T
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
I agree that we need to be critical when we are reading philosophy because very often it becomes remote from reality and sometimes contradicts Catholic doctrines. That is why this forum is so valuable because our discussions enable us to decide which of our beliefs are controversial and which are acceptable to everyone. Even when we disagree it is not always obvious who is right and who is mistaken because there is often room for different interpretations of the Church’s teaching - and then it is not significant unless it concerns a moral issue. Variety is the spice of life even - and especially =-in heaven!
G
grannymh
Guest
May I add that interpretations of the Church’s teachings are also very significant when they concern a theological issue.
R
razredge
Guest
I think what concerns me more than the problem of evil is the silence of God, He never seems to directly tell me anything. Is that just me?
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
It’s not just you. Ii is the same for me. Yet I am content with the fact that God has given me the gift of rational insight in order to be able to embrace Him. Others appear to have had more personal experiences of God, but it seems that God has not deemed it necessary to grant me such an experience. I am fine with that.
G
grannymh
Guest
Nope.
However, try listening to the Gospel during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.:clapping:
D
DennisTate
Guest
On the other hand I was impressed by the response given to former atheist Howard Storm during his near death experience as he asked the angelic beings why the holocaust had been allowed to occur.
/
T
tonyrey
Guest
Thank you for that inspiring testimony.
**“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body…”
**
T
tonyrey
Guest
How could you be genuinely free to choose what to believe, how to live and who to love if you had coercive evidence that God exists?
T
tonyrey
Guest
The teaching of Jesus is sufficient evidence that God exists. The last words He said at His mock trial were:
“You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.”
If He was not speaking the truth where did the concept that God is a loving Father - and precept that we should love our enemies - come from?
S
Sair
Guest
You really think belief and love are utterly free, uncaused choices that we make entirely of our own volition, even when faced with a complete lack of solid evidence or motivation? Does that mean we don’t freely choose to believe in gravity, in the existence of the sun, in the fact that it sometimes rains? That we decide completely at random who we will love?
I don’t think belief is a choice. Belief - faith - is what we invest in those who have somehow impressed upon us their reliability, or in states of affairs for which we have solid evidence, even if certainty eludes us. Hence I believe the sun will (apparently, from our earth-bound perspective) rise tomorrow morning. I believe it will likely rain in Melbourne within the next few weeks. I believe that my family loves and cares for me, and will be there for me when I need them, as I would be for them. Sure, I don’t know with absolute certainty that any of this will be the case, until after the fact - but I believe so, on the basis of previous experience, on the basis of my loved ones’ general behaviour towards me. I hope, in the latter case, they believe it of me as well, and that I will fulfil their faith if and when the need arises.
Why doesn’t God, if he exists, give us at least this much evidence? I don’t have faith in any supernatural gods - that is because no supernatural entity has ever impressed its existence upon me, let alone its ability to take any interest in my affairs.
Nor, indeed, do I think love is a choice. Our emotional responses are not entirely under our conscious governance. I’m sure many people can point to times when they have loved “not wisely but too well”. But again, I think love is a matter of an external reality that impresses itself upon us and influences our internal states - and again, I have seen no reason, nor felt any compulsion, to love an entity that cannot even convince me of its existence.
G
grannymh
Guest
Pardon me, but my gut instinct is that you are posting in an either-or context along with many of the posters in the Apologetics and Philosophy Forums. No offense intended; however, the broader both-and view can be more satisfying when dealing with human nature itself.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I’m a little confused here. Would you please explain what you mean in more detail? It would help me. Thanks.
T
tonyrey
Guest
G
grannymh
Guest
Originally posted by granny
“Pardon me, but my gut instinct is that you are posting in an either-or context along with many of the posters in the Apologetics and Philosophy Forums. No offense intended; however, the broader both-and view can be more satisfying when dealing with human nature itself.”
Are you familiar with the phrase. “It is my way or the highway.”
