How much freedom?

[aragonjohn1]

“Dude”, you are playing fast and loose with the word “faith”. I am talking about the “epistemological faith”, which is exactly the opposite of reason, as indicated in Hebrews 11:1. If you wish to conduct a conversation, do not change the topic. And don’t talk to me about those “great aplogists”. I read many of their works, and I was not impressed by their intellectual honesty (I would prefer to use a much stronger phrase, but the “charity” rule disallows to speak one’s mind).

epis·te·mol·o·gy
noun
: the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity

Yes that’s what I was talking about, why can’t a Christian study science or non-science in relation to this? Many scientists try to do this to the faith even though they know nothing about it. So are they exercising their freedom in this area too much or are Christian apologists and scientists?

Shalom
God bless you on journey

 

[aragonjohn1]

Always gratifying to have agreement across the “abyss”.

I am not disputing what you say. That is not a problem, and I am not necessarily looking for empirical evidence. There is, however, the most important part missing, namely “HOW can we know?”. Which one of the zillions of “proofs” for God’s existence does the church endorse?

St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:2:3; Cont. Gent., I, xiii) and after him many scholastic writers advance the five following arguments to prove the existence of God:

Motion, i.e. the passing from power to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.
For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them operating in this world, imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and this is God.
The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.
The graduated perfections of being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e., an infinitely perfect Being such as God.
The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.

Here are a few more that are recognized in church discipline

• newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm

( I do admire you’re search for objective and empirical proofs ignoring subjective proofs )

Shalom
God bless

 

[jimmy]

“Dude”, you are playing fast and loose with the word “faith”. I am talking about the “epistemological faith”, which is exactly the opposite of reason, as indicated in Hebrews 11:1. If you wish to conduct a conversation, do not change the topic. And don’t talk to me about those “great aplogists”. I read many of their works, and I was not impressed by their intellectual honesty (I would prefer to use a much stronger phrase, but the “charity” rule disallows to speak one’s mind).

Faith and reason aren’t opposed in any way. Faith isn’t a choice despite reason, or contrary to reason. I have faith because of my reason, even if I didn’t reason out everything I believe from nothing. Reason provided the beginning of it.

For you to say they are contradictory is to define it differently than those who support the whole concept of faith. So it is you who are changing the subject. You define it in a way that no one would agree with, and then get angry when no one agrees.

 

[Trurl]

This is historically inaccurate. For example, the Spanish Inquisition was/is considered the most horrendous of all inquisitions (in popular Western culture). Historians state 2000 individuals were put to death due to the inquisition under in Spain over a 700 year period. There is more put to death in the state of Texas in 10 years than the whole Spanish Inquisition. So why the bad reputation for the Spanish? Look to popular ‘enlightenment’ writers such as Edger Allen Poe, etc.

Just my opinion. Kindly - James

I was not quoting numbers. Even one instance would be too much. The point was that one cannot make blanket statements based upon the person’s religious affiliation (or lack of it). Texas is not a good example. The people of Texas are overwhelmingly christian, and a sizable portion is catholic. Why don’t we contemplate a really atheistic country, like the Scandinavian countries, where there in no capital punishment.

 

[jimmy]

I was not quoting numbers. Even one instance would be too much. The point was that one cannot make blanket statements based upon the person’s religious affiliation (or lack of it). Texas is not a good example. The people of Texas are overwhelmingly christian, and a sizable portion is catholic. Why don’t we contemplate a really atheistic country, like the Scandinavian countries, where there in no capital punishment.

Or China for that matter.

 

[Trurl]

You did dispute. You originally said you did not argue and it was a huge error. I explained why it is not an error. Now you say you are not disputting.

You are mistaken. I did not dispute the accuracy of your quote. I pointed out the circular reasoning as the logical error. And, of course I pointed out that the quotation is just an empty assertion, without “meat”.

