A theological argument FOR abortion

[R_Daneel]

[RD’s rationalization, in case anyone missed it: “if it’s my ‘deepest conviction,’ then it can’t be a rationalization.”]

Since you talk the talk, do you walk the walk? After all talk is cheap.

Prove to me (and to yourself) that you can volitionally choose to believe what you did not believe before. “Choose” to believe that eating pebbles and stones (good crunchy stuff) is the one and only good source of nutrition and drinking sulphuric acid is the only drink that quenches your thrist. Once you managed to “believe” that, try to follow your belief - say, for a few weeks. And when you succeeded, come back and report it. Tell us how you managed to convince yourself.

I suspect that you will come up with some excuse to wiggle out of this challenge. Don’t try. All you will prove with that you are an intellectually dishonest person, who is not willing to put his money where his mouth is. I am eagerly awaiting your return.

 

[Areopagite]

Since you talk the talk, do you walk the walk? After all talk is cheap.

Prove to me (and to yourself) that you can volitionally choose to believe what you did not believe before. “Choose” to believe that eating pebbles and stones (good crunchy stuff) is the one and only good source of nutrition and drinking sulphuric acid is the only drink that quenches your thrist. Once you managed to “believe” that, try to follow your belief - say, for a few weeks. And when you succeeded, come back and report it. Tell us how you managed to convince yourself.

If you missed it, “believing something you know to be false” even though it’s possible to do, is a sin for Catholics. So, try to realize our reluctance to demonstrate this particular sin … because we believe … well … it’s a sin.

I suspect that you will come up with some excuse to wiggle out of this challenge. Don’t try. All you will prove with that you are an intellectually dishonest person, who is not willing to put his money where his mouth is. I am eagerly awaiting your return.

By calling him an intellectually dishonest person, you seem to acknowledge the fact that intellectual dishonesty is possible, right? Now, doesn’t intellectual dishonesty also involve being dishonest with oneself about the truth of the matter? And if so, isn’t it therefore possible that “believing something you know to be false” is possible? Or not?

Just some thoughts.

 

[Nimeniton]

It is most definitely true that you have to put your own good ahead of others on the question of salvation. You can call this selfish, if you mean that is looking out for your own ultimate good before others (I would merely call this self-love).

There is nothing really horrific about this logic considering that the child will only go to hell if the child choses to (after he reaches the age of reason). It’s a person’s own fault if they go to hell. If damnation was just issued randomly and by chance, then you would have a point. But it’s not.

This is not a bad idea … something I’m open to. For all we know, the baby could have some amount of reason enough to be capable of mortal sin. Obviously, the age of reason comes at different times for different people. Genius kids might have it really early on … even in the womb, though? Who knows. There is definitely not enough certainty to … say for certain … especially when questioning whether to kill the child or not.

Ah! My mistake, I wasn’t referring to the logic of putting one’s own salvation first as horrific but the concept of killing a child to guarantee its salvation as horrific. Still it may be a person’s own fault that they go to hell but would a parent really shrug their shoulders at that?. They make it as likely as possible (short of committing a mortal sin) to ensure that their child is saved. The Catholic parent is also under a duty to bring their children up good Catholics. So it seems quite normal to want to assure that the child does not go to hell. It is just not permissible for them to do it by murder. Although it is not permissible they may still achieve the desired result of saving the child by disobedience to the will of God.

Some possible scenarios that could make this line of reasoning more than just an academic exercise.

1. A person with a mental health problem may be convinced that they are beyond redemption and decide to kill themselves - knowing that the catholic church teaches that the baptised child is assured of salvation - she feels this would be the last good she can do. She cannot save herself or so she believes but she can save the child. In this respect the Catholic church needs a line of argument that prevents this idea being acted on.
2. If Adolf Hitler , a baptised catholic had been killed in infancy, he would now be enjoying the Beatific Vision rather rather than enduring the tortures of hell (presumably this is a likely outcome - last minute repentance aside) and as a bonus maybe millions of Jews would not have suffered.

 

[R_Daneel]

If you missed it, “believing something you know to be false” even though it’s possible to do, is a sin for Catholics. So, try to realize our reluctance to demonstrate this particular sin … because we believe … well … it’s a sin.

Oh, come on. Where in the world is that stated? However, it is not a sin to doubt something, which is not a dogma… Is this a dogma now? (Many a time it was stated that “doubt” is actually encouraged for Catholics, as long as it is not directed to the validity of a dogma.)

If it is not, then you are allowed to try to doubt the validity of the assertion that it is a “sin”. Same stuff… no, you cannot wiggle out of this challenge. It is not possible to willfully change your mind about something that you strongly believe in. Besides, don’t be afraid to commit a little sin. You can always confess and get absolved later. No big deal.

By calling him an intellectually dishonest person, you seem to acknowledge the fact that intellectual dishonesty is possible, right? Now, doesn’t intellectual dishonesty also involve being dishonest with oneself about the truth of the matter?

No, that is not a prerequisite. It is enough to know that one’s position is false, and be reluctant to admit it. The little experiment I suggested is “safe” for you “immortal soul”. Your body may suffer, but you can offer that suffering to the greater glory of God, and it becomes a “virtue”. You may even gain a few brownie points in heaven.

