Gnostic Atheism

[JapaneseKappa]

So just to be clear, when you said

Philosophy does not apply when the datum is revealed teaching. The Revelation has to be accepted as truthful first, before it can be analysed. Philosophy alone cannot determine the truth or falsehood of a revelation given by God.

What part of philosophy renders philosophy inadequate, if not the logic part?

 

[PRmerger]

So just to be clear, when you said

What part of philosophy renders philosophy inadequate, if not the logic part?

The part that leads to a truth that can’t be achieved logically.

For example: philosophy cannot prove that I had a dream about a giant tomato last night.

You either accept this truth based on your faith in me, or you reject it.

But you don’t use philosophy to determine whether it’s true or false that I had a dream about a giant tomato.

 

[reggieM]

To clarify the defintions.
Revelation means: God has spoken directly to someone and God’s words are revealed in some way. The Catholic Church authorizes what believers can (and must) accept as revealed by God. We say “revelation is closed” meaning the public revelation given to Jesus and the Apostles (New Testament) has ended. Public Revelation is what God requires everyone to believe (as Catholicism teaches).
There is also Private Revelation, where saints or holy persons could get messages from God. Catholics are not required to believe these as necessary for salvation.
But Public Revelation, coming directly from Jesus Christ and as He taught are the teachings directly of God – there is no other way of knowing (fully) that it is divine except by Faith that Jesus is Who He said He is.
Yes, some of His teachings could be figured out by philosophical thought. “Do unto others as you would have them do to you”. A person could arrive at that moral truth without needing revelation. Or “do not kill” an innocent person, etc. But even still, knowing a moral truth through philosophy is different than believing God spoke a certain thing.

 

[reggieM]

The part that leads to a truth that can’t be achieved logically.

For example: philosophy cannot prove that I had a dream about a giant tomato last night.

You either accept this truth based on your faith in me, or you reject it.

But you don’t use philosophy to determine whether it’s true or false that I had a dream about a giant tomato.

Good example.

Intuition precedes philosophy, but also philosophy has its own limits.

Britannica.com explains difference between philosophy and theology

If one understands philosophy as the discipline that attempts to explicate the totality of being, the difference between philosophy and theology becomes apparent. If theology is responsible to an authority that initiates its thinking, speaking, and witnessing—e.g., a document containing revealed truth, as well as the spiritual testimony related to it—philosophy bases its arguments on the ground of timeless evidence, an evidence with which autonomous reason understands itself to be confronted. Since, on the other hand, theology also uses reason and systematically develops its tenets—however much its critical reflections are based on religious convictions—there are many common areas that have partly complementary significance but that partly also lead to polemical tensions.

Theology is faith-based with an “authority” having given a revealed truth. Philosophy uses reason alone and does not require faith in a prophetic or revealed truth. In fact, it cannot determine (it can help determine, but not fully) if a teaching is truly from God or not.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So, you would have nothing to analyze.

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.

This whole exercise started with me asserting that I knew the Catholic God did not exist. Now, are you telling me that I’m not allowed to use Catholic teaching (i.e. the teachings on revealed truths) to describe the Catholic God?

 

[reggieM]

Now, are you telling me that I’m not allowed to use Catholic teaching (i.e. the teachings on revealed truths) to describe the Catholic God?

You’re not allowed to evaluate a revealed teaching as if it is not a teaching revealed by God. That’s a contradiction. You have to accept the Catholic premises to analyze Catholic teachings.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You’re not allowed to evaluate a revealed teaching as if it is not a teaching revealed by God. That’s a contradiction. You have to accept the Catholic premises to analyze Catholic teachings.

Right, so the only way I can read your argument is: I can’t use logic to draw conclusions from the claims of a revealed teaching because… revealed teaching is a logic free zone. You’ve said that it’s not, but you keep acting as though it is.

The only other possibility I can think of is that you’re saying “if you try to use church teachings to draw a conclusion that contradicts other church teachings, then you’re not correctly representing the church teachings.” Which is exactly the kind of “this blatant contradiction is defined not to be a contradiction” defense that Feser gave and I criticized.

