Does atheism lead to anything positive?

[inocente]

As usual, you talk around the question I asked.

“By the way, who are your Baptist teachers, and where do they get off condemning Design as the works of Satan? What authority was conferred on them to make such condemnations? Do the Baptists have a pope or bishop or councils that rule on such matters? I doubt it. So it is you really making the ruling, right?”

Has the Catholic Church through its popes or bishops ruled intelligent design to be false or immoral? Please cite your sources?

Does the Catechism of the Catholic Church condemn intelligent design? Cite where?

Does the Catholic Church condemn Genesis as false because it shows God planning and creating a universe, when by your calculation he only created the universe and threw the dice to see how it would all play out without a plan?

Still waiting to hear the ruling of a Baptist pope or Council that would have given your Baptist teacher the authority to teach that the work of the Discovery Institute is the work of Satan. So, if you can’t provide any authority for same, that means you are making this all up in your own head, right?

Still got that beam in your eye?

So by your either/or logic, either the Church has condemned something, or else by default it must have authorized it. :ehh:

A few days ago you likened me to an atheist for not bowing before the alter of intelligent design. Now you talk of Baptist popes and demand that the Discovery Institute cannot be criticized without a religious authority.

The Discovery Institute is in Seattle because it’s run by mainly ex-Microsoft and ex-Boeing managers, who are mainly if not all Protestants, and it’s bankrolled largely by Protestants. So your argument that you somehow have authority from the Church for what is largely if not totally a Protestant enterprise is, shall we say, unconvincing.

I suggest we stop here as all this is way off-topic. You have the last word.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So by your either/or logic, either the Church has condemned something, or else by default it must have authorized it. :ehh:

A few days ago you likened me to an atheist for not bowing before the alter of intelligent design. Now you talk of Baptist popes and demand that the Discovery Institute cannot be criticized without a religious authority.

The Discovery Institute is in Seattle because it’s run by mainly ex-Microsoft and ex-Boeing managers, who are mainly if not all Protestants, and it’s bankrolled largely by Protestants. So your argument that you somehow have authority from the Church for what is largely if not totally a Protestant enterprise is, shall we say, unconvincing.

I suggest we stop here as all this is way off-topic. You have the last word.

St. Thomas Aquinas was not a Protestant or a member of the Discovery Institute. The Catholic Church still honors, and has never condemned, his fifth proof for the existence of God which is stated briefly below and which might be said to have anticipated the views associated with the Discovery Institute as opposed to the views of the atheist/biologist Richard Dawkins who sees in science (specifically the theory of evolution) a patent case against the existence of God.

Proof #5 The Teleological Argument (from Design) by St. Thomas
“The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

Thomas Aquinas also was not a Satanist for saying the above. He just demonstrates to skeptics by his logic that God’s nature can be approached through reason, and not by faith alone. Obviously, the nature of God can better be known through Revelation, since reason by itself is inadequate without inspiration from the Holy Spirit. So the plan for Creation in Genesis is a revelation that is consistent with the logic of intelligent design, and tells us more than intelligent design could ever tell us.

 

[inocente]

The Catholic Church still honors, and has never condemned, his fifth proof for the existence of God which is stated briefly below and which might be said to have anticipated the views associated with the Discovery Institute as opposed to the views of the atheist/biologist Richard Dawkins who sees in science (specifically the theory of evolution) a patent case against the existence of God.

This article, written by a professor of philosophy here on Catholic Answers, says different. You may want to debate it with him - catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This article, written by a professor of philosophy here on Catholic Answers, says different. You may want to debate it with him - catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/aquinas-vs-intelligent-design

The author you cite says the following:

“But to show that nature’s contingency and dependency requires God as its ultimate cause is not to argue for the existence of yet another natural cause within nature. In contrast, articulating the details of how the nature that God has created works is the task of natural science. So, Thomism provides a corrective to the ID theorists who claim that the lack of certain kinds of explanation in natural science shows the necessity of divine intervention into nature as a substitute for natural cause. According to Thomism, God is indeed the Author of nature, but as its transcendent ultimate cause, not as another natural cause alongside the other natural causes.”

