Gnostic Atheism

[reggieM]

Denial of the “supremacy” of logic is tantamount to denying the reliability of our own reason. Which is fine to do, but you can’t do anything else.

You’ve validated my argument here and clearly, you don’t want to discuss it so that is ok. Your choice of the word “supremacy” shows that you understand and you needed some way to avoid the questions I presented in a crystal-clear manner.
Yes, “supremacy”. That is a comparative word. It means one thing is more supreme than another. One thing is greater. So, logic has supremacy over other methods of inquiry and analysis. You did not say that logic has exclusivity or that logic stands alone as the only means we have of understanding. So, you know your reasoning has collapsed here, and you tried to dodge the issue.

I know that the Catholic God doesn’t exist (to the extent that I can know anything.)

I’m sorry you’ve arrived at that conclusion. I have shown where you are incorrect here but there’s no sense in repeating it. I feel confident that you see the problem, and I can see where you’ve tried to avoid it somehow. But I hope you will continue to explore the Catholic teaching and belief in God. There is more to discover than what you’ve presented thus far.
In any case, thank you again for the conversation.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You’ve validated my argument here and clearly, you don’t want to discuss it so that is ok. Your choice of the word “supremacy” shows that you understand and you needed some way to avoid the questions I presented in a crystal-clear manner.
Yes, “supremacy”. That is a comparative word. It means one thing is more supreme than another. One thing is greater. So, logic has supremacy over other methods of inquiry and analysis. You did not say that logic has exclusivity or that logic stands alone as the only means we have of understanding. So, you know your reasoning has collapsed here, and you tried to dodge the issue.

So what you’re saying is that there are a hierarchy of “methods of inquiry”, and logic stands on top? And that some of the subordinate “methods of inquiry” don’t have to listen to logic because they aren’t actually subordinate?

That literally doesn’t make sense, unless you are **denying **that logic is actually supreme (because if logic is supreme, then all other methods of inquiry DO have to listen to what logic has to say.)

 

[reggieM]

Or, as demonstrated in this thread: skeptics offer the accurate Catholic account, and are instead presented with a view the church considers heretical.

I will support you on this matter. Vonsalza did not use the correct terminology when saying that the Father is “part” of the Godhead.

By a nice coincidence, yesterday was the feast of Trinity Sunday in the Church. The office of readings has the Athanasian Creed which I just read today - perfect timing:

Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.

Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith:

That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their persons
nor dividing their essence.
    For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
    the person of the Son is another,
    and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
    But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
    their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
    The Father is uncreated,
    the Son is uncreated,
    the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

    The Father is immeasurable,
    the Son is immeasurable,
    the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

    The Father is eternal,
    the Son is eternal,
    the Holy Spirit is eternal.

        And yet there are not three eternal beings;
        there is but one eternal being.
        So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
        there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

Similarly, the Father is almighty,
    the Son is almighty,
    the Holy Spirit is almighty.
        Yet there are not three almighty beings;
        there is but one almighty being.

    Thus the Father is God,
    the Son is God,
    the Holy Spirit is God.
        Yet there are not three gods;
        there is but one God.

    Thus the Father is Lord,
    the Son is Lord,
    the Holy Spirit is Lord.
        Yet there are not three lords;
        there is but one Lord.

Just as Christian truth compels us
to confess each person individually
as both God and Lord,
so catholic religion forbids us
to say that there are three gods or lords.

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
he was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
there is one Son, not three sons;
there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in their entirety the three persons
are coeternal and coequal with each other.

So in everything, as was said earlier,
we must worship their trinity in their unity
and their unity in their trinity.

Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.

 

[reggieM]

Notice that creed offers nothing by way of a logical or philosophical explanation.
It is a theological statement. It is not intended to prove something, but rather just to present the facts about the Trinity, as required belief.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Notice that creed offers nothing by way of a logical or philosophical explanation.
It is a theological statement. It is not intended to prove something, but rather just to present the facts about the Trinity, as required belief.

I assert that my intuition tells me that the actual correct interpretation of all religious texts is the opposite of their literal meaning.

Quickly, without using any logic, tell me why I am wrong.

 

[reggieM]

So what you’re saying is that there are a hierarchy of “methods of inquiry”, and logic stands on top? And that some of the subordinate “methods of inquiry” don’t have to listen to logic because they aren’t actually subordinate?

You used the hierarchial designator of “supreme”. Why not just say “all of reality must conform to logic or else it does not exist”?
I am saying that logic is not an adequate means for understanding all aspects of reality. We encounter paradoxes that create logical conflicts. On a natural level, we use intuition to explain logical conflicts.

