Friend says he's happier not going to Mass

[Gorgias]

Well, no. You are mistaken. The damage may be objective, but the person may not “mind” it.

Well, then, you’re mistaken. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t harm – it just means that it isn’t perceived. The harm, however, is real.

Sorry, you are mistaken if you think that the Bible quotations mean anything to me.

Fair enough. I’d hope that you’d accurately quote and represent them, though. 'Cause, if not, we’re willing to show you that your take on them is ‘fake news’.

(It is very sad that I have to explicitly enumerate ALL the disclaimers every friggin’ time I make a post.)

It’s even more sad that you have to attempt to disclaim what is obvious from the beginning. Harm is harm. Perception is perception. Sometimes, the twain meet; sometimes, folks refuse to admit it.

But my approach is rational and you did not bring up a rational objection to the principle: “ if you allow an act to happen, then you did not disapprove of it. ”

So, let’s look to current events. Many disagree with what’s going on with respect to the enforcement of immigration policy. Did they not allow acts to happen? Does that mean that they do not disapprove of them?

Well, then… that means that your assertion fails. Epically.

Again, it might be more convincing if God himself would affirm this concept.

That’s why the “problem of evil” fails as a problem. God affirms the primacy of free will every time evil happens – by virtue of the occurrence, God affirms the concept. Glad I could help prove your point.

 

[Sophia]

Well, then, you’re mistaken. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t harm – it just means that it isn’t perceived. The harm, however, is real.

This is why I need to repeat the disclaimer every time. You keep either forgetting or intentionally disregarding the importance of the intention or perception or ‘will’ of the person being harmed. There is no nanny-state to force us into a behavioral pattern, just because it is “good for us”. (Though it is tried frequently.) The principle is NOT that there should NEVER be an interference to prevent harm. If the person is being harmed due to their ignorance, then there are two possibilities:

1. the person’s ignorance can be remedied by giving the necessary information, and then the person is allowed to make an informed decision. or
2. the person would not be able to understand the explanation (maybe in a coma? or an infant? or an imbecile?) and then it is permitted to forcefully “help”. Of course if there is a living will demanding to be left alone, the wish of the person is always the deciding factor.

Is this too complicated to understand? Of course all this has been stated several times, but the apologists have a very short memory…

Fair enough. I’d hope that you’d accurately quote and represent them, though. 'Cause, if not, we’re willing to show you that your take on them is ‘fake news’.

The quotation is always precise (according to the translation). It is the apologist who twists its actual meaning, because it cannot be explained away. (Ask and you will be answered, knock and the door will be opened. Bah, humbug!)

So, let’s look to current events. Many disagree with what’s going on with respect to the enforcement of immigration policy. Did they not allow acts to happen? Does that mean that they do not disapprove of them?

Well, then… that means that your assertion fails. Epically.

Come on… get just a little bit rational. The principle is “if you (an individual agent) have the power to allow or prevent something and you allow it to happen, then you did not disapprove of it.” Did you already forget the “law of excluded middle”? You urge me to quote correctly. Why don’t you do the same? It is “the agent has the power to allow or prevent the act” which is the cornerstone of the argument. (Epically fail??? Sheesh!)

That’s why the “problem of evil” fails as a problem. God affirms the primacy of free will every time evil happens – by virtue of the occurrence, God affirms the concept. Glad I could help prove your point.

So God affirms the importance of allowing evil go rampant by not interfering. Fine. Because the “free will” of the perpetrators is more important / valuable than the well-being of the victims. Fine. In that case God is on
par with the sociopaths and psychopaths. Or on the side of the Gestapo. Fine.

To be continued…

 

[Sophia]

Continued from above…

Glad that you confirmed my assertion. So every time an abortion happens, God condones it in the name of “free will”. Every time a genocide occurs, God condones it in the name of “free will”. The Holocaust was in “synch” with God’s will, since he allowed it. There is no atrocity that God would prevent, because the “free will” of the perpetrators is more important. You know, your defense is worse than my “accusation”. I simply do not believe that God is “good” because of the atrocities allowed (or inflicted on us). But you explicitly declare that God’s inaction is “good” no matter what is the outcome. (What about the three “prongs” of morality?)

