As a former believer, in some ways I miss believing

[John_Martin]

Originally Posted by John Martin forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The reasoning is only a theory until you encounter the object of your theorizing.
That is not true. A metaphysical argument for God is not a theory. Metaphysics properly understood provides absolute certainty of Gods existence.

Well, the “natural laws” are considered “principles” by science as they are used as starting points for scientific reasoning (experimentation). But the natural laws are actually posited theories also based on observation of physical reality and reasoning (such as mathematical proofs which coincide with the theory).

A metaphysical argument is just that, an argument that reasonably coincides with observed phenomena. It may be “accepted” as truth and believed and “known” as truth by its adherents, but observed phenomena can always be observed more closely, thus we discovered in the 20th century that the universe is larger than one galaxy, or earlier that the earth moved around the sun or that the “firmament of the heavens” was not “firm” at all.

Any argument based on reasoning about observed reality is subject to further questioning and discovery that can accept or improve or change that argument. But a real object (named Jesus) can deliver himself as “God with us” and then he becomes the principle or starting point where we say and know, “God Is, and he is with us”. And the principle or starting point of our viewing and reasoning about observed reality.

John Martin

 

[JDaniel]

Sure, that’s a fair third option, but on that note I s’pose it’s also possible that you’ve misunderstood an objection to Aquinas’ ways, it’s only fitting that an objection to a complex argument be subtle.

I’d be interested in an exchange over Aquinas’ Ways, but could only invest so much time. Maybe if we narrowed it to one of his ways, say the first?

Perplexity:

OK, the Prime Mover argument. Will you start another thread, or shall I?

God bless,
jd

 

[Perplexity]

Perplexity:

OK, the Prime Mover argument. Will you start another thread, or shall I?

God bless,
jd

Kewl, would you mind starting 'er up? I’m just gonna go over some notes and jog my mind a little.

 

[Sair]

I miss feeling comfortable with the way things were going. “Everything happens for a reason” is a mantra that can’t really be reconciled with a world view without some sort of God. It was calming believing that something bigger was always looking out for me. It was nice praying at night as a way to unwind and relay my thoughts to an all loving being.

But believing in God is not something you can just choose to do. I have come to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that there is a God and unless some world changing thing happened, I doubt that will change.

People say “you just have to open up your heart and God will open up to you” or things like that. In my eyes this is just a way of saying “you just have to be open to believing in God and your brain will do the rest.”

But it was nice when everything happened for a reason. Life was a little less stressful.

To be honest, I have found it exactly the opposite.

Then again, whenever someone told me, back in the days when I was a very active believer, that everything happened for a reason, even then it mostly sounded like a sugar-coated cop-out, especially when the person making the assertion couldn’t pony up with the details about the reasons.

Things do happen for reasons, but they’re not reasons that necessarily have anything to do with a supreme consciousness looking out for us and taking an active interest in our affairs. That view of life and of our place in the world is, to put it kindly, just a bit arrogant.

I think you’re right about belief in God not being a choice - either you are convinced or you’re not. It’s a bit like finding out that some pill you’ve been taking for a chronic illness is just a placebo - once you’ve learned that it doesn’t have any demonstrable effects on the basis of rigorous testing, you’d have to then persuade yourself that all those tests were rigged or otherwise invalid or limited in order to go on experiencing any noticeable effects from taking that ‘drug’.

Just by the bye, it’s interesting that this thread hasn’t been shut down yet, given that it relates rather strongly to atheism…

 

[Julia_Mae]

IF there is no afterlife, that means this life is arguably MORE important because it is the only one you have.

If there is no afterlife, it means *you *do not exist at all, except as a function of complex chemical interactions resulting from those billions of years of evolution. YOU have no freewill, you do not decide what to post, what to think, write or do. The “you” is just a by-product of processes in Time/Space and Time/Space is all that exists.

You really see this life as just a big test for the afterlife? In that scenario nothing really matters in this life.

More like a training ground.

And as I said, even IF you can see evidence of a creator (evidence I disagree with) in no way does that mean there is an afterlife,

But there is evidence of “afterlife,” existence outside of normal Time/Space. BTW, you cannot rationally “disagree with evidence.” It just exists. You can choose to interpret it differently than another or … oh wait. No you can’t… because you have no freewill and you don’t actually exist.

