Adam & Logic

[grannymh]

Hmmmnnn. Still not so sure. I have always felt that the great weakness/strength of Scholasticism (responsible for Catholic heavy reliance on the concept of clearly delineated static natures) is its reliance on the concept of nature/substance which in practice uses the supporting concepts of genus/species to separate out one nature from another. Thus humans are “rational animals” which doesn’t seem to have a lot of solid content to play with or make deductions from by itself.

In my opinion, the term “rational animal” has content when one considers Aristotle’s legacy. Is my memory correct in that rational was added to animal to distinguish man from beast? To me, rational animal is another way of explaining human nature as an unique unification of both the material and spiritual worlds, decomposing anatomy and spiritual soul.

The other problem is that “being human” actually involves possessing a lot of potentials we cannot actuate unaided.

To avoid that problem, I chose the deductive method with basic axioms (top down) instead of the inductive method used in science. Thus, my premises or presuppositions are simple true statements according to Catholicism. For example, 1. God as Creator exists, and 2. God as Creator interacts with humans.

Because I am using information from the first three chapters of Genesis, I now believe I need to better connect axioms I. and 2. By connecting them with simple basic statements about human nature, the communication (Divine Revelation) can be established.

And if our nature can be diminished (“wounded”) then it can be increased also. Thus the idea of a fixed static nature in fact starts to break down when we start talking about “divinisation”, “wounds”, “praeter-natural”, external gifts needed for our “basic nature” to work as intended

.

I have trouble wrapping my brain around the concept of a “diminished human nature” because man has been referred to as a spiritual creature and even a religious being. (CCC, 396; CCC, 28) I learned about the praeter-natural gifts when I had a pet dinosaur. Consequently, I used Google to refresh my memory. I did get the impression that these gifts were external and not integral to our basic human nature.

In addition, CCC, 405 gives the information that our human nature was not totally corrupted. It was wounded in the natural powers proper to it. I am unclear how “diminished” fits in with this. Actually, I am not all that concerned because the “unity” in human nature, soul and body, is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body. (CCC, 365) This profound unity is basically the same as Adam’s with the exception that our human nature is wounded, that is, we are without original holiness and the harmony of original justice. (CCC, section “Man in Paradise” paragraphs 374-379)

Continued in following post.

 

[grannymh]

Continued from post 474

If we do not know what “extensions” God can “add” (or maybe they are “buried” and unknown to us) to our nature through his gifts (yes we know some of them via Revelation) then do we really know even “basic” human nature? To me “nature/substance” is one of those “global” things. There is no “basic” - one either understands the whole thing or not at all. Like"triangle", once you understand its nature everything you can say about it is pretty obvious and known.

I am currently in an IT careeer. I thought I knew all there was to know about my HP Probook laptop which I have had for 2 years. Then I accidentally discovered a connection socket on it that wasn’t quite what I thought it was. Some research and I realised my laptop was even more powerful than I thought it was. It can do all sorts of things via this connection that I never realised existed. Its “nature” (yet untapped) is far greater than I realised. In fact it could be said I didn’t really know its nature - so powerful are the implications of this “small” thing I never realised before.

What you are saying is appreciated. If I were writing a dissertation, I would use it.

I feel the same thing about human nature. On the other side of death we will discover what human nature is really about and why the things about Christianity that seem contradictory or stupid now are the only way things could be. Which means we have to admit we don’t well understand human nature this side of the grave at all - not even “basic” human nature. Its all provisional and maybe even revisional.
But that’s just me. I accept it makes theology very difficult if we hold “nature” so lightly. Which is probably why I find more solace in the apophatic way than the phatic way.

So I am not sure “basic nature” is a helpful distinction in this particular discussion when it comes to use of “deductive reasoning” to learn more about Adam and Eve. Deductive reasoning cannot tell us anymore than what we already implicity understand is contained in “human nature”. If we only have a “basic” understanding then we cannot progress beyond the usual “basic” deductions.

What would you articulate a “clear, basic description of human nature” to be?

If I would articulate a clear, basic description of human nature, it would be – The unique unification of a spiritual soul and material body.

I suggest that whatever description you may come up with it is already based on an induction from prior more primary data (experience or revelation) and we would do better to make inferences direct from that more primary datum rather than hope that “deduction” can get us further.

