J
John_Russell_Jr
Guest
To you and Neithan,
I’m just curious. Do either of you have any objections to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church?
- Status
I’m just curious. Do either of you have any objections to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church?
N
Neithan
Guest
Isn’t evolution based on natural selection? Survival of the fittest?
That’s a great description. I don’t see how this doesn’t line up with my brief summary, though. The ‘principle of reciprocity,’ or empathy, does seem to have as its goal, the fitness of the species (or tribe). So isn’t that pointing at humanity (homo sapiens) and our survival as the source of our morality? It’s imbedded in our evolved consciousness, like chimpanzees.
The main thrust of my skepticism toward atheistic morality is that it does just that, it tells us that morality is wholly innate and through it we have evolved to where we are today. I know that we have an innate moral compass, but I am confused as to why nature allows us to violate it so easily (why we still want to steal and kill even within our tribe), not just an aberrant group of individuals (sociopaths) but each and every one of us. We should have no need for this ‘morality’ discussion/definition at all, if nature were our solely adequate guide.
In essence, our sense appetite should be instinctively in harmony with our natural fitness, but it often leads us to suffering rather than happiness. Animals on the other hand, possess a compulsory sense appetite perfectly in harmony with their natural fitness. We humans must use our reason to firmly grasp our innate ‘moral compass’ and our will to reign in the sense appetite in order to follow it. This suggests to me that morality is a human intellectual idea, not a product of evolution. Its source is in our ‘superego’ not our ‘id,’ so to speak.
Differently expressed: empathy and selfishness are two natural instincts, the former is indicative of any cooperative species, but these do not make for a moral code. Morality is the result of a natural sense appetite observed and ruled by a uniquely human speculative intellect.
N
Neithan
Guest
John Russell Jr:
No, the morality expounded by the Church is flawless. There is none better. I agree with every letter of it wholeheartedly, right down to prohibition of contraception and masturbation (those seem to be two real sticklers for Catholics I know personally). It’s restrictive but strangely liberating at the same time. It upholds the dignity of humanity, gives the individual full self-mastery and promotes the ultimate affinity of all people. It’s a magnificent philosophy. Only thing is, it’s based on faith, which is intertwined as a vital component and enlivening force. Some of the ‘mythic’ qualities of Catholic theology are difficult for me to grasp and my faith suffers in the face of cold logic. I grew up Protestant, my family is Lutheran, so my rationalistic upbringing may be blamed for that.
J
John_Russell_Jr
Guest
Try reading this article. The essence of Catholic morality from Peter Kreeft. It has very good insights to questios you raise about atheistic morality, morality without God etc. Let me know what you think.
kofc.org/rc/en/publications/cis/publications/hart/Hart_CIS121.pdf#search=‘morality%20origin%20catholic’
kofc.org/rc/en/publications/cis/publications/hart/Hart_CIS121.pdf#search=‘morality%20origin%20catholic’
H
Hermione
Guest
I sent this post in a private message as well in case it gets lost in the long thread.
I didn’t look at everything this man wrote, but I looked at the section about free will because I’ve recently thought about this matter. I don’t think he came anywhere near addressing the question of free will. Consider this:
Suppose that there is nothing more than the material world. This means that our conscious awareness must arise from the material world and probably the brain. (After all, there is nothing else to turn to.) By definition, this material world conforms to the laws of physics which seem to be either deterministic or random. In a material world brains give rise to thoughts, yet every single part of those brains mindlessly obeys the laws of physics. An electrical impulse doesn’t decide to travel along an axon. Neurotransmitters don’t choose to enter the synapse. The next neuron in the sequence does not come to a decision to be stimulated by those neurotransmitters. All of this happens mindlessly, without choice. How then is it possible for us to choose our thoughts and our actions? To do this we would have to influence matter in such a way as to make it choose to behave in ways that would form these thoughts. This is fundamentally incompatible with the laws of physics that must describe a material world. It seems to suggest a non-material source for our free will and consciousness. And since this something gives us free will and consciousness, it must itself possess these qualities.
The author of the website turns to quantum randomness to make free will possible in a purely material universe. But quantum randomness does not solve the problem at all. Being random does not mean being able to choose. Being a combination of “law and chance” doesn’t either.
He mentioned evolution as an example of a system where law and chance work together to produce a coherent result. I think this example is irrelevant to the argument of free will. Ultimately, the process of evolution is not free. Everything happens in accordance with natural law (which may very well include randonmness on the quantum level). There is no conscious choice. It is still a mindless process.
