A theological argument FOR abortion

[CWBetts]

Funny thing that you being a Catholic would ask such question since the idea of loosing and binding comes from the idea of accepting or rejecting the ““Gospel” Of Jesus Christ”. If you expect to see “only those reject the Gospel or My beloved Son will be in hell” in those exact words, then you will have a hard time finding that.

If you look at David’s son who died as an infant; David quit mourning after the baby died and said you cannot come to me, but I will come to you. David knew that the child was with God. He also knew the child was not capable of making any decisions or knew what sin was.

“Binding and loosing” comes from rabbinical tradition. It is the authority to declare what is right and wrong. A little historical research would reveal this.

 

[Lypher]

Funny thing that you being a Catholic would ask such question since the idea of loosing and binding comes from the idea of accepting or rejecting the ““Gospel” Of Jesus Christ”. If you expect to see “only those reject the Gospel or My beloved Son will be in hell” in those exact words, then you will have a hard time finding that.

If you look at David’s son who died as an infant; David quit mourning after the baby died and said you cannot come to me, but I will come to you. David knew that the child was with God. He also knew the child was not capable of making any decisions or knew what sin was.

John,

I am Trying to become a confirmed Catholic…currently LCMS, that being said I was hopeful you could give the reference that you discussed… Oh, well know that mortal sin will separate one from God, but was hopeful that you had some more concrete passages. Like you state above you can read into it, but I was hopeful you had found something more direct…

Cheers…

 

[Areopagite]

I think that self-deception is to believe something that is contradicted by evidence. The person performing the self-deception is aware of the evidence, but - for whatever reason - does not accept it as evidence.

I’m not sure what is the meaningful difference here between “aware of the evidence” and “knowledgeable of the evidence.” If self-deception is aware of the evidence, then they would be knowledgeable about it. If you can at the same time be aware of the evidence and yet not accept the evidence, it would seem that you can believe contrary to what you know.

An example would be to believe that God is “good”. When we speak of a good person, we set up certain criteria which must be met. The ones which must be there are helpfulness in the time of need, to feed the hungry, to heal the sick, to prevent a disaster, if one is able to do so, etc. If a person does not do that, he cannot be called “good”. Manifestly, God does not do any of these, and yet, Christians are unwilling to look at this evidence.

I already refuted this particular example (i.e. that God must follow all rules that humans are bound to), and you have not responded to it.

The evidence is rationalized out of existence, by bringing up bogus arguments

Would the self-deceiving person know they were bogus arguments? If not, why? Usually, it would seem, such bogus arguments are designed to try and answer the evidence contrary to the person’s belief, which indicates that they ARE knowledgeable of the contrary evidence.

 

[Sarpedon]

Philosophy does not justify anything. It is a self-contained endeavor. Metaphysics is merely speculation. Epistemology is pondering about acquiring knowledge - and this is where empiricism comes into the picture. Ethics deals with about “what should be done, if…”, not what is. Etc.

I’m glad you have such a strong knowledge base on what knowledge is, when it can be achieved, what methods are valid for achieving it, what empty speculation is, etc. You should consider a philosophy major!

And I definitely disagree that “first” we are thinking creatures, and “then” we are perceiving ones. Perception came first, way back, when we were “only” animals. Much later did we become thinking ones.

I realize you disagree with this, but how can you perceive something without first having the internal thought processes to accept that perception?

The word “refuse” is much too strong. I don’t “refuse” to ponder anything if a rational argument is presented for it. It would be much better to say that atheists see no need of looking beyond empiricism, when the physical reality is considered. Of course, when the abstract science (mathematics) comes into the picture, empiricism is out, and pure logic is in. And since no one has ever presented a non-physical and not-abstract reality, atheists see no need to ponder that. But if you can present a good, logical and rational argument for it, I am all ears, and ready yo study it. Especially, if you can tell me how. But intuition (for example) just does not cut it.

I already talked about this ad nauseum with you on the other thread. Your position is very simple- empirical experiences are reality, and therefore you do not look beyond them. That’s a very limited, restricted position that is by no means necessary for a rational mind to uphold. Why not think outside the box and consider other ways of knowing? Atheists style themselves as “free-thinkers,” but what they really do is start with a definition and cram everything into that definition.

How about the Biblical quotation: “the wisdom of the world is folly with God”? Just to name one.

A bedrock doctrine of Catholicism is that only the Church has the authority to authoritatively interpret scripture. That’s what the entire Reformation was about. Therefore, a single passage from scripture, outside of the context of the Church’s official interpretation, would have no effect on a Catholic society and Catholic achievements.

And that most fundamental method is observation. There is a saying that genius is 10% insight and 90% preseverence. Down to Earth, dirty trial-and-error, testing, discarding and starting all over. Do you know how many usless chemical compounds are tried and discarded before a new drug is developed?

