Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[PRmerger]

How does either side prove that they are correct, without begging the question? Without saying, “I’m right because: ‘I said so/my Church says so/my Scripture says so/Jesus says so (or meant to); or, it’s self-evident.’”

Catholicism does not maintain that paradigm, Portofino.

Our paradigm is: * fides quarens intellectum.*

We start with faith and through reason apprehend the Truth.

Now, that 2 traditions, each claiming to use reason, come a different conclusion is not an indictment of the Catholic paradigm. Rather, it only points to the fact that there is an error in one party’s reason.

 

[Portofino]

Catholicism does not maintain that paradigm, Portofino.

Our paradigm is: * fides quarens intellectum.*

We start with faith and through reason apprehend the Truth.

Now, that 2 traditions, each claiming to use reason, come a different conclusion is not an indictment of the Catholic paradigm. Rather, it only points to the fact that there is an error in one party’s reason.

I hear you, and I’m sympathetic to the Latin quote (which, I see, is from St. Anselm ).

I think the best one can do is try to find common ground – common ground with the opposing camp, whatever that opposing camp happens to be – and use that common ground as a basis for persuasion.

For example, if someone believes murder is wrong, you have important common ground in convincing him that abortion is wrong, so long as you persuade that abortion is murder. You can convince him that, if you believe murder is wrong, it is not rational – it is logically inconsistent – to be in support of abortion. What is harder to demonstrate is the intrinsic rationality of the belief itself that “murder is wrong,” which is more of an axiomatic conviction, as I see it.

To a large extent, I see agreement on morality as necessitating a common faith, on some level – a common faith in certain moral axioms. Once you agree on those axioms – that are difficult to prove through reason alone, and that require some element of personal conviction – then you can reason about them, and hope to reach “rational agreement.”

Of course, if the other has articles of faith, or axioms, that are not shared – over and above those axioms that are shared – it will be a challenge to come to rational agreement.

 

[PRmerger]

I think the best one can do is try to find common ground – common ground with the opposing camp, whatever that opposing camp happens to be – and use that common ground as a basis for persuasion.

Well, I think that’s one way. But not the* only* way. And whether it’s the* best* one can do is arguable.

For example, if someone believes murder is wrong, you have important common ground in convincing him that abortion is wrong, so long as you persuade that abortion is murder. You can convince him that, if you believe murder is wrong, it is not rational – it is logically inconsistent – to be in support of abortion. What is harder to demonstrate is the intrinsic rationality of the belief itself that “murder is wrong,” which is more of an axiomatic conviction, as I see it.

True, this. At least, for atheists.

For the Christian, who understands that each life has intrinsic value in that we are made in the image of God, it is not that hard to demonstrate the intrinsic rationality of why murder is wrong.

To a large extent, I see agreement on morality as necessitating a common faith, on some level – a common faith in certain moral axioms. Once you agree on those axioms – that are difficult to prove through reason alone, and that require some element of personal conviction – then you can reason about them, and hope to reach “rational agreement.”

Indeed.

That’s exactly how atheist turned Catholic Leah Libresco left atheism behind. When she considered the objective, absolute morality that she espoused, it left her, rationally, with only one path: that of saying buh-bye to atheism.

 

[Alberto_Q_CM]

Alas, this is true. This unfortunately does no change, even if one believes in objective moral standards, because there may always be multiple religions and multiple moral codes.

For me it’s enough sharing with most people possible the conviction that some law (the golden rule, for example) can have an anthropological basis, valid along the most part of history, being present at least in some code or norm of almost any culture of the history (on the contrary, at least in Europe, there’s the fashion of considering ethics as completely conventional, and this scares me).
Then, the specific applications have to be appraised in the specific concrete cases.

As for danger, I know of no more dangerous phenomenon – for better or for worse – than free will itself. Free will is one of the most dangerous things that I know of.

Thanks, obviously I intended Free will talking about Liberty. Free will is real dangerous, but it avoids to think Men as machines or a puppets. And this has an inestimable value.

No worries about your English, by the way…

Thank you, and to all, for the sympathy.

 

[belorg]

Catholicism does not maintain that paradigm, Portofino.

Our paradigm is: * fides quarens intellectum.*

We start with faith and through reason apprehend the Truth.

And that is the wrong way to go. You should start with reason and accept that which reason shows you. You should not start by limiting your reason to what faith tells you.

 

[PRmerger]

And that is the wrong way to go. You should start with reason and accept that which reason shows you. You should not start by limiting your reason to what faith tells you.

How does starting with faith limit reason?

 

[atheistgirl]

And that is the wrong way to go. You should start with reason and accept that which reason shows you. You should not start by limiting your reason to what faith tells you.

I’ve never told my kids there’s no God. Yet they’ve come to their own conclusion there’s very little evidence for one.

