of Biblical texts, and certain Catholic dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception? Are none of the books in the Bible based on divine revelation to an individual? No dogmas arising from the work of one specific individual?
In any case, individual revelations aside, my point was that once you accept an interventionist deity on faith (let’s face it, god seems to have grown tired of miracles), the rest is a cake-walk and your point that ‘Catholic-science doesn’t contradict Catholic-doctrine’ is something I can nod my head up & down to quite easily.
Longshanks,
“And yet you do nothing more than prove that the religious tendency to “all or nothing”, “my way or the highway” attitudes…”
…says the (presumably) man who continues to comment on my blog.
“To be clear, I am not saying that all religious people are closed minded or enemies of science, only those who are/were compelled to fit everything into the frames of reference they bring to the table, like you.”
And you’ve back-and-forthed with me for how long? I answered a question, and provided references, and offered the reasoning behind it. If you don’t accept it, I promise I won’t jump through your computer screen and shake you until you do.
It would help if you read my “About Me” page. I’m a theology student, a former scientist who wasn’t religious for most of her adult life, and, mostly, a mommy tucked away in my happy home with kids climbing the walls. I actually enjoy discussions with people who do not think the way I do now. Heck, I change my mind about some things almost daily; other things I’m pretty stubborn about.
Longshanks,
“Whatever, it don’t hardly make no sense, no ma’am.”
I know, which is the point I was demonstrating.
“What, exactly, is your claim here? You want to say Catholic Universities started in the middle ages when universities were started by Catholics?”
No, I said that the Catholic Church started the University.
“You want to build on those arcane claims, and say that the founding of the first catholic university was the foundation of science? No dice.”
No dice is not a rebuttal.
“You want to claim that the search for knowledge and truth was born in Christianity?”
I made no such claim.
“Although his birthday was the twenty fifth of December as well, odd.”
I consider unhinged changes of subject an admission of defeat.
“I consider unhinged changes of subject an admission of defeat.”
This is my new favorite phrase. Thank you, Stacy! I never realized my life could be boiled down to one sentence.
“Yes, very much. I’m careful to define term I’m using. That’s why I made the distinction in the beginning and end of the article about the fuller meaning of science, and the truncated meaning.”
Look, I hate to be a stickler, and I must away to bed, but I’m not sure that I saw you carefully define anything at the start or finish of your post.
From the start: “Studying the history of the Catholic Church and the University was like flipping on a light switch. I could finally see how theology and science fit together — united in a hierarchy.”
From the end: ” the word “science” today is only recognized in a truncated form of its fuller meaning. Any search for truth requires humility, honesty, and many other virtues if the search for truth is genuine — for the search, even for a physicist or chemist in a laboratory, is still a search within the universe that God created.”
So, as far as I can tell, you’re trying to say that “science” as I seem to be using it, is a “truncated” form of the ideal you posited at the beginning, a united hierarchy of science and theology. You’re saying that my science is the same as your ending science, just excised from its previous position inside a hierarchy with theology, right?
But you said that it started with Aristotle. You said it was unified in the 12th century. Maybe my science isn’t truncated, maybe yours in concatenated.
If an atheist says “It just happened,” that is the same as a theist saying “God did it.” It’s true that there is no argument in either statement, and no explanation of how things happened. We don’t yet know where everything came from, and we will never know all the answers, but we know where to look.
The universe has a particular order to it. If you add the statement “therefore God must be the author of that order,” you have not added any useful information. Did a god create the universe, or did it just pop into existence? Either seems very unlikely, yet here we are.
“Wikipedia is only as good as its references, and many of those are decidedly anti-Catholic.”
Uh, what?
“I consider unhinged changes of subject an admission of defeat.”
Oh. Seems fair.
—-
“I know, which is the point I was demonstrating.”
No, no. I wasn’t pointing out that your ridiculous statement was ridiculous. Look, there’s a great deal that I don’t know, but I try not to use tautologies in my arguments. Yes, your conclusion taken alone is nonsense, as you intended, I was taking issue with your premise “People go back and call things “science” that were never called such a name, and then say, “Oh look, science started then, or then, or then.”
My science started before your jesus was born. In all likelihood we’ve been doing it since the dawn of our species. I even consider religions a shallow form of science.
Bearing that in mind, you say:
“There is no denying that the sciences, as disciplines, were born of Christianity.”
Then I say:
“You want to claim that the search for knowledge and truth was born in Christianity?”
Then you say:
“I made no such claim.”
You play these word games, and yet you object to my “no dice” as not being a rhetorically rigorous enough device for your liking? You have some shifty standards ma’am.
In any case, at least we’ve gone from the sandy-foundation-ed “science was born in Catholic Universities” position to the clay-bottomed “the Church is not an enemy of science.” While your church (the history of which is worthy of a study much longer than I have had the opportunity to give) has fractured and evolved throughout time, and its members have had myriad points of view, to my mind this seems, at best, a tenuously defensible position.
Steven,
“If an atheist says “It just happened,” that is the same as a theist saying “God did it.””
Totally agree. That was one thing I really appreciated about Catholic teaching when I converted and started reading Catholic documents — I was clearly not being asked to accept such anything without explanation.
“The universe has a particular order to it. If you add the statement “therefore God must be the author of that order,” you have not added any useful information.”
Again, totally agree. I had studied the order in the universe at the smallest scales of time and size, and marveled at how there was order even there, order so reliable I could design experiments and predict their outcome at the nano and femto scales. I wasn’t even actually observing the events either, I was observing the predictable effects those events on other realms of order (spectroscopy).
Then I read that verse in Wisdom about how God has “ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight.” (Wisdom 11:21) That passage was written over 2,000 years ago. Blew me away!
The Church doesn’t say “We discovered order and therefore God did it.” The Church reasoned that there was order long before we discovered it in the physical world, and that prediction has proven true at the most minute and grandest scales of nature. In the laboratory, the ability to predict something accurately meant something, so it resonated with me.
“Did a god create the universe, or did it just pop into existence? Either seems very unlikely, yet here we are.”
Well, if God created it then there’s an explanation for our ability to reason; it came from Reason Itself. If our ability to reason just sprang from some primordial soup of irrationality, I’m not sure how anyone would explain that without resorting to “It just happened.”
” if God created it then there’s an explanation for our ability to reason; it came from Reason Itself.”
Stacy, I was with you up until that last paragraph. That is an interesting statement, mythologically speaking. The story goes that God created mankind in his own image and likeness. It is a memorable story, sounds great over the campfire, explains nothing. If we can reason because we were created by God, who is Reason, then demonstrate, with evidence other than pure logic, what “created” and “God” and “Reason” mean. Your explanation is just playing with words.
Our ability to reason did not just spring up, it developed over eons by the process of natural selection. This process can be demonstrated by the evidence of wild populations that have adapted over time to changing environments.
Steven,
I’m taking this down to the bottom so it doesn’t get lost in the comments.
Longshanks,
I didn’t want Jennifer’s answer to be about how science came from Catholic doctrine. That is a conclusion I’ve studied, read arguments for and against, from Catholics and non-Catholics, and I do find it convincing, especially when I consider the reasons why the search for truth is held in such high regard in Catholic teaching.
But, I’m not interested in convincing an atheist of this since I’m well aware that such a statement enters no-no-land.
I am satisfied if you read what I wrote and are led to consider that perhaps the Church is not an enemy of science after all, and never was.
Those are grounds for better discussion. So much of Catholicism is misunderstood by people who have never studied the teaching. It’s kind of like when people reject evolution without having ever studied it.
As for the search for truth, if you read the last half of the article again, you will see that Catholic teaching holds that the search for truth is as old as the existence of rational beings. We were made for it. The search didn’t begin when the University began, the University was the result of that search, to continue to further it.
I just finished an online conversation with an atheist about the same subject. Interesting to then read this one.
There always seems to be the same objections. The Catholic Church cannot possibly be responsible for the improvement in scientific method and thought – JUST BECAUSE.
The surge of scientific activity in the 16th century is a result of Christian scholasticism for several centuries, in Europe alone.
There is a vested interest in claiming that anything that came before was just useless empiricism, until a candle was lit in the secular brain and it became “enlightened”. After that point “science” took over and man became:
Free
free at last
free oh boy
I’m free
Whoooooooooopie
Free of religion.
“There always seems to be the same objections. The Catholic Church cannot possibly be responsible for the improvement in scientific method and thought – JUST BECAUSE.”
This is a great recasting of what’s happening here. Stacy is making some pretty fantastic claims about where science originated, there’s some push-back, and now it’s: The Church did nothing. Yeah, that’s what’s being said here.
“The surge of scientific activity in the 16th century is a result of Christian scholasticism for several centuries, in Europe alone.”
I’m curious how much thought you’ve given to correlation v causation here.
“There is a vested interest in claiming that anything that came before was just useless empiricism…”
What an odd thing to say when many have been pointing out the pre-Christian contributions to science, and so few have mentioned the enlightenment. While we’re on the topic of vested interests, I don’t suppose there were any tangential benefits to the Church having a virtual monopoly on higher-ed in Europe for all those years…nah.
Howard,
What? You mean you were discussing with someone who thought science was omniscience?
Andre,
“Look, when you’re presenting Catholic doctrine and then asking if there’s anything objectionable or contrary to science, and then defining science as born of Catholic doctrine…I don’t know what sort of response you think you’re going to get.”
As I’ve repeated, forget the part about science being born from Catholicism. I don’t want to focus on that, I don’t expect any atheist to seriously consider it. I’m not conceding the point (I’m still studying it myself), I’m just smart enough to know when to drop something because it is not conducive to dialogue.
So, I only asked you (or someone) to comment on this, on the actual content of it:
Is there anything objectionable to man believing he has an intellect and will?
Is there anything objectionable to man believing he is able to recognize truth if it is demonstrated with certainty?
Is there anything objectionable to man believing that the universe is ordered, and that he can discover that order?
Is there anything objectionable to man believing that the universe has a beginning and end, and that he can observe matter and motion, and progress his culture and academic ability.
Is there anything objectionable to man believing that he can choose to do good instead of evil, pursue virtue his whole life, and realize he is a social animal, a rational animal, eternally responsible for his choices?
Could someone please address that objectively?
—–
“You’ve not taken care to define terms so much as redefined terms to fit your needs. I don’t think that’s how it’s supposed to work.”
I hate it when people do this. If I have done that, please quote me and give me the opportunity to clarify then.
Andre,
“I’m curious as to how that statement applies to various authors of Biblical texts, and certain Catholic dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception? Are none of the books in the Bible based on divine revelation to an individual? No dogmas arising from the work of one specific individual?”
I am two courses away from completing a MA degree in Dogmatic Theology, so FWIW, I’ve studied this quite a bit because it fascinates me. I see the parallels with science.
Your question, to me, is like someone asking me if the author of a science book is singly responsible for everything that led up to it and everything that was interpreted as a result of it. It is like asking me if Antoine Lavoisier is the only individual who discovered acids and bases. It is like asking me if scientific laws arose from the work of one specific individual.
That just reveals a profound ignorance of how objective truth is discovered and communicated. Even if one person discovers something or first articulates something others have also discovered, that articulation is subject to the approval and agreement of other scholars. Discoveries are made based on work that came before the discoverer, and the discovery is built upon by discoverers who come after.
As I said, individual experience has never been a basis for the exposition of doctrine. Individual experience has also never been a basis for the exposition of scientific law either. There must be agreement by many, and it must be based on objective truth, not opinion that cannot be proven or demonstrated.
“In any case, individual revelations aside, my point was that once you accept an interventionist deity on faith (let’s face it, god seems to have grown tired of miracles), the rest is a cake-walk and your point that ‘Catholic-science doesn’t contradict Catholic-doctrine’ is something I can nod my head up & down to quite easily.”
Could you please define God? I find this a real tripping point in discussions with atheists. They make up a definition with obvious logical flaws, and slay it — a strawgod, if you will — when really the actual definition given by Christianity is never touched. What do you mean by “interventionist deity” in your own words?
And one last thing: Before you you relegate “Catholic science” to a corner unassociated with any other science, could you please explain how each individual in this list has nothing to do with the anything outside of Catholic teaching?
http://www.acceptingabundance.com/list-of-catholic-mathematicians-and-scientists/
Thank you! Look forward to your explanation.
“That just reveals a profound ignorance of how objective truth is discovered and communicated.”
I know, I’m still trying to wrap my head around the mechanics of divine revelation. I promise you it’s not an easy task from the outside. My profound ignorance has me wondering whether god selects one individual to kick-off his revelation, or if he speaks to several people simultaneously so as to lessen the awkwardness of being the first/only guy in the room to say, “guess what god just told me.”
“As I said, individual experience has never been a basis for the exposition of doctrine.”
So, Moses did not write the Torah? Got it. Authors of the Gospels not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Got it.
“What do you mean by “interventionist deity” in your own words?”
I mean the opposite of the ‘divine watchmaker’, who would create the universe(s) and the laws underpinning them, and then step away. Theistic god v deistic god. I find it harder to believe that a god that cared would sit back for tens of thousands of years of human history, only to choose an illiterate desert tribe to start spreading his message, and that I happened to be lucky enough to be born into the fraction of the world’s population that got the true version of that message. That’s a harder pill to swallow than the idea that maybe there was something behind Le Grand Kaboom.
“And one last thing: Before you you relegate “Catholic science” to a corner unassociated with any other science, could you please explain how each individual in this list has nothing to do with the anything outside of Catholic teaching?”
As I told Howard, this isn’t what I’m saying. I don’t think anybody is saying the Church, much less individuals who happened to be Catholic, contributed nothing to science over the years. I think you’re just seeing the reaction of a bunch of people spitting their coffee on their monitors upon reading that the Church gave us science (I know, I know, you’ve walked that back…I’m just telling you why we’re arguing).
Longshanks,
“…I must away to bed, but I’m not sure that I saw you carefully define anything at the start or finish of your post.”
I know you were tired, but I hope you take another look when you’ve rested.
Please notice the definitions given from Aristotle and St. Aquinas in the bullet list:
I think we both know that science today means something more truncated to most people.
Since we are defining terms, could you give me your definition of “science”? What do you think it is?
“I think we both know that science today means something more truncated to most people.”
I am not immune to the snark/arrogance bug, though you may not believe it, and I realize that even the best intentioned words can be misinterpreted. With that caveat I want to say that I’m genuinely confused as to what you mean, and what you think that I think.
To me science hasn’t changed from what I take Aristotle’s (or whoever wrote our accounts of him) usage to mean. In my own words, simply the search for truth, although I use it also in the sense of the species’ accumulated results therefrom. I don’t honestly believe that I’ve heard many (any?) scientists today who use the word “science” to mean either the search, or its currently best-know-results.
If you’re trying to say that the “true” definition of science is the pursuit-of-truth-within-the-framework-of-theology, then sure, we’re truncated. But that’s not what I, or most people I’ve heard/read, mean when we use the string ‘science’.
Steven,
“That is an interesting statement [that our ability to reason came from God, Reason Itself], mythologically speaking. The story goes that God created mankind in his own image and likeness. It is a memorable story, sounds great over the campfire, explains nothing. If we can reason because we were created by God, who is Reason, then demonstrate, with evidence other than pure logic, what “created” and “God” and “Reason” mean. Your explanation is just playing with words.”
Actually not, unless you consider pure logic to be playing with words. With mathematical precision Aristotle, Plato, and others, then St. Aquinas, and many others, have formed and articulated the logical constructs for the proofs of God.
You seem to be unaware of those.
They begin with a consideration of the natural world and what we observe. They progress beyond observation to contingent causes and existence. If you were familiar with the cosmological argument, you wouldn’t ask “what created God.” That’s like asking what created the thing that was necessarily uncreated.
To borrow from Professor Edward Feser, what you did is akin to someone attacking Darwin’s claim that the origin of humans came from a monkey giving birth to a human, when anyone who knows anything about Darwin’s claims knows that Darwin never claimed such a thing. It’s either intentionally an attempt to mislead readers through a rhetorical devise, or it’s claimed in sincere ignorance of the facts. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do not really know what they argued as proofs of God’s existence.
(Specifically see #2) http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html
“Our ability to reason did not just spring up, it developed over eons by the process of natural selection. This process can be demonstrated by the evidence of wild populations that have adapted over time to changing environments.”
