I still cannot understand you!

[fhansen]

In this case the foundation of the faith is “hope for something” and/or based on something that is “unknown - what we do not see”. It can be anything, it can be the hope that you will win the lottery, it can be a hope that someone’s incurable disease will just evaporate. On what grounds should one suppose that the “hope” comes from God - and not just wishful thinking? And how do you “experience” faith?

The faith and hope spoken of in Hebrews 11:1 refer to what the CC has come to call theological virtues. These two speak of faith and confidence in **truths or promises **revealed by God and proposed by the Church, such as Gods existence, power, love, the resurrection, eternal life, etc.-the basics that many may naturally yearn for already or have questions about.

If the God described by Christianity happens to exist, then it should be a fairly simple matter for Him to communicate with His creation, having made, in one way or another, every fiber of their beings and so on. And if it were His will to confirm His existence to those who are foolish enough to take faith in Him seriously then He could certainly accomplish this -as unbelief in God is considered to be the first and most important sin or disorder. This and the separation from Him that accompanies it are considered to be an unnatural while nonetheless self-*preferred *disposition of man-opening the door for any and all sins that follow as well as being the reason for mans general malaise/unhappiness, even though unbelief can seem natural enough in this life at least to start with.

All human experience, all perception-even our perception of how we perceive- is ultimately subjective because all that we experience is known or realized internally, in our minds. Even in “ordinary” communication with another person, whether, say, oral or written, we’re aware that another person is expressing a thought which we receive, or vice versa, but in any case the origination of the thought as well as the reception and cognition of it are happening within the two parties’ minds and they perceive the transmission or exchange as taking place via their bodies’ respective capabilities for such purposes- language, sense of hearing, etc.

I’m mentioning this to suggest that the God who made us can by-pass the ordinary physical means of communication and reveal thoughts or knowledge directly, otherwise utilizing the normal faculties we possess for coming to know anything we previously didn’t know. And this communication can be as dramatic as a word-for-word message, or visions, or- initially- as soft as a whisper beckoning, not forcing, us to open the door to faith, a whisper we can choose to ignore or pursue, which, when pursued, God responds to by increasing faith and hope (knowledge of and trust in truths relating to Him, respectively) even more. This constitutes our free will in relation to God- in that He doesn’t hide so much as we hide from Him -by preferring unbelief -but He won’t force us in any case to come out of hiding. Our reality is not-or should not-be found in conforming to the expectations of this world but rather found by conforming to the expectations of this God who we’re a part of and who communicates internally.

I’ll give an example. The bible as well as the Catholic faith state that “God is love”- a sort of enigmatic statement right up front-especially since we may not even be so convinced of the reality of love, let alone of love on some sort of grand cosmic scale. And wouldn’t love be a bit below the level of God anyway-who should, and does in some peoples’ minds-take a more distant or aloof position above us puny mortals. And yet the God of Christianity is humble and the experience of being in His presence is like no other in this world-and like nothing we might expect. Because to be in Gods presence is to be in the midst of a love so unimaginably vast and powerful that one cannot naturally know it and cannot stand in its presence, even though one experiences no fear because there is none-only unconditional love that can be known, directly, intuitively, emanating from a being who’s infinitely superior and yet strangely familiar and who’s orchestrating the whole thing at that moment so you’ll know exactly what he wants you to know.

Christianity is really the ultimate in nonconformity. It purposes among other things to overcome pride, a.k.a. fear of the worlds’ opinion.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Christianity is really the ultimate in nonconformity. It purposes among other things to overcome pride, a.k.a. fear of the worlds’ opinion.

Emm… this from a Church that requires uniforms in schools?

 

[DOShea]

Emm… this from a Church that requires uniforms in schools?

When most others don’t see any benefit from it or view it as a form of oppression, then yes, it is a form of non-conformity. Going against secular “wisdom” perhaps.

 

[James_S_Saint]

it is a form of non-conformity. Going against secular “wisdom” perhaps.

I’ll go along with that one.