I wonder how kids in homes of believers make out? Even if the parents claim they leave it up to the kids to decide for themselves (not likely since there’s an obligation from Baptism in Christianity to bring the children up in the faith) the kids from birth see the parents go to Church, pray, and so on, so it has to be a profound influence on them and their thinking. It must pretty much set them up to be susceptible to ‘‘faith’’ and belief in the invisible and the supernatural from the get go.

I have no evidence to hand for this, but I somehow doubt a child, never brought up in any faith influence, or exposed to any, would reason themselves into believing in a Deity, and further a Christian Deity, and even further, Catholicism in particular, as opposed to the any number of other Christian faiths available. There may be *some *examples of course, but I’m betting they are in the tiny minority of people from such circumstances.

Sarah x

 

[belorg]

How does starting with faith limit reason?

Because it does not allow reason to go beyond the pre-set limits of faith.

Now, if start from reason then if faith is the truth, your reason will lead you to faith and if faith is not the truth, reason will lead you away from it. Reason is a judge of faith, but faith is not a judge of reason.

 

[PRmerger]

And that is the wrong way to go. You should start with reason and accept that which reason shows you. You should not start by limiting your reason to what faith tells you.

And just to be clear: Catholicism never proposes that we “limit” our reason to what faith tells us. If our reason tells us to reject an idea, we are obligated to reject the idea.

However, it should be noted that there is nothing in our faith that is contrary to reason. There are simply truths that are proclaimed that may not be apprehended through reason alone (to wit: the dogma of the Trinity.)

 

[belorg]

I’ve never told my kids there’s no God. Yet they’ve come to their own conclusion there’s very little evidence for one.

I wonder how kids in homes of believers make out? Even if the parents claim they leave it up to the kids to decide for themselves (not likely since there’s an obligation from Baptism in Christianity to bring the children up in the faith) the kids from birth see the parents go to Church, pray, and so on, so it has to be a profound influence on them and their thinking. It must pretty much set them up to be susceptible to ‘‘faith’’ and belief in the invisible and the supernatural from the get go.

My parents were both Catholic and I went to Mass every Sunday until I was 23. So, sure it was a profound influence on my thinking, but eventually I followed my reason.

I have no evidence to hand for this, but I somehow doubt a child, never brought up in any faith influence, or exposed to any, would reason themselves into believing in a Deity, and further a Christian Deity, and even further, Catholicism in particular, as opposed to the any number of other Christian faiths available. There may be *some *examples of course, but I’m betting they are in the tiny minority of people from such circumstances.

Sarah x

I think some might reason themselves into believing in a deity, but I doubt anybody would reason himself into believing in one particular brand of theism. That would take faith influnce, I guess.

 

[belorg]

And just to be clear: Catholicism never proposes that we “limit” our reason to what faith tells us. If our reason tells us to reject an idea, we are obligated to reject the idea.

Then you actually start with reason, contaray to what you claim.
And do I have to remind you that hundredes of people whose reason told them to reject an idea were burned at the stake for doing so?

However, it should be noted that there is nothing in our faith that is contrary to reason.

Again if you arrive at that conclsuioon by reason, you put reason before your faith, and that is the right way to go.

There are simply truths that are proclaimed that may not be apprehended through reason alone (to wit: the dogma of the Trinity.)

Sorry, but my reason tells me to reject the Trinity, so I am obligated by Catholicism to reject that idea. Yet, I am also obligated by Catholicism to accept this idea.

 

[atheistgirl]

Sorry, but my reason tells me to reject the Trinity, so I am obligated by Catholicism to reject that idea. Yet, I am also obligated by Catholicism to accept this idea.

The entries in the Catechism on faith and reason are interesting. It’s clear from them, to my reading anyhow, you can’t reason your way to believing the truths of the Catholic Church. Faith is required, and Faith is a gift from God. Which makes sense I guess, because if you could reason your way to belief in God, and the truths of the Catholic Church, faith wouldn’t be required. Just reason.

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

Then you actually start with reason, contaray to what you claim.

This is a dichotomy I don’t wish to pursue. It’s irrelevant, in the end, whether one starts with faith and uses reason to come to the fullness of truth. Or that one uses reason and faith is bestrewn into the logic.

Neither vitiates the other.

The creation of false dichotomies is a waste of time. Faith vs reason. Science vs religion. Faith vs works. Scripture vs Tradition.

A great big waste o’ time. Since there need not be ONLY one or the other.

And do I have to remind you that hundredes of people whose reason told them to reject an idea were burned at the stake for doing so?

What reason did they proclaim that was contrary to the Church? And who burned them?

Please give specific examples of a person who stated that his reason told him to reject a particular church doctrine and then who burned him.

 

[PRmerger]

Again if you arrive at that conclsuioon by reason, you put reason before your faith, and that is the right way to go.

Were you aware that this* is a Church teaching? A teaching of the faith, belorg?

