Is God a good teacher?

[davidv]

I have absolutely no problem with “God”. I have problem with the inconsistencies that the believers say about God.

This contrary to the content of your posts in this thread.

Btw, what was wrong with the “garden of Eden”?

Nothing was wrong with the garden.

Indeed a “good” God would not present a temptation, just like a good parent would not place a bowl of poisoned candy within easy reach of the child, and sternly warn him: “do not touch that candy!”.

I don’t think you understand the story. God didn’t tempt them, the serpant did.

Only an indifferent or malicious person would knowingly endanger the life of a child he allegedly “loves”. It is not enough to proclaim loudly how much you love your child, when all your actions (visible to all who care to look) show that you “don’t give a dayum” as Rhett Butler said.

Strawman.

 

[fhansen]

Only to a certain, very limited extent. We do not have a “hard-wired”, inborn value system (no matter how many times that nauseating “scribbled onto our heart” nonsense is repeated). Our value-system, or conscience is being formed by our experiences and our upbringing.

It can appear to be a subtle distinction as to whether or not morality is objective but morality involves both the nature and the will of man. Cats don’t bark like dogs and presumably wouldn’t even if they could. Humans generally don’t bark like dogs but do so now and then simply because they can. Likewise, generally speaking, the vast majority of humans don’t murder, rape, torture, or commit pedophilia or incest-it doesn’t even occur to them to do so-presumably because its not in their nature to do so even though they can.

So the question comes up: is it intrinsically evil to torture a child, or take away another person’s livelihood or reputation with false accusations-lying-in order to better one’s own position in some manner or another? Or are we simply acting according to convention when we’re repulsed by such actions, when we experience moral outrage or righteous indignation? It’s easy for us to consider, from the vantage point of our armchairs, that the holocaust was a morally neutral event in the overall scheme of things; we can categorize any act whatsoever into a range between good and evil-or neither, actually- if we so desire by determining all morality to be relative to our own thinking/opinion, but then concepts such as justice and fairness and moral responsibility are really reduced to make-believe values: no act, regardless of how deliberate, malicious in intent, or heinous, is intrinsically evil.

There is no such thing as “THE truth”, there are zillions of true statements. And there is nothing wrong with pursuing glory, wealth, possessions and pleasure - AS LONG AS we do not trample on others in our endeavor to reach those goals.

No, there’s nothing wrong with pursuing those things, except that the desire for them often makes us compromise our innate sense of justice that dictates that we can do things AS LONG AS we do not trample on others; that last part being a truth statement in itself.

 

[Tyrion]

It can appear to be a subtle distinction as to whether or not morality is objective but morality involves both the nature and the will of man.

I am happy to answer your question, but I need one clarification: “when you speak of human nature”, do you involve all humans who lived in the last (approximately) 100,000 years? Even the cavemen? Those who had nothing against clubbing and eating other humans?

Cats don’t bark like dogs and presumably wouldn’t even if they could.

I am sure they would, as a defensive act.

Likewise, generally speaking, the vast majority of humans don’t murder, rape, torture, or commit pedophilia or incest-it doesn’t even occur to them to do so-presumably because its not in their nature to do so even though they can.

I wish it was like this… but it is not. We have very few “hard-wired” traits, one of them is the ability to learn to speak. Let’s not confuse the modern humans with our ancestors, who were also genetically human beings. They had nothing against murder, rape, torture, genocide or incest. Even in the middle ages these activities were practiced with gusto.

So the question comes up: is it intrinsically evil to torture a child, or take away another person’s livelihood or reputation with false accusations-lying-in order to better one’s own position in some manner or another? Or are we simply acting according to convention when we’re repulsed by such actions, when we experience moral outrage or righteous indignation?

Unfortunately this is the case. We are conditioned to practice socially acceptable behavior. And when the socially acceptable behavior allowed all those actions, they were practiced. From our vantage point it is horrible… but we have been also conditioned, just like they were.

It’s easy for us to consider, from the vantage point of our armchairs, that the holocaust was a morally neutral event in the overall scheme of things; we can categorize any act whatsoever into a range between good and evil-or neither, actually- if we so desire by determining all morality to be relative to our own thinking/opinion, but then concepts such as justice and fairness and moral responsibility are really reduced to make-believe values: no act, regardless of how deliberate, malicious in intent, or heinous, is intrinsically evil.

