A theological argument FOR abortion

[Betterave]

Which part of “special pleading” don’t you understand?

What part of what I said suggests to you that I don’t understand what “special pleading” means?

 

[R_Daneel]

Well … He maintains all things in existence, continues to cause plants to grow, and of course can contribute multiple interventional aids to people in their work.

Maybe some people think along these lines, but that does not make it happen. A more traditional approach would be to say that God set things in motion, created the laws of nature, and since then he leaves everything “alone”, apart from occassional, but rare miraculous “patching”. The “sustaining cause” argument is not very popular.

I’m sure we agree on many concepts. The only way to find them is just to keep on talking.

Oh, I am sure we can agree on what a “shoe” is, Or what “rain” might be. But I doubt that we can agree on subjects of philosophy, on love, justice, morality and zillions of other things like these.

Why is it misleading to call it a gift in that case? Honestly, if the kid didn’t have to pay the insurance, tax, or gas or anything like that, a lot of kids would think that a better deal.

I am sure they would, and in that case they would understand if the parents would take the car back from them - even if they did not like it. But if the parents would give them the full responsibility along with the title of the car, and then still would insist on taking it back, he would be justly upset, and even the courts would take his side.

In summary, it can be said that “the universal moral code” (that the Catholic Church often speaks of in one way or another) is universal among humans. It does not extend to God or animals or rocks, etc. When something is “universal” … it doesn’t necessarily mean that it applies to all existing things necessarily, but can simply apply to a designated group. That’s how “universal” is used in formal logic, at least.

Really, I am wondering why did you think it is pertinent to bring these up. The concept of morality is definitely not applicable ouside the group of sentient beings. Do you think that I am not aware of this? When I speak of “absolute” or “universal” morality, the applicable group is the group of sentient beings, who are able to conceptualize “good”, “bad”, “moral” etc. (Not rocks, avalanches, plants, animals and even small children. Should I point this out every time?) Since God is supposed to be a sentient being, then a possible “moral code” is applicable to God, if that moral code is to be “absolute”. If not, then you appeal for special considerations, in other words: “special pleading”.

To say that there is a “moral code” for one set of sentient beings and another one for a different set of sentient beings cannot be called “absolute” in any sense of the word.

The usual definition of “absolute moral code” comes from the assertion that some actions are always immoral, no matter who commits them or what the circumstances might be. The proponents of this idea bring up rape, genocide, etc.

Why is it repugnant? If God never relinquished ownership of His creation, then He still owns everything in it. It’s not repugnant. It’s logical. Sure, you can dislike it for one reason or another, but such hatred for it would not be rational.

On what ground do you assert that God never relinquished ownership? Indeed, there was no explicit transfer of the “title” in this case, but implicitly God relinquished ownership by refusing to participate in the ongoing or even occassional maintenance of our lives.

I suppose one reason why I would not like it is that I didn’t know the conditions in which I was suppose to use them, and I was still punished.

I agree. It is unfair and unjust to have a set of prerequisites, which are kept “secret”.

However, as I said, to relate this analogy back to the theology, you’re soul will not be damned if you honestly didn’t know a particular act was a sin. So, your kitchen utensil argument does not illustrate any particularly effective objection.

I very much doubt that this is an official teaching of the Catholic Church, even though I would find it rather comforting. There is an ongoing assertion that there is some nebulous “natural law”, which is “written on every man’s heart” (a poetic phrase which I find ridiculous). Now, suppose that a sociopath strongly believes that he can commit rapes and murders, because he sees nothing wrong with them. Would that be a mitigating circumstance?

If you mean the strong (i.e. those who own a given thing) can do whatever he wants to (i.e. with the thing that he owns … as long as he doesn’t damage things he does not own), and the weak one (i.e. those who don’t down that given thing) has no appeal (i.e. as long as the “strong” doesn’t infringe the rightful property of the “weak”).

If that’s what you mean, then I agree with this.

That is not what I meant. Again, I was under the impression that I don’t have to spell out in minute detail what I mean. The word “everything” is not to be taken literally, only in the context. To wit: I contend that the manufacturer of the car cannot take back the car, or cannot destroy it if he gave it to someone else.

Do you know the phrase “squatting rights”? Without the actual transfer of any official or unofficial title, the “squatters” gain ownership of the land they occupy, if the rightful owner does not bother to advise them about it. As such, at the very least we did gain ownership of our existence by “squatting”.

 

[JohnDamian]

Maybe some people think along these lines, but that does not make it happen. A more traditional approach would be to say that God set things in motion, created the laws of nature, and since then he leaves everything “alone”, apart from occassional, but rare miraculous “patching”. The “sustaining cause” argument is not very popular.

The sustaining cause argument is popular enough that I have not met any serious and practicing who activelly denies it.

I am sure they would, and in that case they would understand if the parents would take the car back from them - even if they did not like it. But if the parents would give them the full responsibility along with the title of the car, and then still would insist on taking it back, he would be justly upset, and even the courts would take his side.

A gift neither has to be permenant or legal.

Really, I am wondering why did you think it is pertinent to bring these up. The concept of morality is definitely not applicable ouside the group of sentient beings. Do you think that I am not aware of this? When I speak of “absolute” or “universal” morality, the applicable group is the group of sentient beings, who are able to conceptualize “good”, “bad”, “moral” etc. (Not rocks, avalanches, plants, animals and even small children. Should I point this out every time?) Since God is supposed to be a sentient being, then a possible “moral code” is applicable to God, if that moral code is to be “absolute”. If not, then you appeal for special considerations, in other words: “special pleading”.

