Do Religious People Really Believe in Their Religion?

[NaturalEnquirer]

Oh, how deliciously rich. Double standards, much? The guy here arguing in favor of god is giving me a hard time for making an unsupported assumption with no teeth. Oh, the sweet sweet delicious irony…

What is the double standard exactly? I’m asking for conclusions which follow from a given set of premises. I apply the same standard to my own arguments.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Again, suffering is better understood as a necessary surgery than a torturous punishment.

So you don’t take any pain medication correct? I guess you don’t think women should have pain medication during childbirth, etc.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

So you don’t take any pain medication correct? I guess you don’t think women should have pain medication during childbirth, etc.

Thank you for engaging the argument. In fact, I haven’t taken pain medication in years, and my wife does give birth naturally, but this is an interesting point. I’ll think it over and try to respond tomorrow.

Night!

 

[R_Daneel]

Sure. But as I have said a number of times now, I’m playing defense here. sinnerdexter is claiming a contradiction where none exists, and I’m refuting that point and that point only.

The trouble is that you do not refute it, you just presented an opposing view.

Yes, that would be the ideal situation. Sadly, God has not granted me full knowledge of the workings of the universe. The data you’re requesting is not available to us in this life.

Yes, that is true. None of us is privy to that information, so we are left to our devices and we must resort to speculation.

What is available to us is the teaching of the church, and the church says that suffering has a redemptive purpose that we don’t fully understand. Unless that can be disproved by the attacker, God’s omnibenevolence is secure.

And here is the problem. At the very least you should agree that almost all instances of suffering seem to be unnecessary. There are almost no instances when the suffering clearly points to some greater good (which greater good cannot be achieved by lessening the suffering).

Let’s contemplate an example. Let’s say that the church teaches that every heavy object, when released from our grip, will fall “upwards”. (This hypothetical teaching is just about as nonsensical as the actual teaching). We conduct zillions of experiments, and in every case the object “seems” to be falling “downwards”. The church then says that these objects “really” fall upwards, but since we are not privy to all the information, they seem to be falling down, and so they do not “really” count. Just how many instances of falling objects should we observe before we can reasonably doubt the church’s hypothetical teaching?

For atheists, one such observation is enough. For believers, there is not such number. They will keep on believing the teaching, no matter how many counter-examples they see. And that is the definition of “blind faith”. As the old saying went by some believers: “My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with facts!”.

 

[R_Daneel]

On the last item: I did not assert absolute and universal morality (moral universalism). God is not subject to his laws as the creator of them.

That is special pleading. In general there is no such concept that the “lawmaker” is exempt from the laws passed by him.

 

[Vico]

That is special pleading. In general there is no such concept that the “lawmaker” is exempt from the laws passed by him.

It is in keeping with Catholic teaching. God exists and is the Creator. He creates nature with its laws, and the creatures. He is separate from his creation, not created, so He is not subject to the laws of nature that he created.

 

[R_Daneel]

It is in keeping with Catholic teaching. God exists and is the Creator. He creates nature with its laws, and the creatures. He is separate from his creation, not created, so He is not subject to the laws of nature that he created.

Well, I did not talk about the laws of nature. I am talking about the “laws of moral behavior”. To wit: “it is immoral for humans to torture and murder humans. It is praiseworthy for God to do the same - because he is not subject to his own commandments”. That is the Catholic teaching. And you are surprised that others disagree with you?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Surprized? No, its expected in this day and age. We been sleeping at the wheel a couple generations, and the monster has grown.

Should a Physician tell you, “Take this medication it will heal your Viral Infection”. Will you take the medication?

 

[R_Daneel]

Surprized? No, its expected in this day and age. We been sleeping at the wheel a couple generations, and the monster has grown.

Hmmm… I hope you are not about to bring back the witch hunts, exorcisms and stuff like that. There will be considerable reluctance if you try to “grab the wheel” again. As they say: “There was a time when everyone believed in God, and the Church ruled supreme. It was called the Dark Ages”. Thank the Almighty Lord those times are over. People are a bit more enlightened now, though a sadly large percentage still believes in demons, poltergeists, angels and other “stupornatural” creatures.

Should a Physician tell you, “Take this medication it will heal your Viral Infection”. Will you take the medication?

I am not aware that there is medication against viruses. And don’t kid yourself, you have no more credibility than the barber who would offer me a bullet to bite down upon while he grabs an axe or a saw to amputate my leg. I reject this kind of “authority”.

 

[LilyM]

That is special pleading. In general there is no such concept that the “lawmaker” is exempt from the laws passed by him.

