Have you ever thought other religions might be correct on their beliefs?

[HomeschoolDad]

You’re one smart man (or lady, as the case may be). You did a nice job. Some at this point might complain “we’re not in school!”. I can’t speak for anyone else, but friend, I’m always “in school” (so to speak).

You have successfully proven, tendentious though it may be (and I am not saying that is a bad thing), that lesser entities could evolve to produce entities more complex than themselves. It’s awfully far-fetched, but as you have proven, it’s theoretically possible.

Your scenario would take far more faith for me to believe, than to believe that God created all things, even aliens if there are such things. Let me be clear right now that I do not believe God created aliens who then created us. I just offered it as a theoretical possibility, if one does not want to concede that God directly created us without any agents.

Even if everything you say is exactly as it happened, still, some entity would have to create the matter, and set the whole process in motion in a way that eventually ends up being intelligent life. That uncreated creator, first cause, prime mover, we as Catholics and Christians (as well as rational theists) believe, is God.

If I am understanding your reasoning correctly, you are saying

• matter has always existed
• it fell into place and coalesced into a life form that did not need a designer
• that life form evolved into something intelligent enough to create structures with a certain degree of complexity, more complex even than itself
• and that’s how we got here

Again, you did a nice job, and I mean that most earnestly. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

However, I am curious (and you don’t have to reply) why you were reading Catholic forums in the first place?

How do we know that this poster is not Catholic?

All he may be doing is to demonstrate premises and logical conclusions, and to demonstrate possible (unintended) fallacies. As a thought exercise, there’s nothing at all wrong with that, nor is it un-Catholic. We need to sharpen our minds and intellects as best we can.

 

[BlueMaxx]

have you thought other religions might be correct?

That is why I asked, there was no ill intent behind my query…I also said he did not have to answer if he wished not to.

We all sharpen our minds in different ways…

 

[BlueMaxx]

Thank you for your honest reply…
It is good that your taking an honest look at all angles…
An opened mind is at times a rarity these days.
And your willingness for reproach going both ways is refreshing.

Nice conversing with you and have a great evening!

M

 

[JMartyr73340]

“These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.”

• G.K. Chesterton

 

[HomeschoolDad]

You have successfully proven, tendentious though it may be

I was using “tendentious” in the sense of “inclining and directing toward a certain point of view”. I did not mean to dismiss your argument, nor your use of it.

Again, you did a nice job, and I mean that most earnestly. Thanks for the discussion.

You are a very thoughtful correspondent and threads such as this make CAF all the more worthwhile. I do not accept that matter has always existed, but if it did, then your argument is perfectly sound. Again, it takes less faith for me to believe in and accept a creator God, and that creation and life came into being through Him (regardless of “how”), than to believe that it all just evolved. Still, though, the philosophical ramifications of your arguments are fascinating. Thanks again.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I haven’t forgotten about you, it’s just been a busy day — I homeschool and provide elder care. You are quite the thinker!

 

[abc1234def]

Yep. No problem. Thanks.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Let’s try to look at this from the perspective of someone completely new to this issue, who has no inclination either way. Why should the principle “an entity must precede matter” be taken as more reasonable than “matter must precede entities”?

Given the perspective you cite, it’s not. A theist who believes in a creator God will say, of course, that God (the entity) preceded the matter He created. This presupposes that God created all matter ex nihilo.

Then you say that the entity “set the whole process in motion.” Why is the principle that “an entity must put matter into motion” more reasonable than the principle “matter has the nature of being in motion”?

Again, given your perspective above, it’s not.

What requires more faith, belief in God or belief in Godless evolution?

Belief in Godless evolution takes more faith. Belief in God is actually the “Occam’s razor” solution. To believe that God created all, set it in motion, and designed or guided it into the level of organization that culminates in what we are, is a far simpler answer than to think that it all just fell into place. If I have a box that has ten million letters in it, how many quintillions of times would I have to scatter those letters out onto a flat surface to get them to organize themselves into the complete works of Shakespeare?

How can a perfect God make the devil and evil?