The moral code is not to “sentient beings”, but to creatures with a rational soul; which for the intents of this is human beings. The fact that a “moral code” is absolute does not mean it has to reach out to things outside of the genra that it is applicable to; as God is in a different category to human beings, just as a rock is in a different category; we do not apply this universal moral code to God, or rocks etc. The use of the term universal is purely philosophical, not spacial or in any other way - it means that such a code is applicable to all objects within the genra it is applied to.

I very much doubt that this is an official teaching of the Catholic Church, even though I would find it rather comforting. There is an ongoing assertion that there is some nebulous “natural law”, which is “written on every man’s heart” (a poetic phrase which I find ridiculous). Now, suppose that a sociopath strongly believes that he can commit rapes and murders, because he sees nothing wrong with them. Would that be a mitigating circumstance?

If someone does not know what they are doing is a sin it is not a Mortal Sin. For a sin to be a Mortal Sin one needs; 1) Full Consent. 2) Full Knowlege 3) Grave Matter. Therein, if you do not know what you are doing is a sin you will not be damned to hell for it. This is in the Catechism. In your example a (real) Sociopath would a) Not know what he was doing was wrong, and b) probably not have full consent of his actions, even if his actions were “grave matters” such as murder, so a sociopath would not be damned.

That is not what I meant. Again, I was under the impression that I don’t have to spell out in minute detail what I mean. The word “everything” is not to be taken literally, only in the context. To wit: I contend that the manufacturer of the car cannot take back the car, or cannot destroy it if he gave it to someone else.

Do you know the phrase “squatting rights”? Without the actual transfer of any official or unofficial title, the “squatters” gain ownership of the land they occupy, if the rightful owner does not bother to advise them about it. As such, at the very least we did gain ownership of our existence by “squatting”.

You presume a somewhat stupid principle of Civil Law would apply to … God?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

R Daneel

*Since God is supposed to be a sentient being, then a possible “moral code” is applicable to God, if that moral code is to be “absolute”. *

Do you really believe that? Do you believe that if God exists, then every time someone dies (everyone must die sooner or later) God has committed murder, and therefore the moral code against murder cannot be absolute?

 

[R_Daneel]

The sustaining cause argument is popular enough that I have not met any serious and practicing who activelly denies it.

I have. Now what?

A gift neither has to be permenant or legal.

You are welcome to define (or redefine) anything you want to, as long as you don’t expect others to agree with you.

The moral code is not to “sentient beings”, but to creatures with a rational soul; which for the intents of this is human beings.

Since the “soul” is just another meaningless concept, your definition is lacking meaning. Besides, it is asserted that humans were created in the “image” of God, in the sense of being “rational”.

The fact that a “moral code” is absolute does not mean it has to reach out to things outside of the genra that it is applicable to; as God is in a different category to human beings, just as a rock is in a different category; we do not apply this universal moral code to God, or rocks etc.

The rock is not a rational being, God is supposed to be one. But if you wish to stipulate that God is irrational, then that is your prerogative.

If someone does not know what they are doing is a sin it is not a Mortal Sin. For a sin to be a Mortal Sin one needs; 1) Full Consent. 2) Full Knowlege 3) Grave Matter. Therein, if you do not know what you are doing is a sin you will not be damned to hell for it. This is in the Catechism. In your example a (real) Sociopath would a) Not know what he was doing was wrong, and b) probably not have full consent of his actions, even if his actions were “grave matters” such as murder, so a sociopath would not be damned.

As I said, this interpretation is pleasing. All of us atheists, who consider the teaching of the Catholic Church as being pure nonsense - and we all honestly believe that - are off the hook. Now, if only you could convince the Church about it, that would be wonderful.

You presume a somewhat stupid principle of Civil Law would apply to … God?

Why not? The principle of maintaining the ownership of a property is not “stupid”.

 

[R_Daneel]

Do you really believe that? Do you believe that if God exists, then every time someone dies (everyone must die sooner or later) God has committed murder, and therefore the moral code against murder cannot be absolute?

Actually, no, I do not believe that, though maybe you should. However, I do believe that committing or allowing senseless acts of rape, murder and genocides would be called morally unjustifyable whether a human or God would do or allow it to happen. The Roman goddess of justice (Justitia) is depicted with a scale, a sword and a blindfold, to emphasise that the perpetrator must be judged in a uniform manner, no matter who it is. An interesting tidbit: the Jews actually held a trial and convicted Jehovah for breaking his covenant with them when he allowed the Holocaust.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Actually, no, I do not believe that, though maybe you should.

Why should I? We believe that life is a gift, and so is death, for on the other side of death we have a better life waiting.

The Roman goddess of justice (Justitia) is depicted with a scale, a sword and a blindfold, to emphasise that the perpetrator must be judged in a uniform manner, no matter who it is.

We believe our God judges in a uniform manner. No one goes to heaven who doesn’t deserve to. No one goes to hell who hasn’t chosen to.

*An interesting tidbit: the Jews actually held a trial and convicted Jehovah for breaking his covenant with them when he allowed the Holocaust. *

In America the Supreme Court, which has Moses sitting atop its temple, and the Ten Commandments inscribed on its walls, had a trial and sentenced the innocent unborn to death. How’s that for breaking a covenant with God? … Thou shalt not kill.