I don’t think what he said about chaotic systems is relevant either. They are very interesting, but they do not have choice over what happens to them.
We are faced with two options:
In the first view human beings are essentially very advanced computers. We are completely a part of the world, with every particle that makes up our bodies being connected to every other part of the universe in either strong or feeble ways. We are not free at all in this view, we do not choose what we think, what we feel, what we say, or what we do. We are completely the products of the motions of particles that comprise us. In fact, “we” don’t even exist because free will and the notion of “self” are mere illusions. Quantum randomness does not make us free. It only means that our actions are not only outside of our control, but are also unpredictable.
The second view starts from the point that the self and free will are not illusions, but are a reality we experience every day. It starts from the point that we do choose the things we think, and that we are not at the mere whim of the random or deterministic motions of particles. Therefore, the world cannot be purely materialistic and must have a component that is of such quality as would make it possible for us to choose our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. And if this component gives us these abilities, it’s reasonable to assume that it has them as well.
I would strongly advise you to read this debate leaderu.com/offices/bill…_harvard00.html It presents excellent scientific as well as philosophical arguments for the existence of God.
I didn’t look at everything this man wrote, but I looked at the section about free will because I’ve recently thought about this matter. I don’t think he came anywhere near addressing the question of free will. Consider this:
Suppose that there is nothing more than the material world. This means that our conscious awareness must arise from the material world and probably the brain. (After all, there is nothing else to turn to.) By definition, this material world conforms to the laws of physics which seem to be either deterministic or random. In a material world brains give rise to thoughts, yet every single part of those brains mindlessly obeys the laws of physics. An electrical impulse doesn’t decide to travel along an axon. Neurotransmitters don’t choose to enter the synapse. The next neuron in the sequence does not come to a decision to be stimulated by those neurotransmitters. All of this happens mindlessly, without choice. How then is it possible for us to choose our thoughts and our actions? To do this we would have to influence matter in such a way as to make it choose to behave in ways that would form these thoughts. This is fundamentally incompatible with the laws of physics that must describe a material world. It seems to suggest a non-material source for our free will and consciousness. And since this something gives us free will and consciousness, it must itself possess these qualities.
The author of the website turns to quantum randomness to make free will possible in a purely material universe. But quantum randomness does not solve the problem at all. Being random does not mean being able to choose. Being a combination of “law and chance” doesn’t either.
He mentioned evolution as an example of a system where law and chance work together to produce a coherent result. I think this example is irrelevant to the argument of free will. Ultimately, the process of evolution is not free. Everything happens in accordance with natural law (which may very well include randonmness on the quantum level). There is no conscious choice. It is still a mindless process.
I don’t think what he said about chaotic systems is relevant either. They are very interesting, but they do not have choice over what happens to them.
We are faced with two options:
In the first view human beings are essentially very advanced computers. We are completely a part of the world, with every particle that makes up our bodies being connected to every other part of the universe in either strong or feeble ways. We are not free at all in this view, we do not choose what we think, what we feel, what we say, or what we do. We are completely the products of the motions of particles that comprise us. In fact, “we” don’t even exist because free will and the notion of “self” are mere illusions. Quantum randomness does not make us free. It only means that our actions are not only outside of our control, but are also unpredictable.
The second view starts from the point that the self and free will are not illusions, but are a reality we experience every day. It starts from the point that we do choose the things we think, and that we are not at the mere whim of the random or deterministic motions of particles. Therefore, the world cannot be purely materialistic and must have a component that is of such quality as would make it possible for us to choose our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. And if this component gives us these abilities, it’s reasonable to assume that it has them as well.
I would strongly advise you to read this debate leaderu.com/offices/bill…_harvard00.html It presents excellent scientific as well as philosophical arguments for the existence of God.
C
Contarini
Guest
Neithan,
I’ve only looked at the first three essays. I think the “problem of evil” is overwhelmingly the strongest reason not to believe in God. However, Marczyk’s presentation has some holes. For instance, he assumes that the only real option for theists is to deny “Premise 5” (that a good God would not choose to allow evil). It isn’t that simple. In my view, Premise 4 (an all-powerful being would be able to eliminate evil) is just as questionable. In other words, does God’s “omnipotence” mean that God could create a world without evil? I’m not sure that we can answer that question with a definitive yes.