The deductive method uses logic as its authority. When a statement follows logically from the axioms of the system, then it can be considered true. However, in practical applications, I can add the inductive (scientific) method of looking for evidence which could contain data from experience, experiments, and if allowed, from Divine Revelation. I can look in the mirror and verify my material body in space and time. I can compare my actions and abilities with other species and verify my spiritual principle or intellective soul. When it comes to verifying the soul, I use Divine Revelation as a base. (Genesis 1: 27) I do accept the fact that there are people who do not believe that God as Creator exists. My job is to present interesting and essential information. The rest is up to my listeners.

**“Because one of the previous posts reminded me of a true and false test, I recognized that if we are to use the deductive method…” **

What are you meaning here anyway…are you referring to Popper’s hypothesis

A few years ago, I was about to research Popper; but, before I started, the person I was working for decided that it was not necessary. I never went back to Popper.
Yet, this experience influenced my own search for simplicity. We ordinary folk need simple truths in order to believe the reality of Adam. However, it is absolutely necessary that reliable information backs up the simplicity. I use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

 

[simpleas]

I do not believe it can be held that Adam knew he was always going to die even if he had not Fallen.

Death is the separation of body and soul.
Many of the Fathers/Doctors held that an aging and just Adam would have eventually been “Translated” to heaven body and soul intact (thus no death). Regardless of whether or not this is true, Adam certainly had no personal inkling of this future possibility (just as he had no prior inkling of Redemptive possibilities if he disobeyed).

Had Adam not eaten regularly of the Tree of Life (to remedy the degenerative effects of aging) he would have died. But not to so eat would have been a sin so such death would have been a result of “Falling” in any case.It is interesting to note that Adam could have Fallen by either:
(a) eating of the Tree of the KOGAE
(b) not-eating of the Tree of Life.

Also, Adam’s “understanding” of death would likely have been incomplete (and therefore lacking in a full comprehension of all the consequences) because it was purely intellectual and speculative. Death of an animal (temporary soul) is different from that of a human (enduring soul).

I’m with you up to the understanding of Adam eating of the tree of life, but to say that it would have been a sin not to eat from it, doesn’t fit because sin only entered the world when Adam ate from the tree of knowledge. Yes not eating from the tree of life would cause death, but it wouldn’t have been a sin yet.

 

[simpleas]

There is no division of body and soul after our resurrection.
I believe the CCC is being misunderstood here. In fact there is no division in this life either.
We are not souls/angels imprisioned in bodies as some (Plato, Gnostics etc) have thought. I believe that is all that this CCC phrase means.

…

I believe you are correct but your terminology is confusing.
By “spiritual” I believe you really mean “Holy”.

“Spiritual” more properly means immaterial.
So it cannot be said that God’s plan was for man to be “spiritual” (immaterial) like the angels. Man is called to be holy complete in body and soul.

Also, The Garden of Eden is by no means the same as Heaven.
In Heaven Adam and Eve have the final goal of human happiness - the Beatific Vision.
They did not have this in Eden.

Yes they walked with God, that may be construed as sanctifying grace.
But that is not the Beatific Vision (merely a winning ticket that hasn’t yet been cashed in)

Sometimes i refer to our soul’s as spiritual. But meaning they are the same.

This might sound stupid, but we when die does our soul remain in the body until our resurrection? I used to think our souls left the body to meet with God as a soul or spirit, then our body is renewed.
I see it when Jesus died and decended into hell he did it as a Holy spirit and then was raised to life after his victory.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t seem to be on the same page as everyone else with how they understand Genesis1-3.

In my humble opinion, you are seeking truth without prejudice. That is a very good thing. I need to learn from your method. :yup:

 

[grannymh]

For Readers information.

When I first found the Deductive Method of reasoning, it was pointed out that mathematics used the deductive method which is based on the authority of logic. It was further clarified that the deductive method was not exclusive.

Interestingly – There is now a “logic and math” thread in our Philosophy Forum. Note that it refers to a “deductive system”.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=849743

From post 2, Logic and Math thread.
“Most of math can be derived from a deductive system called ZFC set theory. The theory is classical logic equipped with the notion of sets and the axiom of choice. So the jump from logic to math requires us to propose sets and a few extra axioms that describe the behavior of sets.”

