Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter grannymh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In general, pre-set beliefs are similar to the initial axioms in the deductive method of reasoning.
I agree Granny, but that is why there are methods of inquiry in order to ensure that we don’t start creating contortions in logic in order to make the world fit into a given idea. This is what astronomers did to keep the church happy during the time that Christian theology demanded that the earth be the center of the universe. Astronomers concocted paths called epicycles that allowed the movement stars and planets to accommodate our central position in the cosmos and avoid the death penalty for seeing things as they actually are.

All the best,
Gary
 
I agree Granny, but that is why there are methods of inquiry in order to ensure that we don’t start creating contortions in logic in order to make the world fit into a given idea. This is what astronomers did to keep the church happy during the time that Christian theology demanded that the earth be the center of the universe. Astronomers concocted paths called epicycles that allowed the movement stars and planets to accommodate our central position in the cosmos and avoid the death penalty for seeing things as they actually are.

All the best,
Gary
I cannot speak for Christian theology; however, Catholic theology never demanded that the earth be the center of the universe. Catholics, by the way, have a right to free speech which is why Catholic individuals, including high ranking clergy, can freely demand any kind of theory – but – these demands are not the same as Catholic theology properly proclaimed at a major ecumenical council.

Since you agree that *In general, pre-set beliefs are similar to the initial axioms in the deductive method of reasoning, *would you please share your pre-set beliefs or initial axioms regarding our universe and ourselves. Thank you.
 
The major support for science at the time when heliocentric proposals were under scientific inquiry was the Catholic Church and her Universities.
It is in the first place constantly assumed, especially at the present day, that the opposition which Copernicanism encountered at the hands of ecclesiastical authority was prompted by hatred of science and a desire to keep the minds of men in the darkness of ignorance. To suppose that any body of men could deliberately adopt such a course is ridiculous, especially a body which, with whatever defects of method, had for so long been the only one which concerned itself with science at all.
It is likewise contradicted by the history of the very controversy with which we are now concerned. According to a popular notion the point, upon which beyond all others churchmen were determined to insist, was the geocentric system of astronomy. Nevertheless it was a churchman, Nicholas Copernicus, who first advanced the contrary doctrine that the sun and not the earth is the centre of our system, round which our planet revolves, rotating on its own axis. His great work, “De Revolutionibus orbium coelestium”, was published at the earnest solicitation of two distinguished churchmen, Cardinal Schömberg and Tiedemann Giese, Bishop of Culm. It was dedicated by permission to Pope Paul III in order, as Copernicus explained, that it might be thus protected from the attacks which it was sure to encounter on the part of the “mathematicians” (i.e. philosophers) for its apparent contradiction of the evidence of our senses, and even of common sense. He added that he made no account of objections which might be brought by ignorant wiseacres on Scriptural grounds. Indeed, for nearly three quarters of a century no such difficulties were raised on the Catholic side, although Luther and Melanchthon condemned the work of Copernicus in unmeasured terms. Neither Paul III, nor any of the nine popes who followed him, nor the Roman Congregations raised any alarm, and, as has been seen, Galileo himself in 1597, speaking of the risks he might run by an advocacy of Copernicanism, mentioned ridicule only and said nothing of persecution. Even when he had made his famous discoveries, no change occurred in this respect. On the contrary, coming to Rome in 1611, he was received in triumph; all the world, clerical and lay, flocked to see him, and, setting up his telescope in the Quirinal Garden belonging to Cardinal Bandim, he exhibited the sunspots and other objects to an admiring throng.
It was only later as Galileo insisted on that these errors in the Biblical descriptions of the solar system showed that doctrinal errors were likely in the Church that he was placed under house arrest.

