Quiddity for Atheists
I keep saying to atheists that you can’t argue against the existence of God if you don’t know what you are arguing against, or if you don’t know what is meant by that word. This is not to convert you, that takes faith of your own free will.
This is to clear up what we mean as a matter of reasoned discourse, something you should welcome as a free-thinker.
Some say that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated but is held by faith alone, and that no one can reason that God exists. This can seem so if the arguments made to prove the existence of God are weak. If the knowledge of principles of demonstration only arise from what can be sensed, then whatever transcends the senses can be said to be indemonstrable. Therefore, one will conclude that God is indemonstrable.
This opinion can be shown to be false by demonstrating that we do arrive at causes by studying the effects. That is the order of the sciences. If there is no knowable thing higher than what can be sensed (sight, smell, sound, taste, touch), then there is no higher science than basic physics. And that is not true. Stop for a moment and consider how much of modern science does not involve any direct sensory experience at all.
“For the invisible things of God… are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.” (Rom. 1:20).
To understand the arguments for the existence of God, first requires an understanding of the difference between being and essence. The terms are not identical. The question “is it” is different from the question “what is it”? This error arises when the name “God” is not clearly defined.
“We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable…one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature…one principle of all things, creator of all things invisible and visible.” Fourth Lateran Council 1215
In God, being and essence are identical, that is – God subsists in Himself. God is Existence. He is Himself. We do not know fully this being or essence (since we are not God), but if it is real, then it is not only something that exists in the intellect. It exists objectively, independent of any individual’s intellect.
Enter the term “quiddity” which means the inherent nature or essence of a person or thing; what makes a thing what it is.
The quiddity must be taken as a meaningful distinction. All other definitions of God either remove the effects of God from Himself (I.e. He doesn’t exist because we can’t see Him.), or they in some way relate God to His effects (I.e. He’s just a bearded, bossy man in the sky). They do not absolutely define God as identical being and essence. The only logical definition of God is that God transcends all sensible things and sense itself, but His existence can be demonstrated with sensible things since He created them.
Thus, the origin of our knowledge transcends what can be sensed, but it is consistent with what we sense. Think about that. Is that true or false? This is just the beginning.
[learn_more caption="Source"]Summa Contra Gentiles, Book One, Chapter 12 “ THE OPINION OF THOSE WHO SAY THAT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED BUT IS HELD BY FAITH ALONE.”[/learn_more]
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Comments (133)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- A few good links | eChurch Blog | April 16, 2012
- Three Ways to Win Every Debate with an Atheist | Accepting Abundance | May 28, 2012
Interesting post….
I think part of the issue is semantics; yes, I believe in no god, and hold no deity based values. I’m called an atheist, but in reality I am just myself. I don’t need to assign a label to myself. All I can do is explain my beliefs the best I can and if others feel the need to label me that is fine- I’m secure in my beliefs just as you are.
I find your sensory analogy quite fascinating. In fact relying on my five senses I am able to ascertain many things, and EXTRAPOLATE those things I KNOW to be true into theories that I find be to be more than likely facts. I have seen what happens when I look through a beer bottle, the curvature of the glass distorts things. In some cases it even magnifies what I am looking at. Using extrapolation I can be pretty sure that when someone says the Hubble telescope has found a new star it is true. I’ve never been to space, but I’ve launched model rockets, and understand the laws of physics (math geek), so I don’t doubt any of this. CERN in Switzerland is a great example of man’s quest for truth as well as man’s ability to be humble and admit miscalculations. Einstein (who didn’t believe in god, but despised the label atheist) and his theories are still being supported… I suggest people look at CERN, not for this discussion, but for the absolute amazement at what our world is attempting to contemplate!
On the same token, I have never seen any snake or animal talk, not have I read about it anywhere other than Genesis. I used to work in engineering (not an engineer) and understand point loading, torsion, etc… What I KNOW to be true tells me that Noah’s Arc has very little probability of being possible.
These extrapolations of truths in my world tell me that there is no god. I have never experienced a miracle, I have experienced a set of circumstances where physics, metallurgy, thermodynamics and medical technology has allowed me to live another day.
I also don’t find lack of conclusive evidence as justification to believe in a high power. In less than 1000 years we have learned that the Earth does indeed orbit around the sun, that the Earth is a sphere. We have learned that gods don’t rain down lava on people; geophones and lasers have showed that plate tectonics are responsible for magma. As our world community grows so does our knowledge of facts. We rely on theories to initiate technology, which in turns allows us to turn some of our theories into facts.
In the Freethinking post you mentioned Aristotle vs. Jesus. I feel that both did exist. Jesus’s existence was that of a man, not the son of a deity. I have no ideas on why Jesus was turned into a mythical creature of legend, but I really don’t doubt he existed in the flesh as a normal human being.
I don’t dismiss god as an essence as you wrote, he most definitely is real to many people. On that same note Allah, Shiva, Zeus, Odin, etc are/were all very real in people’s mind. A weak analogy is that Santa is real in a child’s mind. They very much believe in a bearded man bearing Xboxes and Chinese imported plastic. The sad truth is that essence alone doesn’t mean something is actually real. I find it very sad that many of our great scientific minds were murdered at the hands of Christians and muslims because their freethinking was not in line with a particular church.
I could write a novel about each paragraph, but I’ll it at that. I’m happy to discuss all this piece by piece for brevity and ability to not jump around too much.
wow a little long to digest. There’s so much to discuss with people more articulatem (and civil) than I.
God subsists in Himself. God is Existence. He is Himself.
Is this not an argument for Pantheism? If not, what is the difference that can be discerned from reason alone?
RG,
Thank you.
“I think part of the issue is semantics;”
Yes, very much so. Words are important for reasoned discourse. They have to be defined and articulated, sort of like mathematics but less precise than numbers. Still words are symbols and for a logical argument to be valid the meaning of the words have to stay the same as the argument progresses.
“…yes, I believe in no god, and hold no deity based values.”
I know. This is only to show you that the belief in God is reasonable.
“I’m called an atheist, but in reality I am just myself. I don’t need to assign a label to myself. All I can do is explain my beliefs the best I can and if others feel the need to label me that is fine- I’m secure in my beliefs just as you are.”
I agree. You are you. This is of utmost importance in understanding what Aristotle and Aquinas meant by essence and being. You are an individual being with a human nature, but your personality is unique. You cannot be someone else, nor can you be anything else. Nor can you do what is not predicated of human nature.
“I find your sensory analogy quite fascinating.”
I love that stuff too. Aristotle was adamant that knowledge must be rooted in what we can sense, in the real world, and only after establishing that can we reasonably extrapolate. A lot of philosophers over time have gotten that jumbled, but it’s the simple truth.
Exactly — on the part about extrapolating, telescopes and CERN. Exactly!
“On the same token, I have never seen any snake or animal talk, not have I read about it anywhere other than Genesis. I used to work in engineering (not an engineer) and understand point loading, torsion, etc… What I KNOW to be true tells me that Noah’s Arc has very little probability of being possible.”
We’ll deal with the Bible later. Catholics are instructed to read it as a whole and study has been given over time to understand it better. For now, it’s enough to say it is not inconceivable that an Almighty Creator who holds everything in existence could cause miracles.
“I also don’t find lack of conclusive evidence as justification to believe in a high power.”
Again, stick for now with what is conceivable. Unicorns are of the imagination, but we cannot really conceive of a unicorn since we see nothing like that with our senses and never have. There is a difference in imagination and what is conceivable. It is not inconceivable that a Creator exists. Aquinas in the next part of this book I referenced gets into the actual arguments of cause and effect.
“In less than 1000 years we have learned that the Earth does indeed orbit around the sun, that the Earth is a sphere.”
Not really. That is still a matter of theory. We do not know from observation though exactly what orbits what, as a matter of relativity. It appears to our senses that the sun rises and sets. That’s another discussion. Again, for now we are dealing with logical proofs. Things move. We see that.
“We have learned that gods don’t rain down lava on people; geophones and lasers have showed that plate tectonics are responsible for magma. As our world community grows so does our knowledge of facts.”
Those are explanations of observations. They are not facts. But they are very good explanations.
“We rely on theories to initiate technology, which in turns allows us to turn some of our theories into facts.”
OK. It is a fact that if I let go of a ball, it will drop. But that is because I am operating within the known parameters of the theory. But OK, I get your point.
“In the Freethinking post you mentioned Aristotle vs. Jesus. I feel that both did exist.”
Good! For now, we are still just discussing God’s existence though. It is all worked out, but systematically.
“Jesus’s existence was that of a man, not the son of a deity.”
That’s a guess. Hold off on this though because it’s getting ahead of the things. Catholic doctrine does hold though that Christ is a human nature and the Divine Nature united in the Son of God. Those words were carefully chosen, and they are reasonable. But it comes later as a matter of discourse and explanation.
“I don’t dismiss god as an essence as you wrote, he most definitely is real to many people. On that same note Allah, Shiva, Zeus, Odin, etc are/were all very real in people’s mind.”
Yes! St. Thomas Aquinas covers why Christianity is reasonable and other religions are less so or not at all reasonable.
“A weak analogy is that Santa is real in a child’s mind. They very much believe in a bearded man bearing Xboxes and Chinese imported plastic.”
That’s another topic, but for what it’s worth our family and many families we know don’t reduce Christmas to that at all. Not at all. It’s very deeply meaningful as Christ’s Mass. Another time though…
“The sad truth is that essence alone doesn’t mean something is actually real. I find it very sad that many of our great scientific minds were murdered at the hands of Christians and muslims because their freethinking was not in line with a particular church.”
This issue requires some knowledge of history and moral theology. It’s too much to get into (I assume you are talking about Bruno) but for now please guard against the WASP version of the story.