This is a form of the “free will defense,” which (once again) Marczyk dismisses too cavalierly. He says, for instance, that God could have made it possible for creatures to exercise free will in rejecting Him without harming other people. But maybe that isn’t possible–at least not unless God isolated all sentient creatures from each other. A creature who defies God is necessarily going to act in a way that brings harm to other creatures. The problem, as I said above, is that Marczyk assumes that omnipotence means that God can do anything we can imagine as possible. But maybe some of the things we imagine as possible (like a created world ensured against the possibility of evil) seem possible only because of our own ignorance. (For instance, we can imagine faster-than-light space travel, and science fiction is full of this. But scientists tell us that this is impossible. Maybe they’re wrong, but then again maybe they’re right. A world of creatures who will inevitably not choose evil may be the same kind of impossibility. Perhaps the act of creating beings who are different from God inevitably means that they are free to choose evil.)
I don’t know if this is compatible with Catholicism. I think it is but I’m not sure. (I don’t think it is compatible with Thomism.) But it is compatible with some forms of theism.
The article I really have problems with, though, is the second one. The entire article is more or less irrelevant as far as I’m concerned, because it only applies to a radical body-soul dualism which is found in some of the Fathers (such as Augustine) but not in other great Catholic theologians (such as Aquinas) and is thoroughly rejected by many Christians today. The phrase “the ghost in the machine” describes the philosophy of the unorthodox Catholic Descartes. It doesn’t describe orthodox Christianity. The doctrine of the resurrection of the body makes it clear that the soul is not simply a detachable thing that lives in the body as a person lives in a house. Aquinas adopted the Aristotelian view that the soul is the form of the body, although he believed that the soul could exist separately from the body. Catholics are required to believe this (the immortality of the soul separated from the body, although this is a temporary condition pending the resurrection). But many Protestants today reject it as a bit of Greek philosophy that has corrupted Christianity. And even the majority of Christians who do believe in the immortality of the soul don’t see this as the soul’s natural condition. Nor do classical, orthodox Christians believe that the soul preexisted the body. It’s quite possible for Christians to believe that the soul is, in its origin, a function of the brain–although orthodox Catholics are required to believe that the soul, once it has emerged, can go on existing when the body dies. I don’t see that Marczyk has disproved this.
I’ve only looked at the first three essays. I think the “problem of evil” is overwhelmingly the strongest reason not to believe in God. However, Marczyk’s presentation has some holes. For instance, he assumes that the only real option for theists is to deny “Premise 5” (that a good God would not choose to allow evil). It isn’t that simple. In my view, Premise 4 (an all-powerful being would be able to eliminate evil) is just as questionable. In other words, does God’s “omnipotence” mean that God could create a world without evil? I’m not sure that we can answer that question with a definitive yes.
This is a form of the “free will defense,” which (once again) Marczyk dismisses too cavalierly. He says, for instance, that God could have made it possible for creatures to exercise free will in rejecting Him without harming other people. But maybe that isn’t possible–at least not unless God isolated all sentient creatures from each other. A creature who defies God is necessarily going to act in a way that brings harm to other creatures. The problem, as I said above, is that Marczyk assumes that omnipotence means that God can do anything we can imagine as possible. But maybe some of the things we imagine as possible (like a created world ensured against the possibility of evil) seem possible only because of our own ignorance. (For instance, we can imagine faster-than-light space travel, and science fiction is full of this. But scientists tell us that this is impossible. Maybe they’re wrong, but then again maybe they’re right. A world of creatures who will inevitably not choose evil may be the same kind of impossibility. Perhaps the act of creating beings who are different from God inevitably means that they are free to choose evil.)
I don’t know if this is compatible with Catholicism. I think it is but I’m not sure. (I don’t think it is compatible with Thomism.) But it is compatible with some forms of theism.
The article I really have problems with, though, is the second one. The entire article is more or less irrelevant as far as I’m concerned, because it only applies to a radical body-soul dualism which is found in some of the Fathers (such as Augustine) but not in other great Catholic theologians (such as Aquinas) and is thoroughly rejected by many Christians today. The phrase “the ghost in the machine” describes the philosophy of the unorthodox Catholic Descartes. It doesn’t describe orthodox Christianity. The doctrine of the resurrection of the body makes it clear that the soul is not simply a detachable thing that lives in the body as a person lives in a house. Aquinas adopted the Aristotelian view that the soul is the form of the body, although he believed that the soul could exist separately from the body. Catholics are required to believe this (the immortality of the soul separated from the body, although this is a temporary condition pending the resurrection). But many Protestants today reject it as a bit of Greek philosophy that has corrupted Christianity. And even the majority of Christians who do believe in the immortality of the soul don’t see this as the soul’s natural condition. Nor do classical, orthodox Christians believe that the soul preexisted the body. It’s quite possible for Christians to believe that the soul is, in its origin, a function of the brain–although orthodox Catholics are required to believe that the soul, once it has emerged, can go on existing when the body dies. I don’t see that Marczyk has disproved this.