In other words, “It just happened.”
(FTR, I am unsure of evolution. I accept that living things evolve, we can observe that. But the metaphysical claim you just made is a mental image in the mind’s eye. It is not something anyone ever observed or predicted, tested or demonstrated. There is a huge leap that must be made from “wild populations adapting” to “reason sprang from irrational matter”. I’m not comfortable with the magic wand waving that is necessary to get from point A to point B. It goes against my scientific training because it isn’t science; it’s metaphysics. See the last three paragraphs of my article.)
Andre,
I meant to show you this.
You asked about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
It was defined in a papal document by Pope Pius IX, but the document contains exhaustive citation of Tradition and Scripture, agreement of Church Fathers, current bishops, and theologians. It is not in contradiction with any previous council declaration. He could not have just made up some personal opinion and declared it truth. Popes cannot do that, he can only define what is agreed upon as truth, and it takes a long time to get there.
You don’t have to read the whole thing, just scan the subtitles and you’ll see what I mean.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
You also made some parenthetical comment about miracles not happening anymore. Oh, the Catholic Church is full of miracles in the strict sense of the word (things that happen with no explanation in nature). They still occur.
You might enjoy this, written by a young man of 18. http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2012/01/01/miracles/
Andre,
“I know, I’m still trying to wrap my head around the mechanics of divine revelation.”
I’m sorry I threw the word “ignorant” out so flippantly. I get frustrated. I’m ignorant of a lot too, and I forget how difficult these concepts were for me. My frustration comes from the some shock I felt when I converted. I was happy about it. I was thankful for the documents available for me to read, the explanations. Finally! There were explanations and I wasn’t being asked to believe something without them.
Then I started talking/writing about it publicly, and atheists ridiculed me, dismissing arguments without even grappling with the details. They tried to pressure me into believing something without explanation much more than any Christian ever did. I was, honestly, perplexed, and got defensive. I need to think things through, I’m sometimes very slow on the uptake.
—–Anyway…
Divine Revelation is objective truth, and even if you don’t agree with that, just consider it in the same light as the laws of nature. It’s there to be discovered, but if the discovery is meaningful and real, it has to be objectively true, and not just someone’s opinion.
Doctrine it to help mankind, not imprison him – just as understanding gravity made us freer, not less free. We need to know certain things. We are free to stand under falling rocks, but is that really the wisest thing to do?
There are times when people have had private revelations, “Guess what God just told me” style. They are sometimes explored and subjected to scrutiny, but that alone would never define a doctrine any more than a single lab result would define a law of nature. It might guide us in a certain direction, but it cannot stand without scrutiny and agreement.
To give an example: People claim to see angels all the time. There are bodies of documented cases in academia. At the University of Connecticut there volumes dedicated to this as a matter of scientific study. Even still, neither doctrine of angels (angelology) or science of Out-of-Body experiences would not be based on any of those individual experiences alone.
“So, Moses did not write the Torah? Got it. Authors of the Gospels not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Got it.”
They wrote what as passed on to them. They wrote what they experienced and saw, but that was also subjected to scrutiny and interpretation. It became recognized as Divinely inspired, as true. Exegetes are still not always in agreement on the meaning put forward (the exposition). In Catholic dogma there are levels of certainty. Some dogma is certain (de fide), the lowest grades of certainty allow for theological opinion to be explored in search of agreement and discovery of the truth.
“I mean the opposite of the ‘divine watchmaker’, who would create the universe(s) and the laws underpinning them, and then step away.”
OK, I think I understand. The simple answer, which gets very complicated very quickly, is that God gave man free will. We can chose evil or good, we can chose to love God or not. It wouldn’t be real love if it was forced. Biblical history shows man choosing to reject God and the truth about how to live a good life, man chose to worship idols that could not save him, man chose to do terrible things in the name of those idols. God did not force him not to. This happens at the individual level, and at the national level.
What I’ve learned is that the Church actually sees some elements of truth in other religions, and even in pagan societies. That’s why the early Christians melded Christianity into Greek language, to communicate it to them, to take what truth they had already discovered and build on it.
“I think you’re just seeing the reaction of a bunch of people spitting their coffee on their monitors upon reading that the Church gave us science…”
OK. I shouldn’t have gone there. Monitors are expensive.
Thanks for the dialogue. Even though it may not seem like it, I really don’t care about *winning* so much as I care about understanding your perspective.
“I’m not seeing any connection between science and Catholicism, other than the one you’re asserting. The Greeks are our framework for western civilization”
“There is no denying that [what I chose to call the scientific disciplines in my self-aggrandizing, personal-religion-specific sense] were born [of my personal-religion].”
Andre, plenty of denial of the contribution of Catholicism here, and much sarcasm about and ignorance of it also.
The claims are not fantastic. If, as you say:
“the Church having a virtual monopoly on higher-ed in Europe for all those years”
And
In response to “The surge of scientific activity in the 16th century is a result of Christian scholasticism….”
You say “correlation v causation here”
It seems to me putting the two together, unless you deny the causation of university education, there is a correlation.
The larger issue is this:
The very same reasoning ability we were born with that gives us theory, which leads to experiment, then to understanding of our material world, gave us an understanding of God.
“Andre, plenty of denial of the contribution of Catholicism here, and much sarcasm about and ignorance of it also.”
I’m sorry, but pointing out that science was not born of the Church isn’t the same as saying the Church did nothing to alter the course of, or improve science.
“The claims are not fantastic. If, as you say…”
Again, referring to the Church’s historical contributions is not the same as saying that the Church birthed science.
“It seems to me putting the two together, unless you deny the causation of university education, there is a correlation.”
Let’s review: one group is claiming causation. I am not part of that group. If you want to say there’s a correlation, great. Not the same thing. Many things correlated with the increases in scientific activity, including population growth, improvements in indoor plumbing, availability of food, etc. You want to say that science and the search for truth began with Catholic universities? Good luck showing causation.
“The very same reasoning ability we were born with that gives us theory, which leads to experiment, then to understanding of our material world, gave us an understanding of God.”
I’m not sure (it’s not been revealed to me by God, so it might not be true), but this might be a text book definition of circular reasoning. We are born with God-given reason which lets us understand God. Let me tell you what this looks like from the outside: You set up a premise (God), for which there is little material evidence, that you argue backwards from (though with none of the empirical experiments you mention). You then take those conclusions and try to map them onto the material, so that any understanding gained in the material world (with actual empirical experiments) is taken as confirmation of the premise, regardless of how that understanding relates to the premise.
Stacy, I am missing the boxes to check for emails that go with these comments. Also, I didn’t get a new post email for your post.
Howard,
Woops. I am working with a tech person on the other blogs and I’ve done some upgrading here as a result. The program (plug in) delivering your emails was slowing the site way down, so I removed it. When traffic builds (a good thing) some loopy plug ins become problematic.
In the sidebar, the footer, and at the end of each article is a place to subscribe using a reader. Try that. It’s more stable.
As for subscribing to comments, yikes, I may have deleted that. I’ll check and fix it. Thank you.
Subscribe to comments fixed.
“I’m not seeing any connection between science and Catholicism.”
“isn’t the same as saying the Church did nothing..”
Andre, since you are quicker with the fingers than you are with the mind, I’ll comment on the last part of your response in hopes that someone else will see the truth in it.
“We are born with God-given reason which lets us understand God.”
Yes I mean exactly that. Only we do not start with our understanding, we have it as a result. The very same reasoning that makes sense to us in a scientific context. For example:
Aside from the account in Genesis, the details have been theorized (by a Catholic priest by the way) that creation started with a “Big Bang” as it was later called. Confirmation of this has come in physical proofs of the expansion of the universe. To REASON backwards to a singularity, which can never be proven empirically, is using the same RESONing ability that is used to prove that God exists. One of several being that a thing cannot create itself.
It is not circular when we then apply a name to the cause.
“Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word “God”.”
- St. Thomas Aquinas
“Andre, since you are quicker with the fingers than you are with the mind”
Howard, have you been talking to the girls I went to college with? No, but seriously I think you just called me dumb, at least my fingers do. Not very nice.
“It is not circular when we then apply a name to the cause.”
It must be nice to always have that escape route: It’s not _____ because God.
It even works when the blank is God. For example: Things cannot create themselves, therefor the universe couldn’t have created itself, God did, but then who created God, wait no he’s exempt from that because God…as we’ve defined him. So deep. It really blows my mind, this proof of God’s existence.
Andre,
Not dumb at all, unless the girls know you better, just not thoughtful at this time.
Howard, there’s an old saw about people in glass houses shouldn’t call each other’s pewter ware black: look it up.
“I’m sorry, but pointing out that science was not born of the Church isn’t the same as saying the Church did nothing to alter the course of, or improve science.”
Andre is here not defending Mjeck’s statement, he is defending mine. Mine was a cut-n-paste job on Stacy’s statement that science was born of Christianity.
Go ahead and put on your special reading-comprehension glasses, and we’ll go through this together. Don’t worry, I’ll wait.
All set? Let’s begin.
“There is no denying that the sciences, as disciplines, were born of Christianity.”
vs.
“There is no denying that [what I chose to call the scientific disciplines in my self-aggrandizing, personal-religion-specific sense] were born [of my personal-religion].”
Stacy says that her religion is necessary to the development of static, long lasting institutions of learning in 13th century Europe(fair enough) which contributed greatly to science for hundreds of years(fair enough) … therefore science is Christian/Catholic (monitor/coffee). QED.
No dice.
(I want to make sure here that I mention that Stacy has already graciously acknowledged the potential misunderstanding here. I’m not trying to beat a dead horse, merely respond to a commenter who is still trying to feed it grain.)
Howard, my main man, I can’t possibly explain the nature, the texture, the smell of the miasma of boring which rises from my computer’s PSU when you being basing your arguments on your magic books. Shall I start filibustering you with sections from Dune, or one of the appendices to the Silmarillion? (side note, Genesis is one of the most easily lampoonable books in your menagerie, maybe don’t rely on it too much in online debates? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/contra_list.html)
Longshanks,
I am sorry but my complaint about “denial of the contribution” carries over into your sarcasms as well. You’re self admitted use of lampoon instead of understanding and rather feeble attempts at ridicule give you away. At least you don’t resort to quoting Dawkins.
Serious thought requires more than a “No dice” proclamation. If you have anything to say, at least take a risk.
I understand that these newfangled internet fora are difficult to navigate and understand, but please oh please don’t try to pull the holier than thou card on the sarcasm/ridicule front. Your posts are visible for the public to see (you didn’t set your privacy settings correctly), and anyone who has the time and patience can peruse the record. Now, not that hypocrisy was something unexpected from a religious person, I just wanted to let you know that I know.
Also, if you read a segment where I am ridiculing you and your books, and I use a word….which literally has the definition of…”Publicly criticize (someone or something) by using ridicule or sarcasm”…how much credit do you want on your junior detective report card for calling me on my sarcasm, eh? You found me out, gasp!
I do not ridicule you merely for your belief, though if asked I would give my opinion. I ridicule you for using a book whose divinely inspired nature holds weight, infinite weight with YOU, but cuts no ice with me. I am not obliged to counter arguments based on the assumption of your religion’s veracity. Nor are you obliged to respond to me with a deep understanding of, or agreement with, Douglases Hofstader or Adams. I promise you I will not make my case by referring to any divine text(s) you have to believe in to understand my point. That’s not to say that I won’t make references to works or ideas that I don’t understand the entirety of, I do that every minute of every day, but that’s a different subject I believe.
Take a risk? Oh come on now, whose camp are we in currently? Are you commenting on my website? You may believe what you wish, but I promise that in ever single addition (perhaps of dubious value, who can say in the end?) I’ve made to the discussions here and on related sites, I’ve given my honest, deeply thought out view points (as deeply as I am able). You may object to the snark, fair enough, but I assure you that’s a two way street.
Now, you missed the earlier point entirely. (I won’t say I’m not surprised I won’t say I’m not surprised I won’t say I’m not surprised)
Won’t just read through it again? It’s necessary to spell it out for you, word by word? I thought you brought the glasses!
Okay, try #2, 3?
What follows, between the [q][/q], is an excerpt from your response above. (with numerals added by me for clarity)
[q]
1) “I’m not seeing any connection between science and Catholicism, other than the one you’re asserting. The Greeks are our framework for western civilization”
2) “There is no denying that [what I chose to call the scientific disciplines in my self-aggrandizing, personal-religion-specific sense] were born [of my personal-religion].”
Andre, plenty of denial of the contribution of Catholicism here, and much sarcasm about and ignorance of it also.
[/q]
Mjeck in #1, it must be noted, is claiming NOT TO SEE a connection, not that there isn’t one. It’s a subtle distinction, but I think worth mentioning. In any case his comment does, albeit much more gracefully and tactfully than I ever would, seem to indicate that he’s making the denial that you claim.
Andre responds to your claim: “I’m sorry, but pointing out that science was not born of the Church isn’t the same as saying the Church did nothing to alter the course of, or improve science.”
Because I don’t make that claim, never did, and the quote of me you use to support that assertion does nothing of the kind. In #2 I am simply making the point, by creatively quoting Stacy, that science does not begin in the late 1270′s in the catholic universities. You were unable to understand me, and in so doing set yourself up for a faux pas. Someone’s mind certainly lags a bit behind his fingers.
*EDIT*
I accidentally a phrase.
Your sarcasm (creatively quoting) serves to obscure your meaning.
The “Scientific method” by it’s creation and institutionalization, is a result of Church created universities in Europe going back to the 11th century or so, and is referred to as simply “Science” in modern times. The abbreviated form of science that Stacy is talking about. That “Science” that is worshiped and idealized, was indeed “Born of the Church”. It is also, by some, denied that any science existed before this time. That an undisciplined exposition of facts is all that existed.
Your obsession with Genesis is a diversion from an answer to my statement that followed. It is a knee-jerk reaction to any kind of language that is religious in nature.
@Howard
Look, no one knows better than I how often verbosity and sarcasm gets in my own way. However I really find it difficult, upon re-reading, to see how one could mistake what I have been saying from the start.
““There is no denying that the sciences, as disciplines, were born of Christianity.”
Yes there is. ”
You either misunderstood or mistook my quote:
“There is no denying that [what I chose to call the scientific disciplines in my self-aggrandizing, personal-religion-specific sense] were born [of my personal-religion].”
I meant to illustrated the problem with calling science a branch of religion, not to say that religion/religious people have contributed nothing to it. No biggie, I will not bring this up again.
“The “Scientific method” by it’s creation and institutionalization, is a result of Church created universities in Europe going back to the 11th century or so, and is referred to as simply “Science” in modern times. The abbreviated form of science that Stacy is talking about. That “Science” that is worshiped and idealized, was indeed “Born of the Church”. It is also, by some, denied that any science existed before this time. That an undisciplined exposition of facts is all that existed.”
“Some” deny and assert many things, and have done so, as far as I can tell, for as long as there have been any “somes.” I’m not sure why you brought them up.
That being said, you are wrong about the scientific method. I’m sorry to have to be the one to break it to you, but people have been doing “science” for a long time. What I mean by “science” is the definition of the word.
“sci·ence [sahy-uhns] Show IPA
noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.”
I don’t mean 12th century-catholic-university-studies, I mean “science.” I am not criticizing 12th c.c.u.s., indeed I know next to nothing about the topic, and what I do know leads me to believe they were a vital step along the way to our modern world.
But I am slightly familiar with general history, and it’s pretty well accepted that science and the scientific method go a bit further back than 11th century Christendom, indeed many consider Aristotle the “father” of science and the scientific methold, although I have no problem imagining that others unrecorded came before him.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#History — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Aristotle.27s_scientific_method– http://scientificmethod.com/sm5_smhistory.html — http://explorable.com/history-of-the-scientific-method — http://www.marshallfarrier.com/aristotle/work_method.htm — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_higher-learning_institutions — http://www.dictionary.com)
As a passing side note, Sir Francis Bacon and Sir Issac Newton, also contenders for prime scientific methodologician, were neither of them Catholic. To my certain knowledge, Aristotle wasn’t either. If, instead, you want to claim that the formal methods of Bacon and Newton were merely the “result of” the traditions passed down from 12c.c.u.s., I find it hard to disagree. Except that one must also grant everything that came before 12 c.c.u.s. which wasn’t catholic or christian.
