Catholic Seminarian Acts as Punching Bag
Offline To All:
This would make a good sticky for this forum. I am a Roman Catholic seminarian and I am hereby making myself available to answer any questions concerning Christianity or theism in general. I intend to maintain a number of propositions which I have essentially taken from the First Vatican Council:
(From the Fourth Chapter of the Canons and Decrees of the Council, edited by Fr. Norman Tanner. S.J)
The perpetual agreement of the catholic church has maintained and maintains this too: that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object.
With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith. With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.Wherefore, when the Apostle, who witnesses that God was known to the gentiles from created things [29] , comes to treat of the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ [30] , he declares: We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this. God has revealed it to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God [31] . And the Only-begotten himself, in his confession to the Father, acknowledges that the Father has hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to the little ones [32] .
Now reason, does indeed when it seeks persistently, piously and soberly, achieve by God's gift some understanding, and that most profitable, of the mysteries, whether by analogy from what it knows naturally, or from the connexion of these mysteries with one another and with the final end of humanity; but reason is never rendered capable of penetrating these mysteries in the way in which it penetrates those truths which form its proper object. For the divine mysteries, by their very nature, so far surpass the created understanding that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted by faith, they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and wrapped, as it were, in a certain obscurity, as long as in this mortal life we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, and not by sight [33].
Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.
God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.
Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false [34] . Furthermore the church which, together with its apostolic office of teaching, has received the charge of preserving the deposit of faith, has by divine appointment the right and duty of condemning what wrongly passes for knowledge, lest anyone be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit [35] .
Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.
Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.
Hence, so far is the church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways. For she is neither ignorant nor contemptuous of the advantages which derive from this source for human life, rather she acknowledges that those things flow from God, the lord of sciences, and, if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of his grace. Nor does the church forbid these studies to employ, each within its own area, its own proper principles and method: but while she admits this just freedom, she takes particular care that they do not become infected with errors by conflicting with divine teaching, or, by going beyond their proper limits, intrude upon what belongs to faith and engender confusion. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
- Login to post comments
Offline I suppose Aquinas can depend on what you read and how it is read. The Summa is not meant to be read through like a novel. I'm sad to see you lost any allowance for harmony between faith and reason, but I have to object that Dan Brown, as far as I know, never learned anything from Aquinas (if he ever read him).
I'd have to also object to that sillyness about Aquinas being indoctrinated into theology. Aquinas, to be sure, was brought up in a fairly religious age, but his family was anything but religious. They were the cousins of the apostate Emperor and not particularly friendly to the Pope and religion in general. They probably were not nearly as inimical to it as their cousin, but probably more disinterested and willing to use religion for political gain rather than practice it. It was for this reason that while they wished Aquinas to become a soldier (as his other brothers) they would have allowed him to join the Benedictines and become the abbot of Monte Casino. However, according to Aquinas' own temperment, he neither desired to be a ruler either spiritually or temporally. Even later in life he rejected the cardinalate when it was offered. He got in a great deal of trouble with his family over his eventual desire to join the Order of Friars Preachers (a poor religious order whose motto was "Truth" and who had no wordly influence at all). His parents and brothers eventually captured him and tried to seduce/persuade him in various ways to abandon his habit (famously, they did this by introducing a prostitute into his chambers). However, Aquinas never veered from his aim. Many other things could be said just about this.
On the level in which Aquinas can be compared with Plato and Aristotle is another matter. From my reading of Aquinas and from the scholarly attitude of our time, we have come back to a realization of his importance in the history of the philosophy. His philosophical ingenuity successfully completed the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle where it was lacking and forged a new synthetic thought based in their previous endeavors. I think it might be helpful to read Gilson, Maritain, Msgr. Sokolowski, Msgr. Wipple, all of whom detail many of his contributions. Especially Hume and Husserl, as well as Heideggar, use Aquinas in substantial parts.
Lastly, I suppose, I really ought to say something about "indoctrination" during youth. While there is nothing wrong with human autonomy, free will, and the like, it seems wrong to say that raising somebody in the faith is morally objectionable (which "indoctrination" seems to imply). I would point out that parents commonly do such things with children as "indoctrinating" them to the dangers of certain types of objects (knives, fire, chemicals, ect.) and "indoctrinating" them how to behave (to go to bathroom correctly, to wash ones' hands, to brush ones' teeth, ect.). Parents have a certain natural right and even obligation (I think you would agree) to care for and seek the best for their children; this could hardly be called "indoctrination." If one were to accept, as their parents do, that their religion is true and necessary for salvation, it would be fully in their power to raise their children in the way that religion proscribes (meaning, following the precepts of the religion and its moral teachings, ect.) in order to provide the best for their children. Even I, as a Christian and Catholic, fully agree that it is in the natural right of any parent, Muslim, Jew, pagan, or atheist, to raise their children in their religion. One might argue on the benefits, for example, of raising one in a particular religion (I would disagree with atheism and you would disagree with Catholicism), but one nevertheless must agree that it is perfectly within their natural right and parental obligation to do so.
Finally, in Christian and Catholic baptism, I would point out that baptism causes in the soul, ex opere operato, the effect it signifies. In other words, baptism brings to the child sanctifying grace; faith, hope, and love. Saint Augustine: "When children are presented to be given spiritual grace," he wrote, "it is not so much those holding them in their arms who present them—although, if these people are good Christians, they are included among those who present the children—as the whole company of saints and faithful Christians.... It is done by the whole of Mother Church which is in the saints, since it is as a whole that she gives birth to each and every one of them." As the Catholic Church officially teaches: "...the child is a person long before it can show it by acts of consciousness and freedom. As a person, the child is already capable of becoming, through the sacrament of Baptism, a child of God and a coheir with Christ. Later, when consciousness and freedom awake, these will have at their disposal the powers placed in the child's soul by the grace of Baptism." And, lastly, specifically in response to the objection against freedom, the Church writes: "A so-called neutral attitude on the part of the family with regard to the child's religious life would in fact be a negative choice that would deprive the child of an essential good. Above all, those who claim that the sacrament of Baptism compromises a child's freedom forget that every individual, baptized or not, is, as a creature, bound by indefeasible duties to God, duties which Baptism ratifies and ennobles through the adoption as a child of God."
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
- Login to post comments
Offline Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.
This is perhaps a pleasant thought, but as the church's prosecution of Galileo would attest, reason and faith are not in "perpetual agreement". That the church found scriptural passages more truthful than simple observations made through a telescope is a clear indication that "enlightened faith" is a contradiction in terms.
As far as Aquinas: His writings and those of other scholastics represent an effort to calibrate the christian myths with the philosophpy of Plato and Aristotle - an effort which is altogether fruitless. There is really no constancy between the non-sentient Prime Mover, and the anthropomorphic Yahweh. The Eucharist is an cultic, vaguely cannabilistic example of the beliefs held in various mystery religions of the 1st century. The use of Substance and Accidence to explain it as "transubstantiation" is egregiously sophistic. Plato for his part endorsed homosexuality and believed in reincarnation. That so much energy was given to twisting the thoughts of a philosophical academy to fit the beliefs of an apocalyptic religion is comical. That much of this work still forms the core of catholic theology today is depraved.
While there is nothing wrong with human autonomy, free will, and the like, it seems wrong to say that raising somebody in the faith is morally objectionable (which "indoctrination" seems to imply). I would point out that parents commonly do such things with children as "indoctrinating" them to the dangers of certain types of objects (knives, fire, chemicals, ect.) and "indoctrinating" them how to behave (to go to bathroom correctly, to wash ones' hands, to brush ones' teeth, ect.).
Quite right to note that there are many beliefs parents ought to rotely instil in their children in regards to fire and chemical safety, hygiene, etc. It does not follow from this however, that parents should also rotely instil beliefs about god, the afterlife, etc. The dangers of fire and knives, the benefits of brushing your teeth, these are readily demonstrable. A child ought very well to simply believe that it is dangerous to cross the street, rather than "find out for himself". God, Satan, the afterlife, hell and so on, these are decidedly NOT demonstrable. While there are hard statistics documenting the dangers of fire, chemicals and cavities, there is no observable evidence to indicate the dangers of worshipping the wrong god, or the benefits of worshipping the right one. There is frankly no observable evidence to indicate what is the right god, or that there is one at all.
There are no theists on operating tables.
| ππ | π† |
| π† | †† |
- Login to post comments
Offline I suppose Aquinas can depend on what you read and how it is read. The Summa is not meant to be read through like a novel. I'm sad to see you lost any allowance for harmony between faith and reason, but I have to object that Dan Brown, as far as I know, never learned anything from Aquinas (if he ever read him).
I agree but also disagree. If you admit that it depends on how one reads it, it is possible to have a skewed opinion on Aquinas to produce the character of Vittoria, the daughter of a priest who is always asking questions, eventually growing up to become a scientist who believes in God (A very rare accomody as 95% of the scientific community are non-religious).
I'd have to also object to that sillyness about Aquinas being indoctrinated into theology. Aquinas, to be sure, was brought up in a fairly religious age, but his family was anything but religious.
Really? So you're going to suggest that his family didn't put him into the Benedictine Abby of Monte Cassino at the age of five? That they didn't want him to one day become abbot? According to NewAdvent.com, "Calo (1300 - Ed) relates that a holy hermit foretold his career, saying to Theodora (his mother - Ed) before his birth: "He will enter the Order of Friars Preachers, and so great will be his learning and sanctity that in his day no one will be found to equal him" (Prümmer, op. cit., 18). In fact it is said that he was, "diligent in study, he was thus early noted as being meditative and devoted to prayer." He didn't leave the Abby until 1239 according to the authority (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, pg. 1625) and there is some speculation that his birthdate may have even been later then 1225 (1227 - ?), and if this were the case he'd been indoctrinated from the age of 5 to the age of 12. If you want to play that he'd been born in 1225, then it would be until the age of 14. Either way, when you are five years old everything is absorbed, you are like a spunge. To claim he wasn't indoctrinated is incredulous at best. He was taught by monks, for goodness sake, for his entire youth!
His parents do not play into it, as anything that happened from his birth to the age of three would not have stuck in his memory, leaving him only two years of conscious thought. You want to claim he wasn't indoctrinated? Tell somebody who doesn't know their history, and who doesn't have a wide variety of authoritative resources at his fingertips.
Further you state "fairly religious age" as if it were pseudo-secular or along these lines. But you ignore the fact that during his life time (1225/7-74) there were two crusades launched by St. Louis. One at 1249-51 and another at 1270. I would say that's pretty damn religious. When you launch whole armies to invade a landmass to conquer it for it's religious astetical purposes and massacre thousands to get there, that is more then "fairly" religious.
They were the cousins of the apostate Emperor and not particularly friendly to the Pope and religion in general. They probably were not nearly as inimical to it as their cousin, but probably more disinterested and willing to use religion for political gain rather than practice it.
Again, his parents don't play into it. He wasn't with them long enough to have gained anything from them, having been sent to an Abby at five years old...he was indoctrinated - just not by his parents, rather friars and monks who would punish somebody for asking questions. Especially during a time of religious war.
It was for this reason that while they wished Aquinas to become a soldier (as his other brothers) they would have allowed him to join the Benedictines and become the abbot of Monte Casino.
I'm sorry, where is that mentioned?
However, according to Aquinas' own temperment, he neither desired to be a ruler either spiritually or temporally. Even later in life he rejected the cardinalate when it was offered. He got in a great deal of trouble with his family over his eventual desire to join the Order of Friars Preachers (a poor religious order whose motto was "Truth" and who had no wordly influence at all).
He was already a Dominican. In fact he studied in the University of Paris.
And it would seem as if he didn't really care, by the way you phrase it, what his parents thought anyway. Again, more evidence to the fact that his parents don't play into the equation. I really hope the next time I make a statement you don't carry on with some irrelevant rant that has nothing to do with the point. If you want to suggest that at the Abby he was not indoctrinated, I would really like to hear your sources.
His parents and brothers eventually captured him and tried to seduce/persuade him in various ways to abandon his habit (famously, they did this by introducing a prostitute into his chambers). However, Aquinas never veered from his aim. Many other things could be said just about this.
Yes, like for example how little influence his parents had over his indoctrination by the church and the Abby. Good job at proving my point. I hope all our conversations continue this way.
On the level in which Aquinas can be compared with Plato and Aristotle is another matter. From my reading of Aquinas and from the scholarly attitude of our time, we have come back to a realization of his importance in the history of the philosophy.
I'm not doubting that, nor did I make a claim that his efforts in philosophy are not with want. But in my opinion, his nature is far less substantial then that of Ethics or Physics, of Euthyphro or Republic.
His philosophical ingenuity successfully completed the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle where it was lacking and forged a new synthetic thought based in their previous endeavors.
I find your examination highly suspect. In what manner do you feel he completed works that which already had completion and acceptance for hundreds of years before Aquinas?
I think it might be helpful to read Gilson, Maritain, Msgr. Sokolowski, Msgr. Wipple, all of whom detail many of his contributions. Especially Hume and Husserl, as well as Heideggar, use Aquinas in substantial parts.
I think it may be helpful for you to understand who you are talking to. You haven't made a case yet.
Lastly, I suppose, I really ought to say something about "indoctrination" during youth.
So you're finally getting on topic?
While there is nothing wrong with human autonomy, free will, and the like, it seems wrong to say that raising somebody in the faith is morally objectionable (which "indoctrination" seems to imply).
I would love to hear your counter-argument.
I would point out that parents commonly do such things with children as "indoctrinating" them to the dangers of certain types of objects (knives, fire, chemicals, ect.)
So you're going to use the physical dangers of objects and try to make a comparison to a spiritual thing with no real effects on human life? You're being pretty pathetic now.
and "indoctrinating" them how to behave (to go to bathroom correctly, to wash ones' hands, to brush ones' teeth, ect.).
Again, proper hygiene is not the same thing as telling your son or daughter that "the boogy man is under your bed" or "The tooth fairy will give you money if you loose a tooth" or "There's an all powerful God who always watches you and who loves you that you'll never see."
Parents have a certain natural right and even obligation (I think you would agree) to care for and seek the best for their children; this could hardly be called "indoctrination."
Because the ramifications of not telling your children to be careful around knives is LIFE THREATENING. Not teaching your child to pray is not going to kill them. And if you want to try and claim (as so many of you do) that it's a spiritual death, I would challenge you to prove to me that a.) there is a hell and b.) there is a spiritual plane. Until you do this, don't make such broad and arrogant presumptions.
If one were to accept, as their parents do, that their religion is true and necessary for salvation, it would be fully in their power to raise their children in the way that religion proscribes (meaning, following the precepts of the religion and its moral teachings, ect.)
In their power yes, but not right or moral. The same could be said for racists who raise their kids to be racists, It's well within their "rights" to teach their children that blacks are sub-human and gays are fags that should be spat at, and jews should all be incinerated, but that doesn't make it RIGHT. Perhaps this is not so much your arrogance but your inability to decipher the difference between might and right.
in order to provide the best for their children. Even I, as a Christian and Catholic, fully agree that it is in the natural right of any parent, Muslim, Jew, pagan, or atheist, to raise their children in their religion.
It's a constitutional right, sure, but that doesn't make it morally right. A lot of ignorant people out there raise their kids like them, and that is not acceptable. There is no way to have free will within the constraints of indoctrination. You must let the child learn from his own mistakes. If a child never touches a stove, he'll never learn the meaning of "hot" fully. If one never cuts himself he'll never understand the meaning of "sharp." These are things that must be taught alongside "indoctrination." Again, this is where you misunderstand the difference of having power and doing something moral.
One might argue on the benefits, for example, of raising one in a particular religion (I would disagree with atheism and you would disagree with Catholicism),
I find it ammusing that you think atheism is a religion. This speaks again to your ignorance, but then again you don't know Greek.
but one nevertheless must agree that it is perfectly within their natural right and parental obligation to do so.