 

[Spock]

The faith and hope spoken of in Hebrews 11:1 refer to what the CC has come to call theological virtues. These two speak of faith and confidence in **truths or promises **revealed by God and proposed by the Church, such as Gods existence, power, love, the resurrection, eternal life, etc.-the basics that many may naturally yearn for already or have questions about.

I really appreciate your effort to explain it to me. I am sure that you did your best, and I will admit that it “must be” my fault - but I don’t understand you.

To put one’s faith into a human institution (the RCC) is not my cup of tea. God did not reveal anything to me. (Many people will say that it is presumptuous on my part to “expect” a personal revelation. My answer is that I don’t expect it, I am merely poining out the lack of such “revelation”.) Yes, I heard that there is a very powerful feeling (oneness with God) due to “deep” prayers (intense meditation) - but I never experienced it. Besides, not just “Christian type” of meditation can lead to such - subjective - feelings, one can experience “stuff” like that due to some psychidelic drugs.

I will play to the “percentages” - and assume that all those you described have a perfectly natural explanation, and the faith based on them is equivalent to “wishful thinking”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I really appreciate your effort to explain it to me. I am sure that you did your best, and I will admit that it “must be” my fault - but I don’t understand you.

To put one’s faith into a human institution (the RCC) is not my cup of tea. God did not reveal anything to me. (Many people will say that it is presumptuous on my part to “expect” a personal revelation. My answer is that I don’t expect it, I am merely poining out the lack of such “revelation”.) Yes, I heard that there is a very powerful feeling (oneness with God) due to “deep” prayers (intense meditation) - but I never experienced it.

Funny, because when I read your writing, Spock, I often get the sense that you do have a *relationship *with God, but – and please don’t get me wrong here – you don’t experience it as a relationship with God. To clarify, the Christian believes that Jesus is *the *Truth. Therefore, from our perspective, anyone who seeks to know the truth about the world seeks to know Jesus.

It is clear to me that you – rather exceptionally among atheistic (and some theistic) posters on this board – have a relationship with the truth. You do not simply seek it, but you hammer at it, you strive for it, you will not rest until you understand.

Socrates had an idea that all learning is paradoxical. If I seek to know any property of something, I must first be able to identify what that something is. But if I knew what it was, then it’s properties would be readily apparent to me. In like fashion, I wonder how anyone can seek after any facts that are true without first being familiar with truth itself – knowing what it looks like. But if we knew the truth, we would already know everything the truth entails.

This is why I strive to know, not God-in-abstract (for who can make out what “Being itself” is?), but rather God-in-person – that is, Jesus. Many people wait all their lives for God to reveal Himself to them, but He is right there in the Gospels, waiting to be encountered. The Bible says that “Christ crucified” is “a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

 

[Betterave]

I really appreciate your effort to explain it to me. I am sure that you did your best, and I will admit that it “must be” my fault - but I don’t understand you.

To put one’s faith into a human institution (the RCC) is not my cup of tea. God did not reveal anything to me. (Many people will say that it is presumptuous on my part to “expect” a personal revelation. My answer is that I don’t expect it, I am merely poining out the lack of such “revelation”.) Yes, I heard that there is a very powerful feeling (oneness with God) due to “deep” prayers (intense meditation) - but I never experienced it. Besides, not just “Christian type” of meditation can lead to such - subjective - feelings, one can experience “stuff” like that due to some psychidelic drugs.

I will play to the “percentages” - and assume that all those you described have a perfectly natural explanation, and the faith based on them is equivalent to “wishful thinking”.

A dilemma: reason or faith. You ask us to stick to faith, but it turns out faith doesn’t work for you. But at least that gives you an answer as to why we can’t give up on reason: it hasn’t worked yet, but maybe eventually it will. (It has on others.)

To answer your query more directly: I believe that faith in God’s existence is only necessary because of our fallen state (disordered reason, influenced by disordered passions - I’m sure you’ve noticed this kind of thing out there in the world we live in). Catholics, however, unlike protestants, do not believe that our rational ability to know God is destroyed by sin, but only that it’s function is impaired, and that this impairment can be progressively overcome by grace.