“I could write a novel about each paragraph, but I’ll it at that. I’m happy to discuss all this piece by piece for brevity and ability to not jump around too much.”
I was hoping to stick to the classical arguments in proof of the existence of God. I’ve found (via the apologist Frank Sheed) that it’s useless to spend time on the actual proofs until it’s clear what is trying to be proved — and this foundational point is where I see the discussion with atheists get lost, or never even really start. Again too, this is just the intellectual stuff, to believe one must also desire to have faith. I only hope to show you that a belief in God is not unreasonable (I enjoy testing myself on the content I’m reading!).
To get an idea of how much has been dealt to this topic, just look at this page.
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles.htm
This post was from Book One, Chapter 12. A needle, but an important one. If you click on each book you see how St. Thomas develops the reasoned discourse systematically.
And if Jeff is not too busy, I’d appreciate it if the wise professor could check my work!
Howard,
I’m offering you an answer to the best of my ability, but if someone can add to it or correct it, I welcome that too.
(Me = student!)
Pantheism is the belief that God is the universe.
Catholicism holds that God created the universe and holds it in existence.
I took this post from Book One, Chapter 12 of Summa Contra Gentiles, but if you read the next chapter St. Thomas gets into the difference between being and essence more, and into unmoved mover, First Cause arguments.
You write very well and please pursue writing for sure. The definitions of Pantheism (or other forms) and Catholicism do not in themselves provide reasonable argument. I have read the mover and cause arguments of Aquinas and agree that they are hard to deny, but laborious to read. My point is that a belief in the existence of God for these reasons is more difficult today that in antiquity because of the seeming slow overpowering of God by science. New disease prevention methods, mathematics, etc. In Aquinas’ time the world was smaller and less controllable. It seems that to look at the world and conclude there is a God is a dead end, a vague notion.
-
My aunt who is agnostic wrote me and said that she had read a news story that said science had found the God gene. I wrote back and said; Heb 9:10-11 “For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.” (I am Catholic but prefer the KJV ever since I read the tepid Catholic rendition of the 23rd psalm).
-
But here we stop. The next step is denial or acceptance.
-
(I defer to the superior reasoning of the Doctors of the Church)
Stacy
this is interesting to me. As you know I do believe in the possibility of a god. Doesn’t matter to me how you or anyone else describes said god. Doesn’t matter to me what books or rules you attribute god.
What does matter is that you dismiss all other religions based on what one man says? Or even if it is a hundred guys. This is where the problem presents it’s ugly little head for me. Millions believe differently than you. This I think is where a lot of people fail with their relationship with god. I mean really which one is right? Here I will get catholicism, were this a jewish blog I would get judaism.
And I would love to get to the bible discussion. I really need to know who decided what in it is truth and what is not. I realize we have the “shrimp fallacy” but that to me just proves to be a clever ruse to explain why what you say is rule and what isn’t.
Wonderful work, Stacy.
This is a great passion of mine and apparently was a great passion of the great poet Dante as well. He lamented famously in the Divine Comedy – “the human race must rest content with the quia“.
Your essay explains what the quia is. As you said, the ideal argument is a demonstration based on quiddity or essence, that argument is called the propter quid, and it explains why something is.
But we do not know God’s essence or quiddity, other than to say that His existence and essence are one in the same. So we can’t “prove” the existence of God on account of His quiddity, propter quid.
So we have to be satisfied with an a posteriori argument, known as the quia, which shows that something is, based on a partial knowledge of its effects.
St. Thomas began by showing that St. Anselm had erred in trying to reason from the definition or essence of God (that than which nothing greater can be conceived) to His existence. A good attempt, but subtly flawed. St. Thomas forged ahead, telling us to be of good cheer, because lots of things we know we know by reasoning backward from a posteriori facts. St. Thomas proceeded to argue for the existence of God on the basis of God’s creatures. From the creature, we infer that there is a creator, but we can’t infer the essence of the creator except in a limited way by a process of negation. St. Thomas taught, and Dante echoed, that we must rest content with the quia. We can’t have a complete notion or concept of God in this life.
But is this a cop-out? Not at all. Science itself proceeds not by demonstration but by the logic of discovery. The logical positivists were dead set on making all confirmation based on the reduction sentences from theoretical terms to observation terms. Things went well briefly, but the great 20th century philosopher Rudolph Carnap ultimately showed — a devastating setback to positivism — that very few if any scientific terms could be completely reduced to observation sentences. Science, he said, can argue at best using partial definitions.
I am SO happy that Stacy pointed out that the quia as we call it is not an anachronism of the middle ages. On the contrary, it’s how science works.
I’m not a physicist, but I’ve been told that a good example of the irreducibility of scientific concepts to observation language is the curvature of space. It is mediated by partial definitions that connect to observation language, but the concept itself is only partially defined by those reductions. This is as it should be. Science is a creative and ingenious enterprise precisely because our hypotheses and our concepts are provisional. We argue from certain sense data backward to hypothetical constructs. We infer the things unseen from what we see.
Stacy you just amaze me, and I’m sure many here would agree.
Thanks for the encouragement Howard.
I told my husband when I started this (on the side because I’m a wife and mother first) theology degree that it was so I could communicate better. Plus I had just converted and felt like I wanted to dive in and make up for lost time. I am absolutely fascinated at the thinking of St. Thomas. He wrote all of that down – ink and quill – word by word. No computers or word processors. It blows my mind.
But nothing compares to the Bible, does it? I can’t even get my head around that.
A story: I used to debate a lot on the internet with young women who were pro-choice. I had all the arguments down pat. A young woman who had gone at it with me for years disappeared for a while and when I *saw* her online again months later, she was defending the sanctity of human life.
“What happened?” I asked her. “What changed your mind?”
It wasn’t arguments. It was the Bible. She said she just picked it up one day and started reading in the Gospel of John. And she accepted it.
I love that!
I can see God in an oatmeal cookie too!
Stacy, I think is is good for anti-Catholics to learn the lives of Catholics. To see the differences within the incredible freedom of Christ. We are not a monolithic power bowing to the Pope at the pinnacle; it is God himself. This will be gibberish to non-Christians.
-
I was an Episcopalian until 12, agnostic until 5 years ago, Catholic 2 years ago. This biggest mistake I made in my life (next to the dot com market) was eliminating the church from my life because I judged it by the lives of the least faithful instead of the most.
Howard, are you interested in to learn the lives of non catholics?
One can have belief in god without religion, it’s actually quite simple.
Fyi I understand the lives of catholic. I was raised by a faithful catholic. Church every week, beleif in the pope all that jazz. But thankfully she was also aware enough of the outside world and that not everyone had to be the same. Thanks Mom for the amazing upbringing.
Alan, Yes belief in God without religion is the point of my comments based on ideas in this essay. It was also the bulk of my life. Acceptance of a religion could be the next step.
I find agnostics easier to understand since I was one (a skeptical theist is more accurate) for most of my life. Atheists are a complete misery. If one describes atheism as not believing in God. I see the problem as a personal one of not responding to God or blaming others for not being convincing enough. Believing is something a person does or does not do – not God. If an atheist describes himself as one who denies the existence of God (there is no such thing as God) and asks for proof via science of His existence, I see a big problem since this kind of definitive statement (he does not exist) cannot and has not been proven by empirical means. Illogical or just hypocrisy? This thinking tends to separate man and God by a wall of separation made of clouds. Mans domain is physical and Gods is invisible somewhere out there. What can be proven is legitimate and what cannot is illegitimate. Actually the truth is that the existence of God can be proven using the same means we prove things on earth. This collapses any separation based on means. It utilizes a very common method in science, the only problem is that results cannot be published – destructive testing.
String theory tells us there may be as many as 11 spatial dimensions, yet we perceive but three (kind of makes you wonder who might be watching you get dressed every morning). Our senses tell us that a stone is a solid object, perfect for throwing at the squirrel raiding the tomatoes; science tells us that the stone is mostly made of nothing. Our solid earth is so porous, that clouds of particles pass through it without touching anything. The more I learn of science, the more I think it permits supernatural explanation. YET I think the basic difference is that science answers how; religion answers why.
Howard, thank you for the response.
I will more than likely never find religion. I am married to a man. I plan to be married to that man until one of us dies. Now yes there are some religions that may accept that, and I appreciate it, I just don’t feel the need for some power to tell me how and what to believe. Been there, done that.
I don’t think atheist are a complete misery. That is the kind of condemning (thanks Mary) that I abhor in the religious. I think they are as content in your life not believing as you are in believing. My most fervent wish is we could find the happy medium.
And also, sorry but I don’t really believe that there is any actual “proof” of the existance of god. I really don’t believe there is any proof in either direction.
A typo – mistery not misery.
“I just don’t feel the need for some power to tell me how and what to believe.”—–I assume you are saying that you will not allow a power to dictate to you. Does not that make you superior to that power? Why would anyone want to be dictated to by a lesser power?
Stacy: there is a bad, truly sophomoric, joke I remember: “When asked to define quidditas, God said ‘I am’.”
Having typed it out, I see why it was all the rage so many years ago – it’s kind of dumb . . . the reason students found it funny rather than professors.
Seriously though, your warning about the limits of the senses is well heeded. As another blogger put it recently: a man with a metal detector disbelieves the existence of wood.
Speaking of atheists and religion, there was a lovely discussion yesterday between Cardinal Pell and Richard Dawkins that can be viewed here:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm
Such an awesome post!
I wish that I had the time to throw in my 2 cents worth. But the mere thought of god with or without the capital G… I don’t know where to begin. Unfortunately Dancing With the Stars is on and I just can’t get my thoughts together at all. ( I hate DWTS with a passion and every other type of “reality TV” of show)
So many thoughts and ideas we speak of would have us strung up by our toes and lashed, even a hundred years ago and we talk about them freely now; ah, but the joys of the internet.
