Having trouble using evidence to confirm the Church

[TarkanAttila]

I am writing a paper for my College Composition 2 class. Originally my thesis was going to be something akin to “The Catholic Church is the truth, and here is the secular evidence in favour of it”. I am writing about this because it seems to be the most important and worthy thing to write about - the foundation of my being. If my faith in God is a waste of time, then what does the rest matter? And if it is true, how to I teach others about it? Through evidence we all can agree on: scientific evidence!

After doing some researching, however, I’m starting to lose confidence in this thesis. (To tell you the truth, I never really had much confidence in it to begin with.) :nope:

I keep looking for medicinal journal evidence for anything. Something that isn’t a blog or a popular publication, but a real, scholarly article about the scientific truth that seems to coincide with the Church. Maybe I’m not looking thoroughly enough at the articles, but it just seems like every article is AGAINST the Church and has nothing to confirm what is true and good. Just the opposite.

Am I just looking for the wrong kind of evidence? Am I not looking thoroughly enough at the articles? Anyone have any experience defending the Church in a research paper? Know what I ought to be looking for in a paper, or its abstract?

I need help. :coolinoff: Maybe I should just withdraw from the class?

It could also be… because I’m not putting enough time and effort into researching… Maybe partially because I’m afraid I’m wrong.

 

[Adonia]

To me, my reliqious experience is based on faith, so maybe you won’t be able to prove it scientifically. Historically, though, you might be able to fare somewhat better. There is ample historical evidence for your christian faith. Maybe you should go along those lines.

 

[CountrySteve]

I am writing a paper for my College Composition 2 class. Originally my thesis was going to be something akin to “The Catholic Church is the truth, and here is the secular evidence in favour of it”. I am writing about this because it seems to be the most important and worthy thing to write about - the foundation of my being. If my faith in God is a waste of time, then what does the rest matter? And if it is true, how to I teach others about it? Through evidence we all can agree on: scientific evidence!

After doing some researching, however, I’m starting to lose confidence in this thesis. (To tell you the truth, I never really had much confidence in it to begin with.) :nope:

I keep looking for medicinal journal evidence for anything. Something that isn’t a blog or a popular publication, but a real, scholarly article about the scientific truth that seems to coincide with the Church. Maybe I’m not looking thoroughly enough at the articles, but it just seems like every article is AGAINST the Church and has nothing to confirm what is true and good. Just the opposite.

Am I just looking for the wrong kind of evidence? Am I not looking thoroughly enough at the articles? Anyone have any experience defending the Church in a research paper? Know what I ought to be looking for in a paper, or its abstract?

I need help. :coolinoff: Maybe I should just withdraw from the class?

It could also be… because I’m not putting enough time and effort into researching… Maybe partially because I’m afraid I’m wrong.

hey try the Our Lady of Guadalupe, which that cactus paper or whatever it was on, has disproved science completely

 

[Khalid]

You’re going to have to go in to purely philosophical arguments like the five ways of Thomas Aquinas, and other stuff from the Summa Theologiae (seminal work on Catholic theology) and Catena Aurea (concatenation of much Patristic commentary and homily) as well, and with historical-textual witnesses in the case of the Catena.**Empirical evidence can never support **(at least not without some very “creative” logic, and a degree in high-energy or quantum physics) **even God’s existence, let alone the truth of one church or religion over another. **

Using even the best, most seemingly irrefutable miracles will get you laughed out of logic 101 if the professor is worthy of the name: the miracles are miracles to the faithful, and to increase the faith in the faithful (and maybe even to kindle the spark of faith in the infidel), but they are in no way, shape, or form intrinsically validating of the Catholic Church, or even God’s existence. For example, the Eastern Orthodox have the Self-Lighting Flames at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem: you must disprove this miracle alongside proving Catholic ones: you can’t just present a miracle accepted by the faithful and say “here it is” - if it was that simple, everyone on Earth would bend the knee and immediately become a Catholic. And many people, atheist, secular, and religious, have been trying to prove or disprove miracles for a long time, and none of them have really gotten anywhere, except for the strong atheists, managing to convince the vast majority of academia that such things are not even remotely possible, but are hallucinations, delusions, or fraud. Some atheists even argue that all of the appearances of the risen Lord must be considered delusional hallucinations, because to be in two places at once is not amenable to the laws of physics: this is the kind of resistance you will run up against attempting to use miracles as a proof for faith. It is specifically a logical fallacy called begging the question or denying the antecedent, although many faithful would contest my classification of the syllogisms likely to be used as such. However, writing as you are, you’re not “preaching to the choir” - you must use logically-valid evidence.