 

[Betterave]

I’ll bring the following in from another thread, seeing that this is the appropriate place for it:

T:

It is the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church that the existence of God can be known with certainty by reason alone.

F:

Oh? Well I’d love to hear this bulletproof reasoning then.

My response:
This is coming up a lot isn’t it? The church teaches (reason teaches too, I would say) that reason is a situated, fallible human faculty, not that it is bulletproof. The very possibility of coming to know the truth, whether by reason or otherwise, is recognized as being largely in the hands of luck (this, again, is simply a reasonable way to think about the epistemic situation of human beings, it’s not some silly dogma). We can think of a transcendent truth and reason, but obviously there is no a priori necessity that the subjective reason of a finite human being will in fact, in its particular factical situation, be able to apprehend what is objectively reasonable. Maybe the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the closest we could come, conceptually, to a bulletproof vest protecting us from the vagaries of unreason (just a simplistic suggestion for thinking about it - there may be more naturalistic means too, which are also effective to some degree).

 

[James_S_Saint]

The very possibility of coming to know the truth, whether by reason or otherwise, is recognized as being largely in the hands of luck (this, again, is simply a reasonable way to think about the epistemic situation of human beings, it’s not some silly dogma). We can think of a transcendent truth and reason, but obviously there is no a priori necessity that the subjective reason of a finite human being will in fact, in its particular factical situation, be able to apprehend what is objectively reasonable. Maybe the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the closest we could come, conceptually, to a bulletproof vest protecting us from the vagaries of unreason (just a simplistic suggestion for thinking about it - there may be more naturalistic means too, which are also effective to some degree).

Love real Truth enough to be humble (without ego or pride) and then merely ask what seems like yourself for what really and absolutely must be true realizing that perhaps no one has ever said it regardless of their alliance. Be on no one’s side until you see more clearly than they.

That increases the “luck” factor substantially.

 

[Spock]

Two points. It’s not at all vague to say that one can know that God exists by human reason. If this is a debate about whether reason can, by definition, be used to know that God exists without conflicting with our concept of faith, then the Church has been explicit about that.

It might have been explicit about the declaration, but these are no specifics about the “how” can we reason out God’s existence.

Secondly, its the prerogative of the proponent of a given argument to define his/her terms. The Church has defined faith in such a way that it is consistent with reason. Any critique that doesn’t take this into account is a straw man.

I am using it according to Hewbrews 11:1.

No, I interpret it as including all of the physical senses.

Which is what we call empirical verification.

I don’t see how information theory has any relevance to the “correct” definition of knowledge. Plantinga (another smart fellow) agrees with my definition. Nevertheless, it seems we are at an impasse, since I don’t accept your definition, and you don’t accept mine.

Many philosophers agree with you. I just happen to say that in the light of modern information theory that definition is “lacking”. And philosphers are not famous to study disciplines outside their realm. Their loss, because their assertions lose credibility and relevance - not that they have a lot of it, in the first place.

Fair enough. But, many of us are saying that God’s existence can be known through reason. I’ll start a thread on an argument I find convincing.

And we are already having a healthy conversation over there.

 

[Spock]

Funny, because when I read your writing, Spock, I often get the sense that you do have a *relationship *with God, but – and please don’t get me wrong here – you don’t experience it as a relationship with God. To clarify, the Christian believes that Jesus is *the *Truth. Therefore, from our perspective, anyone who seeks to know the truth about the world seeks to know Jesus.

A very kind assessment, and I thank you for it. However the metaphor: “Jesus is the Truth” means nothing to me.

It is clear to me that you – rather exceptionally among atheistic (and some theistic) posters on this board – have a relationship with the truth. You do not simply seek it, but you hammer at it, you strive for it, you will not rest until you understand.

If there is something to it, I would like to see and understand it. But what I truly cannot understand is how can the apologists maintain self-contradictory views, and present both sides as correct.