E
eptatorata
Guest
Natural selection, yes. Survival of the fittest, no. It’s a common and deep misunderstanding about the evolutionary principles. The selection is for reproductive success, not the survival chances of an individual organism. You often find adaptions that are detrimental for the individual’s survival chances, but increase their chances of reproduction and are therefore predominantly selected for. Our morality is not a survival mechanism, it simply fosters an environment in which members of a tribe, say, enjoy a reproductive advantage compared to single individuals.
We can easily violate our morals because while the sense of morality is innate, it has two strikes against it. First, there is room for a proportion of freeloaders. Second, even a cooperating group competes for resources with other groups.
I don’t know what you mean with sense appetite. By the way, unless I have my definitions mixed up, the principle of reciprocity is commonly known as the Golden Rule and empathy is something else entirely.
A
AuntMartha
Guest
Thanks all, for the explanations. amantoan, I especially enjoyed yours.
Here is another explanation i liked:
str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/evil/sixtysec.htm
Aunt Martha
Here is another explanation i liked:
str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/evil/sixtysec.htm
Aunt Martha
N
Neithan
Guest
John Russell Jr:
Contarini:
God must follows the rules of His own possibility.
Personally, I think the problem of natural evil is far more damaging to the belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God. If He truly loves us perfectly, more than any other creatures… why do Earthquakes and Tsunamis kill us by the hundreds of thousands? Why do diseases and horrible parasites plague innocents? It really makes me feel like we live in an indifferent Universe.
R.I.P. Pope John Paul the Great
Well-stated and inspiring! It is preaching to the converted, though. I suppose I should re-evaluate the value of faith in itself. It does have some powerful psychological effects, and maybe that really is needed for the morals. It’s funny, I grew up with the ‘faith alone’ doctrine, and I’ve personally almost gone to the other extreme of ‘works alone.’ A healthy middle is probably best.
I think some atheists have the idea that we believe God can do things which are logically impossible. That can’t be true, though.
God must follows the rules of His own possibility.
Your rebuttal is right on the mark. Marczyk misunderstand the demands of free will. God doesn’t just want us to freely love Him, but also others. This is clear from our existence. Loving God and neighbour are the two commandments, not just loving God. We must have free will with regard to our neighbour as well, and this is only possible if we can freely communicate and interact with one another.
Personally, I think the problem of natural evil is far more damaging to the belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God. If He truly loves us perfectly, more than any other creatures… why do Earthquakes and Tsunamis kill us by the hundreds of thousands? Why do diseases and horrible parasites plague innocents? It really makes me feel like we live in an indifferent Universe.
This article was more problematic for me than the first, even though I realize that Marczyk has over-simplified the Christian view, and seems to think that Descartes’ ideas are still prevalent. Dualism is, in my opinion, untenable when one evaluates the scientific evidence of the brain. But where does that leave us? I think this does raise particular problems for Catholic theology about the soul. What is the soul? Is it our consciousness and free will? How can we reconcile the fact that our consciousness can be split into two wholly separate minds, or frozen in time (callosal disconnection and severe amnesia)? What about the fact that all religious experience can be linked to a specific part of the brain, and when this is damaged it is literally impossible to have faith? Extremely difficult questions are raised by this hardened atheist.
I think there are definite issues with Catholic dualism here. If the soul is supposed to consciously persist without the body… how do we reconcile this idea with the evidence? I’m going to be discussing this with my pastor. I *want *to believe, but it’s difficult, and sometimes I wonder if it’s not all just a desperate hope.
R.I.P. Pope John Paul the Great
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
eptatorata
*Atheists say that the sense of morality is an innate trait and explain it by, say, evolutionary psychology. Theists say that morality is god-given. Fine. So evolutionary psychology is god’s implementation method and everybody can leave it at that.
This is not what happens, though. In public forums, at least, theists almost invariably proclaim a premade judgement when raising this topic and it makes them feel that “they” are better than “them”. I’m not afraid to call this invincible ignorance …*
Whew!
Where to begin!