I think it is the obligation of the parent to raise a child to be unbias. You think it is under the obligation to raise a child to be bias. YOU are in the morally wrong position here. But I can't blame you, because you were raised with that bias, just like Aquinas - who stated that heretics should be murdered outright in his Summa Theologica. (Article 3:11) I don't think anybody who belongs to a faith who condones such violence should speaking about ANYTHING related to morality and rights. In fact your faith should probably take lessons.
Finally, in Christian and Catholic baptism, I would point out that baptism causes in the soul, ex opere operato, the effect it signifies. In other words, baptism brings to the child sanctifying grace; faith, hope, and love.
You're talking to an apostate, here. I know the Catholic Churches stance on baptism, in fact I own the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That doesn't PROVE to me tehre is a soul and it doesn't prove to me that somebody without baptism can't later find religion on their own accord without indoctrination. The problem is, you KNOW that your religion has ethical, moral and epistimological problems, and if a child wasn't indoctrinated they'd never think you were more then some cultist talking about a dying religion. But that isn't my problem, that is YOURS. Don't try to make it sound like you have the moral high ground when you, in fact, don't.
Saint Augustine: "When children are presented to be given spiritual grace," he wrote, "it is not so much those holding them in their arms who present them—although, if these people are good Christians, they are included among those who present the children—as the whole company of saints and faithful Christians.... It is done by the whole of Mother Church which is in the saints, since it is as a whole that she gives birth to each and every one of them." As the Catholic Church officially teaches: "...the child is a person long before it can show it by acts of consciousness and freedom. As a person, the child is already capable of becoming, through the sacrament of Baptism, a child of God and a coheir with Christ. Later, when consciousness and freedom awake, these will have at their disposal the powers placed in the child's soul by the grace of Baptism." And, lastly, specifically in response to the objection against freedom, the Church writes: "A so-called neutral attitude on the part of the family with regard to the child's religious life would in fact be a negative choice that would deprive the child of an essential good. Above all, those who claim that the sacrament of Baptism compromises a child's freedom forget that every individual, baptized or not, is, as a creature, bound by indefeasible duties to God, duties which Baptism ratifies and ennobles through the adoption as a child of God."
I have a copy of Augustine as well, in fact I'm sure I've read more on my own about your faith then you have in all your years of schooling, and the fact that I can translate the Greek of the Old and New Testaments confirms that. But in none of Augustine's works is there a testable method by which one can see the soul or the effects of baptism on the soul.
Again, if you want to try to play smart - do so with a person who doesn't have a wide variety of knowledge and resources to draw from.
The best.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
- Login to post comments
Offline Your response was rather spirited. I would rather like to condense the reply a bit, as I do not currently have enough time to answer the whole thing. We can hit the main points, at least:
First, in terms of the 95% of scientists disbelieve in God, I find this statistic highly suspect. No profession tends to be that homogenous. The most recent study, http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050811_scientists_god.html,
shows ~60% of scientists believe in a divinity of some sort. But even a previous study which was often touted in atheists' favor claimed that possibly 60% did not believe, not 95%.
"His parents do not play into it, as anything that happened from his birth to the age of three would not have stuck in his memory, leaving him only two years of conscious thought."
I think that is quite unfair, as his parents probably often visited the monastery, as did his siblings, due partly to the fact that they were a well-to-do family. At least, this is not an unfair assumption to say that they had more than a marginal influence upon him.
"...he was indoctrinated - just not by his parents, rather friars and monks who would punish somebody for asking questions. Especially during a time of religious war."
No friars educated Thomas at Monte Cassino, as they had only recently been "invented" and because it was a Benedictine Archabbey. It is also unfair to claim that they punished him for asking questions. As reports tell, he asked quite a few questions, but, more importantly, this was the age of debate and the resurgence of reason. I am sure that he would have attended something of a quodlibetal lecture where he would ask questions of someone defending a thesis. Similarly, he would be instructed in proper logic and debate style in the quadrivium taught at Monte Cassino (the equivalent middle to early high school instruction of the time). His later education at Naples would be much more influenced by this, as oral defense of a thesis was the chief mode of education in Europe at this time, even in lower schools.
"I'm sorry, where is that mentioned [that Aquinas was to be made either soldier or abbot of Monte Cassino]"
A good source would be Fr. Placid Conway, OP who writes as such in his biography of St. Thomas. It would also not be inconceivable as his uncle was abbot. Most biography's of Thomas give this as the reason Theodora and his brothers waylaid him during his novitiate.
"Because the ramifications of not telling your children to be careful around knives is LIFE THREATENING. Not teaching your child to pray is not going to kill them."
That's basically my argument - it would kill them spiritually from their viewpoint.
"And if you want to try and claim (as so many of you do) that it's a spiritual death, I would challenge you to prove to me that a.) there is a hell and b.) there is a spiritual plane. Until you do this, don't make such broad and arrogant presumptions."
I wasn't making a broad or arrogant assumption, but merely stating that, if the parents did believe that it was spiritually dangerous to not be X, then it makes sense that they ought to ensure the safety of their child as he is growing up. I could show the existence of hell, ect., but that is a different discussion where I only intended to show that one could easily see the point of view of the parent.
"In their power yes, but not right or moral. The same could be said for racists who raise their kids to be racists, It's well within their "rights" to teach their children that blacks are sub-human and gays are fags that should be spat at, and jews should all be incinerated, but that doesn't make it RIGHT. Perhaps this is not so much your arrogance but your inability to decipher the difference between might and right."
This argument is true and I acknowledged it as such. It might not be a correct religion, but it is nevertheless the parents' perogative, which was all my point was about.
"I think it is the obligation of the parent to raise a child to be unbias. You think it is under the obligation to raise a child to be bias. YOU are in the morally wrong position here."
What does "unbiased" mean, exactly? As it were, I could just as easily throw this at you. "You think it is the obligation of parents to raise their children as atheists. I think it is the obligation of parents to instruct them in the Catholic faith." If we were to accept my position momentarily, Christianity and morality would be liberating. I see no reason as to why this ought to be compelling as you begin the argument with "loaded" dice and assume atheism is equal to pure freedom and unbiased nature.
"But I can't blame you, because you were raised with that bias, just like Aquinas - who stated that heretics should be murdered outright in his Summa Theologica. (Article 3:11) I don't think anybody who belongs to a faith who condones such violence should speaking about ANYTHING related to morality and rights. In fact your faith should probably take lessons."
Here, as elsewhere, it seems you just want to vent your anger. You can do this as much as you want, but it is not really an argument. We could answer the objection to Aquinas, but I don't think that it would be met very rationally.
"I own the Catechism of the Catholic Church."
Good place to start.
"That doesn't PROVE to me tehre is a soul and it doesn't prove to me that somebody without baptism can't later find religion on their own accord without indoctrination."
I don't understand what proving to you that "tehre" is a soul has to do with it. However, I never denied that one cannot "find religion" without having been baptised as an infant. The baptism and subsequent instruction just provides an early period of grace so that the child doesn't have to "find" it.
"The problem is, you KNOW that your religion has ethical, moral and epistimological problems, and if a child wasn't indoctrinated they'd never think you were more then some cultist talking about a dying religion. But that isn't my problem, that is YOURS. Don't try to make it sound like you have the moral high ground when you, in fact, don't."
As you go on, more and more words become CAPITALIZED. My religion doesn't have much of a problem finding converts from outside of the "fold" and, to be honest, finds it harder to ensure proper catechesis of those born into a "Catholic" family. I never pretended to have any sort of "moral high ground" at all. I just proposed we meet on even turf.
"But in none of Augustine's works is there a testable method by which one can see the soul or the effects of baptism on the soul."
No "test" really exists to "see" the soul which is, by nature, immaterial. Saint Augustine long had the problem of coping with the idea of something immaterial and went to Manichees to find a material god. The soul is not "testable" in the same way a potatoe is. The same is true of baptism. Baptism perfects the soul and imprints a character. This character is a latent power in the soul, which the soul is free to use or not. Grace or characters, as well as the soul itself, are immaterial and not really "testable." It would be the same if one wanted to "test" whether the idea of mushrooms exist. No "test" exists, but that doesn't mean that these things do not exist.
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
- Login to post comments
Offline Your response was rather spirited.
I was in a rush. 
I would rather like to condense the reply a bit, as I do not currently have enough time to answer the whole thing. We can hit the main points, at least:
Fair enough. We're both short on time it seems.
shows ~60% of scientists believe in a divinity of some sort. But even a previous study which was often touted in atheists' favor claimed that possibly 60% did not believe, not 95%. First, in terms of the 95% of scientists disbelieve in God, I find this statistic highly suspect. No profession tends to be that homogenous. The most recent study, http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050811_scientists_god.html,
This was in regards to the National Academy of Sciences, and the number was 93%, so I apologize for that. I was looking for the statistic but could not locate it.
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm
"The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5%."
Before you claim bias, I have other links, and your study is almost two years old.
Check these out as well:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
"Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample [1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively [2].
In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.
Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1."
This is a more indepth veiw of your survey: http://www.physorg.com/news5785.html but it doesn't specify the percentage of scientists who only "don't know or are agnostic" as the other survey does. If 41% of natural scientists do not believe, what about the percentage of people who are agnostic? Why don't they post the finds of those who do believe? This is why you can't just post a number like 60% and assume that it the amount.
I think that is quite unfair, as his parents probably often visited the monastery, as did his siblings, due partly to the fact that they were a well-to-do family. At least, this is not an unfair assumption to say that they had more than a marginal influence upon him."His parents do not play into it, as anything that happened from his birth to the age of three would not have stuck in his memory, leaving him only two years of conscious thought."
I doubt they had more influence then the monks at the Abby. And if they visited (I want you to provide me with some evidence here they did actually do that)how often? And what did they speak of? Do you HONESTLY think they sent him to an Abby just to come see him and try to pull him away from religion?
No friars educated Thomas at Monte Cassino, as they had only recently been "invented" and because it was a Benedictine Archabbey."...he was indoctrinated - just not by his parents, rather friars and monks who would punish somebody for asking questions. Especially during a time of religious war."
True, that was a slip of the tongue. I apologize.
It is also unfair to claim that they punished him for asking questions. As reports tell, he asked quite a few questions, but, more importantly, this was the age of debate and the resurgence of reason. I am sure that he would have attended something of a quodlibetal lecture where he would ask questions of someone defending a thesis. Similarly, he would be instructed in proper logic and debate style in the quadrivium taught at Monte Cassino (the equivalent middle to early high school instruction of the time). His later education at Naples would be much more influenced by this, as oral defense of a thesis was the chief mode of education in Europe at this time, even in lower schools.
I agree, but that doesn't mean he was never punished for asking questions. He may have asked a lot of questions but that doesn't mean he wasn't punished for doing so.
A good source would be Fr. Placid Conway, OP who writes as such in his biography of St. Thomas. It would also not be inconceivable as his uncle was abbot. Most biography's of Thomas give this as the reason Theodora and his brothers waylaid him during his novitiate. "I'm sorry, where is that mentioned [that Aquinas was to be made either soldier or abbot of Monte Cassino]"
First, don't assume what my question was, that was VERY dishonest. My questionw as not directed at your statement concerning Abbot, I'm well aware the intention was for him to one day hold Abbot - in fact I told you that in the first paragraph. If you're going to be dishonest about things, you're on the wrong forum. The next time you want to know what I'm asking, you ask me and don't assume. I hope I'm clear.
Also, your claim as to his family hoping he'd become a soldier is still preposterous. The fact that he had been educated from the age of 5 at an Abby is not evidence for this, but against this. He would have more power as Abbot then as a soldier. Especially in the 13th Century.
That's basically my argument - it would kill them spiritually from their viewpoint. "Because the ramifications of not telling your children to be careful around knives is LIFE THREATENING. Not teaching your child to pray is not going to kill them."
That isn't an argument that is speculation. You have no evidence to back it up, hense it cannot be considered an argument.
I wasn't making a broad or arrogant assumption,"And if you want to try and claim (as so many of you do) that it's a spiritual death, I would challenge you to prove to me that a.) there is a hell and b.) there is a spiritual plane. Until you do this, don't make such broad and arrogant presumptions."
Yes you were.
but merely stating that, if the parents did believe that it was spiritually dangerous to not be X, then it makes sense that they ought to ensure the safety of their child as he is growing up. I could show the existence of hell, ect., but that is a different discussion where I only intended to show that one could easily see the point of view of the parent.
We're not discussing Parental Authority but moral obligation. Whether or not the parent has the authority as a senior to teach their children anything they want is irrelevant - what is relevant is the immoral ramifications of doing so.
This argument is true and I acknowledged it as such. "In their power yes, but not right or moral. The same could be said for racists who raise their kids to be racists, It's well within their "rights" to teach their children that blacks are sub-human and gays are fags that should be spat at, and jews should all be incinerated, but that doesn't make it RIGHT. Perhaps this is not so much your arrogance but your inability to decipher the difference between might and right."
Thank you. I appreciate your honesty here.
What does "unbiased" mean, exactly?"I think it is the obligation of the parent to raise a child to be unbias. You think it is under the obligation to raise a child to be bias. YOU are in the morally wrong position here."
To be unbias about a position without evidence or of opinion is simple: Raise a child to know both sides of a position. For example, you don't raise a child to be a democrat or a republican but you explain to then the sides of each, and even those of independant parties, and let them make a decision when they are old enough to vote. Most parents don't do this...they indoctrinate their children with the right way (their way) to run the country and spout horrible things about the other side. This is a bias education.
As it were, I could just as easily throw this at you. "You think it is the obligation of parents to raise their children as atheists. I think it is the obligation of parents to instruct them in the Catholic faith."
But that would be false. I want my children to think for themselves. If they choose when they are old enough to believe in God I am not going to stop them. Just as I would want them to choose anything in their lives. That's the difference between religion and non-religion - I don't need to teach my children a set doctrine of faith because I have none.
If we were to accept my position momentarily, Christianity and morality would be liberating. I see no reason as to why this ought to be compelling as you begin the argument with "loaded" dice and assume atheism is equal to pure freedom and unbiased nature.
It is equal to pure freedom and unbias nature. This is why it's connected with FREE-THOUGHT. There is a reason why the Dark Ages are called so, and why the Age of Reason is called so. America was the secular experiment that today morons in right wing churches speak of us being founded on "Christian" prinicpals...apparently they never heard of the Treaty of Tripoli.
Here, as elsewhere, it seems you just want to vent your anger."But I can't blame you, because you were raised with that bias, just like Aquinas - who stated that heretics should be murdered outright in his Summa Theologica. (Article 3:11) I don't think anybody who belongs to a faith who condones such violence should speaking about ANYTHING related to morality and rights. In fact your faith should probably take lessons."
You're being dishonest and making broad presuppositions about me. I am not venting nor am I angry, I am making a sound argument. Don't attack me because your Saint made comments about murdering innocent people because they were different.
You can do this as much as you want, but it is not really an argument. We could answer the objection to Aquinas, but I don't think that it would be met very rationally.
Are you trying to suggest that he doesn't state that? Let me post it for you:
"With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death. " (Summa Theologica; Secunda Secundae; Question 11, Article 3)
That is pretty clear to me. In fact he goes on to reply to the three objections which side with toleration and repentance. Want to try again? What I find most revealing here is the evidence that belief in a spiritual being denotes lack of completely free thought - as if Aquinas didn't believe in a God he would have no reason to kill the heretics of any faith.
Good place to start."I own the Catechism of the Catholic Church."
This coming from my intellectual inferior? I've read through it...and the tombs of other books, dictionaries and encyclopedias in my library. That includes a NA 27 Greek and Latin addition and several Loeb texts, the ODoCC, Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, a Jewish Encyclopedia, five different versions of the Bible (including the Catholic NAB study Bible), the complete works of Josephus, Tacitus and Seutonius, Eusebius and others (all Loeb Classics). You don't want to play "Who's more knowledgeable then who" with me. It doesn't become you in the debate and you won't win.