This is very off base from what I am talking about- you keep pointing to things we experience as proof that our experiences are valid. You cannot understand my position at all if you think this addresses my epistemological question. What is it that validates empiricism itself? I’m not asking for internal proof that empiricism leads to certain conclusions. I’m asking for evidence that, as a system, empiricism delivers truth about reality. If you start by assuming that empiricism is reality, then you simply cannot answer my question- the only answer is that you simply define reality as empiricism. And if you just do that, it opens a lot of doors…

In this case I have no idea what you call “good”. I really don’t.

The human good is the most basic nature of reality (love) translated into concrete situations. Since we disagree on metaphysics and epistemology (both of which are philosophy, and not science), you will not accept this definition.

Not true at all. No matter how hard you “want” that pebbles would be nutritious, they will not be. What is “good” for us, is objectively good, despite what we think about it. What is “good” for us is determined by the objectively existing laws of nature, and we discover those “goods” using physics, chemistry, biology, sociology. economics, etc… There is nothing subjective or arbitrary about it. No atheist is as stupid to deny that fire burns his skin if he keeps exposing himself to it. If he is, he will die (part of reality) and removes himself from the gene-pool - to the greater glory of human stupidity. Just look at the web-site of darwinawards.com/

So, pebbles will not give me nutrition, true, but why must I seek nutrition? What are the benefits, outside of my emotions? You are sidestepping the issue- why is it better to exist than to not exist? Why is it better for me to obtain nutrition than to starve? You can only answer that I prefer survival (for whatever reason). Therefore, goodness is wholly subject to my preferences. It’s as simple as that.

 

[elts1956]

The Catholic Church may not have made a statement, which is actually not true, but God has and all children who have not reached the age of accountability will be in heaven. Ask King David; he stated it in no uncertain terms.

What about having to be Baptised? Again and again, clergy has said the most enormous wrong of abortion is the fact these babies are not baptized and thus we do not know their fate. We leave them in God’s hands and He is merciful.

 

[John_Janning]

Let me tell you something. Just because I am Catholic does not mean I don’t read the Bible. Before I was led to the Catholic Church I was a “Bible-believing Protestant” just as you fancy yourself to be. I spent a year in a Baptist “Bible college” fill of teachings that went against the Scriptures. I am now a student of Theology at a Catholic university. I started coursework there in the fall. Since Last august, just as part of coursework alone, I have read: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings, Psalms, Proverbs, Wisdom, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Matthew, Luke, John, Romans, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, Galatians, Hebrews, James, and Revelation. This is in addition to the readings at Mass (which are most assuredly more substantial than at any Protestant service), and my personal devotional reading. THink aout this the next time you feel the urge to talk down to someone about Scripture because the person you are addressing is Catholic. (I might add that the books I mentioned are only in my two Scripture classes. They do not include the various times I had referred to the Scriptures when reading an Encyclical, Apostolic Letter, Conciliar Document, or passages from the Catechism). ** I fully believe that at no place does the Bible teach that the salvation of all under the “age of accountability” has their salvation assured. The normative way one is saved requires Baptism, but this does not mean that the unbaptized have salvation absolutely denied. **

Did I hit a hot button or what? What an over reaction just because you are Catholic equates to not reading the Bible??? That makes no sense, but apparently it pushes your button - sorry about that. If it makes you feel any better most people that call themselves Christians rarely read the Bible much less study the Bible which is why there is such gross & erroneous interpretations and why people fall into false gospels.

All that learning and you are still using and speaking in terms of “what I think and/or what I believe”. Does not matter what you think or you believe what the Bible teaches is true whether you were born or not or believe or not. It is knowing what God meant by what He has revealed that is truth and it is true wether you believe it or not. You might not believe in gravity but if you jump off a 10 story building you will discover the truth of gravity.

I’ll take an ignorant Bible-believing Christian over a self professed student of theology any day of the week. Reminds me of the story Jesus told in Luke 18 beginning in verse 9.

Anyway - sorry if I offended you; certainly not my intent. Good luck with all that studying i hope God is able to use it for advancing His kingdom.

This is off topic so I will say that any theological argument for murder is a man-made philosophy based on an erroneous understanding of what saves a person from their sin (the only true Gospel) and baptism by water is not one of them that Scripture teaches but a man-made imposition on the whole of Scripture. One needs only to look at the thief on the cross.

 

[John_Janning]

“Binding and loosing” comes from rabbinical tradition. It is the authority to declare what is right and wrong. A little historical research would reveal this.