Now if using logic to draw conclusions from revealed teachings is allowed, then the only remaining objection you have made to my use of logic is “logically impossible things can actually exist.”

 

[PRmerger]

Right, so the only way I can read your argument is: I can’t use logic to draw conclusions from the claims of a revealed teaching because… revealed teaching is a logic free zone. You’ve said that it’s not, but you keep acting as though it is.

That’s not how I read reggie’s argument at all.

Here’s another way to look at it, as presented by Cardinal Newman:

Imagine you’re a freshman in a calculus class. You have the answer to the problem given by the professor. You just haven’t figured out yet how to get to the same answer as the professor.

“Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer”.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re not allowed to evaluate a revealed teaching as if it is not a teaching revealed by God. That’s a contradiction. You have to accept the Catholic premises to analyze Catholic teachings.

Right.

“I have the answer, now let me work to get to that answer”–said every math student, ever.

#nothingwrongwiththatparadigm

 

[JapaneseKappa]

That’s not how I read reggie’s argument at all.

Here’s another way to look at it, as presented by Cardinal Newman:

Imagine you’re a freshman in a calculus class. You have the answer to the problem given by the professor. You just haven’t figured out yet how to get to the same answer as the professor.

“Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer”.

Right, but in this case I have offered an explicit proof that the professor is wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

Right, but in this case I have offered an explicit proof that the professor is wrong.

How so?

 

[PRmerger]

Right, but in this case I have offered an explicit proof that the professor is wrong.

And are we at least agreed that there’s nothing wrong with having an answer (here: read, truth revealed by revelation), and then working one’s way to understanding that answer?

Yes?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

How so?

See post #363

 

[reggieM]

Right, so the only way I can read your argument is: I can’t use logic to draw conclusions from the claims of a revealed teaching because… revealed teaching is a logic free zone. You’ve said that it’s not, but you keep acting as though it is.

You have to accept the premises in order to use logic.
You don’t accept the premises.
You are saying:

“I am convinced that the Catholic religion is false.”
Why?
Because it is illogical.
Why?
Because people pray to God.
So?
They’re praying to a God who does not exist. That is illogical since there is nothing there. So, obviously, Catholicism is false.

No - you have to accept the premises in order to use logic.
The premise on a revealed teaching is that it was revealed by God.
You don’t accept that.
So, your logic fails – or I should say is unnecessary.

You have to accept, for the sake of argument, that revealed teachings exist.

It’s like I give you a paper to analyze.
You say, “This is the worst literature I’ve tried to read. In fact, I can’t read this paper at all. Clearly, what you wrote is meaningless and false”.
I then explain to you that the paper is entirely mathematical formulas and it cannot be read like prose.
You then say, “What? You’re telling me I am not permitted to use literary criticism on your paper”? “I already proved it was illogical, now you are telling me I have to use some other method to analyze it?”
Yes, you have to accept that it is mathematics, not literature.

In this case, you have to accept that the authorship of the doctrines in question are from God. That is how Catholics view the teaching. This requires that you accept, for the sake of argument, that God exists and God has communicated something.
This gives you a different standard by which to evaluate the teaching on the Trinity…
If you accept that God exists, now you have to accept what God is, what God can do, what His powers are, the difference between God and humans. If you accept that God revealed teaching, you have to accept that someone had the authority to reveal it, and what that person said is true.
Those are the first premises.
After accepting that, you can analyze the revealed teaching in light of what you know about God and what you know about Jesus and what you accept about the document where the teaching was revealed (The New Testament). You can use logic, only after you accept the first premises.
People do this all the time. They accept the validity of the divine teaching of the New Testament - then use analysis (historical, literary, philosophical) to determine if the teaching is essential? What it means? Is it consistent? Does it appear elsewhere and is it explained differently? Basically, how to interpret it.
If you accept none of the premises, then simply attacking the paper as if it was something scribbled by a high school student at lunch break is absurd.
You’re not accepting the teaching for what it is claimed to be, and for who the author is.
To accept the authorship of the revealed document (God), you have to accept who God is. You don’t have to believe in God, but you have to start with the same premises that Catholics have about God.
If you think God is some sort of impersonal force that is incapable of communicating with humans - then you’re not accepting the first premise: This is a teaching revealed by a God who Does communicate.
You’re imposing your own premises on the argument.