 

[Sarpedon]

Of course I read everything you say. Obviously I have trouble understanding it.

You’re right, I shouldn’t assume that.

And this is where you lose me. I have absolutely no idea what this “intellect” is. To me intellect is a thought process, using observation, making inferences, etc… I don’t know what it means to you. If it is some disembodied “stuff”, then I am afraid, I will have to label it “mysticism” again. But I wait until you explain.

First you think. You do not know anything in the particular. You simply engage your intellect itself. With time, you look outside of yourself. You begin to make conclusions about things other than yourself, and you begin to characterize yourself and your abilities a certain way.

Look at it this way- in order to characterize our intellect as a brain, we must first use our intellect. The intellect must also be correct from the start. Agree?

You mean that my interpretation is different from the “official” Catholic one. You did not show it to be false - merely different.

You were making a claim about what Catholics assert- you asserted that Catholics look down on temporal endeavors. I gave you the official interpretation, which is to the contrary. The official interpretation is authoritative for Catholic life, so Catholics are not opposed to temporal endeavors. Your own interpretation to the contrary is not authoritative for Catholic life, so you cannot claim that Catholics are opposed to temporal endeavors.

I don’t think this is a good example. Your muscles were there, their ability to move them strenuously was there. To exercise more is not something that was physically missing. There is just one “existence”. Yes, some philosophers (Aristotele, for example) created some “potential existence” as a buzzword. Going back to your original proposition, STEM does not come into being and does not disappear from being.

STEM does not come into being, certainly, but order does. Furthermore, this is not restricted to STEM by any means- by practicing virtue, we can gain more being as those virtues become part of our dispositions. The basic point is that “potential being” refers to the ability of something to increase in possession of being- not some sort of isolated and arbitrary “potential apple.”

Then what is “agape”, by your interpretation? To me this is just another human concept, concocted by the ancient Greeks, and it stands for “divine love”, or maybe “unconditional love”, in modern parlance.

Agape is selfless, willed love. Whether or not we choose to engage in agape as free individuals, our telos (end) as human beings lies in agape because agape is the summit of being. I am summarizing a lot here, but I will give you primary sources and reasonings if you want them.

Then you remove yourself from the gene-pool. Animals never commit suicide. Plants don’t commit suicide. Only humans can do it, when they consider their life intolerable. Humans are the only beings (to our current knowledge) who can create irrational goals, who can engage in artifically concocted endeavors, who are able to live an unnatural life.

And? Is the human good predicated on your 100% strong desire in a species to propagate its genes?

Is the human good outside of us? You say no…

Is the human good within us individually? If so, then one person’s preferences are as good as another no matter what they are…

Is the human good predicated on some percentage of us? If 99% of humanity prefers to survive, and 1% of humanity prefers to die, how can you assign weight to those numbers? Can you give me a quantitative answer?

.

 

[Areopagite]

Maybe some people think along these lines, but that does not make it happen.

A good point.

A more traditional approach would be to say that God set things in motion, created the laws of nature, and since then he leaves everything “alone”, apart from occassional, but rare miraculous “patching”.

Aside from the rare miraculous patching, you have described Deism. Theism believes God has a more active and constant role in the existence of the universe. Certainly most Christians believe that. Islam believes that (correct me if I’m wrong). Hinduism believes that. And then a lot of other theists believe that. So … I think that constitutes the majority of the people in the world.

The “sustaining cause” argument is not very popular.

On the contrary, I think it’s the most popular view on this subject in the world currently.

But that’s not the point. Whether it was popular or not, that’s what the Catholic Church believes. You are free to reject it. But I challenge you to find a self-contradiction in it. Here, your only objection stated was “Well, most people don’t believe that.” In addition to this not being true, it’s still one of the weakest kinds of objections one can make.

Oh, I am sure we can agree on what a “shoe” is, Or what “rain” might be. But I doubt that we can agree on subjects of philosophy, on love, justice, morality and zillions of other things like these.

Maybe. I guess. Now … what’s your point, exactly? Are you saying that all discourse is futile? Are these flirtations with misology, skepticism, or deconstructionism? I don’t know how to respond to this.

I am sure they would, and in that case they would understand if the parents would take the car back from them - even if they did not like it. But if the parents would give them the full responsibility along with the title of the car, and then still would insist on taking it back, he would be justly upset, and even the courts would take his side.

Well, sure. But God never gave us complete ownership over anything. So … what you’re saying here doesn’t apply to claims made by the Catholic Church.

Really, I am wondering why did you think it is pertinent to bring these up. The concept of morality is definitely not applicable ouside the group of sentient beings. Do you think that I am not aware of this? When I speak of “absolute” or “universal” morality, the applicable group is the group of sentient beings, who are able to conceptualize “good”, “bad”, “moral” etc. (Not rocks, avalanches, plants, animals and even small children. Should I point this out every time?) Since God is supposed to be a sentient being, then a possible “moral code” is applicable to God, if that moral code is to be “absolute”. If not, then you appeal for special considerations, in other words: “special pleading”.

Ah, this is something new here (unless … you’ve said it before and I completely missed it … in which case I apologize).

Just to clear up a potential future confusion: “sentient” etymologically means “having senses” … in that way, animals are sentient. They aren’t rational however. The scholastics used this term appropriately, but somewhere down the line, some people started thinking “sentient” was the same as “rational.” I don’t know why. Anyway, thought I’d mention that just in case there was misunderstandings based on that.