Pascal, the originator of game theory, came up with a game-theoretical reason to believe in God: his contemporary, Diderot, replied, “…and an Imam [Mohametan religious leader] could argue the same way.”

Go for the purely philosophical arguments: these usually are distinguished by words such as “epistemological,” “transcendent,” “teleological,” etc. As long as you’re looking for empirical evidence, i.e. that prayer is helpful in treating the sick or that Catholics live longer (I assume that’s what you mean when you say “medical”), you’ll be sorely disappointed. But what about morality and its impact on society? Maybe Catholics live more moral lives, but this can not be demonstrated in a double-blind study.

Or, as an above poster said, the historical and textual witnesses to the Christian faith as passed down through the Apostolic succession, for which there are more witnesses than The Lives of the Twelve Caesars or A History of Rome or The Republic or Nicomachean Ethics put together.

Edit: to the below poster: there are many philosophers who have put forth very good arguments for the fact that either 1) we don’t exist (Schrodingers Cat, Simulation Hypothesis), or 2) we don’t exist in the way we think we do (Brain in a Vat, Simulation Hypothesis), or 3) only ourselves exist (Solipsism, an extreme evolution of ergo cogito sum). The entire existential and post-modern movements have been influenced heavily by the aforementioned ideas. The philosophy of self or the philosophy of mind or the philosophy of existence has come a long way since Descartes first stated, “I think, therefore I am” 400 years ago, even though I count myself as a staunch Cartesian. To argue for Cartesianism, a good place to start is the theory of qualia.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

… my dear friend ,

… try the eucharistic miracles and the incorruptible saints , you should find plenty on them if you look , also look into miracles approved by the church as they are scientifically examined and documented , the same with the lives of some saints , can i say : we must believe absolutely everything on the basis of faith too , the whole lot bar one thing , we can only know for certain that we exist and not who or what we are , the reason we know we exist is that we have experiences and so we must be something as nothing does not have experiences , it’s a good point if people try to say your silly because you believe in god and his church on the basis of faith , even every scientist believes all on the basis of faith bar that one thing , hope it helps dear friend ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[Bluegoat]

You probably are not going to be able to “prove” the Church in the way you want to. But there are some interesting ways you could approach your thesis that might give you a good paper. As well, the topic you’ve chosen will likely be too large for your purposes.

My suggestion for this kind of class is you forget about trying to *prove *anything, and look at the relationship between science and Catholicism. Maybe what Catholisism teaches about science, or ways in which scientific discoveries have been understood by Catholisism.

Or you could look at something like the Big Bang theory, which was developed originally by a Catholic priest, and which was originally dismissed by many as being “too religious”. That would probably be a very manageable topic.

You could do some internet searches to get some basic information, and then you need to write an outline of what you think you would like to say in your essay. This will give you an idea of the kinds of resources you should look for, and just what information you need.

Then you need to leave the internet behind and go to your university library. You can look for books on the topic. But then you really should go to the reference desk and talk to the librarians there. They will show you how to search the libraries journals to find scholarly articles on your topic. This is a really important skill for a student, and you might as well learn it in a class like this one. You just shouldn’t try to write a university paper off of internet sources. There are some scholarly thing available online, but until you have a good grasp of them, you will have better luck in the library. University librarians usually have a master’s degree in their primary subject as well as in library studies, and they can help you.

At that point, read the resources according to what your outline suggests, take notes, remember to write down where the information comes from. Then you may need to revise your outline, do research for the revisions, and then write the thing. Then proof it and pass it in.

 

[meltzerboy]

You’re going to have to go in to purely philosophical arguments like the five ways of Thomas Aquinas, and other stuff from the Summa Theologiae (seminal work on Catholic theology) and Catena Aurea (concatenation of much Patristic commentary and homily) as well, and with historical-textual witnesses in the case of the Catena.**Empirical evidence can never support **(at least not without some very “creative” logic, and a degree in high-energy or quantum physics) **even God’s existence, let alone the truth of one church or religion over another. **