That is another way of looking at “either-or” also known as the “mutually exclusive or”. An example of “both-and” is that human nature unites both the material world *and *the spiritual world.
Your posts reflect an openness to different possibilities as in maybe both ideas have merit. While your posts are definite that you will yield to the Word of God, you allow your curiosity to be open to possibilities which could possibly complement God’s will. In other words, you are slow to rule out everything that is different from your thinking. Thus, when you come to a decision about God’s way or the highway, there is the satisfaction that you have done your best to explore options.
When exploring the natural world, looking for an “either-or” solution is limited. In my humble opinion, it is more satisfying to delight in all the options and then choose the best.
I am interested in Sair’s response before I expand on what was posted.
Too often, we look at God’s existence as being part of the material world of sense experience. It comes down to the idea that God needs to be proved “scientifically” or else He doesn’t exist. That is a typical “either-or” view. But maybe, both the material world and the spiritual world can point to God’s existence. This gives a broader, unrestricted view to explore.
If this needs more explaining, do not hesitate to ask.
“Pardon me, but my gut instinct is that you are posting in an either-or context along with many of the posters in the Apologetics and Philosophy Forums. No offense intended; however, the broader both-and view can be more satisfying when dealing with human nature itself.”
That post was in response to Sair’s post 2309.
Are you familiar with the phrase. “It is my way or the highway.”
That is another way of looking at “either-or” also known as the “mutually exclusive or”. An example of “both-and” is that human nature unites both the material world *and *the spiritual world.
Your posts reflect an openness to different possibilities as in maybe both ideas have merit. While your posts are definite that you will yield to the Word of God, you allow your curiosity to be open to possibilities which could possibly complement God’s will. In other words, you are slow to rule out everything that is different from your thinking. Thus, when you come to a decision about God’s way or the highway, there is the satisfaction that you have done your best to explore options.
When exploring the natural world, looking for an “either-or” solution is limited. In my humble opinion, it is more satisfying to delight in all the options and then choose the best.
I am interested in Sair’s response before I expand on what was posted.
Too often, we look at God’s existence as being part of the material world of sense experience. It comes down to the idea that God needs to be proved “scientifically” or else He doesn’t exist. That is a typical “either-or” view. But maybe, both the material world and the spiritual world can point to God’s existence. This gives a broader, unrestricted view to explore.
If this needs more explaining, do not hesitate to ask.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The concept of Design has frequently been criticised on the ground that it is too imprecise. Yet the universe does bear a striking resemblance to an immense machine and the attempts to explain living organisms in biochemical terms are based on the assumption that mechanistic explanation is the final solution. What is overlooked is that machines are the product of intelligent activity!
However if the universe does have a purpose what is its purpose and what are the purposes of the machines within the Machine?
"If we wish to register the purpose of any whole and of its parts we should mark first, that each part is for its own proper activity, thus the eye for seeing; second, that the lower is for the higher, thus the senses for the mind, or lungs for the heart; third, that all parts are for the perfection of the whole, thus matter for form; fourth, the whole man is for an extrinsic end, namely his enjoyment of God.
So it is with the parts of the universe: each creature exists first for its own proper activity and well-being; second, the lower creatures for the higher, as plants and beasts are for men; third, each for the integrity of the whole; last, the whole universe with all its parts is ordered to God as to its end, by copying and showing forth divine goodness to the glory of God." – St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
books.google.co.uk/books?id=v1ujbfCCkG8C&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=each+creature+exists+first+for+its+own+proper+activity+and+well-being+Aquinas&source=bl&ots=IFA0-OIqo_&sig=ogABGaiZX4g-9-EIaLOBrIF52TA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dOxHT_zzLIbh8APF69CLDg&sqi=2&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
The general hierarchy of purposes is well-defined. For St Thomas the universe reflects the power and goodness of God - even if only to a limited extent. He stipulates that “a bodily creature is good in its nature, not unboundedly so, but in a partial and contracted manner. Hence the conflict of one thing with another, though both in themselves are good.” ibid.