Socrates had an idea that all learning is paradoxical. If I seek to know any property of something, I must first be able to identify what that something is. But if I knew what it was, then it’s properties would be readily apparent to me. In like fashion, I wonder how anyone can seek after any facts that are true without first being familiar with truth itself – knowing what it looks like. But if we knew the truth, we would already know everything the truth entails.

Socrates was wrong, he left out the first part: in order to seek the particulars or attributes, one must ascertain the existence of phenomenon in question. And that is not paradoxical at all.

 

[James_S_Saint]

A very kind assessment, and I thank you for it. However the metaphor: “Jesus is the Truth” means nothing to me.

That is the essence of the entire atheist problem.

I sympathize with those who do not understand what that means and in r/t, I show them what it means in detail and thus no atheist remains an atheist around me for long.

What you have probably never realized is that when they say “God is Truth”, they mean that what you call “Truth/Reality”, was once called “God”. Even seeing that would lead you to other questions, all answerable and justifiable, but you first have to realize that those of understanding know “God” to be exactly identical to what you call “Reality/Truth”.

Jesus is not really being used in metaphor in P_S’s statement. Jesus represents his principles. Those principles are about the nature of Reality and how to live with it. Jesus once said that “I am the Truth”, but what he was saying is that what he represents in his life is an example of properly adhering to Reality in such a way as to be able to do the things he did and make the promises that he made.

 

[Spock]

A dilemma: reason or faith. You ask us to stick to faith, but it turns out faith doesn’t work for you. But at least that gives you an answer as to why we can’t give up on reason: it hasn’t worked yet, but maybe eventually it will. (It has on others.)

This is fine, to a certain extent. My dichotomy works like this: “if faith is sufficient, then a rational underpinning is unnecessary. If reason is sufficient, then faith is unnecessary”. Reason would work for me. The trouble is that all the purported rational arguments are unsatisfactory.

To answer your query more directly: I believe that faith in God’s existence is only necessary because of our fallen state (disordered reason, influenced by disordered passions - I’m sure you’ve noticed this kind of thing out there in the world we live in). Catholics, however, unlike protestants, do not believe that our rational ability to know God is destroyed by sin, but only that it’s function is impaired, and that this impairment can be progressively overcome by grace.

I seriously doubt that “reason” is “disordered” - whatever that might mean. Reason offers the one and only method that works under all circumstances - except when it comes to the “supernatural”. From that my conclusion is: “reason works fine - and therefore the supernatural is superfluous”.

Now, I don’t argue for not making original assumptions, which cannot be rationally supported - at the time when the assumptions are made. When there was no microbiology, most people (doctors, too) assumed that illnesses are caused by “demons”, etc… Pasteur and others thought otherwise, and assumed very little (invisible) things (bacteria) and started to look for them. Eventually, they found them, and the explanation for demons was discarded. (Not by the Church, which still performs exorcisms. Shows just how inflexible the Church is). This whole process started with unsupported assumptions - and eventually the support was found. However, there is another side of this coin. The researchers are very busy to try and discredit the new assumptions - and this is the part that gives us assurance, that the process will “weed out” the incorrect assumptions.

The trouble with the supernatural is that one makes the assumptions, and is allowed (even encouraged) to seek for supporting evidence, but is not allowed to look for evidence to the contrary. The basic assumptions of faith cannot be questioned (God’s existence, Jesus’s divinity, etc…). Such questioning is considered “heretical”, and strongly discouraged - by threats of excommunication. This difference is fundamental, and totally discredits the authority of the Church - for me. If there is some truth in an assumption, there is no need to intimidate the opposition, a critical view should be welcomed. This behavior has pretty dark implications - in my eyes. It shows that the Church may pay lip service to reason - as long as it seems to support the Church’s position, but as soon as reason starts to criticize the dogma, it becomes an anathema, it must be stomped out. The word for such behavior in my vocabulary is: “hypocrisy”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Socrates was wrong, he left out the first part: in order to seek the particulars or attributes, one must ascertain the existence of phenomenon in question. And that is not paradoxical at all.