Now, I would definitely not agree that just because someone might be rational (able to understand what’s “good” and “bad”, etc.), it doesn’t necessarily mean they are subject to all the same rules as everyone else.

As explained before, the rule “No one should destroy Fred’s car” expresses something pertaining to morality … and it can be applicable to some people and not to others. Joe might not have Fred’s permission to destroy it, hence the rule includes him. Fred, on the other hand, can destroy Fred’s car, and hence the rule does not include him. But also, Joe may gain the permission of Fred, and thus the rule would not include him in such a case.

So, it is definitely true that all statements of rules that relate to morality in any way whatsoever should not necessarily apply to all rational beings. However, there are nonetheless ultimate, unchanging principles that determine which rule can apply to which person in what circumstance.

However, for example, the moral rule that “one should not directly and intentionally terminate an innocent human life under any circumstance” is absolutely true for all humans who do not have divine permission to do so. God, and human agents that He grants license (and of course, I’m referring to OT events), do have the right to end innocent human life because God owns all life completely, unlike humans (though they can end it, of course, if they have divine permission). So, God is not bound by such a rule, since the more ultimate principles (particularly, regarding “ownership”) that this rule depends on, does not apply to Him. This is the same kind of thing with the example of Fred’s car.

So, while the principles of morality that determine moral rules/laws are absolute, this does not mean that all moral rules (i.e. all statements that pertain to morality in any way) are applicable to all rational beings. Hence, one rule that all humans are expected to obey does not mean that God should obey it too. That, quite simply, just doesn’t follow.

 

[Areopagite]

To say that there is a “moral code” for one set of sentient beings and another one for a different set of sentient beings cannot be called “absolute” in any sense of the word.

The “moral code” the Catholic Church speaks of is absolute among humans (unless God exempts them from it, as explained above). It is not meant to include all rational beings.

On what ground do you assert that God never relinquished ownership? Indeed, there was no explicit transfer of the “title” in this case, but implicitly God relinquished ownership by refusing to participate in the ongoing or even occassional maintenance of our lives.

Once again, He sustains all things in existence. Hence He participates in the ongoing maintenance of our lives. He also performs miraculous interventions too. Hence, this “implicit relinquishment of ownership” on God’s part never happened. If you disagree, then give an adequate proof this time. Don’t just say, “Some people disagree.”

I agree. It is unfair and unjust to have a set of prerequisites, which are kept “secret”.

You can figure out what is good and evil by natural reason. It’s no secret. However, if your genuinely and innocently ignorant of natural reason regarding something, then you won’t commit actual sin when committing that act … as I’ve said before.

I very much doubt that this is an official teaching of the Catholic Church, even though I would find it rather comforting.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 847:

This affirmation “There is no salvation outside the Church”] is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Also, I will say that atheists can still seek God with a sincere heart, even though they don’t believe in God. If an atheist is sincerely looking for the truth, then he is sincerely looking for God.

There is an ongoing assertion that there is some nebulous “natural law”, which is “written on every man’s heart” (a poetic phrase which I find ridiculous).

Do you hate poetry in general? That might be the problem.

Anyway, if you don’t believe in the natural law (atheist or not), then you don’t believe in objective good or evil. Now, there are some things you have said in previous posts that suggest you do believe in such a thing. Hence, it would not be consistent for you to deny the natural law. You don’t need to believe in God to believe that natural law exists.

Now, suppose that a sociopath strongly believes that he can commit rapes and murders, because he sees nothing wrong with them. Would that be a mitigating circumstance?

Yes. If he truly believes that these things are good (and his ignorance is not because of some past sins that he did commit knowingly), then he won’t be judged for that at all.

That is not what I meant. Again, I was under the impression that I don’t have to spell out in minute detail what I mean.

Well, in general, it’s safe not to think that. If I was under the impression that I didn’t have to spell out everything in minute detail to nearly everyone on this forum, then I would have gone crazy a long time ago.

The word “everything” is not to be taken literally, only in the context. To wit: I contend that the manufacturer of the car cannot take back the car, or cannot destroy it if he gave it to someone else.

Define “gave.” Lending someone the car can be “giving someone the car”, and yet he still has the right to take back or destroy the car. The word “give” is used that way all the time.

Do you know the phrase “squatting rights”? Without the actual transfer of any official or unofficial title, the “squatters” gain ownership of the land they occupy, if the rightful owner does not bother to advise them about it. As such, at the very least we did gain ownership of our existence by “squatting”.

Unless you can show me otherwise, squatters rights is something that only exists in some civil governments (i.e. it’s a part of civil law). And squatters only gain the property over a certain duration of time set by the government. So, who establishes those details with regard to God and our ontological squatting? Hmm. God, I guess? Yeah, so He can go ahead and regulate when squatters can gain full ownership over their existence (an existence that He is actively sustaining). But it just so happens that He decides to always own it. There is no injustice here that God commits.

 

[WatchingMedia]

Getting back to the original Title -
There is none.

“Thou shall not Kill”.:tsktsk:

 

[R_Daneel]

First you think. You do not know anything in the particular. You simply engage your intellect itself. With time, you look outside of yourself. You begin to make conclusions about things other than yourself, and you begin to characterize yourself and your abilities a certain way.

Look at it this way- in order to characterize our intellect as a brain, we must first use our intellect. The intellect must also be correct from the start. Agree?.

