Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[belorg]

Think of this analogy, belorg.

Immunity is achieved through vaccinations.
So vaccinations are the only way to achieve immunity

says the person who is truly logically inept.

Remember, by your reasoning would have to discount intravenous immnoglobulins, passive immunity, natural immunity…

See?

This is probably an analogy based on faith, because it makes absolutely no reasonable sense. How many strawmen are you planning to erect?

 

[belorg]

This is true. God cannot reason, because that means entertaining a position and then apprehending another position.

Rather, God is Reason.

So, we don’t need faith after all.Just reason. Wasn’t that my point?

 

[PRmerger]

This is probably an analogy based on faith, because it makes absolutely no reasonable sense. How many strawmen are you planning to erect?

I wanted sooo much to believe that you could understand analogies. And think in the abstract.

But I am, it appears, bitterly disappointed. :sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

So, we don’t need faith after all.Just reason. Wasn’t that my point?

There is no reason for you to be like the fundamentalists who think in all things there must be an “ONLY.”

The Bible ONLY.
Me and Jesus ONLY.

Why the fundamentalist mindset, belorg?

Is there some reason (ha!) you think that the human person is constricted to use only one method to apprehend the truth?

It’s like saying, “I believe we must use the horse and buggy ONLY!”
The Catholic position is: we will use whatever licit means there is to get to our destination.

That seems like the logical way, yes?

 

[Deers]

those scientists are not known for being religious. so how do you know they lived by faith?

Seriously? Galileo was a devout Catholic until his death (he was even a good friend of Pope Urban VIII). Newton is well known as a deeply religious Christian and Gregor Mendel was an Augustian monk. On the top of my head I could name
Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, René Descartes, Louis Pasteur, Francis Bacon and George Lemaitre; all of whom are devout Catholic scientists (and I’m sure the actual list is much longer, and if we were to include non-Catholic Christians, the list would be even longer!)

 

[PRmerger]

Seriously? Galileo was a devout Catholic until his death (he was even a good friend of Pope Urban VIII). Newton is well known as a deeply religious Christian and Gregor Mendel was an Augustian monk. On the top of my head I could name
Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, René Descartes, Louis Pasteur, Francis Bacon and George Lemaitre; all of whom are devout Catholic scientists (and I’m sure the actual list is much longer, and if we were to include non-Catholic Christians, the list would be even longer!)

Indeed.

Check out this list of Catholics who were great contributors to science.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric%E2%80%93scientists

 

[belorg]

I wanted sooo much to believe that you could understand analogies. And think in the abstract.

But I am, it appears, bitterly disappointed. :sad_yes:

I can understand analogies that make sense. Yours doesn’t.

 

[belorg]

There is no reason for you to be like the fundamentalists who think in all things there must be an “ONLY.”

The Bible ONLY.
Me and Jesus ONLY.

Why the fundamentalist mindset, belorg?

Is there some reason (ha!) you think that the human person is constricted to use only one method to apprehend the truth?

Yes, because as I said, ‘Apprehend’ is by definition done by reason. And indeed the human mind is not omniscient and that why it is constricted to reason. It’s not a prefect tool, but it’s the ‘only’ tool we have.

It’s like saying, “I believe we must use the horse and buggy ONLY!”
The Catholic position is: we will use whatever licit means there is to get to our destination.

That seems like the logical way, yes?

Of course we must use whatever licit means there is. But the ‘only’ licit means we have is reason. We cannot assess reason by faith, but we can assess faith by reason, at least to some point. Beyond that point, there is only a choice of which ‘faith’ makes you feel better. And that choice, is, by definition, subjective. That does not make it wrong as such, of course, but it means your choice and my choice are equally valid (or invalid).

 

[clem456]

Yes, because as I said, ‘Apprehend’ is by definition done by reason. And indeed the human mind is not omniscient and that why it is constricted to reason. It’s not a prefect tool, but it’s the ‘only’ tool we have.

Of course we must use whatever licit means there is. But the ‘only’ licit means we have is reason. We cannot assess reason by faith, but we can assess faith by reason, at least to some point. Beyond that point, there is only a choice of which ‘faith’ makes you feel better. And that choice, is, by definition, subjective. That does not make it wrong as such, of course, but it means your choice and my choice are equally valid (or invalid).

This is just plain foolishness. The refutation to reason alone is self evident: If reason is king, we would have thriving atheist societies, who have successfully stamped out the practice of faith. Many societies have attempted to snuff out faith and substitute “sola ratio”, and where are they? They crumble of their own foolishness. Every. Single. Time. The Soviet Union being the prime example. The atheist dream state crumbled to small bitty pieces without a shot being fired, destroyed by the simple faith of the people it tried to oppress. Yet we have the assertion that faith has little power. :whacky: We are in looney tunes land here folks. Even medical specialists, doctors, nurses, researchers, will tell you how important faith is, how much better outcomes are for believers. Yet we have the assertion that faith is mere superstition. Spare me the nonsense.