“Your obsession with Genesis is a diversion from an answer to my statement that followed. It is a knee-jerk reaction to any kind of language that is religious in nature.”
“Aside from the account in Genesis, the details have been theorized (by a Catholic priest by the way) that creation started with a “Big Bang” as it was later called. Confirmation of this has come in physical proofs of the expansion of the universe. To REASON backwards to a singularity, which can never be proven empirically, is using the same RESONing ability that is used to prove that God exists. One of several being that a thing cannot create itself.”
I had no problem with the rest of that paragraph on it’s face, so I didn’t mention it. I try to pick my battles carefully, and not expend ammunition arguing against facts and true statements. Although if you must know, to avoid your accusation of diverting from the paragraph, I do find this sentence,
“One of several being that a thing cannot create itself.”
a bit confusing. I’m not sure what your antecedent is, perhaps something like “Reason has given us many axioms” or some such. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, just let you know that I’m paying attention to you.
Finally, I didn’t realize I was obsessed with Genesis, I also was unaware that religious language affected my proprioception, one learns much about oneself every day, if only one has the patience to listen.
“I, myself, am anti-Catholic perhaps more than…”
“My science started before your jesus was born. In all likelihood we’ve been doing it since the dawn of our species. I even consider religions a shallow form of science.”
“To me science hasn’t changed from what I take Aristotle’s (or whoever wrote our accounts of him) usage to mean.”
“There is no denying that [what I chose to call the scientific disciplines in my self-aggrandizing, personal-religion-specific sense] were born [of my personal-religion].”
Longshanks, I will be glad to answer you when you do not use sarcasm, it gains nothing.
All of the above I was greeted with. I had just come from a discussion with an atheist who argued that science did not exist before the university system was instituted. You guys need to get together.
Whatever we wish to call the search for knowledge, there was a change in the organization, method, and success after the university system was instituted.
“technical progress-sometimes considerable-was mere empiricism”
- Marc Bloch, “Feudal Society”, U of Chicago press.
“As for the intellectual achievements of Greek or Eastern philosophers, their empiricism was quite atheoretical, and their theorizing was nonempirical.”
- Rodney Stark, “The Victory of Reason”
What was lacking was combining the two. That is where the university came in.
I am not saying that I agree 100%, just that this is the predominant view of historians and at least one atheist .
Howard,
“I had just come from a discussion with an atheist who argued that science did not exist before the university system was instituted. You guys need to get together.”
You fundamentally misunderstand atheism. There’s no established doctrine for us to “get together” on.
Andre,
I endeavor to understand atheists themselves. It is doctrinal to say “there is no doctrine”, and when you all agree that the physical world is all there is, and when you dismiss arguments that logically prove the existence of a creator.
If not, all you would have to do is sit back and wait for the proper time to say, “Yes, there is a God.” Instead atheists usually try and defeat propositions by insisting that God be proven empirically.
Howard,
“you all agree that the physical world is all there is”
Actually, I think it’s more correct to say we agree that the physical world is all there is evidence for.
“If not, all you would have to do is sit back and wait for the proper time to say, “Yes, there is a God.”"
That time, for me at least, would be right around when there would be evidence for such a claim.
“you dismiss arguments that logically prove the existence of a creator”
In that those arguments seem lacking to “us”, yes they are dismissed. Also, I find it strange that you keep saying the existence of god can be proved. What of faith then? What is that for if all one needs to do is study a few paragraphs of Aquinas? Here’s a map of the world color coded by the different logical beliefs in arithmetic: http://openclipart.org/people/molumen/molumen_world_map_1.svg Now here’s one color coded by the different “logical” beliefs in a creator: http://mapcollection.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/religion-map.jpg After thousands of years of the “truth” being available, which seems more representative of how that truth should have spread?
“atheists usually try and defeat propositions by insisting that God be proven empirically”
What an unreasonable stance, given the myriad religions claiming absolute truth and knowledge of god (not to mention the penalties for non-belief in their specific brand), that somebody should have to ‘put up or shut up’.
Andre,
“…..we agree that the physical world is all there is evidence for.”
So, you agree then that all atheists share a doctrine. Part of that doctrine being, physical evidence is only evidence of the physical.
“What of faith then? What is that for ….”
Great question!
People have faith IN SOMETHING or SOMEONE. Faith does not exist by itself, that would be just acceptance without an act of the will. For a Catholic it is faith in Jesus Christ and His Church.
“…that God be proven empirically” is very unreasonable since God is not material.
Howard,
“So, you agree then that all atheists share a doctrine.”
If you want to call what follows from the idea that there’s no evidence for a god ‘doctrine’, I won’t split hairs with you. I will argue it’s a fairly brief doctrine, which makes no claims other than the first. It certainly makes no claims on things such as when science began.
““…that God be proven empirically” is very unreasonable since God is not material.”
We observe the effects of the non-material daily. Gravity, for instance.
Andre,
“It certainly makes no claims on things such as when science began.”
Very true, I just expect more uniformity. Y’all seem so….the same.
“We observe the effects of the non-material daily. Gravity, for instance.”
Do you know what gravity is? Is it non-material or the effect of material substance?
Why do you then, as a very small percent of the world’s population, not accept the fact of existence as coming from a non-material source if you ascribe gravity to it so easily?
Howard,
“Very true, I just expect more uniformity. Y’all seem so….the same.”
Now now, we were doing very well without any need for stereotyping, let’s not “go there” as the kids (used to?) say.
“Do you know what gravity is?”
Nope, I claim no special knowledge, which I why I phrased things the way I did.
“Is it non-material or the effect material substance?”
I don’t think we know yet: “The phenomenon of gravitation itself, however, is a byproduct of a more fundamental phenomenon described by general relativity, which suggests that spacetime is curved according to the presence of matter through a yet-to-be discovered mechanism.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
“Why do you then, as a very small percent of the world’s population, not accept the fact of existence as coming from a non-material source if you ascribe gravity to it so easily?”
A few things: 1) Silly to use a momentary slice of what the bulk of the world believes at one given time to make an argument on this subject. 2) It isn’t a fact until proven. 3) I don’t ascribe much to gravity, let alone easily. You seemed to say it wasn’t fair to demand empirical proof of God since he was immaterial. I’m merely pointing to gravity as an example that something being immaterial doesn’t make it empirically immeasurable or unobservable.
Andre,
Regarding uniformity. I claim no magical powers, it is just an observation from these pages and others. Anger, insistence that God cannot be what is shown logically for no reason except that it is not believed, disrespect for persons of faith. A very different atheist from years ago.
I have read about relativity over the years, it is not new to me.
You say, “I don’t think we know yet.”
“We observe the effects of the non-material daily. Gravity, for instance”
This could mean that God created gravity. It also says exactly that you know it is the result of the non-material.
Then you say that gravity is immaterial:
“…gravity as an example that something being immaterial”
Would you please clarify?
Howard,
“Regarding uniformity. I claim no magical powers, it is just an observation from these pages and others. Anger, insistence that God cannot be what is shown logically for no reason except that it is not believed, disrespect for persons of faith. A very different atheist from years ago.”
Again, a (possibly valid) stereotype. Shall I apply my stereotypes of religious people onto you?
“You say, “I don’t think we know yet.”
“We observe the effects of the non-material daily. Gravity, for instance”
This could mean that God created gravity. It also says exactly that you know it is the result of the non-material.
Then you say that gravity is immaterial:
“…gravity as an example that something being immaterial”
Would you please clarify?”
I’m sorry if I came off as certain. As a general rule, I’m not certain about anything. To the best of my knowledge, gravity *appears* to be an immaterial force. We don’t know yet exactly what it is. We can measure it / observe it to varying degrees. It therefore appears to be something immaterial which we can empirically measure (albeit through it’s effects on material).
Andre, I already am aware of the religious stereotypes, it comes up very often. It may be news to you though that the same exists about atheists.
I accept your uncertainty after reflection. But, your view did (and I suspect still) has the bias of certainty, as you noticed.
Where does that come from? I say it comes from faith in and an abnormal attachment to science as you perceive it, and a rejection of Gods existence.
Voids in human curiosity must be filled. If religion is removed from the possibility of belief by ridicule or law, then you are left with only what someone else wants you to believe.
Howard
“I already am aware of the religious stereotypes, it comes up very often. It may be news to you though that the same exists about atheists.”
It’s not news to me, no. I’m still at a loss, given my lack of stereotyping you (at least I think I didn’t), what this has to do with our conversation.
“I accept your uncertainty after reflection. But, your view did (and I suspect still) has the bias of certainty, as you noticed.”
Sorry, since we’re being clear, my uncertainty wasn’t a result of this recent reflection. The bias you think I conveyed was due to my not starting every sentence with “I can’t be certain but _____”, and you taking my pointing to the effects of gravity as being the same as being certain what gravity was.
“Where does that come from? I say it comes from faith in and an abnormal attachment to science as you perceive it, and a rejection of Gods existence.”
Again, I don’t reject Gods existence as a matter of faith. I just see no reason to believe it. As I’m sure you’ve heard, there are thousands of gods that we all, religious people included, don’t believe in. The only reason I have a label is that you “reject” one less god than I do. It might seem like a small difference, but it’s pretty key.
“Voids in human curiosity must be filled. If religion is removed from the possibility of belief by ridicule or law, then you are left with only what someone else wants you to believe.”
I like to think that I don’t start from that possibility. Hell, I started from your position, so I’ve shown a willingness to consider alternative views before. I’m curious, did you begin as an empty vessel, with your reasoning untainted by religion until you came of age, and then actively seek out the truth, comparing all the world’s religions, and settle on Catholicism? Or did you start off believing what your parents wanted you to believe?
“…what this has to do with our conversation.”
Conversation is just exchanging thoughts and ideas.
“I don’t reject Gods existence as a matter of faith. I just see no reason to believe it. As I’m sure you’ve heard, there are thousands of gods…”
Very confusing. First you say there are thousands of gods, then you seem to be denying that any one of them exists.
I started as an unwilling church goer (not catholic) I would describe as agnostic with bouts of atheism, and then saw the truth of Catholicism when I investigated it.
Howard,
It works better with the full quote:
A: “Again, I don’t reject Gods existence as a matter of faith. I just see no reason to believe it. As I’m sure you’ve heard, there are thousands of gods that we all, religious people included, don’t believe in. The only reason I have a label is that you “reject” one less god than I do. It might seem like a small difference, but it’s pretty key.”
H: “Very confusing. First you say there are thousands of gods, then you seem to be denying that any one of them exists.”
I don’t know how to be clearer (might be my tragic flaw in life). There’s a difference between denying and not believing. There could be a Zeus, a Rah, a (fill in your favorite god). I don’t see a good reason to believe in them. I’m assuming you join me in not finding good cause to believe in most of the gods that humans have posited throughout history. Where we depart is you finding good cause to believe in one. At the moment, I don’t. That’s not the same as denying they could exist. Non-adoption is not rejection.
Andre, it does not work any better. Would you say that are there thousands of “Andres” (I don’t know you well at all, how would I describe you) or thousands of “Platos”?
Again a bias.
The assumption (or should I say the doctrine) is that God only exists in the imagination.
Howard,
“Would you say that are there thousands of “Andres””
At least, in Mexico alone.
“At least, in Mexico alone.”
Cleaver devil!
“..not finding good cause to believe in most of the gods…”
Or Andres,
Does the existence of God (or an Andre in Mexico) require a belief on your part?
Howard,
“Does the existence of God (or an Andre in Mexico) require a belief on your part?”
Not at all. I’m just highlighting, in response to your points on the percentage of religious in the world, that most of the gods that we’ve historically worshiped have fallen by the wayside. As unconvincing as many of them seem to us, they were quite real to the people worshiping them at the time. All of these gods may well have existed (or continue existing), regardless of my belief. That doesn’t change the fact that you and I agree on not believing in most gods. You’re just a tiny bit less un-believing than I am.
I tired of searching so I’m moving this to the bottom.
“the details have been theorized (by a Catholic priest by the way) that creation started with a “Big Bang” as it was later called. Confirmation of this has come in physical proofs of the expansion of the universe.”
>> There exist no physical proofs of the expansion of the universe.
The expansion is an interpretation of redshift, which has been *physically* demonstrated to be a property of many other causes besides recessionary velocity, including gravitational effects upon photons, as well as inherent properties of plasmas.
The expansion of the universe is a metaphysical assumption, not a physically, experimentally demonstrated fact.
Andre,
Have you read or studied the proofs?
That’s not what they say.
What you just described is like saying that 2+2=4 is a stupid argument because we defined “equal” to mean the sum of two addends. Definitions are necessary. That’s what logic relies on.
“Have you read or studied the proofs?”
Read? Yes. Studied? Define studied!
“That’s not what they say.”
Of course not. They were much more beautifully crafted arguments, that I’m sure represented the peak of Middle-Age understanding of the universe we inhabit. It seems, however, that they rule things like infinite regression out because they would ruin the proof, not because there’s any evidence for/against.
“What you just described is like saying that 2+2=4 is a stupid argument because we defined “equal” to mean the sum of two addends. Definitions are necessary. That’s what logic relies on.”
No, I’m pointing out that definitions relate to the reality of things. So many religious traditions rely on a specific definition of God (eg. all powerful/knowing/loving), when there’s no reason to assume such a being would have those qualities. Even if you accept Aquinas’ “proofs”, there’s nothing to show that God cares, intervenes, or is in fact good/loving. Certainly nothing to show that you’ve got the correct version of his message.
Andre,
“Define studied!”
Learned what they actually argue.
“It seems, however, that they rule things like infinite regression out because they would ruin the proof, not because there’s any evidence for/against.”
Have you seen the post/discussion on this?
http://www.acceptingabundance.com/unmoved-mover-for-unmoved-doubters/
Some atheists/agnostics were unconvinced, but no one could give an argument for infinite regression. They just said that there wasn’t enough proof for them *not* to believe it. Funny, someone who won’t believe in God will believe in the logically impossible.
Infinite regression is logically impossible, as much as 2+2=5 is logically impossible.
The proof of God doesn’t require it, but rather, it is inferred from the logic based on the definition of infinity. There’s no first in infinity. To say there is is to change the definition of infinity to finite.
—–
“No, I’m pointing out that definitions relate to the reality of things. So many religious traditions rely on a specific definition of God (eg. all powerful/knowing/loving), when there’s no reason to assume such a being would have those qualities.”
You could have just as well told me that you don’t believe in atomic structure because there’s no reason to assume such a thing would have those qualities. I shake my head and hope I’m patient enough. Your lack of understanding doesn’t represent truth. It represents the fact that you have not learned what you are arguing against. Sorry, it’s a pet peeve. I never encountered this until I converted. People argue against arguments without even bothering to learn the argument they are arguing against in the first place. It is seriously is mind-boggling. Why do people do that???
“Even if you accept Aquinas’ “proofs”, there’s nothing to show that God cares, intervenes, or is in fact good/loving. Certainly nothing to show that you’ve got the correct version of his message.”
^^^ Perfect example. Again, that sounds about as smart as saying my father doesn’t care about me when you’ve never even tried to get to know the man, and I’m sitting over here wondering how it is that you know someone I love better than I do, especially when you have not chosen to know or love him.
It almost — almost — is a form of coercion. I think that’s the word I’ve been looking for. Maybe, I’ll have to think about it.
“Even if you accept Aquinas’ “proofs”, there’s nothing to show that God cares, intervenes, or is in fact good/loving. Certainly nothing to show that you’ve got the correct version of his message.”
“It almost — almost — is a form of coercion. I think that’s the word I’ve been looking for. Maybe, I’ll have to think about it.”
I’m sure no one here disputes the fact that you love your dad. However, Aquinas’ proofs (here I refer to the 5 ways), if they are logically valid in form and use sound premises (a contention with which I disagree) arrive at the conclusion that an un-moved mover exists. This is the deist position.
I am sorry that you feel uncomfortably “coerced,” but that is the price you pay for intelligent, good faith discussion. Others will ask you to explain things to them, and in an attempt to maintain good faith and intelligent conversation you will feel obligated to do so.