 

[R_Daneel]

The message of the Kama Sutra is clear, eh? Tell me, then, what is the message? Don’t worry, be as shameless as you want. In theory, since you believe that the Kama Sutra is immune to misinterpretation, that all other interpretations will agree with yours. So tell me. What is the overall “message” of the Kama Sutra.

Very well. It simply enumerates the varieties of sex.

This, my friend, is a thing deserving of a long answer. I am not qualified to give it in any kind of worthy summary … you might even dip into the Scripture Forum on this one

Maybe I should. The trouble is that I went there and looked at many posts. I was disappointed. I have never found any other answer than a list of url’s. I went and followed those, and did not see any substantial answers. And worst of all, once one posited a question, there is no follow-up. You cannot ask for clarification. You cannot challenge the answer.

But I’ll say that Jesus fulfilled the spirit of the law.

Sounds nice, but not helpful. The “spirit” of “eye for an eye” (read revenge and retribution) cannot be reconciled with “turn the other cheek” - as far as I can see.

I personally know dozens of Catholic philosophers, and they all agree with Aquinas’ proofs.

I don’t doubt your word. However, the fallacy of composition and the fallacy of stipulating action without time are insurmountable. Besides, if there would be a correct way to rationally demonstrate any kind of god’s existence, such a demonstration would be impossible to reject on rational ground - and that is simply not the case. Furthermore, if reason would be sufficient to demonstrate some god’s existence, then faith would not be necessary any more - in that respect. Apart from a very small minority of believers, who assert that they “know” that God exists, the rest admits (correctly) that they do not know, but believe in God’s existence.

 

[R_Daneel]

Well, you have to explain what you mean by the “same scale” and explain why not using the same scale for God is a fallacy.

Obviously, a single law can allow one person to do one thing and at the same time not allow another person to do the same thing. For example, it would be unlawful for me to go over and destroy Joe’s car (Joe being some random guy). However, it is perfectly lawful for Joe to destroy his own car. So, someone could say, “Hey, that’s not fair, it’s suppose to be equal” but of course that’s absurd. Also, I could even, under certain circumstances, be completely within the law in destroying Joe’s car, if in fact Joe gave me permission.

This is not a good example. Take Jack and Joe, and both of them intend to destroy Fred’s car. If the law says that Jack is allowed to do it, but Joe is not allowed, then it is a capricious, unjust law. Not to mention that the manufacturer is not allowed to destroy that car either (even though it was the creator of the car), once he sold (or maybe gave) it to Fred. The act of passing the ownership also means to relinquish control over the “stuff in question”, and new owner assumes full rights over it - whether this happened as a sale, or a gift.

Now, if you saying something like … since humans can’t simply bring about the death of others as they want, hence God can’t do that either.

It is not a question if “can do it”, but “can do it in a justifiable fashion”.

That would not follow. This is because if God, in fact, created everything … then there is not even one human life that He does not have the right to take back as He wants. This, I think, is completely obvious. So, obviously, there are things that God is allowed to do that humans are not allowed to do. Not a very controversial idea, if you think about it.

It should be. The old Romans said the same thing with their famous “quod licet Iovi, not licet bovi” phrase. So it is quite an old idea, but that does not make it right - especially by Catholic standards, which assert “absolute morality”. And an “absolute morality”, which is not applicable to God, is - by definition - not absolute.

It is also said that life is a gift from God. By any reasonable standard, once you gave a “gift”, it is not yours any more - it belongs fully to the recipient. To say that this principle is not applicable to God, you commit the fallacy of special pleading - which is especially contradicted by the other assertion of “absolute” morality. Can’t have your cake and eat it, too. Either something is “absolute”, and then it is applicable to God, or it is not absolute.

Well, I’m glad you agree (or seem to agree?) that people CAN make themselves believe things that are against at least some of their convictions.

That is not exactly what I said. People can be persuaded, or persuade themselves over something that is dubious to them. Once the belief sets in, the case is closed. A belief may be shattered by extrnal forces, once reality and the belief cannot be reconciled any more. But even that is a rare process. The opposite is much more prevalent, when people keep holding the same belief, even if it is contradicted by actual evidence. That is where the true rationaling process gets into the picture.

In any case, my point stands that people are able to reject the faith while knowing that it is the truth … and so, it is possible for someone to lack faith through their own fault.

I don’t think you can substantiate that. If that “faith” is so strong that it cannot be shattered by contrarian evidence, then you cannot say that the people “know that it is false”. No, they will hold onto that faith and reject all the evidence, even if it is totally unreasonable.

Not … entirely sure what you mean. I will say, though, that even if one denies the existence of an “ultimate good” and yet believes in good and evil, that they actually do believe in an ultimate good … but deny they do either because they misunderstand the term or … well … something.

To begin with this “ultimate good” is not defined. I keep asking for a definition, but it falls on deaf ears. Then, you say that one who believes in good and evil actions - but denies this nebulous “ultimate good”, is either intellectually dishonest or a moron - who does not know what he believes in. Sorry, that will not fly. I know that I hold the concept of “ultimate good” undefined, and thus I reject it. (With a definition this may change.)

 

[Areopagite]

Oh, come on. Where in the world is that stated?

You’re asking, where does it say “you can’t believe something that you know is false?” Well, you see, that’s lying to yourself. And lying is sin. It’s one of the Ten Commandments.