One of the many things I like about Catholicism is that it is open to all areas of knowledge in relationship to Jesus Christ and Divine Revelation. Thus, when we call upon the Deductive Method of gaining knowledge about human nature, we begin with the existence of God. This thread begins with the acceptance of
“One God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.” From the beginning of the Creed professed in the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

One of the important elements of the deductive system is the connection between axioms or truth statements. What needs to be added to this thread is a detailed “connection” between God as Creator and humans as His creatures. This is why we start with the reality of Adam and his spouse Eve. They had a firsthand experience with God.

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

Granny’s axioms:

1. God as Creator exists, and 2. God as Creator interacts with humans.

How do these manifest themselves?
Creation mirrors God’s eternal goodness, beauty and truth.
Where we find ourselves, however, is a fallen world. We have infested it with sin - spiritually, with weeds that choke life from us.
Nevertheless, by His sacrifice on the cross and though His Church, the relationship we damaged can be rebuilt.

Each of us has gotten to where he/she is primarily through God’s grace, and as a result of past decisions and actions, within the context of our human nature and what the world brings.
Similarly, as one human body, our nature has been affected by God’s becoming one of us as Jesus, and by our decision at our beginnings, to turn from Him.

We are each unique expressions, incarnations if you will, of what is a basic human nature that includes the reality of individual persons.
We may be compared to flames emerging from an eternal fire, each having a district existence which is part of our fundamental humanity. We are light: having the qualities of being both an individual particle and a vibration in a substrate.
This individual existence however, is not solitary. Man was created as Adam and Eve, self-and-other. We do not exist in isolation, but in relation to one another.

Mankind in the Garden was whole, one within itself.
God made His will known to us, that we might join and come to Him in love.
We chose to follow another path, and we fell.
Adam, one with the eternal totality of mankind, acted and thereby affected who he became.
He was mankind, and who he became was an isolated individual as his decision broke the Holiness, the unity or “cohesion” that was our nature.
We chose ourselves over Love, and we obtained our reward.
We have to remind ourselves of the truth that we should to do unto others as we would do for ourselves, because it is no longer obvious.
We fear the other because he needs us and, without love, will dominate, use and hurt us for his purposes.
Humankind has been left spiritually fractured.
There is no point in blaming the actions of some guy hundreds of thousands of years ago, or whenever, since the fault lies within human nature itself.
Seriously speaking here, you and I are in this predicament because, perhaps not so deep within us, we have decided in eternity to do our own will.
At the same time, because we truly do want what is best for all of us, we know that it is only in doing God’s will that we will achieve eternal happiness.
Through Christ, the Way, sin and death have been overcome. We can achieved our destiny - to be ultimately reunited as one body of Saints in communion with God: the Beatific Vision.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

… sin only entered the world when Adam ate from the tree of knowledge. Yes not eating from the tree of life would cause death, but it wouldn’t have been a sin yet.

There are many ways that one can sin.
Just because Adam actually sinned in one particular way - that does not mean that truths about other ways of sinning are retroactively ruled out .
Why should mutual exclusion apply?

Obviously most Sin-ology commentary on Genesis assumes the actual way that Adam fell. One should not assume that those statements rule out the possibility of other ways of sinning.

Who said that eating of the TOTKOGAE was the only way to sin?

We sin through disobedience to God.
That can happen in a number of ways.

In the Fall we see that Adam disobeyed God’s direct command (against Eternal Law).
But when we deny some good of our own nature (even if God has not personally commanded anything in that regard) that too is sin (against Natural Law).

God “speaks” to us in various ways. Knowledge of good via reason applied to creation (Natural Law) is the normal way that God “speaks” to us.

If we do not take normal means to promote our own health then we are culpable before God. If Adam did not remedy the degenerative effects of aging in Eden by eating regularly of the Tree of (immortal) Life (hence the name) then that would have been a clear and culpable sin.

Freely choosing the 1st death is a sin (ie becomes 2nd death).
One can sin by both commission and omission.
One can sin not only by excess but also by deficit.

It is generally accepted that the redactor of Genesis was conflating two very different Creation accounts for his own purposes. There are a number of disconnects and undeveloped themes which show he left material out that was not directly relevent to the final redaction/theme he was developing. For all we know in the original source God may well have commanded Adam to eat of the Tree of Life so that he would not die of old age. It is certainly implicit in the final redaction as a whole. That is exactly how Aquinas and Augustine understood it.