*However, it should be noted that there is nothing in our faith that is contrary to reason.

Sorry, but my reason tells me to reject the Trinity, so I am obligated by Catholicism to reject that idea. Yet, I am also obligated by Catholicism to accept this idea.

I doubt that you have ever even contemplated the Trinity, nor read any apologia on it, and that you could offer any coherent explication of the Catholic teaching, so your rejection of it is inutile.

I daresay that your explanation would be this: One God in 3 Persons. I don’t get it. Therefore, it’s not true.

 

[sophion]

How does starting with faith limit reason?

because faith makes you biased against anything that goes against your faith. look what happened to gallileo!

now look at the christian creationists, the islamic taliban and saudi arabia.

 

[PRmerger]

because faith makes you biased against anything that goes against your faith. look what happened to gallileo!

Firstly, what happened to Galileo? How does that apply to this discussion?

Secondly, your comment above comes from faith. You have faith that when one uses reason it will contradict faith.

So why do you get to use faith but a Believer can’t?

now look at the christian creationists, the islamic taliban and saudi arabia.

Yep–that’s where their reason has failed them.

 

[sophion]

Firstly, what happened to Galileo? How does that apply to this discussion?

his findings contradict the beliefs of faith at that time. and for that he was persecuted.

Secondly, your comment above comes from faith. You have faith that when one uses reason it will contradict faith.

So why do you get to use faith but a Believer can’t?

we all have faith, right? its just that the more faith one has, the less reasonable he gets. like the extremists. the most unreasonable people on earth!

 

[belorg]

Were you aware that this* is a Church teaching? A teaching of the faith, belorg?

*However, it should be noted that there is nothing in our faith that is contrary to reason.

Yes, I am aware of it and it proves my point. Because that is putting faith before reason.
Starting from this Church teaching, reason is limited from the outset;

I doubt that you have ever even contemplated the Trinity, nor read any apologia on it, and that you could offer any coherent explication of the Catholic teaching, so your rejection of it is inutile.

I have contemplated the Trinity, Merger. and I have read plenty of apologia on it. But, I must say, I started with reason and not with the prejudice that this doctrine cannot be contrary to reason. And guess what, it turns out contrary to reason.
But, of course, in order to find out that this is the case, one must start with an opene mind, and with Church teaching like “Nothing in our faith is contrary to reason” this is an impossible task.

I daresay that your explanation would be this: One God in 3 Persons. I don’t get it. Therefore, it’s not true.

Your psychic abilities are not really too impressive, because I daresay my explanation is not what you think it is. But I daresay you are going to claim once again that you know me better than I do.

 

[clem456]

we all have faith, right? its just that the more faith one has, the less reasonable he gets. like the extremists. the most unreasonable people on earth!

Faith and reason enhance and inform one another. Increased faith does not equal extremism.
If you want to understand more on the relation between faith and reason go here:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

Especially chapter 4, “THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON”

 

[struggleMt71314]

Sorry to interrupt some of the debate that is going on at this point in the thread, but I would like to make a response to the original post, which I thought was pretty interesting, especially the beginning.

Animal or human?

I’m actually at a point in my life where I would choose to be an animal. I would be willing to give up my intellectual choices guided by reason in favour of the life of an animal, if that were possible (and I have in the past asked God if He could change me into an animal, but I don’t think that works , although it seems possible since God is omnipotent). My main reason is that from what I understand (correct me if I’m wrong) it’s actually Catholic teaching or Catholic understanding that when animals die, that’s it. They don’t have an immortal soul like we do. That appeals to me because then I don’t have to worry about the possibility of going to hell.

So, yes, mgoforth, the original poster, does choose to assume “that most of us are happy being humans and wouldn’t choose to give up our intelligence and freedom of choice”. So I fall out of that category at this point. But I’m working on that.

Hell exists BECAUSE of God’s love! I’m not sure.

In response to the second part of mgoforth’s original post, I do have a universalist sort of theory related to the hell debate that counters his/her point. It seems possible to me that no one should go to hell (hell shouldn’t even exist), by virtue of the fact that no one would ever choose hell. In my mind, Who would actually choose an eternity of suffering? No one. It seems to me that, since everyone inherently desires the good, and thus would desire the ultimate good which is God, everyone would always freely choose to be with God, and so should go to heaven.

Even sin would not be a means of separating us from God, since even when we do something that’s bad we’re really trying to get something good out of it. So we’re still seeking and desiring the good, despite our faults. Just because we sin does not mean that we stop desiring to be with God. Thus we would always desire God. Thus we should all be with God eternally. God would never have to force His presence on anyone, because we all freely desire the good. It would not be a violation of our free will.

Any comments/criticisms/etc. is obviously appreciated and desired. Sorry for the length of the post. If this post seems too off-topic, feel free to ignore or send me a PM instead.