This is very poor reasoning. “another natural cause alongside the other natural causes”?

Really?

Aquinas does not oppose Intelligent Design, as the author argues in the title of his piece.

Indeed, “intelligent design” is his fifth proof for the existence of God.

And he says elsewhere:

“**Nature is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, **put into things themselves, by which those things move toward a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship.” Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, Book II, Chapter 8

Clearly, Aquinas would not find profound objections to Intelligent Design theory, which in the end really says nothing more than what Aquinas says.

Again, you cite a Catholic author to show that the views of another Catholic (me) are erroneous. Your divide and conquer strategy just doesn’t work, does it?

Certainly some Catholics have been caught up in supposing that evolution must be purely by accident with no possibility of having been intelligently designed.

That some Thomists are duped by the likes of godless Richard Dawkins and company does not surprise me. But that they should stand Thomas on his head to make him agree with Dawkins seems truly un-Thomistic!

 

[Vonsalza]

Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of their funding comes from US evangelicals. Many (if not most) of which are Baptists of the same stripe as the Americans that “reintroduced” the Baptist denomination to Spain in the 19th century.

If your church were in the US, innocente, there’s a very good chance it would help raise funds for the Discovery Institute.

No point there, really. Just an observation.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of their funding comes from US evangelicals. Many (if not most) of which are Baptists of the same stripe as the Americans that “reintroduced” the Baptist denomination to Spain in the 19th century.

If your church were in the US, innocente, there’s a very good chance it would help raise funds for the Discovery Institute.

No point there, really. Just an observation.

Maybe the point is that inocente should look around for another denomination.

Isn’t that the *modus operandi *of Protestantism?

Disagree with your denomination and go start another?

 

[inocente]

The author you cite says the following:

“But to show that nature’s contingency and dependency requires God as its ultimate cause is not to argue for the existence of yet another natural cause within nature. In contrast, articulating the details of how the nature that God has created works is the task of natural science. So, Thomism provides a corrective to the ID theorists who claim that the lack of certain kinds of explanation in natural science shows the necessity of divine intervention into nature as a substitute for natural cause. According to Thomism, God is indeed the Author of nature, but as its transcendent ultimate cause, not as another natural cause alongside the other natural causes.”

This is very poor reasoning. “another natural cause alongside the other natural causes”?

Really?

Aquinas does not oppose Intelligent Design, as the author argues in the title of his piece.

Indeed, “intelligent design” is his fifth proof for the existence of God.

And he says elsewhere:

“**Nature is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, **put into things themselves, by which those things move toward a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship.” Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, Book II, Chapter 8

Clearly, Aquinas would not find profound objections to Intelligent Design theory, which in the end really says nothing more than what Aquinas says.

Again, you cite a Catholic author to show that the views of another Catholic (me) are erroneous. Your divide and conquer strategy just doesn’t work, does it?

Certainly some Catholics have been caught up in supposing that evolution must be purely by accident with no possibility of having been intelligently designed.

That some Thomists are duped by the likes of godless Richard Dawkins and company does not surprise me. But that they should stand Thomas on his head to make him agree with Dawkins seems truly un-Thomistic!

Your plea that I should keep quiet to save your feelings is not a logical argument. I mean sorry and all but the fact is, you’re telling me the opposite of a professor published on Catholic Answers, whose CV says he specializes in the history of medieval philosophy and the philosophy of nature, and his qualifications are:

Ph.D. in philosophy, The Catholic University of America, 1993.
M.A. in philosophy, The Catholic University of America, 1989.
M.M.S. (Master of Medieval Studies), University of Notre Dame, 1982.
B.A. with honors in philosophy, Valparaiso University, 1975.

If I had to choose between him and you on the basis of authority alone, he has more authority. But I also read the relevant bits of the Summa some time back and think Tkacz is spot on, Thomas would object profoundly to intelligent design because it denies God’s transcendence.

btw all this is still way off-topic.

