Destroying Russell's Teapot (With Lasers!)

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicWhovian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Can you provide the quotations?
Aquinas:

With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, “A little leaven,” says: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.” (ST II:II 11:3 corpus)

Augustine:
From Augustine’s letter to Boniface (Epistle #185), c. 417: De Correctione Donatistarum, A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists:

Chapter 6.—21. It is indeed better (as no one ever could deny) that men should be led to worship God by teaching, than that they should be driven to it by fear of punishment or pain; but it does not follow that because the former course produces the better men, therefore those who do not yield to it should be neglected. For many have found advantage (as we have proved, and are daily proving by actual experiment), in being first compelled by fear or pain, so that they might afterwards be influenced by teaching, or might follow out in act what they had already learned in word. Some, indeed, set before us the sentiments of a certain secular author, who said,

“’Tis well, I ween, by shame the young to train,
And dread of meanness, rather than by pain.”

This is unquestionably true. But while those are better who are guided aright by love, those are certainly more numerous who are corrected by fear. For, to answer these persons out of their own author, we find him saying in another place,

“Unless by pain and suffering thou art taught,
Thou canst not guide thyself aright in aught.”

But, moreover, holy Scripture has both said concerning the former better class, “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear;” and also concerning the latter lower class, which furnishes the majority, “A servant will not be corrected by words; for though he understand, he will not answer.” In saying, “He will not be corrected by words,” he did not order him to be left to himself, but implied an admonition as to the means whereby he ought to be corrected; otherwise he would not have said, “He will not be corrected by words,” but without any qualification, “He will not be corrected.” For in another place he says that not only the servant, but also the undisdained son, must be corrected with stripes, and that with great fruits as the result; for he says, “Thou shall beat him with the rod, and shall deliver his soul from hell;” and elsewhere he says, “He that spareth the rod hateth his son.” For, give us a man who with right faith and true understanding can say with all the energy of his heart, “My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?” and for such an one there is no need of the terror of hell, to say nothing of temporal punishments or imperial laws, seeing that with him it is so indispensable a blessing to cleave unto the Lord, that he not only dreads being parted from that happiness as a heavy punishment, but can scarcely even bear delay in its attainment. But yet, before the good sons can say they have “a desire to depart, and to be with Christ,” many must first be recalled to their Lord by the stripes of temporal scourging, like evil slaves, and in some degree like good-for-nothing fugitives.



Why, therefore, should not the Church use force in compelling her lost sons to return, if the lost sons compelled others to their destruction? Although even men who have not been compelled, but only led astray, are received by their loving mother with more affection if they are recalled to her bosom through the enforcement of terrible but salutary laws, and are the objects of far more deep congratulation than those whom she had never lost. Is it not a part of the care of the shepherd, when any sheep have left the flock, even though not violently forced away, but led astray by tender words and coaxing blandishments, to bring them back to the fold of his master when he has found them, by the fear or even the pain of the whip, if they show symptoms of resistance; especially since, if they multiply with growing abundance among the fugitive slaves and robbers, he has the more right in that the mark of the master is recognized on them, which is not outraged in those whom we receive but do not rebaptize? For the wandering of the sheep is to be corrected in such wise that the mark of the Redeemer should not be destroyed on it.
 
Aquinas:

With regard …
Always a pleasure to read from the saints.
The standards of the those times were different. For example there were no money to keep somebody in prison. Anybody ( of course not the slaves ) was free to leave the town, maybe for a Muslim country. And the possible punishments were not kept secret.
Generally, people did not tolerate the heretics because of the possible corruption of their own young. The majority in town was christian. It was not like the example given in most recent days by the nazi or communists, who were an atheist minority in power oppressing a majority.
 
Always a pleasure to read from the saints.
The standards of the those times were different. For example there were no money to keep somebody in prison. Anybody ( of course not the slaves ) was free to leave the town, maybe for a Muslim country. And the possible punishments were not kept secret.
Generally, people did not tolerate the heretics because of the possible corruption of their own young. The majority in town was christian. It was not like the example given in most recent days by the nazi or communists, who were an atheist minority in power oppressing a majority.
Never really a pleasure to see people justifying persecution. Unfortunately it’s never really a surprise when dealing with Catholics.

Let’s see… in this short quote we have:
  • Morality is relative to the time and culture
  • It’s okay to persecute people because they can always just leave
  • It’s okay to persecute people if they know the that people like them are persecuted in that area
  • It’s okay to persecute people who might cause young people to not have the same beliefs as their parents
  • It’s okay to persecute people if you’re a majority and they’re the minority
 
Never really a pleasure to see people justifying persecution. Unfortunately it’s never really a surprise when dealing with Catholics.