But how can one know that something is without first knowing what it is?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What you have probably never realized is that when they say “God is Truth”, they mean that what you call “Truth/Reality”, was once called “God”. Even seeing that would lead you to other questions, all answerable and justifiable, but you first have to realize that those of understanding know “God” to be exactly identical to what you call “Reality/Truth”.

God is that which I stand in relation to, in an ultimate sense. My phenomenal experience of the world – insofar as it is *unmediated *by distortion – is precisely the experience of God. This creates as many problems as it does solutions, but the answers are found in the fact that God’s ways are not my ways; which, upon consideration, is a very good thing.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The trouble with the supernatural is that one makes the assumptions, and is allowed (even encouraged) to seek for supporting evidence, but is not allowed to look for evidence to the contrary. The basic assumptions of faith cannot be questioned (God’s existence, Jesus’s divinity, etc…). Such questioning is considered “heretical”, and strongly discouraged - by threats of excommunication. This difference is fundamental, and totally discredits the authority of the Church - for me. If there is some truth in an assumption, there is no need to intimidate the opposition, a critical view should be welcomed. This behavior has pretty dark implications - in my eyes. It shows that the Church may pay lip service to reason - as long as it seems to support the Church’s position, but as soon as reason starts to criticize the dogma, it becomes an anathema, it must be stomped out. The word for such behavior in my vocabulary is: “hypocrisy”.

No one is considered a heretic or excommunicated for questioning! In today’s church, in fact, questioning is encouraged. A person who hasn’t questioned his faith is a weak Christian, what Jesus called a “reed swayed by the wind”.

 

[Spock]

But how can one know that something is without first knowing what it is?

Well, one sees an object never seen before cannot categorize it into one of our neat little boxes we are so fond of. First it is just a new “object”. Then with further examination - we can find attributes and start to understand just what kind of “object” it is. The more we discover, the better the understanding. And a direct answer: if “something hits us on the head” we sure know that (whatever it is) it exists.

 

[Spock]

No one is considered a heretic or excommunicated for questioning! In today’s church, in fact, questioning is encouraged. A person who hasn’t questioned his faith is a weak Christian, what Jesus called a “reed swayed by the wind”.

As I said, it all depends on what the person questions. Can papal infallibility be questioned without repercussions? Or the authority of the Church in moral matters? What would happen to a member of the clergy if he would openly advocate ordaining women - and thus questioning papal authority? You added “today”. Indeed, the Church is much more permissive in its behavior - today, I grant you that.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

As I said, it all depends on what the person questions. Can papal infallibility be questioned without repercussions?

Yes.

Or the authority of the Church in moral matters?

Yes. Both of these things are questioned regularly.

What would happen to a member of the clergy if he would openly advocate ordaining women - and thus questioning papal authority?

Nothing. If it were a bishop, there might be a round-about consequence, I suppose, but many priests do openly advocate ordaining women. (To me, it makes *much *more sense to allow married men to become priests if they are so called. But I’m sure that’s just because I’m a misogynist.)

 

[James_S_Saint]

Well, one sees an object never seen before cannot categorize it into one of our neat little boxes we are so fond of. First it is just a new “object”.

This presumes that you are merely discussing “objects” that can be seen by merely the eye and not requiring deep thought. If the “object” you are considering to seek out is not something so easy to visually see, then an understanding of the very make of the object must be known before the seeking takes place.

This is the case when looking for “the mind” or looking for evidence that the universe is intelligent. One must define before hand, what it is that he is about to seek out else he will see nothing at all and declare that there is nothing there.

This is the stand of the atheist, “I looked for God and found nothing, thus God is not there.” But did he define exactly what it is that he was looking for (and its true make) before he went looking?

In most cases, the only definition in mind came from very unreliable sources stemming from fanciful stories and misled people. The real definition is usually not known by such people at all.

If the atheist is to rise above the popular mass misunderstandings, as he claims is so important, then he must realize that the mass is not the source for real definitions.

Thus, make sure you get the definition straight before you go looking and certainly before you go declaring that something does or does not exist.

God is not something likely to simply “fall on your head”.