However, it is not a sin to doubt something, which is not a dogma… Is this a dogma now? (Many a time it was stated that “doubt” is actually encouraged for Catholics, as long as it is not directed to the validity of a dogma.)

It is sinful to doubt something if you know it’s true. There is such a thing as willful doubt. There is also such a thing as doubt arising from a lack of knowledge that you aren’t responsible for.

If it is not, then you are allowed to try to doubt the validity of the assertion that it is a “sin”. Same stuff… no, you cannot wiggle out of this challenge.

Oh, I’m wiggling out big time. It’s a sin.

It is not possible to willfully change your mind about something that you strongly believe in.

What do you mean by “strongly believe in”? I might agree with you depending on what you mean. At the very least, though, do you agree that it is possible to willfully change your mind about something you believe in (but not strongly believe in). I’m a little unclear what your position is on that.

Besides, don’t be afraid to commit a little sin. You can always confess and get absolved later. No big deal.

Yeah, it’s a big deal. It moves me away from being a saint. Sainthood is the goal. Sin moves you away from the goal. Sin, therefore, is essentially “the thing to be avoided.” I can get it forgiven, but each sin begins to form a habit that increases one’s inclination to sin even after the absolution. And if I honestly believe that a little sin is no big deal, I’ll start committing more little sins … and yeah those lead to big sins.

So, guess what, not doing it.

No, that is not a prerequisite. It is enough to know that one’s position is false, and be reluctant to admit it.

That reluctance is often caused by the person trying to make himself still believe that his position is not false despite knowing in his heart that it is. It happens all the time.

The little experiment I suggested is “safe” for you “immortal soul”. Your body may suffer, but you can offer that suffering to the greater glory of God, and it becomes a “virtue”. You may even gain a few brownie points in heaven.

If you are doing something sinful that is causing you suffering, then that suffering is not redemptive and doesn’t help you earn them brownie points. It is called “illegitimate suffering.”

Very well. It simply enumerates the varieties of sex.

So the message of Kama Sutra is “the enumeration of varieties of sex”? That doesn’t sound like a message, but no matter. Now, your claim is that this “message” in the Kama Sutra is so clearly expressed that it is not possible to misinterpret it.

Well, guess what, many Sanskrit scholars say that it’s more than just a manual for sex but a religious work to aid people in both their pleasure and spirituality, particularly in the four philosophical goals of Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha. It seems almost to be not ultimately a sex manual but more ultimately a work of mysticism … your favorite. Now, Indian Philosophy and Religion are ridiculously complicated (in fact, can you get more esoteric than that?), so finding out what exactly the Kama Sutra is ultimately saying is a venture ripe with varying interpretations. So … Kama Sutra … bad example to prove your point.

Face it, all ancient documents will not be that easy to interpret without knowing the context in which they were written and knowing the original meaning of the words at the time. This is not a problem unique to the Bible.

Maybe I should. The trouble is that I went there and looked at many posts. I was disappointed. I have never found any other answer than a list of url’s. I went and followed those, and did not see any substantial answers. And worst of all, once one posited a question, there is no follow-up. You cannot ask for clarification. You cannot challenge the answer.

Have you posted the exact question you asked me?

Sounds nice, but not helpful. The “spirit” of “eye for an eye” (read revenge and retribution) cannot be reconciled with “turn the other cheek” - as far as I can see.

Well, if you read the passage where it talks about turning the other cheek, it says that doing so will be like pouring burning coals on the offender. So, Jesus’ claim is that it accomplishes both justice and mercy.

I don’t doubt your word. However, the fallacy of composition and the fallacy of stipulating action without time are insurmountable.

Well … we could start on new thread (but … maybe the Atheism ban applies).

Besides, if there would be a correct way to rationally demonstrate any kind of god’s existence, such a demonstration would be impossible to reject on rational ground - and that is simply not the case.

Right, that’s what Aquinas is claiming. You cannot reject God’s existence on rational ground. It unreasonable to deny the existence of God.

Furthermore, if reason would be sufficient to demonstrate some god’s existence, then faith would not be necessary any more - in that respect.

That is not a problem. The Church never said that one must believe in God’s existence only by faith. The Church claims you can know God exists by natural reason. However, natural reason alone cannot figure out the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, etc.

 

[Areopagite]

Apart from a very small minority of believers, who assert that they “know” that God exists, the rest admits (correctly) that they do not know, but believe in God’s existence.

Well, most of the Christians I hang around claim they know God exists. I absolutely know God exists. I do have passing moments of doubt, but I also have passing moments of doubt regarding the existence of the external world too sometimes. I would nonetheless say I know the external world exists, despite those fleeting moments of doubt.

This is not a good example. Take Jack and Joe, and both of them intend to destroy Fred’s car. If the law says that Jack is allowed to do it, but Joe is not allowed, then it is a capricious, unjust law.

What do you mean to say that “Joe is not allowed.” Are you saying that a person with characteristics that Joe has is not allowed, or do the law books literally say that “Joe” is not allowed? With the former, the law could be just because it forbids people who don’t have Fred’s permission, a characteristic that Joe shares. Or even with the latter … perhaps Fred said, “I give permission to Jack to destroy my car, but I will never give Joe permission to destroy my car.” Now, a law can be written up, particularly forbidding Joe’s vandalism but allowing Fred, and it would be a just law … it would not be a capricious, unjust law. So, it depends.