I don't understand what proving to you that "tehre""That doesn't PROVE to me tehre is a soul and it doesn't prove to me that somebody without baptism can't later find religion on their own accord without indoctrination."
Don't be a spelling Nazi. This is very dishonest and shows me that you don't have anything but spelling to to discuss. If you want to be an ass and point out a typo it only makes you look bad, not me.
is a soul has to do with it.
It does, as it would prove the action is immoral and bias one way or another.
However, I never denied that one cannot "find religion" without having been baptised as an infant.
So then you admit that indoctrination isn't necessary?
As you go on, more and more words become CAPITALIZED. "The problem is, you KNOW that your religion has ethical, moral and epistimological problems, and if a child wasn't indoctrinated they'd never think you were more then some cultist talking about a dying religion. But that isn't my problem, that is YOURS. Don't try to make it sound like you have the moral high ground when you, in fact, don't."
This is for emphasis only.
I never pretended to have any sort of "moral high ground" at all. I just proposed we meet on even turf.
If you did I apologize for not understanding that, as it seemed to me, as if you were trying to defend indoctrination.
No "test" really exists to "see" the soul which is, by nature, immaterial."But in none of Augustine's works is there a testable method by which one can see the soul or the effects of baptism on the soul."
Then it has no effect on reality, and therefore is irrelevant. I have no desire to accept something without evidence, would you accept the position that there are little green men in your ears? But by your logic, you'd have us all believe that were the case. They are there, those green men, but they're immaterial, and if you don't accept those green men, when you die they'll decapitate you in a spiritual sense forever.
Saint Augustine long had the problem of coping with the idea of something immaterial and went to Manichees to find a material god. The soul is not "testable" in the same way a potatoe is.
Which is the difference between teaching a child about the harmful nature of fire and teaching them about a soul.
No "test" exists, but that doesn't mean that these things do not exist.
If they exist they have to be testable, it's the way of things. But nice try.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
- Login to post comments
Offline I'd like to step in and comment on these claims of souls existing.
If the world is really dualistic, that is there is matter and there is spirit, then we can think of this in a number of ways.
- matter and spirit are ontologically distinct substances. If this is the case, then one would have to wonder how they could possibly interact. If they share no ontological relationship, then they cannot possibly interact. this means that our soul cannot communicate with our body, nor our body our soul. If taht's the case, then in what sense doe sthe soul "exist," since existing is something that things do, not stuff that does not have the possibility of thingness, since it is immaterial/non-material.
- matter and spirit are distinct ontologies, but they are linked via some more fundamnental substance. This would be along the line of Tillich's "ground of Being," which he calls God. The problem with this is taht it is purely speculative. Further, it is not parsimonious. The question still remains as to what the soul does. The processes of the body are sufficient for cognition, consciousness, will, emotion, and all kinds of experiences both 'religious' and mundane. The soul is added on as an explanation that does not explain anything. Thus, the entity in question has no use, thus te ground that binds it to the body is unnecessary; it's added superfluously.
- There is only the body, and the soul is an abstraction. this is essentially materialism. The idea is tah tthe mind, in creating a subjective state, projects the conception of something that exists diffeently than matter. It's simply an illusion. The soul is a proposed name for this metaphysicalization, which is basically a projected being derived from the sense of subjective experience; it's the illusion of immateriality.
There are other ways to think about it, but that should suffice to make my point.
There is no reason to propose the existence of a soul. It is true tah the lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, but the same things goes for anything we could conceive of, like Invisible unicorns and dancing spoon-monsters.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
- Login to post comments
Offline In response first to your statistics, all I meant was that 95% seemed to be quite a bit too big. Even if we accept your statistics, it doesn't really change much of anything in terms of our argument.
In response to the Aquinas dispute - first, it doesn't much decide anything in regard to our argument so we could just as easily ignore this to decrease how much we have to cover. Second,
"I agree, but that doesn't mean he was never punished for asking questions. He may have asked a lot of questions but that doesn't mean he wasn't punished for doing so."
I think it rightly unfair to criticize the monks of Monte Cassino when you don't present any reason for your assertions. You paint the age as unquestioning and ignorant (as per your later reference to the Dark Ages versus the Age of Reason - a later and biased addendum to an age that began the revolution in rational thought, the university, organized debate, libraries, and hundreds of other things important to scientific and rational analysis) without real justification.
"First, don't assume what my question was, that was VERY dishonest. My questionw as not directed at your statement concerning Abbot..."
I was not intentionally misrepresenting your statement, but answering it as I thought it was asked. I don't know how dishonesty figures into it.
"Also, your claim as to his family hoping he'd become a soldier is still preposterous. The fact that he had been educated from the age of 5 at an Abby is not evidence for this, but against this. He would have more power as Abbot then as a soldier. Especially in the 13th Century."
Not true at all. Almost all children of the era were raised at cathedral schools or entrusted to abbeys for their formative training in grammar, music, mathematics, astronomy, logic, ect. It has no indication he was to be the abbot there. And, second, he would not necessarily have had more power as an abbot than as a soldier (assuming we take the rest of his family as an example); either way had its benefits or disadvantages.
"That isn't an argument that is speculation. You have no evidence to back it up, hense it cannot be considered an argument."
I wasn't intending on offering an argument for hell, ect. as it was merely a statement that, assuming someone is a Christian, to raise them without their religion would be considered a "life-threatening" condition.
What is the morality character, then, of instructing someone in a false religion? I already answered this when I gave the answer that, according to the natural order, their instruction and upbringing belongs to their parents. It would not be right to seize a child from its parents and raise it in a correct religion (or, no religion at all). The question of the morality of the religion in the first place really ought not to come into the discussion at all. The parents are the ones who would need to be persuaded to accept the new position, not the child; likewise, it is the parents' responsibility to educate the child correctly after accepting the new position, not yourself or myself.
"To be unbias about a position without evidence or of opinion is simple: Raise a child to know both sides of a position. For example, you don't raise a child to be a democrat or a republican but you explain to then the sides of each, and even those of independant parties, and let them make a decision when they are old enough to vote. Most parents don't do this...they indoctrinate their children with the right way (their way) to run the country and spout horrible things about the other side. This is a bias education."
Why is this biased? What determines an unbiased condition? I asked this earlier and your answer was that your child, growing up in a religiously empty environment, can choose religion at his pleasure later in life. This, in fact, is the same with Christianity. When free will and reason "kicks in," the child could abandon or accept what he has been raised with. However, there is no reason to reject it in the first place.
Again, assuming we want a religiously "neutral" environment, that itself is a particular bias expressed in the child's upbringing. "Why are you indoctrinating your child against religion?" could be asked. It seems your position of how to raise a child is inconsistent; you claim that it would be an unbiased education, yet I doubt you would raise your child with the same respect for Christianity I have (by which I mean that you would probably at least intimate that you do not believe Christianity to possess rational claims). In any event, I find it a hard place to point out an "unbiased" religious upbringing.
We could argue about the veracity of my religion and its claims, but this is really a different matter than whether the parents can rightfully raise their children in their own religion, which, as we have shown, is the case. It is another argument to begin speaking of whether the religion itself is helpful or harmful.
"It is equal to pure freedom and unbias nature. This is why it's connected with FREE-THOUGHT. There is a reason why the Dark Ages are called so, and why the Age of Reason is called so...."
But what is freedom and "unbiased nature"? We haven't defined our terms. "Free-thought" is already a loaded term, as it designates a position by nature inimical to claims made by religion. It is a bias in itself. I think, finally, the Dark Ages claim has been spoken of earlier.
"... In fact he goes on to reply to the three objections which side with toleration and repentance. Want to try again? What I find most revealing here is the evidence that belief in a spiritual being denotes lack of completely free thought - as if Aquinas didn't believe in a God he would have no reason to kill the heretics of any faith."
Your statements about Aquinas were an ad hominem, not an argument. I didn't dispute Aquinas said those things, it's just irrelevant to the argument. I would defend Aquinas' position but it seems irrelevant. I don't think it indicates lack of "free thought," and you further never explained how it did.
"This coming from my intellectual inferior? I've read through it...and the tombs of other books, dictionaries and encyclopedias in my library. That includes a NA 27 Greek and Latin addition and several Loeb texts, the ODoCC, Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, a Jewish Encyclopedia, five different versions of the Bible (including the Catholic NAB study Bible), the complete works of Josephus, Tacitus and Seutonius, Eusebius and others (all Loeb Classics). You don't want to play "Who's more knowledgeable then who" with me. It doesn't become you in the debate and you won't win."
I don't understand why you have to assert this. I merely said that the Catechism is a "good place to start," not implying any personal insult. I don't understand why you have to come back and assert your "intellectual superiority" - it makes your case look foolish when you rely purely on your own credentials. I own most of those books myself, so I don't understand - regardless - why it is so impressive that you do.
"Don't be a spelling Nazi. This is very dishonest and shows me that you don't have anything but spelling to to discuss. If you want to be an ass and point out a typo it only makes you look bad, not me."
I just found the mistake funny - no offense intended. It's not "dishonest," it might be offensive or insulting - maybe - but not dishonest.
"So then you admit that indoctrination isn't necessary?"
No, "indoctrination" is not necessary - look to Saint Augustine - but it is nevertheless helpful and right from a parents' viewpoint.
"Then it has no effect on reality, and therefore is irrelevant. I have no desire to accept something without evidence, would you accept the position that there are little green men in your ears? But by your logic, you'd have us all believe that were the case. They are there, those green men, but they're immaterial, and if you don't accept those green men, when you die they'll decapitate you in a spiritual sense forever."
Immateriality does not in any way denote a lack of existence. The argument is not to accept things without evidence, but to evaluate the standards of evidence that you use. Purely physicalist account of things are inadequate - this conversations proves it. Our concepts do not exist in physical bodies and are unable to be spoken of in a purely physical way. To say the immaterial doesn't exist is foolhardy, as we always speak in this way. To say a seperated spiritual substance exists is a slightly different matter. The soul does not fall into this category (angels and God do, however) as the soul is a non-seperated spiritual substance: the rational form of the body/the mind. Its existence is proven by the fact you think and live.
"Which is the difference between teaching a child about the harmful nature of fire and teaching them about a soul."
Other than the subject, very little.
"If they exist they have to be testable, it's the way of things. But nice try."
Again, no standard is set to "testable." The soul, the mind, exists regardless, and it seems nonsense to say "I don't have a mind."
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
- Login to post comments
Offline I'll just dig right in.
"matter and spirit are ontologically distinct substances. If this is the case, then one would have to wonder how they could possibly interact. If they share no ontological relationship, then they cannot possibly interact. this means that our soul cannot communicate with our body, nor our body our soul. If taht's the case, then in what sense doe sthe soul "exist," since existing is something that things do, not stuff that does not have the possibility of thingness, since it is immaterial/non-material."
That depends what you mean by ontologically distinct. The soul exists as the form of the body - an intellectual "intelligibility" and informative structure behind it. It possesses the character of immateriality, but it obviously interacts with the body providing harmony of function, ect. A raccoon and a carrot are ontologically distinct in a manner of speaking but can nevertheless interact. While of a different order, spiritual things (immaterial) have effects on material entities.
"matter and spirit are distinct ontologies, but they are linked via some more fundamnental substance. This would be along the line of Tillich's "ground of Being," which he calls God. The problem with this is taht it is purely speculative. Further, it is not parsimonious. The question still remains as to what the soul does. The processes of the body are sufficient for cognition, consciousness, will, emotion, and all kinds of experiences both 'religious' and mundane. The soul is added on as an explanation that does not explain anything. Thus, the entity in question has no use, thus te ground that binds it to the body is unnecessary; it's added superfluously."
There is no third substance, and thus is not added superfluously. The soul acts directly upon the body as it is is form - in a sense, the soul is the body in act. The body would be unintelligible without the soul.
"There is only the body, and the soul is an abstraction. this is essentially materialism. The idea is tah tthe mind, in creating a subjective state, projects the conception of something that exists diffeently than matter. It's simply an illusion. The soul is a proposed name for this metaphysicalization, which is basically a projected being derived from the sense of subjective experience; it's the illusion of immateriality."
Really, in my opinion, (philosophical speculation imminent!) it would seem that, assuming a pure materialism, such "metaphysicalization" would be impossible. Mental concepts do not exist, so illusions would be impossible. Things would happen, but we would be totally unable to grasp either that they happen or to explain any notion of their happening at all. In so far as things have intelligibility, it would seem that ideas must exist in some real sense.
"There is no reason to propose the existence of a soul. It is true tah the lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, but the same things goes for anything we could conceive of, like Invisible unicorns and dancing spoon-monsters."
While I did argue that a lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, I was also arguing that the soul is immaterial and hence is not "testable" in a material sense (which is what it seems to mean in this discussion). However, I never claimed that is all the evidence for its existence. A soul exists because things are alive, and a rational soul exists because things think. If we deny that we are thinking, we are in a heap of trouble. We can argue later about its subsistent character, or seperability, but its existence seems fairly self-evident.
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
- Login to post comments
Offline The soul exists as the form of the body - an intellectual "intelligibility" and informative structure behind it. It possesses the character of immateriality, but it obviously interacts with the body providing harmony of function, ect.
Obviously? How so?
A raccoon and a carrot are ontologically distinct in a manner of speaking but can nevertheless interact. While of a different order, spiritual things (immaterial) have effects on material entities.
Perhaps spiritual raccoons interact with spiritual carrots as well. Perhaps immaterial souls interract with immaterial bodies. But until I can observe an immaterial soul interracting with a material body in the same way I can observe a material raccoon interracting with a material carrot, your comparison doesn't really nail me to the wall.
A soul exists because things are alive, and a rational soul exists because things think. If we deny that we are thinking, we are in a heap of trouble. We can argue later about its subsistent character, or seperability, but its existence seems fairly self-evident.
Because things are alive? So animals, plants, bacteria, are they also endowed with souls? I must have missed that dogmatic update.
"its existence seems fairly self-evident". That which is self-evident does not seem. Fairly.
There are no theists on operating tables.
| ππ | π† |
| π† | †† |
- Login to post comments
Offline I cant wait to have time to read all this!
- Login to post comments
Offline If the soul is the form of the body, no real proof is necessary, as common observation suffices to show that human bodies have intelligibility and structure whilst being alive and rational.
"Perhaps spiritual raccoons interact with spiritual carrots as well. Perhaps immaterial souls interract with immaterial bodies. But until I can observe an immaterial soul interracting with a material body in the same way I can observe a material raccoon interracting with a material carrot, your comparison doesn't really nail me to the wall."
First error: immaterial raccoons do not exist for the reason that the idea of a raccoon necessarily involves bodies (matter). The same goes for carrots 
Second, the soul always interacts with a bodily as it is alive. The soul is, in a manner of speaking, the body "in action." It is not some seperated ghost body that floats about. Frankly, this is a common misconception about angels as well - angels do not have wings, nor do they look like people, ect. Angels are immaterial intellects that were never embodied in the first place. They might assume bodies in special cases (even then, the bodies they have are not alive), but they do not possess bodies naturally.
"Because things are alive? So animals, plants, bacteria, are they also endowed with souls? I must have missed that dogmatic update."
Yes they are. The soul is the principle of life and immaterial. However, they are not rational nor are they subsistent in animals or plants.
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
PS - Merry Christmas!!! ;P
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
- Login to post comments
Offline To All:
This would make a good sticky for this forum. I am a Roman Catholic seminarian and I am hereby making myself available to answer any questions concerning Christianity or theism in general. I intend to maintain a number of propositions which I have essentially taken from the First Vatican Council:
(From the Fourth Chapter of the Canons and Decrees of the Council, edited by Fr. Norman Tanner. S.J)
The perpetual agreement of the catholic church has maintained and maintains this too: that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object.