Reason and sensory experience is king, yet we cannot get 5 people to give the exact same details at the scene of a crime. Yes, reason and sense data are all we need.:whacky: (my apologies to the Beatles)

 

[belorg]

This is just plain foolishness. The refutation to reason alone is self evident: If reason is king, we would have thriving atheist societies, who have successfully stamped out the practice of faith. Many societies have attempted to snuff out faith and substitute “sola ratio”, and where are they? They crumble of their own foolishness. Every. Single. Time. The Soviet Union being the prime example. The atheist dream state crumbled to small bitty pieces without a shot being fired, destroyed by the simple faith of the people it tried to oppress. Yet we have the assertion that faith has little power. :whacky: We are in looney tunes land here folks. Even medical specialists, doctors, nurses, researchers, will tell you how important faith is, how much better outcomes are for believers. Yet we have the assertion that faith is mere superstition. Spare me the nonsense.

If as you say, if reason were king, we would have thriving atheist societies, you mean that the only reasonable option is being an atheist? That’s what is implied by your assertion.
The reason those societies you describe were not thriving is precisely because they were not reasonable. Atheism can be dangerous if it is faith-based and not reason-based.
And I have never claimed that faith cannot be important. What I claimed is that in order to come as closely as possible to the trith, reason must come first, because it is a necessary tool to apprehend anything.

Reason and sensory experience is king, yet we cannot get 5 people to give the exact same details at the scene of a crime. Yes, reason and sense data are all we need.:whacky: (my apologies to the Beatles)

Reason and sense data are all we have, clem. Would you like to be convicted for a crime because someone claims he believes you did it?

 

[Alberto_Q_CM]

Yes, because as I said, ‘Apprehend’ is by definition done by reason. And indeed the human mind is not omniscient and that why it is constricted to reason. It’s not a prefect tool, but it’s the ‘only’ tool we have.

We have a lot of other tools, reason is one tool, faith is one tool (for example to believe that in the next seconds we will be yet living), the senses are others tools (they give indispensable material for reasoning), hope is also a tool (if I don’t hope that my mind can discover new things, probably, I wouldn’t try to know new things in the nature), love also is a tool (and there are times in which love sees farer than reasoning) etc. …

Of course we must use whatever licit means there is. But the ‘only’ licit means we have is reason. We cannot assess reason by faith, but we can assess faith by reason, at least to some point.

If you say “the ‘only’ licit” you impoverish your abilities, you exclude, for example, love, or hope, from the licit things… Reason has useful functions, but cannot stay alone (see other tools cited). Anyway only to some point reason can assess faith, as you said. And faith remains indispensable. You can work on this faith, use it for various aims, also assess it with senses, analyse results of its use, but you must have some kind of it. Also because, from a human point of view, there’s ever something else beyond reason, and beyond every knowledgeable existing thing in this universe; and reason evolves itself.

Beyond that point, there is only a choice of which ‘faith’ makes you feel better. And that choice, is, by definition, subjective. That does not make it wrong as such, of course, but it means your choice and my choice are equally valid (or invalid).

Reason, not an absolute in any case, needs faith also to propose theories and hypothesis. Then, it’s simple saying: if reason, claimed as the most important thing by a lot of philosophers and thinker (also being defective), has conducted to terrible disasters in history, it was not reasonable. But in those times, and in those places, a lot of men were convinced to be great reasoners. Anyway, if one affirms that all the good of history was good because was produced by good reasoning, he shows a faith in this theory, or he makes an auto-founded assertion.

 

[belorg]

We have a lot of other tools, reason is one tool, faith is one tool (for example to believe that in the next seconds we will be yet living), the senses are others tools (they give indispensable material for reasoning), hope is also a tool (if I don’t hope that my mind can discover new things, probably, I wouldn’t try to know new things in the nature), love also is a tool (and there are times in which love sees farer than reasoning) etc. …

Those other tools may be useful, but not to apprehend things. You do not apprehend things by faith, by love, by hope… You are right about one thing, though: we also need our senses, but I thought that was obvious. Anyway, our senses need interpretation, and therefore we need reason.

If you say “the ‘only’ licit” you impoverish your abilities, you exclude, for example, love, or hope, from the licit things… Reason has useful functions, but cannot stay alone (see other tools cited). Anyway only to some point reason can assess faith, as you said. And faith remains indispensable. You can work on this faith, use it for various aims, also assess it with senses, analyse results of its use, but you must have some kind of it. Also because, from a human point of view, there’s ever something else beyond reason, and beyond every knowledgeable existing thing in this universe; and reason evolves itself.