Using even the best, most seemingly irrefutable miracles will get you laughed out of logic 101 if the professor is worthy of the name: the miracles are miracles to the faithful, and to increase the faith in the faithful (and maybe even to kindle the spark of faith in the infidel), but they are in no way, shape, or form intrinsically validating of the Catholic Church, or even God’s existence. For example, the Eastern Orthodox have the Self-Lighting Flames at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem: you must disprove this miracle alongside proving Catholic ones: you can’t just present a miracle accepted by the faithful and say “here it is” - if it was that simple, everyone on Earth would bend the knee and immediately become a Catholic. And many people, atheist, secular, and religious, have been trying to prove or disprove miracles for a long time, and none of them have really gotten anywhere, except for the strong atheists, managing to convince the vast majority of academia that such things are not even remotely possible, but are hallucinations, delusions, or fraud. Some atheists even argue that all of the appearances of the risen Lord must be considered delusional hallucinations, because to be in two places at once is not amenable to the laws of physics: this is the kind of resistance you will run up against attempting to use miracles as a proof for faith. It is specifically a logical fallacy called begging the question or denying the antecedent, although many faithful would contest my classification of the syllogisms likely to be used as such. However, writing as you are, you’re not “preaching to the choir” - you must use logically-valid evidence.

Pascal, the originator of game theory, came up with a game-theoretical reason to believe in God: his contemporary, Diderot, replied, “…and an Imam [Mohametan religious leader] could argue the same way.”

Go for the purely philosophical arguments: these usually are distinguished by words such as “epistemological,” “transcendent,” “teleological,” etc. As long as you’re looking for empirical evidence, i.e. that prayer is helpful in treating the sick or that Catholics live longer (I assume that’s what you mean when you say “medical”), you’ll be sorely disappointed. But what about morality and its impact on society? Maybe Catholics live more moral lives, but this can not be demonstrated in a double-blind study.

Or, as an above poster said, the historical and textual witnesses to the Christian faith as passed down through the Apostolic succession, for which there are more witnesses than The Lives of the Twelve Caesars or A History of Rome or The Republic or Nicomachean Ethics put together.

Edit: to the below poster: there are many philosophers who have put forth very good arguments for the fact that either 1) we don’t exist (Schrodingers Cat, Simulation Hypothesis), or 2) we don’t exist in the way we think we do (Brain in a Vat, Simulation Hypothesis), or 3) only ourselves exist (Solipsism, an extreme evolution of ergo cogito sum). The entire existential and post-modern movements have been influenced heavily by the aforementioned ideas. The philosophy of self or the philosophy of mind or the philosophy of existence has come a long way since Descartes first stated, “I think, therefore I am” 400 years ago, even though I count myself as a staunch Cartesian. To argue for Cartesianism, a good place to start is the theory of qualia.

Well stated! I agree that the philosophical approach is probably the best bet albeit philosophers also disagree. One can hardly prove one’s faith to either a neutral or skeptical audience by means of internal evidence alone such as Scripture and Church tradition, since such evidence begins with presuppositions and a marked point of view. Rather, one needs to present commonly shared evidence, either in the form of external historical findings or internal logic.

 

[TarkanAttila]

You’re going to have to go in to purely philosophical arguments…**Empirical evidence can never support **(at least not without some very “creative” logic, and a degree in high-energy or quantum physics) **even God’s existence, let alone the truth of one church or religion over another. **…

…

Go for the purely philosophical arguments: these usually are distinguished by words such as “epistemological,” “transcendent,” “teleological,” etc. As long as you’re looking for empirical evidence… you’ll be sorely disappointed. But what about morality and its impact on society? Maybe Catholics live more moral lives, but this can not be demonstrated in a double-blind study.

Or, as an above poster said, the historical and textual witnesses to the Christian faith as passed down through the Apostolic succession…

…The entire existential and post-modern movements have been influenced heavily by the aforementioned ideas. The philosophy of self or the philosophy of mind or the philosophy of existence has come a long way since Descartes first stated, “I think, therefore I am” 400 years ago, even though I count myself as a staunch Cartesian. To argue for Cartesianism, a good place to start is the theory of qualia.

You probably are not going to be able to “prove” the Church in the way you want to. But there are some interesting ways you could approach your thesis that might give you a good paper. As well, the topic you’ve chosen will likely be too large for your purposes.

My suggestion for this kind of class is you forget about trying to *prove *anything, and look at the relationship between science and Catholicism. Maybe what Catholicism teaches about science, or ways in which scientific discoveries have been understood by Catholicism…

Oh why, God, why? sigh

Goat, you are right; the topic I had was too broad. I was actually hoping to say that Catholic teaching, especially on things like **abortion, gay marriage, and contraception ** makes the most sense considering we’ve tried secular ideas for the past fifty years and things have steadily gotten worse. That is, the effects of these things on society are not desirable as they currently are.