I am glad that catholics affirm this position. Supernatural claims, by definition, cannot be justied for supported by any natural means.
The sole problem I have with your position is that 'faith' is not a means to knowledge at all. Theistic fatih, by definition, is an admission that one cannot have knowledge at all, in regards to the supernatural.
Hence it is basic epistemological error to refer to beliefs held without justification, 'faith', as 'knowledge. Such beliefs are only hopes.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Bible: New Testament. Hebrews 11:1.
and, to clarify further:
Romans 8:24-25: “For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.” (NKJV)
With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith.
We can only 'know' through reason. It merely begs the question that we can 'know' through faith, seeing as faith is again, acceptance without justification.
With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain,
We cannot attain to anything beyond nature by definition.
there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known
Right. They are taken on faith.
Which is to say that they are believed without any justification at all.
Which is the same as saying that it could be a belief that someone made up, as an attempt to understand the mysteries of existence. And that others, followed along with the belief, based on similar feelings, or acceptance of authority.
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
Yours in Gerald Mcboing Boing
Chris (not the saint)
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline If the soul is the form of the body, no real proof is necessary
Only if you equate the soul with the body. But then, it would be material and not 'soul' in any sense of the word.
as common observation suffices
How can you view anything immaterial?
First error: immaterial raccoons do not exist for the reason that the idea of a raccoon necessarily involves bodies (matter). The same goes for carrots
Now let's apply this error to you. EVERY concept requires materiality. To be able to consider anything, one must imagine it instantiated in some fashion: visually, tactilly, etc. If there is nothing empirical about it, then you can't conceive of it.
Second, the soul always interacts with a bodily as it is alive.
How can something immaterial 'interact' ?!
Yes they are. The soul is the principle of life and immaterial.
Ok then, let's have you answer the three questions required for you to assert what you are claiming.
1) What is 'immateriality"? Please don't tell me what it ISN'T, please tell me what it is. Can you show that anything exists other than matter or energy? What are its "properties" - i.e. is it something natural? Give me it's ontology, or please stop using the term.
Can you define "immaterial" with positive characteristics?
2) How does something that is neither matter nor energy interact with our natural world?
3) If you apply ANY natural concept to answering quesiton 2, explain how do you avoid violating the principle of conservation of energy? If no physical energy or mass is associated with "immaterial things", then there is a serious problem: a fundamental principle of physics is that any change in any physical entity is an acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy - but if these things have no matter or energy, where does the energy come from? what you have here is something akin to the impossibilty of perpetual motion - energy from nowhere. Dan Dennet states that these questions represent the fatal flaw in any dualistic argument (i.e. to immateriliaty) (- 1990 Consciousness Explained.)
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline Michael, I don't know if you're aware of this but we have a quote feature. It is easier to read what you have to say when you use the quote feature - i blocks the text of your opponent in a debate so we can see who is actually talking and it doesn't look like one long page of text. If you need help with this function, just ask.
In response first to your statistics, all I meant was that 95% seemed to be quite a bit too big. Even if we accept your statistics, it doesn't really change much of anything in terms of our argument.
You're right about that. Neither does pointing out typos as you did in the previous post you made. So lets move on.
In response to the Aquinas dispute - first, it doesn't much decide anything in regard to our argument so we could just as easily ignore this to decrease how much we have to cover. Second,
I am not certain what you mean, which dispute?
I think it rightly unfair to criticize the monks of Monte Cassino when you don't present any reason for your assertions. "I agree, but that doesn't mean he was never punished for asking questions. He may have asked a lot of questions but that doesn't mean he wasn't punished for doing so."
I remember getting smacked around in my Catholic School by nun's when I asked questions. Don't tell me that punishment in catholic institutions for inquisitive thinking is an assertion. I can produce mass testimonials to such actions.
You paint the age as unquestioning and ignorant (as per your later reference to the Dark Ages versus the Age of Reason - a later and biased addendum to an age that began the revolution in rational thought, the university, organized debate, libraries, and hundreds of other things important to scientific and rational analysis) without real justification.
I do consider it ignorant, but I wouldn't say it was unquestioning. And for your information it was the outbreak of the Bubonic Plague and the death of most of the worlds population (and that of many clergy) thereafter that lead to questioning, and rational thought. The church could no longer claim that it was the power of God on earth, as so many of it's own died at the hands of plague and left no explanation for the faithful as to why. Such death and mutilation brought about the Reniseance, a spirited rebirth of music, art and cultuire.
I'm sure people questioned, but the fact is that those who questioned in the church usually had bad things happen to them. You do not want to debate me on this point, I have a lit of sources indicating where scientists and thinkers were excommunicated, tortured or both by the Church.
No wait, let's go there, because I grow tired of your inability to grasp the concept of indoctrination and anti-thought of the middle ages. During the life of Aquinas, in fact, 1233 - to stamp out the rise of Catharism - Pope Gregory IX launched an appointment of full-time Inquisitors drawn mainly from DOMINICAN and Franciscan Orders. (What was Aquinas again? A Dominican? That's what I thought.) This comes right from the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, btw.
In 1184, in fact, just a few decades before, Pope Lucius III "enacted the bull Ad Abolendam that Bishops should make inquisition for heresy in their dioceses and hand over those who would not recant to the secular authorities for punishment."
What's more damaging to your claim is that in 1252, Pope Innocent IV (Who wasn't all that innocent) licensed the use of TORTURE by the inquisition in the bull Ad Extirpanda. And this punishment could be used against the obdurate suspect.
According to New Advent, there were inquisitions during the first 12 centuries as well: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm#I
It states concerning the 13th century, "In France Louis VIII decreed in 1226 that persons excommunicated by the diocesan bishop, or his delegate, should receive "meet punishment" (debita animadversio). In 1249 Louis IX ordered barons to deal with heretics according to the dictates of duty (de ipsis faciant quod debebant). A decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229) makes it appear probable that in France death at the stake was already comprehended as in keeping with the aforesaid debita animadversio. To seek to trace in these measures the influence of imperial or papal ordinances is vain, since the burning of heretics had already come to be regarded as prescriptive. It is said in the "Etablissements de St. Louis et coutumes de Beauvaisis", ch. cxiii (Ordonnances des Roys de France, I, 211): "
Keep in mind this was during the life of Aquinas, who aptly agreed with killing heretics outright. So your claim that he himself wouldn't have been punished is incredulous. There were no real state of laws or legislation under these centuries by which proper procedures were undertaken, and witnesses were often dubious. People were prone to superstition as well, your common folk, and I see no reason to believe that Aquinas was above the institution of punishment to heresy as members of clergy were excommunicated as well during this period.
This is what indoctrination is - control.
Over centuries, anybody questioning the authority of the church in any manner ran the risk of death of confinement. In fact according to the ODoCC, containment in papal institutions was considered penence for heresy, especially more serious offenses. Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, etc...
I was not intentionally misrepresenting your statement, but answering it as I thought it was asked. I don't know how dishonesty figures into it. "First, don't assume what my question was, that was VERY dishonest. My questionw as not directed at your statement concerning Abbot..."
You didn't quote me correctly, you adde in your edition without notating it. You ignored the point.
Not true at all. Almost all children of the era were raised at cathedral schools or entrusted to abbeys for their formative training in grammar, music, mathematics, astronomy, logic, ect. It has no indication he was to be the abbot there."Also, your claim as to his family hoping he'd become a soldier is still preposterous. The fact that he had been educated from the age of 5 at an Abby is not evidence for this, but against this. He would have more power as Abbot then as a soldier. Especially in the 13th Century."
Straw man much?
And, second, he would not necessarily have had more power as an abbot than as a soldier (assuming we take the rest of his family as an example); either way had its benefits or disadvantages.
But he didn't come out of that abby as a soldier did he? Which points to the fact that he was schooled in more ways then on on religious affairs.
I wasn't intending on offering an argument for hell, ect. as it was merely a statement that, assuming someone is a Christian, to raise them without their religion would be considered a "life-threatening" condition. "That isn't an argument that is speculation. You have no evidence to back it up, hense it cannot be considered an argument."
Which is why I'm raising awareness to the fact that Christianity is morally incapable of dealing with reality.
What is the morality character, then, of instructing someone in a false religion? I already answered this when I gave the answer that, according to the natural order, their instruction and upbringing belongs to their parents. It would not be right to seize a child from its parents and raise it in a correct religion (or, no religion at all).
No religion at all allows for them to get a completely unbias look at all religions and choose which one calls to them - or whether they prefer to stay away from it. Religion gains it's power from parents who teach their children. Without it, and with proper education of reason, very few children would choose it.
The question of the morality of the religion in the first place really ought not to come into the discussion at all.
That is why immoral actions of the church go unhindered in the past. Because bringing up points such as the immorality of actions is heresy. You've once again proven a point for me.
The parents are the ones who would need to be persuaded to accept the new position, not the child; likewise, it is the parents' responsibility to educate the child correctly after accepting the new position, not yourself or myself.
So we should just let a child grow up ignorant? This is another issue with christianity. You don't accept responcibility when it is yours. You push it on others. And when you do finally take credit for something (Like the murders at Worms for example) you take hundreds of years to acknowledge it. Why is it that Pope John Paul had to apologize for Catholics during the middle ages who slaughtered millions because of the basis of intolerance? Why did it take so long for the church to realize this was morally indefensible?
Why is this biased? What determines an unbiased condition?"To be unbias about a position without evidence or of opinion is simple: Raise a child to know both sides of a position. For example, you don't raise a child to be a democrat or a republican but you explain to then the sides of each, and even those of independant parties, and let them make a decision when they are old enough to vote. Most parents don't do this...they indoctrinate their children with the right way (their way) to run the country and spout horrible things about the other side. This is a bias education."
When children are taught two sides of an issue? Why is this so hard to comprehend?
I asked this earlier and your answer was that your child, growing up in a religiously empty environment, can choose religion at his pleasure later in life. This, in fact, is the same with Christianity.
But when you're indoctrinated by a set of beliefs you aren't taught the other beliefs outside. Methodists are really the only practicing sect of Christianity to bring people to other faiths services before comfirmation. But even that is not enough because you are exposed to them only later in life, after you've had twelve years of indoctrination into one specific set of beliefs.
You apparently don't understand the concept of multiple faiths all claiming to have the one true God, do you?
When free will and reason "kicks in," the child could abandon or accept what he has been raised with. However, there is no reason to reject it in the first place.
Reason isn't something you're born with, Michael. It has to be taught by parents. I would say a very low percentage of Christians know how to even form an argument let alone made a reasonable deduction, use logic or think critically. Most accept belief without evidence - this is called faith. You have it I'm sure, where you blindly accept the existence of a soul, god and jesus without evidence of any sort, save circular evidence - which isn't evidence.
Your statements about Aquinas were an ad hominem, not an argument."... In fact he goes on to reply to the three objections which side with toleration and repentance. Want to try again? What I find most revealing here is the evidence that belief in a spiritual being denotes lack of completely free thought - as if Aquinas didn't believe in a God he would have no reason to kill the heretics of any faith."
How is calling a spade a spade an ad hom?
I didn't dispute Aquinas said those things, it's just irrelevant to the argument.
Apparently then you still don't comprehend the argument. You'd like this to be true but it just isn't the case. It's his indoctrinated upbringing which gives him this radical immoral perspective on life - that intolerance is a virtue and those who differ from him in dogmatic thought should be killed. This goes right into the whole indoctrination discussion. Your inability to grasp this surprised me.
I would defend Aquinas' position but it seems irrelevant. I don't think it indicates lack of "free thought," and you further never explained how it did.
Then defend it. I challenge you to defend a obviously immoral position.
I don't understand why you have to assert this. "This coming from my intellectual inferior? I've read through it...and the tombs of other books, dictionaries and encyclopedias in my library. That includes a NA 27 Greek and Latin addition and several Loeb texts, the ODoCC, Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, a Jewish Encyclopedia, five different versions of the Bible (including the Catholic NAB study Bible), the complete works of Josephus, Tacitus and Seutonius, Eusebius and others (all Loeb Classics). You don't want to play "Who's more knowledgeable then who" with me. It doesn't become you in the debate and you won't win."
Do you understand the meaning of the term "assert?"
I merely said that the Catechism is a "good place to start," not implying any personal insult.
Sounded like you were stating some sort of "for beginners" type of comment and I didn't appreciate it.
I don't understand why you have to come back and assert your "intellectual superiority" - it makes your case look foolish when you rely purely on your own credentials.
Obviously I don't rely on my own credentials if I'm backing up my claims, now do I?
I own most of those books myself, so I don't understand - regardless - why it is so impressive that you do.
Because it doesn't seem as if you use them.
I just found the mistake funny - no offense intended. It's not "dishonest," it might be offensive or insulting - maybe - but not dishonest. "Don't be a spelling Nazi. This is very dishonest and shows me that you don't have anything but spelling to to discuss. If you want to be an ass and point out a typo it only makes you look bad, not me."
It's dishonest because you were intentionally using the comment to lead the discussion away. This is called a dodge.
No, "indoctrination" is not necessary - look to Saint Augustine - but it is nevertheless helpful and right from a parents' viewpoint. "So then you admit that indoctrination isn't necessary?"
Who cares about the parents veiwpoint, we're discussing the repercussions globally of indoctrination. It isn't right and it's far from helpful. Just because the parents are ignorant of this doesn't somehow give them a free pass to do what they please.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
- Login to post comments
Offline In reply to your argument, faith is a species of knowledge - supernatural knowledge. It does not know without justification; its grounds of justification are different from natural reason but complimentary. The ground on which faith knows is by authority, namely God's authority as revealing
"I am glad that catholics affirm this position. Supernatural claims, by definition, cannot be justied for supported by any natural means."
No, they cannot if we speak of the object directly. Indirectly, for example, I can speak in my natural voice of supernatural claims (as I am now), while not arriving to the definition by a natural way. Supernatural claims are held on God's authority as the one revealing and are, yes, not able to be arrived at by natural means.
"The sole problem I have with your position is that 'faith' is not a means to knowledge at all. Theistic fatih, by definition, is an admission that one cannot have knowledge at all, in regards to the supernatural."
Theistic faith is not a denial of knowledge or any admission that one cannot have knowledge of a thing. As a prerequisite it would state that knowledge, for example, of the Trinity, or of any supernatural truth is beyond human reason's natural capacity to attain knowledge. However, it is not merely an acknowledgement of a lack of knowledge. It goes beyond this by stating that God reveals things that are unknowable to human reason (according to its natural means) and discloses true knowledge about supernatural things to human beings.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Bible: New Testament. Hebrews 11:1.
and, to clarify further:
Romans 8:24-25: “For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.” (NKJV) "
The first verse from Hebrews indicates that faith is two things: first, it is the "substance of things hoped for" - it is the object of our hoping (this being, as we will later show, distinct from hope); it is a true possessing of God and the mysteries revealed. Second, it is the "evidence of things not seen" - it is the grounds on which we base our knowledge of things unable to be known by ourselves (apart from revelation). Thus, faith is both the object of our hope and the ground on which we know supernatural truths. This has been, likewise, the traditional Catholic interpretation of the text.
As to the verse from Romans, it is clearly referring to the theological virtue of hope, not faith, but it will bring out the distinction. "For we were saved in this hope" - we (Christians to whom St. Paul is addressing) were saved "in" hope - our salvation occured by means of our hope in those things which we believe by faith and possess by love. "But hope that is not seen is not hope, for why does one hope for what he sees?" - while we were saved in hope, knowing by faith the truth and possessing by love the substance of our hope, we have not yet come to the completion of our hope as this would not be hope. "But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it in perseverance" - our hope yearns for completion in the resurrection and perfect possession of God - the substance in which we hope. Our perseverance in virtue and holiness ensures our attainment of the object of our hope.