But like you said, you’re not coming through my monitor to shake me, and I promise the same lack of threat to you, so you can sell your self-pity to another customer.
You built this kitchen, you bought the bread, you cut down the wood, and now you’re upset that the oven is warm? Fie.
“You could have just as well told me that you don’t believe in atomic structure because there’s no reason to assume such a thing would have those qualities.”
And you would have been able to point to experiments that demonstrate those qualities. Or pointed to a nuclear reactor.
Your premise is unfalsifiable. In the spheres of science and debate, I believe that is considered ‘weak sauce’.
We are talking past each other, but not for the same reasons. There is nothing I could show you that would change your premise that God is what you believe he is. On the other hand, I’ll believe anything you want to tell me about atomic structure, so long as it’s replicable and you’ve shown all your work.
“Your lack of understanding doesn’t represent truth. It represents the fact that you have not learned what you are arguing against. Sorry, it’s a pet peeve. I never encountered this until I converted.”
So odd that I felt almost the same way about atheists and non-Catholic religious before I gave up Catholicism. I may not have a PhD in theology, I may not have a complete understanding of every Catholic doctrine, but I’m not entirely unfamiliar with what I’m arguing against either.
“Perfect example. Again, that sounds about as smart as saying my father doesn’t care about me when you’ve never even tried to get to know the man, and I’m sitting over here wondering how it is that you know someone I love better than I do, especially when you have not chosen to know or love him.”
Really, because to me it sounds like you’re defining your dad as caring by virtue of his dad-ness. Also, again, let’s not assume what attempts I’ve made to know or love the big fella upstairs, deal?
Longshanks,
You are correct that Aquinas did not present his proofs to argue for a loving fatherly God. I presume some amount of knowledge of the subject matter, and figured that was not in question, which is why Andre’s comment threw me.
I don’t feel coerced. I said it is almost a form of coercion. I’m not sure what your motive is, but you do come across as insincere.
For instance:
“You built this kitchen, you bought the bread, you cut down the wood, and now you’re upset that the oven is warm? Fie.”
I would expect that from an adolescent trying to bully someone, but from an adult who, in the same comment, claims he is having an “intelligent, good faith discussion” it’s kind of incongruous, if you know what I mean.
(But for what it’s worth, my husband and I do bake our bread using wood he chopped down, so I appreciate the analogy.)
Really? None of my childhood bullies used analogies much, nor were many of them in the habit of using the word “fie,” but by all means keep the pity party going.
For what it’s worth, I’m unsure of YOUR motives. You at the same time mock Andre’s apparent unfamiliarity with your leap of faith claims, and then turn around and accuse him of (almost) telling you your dad doesn’t love you?
I mean, I get it, you’re a mom and a woman and FEELINGS, but that’s a bit ritch.
I thought my explicit repetition of your statement to me would clear the water.
If your reminder to me that I have nothing material to lose in this discussion, that you won’t be shaking me through my screen is legitimate, why won’t you just chill out and take the same reminder?
No one is questioning your love for your father, there’s no need to impute nefarious [intentions] to a stranger’s attempt to understand and be understood.
“I don’t feel coerced. I said it is almost a form of coercion.”
Right, that’s a clear distinction.
You don’t feel like anyone is forcing you to do something, you just feel like what they’re doing is almost forcing you.
” I’m not sure what your motive is, but you do come across as insincere.”
“I would expect that from an adolescent trying to bully someone,”
So now I’m an insincere bully. Fantastic. First, insincere about what? If you, as you say, aren’t sure of my motives — if my goal is obscure to you, what basis do you have for saying that I’m pursuing it with sincerity or not?
Secondly I’m bullying?
Well.
Perhaps, I’m not sure what the definition of bullying is, or what that means in the context of a textual argument. In any case, I hope that if/when I write down my thoughts in longform on my own site, I won’t make an appeal to psychological abuse when confronted with disagreements.
~ “that sounds about as smart as saying my father doesn’t care about me”
~ “I consider unhinged changes of subject an admission of defeat.”
*EDIT*
I accidentally a word.
“None of my childhood bullies…”
I am guessing many in number. I am deeply sorry for your recent experiences, once you get a few years away from them, time tends to heal.
When I was in the Chess Club, I avoided using strange words like that. Also getting involved in athletics seemed to help my image as well.
Stacy, has this turned into an exposition of anger related issues.
“Stacy, has this turned into an exposition of anger related issues.”
Do you think the amateur psychology / assumptions of other’s past experience is helping the situation?
As helpful as constant sarcasm and arrogance and pronouncements.
Howard, care to review your first contribution to this discussion?
Just joining in the rumpus that had already started. If you do not want to be serious, then I’ll play for a while.
Howard,
Your response is “he started it”?
I think you’ll find my responses to Stacy as being mostly serious – I’ve learned the hard way that she’s immune to my brand of humor and will sometimes take what I present in jest as something presented in earnest (my shortcoming, not hers).
From the first you’ve misunderstood the objections of the dissenters on this page. I tried to respond to you seriously until it seemed you were more interested in going the ad-hominem route.
P.S. If you have time, could you tell me about my childhood, and how to deal with all these feelings? I appreciate you in advance.
Used to being the innocent one. Hardly serious. Not the overtly casual abusive verbiage of Longshanks or the long-windedness, but zingers when you respond.
Anyone?
So, I only asked you (or someone) to comment on this, on the actual content of it:
Is there anything objectionable to man believing he has an intellect and will?
Is there anything objectionable to man believing he is able to recognize truth if it is demonstrated with certainty?
Is there anything objectionable to man believing that the universe is ordered, and that he can discover that order?
Is there anything objectionable to man believing that the universe has a beginning and end, and that he can observe matter and motion, and progress his culture and academic ability.
Is there anything objectionable to man believing that he can choose to do good instead of evil, pursue virtue his whole life, and realize he is a social animal, a rational animal, eternally responsible for his choices?
Could someone please address that objectively?
I certainly will, without rancour or ill will. I promise to use fewer big words so Howard can follow along. Don’t forget your dictionary! (http://kids.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/english)
“Theology, the study of doctrine derived from Divine Revelation, informed man that he was created by God.”
As an atheist you’ve lost me out of the starting gates. I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that you can create systems based on this premise, but I have no reason to believe in the validity of divine revelation.
None of the list you append is “objectionable”, well apart from the “end” of the universe; as far as I know we have no evidence for a coming “big squeeze.” But, seriously, aside from that I can’t take exception to any part of your list following the quotation, I simply don’t have reason to believe that divine revelation is where we get any of them.
If I were to change out “FSM” for “God”, “noodly advice” for “divine revelation,” and “pastafarian” for “Christian,” that quote would hold the exact same truth content in my estimation. I know that sounds sarcastic, but I don’t mean it to be.
I am as anti-Christian as I am anti-Muslim, I happen to be better acquainted with Catholicism, so this has been a starting point, but if you have any popular Muslim blogs you’d like to point me to I’m all ears. Or eyes. Fingers?
“As an atheist you’ve lost me out of the starting gates.”
>> An atheist has no starting gates. An atheist is incapable of accounting for the existence of the universe in the first place.
“I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that you can create systems based on this premise, but I have no reason to believe in the validity of divine revelation.”
>> It is certain that the universe did not create itself. The rest follows logically. Having established the logically certain necessity of a supernatural cause for the existence of the cosmos, all that remains is to determine what can be logically deduced as certain, concerning the attributes of that supernatural cause.
The Greeks got that far.
The Hebrews supplied an independent, if congruent, testimony in the form of a purported direct revelation from that God of the Philosophers.
All that remains is to sort through the truth claims of the various claimants to that revelation.
One ultimately encounters the Resurrection, and voila!
If that is true, then the matter is settled.
It is certainly true, by simple recourse to the reductio.
Rick,
“An atheist has no starting gates.”
Sure they do: there is no evidence for a god.
“An atheist is incapable of accounting for the existence of the universe in the first place.”
Insofar as atheism makes no other claims than there being no evidence for god, of course. I’m not sure that’s what you meant though.
“It is certain that the universe did not create itself.”
It’s probable, not certain.
“The rest follows logically. Having established the logically certain necessity of a supernatural cause for the existence of the cosmos, all that remains is to determine what can be logically deduced as certain, concerning the attributes of that supernatural cause.”
I mean, it doesn’t, since we haven’t established a lot of certainty where the beginning of the universe is concerned. Positing supernatural causes is an assumption, not a deduction.
“The Greeks got that far.”
Let’s keep assuming that the ancients would agree with you, or what they would think, if given modern knowledge of the universe.
“The Hebrews supplied an independent, if congruent, testimony in the form of a purported direct revelation from that God of the Philosophers.”
Could you show how well the Torah meshes with Greek philosophy?
“All that remains is to sort through the truth claims of the various claimants to that revelation.”
Why not start by figuring out who those claimants were / who actually authored those texts?
“One ultimately encounters the Resurrection, and voila!”
Bien sur! Mais oui! Sacre bleu! C’est evident!
“If that is true, then the matter is settled.”
Wait…
“It is certainly true, by simple recourse to the reductio.”
…was this just a parody all along? Well played, sir. Well played.
“An atheist has no starting gates.”
Sure they do: there is no evidence for a god.
>> But of course there is. The cosmos exists. It cannot have brought itself into existence. Therefore the cause of that which exists in the cosmos is ontologically prior to the cosmos, or, to be more precise, it is a *supernatural* cause.
The rest follows logically, and leads us to the “God of the Philosophers”.
“An atheist is incapable of accounting for the existence of the universe in the first place.”
Insofar as atheism makes no other claims than there being no evidence for god, of course. I’m not sure that’s what you meant though.
>> The atheist claim that there is no evidence for god is falsified, conclusively, above.
“It is certain that the universe did not create itself.”
It’s probable, not certain.
>> No. It is certain. No thing can precede its own existence, therefore o thing can bring itself into existence. This truth is not probable, but certain.
“The rest follows logically. Having established the logically certain necessity of a supernatural cause for the existence of the cosmos, all that remains is to determine what can be logically deduced as certain, concerning the attributes of that supernatural cause.”
I mean, it doesn’t, since we haven’t established a lot of certainty where the beginning of the universe is concerned. Positing supernatural causes is an assumption, not a deduction.
>> To the contrary. It is an absolutely certain deduction from an absolutely certain premise: no thing can exist prior to its own existence. One need not experiment in order to inductively affirm such a truth (even though every experiment will, of course, inductively affirm it, world without end, amen).
To deny this is to deny logic, reason, and science.
Which is exactly what is necessary for the atheist to do, as his very first principle.
Atheism is a profoundly illogical, unreasonable, and anti-scientific metaphysical world view.
“The Greeks got that far.”
Let’s keep assuming that the ancients would agree with you, or what they would think, if given modern knowledge of the universe.
>> There is no modern knowledge of the universe which allows us to do anything other than shake our heads in compassionate dismay at the degree of profound disorientation and confusion which would render a human intellect unable to affirm the simple truth that no thing can precede its own existence.
“The Hebrews supplied an independent, if congruent, testimony in the form of a purported direct revelation from that God of the Philosophers.”
Could you show how well the Torah meshes with Greek philosophy?
>> Sure. Both recognize a God Who Is One, Eternal, Omnipotent.
“All that remains is to sort through the truth claims of the various claimants to that revelation.”
Why not start by figuring out who those claimants were / who actually authored those texts?
>> Not relevant, actually. The texts exist. They report historical events. Crucially, they report the Resurrection.
As I said above, if that event occurred, then the matter is completely settled.
That event certainly occurred.
@Rick
I will reply to you more thoroughly when I get the chance, but for now:
“An atheist has no starting gates. An atheist is incapable of accounting for the existence of the universe in the first place.”
Wow, no starting gates eh? Strong words.
As for accounting for the universe’s existence; I find that, while I have a high opinion of my own powers of reason and debate, the universe seems to have done a pretty good job of existing without my having to defend it.
“It is certain that the universe did not create itself. The rest follows logically. Having established the logically certain necessity of a supernatural cause for the existence of the cosmos, all that remains is to determine what can be logically deduced as certain, concerning the attributes of that supernatural cause.
The Greeks got that far.”
Not being a scholar in the Greeks, I’ll take your word for how far they did or didn’t get in metaphysics.
Alas, I am not Greek, so I am at a loss. I don’t take your premise to be true.
“The Hebrews supplied an independent, if congruent, testimony in the form of a purported direct revelation from that God of the Philosophers.”
The Hebrews claimed direct revelation from a monotheistic god, therefore it is the “God of the Philosophers?”
“One ultimately encounters the Resurrection, and voila!”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_god
“It is certainly true, by simple recourse to the reductio.”
I don’t know what you mean by this, I looked up “recourse to the reductio,” but came up with nothing. I imagine this might be a shorthand for “reductio ad absurdum,” although I could be wrong, and yet even if it is I’m at a loss as to your meaning.
@Rick
I will reply to you more thoroughly when I get the chance, but for now:
>> OK.
“An atheist has no starting gates. An atheist is incapable of accounting for the existence of the universe in the first place.”
Wow, no starting gates eh? Strong words.
>> Yup.
As for accounting for the universe’s existence; I find that, while I have a high opinion of my own powers of reason and debate, the universe seems to have done a pretty good job of existing without my having to defend it.
>> I do not think the fact of the universe’s existence is (presently, at least) at issue. At issue is whether the atheist can logically claim that the universe might have created itself.
It cannot have created itself.
Rick earlier: “It is certain that the universe did not create itself. The rest follows logically. Having established the logically certain necessity of a supernatural cause for the existence of the cosmos, all that remains is to determine what can be logically deduced as certain, concerning the attributes of that supernatural cause.
The Greeks got that far.”
L: Not being a scholar in the Greeks, I’ll take your word for how far they did or didn’t get in metaphysics.
>> I think I have fairly summarized the matter.
“Alas, I am not Greek, so I am at a loss. I don’t take your premise to be true.”
>> The premise is certainly true; that is, it is not a matter of opinion, or dispute, but is instead a matter of certain.
The premise:
The Universe cannot have been its own cause of existence; or,
The Universe cannot have created itself; or,
The Universe cannot have existed before it began to exist.
All three formulations essentially mean the same thing.
The premise is true; that is, it is not a matter of opinion, or a matter to be established by scientific experiment, or a matter to be determined through philosophical discussion.
The premise is certainly true, since its contrary involves fatal self-contradiction.
Rick earlier: “The Hebrews supplied an independent, if congruent, testimony in the form of a purported direct revelation from that God of the Philosophers.”
L: The Hebrews claimed direct revelation from a monotheistic god, therefore it is the “God of the Philosophers?”
>> No. The Hebrews claimed direct revelation from a monotheistic God, whose attributes had been independently derived from the strictly logical investigations of the Greek philosophers.
Rick earlier: “One ultimately encounters the Resurrection, and voila!”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_god
“It is certainly true, by simple recourse to the reductio.”
L: I don’t know what you mean by this, I looked up “recourse to the reductio,” but came up with nothing. I imagine this might be a shorthand for “reductio ad absurdum,” although I could be wrong, and yet even if it is I’m at a loss as to your meaning.
>> Yes, I meant “reductio ad absurdum”. My meaning is, that it is impossible to examine the physical evidence for the Resurrection, and arrive at any contrary conclusion than that it occurred as reported in the New Testament, since any contrary interpretation of the facts will result in fatal-self contradiction.
I freely acknowledge I have not bothered to demonstrate this assertion…….yet
Is there anything objectionable to man believing he has an intellect and will?
Is there anything objectionable to man believing he is able to recognize truth if it is demonstrated with certainty?
Is there anything objectionable to man believing that the universe is ordered, and that he can discover that order?
Is there anything objectionable to man believing that the universe has a beginning and end, and that he can observe matter and motion, and progress his culture and academic ability.
Is there anything objectionable to man believing that he can choose to do good instead of evil, pursue virtue his whole life, and realize he is a social animal, a rational animal, eternally responsible for his choices?
Could someone please address that objectively?
No none of this is objectionable.
I may be wrong but I don’t think most anyone would disagree with this.
And I am not sure that most would argue against how you are defining theology.
Is there anything objectionable to not believing that only god shows us these things?
Alan,
“Is there anything objectionable to not believing that only god shows us these things?”