So why do you try to “overdo” God? God allows abortion (for his own inscrutable purposes) and you want to do one “better” by trying to prevent what God allows? Don’t you realize that this is above your “pay grade”?

The conclusion is that we are allowed to make our judgment based upon the visible action or inaction of God. If the inaction shows that “God does not care”, then the only rational conclusion is that “God does not care”! Glad that you came to the same conclusion. The duck principle is still alive and well.

(Of course this would only deal with the problem of “moral evil”, and not with the natural evil. But that would be another matter.)

 

[Jump4Joy]

You’re right, don’t tell them they need to go to mass. I can understand the relief of not dealing with Catholic guilt. This is my opinion and my opinion only. May you can pray for him or start by asking him questions. I know emotional reasons are not sufficient enough reasons to abandon the faith, but perhaps he encountered very mean Catholics who tarnished his opinion of the church. Or may he encountered legalists that drove him nuts. I hope my advice works, if not forget it.

 

[DarkLight]

In my experience when people say they are happier when they feel ‘free’ to do what they want in the world it usually means going down a bad path. It is an illusion of happiness, but not true inner peace or joy.

That is possible, but (and I was one of them), there are also people who feel unnecessary guilt and shame and end up moving away from faith because of it. For an easy example, one thing I struggled with for a long time was when I handled a situation that might be unclear or there might not be a “good” solution, no matter what choice I made I’d feel really really guilty that I might not have made the right choice. Since God was perfect, I felt like I had to be perfect, not only in refraining from sinning, but in absolutely ensuring I couldn’t make a mistake.

 

[Dan_Defender]

So your experience may be different from mine. Our paths may be different but in the end, faith and love is what matters.

 

[DarkLight]

Yes. I just wanted to say that because I think the needed approach can be different. For me, I was well aware of my sins, what I needed was someone to sort of be the human face of grace and mercy and help me to a better understanding of what was true guilt and what false. Trying to approach things to get me to repent didn’t help a whole lot, because I didn’t think I could.

 

[Gorgias]

You keep either forgetting or intentionally disregarding the importance of the intention or perception or ‘will’ of the person being harmed.

Intentionally disregarding. If we’re talking about ‘harm’, then we’re talking about an objective consideration, not a subjective impression.

Is this too complicated to understand? Of course all this has been stated several times, but the apologists have a very short memory…

“Short memory”? Nah… I just continue to disagree with you on this point…

The principle is “if you (an individual agent) have the power to allow or prevent something and you allow it to happen, then you did not disapprove of it.”

You urge me to quote correctly. Why don’t you do the same?

You know what happens when you claim you’re being misquoted? We can check back and show you what you wrote. And, when it’s not what you claim, then guess who’s mis-quoting? To wit:

But my approach is rational and you did not bring up a rational objection to the principle: “ if you allow an act to happen, then you did not disapprove of it. ”

See? No reference to ‘power’ – until I call you on an illogical assertion… and then the story changes.

So every time an abortion happens, God condones it in the name of “free will”. Every time a genocide occurs, God condones it in the name of “free will”.

Nope. ‘Condone’ implies approval. God allows, rather than condones all our actions. Big difference.

If the inaction shows that “God does not care”, then the only rational conclusion is that “God does not care”! Glad that you came to the same conclusion. The duck principle is still alive and well.

I agree; you’re still making an awful racket, quacking away.

The lack of response doesn’t demonstrate that ‘God does not care’. Therefore, your conclusion is irrational.

 

[Sophia]

“Short memory”? Nah… I just continue to disagree with you on this point…

Disagree with what? That the agent is the primary authority over their actions? That interference is not “absolutely” right or wrong, its details must be analyzed. Of course that leads to the horrible “relativity” factor - sometimes the interference is right, and sometimes it is wrong. Just go back to those two paragraphs for details.

