Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[belorg]

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.

Not every function nof the mind is in the function ‘reason’. But apprehending is done by reason. Feeling, hearing etc. are done bu the senses.

Really at this point it almost seems to me you have devoted your faith to reason.

No, I am merely following the definition of ‘apprehend’.

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).

I am not claiming that e.g. intuition cannot be useful. But not to apperhend things.

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

To live, yes.

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

Faith in a conditional sense, OK. Faith in an absolute sense, no.

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

OK. Actually, Alberto, I do n ot think out views on this differ that much. It’s probably a matter of semantics.

 

[belorg]

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.

Being immune to any evidence that contardicts a position is not reasonable, PR.

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!

If you use ‘faith’ the way Alberto and I have been using it, as a conditional and not as an absolute, then this kind of faith could come first. But not if faith is understood in an absolute sense. Because that kind of dogmatic faith makes reason impossible.

 

[belorg]

Sure. Just not reason alone.

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

Apprehending is done by reason. Lots of other things are done by other functions of the human body or mind. That’s not a question of fundamentalism, that just respecting a definition.

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

No, it is a reasonable hypothesis.

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.

No, of course not. It’s just a hypothesis, based on the actual meaning of the word ‘apprehend’.
And of course we have other tools, but apprehending something takes reason.

 

[PRmerger]

Not every function nof the mind is in the function ‘reason’. But apprehending is done by reason. Feeling, hearing etc. are done bu the senses.

Sure, apprehending is done by reason. Just not by ONLY reason.

In fact, if you used your reason-alone to apprehend why you were getting stabbed in the leg 4 times for immunizations when you were 5, you would have rejected that which your Daddy told you.

Reason would have told you: it makes no sense that stabbing me in the leg 4 times will stop me from getting sick next month. I reject that and therefore you cannot stab me.

Rather, what you ought to have done is have faith in your Daddy that, even if it didn’t make sense to you, it was a good thing to receive shots.

 

[PRmerger]

Apprehending is done by reason.

Sure. Just not by Reason Alone.

Why such a fundamentalist mindset?

I don’t understand the atheist insisting on an ONLY when such a limitation is not being imposed by anyone. Except for himself.

Again, it’s like saying, “Getting to Newark is done by train ONLY.”
Why does it have to be by train only? Why can’t I use my car?

The atheist says: because trains get you to Newark.

Ok. But so do cars.

 

[PRmerger]

Faith in a conditional sense, OK. Faith in an absolute sense, no.

What does this mean?

 

[PRmerger]

Being immune to any evidence that contardicts a position is not reasonable, PR.

And this is very Catholic of you to say, belorg.

If you use ‘faith’ the way Alberto and I have been using it, as a conditional and not as an absolute, then this kind of faith could come first. But not if faith is understood in an absolute sense. Because that kind of dogmatic faith makes reason impossible.

Sure. That also is very Catholic of you to say!

 

[Portofino]

Sure, apprehending is done by reason. Just not by ONLY reason.

In fact, if you used your reason-alone to apprehend why you were getting stabbed in the leg 4 times for immunizations when you were 5, you would have rejected that which your Daddy told you.

Reason would have told you: it makes no sense that stabbing me in the leg 4 times will stop me from getting sick next month. I reject that and therefore you cannot stab me.

Rather, what you ought to have done is have faith in your Daddy that, even if it didn’t make sense to you, it was a good thing to receive shots.

This is kind of an unfair example, given that a 5-year-old has not yet reached the “age of reason”

The fact is that a child is not rational enough to take care of itself. A child, left on its own, probably would not survive.

But let’s take the example of an adult who is told that he needs a particular surgery. The adult can do some reading into his condition, but let’s say the science of it is just too complicated for him to readily comprehend.

Now the question becomes – should he trust in the reason of the doctor? Trust is an emotion, but he doesn’t want to trust blindly. He wants to have reasonable grounds to trust this doctor. So he may at least get a second opinion from another doctor, or verify this doctor’s credentials and reputation in the field.

Also, to make an informed decision, he might ask for his odds and for what complications could ensue from this particular surgery; also, whether there are any alternatives to the surgery.

