I think I found the answer

[gavanhe]

Back on topic!

…to a question which was on my mind for a long time. The question is: “Why is it so fruitless to participate in these discussions?”. The best we can achieve is a polite “let’s agree to disagree”, nothing more.

The answer is related to another problem: “accepting evidence which has negative consequences for the person involved”. Please bear with me…

I should imagine that without stretching the imagination too far it would be quite discernible to most to ferrit out the answer to the above question in short order.
As interesting as it may be to have intellectually stimulating discussions, these forums also serve to provide people with answers and to provide questions for further inquiry.
If you’re an atheist and expect to receive compliant answers to your prodding and provoking questioning, you’ll be sorely disappointed. You should at the very least expect a vigorous defense of the catholic position and generally a most thoughtful and courteous reply.
Gerry

 

[Detales]

~JLongoria, too bad that was a “typo.” We almost had something really fascinating to talk about. Better luck next time.

 

[Spock]

You should at the very least expect a vigorous defense of the catholic position and generally a most thoughtful and courteous reply.

Agreed 100%. Unfortunately there are several hurdles to be conquered.

We don’t seem to find a common ground as a starting point. Obviously, to have a meaningful conversation, at the very least, we need some common platform to start from. Even some very simple concepts, like “good”, “bad”, “love”, “morality” mean something different for the theists than they mean to me. When someone says that “God is good”, it seems like a simple proposition at the first glance. But many times, when I try to scratch the surface it turns out that it is just a tautological assertion, namely “good is defined as something that comes from God”. How can a meaningful conversation ensue with such obvious logical errors?

Then there are some more complicated concepts, like the “omnimax” attributes. The way how these are usually presented are completely meaningless for me. Just what does “omniscient” mean? Usually it is presented and “knowing everything”. But that is nonsense. To know something is to have information about something. To have information about a non-existent object is impossible.

Then comes the “Spock-doctrine”, which I submitted in the thread called “How to argue”. Pretty much everyone agreed that the best way to argue with anyone (not just atheists) is to argue on their “turf”. It is nice to bring up Biblical quotes, or appealing to the authority of the Church, but as arguments - they don’t count, as far as an atheist is concerned. Many times I was “accused” of being too persistent, of asking the same question “too” many times, when - allegedly - it was already answered. Except it was not, at least to my understanding. If I ask:“why is something wrong”, please do not answer: “because the Church says so”, or because “that is the Catholic belief”. These are not answers, these are the clarifications of the point of view. Sure, they are welcome as clarifications, but not as answers.

And then of course, come the not-so-educated people, who say stuff like this (and I am not making it up): “science tells us that the universe was created by an infinite being”. Or those who fall into the trap of the “fallacy of the stolen concept”, who use a concept in an inappropriate manner. The real sad part is that these kinds of people are the loudest and most vocal.

I am happy to see a “vigorous” defense, but please use the tools which are meaningful to your “opponent”, and let’s try to find a common starting position.

 

[Detales]

Spock, as much as I appreciate your posts, you’ve gone through this same thing in every thread I’ve seen you on, including “How to Argue.” Thuogh that is now locked, (sorry for my part in that; was in a silly mood and poetry raised its rhyming head…) people can still go there and get some good ideas. The best of those so far, is that *there is not going to be a common ground for atheists and theists *to start from, from those perspectives. I found one for myself, but I don’t think it would be happily accepted by anyone, anyway, so back to square one in any case. I wish you luck, but you will encounter the same brick wall between theists and other believers and Reality no matter what. It is as if personal entrenchment is everyone’s god. Bon Chance!

 

[JLongoria]

I am happy to see a “vigorous” defense, but please use the tools which are meaningful to your “opponent”, and let’s try to find a common starting position.

Agreed!

Yet we have tried this; and when having tried this, we get such gems as,
And go and “enjoy” being infected by some nasty flu bug, after all it is also God’s creation and thus it is “good”.

I see the humor, believe me. But when offering how this is reconciled with my “irrational” beliefs, it gets tossed out as “meaningless”; while I would disagree with “meaningless”, it was not meant to convince you of any existence of God or even of objective moral principles. I didn’t offer it as proof; I have offered no Scripture as such, and I believe it is only adequate in Christian theological circles. Merely, it was offered to show you internal consistency, which you have also very nearly tried to address here as well before changing directions; my acceptance of it is based on the basic belief that “God exists”.