I can live with your belief.
Thanks for answering.
“Is there anything objectionable to man believing he has an intellect and will?”
>> Nope.
“Is there anything objectionable to man believing he is able to recognize truth if it is demonstrated with certainty?”
>> Could be. One must be prepared to demonstrate exactly how truth is known with certainty.
“Is there anything objectionable to man believing that the universe is ordered, and that he can discover that order?”
>> Nope.
“Is there anything objectionable to man believing that the universe has a beginning and end,”
>> Nope. But it would be objectionable to require this to be *merely* a belief, since it is instead a demonstrable certainty.
“and that he can observe matter and motion, and progress his culture and academic ability.”
>> Be nice to be able to define matter. Even nicer to be able to define motion. Both definitions would greatly progress culture and academics.
“Is there anything objectionable to man believing that he can choose to do good instead of evil, ”
>> Quite dangerous to believe one can make that choice, in the absence of *certainty* as to what is good and evil. See Genesis Chapter 3 for profoundly relevant details.
“pursue virtue his whole life, and realize he is a social animal, a rational animal, eternally responsible for his choices?”
>> All of this is great, provided one can define “virtue” with certainty.
““Is there anything objectionable to man believing that the universe is ordered, and that he can discover that order?”
>> Nope.”
Entropy?
“. . . unless you consider pure logic to be playing with words. With mathematical precision Aristotle, Plato, and others, then St. Aquinas, and many others, have formed and articulated the logical constructs for the proofs of God. . . . They begin with a consideration of the natural world and what we observe. They progress beyond observation to contingent causes and existence.”
That is exactly what I consider pure logic to be. Not that it can’t be fun. Those fellows are very good word players, but the “god” they proved the existence of is not one most people would recognize as God. Once you progress beyond observation, you risk veering off into strange territory. How do you know that the path of reasoning you are following reflects reality if you don’t check it against observations?
If you were familiar with the cosmological argument, you wouldn’t ask “what created God.”
I didn’t ask that. It’s irrelevant.
“In other words, “It just happened.””
Not exactly. There is a big difference between random coincidence and natural selection.
“(FTR, I am unsure of evolution. I accept that living things evolve, we can observe that. But the metaphysical claim you just made is a mental image in the mind’s eye. It is not something anyone ever observed or predicted, tested or demonstrated. There is a huge leap that must be made from “wild populations adapting” to “reason sprang from irrational matter”. I’m not comfortable with the magic wand waving that is necessary to get from point A to point B. It goes against my scientific training because it isn’t science; it’s metaphysics. See the last three paragraphs of my article.)”
I didn’t realize I was being metaphysical, I’ll have to be more careful.
We have observed “unnatural selection” at work in developing smarter breeds of working dogs, for instance, which seems to be a good model of what happens in the wild when the environment changes, putting pressure on native species.
I don’t want us to get sidetracked into a discussion of evolution. If the point of your article is that religion or theology provides a logical framework for scientific study, I can see that. But you can’t deny that the Church has thrown many roadblocks in the way of legitimate investigation, simply because it seemed to threaten established dogma.
“I didn’t realize I was being metaphysical, I’ll have to be more careful.”
>>That would make an excellent epitaph for the tombstone of Isaac Newton, he of “hypothesis non fingo”.
One might also promulgate this as an international petition, to be signed by every physicist who proposes that nothing is really something, or that space bends and curves, or that the universe is composed 99% of dark energy/matter.
Every signatory could be applauded and recognized as a true scientist again.
Every refusal could be recognized as a charlatan.
Science would be ever so much better off from the winnowing process.
“We have observed “unnatural selection” at work in developing smarter breeds of working dogs, for instance, which seems to be a good model of what happens in the wild when the environment changes, putting pressure on native species.”
>>Remarkable. So, intentional design constitutes evidence of random, non-design.
I don’t think this actually follows, does it?
It would be like saying the existence of a 747 is a good model of what happens should enough tornadoes blow through enough junkyards.
“I don’t want us to get sidetracked into a discussion of evolution. If the point of your article is that religion or theology provides a logical framework for scientific study, I can see that. But you can’t deny that the Church has thrown many roadblocks in the way of legitimate investigation, simply because it seemed to threaten established dogma.”
>>Sort of like science throws up many roadblocks in the way of legitimate investigation, simply because it seems to contradict:
1. Big Bang LCDM something-from-nothing cosmology
2. Neo-Darwinian evolution by mutation and selection?
No civilization likes having its orthodoxy questioned, Steven.
We are of course especially charming in our historical ignorance, thus allowing us to be completely sure we are different in this regard.
“Remarkable. So, intentional design constitutes evidence of random, non-design.
I don’t think this actually follows, does it?”
Rick, my point was that our selective breeding of dogs inadvertently mimics natural selection in the wild. No, this is not evidence of random non-design, it is an illustration of natural selection, which is not random at all. The traits selected in nature are the ones that survive best in that environment. If traits survived randomly, life would die out.
Space does curve, according to current theory. (Oh god, please don’t tell me it’s “just a theory”!) I know you don’t understand how that is possible, don’t worry, neither do I. I’m not a physicist or a mathematician, but I know that the concept of distorted space explains a lot about the nature of gravity. It doesn’t have to sound reasonable, it only has to work to better describe reality.
You could say that the scientific community has its orthodoxies, and they are somewhat resistant to change. Aren’t we all? But they do change. It took a while for plate tectonics to catch on, but the evidence finally became persuasive. Galileo had his struggles too, but science makes progress that way, finding better and better ways to describe reality.
“Remarkable. So, intentional design constitutes evidence of random, non-design.
I don’t think this actually follows, does it?”
Rick, my point was that our selective breeding of dogs inadvertently mimics natural selection in the wild
>>No. It doesn’t. There is nothing intentional, directional, or teleological about natural selection, we are assured.
There is something intentional, directional, teleological about selectively breeding dogs.
Can’t have it both ways (although the evolutionists continually attempt to do exactly this).
“No, this is not evidence of random non-design, it is an illustration of natural selection, which is not random at all. The traits selected in nature are the ones that survive best in that environment. If traits survived randomly, life would die out.
>>Yes, “random” was an ill-chosen word. Tautologies are not random, and your claim above is, exactly, a tautology.
What is selected?
That which survives.
What survives?
That which is selected.
Of course this tells us nothing at all, predicts nothing at all, can be falsified in no way at all, is scientific in no way at all, since it tells us everything, can explain everything, and predicts everything.
This has been quite successful at the level of indoctrination and funding- the cosmologists have learned the trick and used it to advance the multiverse on exactly the same metaphysical basis.
“Space does curve, according to current theory. (Oh god, please don’t tell me it’s “just a theory”!)”
>>It is not even a theory. It is the ascription of ontological existence to a mathematical fiction. The continuum is a mathematical fiction. It does not exist in reality, as has been experimentally conclusively demonstrated since Max Planck’s experimental derivation of the quantum of action.
“I know you don’t understand how that is possible, don’t worry, neither do I.”
>>The problem, apparently, is that you do not yet grasp that it is *not* possible; that is, the mathematical fiction of a continuum is not possible to square with scientific observations at the quantum scale.
The contradiction between quantum theory and relativity theory is so vast- the attempt to apply the observations of quantum theory at relativistic scales results in answers off by one hundred and twenty orders of magnitude (!)- that this mismatch constitutes, as Michio Kaku recently told me, the greatest conflict between theory and observation in the history of science.
You do not understand this because the scientistic Goliath has excellent PR.
“I’m not a physicist or a mathematician, but I know that the concept of distorted space explains a lot about the nature of gravity. It doesn’t have to sound reasonable, it only has to work to better describe reality.”
>>See above. There is a crisis in our physics and cosmology, you just have been carefully shielded from its implications.
It would be a great service if someone could do something about that
“You could say that the scientific community has its orthodoxies, and they are somewhat resistant to change. Aren’t we all? But they do change. It took a while for plate tectonics to catch on, but the evidence finally became persuasive. Galileo had his struggles too, but science makes progress that way, finding better and better ways to describe reality.”
>>Yes, indeed. As Max Planck pungently noted, science progresses funeral by funeral.
Steven,
“Those fellows are very good word players, but the “god” they proved the existence of is not one most people would recognize as God.”
Really? Who’s “most people”? Because since “those fellows,” these towering intellects who were the founding fathers of Western civilization and much of Western thought, wrote their proofs thousands of years ago, I’m pretty sure “most people” have not rejected them.
Can you explain how you arrived at this conclusion, Steven? Did you really mean that “Steven” has an opinion, and therefore, he thinks everyone else must agree with him? Did you really mean that you’ve just decided all on your own that if someone believes in God, he or she is somehow intellectually inferior to you? Please justify your statement with more than your personal opinion. It is quite ridiculous.
“Once you progress beyond observation, you risk veering off into strange territory. How do you know that the path of reasoning you are following reflects reality if you don’t check it against observations?”
Why do you assume that none of “those fellows” did that? Are you at all familiar with Aristotle? Have you never seen the Raphael painting of the The School at Athens with Aristotle holding his hand over the earth while Plato points to the heavens? Aristotle is depicted this way because of his insistence that knowledge begins with empirical observation through the senses.
—–
“But you can’t deny that the Church has thrown many roadblocks in the way of legitimate investigation, simply because it seemed to threaten established dogma.”
Actually, yes I can deny that because it is not true. Could you please list the “many roadblocks” to which you refer, with citations? If you are going to throw out some wild claim, you really ought to substantiate it.
Andre,
“And you would have been able to point to experiments that demonstrate those qualities. Or pointed to a nuclear reactor.”
And still you could deny the proof, especially if you refused to even look at it or think about it. I’m pretty sure you’ve never seen an atom. If you claim they exist, it is through induction or deduction, or faith in an authority who says they do.
“Your premise is unfalsifiable. In the spheres of science and debate, I believe that is considered ‘weak sauce’.”
No, you just think it is unfalsifiable. There are proofs, proofs that even pagans articulated as they looked at the world and reasoned. Falsifiablility depends on what one accepts as proof.
How is your premise falsifiable?
“How is your premise falsifiable?”
-God appearing to a large group of people (believers and non-believers alike) today would falsify my premise real fast.
-The Hubble coming across Jesus giving the ol’ thumbs-up from deep space would also do the trick.
-Arsene Wenger spending more than 15m pounds on a player would easily have me converting back to Catholicism.(http://www.arsenalreport.com/transfercentre/)
I hope you hold atoms to the same standard then.
Stacy,
“I hope you hold atoms to the same standard then.”
I’m happy to hear your arguments and evidence against atoms, and any other arguments/evidence you have for/against anything else, for that matter.
But I extend your question back to you. What would falsify your belief that there is a god, and that Catholicism is the one true religion?
Andre,
“I’m happy to hear your arguments and evidence against atoms…”
This requires one to define what constitutes proof. I accept logically sound inductive and deductive proofs. To be sound they must not contradict observation or be unreasonable, and the terms must be defined such that they are used consistently throughout the argument all the way to the conclusion.
This is how scientists are taught to think.
Your turn.
“But I extend your question back to you. What would falsify your belief that there is a god, and that Catholicism is the one true religion?”
For the proofs (any of them, be it God’s existence, Christ’s Resurrection, Salvation, Grace, Morality, Vice and Virtue, Dogma and its methods, Love, Thinking, Willing) to be nonsense and contradictory with what I reason and observe in the real world and in my experience in life. I have found them to be objectively true. I have studied the tenets. There is a rich resource in the Church — every, single thing we believe is written down for anyone who is willing to read it.
“You do not understand this because the scientistic Goliath has excellent PR.”
Rick, I surrender to your gnosticism. I can’t argue with logic like that.
Gnosticism, Steven, is that affliction which, once adopted, might lead one to assert that space bends and twists, precisely *because* certain insiders have developed mathematical systems which require it to do so.
There is nothing logical about such a position- it is in fact illogical, specifically an instance of the argumentum ad verecundam.
Thanks for the exchange.
Stacy,
“Can you explain how you arrived at this conclusion, Steven? Did you really mean that “Steven” has an opinion, and therefore, he thinks everyone else must agree with him? Did you really mean that you’ve just decided all on your own that if someone believes in God, he or she is somehow intellectually inferior to you? Please justify your statement with more than your personal opinion. It is quite ridiculous.”
I have appreciated your reasoned responses, but this descends to the level of an ad hominum attack. I am not capable of genuinely believing in something without evidence, but I don’t criticize those who do. I certainly do not think they are inferior to me, after all, I used to be a true believer.
Aquinas supposedly proved that there must be a first cause. Even if you accept that proof, this deist “first cause” has no attributes, other than the bare spark of creation, that anyone I know would recognize as the God of the Bible.
“Aristotle is depicted this way because of his insistence that knowledge begins with empirical observation through the senses.”
Agreed. But it doesn’t just begin there, the conclusions of logic have to be continually tested against observation, otherwise they can lead literally anywhere.
“Actually, yes I can deny that because it is not true. Could you please list the “many roadblocks” to which you refer, with citations? If you are going to throw out some wild claim, you really ought to substantiate it.”
You have a point. After all, Galileo was a long time ago, and the Church has changed *a bit* since then. I may have been conflating the Church’s views with those of Christian fundamentalists. I withdraw that statement.
Steven,
An ad hominem attack is to attack you personally instead of your argument. I attacked the argument. You made a very outlandish claim — that most people do not accept Aristotle’s proof. That’s just wrong.
I’m sorry, but I get really tired of atheists misrepresenting the facts.
“Aquinas supposedly proved that there must be a first cause.”
Aquinas used Aristotle’s logical demonstration that there must be, by necessity, an Unmoved Mover. Plato argued that there was an ultimate Good. Both were trying to articulate God. Aristotle and Plato were pagans.
Aquinas used the ancient Greek proofs and showed how they explained the One True God. Later in the Summa Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles he ties this in to Divine Revelation and the life of Christ.
“After all, Galileo was a long time ago, and the Church has changed *a bit* since then.”
Then and now, the Church has insisted that nothing be declared as true unless it is demonstrated and proven.
“Then and now, the Church has insisted that nothing be declared as true unless it is demonstrated and proven.”
Then there is a problem, Stacy. Things can only be proven by logic, not by the scientific method. What is proven by logic may or may not correspond to reality. What is discovered through statistical analysis of evidence does correspond to reality (as we know it), but it is never proven 100%. It is determined to be correct with a certain degree of probability, as I am sure you are aware.
“Then there is a problem, Stacy. Things can only be proven by logic, not by the scientific method.”
>> This is not a problem at all. This is merely a restatement of the truth that scientific knowledge is contingent, and subordinate, to metaphysical knowledge (which is in turn subordinate to theological knowledge).
“What is proven by logic may or may not correspond to reality.”
Valid logical proofs *always* correspond to reality, if and only if the premises correspond to reality.
“What is discovered through statistical analysis of evidence does correspond to reality (as we know it), but it is never proven 100%. It is determined to be correct with a certain degree of probability, as I am sure you are aware.”
>>Probability is another way of saying we have yet to develop a correct metaphysical assumption adequate to explain the observations in question.
For example, we presently lack the ability to simultaneously take the position and velocity of a subatomic particle (uncertainty principle).
It were a characteristic expression of the upside-down disorientation of modern science, to draw from this the metaphysical conclusion that reality is, therefore, random and stochastic.
But if one is operating under the false assumption that science is superior to metaphysics, one will draw exactly such a catastrophically botched conclusion.
From there it is really only a brief hop skip and jump to the multiverse, which itself falsifies the scientific method completely, as a means of telling us anything about physical reality.
The problem is not our science.
The problem is certain of our metaphysical assumptions, chief among them being the Copernican or cosmological Principle.
“I’m sorry, but I get really tired of atheists misrepresenting the facts.”
Stacy, again we would need to define the words facts. Then you would need to realize that catholics too misrepresent the facts.
Example: The cosmos proves the existance of god. Not fact, yet Rick seems to spout it as fact.
So can we agree that all have a tendency to misrepresent facts?
Steven,
The scientific method is based on logic and demonstration, and it is a search for truth.
Statistical analysis is a whole other subject. It’s an analytic tool whose reliability is dependent on the user’s honesty.
Alan,
Rick is referring to Aristotle’s proof, and yes, it is a fact.