Not to mention that the manufacturer is not allowed to destroy that car either (even though it was the creator of the car), once he sold (or maybe gave) it to Fred. The act of passing the ownership also means to relinquish control over the “stuff in question”, and new owner assumes full rights over it - whether this happened as a sale, or a gift.

This assumes that God has passed complete ownership to us regarding our lives, like a manufacturer with a car to a buyer. However, this is not necessarily the case, even if God gave our lives as a gift to us. There are cases where a person can give another a gift and still have complete ownership of the gift. Such an example is when a parent gives his teenager a car, and yet the parent has complete ownership of the car, with his name on the legal papers and everything. So, just because God gave our lives as gift, it doesn’t mean He relinquished authority of that gift. In Scripture, too, we see the analogy many times of God as a King and humans as stewards over parts of His kingdom, thus illustrating that we don’t have complete authority of the parts that we are given. We have some authority but even the little authority we have is authority that God also has over our own.

So, at the very least, just because God gave us life doesn’t not mean that God does not have complete authority over our lives.

It should be. The old Romans said the same thing with their famous “quod licet Iovi, not licet bovi” phrase. So it is quite an old idea, but that does not make it right - especially by Catholic standards, which assert “absolute morality”. And an “absolute morality”, which is not applicable to God, is - by definition - not absolute.

It depends what you mean by “absolute morality.” You could say that “you cannot destroy something that is not yours or that you don’t have legitimate permission from owner to destroy” and hence say Joe can’t destroy Fred’s car because he doesn’t have Fred’s permission. However, you cannot say that God can’t destroy Fred’s car, because God owns Fred’s car, more than Fred owns it. So, the absolute moral principle is preserved. Nonetheless, we can also say “God can (morally) do things that humans can’t,” like destroying Fred’s car without Fred’s permission. But the larger absolute moral principle mentioned above is preserved and so absolute morality is not infringed by God’s much wider prerogatives.

That is not exactly what I said. People can be persuaded, or persuade themselves over something that is dubious to them.

I can agree to that.

Once the belief sets in, the case is closed.

Not sure what that means. You obviously believe that one’s beliefs can change as you seem to say later on. So, I’m not sure what “the case is closed” means.

A belief may be shattered by extrnal forces, once reality and the belief cannot be reconciled any more. But even that is a rare process.

This word “shattered” is an interesting word, and I don’t know what you mean by it here. What makes it a “rare process”? Does it have to do with the will? What determines which process happens in this case?

The opposite is much more prevalent, when people keep holding the same belief, even if it is contradicted by actual evidence. That is where the true rationaling process gets into the picture.

Contradicted by actual evidence that they know? Well, if they know that actual evidence contradicts their belief, then I don’t see how this is not “believing something you know to be false.” I mean, if you know that the evidence contradicts your belief, how would you not know that your belief is not false? You seem to be saying what I’ve been trying to convince you of.

Now, maybe you are using the word “contradict” here to mean something more like, “the evidence strongly suggests that your belief is wrong.” My idea is that if the evidence (i.e. what is known in reality regarding a thing) contradicts your belief (i.e. your belief about the thing), then the two can’t be reconciled and you are lying to yourselves. Or am I not using “evidence” in the way you’re using it?

 

[Areopagite]

I don’t think you can substantiate that. If that “faith” is so strong that it cannot be shattered by contrarian evidence, then you cannot say that the people “know that it is false”. No, they will hold onto that faith and reject all the evidence, even if it is totally unreasonable.

Yeah, your use here of the words “evidence” and “unreasonable” are a little confusing. My claim is that if one receives the gift of faith, they actually gain knowledge (of certain supernatural realities). Nonetheless, they can rationalize this knowledge away in many different ways if they want. Or they can embrace the knowledge and hence reject mere claims that certain evidence disproves the faith (which shouldn’t matter, because the person has knowledge, whereas the other person merely has alleged evidence but not proof). If you know something, contrarian claims should not bother you. If you witnessesed something, evidence that someone brings forward to try to convince you that you didn’t witness it should not deter you from believing that you witnessed what you saw.

To begin with this “ultimate good” is not defined. I keep asking for a definition, but it falls on deaf ears. Then, you say that one who believes in good and evil actions - but denies this nebulous “ultimate good”, is either intellectually dishonest or a moron - who does not know what he believes in. Sorry, that will not fly. I know that I hold the concept of “ultimate good” undefined, and thus I reject it. (With a definition this may change.)

Right. You should really start a new thread for this one … but, for now, here’s my rant …

To say that different things can be “good,” it implies that those different things share in one thing, otherwise we wouldn’t call those different things “good” and mean the same thing by it. So, one way one can talk about the “ultimate good” is “that which makes all good things good.”

So, let’s try to figure out what “good” means. You gave an example saying that “rain is good for the grass.” Now, the reason you say this is that without water, the grass starts to wither away and die … it ceases to exist as grass. Hence, that which maintains the existence of a thing is good for that thing. It would seem to follow that it is better for a thing to exist than to not exist. Otherwise, that which maintains the existence of a thing would not be good for a thing, and hence rain would not be good for grass. Existing is good, therefore.