Many Atheist do state the necessity for the Universe to have an origin. It’s part of science and you can’t just say that part of science is not important because it’s already here.

No, it is not part of science. The Big Bang theory does not state that the universe started then. It simply says that there was the singularity, which “exploded” (not really exploded, but there is no better word for it). Our current physics cannot get “into” the singularity.

We are carrying many topics at once. I find that to be too troublesome as I am also comment on other blogs as well. Lets just stick with this one issue if you don’t mind. I’m not interested in proving Lourdes/Miracles/Resurrection, etc because that is a big to-do and I’m sure you will denouce any emperical, logical evidence as “mythological - chance”.

Sure. Just pick your topic. I am game.

 

[Trurl]

St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:2:3; Cont. Gent., I, xiii) and after him many scholastic writers advance the five following arguments to prove the existence of God:

Motion, i.e. the passing from power to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.
For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them operating in this world, imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and this is God.
The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.
The graduated perfections of being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e., an infinitely perfect Being such as God.
The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.

Here are a few more that are recognized in church discipline

• newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm

( I do admire you’re search for objective and empirical proofs ignoring subjective proofs )

All of them are based upon incorrect metaphysical assumptions and have been refuted many times.

 

[Trurl]

Faith and reason aren’t opposed in any way. Faith isn’t a choice despite reason, or contrary to reason. I have faith because of my reason, even if I didn’t reason out everything I believe from nothing. Reason provided the beginning of it.

For you to say they are contradictory is to define it differently than those who support the whole concept of faith. So it is you who are changing the subject. You define it in a way that no one would agree with, and then get angry when no one agrees.

I am using it as Hebrews 11:1 does. Which clearly states the things one “hopes for”, and the “things unseen” (which means without evidence for them). That is “faith” as opposed to examining reality and drawing inferences for the observation. That is the rational approch.

 

[Trurl]

I suggest we return to the topic of the thread.

1. Not all people have the same amount of freedom.
2. Not all people should have the same amount of freedom.
3. We habitually curtail the freedom of those who use it in an inappropriate manner.
4. No one argues that this method is incorrect, and should be changed.
5. When we have information about some people intending to use their freedom which is detrimental to others, we do interfere and prevent it. (Too bad it happens rarely)
6. When such interference happens, everyone considers it proper (with the exception of the perps, of course).

Based upon these premises I am questioning the “wisdom” that God does not use the same guidelines, and does not place boundaries on the freedom of certain people, and does not prevent certain intended acts from being carried out.

So far I did not see a valuable reply. I do not expect to see one. But I would love to be surprised. So, surprize me.

 

[JaKael02]

Trule - I think your agnostic and not atheist. You declare yourself an atheist right?

 

[Bill_7154]

No, it is not part of science. The Big Bang theory does not state that the universe started then. It simply says that there was the singularity, which “exploded” (not really exploded, but there is no better word for it). Our current physics cannot get “into” the singularity.
.

How did the planets all wind up being round if the big bang theory is true? I find that odd. Maybe it’s a non issue, I just find it very odd.

 

[aragonjohn1]

All of them are based upon incorrect metaphysical assumptions and have been refuted many times.

two of them actually have been challenged but not refuted. they are based of off the same metaphysical assumpions that aristotle and many modern non-christian scientists make.
hichens and many others were and are still unable to refute them.

Shalom
God Bless

 

[aragonjohn1]

I suggest we return to the topic of the thread.

1. Not all people have the same amount of freedom.
2. Not all people should have the same amount of freedom.
3. We habitually curtail the freedom of those who use it in an inappropriate manner.
4. No one argues that this method is incorrect, and should be changed.
5. When we have information about some people intending to use their freedom which is detrimental to others, we do interfere and prevent it. (Too bad it happens rarely)
6. When such interference happens, everyone considers it proper (with the exception of the perps, of course).

Based upon these premises I am questioning the “wisdom” that God does not use the same guidelines, and does not place boundaries on the freedom of certain people, and does not prevent certain intended acts from being carried out.