And that belief, that “God exists”, has yet to be refuted adequately by you, and much better minds than you or I. Which is why people, who are generally not as ignorant as some would like to think they are, will go on believing in God for centuries to come just as they have done for thousands of years before.

With that, you are right; we have no common ground to begin with. Except for the fact that we are both human; and the humble creature that we are, who came from the mud one way or another, has since the earliest known times saw a force at work behind all things.

Proof of the divine? No, not any more than I can definitively prove to myself that you exist, or this chair I’m sitting on exists, or that science is really describing anything real. Merely a consideration for you to see that strange inclination in man the world over to believe in things existing outside of himself, and even in the supernatural.

 

[JDaniel]

Spock, as much as I appreciate your posts, you’ve gone through this same thing in every thread I’ve seen you on, including “How to Argue.” Thuogh that is now locked, (sorry for my part in that; was in a silly mood and poetry raised its rhyming head…) people can still go there and get some good ideas. The best of those so far, is that *there is not going to be a common ground for atheists and theists *to start from, from those perspectives. I found one for myself, but I don’t think it would be happily accepted by anyone, anyway, so back to square one in any case. I wish you luck, but you will encounter the same brick wall between theists and other believers and Reality no matter what. It is as if personal entrenchment is everyone’s god. Bon Chance!

Detales:

Do you really suppose that snide comments as in the above rhetoric will ever help you get anything close to “common ground”? You have us over the proverbial barrel: it is clearly uncharitable when we say stuff like that. You just dropped a bunch of notches in my opinion.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Agreed!

Yet we have tried this; and when having tried this, we get such gems as,
And go and “enjoy” being infected by some nasty flu bug, after all it is also God’s creation and thus it is “good”.

I see the humor, believe me. But when offering how this is reconciled with my “irrational” beliefs, it gets tossed out as “meaningless”; while I would disagree with “meaningless”, it was not meant to convince you of any existence of God or even of objective moral principles. I didn’t offer it as proof; I have offered no Scripture as such, and I believe it is only adequate in Christian theological circles. Merely, it was offered to show you internal consistency, which you have also very nearly tried to address here as well before changing directions; my acceptance of it is based on the basic belief that “God exists”.

And that belief, that “God exists”, has yet to be refuted adequately by you, and much better minds than you or I. Which is why people, who are generally not as ignorant as some would like to think they are, will go on believing in God for centuries to come just as they have done for thousands of years before.

With that, you are right; we have no common ground to begin with. Except for the fact that we are both human; and the humble creature that we are, who came from the mud one way or another, has since the earliest known times saw a force at work behind all things.

Proof of the divine? No, not any more than I can definitively prove to myself that you exist, or this chair I’m sitting on exists, or that science is really describing anything real. Merely a consideration for you to see that strange inclination in man the world over to believe in things existing outside of himself, and even in the supernatural.

Very well put, JL. Also, atheists should remember that the total number of theists/deists in the world grossly outnumber them. 4 billion to 240 million.

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

proof? hmmm…i think i gave him that, couldn’t handle it, ran off crying.

 

[kra130]

Its a fair question you pose when asking why or how could an all powerful all knowing God let evil exist. If god is perfect why isn’t the world perfect? if God is good why isn’t everything else in this life good? the character of God must be understood to understand why evil exists in this world. God is a relational being its the reason for the Godhead, the 3 parts of the Almighty in constant communion with each other. now suppose you were God and you wanted to create life and reality for that matter. But more then that you wanted to create other relational being you wanted to create a creature that was similiar to yourself and you want it to love you not obey you but love you. so instead of creating drones God created man and gave him the option to reject. because as much as a drone can obey and do what it is told it can not love because love is an active choice I might not like my friends and family at all times but i choose to love them despite their flaws as they do me. if God wanted a perfect world for his creation he could have very easily done it but with no one or nothing to share it with what good is it. you said that you would like to see your loved ones and that it would be nice if it was true and you also asked if there was a solution to the problem in the world. Well the solution was known before the first sin just as you were known before the world began. The solution is Jesus. I do not know how well read you are or how well churched you are. but as John says in 1 john 2:2 says “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” Jesus laid down his life for your sake. he gave you the option of salvation of finally knowing a perfect world without suffering. the suffering wont end until you pass from this life to the next, but i love what Paul says in Romans 8:18-25 i wont quote it but it basically says that the sufferings of this world are not even worth comparing to the future glory in Christ at the resurrection. please consider this carefully and think about it rationally. What do you have to lose? i can’t remember who said it but if you’re right and i am wrong i lose nothing i die and and at least to me my life had purpose but if i’m right you lose everything.