Existence is good. Now, if it is possible that something can have “more existence” than another, it would seem to follow that a thing which has more existence than another is “more good” than the other. It seems to be that grass, when without water for a long time, seems to lack certain characteristics that grass should have in order to be good grass. So, grass, in addition to being able to not exist (which is not as good) as well as exist (which is better), can have varying levels of existence within itself, for it can exist and still not be very good grass, because certain key parts of it lack in existence (and yet not make the grass cease to exist entirely).

So, what I am referring to is the fulfillment of a nature. Grass is “more good” when it has its nature more fulfilled (i.e. when the necessary parts that make it up all exist as they should), and less good when its nature is not fulfilled (or as fulfilled … which is due to some non-existence it has). So, existing good grass has more existence than existing bad grass. This is one way two different things can vary in their amount of existence.

A thing, even if its fully fulfilled in its nature, can still gain more existence if it becomes united in some way with things beyond its nature. For example, a person may be completely fulfilled as a person but then gain the extra power of flight. He receives a power (an existence) that he didn’t have before. And since he has gained an existence, he gains more good. This is another way two different things can vary in their amount of existence.

Another way existence can varying between things is that if A has existing characteristics that B also has but has more existing things in it than B does … then A would have more existence and thus A would be “more good” than B. This is because, as concluded before, existence is better than non-existence. Now, there was a thing that had within itself all possible characteristics … if it had everything that could possibly existing within itself … then obviously this would be the greatest good. And this, it is commonly understood, to be God (in fact, THAT is His definition … complete, perfect, total existence/good).

So, in answer to your question of what the “ultimate good” is … here are ways to answer it:

1. The ultimate good is that which makes all good things good. So, to deny the ultimate good would be to deny that anything is good. If we admit that more than one thing can be good, we have to believe that there is an overarching goodness that all those things share in, otherwise multiple things cannot be called good.
2. The ultimate good is all existence because existence is good (and the fullness of existence is the fullness of good). To deny the ultimate good would be to deny the existence of all things … or at least to deny that existence is good and hence deny that anything is good.
3. The Ultimate good is God. This is because the ultimate good is that which has all existence, and thus it would necessarily exist, and be omnipotent (because that which has all existing things has all possible power and ability) and be omniscient (for that which has all existing things has all knowledge).

Well, it’ll only take three libraries to fill in the details of what I said. But that’s my shooting-from-the-hip answer to what the ultimate good is.

 

[Betterave]

Since you talk the talk, do you walk the walk? After all talk is cheap.

Prove to me (and to yourself) that you can volitionally choose to believe what you did not believe before. “Choose” to believe that eating pebbles and stones (good crunchy stuff) is the one and only good source of nutrition and drinking sulphuric acid is the only drink that quenches your thrist. Once you managed to “believe” that, try to follow your belief - say, for a few weeks. And when you succeeded, come back and report it. Tell us how you managed to convince yourself.

I suspect that you will come up with some excuse to wiggle out of this challenge. Don’t try. All you will prove with that you are an intellectually dishonest person, who is not willing to put his money where his mouth is. I am eagerly awaiting your return.

Since I talk the talk, why don’t you listen to the talk and give me a coherent response that shows you’ve tried to understand the talk?

I never said you could choose to want to believe something. You completely miss the point with your stupid challenge here. The point is that you can make yourself believe something that you want to believe. Thus a corrupt will/desire leads to corrupt understanding/belief. (Your stupid preemptive claim about my intellectual dishonesty “if I even try” to respond to your stupid challenge speaks volumes about your own intellectual dishonesty - heard of ‘poisoning the well’?)

 

[Betterave]

I remember producing a variation of this argument several years ago. I can’t remember where. However, I did not produce it as an argument in favour of abortion. I dislike any sort of killing. So bear in mind that I am not encouraging Catholics to kill their children but just pointing out what seems to be an inherent logical inconsistency when you take some Catholic beliefs and put them side by side, the conclusions are unpalatable. First I will put forward the argument and at the end some possible solutions that catholics could counter with.

1. The best possible experience is the Beatific Vision
2. If this can only be experienced after death
3. Then death is desirable if the Beatific Vision can be guaranteed

then

1. Murder is a mortal sin
2. Those who murder unrepentant go to hell

then

1. If the Beatific Vision is the best possible experience it is best to die when it is guaranteed than when it is not.
2. A baptised child who dies before the age of free will is guaranteed the Beatific Vision (On the Beatific Vision of God - Benedictus Deus - Constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336)
3. Therefore it is better for the the child to die when the Beatific Vision is guaranteed than to die when it is not i.e in a state of mortal sin.

Your very first premise is wrong. The beatific vision is like earthly life in that it is different for every individual. Thus your generic statement about it doesn’t work for the purposes of your argument since death is *not *always to be desired, even if someone is in a state of grace, and even on your (false) utilitarian premises.

Then

1. If a person kills a child assured of the Beatific Vision he breaks God’s law
2. If he dies unrepentant he goes to hell.
3. But he guarantees the child experiences the Beatific Vision which is the highest good. [False, as pointed out above.]

but

1. If he does not kill the child in this fortunate state the child may lose this guarantee after the age of free will.

1. The child may later commit a mortal sin, die unrepentant and go to hell.

1. You, however, -]save yourself/-] do not commit the evil act of killing a child.

then

1. If putting another’s good before yourself is preferable to -]saving yourself/-] not committing the evil act of killing a child. ** [it’s not preferable or even possible…]**
2. Then putting the child’s salvation at risk to assure your own is selfish and undesirable.** …so of course (2) doesn’t follow]**

Unfortunately, the argument, understandably, produces a lot of horror and most people are not prepared to examine the logic. So it tends to be dismissed out of hand as not worthy of consideration.