 

[inocente]

Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of their funding comes from US evangelicals. Many (if not most) of which are Baptists of the same stripe as the Americans that “reintroduced” the Baptist denomination to Spain in the 19th century.

If your church were in the US, innocente, there’s a very good chance it would help raise funds for the Discovery Institute.

No point there, really. Just an observation.

Yes, I’ve pointed out before that it’s run mainly if not totally by Protestants with a largely evangelical backing. And that alone denies its pretense of science. It has been called a cargo cult, a pseudo-religion idolizing pseudo-science. Just another little American oddity like creationist museums and other fake news.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Your plea that I should keep quiet to save your feelings is not a logical argument. I mean sorry and all but the fact is, you’re telling me the opposite of a professor published on Catholic Answers, whose CV says he specializes in the history of medieval philosophy and the philosophy of nature, and his qualifications are:

Ph.D. in philosophy, The Catholic University of America, 1993.
M.A. in philosophy, The Catholic University of America, 1989.
M.M.S. (Master of Medieval Studies), University of Notre Dame, 1982.
B.A. with honors in philosophy, Valparaiso University, 1975.

If I had to choose between him and you on the basis of authority alone, he has more authority. But I also read the relevant bits of the Summa some time back and think Tkacz is spot on, Thomas would object profoundly to intelligent design because it denies God’s transcendence.

btw all this is still way off-topic.

Still waiting to hear which Baptist authority taught you that ID is Satanic.

Or is that just your opinion.

You have a PhD in Satanism?

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes, I’ve pointed out before that it’s run mainly if not totally by Protestants with a largely evangelical backing. And that alone denies its pretense of science. It has been called a cargo cult, a pseudo-religion idolizing pseudo-science. Just another little American oddity like creationist museums and other fake news.

A few errors here;

First, I think one of the founders is a convert to Catholicism. So it’s not a “totally” protestant endeavor - just majority protestant.

Second, the notion that evangelicals, by rule, deny the “pretense of science” is an error of generalization. I’m sure there are a few folks in the scientific community that adhere to protestant religion. And whether you like it or not, the Baptist faith is evangelical. American Baptists came to Spain to evangelize Spanish Catholics away from their evil, fallen Church . By your statement, do you, then, “deny science” as a Spanish Baptist?

Third, creationism isn’t limited to the US. The DI loves to bleat their international support.

Fourth, a substantial percentage of “fake news” comes out of little towns in Croatia and Macedonia. These are not in America.

So, more or less, everything in your last post is demonstrably incorrect or misleading.

 

[Russell_SA]

Atheism by it’s nature is negative and thus had not the capacity to produce anything positive, and it is vulnerable to nihilism and hedonism.

That is not to say atheists themselves cannot do anything positive, but the atheist who does something positive is usually into something other than atheism.

Hey Minky,
I’ve been wondering about this question: how do you determine which deity, god or devil, to follow? As I understand it, both have supernatural powers that are soo powerful that we could not tell the difference between who did what for the supernatural event. The bible records what the deity was asking of it’s followers to do, and they seem to be following it out of the idea that it was the most powerful, not the most moral. So it presents the moral code of might makes right as the entity to follow because it’s not like you can do anything about it anyways. Nothing can stop it other than appeasing it. The devil seems to be more involved in this realm than the deity is, and if the goal is to get people away from the god, wouldn’t it be a good strategy for an entity that does not die, to pretend to be a moral agent to someone over the temporary 100 years of their lives so that the devil could harvest this person away from the god’s heaven for ever, if that is it’s goal. Basic game theory on the variables that are prescribed to these two entities.