Timelines- This is what the authors of the Catholic Encyclopea wrote of the genealogies of the OT in 1909 (see Quote below). It was the attempt to reconcile the various genealogies among Theologians that developed the explanations of why a timeline would not be workable well before any age of the universe or other scientific differences required any change in Theological understanding.
It cannot be denied that some of the genealogical links are omitted in the Biblical lists; even St. Matthew had to employ this device in order to arrange the ancestors of Christ in three series of fourteen each. At first sight such omissions may seem to be at variance with Biblical inerrancy, because the single members of the genealogical lists are connected by the noun son or the verb beget. But neither of these links creates a real difficulty:
The wide meaning of the noun son in the genealogies is shown in Matthew 1:1: “Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham”. This phrase prepares the reader for the view that the noun son may connect a person with any one of his ancestors, however remote.
As to the verb beget, some writers maintain that the Hiphil form of its Hebrew equivalent refers to the immediate offspring, while its Qal form may denote a more remote generation. But this contention does not rest on any solid foundation. It is true that the Hiphil form occurs in Genesis 5 and 11; it is also true that the successive links of the genealogies in these two chapters appear to exclude any intermediate generation. But this is only apparent. Unless it be certain from other sources that the Hebrew in question signifies the begetting of an immediate offspring, Genesis 5:15, for instance, may just as well mean that Malaleel at the age of sixty- five begot the grandfather of Jared as that he begot Jared immediately. The same holds true of the other Patriarchs mentioned in the above two chapters. Nor can it be urged that such an interpretation would destroy the chronology of the Patriarchs; for the inspired writer did not intend to transmit a chronology.
 
. . . Everything I have offered on this thread are my own thoughts based on my own direct experience and observation. Theology on the other hand can be said to be a bag of ideas that is institutionalized and shrink wrapped for public consumption as truths. I think each person is capable of seeing truth for themselves. And the truth I see in theology suggests that a lot of people have spent a lot of time trying to rationalize the world into a template that matches pre-set beliefs, rather than to let the world manifest itself as it is and to allow people to bear witness to it for themselves. . . .
Whether it is scripture, the Catechism, writings of the Saints, or those of Catholic and Christian scholars, the message, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, is vibrant and perpetually reveals new truths to those seeking to know God. Such knowledge is part of a relationship, and one must therefore do what is necessary to deepen the connection - do His will, converse with Him, praying for grace. To know Truth one must surrender oneself to it (Him).

If what you say is an honest expression of your experience with the Church’s teachings, you should consider that what you perceive when reading what is essentially the word of God, is but a reflection of your own mindset. What is institutionalized is the cognitive framework through which you explain the world to yourself. You are trying to “rationalize the world into a template that matches pre-set beliefs”. One soul to another, I would encourage you to give it up and truly open yourself to Reality.
 
I cannot speak for Christian theology; however, Catholic theology never demanded that the earth be the center of the universe. Catholics, by the way, have a right to free speech which is why Catholic individuals, including high ranking clergy, can freely demand any kind of theory – but – these demands are not the same as Catholic theology properly proclaimed at a major ecumenical council.

Since you agree that *In general, pre-set beliefs are similar to the initial axioms in the deductive method of reasoning, *would you please share your pre-set beliefs or initial axioms regarding our universe and ourselves. Thank you.
Good Morning Granny: The Catholic Church took a vey formal stand against anything but the earth being the center of the universe until 1758, banning any publications that advocating heliocentrism. For instance, on February 26th 1616, Galileo was called upon by the Church by injunction from the Inquisition to abandon completely the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.
Code:
  - The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616.
On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and issued a declaration acknowledging the errors committed by the Catholic Church tribunal that judged the scientific positions of Galileo Galilei, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.

As for my pre-set beliefs and the process of deductive reasoning, I do not have a set theory on anything from a theological standpoint. I am exploring and wondering, and considering ideas. In the process, I have eliminated a good many ideas already.

All the best,
Gary
 
Whether it is scripture, the Catechism, writings of the Saints, or those of Catholic and Christian scholars, the message, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, is vibrant and perpetually reveals new truths to those seeking to know God. Such knowledge is part of a relationship, and one must therefore do what is necessary to deepen the connection - do His will, converse with Him, praying for grace. To know Truth one must surrender oneself to it (Him).

If what you say is an honest expression of your experience with the Church’s teachings, you should consider that what you perceive when reading what is essentially the word of God, is but a reflection of your own mindset. What is institutionalized is the cognitive framework through which you explain the world to yourself. You are trying to “rationalize the world into a template that matches pre-set beliefs”. One soul to another, I would encourage you to give it up and truly open yourself to Reality.
Good Morning Aloysium: Regarding the teaching of the Church and these being the word of God, I would offer that the word of God is visible in all things, and that no institution, no person, no group of people and in fact no species has exclusive distribution rights on it. Nor can we contain the way in which God or the world around us is manifest to scripture or dogma or theory. I also have taken into account that to think of God’s expressions in terms of words is a way of limiting our experience to a linguistic syntax. The most powerful experiences I have personally had are hard to put words to.