Oh you’d better believe there is.

The US, for example, as prominent as its role is in the UN and as much as it likes to brandish UN resolutions as weapons against other nations, certainly makes sure there are enough exemptions and reservations for it when IT ratifies a convention that they are rendered essentially toothless against it.

 

[R_Daneel]

Oh you’d better believe there is.

The US, for example, as prominent as its role is in the UN and as much as it likes to brandish UN resolutions as weapons against other nations, certainly makes sure there are enough exemptions and reservations for it when IT ratifies a convention that they are rendered essentially toothless against it.

Unfortunately this is true. And this bring on another shaky “moral” principle: “might makes right”. Which sounds wonderful for the those who are part of the “mighty”, and sounds pretty despicable to those who are outside.

And since God is the “mightiest” of all, the Christian attitude is “let’s worship God, no matter how he acts, lest we get in his bad graces and he will ‘reward’ us with eternal torture and punishment”. Typical slave attitude, fear the master, because of the repercussions, and “lick up to him” to get a few morsels off his table.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hmmm… I hope you are not about to bring back the witch hunts, exorcisms and stuff like that. There will be considerable reluctance if you try to “grab the wheel” again. As they say: “There was a time when everyone believed in God, and the Church ruled supreme. It was called the Dark Ages”. Thank the Almighty Lord those times are over. People are a bit more enlightened now, though a sadly large percentage still believes in demons, poltergeists, angels and other “stupornatural” creatures.

I am not aware that there is medication against viruses. And don’t kid yourself, you have no more credibility than the barber who would offer me a bullet to bite down upon while he grabs an axe or a saw to amputate my leg. I reject this kind of “authority”.

Such trivia, you “will” take whatever your Doctor prescibes unconditionally when your sick enough from anything.

But that wasn’t the point. Do you normally get so far ahead of yourself, that you miss the message? You don’t really believe your all that, do you?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

The trouble is that you do not refute it, you just presented an opposing view.

Wrong. He made a claim that omnibenevolence is inherently incompatible with the existence of suffering. All that is needed to refute that claim is to provide a single coherent counterexample of how they can be reconciled, which I did. By some happy coincidence, the counterexample has been the consistent teaching of the church for millenia. It’s not some 21st century innovation, it’s St Paul.

Let me explain, again. I’m not trying to prove that the doctrine of redemptive suffering is true. I’m simply saying that if it is true, then the claim of contradiction in our theology falls apart. At this point in the argument, Catholic theology may not be true, but it is self-consistent.

Yes, that is true. None of us is privy to that information, so we are left to our devices and we must resort to speculation.

And here is the problem. At the very least you should agree that almost all instances of suffering seem to be unnecessary. There are almost no instances when the suffering clearly points to some greater good (which greater good cannot be achieved by lessening the suffering).

Sure. I intended to acknowledge that in my first post. Too lazy now to look back and see if I did. But I totally agree that we usually do not see the merits of suffering.

This is not unexpected, since the merits apply mostly to invisible or future things. You’re like a man with a microscope complaining that he can’t see Venus. You just don’t have the right tool for the job. None of us do.

Let’s contemplate an example. Let’s say that the church teaches that every heavy object, when released from our grip, will fall “upwards”. (This hypothetical teaching is just about as nonsensical as the actual teaching). We conduct zillions of experiments, and in every case the object “seems” to be falling “downwards”. The church then says that these objects “really” fall upwards, but since we are not privy to all the information, they seem to be falling down, and so they do not “really” count. Just how many instances of falling objects should we observe before we can reasonably doubt the church’s hypothetical teaching?

For atheists, one such observation is enough. For believers, there is not such number. They will keep on believing the teaching, no matter how many counter-examples they see. And that is the definition of “blind faith”. As the old saying went by some believers: “My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with facts!”.

But of course this example doesn’t apply. Nothing about the church’s teaching on suffering is inconsistent with observations in the natural world, because the teaching applies primarily to the supernatural. A more accurate parallel would be if the church taught that in heaven, things fall upwards. It might or might not be true, but it’s certainly beyond our ability to disprove.

I might as well say it again, since I have failed to make it clear so far. I am not trying to prove Catholic theology. I am defending against a particular claim that our theology is inherently self-contradictory and therefore false.

In other words, my job is not to prove that things in heaven fall upwards. sinnerdexter tried to prove that things in heaven can’t fall upwards. I am simply pointing out that his proof fails.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Unfortunately this is true. And this bring on another shaky “moral” principle: “might makes right”. Which sounds wonderful for the those who are part of the “mighty”, and sounds pretty despicable to those who are outside.