 

[Detales]

JD, I don’t have you anywhere you don’t want to be. I’m not being snide, I’m making an observation about what has been the dyamic so far. If you are not over the proverbial barrel, what is your proposed common ground? Or are you taking snides, lol?!

 

[Sair]

Spock, as much as I appreciate your posts, you’ve gone through this same thing in every thread I’ve seen you on, including “How to Argue.” Thuogh that is now locked, (sorry for my part in that; was in a silly mood and poetry raised its rhyming head…) people can still go there and get some good ideas. The best of those so far, is that *there is not going to be a common ground for atheists and theists *to start from, from those perspectives. I found one for myself, but I don’t think it would be happily accepted by anyone, anyway, so back to square one in any case. I wish you luck, but you will encounter the same brick wall between theists and other believers and Reality no matter what. It is as if personal entrenchment is everyone’s god. Bon Chance!

I agree that we lack a common starting position. What has become clear to me from reading the series of threads where atheists have attempted to argue with Catholics is that while the logic may (or may not!) be flawless on both sides, the premises from which we argue and the mindsets that inform the premises are fundamentally different. If one side doesn’t accept the other’s premises and vice versa, there can be no common ground. Though sometimes it is possible to arrive at the same endpoint from different beginnings, it’s hard to find that under all the layers of acrimonious accusations and insults that result when we attack each others’ base assumptions.

Speaking as a former Catholic who gradually became less and less convinced of the truth of the worldview with which I grew up, I can kind of understand why many Catholics suspect an atheist conspiracy when we post to these forums. Still, I can see some value in posing a challenge - after all, it’s important to be able to defend one’s beliefs, at least on grounds that make sense at a personal level - and I know that I have certainly gained some worthwhile insights from these debates, so there is still good to be found, perhaps for both sides!

 

[Spock]

Also, atheists should remember that the total number of theists/deists in the world grossly outnumber them. 4 billion to 240 million.

“Argumentum ad numerum” also called “argumentum ad populum” is a boring fallacy.

 

[Spock]

Spock, as much as I appreciate your posts, you’ve gone through this same thing in every thread I’ve seen you on, including “How to Argue.” Thuogh that is now locked, (sorry for my part in that; was in a silly mood and poetry raised its rhyming head…) people can still go there and get some good ideas. The best of those so far, is that *there is not going to be a common ground for atheists and theists *to start from, from those perspectives. I found one for myself, but I don’t think it would be happily accepted by anyone, anyway, so back to square one in any case. I wish you luck, but you will encounter the same brick wall between theists and other believers and Reality no matter what. It is as if personal entrenchment is everyone’s god. Bon Chance!

Thank you. Fortunately we have a nice wide variety of posters around here. Sometimes I hit “pay dirt”, and have a very pleasant conversation with the “opposition”, where we might not agree, but learn from each other. Not everyone is eager to grab a half brick, pounding on his chest and declare “I win!” or “your wrong”…(shivers). The only trouble is that such instances are relatively rare.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Thank you. Fortunately we have a nice wide variety of posters around here. Sometimes I hit “pay dirt”, and have a very pleasant conversation with the “opposition”, where we might not agree, but learn from each other. Not everyone is eager to grab a half brick, pounding on his chest and declare “I win!” or “your wrong”…(shivers). The only trouble is that such instances are relatively rare.

so far paydirt seems to be people who agree with you, or cant really put up a fight.

 

[Detales]

Sair, again a very sane posting. Wish more from others might be so.

I agree about the changing world view. I was attending Cathlic high school and was a very well catchised and proselytizing fellow when I had a forced encounter with the underpinnings of how we percieve our world. It knocked my socks off, and I was regarded by those who witnessed the event as being in need of psychiatric attention, despite displaying a higher than usual ability to cope with the exigencies of life. I met one of those who encouraged me to seek help some ten years later. In the interim he had had a similar experience, as had his wife, and we had a remarkable conversation, now that we had a common experiential referent that was beyond the seeming appearance of the world as we ordinarliy percieve it. That is the reason I have doubts about folks who are habitual, emotional, and dogmatic, ie “faith based” in their protestations. It is for them nearly all content. Few have experienced what all that rests on in awareness as Substance. Those who base their formulations on their inner experience, free of censoring it through dogma, will always be regarded with suspicion. I wrote a poem about it that captures a bit of the feeling, but generally, it is not easily amenable to being spoken. My Mentor was a champ at it, but he is gone now, unfortunately.