Upon examining the logic, it is not worthy of consideration. Thanks for your suggestions though.

So I would like to suggest some possible solutions for the Catholic.

1. On the Beatific Vision of God - Benedictus Deus - Constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336. Although this constitution is said to be in force for all time and said with apostolic authority and is a definition - it does not meet all the requirements for infallible dogma.

1. Therefore it is not safe to assume that the baptised child who dies before the age of free will is assured the Beatific Vision

1. Therefore to kill that child achieves nothing but one’s own damnation and the child’s unnecessary suffering.

(2) is false; it is safe to assume, regardless of whether one thinks it meets all the requirements of infallible dogma.

or

1. On the Beatific Vision of God - Benedictus Deus - Constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336. This is dogma but
2. It is not possible to know when each individual child achieves free will.
3. There is the risk of killing a child in a state of mortal sin and it would not achieve the Beatiific Vision
4. Therefore both child and killer may end up hell.
   5 This is undesirable.

(2) is true in some cases, but in many it is not (e.g., in the case of abortion, the child has certainly not reached the age of reason).

Other possibilities are that the Beatific Vision is possible in this life **[no] **and / or God has a special mission for each child which would result in more people being saved than lost [possibly (in some cases), but certainly not necessarily - but we don’t know which are which (that’s why your Hitler reference is irrelevant)]. But I haven’t thought about those latter two possibilities and don’t know if they are consistent with Catholic doctrine.

Any thoughts?

 

[Betterave]

1. A person with a mental health problem may be convinced that they are beyond redemption and decide to kill themselves - knowing that the catholic church teaches that the baptised child is assured of salvation - she feels this would be the last good she can do. She cannot save herself or so she believes but she can save the child. In this respect the Catholic church needs a line of argument that prevents this idea being acted on.

Arguments are not appropriate for the mentally ill, thus they are not required.

 

[DL82]

It is very simple and straightforward.

Take a zygote, freshly impregnated, before it even leaves for the trip to the uterus. According to the theists, it (definitely not a “he” or a “she”) is already a “human being”. It never gets implanted into the uterus wall, just gets flushed out from the woman’s system. What will be its fate? Will it get into heaven, or will be sent to hell? The limbo is no longer an offical doctrine - so we can leave that out from consideration. Surely it will not get to hell, not even the most conservative Catholic would assert that. So it will go into heaven, in some capacity. There are some people who say that it will not get to the beatific vision (whatever that means). But even a “low-level” heaven is pretty good.

Now, the second possibility is that the zygote gets implanted into the uterus wall, but for some reason or another, it gets spontaneously aborted. The result is the same, it will get into heaven. Good outcome.

Suppose that the abortion is not spontaneous, it is volitional. For the fetus the outcome is not diifferent, still a nice, cozy, warm place in heaven. Good outcome again. So, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, abortion is good. No risk of hell, only an assured place on God’s bosom.

But, what about the woman who makes this decision? Well, it depends on her intent. Catholics, (unlike some Protestants) take the intent into consideration, and not just the act itself. If her intent is to assure a place in heaven, she acts out of love, performing an act in the fetus’s best interest. Furthermore, she sacrifices herself, her future place in heaven, which is the highest form of love. So, she is not a criminal, she does not sin, she puts the well-being of the fetus in front of her own. Thus she is to be praised and a self-sacrificing person, who risks everything just to assure the fetus’s place.

Moreover, she prevents the possible “slip” of her child, who might commot some mortal sin and consequently would be confined to eternal damnation. From a simple risk-benefit analysis, it is her optimal solution. The fetus will get an assured place in heaven. Her fate is also assured, as a self-sacrificing person, who exhibits the highest form of love. Surely God will take her intent into consideration.

So, go and abort all your children. It is in the best interest of the child, and in the best interest of the mother. Be careful, however, not to be selfish, and do not perform the abortion for some temporal gain. Always cast your eyes on the heaven. God will understand your motive, and will reward for it.

By the same argument, you could stand outside the confessional and stab people to death as they come out, with their sins absolved, knowing they were on the way to heaven.

Some acts can be inherently evil even devoid of any intent. Deliberately killing an unborn child is one of them.

 

[Sarpedon]

Are you just pulling my leg here? Sensory experiences are not illusory. Death is real.

No, I am not pulling your leg- I am asking you for evidence. Death is an empirical experience (or more accurately, an empirical observation). As such, it cannot be used to prove the validity of empirical observations in the first place. Your stating that “death is real” is about as convincing as a televangelist stating “Jesus saves!” Where is the evidence?

The whole concept of “sensory illusion” comes from the fact that vision can easily be misinterpreted. Can you incorrectly interpret the smell of a stinking carcass and “think” that you just smelled a rose? Can you misinterpret the prick of a needle and think that you just have been gently touched by a velvet glove? Can you mistake the taste of chocolate for the bitter taste of quinine? Or the sound of a thunderclap for the Ninth Symphony?