You know what happens when you claim you’re being misquoted? We can check back and show you what you wrote. And, when it’s not what you claim, then guess who’s mis-quoting? To wit:

Sophia:

But my approach is rational and you did not bring up a rational objection to the principle: “ if you allow an act to happen, then you did not disapprove of it. ”

See? No reference to ‘power’ – until I call you on an illogical assertion… and then the story changes.

Obviously I was at fault to assume an absolute minimum of rationality on your part. No one should be praised or blamed for something that is beyond their control or power. It is so obvious that I did not mention it. After all I am not going to write a book (within the constraints of 3200 characters) in every post. I have to assume a minimum of rationality on the part of the reader.

Nope. ‘Condone’ implies approval. God allows, rather than condones all our actions. Big difference.

Aha! But originally I said: “does not disapprove”, and you kept of objecting to this expression. According to the law of excluded middle there are only three possibilities: “approve, disapprove or stay indifferent”. In other words, if you “do-not-disapprove” (combining ‘approve’ and ‘stay indifferent’) then you are either indifferent or you approve. Elementary, my dear Watson.

But when push comes shove, there is NO real difference. Whether you “allow” an act of homicide to happen, or perform the act yourself the result is the same (adding “all other things being equal”). (Since your memory is too short, I feel compelled to add: “as long as you have the power to prevent it but fail to do so.”) Or if you fail to prevent an avalanche which you could have prevented then your inaction is to be condemned.

The lack of response doesn’t demonstrate that ‘God does not care’. Therefore, your conclusion is irrational.

The expression “God does not care” incorporates both the indifference and the approval of the act. I only mentioned the “indifferent” part instead of spelling it out “then God EITHER does not care OR explicitly prefers it to happen.”

So much wasted time and space to repeat the obvious.

I guess, I might waste more time and space by spelling out the principle in detail: "If an agent has the power over an event (to allow or prevent that event to happen) - THEN the agent is responsible for the outcome of the event." I hope (against hope) that this principle does not have to be spelled out again.

 

[jfz178]

I go to Mass every Sunday because we are supposed to. But I can’t say I like it. If I weren’t in the choir, it would be almost unbearable. I’m not editorializing, I’m just being honest.

 

[Gorgias]

Disagree with what?

That the definition of ‘harm’ is a subjective opinion and not about objective truth.

Obviously I was at fault to assume an absolute minimum of rationality on your part.

Nope. I can only go on what you write, not what I think you wanted to write.

According to the law of excluded middle there are only three possibilities: “approve, disapprove or stay indifferent”

I disagree with the way you frame it up. Argue for your breakdown all you want, but the fact that you’ve defined it that way doesn’t mean that we are forced to accept it.

But when push comes shove, there is NO real difference . Whether you “allow” an act of homicide to happen, or perform the act yourself the result is the same (adding “all other things being equal”).

Not in the context of Catholic morality. What you’re arguing for is ‘consequentialism’, and that’s not an acceptable approach in the context of Catholic moral theology.

" If an agent has the power over an event (to allow or prevent that event to happen) - THEN the agent is responsible for the outcome of the event." I hope (against hope) that this principle does not have to be spelled out again.

No. Now that you’ve said what you really mean, we can discuss it.

BTW – I would disagree that responsibility attaches at that point.

 

[Sophia]

Nope. I can only go on what you write, not what I think you wanted to write.

Sorry, the minimum of rationality is a basic requirement in any conversation. Especially when each post is limited to 3200 characters. Only a totally irrational person needs to have spelled out that “one is only responsible for those acts that one has control over”. And the corollary: “if one has full control over an act, that comes with full responsibility”. Of course I am aware for the reason of your “reluctance” to accept this very basic principle. If you would accept it, you would also have to accept that God is not “benevolent”… either “neutral” or “malevolent / evil”. And that is something that no believer can admit. The price of rationality is simply too high.

I disagree with the way you frame it up. Argue for your breakdown all you want, but the fact that you’ve defined it that way doesn’t mean that we are forced to accept it.

Disagreement without qualification is just another empty assertion. What else is there besides “approve, disapprove and stay neutral”? The “law of excluded middle” is just as binding as the “law of identity” and the “law of (non)contradiction”. If you do not accept the laws of logic, you don’t qualify as a rational conversation partner. No, you don’t “have to” accept it. You can stay irrational and admit it (without admitting it).

