God gave us Reason, not Religion

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion of Narnia forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I believe because the Faith is reasonable–though I do not believe by reason alone.

when it comes to religion, what you see as reasonable other religionists see as very unreasonable. like the trinity doctrine. the papal infallibility. the celibate priests. the salvation process. heck, even i see them as unreasonable.

Then the aim is to demonstrate Catholic beliefs are more in accordance to reason than contradictory beliefs–and reasonableness has to be based on more than personal inclination and bias on both sides; i.e, it has to be discussed under the accepted rules of rational proof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion of Narnia forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Faith may go beyond reason but it never simply contradict reason

this afterall is about religion, not faith.

In this context religion=faith

 

[AgnosTheist]

Then the aim is to demonstrate Catholic beliefs are more in accordance to reason than contradictory beliefs–

that is the aim of every religion and you all still end up contradicting each other.

and reasonableness has to be based on more than personal inclination and bias on both sides; i.e, it has to be discussed under the accepted rules of rational proof.

really? what then is the unbiased rationale for the catholic prohibition on contraception?

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion of Narnia forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Then the aim is to demonstrate Catholic beliefs are more in accordance to reason than contradictory beliefs–

AgnosTheos replied:
that is the aim of every religion and you all still end up contradicting each other.

So? If we didnt contradict each other then we would be the same religion. “A difference which makes no difference is no difference” (Mr. Spock, cribbing from the Talmud )

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion of Narnia forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
and reasonableness has to be based on more than personal inclination and bias on both sides; i.e, it has to be discussed under the accepted rules of rational proof.

AgnosTheos replied:
really? what then is the unbiased rationale for the catholic prohibition on contraception?

That calls for another thread, but, your “begging the question” format fully implies that there is no rationale against artificial birth control–and “begging the questions” formats, “rhetorical questions” are by their nature, logical fallacies–they are not reasonable (according to the rules of rational discourse)

 

[AgnosTheist]

So? If we didnt contradict each other then we would be the same religion. “A difference which makes no difference is no difference” (Mr. Spock, cribbing from the Talmud )

thats the point. there is no universal religion because people cant agree. because religion is mainly inherited from your parents. rather than being recieved from God.

That calls for another thread, but, your “begging the question” format fully implies that there is no rationale against artificial birth control–and “begging the questions” formats, “rhetorical questions” are by their nature, logical fallacies–they are not reasonable (according to the rules of rational discourse)

you dont know what you are talking about. “Begging the Question” is when the premise of the question is related to the answer. my question made no premises. i merely asked you for the unbiased rationale, if there is one. well, is there? what is it?

you could accuse me of diverting the topic, though.

anyway back to what you said “and reasonableness has to be based on more than personal inclination and bias on both sides; i.e, it has to be discussed under the accepted rules of rational proof”
i agree. it “has to be”. unfortunately it hardly happens in reality. like that case about contraception.

 

[Valke2]

That may be. Many of us may inherit from our parents the method of how we intereact with the Divine. We do not, I would argue, inherit the experience of being aware of the Divine.

 

[AgnosTheist]

We do not, I would argue, inherit the experience of being aware of the Divine.

believe it or not every religious person gets that so called “religious experience” whether its a christian, a muslim or a neopagan. it doesnt prove anything.

 

[Valke2]

believe it or not every religious person gets that so called “religious experience” whether its a christian, a muslim or a neopagan. it doesnt prove anything.

It proves what you just posted. That people of all faiths have experienced the divine. It is something we all share.

 

[AgnosTheist]

It proves what you just posted. That people of all faiths have experienced the divine. It is something we all share.

it certainly doesnt prove that each and every religion responsible for a religious experience came from the divine.

personally i think its just a placebo effect. afterall the religious experience is hardly any different from the euphoria some people get from listening to music.

 

[Valke2]

it certainly doesnt prove that each and every religion responsible for a religious experience came from the divine.

personally i think its just a placebo effect. afterall the religious experience is hardly any different from the euphoria some people get from listening to music.

whatever gets you there.

 

[Valke2]

Let’s use reason.

We can agree that people of all faiths and none have experienced something at sometime that they believe was an awareness of the source of all existence.

Me might also be able to agree that this experience or desire to have such an experience is so strong in our nature that we have since before written history, engaged in various ways to recreate the experience.