 

[Vonsalza]

Hey Minky,
I’ve been wondering about this question: how do you determine which deity, god or devil, to follow? As I understand it, both have supernatural powers that are soo powerful that we could not tell the difference between who did what for the supernatural event. The bible records what the deity was asking of it’s followers to do, and they seem to be following it out of the idea that it was the most powerful, not the most moral. So it presents the moral code of might makes right as the entity to follow because it’s not like you can do anything about it anyways. Nothing can stop it other than appeasing it. The devil seems to be more involved in this realm than the deity is, and if the goal is to get people away from the god, wouldn’t it be a good strategy for an entity that does not die, to pretend to be a moral agent to someone over the temporary 100 years of their lives so that the devil could harvest this person away from the god’s heaven for ever, if that is it’s goal. Basic game theory on the variables that are prescribed to these two entities.

In keeping with the theory of “right of might”, it seems that “God” would be the objective answer from the dichotomy.

God can readily frustrate the designs of the devil, as we read in both the OT and NT. The devil is subject to punishment as decreed by this God. The devil also flees before the might of angels, apparently (who are merely the “henchmen” of God).

As it appears between the two, God is the mightier.

---

And to preempt, if you’d like to respond with “I was just asking Minky”, then don’t post on the forum. Send a pm instead. Forums are open to any and all participants.

 

[Russell_SA]

In keeping with the theory of “right of might”, it seems that “God” would be the objective answer from the dichotomy.

God can readily frustrate the designs of the devil, as we read in both the OT and NT. The devil is subject to punishment as decreed by this God. The devil also flees before the might of angels, apparently (who are merely the “henchmen” of God).

As it appears between the two, God is the mightier.

---

And to preempt, if you’d like to respond with “I was just asking Minky”, then don’t post on the forum. Send a pm instead. Forums are open to any and all participants.

I’m fine with anyone responding, just Minky is usually quite on point with the topic and appears to try and stay away from going into side points.

Do you believe that is an unfair assessment of the situation when the biblical stories are told about people picking their god over their devil? Where they have been convinced their god is the most powerful, regardless of its moral requests. If that was the case, how could they tell the difference between their god’s commands and the devil’s commands. They had to have a way to tell the difference when being asked to do something that was “testing their faith”. How were they able to tell if it was the devil asking them to do something and their deity just “testing them”? Otherwise, for example, Abraham would have told the entity talking to him that this thing is not his god, since his god would never ask Abraham to put his son under the knife for no other reason than his son exists.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m fine with anyone responding, just Minky is usually quite on point with the topic and appears to try and stay away from going into side points.

1. Do you believe that is an unfair assessment of the situation when the biblical stories are told about people picking their god over their devil?
2. Where they have been convinced their god is the most powerful, regardless of its moral requests. If that was the case, how could they tell the difference between their god’s commands and the devil’s commands. They had to have a way to tell the difference when being asked to do something that was “testing their faith”. How were they able to tell if it was the devil asking them to do something and their deity just “testing them”?
3. Otherwise, for example, Abraham would have told the entity talking to him that this thing is not his god, since his god would never ask Abraham to put his son under the knife for no other reason than his son exists.

Numbering added by Vonsalza.

First, to challenge the assumption “God must successfully appeal to my intellect in order to exist.”
I’m sure we agree that if something exists, it’s existence is not dependent on our acknowledgement. Electromagnetism, fractions and China are all “there” even if I don’t “get them” or know about them. So the correct, logical beginning point for any idea is the null hypothesis of “uncertainty”. Not “It’s not real until I’m proven that it is; also on terms that I accept”.

Now to the point;

1. Not particularly. The devil appears to exist in-contra to this God by design. Again, the agents that appear to serve this devil flee before the agents that serve the God. The opposite does not seem to occur. Ergo, the God is worshiped and the devil is eschewed as God is clearly mightier.
2. God’s commands will align with His Church that you engage Him through.
3. For Abraham, the question wasn’t “Is this God or the devil?”, the question was “Will I obey?”. And as God has established the Church to be His “voice” in this world, the question is no longer relevant to you and me. If you think God’s telling you something and your parish priest has questions about it, so should you.
   That which doesn’t “jive” with His Church isn’t His.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

In keeping with the theory of “right of might”, it seems that “God” would be the objective answer from the dichotomy.