Fact = something that is true
I was referring to atheists misrepresenting Catholic doctrine. What it is, is a fact for anyone to read and represent accurately. Goodness, it’s all written down for anyone to read, but time after time in discussions, we spend so much comment space just dealing with misrepresentations.
yes Stacy, I am aware of what a fact is.
God creating the cosmos, not a fact. Sorry.
Stacy, statistical analysis is integral to the scientific method. How else can you determine that the outcome is not due to chance? The reliability of the results are subject to checks, that’s why we have peer review. You know all this, right?
Of course it were absurd- literally laughable- to have recourse to statistical arguments when the issue under consideration is the nature, structure, order, and laws of the cosmos.
Our statistical sample in such a case is one.
It is perhaps not a “coincidence” (!) that the recent faith in statistics, once appropriated by the cosmologists, will find its expression (become florid?) in what presents itself to us as a magnificent contradiction; a contradiction which heralds the end of an age:
Science, claiming its prowess from within a method of rigorous measurement, test, observation, and experimental demonstration, ends up proposing a multiverse which can never, even in theory, become an object of measurement, test, observation, or experimental demonstration.
We have well and truly reached the end of that road.
Steven,
The scientific method is based on logic and demonstration, and sometimes statistical analysis is the tool used and sometimes it is not.
In an industrial setting, for instance, experimenting with new levels of additives or alterations to chemical formulation, sure, you need stat analysis over time to understand the effects on all the other properties.
In designing a set of experiments in the lab with controls, sometimes you trying to establish a calibration and each test is a single data point along a continuum, especially in the early stages.
Sometimes, like Rick said, there’s one data point, a yes or no.
Like I said, it depends. But the scientific method and statistical analysis are not synonymous. The latter is not integral to the former. The scientific method continues on and on, a process, the last step leading back to more first steps.
I would say the scientific method consists in a series of overturnings of what turn out to be inadequate metaphysical assumptions.
Everyone knows that such and so a thing is true.
Some observation or other contradicts what everyone knows is true.
Ninety nine point nine nine nine per cent of the scientists attempt to find a way to make the observation go away.
One scientist hypothesizes a new principle, *capable of explaining the new observation, while still accounting for all observations explained under the now-falsified thing everyone knew was true*.
So every true discovery of new scientific principle consists, always, in exactly one mind knowing something which is vociferously denied by every other human mind.
No wonder science progresses funeral by funeral.
Rick,
I seem to remember your method, from a long discussion a few weeks ago. If I remember correctly, you had a three tier system to discerning truth;
It went something like:
1. Scientific Data;
2. Theological Data;
3. Metaphysical Data;
Unfortunately, your method for scientific data states that if you find one thing that can be falsified, then you must scrap all of it and start again.
Which includes your own scientific data;
Anything you propose can be easily falsified, leaving you with nothing. Less than nothing and less than what Modern Science offers.
Your next two tiers were too subjective to really be worth anything (Which Theology? Who’s meta-physic’s?).
Rick, I’m surprised you’re bringing out this dead horse, without any effort to modify your flawed premise.
It was also concluded that Stacy uses circular reasoning. I haven’t seen any effort on Stacy’s part to address this issue either.
Until Rick and Stacy address these issues in an honest way, I don’t think there is much of a discussion; but rather a beaten propaganda machine.
Rick,
I seem to remember your method, from a long discussion a few weeks ago. If I remember correctly, you had a three tier system to discerning truth;
It went something like:
1. Scientific Data;
2. Theological Data;
3. Metaphysical Data;
>> This is not strictly speaking my method, Mjek. It is simply the hierarchy of domains of knowledge, as developed and taught by the Catholic Doctors, especially Aquinas.
The hierarchy is:
1. Theology (true on the strength of God having revealed it)
2. Metaphysics (true on the basis of logical consistency; i.e. that existence/being itself were unintelligible in the absence of this knowledge)
3. Natural philosophy (of which what we now call science was a branch- true on the basis of its experimental demonstrability, always contingent and subject to change based upon new observations and/or identification of metaphysical errors of assumption underlying the theory).
M: Unfortunately, your method for scientific data states that if you find one thing that can be falsified, then you must scrap all of it and start again.
>> It is much harder than that. You must simultaneously:
1. Account for the one thing that falsifies the theory (for example, modern cosmology must now account for the observations which show the universe is not Copernican, is not isotropic and homogeneous in direct contradiction to FLRW cosmology).
2. Ensure that the “new idea” that accounts for the falsifying observation *also* can explain everything that *did* fit under the *old* theory (the really hard part).
So one is not allowed to “scrap all of it and start again”.
One must identify and purge only that precise metaphysical error which is exposed by the anomalous observation, *while simultaneously retaining the ability to account for all observations which fit the old theory*.
M: Which includes your own scientific data;
>> Which include *all* scientific data. It is not “mine”- for example, the CMB Axis is not my discovery, it does not belong to me or to the geocentrists, it was discovered by a Copernican. It just happens that this observation fits my *metaphysical* assumption of a non-Copernican, Earth-centered cosmos, whilst it directly contradicts the contrary *metaphysical* assumption os a Copernican (isotropic/homogeneous) universe.
M: Anything you propose can be easily falsified,
>> No. The observations are the observations. They cannot be falsified, unless they can be shown to be the result of a systematic or experimental error of procedure.
It is the *interpretation* of the observations that can be falsified- for example, if one ascribes the CMB Axis to foreground contamination, this proposal can be falsified by showing the proposed contamination cannot be reconciled with the observations.
” leaving you with nothing. Less than nothing and less than what Modern Science offers.”
>> Modern science- all science- is exactly what I describe above. It never leaves you with “nothing”. It often leaves you with an observation which cannot be accounted for under existing theories, but that is exactly what scientific progress consists in- the overturning of an existing paradigm by a falsifying observation, which in turn requires a *new creative hypothesis* which will, in every case, be seen to correct or remedy an inadequate or incorrect metaphysical assumption which lay hidden in the old paradigm.
Every actually new scientific discovery of principle is *always* of this precise form.
“Your next two tiers were too subjective to really be worth anything (Which Theology? Who’s meta-physic’s?)”
>> Since the scientific method itself is the outcome of the application of Catholic metaphysics, and since Catholic metaphysics is itself the out outcome of Catholic theology, you have your answer.
M: Rick, I’m surprised you’re bringing out this dead horse, without any effort to modify your flawed premise.
>> Instead, I continue to invite you to grasp that you are confronting the actual method of valid scientific discovery, perhaps for the very first time.
“It was also concluded that Stacy uses circular reasoning. I haven’t seen any effort on Stacy’s part to address this issue either.”
>> “Concluded”?
Ha.
I don’t claim to speak for Stacy. She speaks quite well for herself.
M: Until Rick and Stacy address these issues in an honest way, I don’t think there is much of a discussion; but rather a beaten propaganda machine.
>> I will certainly give your opinion all the consideration it objectively merits.
@Rick
Wait, are we actually conversing with a geocentrist?
I didn’t…I didn’t know they still existed. Rick, do you have any good resources for someone curious?
I’m not going to be able to digest advanced geocentrist astrophysics papers, but maybe a gentle introduction? A primer?
Longshanks:
Try here for a basic primer, on (very recent) scientific observational grounds:
http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/newest-observational-evidence-shows.html
Be happy to try and address any questions you might have.
Mjeck,
“It was also concluded that Stacy uses circular reasoning. I haven’t seen any effort on Stacy’s part to address this issue either.”
Calling your bluff.
That is disingenuous. I presented Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover argument, as presented by St. Thomas Aquinas. They are both towering intellects, founders of Western thought and civilization.
If you “conclude” all by yourself that they missed something you caught, then deal with it as such.
“I, Mjeck, have found the flaw of Aristotle…”
(Don’t forget, Aristotle himself defined the circular reasoning fallacy over 2,300 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)
Stacy,
Stacy Trasancos says:
January 14, 2013 at 7:46 pm
“Different sizes of infinity? No, I don’t buy that.”
This is just one example of something that you weren’t able to “conceive” to exist; yet exists. There are things that exist (and are true), that are beyond your circular reasoning; which it seems, you do not want to resolve. You have made no attempt to understand Infinite Regression, which I demonstrated to exist. Instead, you’ve returned to the First Mover.
There is no bluff to call.
Circular reasoning is the only way I can explain why you’d believe that science was born from the Catholic Church, when there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
Mjeck,
I understand the arguments for infinite regression, they are nonsense if they require a redefinition of infinite to finite, so as to name a first.
“…mountain of evidence to the contrary.”
Show me the evidence then, but do not call something “science” that the people of the time did not even call “science” (even in another language). I defined terms carefully in the OP, so I ask for the same.
Stacy,
I don’t think you do understand; you’ve made no attempt to learn about infinite regression. In fact, you’re adamantly opposed to something that has been demonstrated to exist. That is circular reasoning.
You’ve already conceded that you’ve over-stated your case. Why must I go line by line against an argument you’ve already conceded to be inaccurate?
Down below…
http://www.acceptingabundance.com/how-does-theology-protect-science/#comment-24809
Mjeck, I remember the “different sizes of inf” thing.
That whole concept is true only unto itself. The ultimate example of relativism, not moral relativism, but maybe relativity.
One of the simple examples in Set Theory gives two sets:
One is an infinite set of natural number, whole numbers, odds and evens. It is infinite, uncountable.
The other is only the even numbers. So the “reasoning” or better yet the “definition” says;
One > two
one is larger than two because one contains two plus the odds.
The answer can also be seen as:
Two = one/2
Ignoring that infinity means unending, we attempt to count, or accept, or something. None of it is found in reality, or commonly, the material world. Just as you can have an large number of “2s” just by declaring them for use in your formulas. You don’t need to borrow any when you run out.
If we actually have a world in which there are an infinite number of jelly beans, I would not be able to see my monitor or move around or breathe because there would not be a space void of jelly beans.
Howard,
I appreciate your attempts to understand Set Theory.
You are correct to say that none of it is found in reality; just as much as 2+2=4 is not found in reality. All numbers are imaginary; infinite, natural or otherwise.
Beyond this, Fractals have demonstrated that in fact, not only does infinite regression exist; it is strongly tied with the creation process.
God has a relationship to infinite regression.
Actually it took me only about 5 min of reading when we were first talking.
So, I assume that you mean “not found in the material world” when you say that infinite regression “exists”.
You cannot understand Set Theory in 5 min, Howard. Mathematicians study Set Theory at a PHD level.
What are you going to tell me next; you can hold your breath underwater for over an hour, and can jump over the Eiffel tower?
What I am actually telling you is, that the analysis I came up with is the result.
Is it correct or is it not????????
Where is the learning stopping minute and second before a person can be correct.
If you only want to have a battle of experts (like a court case), leave me out.
I don’t want to have a battle. I am highly intrigued by mathematical concepts and I’ve taken it upon myself to teach myself mathematics.
I am at the place where i can explain how Set Theory works (In my own words). But I cannot deduct nor create my own conclusion from Set Theory; which appears to be what you’re doing (drawing your own conclusion after 5 min).
There are many online videos on Fractal Mathematics and how they relate to creation.
I am not using the authority of my knowledge when I ask you,
Is it correct or is it not????????
Here is an explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JrrN3vOasQ
Mjeck,
As an impressionist painter leaves out detail in a technique that purports to show the essence of a scene. An artist who does not understand the details of social issues or Catholic teachings will not have the essence in which to portray it correctly.
For example. A person who cannot discuss the details of mathematical theory but only speaks in generalizations of what he perceives it’s truths to be, is not qualified to assert that he can speak of it’s truths.
Again you refer me to “experts” on uTube!
Is it correct or is it not????????
Are you talking about yourself, Howard? The guy who hates math, but at the same time, fully understands Set theory in 5 min?
I’m sure I can find a PHD level paper for you to read.
One more chance.
Is it correct or is it not????????
You’ve explained different sizes of infinity, in your own words.
You get half a point for 5 min of work.
Mjeck,
Gasp! Nuh-uh, man.
I do understand what is meant by infinite regress as it relates to Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover argument, and it is just as I have represented, “…in an infinite series there is no first term.” What have I missed? Aristotle also addressed that question. See part 5, first paragraph.
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.8.viii.html
“You’ve already conceded that you’ve over-stated your case.”
That is either a failure to read what I wrote, or it is intentionally dishonest.
You said, “I think you’ve over-stated your case.”
I replied: “I can live with that. I’ve read arguments both ways (obviously there are people who lose their breakfast over that statement), and more and more I don’t think it is an overstatement. For now, if I’ve convinced you that the Church is not an enemy of science, I’m happy.”
Knowing when to drop a discussion because someone won’t even consider what you are saying is not conceding the point.
I’d like to see that mountain of evidence now. As I also said, I’m still studying the question, so I’d love to see the sure and certain evidence that piles up so high no one can deny it. Should be worth a look, no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China
I replied with two links on the History of Islamic Science and Chinese Science, from the middle ages. I suppose it was considered spam.
Yep, they were in spam jail.
I would like to add, that the Catholic church continued what the Greeks started and the Romans adopted. Our western civilization was born from the Greeks and developed into a Christian ideology after the fall of the Roman Empire. Catholicism had a monopoly on Western civilization for about 1500 years.
Need to go. Talk later
Howard, I’d like to butt in here, if you don’t mind. It would be possible to have an infinite number of jelly beans, if you also have an infinite amount of space. If the jelly beans were no closer to each other than a million light years, you would never see more than one.
“One > two
one is larger than two because one contains two plus the odds.”
I’m not sure if your conclusion is correct, but your reasoning is faulty. How does one contain two? The set of odds does not contain two. The set of evens contains no odds.
I hope you will all come see “The Principle” when released.
A wonderful section involves the great cosmologist George Ellis addressing precisely the question of “infinity”.
He points out that infinity is a mathematical concept, not a physical one.
He strongly reiterates that any employment of the term “infinity”, in the context of physics, is a sign that one has departed science, and hopped the fence over into the realm of metaphysics.
He is really a classy guy, a great thinker, and the most frighteningly honest man I have ever met.
Steven,
“If the jelly…….”
What is the reality?
set “one” = 1,2,3,4,5,6………. (odds and evens)
set “two” = 2,4,6……………… (only evens)
This is as far into math as I wish to go. It is really booooring.
I’ll grant that infinity is a mathematical concept, Rick. I don’t mean to suggest that an infinite number of jelly beans could physically exist, only that, if they could, they wouldn’t necessarily obscure your monitor, as per Howard’s conjecture.
Thanks, Steven, I was actually addressing Mjek’s appropriation of Georg Cantor’s concept of powers of infinity (a most profoundly interesting mathematical concept, by the way).
I merely wish to point out that a great scientist, of the “old school” (back when scientists were trained rigorously in philosophy and metaphysics), George Ellis, considers the application of the term “infinity” to any physical system at all, to be a sign that hornswoggling is underway- that the scientist employing the term “infinity” in a physical context has jumped the fence, and is no longer doing physics, but instead metaphysics.
The problem here is when the scientist doing the metaphysics, insists on calling it science, since it pays much better just now.
All numbers are imaginary and do not exist in the real world; be it infinity, 2+2=4, or any other mathematical equation.
So Mjeck, would your answer be, “No you could not eat one of an infinite number of jelly beans because they would not exist.” or/and would it be, “No because if you tried, you would not then have an infinite number remaining unless Willy Wonka replaced it.”
Trick question; willy wonka doesn’t exist either!
But I saw the movie and I have seen his candy bars in the store. Hollywood does not lie!
This is true, Mjek.
What is completely eerie- it ought to make the hair on the back of your neck stand up- is that these abstract, non-physical entities “numbers”, somehow map onto reality in ways which allow us to discover, understand, and harness actual forces which *do* exist in the real world.
Why the heck that should be, is one of the greatest questions in metaphysics.
Rick, could one answer be that when we calculate 2+2 and get 4 that we then go to physical objects and count out 4 of them.
The discreet objects exist.
The concept “four” is a metaphysical abstraction of surprising sophistication:
1. We define the objects as discrete in the first place
2. We define the objects as, nonetheless, belonging to a class which unifies them under the concept “four”.
So the One and the Many makes its first appearance in the mind.