It doesn’t really matter. As explained above standard natural law theology makes it obvious that to deny oneself a necessary natural good is sinful. The Tree of Life was there for a purpose.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This might sound stupid, but we when die does our soul remain in the body until our resurrection?

Your articulation is not stupid but the usual self-taught understanding that Church teachers do nothing to make more accurate as we grow to be teenagers then adults and capable of more abstract thought.

Try and find something on the Net that explains Aquinas’s exposition that the “soul is the form of the body (matter).” Matter and form is a standard principle deriving from Aristotle. It explains how a single substance can be composed of two principles, neither of which can exist on its own. It is both very simple and very deep.

So your above statements are not strictly a good understanding of this principle.
The soul is not a “thing” that exists in a place. Neither is it an “invisible thing.” Invisible still retains a concept of “thinginess” which a soul does not have. A soul is only a 'thing" when it “informs matter” (ie animates a human body). It is a thing only in conjunction with a body and gets its 'thinginess" from the human body it informs.

Only things “leave”, “remain in”. Therefore we cannot properly apply those verbs to the soul. Yes we do use those words in popular speech but they are images and are not meant to be understood literally. We humans only easily speak of the unknown by using analogy from the known.

So when the soul “leaves” the human body what we really mean is that the soul no longer animates the human body and it ceases to be a human body. It is now no more than a complicated collection of chemicals called a cadaver. It is no longer a human body. In fact it is no longer even a body as it has lost its overall principle of organisation and is now corrupting into lesser organisational units.

So it makes no real sense to say that our soul remains in our body after our death until the resurrection for a number of reasons:
(1) The body no longer exists. Even the cadaver will eventually completely breakdown and become the matter of other lesser organisms.
(2) To say that a soul is “in the body” is not literal. Souls do not have extension, they do not exist in a place, they have none of the properties we associate with matter (“things”).
This expression is a figure of speech. When we say it is “in” the body we mean it is animating matter and causing it to be organised and to live, to be a human body. That is the proper proerty of a soul - to give life to matter and turn it into a human body.

Obviously each departed disembodied soul retains the potential to organise matter into our own particular body with its unique characteristics (and DNA). However it is obviously not powerful enough to do that directly from raw matter (otherwise the long dead would be rematerialising all over the place!).

This God will do for us at the Final Resurrection (both the just and unjust alike). You are correct in seeing Jesus as the “first fruits” of this deep truth of the Universe. It was not the intrinsic power of his human soul that made this possible in advance - for such strong immortality is not within the nature of even a graced, unwounded human soul. It was due to the just and loving Divine act of Jesus’s Father.

Some theologies say Jesus resurrected himself by his own Divine power but I have always had issues with that. Yes, it is true in sofar as the act of one Divine Person is to be considered the act of them all. However I believe that its ontological origination was most properly the will of the Father - as is the whole Plan of Salvation.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

For Readers information.

When I first found the Deductive Method of reasoning, it was pointed out that mathematics used the deductive method which is based on the authority of logic. It was further clarified that the deductive method was not exclusive.

Interestingly – There is now a “logic and math” thread in our Philosophy Forum. Note that it refers to a “deductive system”.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=849743

From post 2, Logic and Math thread.
“Most of math can be derived from a deductive system called ZFC set theory. The theory is classical logic equipped with the notion of sets and the axiom of choice. So the jump from logic to math requires us to propose sets and a few extra axioms that describe the behavior of sets.”

One of the many things I like about Catholicism is that it is open to all areas of knowledge in relationship to Jesus Christ and Divine Revelation. Thus, when we call upon the Deductive Method of gaining knowledge about human nature, we begin with the existence of God. This thread begins with the acceptance of
“One God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.” From the beginning of the Creed professed in the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

One of the important elements of the deductive system is the connection between axioms or truth statements. What needs to be added to this thread is a detailed “connection” between God as Creator and humans as His creatures. This is why we start with the reality of Adam and his spouse Eve. They had a firsthand experience with God.

GM you need to be careful in this area.
The usefulness of Aristotle’s deductive method has been disputed for the last 500 years or so - ever since the Scholastics over-worked it to death wrt Revelation from around 1200-1400.

The main charges against its over-use is:
(1) that it is only as good as its premises.
(2) when applied to Revelation, Popper’s axiom of “the possibility of falsifiability as the criterion of truth” does not seem to be relevent…therefore we cannot be talking about truth.
(3) it doesn’t really provide new knowledge, it merely elucidates truths already implicit in the major premise.