No, I don’t agree, since the picture you painted never happens. Now, it could happen with a completely artificial being, who is brought into existence tabula rasa. But humans are not like that. So, either I still misunderstand you, or the basic assumption - “first we think” - is incorrect. Also, I still don’t understand what you mean by “intellect” and “thinking”. Do you mean abstract contemplation?

You were making a claim about what Catholics assert- you asserted that Catholics look down on temporal endeavors. I gave you the official interpretation, which is to the contrary. The official interpretation is authoritative for Catholic life, so Catholics are not opposed to temporal endeavors. Your own interpretation to the contrary is not authoritative for Catholic life, so you cannot claim that Catholics are opposed to temporal endeavors.

Oops, if I happened to say “Catholics” then I stand corrected. But I think I said that the Bible is against temporal endeavors, not Catholics. And that two observations are not the same.

STEM does not come into being, certainly, but order does.

Again, you lost me. Order is the attributes of nature. You cannot separate an “electron” from its electric charge.

Agape is selfless, willed love. Whether or not we choose to engage in agape as free individuals, our telos (end) as human beings lies in agape because agape is the summit of being. I am summarizing a lot here, but I will give you primary sources and reasonings if you want them.

A few remarks are due here. I see absolutely no reason to include “willed” in the definition. And also “love” is much to vague. Does it mean actions on someone else’s behalf? What if the other party does not want it? Also you say that “agape is the summit of being”. Where did this come from? Without intending to go into all the details, the idea that we all “should” sacrifice ourselves for someone else is just as ludicrous as to say that we all “should” be completely selfish. There is a balancing act here, which must consider both parts.

And? Is the human good predicated on your 100% strong desire in a species to propagate its genes?

Not just humans, Every living being attempts to propagate itself. Yes, humans are able to override the instinct to procreate, but even those individuals full up their life with “good” actions.

Is the human good within us individually? If so, then one person’s preferences are as good as another no matter what they are…

As far as they are concerned, definitely. But humans are both individuals and herd animals. If someone will act against the interests of the herd, it will turn on the disturber. To make an in-depth analysis both sides must be taken into account. And that would be a long conversation by itself.

 

[R_Daneel]

Aside from the rare miraculous patching, you have described Deism. Theism believes God has a more active and constant role in the existence of the universe. Certainly most Christians believe that. Islam believes that (correct me if I’m wrong). Hinduism believes that. And then a lot of other theists believe that. So … I think that constitutes the majority of the people in the world.

I am doubtful that we see eye-to-eye here. Maybe “most” people think that God must keep everthing in existence. Maybe they think that the laws of nature are just manifesting God’s constant “effort” to keep the electrons and the protons to stay in a stable atom, and if God’s attention would “lapse” for a second, the whole universe would become an unordered chaos. Maybe this is what “most” people think… but I am skeptical.

Maybe. I guess. Now … what’s your point, exactly? Are you saying that all discourse is futile? Are these flirtations with misology, skepticism, or deconstructionism? I don’t know how to respond to this.

It does not really require and answer. But, yes, I think it is futile. Of course, I am guilty of keeping it up.

Well, sure. But God never gave us complete ownership over anything. So … what you’re saying here doesn’t apply to claims made by the Catholic Church.

And you are aware that the claims of the Catholic Church are not the measuring rod I employ.

So, while the principles of morality that determine moral rules/laws are absolute, this does not mean that all moral rules (i.e. all statements that pertain to morality in any way) are applicable to all rational beings. Hence, one rule that all humans are expected to obey does not mean that God should obey it too. That, quite simply, just doesn’t follow.

You just reiterated the basic euthyphro dilemma and your solution is a special pleading.

 

[Sarpedon]

No, I don’t agree, since the picture you painted never happens. Now, it could happen with a completely artificial being, who is brought into existence tabula rasa. But humans are not like that. So, either I still misunderstand you, or the basic assumption - “first we think” - is incorrect. Also, I still don’t understand what you mean by “intellect” and “thinking”. Do you mean abstract contemplation?

When you think, you think as a rational being. Then you direct your thought outwards at the world, as your own body, and at society. I’m not saying that we don’t look outwards, or that we always remain a blank slate. I’m saying that looking outwards is in fact an act that our intellect does, and therefore an operation of the intellect. As an operation of the intellect, looking outwards is an application of something we are already equipped with. As such, science is further down in the causal chain than our intellect itself. Does this make sense?

Oops, if I happened to say “Catholics” then I stand corrected. But I think I said that the Bible is against temporal endeavors, not Catholics. And that two observations are not the same.

You can only say that your private interpretation of the Bible is that way, which is completely antithetical to any Catholic philosophy.

Again, you lost me. Order is the attributes of nature. You cannot separate an “electron” from its electric charge.

You said that attributes can take us beyond particles of matter because the sum is greater than the parts. If the sum is greater than the parts, than that means that it can increase beyond the particles themselves. If it can increase beyond simple STEM, then there can be an increase in being, which necessitates potential being. This is not exactly how the Scholastic philosophers would explain it, but it’s on track to what they are getting at.

A few remarks are due here. I see absolutely no reason to include “willed” in the definition. And also “love” is much to vague. Does it mean actions on someone else’s behalf? What if the other party does not want it? Also you say that “agape is the summit of being”. Where did this come from? Without intending to go into all the details, the idea that we all “should” sacrifice ourselves for someone else is just as ludicrous as to say that we all “should” be completely selfish. There is a balancing act here, which must consider both parts.