Hope works toward the object of faith, which is that which is "unseen." Faith accepts on supernatural authority supernatural truths.
"StMichael wrote:
If the soul is the form of the body, no real proof is necessary
Only if you equate the soul with the body. But then, it would be material and not 'soul' in any sense of the word. "
I did not equate the soul with the body; it is the principle "behind" the body. It shares, in a manner of speaking, a substantial union with the body; man is neither a body nor a soul, but the union.
"How can you view anything immaterial?
Quote:
First error: immaterial raccoons do not exist for the reason that the idea of a raccoon necessarily involves bodies (matter). The same goes for carrots
Now let's apply this error to you. EVERY concept requires materiality. To be able to consider anything, one must imagine it instantiated in some fashion: visually, tactilly, etc. If there is nothing empirical about it, then you can't conceive of it."
Somewhat, but not entirely, true. Our concepts may come to us by knowledge of material things (sense data) but we truly do know immaterial concepts. For example, the concept of what is empirical is something empirically unverifiable. In the case of a raccoon, it is an animal and hence its idea involves all the aspects of its materiality - conditions of being an animal - as a result. A raccoon cannot exist immaterially as a subsistent entity - its idea can, but not the raccoon which has, by definition, a body.
"
Quote:
Second, the soul always interacts with a bodily as it is alive.
How can something immaterial 'interact' ?!"
Something immaterial can act upon something material. As I said, the soul, being an immaterial principle, acts on matter constantly. The structure behind the chair I am sitting in remains in act upon the chair the entire time it exists as a chair. The same holds true of any other form of a thing. A purely immaterial seperated substance can act upon a thing by knowing it - applying its power to a thing. Thus they "interact," acting upon each other.
"
Ok then, let's have you answer the three questions required for you to assert what you are claiming.
1) What is 'immateriality"? Please don't tell me what it ISN'T, please tell me what it is. Can you show that anything exists other than matter or energy? What are its "properties" - i.e. is it something natural? Give me it's ontology, or please stop using the term.
Can you define "immaterial" with positive characteristics?"
Immateriality is a negative concept - not having matter. It is positive when we can call it spiritual, or some such title. The concepts we use now exist apart from the matter it takes to display these words and the energy with which I write them on this page. What is immaterial is natural - the immaterial is found often in daily life often united to material things. it is not something beyond nature, but connected with it. I don't know what you wish me to state in giving an ontology of the immaterial. It has an existence that can be either subsistent or dependent upon matter, it is part of any substance and the prime instance of substance, it provides intelligibility and structure, in it can be found the essence of a thing, and it provides existence and act to matter.
"2) How does something that is neither matter nor energy interact with our natural world?"
Because it is part of the natural world. Immaterial forms act upon matter constantly, giving them "form." It is neither matter nor energy, but it is constantly present and it would be impossible to describe the natural world without these or like concepts.
"3) If you apply ANY natural concept to answering quesiton 2, explain how do you avoid violating the principle of conservation of energy? If no physical energy or mass is associated with "immaterial things", then there is a serious problem: a fundamental principle of physics is that any change in any physical entity is an acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy - but if these things have no matter or energy, where does the energy come from? what you have here is something akin to the impossibilty of perpetual motion - energy from nowhere. Dan Dennet states that these questions represent the fatal flaw in any dualistic argument (i.e. to immateriliaty) (- 1990 Consciousness Explained.)"
I think that Mr. (Dr.?) Dennet has a flaw in his argument, namely that immaterial things do not fall into the realm of physics except incidentally. Immaterial forms provide act and intelligibility behind action - energy itself being something "formed." Immaterial forms, whether human or inanimate, both are the principle of the action itself, not something acting upon something already acting.
Yours In Christ Jesus,
StMichael (not a saint)
PS - Go Socrates!
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
- Login to post comments
Offline In reply to your argument, faith is a species of knowledge - supernatural knowledge.
Well, that's just a naked assertion. Worse, your just begging the point that you're seeking to prove. And worse yet, your claim is an oxymoron. To be 'knowledge' is be rational or empirical. These are natural concepts. "Supernatural knowledge' could not be either rational or empirical. It would have to be 'beyond' both. It couldn't have any positive attributes at all.
So what's left? Emotions? Natural. Intuition - a word we give to a type of reason, natural.
Every term you are using ceases to make sense when you attempt to apply it to the very antithesis of nature, the 'supernatural'. The term 'supernatural' has no ontological status. It is merely a set of negatives. However, a set of negatives, devoid of ANY universe of discourse, ceases to have any meaning. It is incoherent.
Oh, and one other thing: think this over. If 'faith' were merely a synonym for 'reason', why even use the term faith to begin with?
Do you see why your term 'faith' hides a serious problem for you?
It does not know without justification; its grounds of justification are different from natural reason but complimentary.
You're contradicting your own good book here. Faith only exists in contradistinction to reason. Recall your own St. Paul: If one has reasons, why have faith?
Faith is belief without justification. It is not an epistemological stance, it is a concession that one has no grounds for one's belief.
And the negative theologian can honestly admit this. And he must. He knows that ontologically and epistemologically he cannot have any grouns for his belief.
"I am glad that catholics affirm this position. Supernatural claims, by definition, cannot be justied for supported by any natural means."
No, they cannot if we speak of the object directly. Indirectly, for example, I can speak in my natural voice of supernatural claims (as I am now),
Only if by 'indirectly' you mean via negativa. But then, you still have serious problems. See above.
So, you are either using positive terms, and hence natural terms, or you are speaking via negativa, and simply telling us what the supernatural is NOT.
So you can never speak of the supernatural, because, again, it is the antithesis of nature.
Theistic faith is not a denial of knowledge or any admission that one cannot have knowledge of a thing.
Yes, it is.
As a prerequisite it would state that knowledge, for example, of the Trinity, or of any supernatural truth is beyond human reason's natural capacity to attain knowledge. However, it is not merely an acknowledgement of a lack of knowledge.
This is all it can be.
It goes beyond this by stating that God reveals things that are unknowable to human reason (according to its natural means) and discloses true knowledge about supernatural things to human beings.
No, you're stealing from materialism again, in direct contradiction to the negative definition of 'supernatural'
"Supernatural things' is an oxymoron. If a 'thing' is in fact a thing, it has an ontology. Recall your basic principles, the first steps of ontology.
Existence is axiomatic
To exist is to exist as something. To have identity. To have properites. To be is to be something.
If an 'entity' is in fact an entity, then we can discuss its ontology.
So this 'supernatural' 'being' cannot disclose something that has no ontology to us! We'd have no means to grasp it.
All you have left is a special plead: "He's supernatural, so he can do it anyway, damn the logic". But once you go here, you concede your position is irrational. So beware.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Bible: New Testament. Hebrews 11:1.
and, to clarify further:
Romans 8:24-25: “For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.” (NKJV) "
The first verse
Let me interupt to let out the sigh that will hit me as I read your ad hoc rationalizations. Theistic faith is non contingent belief. Belief without justification. Why can't theists be honest on this point?
from Hebrews indicates that faith is two things: first, it is the "substance of things hoped for" - it is the object of our hoping (this being, as we will later show, distinct from hope);
Hope is not knowledge. One can hope for anything, without any grounds for the hope. The 'substance' refered to here is 'faith', and the faith is hope. Belief without justification.
it is a true possessing of God and the mysteries revealed.
No, it is a HOPE that such things exist, even though reason tells us otherwise.
Second, it is the "evidence of things not seen" - it is the grounds on which we base our knowledge of things unable to be known by ourselves (apart from revelation).
But the 'grounds' is things NOT SEEN! So there are NO GROUNDS.
Please read it to yourself a few times, and think it over.
The point of this passage is that there IS NO GROUNDS. One HOPES that there is evidence that is unseen.
Thus, faith is both the object of our hope and the ground on which we know supernatural truths.
You're whistling past the graveyard.
The 'grounds' is evidence of things NOT seen.
So there are no grounds. Just a hope that there is!
Do you see it now?
As to the verse from Romans, it is clearly referring to the theological virtue of hope, not faith, but it will bring out the distinction. "For we were saved in this hope" - we (Christians to whom St. Paul is addressing) were saved "in" hope - our salvation occured by means of our hope in those things which we believe by faith and possess by love.
i.e, without justification. And that is the point of posting the passage to you. On hope. The point here is that your 'faith' is simply unjustified belief. Everything stems first from this unjustified hope.
Now, let me make something clear to you. You've not explained what this 'faith' is nor how it provides knowledge. All you've done is assert that it provides some sort of magical knowledge that is not like other knowledge. In other words, you can't actually provide an explanation of its epistemological basis.
So please, if you wish to respond further, do so. Don't just assert that it gives magical knowledge.
Only if you equate the soul with the body. But then, it would be material and not 'soul' in any sense of the word. "
I did not equate the soul with the body;
I didn't say you did. Read it again. I state "only if", i.e. only if you hold to this position...
it is the principle "behind" the body. It shares, in a manner of speaking, a substantial union with the body; man is neither a body nor a soul, but the union.
This is merely another empty assertion, one that again violates basic ontology. You simply assert the word 'soul' and use it just as you'd use any natural term.
You need to answer my questions.
Now let's apply this error to you. EVERY concept requires materiality. To be able to consider anything, one must imagine it instantiated in some fashion: visually, tactilly, etc. If there is nothing empirical about it, then you can't conceive of it."
Somewhat, but not entirely, true.
No, it is entirely true.
Our concepts may come to us by knowledge of material things (sense data) but we truly do know immaterial concepts.
No, we do not. Again, the term 'immaterial objects' is an oxymoron.
For example, the concept of what is empirical is something empirically unverifiable.
So? The validation criterion for meaning is a prescription, not a description! It's a method !
But is the concept something empirical? Yes. It is an idea. It exists in a physical brain, as a bundle of neurons. It is transmitted from one brain to another through a physical medium, a book, words (vibrations in the air), etc.
Every aspect is empirical. Ideas are born of electrochemical interactions within neurons. Physical.
In the case of a raccoon, it is an animal and hence its idea involves all the aspects of its materiality - conditions of being an animal - as a result. A raccoon cannot exist immaterially as a subsistent entity -
NOTHING can 'exist' immaterially! Again, recall your basic ontology.
To exist is to exist as something! To have identity. To have properties. Postive attributes. A basic ontology.
We cannot refer to existence devoid of identity. Recall your Kant!
You are confusing abstractions for immateriality.
How can something immaterial 'interact' ?!"
Something immaterial can act upon something material.
Fallacy of naked assertion.
You were asked HOW it interacts.
As I said, the immaterial works on matter constantly
So, that's your answer to how the immaterial acts on matter?
Constantly?
The structure behind the chair I am sitting in remains in act upon the chair the entire time it exists as a chair. The same holds true of any other form of a thing.
Now you are boldly and brazenly stealing the concept of materiality. If you define immateriality as 'not matter' then you cannot go on and apply materialistic terms to it!
A purely immaterial seperated substance can act upon a thing by knowing it -applying its power to a thing. Thus they "interact," acting upon each other.
First, every one of your responses commits a stolen concept fallacy. You continually refer to 'the supernatural' or 'immateriality' using naturalistic, materialist terms, without even realizing it!
Second, you simply assert that these 'things' 'exist' and that they just 'work somehow'. Leaving aside that again, your terms here are materialistic, you're just asserting, not demonstrating or arguing.
1) What is 'immateriality"? Please don't tell me what it ISN'T, please tell me what it is. Can you show that anything exists other than matter or energy? What are its "properties" - i.e. is it something natural? Give me it's ontology, or please stop using the term.
Can you define "immaterial" with positive characteristics?"
Immateriality is a negative concept - not having matter. It is positive when we can call it spiritual, or some such title.
Only if by 'spiritual' you use postive terms! And then 'immateriality' becomes matter! .
The concepts we use now exist apart from the matter it takes to display these words and the energy with which I write them on this page
Concepts are immaterial? Do I lose all my ideas then if I take a sharp turn? How would they stay in anyone's head?
Concepts exist in physical brains, as electrochemical interactions with neurons. They exist physicall, and are communicated physically.
. What is immaterial is natural
You are confusing abstractions for immateriality. Abstractions do not necessarily have extra mental existence, but this does not make them 'immaterial'
To exist is to exist as something. To have identity, to have attributes.
I don't know what you wish me to state in giving an ontology of the immaterial.
My three questions provide a blueprint for revealing the ontology of immateriality. Your inability to anwer them will help you understand why the immaterial (or the supernatural) are incoherent terms.
"3) If you apply ANY natural concept to answering quesiton 2, explain how do you avoid violating the principle of conservation of energy? If no physical energy or mass is associated with "immaterial things", then there is a serious problem: a fundamental principle of physics is that any change in any physical entity is an acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy - but if these things have no matter or energy, where does the energy come from? what you have here is something akin to the impossibilty of perpetual motion - energy from nowhere. Dan Dennet states that these questions represent the fatal flaw in any dualistic argument (i.e. to immateriliaty) (- 1990 Consciousness Explained.)"
I think that Mr. (Dr.?) Dennet has a flaw in his argument, namely that immaterial things do not fall into the realm of physics except incidentally.
Then how do they work? Magic?
Yours In Christ Jesus,
StMichael (not a saint)
PS - Go Socrates!
Yours in Bullwinkle.
- Chris
Yes, socrates is cool
PS Try the questions again. You didn't answer any of them.
1) Can you show that anything exists other than matter or energy? What are its "properties" - i.e. is it something natural? If not, how can we 'know" or "infer" anything about it. If we can't, what use is your 'hypothesis"? If it has no use, then why are we having this conversation?
2) How does something that is neither matter nor energy interact with our natural world?
3) How do you avoid violating the principle of conservation of energy? If no physical energy or mass is associated with "immaterial things", then there is a serious problem: a fundamental principle of physics is that any change in any physical entity is an acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy - but if these things have no matter or energy, where does the energy come from? what you have here is something akin to the impossibilty of perpetual motion - energy from nowhere. Dan Dennet states that these questions represent the fatal flaw in any dualistic argument (i.e. to immateriliaty) (- 1990 Consciousness Explained.)
Help in answering these questions:
All the terms you've used have either stolen from materialism, or they are purely negative, and have NO ontological bearing.
You can't just steal from materialism and apply these terms to the supernatural, as the 'supernatural' is defined as 'not materialism'
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline That depends what you mean by ontologically distinct. The soul exists as the form of the body - an intellectual "intelligibility" and informative structure behind it.
This is that psudo-Platonism that hides behind all soul claims. The assumption is that matter cannot have perform the processes of thinking, feeling, and "being." It is an unfounded assertion. Let's see how it plays out.
It possesses the character of immateriality, but it obviously interacts with the body providing harmony of function, ect. A raccoon and a carrot are ontologically distinct in a manner of speaking but can nevertheless interact. While of a different order, spiritual things (immaterial) have effects on material entities.
This is a misunderstanding of the real metaphysical problem at hand. A racoon and a carrot are not ontologically distinct in the sense I mean. They are distinct, but they exist in the same ontological categories of matter. WHen I say ontologically distinct, I'm moving from the meaning of 'immaterial.'
If something is truly non-material, really having no shared qualities with the physical world, then it's not made of energy, quarks, atoms, or anything else of the known physical universe. It must really be something else completely. We know that physical things interact via natural forces but proposing that there is also something non-material is a mere assumption. Why would anyone suggest such a thing? Well, let's read on.
The soul acts directly upon the body as it is is form - in a sense, the soul is the body in act. The body would be unintelligible without the soul.
Why? Why is the soul necessary? You are adding an ontological category here to explain something, but it doesn't explain anything at all. You are saying that matter is essentially dead, so it cannot be responsible for all the action, so something else must be responsible.
(For those who know my refutation of the kalam argument, you may see where I'm going with this;the whole issue of pushing the cause back one step, which begs the question--special pleading).
