I am baffled, please explain

[PRmerger]

You are getting rather tiring in your obtuse behavior. Do you even KNOW what does “choice” mean? There was a time in my life, when I was a believer, but I did not decide to lose my faith and become an atheist (and I already explained this to you). Beliefs are not under volitional control. I hope to see you when you understand this. But not sooner.

Be careful. It’s good for you to be here, PA, and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, but you are starting to get frustrated when your arguments are refuted and shrill responses lead to regrettable posting behavior.

At any rate, you cannot have it both ways.

Take a position: either we have no choice in what we believe…and that makes us Believers brainwashed…but, alas,*** that also means that you are also brainwashed…***

OR

You are able to critically think and accept or reject beliefs…but, alas, that also means that Believers are also able to critically think and accept or reject beliefs.

Which one is it?

 

[PRmerger]

No. Nether did I. Neither did you consciously choose to be a Christian.

Bradski, I cannot stress to you enough how wrong the above statement is.

I absolutely do consciously choose to be a Christian. I made my choice when I was confirmed. I make my choice every time I go to Mass. I make my choice every time I say receive the Blessed Sacrament.

Children believe in Santa Claus and fairies and animals two by two because they haven’t the ability and they haven’t the experience to critically question what they are being told. It’s an entirely natural state of affairs and surely not one that could seriously be questioned. As an addendum to that, they may not have, as they grow older, the maturity to question authority. But all said and done, they will accept what they are told as facts.

Sure.

And you do this, too.

You accept as fact that your pilot will get you to your destination. Although you have never–not even once, I’m certain–checked on your pilot’s credentials.

You simply accept it as a fact: my pilot is licensed and able to fly a plane.

So while you and I agree that it’s important to use critical thinking, once one is able, we disagree that accepting things we are told as facts is something we ought not do.

 

[Bradski]

So while you and I agree that it’s important to use critical thinking, once one is able, we disagree that accepting things we are told as facts is something we ought not do.

I’m not sure why anyone who brings up children’s belief gets such a hard time about it. Excepting that on occasion, terms such as ‘brainwashing’ tend to inflame the debate.

No-one has suggested that one should not accept facts. We’ve done this dance before and I thought I was pretty clear on my position then. So please, no nonsense about pilots and such. We can’t go through life checking every single thing.

I’m not going to buy the Harbour Bridge off a guy in a pub but I have no problem in flying to Melbourne. I shouldn’t have to explain why.

Likewise, the three year old will buy a story that an old guy in a red suit will bring her presents on a sleigh, but a thirty year old won’t. Again, I shouldn’t have to point out why.

And with respect, you didn’t decide to become a Christian when you were confirmed. You most definitely made the choice to be confirmed but that was because you already believed in the Catholic faith and wanted to, obviously, confirm it.

But however you were brought up, the facts of the Catholic faith were presented to you and when you were old enough to ‘think critically’ about them, you accepted them. You THEREFORE became a Christian. You THEREFORE believed. Because the facts that you accepted resulted in your belief.

I’m at a loss to understand why this is even up for debate. Isn’t this the way everyone becomes a believer? I don’t know how much critical thought goes into it in each and every case but it remains, surely undeniably, that everyone either accepts the facts regarding their religion or rejects them.

It seems to me to be rather insulting to anyone of any faith to suggest that they just ‘chose their belief’ like picking a football team to support. It obviously doesn’t happen like that.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m at a loss to understand why this is even up for debate. Isn’t this the way everyone becomes a believer?

No. Some come into the Church as adults, entering through the RCIA program and learning what the Church teaches, and critically thinking through these teachings and accepting them.

Others are Catholics as children, but leave the practice of the faith as young adults. Later, though, in their adult years – when they have the capacity of critical thought – they return to the practice of the faith.

It seems to me to be rather insulting to anyone of any faith to suggest that they just ‘chose their belief’ like picking a football team to support. It obviously doesn’t happen like that.

You’d be surprised. The whole notion of ‘seekers’ in the Christian experience is that people are looking for a Church whose beliefs they can accept. It obviously does happen like that; not for all, of course, but for many.

 

[Bradski]

No. Some come into the Church as adults, entering through the RCIA program and learning what the Church teaches, and critically thinking through these teachings and accepting them.

Others are Catholics as children, but leave the practice of the faith as young adults. Later, though, in their adult years – when they have the capacity of critical thought – they return to the practice of the faith.