The following links may be helpful to investigate further:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic-synthetic_distinction
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

 

[simpleas]

In my humble opinion, you are seeking truth without prejudice. That is a very good thing. I need to learn from your method. :yup:

Thanks Grannymh,
You learn from me…

 

[simpleas]

There are many ways that one can sin.
Just because Adam actually sinned in one particular way - that does not mean that truths about other ways of sinning are retroactively ruled out .
Why should mutual exclusion apply?

Obviously most Sin-ology commentary on Genesis assumes the actual way that Adam fell. One should not assume that those statements rule out the possibility of other ways of sinning.

Who said that eating of the TOTKOGAE was the only way to sin?

We sin through disobedience to God.
That can happen in a number of ways.

In the Fall we see that Adam disobeyed God’s direct command (against Eternal Law).
But when we deny some good of our own nature (even if God has not personally commanded anything in that regard) that too is sin (against Natural Law).

God “speaks” to us in various ways. Knowledge of good via reason applied to creation (Natural Law) is the normal way that God “speaks” to us.

If we do not take normal means to promote our own health then we are culpable before God. If Adam did not remedy the degenerative effects of aging in Eden by eating regularly of the Tree of (immortal) Life (hence the name) then that would have been a clear and culpable sin.

Freely choosing the 1st death is a sin (ie becomes 2nd death).
One can sin by both commission and omission.
One can sin not only by excess but also by deficit.

It is generally accepted that the redactor of Genesis was conflating two very different Creation accounts for his own purposes. There are a number of disconnects and undeveloped themes which show he left material out that was not directly relevent to the final redaction/theme he was developing. For all we know in the original source God may well have commanded Adam to eat of the Tree of Life so that he would not die of old age. It is certainly implicit in the final redaction as a whole. That is exactly how Aquinas and Augustine understood it.

It doesn’t really matter. As explained above standard natural law theology makes it obvious that to deny oneself a necessary natural good is sinful. The Tree of Life was there for a purpose.

I didn’t mean that eating from the tree of knowledge was the only way to sin, I’m of the understanding that sin only entered the world when the choice was made to eat from this particular tree. I never would have thought that if Adam hadn’t ate from the tree of life, he would have sinned. The command was not to eat from the tree of knowledge, not you must eat from the tree of life or else you will die.

As I said, I’m not on the same page as everyone with regards to understanding Genesis 1-3

 

[simpleas]

Your articulation is not stupid but the usual self-taught understanding that Church teachers do nothing to make more accurate as we grow to be teenagers then adults and capable of more abstract thought.

Try and find something on the Net that explains Aquinas’s exposition that the “soul is the form of the body (matter).” Matter and form is a standard principle deriving from Aristotle. It explains how a single substance can be composed of two principles, neither of which can exist on its own. It is both very simple and very deep.

So your above statements are not strictly a good understanding of this principle.
The soul is not a “thing” that exists in a place. Neither is it an “invisible thing.” Invisible still retains a concept of “thinginess” which a soul does not have. A soul is only a 'thing" when it “informs matter” (ie animates a human body). It is a thing only in conjunction with a body and gets its 'thinginess" from the human body it informs.

Only things “leave”, “remain in”. Therefore we cannot properly apply those verbs to the soul. Yes we do use those words in popular speech but they are images and are not meant to be understood literally. We humans only easily speak of the unknown by using analogy from the known.

So when the soul “leaves” the human body what we really mean is that the soul no longer animates the human body and it ceases to be a human body. It is now no more than a complicated collection of chemicals called a cadaver. It is no longer a human body. In fact it is no longer even a body as it has lost its overall principle of organisation and is now corrupting into lesser organisational units.

So it makes no real sense to say that our soul remains in our body after our death until the resurrection for a number of reasons:
(1) The body no longer exists. Even the cadaver will eventually completely breakdown and become the matter of other lesser organisms.
(2) To say that a soul is “in the body” is not literal. Souls do not have extension, they do not exist in a place, they have none of the properties we associate with matter (“things”).
This expression is a figure of speech. When we say it is “in” the body we mean it is animating matter and causing it to be organised and to live, to be a human body. That is the proper proerty of a soul - to give life to matter and turn it into a human body.