I have understood pantheism as being: the universe is like a shoe box and god exists in and surrounds and encompasses the shoe box but its not directly involved with the show box so to speak of. A bit like deism I suppose but the key being the way of creation and involvement in creation. Whereas with deism god created the universe and all in it then stepped away for observational purposes known only to god, whatever god is. Both of which seem viable but somewhat inadequate in the scope of things.
Howard, if there is no power it matters not if it is lesser or greater.
“As you know I do believe in the possibility of a god.”
-
“I just don’t feel the need for some power to tell me how and what to believe.”
-
“if there is no power it matters not if it is lesser or greater.”
-
Alan, substitute “no power” for “some power” in the second sentence and see if it makes any sense.
“And I would love to get to the bible discussion. I really need to know who decided what in it is truth and what is not.”
-
Jesus Christ invented it, decided it, taught it.
-
For me a long and intense journey to this conclusion. Starting with Robert Schuller and Harold Camping then at the same time C.S. Lewis (“Mere Christianity”), Ravi Zacharias (TV lectures especially at Oxford, http://www.rzim.org/), Frank Turek (http://crossexamined.org/tv.asp) , Denesh D’Souza (http://dineshdsouza.com/), Norman Geisler, G. K. Chesterton, Benedict XVI, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Thomas More, St. Agustine. Any undergraduate educational background of mine in philosophy, history, sociology, science. The Bible, all of the apologists at EWTN TV and radio, and lurking at internet discussions. I know I have left out many others who have had an influence, but, these are the greatest.
-
Just begin Alan.
I just want to take issue with this:
“Unicorns are of the imagination, but we cannot really conceive of a unicorn since we see nothing like that with our senses and never have.”
I actually can conceive of a unicorn pretty easily, and find the concept far more plausible than God. I’ve seen a horse, I can imagine it being white, I can imagine it having a horn in the middle of its forehead, and I can even imagine it being glittery and barfing rainbows. The last bit is slightly implausible, but certainly not so far-fetched that we cannot conceive of it.
A non-corporeal being that exists outside of time, was able to “think” before there existed things to think about, who can cause things to exist without being a physical being himself (and who somehow has a gender…?), who we cannot sense in any way, and who cares about and judges every detail of your life…? Not so much. Unicorns: 1, God: 0.
SteveP,
“a man with a metal detector disbelieves the existence of wood”
That is a good line. Thank you!
Peggy Sue,
I heard about that debate but have not watched it yet. Thanks.
Andrew, I agree the pantheistic god seems inadequate. If He created us to know and love, the He would only also want to know and love us too, to be personal.
Michelle, I have a quote for you to make sense of that. Perhaps I didn’t explain it very well for the sake of brevity. That’s a good point you brought up though.
This also gets at the point Steve made.
Sheed, Frank. Theology and Sanity (pp. 34-35).
So — I shouldn’t have said that we cannot conceive of a unicorn, we obviously can. I should have said that the unicorn is of the imagination, but our intellect is not limited to the imagination and only what can be determined with our senses.
Stacy: I read the sentence at Mike Flynn’s blog. He deserves an author’s credit; if he is not the author then he still is commended for the good taste of repeating an excellent turn of phrase.
Excellent follow-up from Sheed.
Someone alleged, “To say that something is unimaginable is merely to say that the imagination cannot make a picture of it… Spirit is beyond the reach of all the senses (and so of imagination) because it lacks all material qualities.” Doesn’t stop people from imagining that evil spirits haunt the house down the road. Some people have even claimed to have seen them while others allege them without claiming to have seen them. Likewise, according to my dictionary, to “imagine” can mean to assume, suppose, conjecture, guess, think, believe, conceive, fancy, etc without need for a “picture”.
Similarly, someone alleged, “the reality of any spiritual statement must be tested by the intellect. The intellect’s word of rejection is ‘inconceivable’.” We’ve already heard testimony that unicorns are not inconceivable, but that does not establish that they’re not imaginary. Same with “spiritual” things like haunted houses.
Thanks for the clarification, Stacy! That makes more sense, and I do agree with you to a certain extent (I actually wrote a whole post on truth at one point, and talked about going beyond what we know to be unequivocally true). The extent to which I disagree…that’ll have to come another day. Large amounts of homework have rendered me incapable of discussing anything more sophisticated than mythical creatures with gastrointestinal problem!
Howard wrote that if God is Being itself, how is this not an argument for pantheism?
I think that’s a great question.
Stacy’s discussion focused on the difference between being and essence, and how this distinction means we can’t prove what He is, but we can prove that He is. Her brilliant essay on the topic is spot on and as good as it gets.
It’s a mouthful in itself, and worth meditating on.
To get why this does not imply pantheism, you need to follow St. Thomas a little further into the participatory nature of being. St. Thomas taught that we receive our being from God, but our being is not God’s being. We are separate. Conversely, God is transcendent. In either sense, it means His being is a qualitatively different thing from our being.
The old philosophical question: is there One being, or Many? The answer is: neither, or rather something in between. There is One being, God, whose being we participate in. But our participated being is finite whereas His being does not participate, but rather is infinite, it is the source of all being. Therefore God’s being and our being are two separate things, yet are linked in an “analogical” sense.
The doctrine of analogy of being is the doctrine, probably the central metaphysical principle of St. Thomas.
For the mathematically inclined, we all know what the plus sign means (+). We know that A + B is the same as B + A. We get the idea. And we know what multiplication is, and we know that A * B is the same as B * A.
Things get a little more complicated when we bring negative numbers into account, but with a couple of new rules, the operators work sort of the same way. Similarly, addition and multiplication get a little dicier when working with fractions. Finally, the concept of + and * take on an enriched meaning when we apply them to matrices and vectors. In fact we see some surprises. If A and B are matrices, A * B does not mean the same thing as B * A! Oh dear, does this symbol still deserve to be called multiplication? Does “multiply” mean the same thing for integers as it does for matrices? If you know math, you know the answer is sort of. But not completely.
Sorry to geek, but this is meant to show the development of a symbol from simple to complex when the symbol is applied to more and more general objects, where the symbol takes follows a natural trajectory as it advances to the more general case, it retains its meaning more or less, but takes on new meaning, so much so that the symbol at the highest level can’t be compared directly to the symbol as used at the lowest level. The symbols are “analogous.” Similarly, the word “being” in the case of a person follows radically different rules compared to when it is used in the case of God.
The most important difference is, with God, there are no predicates. God is. God’s nature is pure being. The essence of God is pure act. We are the products of his act of pure being. We can’t just be. We have to be tall, or be red, or be surprised, or hot. But we as subjects can only be referred to in terms of sense phenomena. This is an imperfect kind of being.
So we aren’t parts of God. We are His creatures. And because we are the products of his creation, our being imperfectly, and in a radically transposed way, reflects his perfect being.
I don’t feel like I did a very good job here, but if you can get even a hint of the idea, you’re doing well.
According to the reported words alleged to Fr. Justin Langille, reportedly a former “professor of Theology at USD for over 10 years”: “The whole problem is based on a conceptual error of believing ourselves to be something we are not” that “creates the illusion of separation from God… All human suffering comes from this illusion of separation. We create our own suffering by thinking, feeling, and acting as though we exist separate from God.” “[O]ur true identity is Christ.” “[W]e live in oneness with God!”
Or in the reported words alleged to Thomas Merton: “Christ living in me is at one and the same time himself and myself. From the moment that I am united to him ‘in one spirit’ there is no longer any contradiction implied by the fact that we are different persons.” And, “At the center of our being is a point of nothingness which is untouched by sin and by illusion, a point of pure truth, a point or spark which belongs entirely to God, which is never at our disposal, from which God disposes of our lives, which is inaccessible to the fantasies of our own mind or the brutalities of our own will.”
…nope. Burden of proof is still on you, regardless of how many colorful arguments you use to wiggle out of it.
“The only logical definition of God is that God transcends all sensible things and sense itself, but His existence can be demonstrated with sensible things since He created them.” <— I must have missed the part with the proof that your god is the one who created "sensible things".
So basically, its back down to wether or not you believe he was the one who created "sensible things". Great. That sure cleared things up a lot. Woe is the atheists, surely they will be defeated by this line of reasoning.
-_-
Sorry, Halvor, you skipped a step.
The burden is on you to first “prove” that things can be proved. Right? You introduced a new idea. The idea of proof. Prove that your concept of proof is valid. You’re on Stacy’s site now, not in a college dorm. Pull yourself together and get serious.
If you were educated, you’d say, “why of course the axioms of formal logic show that things can be proved!”
The axioms of formal logic show that things can be proved, but they don’t prove that things can be proved.
Back in the day, logicians and mathematicians used to think that the rules of predicate logic could be proven on their own terms. I.e., the proof of predicate logic could be derived from the system of predicate logic itself.
Halvor, I’d like you to meet Kurt Gödel. This diminutive and soft spoken man humbly proved — using a most unconventional and ingenious “proof” — that the rules of a logical-mathematical system can never be proven from within the rules system itself. I.e., some results that can be derived from a logical-mathematical system are unprovable from within the system — they need a basis in a higher order system.
True story!
Now if you’re a thoughtful bloke, you’re thinking, “wait, the proof of my system of proof needs support from a higher system. And the proof of that system needs support from a higher system yet. Etc. etc.”
Vertigo. You need something solid to cling to.
Cling to the Cross, Halvor. And pray. It’s Easter, for heaven’s sake. Work out the logic as you grow, and come to recognize that faith is the most reasonable thing in the world.