God made the devil (Lucifer, commonly though possibly incorrectly called “Satan”) with perfect free will to choose or to reject Him. Lucifer rejected Him and thus chose evil. In Christian theology, all rejection of God is what “evil” is.

And, if Heaven exists, how can Earth exist?

Because God chose to make it.

Why aren’t we just in Heaven already?

Because He chose not to do it that way.

(Yes, I know these answers may seem puerile, but in Christian theology, it’s just that simple.)

Finally, if I’ve pushed you from a design argument to a cosmological argument, I’d like you to actually give me the cosmological argument that is the basis of your belief. That is, I’m looking for something like:

Premise 1: …
Premise 2: …
Premise 3: …
Therefore, God.

That way I can more clearly address specific premises.

I love philosophy and reason just as much as the next guy, and I accept all of the proofs for the existence of God, but I’ve just got to level with you, and tell you that philosophical arguments are not the reason I believe in God. They buttress what I believe, but they are not the reason for it. Eastern Christian theology says something like “reason stops twelve steps short of God”. Our faith is based upon both reason and revelation. I cannot “prove” that Jesus was what He said He was, that bread and wine become His Body and Blood, that the good go to heaven and the evil go to hell. That’s revelation, not reason.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The “basis of my belief”, i.e., why I believe not only in a creator God Whose existence is the best explanation for the existence of the world and for my own existence, but in a Savior, His only Son, the blessed Trinity, His Church, and so on, is too lengthy to go into here, and only tangentially philosophical.

Second of all, this Intelligent Design talk isn’t a Catholic position. It’s put forward by Protestants with that deistic bent. Catholics maintain that God sustains matter every step of the way, and evolution was God’s process for bringing us about.

The Catholic Church does not teach that God used evolution to create us. It is merely a permitted opinion. Micro-evolution which we can see in front of us (different colored animals flourishing or dying depending on how well their coloration enables them to evade predators and reproduce, etc.) is just observed scientific fact. Macro-evolution is a theory.

Why then should any Catholic believe that such things as a rotary flagellum or the human eye require some intelligent intervention outside of the process of evolution, when God is the one sustaining evolution to make sure it does its thing?

Catholics can believe what they want to (or, rather, feel directed by their own intellect to believe) as long as they acknowledge that God is the ultimate creator of all things. Intelligent design is, again, the “Occam’s razor” explanation, and I am convinced by it.

Why should we believe that an entity precedes matter rather than matter preceding entities? Are there ANY entities we know of that aren’t material, aside from God whose existence is contentious? Just imagine how animals see the world, or how our pre-human ancestors (who Catholics believe in) saw the world.

We do believe in the angels (both glorious and fallen), and they are not material. Whether they were created before matter was created, at the same time, or afterwards, we do not know. Just stating the obvious, belief in their existence is directed by revelation, not reason.

Just imagine how animals see the world, or how our pre-human ancestors (who Catholics believe in) saw the world.

Catholics do not necessarily believe in pre-human ancestors. Whether Adam and Eve were immediately created by God (dust of the earth and Adam’s rib respectively), or whether they had pre-human ancestors, is an open question.

So this “soul talk” is new on the scene. If Heaven is a place for souls, what are Jesus and Mary doing there with physical bodies?

We believe that on the Last Day, souls and bodies will be reunited, with the righteous being in heaven and the wicked being in hell. For Jesus and Mary, the soul and body have already been reunited.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Anyway, I think it’s far more reasonable to think that matter precedes entities, than to think that an immaterial entity was required to make matter. We really have no precedents for understanding immaterial entities. Talk of such entities, like God and souls, are controversial. All the entities we know of are material. It is more reasonable to hold that matter was first on the scene, than it is to hold that an immaterial entity was first on the scene. Argue against this.

From a purely materialistic standpoint, there is no argument — matter always existed, there is no creator, nothing was ever created ex nihilo. But this is not what Christians believe. I know you know that, I am just stating the fact that they believe this.