At some point, he will have to make some “leap of faith” based on his rational understanding of the situation – after all, reason cannot predict the future with certainty (“you have to understand that there are always risks”); and he cannot predict the performance of the doctor into whose hands he is putting his life, only have a reasonable trust in that doctor’s expertise.

Reason is, indeed, a tool for survival; if you make mistakes in your reasoning, you can lose your life (for example, “do I evacuate my house, given this impending storm? Do I trust the reports that I should evacuate? Am I willing to take my chances, in view of there being things I don’t want to leave behind?”)

The issue of trust is an interesting one, however, within the context of love. Love “hopes all things”, and this hope can – at times – be a hope that is seemingly against reason. There are reasonable limits to “hoping all things,” though it is hard to know where to draw the line.

For example – “this person has lied to me, cheated me, and abused me repeatedly. I’m going to continue to trust him, anyway.” It is not clear whether there is wisdom or reason in such trust, even with the best of intentions.

But if you say, “this person has always been good to me; and I know he cares for me; but he faltered. I’m going to take a risk in trusting him again, regardless,” you are expressing reasonable hope.

Reason has to be in there somewhere, presumably, just as reason is in the idea that "I know the surgery has risks, and I know the doctor is simply a human being who can make mistakes, but I am going to reasonably trust or reasonably hope that things go well, especially since my condition is other incurable.

But trusting that someone who says, “mark my words, if you enter this house ever again, I will kill you and the baby” does not really mean it, may not be a reasonable or prudent course of action, no matter how good one’s intentions.

 

[Alberto_Q_CM]

Not every function nof the mind is in the function ‘reason’. But apprehending is done by reason. Feeling, hearing etc. are done bu the senses.
No, I am merely following the definition of ‘apprehend’.
I am not claiming that e.g. intuition cannot be useful. But not to apperhend things.

I’m not of English language but in Oxford dictionary ( oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/apprehend?q=apprehend ) I found:
To apprehend =
=“understand or perceive:
we enter a field of vision we could not otherwise apprehend.
Archaic anticipate (something) with uneasiness or fear: he is a man that apprehends death no more dreadfully but as a drunken sleep”.
And again taking US-English, from the same dictionary ( oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/apprehend?q=apprehend ), the example is the following: “understand or perceive: great art invites us to apprehend beauty” I let English speaking friends of the forum give better explications.
In this meaning, it doesn’t seem you are right. This is valid for love, faith, hope, senses, human experience in general…
Only if you use ‘to apprehend’ only for reason and exclude different allowable uses from your one, it could be true. But in this case it becomes a circular argument.

Faith in a conditional sense, OK. Faith in an absolute sense, no.

Every ‘tool’ I have cited can be used by human beings only in conditional sense (including, obviously, reason).

OK. Actually, Alberto, I do n ot think out views on this differ that much. It’s probably a matter of semantics.

I apologize another time. I try again:
I agreed with the specific consideration you made in that post.
Thinking in Italian can give this kind of problems.

 

[belorg]

Sure, apprehending is done by reason. Just not by ONLY reason.

In fact, if you used your reason-alone to apprehend why you were getting stabbed in the leg 4 times for immunizations when you were 5, you would have rejected that which your Daddy told you.

Reason would have told you: it makes no sense that stabbing me in the leg 4 times will stop me from getting sick next month. I reject that and therefore you cannot stab me.

Maybe that is what my five-year-old reason would have told me, yes.
And my father’s forty-year-old-reason would have apprehended that being stabbed 4 times was necessary.

Rather, what you ought to have done is have faith in your Daddy that, even if it didn’t make sense to you, it was a good thing to receive shots.

That’s what a five-year-old would understand if he/she had the same ability to reason as his/her Daddy had. But since her/she does not have that ability, he/she is forced to accept what his/her Daddy tells. And in this case, that’s a good thing. However, if he/she has faith in his/her Daddy, who tells him/her that having sex with him is OK, then he/she has sex with Daddy, which, I would think is not all that good. So, your point is?
It can sometimes be good to yes act on faith even though you haven('t got any idea wheter this is good for you or not? Yes, it probably is. But the question is: does the child understand the good of immunizations without using reason? I very much doubt it.