That literally doesn’t make sense, unless you are **denying **that logic is actually supreme (because if logic is supreme, then all other methods of inquiry DO have to listen to what logic has to say.)

As above, intuition is supreme over logic. Logic cannot prove its own first principles. It must rely on intuition to do that.
The primary intuition is that there is a difference between true and false. Logic cannot provide that understanding. It must rely on it. That distinction comes from somewhere other than logic. That understanding is built into human nature, by God. It does not come from any physical (determined or random) source.

Actually

 

[JapaneseKappa]

As above, intuition is supreme over logic. Logic cannot prove its own first principles. It must rely on intuition to do that.
The primary intuition is that there is a difference between true and false.

So you’re saying that you agree with me?

There is no way, under any system of reasoning, to defend the reliability of reason. Any attempt to do so is tantamount to saying:

If I assume my reasoning is reliable, I can prove my reasoning is reliable!

No theology, *philosophy *or *science *can defeat the uncertainty surrounding the reliability of reason.

This assumption that our reason is reliable is a kind of stool, and we are all standing on it. Around our necks, we all wear the same noose of uncertainty. So it is true that in any philosophical argument you can kick over the stool. But the result isn’t a win for you; its always a stalemate. Kicking the stool doesn’t hang your opponent, it hangs everyone, you included.

 

[reggieM]

I assert that the actual correct interpretation of all religious texts is the opposite of their literal meaning.

Quickly, without using any logic, tell me why I am wrong.

Again, you’re using an either/or, all or nothing approach.
You’re thinking that if logic cannot be used in some instances, it cannot be used at all. I already showed where that is false.

But actually, you’re giving a great example. Here’s a song by Neil Young:

Love is a rose
but you better not pick it
It only grows when it’s on the vine.
A handful of thorns and
you’ll know you’ve missed it
You lose your love
when you say the word “mine”.

Using logical syllogisms alone, give the best and correct interpretation of what Neil Young is saying.

 

[reggieM]

So you’re saying that you agree with me?

No. I stated that intuition, a different method of reasoning, is required for logic to even work.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Again, you’re using an either/or, all or nothing approach.
You’re thinking that if logic cannot be used in some instances, it cannot be used at all. I already showed where that is false.

But I am talking about the very passage you claimed belonged to the special logic-free category.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

No. I stated that intuition, a different method of reasoning, is required for logic to even work.

Which is what I said, except you’ve used the word “intuition” to try to justify our decision to rely on our reason.

 

[PRmerger]

Again, you’re using an either/or, all or nothing approach.

Yes.

It’s soooo peculiar to see this oft proclaimed by atheists (and fundamentalists).

Not sure why there is this desire to insert either/ors when both/ands will do quite nicely.

 

[reggieM]

But I am talking about the very passage you claimed belonged to the special logic-free category.

Please state and quote where I said there was a “logic free category”.
Failing that, you can apologize or admit that you fabricated that idea and assigned it to me.

Perhaps you didn’t read this so I will post again (I’ve said the same thing elsewhere and perhaps you missed that also). Note the bold text below:

That’s a pretty extreme position and it’s false.
I want to learn how to swim.
Either logic applies to swimming or it does not.
If it does, I accept some logic - therefore I can swim. Throw me in the water, I’ll be fine.
Or, we say then: “Logic does not apply to swimming. Therefore, we cannot learn how to swim.”.
Obviously, Logic applies “to some degree in some aspects” when it comes to learning how to swim. Logic will not enable you to swim. You need other knowledge for that.
To then say that, “since logic is not adequate” then we can’t swim is false.

Logic applies to God “to some degree and in some aspects”. The human mind is not capable, for example, of designing a universe. Does that mean “no Being therefore could design a universe”? The human mind is not capable of being the First Cause of all Being. Should we say, “since humans cannot be the First Cause, no First Cause could possibly exist”?
Human beings cannot observe the first life forms on earth. Therefore, nothing can be known about first life?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

But then again you also believe that aliens could have resurrected the body of Jesus so…

If I recall correctly, you were unable to offer a single argument as to why they couldn’t.

 

[reggieM]

Which is what I said, except you’ve used the word “intuition” to try to justify our decision to rely on our reason.

I used the word intuition and explained why that is different from logic.
You have claimed that logic-alone is sufficient. I showed where that is incorrect.
You said nothing about it, by the way,

 

[PRmerger]

If I recall correctly, you were unable to offer a single argument as to why they couldn’t.