So far I did not see a valuable reply. I do not expect to see one. But I would love to be surprised. So, surprize me.

1. agreed:
   Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.

• vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm

1. disagree:

every man should have the freedom to seek his own potential.

1. agreed:

This obedience is not always easy. As a result of that mysterious original sin, committed at the prompting of Satan, the one who is “a liar and the father of lies” (Jn 8:44), man is constantly tempted to turn his gaze away from the living and true God in order to direct it towards idols (cf. 1 Thes 1:9), exchanging “the truth about God for a lie” (Rom 1:25). Man’s capacity to know the truth is also darkened, and his will to submit to it is weakened. Thus, giving himself over to relativism and scepticism (cf. Jn 18:38), he goes off in search of an illusory freedom apart from truth itself.

4)partially agree:

• vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem_en.html

5)agreed:

natural freedom is the fountainhead from which liberty of whatsoever kind flows, sua vi suaque sponte. The unanimous consent and judgment of men, which is the trusty voice of nature, recognizes this natural liberty in those only who are endowed with intelligence or reason; and it is by his use of this that man is rightly regarded as responsible for his actions. For, while other animate creatures follow their senses, seeking good and avoiding evil only by instinct, man has reason to guide him in each and every act of his life.

• papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm

1. agree:

see above

Shalom
God Bless

 

[Trurl]

JaKael02:

Trule - I think your agnostic and not atheist. You declare yourself an atheist right?

Let’s not go into this. But I will give you a few generic remarks:

1. atheism is metaphysical concept, it deals with the question: what exists? To be very brief: some people believe that some kind of god or gods exist (whatever “exist” means here), these people are called “theists”. Other people lack this belief, these people are called atheists.
2. agnosticism is an epistemological concept: it deals with: how do we know something? People assert that they know something, this is called “gnosticism” (in that particular respect), and others accept that they do not know, they are called “agnostics”.

As such there are 4 possible categories:

1. gnostic theists - people who assert that they “know” that a particular god exist.
2. agnostic theists - people who admit that they “do NOT know” that a particular god exists or not, but they believe it does.
3. gnostic atheists - people who assert that they “know” that a particular god does not exist.
4. agnostic atheists - people who admit that they “do NOT know” that a particular god exists or not, but they do not believe it does.

Since there are innumerable gods people invented and/or believe in, it is important to distinguish which god are we talking about.

Generally speaking, I do not believe that there is anything called “god”, where the word “god” is something supernatural - a Deistic god. Yet, I do not have a positive knowledge, so in this respect I qualify as an “agnostic atheist”. But particularly speaking, I know that the gods of the Greek mythology do not exist, so in that respect I qualify as a “gnostic atheist”. I am sure you would prefer to “come clean” in regard of the christian God, so in that respect I call myself a “gnostic atheist”, since the concept of the christian God is partially nonsensical (the “trinity” is not a “mystery”, it is nonsense) and partially self-refuting (the omnimax attributes contradict each other, and so does justice and mercy) and partially metaphysically incorrect (a being - Actus Purus - which keeps acting, cannot be timeless, since the metaphysical concept of acting presupposes a change, and any change divides the existence into a “before” and an “after”, that is - time.

But, let’s not go into this any further. At least not in this thread.

 

[Trurl]

1) agreed:

Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.

The agreement should be conditional. One cannot condone the “freedom” of a relgious group, which advocates “human or even animal sacrifices”. Thus the need to respect even religious freedom comes with a caveat: "as long as it does not infringe on other people’s freedom. As the old saying goes: “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. By the way, I cannot resist to point out that God does not recognize religious freedom. The first commandment expicitly forbids it. And the repercussions are pretty “severe”.

2) disagree:

every man should have the freedom to seek his own potential.

Even a sick, twisted mass murderer? Surely not?