This is all excellent discussion, though philosophy is not my specialty — two semesters of philosophy in college, and one semester of logic, that’s all. I’d be much obliged for any CAF readers who are more well-schooled in philosophy, to pitch in here. I could also refer you to Father Frederick Copleston’s multi-volume series A History of Philosophy, particularly Volume Two (medieval and scholastic philosophy) — I had it in college, though I have long since lost track of my books, either lost in moving, sold in a batch of used books one time, or donated to a traditionalist chapel I once attended. I hope they are on Kindle for some reasonable price — I need to replenish some of the college books in my library, many of the paperbacks are so old and yellowed that they’re no longer usable, and some, such as Copleston, are just gone.

 

[abc1234def]

Given the perspective you cite, it’s not. A theist who believes in a creator God will say, of course, that God (the entity) preceded the matter He created. This presupposes that God created all matter ex nihilo.

The point of the perspective I cite is to get you to step back from the perspective you’re on. If your view is reasonable, then you should be able to start from an unbiased perspective and reason your way to your current perspective. Of course, anyone who is irrationally locked into a perspective and cannot perform this exercise will still only be able to see things from their perspective. This is a bad thing. It is the antithesis of being reasonable.

Belief in Godless evolution takes more faith. Belief in God is actually the “Occam’s razor” solution. To believe that God created all, set it in motion, and designed or guided it into the level of organization that culminates in what we are, is a far simpler answer than to think that it all just fell into place.

Oh, so every time there is a lottery, it is likewise more believable to believe that God personally intervened and made THAT configuration of lottery balls come out to be the case, since those lottery balls themselves being chosen blindly is sooooo unlikely.

If I have a box that has ten million letters in it, how many quintillions of times would I have to scatter those letters out onto a flat surface to get them to organize themselves into the complete works of Shakespeare?

This is a blatant mischaracterization of how evolution works. Evolution should not be seen as this random of a process. Evolution should be seen as a methodological process. Look at the domestication of wolves into dogs. Dogs didn’t just pop out of thin air as atoms randomly arranged themselves into dogs. That would be unreasonable. But given that we already had wolves, applying the evolutionary process to select for desirable traits, that dogs were yielded was a highly non-random outcome.

God made the devil (Lucifer, commonly though possibly incorrectly called “Satan”) with perfect free will to choose or to reject Him. Lucifer rejected Him and thus chose evil. In Christian theology, all rejection of God is what “evil” is.

I thought angels don’t have free will, but I don’t care. Whether we or Lucifer have free will is not something I care about in this context. You avoided the real question here. If God is perfect, and equipped his creation with “perfect” free will, then they should freely will to do good in the face of evil. Anything less falls short of perfect creation. The real problem here lies with the creator, not the creation.

 

[abc1234def]

Because God chose to make it.

This is not at all an answer, and you know it. If I am reading some other religion’s text, and it says there are chickens in the room only, but the next paragraph suddenly there are crocodiles in the room and always have been, and I say, hey, this doesn’t make sense, this looks like a contradiction, this looks like a flaw in the story… They can’t merely reply “God chose it!” as if that were at all an explanation. It’s not. Telling me that God chose it does not resolve the contradiction that crocodiles aren’t chickens. Likewise, we have a genuine contradiction here: A perfect God would only allow Heaven and not allow an imperfect earth, nevertheless here we are at the imperfect earth. How is that explained? “God chose it!” simply doesn’t address the contradiction at all.

Because He chose not to do it that way. (Yes, I know these answers may seem puerile, but in Christian theology, it’s just that simple.)

This isn’t a matter where you can appeal to God’s choice. God can choose where there are genuine options available. God cannot choose something which is an intolerable contradiction, or which is evil.

I love philosophy and reason just as much as the next guy,

Most people hate philosophy and reason. Philosophy is a discipline practiced by a small minority.

I accept all of the proofs for the existence of God
Even Aquinas didn’t accept ontological arguments. Maybe your overt willingness to believe any possibly wrong proof so long as the conclusion is God, says more about your psychology than it says about the soundness of those proofs.
but I’ve just got to level with you, and tell you that philosophical arguments are not the reason I believe in God.