Why should I? The Christian answer is the best explanation.

Your position is equivalent to saying to scientists “I notice you haven’t offered a single argument as to why climate change couldn’t be caused by aliens adjusting a giant thermostat in the sky”.

Emm…ok. But why should they when they already have a really good explanation for the event?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Please state and quote where I said there was a “logic free category”.
Failing that, you can apologize or admit that you fabricated that idea and assigned it to me.

Perhaps you didn’t read this so I will post again (I’ve said the same thing elsewhere and perhaps you missed that also). Note the bold text below:

Here:

“The tools of philosophy (i.e. logic) do not apply to revealed truths.”

We only know of the Trinity through divine revelation given by Jesus. Those kinds of truths are meant for Theology (and Feser is not a theologian anyway). To try to analyze the Trinity using Philosophical tools ends up with the mess that you rightly pointed out.

So if I misunderstood you, and you meant some other philosophical tool (coffee?) I apologize. In that case, logic DOES apply to revealed truths, and so the syllogism I offered previously (which shows a logical contradiction in a revealed truth) IS a justification for believing that the God it describes does not exist.

Now perhaps all I’ve been missing is a direct attack on your “God could exist even if he is logically impossible” point. That is just such a unique and impossible position that I don’t have any prepared route to take.

 

[reggieM]

Here:

We only know of the Trinity through divine revelation given by Jesus. Those kinds of truths are meant for Theology (and Feser is not a theologian anyway). To try to analyze the Trinity using Philosophical tools ends up with the mess that you rightly pointed out.

So if I misunderstood you, and you meant some other philosophical tool (coffee?) I apologize.

Yes, you misunderstood and I accept your apology. I explained here, third post:
**Logic applies to God “to some degree and in some aspects”. **

You made up the term “logic free zone” and assigned it to me.
Using Philosophical tools alone. Of course, there are more philosophical tools than logical processes.
There are definitions and rules required before one can even do logic.

In that case, logic DOES apply to revealed truths, and so the syllogism I offered previously (which shows a logical contradiction in a revealed truth) IS a justification for believing that the God it describes does not exist.

If you don’t believe revealed truths exist, how can you analyze one?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So just to be clear, when you said

However, philosophy cannot arrive at conclusions regarding teachings that have been revealed by God.

You meant that philosophy CAN arrive at conclusions regarding teachings that have been revealed by God, it just can’t arrive at the teachings without already knowing the teachings.

 

[reggieM]

So just to be clear, when you said

You meant that philosophy CAN arrive at conclusions regarding teachings that have been revealed by God, it just can’t arrive at the teachings without already knowing the teachings.

I’m not following. “it just can’t arrive at the teachings”? Of course, philosophy cannot create teachings that have been revealed by God. But yes, philosophy cannot determine that God truly spoke to a prophet. It can help in some way, sure. But in the end, as I said, it’s a question of Faith. It’s a question of authority. If I see someone of moral excellence, who heals people by miracle, who raises people from the dead, who says He is the Son of God - philosophy can help, but ultimately it is intuition and faith that tell me to believe or not.

“Revealed teachings” require a person to whom the teaching has been revealed. Revelation is not a philosophical construct or process. Jesus Christ gave teachings that He said were from God and of God. If you accept that, then His words are “revealed teachings”. If you don’t accept that God exists, then obviously there can be no revealed teachings.

So, you would have nothing to analyze.

the syllogism I offered previously (which shows a logical contradiction in a revealed truth)

Here, you’re stating that you found a “revealed truth”. Then you applied philosophy to it.
But this would mean that you accept that whatever you were analyzing was, in fact, a truth revealed by God. In this case, revealed by Jesus Christ.

You could say, “for the sake of argument I’ll accept this was a revealed teaching”.

Ok, but you’d be accepting that God exists, that Jesus Christ is God, and therefore, Jesus’ words are the truth about God. Additionally, belief in Jesus’ words are required for salvation.

So, it’s a question of authority, not logic.
If you beileve that Jesus is God, and that He will judge your soul upon your death granting either heaven and hell – this is authoritative (if you believe).
If He then says, “I and the Father and the Spirit are one God”, the question of logical consistency has nothing to do with it.
You are already convinced that Jesus is God, what He is saying is true (revealed teaching) and He has the power and authority to teach it.
Our difficulty to fully comprehend the oneness of three divine persons is, through intuition, a function of the difference between a human being’s capability for knowledge and of God’s.