3) agreed:

This obedience is not always easy. As a result of that mysterious original sin, committed at the prompting of Satan, the one who is “a liar and the father of lies” (Jn 8:44), man is constantly tempted to turn his gaze away from the living and true God in order to direct it towards idols (cf. 1 Thes 1:9), exchanging “the truth about God for a lie” (Rom 1:25). Man’s capacity to know the truth is also darkened, and his will to submit to it is weakened. Thus, giving himself over to relativism and scepticism (cf. Jn 18:38), he goes off in search of an illusory freedom apart from truth itself.

I have no idea why such mysticism should be brought into the picture. Some people do not respect the freedom of others, so they are put into jail, to protect the others.

4)partially agree:

• vatican.va/holy_father/jo…_pacem_en.html

I would suggest you put the answer into your own words. I am not interested in links which lead to pages and pages of text. So I have no idea what you meant to say here.

5)agreed:

natural freedom is the fountainhead from which liberty of whatsoever kind flows, sua vi suaque sponte. The unanimous consent and judgment of men, which is the trusty voice of nature, recognizes this natural liberty in those only who are endowed with intelligence or reason; and it is by his use of this that man is rightly regarded as responsible for his actions. For, while other animate creatures follow their senses, seeking good and avoiding evil only by instinct, man has reason to guide him in each and every act of his life.

Again I would have preferred to read your own words. #5 speaks about interfering and preventing unwanted actions, thus seriously interfering with other people’s freedom. You said, you agree, and that is good.

6) agree:

see above

Ok. So generally we seem to agree that “freedom” must be subject to certain limitations. The freedom to cause harm, pain and misery must be curtailed in the name of decency and love.

We may come to this conclusion from different origins, and using different methods, but that is secondary. The agreement is more important. My method is solely based upon the concept of reciprocity, or the “golden rule”, if you prefer; which is a fully secular concept, and has nothing to do with Jesus. “To live and let live” is enough to build a good, working society.

 

[Steve80]

Even if you were right, you are “wrong”. One does not need to “love” God to be a good, decent person. The problem is that one can read the bible selectively, and pick and choose which parts should one take verbatim, and which parts are to be taken allegorically, Unfortunately the church does not have an offical list which separate the “literal” and the “allegorical” verses.

You are correct that you don’t need to love God in order to be good. That is because God loves us regardless and His laws are written on every man’s heart. So even though one does not believe, does not mean he is void of the law on his heart. You are also right that there are those who pick and choose from the Bible, but the foundation is Love and Charity, so if interpretation of scripture negates these two themes, then it is not being interpreted correctly; which leads to your next statement.

You miss the point. Those people “loved” God. They were utterly convinced that they were doing God’s will. The “Malleus Maleficarum” carried the official approval of the church. And God did not come and kick them in the butt for it.

Loving God and thinking you are doing the right thing is not the same as loving God and actually doing the right thing. Love and Charity is what Jesus preached.

 

[Steve80]

I suggest we return to the topic of the thread.

1. Not all people have the same amount of freedom.
2. Not all people should have the same amount of freedom.
3. We habitually curtail the freedom of those who use it in an inappropriate manner.
4. No one argues that this method is incorrect, and should be changed.
5. When we have information about some people intending to use their freedom which is detrimental to others, we do interfere and prevent it. (Too bad it happens rarely)
6. When such interference happens, everyone considers it proper (with the exception of the perps, of course).

Based upon these premises I am questioning the “wisdom” that God does not use the same guidelines, and does not place boundaries on the freedom of certain people, and does not prevent certain intended acts from being carried out.

So far I did not see a valuable reply. I do not expect to see one. But I would love to be surprised. So, surprize me.

The answer is still the same. You say, “I am questioning the ‘wisdom’ that God does not use the same guidelines…” While a bad analogy, it’s like an ant questioning human motive. The intellect and wisdom you are trying to grasp at is not attainable. You continue to think God should think as men do, or that men are capable of thinking as God does.