Jeff McCloud, regarding your pantheism explanation. You write very well and you also realize the sometines difficulty of expressing a simple concept. My fault in communication often lies in assuming that much of what I mean is understood by the reader already. I suppose this is the reason for back and forth conversation. To elaborate, the importance of what I said (sorry but don’t we all assume this) is not that there is actually an explanation but that further refinement of understanding will not come by the basic “written on our heart” ability of people who are not the equivalent of St. Thomas. This then offers the opportunity to bring religion into play which is no different than the need for science or math or medicine. Let the games begin and continue.
(I defer to the superior reasoning of the Fathers of the Church)
I’m loving the dialogue here and reading every word. Thank you all for the comments. Brother Juniper, Howard, SteveP and Jeff know what they are talking about. They’ve all given this much thought. If nothing else, challenge us and let us challenge you, atheists. It’s a discussion.
Halvor, one thing I’d like you to answer:
What constitutes proof for you? What? I find usually that people who say “You haven’t proven anything” aren’t even sure what actually would constitute proof, so I challenge them to answer that first. It makes it easier to answer if we know what you are looking for and why.
(I’ll respond more later today, as a certain toddler has gotten artistic with the stuff in the diaper and I’m up to my elbows in the glory of motherhood, I know, I know – TMI.)
Peggy, you could have also quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church which does not require knowing what USD means.
1057 Hell’s principal punishment consists of eternal separation from God in whom alone man can have the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
Peggy, isn’t this the same University of San Diego that has held or is planning a transgender day? The Fr in front of the name of a professor at a Catholic university derives his authority from the Catholic Church. I do not know his position on the matter, but, it is also possible to separate yourself from the Church.
God is a thinking man’s game or should I say in your case, a thinking woman’s game.
(I really don’t qualify.) I have found more often than not that most of the atheists that do a lot of the blogging really are nothing more than marginal left wing totalitarian hacks scared to death that marginal right wing bible thumpers are going to be in control of their lives and vice versa. There is not much in the way actual thinking it’s more like glorified “is to”, “is not”. Oh well… Que sera sera…
Anyway I must disagree with you one this point here; “Andrew, I agree the pantheistic god seems inadequate. If He created us to know and love, the He would only also want to know and love us too, to be personal.”
The reason being is plainly that I have no idea what the intentions of let’s say “god” for the lack of a better word, are or why “god” would want to create a universe in the first place. I know what you are gonna say; “it was all revealed in Christ or the bible or both” I really really have a hard time with that. Life is inherently unfair it seems, more so for some and not others although I wouldn’t say it is evil per se more like just the way it is. We can get into that later.
As for pantheism and deism seeming inadequate. They lack a cohesion that I can’t place my finger on to explain. Maybe someone here might get what it is I’m getting at. It’s a cohesion that I think all religions lack. I know what you’re gonna say. “Jesus and or Faith IS that cohesion!” And I would like to believe that and it may even be true, but… The Christian is a wonderful example of this lack thereof and I think you will agree with me that the greatest example is the shattered foundations of Protestant thinking.
None of this is to say that I don’t think that “god” real or imaginary I just don’t seem to understand what you mean when you say “god”
Andrew, let me take a stab at the problem you pose. Christ told us to pray; “Our Father……” (Pater Noster). He referred to “Father” throughout his life. That is why feminists miss the point when they insist that God is gender neutral. Of course he is, He is spirit. The reference to “Father” is for “our” benefit. It explains the relationship He wants you to have with Him. Now there are certainly poor fathers, I had one of them, but Christ goes on through his ministry to describe how “Our Father who art in heaven….” is the perfect father that most of us wished we had.
Howard, you asked, “isn’t this the same University of San Diego that has held or is planning a transgender day?” No, it’s not, much like 2012 is not “the same” as 1985, and like an educational workshop about problems and issues faced by transgender persons or the Catechism’s teachings on sexuality and respect for persons are not “the same” as “a transgender day”.
You wrote, “you could have also quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church which does not require knowing what USD means.” I could have also quoted Mother Goose as well. That too doesn’t “require knowing what USD means”. You impose that requirement upon yourself.
And as to “it is also possible to separate yourself from the Church”, that can depend upon who “yourself” is. For example, as the pope has said, Christ within us is our deepest identity and “Christ cannot be separated from the Church any more than the head can be separated from the body.”
Peggy, nice try.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/11/4405918/university-of-san-diego-wont-dump.html
Howard, it remains as I have said.
or –
What I have written, I have written.
LOL.
Howard, regardless of what I write and whether you poop in your pants and cry over it, it remains that it’s not “the same University of San Diego that has held or is planning a transgender day”, much like 2012 is not “the same” as 1985, and like an educational workshop about problems and issues faced by transgender persons or the Catechism’s teachings on sexuality and respect for persons are not “the same” as “a transgender day”.
Peggy Sue, I want to understand your view on this better but I need your help.
When I say “imagine” a circle, I mean you conjure up a mental image of a particular circle.
When I say “conceive” of a circle, I mean you grasp the concept (=conceive, conception) of a circle in its general sense, which is X^2 + Y^2 = r^2 where X and Y are cartesian axes and r is the radius.
Could you translate those definitions into your language, and then tell me whether you think it is possible to conceive of God?
I think you say a lot of really insightful things, but I’m having trouble figuring out what your position is on the question of whether one can conceive God’s essence.
Howard, I see your point about god as being a spirit, it’s not something I can successively dispute. But why would a spirit have or need emotions? It seems that if a “supreme” spirit is on the loose and that spirit is emotional then the spirit is eternally emotional, meaning eternally loving, angry, spiteful, obsessive, friendly and so on. Not something you would want to spend eternity with if you happen to show up on the wrong day.
Jeff, you wrote, “When I say ‘conceive’ of a circle, I mean you grasp the concept of a circle… Could you translate those definitions into your language, and then tell me whether you think it is possible to conceive of God… whether one can conceive God’s essence.”
Since you used more words than just “conceive”, there are also additional definitions. For example, here are a few more:
grasp: to take hold of intellectually; comprehend
concept: an idea, thought or notion; something formed in the mind
inconceivable: impossible to comprehend or grasp fully: not capable of being imagined or grasped mentally; incomprehensible
incomprehensible: inconceivable; cannot be grasped by the intellect; impossible to comprehend
(And conceive: to take into one’s mind; to grasp; to comprehend; to cause to begin; imagine; apprehend mentally; know; hold an opinion or idea; etc.)
Per the First Vatican Council, God is “incomprehensible” and “supreme over all things that are conceivable.” The human intellect, though it possesses a certain idea of God, is unable to comprehend God adequately and exhaustively. He remains ineffable and inscrutable to the created mind, and he continues in his essence to remain the “hidden God”. Even if the existence of God can be known and demonstrated, and even if his essence is in some manner knowable in the mirror of creation, no sign, no created image can reveal the essence of God, as such, to the human mind. It exceeds all that exists in the created world and all that could be thought in the human mind.
Andrew, sorry for the delay but I made a poopy and you know the mess that causes.
My thinking says that if we start with the word “God” and work backwards, we then must try to fit something that we do not understand into a cage partially built. We have the structure because we have a word for it. Even if we try hard to ignore presuppositions I don’t think this approach will work.
This is where the subject of this essay comes in. You now have something to work with.
Something very large, very powerful, friendly (we could take a poll I suppose), beautiful, uplifting, mysterious. Does this describe a man? No man I have ever known. Does this describe what we sense accurately and in detail?
We get our understanding of, then acceptance, rejection or continued confusion of, the questions we wonder about from the only places we have available; the physical stuff around us and our reasoning. There is an added element of God’s grace but I know you are not near accepting that. If you deny that reasoning can give us answers to questions of an objective nature or that objective realities exist , then we are sunk. We then live in the realm of the typical atheist. No need for this website or our conversation. If you go down the path of Descartes, Hobbs, Locke, Hume then Kant we get to the relativism of today.
So, I guess we have come to one of your points. Why would God want to create the universe anyway? Way too advanced a question. Why would a spirit have or need emotions? Way too advanced a question even if the question is based on fact.
My simplistic pragmatic brain says that since I am convinced Christ was the God that he says he was, and I was told by him to be as a child to Him the Father, I can better understand the path this gigantic unknown thing has set me on. If you have ever had children you will understand exactly your place in the grand plan. Christ did not use big words or complicated sentences.
Now the problem becomes was Christ the persons He claimed. Everything hinges on that. The beginning of your search for truth is that. I could never just accept this truth because somebody told me, even if I respected that person. I needed to confirm this for myself. It had to be reasonable. It is not blind faith, it is a decision to have faith in someone; Jesus.
If Stacy will release one of my previous posts you will see my path. It shows the stepping stones, not the detours. Yours may be different.
(I defer to the superior understanding of the Fathers of the Church)
Howard, which post? Point me to it! Did one not publish??? I wouldn’t do that on purpose, honest.
If it’s a post you published previously, I can go fetch it and repost it here. Is that what you meant? Tell me the gist of it and I’ll find it.
Stacy, don’t fret. I just figured it was because of the links and you overlooked it in a queue. I think now may be a better time anyway.
Howard / April 11, 2012
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
“And I would love to get to the bible discussion. I really need to know who decided what in it is truth and what is not.”
-
Jesus Christ invented it, decided it, taught it.
Howard,
It WAS in jail. Oh my. Please accept my apologies. I do fret about that because you took the time to write it, and it matters. I didn’t realize it was hung up. I released your comment from jail! LOL.
It is ^^^ up there, chronologically in line. But here it is copied here for convenience:
Howard / April 11, 2012
“And I would love to get to the bible discussion. I really need to know who decided what in it is truth and what is not.”
-
Jesus Christ invented it, decided it, taught it.