If we are indeed experiencing the Divine at times, it is an experience of something that cannot be adequately explained, as to conceptualize the infinite is to attempt to communicate a “concept” that is beyond our ability to conceptualize with any degree of certainity. It is an attempt to explain an experience that occurs at a preconceptual level.

Since such an explantion must be flawed, I think we can agree that no such explanations can be completely “true”. Which means that my defintion of the Divine is inaccurate and for all I know, your’s is a better definition than mine.

However, the fact that we cannot agree or produce an accurate definitnion of God/Divine/Endlessness/Universer does not mean that we cannot agree that we are aware of it. I may not ever understand the Ineffable, but I can be aware of it. Like many people, I need a structure to help me gain access to this knowledge. To this awarness of God. For me, that structure is Judaism.

Reason would seem to imply that if such a structure works for me, I should continue to use it.

 

[AgnosTheist]

However, the fact that we cannot agree or produce an accurate definitnion of God/Divine/Endlessness/Universer does not mean that we cannot agree that we are aware of it. I may not ever understand the Ineffable, but I can be aware of it.

I agree.

Reason would seem to imply that if such a structure works for me, I should continue to use it.

i agree. the problem is when people begin to insist that their structure was intended by God for everyone to use. jews dont actively proselytize but I suspect that once they become powerful enough they wont waste time influencing the rest of the world (gentiles) to follow the 7 noahide laws.

anyway there is still no objective evidence whatsoever that a system of beliefs came from God.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

AgnosTheos wrote:
really? what then is the unbiased rationale for the catholic prohibition on contraception?

I replied:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion of Narnia forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*That calls for another thread, but, your “begging the question” format fully implies that there is no rationale against artificial birth control–and “begging the questions” formats, “rhetorical questions” are by their nature, logical fallacies–they are not reasonable (according to the rules of rational discourse)

Agnostheos replied:
you dont know what you are talking about. “Begging the Question” is when the premise of the question is related to the answer. my question made no premises. i merely asked you for the unbiased rationale, if there is one. well, is there? what is it?

First: via catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9009fea2.asp
"An argument, strictly speaking, proceeds from one truth to another by inference. When a conclusion isn’t arrived at but is already present in the opening premises (perhaps in disguised form), you have that particular form of circular reasoning known as petitio principii , “begging the question.” "

Perhaps I’m a bit sensitive on this issue, but most Catholics obedient to the Magesterium might be as well. Since the Anglicans broke the line on the artificial contraception issue in the 1930s. the Catholic church has been increasingly isolated in it’s position–and much of the critcism (especially since Paul VI’s Encyclical re-afirming the Church’s ancient teaching) has been on the basis that the position is “irrational”, “stupid”, and whatnot.

The form of your initial reply (espeially with the “really?”) seemed to imply, with only a thin veil, that no-unbiased person could possible agree with the Church’s teaching. If I was reading that into your text, then my great apologies.*

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion of Narnia forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
So? If we didnt contradict each other then we would be the same religion. “A difference which makes no difference is no difference” (Mr. Spock, cribbing from the Talmud )

thats the point. there is no universal religion because people cant agree. because religion is mainly inherited from your parents. rather than being recieved from God.

First part; the Christian Faith (religion) in general, the Catholic Faith (religion) specificaly is NOT meant to be “Universalist” or (unfortunetly) will it be believed universally. Catholic means literaly “for all” but not even in our own ranks are the truths accepted by each and every person.

Second part: An agreement, many people will believe (or disbelieve) things for many, MANY reasons other than they believe it to be true (or untrue)–and agnosticism, atheism, and secularism are NO exceptions. Yup, those three are not immune for being believed in for less-than rational reasons.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
We believe an inherently unprovable premise to see what happens. When we’ve done the “experiment” of this belief, our result is something that couldn’t be arrived at without the prerequisite belief.

Sure it could.

If you don’t HAVE the experience, because you haven’t DONE the experiment, then you can’t know what the result is, therefore you can’t say you know what result that was arrived at could or couldn’t be.

Your just being contrary. Either explain what you mean by “Sure it could”, or sit down with the other 2nd graders and finish your finger-painting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*What “materialists” refuse to take into consideration is one of their own basic premises,… that all axioms are “beliefs” and are accepted as “facts” only because they happen regularly.

