A
andyklein
Guest
In an Augustinian or Cartesian or Leibniz fashion, not necessarily adopting all their views?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Mount_Carmel
Guest
Depends on what you mean and understand by the term ‘rationalist’. Even ‘rationalists’ have their ‘irrational’ moments. There is more going on in the human brain/mind than just cognitive processing and basic life support.
Whether there is a place for ‘belief’ kind of comes down to whether knowledge and proof, as defined by the five physical senses and the limitations of ‘physical and temporal’ based science ‘proofs’ and theories is what everything is all about, or that there needs be more in order to explain all the ‘blind spots’.
Where is the link, and there must be one, between infinity/eternity and physical and temporal existence?
‘There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy’ - ‘Hamlet’.*
Whether there is a place for ‘belief’ kind of comes down to whether knowledge and proof, as defined by the five physical senses and the limitations of ‘physical and temporal’ based science ‘proofs’ and theories is what everything is all about, or that there needs be more in order to explain all the ‘blind spots’.
Where is the link, and there must be one, between infinity/eternity and physical and temporal existence?
‘There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy’ - ‘Hamlet’.*
N
N0X3x
Guest
I’d like to think I am a Catholic because I’m a rationalist.
Do you mean by rationalist, “someone who believes that knowledge by reason is superior to empirical knowledge”, or “someone who believes that knowledge by reason is superior to *all *other forms of knowledge”?
If the former, then I agree, as I do not consider the existence of the empirical universe to even be absolutely certain, and any sort of knowledge of the faith probably should come from arguments rather than through evidence.
If the latter, I recognize (by reason, ironically enough) that those further in their faith journey than myself may possess inexpressible, but irrefutable, knowledge that Catholicism is true. (knowledge by faith) I am not opposed to the possibility of justified knowledge through faith, but this type of knowledge is not the reason I’m Catholic.
Do you mean by rationalist, “someone who believes that knowledge by reason is superior to empirical knowledge”, or “someone who believes that knowledge by reason is superior to *all *other forms of knowledge”?
If the former, then I agree, as I do not consider the existence of the empirical universe to even be absolutely certain, and any sort of knowledge of the faith probably should come from arguments rather than through evidence.
If the latter, I recognize (by reason, ironically enough) that those further in their faith journey than myself may possess inexpressible, but irrefutable, knowledge that Catholicism is true. (knowledge by faith) I am not opposed to the possibility of justified knowledge through faith, but this type of knowledge is not the reason I’m Catholic.
A
andyklein
Guest
I mean one who believes that some knowledge of matters of fact and relations of ideas is independent of sense perception. This is the Platonist, St. Augustine, Descartes view. To be this implies that one is operating from a completely different ontological, metaphysical, and epistemological viewpoint that the Thomistic naturalist standpoint, which is the basis for much Catholic teaching.
P
polytropos
Guest
Catholicism tends to embrace a moderate realism more like that of Aristotle or Thomas Aquinas, but forms of Platonism have of course been a substantial part of the Catholic intellectual tradition as well. I do not see rationalism as inherently incompatible, though there are certain tendencies one must watch out for. Undue skepticism/solipsism might be problematic. The separation of the body and soul implied by Cartesian dualism could also be a problem.I mean one who believes that some knowledge of matters of fact and relations of ideas is independent of sense perception. This is the Platonist, St. Augustine, Descartes view. To be this implies that one is operating from a completely different ontological, metaphysical, and epistemological viewpoint that the Thomistic naturalist standpoint, which is the basis for much Catholic teaching.
Q
Qoeleth
Guest
Well, Augustine and Descarte were both devout Catholics!In an Augustinian or Cartesian or Leibniz fashion, not necessarily adopting all their views?
A Catholic could be a rationalist, an irrationalist, an idealist, a post-modernist, a sceptic, a Cynic, a Platonist, an existentialist, almost anything. Catholicism is not dependent on any single philosophical system.
A
andyklein
Guest
I haven’t yet met the existentialist Catholic. Maybe Sartre will be cited in the next encyclical.Well, Augustine and Descarte were both devout Catholics!