What on earth do you mean by “premade judgments”? Do you mean invoking the Ten Commandments, for example? If so, do you mean to say every generation has to reinvent the moral wheel for itself and should not benefit from, or refer to, the accumulated wisdom of the ages? Imagine where science and the arts would be today if every generation had to start anew without “premade judgments.” Imagine how easily corruptible any child’s moral sense would be if he were not subject to his parents’ “premade judgments.” IIn the political sphere alone, imagine how much anarchy there would be in the streets if there were no laws and “premade judgments.”
And if one takes pleasure in such premade judgments, and rejoices that he has not been deprived of a great and glorious heritage of the human race, why should one be accused of “invincible ignorance”?
*Atheists say that the sense of morality is an innate trait and explain it by, say, evolutionary psychology. Theists say that morality is god-given. Fine. So evolutionary psychology is god’s implementation method and everybody can leave it at that.
This is not what happens, though. In public forums, at least, theists almost invariably proclaim a premade judgement when raising this topic and it makes them feel that “they” are better than “them”. I’m not afraid to call this invincible ignorance …*
Whew!
Where to begin!
What on earth do you mean by “premade judgments”? Do you mean invoking the Ten Commandments, for example? If so, do you mean to say every generation has to reinvent the moral wheel for itself and should not benefit from, or refer to, the accumulated wisdom of the ages? Imagine where science and the arts would be today if every generation had to start anew without “premade judgments.” Imagine how easily corruptible any child’s moral sense would be if he were not subject to his parents’ “premade judgments.” IIn the political sphere alone, imagine how much anarchy there would be in the streets if there were no laws and “premade judgments.”
And if one takes pleasure in such premade judgments, and rejoices that he has not been deprived of a great and glorious heritage of the human race, why should one be accused of “invincible ignorance”?
E
eptatorata
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
You will have to excuse me for not engaging you any further.
J
John_Russell_Jr
Guest
Hi Neithan,
I’m glad you’re converted. Sorry if you feel like you’re being preached to. Yes, I would try to find the right balance between faith and morals. But us humans are not so intelligent as we often like to think we are. So don’t be surprised if in the end you don’t have all the answers either way. I will continue to pray for you.
Neithan:
I’m glad you’re converted. Sorry if you feel like you’re being preached to. Yes, I would try to find the right balance between faith and morals. But us humans are not so intelligent as we often like to think we are. So don’t be surprised if in the end you don’t have all the answers either way. I will continue to pray for you.
N
nike248
Guest
Hey, Neithan. First of all, you could argue for the rest of your life whether or not God exists. I once tried to listen to a debate between a Muslim and a Christian apologist to make me “feel” good but I was actually more in limbo. The fact of the matter is, the only Truth comes from God. Not reasoning, philosophy, anything. After a while, you’re just going to have to say “God, even though I can’t see You, I know You’re there” This is what true faith is. Jesus even said that if we only had faith the size of a mustard seed, we could move mountains. Your faith is going to be tested greatly all your life. You’re going to have to completely surrended to God in order to survive. In short, even though I know God exists, I could come up with an excellent arguement saying He doesn’t exist. Our reasoning is not God’s reasoning.
P.S. If that doesn’t help, read Padre Pio: The True Story. Thousands of people will attest to these miracles. It’s absolutely incredible.
P.S. If that doesn’t help, read Padre Pio: The True Story. Thousands of people will attest to these miracles. It’s absolutely incredible.
N
Neithan
Guest
John Russell Jr:
nike248:
The key is to remember that faith and reason must remain in the balance. We mustn’t allow our faith to impede the function of our reason. It’s foolish to treat faith as if its object is perfectly attainable knowledge, that is gnosticism. Faith is humble. Orthodoxy is belief without knowing, hoping amidst mystery, but the lack of definite knowledge is no reason to abandon faith. Orthodoxy is faith tested by reason, not obliterated by it. In Christianity, we have to use our faith to empower our philosophy, not hinder it. That is the problem with Protestantism, ‘faith alone’ destroys the point of faith. Faith alone is ignorant, but reason alone is bleak.
The invention of the modern scientific method was a marvellous achievement for humanity, and has allowed our observation to probe nature like never before; assimilating information in our reasoning we have discovered the inner workings of Natural Law, into the atom and out into the cosmos. Unfortunately, our confidence in science has upset the balance of faith and reason, and we’re now attacking the former with the latter. That, I would argue, is social devolution. Faith channels our human energies to a greater purpose, gives life an ultimate meaning and makes it beautiful. I honestly believe that religion, properly practiced, can only be a boon to us.