Binding and loosing is a Jewish teaching, but they also understood that the ability to forgive sin came ONLY from God. If you obey the law you are loosed from your sins and if you break the law you are bound in your sins; Jesus simply used this teaching and brought it into the NT starting with the Apostles and then to all disciples, the concept is the same if you reject the gospel you remain in your sin under Gods wrath and its penalties and if you accept the gospel than your are freed from your sins and will escape the judgment to come - same concept and Jesus being the instigator of the New Covenant turned the Jewish teaching into the NT teaching concerning the Gospel.

A little reading and understanding of the Gospel and the OT would reveal this

 

[John_Janning]

What about having to be Baptised? Again and again, clergy has said the most enormous wrong of abortion is the fact these babies are not baptized and thus we do not know their fate. We leave them in God’s hands and He is merciful.

Baptism by water is “immersion”, babies are sprinkled and thus not really immersed. Also, water baptism has nothing to do with Jesus saving the lost; ask the thief on the cross as an example. Salvation comes by faith and by God’s grace and always has in the OT and the NT.

For all the doubters about that the Letter to the Hebrews and specifically chapter 11 is for folks that believe otherwise. Also, the Psalms will reveal the same as will the Prophets.

It would not surprise me to find more children in the Kingdom than adults. People go to hell for rejecting what “good news”; can a child reject that which they cannot comprehend?

 

[John_Janning]

I think that self-deception is to believe something that is contradicted by evidence. The person performing the self-deception is aware of the evidence, but - for whatever reason - does not accept it as evidence.

An example would be to believe that God is “good”. When we speak of a good person, we set up certain criteria which must be met. The ones which must be there are helpfulness in the time of need, to feed the hungry, to heal the sick, to prevent a disaster, if one is able to do so, etc. If a person does not do that, he cannot be called “good”. Manifestly, God does not do any of these, and yet, Christians are unwilling to look at this evidence. That is self-deception. It is not lying to oneself, of couse. The person performing the self-deception is totally convinced of his reasoning - except it is not accepted by anyone coming from a different background.

The evidence is rationalized out of existence, by bringing up bogus arguments, for example: “if God would do all that, we would be ‘robbed’ of our freedom to believe in God, we would be ‘forced’ to know him”. Or, if God would do that, we would be “pampered” and would have no need to grow. Or, the criteria to make a value-judgment about God is different from making a value-judgment about humans - we are not qualified to make such judgments. Or many others… the list is almost endless. That is self-deception.

The motivated misapprehension of the facts of the case. This may include actively believing what is not true, and refusing to acknowledge a truth, in circumstances where without the motivation the truth would be obvious. The philosophical problem, sometimes called the paradox of self-deception, is that normal deception requires one agent who knows the truth, and who conceals it from another agent. So within a single agent the state appears to be impossible, since the agent must know the truth to begin a process of deceiving him or herself about it. One solution is to postulate one part of the mind that knows the truth, and that sets about deceiving another part of the mind that does not. However, it is not clear that it is useful to employ the spatial analogy of minds with parts, nor to suppose that the ‘sub-systems’ responsible for the state are usefully thought of as themselves independent ‘agents’ that not only know things but have plans and projects and can set about doing things. There is nothing problematic about desires influencing beliefs, and some people are better than others at believing what they wish to be true. The problem only arises if achieving this state is thought of as a plan that the agent follows. But even then the project of coming to believe what one knows to be false is coherent, provided that process is spread over time, and the means adopted involve losing the knowledge during the process. See also Pascal’s wager. Source: Answers.com

Thought this was an interesting take on “self-deception”.

 

[R_Daneel]

I’m not sure what is the meaningful difference here between “aware of the evidence” and “knowledgeable of the evidence.” If self-deception is aware of the evidence, then they would be knowledgeable about it. If you can at the same time be aware of the evidence and yet not accept the evidence, it would seem that you can believe contrary to what you know.

The difference is subtle. To know about something and to accept something as true are not the same. I know about many things you guys assert about God, but I do not believe them to be true.

I already refuted this particular example (i.e. that God must follow all rules that humans are bound to), and you have not responded to it.

A typical example of self-deception. You are convinced that you delivered an argument which “refuted” mine, when in reality you just reiterated one of the zillions of “cop-outs”. You said that God’s actions or inactions cannot be measured by human standards - which would be OK, if at the same time you did not assert that there is an absolute morality, which is applicable no matter the circumstances are. In other words you try solve the “Euthyphro dilemma” - which cannot be solved.

Would the self-deceiving person know they were bogus arguments? If not, why? Usually, it would seem, such bogus arguments are designed to try and answer the evidence contrary to the person’s belief, which indicates that they ARE knowledgeable of the contrary evidence.

Yes, they are aware of (or knowledgeable about) the evidence, they just do not accept the evidence as valid.

 

[R_Daneel]

I realize you disagree with this, but how can you perceive something without first having the internal thought processes to accept that perception?