God can readily frustrate the designs of the devil, as we read in both the OT and NT. The devil is subject to punishment as decreed by this God. The devil also flees before the might of angels, apparently (who are merely the “henchmen” of God).

As it appears between the two, God is the mightier.

Unfortunately the stories in the OT and the NT are not relevant, since they are nothing but stories. Let’s just use reason. If God is so powerful that he could simply “smite” the devil, and since he does not, it seems to be a rational conclusion that the existence and the actions of the devil are “important” for God in the greater scheme of things.

What would be so important and/or useful? The role of the devil is to thwart people’s belief and obedience to God, and it looks like that he is quite successful. From this is follows logically that God either wants, or does not mind that people turn away fro him. Maybe God enjoys the stench of the burning flesh (as indicated in the OT - if you take it seriously), and he enjoys the screams of the damned. That would be a good reason to keep the devil around.

After all, only a drooling idiot would allow something that she does not want to have.

 

[Vonsalza]

Unfortunately the stories in the OT and the NT are not relevant, since they are nothing but stories.

In a discussion about the Christian God, stories from the Christian Bible are not relevant?
:ehh:

If God is so powerful that he could simply “smite” the devil, and since he does not, it seems to be a rational conclusion that the existence and the actions of the devil are “important” for God in the greater scheme of things.

I affirm that view.

What would be so important and/or useful? The role of the devil is to thwart people’s belief and obedience to God, and it looks like that he is quite successful.

It’s not for you to say what the devil’s purpose is, as you didn’t create him. Speculation is the best you and I can have.

I, and many like me, believe that the ultimate philosophical role of the devil is to provide a source of contrast to the goodness of God so that moral agents like ourselves may know God’s goodness and hopefully choose it on our own will.

From this is follows logically that God either wants…

As the soundness of your premise is obviously questionable, by rule any conclusion that flows from it is equally questionable. Unless, of course, you don’t submit to the rules of Aristotelian logic.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

In a discussion about the Christian God, stories from the Christian Bible are not relevant?

Of course not. The Bible is just a human concoction, it is only relevant when we wish to analyze how certain people think, and not what their referent (God) allegedly did.

I affirm that view.

I am glad to see that.

It’s not for you to say what the devil’s purpose is, as you didn’t create him. Speculation is the best you and I can have.

Indeed. Everything is speculation when it comes to talking about God. However, it is strange that the speculation of the believers is accepted, while the speculation of the non-believers is rejected. The speculation of God’s “goodness” is unsupported by reality - there is nothing in this observable universe that would point to the existence of a good, loving, caring deity. On the other hand, the speculation of an uncaring (even malevolent, malicious or evil) deity is amply supported by the evidence. The evaluation of God’s non-interventionist policy points - at best - to an uncaring God.

I, and many like me, believe that the ultimate philosophical role of the devil is to provide a source of contrast to the goodness of God so that moral agents like ourselves may know God’s goodness and hopefully choose it on our own will.

Ah, the usual good-cop vs. bad-cop procedure. In our family there was no “bad father”, “good mother” setup. Both of our parents loved us, and they also exhibited that love. There was no need for a contrast. By the way, your speculation about the “necessity” for the devil is exactly as unsupported as mine.

As the soundness of your premise is obviously questionable, by rule any conclusion that flows from it is equally questionable. Unless, of course, you don’t submit to the rules of Aristotelian logic.

My premise is just as sound as yours, maybe even better. After all mine is supported by evidence, while yours is pure speculation.

 

[Vonsalza]

Indeed. Everything is speculation when it comes to talking about God. However, it is strange that the speculation of the believers is accepted, while the speculation of the non-believers is rejected.

Not true. It’s just subjected to the same enthusiastic scrutiny that the believer’s speculation receives from a more materialist viewpoint (being part of the “observable universe”).

“Turnabout being fair play” and what-not.