Sure, they are make-believe values, but they are still very valuable - here and now. Not in the “greater scheme of things” (as you put it), but they make our life much better and more pleasurable. The moral code we speak of is a social construct, which is still objective, but not absolute.

No, there’s nothing wrong with pursuing those things, except that the desire for them often makes us compromise our innate sense of justice that dictates that we can do things AS LONG AS we do not trample on others; that last part being a truth statement in itself.

Alas, that statement is only true in the recent few hundred years. When we started to realize that our own well-being is co-dependent on the well-being of others, and it is better to compromise than to antagonize. Though many people still never learned that lesson. It would be so much better, if we had an in-born ability to understand higher mathematics - specifically game theory - since then we could understand that a healthy balance of cooperation and competition is the best overall strategy in the “game of life”. Since life is not a “zero-sum game”, we can all come out ahead, if we practice a good, mutually beneficial strategy. Too bad that this simple fact is not understood by most people. If only that hypothetical “God” would have instilled higher mathematics in us…

I suggest you ponder my question at the top of this post… what kind of “human nature” do we share with the cave-men?

 

[MPat]

And that is exactly what is missing. No lectures from God.

Have you looked at the curriculum…?

That is trivially obvious, not worth to mention.

Well, you did seem to imply that “a good professor” will strive (and succeed) prevent anyone from failing - even the ones who want to fail. And I am not sure that trivial things should be left unsaid in this subforum…

You mean that God is “too busy” to do all the work by himself? That would be a ridiculous assumption, but if he wishes to shovel the dirty work on others, he could come and personally announce the “assistants”. And please do not say that God named the church for that role. The church merely claims that God appointed it, and anyone can make such a claim.

You do know that one of the best ways to learn something is to try to teach someone else, right? After all, that’s why most of us are here - it’s not like we actually expect to persuade someone in an instant.

As you can see, I didn’t have to bring up the Church. However, your point “The church merely claims that God appointed it” makes me question what exactly is “given” and what exactly are you are trying to prove. Normally, I would expect that you want to prove a statement “If Catholicism is true, then [the subject of the thread].”. But then you must start with a temporary assumption “Catholicism is true.” and work your way to the conclusion you want to prove. However, to do so, you must keep that temporary assertion until the last moment. Thus, at the moment you must still assume (temporarily) that Catholicism is true and thus the Church actually does represent God. Otherwise you are only going to prove that if the universe works exactly as you believe, then God does not exist… Not a very interesting conclusion: we already know that you are an atheist…

The parents do not speak for God either.

That is a feedback, all right, but there is no reason to attribute it to God. One can learn that violence is an inferior method of conflict resolution. There is no “feedback” to reinforce that masturbation is “sinful”, when it not only has no negative physiological effects, but actually has positive ones. (The blindness “hypothesis” was refuted a long time ago.)

Sorry, but you have yet to give a reason why such “attribution” would be necessary.

For your second point, punching someone in the face also doesn’t have any significantly bad direct “physiological” effects… However, it might have some bad “sociological” effects… They count as well…

No one has ever explained what constitutes “full knowledge”. That is what God should do. I have full knowledge that the church considers “fornication” a “grave act”, and when I was young I engaged in those acts “willfully”. However, I reject the church as an authority, and therefore I did not have full knowledge that fornication is a “grave act”. In my assessment there is a world of difference between “action ‘X’ is a grave matter”, and “in the opinion of ‘Y’ it is a grave matter”.

So did I commit a “mortal” sin? By the way the dogmas also say that rejecting the authority of the church is also a mortal sin… so God’s clarification is desperately needed… and he does not come to give it.

Did you commit a mortal sin? How am I supposed to know? As far, as I know, I have never even met you. And in order to answer such question I would probably also have to find out how strong your faith in the absence of God is. I don’t think that is realistic…

 

[Ion]

Did you commit a mortal sin? How am I supposed to know? As far, as I know, I have never even met you. And in order to answer such question I would probably also have to find out how strong your faith in the absence of God is. I don’t think that is realistic…

Speaking like he does is mortal sin. He just cant get out of his own image of the world.

 

[Tyrion]

Have you looked at the curriculum…?