I see the difference now. When you talk about “thought process” you seem to talk about both the conscious and the subconscious processes of the brain. To me, thinking means only the conscious part, where the contemplative thoughts reside. Maybe we were talking past each other. After all insects, which do not have a cerebral cortex at all, also perceive reality and react to it. According to your words, they are also “thinking” creatures. That sure sounds weird to me.

I already talked about this ad nauseum with you on the other thread. Your position is very simple- empirical experiences are reality, and therefore you do not look beyond them. That’s a very limited, restricted position that is by no means necessary for a rational mind to uphold. Why not think outside the box and consider other ways of knowing? Atheists style themselves as “free-thinkers,” but what they really do is start with a definition and cram everything into that definition.

As I said before, I am willing. But I also like the “ain’t broke, don’t fix it” type of parsimonous approach. You show me something that cannot be empirically detected, show me a non-empirical method to separate the wheat from the chaff, and we are in business.

A bedrock doctrine of Catholicism is that only the Church has the authority to authoritatively interpret scripture. That’s what the entire Reformation was about. Therefore, a single passage from scripture, outside of the context of the Church’s official interpretation, would have no effect on a Catholic society and Catholic achievements.

How can the “the wisdom of the world is folly with God” be “interpreted” otherwise than what it says? It seems to me that these atrificial interpretations “reserved” by the Church to the Church are designed to explain away the embarrasing questions.

This is very off base from what I am talking about- you keep pointing to things we experience as proof that our experiences are valid. You cannot understand my position at all if you think this addresses my epistemological question. What is it that validates empiricism itself? I’m not asking for internal proof that empiricism leads to certain conclusions. I’m asking for evidence that, as a system, empiricism delivers truth about reality. If you start by assuming that empiricism is reality, then you simply cannot answer my question- the only answer is that you simply define reality as empiricism. And if you just do that, it opens a lot of doors…

Yes, we talked about it a lot. Empiricism is the basis of all our knowledge. There is no “abstract”, “external” validation for it. To risk another Biblical quotation: “by their fruits we shall know them”. Empiricism works - and that is all we need. If it ever stops working, we can look further.

What you ask is similar to the “brains in vats” scenario. We cannot “know”, if we are just brains in vats, or not. The question is not relevant. What our perceptions show us, is the reality, regardless of the ways and means those perceptions are delivered to us. In other words: “what is the real color of the snow” is meaningless.

The human good is the most basic nature of reality (love) translated into concrete situations. Since we disagree on metaphysics and epistemology (both of which are philosophy, and not science), you will not accept this definition.

You got that right. How could the most basic nature of reality be called “love” when love is specifically a human trait and humans are less than a flyspeck in the vastness of the universe, which does not “care”?

So, pebbles will not give me nutrition, true, but why must I seek nutrition? What are the benefits, outside of my emotions? You are sidestepping the issue- why is it better to exist than to not exist? Why is it better for me to obtain nutrition than to starve? You can only answer that I prefer survival (for whatever reason). Therefore, goodness is wholly subject to my preferences. It’s as simple as that.

Yes, but those preferences are not “arbitrary”, they exist objectively, imposed by the laws of nature (biology, to be specific).

 

[Areopagite]

The difference is subtle. To know about something and to accept something as true are not the same.

You may be right. However, I don’t see how your very next sentence clarifies this distinction at all:

I know about many things you guys assert about God, but I do not believe them to be true.

Nowhere in that sentence do you mention any form of the word “aware” … so you have not explained the meaningful distinction you are making between “being aware of evidence” and “being knowledgeable of evidence.”

A typical example of self-deception. You are convinced that you delivered an argument which “refuted” mine, when in reality you just reiterated one of the zillions of “cop-outs”. You said that God’s actions or inactions cannot be measured by human standards - which would be OK, if at the same time you did not assert that there is an absolute morality, which is applicable no matter the circumstances are.

I hope you know that simply dismissing my argument as a “cop-out” doesn’t pass for a legitimate response.

If you need a refresher, you stopped responding to my argument when I refuted your idea that God relinquished authority over our lives when he gave them to us because all gifts necessarily relinquish the authority of the giver with regard to the gift. I refuted this by saying that not all gifts are this way, as a parent who gives a car to his teenager to drive does not necessarily relinquish ownership of the car nor the right to take the car back if the parent so wishes. So, please answer my rebuttal and don’t conveniently dismiss it as a cop-out.

In other words you try solve the “Euthyphro dilemma” - which cannot be solved.