The only licit for apprehending something. And of course reason evolves, becasue reason is not restricted to individuals.

Reason, not an absolute in any case, needs faith also to propose theories and hypothesis. Then, it’s simple saying: if reason, claimed as the most important thing by a lot of philosophers and thinker (also being defective), has conducted to terrible disasters in history, it was not reasonable. But in those times, and in those places, a lot of men were convinced to be great reasoners. Anyway, if one affirms that all the good of history was good because was produced by good reasoning, he shows a faith in this theory, or he makes an auto-founded assertion.

Faith to propose theories etc, yes, but this “faith” is not absolute and cannot be absolute.
And what you say about terrible disasters is true, but it is due to the fact that human reasoning is not perfect.
So, I wouldn’t go as far as to claim that all the good in history was produces by good reasoning, because that would be an absolute statement and I do not think there’s too many knowable absolutes.

 

[Alberto_Q_CM]

Those other tools may be useful, but not to apprehend things. You do not apprehend things by faith, by love, by hope… You are right about one thing, though: we also need our senses, but I thought that was obvious.

Obvious, but really indispensable as much as reason. Reason MUST work with a lot of other things.
And if you consider “to apprehend” to be an exclusive function of reason, could make it, but you have faith in this. On the contrary, through love one can apprehend not to take revenge, to give his own life to the others or to an idea, to save a life risking his own life, to kiss a son and to consider him more important than money, than things etc. Hope teaches to believe in a better future also when things go badly (and limited reason gives poor evidence of that), teaches to continue to bet on some dreams of one’s life… Some kind of faith makes to learn that future could be as I want it could be, working hard, respecting the neighbour, even accepting hard events of the life that sometimes take off one’s hope. When I appraise a person, I cannot use exclusively reason, if it was so, everyone should appraise in the same way.

And of course reason evolves, becasue reason is not restricted to individuals.

If it evolves and is not restricted to individuals, it gives different results, according to times, to places, to cultures, to every individual (I know innumerable thinkers sure of their right reasoning, but all they reach different conclusions). Not a too much sure tool for Men; however very useful, I don’t deny.

Faith to propose theories etc, yes, but this “faith” is not absolute and cannot be absolute.

I’ve never said faith is absolute. It is a tool (of men’s mind) (as reason), perhaps, don’t you believe?

And what you say about terrible disasters is true, but it is due to the fact that human reasoning is not perfect.
So, I wouldn’t go as far as to claim that all the good in history was produces by good reasoning, because that would be an absolute statement and I do not think there’s too many knowable absolutes.

I underline, almost anything.

 

[Portofino]

Not all theology begins with human reason. A reasonable understanding of faith has a clear idea of where nature leaves off and revelation begins. An irrational notion of reason is that human reason alone has all possible truth accessible to it. Where is the unlimited capacity of reason established by reason?

There is, of course, disagreement as to the limits of reason; and, ironically, theologians and metaphysicians tend to ascribe more abilities to reason, than is generally accepted. For example, most philosophers believe that the existence of God – or the existence of revelation itself – cannot be proven through reason, and some (like David Hume) believe that metaphysics in general constitutes an overestimation of the powers of reason.

had a problem seeing where the limits of reason were and therefore could not accept that some truths have to come via revelation or not be grasped at all.

Sounds like the occupational hazard of metaphysics and theology In the eyes of many, both of these overestimate the power of reason. Much of metaphysics is necessarily speculative (e.g., the metaphysics of Hegel), and there is no consensus as to whether revelation itself can be proven through reason alone. Thus, it is unclear whether: 1. reason cannot give us all the answers, but is the best we can hope to do; or 2. what reason cannot give us, revelation can and has given us.

What I do know is, if revelation exists, I cannot exclude the possibility that Bruno enjoyed private revelation, also sometimes known as inspiration (though even the revelation given to Abraham was private, before it was shared with others). For all I know, the Holy Spirit (or the “spirit of the universe”) had whispered into Bruno’s ear. For me, as a non-Catholic, the fact that his philosophy clearly contradicts Church teaching does not exclude the possibility that he was speaking the truth.

 

[belorg]

Obvious, but really indispensable as much as reason. Reason MUST work with a lot of other things.
And if you consider “to apprehend” to be an exclusive function of reason, could make it, but you have faith in this. On the contrary, through love one can apprehend not to take revenge, to give his own life to the others or to an idea, to save a life risking his own life, to kiss a son and to consider him more important than money, than things etc. Hope teaches to believe in a better future also when things go badly (and limited reason gives poor evidence of that), teaches to continue to bet on some dreams of one’s life… Some kind of faith makes to learn that future could be as I want it could be, working hard, respecting the neighbour, even accepting hard events of the life that sometimes take off one’s hope. When I appraise a person, I cannot use exclusively reason, if it was so, everyone should appraise in the same way.

