Th interpretation our friend lemondiesel gives is the same that some fundamentalists give. It is the surface meaning of the passage. Some passages using the word “science,” in the Latin are, in the New Testament, referring to the Gnostic heresy. (Gnostic from the Greek word, knowledge, which is the meaning of the Latin Science.)
explain
This would not surprise me. Who would take philosophy as a major? Or teach it? Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. would attend a seminary, divinity school, etc. Philosophy IMO in the secular realm is dead as a an actual career choice. I’m sure some intellectuals are keeping it alive in the secular world (as they should) but this is really a bogus stat.
Ok, I stand corrected. Wikipedia tells me that Logos means more than just “word.” It can also be used as a “term for the principle of order and knowledge.” So yes, John 1:1 could be interpreted that God is either “the Word” or it could be interpreted that God is order/knowledge ie. logic.
What could convince you?
Sure. If you’d like to argue specific Bible passages, there is the Scripture forum. Keep in mind arguing “solely based on what the Bible says” is not Catholic, but an innovation of Martin Luther*.* The Church interprets Scripture in light of Tradition and the Magisterium.
Could you be more specific?
Calling oneself a philosopher does not make it so…
As a 17 year old, I’m offended. Read through my posts and tell me I’m incapable of reasoning to a conclusion.
If the burden to explain himself is on anyone, it is on you. What passages in the Bible claim such things?
The problem I have with your creation explanation is that you assume God wanted and planned to create. How can you claim he even had a choice? What if just by his mere existence, there is existence of the universe?
Augustine has a Neo Platonic style of thinking. He believes that absolute truths are only known to God, but we can live a lifestyle towards this (which is why he gives us the two cities). If this is the case, that means that we can not know true knowledge (logic and reasoning) because it is unobtainable. Which is why there are passages that say to use logic for defending and some to avoid logic. The authors were just as confused as we are today!
And what is the criteria for interpretation? The first pope was appointed by Christ, who was God and pure. How do you know that men who elect the pope in recent times have the capability to appoint the proper one? They are not God, and certainly can be argued that they are not even touched by God.
According to Genesis 1, its not an assumption.
How can you claim He didn’t?
This sounds a lot like an assumption.
What would convince me is seeing it in practice. For the most part, Catholics do a good job at this. However, all too often, I’ve heard arguments from many religions (not just Catholics) that are based on the “Argument from Ignorance” fallacy.What could convince you?
Sure. If you’d like to argue specific Bible passages, there is the Scripture forum. Keep in mind arguing “solely based on what the Bible says” is not Catholic, but an innovation of Martin Luther*.* The Church interprets Scripture in light of Tradition and the Magisterium.
According to Genesis 1, written by man
Because the universe works just the way it does without any interviening God, and the only use for a God is existing. Perhaps just by his mere presence, nothing can truly never exist…But hey, thats another thread, brah
Isn’t everything about creation an assumption?
With due caution given to the fact that no one single Father or Doctor of the Church has infallible teaching authority, could you cite some specific passage of Augustine where he says we should avoid logic?
I don’t know if there can be any guarantee that the conclave will elect the ‘proper’ man to be pope, but we have faith that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and that through divine providence the Magisterium avoids dogmatizing any errors. Beyond that, what the Church has consistently taught through the ages - Tradition - is the criterion for interpretation.
I don’t think any one single person, including Catholics, could be constantly and perfectly logical (only God is). We often (usually?) behave irrationally. I didn’t mean to draw the conclusion that “Catholics are logical” but just to point out a fundamental identity of the Deity we worship. Of course, that has its consequences in how we think and view the universe, particularly its intelligibility, a necessary assumption of science.
There is a book called “Theology for Beginners” by Frank Sheed, which does a good job of explaining the Catholic understanding of God with respects to the points you raise.