Let’s see… in this short quote we have:
  • Morality is relative to the time and culture
  • It’s okay to persecute people because they can always just leave
  • It’s okay to persecute people if they know the that people like them are persecuted in that area
  • It’s okay to persecute people who might cause young people to not have the same beliefs as their parents
  • It’s okay to persecute people if you’re a majority and they’re the minority
What do you think, if I kick somebody’s but out of my house, do I persecute him?
Why yes or why no?
 
Well if you want to get picky about the good and bad quality of “saints”, then I’m going to have to point out that Aquinas and Augustine argued for the persecution, torture and execution of heretics.
I assume that you can give book, chaper, and verse for this? I will wait to see them, so will everyone else.
.
Everyone on my list furthered the cause of humanity in significant ways, but Sakharov in particular I chose for his humanitarian works, which earned him a Nobel Peace Prize. For that matter, the first Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Henry Dunant, who was an agnostic.
I don’t think earthly prizes are the proof of goodness. I think we would have to examine them on a case by case basis. Of course, such cases cannot compare with over 2,000 years of history and thousands of Saintly lives to study and marvel at.

Linus2nd
 
Well if you want to get picky about the good and bad quality of “saints”, then I’m going to have to point out that Aquinas and Augustine argued for the persecution, torture and execution of heretics. Everyone on my list furthered the cause of humanity in significant ways, but Sakharov in particular I chose for his humanitarian works, which earned him a Nobel Peace Prize. For that matter, the first Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Henry Dunant, who was an agnostic.
I don’t think that earthly prizes are proof of holiness. The followers of God have more than 4,000 years of experience in holiness and love, and thousands of declared Saints. You could read some of them at profit.

Aquinas and Augustine lived in violent, harsh times. Just read the history of those days. But I must correct you. They did not support persecution or torture, those are your embellishments. They supported punishment and execution in extreme cases. But they were giving opinions and arguments. Though they were Saints, they were not without sin or error, no Saint was ever that perfect, except the Blessed Mother. And it should be noted that they left such practices up to the State or Legal authority. All the Church could do was excommunicate.

Looks to me like you are just trying to rationalize, to find excuses, for what you have done.

Linus2nd
 
What do you think, if I kick somebody’s but out of my house, do I persecute him?
Why yes or why no?
No, if it’s your house, but yes, if it’s a city, town or country. You can’t just run around executing people whose religious views you don’t like. I can’t believe I have to tell you this.

I’ll give you some advice: the rationale your using could be used to justify the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany and elsewhere*. That is not a good thing.

*They knew that Nazi Germany persecuted Jews
They could have just left
The Jews were a minority
The Nazis perceived Jews as a threat
It was not seen as unusual at the time.
 
No, if it’s your house, but yes, if it’s a city, town or country. You can’t just run around executing people whose religious views you don’t like. I can’t believe I have to tell you this.

I’ll give you some advice: the rationale your using could be used to justify the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany and elsewhere*. That is not a good thing.

*They knew that Nazi Germany persecuted Jews
They could have just left
The Jews were a minority
The Nazis perceived Jews as a threat
It was not seen as unusual at the time.
“You can’t just run around executing people whose religious views you don’t like” - this is a Straw Man.

Nazi plays in the atheistic league so to speak and we cant include them and their peculiarities in this discussion.

What one can use or not it’s his own responsibility.

There are complains made by the Palestinians persecuted in Israel by the Jews.
 
And to be precise, Russell’s teapot analogy isn’t meant to reject any proofs of God’s existence, it’s a specific retort to the attempt to shift the burden of proof onto someone who doesn’t believe an unsubstantiated claim. If there’s proof, the analogy doesn’t apply, which is why my very first post in this thread was to point out that the best way to defeat the teapot analogy is to provide evidence or proof of God. If you don’t understand why someone might want to use this analogy, I have dozens of posts by Charlemagne III and others demanding that nonbelievers must prove that God does not exist, or that people who don’t believe in souls prove that souls don’t exist, etc.
Well, it works both ways. “You can’t prove not-X.” (or similar “You haven’t offered a good argument for not-X.”, “I haven’t seen a good argument for not-X.” etc.) is a common argument in favour of any X. Actually, in your next post you have used something very similar yourself:
Funny, I’ve never met a non-Christian who is absolutely certain that God does not exist (depending on what you call God).
In other words, you say “I haven’t seen a good argument for not-X.” (or “You can’t prove not-X.”), where X is “There are no people who are absolutely certain that God does not exist.”.
I haven’t seen proofs that God exists. I’ve seen incredibly bad arguments and some arguments that might be good in a certain philosophical framework but don’t transfer to modern science very well.
And here you say “I haven’t seen a good argument for not-X.” (or “You can’t prove not-X.”), where X is “God does not exist.” (or “Proofs that God exists do not exist.”).