Not in the context of Catholic morality. What you’re arguing for is ‘consequentialism’, and that’s not an acceptable approach in the context of Catholic moral theology.

If the consequences are disregarded the whole concept is meaningless. You conveniently disregarded the qualifier: “all other things being equal”. The Catholic “morality” does not place a high level of importance on the consequences. But if the only difference is the outcome, then it becomes important - EVEN for the Catholics.

No. Now that you’ve said what you really mean, we can discuss it.

Only if you demonstrate your rationality, which does not seem likely. Start with the laws of logic.

BTW – I would disagree that responsibility attaches at that point.

What a surprise. (too bad that there is no type of emoticon.)

 

[Axsenex]

Nature abhors a vacuum.

 

[WillPhillips]

A friend of mine shared with me that he hasn’t been to Mass in years. he’s pretty much lost his faith and says ever since being removed from the culture of guilt and shame he’s so much happier. What would you say to someone who told you that? Obviously just saying “Well, you need to go to Mass” would not do the trick.

Tell him, “As your friend, I’m glad to see you happy”

 

[Gorgias]

And the corollary: “if one has full control over an act, that comes with full responsibility”. Of course I am aware for the reason of your “reluctance” to accept this very basic principle. If you would accept it, you would also have to accept that God is not “benevolent”… either “neutral” or “malevolent / evil”. And that is something that no believer can admit. The price of rationality is simply too high.

What’s nicer than ‘rationality’ is ‘consistency’. You seem to jump between a demand for agency in the context of why you should be allowed to do what you want (without others’ interference) and then, when you wish to rail against God, you change your tune and complain that he allows for agency.

Some consistency would be nice here…

What else is there besides “approve, disapprove and stay neutral”?

Ahh, back to your playbook: change the argument when challenged. “Stay neutral” wasn’t the claim you were making: “be indifferent” was what you accused God of. Seriously, Sophia – a bit of wise consistency would really help your claims of rationality…

 

[Sophia]

What’s nicer than ‘rationality’ is ‘consistency’. You seem to jump between a demand for agency in the context of why you should be allowed to do what you want (without others’ interference) and then, when you wish to rail against God, you change your tune and complain that he allows for agency.

Some consistency would be nice here…

The consistency is right in front of your eyes. The principle of “power implies responsibility” is applicable to everyone. When a human (myself) allows someone to suffer, when she has the power to alleviate the suffering, that behavior is exactly as despicable when God allows suffering. You are seriously mistaken; your problem is NOT that I hold God to a different standard, you are lamenting that I hold God to the same standard. And now I have this sneaky suspicion that you will change your argument and say that God is God, so he must be held to a different standard. (Which is the fallacy of “special pleading”.)

By the way, I do NOT rail against God, I simply point out YOUR inconsistency when you talk ABOUT God. And you have the nerve to say: “Some consistency would be nice here… ”

Without rationality you only have the “consistency of irrationality”. That is exactly what you do, and it has no value at all. And I was consistent in my phrases as the exact quotes below show.

In post #35 I explicitly stated:

Sophia:

Take an arbitrary agent, who has the power to allow or prevent any act at his discretion. If that agent allows an act, then we can only conclude that he did not disapprove of that act. He might approve of it, or be neutral toward it. After all, only an idiot would allow something that he definitely does NOT wish to happen.

Exact, verbatim quotation. Can you comprehend the expression “did not disapprove”? (I know it is a double negative, but still…) Which is the exact equivalent of “approve” or “is neutral toward it”? Or is “the law of excluded middle” something that you STILL fail to comprehend?

Ahh, back to your playbook: change the argument when challenged. “Stay neutral” wasn’t the claim you were making: “be indifferent” was what you accused God of. Seriously, Sophia – a bit of wise consistency would really help your claims of rationality…

Nothing could be clearer than this. “Staying neutral” is exactly the same as “being indifferent” or “does not care”. Elementary linguistics my dear Watson.