Please, don’t evade. The final outcome - according to the church - is to get to heaven or to burn in hell - forever. To achieve the first and to avoid the second one must conform to the “do’s” and avoid the “don’t’s”. The trouble is that neither the “do’s” nor the “don’t’s” are listed in an unambiguous, crystal clear format. I would say that the number one requirement is to tell the “students” the precise circumstances of success and fail. God never did that, and the church never attempted to do it. To say that Jesus made a condensed commandment: “Love God and love your neighbor” is too nebulous to be useful.

Well, you did seem to imply that “a good professor” will strive (and succeed) prevent anyone from failing - even the ones who want to fail.

Oh, come on! Who “wants”, “wishes” or “desires” to burn and suffer forever? Not even a mentally disturbed would select that “option”. I am aware that many people argue that one “chooses hell”. I am close to puking whenever I see that … (choose a very strong word, which is watered down to the word: nonsense).

You do know that one of the best ways to learn something is to try to teach someone else, right?

Sure. Docendo discimus - as the old Romans said. But I am talking about the best way to teach. You do not start from the position of total ignorance, because that would be akin to the “blind leading the unsighted”.

As you can see, I didn’t have to bring up the Church. However, your point “The church merely claims that God appointed it” makes me question what exactly is “given” and what exactly are you are trying to prove.

I am not interested in “proving” anything.

Normally, I would expect that you want to prove a statement “If Catholicism is true, then [the subject of the thread].”. But then you must start with a temporary assumption “Catholicism is true.” and work your way to the conclusion you want to prove. However, to do so, you must keep that temporary assertion until the last moment. Thus, at the moment you must still assume (temporarily) that Catholicism is true and thus the Church actually does represent God.

That is not correct. I am starting from the teaching of the church, without assuming that it is either true or false. The hypothesis is left open. Then examine the facts and I use reason and logic (no “faith”) and see what are the corollaries of that teaching. In other words: “let’s see where the chips may fall”. What you say is something like this:

1. Assumption: All elephants can play the violin.
2. Fact: Jumbo is an elephant.
3. Observation: But Jumbo cannot play the violin.
4. Conclusion: "#3 was a measurement error, since it contradicts #1, and one is obliged to assume that #1 is true.

Please, don’t laugh. The same syllogism was offered in a slightly modified format:

1. Assumption: God is all-good, all-loving and all-caring.
2. Fact: An all-good, all-loving and all-caring being would feed the hungry, heal the sick, rescue the tortured.
3. Observation: There are hungry, sick and tortured people.
4. Conclusion: #3 was a measurement error, since it contradicts #1, and one is obliged to assume that #1 is true.

Cross my heart… it was offered and not just once but several times.

Otherwise you are only going to prove that if the universe works exactly as you believe, then God does not exist…

The point is that the universe DOES work as I “believe”, since that “belief” is grounded in evidence. I am offering you the chance to show that the evidence is incorrect, but all you do is to say: “it is all a measurement error, since if it WERE true, it WOULD contradict the catholic hypothesis, which is unacceptable”. (Just a side note, does not need a reply: I can understand that you believe that God created all this caboodle around us. I understand that based upon that belief you conclude that God is extremely knowledgeable and powerful. After all that “evidence” does not contradict God’s power or knowledge. But what I cannot understand is the belief that God loves us, or cares about us. Not only there is no evidence for that, but all the evidence contradicts that hypothesis.)

Not a very interesting conclusion: we already know that you are an atheist…

The “truth” is not always spectacular.

For your second point, punching someone in the face also doesn’t have any significantly bad direct “physiological” effects… However, it might have some bad “sociological” effects… They count as well…

Punching someone in the nose has bad physiological effects. Masturbation does not.

Did you commit a mortal sin? How am I supposed to know? As far, as I know, I have never even met you. And in order to answer such question I would probably also have to find out how strong your faith in the absence of God is. I don’t think that is realistic…

I gave you all the information that is known to me. Of course the fundamental question is not if I committed a mortal sin, but: “what constitutes ‘full knowledge’ to decide if action ‘X’ is a grave matter?” And that question is left unanswered, no matter how many times it is asked… And God does not come and answer it either.