We are in good company, as more inclusive ways of interpretation have been around since before the unfortunate dogmatizing events of the second and third centuries. That would include currently living proponents. At least those who question their faith are in a receptive frame of mind. Unfortunately, due to the structure of popular explanations, including, to some extent, science, much data that could be of encouragement and use is not easily available. The result seems to be the either/or, +/-, right/wrong dualistic mentality that is such a defeat when dealing with the multi-dimentional actuality of things. It is as if most folks live on a line, unable to even turn 180 degrees, when not only a plane, but space and beyond are actually available to experience, utilize and enjoy. Such a standpoint of inclusivity also revitalizes the identitiy based statements found in the Bible in an astonishing and utterly relaveant way.

Spock, yes, there are many on here one can actuall converse with. I have found a few treasures even in the most adversarial of these. It is, as I’m sure you might agree, worth it to sift the dross. I sure feel that way.

Q’plah,

Bindar Doondat

 

[Spock]

Spock, yes, there are many on here one can actuall converse with. I have found a few treasures even in the most adversarial of these. It is, as I’m sure you might agree, worth it to sift the dross. I sure feel that way.

So do I. That is why I am still around. As for the rest, I can just disregard them. Some keep making “snide” remarks, but that is their problem, not mine.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So do I. That is why I am still around. As for the rest, I can just disregard them. Some keep making “snide” remarks, but that is their problem, not mine.

you could pretend to disregard them, but then you write this post referencing them…uch:

 

[david_friol_1]

…to a question which was on my mind for a long time. The question is: “Why is it so fruitless to participate in these discussions?”. The best we can achieve is a polite “let’s agree to disagree”, nothing more.

The answer is related to another problem: “accepting evidence which has negative consequences for the person involved”. Please bear with me.

Examples:

1. when some physicists thought that they found a way to “cold fusion”, they had a lot riding on the result. Professional reputation, etc. When other physicists tried to substantiate the result, and failed, the originators of the idea still asserted that they were right. I still don’t know if they admitted their failure or not.
2. when a doctor first declared that stomach ulcer is caused by bacterial infection, he was ridiculed, declared a charlatan. The long entrenched belief was threatened, and the doctors reacted pretty strongly. It took a lot of uphill battle to prove the new discovery.
3. many times parents of a deranged phychopath will adamantly deny that their “baybee” could have done such horrible things.
4. people, who find out that someone in their neighborhood was a serial killer, were skeptical about the result of the investigation. They said, it is impossible that such a nice person would do crimes like that. Remember Jerrey Dahmer.
5. I bet that most computer users would agree that Linux, or the Mac OS are far superior to Windows (especially Vista). But would Bill Gates accept the evidence? I sure doubt it. (He does not even allow his wife to have an iPod, since it is an Apple product.)

The explanation is quite obvious: when you have a lot riding on something you seriously believe, it takes a huge pile of evidence to shake that belief. Sometimes it is impossible to do it. No matter how much evidence or even proof would be presented, it would be explained away, rationalized and rejected. Nothing surprising about it. We all cherish our beliefs and have a hard time facing the fact that it is incorrect.

I am pretty sure that this is the case on these boards. Every time an atheist presents a “challenge”, it invokes resistence, sometimes even overt hostility. No matter how obvious the problem is, it is rationalized and explained away - not that it is ever admitted. See the innumerable threads on the “problem of evil”. Actually, there is nothing wrong with it. You are not cold, detached observers, it is the very foundation of your beliefs that is being “threatened”.

Now, I am pretty sure you will turn the question around, and say that atheists are in the same boat. I cannot speak for other atheists (hopefully they will chip in), but I can speak for myself. If it would turn out that I am incorrect, I would be very surprised, but that would be a pleasant surprise. After all, who wants to die (as long as we are healthy, of course)? Wouldn’t it be great to see our departed loved ones? So the idea that I might be wrong about my beliefs (or lack of them) is not threatening in the least. I would be glad to be wrong. I would be happy, if God would explain why are those horrible evils necessary. What “good” can come out of them which even he could not achieve with all his “omnipotence”?

Any idea how could this problem be resolved? I don’t see a solution.