Wasn’t that what I assumed in the earlier post?

But I’m not suggesting that everyone puts in the required amount of critical thought - whatever that might be. I would suggest that there is a not insignificant proportion that put no thought into it at all. And that would include all religions. And also atheism as well (you can hardly reject religion without giving it a reasonable amount of thought).

 

[tonyrey]

Be careful. It’s good for you to be here, PA, and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, but you are starting to get frustrated when your arguments are refuted and shrill responses lead to regrettable posting behavior.

At any rate, you cannot have it both ways.

Take a position: either we have no choice in what we believe…and that makes us Believers brainwashed…but, alas,*** that also means that you are also brainwashed…***

OR

You are able to critically think and accept or reject beliefs…but, alas, that also means that Believers are also able to critically think and accept or reject beliefs.

Which one is it?

Determinism is a two-edged sword! It destroys itself…

 

[Bradski]

Determinism is a two-edged sword! It destroys itself…

Making a free will decision (on the assumption we have it) on what to accept as factual and what to reject is determinism?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Wasn’t that what I assumed in the earlier post?

But I’m not suggesting that everyone puts in the required amount of critical thought - whatever that might be. I would suggest that there is a not insignificant proportion that put no thought into it at all. And that would include all religions. And also atheism as well (you can hardly reject religion without giving it a reasonable amount of thought).

It isn’t the amount of thought that matters, it is the quality of thought. It is how the thought is managed that determines how and where assent will be distributed. If I positively want to be convinced about “a fact” I will have a tendency to buy into supporting details rather quickly and will tend to deny those which foreseeably lead down certain paths which may be dissonant with current “beliefs.”

There is always available to rational beings a kind of skepticism that places untenable or undesirable, but plausible, propositions onto a psychological “back burner” for as long as they are viewed as troublesome. That way they need not be taken seriously because they are “under consideration.” Moral facts and principles are often like that. Take the moral proposition that the value of the life of one person always trumps the convenience rights of another, I know some who will chew on that bone for a llllloooonnnnngggg time without accepting or denying it. “It isn’t so black and white,” they will claim, even though it clearly is.

And also atheism as well (you can hardly reject religion without giving it a reasonable amount of thought).

Oh, I don’t know if that is true. Again, the amount of thought may not be the issue. Rather it is the quality of thought that would make a difference, so the fallback becomes denial of some supporting “facts” and assent to others. That way an appropriate set of beliefs fits the contour or profile of the bigger picture that is being endorsed.

The problem comes up when, for example, those accepted facts and resulting arguments are presented to more capable minds and shown to be less than compelling to better thought processes. What then?

I suspect every effort is made to come up with “patches” that will reinforce one’s chosen beliefs. The “proper” resources are then sought out to bolster failing arguments until some apparently “ingenious” ones are found. Thinking, you see, can be very selective. I see it all the time with Internet atheists. Present company, of course, is excepted.

Now, of course this process takes on the appearance of an unrelenting pursuit of truth, but really has the substance of rationalization.

Fair-mindedness is the answer. Sincere seeking for the truth.

This is why “burden of proof” is a fallacy, not an argument. Anyone interested in the unmitigated truth will take on the burden to demonstrate both sides of the argument as clearly as possible.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Oh, thank goodness! We have the encyclopedia! I guess we can throw away all those pesky real sources of doctrine – the catechism, conciliar documents, papal writings – 'cause now we got ourselves an encyclopedia! woo hoo!

Indeed. An actual source, which can be studied and searched. Which has been around for almost a hundred years, and it was never questioned by popes, bishops and the magisterium… Did you ever wonder why? Not some undefined “real sources”, which you are unable to enumerate.

But, what the heck. Let’s now get to the dogmas, especially the “De fide” ones, which cannot be denied.

jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm
theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

The Attributes of the Divine Life

1. God’s knowledge is infinite. (De fide.)
2. God’s knowledge is purely and simply actual.
3. God’s knowledge is subsistent
4. God’s knowledge is comprehensive
5. God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things
6. The primary and formal object of the Divine Cognition is God Himself. (Scientia contemplationis)
7. God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
8. God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
9. By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
10. God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty (Scientia futuribilium). (Sent. communis.)