-
For me a long and intense journey to this conclusion. Starting with Robert Schuller and Harold Camping then at the same time C.S. Lewis (“Mere Christianity”), Ravi Zacharias (TV lectures especially at Oxford, http://www.rzim.org/), Frank Turek (http://crossexamined.org/tv.asp) , Denesh D’Souza (http://dineshdsouza.com/), Norman Geisler, G. K. Chesterton, Benedict XVI, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Thomas More, St. Agustine. Any undergraduate educational background of mine in philosophy, history, sociology, science. The Bible, all of the apologists at EWTN TV and radio, and lurking at internet discussions. I know I have left out many others who have had an influence, but, these are the greatest.
-
Just begin Alan.
When Stacy dies, she hopes to live in a place likened to Vatican City. This is the crux of her faith. It would not be heaven to me; but I wish you the best of luck, Stacy.
Mjeck, I don’t need luck.
Thanks for your comment.
Stacy,
I’m sure you’ll get there; you’ve set up your entire life for this to be successful. Just be careful, Vatican City hasn’t always been a pretty place. Heaven is a bit of what we want, but a whole lot of what we need.
Take care,
Mjeck
Some more thoughts after another poopy episode.
Since I am long past puberty and early manhood where my brain nearly exploded because of the shear volume of thought available, past the raising a family and dealing with illness stage that whizzed by as if I was a starter at the Indy 500. I am close to finding the answers I sought anyway. I find life much more meaningful now actually following Thoreau’s (discovered in early teens) advise to “simplify, simplify” and Christ’s clear teachings. Academic concepts like “Devine Condescension” that produce lengthy published papers are long in the past. Chesterson is a hero; simple, direct, pithy, true.
Wait, was that a begin for me Stacy?
Whaddya want me to say?
It was Howard’s comment to you. I just copied it. Sorry for the confusion.
Oh Sorry, I get it now
)
I guess my question still remains the same. How was it decided what in the bible was to be followed to the letter and what is to be interpreted. i.e not eating shrimp, wearing mixed fabric or working on the sabbath are not followed literally (amongst many others) but acting on ones gay desires is?
Alan, I am hoping Stacy will answer this to the depth you require since she is studying theology. If no one responds I can do some research and point you to Catholic teaching on the subject.
Alan, since we have different world views and I am not able to answer you from yours, this is the only answer I have.
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/peter%E2%80%99s-authority
then
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/early-teachings-on-homosexuality
Questions of other bible issues must be looked up individually. If hidden in your question is a request that someone convince you of something, I am not willing to do that.
Poop, poop.
Howard,
I am not asking the question be answered from my world view, but I am asking that it be answered. I did not see any answer in either link, but I skimmed rather than read them.
The second it seems the bible is more against pederasty than homosexuality.
My question still remains simple. Who is the authority that tells you what in the bible is to be read as literal and what is to be read as figurative?
Simple question really.
Alan,
I think this is pretty simple and straight-forward, from Dei Verbum #10:
“But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office [Magisterium] of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
Thanks LJP, now that is a direct answer.
So now this means that indeed the way of interpreting can, and more than likely can change?
Alan, Great question!
Howard, THANK YOU!
LJP, Awesome! Thank you too! I’m tied up this afternoon, but you did the work already. Really appreciated – Dei Verbum is the perfect reference. Alan, the Magisterium is the bishops and pope, the teaching authority.
It’s like asking who decides what goes in the science textbooks? The scientists.
“So now this means that indeed the way of interpreting can, and more than likely can change?”
On miner issues Yes. On the issue you are interested in, No. This is where world view comes in. There is spiritual element involved. The Church is casually called the Catholic Church it actually the Church of Jesus Christ. It is guided by the Holy Spirit. If God changes his mind, then teachings that effect faith and morals will change.
Howard, are you gonna need a hanky for your poopy? That was funny!
To be honest with you I’m turning off my brain riiiiight………..now. Long miserable day at work, you know the story. I do want continue our discussion just need a little recharge. God is a lot to digest and I need to start that one fresh.
Alan,
“So now this means that indeed the way of interpreting can, and more than likely can change?”
That is also an excellent question. No, the method of interpretation has instead been clarified and maintained over time. These men, bishops and popes, are extremely competent scholars who study exegesis carefully. If you read that encyclical that LJP linked it also explains how the Bible is read, as a whole.
Andrew,
It takes a lifetime! But the journey is wonderful!
Howard I cannot resist.
should it not be minor?
and no I don’t have any interest in if the catholic church changes the way they read the bible. Not my place to expect the church to change. I am just comforted to know that it is possible of change, it has changed, and it is decided not by god, but by humans. Makes a lot more sense now.
Stacy, I won’t actually read the whole thing because I really have no interest. And again that is not to be insulting, it is just to be truthful. As some have pointed out I am not going to be convinced.
Alan, you knew what you believed before you ever wrote your first word here. All you received was confirmation (not Catholic!). The Church has human members, humans are fallible therefore the Church WILL change.
Answer a question for me. Why do you care what Catholics think or believe?
Howard,
Of course I knew what I believed, and thankfully it has now been answered directly and truthfully. And I am really not referring to the church members, but more so to those who make the decisions for the church, it’s doctrine. As they are human, and always have been there is a margin for error. And this does not pertain to catholics, but moreso to any religion.
That is an excellent question about why do I care about what catholics think or believe. The short answer is I don’t care at all. Well that is until I have to.
And I think you know why I have to care what catholics think, so I think at the very core the question was a little disingeous.
Alan, gather your thoughts together and reconsider that you just asked me, a Catholic, what I thought when you said; “should it not be minor?”
Do you have to now?
No, it is not minor. The 10 commandments are the major moral laws dictated by God to Moses. Active homosexuality is a form of adultery. Inactive is not.
I will correct myself. Fornication. If you are married as you say it could be considered adultry.
Howard, sorry I have no idea what you are saying or asking.
You wrote miner, I was asking if you meant minor. Not asking if it was major or minor, just giving you grief either about word choice or spellling. Nothing more, nothing less.
But thanks for the lesson about the ten commandments being the major moral laws. I think from my years of being raised catholic I might have actually understood that.
And there is no question about me being married. I am, so I am not just saying I am. But am I understanding you to say if I have sexual relations with my husband that is considered adultery? Sorry but you really have me confused with the last two postings.
Alan, I know I could be clearer, it is early and I need another cup. I missed the spelling thing completely and badly stated my adultery meaning. But since the opportunity is now! Adultery and fornication are same level of seriousness, both are major sins. If an act has occurred does not change the degree of seriousness.
Let me try to say something new. I don’t believe that you really learned anything. I think you merely are restating your disbelief in God and trying to bring us into it. I never considered you stupid, just devious. Your purpose is harassment and you certainly are providing lots of entertainment.
Howard
1. Thanks for not considering me stupid.
2. Thanks for being entertained by me.
3. My purpose is not harrassment.
4. Have you learned anything from me? Do you think you could? (hint we both know the answer to these questions are no)
5. Thanks for considering me devious. Not true, but thanks.
I offer a disenting opinion. It is no hidden secret that Stacy and most of the others here dislike me. They can say otherwise, but that would be a mistatement or outright lie depending on who says it. I am ok with it though as not one of you knows me.
My issue, my reason for continuing has been the same since I got here. I am fine with your beliefs, they are yours so it is not up to me to question them. However when you think that your beliefs are more important than mine, we have an issue. The reason I am here is because of Stacy’s can’t go to the park post. Even in a recent blog (not sure which one) there was talk of how Stacy would cease to go to a restaurant ever again should she witness the horror of two men greating each other with a kiss. And the misunderstanding of Stacy claiming she would not confront us (and then Stacy’s insistance that Edward and I were threatening) shows that although she would not confront us her thought seemed to be but she had the right to confront us should she so choose. The bigger picture is it should not be an issue if I and my husband walk down the streets holding hands. Now I do understand that you see homosexuality as a sin, I do not. And as I do not see it as a sin I don’t see how you can dictate my behavior in public, as long as it does not cross certain lines. Yes sex in public is wrong. No me kissing my male friends in public is not.
Notice I generally don’t comment on the posts that are specifically about catholicism. That is for a reason. I am not here to argue that catholics are wrong in their beliefs, but rather to argue that catholics are wrong in the belief that their beliefs are how we should all live our lives. Do you see the distinction?
So earlier you asked why I cared what catholics think, here is part of your answer. When you think I must think like you, I must follow the rules of your church, then, and only then do I care what you think.
I can’t imagine taking a class in English Literature, reading Shakespeare, and leaving the class thinking, “I have now digested everything I need to know about Shakespeare.”
Same with sacred Scripture. It’s not a legal textbook you read over the course of a weekend. Some famous atheists claimed to have done just that, and they base their atheism on that definitive reading. This is just as ridiculous as someone who judges Shakespeare and Shakespeare scholars based on an afternoon’s reading of a play.
The good news is, interpretations of Shakespeare are fresh in every age. Even within a single life span, we think about the plays in the light of life experience, more historical consciousness, and yes, with varying degrees of personal maturity.
Does this mean that the true meaning of Shakespeare is totally relative? That it depends on what mood you’re in, or whatever happens to be the fad of the day?
Many so-called educators try to teach just that view, but true scholars know that we do in fact come closer to the truth over time. We don’t have a succession of random opinions about Shakespeare or about Scripture. One’s understanding of a concept is rarely uprooted whole and replaced. On the contrary, understanding deepens. We experience a succession of increasingly purified insights.
Cognitive development is a cumulative process that often involves deferred meaning, i.e., meaning that wasn’t apparent at the time but which takes form only in light of later experience. We understand our very selves better over time. We re-interpret our past experience within the framework of our present, more seasoned, and more adult experience.
Yes, we Catholics understand our sacred texts more deeply as we mature. Both as a culture, and as individuals. As Stacy said, it’s a lifetime experience.
oh and fyi Howard, why do you assume I don’t believe in god?