Thus, even materialistic beliefs (faith) PRECEED their reasons.*

"Things happen regulary (evidence) and the materialist arrives at “beliefs”. That is your statement. This does not equate with beliefs preceding reasons as you are trying to hold.

Things happen regularly, and from observation a belief is formed that if the same “pre-thing-happening situation” occurs again, the THING will happen again.

The belief that “this situation looks a lot like the situation before the THING happens” proceeds REASONING as to WHY that pre-thing is followed by the thing happening.

In other words, the observation shows a pattern (revelation),… the pattern is recognized as preceeding the happening (belief),… the observer then observes more closely to discover the reasons the happening happened (reason).

Observation of pattern is not REASON. Reason is purposeful observation (and integration/connection) to discover causality.

Belief that a hypothesis is “apparently true” always preceeds the act of reasoning out WHY the hypothesis is apparently true.

Belief always comes before reason. Then reason is used to confirm, or modify, or negate, belief.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*Once a materialistic belief is believed, then reasons are found, rightly, that support those beliefs.

The way materialistic beliefs are first noticed is by observing and generalizing reality. Then the belief is “held” as a hypothesis, and tested for repeatability. Once it is repeatably observed, THEN the reasons for the belief are sought, The reasons come AFTER the belief. Just as with “religious faith”.*

Fromt the point of materialism or empiricism, it is the repeated nature of phenomena that allows one to conclude or “believe” that something is reliable, a “fact”. One only believes that the “sun will rise tomorrow” because that person has experienced it for x number of days in their life. They weren’t born knowing it would rise and then verify it through experience.

Quite so…! It is REVEALED to them that the sun, apparently, rises, then come to believe that it will continue to do so because it keeps happening, then they reason out the whys ans hows of “the repeatedly rising sun”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
They are just as true as the OT prophets. His divinity informed His “sayings”, but He spoke them as the human being that He was.

lol. How do you know his “divinity” informed his sayings? This is a matter of faith, not empiricism.

His divinity informed His sayings, because He was divine. How do I know He was divine? Because it has been revealed to me, by the Church, that He was indeed divine.

This knowledge (His divinity) is true, to me, because I’ve conducted the experiments, holding the requisite beliefs, whose results confirmed to me that that belief is worthy of faithful holding.

Until you’ve done the necessary experiments to discern the divinity of Christ Jesus, you have no standing to comment on YOUR results of those experiments (which are null unless you do), and certainly no standing to comment on the results of my experiments.

…continued below →

 

[Keikiolu]

continued from above:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Are you saying that it’s just as believable that Jesus was simply a rabbi, as His being God?

No, it is actually more believable to the empiricist. Believing that he was God takes faith.

That’s very true. It is a hard thing to believe that Jesus was who He said He was, as opposed to being simply a rabbi.

But once you actually believe that He is who He says He is, it’s just as easy to believe the one as the other. The trouble the “empiracist” has is that he refuses to do the required “leg work” to actually test the hypothesis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Of course it is. If it weren’t that way, it wouldn’t be a matter of faith at all, but merely a matter of intelligence. The less intelligent would say NO, he’s just a man, while the more intelligent would say YES, He is God.

Completely unsubstantiated. Now you are trying to equate faith with intelligence… lol. Is a child who believes in the easter bunny, by virtue of this belief, more intelligent that the child who does not?

The child who believes that the easter bunny is UNreal, because it is unreal, and it is completely shown that it IS unreal, is more intelligent than the child who still believes in the now totally debunked easter bunny.

Why? Because it is fact that the E-Bunny is unreal, and it is easily demonstrated that it is unreal, and only the unintelligent person believes the demonstrably unreal is real.

If a thing is provably false, or true, then it’s only a matter of intelligence as to whether one chooses to accept that proof or not. There’s no “faith” involved whatsoever.

God won’t allow the situation where our choosing to “choose Him” (as real) is dictated only by our level of intelligence. It needs to be a FREE choice, of human will, and only by not allowing His existence to be “provable” in materialist terms (as He IS provable in empiricist terms if the empiricist will actually DO the required experiments) He gives us that free choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
God wanted it to be a matter of faith, not intelligence.