Dogma 32 is not of “de fide”, but it is pretty important. The word “comprehensive” means “all encompassing” or “complete”. Moreover, if you combine 35 and 37, you will get to 38. So God did foresee all the events before he even created the world. And he was “free” to pick and choose which possible world to actualize. Whether you prefer to call that “middle knowledge” is of no relevance.

Maybe not even that will convince you that God can foresee the actions of any Joe Schmoe befoe he creates Joe. In which case you are beyond redemption. By the way, you are not free to doubt these dogmas.

At some point, when the world is saying ‘white’ and you’re saying ‘black’, you gotta ask yourself, PA: “why I am the only one who sees it this way? Could it be – horrors! – that I’m the one who’s wrong?”

The “world”? You mean, the “whole world”? Wow.

Or, perhaps more to the point, God is logical and rational according to DIVINE terms.

And what are those “divine terms”? Last time I only heard of the separate “military logic”. Now you wish to introduce “divine logic”?

We already debated this one.

Nope, we did not. That was the point where you started to question the concept of “omniscience” and derailed the thread into a side track.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It obviously does happen like that; not for all, of course, but for many.

How many is “many”? One percent? Probably much less than that. How many people even think about their basic beliefs? It is just there in the back of their mind.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I absolutely do consciously choose to be a Christian. I made my choice when I was confirmed. I make my choice every time I go to Mass. I make my choice every time I say receive the Blessed Sacrament.

Bradski already answered this, but let’s get into the details. Do you ponder every time… “well, what should I be today? A Catholic, a Muslim, a Buddhist… or maybe an atheist?” And then you say: “well, today I will choose to be a Catholic.” In order to make a true, free choice, try to choose something different, and tell us how successful you were in making a real choice.

You obviously make choices whether to go to mass, or participate in receiving the Eucharist, but these choices are the corollaries of your basic, instinctive, unshakable Catholic beliefs, which you accept without ever thinking about them. Nothing wrong with that, but you should realize that you do NOT actually “choose” to have those beliefs, you simply “have” them.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure why anyone who brings up children’s belief gets such a hard time about it. Excepting that on occasion, terms such as ‘brainwashing’ tend to inflame the debate.

Indeed.

No-one has suggested that one should not accept facts.

Excellent. It certainly sounded like you were rebuffing the idea that we can accept facts.

So we are agreed that it’s perfectly acceptable to believe some things people tell us simply because we believe in the person, in their authority, in the office, in the position, in the institution, in the business, in the entity?

We’ve done this dance before and I thought I was pretty clear on my position then. So please, no nonsense about pilots and such. We can’t go through life checking every single thing.

And it’s a very good dance indeed. It is one I will continue to bring up, esp with atheistic folks who like to dismiss folks for having faith, or belief without empirical evidence, trust in authority, etc.

I’m not going to buy the Harbour Bridge off a guy in a pub but I have no problem in flying to Melbourne. I shouldn’t have to explain why.

It would seem more treacherous to actually fly to Melbourne than buy a bridge…given the risks, don’t you think?

After all, with one you are actually potentially losing your life; with the other you are simply going to lose money.

So I find the above example rather odd.

Likewise, the three year old will buy a story that an old guy in a red suit will bring her presents on a sleigh, but a thirty year old won’t.

We are agreed here.

But it does bring up an interesting segue…there are some here who declare that it doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you’re a good person and it makes you happy.

So one would think that a 30 yr old who believes in Santa would be perfectly valid.

I certainly hope you’re NOT one of those folks who declares that (in red).

Why?

Because truth matters, right? You’re with me on this?

 

[PRmerger]

And with respect, you didn’t decide to become a Christian when you were confirmed. You most definitely made the choice to be confirmed but that was because you already believed in the Catholic faith and wanted to, obviously, confirm it.

Not sure how this makes it NOT a choice?

When you married your wife, it wasn’t a choice? You already loved her and believed in a life together?

I would say that you certainly did choose to marry her, and that choice was actualized on your wedding day.

But however you were brought up, the facts of the Catholic faith were presented to you and when you were old enough to ‘think critically’ about them, you accepted them. You THEREFORE became a Christian. You THEREFORE believed. Because the facts that you accepted resulted in your belief.

Sure.

I’m at a loss to understand why this is even up for debate. Isn’t this the way everyone becomes a believer?

Egg-zactly. Ask Pallas Athene what his point was in this tributary.

I don’t know how much critical thought goes into it in each and every case but it remains, surely undeniably, that everyone either accepts the facts regarding their religion or rejects them.