Alan, yes you are devious. When you explained “I think from my years of being raised catholic I might have actually understood that” it told me that you also know of the magisterium and it’s purpose. When Stacy fell for your question and answered you with structure instead of authority, you then felt the time was right to blast out how you have been vindicated; the church is really godless! Alan that is shameless and transparent.
Howard
I am sad that is what you got from my questions.
But alas I can’t help what your perceptions are of me. And for that matter you don’t want to have good perceptions about me.
I don’t feel vindicated, I asked a question because I wanted to know the answer. One cannot be raised catholic and not know the difference between a major and minor sin. One cannot be raised catholic and understand the ten commandments are the big ten. As for the question about how it is decided what is read literally and figuratively from the bible, although I thought I had the right answer I was uncertain.
Howard, you don’t know me. Not one of my friends would describe me as devious. Sarcastic for certain, moody, yup, but devious, nope. So continue to think what you will. I have my perception of you in mind as well, maybe some day here your words will change that, but for now it is what it is.
Alan said: “I am not here to argue that catholics are wrong in their beliefs, but rather to argue that catholics are wrong in the belief that their beliefs are how we should all live our lives. Do you see the distinction?”
Yes I see the distinction and the condescension. You have to argue that Catholics are wrong in their beliefs because our beliefs are based on God’s law. Back to the 10 Commandments. Most concern how we should behave outside of the church walls and outside of our skin towards others. Do you not agree that murder should be condemned if it is committed across the street from a church? This attempt to confine religion to those domains is a tactic of the current totalitarian political thinking. The Church is in the way.
“And for that matter you don’t want to have good perceptions about me.”
Alan I said that I thought you were not stupid. Actually I think you have a very sharp mind, just wrong. If you knew me better you would be amazed at how sympathetic I am towards you.
Howard, are you upset by the condescension you see in me because it makes you realize that catholics are not the only ones who can use condescion?
FYI there was no condescenion from me, you can assume you see it, but that doesn’t mean it is there.
I think the psychotic break is very close for you Howard. You do of course realize that murder is not wrong because of the catholic church? It is not wrong because of what you call “natural law”.
But lets ask, if all laws and rules are based on catholic church (because lets be honest you are not the least bit interested in any other religion unless they agree with you 100%) that would be totalitarian? Saying it would not be is just stupid. You are only interested in all thinking and behaving EXACTLY like you do.
My friends have asked me what I get from coming here, and for a while I would have to say I enjoyed some of the conversations. Even though so many here don’t listen (for the record folks NFP is contraception, not all crimes are hate crimes, homophobia is real, and yes I am indeed legally married, which is all the matters to me) Now with the exception of Mary (thank you Mary, you have always been most kind and willing to listen)I find there to be a distinct bitterness from the catholics. Thankfully out in the real world that I live in I know many religious folks, and they give me the good impression I have of religion.
I’ll take my leave from here.
I wish you all the best in all you do, go out and live a little now, perhaps some day you will find your reward in the next world. I know if there is one I will.
Have at me as much as you like, no responses will be made
Alan, Dominus vobiscum.
Alan,
You go from thread to thread picking fights. People tried to answer you in good faith, but you don’t return the respect.
Sigh. Wish you’d stop.
Stacy
I don’t pick fights, I have a differing opinion to you and you don’t like that. I wish that I was shown any form of respect by most here, yourself being the main offender.
You treat those who disagree with you like children, or with absolutely no respect. I should be owed so many apologies here, but I would never expect them. And that apology that you issued on my behalf to that vile person calling Nazi Germany science without god was your most laughable moment.
I will not post anymore because I have finally realized it is pointless. Y’all don’t hear anything but what you agree with, everything is derided. It’s totally immature. I have agreed to many points here, but you not a one.
You are childish and Howard should see how condescending you are, but being on the same side of the “fight” I realize he never will.
I hope god fills the voids in all of your lives.
Goodbye and good luck.
Alanl64 writes: I am not here to argue that catholics are wrong in their beliefs, but rather to argue that catholics are wrong in the belief that their beliefs are how we should all live our lives. Do you see the distinction?
The obvious extension is that Alanl64’s belief that his beliefs are how we should live our lives is also wrong. This is hilarious and I’ll name it negative pluralism as rather than two belief systems being equally right, Alanl64 argues that the two belief systems are equally wrong.
Steve, yes a good way to see argument. I think Alan would write back and say that he does not care how anyone else lives their life so it does not apply. Relativism at the core.
Off to Mass, bye.
Alanl64,
It wasn’t just us sincere people in this thread who tried to answer your question, even a good friend of mine and reliable apologist took the time to answer your question. He too, saw your attempt at a “gotcha” moment. He offers an explanation. I hope you read it.
He makes a great point about admitting divine authority.
http://tonylayne.blogspot.ca/2012/04/simple-loaded-question.html
Steve, Howard, if you get a chance I hope you can check out Tony’s blog and leave him a nice comment. Bloggers love appreciative comments! He has a lot of great information and he explains things clearly.
Stacy, I know an older lady since my teen years that I see about once a year. She was born in Northern Ireland, raised as a Protestant there then came to live in the U.S. as an adult. She visits relatives back home once n a while. She is small, probably a few inches under 5’, stereotypical Irish temperament, and can be very feisty.
I was having breakfast with her and another person just after my entry into the Catholic Church. She said to me; “I was told that you became a Catholic”. I said yes, waiting for the next statement. Honestly I didn’t know what was coming. She said; “Because it is you, I am not going to say anything”
How often does an ordinary person receive such a high honor in an argument that has so much at stake and has seen so much misery? Would today’s atheists, who perceive a loss that they are not defining, exhibit such positive humanity?
To borrow some words from a great American, K.T. Frog; “It is not easy being Catholic.”
Howard,
I found this charming trying to picture this feisty lady:
“I was told that you became a Catholic.”
I was surprised a lot after conversion too. I’d never been called a misogynist until I told someone one day that I was Catholic. I was like, “What? Do people even know what they are talking about?” I still don’t get the hatred. Love being Catholic though.
Mr. Frog is wise. LOL!
They just haven’t found you yet! 281 comments. If you read them you will see vicious attacks. Read the comment from the man who’s son told him that he was an atheist and Richard Dawkins said that atheists were to ridicule Catholics over transubstantiation. Not very academic.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/new-atheist-magical-thinking/
Howard,
Richard Dawkins is a puzzle! I’d love to debate him, but I’d insist he clarify the rules and promise to adhere to them first.
Check this out: http://www.acceptingabundance.com/cant-even-go-to-the-park/
Or google my name. They found me all right. That’s why Alan was even here. He’s been posting here since last fall, says he’s not an atheist, but never said what he believed, except that he was “married” to a man. I care about him, want the best for him. But — after some point, what do you say? He got prayed for a lot though. Edward and all the others too.
Alan — this is public, so I’m not talking about you behind your back. You really were and still are welcome here. But, sorry, I do get tired of the fight picking. We love to answer sincere questions though, and accept sincere criticism.
Howard,
I just went and read that thread you linked.
Loved this comment from Clare:
“I feel sorry for Athiests because it is impossible for me – a catholic – to explain that the whole religion thing is about falling in love. How do you explain falling in love? You can try but you don’t really know what it is until it has happened to you.” [sic]
“Richard Dawkins is a puzzle! I’d love to debate him…”
Very interesting. Has a woman ever debated a prominent atheist? This would be another front to open in this culture war. I can imagine how in his effort to protect himself from appearing misogynistic he might be thrown off a bit, right ducky.
A footnote to the above about the lady friend. I lived in England for a while and have always told people how much I like them.
Stacy, I read the park essay. Good God!! You have been under attack. You are new to me and I stumbled on your blog because of the other thread I commented on. I live in a neighboring state to California, or as they say in other states, the land of fruits and nuts. Years 12 to about 20 or so was spent in Northern California. Having worked and lived in Hollywood and San Francisco and having a step father who worked with alcoholics in San Francisco, I have had homosexuals in my life sometimes closer than I liked, but until recent years not in my face. A mutual respect existed, a respect for the person, if not sometime grudgingly. I have received help and harm from them.
My guess all along was that Alan was assigned to you or assigned himself. After so many months of conversation and not seeming to have picked up anything, this is probably a good guess.
He said, “Have at me as much as you like”.
O.K.
But the “have at” is not the type that is expected in the old haunt of the Tenderloin of San Francisco or the current Castro St. where homosexuals cruise for sex. There, it is exploitation of the weak and personal gratification.
He exhibits what you would expect. Destroy or eliminate any opposition to his lifestyle. I read a comment from a homosexual who said that whenever he stayed in a hotel room he would tear out of the bible the pages that condemned homosexuality. Alan, as he presents himself to us, sort of blurs the line between atheist and agnostic. Sort of a queer atheist. Queer meaning odd, in that he is deathly afraid that God does exist so he makes sure he does not by asserting that the mind has the power to cause him to exist or not. This exchange -
“As you know I do believe in the possibility of a god.”
-
“I just don’t feel the need for some power to tell me how and what to believe.”
—–I assume you are saying that you will not allow a power to dictate to you. Does not that make you superior to that power? Why would anyone want to be dictated to by a lesser power?
“if there is no power it matters not if it is lesser or greater.”
Alan, substitute “no power” for “some power” in the second sentence and see if it makes any sense.
So, assenting to the existence of God is based on personal need (you weaklings out there). No argument for an objective God is possible. This is Ronnie and Clyde suicide. I don’t think that cops exist, so I can drive 80 mph through a school zone and no power will be able to touch me. But if perchance cops do exist, I have the power to not let them touch me.