But the more I look, the more I think: Catholicism and “earthly” philosophy are in disagreement about what is right and good. It seems to me the “world” is very sentimental, and does not know the difference between “nice” and “good”. Maybe I ought to write a paper on this disagreement? The death penalty, homosexuality, and contraception would seem to be good topics. Or rather, any one of those.

Khalid, I know miracles and Pascal’s wager are not acceptable evidence. Pascal’s wager is, in short, useless. Miracles are only useful to a friendly audience. This I know.

By empirical evidence, I meant evidence that “gay marriage brings more STDs, ‘unwanted’ pregnancies, and promiscuity into the world”, or that ‘Paul VI was right in regards to the effects of contraception (see Humanae Vitae, or Paul VI as Prophet)’". You know, earthly evidence that what we teach about practise is true. Because while Catholic cannot be proved to be more moral, I would think celibate people could be proved to be more or less healthy than sexually-active people.

But perhaps you are right. Perhaps I ought to strike at the philosophical roots and make a point of right belief over right practise. Because it seems that’s the problem. People seem to believe anything which feels, looks, or seems good ought to be supported, whether the intent is bad or the means towards it are bad or not. Perhaps I should go about refuting that - or whatever sophisticated form of it they are using.

And about historical evidence: what about pre-Christian or even pre-Judaic evidence for the Christianity? Is there any such thing - even if it’s only historical evidence a Catholic or Christian would accept?

Thanks, guys.

 

[Khalid]

Oh why, God, why? sigh

Goat, you are right; the topic I had was too broad. I was actually hoping to say that Catholic teaching, especially on things like **abortion, gay marriage, and contraception ** makes the most sense considering we’ve tried secular ideas for the past fifty years and things have steadily gotten worse. That is, the effects of these things on society are not desirable as they currently are.

But the more I look, the more I think: Catholicism and “earthly” philosophy are in disagreement about what is right and good. It seems to me the “world” is very sentimental, and does not know the difference between “nice” and “good”. Maybe I ought to write a paper on this disagreement? The death penalty, homosexuality, and contraception would seem to be good topics. Or rather, any one of those.

Khalid, I know miracles and Pascal’s wager are not acceptable evidence. Pascal’s wager is, in short, useless. Miracles are only useful to a friendly audience. This I know.

By empirical evidence, I meant evidence that “gay marriage brings more STDs, ‘unwanted’ pregnancies, and promiscuity into the world”, or that ‘Paul VI was right in regards to the effects of contraception (see Humanae Vitae, or Paul VI as Prophet)’". You know, earthly evidence that what we teach about practise is true. Because while Catholic cannot be proved to be more moral, I would think celibate people could be proved to be more or less healthy than sexually-active people.

But perhaps you are right. Perhaps I ought to strike at the philosophical roots and make a point of right belief over right practise. Because it seems that’s the problem. People seem to believe anything which feels, looks, or seems good ought to be supported, whether the intent is bad or the means towards it are bad or not. Perhaps I should go about refuting that - or whatever sophisticated form of it they are using.

And about historical evidence: what about pre-Christian or even pre-Judaic evidence for the Christianity? Is there any such thing - even if it’s only historical evidence a Catholic or Christian would accept?

Thanks, guys.

That’s a philosophical-ethical argument or a sociological one (celibacy, homosexual unions and adoptions, &c.). I never thought of the sociological angle, but any sociological data must be backed up with a philosophical thesis that explains why the data represent what you say they do. That could work, as there’s no non-Planned Parenthood sponsored paper that actually says “abortion is good”, nor is there any paper that’s not been funded by the LGBT movement that says, “homosexuality is equally valid to heterosexuality, and even though Kinsey said most people were either 2 or 4 on a scale of 1 to 5, there’s no chance that exposing babies to two fathers or teachings kindergarteners Sally has Two Mommies will increase homosexual tendencies…”

You can always dig in to older research from the late 80s, prior to the publication of the DSM-IV, which treats (properly) homosexuality as a form of mental illness: there’s a hundred years of research on this, from Freud to the late 80’s, and even some Christian-funded stuff to the present day, but it was the generally accepted scientific consensus until the board of editors of the DSM-IV decided, “we’re going to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses” - as of that moment, it stopped being a mental illness for political purposes and became a lifestyle choice.

The same thing happened (although, correctly, I believe in this case) when drug addictions were added to the DSM-III: drug addiction stopped being a “throw 'em in jail, withdraw 'em to death, they’re weak in the soul” character flaw, but is slowly becoming viewed, properly, as an illness with physical and psychological factors, both genetic and memetic.