Hey Spock
The only way this problem could ever be resolved, at least as far as you are concerned requires virtues which you either do not care about or do not believe are valuable. Virtues that require you to check what you write before you send it and ask yourself “Are my statements about Catholic beliefs correct from the Catholic view?” and “Is it necessary to say things like; ‘What “good” can come out of them which even he could not achieve with all his “omnipotence”?’ when I could just as easily leave well enough alone?”. If every question you ask is laced with this type of venom and incorrect statements regarding what Catholics believe should any one even take you seriously? You write like someone who has knowledge but knowledge without prudence is vain. And vanity boasts of itself and on forums like this one it boasts of the quality of ones own unique and intelligent questions but is unsatisfied and probably never will be because the vain one treats others as something less than himself. Read through all your threads and some of your posts (as I have) and see if this is not an acurate description of you my friend.
God bless you as always!

 

[Sair]

“Are my statements about Catholic beliefs correct from the Catholic view?” and “Is it necessary to say things like; ‘What “good” can come out of them which even he could not achieve with all his “omnipotence”?’ when I could just as easily leave well enough alone?”.

I would have thought this was quite a valid question, though, given that one of the main defences against the philosophical argument from evil is the idea that God has some ultimate plan for good that could only be realised by allowing vast evil - despite the fact that omnipotence, which is also generally ascribed to the Judeo-Christian God, implies that this god can do anything logically possible with no effort and at no opportunity cost. It’s hard to see where there’s a logical contradiction in bringing about great good without first allowing or requiring great evil.

Be that as it may, my purpose in commenting wasn’t to go over old and well-trodden ground with the problem of evil. I note the “correct from the Catholic view” clause, which is significant in terms of tackling any debate about religion. Now, of course I appreciate that it’s necessary to have at least a working knowledge of one’s opponent’s position in order to effectively engage in an argument, but my experience has been that in discussing matters of belief and disbelief, in practice this is often a fairly one-sided demand. The unbeliever is often called out for “misrepresenting” the believer’s points, and not considering things from the “correct” Catholic/Methodist/Calvinist/Pentecostal/whatever perspective.

This one-sidedness isn’t really all that surprising, since there’s no one, “correct” atheist perspective beyond mere disbelief in gods. However, one can’t help wondering if the real accusation being levelled here is of insufficient suspension of disbelief. If a person’s beliefs have implications beyond what that person is permitted to consider because of their religious doctrines, then of course accepting the beliefs is contingent on taking the “correct” perspective - ie: one that doesn’t consider all the logical possibilities (or impossibilities) arising from a given article of faith. This is the point behind John Loftus’s outsider test for faith - if one examines the content of any given religion without the mental restrictions imposed by that particular religion, one will see clearly which parts of it make sense and which don’t. It’s like inviting an impartial mediator into a deteriorating relationship - the mediator sees clearly from an outsider’s perspective.

 

[awatkins69]

Now, I am pretty sure you will turn the question around, and say that atheists are in the same boat. I cannot speak for other atheists (hopefully they will chip in), but I can speak for myself. If it would turn out that I am incorrect, I would be very surprised, but that would be a pleasant surprise. After all, who wants to die (as long as we are healthy, of course)? Wouldn’t it be great to see our departed loved ones? So the idea that I might be wrong about my beliefs (or lack of them) is not threatening in the least. I would be glad to be wrong. I would be happy, if God would explain why are those horrible evils necessary. What “good” can come out of them which even he could not achieve with all his “omnipotence”?

Any idea how could this problem be resolved? I don’t see a solution.

I honestly don’t see the problem of evil as a real problem. I think the real problem is discovering more fully God’s attributes. If theists argue for the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent first cause and their arguments are sound, the best the arguments from evil can do is show that some attribute doesn’t inhere in that entity. Maybe the Christian will have to say that God is not a being that does everything a human being would be obligated to do. On the Christian side it doesn’t even really matter. If an omnipotent and omniscient being gave us a way to eternal happiness, a gift than which nothing greater could be given, call it whatever you want: omnimalevolent, omnibenevolent, it doesn’t really matter. One can take God’s all-goodness to mean that all good things come from his goodness, or something of the sort. And if one provides a sound argument for a being which is omniscient, omnipotent, and from which all good things come, then you have shown that there is such a being, plain and simple. So the real question is not “How do you explain this phenomena?” The real question is, “Can you provide evidence for such a being?”

By the way, “Omnibenevolence” is not even a Catholic term. In fact, it’s not even mentioned in the scholastic and Catholic philosophical tradition. The word was invented in the nineteenth century.

One might reply, “Well, I don’t want to believe in a God which allows these evils in the world.” But at that point we’ve entered a more personal realm, haven’t we?

If you’re interested, I’ve written a little bit about God’s goodness here.