With regard to rationalizing the world into a template that matches pre-set beliefs, I did in fact start out that way, and my beliefs were the ones I was taught by the church and the society I was raised in. You mention opening yourself up to reality, and I would offer that in order to truly do that, you have to approach the world without ideas and instead to let them form as they come, and it also calls for trying to be less judgmental about the outcomes.

All the best,
Gary
 
Since you agree that *In general, pre-set beliefs are similar to the initial axioms in the deductive method of reasoning, *would you please share your pre-set beliefs or initial axioms regarding our universe and ourselves. Thank you.
Good Afternoon Granny: What I have concluded thus far is:

-That the world is an organic and growing expression of something - probably consciousness, and it is not created and mechanistic.

-Consciousness and the temporal world seem to be either co-dependent or perhaps
consciousness is primary over matter.

-That the world is fractal in nature - a nested hierarchy of sorts, wherein the whole can be seen in the smallest units or components, and the smallest units or components can be seen in the whole.

-That it is impossible to tell where one thing ends and another begins and all things are interdependent. That the appearance of one thing or another is a matter of perception and perhaps metabolism rather than one set and permanent reality.

-That all things are one expressed as many and that all things are holy.

That’s about it Granny.

All the best,
Gary
 
Hence, they perform an evil act at the moment of deciding about eating the fruit rather then when eat the fruit. How this situation could be actualized?
It’s the trust thing. They didn’t trust the words of the creator and trusted their own intellect and the words of the lier (devil).

I don’t think that the disobedience was an evil act as such, but because of the distrust of the creator, evil was able to become part of a choice…🤷
 
  • The Inquisition’s injunction against Galileo, 1616. -
This is a disputed document that was placed in the Galileo file and used against him. This is a major part of the reason Pope JP II apologized not any theological or scientific error.

From: catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/the-galileo-affair.html
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, entered the drama. Bellarmine was one of the most important theologians of the Catholic Reformation. He was an expansive, gentle man who possessed the sort of meekness and good humor that is the product of a lifetime of ascetical struggle. As Consultor of the Holy Office and Master of Controversial Questions, he was unwillingly drawn into the Copernical controversy. In April 1615, he wrote a letter which amounted to an unofficial statement of the Church’s position. He pointed out that: 1) it was perfectly acceptable to maintain Copernicanism as a working hypothesis; and 2) if there were “real proof” that the earth circles around the sun, “then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary…”
Bellarmine, in effect, challenged Galileo to prove his theory or stop pestering the Church. Galileo’s response was to produce his theory of the tides, which purported to show that the tides are caused by the rotation of the earth. Even some of Galileo’s supporters could see that this was patent nonsense. Determined to have a showdown, however, Galileo came to Rome to confront Pope Paul V. The Pope exasperated by all this fuss about the planets, referred the matter to the Holy Office. The Qualifiers (i.e. theological experts) of the Holy Office soon issued an opinion that the Copernican doctrine is “foolish and absurd, philosophically and formally heretical inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the doctrine of Holy Scripture in many passages…”
This verdict was fortunately overruled under pressure of more cautious Cardinals and was not published until 1633, when Galileo forced a second showdown. A milder decree, which did not include the word “heresy”, was issued and Galileo was summoned before the Holy Office. For that day, February 26, 1616, a report was put into the files of the Holy Office which states that Galileo was told to relinquish Copernicanism and commanded “to abstain altogether from teaching or defending this opinion and doctrine, and even from discussing it.”
There is a still unresolved controversy over whether this document is genuine, or was forged and slipped into the files by some unscrupulous curial official. At Galileo’s request, Bellarmine gave him a certificate which simply forbade him to “hold or defend” the theory.
This Article concludes:
Galileo’s condemnation was certainly unjust, but in no way impugns the infallibility of Catholic dogma. Heliocentricism was never declared a heresy by either ex cathedra pronouncement or an ecumenical council. And as the Pontifical Commission points out, the sentence of 1633 was not irreformable. Galileo’s works were eventually removed from the Index and in 1822, at the behest of Pius VII, the Holy Office granted an imprimatur to the work of Canon Settele, in which Copernicanism was presented as a physical fact and no longer as an hypothesis.
The Catholic Church really has little to apologize for in its relations with science. Indeed, Stanley Jaki and others have argued that it was the metaphysical framework of medieval Catholicism which made modern science possible in the first place. In Jaki’s vivid phrase, science was “still-born” in every major culture — Greek, Hindu, Chinese — except the Christian West. It was the insistence on the rationality of God and His creation by St. Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic thinkers that paved the way for Galileo and Newton.
So far as the teaching authority of the Church is concerned, it is striking how modern physics is playing catch-up with Catholic dogma. In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council taught that the universe had a beginning in time — an idea which would have scandalized both an ancient Greek and a 19th century positivist, but which is now a commonplace of modern cosmology. Indeed, the more we learn about the universe, the closer we come to the ontological mysteries of Christian faith.
 