 

[JDaniel]

Kewl, would you mind starting 'er up? I’m just gonna go over some notes and jog my mind a little.

Perplexity:

OK. It’s posted: awaiting objection(s) and subtleties!

God bless,
jd

 

[John_Martin]

…
I think you’re right about belief in God not being a choice - either you are convinced or you’re not. It’s a bit like finding out that some pill you’ve been taking for a chronic illness is just a placebo - once you’ve learned that it doesn’t have any demonstrable effects on the basis of rigorous testing, you’d have to then persuade yourself that all those tests were rigged or otherwise invalid or limited in order to go on experiencing any noticeable effects from taking that ‘drug’.

Just by the bye, it’s interesting that this thread hasn’t been shut down yet, given that it relates rather strongly to atheism…

Choice has to do with alternate means (reasoned) to achieve an end, the end being the desire of the Will to be fulfilled. But what you know / love is not a choice; it is simply loved and desired (as good, beautiful, or true - or all three) and the desire and the will are to participate in that beloved object known. The reason then seeks to figure out how to participate and makes choices of actions.

That is why a Catholic became Catholic - Jesus was seen (in person, in His Body the Church speaking and acting) and there was a desire to share in that person, to love and be loved by that person. And then there was the choice of a means to that end - submission to being baptized into union with that body (citizenship in the Kingdom established by God - this is the assertion of Jesus that this happens).
With others there is a choice, upon seeing Jesus, to turn away, because some other love known, and desired, and willed, is more immediate or appealing (reason, when making free choices, sees that joining Jesus would impact that other apparently good, beautiful or true loved thing)

I don’t see why this thread would be shut down - I think we are having a very good interchange here; I have seen no harrassment from either side, but very respectful debate - Aquinas’ Summa displays contrary arguments and explanations at each question, and we are having such a live interchange here. I am enjoying the chance to share what I know and love, and enjoying reading what you all are saying.

John Martin

 

[John_Martin]

…
But what you know / love is not a choice; it is simply loved and desired (as good, beautiful, or true - or all three) and the desire and the will are to participate in that beloved object known. The reason then seeks to figure out how to participate and makes choices of actions.

What strikes me as a question to an atheist (or other) is when you know what you know (atheism, or other) as truth, do you have a passion for that truth, desiring to participate in it, loving it? Or is it a truth that seems more like a deep and heavy sigh that this is what reality must be, and you are subject to that reality no matter what?

Any thoughts?

John Martin

 

[norain]

What strikes me as a question to an atheist (or other) is when you know what you know (atheism, or other) as truth, do you have a passion for that truth, desiring to participate in it, loving it? Or is it a truth that seems more like a deep and heavy sigh that this is what reality must be, and you are subject to that reality no matter what?

Any thoughts?

John Martin

Whether you believe in God or not, He will still be there, or not. The more important question is, which side makes more sense to you? Which one gives you peace? Go to that side, and keep asking yourself the question everyday.

 

[ReapReason]

Well, the “natural laws” are considered “principles” by science as they are used as starting points for scientific reasoning (experimentation). But the natural laws are actually posited theories also based on observation of physical reality and reasoning (such as mathematical proofs which coincide with the theory).

Metaphysics does not operate like Scientific Theory.

A metaphysical argument is just that, an argument that reasonably coincides with observed phenomena.

You have made a superficial comparison between science and metaphysics.

 

[John_Martin]

Metaphysics does not operate like Scientific Theory.
You have made a superficial comparison between science and metaphysics.

Definitions, don’t you love them:
Metaphysics: philosophy of being: the branch of philosophy concerned with the study of the nature of being and beings, existence, time and space, and causality
Philosophy: examination of basic concepts: the branch of knowledge or academic study devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom
Science: systematic body of knowledge: a systematically organized body of knowledge about a particular subject

From these defintions, it appears that Metaphysics, the Philosophy of Being, is a systematically organized body of knowledge about a particular subject (Being), and, as such is a Science, having principles (either obvious, or inherited from a superior science) upon which it develops its findings using systematic observation and experiment, which is the development of scientific theory.

Reason, which develops metaphysical conclusions, makes use of inspiration, observation of objective reality, and experimentation with objective reality, in order to reach its conclusions.