If legend that leprechauns give speeding tickets in school zones were the only so-called reason why people ought reduce speed in school zones, there would be “myth busters” who’d deliberately drive 80 mph in a school zone just to either see the mythical leprechauns or to put the legend to shame. Until then, “non-believers” would not believe leprechauns have the power to touch them.
Peggy ninja, your belief isn’t necessary for a leprechaun to act. So it is useless to say you are not ready. Many non-believers see green without an empirical test. That is what this essay is about. What created and determines your life span? Could that be described as an all powerful leprechaun?
Peggy Sue,
Haha!
Please re-read the quote up there from Frank Sheed about the difference in imaginable and conceivable.
To say that your soul has no size or shape or weight or color (also from Sheed) is only unimaginable – because it is beyond the senses. It is not, however, inconceivable. A perfect circle is unimaginable, but not inconceivable. Infinity, zero, etc.
Not all true things need to be made of matter.
“What created and determines your life span? Could that be described as an all powerful leprechaun?” Could be. Could also be hooked up to the leprechaun matrix while invisible leprechauns are running the show.
An atheist once spitefully asked me, “What do theologians do? Sit around and try to figure out how many angels dance on the head of a pin?”
I told him, “No more so than mathematicians sit around and try to figure out how many points there are in a circle.”
Peggy, I think Im in love with you. You don’t know what that wild ninja act does to me. I have always been attracted to angry empty headed women. Don’t know why!
Come to my arms, my beamish boy! Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
Do you understand, my brother, the grace of Christ our head? Out of love, our head chose to empty himself. He shared our condition, that of every man and every woman. Let us empty ourselves as Christ, our head, emptied himself. Only by fully accepting Jesus Christ as the Lord of our lives can we empty ourselves of any negative thinking about each other. Only the light of the Lord, his strength and his love, cleanses us, purifies us, showing us the right path. Always be clothed in sincere compassion, in kindness and humility, gentleness and patience. Wash your robe in the blood of the Lamb. Be as the Bride of Christ, so dear to her divine Redeemer, who has always kept herself holy and unsullied.
I perceive now that the intelligence that I sensed but was not available to me by sight, hearing, smell, taste or touch is better read than deduction lead me to believe!
Haha! Oh you guys.
Stacy, a note to you. You said “Bloggers love appreciative comments!”
I watched “Life on the Rock” on EWTN last night. It was an hour with a woman ex-atheist Catholic blogger with RED HAIR. One of the The most important things she discussed was what really converts atheists. This show is reapeated during the week and is also on radio.
http://www.conversiondiary.com/
I didn’t even finish reading the whole comment Howard – saw the RED HAIR.
That’s JEN! I know her. She’s awesome. Very wonderful Catholic woman, and an icon in Catholic blogging. I had the honor and pleasure of writing about “Tempation” during her “Our Father” series. She does so much to bring people together.
http://www.conversiondiary.com/2011/10/temptation-the-our-father-word-by-word.html
She explains things so well. I’ve seen her conversion story interview, but not the “Life on the Rock.” Thank you.
Forgive me for being dismissive, but this argument isn’t anything that most atheists won’t have seen before. You’ll find it in any sophomoric ‘Arguments Against Theists’ post on an atheistic blog, and you’ll also find it in any first-year philosophy of religion class. The only reason I’m even pointing this out is because the post is addressed to atheists and includes the following:
But most atheists will already be familiar with what you’re about to say, even if they don’t use the same terminology. This would be a bit like an atheist addressing a post to Christians and then going on to explain the basic tenets of the Christian faith; the post might be 100% accurate in what it’s saying, but it’s certainly not going to be useful to anyone.
Sean,
You are the first atheist I’ve met who reads St. Aquinas and understands him then. Kudos!
I don’t have time for a long discussion (this week and next week), maybe someone else can chime in, but I am curious. What specifically was it about Aquinas’ reasoning that you personally rejected? Can you show your logical progression? Catholics I know who study Aquinas, study his writing for years and and still find more to learn so I wouldn’t dare say a first year “philosophy of religion” class can cover it adequately.
“I keep saying to atheists that you can’t argue against the existence of God if you don’t know what you are arguing against”
Ok…so by inference you are saying you possess some higher intellect or understanding as a believer that non-believers are incapable of reasoning without your faith pill? Go for it if that what you beleive and makes you happy.
For me I am happy to accept the possibility that a god could exist, however based on the observable universe I consider it remote concept, similar to saying fairies or ghosts exist.
Can I ask the reverse question, whether you accept the possibility that there could be no god……………I hope so, for your sake. So that you don’t fall into the intellectual trap of not looking open minded??
I am going now to make a generic and supported statement:
“I believe that for the majority of the planet they are better of believing in a god and following some sort of non-aggressive religious framework.”
Oh by the way I am a fully paid up member of the hardcore atheist camp…………………although I don’t particularly like the labels, as it creates a tendency to invoke tribalism by default, and yet the religious seemingly love to announce which team they support?? The dangers of ‘group think ‘.
The reason I believe that most people are better of believing is twofold:
1. Most people need rules to operate…………sad but true!
2. Secondly I think for a lot of people the religious framework offers incentives…fear, group praise and to function in a desirable and more charitable way/manner.
Whether god is true is an irrelevance in away, certainly for me. How do we make better societies is my concern. I believe that for the majority of the population they have not reached a level of EQ or cognitive control to take away the prop. Just go to your average everyday place, a shopping mall, your work place, a football match and just sit and watch and observe the idiocy of our species. Just take the rise of homeopathy & other alternative practices and we strip back the meta-analysis’s to reveal the supporting data, we find that its just placebo…………put things in shiny bottle and give people a coloured pill!
However I think we are at transient point in our human development with the desire from particularly western countries to secularise, certainly the antipodean and Scandinavian countries have been quietly pushing at the front of this cultural change for sometime, whilst the other noisy countries grab the media spot light.
So let’s take a different discourse.
Let’s assume God exists, let’s be further generous and say it’s the Christian one, because when people believe they just want to believe, if you know what I mean?? Usually their parent’s religion or one that was knocking about their society.
On an emotional level I just defy god, I simply don’t like the whole concept of worship……………oh at this point many religious jump in and start talking about getting to know Jesus……
Whether I am looking for fight I am not sure……………but this combination of FEAR that many of the religions use coupled with the fact that our species is hardwired for predation produces an emotional response to be defiant in me.
Seriously do we honestly think that there is an afterlife and the lucky few will sit about drinking celestial lattes, singing hymns for eternity? Let’s say that the bible is true that 144000 will ascend knowing or having to watch the rest of the 6.9 billion humans be destroyed. What will that make you do, will protest to your god, will you plead it to stop the massacre, how will you feel??
If there is a god can we chuck away the nasty scriptures please and create a loving, benevolent type, that is a bit more live and let live??
Peace & love!
I thought this thread was played out.
Doubter said “How do we make better societies is my concern.”
Will you please define this.
Howard,
THANK YOU! I would very much appreciate it if you could respond to “The Doubter.”
One thing Doubter, you wrote:
“Ok…so by inference you are saying you possess some higher intellect or understanding as a believer that non-believers are incapable of reasoning without your faith pill?”
No. I am simply saying that to argue against something you must first know what you are arguing against.
I wrote that post, in part, because atheists so often use strawman arguments. I don’t mean that pejoratively, but only to point out that most of the time we don’t even get to the “proof” part because the atheist doesn’t even understand what is trying to be proved, or what might constitute a valid proof.
Example:
Atheist: “Prove God exists.”
Catholic: [begins to explain St. Thomas' logical process]
Atheist: “That doesn’t prove there is a bearded man in the sky who can tell me what to do!”
Stuff like that…”faith pill” is a vivid example of such scenarios.
Stacy, is that all you have to do, say BOO and they disappear.
“something you must first know….”
What is it that you know that I do not? If true maybe your construct is also flawed and doesn’t let you fully explore things?
Having been brought up in an historical underlying Christian country, I would have thought I had sufficient knowledge of the Christian tenets…………
St. Thomas’ logical process – that this process by default attributes/claims to validate a truth, ergo proves gods existence?
That our limited ability in thinking as evolving apes, that just thinking or stating words leads to proof of something, without the ability to test it in the physical world…………………………
Something seems fundamentally flawed with that approach to me?
I keep coming across sites that immerse themselves completely in one perspective, that of just philosophical arguments and creating postulations that hang by a thread……
Maybe I am just not smart enough or my cognition will not accept this this singular approach…………like the process lacks a degree of honesty, trying to pretend that this process is a nobler form of thinking?
I am not wishing deride philosophy but it seems that it is pitted with intellectual blackholes?
Hey up Howard,
“How do we make better societies is my concern.”
“Will you please define this.”
Yeah…thats a difficult one. Very subjective? Each person relative to the place they live/born and their experiences.
Maybe start with the functionary basics first: air, water, food, freedom from predation???…..that’s maybe a good place to start…………what do you think?
Hi.
I have to go to the Dr. all day today, my functionary basics are gong to be checked.
But tomorrow you could tell me about air and I could tell you about warts.
Not exactly St. Thomas but maybe it could lead to something more important like my conversion to atheism.
Hi Howard,
Hrmmmh,Warts, tricky things like freckles, people today have forgotten the importance of these signs. They used to be on the Inquisition’s list and rightly so, as irrefutable proof of the work of the devil………………the cure usually involved the normal procedure as instructed………trial by torture? If you survived the initial round you were definitely working for Satan………all backed up by the leading theologian’s insight into these matters of course………………and if in doubt, a bit of peer reviewing by higher authorities of Rome to make sure no one was being picked upon. Bring it back I say!!