This fact clearly explains the imperfection of the universe and the existence of physical evil. Interference is inevitable in a vast system in which there are countless individuals pursuing different goals…
However if the universe does have a purpose what is its purpose and what are the purposes of the machines within the Machine?
"If we wish to register the purpose of any whole and of its parts we should mark first, that each part is for its own proper activity, thus the eye for seeing; second, that the lower is for the higher, thus the senses for the mind, or lungs for the heart; third, that all parts are for the perfection of the whole, thus matter for form; fourth, the whole man is for an extrinsic end, namely his enjoyment of God.
So it is with the parts of the universe: each creature exists first for its own proper activity and well-being; second, the lower creatures for the higher, as plants and beasts are for men; third, each for the integrity of the whole; last, the whole universe with all its parts is ordered to God as to its end, by copying and showing forth divine goodness to the glory of God." – St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
books.google.co.uk/books?id=v1ujbfCCkG8C&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=each+creature+exists+first+for+its+own+proper+activity+and+well-being+Aquinas&source=bl&ots=IFA0-OIqo_&sig=ogABGaiZX4g-9-EIaLOBrIF52TA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dOxHT_zzLIbh8APF69CLDg&sqi=2&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
The general hierarchy of purposes is well-defined. For St Thomas the universe reflects the power and goodness of God - even if only to a limited extent. He stipulates that “a bodily creature is good in its nature, not unboundedly so, but in a partial and contracted manner. Hence the conflict of one thing with another, though both in themselves are good.” ibid.
This fact clearly explains the imperfection of the universe and the existence of physical evil. Interference is inevitable in a vast system in which there are countless individuals pursuing different goals…
T
tonyrey
Guest
No discussion of the evidence for Design is complete without reference to the Quinta Via of St Thomas Aquinas which clarifies the distinction between design and purpose:
"VII. QUINTA VIA, THE ARGUMENT FROM FINAL CAUSES
Contrary and discordant elements, it runs, cannot always, or nearly always, work harmoniously together unless they be directed by something providing each and all with their tendencies to a definite end. Now in the universe we see things of diverse natures conspiring together in one scheme, not rarely or haphazardly, but approximately always or for the most part. There must be something, therefore, whose providence directs the universe."
There are two arguments here:
The first is the argument from design based on the concept of external finality, that is the arrangement of different things in a working pattern. The second is the argument from purpose, based on the concept of internal finality, which is a rational plan. These ideas are developed in the next paragraph:
"165. We observe that things without consciousness, such as physical bodies, operate with a purpose, as appears from their **co-operating **invariably, or almost so, in the same way in order to obtain the best result. Clearly then they reach this end by intention and not by chance. Things lacking knowledge move towards an end only when directed by someone who knows and understands, as an arrow by an archer. There is consequently an intelligent being who directs all natural things to their ends; and this being we call God.
"VII. QUINTA VIA, THE ARGUMENT FROM FINAL CAUSES
Contrary and discordant elements, it runs, cannot always, or nearly always, work harmoniously together unless they be directed by something providing each and all with their tendencies to a definite end. Now in the universe we see things of diverse natures conspiring together in one scheme, not rarely or haphazardly, but approximately always or for the most part. There must be something, therefore, whose providence directs the universe."
There are two arguments here:
The first is the argument from design based on the concept of external finality, that is the arrangement of different things in a working pattern. The second is the argument from purpose, based on the concept of internal finality, which is a rational plan. These ideas are developed in the next paragraph:
"165. We observe that things without consciousness, such as physical bodies, operate with a purpose, as appears from their **co-operating **invariably, or almost so, in the same way in order to obtain the best result. Clearly then they reach this end by intention and not by chance. Things lacking knowledge move towards an end only when directed by someone who knows and understands, as an arrow by an archer. There is consequently an intelligent being who directs all natural things to their ends; and this being we call God.