The speculation of God’s “goodness” is unsupported by reality - there is nothing in this observable universe that would point to the existence of a good, loving, caring deity.

Other than, of course, “goodness”, “love” and “compassion”. If God cannot exist on the basis of unproven materiality, why on Earth do you give a “free pass” to these equally non-material, metaphysical concepts? Mustn’t you also argue that these (and their antonyms) are equally non-existent on the same basis?

You appear to apply your standard quite arbitrarily; which is confusing.

Ah, the usual good-cop vs. bad-cop procedure.

I agree, it’s tough to argue against the necessity of contrast in order to identify abstract concepts.

Verily, you only know “sky blue” is “sky blue” because there are other shades of blue and other colors with which to juxtapose. “Good” and “evil”, in that way, share a similar relationship.

In our family there was no “bad father”, “good mother” setup.

As the devil is not portrayed as some sort of co-creator, the analogy falls flat.

My premise is just as sound as yours, maybe even better. After all mine is supported by evidence, while yours is pure speculation.

I fully agree that my view on the devil is speculative. Thus I don’t go about touting that it is axiomatic and the conclusions drawn from it are equally so.

Lastly, your premise of “The role of the devil is to thwart people’s belief and obedience to God” is supported by evidence? If you are sticking to your materialist views in identifying that evidence, then congratulations! You’ve indirectly proven the existence of God!

However, as we’ve identified that you get a little waffly in your adherence to materialism, I would expect that your evidence concerning the “role of the devil” would display similar problems as your belief in “goodness”, “love” and “compassion”.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Other than, of course, “goodness”, “love” and “compassion”. If God cannot exist on the basis of unproven materiality, why on Earth do you give a “free pass” to these equally non-material, metaphysical concepts? Mustn’t you also argue that these (and their antonyms) are equally non-existent on the same basis?

God is supposed to be more than just a concept, but I did not argue against God’s existence. Only against God’s alleged “loving” nature. The concepts you mentioned do not have an ontological existence. They are descriptions of certain behaviors.

As the devil is not portrayed as some sort of co-creator, the analogy falls flat.

You just don’t get it. The “creator” part is irrelevant. The point is that “loving, caring, etc.” behavior does not need a contrast to be appreciated. I could have chosen uncles, aunts, teachers, priests… anyone who exhibits a “loving” behavior. We reciprocated their love by loving them back even when there was no one who exhibited a contrasting behavior. Only someone who does not exhibit good, loving behavior “needs” someone, who is even worse… compared to whom he is “not THAT bad, after all”.

Lastly, your premise of “The role of the devil is to thwart people’s belief and obedience to God” is supported by evidence?

That is one of the fundamental propositions about the devil. I did not invent it, it is a basic premise of Christianity. It started with the story in the Garden of Eden. What other evidence do you need?

 

[Vonsalza]

God is supposed to be more than just a concept, but I did not argue against God’s existence. Only against God’s alleged “loving” nature.

Your words: “…there is nothing in this observable universe that would point to the existence of a good, loving, caring deity.”

So are you suggesting that you have material evidence for the existence of any sort of God at all? Even a cruel one? I’m intensely interested in seeing this evidence. Richard Dawkins is too.

I’ll readily grant this concession: God, if it exists, most certainly allows for evil to exist.

But that leads to only more questions such as “What would a loving God do? Annihilate the will of His creation so they couldn’t be cruel or apathetic to each other? Or gift them with will and hope they choose kindness and pathos?”

The point is that “loving, caring, etc.” behavior does not need a contrast to be appreciated.

Yes. Yes it does. Our joyful moments in life are so because they’re contrasted with the poignant or neutral moments. This contrast is what generates the appreciation.

That is one of the fundamental propositions about the devil. I did not invent it, it is a basic premise of Christianity. It started with the story in the Garden of Eden. What other evidence do you need?

Respectfully, sir, that isn’t evidence. That’s your perception.
Most church historians would argue that the concept of the devil as is currently understood by wider Christendom today experienced much of its development just before and during the European renaissance.