Really, in my opinion, (philosophical speculation imminent!) it would seem that, assuming a pure materialism, such "metaphysicalization" would be impossible. Mental concepts do not exist, so illusions would be impossible. Things would happen, but we would be totally unable to grasp either that they happen or to explain any notion of their happening at all. In so far as things have intelligibility, it would seem that ideas must exist in some real sense.
And her eyou spell out what I sensed. You think that the soul is the thing doing all of that stuff. I'm simply asking why can't the physical matter of our bodies do it?
... A soul exists because things are alive, and a rational soul exists because things think. If we deny that we are thinking, we are in a heap of trouble. We can argue later about its subsistent character, or seperability, but its existence seems fairly self-evident.
That's the problem. I'm not saying that things don't think. That would only be true if I agred with you that things need souls to think. This is te classic dualist position of the philosophy of mind. This position is not supported by neuro-science research. I'd cite Daniel C. Dennett, but even his peers don't seem to get the point that if you reject qualia (in your case, the soul), you are saying that consciousness does not exist. The answer is that it does exist, only it doesn't exist the way that you think it does.
The soul does not explain that we think. The brain explains that we think. Merely asserting that the soul is necessary for thought to exist begs the question, and exposes a serious ignorance concerning how the brain works.
Being in seminary, I don't expect you to be an expert in neuroscience. But not being an expert on neuroscience, I also should't see you making claims about consciousness.
Shaun
PS: I responded before reading the rest of the discussion with todangst and St. Michael. I'll only add now that there is a rampant middle Platonism going on here.
I'm reminded that at the philosophy dept at a local Catholic University, they stop after Aquinas. They don't even get to Kant, Hume, or Wittgenstein. I'd be shocked if their library even carried Nietzsche.
S
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
- Login to post comments
Offline Dear Sirs,
I am unsure as to whether during the next busy week or two (Christmas followed by a seminary retreat for another week) I will be able to adequately answer your posts. Just to let you know that I will be busy, and it is not a sign I am neglecting your arguments.
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
- Login to post comments
Offline StMichael wrote:That depends what you mean by ontologically distinct. The soul exists as the form of the body - an intellectual "intelligibility" and informative structure behind it.
This is that pseudo-Platonism that hides behind all soul claims. The assumption is that matter cannot have perform the processes of thinking, feeling, and "being." It is an unfounded assertion. Let's see how it plays out.
Yes, its an argument from ignorance.
It possesses the character of immateriality, but it obviously interacts with the body providing harmony of function, ect. A raccoon and a carrot are ontologically distinct in a manner of speaking but can nevertheless interact. While of a different order, spiritual things (immaterial) have effects on material entities.
This is a misunderstanding of the real metaphysical problem at hand. A racoon and a carrot are not ontologically distinct in the sense I mean. They are distinct, but they exist in the same ontological categories of matter. WHen I say ontologically distinct, I'm moving from the meaning of 'immaterial.'
If something is truly non-material, really having no shared qualities with the physical world, then it's not made of energy, quarks, atoms, or anything else of the known physical universe. It must really be something else completely.
Yes, and this is precisely why any discussion of 'immateriality' leads to a stolen concept fallacy. To call something "not matter" is to entirely rule out our universe of discourse.
The soul acts directly upon the body as it is is form - in a sense, the soul is the body in act. The body would be unintelligible without the soul.
Why? Why is the soul necessary? You are adding an ontological category here to explain something, but it doesn't explain anything at all. You are saying that matter is essentially dead, so it cannot be responsible for all the action, so something else must be responsible.
To me, it's an argument from dire consequences.
If I don't have a soul, I cannot live in eternal bliss.
ergo, I have a soul.
(For those who know my refutation of the kalam argument, you may see where I'm going with this;the whole issue of pushing the cause back one step, which begs the question--special pleading).
In all the sake of holding to the hope of eternal bliss. Clearly a strong motivator.
Really, in my opinion, (philosophical speculation imminent!) it would seem that, assuming a pure materialism, such "metaphysicalization" would be impossible. Mental concepts do not exist, so illusions would be impossible. Things would happen, but we would be totally unable to grasp either that they happen or to explain any notion of their happening at all. In so far as things have intelligibility, it would seem that ideas must exist in some real sense.
And her you spell out what I sensed. You think that the soul is the thing doing all of that stuff. I'm simply asking why can't the physical matter of our bodies do it?
Indeed. The argument is based on two irrational precepts.
"Souls are a desirable entity, so I believe I have one"
and
"abstractions are immaterial'
That's the problem. I'm not saying that things don't think. That would only be true if I agred with you that things need souls to think. This is te classic dualist position of the philosophy of mind. This position is not supported by neuro-science research. I'd cite Daniel C. Dennett, but even his peers don't seem to get the point that if you reject qualia (in your case, the soul), you are saying that consciousness does not exist. The answer is that it does exist, only it doesn't exist the way that you think it does.
To me, this all boils down to argument people don't 'feel like' matter... well, what would it feel like to be matter?!
Being in seminary, I don't expect you to be an expert in neuroscience. But not being an expert on neuroscience, I also should't see you making claims about consciousness.
Particularly when the basis of his claims is irrationalism.
I'm reminded that at the philosophy dept at a local Catholic University, they stop after Aquinas. They don't even get to Kant, Hume, or Wittgenstein. I'd be shocked if their library even carried Nietzsche.
S
Nice observation. They are arguing based on 13th century neuroscience!
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline Sorry about the formatting; I lost it as I was writing it and transferring it, ect. I thought it more important just to post it, period.
StMichael wrote: In reply to your argument, faith is a species of knowledge - supernatural knowledge. "Well, that's just a naked assertion. Worse, your just begging the point that you're seeking to prove. And worse yet, your claim is an oxymoron. To be 'knowledge' is be rational or empirical. These are natural concepts. "Supernatural knowledge' could not be either rational or empirical. It would have to be 'beyond' both. It couldn't have any positive attributes at all."
Supernatural knowledge would be rational, just not empirical. It is supernatural in the means of revelation, firstly, as God reveals something not discoverable by natural power. Its articles are not all supernatural in their object of knowledge. I can say something truly comprehensible when I say that Christ descended into hell - this is an article of faith whose object is not supernatural in itself. The same is true, for example, when I say that the Sacrament of Penance truly forgives sins. These things are truly comprehensible in themselves and not "supernatural" in objects per se. This is one category of supernatural truth. An example of a truth that is a true mystery whose object and means of revelation are both supernatural is the Trinity. Thus, the Trinity in itself is unable to be comprehended by man even as revealed. This is not to say, however, that nothing can be said of it. As revealed and supernatural knowledge, God reveals this truth directly and thus must be true in itself. Our possession of true supernatural knowledge by faith is a possession of the things themselves - I know the Trinity truly not by my positing of it, but by my possession of it in grace. Of the Trinity, I can posit certain relations and terms to explain it, but I cannot truly speak in human terms of its substance. Faith gives supernatural terms to speak of its substance and by grace we possess the reality.
"So what's left? Emotions? Natural. Intuition - a word we give to a type of reason, natural. "
Emotions and intuition are not related to faith. Nor are they rational.
"Every term you are using ceases to make sense when you attempt to apply it to the very antithesis of nature, the 'supernatural'. The term 'supernatural' has no ontological status. It is merely a set of negatives. However, a set of negatives, devoid of ANY universe of discourse, ceases to have any meaning. It is incoherent."
The term supernatural designates a reality "above" the natural. There are different senses of this word. It could be "above" in the sense of total unrelation, where in this case God, as a supernatural reality, would be totally and utterly unable to be spoken of as He would be totally unrelated to any concepts we have. We could not speak of Him even negatively. It could be "above" in terms of a reality "greater than" the natural. Again, this could mean "greater than" in terms of bigger size than the natural (of greater mass) or something of this sort. It could likewise mean greater ontologically than the natural. In this latter sense do we designate God beyond nature as of greater ontological character than the natural. Specifically, God is above nature because He is its source. But this relationship of God as cause to nature allows some amount of relationship to exist between supernatural and natural objects, as God is the source of both and cannot contradict Himself. This is what is mentioned in the Council of Trent as quoted on my first post in this forum. So, as a result, supernatural realities may be spoken of by saying first what they are not and then further by analogy between cause and effect, or from a likeness of the effect to the cause. This, basically, is how we speak of God. I would likewise like to enunciate the category I spoke of earlier that does not fit into these "natural" modes of speaking about God (negation and analogy), but is beyond either. This last method is the theological virtue of faith. In faith, we truly possess God and thus, (in a manner of speaking) speak as God about God in supernatural terms designating supernatural realities. This speaking, of course, occurs in two ways: first, using prayer we pray to God by God (sighs inexpressible in human speech) and this is truly speaking in supernatural terms of supernatural things to God, while the second is that of the "theology of the saints" whereby they know God by possessing Him and thus can use human terms in an analogical way as they enunciate what they know in God, as when they "read hearts" or foretell future events (this, however, is inexhaustible in relation to the divine nature and human terms are always inadequate).
"Oh, and one other thing: think this over. If 'faith' were merely a synonym for 'reason', why even use the term faith to begin with? "
Because it is not a synonym for reason, but a different thing entirely in both method and object than natural reason. It is rational, but not of the same genus as natural knowledge. It is a different species of knowledge, having both a different object and a different method, but it is true and rational knowledge.
"Do you see why your term 'faith' hides a serious problem for you? "
No.
Quote: It does not know without justification; its grounds of justification are different from natural reason but complimentary. "You're contradicting your own good book here. Faith only exists in contradistinction to reason. Recall your own St. Paul: If one has reasons, why have faith? Faith is belief without justification. It is not an epistemological stance, it is a concession that one has no grounds for one's belief."
No it is not. I don't know why you want to insist this point. My particular affiliation, the Catholic Church, never interprets the Scriptures as saying this and their interpretation from Tradition likewise upholds this opinion with the consistent teaching of the Church throughout history, as with the Council of Trent. Also, the entire body of Christians have never interpreted the Scriptures to mean this - this school of interpretation is basically Protestant, arising only in the late sixteenth century. Finally, Scripture does not support you; Paul himself, as I had said, does not mean that when he says faith is evidence of what is not seen and the substance of things hoped for. Likewise, he gives contradictory remarks elsewhere in Scripture when, for example, at Athens he declares that the Gentile Greeks had discovered both the natural law revealed in Scripture and had also discovered the existence of God. There are quite a few more examples, but I think that the most obvious. Likewise, a great deal more of Scripture contradicts that interpretation - the entire book of Wisdom is proof enough. Faith exists as a different mode of knowledge, both in method and in object; it is revealed by God and known because God reveals it, and it indicates belief in mysteries that are supernatural.
"And the negative theologian can honestly admit this. And he must. He knows that ontologically and epistemologically he cannot have any grouns for his belief. "
I don't know why anybody would seriously uphold this (Paul Tillich comes to mind). Grounds for belief must exist if one is to uphold a Christian or Judaic conception of God, both from Scripture and from the commonly held notion that God created all things and called them good, including natural reason. Faith will never contradict what is known by natural reason. I want to point out here that I believe you may have a confusion of terms. When we use the pair "faith and reason" Christians/theologians mean the difference not between the mind or logic and religious objects of belief, but the difference between objects able to be known only by God's revelation and those knowable by "natural reason" or the human mind operating without divine assistance in order to know truths. Even the human mind can know supernatural truths, such as the existence of God (which has a supernatural object but a natural mode of discovery).
Quote: "I am glad that catholics affirm this position. Supernatural claims, by definition, cannot be justied for supported by any natural means." Quote: No, they cannot if we speak of the object directly. Indirectly, for example, I can speak in my natural voice of supernatural claims (as I am now), "Only if by 'indirectly' you mean via negativa. But then, you still have serious problems. See above. So, you are either using positive terms, and hence natural terms, or you are speaking via negativa, and simply telling us what the supernatural is NOT. So you can never speak of the supernatural, because, again, it is the antithesis of nature."
The supernatural, as I have shown above, has many interpretations. The way it is used in religious discourse is to indicate that God is "above nature" as not identified with it. God, as the source of nature, is thus able to be spoken of both by saying what He is not and by analogy. If God were truly entirely beyond nature, as you would claim, anything, even saying what God is not, is nonsense as no relation can be made between our terms and His reality. However, the latter is not the case.
Quote: It goes beyond this by stating that God reveals things that are unknowable to human reason (according to its natural means) and discloses true knowledge about supernatural things to human beings. "No, you're stealing from materialism again, in direct contradiction to the negative definition of 'supernatural' "Supernatural things' is an oxymoron. If a 'thing' is in fact a thing, it has an ontology. Recall your basic principles, the first steps of ontology. Existence is axiomatic To exist is to exist as something. To have identity. To have properites. To be is to be something. If an 'entity' is in fact an entity, then we can discuss its ontology. So this 'supernatural' 'being' cannot disclose something that has no ontology to us! We'd have no means to grasp it. All you have left is a special plead:
"He's supernatural, so he can do it anyway, damn the logic". But once you go here, you concede your position is irrational. So beware. "
Supernatural things do possess being, and we can thus speak of them. However, I also want to point out before I delve into the rest here that faith treats of objects not supernatural, such as the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, truths about the angels, and other natural objects. It would do well to define the scope of what we mean by supernatural. The discourse about the ontology of knowledge of supernatural truths whose object is supernatural, such as the Trinity, is what these arguments apply to. Some of those things, such as the immortality of the soul, which faith discloses are not supernatural in their object - the soul is not supernatural, except in a sense (as the soul or the angels are immaterial or incorporeal, they can be said to be supernatural; this is one sense of the term and we use it this way some times; the angels, however, are natural beings as they exist as part of creation). The same is true of the angels, as we know their heirarchy by way of faith; the object is natural and perfectly knowable to natural reason, but is not discoverable by human reason. There also exists a category of things known by way of faith, such as the immortality of the soul, which are not only discoverable supernaturally, but also by natural reason. In other words, there exists a distinction between [1] supernaturally discovered supernatural objects of knowledge, [2] supernaturally known natural objects of knowledge, [3] naturally known supernatural objects of knowledge, [4] naturally known natural objects of knowledge, and [5] things revealed supernaturally that are likewise known naturally. Anyway, supernatural objects exist according to the rules of logic and reason and operate accordingly (by this, I mean God does not act contrary to logic). The reason is because God is the source of logic and being. His own being is identical with Himself and He cannot act contrary to Himself.
Quote: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Bible: New Testament. Hebrews 11:1. and, to clarify further: Romans 8:24-25: “For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.” (NKJV) " Quote: The first verse "Let me interupt to let out the sigh that will hit me as I read your ad hoc rationalizations. Theistic faith is non contingent belief. Belief without justification. Why can't theists be honest on this point?"
Of course, because you are wrong and faith is not belief without justification. If I believe it when you tell me that faith is belief without justification, I believe such on your authority, which acts as the justification for my belief. The same is true in faith in school - I believe my teachers when they tell me that Crick discovered DNA and I accept his findings by a variety of faith. Religious faith is a species of this belief which relies on God's authority to substantiate its claims. It cannot be proven to be true by natural investigation as it does not fall under the scope of it; rather, the most we can show is the authority of the one revealing.
Quote: from Hebrews indicates that faith is two things: first, it is the "substance of things hoped for" - it is the object of our hoping (this being, as we will later show, distinct from hope); "Hope is not knowledge. One can hope for anything, without any grounds for the hope. The 'substance' refered to here is 'faith', and the faith is hope. Belief without justification."