Whether you believe in God or not, does not change the definition of God. Your arguments limit God’s capability, and by definition He is limitless. You say that you don’t see a “valuable reply,” and it is because you don’t understand the definition of the subject or its value, i.e., God. If you approach anything unwilling to accept its definition (even if you don’t believe in it), the value is lost from a lack of understanding. You can’t expect to see what you are blind to. Jesus uses blindness as a metaphor quite often. We have to be willing to see if we want to understand.

 

[Trurl]

Steve80:

You are correct that you don’t need to love God in order to be good. That is because God loves us regardless and His laws are written on every man’s heart. So even though one does not believe, does not mean he is void of the law on his heart.

There is no law “written” on my heart which would stipulate that one MUST be open to procreation. Or that one MUST hide one’s genitals. Not even that torturing is wrong. Morals are social constructs, and they change from time to time and from society to society. They are objective, but not absolute.

Steve80:

You are also right that there are those who pick and choose from the Bible, but the foundation is Love and Charity, so if interpretation of scripture negates these two themes, then it is not being interpreted correctly; which leads to your next statement.

Well, I see it differently, especially when I look at the bible in its entirety. The basic theme is obedience, not love. Not just in the OT, which is a very explicit and sometimes very violent book, sprinkled with some juicy porn, but also in the NT, where Jesus teaches to be obedient to your “masters”. There is no “love” mentioned in the OT, except the COMMAND that one MUST love God… do you see the irony? God commands that we MUST love him - FREELY! Sure sounds like the mafioso, who holds a gun to your head and demands obedience - OR ELSE!!! (The mafioso doe not demand love, however…)

So, unfortunately there is no escape, whatever one wants to justify based upon the bible, all he needs is a little research and there will be verses to support it. One would expect a divinely inspired text to be straightforward, and not subject to arbitrary interpretation.

Steve80:

Loving God and thinking you are doing the right thing is not the same as loving God and actually doing the right thing. Love and Charity is what Jesus preached.

Jesus preached many things. And you are most fortunate that you live in these times. If you lived in the times of the inquistion, and proclaimed that the church is wrong in torturing those “witches”, you would have found yourself labeled as a “heretic” and tied to the same tortuting devices, until you “confessed” - and confessed anything and everything they wanted to hear. Unfortunately the “holy spirit” never guided the clergy so they would realize that torturing to extract a confession is not “kosher”.

Steve80:

The answer is still the same. You say, “I am questioning the ‘wisdom’ that God does not use the same guidelines…” While a bad analogy, it’s like an ant questioning human motive. The intellect and wisdom you are trying to grasp at is not attainable. You continue to think God should think as men do, or that men are capable of thinking as God does.

The catholic church teaches the dogma that there are “intrinsically evil” acts, regardless of the being who commits them, and regardless of the causes and the outcomes. As such it does not matter of Joe Schmoe commits a genocide because he hates some group of people, or if God orders the faithful to eradicate those tribes who worship “false gods”. It does not matter if Jane Doe drowns her child, or if God drowns all the humanity (and the animals), both are intrinsically evil acts. The catholic church also teaches that one cannot commit evil, so that some good will come out of it. The catholic church teaches that humans were created in God’s image, which does not mean to have the same capabilities, but that we are rational and moral beings, subject to the same “rules”. After all the church also teaches that morality is “universal” and “absolute”. If one wishes to carve out a special case for God, then the rules are not “universal” and not “absolute” any more. If it is morally praiseworthy for us to step in and prevent an atrocity, then it is the same for God. If it is morally despicable for us to stay on the side and allow some atrocity to happen, then it is equally despicable for God. The Romans had the saying: “Quod licet Iovi, no licet bovi”, and that is a load of stinking fertilizer. The goddess of justice is depicted with a blindfold, and for good reason. It does not matter WHO did the act - and the catholic church teaches the same…

Steve80:

Whether you believe in God or not, does not change the definition of God. Your arguments limit God’s capability, and by definition He is limitless.