Agreed

What we DON’T agree on is the “need” to do the required experiments, under the required conditions, to prove the faith as a valid belief held due to confirmation of that belief.

The materialist dismisses out of hand that the experiment CAN BE valid, for no other reason than “It’s uncomfortable to me”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
And if you “take out” the word “Jesus” out of the bible, Jesus doesn’t even APPEAR in the bible.

Why would we want to?

What I was saying is that if you take out a part out of a thing that makes a thing alive, which if missing makes it NOT ALIVE, the thing will no longer be ALIVE.

You wouldn’t want to take the word “Jesus” out of the bible any more than you’d want to take John’s Gospel out of the bible, any more than you’d want to take all the blood out of a person you want to remain alive.

The whole point of what I’m trying to convey is that materialists have no idea what they’re talking about until they’ve done the experiments required to allow them to speak, in any way, about the veracity of faith.

They won’t do them because of their basic prejudice that they are invalid, because they don’t have the humility to “lower themselves” to a non-materialistic understanding of things.

But then,… that’s why faith is a grace, and not manufactured by us humans.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

anyway there is still no objective evidence whatsoever that a system of beliefs came from God.

Actually, you had better define what you mean by “objective evidence”–and compare it to what you would accept as valid evidence if the claims of religion were not involved.

And before you start citing the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ canard of skeptics (Sagan, Shermer, Randi, etcc…) perhaps you should examine this article
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009bt.asp

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
The “further” a religion is from the Church (Catholic), the further it is from reasonableness and rationality. I think we can agree with that…!

i think judaism and buddhism are more reasonable than catholicism. orthodoxy is more reasonable than romanism.

That’s nice. And why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Religion, as you understand it, is the same thing as reasoning. It is the accumulated methods and bases of dealing with the question of God.

its not the same. though religion is a product of human reasoning, religion is a reasoning that obstructs further reasoning. examples:

• catholicism discourages reasoning that contradicts the cathecism.

• islam discourages reasoning that contradicts the koran.

*mormonism discourages reasoning that contradicts the book of mormon.

• buddhism discourages reasoning that contradicts the 5 fold path.

You see ALL religion as a dangerous mental disease. Little do you seem to see that all “belief systems” are equivalent to “religions”. Even you religion, which you call whatever you do, but which I call anti-religiousity, which is some form of materialistic humanism.

My position is that any belief system that isn’t based on the revelation of God is, indeed, a dangerous mental disease, because it is based on the “fallen” (concupiscent) desires of man, which will always tend toward the institution of slavery (human misery/idolatry).

Those parts of any religion which coincide, due to the influence of God given natural law, with revealed truth are good, while those parts not in coincidence with revealed truth are evil.

Your solution to the disease of religion, qua religion, is to eliminate/discredit religion,… which is an impossibility since religions are simply belief systems, which are inalienable to man.

My solution to the disease of “misguided” religion is to show what properly GUIDED religion looks like. People are then free to make their choices, according to what they want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
You make “reasoning” into ONE THING, while it is in actuality many things, and make “religion” into many things, where it is actually many things, then complain that your false idea of the superiority of a SINGLE “gift” is superior to a MANIFOLD “gift”…!

you confuse talent (reasoning) with product (reasons).

Reasoning produces reasons according to the reasoning applied. When you say that reasoning is “a (singular) talent” you imply that there is only one reasoning that people do. That is inaccurate.

There are many ways of reasoning, many “talents”, just as there are many reasons, many “products”, and those products are a direct result of the type of reasoning applied.

God gave us many reasonings. Does this upset your theory that the only things that God gives man that are “revealed” are singlular things?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
…for no other reason than that God, whom you don’t believe in anyway

FYI, i believe in God. I just dont believe that he gave us a set of reasons (religion).

You can’t believe in God, as you don’t believe in revelation. You believe in God’s gift of natural law, which is “built into” us, but since you have no faith in truth knowable by man as truth, but only as hypothesis, you can’t believe in God,… only gods,… one of whom you call “the (most acceptably unknowable) God”.

…continued below —>

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Coming from someone who has no idea of what religion IS

i know it more than you do. it seems like when you say ‘religion’ you only have catholicism in mind. everytime I say religion I have christianity, islam, neopaganism, etc. in mind. religion is simply any set of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.