Actually, the whole Russell’s Teapot is an argument of the same type, when “You can’t prove not-X!” is answered by “You can’t prove X either!”… Well, I guess it would be possible to conclude that “You can’t prove not-X.” is still a legitimate (but weak) argument…

Oh, and, while the “offtopic” discussions have offered nice examples, perhaps it would be best to stop before we start arguing if it would have been good to burn Nazis on stake for heresy… 😃
 
No, if it’s your house, but yes, if it’s a city, town or country. You can’t just run around executing people whose religious views you don’t like. I can’t believe I have to tell you this.

I’ll give you some advice: the rationale your using could be used to justify the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany and elsewhere*. That is not a good thing.

*They knew that Nazi Germany persecuted Jews
They could have just left
The Jews were a minority
The Nazis perceived Jews as a threat
It was not seen as unusual at the time.
We all recognize that it is a great sin to do this. But you need to specifiy who was doing this. You will find that it was the State, not the Church ( i.e. as in the Pope, the institution ). If you are thinking of the Church as the the ruler of its State lands, then, yes, the function of State authority is to maintain good order. At that time, in those days, it was condidered a threat to public order to allow heresy to spread. Indeed, this conviction proved prophetic, since good public order soon broke out in religious wars, down to the present time.

However, progress was made and we are more enlightened. Now you must recognize that you live in a glass house. Witness the atrocities of the modern atheists states that arose with the French Revolution. So if you want to throw stones, go ahead.

Linus2nd
 
Well, it works both ways. “You can’t prove not-X.” (or similar “You haven’t offered a good argument for not-X.”, “I haven’t seen a good argument for not-X.” etc.) is a common argument in favour of any X. Actually, in your next post you have used something very similar yourself:

In other words, you say “I haven’t seen a good argument for not-X.” (or “You can’t prove not-X.”), where X is “There are no people who are absolutely certain that God does not exist.”.
No, I’m saying I haven’t seen any evidence to support the claim that "atheists are absolutely certain God does not exist. I’m not asking anyone to prove a negative.
And here you say “I haven’t seen a good argument for not-X.” (or “You can’t prove not-X.”), where X is “God does not exist.” (or “Proofs that God exists do not exist.”).
Actually, the whole Russell’s Teapot is an argument of the same type, when “You can’t prove not-X!” is answered by “You can’t prove X either!”… Well, I guess it would be possible to conclude that “You can’t prove not-X.” is still a legitimate (but weak) argument…
Oh, and, while the “offtopic” discussions have offered nice examples, perhaps it would be best to stop before we start arguing if it would have been good to burn Nazis on stake for heresy… 😃
:confused:

Do you understand that proving the non-existence of something is impossible unless it is logically impossible to exist? If you require a burden of proof on people who don’t believe Yahweh exists then you should similarly prove that every other god ever conceived by humans does not exist. What proof and evidence do you have that Zeus does not exist? What proof do you have that Bigfoot does not exist? What proof do you have that our government is not ruled by shapeshifting lizardmen? What proof do you have that there isn’t a china teapot floating around in space?

There, now I’ve shown you why Russell’s teapot is invoked - because people don’t understand why shifting the burden of proof is a problem.
 
Belief in God requires both faith and reason. Only a moron would put their faith and reason in a flying teapot or a spaghetti monster.
 
No, I’m saying I haven’t seen any evidence to support the claim that "atheists are absolutely certain God does not exist. I’m not asking anyone to prove a negative.
What negative? If we have “I haven’t seen a good argument for not-X.”, where X is “There are no people who are absolutely certain that God does not exist.”, then two “negatives” cancel out and we get “I haven’t seen a good argument for existence of people that are absolutely certain that God does not exist.”. That seems to be exactly what you are saying.

Therefore, I still think that your argument has that same form.
:confused:

Do you understand that proving the non-existence of something is impossible unless it is logically impossible to exist? If you require a burden of proof on people who don’t believe Yahweh exists then you should similarly prove that every other god ever conceived by humans does not exist. What proof and evidence do you have that Zeus does not exist? What proof do you have that Bigfoot does not exist? What proof do you have that our government is not ruled by shapeshifting lizardmen? What proof do you have that there isn’t a china teapot floating around in space?