Exactly! I’m not surprised! This thread was “Have you ever thought other religions might be correct” which could also be read as “Have you ever thought your religion might be wrong”? You first put forward a design argument as the rock solid foundation for your belief. When I demonstrated its inadequacy, you shifted to a cosmological argument. And when I pressed you for the cosmological argument, you appealed to faith. Another harsher way of saying this, the basis of your belief is faith or thin air or nothing at all. It is not a reasonable position. It is a position based on faith, on air, on nothing. Anyone could pick any arbitrary religion, which you think is certainly false, and by playing the exact same moves of appealing to faith as you have, completely justify their belief in that wrong religion exactly as adequately as you have yours.

 

[abc1234def]

Catholics do not necessarily believe in pre-human ancestors. Whether Adam and Eve were immediately created by God (dust of the earth and Adam’s rib respectively), or whether they had pre-human ancestors, is an open question.

Once again I’m going to have to simply disagree with you about what the actual position of the Catholic Church is. But again, I don’t care. For every empirical fact that we disagree on, I can safely grant your view to you and still go on to demonstrate inconsistency in your worldview.

philosophy is not my specialty

My understanding is that Catholic theology (via Aquinas) teaches that knowledge of God could be reached through reason. Unfortunately, what I’ve received here is endless appeal to faith.

Frederick Copleston

I’m familiar with Copleston. I’ll also say that I think the standard torchbearer for Catholicism nowadays is Ed Feser. While Feser’s level of rigor is not something I expect to find on Internet forums, I also still think that it falls short of establishing a reasonable worldview.

From now on, if someone asks you why you are certain of Catholicism, you can’t honestly answer “design”, and you can’t honestly answer “cosmology”, but you have to honestly answer “faith”, which you know honestly cannot be the basis of “certain” belief. You should rather answer with something like, “I’m not certain. I believe through faith, just like all the members of every other wrong religion on Earth. But I still think mine is right, because I have faith that it is, and nothing more.”

 

[HomeschoolDad]

From now on, if someone asks you why you are certain of Catholicism, you can’t honestly answer “design”, and you can’t honestly answer “cosmology”, but you have to honestly answer “faith”, which you know honestly cannot be the basis of “certain” belief. You should rather answer with something like, “I’m not certain. I believe through faith, just like all the members of every other wrong religion on Earth. But I still think mine is right, because I have faith that it is, and nothing more.”

I have never said that I am certain of Catholicism because of design or cosmology. They help buttress my assertions, but they are not the reason for it. I accept revelation. More than that, I submit that theism, and a creator God, and Jesus having been what Christians say He was (and is), and traditional, orthodox Catholic Christianity, are true to the exclusion of all other ideas. Put another way, we have a situation. This church makes these claims. True or false?

And it is not “just faith”. At the risk of sounding corny or mawkish, what other life has affected the whole world, the way the life and teaching of Jesus did? How improbable was it? A preacher in a remote corner of the world, who never wrote anything we’re aware of, no evidence he ever traveled more than 50-100 miles, if that, from his home during his adult life. Did he tap into some kind of “desert of unmet needs” in the human condition that nobody else had ever figured out? He is, to say the least, a prominent figure in two of the world’s great religions (Christianity and Islam) that together make up 54 percent of the world’s population.

I know none of this is an appeal to philosophy, aside from a possible nod to Occam’s razor (“what is the easiest explanation for it all?”), but it is a bit more than “just faith”, just the faith of one man, me. I absolutely do not make the assertion, nor will I make the assertion, that you cite in your last sentence.

If I have a box that has ten million letters in it, how many quintillions of times would I have to scatter those letters out onto a flat surface to get them to organize themselves into the complete works of Shakespeare?

You know, upon reflection, I will concede that what you say here makes sense.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I thought angels don’t have free will, but I don’t care. Whether we or Lucifer have free will is not something I care about in this context. You avoided the real question here. If God is perfect, and equipped his creation with “perfect” free will, then they should freely will to do good in the face of evil. Anything less falls short of perfect creation. The real problem here lies with the creator, not the creation.

Then it wouldn’t be free will. A “perfect free will”, as you put it, that can only choose good, isn’t free at all.