The dilemma in Euthyphro is not “what morality are gods bound to?” but rather “what do the gods love?” (or alternatively and more specifically phrased: “What do the gods consider to be human piety?”) This latter one is a major dilemma for pagans because if there is something that humans can do (e.g. religious sacrifice) that pleases the gods, it seems to imply that the gods need something from humans. But if they need something from humans, it seems that the gods are imperfect because they are lacking in something that we can provide. However, this conundrum is solved by the Christian idea that God’s love for us is completely not self-interested. He wants our fulfillment (which can be accomplished via sacrifice as well as other things) despite the fact that He does not benefit from our fulfillment because He is already completely fulfilled. This kind of selfless love cannot be understood by the pagan nor anyone without supernatural grace. Nonetheless, it is true that if the divine has selfless love for us and hence wants us to do the right things to fulfill ourselves (and perhaps even attain goodness beyond our normal fulfillment), then the divine’s love is not one that implies a lack in the divinity … and hence, Euthyphro’s dilemma is solved.

If you think I’ve misinterpreted what Plato is asking, please correct me … perhaps I have misinterpreted it.

Yes, they are aware of (or knowledgeable about) the evidence, they just do not accept the evidence as valid.

Right … so now you seem to be saying that there is no distinction between “being aware of evidence” and “being knowledgeable of evidence” even though above you seemed to have tried to give one. Or not? Perhaps I am misreading you.

So, if a person can be knowledgeable of evidence and yet not accept it … is this not the same as knowing the truth and yet not believing the truth?

 

[elts1956]

Did I hit a hot button or what? What an over reaction just because you are Catholic equates to not reading the Bible??? That makes no sense, but apparently it pushes your button - sorry about that. If it makes you feel any better most people that call themselves Christians rarely read the Bible much less study the Bible which is why there is such gross & erroneous interpretations and why people fall into false gospels.

All that learning and you are still using and speaking in terms of “what I think and/or what I believe”. Does not matter what you think or you believe what the Bible teaches is true whether you were born or not or believe or not. It is knowing what God meant by what He has revealed that is truth and it is true wether you believe it or not. You might not believe in gravity but if you jump off a 10 story building you will discover the truth of gravity.

I’ll take an ignorant Bible-believing Christian over a self professed student of theology any day of the week. Reminds me of the story Jesus told in Luke 18 beginning in verse 9.

Anyway - sorry if I offended you; certainly not my intent. Good luck with all that studying i hope God is able to use it for advancing His kingdom.

This is off topic so I will say that any theological argument for murder is a man-made philosophy based on an erroneous understanding of what saves a person from their sin (the only true Gospel) and baptism by water is not one of them that Scripture teaches but a man-made imposition on the whole of Scripture. One needs only to look at the thief on the cross.

If it makes you feel any better most people that call themselves Christians rarely read the Bible much less study the Bible which is why there is such gross & erroneous interpretations and why people fall into false gospels.

This is why the Catholic Church uses not only the Bible, but the writings of the Early Church Fathers which leads to Traditions to form what we believe. A hundred people could study the Bible for fifty years and each could come up with a different interpretation. That is why we Catholics accept the guidance of the Catholic Church in this. She hasn’t led us wrong yet.

 

[elts1956]

Did I hit a hot button or what? What an over reaction just because you are Catholic equates to not reading the Bible??? That makes no sense, but apparently it pushes your button - sorry about that. If it makes you feel any better most people that call themselves Christians rarely read the Bible much less study the Bible which is why there is such gross & erroneous interpretations and why people fall into false gospels.

All that learning and you are still using and speaking in terms of “what I think and/or what I believe”. Does not matter what you think or you believe what the Bible teaches is true whether you were born or not or believe or not. It is knowing what God meant by what He has revealed that is truth and it is true wether you believe it or not. You might not believe in gravity but if you jump off a 10 story building you will discover the truth of gravity.

I’ll take an ignorant Bible-believing Christian over a self professed student of theology any day of the week. Reminds me of the story Jesus told in Luke 18 beginning in verse 9.

Anyway - sorry if I offended you; certainly not my intent. Good luck with all that studying i hope God is able to use it for advancing His kingdom.

This is off topic so I will say that any theological argument for murder is a man-made philosophy based on an erroneous understanding of what saves a person from their sin (the only true Gospel) and baptism by water is not one of them that Scripture teaches but a man-made imposition on the whole of Scripture. One needs only to look at the thief on the cross.

You may be right. However, I don’t see how your very next sentence clarifies this distinction at all:

Nowhere in that sentence do you mention any form of the word “aware” … so you have not explained the meaningful distinction you are making between “being aware of evidence” and “being knowledgeable of evidence.”

I hope you know that simply dismissing my argument as a “cop-out” doesn’t pass for a legitimate response.