The problem which faces the world, which eptatorata so succinctly stated above, is to get all humanity into ‘one tribe.’ Atheists see religion as an impediment to this, but I would say (and I hope Theists would agree) that it can be a valuable tool to its achievement… indeed… the *only *tool to its effective achievement! First we have to rediscover, on a global scale, the value and purpose of faith, and with our reasoning excise its proper object. Only then can the Universal Religion emerge. I know this is *heavily *biased, but I think this is the destiny of the three monotheistic faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I’m not advocating a mere amalgamation, such as Ba’hai, but a genuine quest for the truth. The Truth is Out There, to use the old ‘X Files’ adage. I could be accused of heresy on this point though…
For now, personally, Catholicism is the perfect balance of faith with reason, worship with morality, theology with philosophy. The Triune God and the Communion of Saints encompass the full panorama of all spiritual hope, and the doctrine of the Church is the road-map to human happiness.
I like preaching, especially if its about something I already believe in… or at least, want to believe in. That’s the point really, we believe what we want to, in the end. I do appreciate your concern
You know I realized something. The Atheist just doesn’t appreciate the value of faith, or religion. They say that it is holding us back, keeping us from ‘moving into the light,’ from socially evolving. I would argue that it is mankind’s unique faith in God, in a Higher Being, which has powered our social evolution. Religion is unique to human beings, why should we abandon it?
The key is to remember that faith and reason must remain in the balance. We mustn’t allow our faith to impede the function of our reason. It’s foolish to treat faith as if its object is perfectly attainable knowledge, that is gnosticism. Faith is humble. Orthodoxy is belief without knowing, hoping amidst mystery, but the lack of definite knowledge is no reason to abandon faith. Orthodoxy is faith tested by reason, not obliterated by it. In Christianity, we have to use our faith to empower our philosophy, not hinder it. That is the problem with Protestantism, ‘faith alone’ destroys the point of faith. Faith alone is ignorant, but reason alone is bleak.
The invention of the modern scientific method was a marvellous achievement for humanity, and has allowed our observation to probe nature like never before; assimilating information in our reasoning we have discovered the inner workings of Natural Law, into the atom and out into the cosmos. Unfortunately, our confidence in science has upset the balance of faith and reason, and we’re now attacking the former with the latter. That, I would argue, is social devolution. Faith channels our human energies to a greater purpose, gives life an ultimate meaning and makes it beautiful. I honestly believe that religion, properly practiced, can only be a boon to us.
The problem which faces the world, which eptatorata so succinctly stated above, is to get all humanity into ‘one tribe.’ Atheists see religion as an impediment to this, but I would say (and I hope Theists would agree) that it can be a valuable tool to its achievement… indeed… the *only *tool to its effective achievement! First we have to rediscover, on a global scale, the value and purpose of faith, and with our reasoning excise its proper object. Only then can the Universal Religion emerge. I know this is *heavily *biased, but I think this is the destiny of the three monotheistic faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I’m not advocating a mere amalgamation, such as Ba’hai, but a genuine quest for the truth. The Truth is Out There, to use the old ‘X Files’ adage. I could be accused of heresy on this point though…
For now, personally, Catholicism is the perfect balance of faith with reason, worship with morality, theology with philosophy. The Triune God and the Communion of Saints encompass the full panorama of all spiritual hope, and the doctrine of the Church is the road-map to human happiness.
O
oriel36
Guest
As a Catholic who has fought tooth and nail in drawing attension to the exotic nonsense which comes under the umbrella of the ‘scientific method’ and most specifically the Newtonian foundation built on an amazingly basic error (Earth’s rotational value), the cruelest indignity you demonstrate adequately in capitalising empirical conceptions of ‘natural law’ which conveniently superimposed Newton’s mechanical laws on Keplerian motion of the planets and grafting in religion as a poor relation.
Perhaps other Catholics may be fooled but the emptiness of the scientific method was always going to end in the same insincerity with which it began,at least in those matters which require intuition such as astronomy and geology.Basically those who adhere to the ‘scientific method’ and wish to become Christian require a certain amount of reverse indoctrination but Catholics are required to openly acknowledge the weaknesses scientists suffer rather than allow the empirical guys the ground where they admit religion as a complimetary addition to ‘natural law’ rather than what was once noble,that investigation of natural phenomena cannot even begin without Christian faith and intuition.
Science or rather, the scientific method applied to the structure and motion of celestial objects, did not upset the balance between reason and faith (as that amounts to empirical propaganda) but without a careful review of what exactly went wrong at a very specific era in Western history I am afraid a very evil outlook will continue to fester in the background.