Someone- I think it was Whitehead- said that the entire history of Western philosophy is just a series of footnotes to Plato.
Alfred North Whitehead?
A sad memory to bring up. The only book (I don’t remember which one) that I could not understand in my youth. I have not had the nerve to see if now it would be any better (no comment Mjeck).
“What is the reality?
set “one” = 1,2,3,4,5,6………. (odds and evens)
set “two” = 2,4,6……………… (only evens)”
So, “one” > “two” is what you are saying? Agreed. From your phrasing, I thought you were trying to say 1 > 2, with which I disagree.
If your original point was that one infinite set can be larger than another, I agree. But you were wrong about the jelly beans.
Steven,
It is most definitely not my point, but the point of some thinker in an office faaaaaaaar removed from reality.
Without using any “ífs” describe to me the jelly bean REALITY that proves mine is wrong.
I already did, Howard: It would be possible to have an infinite number of jelly beans, if you also have an infinite amount of space. If the jelly beans were no closer to each other than a million light years, you would never see more than one.
It is necessarily hypothetical, since in reality there are not an infinite number of jelly beans. As far as we know.
So, what on earth was your point? There must be one there somewhere.
These are my points.
#1 You used 2 “ifs”, which magically sets up a condition you desire.
#2 How in the world can anyone say another is wrong about the exact look of something and replace it with their own, when both are not even possible to have a look?
Howard,
Didn’t you already prove your own question, to yourself, about the jelly beans before you asked the question?
You already explained to yourself that there are infinite sets larger than others.
This is getting weird
I don’t believe any of the nonsense about sets being larger in actuality. I merely presented the math. It is all in the definitions. Men can conceive of almost anything.
The only valuable point here is that infinity is not possible in our material world. The opposite of which is the only constant claim used for the denial of the logic for a first mover.
Concepts and spirit to me are very separate things from the material world.
I am not bothered by any process that seems to cross back and forth between them. As a Catholic the Holy Ghost is very real.
And yet, we used our understanding of infinite recursion to explain the creation process, by way of fractals.
2+2=4 does not exist in the material world either, Howard
Can’t teach an old dog new tricks
Mjeck, you used nothing to explain nothing. I don’t see anything more that a proclamation.
Have some real work to do. Give you all time to think your best thoughts.
You’re right, Mjeck. This is getting weird. Well, have fun with it, I’m out of here.
Steven, the weirdness results from your not being able to separate imagination from reality without being told which is which.
I am preparing a reply to Mjeck and Longshanks about the difference in what the Church did in the Middle Ages regarding science vs. the isolated inventions and discoveries in other societies and religions that never really culminated into science becoming a discipline unto itself.
As was indicated about coffee and monitors, it is a subject that has to be handled with some delicacy and clarity, and I don’t have time to get into it just yet. I hope you all stick around.
This weekend we are getting not one, but possibly two, new puppies — German Shepherds, sisters (as if there were not enough sisters around here already!). Expect some pictures, and probably some sporadic posting since I’m going to be very busy training five little kids to play nice with puppies and two little puppies to potty nice outdoors. Yeehaw!
But do stay tuned…
I appreciate the lively discussion, and even if I’m not commenting right now, I am following along. Thank you all!!!
A few things I would like you to consider;
The Catholic Church had a monopoly on western civilization for almost 1500 years. So how do you make a comparison? Wouldn’t that be like saying that Coke is the best soft drink, or that Microsoft is the best operating system; when there is nothing to compare it against?
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to compare the Churches influence, vs. the Greeks and Romans; or compare the Catholic Churches advancements vs. the enlightenment?
Is there one particular science discipline that was created (born from), the Catholic Church, that has no roots in the greeks or romans, that we can examine?
What Science discipline, began directly from Catholic beliefs, that we use today?
Are you still crafting your response Stacy? I was waiting to see what you had to say before replying to you, hdawg, and rick
Longshanks, Yes I am! I was swamped this week.
good luck with the puppies!
The Catholic Church had a monopoly on western civilization for almost 1500 years.
>> It is Western civilization where the inductive, empirical method of, notably, Francis Bacon is first systematically described. Since even the early Reformation breathes vestigial Catholicism in its metaphysical world view,it is clearly Catholic Christendom which provides us with the first systematic elaboration of what we now call the scientific method.
So how do you make a comparison? Wouldn’t that be like saying that Coke is the best soft drink, or that Microsoft is the best operating system; when there is nothing to compare it against?
>> There is nothing against which to compare the scientific elaboration of reality which, while certainly incorporating elements extending back to Greek antiquity and earlier, is first systematically elaborated and adopted as a universal practice in the seventeenth century Europe of Christendom.
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to compare the Churches influence, vs. the Greeks and Romans; or compare the Catholic Churches advancements vs. the enlightenment?
>> The Endarkenment was a specifically Catholic phenomenon, alas.
Is there one particular science discipline that was created (born from), the Catholic Church, that has no roots in the greeks or romans, that we can examine?
>> No roots? Of course not. The method does not spring full-blown like Athena from Zeus’ brow.
There were pieces here, and pieces there, and insights everywhere.
But the systematic elaboration *and implementation* of the methodical, empirical/inductive, conquest of nature via natural philosophy is a specifically European, and hence specifically Catholic, development.
What Science discipline, began directly from Catholic beliefs, that we use today?
>> The foundational contribution of Catholic metaphysics to the development of modern science is the notion that God has employed the Logos as the means of Creation; that is, the altogether astonishing hypothesis that since God uses Reason to establish the cosmos, and since God imbues human beings with Reason, therefore the cosmos is susceptible of conquest under the rubrics of right Reason.
What an astonishingly bold hypothesis.
“No roots? Of course not.”
This statement confirms my earlier statements.
“There were pieces here, and pieces there, and insights everywhere.”
This statement also confirms my earlier statements.
“therefore the cosmos is susceptible of conquest under the rubrics of right Reason.”
I’m curious to how you envision a conquered cosmos.
A conquered cosmos, for a starving man, consists in agriculture.
For a weak-eyed man, consists in spectacles.
For a man in the dark, consists of electric light
For a freezing man, consists in gas or electric heat
For a suffering man, consists in palliative medicine
For an ignorant man, consists in the acquisition of true knowledge, by means of reproducing within one’s own intellect a valid discovery , by another, which allows an increase in the power of humanity’s potential conquest of nature.
Examples could be multiplied…..
I wouldn’t disagree with that.
My first instinct is to say that we’ve gotten better at all of those examples in the last 100 years.
Why is that? (As it relates to the Catholic Churches participation or lack thereof)
I would say our rate of progress in all of these things over the last hundred years has declined dramatically- if not catastrophically.
I recall seeing a picture, on a restaurant wall, of the opening of the McClure tunnel in Santa Monica in the 1930′s.
As I looked at the automobiles, it struck me that any one of them was pretty much the same as what we would see today- minor refinements, but the technology has essentially stagnated over that eighty year period.
But think back to the eighty years before that picture was taken………..
There wasn’t even a railroad to get from one end of the country to the other yet.
No electricity.
I think we are slowing down precisely because we have lost the essential conception of what scientific discovery consists in- we have lost the metaphysical rigor of even the last generation of well-educated scientists.
Today’s “stars” spin tales about multiverses and Hubble bubbles consisting 99% in unobserved entities.
We have not had a serious fundamental breakthrough in physics in over a century, and the defense of the existing paradigm has assumed ever-greater importance- always a definitive sign of corruption.
I wouldn’t disagree with that either.
Communication, travel, energy, innovation; all of this has stagnated in the last 100 years, since its initial explosion.
Andre, OK.
The problem I am having with your explanation of your position (whatever it is) is that you keep going back to the idea, that when we talk about God, we must address the details or description of God or gods given by unidentified persons. This obscures the basic question, which was the existence of God.
You haven’t gotten that far yet. My point is that, the slice I referred to ALL have a basic understanding and belief in an omnipotence that it is beyond human capabilities. This appears to be a human quality, and is foundational to my belief that, in the main, non-acceptance of this belief is really a rejection of it.
That point aside, what I find more interesting is the partial argument that you had with Stacy, that an infinite regression of moving bodies is possible.
Howard,
“The problem I am having with your explanation of your position (whatever it is) is that you keep going back to the idea, that when we talk about God, we must address the details or description of God or gods given by unidentified persons.”
I don’t think it’s irrelevant to point out, when many modern religions make claims of being the one true religion, that they’re part of a long line of such claimants, and that we’re in agreement that the vast majority of those claimants aren’t worth considering. I keep coming back to it because at this point, it seems to me, the burden of proof is on those who choose to continue making these grand claims. If the likes of the Catholic Church or Islam changed their tune to “we think we’re the one true religion, but we’re not sure”, I’ll stop pointing to all the bygone faiths that were just as certain as they are.
“This obscures the basic question, which was the existence of God.”
It doesn’t obscure this question, it puts it into context. I don’t see many faiths settling for mere deism.
“You haven’t gotten that far yet.”
Beg your pardon? Not pretending to know the answer to a question isn’t the same as not engaging with the question.
“My point is that, the slice I referred to ALL have a basic understanding and belief in an omnipotence that it is beyond human capabilities.”
I’m not quite sure you can lump all current belief systems under the umbrella you propose, but I’m happy to see you try.
“This appears to be a human quality, and is foundational to my belief that, in the main, non-acceptance of this belief is really a rejection of it.”
You know what else appears to have human qualities: the vast majority of deities posited throughout history. I don’t think this is the point in favor you seem to think it is. Again, if it were a matter of just conceding there could be a god, I’m already there. I don’t and couldn’t reject that possibility. I just see no reason yet to believe in version x.0 of any particular groups attempts to define god or his will.
The basic description of an atheist as you claim, is that he does not believe in God (not religion). I take this to mean you are not convinced of the existence of “an omnipotence that it is beyond human capabilities.”
We could extend that to mean everything that comes AFTER, that is attached to that belief, but, that is not usually what atheists argue about. If the first question can be answered in the negative, then all the rest (the context) goes away. Much cleaner than trying to discard those you BELIEVE to be wrong.
Again a bias.
If the differences (and I do not think we have even decided what those are) are important to the question, why is not the sameness of belief?
“I’m not quite sure you can lump all current belief systems under the umbrella…”
Are we talking about any belief that can be conceived of,like, Tootsie Rolls exploded and created the world and that is why there is so much brown? You have referred to religion and the differences in how God is described. Which of those you mean, do not speak of “an omnipotence that it is beyond human capabilities.”
Howard,
“Are we talking about any belief that can be conceived of,like, Tootsie Rolls exploded and created the world and that is why there is so much brown? You have referred to religion and the differences in how God is described. Which of those you mean, do not speak of “an omnipotence that it is beyond human capabilities.””
I believe you would struggle to fit Taoism and Buddhism (to name just two) into the same framework as the Abrahamic faiths, for example.
A “religion” that does not attempt to describe an “omnipotence” does not meet your objection to describing God differently.
Probably Buddhism does not. Taoism does, although it is closer to “The Force” is with you, than the intelligence is with you.
The very fact that we call them religions show a united belief. This is bare bones belief. Fuzzy understanding, vague descriptions, an unclear state of belief. But there is something there.
For Ricks benefit, HEB 8:10 and Exodus 6:7, I am not a total heretic.
Howard,
“A “religion” that does not attempt to describe an “omnipotence” does not meet your objection to describing God differently.”
You’re the one claiming the the vast majority of the world believes in a god, if you want to remove those that don’t attempt to describe or posit a god from your claim, feel free.
“Probably Buddhism does not. Taoism does, although it is closer to “The Force” is with you, than the intelligence is with you.”
I’m pretty sure that Taoism doesn’t make an attempt to describe god, and posits a universe in an infinite state of creation and re-creation.
“The very fact that we call them religions show a united belief.”
Please, go ask a Jainist if they feel united in belief with the Christians, Muslims, etc. I’d be curious to hear their answer.
“This is bare bones belief. Fuzzy understanding, vague descriptions, an unclear state of belief. But there is something there.”
I feel like, in order to get to this united belief that you mention, you’re forced to strip away anything of descriptive value (including this notion of “an omnipotence”). All you seem to be left with this idea that we all wonder about why we’re here. In that case, why not also call scientific curiosity a religion, snagging most of the non-believers in the process, and just be done with it?
“You’re the one claiming the vast majority of the world believes in a god.”
Andre, what I said exactly was:
“..not accept the fact of existence as coming from a non-material source.”
And then something different:
“If the differences (and I do not think we have even decided what those are) are important to the question, why is not the sameness of belief?”
That is the current question in my mind.
“I feel like, in order to get to this united belief that you mention, you’re forced to strip away anything of descriptive value (including this notion of “an omnipotence”).”
I did my best to explain.
One thing I hope is clear though, I really am not concerned if you believe in God or not. I believe you said you were Catholic. I will assume baptized and maybe confirmed. You have been given what is necessary.
I am really just curious about your arguments, and I think my curiosity has been mostly satisfied.
Howard,
Thanks for trying to work through this with me.
“If the differences (and I do not think we have even decided what those are) are important to the question, why is not the sameness of belief?”
Let me go back and address the above.
It seems to me the idea you’re presenting here is that the religions of the world are like different facets/aspects/visions/attempts to understand the same god/omnipotence (presumably with some being better than others). That in thinking of religion in this way, you aim to strengthen your argument – like adding many strands to rope, or legs to a table. For me the issue is that it seems the broader you cast your sameness-of-belief net, the more reduced the substance that remains becomes. Reduced to the point where I fail to see what strands or legs you’re using to reinforce the sameness of belief argument on a global scale. To me, the watered-down vagueness you’re left with, which might just as easily be called ‘curiosity’, is dwarfed by the differences manifest in various religions, and their proclaimed incompatibility with each other. That’s just my view.
“I am really just curious about your arguments, and I think my curiosity has been mostly satisfied.”
Fair enough.
“It seems to me the idea you’re presenting here is that the religions of the world are like different facets/aspects/visions/attempts to understand the same god/omnipotence (presumably with some being better than others). That in thinking of religion in this way, you aim to strengthen your argument.”
Yes, I can see how that could be an interpretation, but, it is based on an assumption of my motive. Let me try again.
I do believe that on the top-most level of relating to the universe there is a common attitude or need to explain existence that is a human characteristic. Just that. The need to explain and live in the explanation varies greatly in detail, but is there. This need I have tried to describe is not just an academic exercise; it is foundational to our being. If it is ignored or not recognized or not even present, those aspects are also important. But I believe it is overwhelmingly present and acknowledged. Giving a material answer to this question may provide an answer, but is without logical support. The answer has traditionally been spiritual. Sometimes the overarching mechanism is only recognized as being designed or organized.
It is this very simple observation that I refer to as the “sameness”. Now, the problem comes when in order to make sense of what we broadly call “religion” there is this common aspect and we ignore it. It has an importance just because it exists. As do the descriptive differences when we try to elaborate on this essence. These are not of the same type or intensity.
1 Cor 1:21 “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom,”
Howard,
Thanks for explaining what you meant. FWIW, I like what your throwing down here.
One of the truly grave failures of the New Evangelization, in particular, is its cowardly shying away from the proclamation of this inescapable fact:
Either all religions are false, or else all but one are.
To hide behind some vague apprehension of an instinct for natural religion among the various peoples of the world is grotesque.
It has failed, so drastically, so miserably, so culpably, that only the willfully self-blinded can fail to recognize the catastrophic fruits of this miserable Nouvelle Theologie which courses like a poison through the veins of the Church.
It is heretical, it is evil, it is false, it is wicked, it is in profound contradiction to the Truth which comes to us from Revelation.
Here is the Truth which comes to us from Revelation:
There is one, universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.
Do you claim to be a Catholic, and do not believe the above?
You are an heretic.
Do you imagine that the Catholic Church is that awful, confused, mealy-mouthed, homosexuality-ridden, politically correct disaster we see painted upon the mind’s eye by Hell’s Bible and disgracefully defended by neo-Catholics whose catechism is an apologia for modernist heresy?
You are wrong.
You are fighting a counterfeit.
Fight the real Church, if you wish to confront the True Faith, which makes no bomfogging appeals to whatever scraps of Truth the animists, Muslims, Jews, Protestants, or Hindus might or might not have stumbled upon in their concatenation of lies, idolatries, and devil worship.