If you need a refresher, you stopped responding to my argument when I refuted your idea that God relinquished authority over our lives when he gave them to us because all gifts necessarily relinquish the authority of the giver with regard to the gift. I refuted this by saying that not all gifts are this way, as a parent who gives a car to his teenager to drive does not necessarily relinquish ownership of the car nor the right to take the car back if the parent so wishes. So, please answer my rebuttal and don’t conveniently dismiss it as a cop-out.

The dilemma in Euthyphro is not “what morality are gods bound to?” but rather “what do the gods love?” (or alternatively and more specifically phrased: “What do the gods consider to be human piety?”) This latter one is a major dilemma for pagans because if there is something that humans can do (e.g. religious sacrifice) that pleases the gods, it seems to imply that the gods need something from humans. But if they need something from humans, it seems that the gods are imperfect because they are lacking in something that we can provide. However, this conundrum is solved by the Christian idea that God’s love for us is completely not self-interested. He wants our fulfillment (which can be accomplished via sacrifice as well as other things) despite the fact that He does not benefit from our fulfillment because He is already completely fulfilled. This kind of selfless love cannot be understood by the pagan nor anyone without supernatural grace. Nonetheless, it is true that if the divine has selfless love for us and hence wants us to do the right things to fulfill ourselves (and perhaps even attain goodness beyond our normal fulfillment), then the divine’s love is not one that implies a lack in the divinity … and hence, Euthyphro’s dilemma is solved.

If you think I’ve misinterpreted what Plato is asking, please correct me … perhaps I have misinterpreted it.

Right … so now you seem to be saying that there is no distinction between “being aware of evidence” and “being knowledgeable of evidence” even though above you seemed to have tried to give one. Or not? Perhaps I am misreading you.

So, if a person can be knowledgeable of evidence and yet not accept it … is this not the same as knowing the truth and yet not believing the truth?

True knowing is believing but whether it is knowledge, or evidence, unfortunately our individual opinions are colored by human frailties. I trust Rome to give the correct interpretation of our beliefs.

 

[R_Daneel]

You may be right. However, I don’t see how your very next sentence clarifies this distinction at all:

Nowhere in that sentence do you mention any form of the word “aware” … so you have not explained the meaningful distinction you are making between “being aware of evidence” and “being knowledgeable of evidence.”

There is no difference here. One may “know about”, or “aware of” some evidence, but does not realize or understand its significance or veracity, then one does not know the truth of the evidence. One believes that in that case that the evidence is insufficient, or inapplicable.

If you need a refresher, you stopped responding to my argument when I refuted your idea that God relinquished authority over our lives when he gave them to us because all gifts necessarily relinquish the authority of the giver with regard to the gift. I refuted this by saying that not all gifts are this way, as a parent who gives a car to his teenager to drive does not necessarily relinquish ownership of the car nor the right to take the car back if the parent so wishes. So, please answer my rebuttal and don’t conveniently dismiss it as a cop-out.

Sorry, I did forget to answer, and the refresher is most welcome.

In your example the “giving” of the car is not a gift, it is a loan, with some strings attached to it. The teenager is free to accept the car, and the stipulated restrictions, or reject it entirely. At the very least he must be made aware of the restrictions before he can make a choice in the matter. Obviously he does not get full control over the car (he cannot sell it, for example) and this lack of ownership is reflected by the legal papers, which clearly say that the owners are the parents, and the teenager merely can “use” it.

Now, you may say that it is a “limited gift”, but a gift, nonetheless. I reject this stipulation. A “limited gift” is like a “partial virginity” or “military logic”. The word “loan” describes the situation precisely, the word “gift” does not. Maybe you say that the parents retain the rights to the car, since they pay the property tax, or the insurance. Yes, in that example they do. However, if the parents really give the car as a gift, and the teenager is responsible for the upkeep, the taxes and the insurance, if the papers show that the teeneager is the rightful owner of the car, then the parents cannot have any more say-so in the matter - and that is a true gift.

Now, your analogy does not cover the actual problem very well. The teenager has a choice whether to accept the “offer” with its strings attached, or reject it. We are not given options. We get “created”, and have no say-so in the matter. Therefore this alleged “gift of life” is “forced” on us, whether we want it or not. To say that it is a “gift”, but God retains all the rights over it, simply adds insult to injury. Now we are “burdened” with something, that we did not ask for, which was thrown into our “lap”, so to speak, and we are resposnible for it, yet we do not have the right to do as we please with it. How on Earth can this be called a “gift”?

The dilemma in Euthyphro is not “what morality are gods bound to?” but rather “what do the gods love?” (or alternatively and more specifically phrased: “What do the gods consider to be human piety?”)

The original wording went somehow like this: “is something pious, because the gods request it, or do the gods request it, because it is pious?”. The modern version uses “moral” for “pious”, but the problem is still the same. In simple words: “is morality the result of God’s decision, or is God also bound by the absolute morality?”. If God is not bound by it, then morality is not absolute any more. An “asbolute” with exceptions is not “absolute”. And thus the dilemma is alive and well.