None of this directly hits on the issue. We interpret a certain smell as coming from a rose. An autistic person could just as easily interpret it as something else. We may call the person disabled, but why can’t the this person call us disabled? Who’s vantage point serves as the correct one, and how do we know that it does so? Is there a correct vantage point?

This is the fundamental flaw in western scientism. For various reasons, the Judeo-Christian tradition argues that our sense perception correctly grasps the nature of things. This has become part of our culture- it is taught in public education without challenge. Most atheists are taught this as children and never come to question it as adults. In contrast, eastern philosophies lack this view, so they have no preconceived idea that empirical observation is necessarily true.

You need to provide some sort of evidence for your claim that empirical observation is reliable (you may use the Judeo-Christian ones if you wish!). Pointing to further experiences, such as the taste of pudding, or the sight of death, do nothing to address the fundamental question- how and why do we know that such observations correctly grasp reality? Stating that they simply do is not sufficient, just as it’s not sufficient for a televangelist to state that Jesus saves.

Usually correct, but there have been exceptions. It did happen a “dried up” marital relationship became invigorated by the “straying” of one or both of the spouses. And there are open marriages, where both parties, openly accept and engage in outside relationships, and these endeavors strengthen the marriage. I wonder what was your reason to bring up that example.

Mere exceptions do not prove that such exceptions are healthy. The point is that there are natural consequences to actions. This is really tied in to the next point.

Not really. I am looking out the window right now and see a nice quiet rain. Rain is good for the vegetation, but too much rain is not good at all. “Natural” good objective, without human interpretation. “Moral” good is, however, a human invention. It is still not arbitrary.

Why is existence better than nonexistence?

Why is it better for the grass to survive than to perish?

Also, just what is the “ultimate, real meaning behind everything”? Can you define it?

It is something that needs to be discovered. I think I have a good idea of what it is, but I am still studying it… This is really a topic for a different thread, one that is less chaotic.

True, it gives no certainty. But to wish to have certainty is a pie in the sky. Most certainly I lead my life exactly as I want to, and I call it a “good” life. However, my actions will be measured by the cold, hard forces of the unforgiving nature and they will be measured by the reciprocal actions of other humans. This feedback loop will validate or invalidate my idea about the quality (or goodness) of my life. And that is the only validation process I want, and need.

Why is it better for you to exist rather than not to exist?

Can you provide a reason other than “I prefer it?..”

What is this “objective reality of virtue”? Presumably it has something to with God…

Actually, it has to do with the objective intelligible reality, which is rooted in existence.

I am who am… God is existence itself. It’s not “Goddit.” Rather, it’s an analysis of objective reality, which leads us to the root of our real experiences, which leads us to the root of existence itself- fascinating stuff, which is far too complex to summarize here. If you are interested in the whole story, The Spirit of Medaeval Philosophy by Etienne Gilson has an excellent chapter on this.

Ouch, this hurts. I never thought that you (of all people) will bring up this nonsense of “reductionism”. I hope it was just a momentary lapse on your part.

That’s not very enlightening. What is wrong with my analysis? How can we rise above reductionism in a purely material world?

 

[Sarpedon]

Maybe I should. The trouble is that I went there and looked at many posts. I was disappointed. I have never found any other answer than a list of url’s. I went and followed those, and did not see any substantial answers. And worst of all, once one posited a question, there is no follow-up. You cannot ask for clarification. You cannot challenge the answer.

Then why not go to an actual scholarly source rather than go online with random people under pseudonyms? You simply cannot claim to have a full perspective on things based on what unknown people told you online. Here’s a list of scholastic philosophers you could study first hand:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scholastic_philosophers

Plus, there are modern philosophers like Dietrich von Hildebrand and Etienne Gilson. My basic point is that you can’t express to much exasperation at the supposed limitations of something if you only know about it from the internet.

 

[R_Daneel]

No, I am not pulling your leg- I am asking you for evidence. Death is an empirical experience (or more accurately, an empirical observation). As such, it cannot be used to prove the validity of empirical observations in the first place.

This is really not productive, so I will tell you a joke about the subject.

A doctor is on the witness stand, and a lawyer conducts a cross-examination.
The lawyer asks: “Was the patient dead or alive, when you examined him?”.
The doctor answers: “He was dead”.
The lawyer: “How do you know that?”
The doctor: “Well, I checked his heartbeat, and found none, I checked his breath, and it was missing”.
The lawyer: “But, doctor, isn’t it possible that he was still alive?”
The doctor: “No.”
The lawyer: “But how do you know that?”
The doctor: “I know, because I had his brain in a jar on my desk”.
The lawyer: “But, isn’t it possible, that he was still alive?”
The doctor finally loses his patience: “Well, come to think of it, maybe he was still alive, practicing law somewhere!”
I hope you see the point. You cannot keep on asking for “more” evidence. The reliability of the senses is taken for granted, because there is nothing else to turn to. Just ask yourself the question: “How could I invalidate the basic assumption that the senses are reliable?”. Try to think up a process to substantiate that claim - but of course you cannot use the senses to do that. What else is there?

It is not enough to play the “universal skeptic”, and doubt everything - on the ground that humans are fallible beings. You must have a reason to doubt. Technically, one may say something like this: “I looked at the snow in the sunlight, and its color was white. Then I illuminated it with a red lamp, and its color was red. Then I used a green lamp, and the color became green. Now, what is the ’real’ color of the snow?”. Yes, it is possible to ask such a question. But it is a nonsensical question. It needs no answer.