M
Mijoy2
Guest
How so? How is morality based on not harming others? Whose definition is this? How is it self-evident?
Two amoebas bumped heads and billions of years later morals came to be? Self-evident morals? I do not understand.
C
Contarini
Guest
Well, the two minds aren’t wholly separate, because they are in one body. If you have a Platonist or Cartesian view of the soul, then sure, the body is irrelevant for the soul and you would effectively have two souls. But I agree that this is hard to maintain in the face of modern science. The Aristotelian view, however, adapted for Christian purposes by Aquinas, sees the soul as the form of the body. So you can never speak of a human soul without implying a body.
It is a science fiction possibility that a consciousness could be copied into a separate body. And at that point, yes you would presumably have a separate soul.
As far as I could see, he didn’t prove this–he just suggested it. But if true, then I don’t think this disproves the reality of God. In the theistic view, our bodies are constructed in such a way as to allow us to experience God. It makes sense that if the body is damaged, it no longer functions as intended.
The problem with Marczyk’s criticism is that he assumes that the disembodied soul is the ideal, perfect state for Christians. But it isn’t. The ideal state is the resurrected body.
His charge that any form of dualism is not parsimonious is a legitimate one, but not compelling (at least to me). He’s assuming that the fact that our brains experience something indicates that the experience is only in our brains. But we don’t apply this to our other senses. Damage the eye and we can’t see–damage all the physical senses and we could theoretically be prevented from experiencing physical reality altogether. But that doesn’t mean that the “outside world” exists only in our minds. What if the brain is a sense organ that can experience God, just as our eyes and ears and fingertips experience the physical world? I think the only reason to see this as an unnecessary, convoluted hypothesis is that most of us are steeped in dualism and assume from the start that the soul must have nothing to do with the brain.
I agree that this is a serious issue. As a non-Catholic, I’m open to the speculation that the immortality of the separate soul may be false, and that the soul may die with the body and be raised with it. However, the vast weight of Christian tradition is against this, and for you as a Catholic isn’t not a possibility. I think a more orthodox and not unreasonable view is that of Aquinas, who thought that the soul could survive the body as an individual because the body had given the soul certain patterns which persisted after the death of the body. In other words, the post-mortem soul is a kind of memory of the body–to use pseudo-scientific, parapsychological terms, it’s a sort of energy pattern generated by the brain which persists after the death of the brain. Insofar as the soul was close to God, it makes sense that these patterns would be wtronger and the state of the soul would more closely approach an actual person. But a disembodied soul is not a whole person–for one thing, it couldn’t make moral choices (hence the consensus of Christian tradition that conversion after death is impossible). I don’t see what is impossible about this picture, and given the almost universal human belief in some kind of ghost that survives death (even if, in ancient Mesopotamian and Hebrew belief, and some Greek accounts as well, this ghost only barely exists and is in a very unsatisfactory state), I think it’s quite a reasonable one.
C
Contarini
Guest
I lost the second half of my earlier post, in which I addressed Marczyk’s arguments about morality. Briefly, I don’t find his utilitarianism convincing, because he assumes that happiness is univocal–that all or most human beings desire the same kind of happiness, giving us a universal standard on which to base morality. I don’t buy it–I think Aristotle’s virtue ethics are much more satisfactory, because they allow for the fact that we have to be taught how to be happy. For instance, think of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (if you haven’t read it, you should, since it describes where we’re headed quite well in many ways). In this world, people are genetically engineered and conditioned from birth to fill a certain niche in society. Thus, some people are happy doing menial drudgery, while others are naturally suited for more challenging, leadership roles. No one desires religion or art or romantic love, because the social planners have decided that these things are more trouble than they are worth. Sexual pleasure is readily available, and if all else fails there’s a drug that gives instant happiness.
Why would such a society be wrong on Marczyk’s principles? It would probably make far more people happy than our own.
Furthermore, consider the possibility that we could devise a state of affairs–through virtual reality or benevolent robots or some combination thereof–in which destructive fantasies (rape, sadism, etc.) could be acted out without actually harming anyone. Would such desires cease to be wrong?
I for one believe strongly and intuitively that both these scenarios would be perverted and wrong–sickeningly so in the second case. I suspect that Marczyk would agree, but I don’t see on his account how he could defend this. I don’t think we can possibly construct a coherent or workable morality without some account of human ends–what sort of critters are we supposed to be? And that implies some kind of final cause–in other words, a God of some sort, even if only an Aristotelian God who does not directly act in the world.