Right … so now you seem to be saying that there is no distinction between “being aware of evidence” and “being knowledgeable of evidence” even though above you seemed to have tried to give one. Or not? Perhaps I am misreading you.

Your summary is corrrect. This is precisely what I am saying.

So, if a person can be knowledgeable of evidence and yet not accept it … is this not the same as knowing the truth and yet not believing the truth?

No, it is not the same. See the top of this post for clarification. The concepts of “knowledge” and “belief” are mutually exclusive. One cannot “know” something and also “believe” in it.

 

[JohnDamian]

No, it is not the same. See the top of this post for clarification. The concepts of “knowledge” and “belief” are mutually exclusive. One cannot “know” something and also “believe” in it.

That is not true.

The truth is, knowlege and belief are not disposed essentially to one another. That is, for one - the other is not nessecary; but it does not follow from this that; because one is not required it is the inverse.

Belief and Knowlege are steryotypically manifest as emotion and intellection; whilst either can produce an end without the other; neither prohibits the other’s pursuit.

 

[CWBetts]

No, it is not the same. See the top of this post for clarification. The concepts of “knowledge” and “belief” are mutually exclusive. One cannot “know” something and also “believe” in it.

You are in error. There is a difference between knowledge and mere belief, bt knowledge presupposes belief. You have to believe something before you can know it, other wise how do you come to know it? Also, you can believe and know something at the same time. I believe all crows are black, because neither I nor anyone else has ever seen a non-black crow. I can also say that I know that crows are black because of this consistency. But I cannot state this as an absolute certainty because I have neither seen, nor has anyone else seen all crows that have ever existed, not have we seen any crows that have not yet come into existence. SO this tyoe of knowledge can also be classified as belief. This is basic epistemology.

 

[Areopagite]

There is no difference here. One may “know about”, or “aware of” some evidence, but does not realize or understand its significance or veracity, then one does not know the truth of the evidence. One believes that in that case that the evidence is insufficient, or inapplicable.

Okay … now, you previously said:

I think that self-deception is to believe something that is contradicted by evidence. The person performing the self-deception is aware of the evidence, but - for whatever reason - does not accept it as evidence.

Now, when he “does not accept it as evidence” does that mean he understands its significant or veracity or simply knows about some evidence without understanding its significance or veracity?

If he just “knows about” the evidence but doesn’t understand the evidence, then of course he would not know that the evidence contradicts his belief. His belief is completely in tact and there is no reason to consider that he deceiving himself, right? Hence, I do not see how this would be self-deception.

If he actually understands the evidence and thus knows the evidence contradicts his belief, and yet sticks to his belief anyway, then I can see how this constitutes self-deception. Hence, self-deception is believing something you know to be false.

I’m probably missing something, no?

Honestly, if self-deception isn’t making yourself believe what you know isn’t true … why call it deception? For you to admit the ability to deceive yourself (i.e. to lie to yourself), then you have to acknowledge the ability to believe something you know is false (because they are the same thing).

In your example the “giving” of the car is not a gift, it is a loan, with some strings attached to it.

So … how exactly does any of this stop it from being a gift?

First of all, why did you put “giving” in quotes? If a person lends me something, it can be said that he gives it to me … even if it’s just temporary or doesn’t become my exclusive property. Even if you are lent money, you still are given money. So, the teenager is definitely given the car.

Now, just because one does not become the absolute ruler of a certain thing given to him, does it mean the thing is necessarily not a gift to him? I think there are two things required to constitute a gift (maybe more?): 1) it has to be given (which this example fulfills), and 2) it is given not for the reason that the giver owes it to the recipient for some reason. I would say, then, that the example definitely fulfills the second condition. Hence, the parent giving the teenager a car that the parent nonetheless still owns is definitely a gift to the teenager.

Why must a gift have no strings attached to be a gift? As long as it’s a thing given without obligation, it’s a gift, but the giver can choose to withhold (or in a case where he still owns it, revoke) it if the recipient does or does not do a certain thing.

Another example along these lines is giving shelter to a homeless person. You can give them a room and bed in your house to sleep in even though they will never own any of it. You can even put the condition that if they try and steal anything, you’ll kick them out of your house. Nonetheless, with all of these things, it is still definitely and rightly considered a gift that you have given to that homeless person. You didn’t owe it to them, but you gave your room and bed to use anyway. Definitely, a gift to that homeless person.

The teenager is free to accept the car, and the stipulated restrictions, or reject it entirely. At the very least he must be made aware of the restrictions before he can make a choice in the matter.

Once again, this does not disqualify it from being a gift.