There, now I’ve shown you why Russell’s teapot is invoked - because people don’t understand why shifting the burden of proof is a problem.
And yet I didn’t say anything about burden of proof. I said that “I haven’t seen a good argument for not-X.” is a weak but legitimate argument for X. Not strong enough to persuade someone all by itself (at least not normally), but the one that works together with other arguments rather well.

Still, let’s look at it again.
:confused:

Do you understand that proving the non-existence of something is impossible unless it is logically impossible to exist?
Do you mean “proving” as “proving with absolute certainty” and not something like “proving beyond reasonable doubt”…? And does “logically impossible” include logical impossibility given the known facts? Then yes, sure. But, of course, in that case anything can be proved only if the alternative is logically impossible…
If you require a burden of proof on people who don’t believe Yahweh exists then you should similarly prove that every other god ever conceived by humans does not exist.
Well, I didn’t say anything like that, but let’s see…
What proof and evidence do you have that Zeus does not exist?
Easy. Zeus was supposed to live in a palace on Mount Olympus, wasn’t he…? Then let’s open Google Maps and look at Mount Olympus. No palace. Therefore, Zeus as described previously does not exist. Q.E.D.
What proof do you have that Bigfoot does not exist?
Let’s just cite explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1235:_Settled - as you can see, “I haven’t seen a good argument for not-X.” becomes much stronger if coupled with “If X is true, good arguments in favour of it will be very common.”.
What proof do you have that our government is not ruled by shapeshifting lizardmen?
Given that today we have our own elections, I suspect that the right answer is “I refuse to interfere in the internal affairs of United States of America.”. 😃
What proof do you have that there isn’t a china teapot floating around in space?
You forgot “in orbit between Earth and Mars”. A china teapot orbiting the Earth is actually not so implausible at the moment… I don’t know if it is hard to, let’s say, take one to some space station…

Well, that was fun. 🙂

And, as you can see, “proving a negative” is not so hard. 🙂 Just in case, I will add a couple of links like psychologytoday.com/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative or departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf
 
Belief in God requires both faith and reason. Only a moron would put their faith and reason in a flying teapot or a spaghetti monster.
Well to be honest I am often tempted to question the sincerity of people who claim to put their faith in Yahweh, the national god of the ancient Israelites, but I just remind myself to take them at their word.

As far as proving negatives, I think you’re saying that lack of evidence for something existing is evidence against the existence of that thing, which I would say applies to Yahweh very well. In addition, I think we have positive evidence against His existence in the claims of the Bible that contradict the scientific historical record, and the traceable human origins of the belief and development of the Judaic God in history, anthropology, and Biblical studies. In other words, we can see now that the ancient Jews were polytheistic, and that Yahweh arose as a monotheistic deity out of that polytheism as the philosophical needs of the culture changed.
 
Well to be honest I am often tempted to question the sincerity of people who claim to put their faith in Yahweh, the national god of the ancient Israelites, but I just remind myself to take them at their word.
If you are serious, I’d say that martyrdoms should be enough to prove that sincere Christians do exist.

And if you’re not, then, well, um… I’m afraid that was a very boring joke… Try to do better next time.
As far as proving negatives, I think you’re saying that lack of evidence for something existing is evidence against the existence of that thing, which I would say applies to Yahweh very well.
Who exactly was supposed to be saying that…? I don’t see how post of CHRISTINE77 you cited could be interpreted in that way… And, of course, there is actual evidence supporting existence of God…
In addition, I think we have positive evidence against His existence in the claims of the Bible that contradict the scientific historical record, and the traceable human origins of the belief and development of the Judaic God in history, anthropology, and Biblical studies.
In that case Russell’s Teapot would be completely useless, wouldn’t it? Answering “You can’t prove not-X!” with “Oh, but I can - just look!” is much stronger than “You have the burden of proof!”. So, why are you arguing that it is useful?
In other words, we can see now that the ancient Jews were polytheistic, and that Yahweh arose as a monotheistic deity out of that polytheism as the philosophical needs of the culture changed.
I wonder… Who would you expect to have the “burden of proof” in case of such claims…?
 
Well to be honest I am often tempted to question the sincerity of people who claim to put their faith in Yahweh, the national god of the ancient Israelites, but I just remind myself to take them at their word.

As far as proving negatives, I think you’re saying that lack of evidence for something existing is evidence against the existence of that thing, which I would say applies to Yahweh very well. In addition, I think we have positive evidence against His existence in the claims of the Bible that contradict the scientific historical record, and the traceable human origins of the belief and development of the Judaic God in history, anthropology, and Biblical studies. In other words, we can see now that the ancient Jews were polytheistic, and that Yahweh arose as a monotheistic deity out of that polytheism as the philosophical needs of the culture changed.
Have a nice cup of moron tea ngill.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top