Thank you. Indeed, I lost sight of the clear teaching that Adam and Eve were originally created both good and holy.

George Murphy takes a position in between that of the Roman Catholic Church (which is pretty much the same as the Lutheran church) and that of the Eastern Orthodox. Regarding the latter, here is one expression of their position:

“The Fall of Adam and Eve also created an inclination for humanity to move away from God. While Adam and Eve did not possess a mature holiness, they did possess innocence and potential for holiness, which were lost after the Fall.”

I’ll give the source, but please know that this source is pretty biased in favor of Eastern Orthodox and against Roman Catholic. That is not my position, please understand. Anyway, if interested, here’s where I got the above quote:

blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/08/16/original-and-ancestral-sin-a-brief-comparison/
Thanks, I found George Murphy’s write up interesting, especially Original sin and Original Righteousness and Lost in the woods.

What was more interesting on the ancient faith link was the comments made after it. There is a mountain of knowledge to be learnt!
👍
 
  • The Inquisition’s injunction against Galileo, 1616. -
This is a disputed document that was placed in the Galileo file and used against him.

This Article concludes:
The injunction speaks for itself and the apology was not made because there had been no error. It takes large institutions a long time to own up to error and transgression as we have seen clearly in the past 30 years, and when there finally is an admission of a grain of sand, there’s usually a boulder somewhere. It is no secret that scientists had to be very careful with regards to the church until the 18th century. To argue otherwise is simply apologia, which always seems to me to be a sort of writhing.

All the best,
Gary
 
Good Afternoon Granny: What I have concluded thus far is:

-That the world is an organic and growing expression of something - probably consciousness, and it is not created and mechanistic.

-Consciousness and the temporal world seem to be either co-dependent or perhaps
consciousness is primary over matter.

-That the world is fractal in nature - a nested hierarchy of sorts, wherein the whole can be seen in the smallest units or components, and the smallest units or components can be seen in the whole.

-That it is impossible to tell where one thing ends and another begins and all things are interdependent. That the appearance of one thing or another is a matter of perception and perhaps metabolism rather than one set and permanent reality.

-That all things are one expressed as many and that all things are holy.

That’s about it Granny.

All the best,
Gary
You do think deeply. Thank you.

When I look at the world, I do not want to feel confined. I see beyond what I see. That is why I like to start with the existence of God. Still, one can start with consciousness and then go beyond it. It is special that you see all things as holy. I want to find the source of holy. I want to see beyond what I see.
 
You do think deeply. Thank you.

I want to find the source of holy.
Good Afternoon Granny: I love the way you said this. It’s simple, profound and very moving.

What I have begun to intuit at least in my experience is that the source of holy is probably nearer than the breath and right in front of us, but very hard to see.

All the best,
Gary
 
The injunction speaks for itself and the apology was not made because there had been no error. It takes large institutions a long time to own up to error and transgression as we have seen clearly in the past 30 years, and when there finally is an admission of a grain of sand, there’s usually a boulder somewhere. It is no secret that scientists had to be very careful with regards to the church until the 18th century. To argue otherwise is simply apologia, which always seems to me to be a sort of writhing.

All the best,
Gary
It is false to assume where there is smoke there is fire; particularly, when mirrors are set up. The mirrors have been set up by enemies of the Church. First Protestants, now atheists who want to use any occasion of confusion against the Church or the pursuit of truth. Yes, there were errors and even deceit against Galileo which despite his antagonism was wrong of the Church to hold against him. Yet, such error was not on a theological or scientific question at all.
 