Summarizing a lot, God is Being in the sense that He is the principal of existence itself, which is necessarily eternal and unchanging. However, we exist as contingent beings that can increase or decrease in being (i.e lose or gain actual being). The fact that contingent being exists, when Being itself is completely self-sufficient and perfect, indicates that we are created for our own benefit. This is a radical suggestion- perfect being created contingent being even though perfect being could not benefit from its creation.

As partakers in being, when we act, we act in mirror of Being itself. For example, when we create, we put more being into what we create. Now, since Being itself is reality, self-gift is woven into the fabric of reality. Therefore, when we act, we must act in terms of self-gift because that allows us to more closely approach Being itself, which can be the only final answer to our desires since it simply is reality. However, this doesn’t mean a neglect of the self- by practicing this self gift that is woven into reality, we can indeed make the world better, just as Being did by creation, but we can also make ourselves more perfectly full of being by conforming to reality.

I know you will object to everything I said here, but keep in mind that I summarized hundreds of pages of text. I will give you the original sources if you want.

As far as they are concerned, definitely. But humans are both individuals and herd animals. If someone will act against the interests of the herd, it will turn on the disturber. To make an in-depth analysis both sides must be taken into account. And that would be a long conversation by itself.

So, I suppose the path to success lies in influencing the desires of the herd? I hope you realize the implications of this…

 

[R_Daneel]

When you think, you think as a rational being. Then you direct your thought outwards at the world, as your own body, and at society. I’m not saying that we don’t look outwards, or that we always remain a blank slate. I’m saying that looking outwards is in fact an act that our intellect does, and therefore an operation of the intellect. As an operation of the intellect, looking outwards is an application of something we are already equipped with. As such, science is further down in the causal chain than our intellect itself. Does this make sense?

No, I am still in the dark. First, not all people are rational, and definitely not all the time. What is rational, by the way? What is the difference between a “thought” and an “act of intelllect”? Is the operation of the intellect different from a thought? Also, a thought - in and by itself - can be rational of irrational. The one who does the “thinking” might not know a-priori whether the thought is rational or not. How does he decide it?

You can only say that your private interpretation of the Bible is that way, which is completely antithetical to any Catholic philosophy.

Not so “private”. There are many who think like I do. And since this is not a “numbers game”, the number of the adherents of both points of view does not matter anyhow. We are left at a stalemate, I say that those simple words mean what they say, the Church says that they do not.

You said that attributes can take us beyond particles of matter because the sum is greater than the parts. If the sum is greater than the parts, than that means that it can increase beyond the particles themselves. If it can increase beyond simple STEM, then there can be an increase in being, which necessitates potential being. This is not exactly how the Scholastic philosophers would explain it, but it’s on track to what they are getting at.

That is not what I said (at least I hope I was careful to formulate it properly). The sum can be greater than its parts. But the word “greater” simply means that attributes of the complex entity cannot be reduced to the properties of its constituent parts. That does not imply an “increase in being”. STEM cannot be considered as the conglomerate of subatomic particles.

Summarizing a lot, God is Being in the sense that He is the principal of existence itself, which is necessarily eternal and unchanging. However, we exist as contingent beings that can increase or decrease in being (i.e lose or gain actual being). The fact that contingent being exists, when Being itself is completely self-sufficient and perfect, indicates that we are created for our own benefit. This is a radical suggestion- perfect being created contingent being even though perfect being could not benefit from its creation.

As partakers in being, when we act, we act in mirror of Being itself. For example, when we create, we put more being into what we create. Now, since Being itself is reality, self-gift is woven into the fabric of reality. Therefore, when we act, we must act in terms of self-gift because that allows us to more closely approach Being itself, which can be the only final answer to our desires since it simply is reality. However, this doesn’t mean a neglect of the self- by practicing this self gift that is woven into reality, we can indeed make the world better, just as Being did by creation, but we can also make ourselves more perfectly full of being by conforming to reality.

I know you will object to everything I said here, but keep in mind that I summarized hundreds of pages of text. I will give you the original sources if you want.

My objection is not directed to what you said, rather the whole method of explaining. I just want to point out that an argument directed to an atheist should never rest upon a hypothetical of God. (Just like when you wish to present an argument to a Protestant, the only proper way to do it is based on Sola Scriptura, nothing else.) Obviously, it is proper as an explanation of what your believe in. It tells me what you believe, why you believe it, but it cannot be taken as an argument. So, I hope you see that I do not accept that “agape” is somehow a “telos” over and beyond everything else.

So, I suppose the path to success lies in influencing the desires of the herd? I hope you realize the implications of this…

I did not imply anything here. I merely pointed out that humans are both individuals and social beings. Any ethical system must take both of these aspects into consideration.

 

[Sarpedon]

No, I am still in the dark. First, not all people are rational, and definitely not all the time. What is rational, by the way? What is the difference between a “thought” and an “act of intelllect”? Is the operation of the intellect different from a thought? Also, a thought - in and by itself - can be rational of irrational. The one who does the “thinking” might not know a-priori whether the thought is rational or not. How does he decide it?

The intellect is the thinking ability of our mind, nothing more. Rationality refers to this thinking ability, not a particular set of true answers or judgement. Human beings are rational creatures in that they have an intellect that thinks. It is necessary to think before you can apply that thought to something particular like science. Is it possible to do science without thinking first? Is it possible to think without doing science first?