And the same thing is happening incorrectly, by trying to introduce things like “Internet Addiction” or “Sex Addiction” or “Gambling Addiction”, or to remove “Asperger’s Disorder” (this just means someone intelligent who’s lacking social grace, and is the reason you see commercials “1 in 100 kids have autism” - it’s considered a form of autism), adding criteria for the diagnosis of bipolar disorder, ADHD, and even schizophrenia in children as young as 2 years old (they’re already giving some of these kids strong neuroleptics and speed), or Hypersexual Disorder - “distress about a pattern of repeated sexual relationships involving a succession of lovers who are experienced by the individual only as things to be used.” - as mental illnesses. If these changes are ratified, what is listed above become mental illness - full stop. No psychiatrist is allowed to suggest that they’re not, at risk of losing license, until the next DSM revision comes out (probably 10-12 years). You can focus on homosexuality and the history of mental illness, in this case, and tie it in to Catholic teaching on the matter, and try to point out where secular society took the wrong fork in the road and went astray.

To refute the modern, “believe whatever you want as long as you believe something”, or, alternately, “don’t believe anything unless it can be proven in a double-blind double-dummy placebo controlled study with CI <1%”, one must only refute the entire social and philosophical developments that drove the development of the idea(l) of moral relativism, inclusivism, &c. and even I can’t begin to guess where it started (although I’d imagine Sartre, Rousseau, or even Darwin is when it kicked in to high gear). That’s quite a lofty goal.

There were some historical cults - I believe that of Isis is one - that St Augustine (?) said prefigured the institution of the Eucharist by having a similar, but pre-corrupted kind of ritual.

 

[Khalid]

You can focus on homosexuality and the history of mental illness, in this case, and tie it in to Catholic teaching on the matter, and try to point out where secular society took the wrong fork in the road and went astray.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I must also point out that to take such a stand is very unpopular to the point of having shock-value in both secular and academic society, and will likely end in you being graded more harshly (by far) than fellow students who write on the politically-correct side of the topic (and also being ostracised from the community at large, except for fellow conservative Christians, which I can’t say is a bad thing, since conservative Christianity is “where it’s at”).

 

[jochoa]

I really like your topic.

In order to help specify your composition, what type of person is your intended audience?

I get the feeling you are preaching to an atheist. And if so, it is quite a streach in a single paper to prove both God’s existence and catholic interpretation.

 

[JDaniel]

I am writing a paper for my College Composition 2 class. Originally my thesis was going to be something akin to “The Catholic Church is the truth, and here is the secular evidence in favour of it”. I am writing about this because it seems to be the most important and worthy thing to write about - the foundation of my being. If my faith in God is a waste of time, then what does the rest matter? And if it is true, how to I teach others about it? Through evidence we all can agree on: scientific evidence!

After doing some researching, however, I’m starting to lose confidence in this thesis. (To tell you the truth, I never really had much confidence in it to begin with.) :nope:

I keep looking for medicinal journal evidence for anything. Something that isn’t a blog or a popular publication, but a real, scholarly article about the scientific truth that seems to coincide with the Church. Maybe I’m not looking thoroughly enough at the articles, but it just seems like every article is AGAINST the Church and has nothing to confirm what is true and good. Just the opposite.

Am I just looking for the wrong kind of evidence? Am I not looking thoroughly enough at the articles? Anyone have any experience defending the Church in a research paper? Know what I ought to be looking for in a paper, or its abstract?

I need help. :coolinoff: Maybe I should just withdraw from the class?

It could also be… because I’m not putting enough time and effort into researching… Maybe partially because I’m afraid I’m wrong.

TA:

It’s a tough read - and probably will need to be read twice, but, buy a copy of Fr. Robert J. Spitzer’s book, New Proofs for the Existence of God - Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy. (You’ll have to buy it as it probably isn’t in the library. It’s not expensive though.) You’ll find almost everything you need in there. Keep us informed.

God bless,
jd

 

[jochoa]

TA:

It’s a tough read - and probably will need to be read twice, but, buy a copy of Fr. Robert J. Spitzer’s book, New Proofs for the Existence of God - Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy. (You’ll have to buy it as it probably isn’t in the library. It’s not expensive though.) You’ll find almost everything you need in there. Keep us informed.

God bless,
jd

Here is a Link with a sample → books.google.com/ebooks?id=UgdyKv5vx5YC&dq=New+Proofs+for+the+Existence+of+God&as_brr=5&ei=IT0RTuy2Fs-YUOb41YII

@Tarkan please share as many details as you can about your intended audience, I am also really interested in this topic, and would gladly help out!