Metaphysics, like theology, is definitely a science. The very first answer to question one in Aquinas’ Summa addresses this very issue: ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q1_A1.html

As to superficial comparison with science, Aquinas himself uses similar comparisons, such as “white and whiteness” to compare with “species and individuation”.

Because “modern science” does not subscribe to “metaphysics” as a science, does not mean that metaphysics uses something other than scientific method.

John Martin

 

[norain]

Here’s a question that might be worth asking:

If you believe in God, within the obvious constraint of human intellect, is this the God that ought to be?

And if you don’t believe in God, would the world be in fact a better place had this God existed?

It may seem like an easy question, but it is not.

The question that applies to me is the first one, my answer being a firm ‘yes’.

 

[John_Martin]

Here’s a question that might be worth asking:

If you believe in God, within the obvious constraint of human intellect, is this the God that ought to be?

And if you don’t believe in God, would the world be in fact a better place had this God existed?

It may seem like an easy question, but it is not.

The question that applies to me is the first one, my answer being a firm ‘yes’.

For me, the human intellect is constrained to aquiring knowledge through the use of sensual perception (by the body) of objective phenomena, then reasoning about that until I know something. Into that perceived phenomena comes Jesus. And, be he Right (from God) or Wrong (not from God), I am taking him at his word, and then re-looking at and re-reasoning all objective perception with his reality as a starting point.

If I only had a reasoned God, I would be longing for his presence.

John Martin

 

[ReapReason]

From these defintions, it appears that Metaphysics, the Philosophy of Being, is a systematically organized body of knowledge about a particular subject (Being), and, as such is a Science,

Again you are making a superficial comparison between two subjects that use different investigative principles and rest upon different epistemological contexts. Its irrelevant that Metaphysics is a science in the sense of being an organized body of knowledge; it is still not the same thing as modern science, and metaphysics certainly does not use the scientific method as its investigative principle.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

This is an interesting paradox for me.

God exists. What does this mean? There’s an objective good and evil. With that being the case when I use God’s standards to judge myself, I cringe. All told, I’m a pretty awful person.

I’m not saying this because you’re “supposed” to be humble, either. It affects my life and I’m ashamed. Of course, I’d still be a pretty awful person if I DIDN’T believe in God, but without the pressure of some perfect, Almighty being setting up a SPECIFIC standard; I’m forced to take a look at who I am in the mirror every day.

As an atheist I would, of course still try to be a good person, but a lot of the shame would be gone, because I’d know I was “trying”. And I’d be a good person by MY standards. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m very arrogant; it takes a lot for me to apologize for something major, and yet several times I’ve done so, not because of God per se, but because I took a good long look in the mirror, motivated by God, and was forced to conclude that I was the one in the wrong.

As an atheist, I’d probably just continue with my belief that I was right.

The paradox is that, even if I didn’t have good rational reasons but believed in an erroneous idea of “faith” taken out of its proper context I would STILL want to believe. I have a God now guiding me, comforting me, always there for me. Who may judge me but will always, always forgive me if I ask. Who I can call on in times of trouble.

It’s not even, specifically, Heaven that draws me (although fear of death is one of the hallmarks of being human, and I’ll admit it’s very comforting), because Hell legitimately scares me. Being called to marriage and children, if I am, really, truly frightens me-the pain of losing children…how horrible.

It’s the great paradox mentioned in the Bible-how following Jesus is harder than anything you’ll ever do, and yet his yoke is easy and his burden is light.

On the apology theme-I just gave (literally about a week or so ago) a long, very sincere, very humbling and unpleasant apology to one of my best friends who I haven’t been speaking to for several months. I hated making that apology. It involved me admitting that I, and nobody else, was 100% wrong and to blame. I HATED admitting that-my pride hated it. But I did it. And my friend forgave me. If I was not religious, I doubt I ever would have taken that look in the mirror and admitted I was wrong.

And yet, it was worth it. Keeping your friends after High School is incredibly difficult, but I’m going to do my very best. And we’re still friends. I’d make that apology again in a heartbeat.

It was hard-very hard. But after I made that apology, a great burden was lifted off of me. My yoke was easy, and my burden was light.

You have made a very interesting, thoughtful post.

 

[norain]

Marc,

I do not think there is much of a difference as you claim.