A Catholic could be a rationalist, an irrationalist, an idealist, a post-modernist, a sceptic, a Cynic, a Platonist, an existentialist, almost anything. Catholicism is not dependent on any single philosophical system.
A
Abu
Guest
The revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., defines rationalism as “a system of thought or attitude of mind which holds that human reason is self-sufficient and does not need the help of divine revelation to know all that is necessary for a person’s well-being. Also the view that a priori reason can give certitude without experience or verification of facts.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
It is little wonder that Pope Leo XIII gave the following prophetic warning in his encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus against the acceptance of higher-criticism and the demythologizing it employed:
It will not throw on Scripture the light that is sought, or prove any advantage to doctrine; it will only give rise to disagreement and dissension, those sure notes of error, which the critics in question so plentifully exhibit in their own persons; and seeing that most of them are tainted with false philosophy and rationalism, it must lead to the elimination from the sacred writings of all prophecy and miracles, and of everything that is outside the natural order.
Due to utilitarianism, **modernism, and rationalism **some, as we have seen, try to deny that the natural law can be known through reason alone, usually because they want to, or do, break it.
Bl John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 13, 1991:
“The atheism of which we are speaking is also closely connected with the rationalism of the Enlightenment, which views human and social reality in a mechanistic way. Thus there is a denial of the supreme insight concerning man’s true greatness, his transcendence in respect to earthly realities, the contradiction in his heart between the desire for the fullness of what is good and his own inability to attain it and, above all, the need for salvation which results from this situation.”
The so-called “Enlightenment” was exposed for its degradation by Bl John Paul II:
“**The rationalism of the Enlightenment **put to one side the true God – in particular, God the Redeemer.
“The consequence was that man was supposed to live by reason alone, as if God did not exist…as if God were not interested in the world. **The rationalism of the Enlightenment **was able to accept a God outside of the world primarily because it was an unverifiable hypothesis. It was crucial, however, that such a God be expelled from the world.”
Crossing The Threshold Of Hope, Bl John Paul II, Random House Australia, 1994, p 53.]
Thus rationalism in itself is false, when in itself it cannot justify principles by rational argument.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
It is little wonder that Pope Leo XIII gave the following prophetic warning in his encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus against the acceptance of higher-criticism and the demythologizing it employed:
It will not throw on Scripture the light that is sought, or prove any advantage to doctrine; it will only give rise to disagreement and dissension, those sure notes of error, which the critics in question so plentifully exhibit in their own persons; and seeing that most of them are tainted with false philosophy and rationalism, it must lead to the elimination from the sacred writings of all prophecy and miracles, and of everything that is outside the natural order.
Due to utilitarianism, **modernism, and rationalism **some, as we have seen, try to deny that the natural law can be known through reason alone, usually because they want to, or do, break it.
Bl John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 13, 1991:
“The atheism of which we are speaking is also closely connected with the rationalism of the Enlightenment, which views human and social reality in a mechanistic way. Thus there is a denial of the supreme insight concerning man’s true greatness, his transcendence in respect to earthly realities, the contradiction in his heart between the desire for the fullness of what is good and his own inability to attain it and, above all, the need for salvation which results from this situation.”
The so-called “Enlightenment” was exposed for its degradation by Bl John Paul II:
“**The rationalism of the Enlightenment **put to one side the true God – in particular, God the Redeemer.
“The consequence was that man was supposed to live by reason alone, as if God did not exist…as if God were not interested in the world. **The rationalism of the Enlightenment **was able to accept a God outside of the world primarily because it was an unverifiable hypothesis. It was crucial, however, that such a God be expelled from the world.”
Crossing The Threshold Of Hope, Bl John Paul II, Random House Australia, 1994, p 53.]
Thus rationalism in itself is false, when in itself it cannot justify principles by rational argument.
P
polytropos
Guest
There is Gabriel Marcel.I haven’t yet met the existentialist Catholic. Maybe Sartre will be cited in the next encyclical.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.