- When diverse things are co-ordinated the scheme depends on their directed unification, as the order of battle of a whole army hangs on** the plan **of the
commander-in-chief. The arrangement of diverse things cannot be dictated by their own private and divergent natures; of themselves they are diverse and exhibit no tendency to make a pattern. It follows that the order of many among themselves is either a matter of chance or it must be resolved into one first planner who has a purpose in mind. What comes about always, or in the great majority of cases, is not the result of accident. Therefore the whole of this world has but one planner or governor."
S
Sair
Guest
So I choose to believe that the sun will (apparently) rise tomorrow? If I ‘choose’ not to believe this, am I delusional?
Our beliefs and our feelings inform our behaviour. If we sincerely hold beliefs, we will act accordingly. If choice enters into the process, it is in the particular actions through which we demonstrate our beliefs and feelings, not in the holding of those beliefs and feelings in the first place.
No, not compelled or coerced, but strongly persuaded or influenced to behave in such a way that follows from our perception of reality being true. I am not asking for conclusive, indubitable evidence of the existence of gods - I’m asking for any evidence at all that is not better explained by alternative hypotheses.
Doesn’t sound like an unbiased evaluation to me. Why does the universe even need to explain itself? Most theists don’t believe the existence of God requires explanation. Goodness, beauty, justice, love etc are not ‘facts’ in the sense of being things in the universe, but they are the shorthand by which we recognise particular relationships and states of affairs - without these states of affairs obtaining, we would have no concept of love, beauty, goodness, justice, freedom and so forth.
I think you’ll find that metaphysical naturalism is still very much alive as a philosophical position. It’s wishful thinking on the part of those who want to believe in the existence of supernatural entities to prematurely consign it to the intellectual dustbin. As I keep saying, we don’t know everything there is to know about the physical universe, and we may never do so - why suppose that we already know everything of which nature is capable?
None of these things constitute the kind of evidence that compels belief in the Christian God, or any god, for that matter. Even if I am to make a conscious decision about what I believe, this is something I would do by weighing the evidence. When there’s no evidence to weigh, what’s to be done?
On the contrary, the taking of a particular and personal interest in human affairs is an integral characteristic in the definition of the God of Classical Theism.
Bearing in mind that the biggest factor of influence on a person’s religious faith is the religious faith in which they have been raised as children, how much freedom and choice do you really think a person has about what they believe? And I’m not looking for coercive evidence. I’m looking for states of affairs that are best explained by the existence of the God of Classical Theism. I’m looking for the world to make more sense, not less, if this God is factored in to the explanation. Sorry, but that’s not what I’ve thus far found. On the contrary, what I see is excuse after excuse for why one should still believe God exists despite all these states of affairs that shouldn’t obtain if the God of Classical Theism exists. This notion that if God made his presence known, it would somehow curtail our freedom to believe - if we even have it - is, in light of the above, just another excuse.
C
cho_pilo
Guest
There are no instructions on a DNA molecule, as there is no intelligence to read, interpret or carry out those instructions. What there is in DNA molecules are templates for forming molecules. The machinery of the cell is not intelligent, so code or instructions can not be used. It is exactly the same for a Carbon atom, it has a number of bonds it can form, which bonds are formed are determined by the environment it is in. Some elements are called catalists because they force chemical reactions to go certain ways and not others, do you think they are following instructions to do so? DNA can be seen as a very large and complex catalist which forces chemicals within the cell to conform to a certain pattern(DNA is an acid)creating specific proteins, there are no instructions, no intelligence, no code, there is only chemical reactions. Information and codes are simply constructs to model what is going on in those chemical reactions. They are our maps, they are not the territory being described.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
I have made my points and others have agreed, since things are quite obvious. I will not waste my time further discussing this issue with you.
- Status