Beyond that, an explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity is never used as a proof of God’s existence. To use the explanation as such is to make an error.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You have to accept the premises in order to use logic.
You don’t accept the premises.
You are saying:

“I am convinced that the Catholic religion is false.”
Why?
Because it is illogical.
Why?
Because people pray to God.
So?
They’re praying to a God who does not exist. That is illogical since there is nothing there. So, obviously, Catholicism is false.
Beyond that, an explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity is never used as a proof of God’s existence. To use the explanation as such is to make an error.

In no way did I use the assertion that God does not exist in my syllogism. All the premises came straight out of Feser’s account of the Trinity.

The fact that people don’t appeal to the trinity to prove God is irrelevant. Catholicism asserts that God has certain properties, one of which is the trinity. If the trinity is self-contradictory, the Catholic God does not exist (although some other God may.)

If the author of the trinity dogma (i.e. God) introduces any nuance into the trinity issue, it will manifest itself in Catholic teaching about the dogma. Therefore, so long as I accurately characterize Catholic teaching in my premises, the author is irrelevant.

 

[reggieM]

In no way did I use the assertion that God does not exist in my syllogism.

You used the term God in the syllogism without defining what you mean by God.
What powers and capabilities does God have? What limits does God have? How do you know?
What does it mean to say “the Father is different in respect to”?
What boundaries have you given to the Father? How big is he? How have you mentally comprended an ‘aspect’ of an indivisible Being? Where did characteristics and aspects of God come from?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You used the term God in the syllogism without defining what you mean by God.
What powers and capabilities does God have? What limits does God have? How do you know?
What does it mean to say “the Father is different in respect to”?
What boundaries have you given to the Father? How big is he? How have you mentally comprended an ‘aspect’ of an indivisible Being? Where did characteristics and aspects of God come from?

I am talking about the Catholic God. The God that the Catholic Church asserts exists. The God that has all the features the Catholic Church says God has. The God which doesn’t have any features the Catholic Church says God does not have… Perhaps, as a Catholic, you’ve heard of Him?

When I say respect, I mean “the way in which we are talking about something.”

So for example, if I said someone’s car was hot (with respect to temperature) I would not contradict myself if I said it their car was simultaneously cool (with respect to stylishness.)

 

[Bradski]

Your comment prompts me to ask; is this why you engage in discussing various matters on CAF? In that where Catholics are prepared to spend time on CAF discussing various matters it affords you the opportunity to point out contradictions, assumptions and ‘leaps of faith,’ to subsequently may successfully turn them into atheists? Is that why you’re here?

I’m here for various reasons – see below for more on that. But if you find me pointing out something that I believe to be a contradiction in what is being posted, either by the same person or a number of them, then that is simply where the conversation has lead.

I joined in this particular discussion because being about atheism, I felt sure I could contribute. The thread has meandered along and now a claim has been made that the god that atheists say does not exist (something that this atheist never argues) isn’t the Catholic God. It’s a parody. But you must understand in any discussion I have, God’s definition is that given by the person with whom I am in discussion.

So JK has asked if Fesser’s God and the arguments he puts forward better represent the Catholic God. Yes, comes the reply. Followed by posts indicating that one aspect of Fesser’s God is based on fallacies. And at least one Catholic agrees. Which doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist, but that Fesser’s God doesn’t exist.

Even within the same denomination (Catholicism), there are very many views and opinions as to what Catholicism and God actually entails. And even when I point something out in the catechism to make a point, there are those who would bend over backwards to deny what I have written. Even when I quote it directly… So to make the point, I need to spend post after post pointing out the contradiction between the arguments others are using and what the church teaches.