Catholics do not necessarily believe in pre-human ancestors. Whether Adam and Eve were immediately created by God (dust of the earth and Adam’s rib respectively), or whether they had pre-human ancestors, is an open question.

I can only refer you to Pius XII, Humani generis (1950). The Church has not said since then “Adam and Eve had pre-human ancestors, and the dust-and-rib story is just an allegory”.

 

[abc1234def]

One of my posts got censored by this board. I suspect this is due to me using a word for BEHIND which is synonymous with donkey. The post was awaiting moderator approval, and here I am FIVE HOURS later, and the mods still haven’t approved the post. So I’m going to repost it with the offending word removed.

The “basis of my belief” … is too lengthy to go into here

A rule I’ve come up with for myself is: When I E-Mail a professional philosopher asking a simple and direct question, and their answer to me is that they can’t answer me because the answer would take too long, for me to consider them liars who simply have no answer but are trying to save face by pretending that they do. This rule of mine is not one I came to lightly. I always gave them the benefit of the doubt. I always gave them more time to respond. I always asked them where these answers were located in their books. After pressing and pressing and pressing and never receiving any satisfactory response, I’ve learned to identify this “too lengthy” response as a simple lie or cop-out. And that’s the attitude I shall I take here with you.

The Catholic Church does not teach that God used evolution to create us. It is merely a permitted opinion.

I don’t think this correctly summarizes the Catholic Church’s position on evolution. While the Catholic Church might not have a lot to say about the specifics of evolution, or how evolution got started, it still accepts evolution as fact. It is no more a permitted opinion to deny this fact than it is to deny any other scientific fact.

Macro-evolution is a theory.

A “theory” isn’t some idea that someone pulled out of his BEHIND. A theory is something rife with confirmed hypotheses and coherent explanations. Nevertheless, your doubt in macro-evolution is not something I want to contest here. Like with the rotary flagellum and the human eye, while I disagree with your position, I’m willing to just grant it to go on to further analyze the internal consistency of your position.

Catholics can believe what they want to … Intelligent design is … the “Occam’s razor” explanation, and I am convinced by it.

You are again making this subjective, all about you. This isn’t about you. This is about reason. You should land on your position through reason, not merely because you have the choice to believe whatever you want and I can’t take this choice away from you. It doesn’t matter what YOU are convinced by, but whether the reasons for your position ARE convincing. You’re not giving me anything here that looks convincing or should be convincing to anyone else. You’re only professing what your faith is.

We do believe in the angels (both glorious and fallen), and they are not material.

You BELIEVE in angels, or you “know of” or have heard of the angels. But we don’t KNOW that there are angels. Likewise, I “know of” the Loch Ness Monster, and I “know of” Bigfoot, but I don’t KNOW that these are real entities. Angels do not constitute a precedent of immaterial beings, as we lack knowledge that there are angels. Mere belief in angels based on faith is not knowledge.

 

[abc1234def]

Even after modifying a previous post of an offending word, I couldn’t post it because this board disallows new users to post more than 3 times in a row. When you replied to me, allowing me to reply to you again, I was unable to complain more about these restrictions, as doing so took me over the 3200 character limit. This board has way too many stupid rules.

I accept revelation.

Why?

Jesus having been what Christians say He was (and is)

Why? How can you believe someone was born a virgin? How can you believe someone walked on water? How can you believe someone rose from the dead? These don’t strike you as fairytales?

are true to the exclusion of all other ideas.

Why? Lots of people have claimed to be God-incarnate. Why don’t you believe them?

This church makes these claims. True or false?

Uh… True?

At the risk of sounding corny or mawkish, what other life has affected the whole world, the way the life and teaching of Jesus did?

Uh… Who invented antibiotics, the car, the airplane, and the Internet?

How improbable was it?

More or less probable than simple evolution bringing about the human eye?

54 percent of the world’s population.

Argumentum ad populum.

aside from a possible nod to Occam’s razor

You know, I think with all we know about evolution and science today, were Occam actually around today, he would have abandoned his theism.

Then it wouldn’t be free will. A “perfect free will”, as you put it, that can only choose good, isn’t free at all.