We are left at a stalemate, I say that those simple words mean what they say, the Church says that they do not.

Hold on a minute- you happen to know exactly what scripture says, and the Church does not? At least the Church has an intellectual context rooted in history and philosophy in which to understand scripture, rather than relying a single translated sentence stripped of context.

That is not what I said (at least I hope I was careful to formulate it properly). The sum can be greater than its parts. But the word “greater” simply means that attributes of the complex entity cannot be reduced to the properties of its constituent parts. That does not imply an “increase in being”. STEM cannot be considered as the conglomerate of subatomic particles.

In other words, arrangement can give rise to something that is larger than its constituent elements. Take that arrangement away, and the added layer disappears. I don’t really understand what you are using to refute my position- it seems like a simple statement to me. If the attributes cannot be reduced to their constituent parts, why cannot these attributes come into being when the parts are arranged that way? Why can’t I bring a triangle into being by arranging three sides?

I just want to point out that an argument directed to an atheist should never rest upon a hypothetical of God.

Just as an argument directed toward a theist cannot be rooted in a hypothetical empiricism. The knife cuts both ways. You may attempt to justify empiricism, and I may attempt to justify a perfection of being, but you simply cannot claim to have the default position. I do not accept your telos because I do not accept your belief that only empiricism leads to truth. It is as simple as that, and if you try to justify empiricism, you will only help my case by relying on necessarily abstract philosophy.

I did not imply anything here. I merely pointed out that humans are both individuals and social beings. Any ethical system must take both of these aspects into consideration.

An ethical system must also take into account the natural consequences of its principals, even if those consequences remain unsaid. An ethical system rooted in individual preference, filtered through herd consensus, is going to have radically different implications than an ethical system rooted in an objective and eternal rule of justice.

 

[R_Daneel]

The intellect is the thinking ability of our mind, nothing more. Rationality refers to this thinking ability, not a particular set of true answers or judgement. Human beings are rational creatures in that they have an intellect that thinks.

Well, let me see if I understand. You say that “intellect is the thinking ability of our mind”. Then you say that “Rationality refers to this thinking ability”. So “intellect is rationality”? You seem to use them interchangably. Why use two different words to describe the same thing? What is our “mind” then? What is “thinking”?

It is necessary to think before you can apply that thought to something particular like science. Is it possible to do science without thinking first? Is it possible to think without doing science first?

Let’s be precise. Yes, I agree that “thinking” is primary - if you say that thinking is random or not-so-random electrical and chemical interactions of the brain cells. What you call “science” is an organized way of thinking about something.

Let’s imagine some random thoughts. They certainly refer to something. The question arises then, how do we ascertain that the reference is accurate or not? Mere thinking does not help, if these thoughts are directed toward anything “outside” the mind, does it?

Hold on a minute- you happen to know exactly what scripture says, and the Church does not? At least the Church has an intellectual context rooted in history and philosophy in which to understand scripture, rather than relying a single translated sentence stripped of context.

Oh, but the context supports my analysis. It is not just a simple sentence that I use as reference point. There are many of them. Are there any passages which encourage the discovery of the physical world, and of applying this knowledge to the betterment of us and our environment?

In other words, arrangement can give rise to something that is larger than its constituent elements. Take that arrangement away, and the added layer disappears. I don’t really understand what you are using to refute my position- it seems like a simple statement to me. If the attributes cannot be reduced to their constituent parts, why cannot these attributes come into being when the parts are arranged that way? Why can’t I bring a triangle into being by arranging three sides?

I truly cannot remember where this line of thought came from, and I am too lazy too look it up. But what you say here describes my position. Probably I was arguing that the much-too-frequent question: “how come that inanimate matter gives rise to consciousness, contemplation of beauty, etc…” - in other words: “reductionism” - is sheer nonsense.

Just as an argument directed toward a theist cannot be rooted in a hypothetical empiricism. The knife cuts both ways.

Oh, but it can. After all you use “empiricism” all the time! All your temporal endeavors are pure empiricism. You test your morning coffee emprirically to see if it is not too hot by bringing it close to your mouth before drinking it. You test the traffic empirically by looking both ways before crossing the road. You would never jump off from a high cliff and rely on God to allow you to gently drift downward - and you rationalize this reluctance by saying" “testing God is sin”. On one hand you use empiricism, on the other you deny its usefulness.

An ethical system must also take into account the natural consequences of its principals, even if those consequences remain unsaid. An ethical system rooted in individual preference, filtered through herd consensus, is going to have radically different implications than an ethical system rooted in an objective and eternal rule of justice.

You mean: “assumed” prinicipals. (By the way, I am not sure if you use “principal” and “principle” interchangably? In this sentence of yours it is ambiguous, and the two words have totally separate meanings.)

 

[Sarpedon]

Well, let me see if I understand. You say that “intellect is the thinking ability of our mind”. Then you say that “Rationality refers to this thinking ability”. So “intellect is rationality”? You seem to use them interchangably. Why use two different words to describe the same thing? What is our “mind” then? What is “thinking”?

Yes, they are the same. We must think before we can characterize our thought as coming from a brain.

Let’s be precise. Yes, I agree that “thinking” is primary - if you say that thinking is random or not-so-random electrical and chemical interactions of the brain cells. What you call “science” is an organized way of thinking about something.