Aspects to consider:
Is the audience:

1. atheist, deist, or agnostic?
2. If deist, are they of a certain religion?
   What secular/scientific evidence are you considering to align?
3. Philosophy of Living - How to achieve better peace(health), happiness, and longevity(energy)
4. Best Governing Method - Law of Love
5. Evolution/Big Bang Theory/Creation
6. Best Interpretation and Application of God’s Word

 

[TarkanAttila]

Due to my time crunch, my general frustration, and my knowledge in other topics, I have decided to pigeonhole this topic for some other day, when I have a year or more to write about it. This topic is simply too much for my pea-sized brain to wrap around it - much less in only a day or two! >.<

I will continue to study the debate between atheism and Catholicism, and probably purchase a few books (maybe some of the ones mentioned here if I can find them for cheap on Amazon), but as a formal paper topic, I must abandon it. Philosophy (a big part of the debate between Catholicism and atheism) frustrates me because it is too… erm… pie-in-the-sky, if you will. It seems very impractical and theoretical and this overheats my brain and causes it to shut down. I can’t function with things I can’t imagine, and I can’t imagine philosophy very well.

Or something.

Mind, the topic I’ve chosen in its place is no less controversial, but it is more a scientific issue. One I can work with. One with facts and figures on both sides. I am doing a paper on ABORTION. I think I can easily scrounge up six annotated citations by Wednesday morning on this subject. And I am strongly pro-life.

Thanks for all the help, though, guys.

 

[Khalid]

I love philosophy. I converted from Eastern Orthodoxy due to Fides et Ratio, i.e. the approval and development of philosophy and philosophical theology in the Church, whereas the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn’t accept “the corrupted Western rational theology”, without which (specifically Thomism) I would never have believed any God exists, let alone in any religion. So don’t write off philosophy, beyond a pillar of smoke and fire with multiple independent witnesses, it’s the only thing that makes the more intelligent of us believe. Philosophy at the point where its borders with theology blur, is likely the most important discipline one can ever become educated in.

Additionally, it’s my understanding brothers of the Society of Jesus must be trained for almost a decade in philosophy, theology, and rhetoric: thus I want to become a Jesuit. And to spread the Word of God.

 

[sw85]

I am writing a paper for my College Composition 2 class. Originally my thesis was going to be something akin to “The Catholic Church is the truth, and here is the secular evidence in favour of it”. I am writing about this because it seems to be the most important and worthy thing to write about - the foundation of my being. If my faith in God is a waste of time, then what does the rest matter? And if it is true, how to I teach others about it? Through evidence we all can agree on: scientific evidence!

After doing some researching, however, I’m starting to lose confidence in this thesis. (To tell you the truth, I never really had much confidence in it to begin with.) :nope:

I keep looking for medicinal journal evidence for anything. Something that isn’t a blog or a popular publication, but a real, scholarly article about the scientific truth that seems to coincide with the Church. Maybe I’m not looking thoroughly enough at the articles, but it just seems like every article is AGAINST the Church and has nothing to confirm what is true and good. Just the opposite.

Am I just looking for the wrong kind of evidence? Am I not looking thoroughly enough at the articles? Anyone have any experience defending the Church in a research paper? Know what I ought to be looking for in a paper, or its abstract?

I need help. :coolinoff: Maybe I should just withdraw from the class?

It could also be… because I’m not putting enough time and effort into researching… Maybe partially because I’m afraid I’m wrong.

Hello TarkanAttila,

“Evidence” is a logical proof for a material phenomenon. It is necessary for, say, scientific inquiries; but then the Church is not in the business of propagating scientific truths but metaphysical ones. The arguments in defense of its truths are philosophical ones, not scientific or evidential ones. They are arguments that what the Church propagates as truth is *necessarily *true – that it follows from universally agreed-upon premises and flows logically to unavoidable conclusions. For an examination of the philosophical truths of the Church, you might start by reading Edward Feser’s “The Last Superstition,” which weaves together all the giants of classical and medieval philosophy.

There are plenty of things we know to be true for which we have no evidence (or at least no immediate sensory evidence). Speaking personally, I have never sensed the curvature of the earth, nor have I visually confirmed the existence of my own intestines. And more universally there is no evidence to support Euclid’s axioms (that’s why they’re axioms).