Obviously each departed disembodied soul retains the potential to organise matter into our own particular body with its unique characteristics (and DNA). However it is obviously not powerful enough to do that directly from raw matter (otherwise the long dead would be rematerialising all over the place!).

This God will do for us at the Final Resurrection (both the just and unjust alike). You are correct in seeing Jesus as the “first fruits” of this deep truth of the Universe. It was not the intrinsic power of his human soul that made this possible in advance - for such strong immortality is not within the nature of even a graced, unwounded human soul. It was due to the just and loving Divine act of Jesus’s Father.

Some theologies say Jesus resurrected himself by his own Divine power but I have always had issues with that. Yes, it is true in sofar as the act of one Divine Person is to be considered the act of them all. However I believe that its ontological origination was most properly the will of the Father - as is the whole Plan of Salvation.

Thanks for this.
I will google Aquinas.
I understood it that Jesus did resurrect himself, he is divine, he is God…

 

[grannymh]

GM you need to be careful in this area.
The usefulness of Aristotle’s deductive method has been disputed for the last 500 years or so - ever since the Scholastics over-worked it to death wrt Revelation from around 1200-1400.

The main charges against its over-use is:
(1) that it is only as good as its premises.
(2) when applied to Revelation, Popper’s axiom of “the possibility of falsifiability as the criterion of truth” does not seem to be relevent…therefore we cannot be talking about truth.
(3) it doesn’t really provide new knowledge, it merely elucidates truths already implicit in the major premise.

The following links may be helpful to investigate further:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic-synthetic_distinction
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

Your message about Scholasticism is loud and clear.

In addition to the problems of scholastic over-use, it was people like Galileo Galilei, Francis Bacon, Tycho Brahe, and others curious about the wonders of the universe, who soon discovered that the deductive method did not fit with scientific investigations. The deductive method was turned upside down…into the Inductive Scientific Method which seeks knowledge in the natural, physical material realm.

Regarding the three main charges against its [deductive method] over-use.
Point (1) is true.

Point (3) is true and because it is true it is very important in Catholic Education, which in some geographic locations, has dropped or altered basic truths regarding Adam and organic fruit.

Point (2) sidesteps the starting position of this thread which is
“In my humble opinion, it is logical, given the human nature that you and I possess, that Adam existed as explained by the Catholic Church.
Source:* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*.”
To put it simply, I am not going to re-invent the wheel of Revelation. The Catholic Church has settled issues in regard to Divine Revelation found in Holy Scripture. Practically speaking, there could be some points in the deductive process which may meet Popper’s axiom.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I didn’t mean that eating from the tree of knowledge was the only way to sin, I’m of the understanding that sin only entered the world when the choice was made to eat from this particular tree. I never would have thought that if Adam hadn’t ate from the tree of life, he would have sinned. The command was not to eat from the tree of knowledge, not you must eat from the tree of life or else you will die.

As I said, I’m not on the same page as everyone with regards to understanding Genesis 1-3

I am not so sure you are as far off as you seem to suspect…

The important point I am making is that “sin” is far more and far deeper than simply disobedience wrt a direct personal command from God (whether God has ever really acted in this way with any particular person is prob up for debate as well).

Closely related is the insight that sin has to be more than the disobeying an arbitrary command (ie it doesn’t matter what it is that an authority commands us (it could be a mere whim with no intrinsic evil content), any disobedience is equally sin.) This is not Catholic teaching.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

… it was people like Galileo … who soon discovered that the deductive method did not fit with scientific investigations. The deductive method was turned upside down…into the Inductive Scientific Method which seeks knowledge in the natural, physical material realm.

Perhaps an “all or nothing” view of deduction/induction which may not do justice to the complex reality of the debates of the last 600 years or so. Deduction and induction have always gone together in a sort of yin-yang dance with one or the other being emphasised more (and the other hidden/implicit) or understood in a particular way. Science still makes use of deduction.

Consider Aristotle’s classic “white swan” syllogism example:

All swans are white (the premise universal)
This is a swan (a premise particular based on empirical observation)
Therefore this swan is white (a conclusion by way of deduction).

This schoolroom example went unquestioned for thousands of years…until Australia was discovered. Travellors reported the existence of black swans - unheard of.
The genius’s back home concluded that the travellors were mistaken. They could not possibly have seen swans, they must have been turkeys or some other closely related species.