Again, this is contrary to the text of Hebrews. Hope is not knowledge (and I had said this), but faith is not the same as hope; why would Saint Paul give the list as "faith, hope, and love" if by faith, he meant hope? He would say, "hope and love." In the second place, people cannot hope for something without hoping in "some thing." Faith is the substance of hope - its object. One cannot say, " I hope for-" as hope requires an object. Faith is the object of hope; "I [hope] for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen." People may hope without stable "grounds" for hope, but one does not hope without a ground or justification. I can hope against reason that the Communists don't kill me in the gulag. However, I do not merely hope for it without any justification whatsoever; I say, "maybe something miraculous will happen, like all of the Communists die in a giant fire," or even without elucidating a particular scenario, I still retain some reason even if it "negatively" exists. While faith provides a ground of justification (St Peter: Always be prepared to give a reason for your hope), this is not the entirety of its job. In Hebews, it is defined as both the justification for hope and the object of hope.
Quote: it is a true possessing of God and the mysteries revealed. "No, it is a HOPE that such things exist, even though reason tells us otherwise."
No it is not. This is purely contradictory to what Saint Paul says when he says, "hold fast to those things I have taught you." How can one be certain of something when one hopes for it? Likewise, if hope or faith exists contrary to what reason tells us, how can Saint Peter say, "always be ready with a reason for your hope?" Faith is what we believe in, hope is how we await it, and neither is contrary to what reason tells us.
Quote: Second, it is the "evidence of things not seen" - it is the grounds on which we base our knowledge of things unable to be known by ourselves (apart from revelation). "But the 'grounds' is things NOT SEEN! So there are NO GROUNDS. Please read it to yourself a few times, and think it over. The point of this passage is that there IS NO GROUNDS. One HOPES that there is evidence that is unseen."
But that is not what Saint Paul says. He does not say, "Faith is evidence of things non existent" or "faith is hoping that something might exist;" faith is rather evidence is something not "seen" - discovered - by natural means. Our grounds in believing in those things is God's authority as revealing these truths.
"Now, let me make something clear to you. You've not explained what this 'faith' is nor how it provides knowledge. All you've done is assert that it provides some sort of magical knowledge that is not like other knowledge. In other words, you can't actually provide an explanation of its epistemological basis. So please, if you wish to respond further, do so. Don't just assert that it gives magical knowledge. "
An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me.
First, some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid.
Second, God says, "Gee, it might be good if man knew this."
Third, God reveals this truth to man somehow; He sends a prophet, or sends His Son, or some like means.
Fourth, man receives this revelation.
Fifth, man believes in the revelation due to both [a] God's inward grace, and [b] God's external evidence of authority.
Sixth, man possesses supernatural truth.
Quote: it is the principle "behind" the body. It shares, in a manner of speaking, a substantial union with the body; man is neither a body nor a soul, but the union. "This is merely another empty assertion, one that again violates basic ontology. You simply assert the word 'soul' and use it just as you'd use any natural term. You need to answer my questions. "
Soul is a natural term designating the form of a living body. It is a spiritual thing, but not really "supernatural" other than that (using the different meanings of supernatural, it is natural in origin as a creature, but supernatural in that it is a spiritual being). If you mean that, as immaterial, it somehow violates your rules of ontology, then that is a different question. While I don't know what your rules of "basic ontology" are (I believe you may be starting out with loaded dice, defining something as existing only if it has bodily specifications), I can say it does not violate any real rules of ontology. The soul is the principle of life in a body. That's what it is. This doesn't violate anything.
Quote: Our concepts may come to us by knowledge of material things (sense data) but we truly do know immaterial concepts. No, we do not. Again, the term 'immaterial objects' is an oxymoron. Quote: For example, the concept of what is empirical is something empirically unverifiable. "So? The validation criterion for meaning is a prescription, not a description! It's a method ! But is the concept something empirical? Yes. It is an idea. It exists in a physical brain, as a bundle of neurons. It is transmitted from one brain to another through a physical medium, a book, words (vibrations in the air), etc. Every aspect is empirical. Ideas are born of electrochemical interactions within neurons. Physical."
Except that it is not. The validation criterion is just that, a meaning, an idea, a method. All of these terms designate something non-physical. If it truly is non-physical and exists without matter, then there is nowhere else to go. If you want to reduce everything to neurons and synapse firings, there is no further room for discussion as this conversation has no epistemological basis nor ontological, as these terms are purely empty and meaningless (which begs the question how you can question MY ontological basis for something when YOU could not accept that being, as a thing, exists).
Quote: In the case of a raccoon, it is an animal and hence its idea involves all the aspects of its materiality - conditions of being an animal - as a result. A raccoon cannot exist immaterially as a subsistent entity - "NOTHING can 'exist' immaterially! Again, recall your basic ontology. To exist is to exist as something! To have identity. To have properties. Postive attributes. A basic ontology. We cannot refer to existence devoid of identity. Recall your Kant! You are confusing abstractions for immateriality."
What are abstractions but immaterial? I think you ought to recall your Aristotle To exist is to exist as some thing - an immaterial object is distinct, as we can speak of a thing - a soul or an idea. It does have an identity - this is the form of a chipmunk. It does have properties - it exists without matter and is the idea of a chipmunk. These examples mostly apply to forms or ideas of things; a soul is a subsistent form, so it is not much different.
Quote: The structure behind the chair I am sitting in remains in act upon the chair the entire time it exists as a chair. The same holds true of any other form of a thing. "Now you are boldly and brazenly stealing the concept of materiality. If you define immateriality as 'not matter' then you cannot go on and apply materialistic terms to it!"
But to say the immaterial is not matter does not mean it cannot act upon matter. The structure of a thing, for example, a building acts constantly in the building. It is the harmony or unity of the parts. Without that unity, the building would collapse - it would not be a building. That is a common example. If a soul was not in the raccoon, the raccoon would be a dead raccoon and would begin to decay. I am not stealing any materiality in defining immaterial action. In a manner of speaking, the action of any material thing is immaterial. The action itself, its idea and form, is immaterial!
Quote: A purely immaterial seperated substance can act upon a thing by knowing it -applying its power to a thing. Thus they "interact," acting upon each other. "First, every one of your responses commits a stolen concept fallacy. You continually refer to 'the supernatural' or 'immateriality' using naturalistic, materialist terms, without even realizing it! Second, you simply assert that these 'things' 'exist' and that they just 'work somehow'. Leaving aside that again, your terms here are materialistic, you're just asserting, not demonstrating or arguing."
I am demonstrating - every material thing must have an immaterial form governing its structure, otherwise it would cease to be that thing.
Quote: The concepts we use now exist apart from the matter it takes to display these words and the energy with which I write them on this page "Concepts are immaterial? Do I lose all my ideas then if I take a sharp turn? How would they stay in anyone's head? Concepts exist in physical brains, as electrochemical interactions with neurons. They exist physicall, and are communicated physically."
Concepts are immaterial. If your theory was true, yes, my ideas would be able to fly out of my head when I took a sharp turn (the electrons could move around and the electrochemical reactions could move around) and it would be hard for you to answer how they stayed in your head.
Quote: . What is immaterial is natural "You are confusing abstractions for immateriality. Abstractions do not necessarily have extra mental existence, but this does not make them 'immaterial' To exist is to exist as something. To have identity, to have attributes."
An abstraction is an immaterial entity. Often, this immaterial entity exists in a thing, but it can exist apart (subsistently, as a human soul or an angel or God). Even when an abstraction of a material entity happens, the material entity has an immaterial form (it cannot be thought of if it did not). Show me the matter of my abstraction. Electrochemical impulses do not suffice as a pile of them does not amount to an abstraction. If you said that their particular location in my brain and their harmony in my brain is what constituted an abstraction, I would point out that this (apart from other errors) defines the abstraction immaterially in terms of their harmony.
Quote: "3) If you apply ANY natural concept to answering quesiton 2, explain how do you avoid violating the principle of conservation of energy? If no physical energy or mass is associated with "immaterial things", then there is a serious problem: a fundamental principle of physics is that any change in any physical entity is an acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy - but if these things have no matter or energy, where does the energy come from? what you have here is something akin to the impossibilty of perpetual motion - energy from nowhere. Dan Dennet states that these questions represent the fatal flaw in any dualistic argument (i.e. to immateriliaty) (- 1990 Consciousness Explained.)" Quote: I think that Mr. (Dr.?) Dennet has a flaw in his argument, namely that immaterial things do not fall into the realm of physics except incidentally. "Then how do they work? Magic?"
Immaterial things are not the same as matter, but they are found in bodies. Physics does not treat forms, but treats of real objects interacting. A real object has both matter and form to interact physically. The question of form might come up in physics, but only incidentally. The immaterial exists and acts in a way prior to physics; it is a metaphysical interaction of form upon matter.
I also want to answer some other questions posed in some other later columns after todangst.
StMichael wrote:
That depends what you mean by ontologically distinct. The soul exists as the form of the body - an intellectual "intelligibility" and informative structure behind it.
"This is that psudo-Platonism that hides behind all soul claims. The assumption is that matter cannot have perform the processes of thinking, feeling, and "being." It is an unfounded assertion. Let's see how it plays out."
It is not unfounded because matter does not exist in a manner that is intelligible per se. If you want to posit immaterial qualities found in matter, such as color or intelligibility, you advocate virtually the same position. Matter does not exist by itself, nor does it do anything by itself; it requires actuality apart from itself. A physical thing is not the same thing as matter; matter is an abstraction from a thing (where a thing exists as a composite substance of matter and form).
Quote:It possesses the character of immateriality, but it obviously interacts with the body providing harmony of function, ect. A raccoon and a carrot are ontologically distinct in a manner of speaking but can nevertheless interact. While of a different order, spiritual things (immaterial) have effects on material entities.
"This is a misunderstanding of the real metaphysical problem at hand. A racoon and a carrot are not ontologically distinct in the sense I mean. They are distinct, but they exist in the same ontological categories of matter. WHen I say ontologically distinct, I'm moving from the meaning of 'immaterial.'
If something is truly non-material, really having no shared qualities with the physical world, then it's not made of energy, quarks, atoms, or anything else of the known physical universe. It must really be something else completely. We know that physical things interact via natural forces but proposing that there is also something non-material is a mere assumption. Why would anyone suggest such a thing? Well, let's read on."
An immaterial thing cannot be made of quarks, but we are moving into a misconception of the universe when you say that. A quark is not a quark without the form of the quark in combination with the matter of the quark. Form, spiritual and immaterial reality, is present in things constantly and acting upon them; it is an essential part of the physical universe. Physical things cannot exist apart from form!
Quote:The soul acts directly upon the body as it is is form - in a sense, the soul is the body in act. The body would be unintelligible without the soul.
"Why? Why is the soul necessary? You are adding an ontological category here to explain something, but it doesn't explain anything at all. You are saying that matter is essentially dead, so it cannot be responsible for all the action, so something else must be responsible.
(For those who know my refutation of the kalam argument, you may see where I'm going with this;the whole issue of pushing the cause back one step, which begs the question--special pleading)."
The soul does not beg the question at all. It is a necessary category for things which exhibit life. There is a difference between things living and non-living and the soul explains this. The form argument I made above, that matter and form are united in actual things, likewise applies here as a soul is merely the term for the form of a living thing.
Quote:Really, in my opinion, (philosophical speculation imminent!) it would seem that, assuming a pure materialism, such "metaphysicalization" would be impossible. Mental concepts do not exist, so illusions would be impossible. Things would happen, but we would be totally unable to grasp either that they happen or to explain any notion of their happening at all. In so far as things have intelligibility, it would seem that ideas must exist in some real sense.
"And her eyou spell out what I sensed. You think that the soul is the thing doing all of that stuff. I'm simply asking why can't the physical matter of our bodies do it?"
Matter is not the same as the mass of a thing, or an actually existing object. "Matter" is an abstraction designating a certain potentiality in actually existing things. A thing actually is form and matter in composite. Why is form necessary in the first place? Form is necessary as a thing by which we explain the actuality in things - its structure, action, idea, ect. It is a category necessary in a good explanation of what substance is (recall the four causes: material, formal, efficent, and final).
Quote:... A soul exists because things are alive, and a rational soul exists because things think. If we deny that we are thinking, we are in a heap of trouble. We can argue later about its subsistent character, or seperability, but its existence seems fairly self-evident.
"That's the problem. I'm not saying that things don't think. That would only be true if I agred with you that things need souls to think. This is te classic dualist position of the philosophy of mind. This position is not supported by neuro-science research. I'd cite Daniel C. Dennett, but even his peers don't seem to get the point that if you reject qualia (in your case, the soul), you are saying that consciousness does not exist. The answer is that it does exist, only it doesn't exist the way that you think it does.
The soul does not explain that we think. The brain explains that we think. Merely asserting that the soul is necessary for thought to exist begs the question, and exposes a serious ignorance concerning how the brain works."
The rational soul is the principle of life in a thing that thinks. That is what it designates. The man thinks. The power of reasoning is a power of his soul and it is he that thinks. The soul is a designation of that power. It is not a statement about neuroscience at all. If we assumed (as you reference Aquinas later, why not?) a Thomist conception of the person, modern neuroscience makes total sense when we look at the human being as using phantasms in thought (thinking requires images - the brain is the organ which manipulates images and presents them to the immaterial active and passive intellect).
"Being in seminary, I don't expect you to be an expert in neuroscience. But not being an expert on neuroscience, I also should't see you making claims about consciousness. "
I am not the one making neurological claims; you are. Conciousness is not equal to brain activity.
"I'm reminded that at the philosophy dept at a local Catholic University, they stop after Aquinas. They don't even get to Kant, Hume, or Wittgenstein. I'd be shocked if their library even carried Nietzsche."
Frankly, that comment smacks of ignorance and disdain for Catholic Universities. I don't know what university you went to or if you know how the navigate the library correctly, but I point out that Catholic philosophers and universities have contributed a great deal to philosophy ancient and modern. Recall Fr. Copleston of the famous History of Philosophy (which does not stop at Aquinas), and the many contributions by other Catholic philosophers (members of the clergy as well as lay). A philosophical education would be sorely lacking if it ignored recent developments in philosophy. Heck, my own priest did his doctoral thesis in Nietzsche and my formation advisor (also a priest) specializes in French Existentialism, esp. Sartre, as well as Derrida's philosophy of language. While a Catholic university would understandably highlight the Angelic Doctor, it would not omit philosophers afterward. To say otherwise seems to be a product of malevolent ignorance.
Quote:The soul acts directly upon the body as it is is form - in a sense, the soul is the body in act. The body would be unintelligible without the soul.
Quote:
Why? Why is the soul necessary? You are adding an ontological category here to explain something, but it doesn't explain anything at all. You are saying that matter is essentially dead, so it cannot be responsible for all the action, so something else must be responsible.
"To me, it's an argument from dire consequences.
If I don't have a soul, I cannot live in eternal bliss.
ergo, I have a soul. "
I never made this argument and it is unfair to paint me as if I did.
Quote:
(For those who know my refutation of the kalam argument, you may see where I'm going with this;the whole issue of pushing the cause back one step, which begs the question--special pleading).
"In all the sake of holding to the hope of eternal bliss. Clearly a strong motivator."
I would hope that eternal life is a strong motivator, but I cannot claim to have argued from that premise.
"Indeed. The argument is based on two irrational precepts.
"Souls are a desirable entity, so I believe I have one"
and
"abstractions are immaterial'"
I never made the first premise whereas the second premise seems self-evident. Every living being has a soul as its form as does every physical thing.
I would point out, even further in response to the neuroscience argument, neuroscience has never defined conciousness in terms of matter and further that neuroscience could not do so as to speak of something like conciousness is really beyond their field. I mean that they study the electrochemistry of the brain and its causes, ect. but it would be to jump the gun to identify the reactions in the brain with conciousness. I am saying, basically, that it is not their job to prove or disprove that conciousness lies within the brain - it is a higher science's task, philosophy. If they begin with the premise that it does, that is only an assumption on their part and not a result of their study.
Quote:
Yours In Christ Jesus,
StMichael (not a saint)
PS - Go Socrates!