Continued below…

 

[Sophia]

Continued from above…

Of course this is all water under the bridge. You explicitly stated that the “free will” of any sociopath and psychopath is “dearer” to God’s heart than the suffering of the victims - that is why he allows all the atrocities. You said:

Gorgias:

That’s why the “problem of evil” fails as a problem. God affirms the primacy of free will every time evil happens – by virtue of the occurrence, God affirms the concept. Glad I could help prove your point.

That would be the logical corollary of God’s permissive behavior toward the acts of the torturers, rapists, abortionists and their fellow evil-doers. Which means that God and the Gestapo are two peas in a pod - according to your analysis. That would render God just as evil as any psychopath.

The funny stuff is this. If that unnamed arbitrary agent would be a human agent, then you would have no problem with agreeing with the analysis (power implies responsibility). But you cannot accept that God and the Gestapo MUST be evaluated by the same yardstick.

Another quotation from above: “Only an idiot would allow an act to happen that he explicitly does NOT want to happen.” Nothing can be simpler and clearer than this.

 

[Gorgias]

The consistency is right in front of your eyes. The principle of “ power implies responsibility ” is applicable to everyone.

Except us. After all, you wrote that:

When shall people realize that giving a friendly, but unsolicited advice - ONCE!!! - is acceptable, but nagging is not. Not even when it is done with the best intentions. When shall people realize that the OTHER party is a grown-up adult, who is “entitled” make his own mistakes?

So, which is it, Sophia? “Others bear responsibility” or “one is entitled to make one’s own mistakes”?

Consistency. It’s a good thing.

 

[Sophia]

So, which is it, Sophia? “Others bear responsibility” or “one is entitled to make one’s own mistakes”?

This has been covered in details. Both, depending on the circumstances. Your memory is short. Of course you are uncomfortable with the concept of relative behavior, when one takes the circumstances into consideration. No “absolutes” there!

A short summary:

1. If there is only one person affected, then only his wish is relevant (he is entitled to make his own mistakes).
2. If there are more than one person is affected, and they ALL consent to a specific course of action, it is only their wish which is relevant. (Consent is paramount.)
3. If there is some harm involved and the person who is harmed does NOT wish to be helped, his wish is relevant.
4. If there is some harm involved and the person who is harmed asks for help, or is rationally assumed that he would want to be helped - if he could express his wish, then help should be rendered.

Important addition: the person must be adult and in good command of his faculties. Toddlers, imbeciles, people with extremely low IQ are not taken into consideration.

It is not THAT complicated, is it?

Consistency. It’s a good thing.

Not unconditionally. As an old Hungarian proverb goes: “Only the ox is consistent.” (Csak az ökör következetes.) To be consistently irrational is not a good thing. To be able to listen, understand and accept a rational argument is a good thing, even if one must abandon the old belief and embrace a new one.

But of course all this was just a derail attempt on your part. You keep trying to change the subject instead of addressing these basic principles:

1. The responsibility of an agent is directly commensurate to his power.
2. To respect the “free will” of sociopaths and psychopaths lowers one to their level of morality.
3. Only an idiot would allow an act to happen that he explicitly does NOT want to happen.
4. If an agent allows an act (which he could prevent), then the only conclusion is that he did not disapprove of that act. He might approve of it, or be neutral toward it.

Without these principles there can be no rational conversation. And so far you could not bring up a rational argument against any one of them.

 

[Gorgias]

A short summary:

1. If there is only one person affected, then only his wish is relevant (he is entitled to make his own mistakes).
2. If there are more than one person is affected, and they ALL consent to a specific course of action, it is only their wish which is relevant. (Consent is paramount.)
3. If there is some harm involved and the person who is harmed does NOT wish to be helped, his wish is relevant.
4. If there is some harm involved and the person who is harmed asks for help, or is rationally assumed that he would want to be helped - if he could express his wish, then help should be rendered.

And yet, here’s where you’re inconsistent: none of these allow for God to intervene, and yet, you insist that since He doesn’t intervene, He’s at best indifferent and at worst, a monster. Inconsistency.

To be consistently irrational is not a good thing.

That’s what I keep telling you. So far, it hasn’t sunk in.