May God deliver us from this awful, disastrous Nouvelle Theologie and all of its defenders.
“There is one, universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.
Do you claim to be a Catholic, and do not believe the above?
You are an heretic.”
It’s nice to see good ol’ fundamentalism from Catholics. Let’s the Muslims know they’re not the only game in town.
Yes, Andre, it is indeed important to present the truth about the Catholic Faith and its objective content.
Otherwise one might confuse us with the bomfogging, double-tongued, finger-in-the-wind, what-will-get-me-a-good-writeup-in-the-Times idiocy that has led the Church to this, its greatest moment of crisis in history.
Glad to see you get it
Indeed! Let’s go back to burning people at the stake for reading the Bible in English.
It is an example of great dishonesty on the part of an interlocutor on the subject of the catholic Faith- one, in other words, such as yourself, Andre- to insinuate dogmatic status to what is not dogma in the first place.
This is useful as a rhetorical device, employed by a sophist such as yourself to score points amongst the mushminded and ignorant (your only conceivable audience).
It does, of course, suffer from the profound defect that it is untruthful.
But that is certainly nothing which would represent any sort of impediment to the sophist.
Now let us take apart, strand by strand, the dishonestly flippant little Pavlovian excretion advanced by Andre:
1. The Church dogmatically teaches that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (this is certainly true).
2. Andre would be delighted to insinuate that there exists some logical connection between #1 above, and burning people at the stake (there is none).
3. Andre would be delighted if you were just as ignorant as he either is, or pretends to be, concerning the following truth;
4. The Catholic Church never put heretics to the flame, surrendering the execution of the penalties for heresy in such extraordinary cases to the secular arm.
5. Andre raises no objection to the modern application of the same secular practice of igniting those who are determined to constitute a mortal threat to the peace and continuance of the polity, as in the case of the incineration of the inhabitants of Hiroshima.
All in all, a deliciously instructive insight into the mind of a sophist.
Rick,
“1. The Church dogmatically teaches that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (this is certainly true).”
I’ll let the current Catholic members of the audience weigh in on this, but I’m pretty sure a look at the current Catechism doesn’t support your claim.
“2. Andre would be delighted to insinuate that there exists some logical connection between #1 above, and burning people at the stake (there is none).”
Well, to be fair, I was linking fundamentalists to burning people at the stake.
“3. Andre would be delighted if you were just as ignorant as he either is, or pretends to be, concerning the following truth
4. The Catholic Church never put heretics to the flame, surrendering the execution of the penalties for heresy in such extraordinary cases to the secular arm.”
This seems like a strange inversion of the ‘just following orders’ defense. Even if the Church may not have physically lit every fire itself, does that remove them from their role in pronouncing their sentences with full-knowledge of what the penalty would be? Was the Church in the habit of objecting to the secular punishment of those it convicted? Their canonization of Thomas More would suggest otherwise.
“5. Andre raises no objection to the modern application of the same secular practice of igniting those who constitute a mortal threat to the peace and continuance of the polity, as in the case of the incineration of the inhabitants of Hiroshima.”
Look, you seem to be releasing the Church from any blame in #4 by claiming that it can’t be responsible for how secular authorities chose to enforce it’s judgments. If I apply the same logic to #5, it would seem necessary for the bombing of Hiroshima to be the religious enforcement of a secular judgement. Last I checked, the USAAF was not a religious organization. If what you meant to say was that I can’t object to religious practices without first objecting to every related secular parallel, we’re going to be here a while.
Rick,
“1. The Church dogmatically teaches that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (this is certainly true).”
I’ll let the current Catholic members of the audience weigh in on this, but I’m pretty sure a look at the current Catechism doesn’t support your claim.
>> Alas, Andre, neither a popular vote of Catholics on this site, not recourse to any given catechism, has the slightest relevance at all to the question.
A dogmatic definition of the Catholic Faith, promulgated ex cathedra, is not subject to subsequent reversal by any Catholic, priest, bishop, Cardinal, Pope, or catechism.
The dogmatic definition of Pope Innocent III follows:
◦“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
This is not, you see, a proposition of philosophy, which might be bandied back and forth by the learned and the sophisticated.
This is an ex cathedra definition of the Faith, and if one is Catholic, one either believes it with the full assent of Faith, or else one is an heretic.
The same dogma is subsequently defined ex cathedra on two subsequent occasions, perhaps because the Holy Spirit intended to assist Catholics in resisting the sophistries of our age:
◦“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
◦“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
*******
“2. Andre would be delighted to insinuate that there exists some logical connection between #1 above, and burning people at the stake (there is none).”
Well, to be fair, I was linking fundamentalists to burning people at the stake.
>> There is no connection there, either, Andre, since the act of burning, as a punitive measure, is limited neither to the stake, nor to fundamentalists, but is regularly practiced even by Enlightened folk such as the authors of the mass slaughters of the people of Hiroshima and Dresden.
*********************
“3. Andre would be delighted if you were just as ignorant as he either is, or pretends to be, concerning the following truth
4. The Catholic Church never put heretics to the flame, surrendering the execution of the penalties for heresy in such extraordinary cases to the secular arm.”
This seems like a strange inversion of the ‘just following orders’ defense.
>> Instead, it is an instance of you substituting what you would like the words to say, for what they instead do in fact say.
“Even if the Church may not have physically lit every fire itself,”
>> She lit no fires Herself, as I have already explained. The Church never arrogated to Herself the power to execute the sentence, turning over the criminal to the secular power. The secular power, considering heresy to be a serious offense against the survival and order of the polity, would sometimes burn the heretic at the stake.
“does that remove them from their role in pronouncing their sentences with full-knowledge of what the penalty would be?”
>> Not in the slightest. It simply distinguishes, correctly, between the Church’s role (the determination of whether one was in fact guilty of heresy) and the execution of the penalty (which was left to the discretion of the secular power).
“Was the Church in the habit of objecting to the secular punishment of those it convicted?”
>> There were cases where the Church objected to the failure of the secular authority to properly adhere to the procedures involved, including the practices of some Inquisitors themselves.
“Their canonization of Thomas More would suggest otherwise.”
>> I do not understand your point here.
*************
“5. Andre raises no objection to the modern application of the same secular practice of igniting those who constitute a mortal threat to the peace and continuance of the polity, as in the case of the incineration of the inhabitants of Hiroshima.”
“Look, you seem to be releasing the Church from any blame in #4 by claiming that it can’t be responsible for how secular authorities chose to enforce it’s judgments.”
>> To the contrary. I am simply pointing out the intellectual dishonesty in your original series of flippant ejaculations.
“If I apply the same logic to #5, it would seem necessary for the bombing of Hiroshima to be the religious enforcement of a secular judgement.”
>> Non sequitir. There is no logical basis for such an inversion. The correct analogy would be:
“it would seem necessary for the bombing of Hiroshima to be the secular enforcement of a penalty for the crime of threatening the peace and order of the polity”.
***************
“Last I checked, the USAAF was not a religious organization.”
>> Neither were the executioners of the Middle Ages.
“If what you meant to say was that I can’t object to religious practices without first objecting to every related secular parallel, we’re going to be here a while.”
>> Oh, we can be here as long as you like.
I am actually encouraged that you have ascended from flippant sophistry to- however logically challenged it might be- an honest attempt to address the real issue here, which is exactly, whether or not a civilization has the right to execute criminals who have been determined to have committed crimes adjudged to be worthy of death.
Rick, promise me you’ll never change, you’re perfect the way you are.
Andre:
I can’t promise I’ll never change, but I can promise that I am not perfect the way I am
I do believe in Jesus Christ, and hence in the Holy Catholic Church.
That much is certain.
Rick, glad to see you have had so much success with your approach. Sorry I could not respond sooner, I was out practicing my faith.
Ahh, the indescribable consolations of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass…….assisted at a Traditional Latin Mass (a Low Mass) at a little parish in a working class neighborhood this morning.
Packed to the rafters.
Full of teenagers, confirmandi.
Boys on one side, girls on the other, confession line snaking out the front of the Church…….it was beautiful.
Beautiful.
Now I will assist at a Novus Ordo this afternoon, since my son prefers it.
Arrrgggghhhhhhhhh……..
“Boys on one side, girls on the other…”
What was this?
It was a Catholic confirmation class, with a Catholic religious education director, in a Catholic parish, where Catholic Tradition has not been expunged in a headlong rush toward peace with the world.
Is what it was.
I also attended a TLM this morning, as my usual.
Howard:
Just out of curiosity, if your pastor read the following words to your children at Mass, would you stand up, and remove them from the presence of the speaker, since he was an obvious heretic?
““In reality, body and blood of Christ does not signify the physical parts of the man Jesus during his life or in his glorified body. Body and blood here signifies specifically the presence of Christ in the symbolism of bread and wine. …
“We now have communion with Jesus Christ, through the eating and drinking of the bread and wine. Just as in an interpersonal relationship, a letter can show the friendship between persons and illustrate the affection of the sender for the recipient.” …
“The nature of these gifts can be clarified only in their relation to man. The essence of the bread and the wine, therefore, must be defined in an anthropological way. The natural character of these offerings [bread and wine] as a fruit of the earth and the work of human hands, as units of natural and cultural products, is to strengthen and nourish man and the human community in the character of a common meal. … This natural essence of the bread and wine is transformed by God in the sense that this nature of bread and wine now shows and achieves salvific communion with God.”
I certainly would.
Mine would never say anything like that. Where did you get this?
They are the words of the Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of The Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Muller.
The man placed in charge of the orthodoxy of the Church by Pope Benedict.
May God deliver us from the Nouvelle Theologie and all of its defenders.
By way of contrast, here are the words of Pope Gregory VII, in his Eucharistic Credo written specifically to condemn the heretic Berengarius, and which was quoted directly in Pope Paul Vi’s encyclical letter “Mysterium Fidei”:
“I believe in my heart and openly profess that the bread and wine placed upon the altar are, by the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of the Redeemer, substantially changed into the true and life-giving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord, and that after the consecration there is present the true body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and offered up for the salvation of the world, hung on the cross and now sits at the right hand of the Father, and that there is present the true blood of Christ which flowed from His side. They are present not only by means of a sign and of the efficacy of the sacrament, but also in the very reality and truth of their nature and substance.”
Now one of these men is Catholic, and the other is an heretic.
It is as simple as that.
Can you provide links?
Certainly:
First, for the astonishing heresy of Archbishop Muller:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_160_Muller_Trans.html
Second, for the Catholic teaching of Pope Gregory VII:
http://quaeritedominum.blogspot.com/2008/04/credo-on-eucharist-of-pope-gregory-vii.html
Rick, I found this defense in a source I generally trust. I think the issue needs more reading and also to take into account translations. I know your blood pressure will go up, try not to pop a vessel.
“These were not so much criticisms as baseless provocations aimed at discrediting me, but everyone can read what I have written in context and systematically. Why should I deny the doctrines of transubstantiation or the perpetual virginity of Mary? I have written whole books in defense of these doctrines.”
“In the Gospel, Jesus said: “This is my blood; this is my body.” What is the meaning of this? It refers to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but in the New Testament, you don’t find this expression — “Real Presence.” It is a later theological term used to explain the truth contained in the Gospel. Then, in the context of the 12th and 13th centuries, the Church had to defend the doctrine of the Real Presence, and she did this by expressing it in philosophical terms to explain the difference between substance and appearance. This is the doctrine of transubstantiation — a word which you will not find in the New Testament but which was necessary in order to explain and defend what had been revealed in the New Testament. Often, people do not understand the relationship between revelation and theology.”
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-on-the-sspx-and-his-controversial-writings/
“Rick, I found this defense in a source I generally trust.”
>> Fair enough, let’s have a look at it.
“I think the issue needs more reading and also to take into account translations. I know your blood pressure will go up, try not to pop a vessel.”
>> The problem has clearly been the contrary- even frank, open, plain-spoken, and damnable heresy is to be mollycoddled. Such has been the disastrous practice of the post conciliar hierarchy.
“These were not so much criticisms as baseless provocations aimed at discrediting me, but everyone can read what I have written in context and systematically. Why should I deny the doctrines of transubstantiation or the perpetual virginity of Mary? I have written whole books in defense of these doctrines.”
>> The words of this heretic are quite clear. They are reproduced above. He asks us to read his words in context and systematically.
Let us do so.
His words directly contradict the Faith.
Next?
“In the Gospel, Jesus said: “This is my blood; this is my body.” What is the meaning of this? It refers to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but in the New Testament, you don’t find this expression — “Real Presence.”
>> Berengarius, the great heresiarch, advanced exactly the same argument. Luther, the great hjeresiarch, advanced exactly the same argument.
So far his company is not good.
“It is a later theological term used to explain the truth contained in the Gospel.”
>> Neither is the Trinitarian formula of Nicea contained in the Gospel, as the heresiarch Arius hoped to bamboozle you by asseverating.
The argument is, of course, that the Church has erred in Her dogmatic formulations, teaching what was not present in the Gospel.
That is heresy.
” Then, in the context of the 12th and 13th centuries, the Church had to defend the doctrine of the Real Presence, and she did this by expressing it in philosophical terms to explain the difference between substance and appearance. This is the doctrine of transubstantiation — a word which you will not find in the New Testament but which was necessary in order to explain and defend what had been revealed in the New Testament. Often, people do not understand the relationship between revelation and theology.”
>> More often, people are bamboozled by heretics who try to set up an opposition between the New testament, and the dogmatic definitions ofm the Church to which the authentic interpretation of the New Testament is entrusted *specifically by Christ Himself*.
May God deliver us from the poisonous Nouvelle Theologie and all of its defenders.
“It is a later theological term used to explain the truth contained in the Gospel.”
>> Neither is the Trinitarian formula of Nicea contained in the Gospel, as the heresiarch Arius hoped to bamboozle you by asseverating.
The argument is, of course, that the Church has erred in Her dogmatic formulations, teaching what was not present in the Gospel.
—————-
I took what he said to be merely an explanation, not a renunciation.
Let me tell you what process I went through instead of you impulsively guessing.
My sense told me that what I read was not quite right. The last quote though was not very clear. My sense of self has been trained so that no one, or, anyone named Rick automatically gets a “sig heil” from me. A flag, yes. My sense of fairness DEMANDS (this would go for you also) a fair reading and further study. Not brief quotes, not a websites translation and telling heading that I have no experience with. This is proper study and the proper way to treat someone.
Notice, Howard, how this has proceeded.
First, you read the quotes, and your sensus catholicus was immediately outraged.
You knew, in the Spirit, and at once, that these words were not the words of the Faith.
Second, you found out who wrote them.
Third, you sought a way to somehow make the words mean something other than what they say (the quintessential mind game of the modernist).
Not me.
Gregory VII:
“I believe in my heart and openly profess that the bread and wine placed upon the altar are, by the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of the Redeemer, substantially changed into the true and life-giving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord”
Muller:
“In reality, body and blood of Christ does not signify the physical parts of the man Jesus during his life or in his glorified body.”
Gregory VII:
“…after the consecration there is present the true body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and offered up for the salvation of the world, hung on the cross and now sits at the right hand of the Father, and that there is present the true blood of Christ which flowed from His side.”
Muller:
“Body and blood here signifies specifically the presence of Christ in the symbolism of bread and wine. …”
Gregory VII:
“They are present not only by means of a sign and of the efficacy of the sacrament, but also in the very reality and truth of their nature and substance.”
Let the Catholic determine who speaks the truth, and who speaks the lie.
What he said, Howard, was that the body and blood of Jesus Christ are not present in the Holy Eucharist.
Best of luck in your discernment process.
You’re absolutly right, Rick. Archbishop Müller’s writings on transubstantiation are heretical. God bless that heretic! This is the kind of thinking that the Church needs. Mind you, speaking as an apostate, the Church would have to make a lot of changes before it could begin to tempt me to rejoin. But at least there are some glimmers of rationality.
I am glad to see that apostasy is popular among apostates, Steven.
One might dare hope that the contrary would likewise prove true.
May God grant the Holy Catholic Church what we certainly do not deserve; that is, a Pope who will be despised by apostates.
Well, for the very first time, we have an objective circumstance which answers to “a bishop dressed in white”, in the Fatima prophecy.