Those ARE religions, just as is materialism, humanism, scientism, socialism, environmentalism, “blue popsickle-ism”, etc…

The question isn’t what is or isn’t religion. It’s what is the TRUE religion,… or more accurately, which is the most true religion.

Your opinion is that they are all equal (approximately), and none of them is any more than a human invention, devoid of revealed (God’s) truth, because there is no such thng as revealed truth.

All truth is reachable by human intellect alone, according to you.

That is our basic disagreement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Firstly, religion is not about “having it all figured out”. It is about the consequences of a very small set of revealed truths.

when i said ‘all figured out’ i was referring to BOTH the supposed truths and their supposed consequences.

To you there are no real truths, as we can’t know them “perfectly”. Everything is a hypothesis.

Therefore, ANY claim to truth, to you, is silly, and any claim to revealed truth, which can be held as an absolute truth, given by God Himself, is totally outrageous.

is neopaganism a set of revealed truths? is islam? is buddhism? answer this.

Neopaganism is not a set of revealed truths. It is a human invention to explain and justify parts of natural law, and to explain and justify human (fallen) wants (desires). Where it is used to “assist” human wants, it degenerates man into slavery.

Islam is not a set of revealed truths. It is a demonic counterfeit OF revelation, which coincides here and there with revelation so as to appear “humane”.

Buddhism is not a set of revealed truths. It is much like neopaganism in that it is a construction to justify some natural law and some human wants.

Catholicism (Christianity) is revealed truth, fully revealed but incompletely understood, against which all other religions can be compared to assess their “closeness” to God’s actual revelation.

Does this offend your sense of “ethnocentrism”? It shouldn’t, because it is the CATHOLIC religion,… for EVERYONE EVERYWHERE EVERYWHEN…!

It offends you that “God” would choose a single point to give His revelation to man. You insist that “God” would give it to EVERYONE simultaneously, and in such a way that it would be incontravertible that HE/SHE/IT/THEM had given it.

That is your condition. God has chosen otherwise. The reason He has chosen otherwise is because the task of man is to learn, and the wisest “course of study” in the matter of being fully human (like Christ Jesus) is the one implimented by God, as has been revealed to us by The Church.

Don’t like it? Do as you will, and observe the consequences. That is one choice in man’s methods of learning what needs to be learned.

Best to 'ya.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Deconi]

Uhhh, ok…turn on the news brother.
.

That’s good advice. **The news is…HE IS HERE! **

Your T.V just doesn’t seem to have good “history docos,” like mine.

On a serious note, if The Messiah is here, then we should be in the Messianic Age. Think about it for a minute. Since The Light of Christ arrived, bit by bit, the entire globe has been illuminated!

Paganism is seen clearly. Wrong and error in morals is seen clearly. Everything has a standard to which it can be assessed. Human intellect has soared, from the tents to the planets. You can walk around the aisle of your local supermarket and describe to me how you’re being fleeced by the price of meat there, and I’ll show you, in real time, what you’re missing not having Lemon and Paeroa drinks!

You must be right. We absolutely no disparity and abuse of that disparity in international markets, wars, etc. What was I thinking?
.

Sigh* It would appear our humanity remains with us, including our feedom to do as we please, and, to each other! It must be why He has to return. But we have The Light by which to examine what we’re doing and our actions!!

I think everyone has their version of the truth. We must understand though that everyone’s version is just that.

Then it must be ok for the terrorist to think as he does! The paedophile is just a ‘human condition’ that in time we will understand and accept! I guess the legal system is our final judge and rape and murder can be ok if the circumstances demand it!

Sadly, my theology professors think like you.

 

[Grace_Angel]

Its not really mutually exclusive. Religion is not always unreasonable, though on many cases it has beliefs that can be quite irrational. I’m sure everyone would agree that each one of us possess the gift of reasoning. But since everyone disagrees on which religion is true, then its safe to say that God didnt really give a religion to everyone. So God only gave us a talent for figuring things out, not a system of instructions that already figured things out. Religion is merely a personal point of view. Not a fact for everyone.

Agnos Thesist, respectly I ask you this, if you believe that God gave us reason and not religion, what are you doing on a Ctholic discussion forum? Are there no agnostic forums where you can exchange thoughts on no religion? Is it important to post on a catholic board? Why?
GraceAngel.