Those who claim that scientific evidence is the only kind of knowledge worth having and who reject the claims of metaphysics are, themselves, making a metaphysical argument. (After all, there’s no scientific evidence for the claim that scientific evidence is the only kind of knowledge worth having!). Thus, they have already conceded the ground to you in that the question at hand is a fundamentally metaphysical one: a question of epistemology.

Depending on what your assignment is, perhaps you would do well to revise the nature of your paper – first by arguing the primacy of metaphysics over science, then by presenting the metaphysical arguments.

 

[JDaniel]

I love philosophy. I converted from Eastern Orthodoxy due to Fides et Ratio, i.e. the approval and development of philosophy and philosophical theology in the Church, whereas the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn’t accept “the corrupted Western rational theology”, without which (specifically Thomism) I would never have believed any God exists, let alone in any religion. So don’t write off philosophy, beyond a pillar of smoke and fire with multiple independent witnesses, it’s the only thing that makes the more intelligent of us believe. Philosophy at the point where its borders with theology blur, is likely the most important discipline one can ever become educated in.

Additionally, it’s my understanding brothers of the Society of Jesus must be trained for almost a decade in philosophy, theology, and rhetoric: thus I want to become a Jesuit. And to spread the Word of God.

Khalid:

I must say that your posts have been phenomenal. You have absolutely taken the time to answer the OP to the best of your abilities. I am happy to have met you, even though we’re distant. I have been to Columbus many times, so I feel that we’re neighbors. Do you live near the university? I learned a long time ago that Columbus was without doubt the best melting-pot city in the US. What do you think of it? Oh well, that’s another subject, for another thread.

I am sort of jealous of your becoming a Jesuit Priest. I was taught by Jesuits. (It’s too bad that I wasn’t more studious, or at least more intelligent!)

God bless,
jd

 

[Khalid]

I’m about 10km away from Ohio State University main campus. Never have I seen another city with such an odd range of income distribution either. I am not well off, and I live in a low-quality apartment complex that contains some subsidised housing. 5km down the street there are a dozen houses that cost many millions each, and 2km away from that the billionaire who owns “The Limited” and “Victoria’s Secret”. 7km in another direction is the inner city, and 15km in the opposite direction are large fields, forests, horse, cow, and pig farms, and general “country land” as they call it here.

There’s quite a large mix of people of colour too, American blacks, Asians, North and South Africans, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans (the nation, not the religious order), South Americans, Arabs, Subcontinental Indians. All of Europe is pretty well represented to except for the Nordics - lots of Germans. I’ve lived in places with larger “minority” populations such as Dearborn and Baltimore, but “minority” is a misnomer in such cases because the so-called “minority” is actually the vast majority (Arab Muslims in Dearborn, American blacks in Baltimore). However this is a very strongly area split between the militant Fundamentalist Bibliolaters who consider Roman Catholicism to be “non-Christian” and the equally fundamentalist Atheists who spring like water from an aquifer from all of the liberal arts colleges. The census data says there are almost 25% Catholics here, but they’re not in evidence - maybe they’re just quieter than the Bible-thumpers: within 3km of my residence there are no less than 7 Protestant churches (Vineyards, Calvary Chapels, smaller non-aligned ones), and 1 Macedonian Orthodox and 1 Catholic. And a Mormon, if you can call it a “church”.

In any case, all of America is far more molten than anywhere in Western Asia/Middle East, where the only moltenness of any kind is found in Pakistan, and that’s a dozen different kinds of Arabs (Levantine, Circassian, Turk, etc.) and Subcontinental Indians.

And, it’s merely a call to become a missionary: it’s my preference for the Society of Jesus, but we do not always do what we believe ourselves called to do (for the Priesthood, I’m celibate anyways, “For he who can remain celibate for the Kingdom of God should do so”: it is fitting that Catholicism actively encourages it, instead of merely tolerating it, as I have always felt - even as an infidel - that carnal and spiritual things were by their very natures mutually exclusive and damaging to each other) - I don’t even know how to go about (or who I would ask) to go through whatever screening process for Jesuit formation is used. Due to the general extreme level of erudition, psychic, moral, spiritual, and especially philosophico-theological apologetic strength that I have seen in the Jesuits I have known.