And regarding their atheism.

It seems to me to be rather insulting to anyone of any faith to suggest that they just ‘chose their belief’ like picking a football team to support. It obviously doesn’t happen like that.

Thank you.:hug1:

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Fair-mindedness is the answer. Sincere seeking for the truth. This is why “burden of proof” is a fallacy, not an argument. Anyone interested in the unmitigated truth will take on the burden to demonstrate both sides of the argument as clearly as possible.

Yes, I absolutely agree with this. Socrates was the master of this form of “truth seeking” and I think internet forums are the contemporary manifestation of his “dialogue” ideal in some ways. The “burden of proof” argument is not necessarily a fallacy but a matter of custom and procedure, and belongs in a court, not a philosophical inquiry. True wisdom is being able to comprehend as many sides of an issue as possible, in my opinion.

One small suggestion to all: what if we used the term “education” instead of “brainwashing?” Brainwashing is a specific and violent form of “education” that is usually accompanied by torture and has a sinister connotation. I do not think that those who teach religion to children are engaged in a similar project to North Korean or Stalinist “re-education (aka brainwashing) camps.”

 

[PRmerger]

One small suggestion to all: what if we used the term “education” instead of “brainwashing?” Brainwashing is a specific and violent form of “education” that is usually accompanied by torture and has a sinister connotation. I do not think that those who teach religion to children are engaged in a similar project to North Korean or Stalinist “re-education (aka brainwashing) camps.”

Yes. Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

Bradski already answered this, but let’s get into the details. Do you ponder every time… “well, what should I be today? A Catholic, a Muslim, a Buddhist… or maybe an atheist?” And then you say: “well, today I will choose to be a Catholic.”

Yes, I do say that, PA. In the same way that I say, “Well, today I will choose to be a good wife.”

Incidentally, you ought to know that each and every time a Catholic makes the sign of the cross she is indeed affirming her choice to choose to be a Catholic.

In order to make a true, free choice, try to choose something different, and tell us how successful you were in making a real choice.

You try that first with your spouse.

Tell her that you are going to choose to have sex with your coworker, simply in order to prove that you really are choosing to be with her.

Let us know how that works for you.

 

[Peter_Plato]

jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm
theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

The first site is a sedevacantist site, the second is a pietist site of a traditional Catholic. Neither are authoritative in any sense of the word. The first, grounded in SSPX is heretical.

You could do better as a basis for your argument.

Where are the official Vatican documents or listing of dogmas?

It would certainly save a step and be more trustworthy.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . these choices are the corollaries of your basic, instinctive, unshakable Catholic beliefs, which you accept without ever thinking about them. . . .

The Catholic faith is so much more than its theology and philosophy.
Faith demands action.
So, it is not just a matter of intellectual beliefs but rather of cultivating one’s relationship with Reality.
There will then always be questions, in this journey to get ever closer to what is true and good.
Forgetting about what others think and setting your goal as the Truth, you will come to know God. Find Him and it will all make sense.
Christianity provides by far, the most comprehensive explanation of who we are, why we are here, and He who is the Source of all this wonder.

 

[PRmerger]

You obviously make choices whether to go to mass, or participate in receiving the Eucharist, but these choices are the corollaries of your basic, instinctive, unshakable Catholic beliefs,

Well, they are only “unshakable” in the same way that I’d accuse you of being “unshakable” in your belief that “The rules of math are not really arbitrary.”

Are you unshakable in this belief?

Are you unshakable in your assertion that “For magic squares with the size of an odd number (3 x 3, 5 x 5, etc.) there is a very simple, universal method of creating them”?

Yes?

which you accept without ever thinking about them.

LOL!

“without ever thinking about them”, eh?



I haven’t ever thought about my Catholic beliefs to the tune of over 30,000 posts here…

 

[Peter_Plato]

You obviously make choices whether to go to mass, or participate in receiving the Eucharist, but these choices are the corollaries of your basic, instinctive, unshakable Catholic beliefs, which you accept without ever thinking about them. Nothing wrong with that, but you should realize that you do NOT actually “choose” to have those beliefs, you simply “have” them.

Then, apparently, Socrates was wrong. The unexamined life is not only worth living, it is the only possibility for living - at least, according to you, since examining beliefs would not allow you to choose which are better to hold. You wouldn’t even have a choice in the matter, so why bother examining beliefs at all?

Just another reason to think you are wildly off base.