And since God is the “mightiest” of all, the Christian attitude is “let’s worship God, no matter how he acts, lest we get in his bad graces and he will ‘reward’ us with eternal torture and punishment”. Typical slave attitude, fear the master, because of the repercussions, and “lick up to him” to get a few morsels off his table.

No. The Christian belief is that God is not beholden to the same rules as us. The reason is that he is the owner of the tower of blocks, and it is his prerogative to push it over if he wants. It is not evil for him to push over his own tower of blocks. It is not evil of him to allow suffering if it serves a greater good in the final analysis.

You brought up the example of killing. You claimed that since God is superior to us, then ending human life is more immoral for him than it is for us. What you don’t address is that these two acts are of fundamentally different character:

1. A human ending a human life
2. God ending a human life

The reason is that the human life belongs to God. If God chooses to bring somebody into eternity now rather than later, that’s God’s choice, and you have not shown that there is anything immoral about it.

 

[Vico]

Well, I did not talk about the laws of nature. I am talking about the “laws of moral behavior”. To wit: “it is immoral for humans to torture and murder humans. It is praiseworthy for God to do the same - because he is not subject to his own commandments”. That is the Catholic teaching. And you are surprised that others disagree with you?

I am not suprised by any disagreement.

It is a matter of Catholic faith that God is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

So you don’t take any pain medication correct? I guess you don’t think women should have pain medication during childbirth, etc.

By the way, a correction - looking back, I did have a shot of novocaine for a particularly nasty filling a year or so back. But usually I go au natural. Not for theological reasons, but because I dislike numbness too much to use it for small dental work.

As long as I’m setting the record, straight, I’d like to apologize for the level of snark in my earlier post re: Adam and Eve. I was grumpy and pressed for time, and I should’ve expressed myself better. Sorry.

OK, so enough of that. You seem to be implying that there is a contradiction between my belief that suffering is redemptive and the fact that I personally take steps to avoid suffering in my life. Maybe even more to it, I believe that small acts of sacrifice, such as skipping my coffee in the morning, can have redemptive value, and yet I rarely do it.

You got me. This is indeed something I should work on. This puts me shoulder-to-shouder with the people you mentioned waaaaay back in the original post who sin even though it’s irrational. The fact is, in day to day life, people tend to pick short term gratification over superior delayed gratification. I’m one of 'em.

This, of course, says nothing about the theology, merely about my adherence to it.

Having said that, I don’t believe there’s a necessary contradiction between the theology of redemptive suffering and the act of sometimes taking steps to reduce particular incidents of suffering. In fact, we are explicitly called by Christ to reduce suffering when possible. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc.

There’s sort of a push/pull dynamic going on here, in my opinion. But that doesn’t indicate a conflict, because the pusher and the puller are coming from different directions. Think of barn-raisings. One team pushes, one team pulls, but they’re not in opposition to each other. They’re working together to achieve the same end. In this case, the end is redemption.

That’s all I’ve got. I haven’t explored the concept in depth before, and if you’re interested in better answers, I encourage you to start a new thread for the topic. I bet it’d draw a good response.

 

[sinnerdexter]

NaturalEnquirer: When you say that “one of God’s attributes is his eternal nature,” it sounds as though you are trying to revive the old ontological argument for the existence of God, which is that since he is defined as perfect, and a non-existent thing would have an imperfection, he must exist, just by virtue of his definition. But Kant, among others, shot that down by insisting that the question of the existence of something always stands outside the definition of it, and refers to the status of the entire thing after it is defined. Otherwise you could define some X as a ‘perfect island,’ and since it would not be perfect unless it existed, a perfect island must exist.

Public reason, that is, the neutral form of argumentation which can be used between people who accept differing world views, has to be based on logical inference and positivism. Positivism is the principle of reasoning followed in natural science, which states that for something to be treated as real, it either has to be directly empirically testable through some specified operations which can be performed on things we can all see, feel, hear, and measure, or it has to be a necessary conceptual implication of what can be empirically tested.

But in your attempt to explain away the evil which God allows to exist in the world, you argue that the evil in the world is all necessary for some higher purposes or unavoidable reasons which we cannot understand. But since this assertion cannot itself be empirically demonstrated, it can only claim explanatory power under positivist principles of reasoning if it is a necessary conceptual implication of something else which can be empirically demonstrated. But since the only thing you offer in support of the assumption that all the evil in the world will turn out to have been no more than necessary is the existence of a good God, whose existence cannot be empirically demonstrated, then you can’t prove that the evil in the world is no more or worse than necessary.