An atheist sets his standard of goodness.
You (and I) set the standard as God’s. But who decides whether God is indeed happy with our work? You and I, just like the atheist.

It all come down to us, no matter how you get there, it is still us who judge ourselves.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Marc,

I do not think there is much of a difference as you claim.

An atheist sets his standard of goodness.
You (and I) set the standard as God’s. But who decides whether God is indeed happy with our work? You and I, just like the atheist.

It all come down to us, no matter how you get there, it is still us who judge ourselves.

My point is pretty subtle, actually. Oh, I’d judge myself as an atheist-you kind of have to, right?

The difference with me right now is not so much that I’m constantly thinking about God’s standards of morality but rather how I think about myself-how doing my best is not enough-how, when I truly stop and look at myself, I’m NOT a good person, and the fault is mine-I can try harder, and I should.

Also, I disagree with your premise, because 1) I actually doubt God is particularly happy about my work-I need to try harder. I’m banking on his mercy (but then, aren’t we all?). and, 2) I actually believe the objective standard can be reasoned rationally.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I miss feeling comfortable with the way things were going. “Everything happens for a reason” is a mantra that can’t really be reconciled with a world view without some sort of God. It was calming believing that something bigger was always looking out for me. It was nice praying at night as a way to unwind and relay my thoughts to an all loving being.

Maybe because that All-loving Being was listening and you could feel His love?

But believing in God is not something you can just choose to do. I have come to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that there is a God and unless some world changing thing happened, I doubt that will change.

I disagree with your conclusion, and I disagree that you would change even if a world changing thing happened (although I hope not). Just a guess on the latter part, since I don’t know you personally, and anything is possible.

But yeah, believing in God is more than just saying, “You know what, I’m gonna believe God today!” It’s an active choice to believe in God, but that choice takes God’s grace along with your own effort.

People say “you just have to open up your heart and God will open up to you” or things like that. In my eyes this is just a way of saying “you just have to be open to believing in God and your brain will do the rest.”

But it was nice when everything happened for a reason. Life was a little less stressful.

If you aren’t open to believing in God why would you believe in God? Believing requires you choosing to believe.

Yeah, like finding a reason for suffering?

In any case,

Hail Mary…

 

[norain]

My point is pretty subtle, actually. Oh, I’d judge myself as an atheist-you kind of have to, right?

The difference with me right now is not so much that I’m constantly thinking about God’s standards of morality but rather how I think about myself-how doing my best is not enough-how, when I truly stop and look at myself, I’m NOT a good person, and the fault is mine-I can try harder, and I should.

Also, I disagree with your premise, because 1) I actually doubt God is particularly happy about my work-I need to try harder. I’m banking on his mercy (but then, aren’t we all?). and, 2) I actually believe the objective standard can be reasoned rationally.

Yeah, but atheists have that problem too (being hard on themselves)! You think atheists expect less of themselves without a god around to boss them? I don’t think so.

There is on the other hand, a moral hazard attached to the mere idea of “God’s forgiveness is all I really need”.

Finally, as you said: “I actually believe the objective standard can be reasoned rationally.”

I agree.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Yeah, but atheists have that problem too (being hard on themselves)! You think atheists expect less of themselves without a god around to boss them? I don’t think so.

No, not exactly. First of all I’m speaking for myself-I really don’t think I’d be much worse than I am now as an atheist, maybe not any worse at all, but I probably wouldn’t concentrate as hard as getting better. Harkening back to the previous apology example, I probably would have stayed angry because I was convinced that I WAS RIGHT (I was convinced of that initially). It wouldn’t really have occurred to me to look into it more.

There’s also me being arrogant-I remember when I nearly became an atheist. Reading the “new atheists” there’s almost an enticing sense of superiority there. It’s addicting. I would have reveled in it. Now, at least I ATTEMPT to keep myself in check instead of thinking of myself as smarter or better than other people. I might still think that, but I attempt to correct my thinking. As an atheist, I’d honestly believe I was right, and probably wouldn’t.

Anyway, I never said that I needed God to boss me around, either. You’re putting words in my mouth. Again, my point is more subtle. It’s just that as a religious person I feel like I’m called to do MORE than my best-I need to be continually improving, because my best is never enough. There are atheists who believe that, but they don’t speak for me.
And honestly, I would find their reasoning a bit suspect once we get past, “Well that’s just my personality.”