It is false to assume where there is smoke there is fire; particularly, when mirrors are set up. The mirrors have been set up by enemies of the Church. First Protestants, now atheists who want to use any occasion of confusion against the Church or the pursuit of truth. Yes, there were errors and even deceit against Galileo which despite his antagonism was wrong of the Church to hold against him. Yet, such error was not on a theological or scientific question at all.
Good Evening WMW: The point was that the church maintained that the earth was the center of the universe until the 18th century. Insofar as the church having enemies, it probably would have accrued far fewer of these if it had stuck to the business of spirituality over the past 2,000 years rather than wars, politics and political intrigue. Of course a lot of that was foisted on the church because of its central role in society in early times, however, I am glad to see Pope Francis sorting the place out finally. The Vatican has too long remained a Renaissance court, and will benefit greatly from some retooling in its thinking.

All the best,
Gary
 
Good Evening WMW: The point was that the church maintained that the earth was the center of the universe until the 18th century. Insofar as the church having enemies, it probably would have accrued far fewer of these if it had stuck to the business of spirituality over the past 2,000 years rather than wars, politics and political intrigue. Of course a lot of that was foisted on the church because of its central role in society in early times, however, I am glad to see Pope Francis sorting the place out finally. The Vatican has too long remained a Renaissance court, and will benefit greatly from some retooling in its thinking.

All the best,
Gary
The point is that it was scientists free of the Church, mainly Arisotle, that declared the Earth the center of the universe and free scientists under the blessing of the church that revised the scientific findings.

The internal structures of the Vatican will hardly and most hopfully not change the “thinking” of the Church.
 
The point is that it was scientists free of the Church, mainly Arisotle, that declared the Earth the center of the universe and free scientists under the blessing of the church that revised the scientific findings.

The internal structures of the Vatican will hardly and most hopfully not change the “thinking” of the Church.
Good evening: This is true, but the fact that the initial idea of the earth being the center of the universe can be attributed to sources outside the church does not change the fact that the church resisted the idea of it being otherwise.

But with regard to the thinking of the church, a good start would be for the Vatican to start to rationalize its actions with the teachings of Christ, who never owned a pair of red Prada’s, a 3 foot hat, a collection of lacy robes, feathered guards with pantaloons, palaces and an art collection that makes the Louvre look like the sale isle at Walmart. Such things only play into the object fetishes that already plague humanity. And it’s not just the church. I think we should all start being a bit simpler and less focused on accoutrements. We need to get our heads straight on the things that matter. Me included.

All the best,
Gary
 
Good evening: This is true, but the fact that the initial idea of the earth being the center of the universe can be attributed to sources outside the church does not change the fact that the church resisted the idea of it being otherwise.

… it’s not just the church. I think we should all start being a bit simpler and less focused on accoutrements. We need to get our heads straight on the things that matter. Me included.

All the best,
Gary
We are all people and we are all more comfortable in not changing our views on the world we think we know is around us. The church is a people as well; being led by the Holy Spirit doesn’t change that.

As to focusing on the simpler, nothing does more for me in that regard than attending mass at my local parish. Though I do yearn for the “accoutrements” of better music in our small Parrish. I do commend those that volunteer; it is so wonderful and I pray thanks for them and for their taking the time and trying their utmost. Yet, by it I’m well reminded that I’m there for much more than ascetic reasons.
 
We are all people and we are all more comfortable in not changing our views on the world we think we know is around us. The church is a people as well; being led by the Holy Spirit doesn’t change that.

As to focusing on the simpler, nothing does more for me in that regard than attending mass at my local parish. Though I do yearn for the “accoutrements” of better music in our small Parrish. I do commend those that volunteer; it is so wonderful and I pray thanks for them and for their taking the time and trying their utmost. Yet, by it I’m well reminded that I’m there for much more than ascetic reasons.
Good Morning WMW - this is all very true.

All the best,
Gary
 
The point is that it was scientists free of the Church, mainly Arisotle, that declared the Earth the center of the universe and free scientists under the blessing of the church that revised the scientific findings.

The internal structures of the Vatican will hardly and most hopfully not change the “thinking” of the Church.
Yes, it was Aristotle and Ptolemy who put the earth in the middle of the universe and “concocted paths called epicycles that allowed the movement stars and planets to accommodate our central position in the cosmos”. While the Church had theological reasons for resisting a moving earth, there were also scientific reasons it shared with Tycho Brahe and the ancients; no observed stellar parallax.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top