If you know how one goes about “applying” to Jesuit formation, let me know. I keep threatening to call a priest about it but never have, since I am a recent convert to Christianity in general and even more recent to Roman Catholicism (it seems one would need to be “established” to be accepted even if one has personally heard the Call of the Lord, the same Call that pulled me out of rank superstition and false belief and sent me on to Justification through Christ, is a Call to do whatever I can to spread the Gospel amongst my former brethren so they can know the Religion of God in truth and not delusion, and I’m a natural Thomist theologian/Theist philosopher - I had great strength in sending the false message of Islam, and now pray for God’s forgiveness through Jesus and the intercession of Mary and all the Saints to forgive me for any I have lead astray, and must make recompense by devoting even greater zeal to lead to Truth) and have yet to memorise anything except most of the Catechism, lacking memorisation of most of the New Testament outside of Matthew and John, or the Summa Theologiae, City of God, Confessions, Faith of the Fathers, Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church (and most of the Encyclical Letters of import, and “Male and Female” and “Love and Responsibility” etc.; the writings of Wojtyla/John Paul II I find engaging), writings of the Fathers &c. (I am on my first or second reading of most of the non-Bible books) and am lacking in English and Spanish language skills (I believe Jesuits must know both), only able to speak them on a level somewhat below that which I write them.

The last several paragraphs have stretched my ability in English once again, as I had no clear outline when I began: I leave it to the reader to read, and to the intelligent reader to understand and interpret the meanings.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I love philosophy. I converted from Eastern Orthodoxy due to Fides et Ratio, i.e. the approval and development of philosophy and philosophical theology in the Church, whereas the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn’t accept “the corrupted Western rational theology”, without which (specifically Thomism) I would never have believed any God exists, let alone in any religion. So don’t write off philosophy, beyond a pillar of smoke and fire with multiple independent witnesses, it’s the only thing that makes the more intelligent of us believe. Philosophy at the point where its borders with theology blur, is likely the most important discipline one can ever become educated in.

Additionally, it’s my understanding brothers of the Society of Jesus must be trained for almost a decade in philosophy, theology, and rhetoric: thus I want to become a Jesuit. And to spread the Word of God.

You really think so? It’s not that I don’t appreciate philosophy. That would be like saying I don’t appreciate computers because I don’t understand them! I very much like computers. But understanding them, like understanding philosophy, is difficult for me, so I am content not to understand it and leave it to people who do understand it.

Hello TarkanAttila,

“Evidence” is a logical proof for a material phenomenon. It is necessary for, say, scientific inquiries; but then the Church is not in the business of propagating scientific truths but metaphysical ones. The arguments in defense of its truths are philosophical ones, not scientific or evidential ones. They are arguments that what the Church propagates as truth is *necessarily *true – that it follows from universally agreed-upon premises and flows logically to unavoidable conclusions…

Those who claim that scientific evidence is the only kind of knowledge worth having and who reject the claims of metaphysics are, themselves, making a metaphysical argument. (After all, there’s no scientific evidence for the claim that scientific evidence is the only kind of knowledge worth having!). Thus, they have already conceded the ground to you in that the question at hand is a fundamentally metaphysical one: a question of epistemology…

I agree. Really I do. But I’ve never been able to explain this to anyone, not even myself, except through the words of other people. I believe Archbishop Sheen once said that you know you know something when you can explain it in your own words. I cannot paraphrase my knowledge of philosophy and metaphysics because they are beyond me at this time.

So, in order to pass the class, I have to write about something I DO understand to some degree. And for me, cold, hard, scientific fact is what I understand and can explain to an audience. Most especially about abortion. For sure, I will use some common sense philosophy, because abortion is partially a religious issue. But I think I can, with science, make a case against it. Others already have. I will use what they have learned.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

And about historical evidence: what about pre-Christian or even pre-Judaic evidence for the Christianity? Is there any such thing - even if it’s only historical evidence a Catholic or Christian would accept?

Thanks, guys.

I don’t think Pascal’s argument is useless. The objections are easily refuted. Most by Pascal himself in the Pensees. People who claim there’s a problem with the argument usually have just read a summary of it on an atheist website.

As far as the above, I’m hoping more scientific study will be performed on the Shroud of Turin. I believe the carbon dating on the shroud was flawed in that the sample of the cloth was a piece of fabric from after the shroud survived a fire. The problem with letting secular scientists experiment on the shroud is that they might destroy it out of hatred of Catholicism. Letting Catholic scientists study the shroud would lead to claims of “bias”. I personally believe the Shroud is empirical proof of the resurrection.

Historical evidence …the pagan historian Thallus’ account of the darkness and earthquakes after the crucifixion. Josephus mention of Jesus…you can google all this stuff …I’m not going to list it. You also might want to read the dialogue between Justin Martyr and Tryphus the jew.