You only know about electrical and chemical interactions because you already thought about the issue. It is necessary to be able to think before we can think towards a conclusion. Agree?

Oh, but the context supports my analysis. It is not just a simple sentence that I use as reference point. There are many of them. Are there any passages which encourage the discovery of the physical world, and of applying this knowledge to the betterment of us and our environment?

“And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.” (Gen 1: 31)

Creation is good! Creation is good because God made it, or in philosophical terms, because creation is real and it has being. At the very beginning of Genesis, the fundamental goodness of the world is declared. That’s not all, however-

"…and God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” (Gen 1:28)

Created in the image of God, it is man’s task to rule over creation and to profit from that dominion- not in an irresponsible way, but in a responsible rule designed to respect the inherent goodness in the world, and to better ourselves and that environment.

Of course you’ll disagree with this. That’s beside the point though- while you are free to create your own school of Biblical interpretation (there’s 30,000 so far, so it would not be particularly radical), this has no impact on Catholicism. You will never understand Catholicism, which is the historical Christianity, if you think the text of the Bible alone forms any basis for Christian life and philosophy.

I truly cannot remember where this line of thought came from, and I am too lazy too look it up. But what you say here describes my position. Probably I was arguing that the much-too-frequent question: “how come that inanimate matter gives rise to consciousness, contemplation of beauty, etc…” - in other words: “reductionism” - is sheer nonsense.

Then, is it possible for something to gain being? Use your own definitions if you want…

Oh, but it can. After all you use “empiricism” all the time! All your temporal endeavors are pure empiricism. You test your morning coffee emprirically to see if it is not too hot by bringing it close to your mouth before drinking it. You test the traffic empirically by looking both ways before crossing the road. You would never jump off from a high cliff and rely on God to allow you to gently drift downward - and you rationalize this reluctance by saying" “testing God is sin”. On one hand you use empiricism, on the other you deny its usefulness.

Using empiricism does not mean that empiricism is true. For example, you may feel cold coffee and then feel hot coffee- but it’s still on the same level in terms of knowledge- everything is predicated on your acceptance of the basic truth of your senses. Now, I would say it is possible to support empiricism philosophically- but you must use philosophy to do so. There simply is no other way. To assert the pragmatic value of empiricism is to do philosophy, which is not subject to empiricism. Can you perform an experiment validating your claim that pragmatism forms a valid truth justification? I think not.

You mean: “assumed” prinicipals. (By the way, I am not sure if you use “principal” and “principle” interchangably? In this sentence of yours it is ambiguous, and the two words have totally separate meanings.)

I mean principle. What am I assuming? If morality is rooted in preference, you have no basis to say that some preferences are “better” than others. If morality is anchored to some degree in group consensus, then that’s simply consensus- you haven’t qualified it by saying “some consensus agreements are bad.” I’m not assuming anything. I’m merely drawing your own system to its necessary conclusions.

If morality is preference, what allows you to judge preferences?

If morality is group consensus, what allows you to judge those agreements?

If morality is some mix of the two, what allows you to judge the “rightness” of that mix and its conclusions?

In reality, you have defined morality away- by making morality subject to preference, you have effectively defined morality as what people want to do- and that’s not morality. Morality is about ought, not is.

 

[R_Daneel]

Yes, they are the same. We must think before we can characterize our thought as coming from a brain.

Well, I don’t think that using “rationality” and “intellect” interchangably is a good idea - for obvious reasons. Besides you still did not tell me what is “thinking” and what is the “mind”?

You only know about electrical and chemical interactions because you already thought about the issue.

No, mere thinking does not lead there. The Greeks “intellect” arrived at the result that the brain is simply an organ to cool the blood. That is the kind of result we can expect from “mere” thinking.

It is necessary to be able to think before we can think towards a conclusion. Agree?

I would probably agree if I knew what you call “thinking” and “mind”.

Then, is it possible for something to gain being? Use your own definitions if you want…

I don’t even understand your question.

Using empiricism does not mean that empiricism is true. For example, you may feel cold coffee and then feel hot coffee- but it’s still on the same level in terms of knowledge- everything is predicated on your acceptance of the basic truth of your senses. Now, I would say it is possible to support empiricism philosophically- but you must use philosophy to do so. There simply is no other way. To assert the pragmatic value of empiricism is to do philosophy, which is not subject to empiricism. Can you perform an experiment validating your claim that pragmatism forms a valid truth justification? I think not.

One experiment? How about trillions of them every minute? You say that employing empiricism does not mean that empiricism is “true”. Why would you employ any method that does not lead to “true” results? I am saying that you and every theist uses empiricism all the time, because you know that it leads to good results. If you wish to make a philosophical underpinning, just use the simplest philosophy of all: “because it works!”.

In reality, you have defined morality away- by making morality subject to preference, you have effectively defined morality as what people want to do- and that’s not morality. Morality is about ought, not is.

Ethics is about “ought” - which is always conditional and not absolute. “Moral” is a label you attach to something you like. “Immoral” is a label you use, when you see something you don’t like. One man’s “terrorist” is another man’s “freedom fighter”. And the stronger group will impose its views on the weaker one. Not a pretty sight, but reality is not always pretty.

 

[Areopagite]

Just to let you know … I’ll be in Italy for two weeks (and then on the east coast for about another week). I don’t know if I’ll have ready internet access during that time.

And I apologize for not having time to respond either.

So, until then … Ciao!