And as to why I am here, there are perhaps five reasons. Which are applicable in any configuration depending on the thread, so in no particular order…

First, discussing something like philosophy means that you need to know something about philosophy. And the more I discuss it, the more I learn. Mr. Google is costing me a fair amount of time and money as I spend a reasonable amount of time browsing web pages that will give me information on whatever topic is currently under discussion and a not insignificant amount of money on books that those searches lead me to. And those would be Christian authors (such as Fesser) as well as the more secular types.

Second, I am more confident about what I think I believe when I can put forward a good argument for it. Rather than simply saying: ‘I don’t think that free will, as we commonly understand it, exists’, I can tack a ‘because’ on the end of that statement and give my reasons for it. If someone has a good argument against what I have said, I’ll take that on board and look for more information which will either cause me to either adjust my point of view or strengthen it. Either way, posting here teaches me more about myself. That what I believe is believed for good reasons (or not, as the case may be).

Thirdly, I am interested in religion. Primarily Christian (as I was brought up as such). I’ve been posting on various forums for many years. I did try a few weeks on a Muslim forum a few years back but it was primarily about the religion itself and I wasn’t getting a lot out of it – except a better understanding of what Muslims believe. I did post on a couple of atheist forums as well. But where’s the fun in everyone agreeing with everyone else?

Fourthly, I enjoy the process of writing. I write for the local paper on times. I write letters to the editor. I’ve started writing about my life and times so that I can pass on my thoughts and experiences to my kids at some time in the (hopefully) distant future. I just enjoy it.

Fifth – who doesn’t enjoy a good argument? There’s nothing I like better than propping up a bar somewhere and having forth on politics, sport, religion, science, life, the universe and everything. Vonsalza’s comment re the lance is apt. It’s verbal jousting.

 

[reggieM]

I am talking about the Catholic God. The God that the Catholic Church asserts exists. The God that has all the features the Catholic Church says God has. The God which doesn’t have any features the Catholic Church says God does not have…

Ok, that’s what I was trying to explain.
The Catholic God – in the terms of the Catechism:

237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the “mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God”.58 …But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone …

That part in bold is what I’ve been trying to say. “Reason alone” is the same as saying “logic alone”. Reason can help, but something more is needed.

By the Catholic definition, The Holy Trinity is inaccessible to reason (logical syllogisms) alone.

Therefore, to use logic in order to prove the consistency of Catholic teaching would be an error. Something more is needed, since it is a revealed doctrine.

Of course, you could say “the doctrine of the Trinity is incompatible with the Catholic idea of God” - but you can’t use “reason alone” (Logic alone) to prove that.

You could say, as many do, “The Trinity is not compatible with the Islamic (or Jewish) idea of God”. Then you could compare both religious views. You would be comparing to claimed revelations.

But by it’s own definition (inaccessible to reason alone), you can’t use reason alone for the Catholic God, since one of the properties of the Catholic God is that He is not accessible to reason alone.

Now, on what basis could the Trinity be compatible with the Catholic idea of God?
Well, (using reason we could see), Jesus (Son of God in the Catholic view) said “nothing is impossible with God”.
What does that mean?
Well, Catholics believe that Jesus rose from the dead. We say that is impossible. But it’s part of the Catholic belief and idea of God. You would have to accept that in order to evaluate the Catholic idea of the Trinity. We say it is impossible for a person to levitate off the ground and go up into the sky - but Catholics believe that Jesus did that.

So, God has powers that transcend human understanding.

The challenge for you then would be to answer:

Is it possible, that the God you built into your syllogism, has powers and capabilities and actions that transcend your ability to comprehend and understand? Is it possible that that God, who you are analyzing, has powers that transcend what human logic can evaluate?

Very simply, if you are using the Catholic concept of God - yes, to those answers.

 

[PRmerger]

Fifth – who doesn’t enjoy a good argument? There’s nothing I like better than propping up a bar somewhere and having forth on politics, sport, religion, science, life, the universe and everything. Vonsalza’s comment re the lance is apt. It’s verbal jousting.

Yes. This.

My profile pic used to be of a patio, because I liked to imagine that all of us were on my patio, sipping our favorite cocktail, eating something deliciously unhealthy, while talking about religion.