"Yours in Bullwinkle. -
Chris
Yes, socrates is cool"
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
Written December 28th, the feast of the Holy Innocents, martyrs.
PS - Merry Christmas to all! I might have a hard time posting again, so remember that in waiting for my response.
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
- Login to post comments
Offline I am not the one making neurological claims; you are. Conciousness is not equal to brain activity.
There was a lot to respond to there. This quote above reveals the crucial issue.
If our awareness of the world (consciousness) is not equal to brain activity, then how is it that when certain drugs and damage occurs to specific areas of the brain, the result is a altered conscious state?
Ever drink a couple of beers? I'll bet that the effect on the brain just happens to also effect your conscious experience. How about people with brain trauma? Amazing how we've shown that damage to specific areas has the same resulting change in conscious experience and behavior.
The simple fact is that is the soul exists and it is the part that does the thinking, then why can't I think as clearly while drunk, tired, angry, etc?
The fact that the so-called "hard problem" of consciousness has not been solved does not mean that we can conclude that consciousness occurs in the brain. We know that it occurs in the brain, we just don't know precisely how.
As a final note, the comment about Catholic Universities was not from my personal experience; I was telling it second-hand. But the point is that these Catholic thinkers, in dealing with modern and contemporary thinkers, still refer back to Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, and Aquinas as authoritative. That's the problem.
I love reading Plato. I think he was fundamentally wrong in his idea about Forms. Aristotle's criticism and re-working of plato was an improvement, but it is still problematic.
Augustine and Aquinas were brilliant people. But they had ancient and medieval information to work with, so it is not surprising that they are now so inadequate. If they had been here now to exercise that genius with what we know now, perhaps they could add to our understanding.
I'm not saying there are no important things to learn from these thinkers, only that the there is a problem when ancient texts are held as authoritative. The Bible is not authoritative, The Republic is not authoritative, Metaphysics is not athoritative, City of God is not authoritative, and the Summa is not authoritative.
And for that matter, neither is any Darwin, Dawkins, Harris, or anything I write.
I really don't have anything else to say in this thread. I'll read what is written, but unless this prevalent presuppositionalism is transcended, this conversation is a matter of which I shall remain silent.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
- Login to post comments
Offline On the first point, my point is not that conciousness can be altered by biological states; I think anybody agrees with that. I point out, however, that the identification between conciousness and biological processes (not just a cause-effect relationship, or an interactivity between them) is unjustified. There is no reason why if one understands properly the relationship between the mind and the body that one encounters any problem with this. The Church, for instance, has taught this for the past two thousand years and I think they knew about drunkenness and retarded people.
To the second, I never proposed holding Aquinas as a pure authority, or Plato, or Aristotle.
"As a final note, the comment about Catholic Universities was not from my personal experience; I was telling it second-hand. But the point is that these Catholic thinkers, in dealing with modern and contemporary thinkers, still refer back to Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, and Aquinas as authoritative. That's the problem.
...
I'm not saying there are no important things to learn from these thinkers, only that the there is a problem when ancient texts are held as authoritative. The Bible is not authoritative, The Republic is not authoritative, Metaphysics is not athoritative, City of God is not authoritative, and the Summa is not authoritative.
And for that matter, neither is any Darwin, Dawkins, Harris, or anything I write."
The Bible is held as an authority for a different reason than for how I reference the Summa or Metaphysics. However, no Catholic philosopher holds Aquinas, or Aristotle, or Plato, or any other philosopher dogmatically. I believe Aquinas was very right, personally, but that doesn't mean that I would reference him in order to demonstrate a point philosophically. The reason is because philosophy does not operate on the basis of authority, but of demonstration - it has a different method. There is no reason, however, a Catholic university may not teach Aquinas in order to understand his teaching and - if it is, as I suppose, fundamentally correct - it serves a good instructive purpose. To leave Aquinas, or Sartre, or Aristotle out of an education is to miss quite a deal. No Catholic philosopher (of any repute or authority) has ever proposed referencing Aquinas as an authority in a philosophical debate. It would be an insult to Aquinas' own integrity, as his arguments need no authority as they stand on their own as valid and rational (and it was for this purpose he wrote them; anyone can agree with his premises and arrive at his conclusions).
I highly disagree with the last statement you made, however. You wrote: "I really don't have anything else to say in this thread. I'll read what is written, but unless this prevalent presuppositionalism is transcended, this conversation is a matter of which I shall remain silent." You may remain silent as much as you want, but you cannot claim that it is my irrational presuppositionalism. Your inability or lack of willingness to respond to my arguments is your own problem.
However, you must either accept or reject them as rational. If you just ad hoc reject them as irrational, that is prejudice. The only response I have gotten from this group of purported "rationalists" has been irrational prejudice and hatred of religious thought without more than a superficial understanding of the issues at hand. I try to be entirely honest with my answers to your questions and to understand your points of view, but I very infrequently get a similar response. For example, I have no idea what inspired this silly Blasphemy Challenge, which displays nothing other than rampant ignorance of most Christian thought (the sin against the Holy Spirit is widely held to be final unrepentance, not denial of belief in the divinity of the Holy Ghost; do you think Christians are that arbitrary is their beliefs?). I find people putting silly little insulting remarks on the posts that bear no intellectual weight. This is not rational at all - it is hatred or indifference to argument. You must all have your minds made up before I even try to reason with you. This is not reason, it is blind faith.
However, I am patient and can and will continue to answer all your questions. I apologize if I was a bit harsh, but I find this whole thing rather distrubing in its crusading nature against theism as it smacks of an intellectual smugness that claims to be rational but is anything but.
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Supernatural knowledge would be rational, just not empirical.
It is supernatural in the means of revelation, firstly, as God reveals something not discoverable by natural power.
I can say something truly comprehensible when I say that Christ descended into hell - this is an article of faith whose object is not supernatural in itself.
St. Augustine wrote:
What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it. The same is true, for example, when I say that the Sacrament of Penance truly forgives sins. These things are truly comprehensible in themselves and not "supernatural" in objects per se.
This is one category of supernatural truth.
An example of a truth that is a true mystery whose object and means of revelation are both supernatural is the Trinity.
Thus, the Trinity in itself is unable to be comprehended by man even as revealed. This is not to say, however, that nothing can be said of it.
As revealed and supernatural knowledge, God reveals this truth directly and thus must be true in itself.
Emotions and intuition are not related to faith. Nor are they rational.
"Every term you are using ceases to make sense when you attempt to apply it to the very antithesis of nature, the 'supernatural'. The term 'supernatural' has no ontological status. It is merely a set of negatives. However, a set of negatives, devoid of ANY universe of discourse, ceases to have any meaning. It is incoherent."
The term supernatural designates a reality "above" the natural.
There are different senses of this word.
It could be "above" in the sense of total unrelation, where in this case God, as a supernatural reality,
...would be totally and utterly unable to be spoken of as He would be totally unrelated to any concepts we have.
It could be "above" in terms of a reality "greater than" the natural. Again, this could mean "greater than" in terms of bigger size than the natural (of greater mass) or something of this sort. It could likewise mean greater ontologically than the natural.
In this latter sense do we designate God beyond nature as of greater ontological character than the natural.
Specifically, God is above nature because He is its source.
But this relationship of God as cause to nature allows some amount of relationship to exist between supernatural and natural objects,
as God is the source of both
and cannot contradict Himself.
This is what is mentioned in the Council of Trent as quoted on my first post in this forum. So, as a result, supernatural realities may be spoken of by saying first what they are not
and then further by analogy between cause and effect, or from a likeness of the effect to the cause.
This, basically, is how we speak of God.
I would likewise like to enunciate the category I spoke of earlier that does not fit into these "natural" modes of speaking about God (negation and analogy), but is beyond either.This last method is the theological virtue of faith. In faith, we truly possess God and thus, (in a manner of speaking) speak as God about God in supernatural terms designating supernatural realities.
This speaking, of course, occurs in two ways: first, using prayer we pray to God by God (sighs inexpressible in human speech) and this is truly speaking in supernatural terms of supernatural things to God
"Oh, and one other thing: think this over. If 'faith' were merely a synonym for 'reason', why even use the term faith to begin with? "
Because it is not a synonym for reason, but a different thing entirely in both method and object than natural reason.
It is rational,
but not of the same genus as natural knowledge. It is a different species of knowledge, having both a different object and a different method, but it is true and rational knowledge.
"You're contradicting your own good book here. Faith only exists in contradistinction to reason. Recall your own St. Paul: If one has reasons, why have faith? Faith is belief without justification. It is not an epistemological stance, it is a concession that one has no grounds for one's belief."
No it is not.
I don't know why you want to insist this point.
[ quote]Also, the entire body of Christians have never interpreted the Scriptures to mean this - this school of interpretation is basically Protestant, arising only in the late sixteenth century.
Finally, Scripture does not support you;
Paul himself, as I had said, does not mean that when he says faith is evidence of what is not seen and the substance of things hoped for.
Likewise, he gives contradictory remarks elsewhere in Scripture
There are quite a few more examples, but I think that the most obvious. Likewise, a great deal more of Scripture contradicts that interpretation
- the entire book of Wisdom is proof enough.
Faith exists as a different mode of knowledge, both in method and in object;
it is revealed by God
"And the negative theologian can honestly admit this. And he must. He knows that ontologically and epistemologically he cannot have any grounds for his belief. "
I don't know why anybody would seriously uphold this
(Paul Tillich comes to mind). Grounds for belief must exist if one is to uphold a Christian or Judaic conception of God, both from Scripture and from the commonly held notion that God created all things and called them good, including natural reason.
Faith will never contradict what is known by natural reason.
I want to point out here that I believe you may have a confusion of terms.
When we use the pair "faith and reason" Christians/theologians mean the difference not between the mind or logic and religious objects of belief, but the difference between objects able to be known only by God's revelation and those knowable by "natural reason" or the human mind operating without divine assistance in order to know truths.
Even the human mind can know supernatural truths,
such as the existence of God (which has a supernatural object but a natural mode of discovery).
Quote: "I am glad that catholics affirm this position. Supernatural claims, by definition, cannot be justied for supported by any natural means." Quote: No, they cannot if we speak of the object directly. Indirectly, for example, I can speak in my natural voice of supernatural claims (as I am now), "Only if by 'indirectly' you mean via negativa. But then, you still have serious problems. See above. So, you are either using positive terms, and hence natural terms, or you are speaking via negativa, and simply telling us what the supernatural is NOT. So you can never speak of the supernatural, because, again, it is the antithesis of nature."
The supernatural, as I have shown above, has many interpretations.
The way it is used in religious discourse is to indicate that God is "above nature" as not identified with it.
God, as the source of nature,
No, you're stealing from materialism again, in direct contradiction to the negative definition of 'supernatural' "Supernatural things' is an oxymoron. If a 'thing' is in fact a thing, it has an ontology. Recall your basic principles, the first steps of ontology. Existence is axiomatic To exist is to exist as something. To have identity. To have properites. To be is to be something. If an 'entity' is in fact an entity, then we can discuss its ontology. So this 'supernatural' 'being' cannot disclose something that has no ontology to us! We'd have no means to grasp it. All you have left is a special plead: "He's supernatural, so he can do it anyway, damn the logic". But once you go here, you concede your position is irrational. So beware. "
Supernatural things do possess being, and we can thus speak of them.
However, I also want to point out before I delve into the rest here that faith treats of objects not supernatural, such as the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, truths about the angels, and other natural objects.
. In other words, there exists a distinction between [1] supernaturally discovered supernatural objects of knowledge, [2] supernaturally known natural objects of knowledge, [3] naturally known supernatural objects of knowledge, [4] naturally known natural objects of knowledge, and [5] things revealed supernaturally that are likewise known naturally. Anyway, supernatural objects exist according to the rules of logic and reason
Of course, because you are wrong and faith is not belief without justification.
If I believe it when you tell me that faith is belief without justification, I believe such on your authority, which acts as the justification for my belief.
The same is true in faith in school - I believe my teachers when they tell me that Crick discovered DNA and I accept his findings by a variety of faith.
Religious faith is a species of this belief which relies on God's authority to substantiate its claims.
from Hebrews indicates that faith is two things: first, it is the "substance of things hoped for" - it is the object of our hoping (this being, as we will later show, distinct from hope); "Hope is not knowledge. One can hope for anything, without any grounds for the hope. The 'substance' refered to here is 'faith', and the faith is hope. Belief without justification."
Again, this is contrary to the text of Hebrews.
Hope is not knowledge (and I had said this), but faith is not the same as hope; why would Saint Paul give the list as "faith, hope, and love" if by faith, he meant hope?
He would say, "hope and love." In the second place, people cannot hope for something without hoping in "some thing."
Faith is the substance of hope - its object.
it is a true possessing of God and the mysteries revealed. "No, it is a HOPE that such things exist, even though reason tells us otherwise."
This is purely contradictory to what Saint Paul says when he says, "hold fast to those things I have taught you." How can one be certain of something when one hopes for it?
Likewise, if hope or faith exists contrary to what reason tells us, how can Saint Peter say, "always be ready with a reason for your hope?"
Faith is what we believe in,
hope is how we await it,
and neither is contrary to what reason tells us.
An Epistemological Account of Faith, by me. First, some truth exists which cannot be known by natural human reason without divine aid.
Second, God says, "Gee, it might be good if man knew this."
Third, God reveals this truth to man somehow; He sends a prophet, or sends His Son, or some like means.
Fourth, man receives this revelation.
Fifth, man believes in the revelation due to both [a] God's inward grace, and [b]
God's external evidence of authority.
Sixth, man possesses supernatural truth.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Welcome aboard, I once was studying to become a priest. I recall in my days before leaving the faith I had several dialogues with two seminarians and a priest. Perhaps tomorrow I'll come up with a lengthy list of things I feel you should respond to. But for now, welcome.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Catholic seminary, then? May I ask, generally, where it was?
I will be studying Greek as well. It is nice to know people still care about dead languages
I look forward to your comments.
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
I should clarify (because I'm not dishonest).
I had been studying to become a priest since my freshmen year of Catholic High School, and had been tutored since I was very young by a Father Michael in Jew Jersey before the Dioscese moved him. When I was in High School, a Father Lamb and Father Baker took over in the place of father Michael. In fact I recall them giving me copies of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica.
I got out of my faith before I graduated.
Greek is my favorite language. I don't think it's dead, just dorment. Heh. Perhaps that is a bit irrational of me, but if the Greek Philosophy is still alive and well then to me the language still lives (as the language is truely a metaphor of their philosophy and nature - Read: Schumacher and Heidegger)
Look forward to your correspondance.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Before you graduated...high school?
And you were studying to be a priest? Not in seminary, then.
How did you like the Summa? I am studying Aquinas for my degree in philosophy.
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Heh. No, not in seminary - I found rationality before I went through that. I still study obviously, my quest for knowledge and thirst for facts has never left me.
Aquinas can be very, very dry at times. I have two perspectives of Aquinas now as I have had time to comb over other philosophical works since I was a student.
When I was a Christian, Aquinas was the miracle I was looking for, evidence that proved there was a God, and he did it all in a few volumes. He tried to encompase faith and reason, and I being a logical young man was fascinated by it.
Now, however, I have lost all of my wool-eyed boyish ignorance and see no connection with reason and faith. To me, Aquinas is on the same level (perhaps because he read Aquinas) as Dan Brown and his "Angels and Demons" book.
In my opinion, the works of Plato and Aristotle are far more effective in philosophical idealogy then Aquinas. But I somehow wonder if, had it not been for his parents influence and the churches hold over schooling at the time, perhaps Aquinas may have been ascientist or even an atheist.
This to me is one way in which being indoctrinated into a belief at a young age is so wrong.
Anyway, I'll have those questions for you soon enough. I was actually hopinh I could stumble upon some of my old notes from Theology classes - course that was some seven years ago.
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)