Obviously he does not get full control over the car (he cannot sell it, for example) and this lack of ownership is reflected by the legal papers, which clearly say that the owners are the parents, and the teenager merely can “use” it.

Yeah, and that use of it is a gift. You can still say the car is a gift. You can still say the room and bed for the homeless person is a gift. Even though they specifically can only use it and not own it entirely. They can only analogously “own” it, insofar as they are free to use it (and sometimes only under certain conditions). None of this alters the fact that these things are gifts to those people.

 

[Areopagite]

Now, you may say that it is a “limited gift”, but a gift, nonetheless. I reject this stipulation. A “limited gift” is like a “partial virginity” or “military logic”.

No idea what you’re talking about.

The word “loan” describes the situation precisely, the word “gift” does not.

Nope. It’s both. No doubt about it.

Maybe you say that the parents retain the rights to the car, since they pay the property tax, or the insurance. Yes, in that example they do. However, if the parents really give the car as a gift, and the teenager is responsible for the upkeep, the taxes and the insurance, if the papers show that the teeneager is the rightful owner of the car, then the parents cannot have any more say-so in the matter - and that is a true gift.

Actually, it’s probably more of a gift to the teenager if he didn’t have to do those things. One could argue. At the very least, it’s still a gift to him, whether he owns the car or not.

Now, your analogy does not cover the actual problem very well. The teenager has a choice whether to accept the “offer” with its strings attached, or reject it. We are not given options. We get “created”, and have no say-so in the matter. Therefore this alleged “gift of life” is “forced” on us, whether we want it or not.

The ability to accept or reject a gift is not necessary for the definition of a gift. Sometimes we can accept and reject gifts, and sometimes not. Not important for the requirements of a gift. Someone could help me without me even knowing, for example. Even knowing that I received some kind of gift is essential for something to be a gift. As long as it’s given and given without obligation. Parents could, for example, force their kid to go to a really good but expensive school (that the parents pay for). I would consider that a gift, even if the child is never thankful.

To say that it is a “gift”, but God retains all the rights over it, simply adds insult to injury. Now we are “burdened” with something, that we did not ask for, which was thrown into our “lap”, so to speak, and we are resposnible for it, yet we do not have the right to do as we please with it. How on Earth can this be called a “gift”?

Are you saying existence and life is a burden? What exactly are you saying? Are you saying non-existence is better than existence?

And obviously if someone gives you a gift … no matter what it is or how much you own it, it’s never permissible to do any and all things with it. Even if the teenager does own the car, he shouldn’t drive over people with it even if he wants to for some reason.

The original wording went somehow like this: “is something pious, because the gods request it, or do the gods request it, because it is pious?”. The modern version uses “moral” for “pious”, but the problem is still the same. In simple words: “is morality the result of God’s decision, or is God also bound by the absolute morality?”. If God is not bound by it, then morality is not absolute any more. An “asbolute” with exceptions is not “absolute”. And thus the dilemma is alive and well.

It depends what you mean by “absolute.” I’d ask you for a definition of this. I would say that a rock is not bound to any morality whatsoever, whether God exists or not. Hence, is it okay to say that there is no absolute morality?

And as explained before (at least to some extent), a person saying something like “No one can directly end the life of an innocent person” or something like that, and then say this also applies to God … is missing the larger truth (and you could say, the “absolute” foundation of that moral principle) … namely that God completely owns all human lives and hence has the right to do what He wants with them. The same cannot be said with humans, who do not own other human lives (and really not even their own either). So it can be said that there is an “absolute” (depending exactly what you mean) foundation of morality … and hence say that morality is absolute.

But you really need to explain what you mean by “absolute.”

 

[Black_Rose]

Are you saying existence and life is a burden? What exactly are you saying? Are you saying non-existence is better than existence?

Well, isn’t existence and life a burden? Since one’s existence can just be experiences of suffering and humiliation. Some political philosophies such as classical liberalism believe that it is one’s personal responsibility to provide for their own welfare not the domain of the state? In this context, wouldn’t existence be burden since one must provide for themselves with the fruit of their own labor. I do agree with R Daneel that life should not be regarded as a totally positive gift that can be enjoyed with total freedom detached of any responsibilities, restrictions, and negative aspects such as suffering. It is the main reason why I consider myself a lukewarm pro-lifer at best where other political issues eclipse the abortion issue. (But I am also saying this from the perspective of one who suffers from bipolar disorder and I most certainly do not see existence as an entirely positive experience.)

I do believe that the pro-life movement should sincerely try to mitigate the negative aspects of the human condition since I often wonder what would be the material state of the unborn after they are born. I often ask myself whether pro-lifers ask themselves whether they think that the lives the are trying to protect would be free from material privation and adversity and would have access to health care after they are born. In other words, pro-lifers should focus on the corporal works of mercy first.