Your stating that “death is real” is about as convincing as a televangelist stating “Jesus saves!” Where is the evidence?

This is the universal skeptic speaking. Or the lawyer in the joke above.

This is the fundamental flaw in western scientism. For various reasons, the Judeo-Christian tradition argues that our sense perception correctly grasps the nature of things.

First of all, this has nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian tradition. And scientism is just another buzzword.

Pointing to further experiences, such as the taste of pudding, or the sight of death, do nothing to address the fundamental question- how and why do we know that such observations correctly grasp reality?

What is the “real” color of the snow?

That’s not very enlightening. What is wrong with my analysis? How can we rise above reductionism in a purely material world?

By observing and realizing that the “sum is greater than its parts”. By looking at the concept of emerging attributes. You have 3 pieces of wood, identical sized. Placing them so their ends will meet, you get a triangle. The same purely material sticks now form a triangle, because of the way they are placed. A carbon atom has four chemical bonds. Depending on the arrangement you get either graphite, or you get diamond. The same “purely material” atoms, with a different arrangement will yield totally different characteristics. Reductionsim is baffled, and cannot explain. Reductionism is dumb.

 

[R_Daneel]

You’re asking, where does it say “you can’t believe something that you know is false?” Well, you see, that’s lying to yourself. And lying is sin. It’s one of the Ten Commandments.

My actual assertion was: “One cannot volitionally change what one believes is true (or false)”. (Observe, I said “believes”, not “knows”.) This was disputed by you and others. So I am challenging you to posit something that you believe in, and attempt to change that belief to the opposite. There is no “lying” involved in this process. It is a simple mental exercise, to do what you asserted that I can do. Well, I cannot, and you cannot do it either. Don’t hide behind the ten commandments. They have nothing to do with this.

Right, that’s what Aquinas is claiming. You cannot reject God’s existence on rational ground. It unreasonable to deny the existence of God.

That is not a problem. The Church never said that one must believe in God’s existence only by faith. The Church claims you can know God exists by natural reason. However, natural reason alone cannot figure out the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, etc.

Well, the Church “claims” many things. Claims are dime a dozen.

 

[R_Daneel]

By the same argument, you could stand outside the confessional and stab people to death as they come out, with their sins absolved, knowing they were on the way to heaven.

Yes, you could. Read or watch the play: “Sister Mary Ignatius explains it all for you”.

 

[R_Daneel]

I never said you could choose to want to believe something.

On the contrary, you can “will” to want to do it. What you cannot do is to accomplish what you wanted. I could want to change my belief about astrology being a whole lot of nonsense, but no matter how strong my “want” might be, I would be unable to do it.

The point is that you can make yourself believe something that you want to believe.

Ah, so you cannot do it, because you don’t want to do it? What a lame excuse. “Wanting” to do something is part of conscious process of the brain. The “belief” part is not. So, your feeble attempt of evasion is in vain. But I never expected anything better. Ave!

 

[Sarpedon]

I hope you see the point. You cannot keep on asking for “more” evidence. The reliability of the senses is taken for granted, because there is nothing else to turn to. Just ask yourself the question: “How could I invalidate the basic assumption that the senses are reliable?”. Try to think up a process to substantiate that claim - but of course you cannot use the senses to do that. What else is there?

I’m not sure this is in keeping with your atheism- I cannot help but notice how you turned this into a negative question. You are asking me for evidence that our senses are not correct. That would be like me asking you for evidence that God does not exist. You are making a positive claim about empiricism, so you need to provide positive evidence for that claim. Do you have any?

First of all, this has nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian tradition. And scientism is just another buzzword.

It has everything to do with the Judeo-Christian tradition. That’s why Europe rose to dominate the world through technology. In Christianity, God is identified with existence itself. This means that all contingent forms of existence, such as the world, are necessarily connected to existence itself and they must draw their own limited existence from pure existence. Since pure existence has various attributes, such as infinity of composition and a lack of change, this means that the world must be ruled by rational, predicable principals. This sets the stage for science. In contrast, eastern philosophies lack this viewpoint. Science was stunted in such societies because people did not want to devote their lives to studying something that could change instantly.

Scientism is not a buzzword. It refers to the philosophy that science is the only unquestionable way to know truth. It is taught as dogma in our public education system and people rarely question what they are told. Since you keep giving me a lot of one-sentence replies to everything I write, I’m not sure exactly why you think this is a buzzword…

By observing and realizing that the “sum is greater than its parts”. By looking at the concept of emerging attributes. You have 3 pieces of wood, identical sized. Placing them so their ends will meet, you get a triangle. The same purely material sticks now form a triangle, because of the way they are placed. A carbon atom has four chemical bonds. Depending on the arrangement you get either graphite, or you get diamond. The same “purely material” atoms, with a different arrangement will yield totally different characteristics. Reductionsim is baffled, and cannot explain. Reductionism is dumb.

In my original post, I clearly noted arrangements: "Nothing beyond the particles themselves and their arrangements. Particles are not good, do not have virtue, and cannot lead a “good life.”

So you still haven’t answered my question- how can anything beyond mere existence arise from particles and arrangements of particles? How can an atom be good, or a molecule be good, or a triangle be good?

This ties in to the most important question on this thread:

Why is existence better than nonexistence?