Don’t make the mistake of going to a doctor either, bloody Quacks the lot of them. No…what you need to do is go to a place of infinitely more power and insight……………I find that a priest powers far surpass that of any so called science based medicine or inquiry. I also find that a combination of praying, constantly reminding myself of ten specific rules and sticking with them does the trick. The priest’ cure rate is a bit hit and miss, but this is more to do with badly presented statistics form certain sections of our society, although we keep having a few problems with amputee’s and limbs, but otherwise all good. Also I find consuming inordinate amounts of Homeopathic potions, a bit of chiropractic treatment(the classical stuff mind you not that new type, that’s just nonsense………stuff only works if it’s been practiced for a millennia, surely everyone knows that??)
Anyway must go, I am secretly working of a top secret project………all hush, hush mind you………but I can tell you are the sort of person to be trusted……………anyway, I have come across this book called the bible and I am absolutely convinced there is a hidden codex in it that explains everything. Others have stumbled upon it in the past, however even though they were the leading minds of their day, well to put it frankly they weren’t up to the task. Anyway my unique and special approach coupled with totally immersing myself in this book has lead me to find what others couldn’t…………yes, I know………just fantastic news isn’t it? I can feel myself filling up with joy!!
And just invoking some special vocal grunts………well, words and specific interpretations I have figured it all out………
I would like to share with others………but here’s the beautiful thing, it has an inbuilt mechanism that only permits certain individuals to understand it, again just fantastic news……………and to be quite honest, you have to be one of the chosen ones…………yes I know it seems at first glance a little unfair, but hey that’s the way it is.
Anyway……………keep this to yourself mind you and under no circumstances let those sub-standard fools the non-believers get a hold of this book………they simply won’t understand it, they are going to burn anyway soon………so good riddance to them! Peace and love to them of course.
Don’t we just love sarcasm….
Toodle pip!!
You were to tell me about air. You stole my contribution to this enlightening conversation. Soooooo, since I gave up being bullied after the incident in the 6th grade I will say goodbye.
“I have to go to the Dr. all day today, my functionary basics are gong to be checked.
But tomorrow you could tell me about air and I could tell you about warts.”………………?????
Bullied……..religion…….Hrmmh !
Peace & love dude.
Doubter,
One more thing because I took some time to read through your writing.
Man, you are all over the place. It is very difficult for me to follow you, but you make the extreme and fundamental error that I keep mentioning.
“For me I am happy to accept the possibility that a god could exist, however based on the observable universe I consider it remote concept, similar to saying fairies or ghosts exist.”
You don’t even know what it is you are arguing against.
I agree with you that many people have not learned to think. With all due respect, you do not seem to know the very basics of the art of debate. You must know what it is you are arguing. If you don’t, you just babble on about nothing…ahem
A question: Is the only way to know if something is true is if you can see it? You seem to be saying that.
I simply need more than talk and seemingly clever circular arguments, dressed up in elitist Latin and Greek, its all too convenient.
I wonder whether or not you know what you are arguing against when you dismissed Buddha for Jesus, with just words…………………words the tools of language, possible just a mutation of the FOXp2 gene? Science in time will explain that one?
Would it not be a beautiful thing to prove there was a deity or higher force with something of substance, something that left that no doubt………
I agree, my school masters used to say that I happily wandered off topic all the time. Hasn’t done me much harm though!!
Hello, Doubter…..
D: I simply need more than talk and seemingly clever circular arguments, dressed up in elitist Latin and Greek, its all too convenient.
>> You need the truth, just like anybody else. Right?
D: I wonder whether or not you know what you are arguing against when you dismissed Buddha for Jesus, with just words…………………
>> Buddha never claimed to be God, and his followers never claimed to have seen him risen from the dead.
Let’s concentrate on Jesus, shall we?
D: words the tools of language, possible just a mutation of the FOXp2 gene? Science in time will explain that one?
>> How, exactly, would one go about proving in a scientific (experimentally reproducible) manner that a mutation of the FOXp2 gene is the cause of language?
What a fascinatingly…………..faith-based notion.
D: Would it not be a beautiful thing to prove there was a deity or higher force with something of substance, something that left that no doubt………
>> Would it not be a much more beautiful thing to prove this deity in a way that left perfect freedom for the doubter to make an act of free will, so as to interpret precisely the same evidence which in fact *did* prove the existence of the deity, as instead proving the existence of self-inflating multiverses emerging from a “nothing” which actually contains “something”….or perhaps instead proving that language is nothing but a consequence of the mutation of a gene?
Indeed, it seems that God, if actually truthful to His Self-revelation in the Hebrew Scriptures, must remain faithful to His Word; that we are created in His image and likeness, that we have “the knowledge of good and evil”; that is, we can decide, of our own free will, whether we shall see things His way or instead in some way of our own preference…
Doubter: I agree, my school masters used to say that I happily wandered off topic all the time. Hasn’t done me much harm though!!
>> No harm, no foul. There is plenty of time….right up to the very moment that there isn’t.
Who wrote the previous response?
NAME, whoever you are, you are very good.
I think it was Rick! If so, I can fix it.
Sorry, I forgot to put my name in before hitting the post button…..
>> How, exactly, would one go about proving in a scientific (experimentally reproducible) manner that a mutation of the FOXp2 gene is the cause of language?
How………well necessity is the mother of invention, as far as I can tell experiments are happening as we speak (no pun intended),humankind will keep finding ways to experimentally test things…………so let’s project forward say 10000 years, what will we have uncovered do you think?
>>What a fascinatingly…………faith-based notion.
Is the point that you consider all science based inquiry just faith based as well, faith in science, what is the alternative, that we immediately stop trying to observe and prod the world around us, shall we just chuck science away in preference to just using words and clever circular discourse, the art of word play?
>> Buddha never claimed to be God, and his followers never claimed to have seen him risen from the dead.
Replace Buddha with any other God from any other religious based construct.
>>Let’s concentrate on Jesus, shall we?
Why have you chosen just Jesus?
>>“the knowledge of good and evil”………??
Define evil? Define Good? Why has God created approximately 3% of the population as psychopaths? Under fMRI these people’s empathy senses do not engage like the general populous. Why did the creator feel it acceptable to allow this?
>>that is, we can decide, of our own free will…
Define freewill? What would be your view if science unlocks that our genetic coding contains variations that control and limit our so called freewill, how would this revelation makes us look at things? Recently two genomes have been found that seem to be hereditary and influence/correlate to the certain personality traits, such as agreeableness and neurosis.
>>self-inflating multiverses emerging from a “nothing”………
Just fantastic. We started with thinking the sky was the limit of our observable universe and lightening was the gods that were dis-pleased, then we realised that the earth was a globe and not flat, then Copernicus figured out that the earth was not the centre of the universe…………then in the Sixties we broke out of our atmosphere and viewed earth for the first time with our human eyes……just our limited sensory capacity and confirmed that earth was indeed a sphere. Now we are having to reconsider whether energy/matter can actual immerge from nothing………just fantastic, knowledge building on knowledge! Others have postulated that there will be an inevitable merging of the human with technology, quaintly called singularity…………time will tell?
>> No harm, no foul. There is plenty of time….right up to the very moment that there isn’t.
I presume that is a bit of sarcasm? If I am ever to know the mind of god then I would rather do it through scientific enquiry than some bronze age scriptures and clever word play.
In the posts there was mention of the limitations of our senses and that these limitations will not allow to singularly prove that a god exists and that faith fills the gap. I think this is a mistake and I wonder what we will actual now or conceive in 100000 years from now. Will our future generations look back fondly and slightly amused at our stumbling about and they consider this era……….the dark ages??
Peace & Love.
“so let’s project forward say 10000 years [of experimentation on the hypothesis that a single gene explains receptive and generative grammar], what will we have uncovered do you think?”
We will have uncovered something completely predictable. That an impoverished idea based on a philosophical error failed to reveal a flourishing research program.
But here is the interesting part. We will uncover that ideologues will have attempted to prop up their failed research program by vilifying its opponents as deniers, for centuries. Oh, they’ll still get mileage out of “the inquisition” and “the crusades” but the net result is the stunting of true scientific progress, and the heroes of the suppression of progress will be characters just like you, Doubter!
Come on over to Rome, Doubter. We are the actual scientists.
@Jeff:
At least he has the courage of his convictions, yes? I mean, he had the stones to ask for 10,000 years worth of (presumably) taxpayer-funded research.
That is one committed researcher, let me tell you.
The dark matter folks have only asked for fifty years.
The M theory guys are asking for a couple of centuries.
You know what all this means, of course.
Science has hit a brick wall, has hopped the fence into metaphysics, but knows very well that metaphysics won;t keep the gravy train running.
Welcome to universes from nothing (a very special kind of nothing, that includes something).
Science is going crazy for want of a decent metaphysics.
‘
When it comes to decent metaphysics, there is only one brand.
http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-has-science-gone-crazy.html
Not sure this will be seen, but I am intrigued.
Stacy how do I “pick fights”? I need specific examples.
See how I see it is that I don’t agree with you,I make my point, again and again. They don’t agree with yours. I am rarely rude (I cannot say the same for some of your other catholic posters) but yes I am tenacious. So are you. So I guess what it boils down to me just being of a differing opinon.
As for you “not talking behind my back” of course you aren’t. This is a blog, it is for all to read.
For my “claim” to believe in god, well exactly who are you to question that? I don’t have to share exactly what I believe and what I don’t. To me that is private, and frankly I find enough of the responses from the other side to be insulting at their base to those of us who disagree, so why would I give anyone the opportunity to insult my beliefs.
And yes I am married (not “married” as the quotes are childish, and you want us to debate properly there is no room for this childishness in my opinion) to a man. You want us to respect god and christianity then please offer a modicum of respect us.
As for your praying for me all I can say is exactly what you say to those who offer you parenting advice. I’m good. Don’t need or frankly want yours or anyone elses prayers. I’d rather you just have good thoughts for me.