And then the “free will” you just described likewise would not be perfect. Look at the argument:

• A perfect free will MUST always choose good.
• If a free will MUST do something, then it is not perfectly free.

Okay. So what do you offer as an alternative?

• A perfect free will MUST choose evil sometimes.
• If a free will MUST do something, then it is not perfectly free.

I can only refer you to Pius XII, Humani generis (1950). The Church has not said since then “Adam and Eve had pre-human ancestors, and the dust-and-rib story is just an allegory”.

From Wikipedia:

the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, later Pope Benedict XVI, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:

While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

When I E-Mail a professional philosopher asking a simple and direct question, and their answer to me is that they can’t answer me because the answer would take too long, for me to consider them liars who simply have no answer but are trying to save face by pretending that they do… After pressing and pressing and pressing and never receiving any satisfactory response, I’ve learned to identify this “too lengthy” response as a simple lie or cop-out. And that’s the attitude I shall I take here with you.

I think we’re done here. You are an incredibly stimulating, intellectually rigorous thinker, and there need to be many, many more people in the world like you, questioning and challenging everything that needs questioning and challenging. I know some might not agree with me, but to have someone to bring out possible flaws and weaknesses in the Catholic Church’s philosophical (as opposed to theological, but that too, if you are so moved) reasons for asserting the existence of God, and of a creator God, does nothing but good. We should always look at all things from every reasonable angle (and be able to show why some angles are unreasonable!). The Catholic Church does not oppose reason and philosophy, quite the contrary.

I say in all earnestness that you should take your philosophical arguments directly to the teaching Church, make them known, and ask the Church to respond. I’m not the Church. I’m only one reasonably well-educated and somewhat articulate layman. I would say the most appropriate place to start, would be the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I’m not being sarcastic. I mean it. I think that would be a good thing.

Good, good discussion, but as I said, I think we’re done. Write and comment all you want here on CAF, but I have nothing further to contribute to our discussion, nor the time to pursue it. As I said, it’s not just faith. It’s much, much more.

 

[Gorgias]

A perfect God would only allow Heaven and not allow an imperfect earth

How do you reach that conclusion? I’m not seeing that it follows.

Most people hate philosophy and reason.

Umm… and you’ve taken a vote on that? Most folks hate reason? Hmm…

Anyone could pick any arbitrary religion, which you think is certainly false, and by playing the exact same moves of appealing to faith as you have, completely justify their belief in that wrong religion exactly as adequately as you have yours.

Be that as it may, it doesn’t defeat the proposition that Christianity is true. It just speaks to the ways that humans justify their positions.

You should rather answer with something like, “I’m not certain. I believe through faith, just like all the members of every other wrong religion on Earth. But I still think mine is right, because I have faith that it is, and nothing more.”

Your proposed answer hides within it the premise that Catholicism is a “wrong religion”. Please provide the basis for that assertion. Otherwise, we can reject it as a cleverly hidden irrational attack.

The post was awaiting moderator approval, and here I am FIVE HOURS later, and the mods still haven’t approved the post.

You realize that that moderators aren’t full-time, paid employees, right?

After pressing and pressing and pressing and never receiving any satisfactory response, I’ve learned to identify this “too lengthy” response as a simple lie or cop-out.

On the other hand, it could mean a polite rejoinder: “do your own research, friend. I’m not on your payroll to do your basic research for you.”

A “theory” isn’t some idea that someone pulled out of his BEHIND.

No, but there are assinine scientific theories out there…

This board has way too many stupid rules.

And yet, if the rules have positive outcomes, maybe they’re not stupid rules.

How can you believe someone was born a virgin? How can you believe someone walked on water? How can you believe someone rose from the dead? These don’t strike you as fairytales?

If there is reliable eyewitness evidence… why would you presume ‘fairytale’?

Why? Lots of people have claimed to be God-incarnate. Why don’t you believe them?

Gee… maybe because they didn’t predict their own death and resurrection, and then make good on those predictions?

Uh… Who invented antibiotics, the car, the airplane, and the Internet?

Antibiotics, cars, airplanes, and the internet do not give me assurance of eternal life. Jesus’ life does.