This became known as the “black swan problem” and it raises lots of interesting philosophical issues wrt truth: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(2007_book

However the point I simply make is that the example assumes induction in its major premise…How do we come to the conclusion that all swans are white? This is an example of induction (from a multitude of similar individual emprical observations we generate a “law” or a “nature” of how all reality must be).

Such universal statements can be 100% proven to be false (as Popper asserts) by just one counter-example (the black swan effect). But such an induction can never be proven to be 100% correct. See “the problem with induction”:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Inductive_categorical_inference

Popper would say that if a major premise is convincingly proven to be always correct…then we cannot be dealing with a reality beholden to the senses. And so we are no longer in the realm of scientific truth (some call it metaphysics or religious truth).

Such non-scientific truths are 100% true only by reason of descriptive tautology (the conclusion is implicit in the definition of the terms used). Thus, it is no suprise to conclude that “all bachelors happen to be unmarried.” We intuitively accept this major premise is validly uinversal and true at all times… but not because it has any empricial or useful content, but only because it is a playing with words and inherent definitions. Nothing new here.

So when we say:
All bachelors are unmarried.
Jack is a bachelor.
Therefore jack is not married!

Well we are not deducing anything useful or new are we?
All we did was better define our observation/statement that “Jack is a bachelor” to those who may not understand what “bachelor” fully means.

This is why atheistic empiricists say much of religious “inference” is empty. They do have a point.

I haven’t read all 480 contributions on this thread but your opening posts therefore does seem to have a few holes to modern thinkers based on the above issues…

"My suggestion is to begin with the human nature that you and I have. It is observable that human persons have the tools of reason, self-reflection, logical evaluation, abstract concepts, and analytical thought. These rational tools are part of human nature…It is observable that other living organisms, elephants and plants, bacteria and insects are not rational in the same manner as humans…"

The way that Scholastics (by induction) conclude that “human nature” is rational does have a few difficulties. First up, we can observe that many human individuals are in fact not rational. The Scholastics got around that by saying we should only observe “exemplars” (ie the best of the species). To me that is a bit like saying that all swans are white if we just avoid couting in the black ones in Australia!

Another difficulty is the conclusion that only humans are rational animals. Yet dolphins and a few other species have complex language and even tool using abilities (despite not having the evolved organs we have that can better exploit/grow/evolve these potentialities).
We get around that issue by saying the difference is qualitative rather than quantitative. yet we cannot really be 100% sure of that.

So if the concept of “nature” is suspect or may not be as 100% certain as the Scholastics assumed…what does that say of deductions that make use of such shaky "universal’ premises. it means the deductions have a degree of “shakiness” too.

Yes Revelation is a safe Fallback, but when we want to use reason to extend the 100%certainty of these truths into more empirical ones - the cost is certainty. We enter the realm of high probability only, just as Popper stated of all emprical judgements.

Personally I accept that the Resurrection is an emprical event and therefore I must be open to the possibility that it could be empirically disproved.(eg if they discovered the actual bones of Jesus). Of course this is a bit silly because I have such a strong investment in being right that I would never accept the pedigree of acheological evidence to be great enough to ever take it seriously.

I would be like those philosophers back in Europe who said - “you are mistaken, all swans are white, you must have been looking at a black turkey.”

There is no doubt about it, being a thinking Christian today is exceedingly difficult without the ability to patiently live with contradiction. All will eventually be revealed.

 

[grannymh]

Picture is from svswans.com/black.html

The Black Swan story has been used by some authors to demonstrate the fallacy of the universal negative. Personally, I prefer to use it to distinguish between improbable and impossible when dealing with issues in the physical/material realm.

But – this thread is a philosophy issue.

Once it is accepted that God as Creator exists, we can use Catholic teachings regarding the infinite powers of God which make it possible for humans to share in His divine life, therefore – the second axiom God as Creator interacts with humans.

Yet, it is good to get an understanding of the inductive method in post 489. That way, we can learn that “empirical observations” form the base or authority for truth in the natural world. The “white swan” syllogism example in post 489 is a good one with this exception. To me, the last line “Therefore this swan is white” sounds more like an inference (inductive method) based on the scientific premise in the second line. However, since I agree that deduction and induction can work together, I will not debate the last line.