You can claim that you know some things by faith or revelation, but since these sources of knowledge are not available to all those with whom you are discussing the issue, they cannot claim to be part of public reason or public argument.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I really don’t know how I am not getting across. Third parties, am I not making myself clear?

Sinnerdexter, please do me a favor and go back and read post #292:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7092902&postcount=292

I am NOT trying to prove the existence of God.
I am NOT trying to prove that suffering has a benevolent end.

ALL I am doing is demonstrating that your proof fails. That is it. The only time you have even engaged with my refutation of your proof was when you pointed out my own personal failings, which I appreciate. But it leaves the refutation untouched.

Let me restate the argument thus far.
Catholic Church: There exists an entity which is omnibenevolent and omnipotent.
sinnerdexter: Such an entity cannot exist, because omnibenevolence and omnipotence are incompatible with the existence of suffering.
Me: On the contrary, if suffering has a beneficial end, as the Catholic Church teaches, there is no incompatibility.

You have not engaged that point at all. Unless you do, your proof of the nonexistence of God fails.

I have not offered any positive proof of the existence of God. I am simply refuting sinnerdexter’s proof of his nonexistence.

 

[sinnerdexter]

I really don’t know how I am not getting across. Third parties, am I not making myself clear?

Sinnerdexter, please do me a favor and go back and read post #292:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7092902&postcount=292

I am NOT trying to prove the existence of God.
I am NOT trying to prove that suffering has a benevolent end.

ALL I am doing is demonstrating that your proof fails. That is it. The only time you have even engaged with my refutation of your proof was when you pointed out my own personal failings, which I appreciate. But it leaves the refutation untouched.

Let me restate the argument thus far.
Catholic Church: There exists an entity which is omnibenevolent and omnipotent.
sinnerdexter: Such an entity cannot exist, because omnibenevolence and omnipotence are incompatible with the existence of suffering.
Me: On the contrary, if suffering has a beneficial end, as the Catholic Church teaches, there is no incompatibility.

You have not engaged that point at all. Unless you do, your proof of the nonexistence of God fails.

I have not offered any positive proof of the existence of God. I am simply refuting sinnerdexter’s proof of his nonexistence.

But to show that suffering is beneficial or redemptive you have to show how links between such things as a child dying in an isolated forest by being torn apart by wolves shortly after birth from a dead mother – even though no one sees this nor does the newborn learn any lessons from this – and some good outcome are not only possible or likely, but even necessary, since the least unnecessary evil in the world is inconsistent with the God hypothesis. I can’t conceive of any way that that links between the putative newborn’s suffering and some benefitical or redemptive outcome could ever be demonstrated without making some equally unprovable assumptions about a magical sort of knowledge of how such disparate things in the universe are connected or how these can be shown to be necessary. If we start by assuming that God exists then it would also follow that the newborn’s suffering must be beneficial, but we can’t start there and convince an audience which does not already believe in God.

 

[LilyM]

Hmmm… I hope you are not about to bring back the witch hunts, exorcisms and stuff like that. There will be considerable reluctance if you try to “grab the wheel” again. As they say: “There was a time when everyone believed in God, and the Church ruled supreme. It was called the Dark Ages”. Thank the Almighty Lord those times are over. People are a bit more enlightened now, though a sadly large percentage still believes in demons, poltergeists, angels and other “stupornatural” creatures.

Uh, no. The Dark Ages were full of conflict between church and state over the respective powers of each. Church certainly didn’t reign supreme. Mind you, the ONLY preservative of ancient learning and enlightenment during that time was the Church - secular rulers were too busy looting, pillaging and destroying to care about anything like scholarship. So it’s a good thing the Church has always been interested in promoting education.

The period you best describe, an era when the Church DID come closest to reigning supreme, was actually the Renaissance. Was that such a dreadul time to be alive? Personally, I wouldn’t mind too terribly living in the company of Michelangelo and Leonardo, who were richly patronised by the church and doing some of their best work on its behalf, as well as the great saints of the era, when I think of it.

I am not aware that there is medication against viruses. And don’t kid yourself, you have no more credibility than the barber who would offer me a bullet to bite down upon while he grabs an axe or a saw to amputate my leg. I reject this kind of “authority”.

So you’d rather die of the gangrene from that infected leg that needs amputation because you’re not tickled by the way in which the official exercises their authority?