I think all the examples you have given are actually examples of reason, Alberto.
And if you appraise a person you can use exclusively reason and yes, that means that, if everybody’s reasoning were completely without any flaws, everyone would appraise in the same way. But reason is a function of the human mind, which is not perfect. And that’s why we do not appraise in the same way.

If it evolves and is not restricted to individuals, it gives different results, according to times, to places, to cultures, to every individual (I know innumerable thinkers sure of their right reasoning, but all they reach different conclusions). Not a too much sure tool for Men; however very useful, I don’t deny.

Nothing is a ‘sure’ tool, Alberto.

I’ve never said faith is absolute. It is a tool (of men’s mind) (as reason), perhaps, don’t you believe?

Yes, faith can be a tool to serve reason.

I underline, almost anything.

I’m not sure I understand. Is almost anything a knowable absolute, according to you?

 

[belorg]

What I do know is, if revelation exists, I cannot exclude the possibility that Bruno enjoyed private revelation, also sometimes known as inspiration (though even the revelation given to Abraham was private, before it was shared with others). For all I know, the Holy Spirit (or the “spirit of the universe”) had whispered into Bruno’s ear. For me, as a non-Catholic, the fact that his philosophy clearly contradicts Church teaching does not exclude the possibility that he was speaking the truth.

I think you have hit the core of the problem here, Portofino. And that’s why I say reason has to come first, because only reason might teach us which is the correct revelation (if there is one)

 

[pig]

I think you have hit the core of the problem here, Portofino. And that’s why I say reason has to come first, because only reason might teach us which is the correct revelation (if there is one)

if ones reason is open to the possibility of Divine Revelation, that is.

 

[PRmerger]

I think you have hit the core of the problem here, Portofino. And that’s why I say reason has to come first, because only reason might teach us which is the correct revelation (if there is one)

That’s fine.

Just as long as you’re not proclaiming to be a Reason Only Fundamentalist. For we all know that Fundamentalists are immune to any evidence that contradicts their narrow position.

But reason first? Sure. I have no problem with that. I happen to believe that we start with faith and through reason apprehend the truth. But if you want to start with reason and through faith apprehend the truth, that’s just peachy!

Just not reason alone.

That’s just unreasonable.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, because as I said, ‘Apprehend’ is by definition done by reason.

Sure. Just not reason alone.

It’s the “alone” part that puts all the fundamentalists in error.

And indeed the human mind is not omniscient and that why it is constricted to reason. It’s not a prefect tool, but it’s the ‘only’ tool we have.

That’s another faith-based assertion you’re proclaiming.

There is no scientific evidence that can prove that reason is the “ONLY” tool we have. Reason alone cannot prove that reason is the only tool we have.

 

[Alberto_Q_CM]

I think all the examples you have given are actually examples of reason, Alberto.
And if you appraise a person you can use exclusively reason and yes, that means that, if everybody’s reasoning were completely without any flaws, everyone would appraise in the same way. But reason is a function of the human mind, which is not perfect. And that’s why we do not appraise in the same way.

Are examples of reason PLUS love, faith, hope, senses etc.
Reason is one tool, not perfect, and it needs necessarily other tools. Unless one puts every function of mind in the function ‘reason’, but this is again a faith or a presupposition not based on facts.
Really at this point it almost seems to me you have devoted your faith to reason.
Recently, I’ve read, with pleasure I have to say, Terry Goodkind’s Sword of Truth saga; apart that it is a fantasy work, I’ve noted that the reason (after ten books and with magics, battles etc.) solves the great problem represented by a fundamentalist faith that is destroying culturally the world. In the end (and also during the story) the hero states that only reason can save them (for example, during his story he almost thinks according to his reason, that he haven’t to believe in his fate, but in some way he continues to hope and to believe his life must be devoted at the cause he calls reason - but that is a lot of other things: peace, love, respect, coherence…). And furthermore it was reason (and some kind of faith, and other ‘tools’) against a fundamentalist faith, that usually tends to destroy reason (and a lot of other things, as love, respect, some kind of hope, other faiths etc.). That was a case in which reason is very useful; but I repeat, not only reason. For example, according to reason in the conditions told by the book, it would be better, be reasonable, to surrender; but the protagonist didn’t, for faith in reason (among other things).

Nothing is a ‘sure’ tool, Alberto.

Also because of that it is necessary to use various tool to live.

Yes, faith can be a tool to serve reason.

And faith is a tool to better reason, in the innumerable cases in which reason cannot give certainty.

I’m not sure I understand. Is almost anything a knowable absolute, according to you?

Excuse me, here, my poor English has given problems: I should say: “I subscribe almost everything” of it, or something similar.