No, he is not “limitless”. According to catholic theology God is UNABLE to commit evil acts. The protestant theology says that God is ABLE to commit evil acts, but chooses not to. So, according to the catholic teaching, God is very much limited, all the way that God cannot be said to have “free will”, if by having “free will” one means the ability to choose to perform “evil” acts.

I was very cautious in this post, I only used official catholic dogmas and official catholic theology, so we do not get sidetracked.

 

[Steve80]

Trurl,

I can tell you are passionate about what you believe. I know that no words of mine will convince you or express the way I feel about God as it is something that has to be felt for one to understand. It reminds me of some of the saints who spoke out against the church initially, who later went on to be some of the most influential spiritual mentors the church has known. I wish there was something I could say to convince you to come back to faith with an open heart and approach it with the same passion you have now. You could benefit so many people with that passion if it were channeled into faith.

I know you’ve been down that road before, but what harm would come of giving it another shot? If nothing comes of it, you end up back on the current road. But if you come to realize how great it feels to channel that passion into God and helping others to understand, you could do a lot more than most with touching peoples hearts.

 

[Trurl]

Steve80:

Trurl,

I can tell you are passionate about what you believe. I know that no words of mine will convince you or express the way I feel about God as it is something that has to be felt for one to understand. It reminds me of some of the saints who spoke out against the church initially, who later went on to be some of the most influential spiritual mentors the church has known. I wish there was something I could say to convince you to come back to faith with an open heart and approach it with the same passion you have now. You could benefit so many people with that passion if it were channeled into faith.

I know you’ve been down that road before, but what harm would come of giving it another shot? If nothing comes of it, you end up back on the current road. But if you come to realize how great it feels to channel that passion into God and helping others to understand, you could do a lot more than most with touching peoples hearts.

That was a very kind post, thank you. Most touching, for sure. I am curious, what kind of practical steps would you suggest? What should I try? It is interesting that you speak of an “open heart” - since the “heart” is usually a metaphore for emotions. And there was no emotional “crisis” for me when I simply shrugged of my previous beliefs. (I was never “molested”, the members of the clergy were very lovable, wonderful people, and I still remember them with lots of love.) It was all “cold, impassioned” reason which I employed to examine my beliefs. I examined them, I found them irrational, and dropped them. So all I can promise is to have an open mind - which is probably not enough.

Without going into unnecessary details, there are many facets of the “christian / catholic faith” which are totally irrational. Believers talk about logical impossibilities, and “cheerfully” declare them “mysteries” (for example the trinity, or the transsubstantiation in the eucharist). These are logical contradictions, not “mysteries” and to deny this is either the sign of a feeble mind, or obstinate hypocrisy - and I don’t know which one is worse. If I am supposed to accept them (and there are many more) as “mysteries”; that approach simply would not work. They say that God is “actus purus”, (pure act) and also that God is “frozen” in a timeless “environment”. Without time there is no action, there is only stasis. They say that God is immutable, and yet they say that God can be influenced by supplicative prayers (observe: not meditative prayers, which are different ballgame). There is an official teaching that God is “needed” to maintain the reality from second to second (without such maintenance the whole world would “fall apart” - the so-called “sustaining” cause argument) and also that God rarely ever interferes - with miracles - he just lets the laws of nature do their work. The whole belief system is huge conglomerate of undefined and mutually contradictory ideas. God is just like a “married bachelor”. Someone who is supposed to “love” us, yet does not help the ones in need. What kind of “love” is that? I conducted many experiments during the years: I presented the same problem with slightly different wording, and the same people argued against both sides. Whatever part I emphasized, they argued against it. Truly, it was hilarious.

So your suggested approach will probably not work. But I am curious about your practical advice. (Nonetheless, I would have loved to see your answer to my previous post. I invested quite a lot of time into it, and took pains to create my argument according to the church’s official position.)