In Christ,
Edwin
Why would such a society be wrong on Marczyk’s principles? It would probably make far more people happy than our own.
Furthermore, consider the possibility that we could devise a state of affairs–through virtual reality or benevolent robots or some combination thereof–in which destructive fantasies (rape, sadism, etc.) could be acted out without actually harming anyone. Would such desires cease to be wrong?
I for one believe strongly and intuitively that both these scenarios would be perverted and wrong–sickeningly so in the second case. I suspect that Marczyk would agree, but I don’t see on his account how he could defend this. I don’t think we can possibly construct a coherent or workable morality without some account of human ends–what sort of critters are we supposed to be? And that implies some kind of final cause–in other words, a God of some sort, even if only an Aristotelian God who does not directly act in the world.
In Christ,
Edwin
N
Neithan
Guest
It does make sense that God would ‘hard-wire’ us to believe in Him, if He exists. But if our brains are damaged, and as a result we lose our faith… does that damn us to hell? Another interesting question Marczyk raises is if our personalities are so changed from brain damage, or our consciousness split… how does the soul reflect this? Who is it that God judges? The person before the brain damage or after? If before, does that justify terrible unrepentant sinning in a brain damaged person? There are interesting questions about resurrection, such as if a person is born severely brain damaged and with severe physical deformities… who will be resurrected? If the soul is the form of the body, does that mean a person born brain-damaged has a soul which reflects this?
Yeah, it seems really difficult to defend the dogma of the Particular Judgement when modern neurology proves that our soul, or consciousness, must be inextricably linked to our physical brains. The only way I could try and understand it would be if death were a dream-like state within the mind of God, but isn’t this akin to the “soul slumber” heresy that the Copts and Nestorians were condemned for? I wonder sometimes whether rigid dogmatism in the Church has its drawbacks… and whether the promulgators wouldn’t have had different ideas given modern scientific evidence.
Your assessment of Marczyk’s moral philosophy is thorough and convictive. Without a common faith I don’t think morality can be truly absolute or effective.
C
Contarini
Guest
Neithan,
These issues about mind-body interaction are fascinating and difficult ones. I’m not a scientist or a philosopher, so take what I say with a pinch of salt. But it seems to me that God would judge a person based on how they acted when they were fully functional. If someone had never been fully functional, then I presume that either they would exist forever in a kind of limbo, or would enjoy the Beatific Vision according to their capacity (the latter would definitely be the case for the baptized, and possibly for everyone–post-Vatican-II Catholic teaching seems to lean strongly toward the latter possibility). Or perhaps they would be restored to a fully functioning state–but then they would have to make choices, and since I don’t think moral choice is possible without a body I’m not sure how that would work. The one thing we can be sure of is that people with no free will are not damned. Rather, they would presumably wind up in more or less the same state as those who died in infancy.
My wife’s mentor from seminary, the Methodist philosopher (yes, I know that sounds like an oxymoron) Jerry Walls, believes in body-soul dualism (and unlike me, he believes that moral/spiritual choice, change of direction, is possible after death). I’d like to get the chance to pick his brains about the issues raised by Marczyk. But certainly some very smart people are not convinced that body-soul dualism has been rendered untenable by modern science.
In Christ,
Edwin
These issues about mind-body interaction are fascinating and difficult ones. I’m not a scientist or a philosopher, so take what I say with a pinch of salt. But it seems to me that God would judge a person based on how they acted when they were fully functional. If someone had never been fully functional, then I presume that either they would exist forever in a kind of limbo, or would enjoy the Beatific Vision according to their capacity (the latter would definitely be the case for the baptized, and possibly for everyone–post-Vatican-II Catholic teaching seems to lean strongly toward the latter possibility). Or perhaps they would be restored to a fully functioning state–but then they would have to make choices, and since I don’t think moral choice is possible without a body I’m not sure how that would work. The one thing we can be sure of is that people with no free will are not damned. Rather, they would presumably wind up in more or less the same state as those who died in infancy.
My wife’s mentor from seminary, the Methodist philosopher (yes, I know that sounds like an oxymoron) Jerry Walls, believes in body-soul dualism (and unlike me, he believes that moral/spiritual choice, change of direction, is possible after death). I’d like to get the chance to pick his brains about the issues raised by Marczyk. But certainly some very smart people are not convinced that body-soul dualism has been rendered untenable by modern science.
In Christ,
Edwin
- Status