When it comes to truth in the super-natural world, we find another source of information, God Himself. This Creator united the spiritual world and material world into one unique human nature. Granted, we can use the skills learned in our material environment to seek spiritual knowledge. But, our decomposing anatomy does not provide necessary knowledge about joy eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision. (CCC, Glossary, Beatific Vision, page 867)

From the Catholic point of view, the human person is amazing. (CCC, 1730-1731) All humans are amazing and are worthy of profound respect. This may be considered as a corollary to both axioms. What is happening is that there is a switch from God (axiom1 God as Creator exists) to the human person. According to Catholicism, we find the first human person, considered a spiritual creature, living in a material garden and needing food to stay alive.(CCC, 396; Genesis 2: 16)

Should we be looking for a possible falsification that there are humans (plural intended) who do not need to eat to live? Is there a society of human black swans? The point is that we actually view human nature in the plural because there can be exceptions due to physical/mental abnormalities. Even with exceptions, the human nature of conception has the potential to share in the life of God. (CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898)

When we view human nature in the plural, we find that “the human race forms a unity”. (CCC, 360) This natural, objective unity should be explored according to paragraph 404 of the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Links to the Catechism

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Blue_Horizon]

… Once it is accepted that *God as Creator exists

There may be a few problems with this statement…
(a) It is universally true so doesn’t really need to be “accepted.” But it is because it is a tautology, ie self-evident by the terms used. It seems little different from saying “all bachelors (strange to say) are unmarried.” That is, it is the very definition of “creator” to exist. In other words it is little more than saying a triangle has 3 sides but with no guarantee we will actually ever discover one in the sensible world.
(b) There is no common understanding of what the noun “God” means. Presumably you are identifying the philosophical “uncaused cause” (who necessarily exists if creatures exist) with YHW of the Bible? But this is simply an unproven assertion which depends on faith.

we can use Catholic teachings regarding the infinite powers of God which make it possible for humans to share in His divine life, therefore – the second axiom God as Creator interacts with humans.

This seems a bit over-complicated. The very acceptance of Revelation implies that YHW interacts with humans. We only know of Adam and Eve by Revelation.

To me, the last line “Therefore this swan is white” sounds more like an inference (inductive method) based on the scientific premise in the second line.

The word “inference” simply means a “logical conclusion”. That conclusion could be arrived at via deductive, inductive, abductive or analogical reasoning. So no, this is not inductive reasoning. It is a deductive inference because we came to a particular truth (deductive conclusion) on the basis of a universal truth (major premise).

The point is that we actually view human nature in the plural because there can be exceptions due to physical/mental abnormalities

I believe Scholastics held that any particular “nature” (Scholastic essence/form) is considered unique and singular not plural. The same human nature is multiplied (exhibited) in many individuals because of the material principle inherent in human nature. That is why Angels (without materiality) are each a different species. So the word “angel” is really a genus ( referring to many different “angel” species) while the word “human” refers to many individuals of a single species. So the plurality of human individuals is not really due to “exceptions” (which suggests sub-species differences in human form). As the Scholastics used to say “matter is the principle of individuality”.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Personally I accept that the Resurrection is an emprical event and therefore I must be open to the possibility that it could be empirically disproved.(eg if they discovered the actual bones of Jesus). Of course this is a bit silly because I have such a strong investment in being right that I would never accept the pedigree of acheological evidence to be great enough to ever take it seriously.

I would be like those philosophers back in Europe who said - “you are mistaken, all swans are white, you must have been looking at a black turkey.”

There is no doubt about it, being a thinking Christian today is exceedingly difficult without the ability to patiently live with contradiction. All will eventually be revealed.

I can empathize with how really difficult it must be for thinking Christians today.
And about the philosophers back in Europe in those days, I’d be like that too: “black swan = turkey”, if I woke up and the sky were green with pink pokadots.
This weather’s making me cranky. I do appreciate your posts.
As you rightly state,

All will eventually be revealed.

 

[simpleas]

I am not so sure you are as far off as you seem to suspect…

The important point I am making is that “sin” is far more and far deeper than simply disobedience wrt a direct personal command from God (whether God has ever really acted in this way with any particular person is prob up for debate as well).

Closely related is the insight that sin has to be more than the disobeying an arbitrary command (ie it doesn’t matter what it is that an authority commands us (it could be a mere whim with no intrinsic evil content), any disobedience is equally sin.) This is not Catholic teaching.

Are you talking about sin as we know it now, or the sin that Adam committed?

So the command that God gave to Adam as the first human, wasn’t a personal command?

Thanks.