 

[belorg]

Sure. Just not by Reason Alone.

Why such a fundamentalist mindset?

I don’t understand the atheist insisting on an ONLY when such a limitation is not being imposed by anyone. Except for himself.

Again, it’s like saying, “Getting to Newark is done by train ONLY.”
Why does it have to be by train only? Why can’t I use my car?

The atheist says: because trains get you to Newark.

Ok. But so do cars.

Because of the definition of apprehend, PR.
There is nothing in the definition of Newark that says you can only get there by train. Apprehend, on the other hand entails that understanding, which is done by reason. The ‘other things’ you mention are comprised in what it is to really ‘reason’.

 

[belorg]

And this is very Catholic of you to say, belorg.

So, what are we arguing about?
So, if I have some reasonable ragument against some Catholic dogma, are you going to take it serious?

Sure. That also is very Catholic of you to say!

I am glad you finally acknowledge that the Catholic faith is not absolute. How about you and I joining our forces to try and convince the Pope?

 

[PRmerger]

This is kind of an unfair example, given that a 5-year-old has not yet reached the “age of reason”

Maybe that is what my five-year-old reason would have told me, yes.

Remember, folks, when we are talking about the human person, compared to the Infinite Omniscience, comparing us to a 5 year old is very, very generous.

Again, it is more accurate to say that our reasoning skills are closer to a turnip than to a 5 year old.

So if we say, “Reason is all we have to apprehend the Truth” (and, remember, reason cannot prove this. That is a faith-based assertion.) we are using only a (generously) 5 yr old ability to comprehend the Numinous.

 

[PRmerger]

So, what are we arguing about?
So, if I have some reasonable ragument against some Catholic dogma, are you going to take it serious?

Absolutely.

whatshouldwecallme.tumblr.com/post/21635002005/when-a-guy-plays-hard-to-get-with-me

What’s your best argument against a Catholic dogma?

 

[Peter_Plato]

The issue of trust is an interesting one, however, within the context of love. Love “hopes all things”, and this hope can – at times – be a hope that is seemingly against reason. There are reasonable limits to “hoping all things,” though it is hard to know where to draw the line.

The idea of “hoping all things” in the context it was written is something like: “a hope that all things will end in good” regardless of what is currently happening. I am certain that both Peter and Paul would have had this kind of hope in mind as they were being crucified or beheaded.

The motive for this kind of hope would be an understanding, acceptance and trust in the omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of God. The reason it is called hope - in other contexts, hope for the hopeless or hope beyond hope - is because trust in self or other humans would mitigate the kind of hope and trust in God required by the circumstances, say facing martyrdom or great risk.

The question as to whether this kind of hope is ever reasonable would come down to the person’s understanding and love of God. It might be reasonable for people like Peter and Paul to trust in the face of martyrdom, though it might not appear “reasonable” to someone who hasn’t paid God an iota of attention in their life. Obviously, there is a different rational framework operating in the two cases.

I suspect that the rational framework that compelled Peter and Paul to accept martyrdom and, before that, lives dedicated to God, lends credence to the idea that God is trustworthy (given the exponential growth of the early Church that followed), than the tentative and unheroic notion of trust that “naturally” arises from rational self-interest.

This trust in self or one’s rational abilities is, when you think about it, at ground, irrational. We did not bring ourselves into being, nor do we sustain our own existence other than by providing physical necessities. What “holds us in being” is quite mysterious and trust in that relies on whether we believe our existence is “accidental” or purposeful. He are here because of the action of a higher power or all of existence just is with no purpose or meaning.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So, what are we arguing about?
So, if I have some reasonable ragument against some Catholic dogma, are you going to take it serious?

That would all depend on what a ragument actually is.

Is a ragument by nature tongue-in-cheek or serious?

 

[PRmerger]

Apprehending is done by reason.

Sure. Just not by reason alone.

Lots of other things are done by other functions of the human body or mind.

Indeed. It’s a non-sequitur, but true nontheless.

That’s not a question of fundamentalism, that just respecting a definition.

Anytime a person makes a dogmatic statement (i.e. “Reason alone is the ONLY tool we have to apprehend the Truth”) and refuses to consider the other possibilities, that is the definition of fundamentalism.

Catholicism proclaims very little that is an ONLY.

That’s why it’s so very hard to refute Catholicism. The objector typically loses when he assumes an “ONLY” paradigm. The Bible ONLY? Why should it be the ONLY?

We typically say: sure. The Bible is a channel of God’s Word… No disagreement there. It’s just not the ONLY channel.

So it’s hard to refute the Catholic because we don’t disagree with the position proffered by the objector.

We just don’t limit and constrain ourselves to fundamentalist fanaticism that declares an absolute ONLY.

In fact, the ONLY “alone” I can think of in Catholicism is that we are saved by Jesus alone.

But even that is not an absolute ONLY. Jesus without His Body, the Church, is a Jesus that’s been de-capitated.

So even the Catholic Jesus ONLY paradigm needs to be understood with some nuance.

 

[PRmerger]

No, it is a reasonable hypothesis.

Heh. You do realize what you’ve just done, right, belorg? You’ve just set yourself up.

For what is a hypothesis but a statement of faith that needs testing?

So you start with faith and then reason to the Truth.

 

[PRmerger]

But let’s take the example of an adult who is told that he needs a particular surgery. The adult can do some reading into his condition, but let’s say the science of it is just too complicated for him to readily comprehend.

Now the question becomes – should he trust in the reason of the doctor? Trust is an emotion, but he doesn’t want to trust blindly. He wants to have reasonable grounds to trust this doctor. So he may at least get a second opinion from another doctor, or verify this doctor’s credentials and reputation in the field.

Also, to make an informed decision, he might ask for his odds and for what complications could ensue from this particular surgery; also, whether there are any alternatives to the surgery.

At some point, he will have to make some “leap of faith” based on his rational understanding of the situation – after all, reason cannot predict the future with certainty (“you have to understand that there are always risks”); and he cannot predict the performance of the doctor into whose hands he is putting his life, only have a reasonable trust in that doctor’s expertise.

Reason is, indeed, a tool for survival; if you make mistakes in your reasoning, you can lose your life (for example, “do I evacuate my house, given this impending storm? Do I trust the reports that I should evacuate? Am I willing to take my chances, in view of there being things I don’t want to leave behind?”)

The issue of trust is an interesting one, however, within the context of love. Love “hopes all things”, and this hope can – at times – be a hope that is seemingly against reason. There are reasonable limits to “hoping all things,” though it is hard to know where to draw the line.

For example – “this person has lied to me, cheated me, and abused me repeatedly. I’m going to continue to trust him, anyway.” It is not clear whether there is wisdom or reason in such trust, even with the best of intentions.

But if you say, “this person has always been good to me; and I know he cares for me; but he faltered. I’m going to take a risk in trusting him again, regardless,” you are expressing reasonable hope.

Reason has to be in there somewhere, presumably, just as reason is in the idea that "I know the surgery has risks, and I know the doctor is simply a human being who can make mistakes, but I am going to reasonably trust or reasonably hope that things go well, especially since my condition is other incurable.

But trusting that someone who says, “mark my words, if you enter this house ever again, I will kill you and the baby” does not really mean it, may not be a reasonable or prudent course of action, no matter how good one’s intentions.

I appreciate the argument, Portofino. But it seems as if you thought you were in a discussion with someone you had to convince of the merits of reason?

I can assure you that there is no need to provide any apologia to Catholics for the use of reason.

We are just not Reason Fundamentalists. Catholics reject Reason Alone.

As should you.

Incidentally, we also reject Faith Alone.

The Catholic paradigm is both/and.

 

[PRmerger]

I am glad you finally acknowledge that the Catholic faith is not absolute. How about you and I joining our forces to try and convince the Pope?

Perhaps you left the Church before Pope John Paul II wrote the magnificent encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason)?

For that could be the ONLY (ha!) reason that could explain your dismal knowledge of what our popes have proclaimed regarding faith and reason.

Incidentally, you also seem to be confusing The Catholic Faith with our current topic, which is faith.