 

[LilyM]

Actually… After reading this I get the impression that you ended up arguing in favour of the statement “God does not act like a good dog trainer.”. For it is true that dog trainers (and the like) do their best to give feedback immediately.

But, well, humans do not happen to be very good at being dogs… And I am not sure that good teachers of humans must instantly say if the answer is right or wrong. On the contrary, I would say that it is much more correct to lead the student (using the questions or with some other means) into conditions where (eventually) he would end up in “trouble” (for example, run into a contradiction) and thus would see that his answer was wrong. And that seems to be what God is trying to do too…

Exactly! Immediate feedback my foot - who here has not had to wait … and wait … and wait some more … for the results of a school exam, a job interview or a medical test? By no means are those who do not give immediate feedback bad teachers though. The wait itself can in fact be instructive, and a good teacher knows we need to learn more than mere maths or history or whatnot, but also things like patience and delayed gratification.

 

[LilyM]

Here’s the other thing - I’ve found numerous scientists and philosophers, and even ordinary people, who lived hundreds or even thousands of years ago, have been my teachers on a level to equal anyone in my own lifetime.

With never a word of feedback, rarely an explicit list of rules, never a test, just thoughts expressed undogmatically and practical example and instruction given through the record of their lives and deeds. Sometimes quite unintentionally too, for some never set themselves out to teach or inspire or set an example.

So your idea of what makes a good teacher is limited at best.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Indeed, that is a huge part of how one learns. But without giving a “starting kick” it is extremely inefficient. You do not throw your child from the house at the age of 3, and tell him: “go and learn on your own”.

But that’s the entire point - no one does “learn on their own”. At the very least, the upbringing of children by parents and communities directs individuals, which is a “starting kick”. Moreover, I’d still hold that there is a universal moral sense that can be reasoned to (as well as other aspects of life, such as the order of nature, beauty, the thirst for the numinous, etc.) that are all part of this “starting kick”. I think you need to demonstrate adequately that God doesn’t work through human nature and nature generally to teach us, which is difficult to do.

Bad example. If my son would wield a gun, pointing to his head and telling me that he is about to pull the trigger, I certainly would try to prevent this act. But, yes, if he would explain that he already has a terminal cancer, and his pain is getting unendurable, then I would endorse his decision - precisely because I love him and I would respect his freedom. And funny, that in this case most catholics would force him to live in horrible pain, and would not respect his freedom… so how and where is this “respect” you speak about? Would you practice what you preach?

Why is it a bad example? Obviously there are times when you would try to prevent someone doing something destructive to themselves or others, but you are assuming God does not try likewise. Again, God works through many ways to stop people but He won’t force anyone (though even that may not be true). In fact, God may so order things that it would prevent certain evils from occurring.

I think you need to draw the distinction between (i) someone killing themselves, (ii) someone dying naturally of a condition, and (iii) someone else killing someone. The last is never morally acceptable, and I think that’s what you’re alluding to here. If the person wished to kill themselves, I’d try to dissuade them - show them there are very good reasons for living and that they are not owners of their own lies - but ultimately it is their decision.

Nonsense. What about the freedom to blow up a city? Is that “freedom” also “sacrosanct”?

Don’t be silly, Tyrion. In a case like that, a person is killing others too! Sheesh… What I mean is - to put it bluntly - we have to respect people who will do things we consider unsafe or dangerous, e.g. climb Mount Everest, drive racing cars, go sailing, etc. because they are rational human beings with a degree of autonomy. Naturally, this doesn’t always apply (they might be under the influence of drugs, children, etc.).

Sorry, I must have missed that lesson. When and where did he do that?

Haha He’s been doing it all the the time and in practically every way.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Oh, come on! Who “wants”, “wishes” or “desires” to burn and suffer forever? Not even a mentally disturbed would select that “option”. I am aware that many people argue that one “chooses hell”. I am close to puking whenever I see that … (choose a very strong word, which is watered down to the word: nonsense).

On this point, Tyrion, you might be surprised.

Obviously no-one wants or wishes to have eternal pain but… some people don’t like the alternative either: a God who challenges us in life to live morally, to desire Him and all that is good. It isn’t so much about people desiring hell but not desiring God. Hell is the absence of God and this is necessarily painful. Therefore any desire to not be with God is hell. So technically there isn’t heaven or hell but heaven or hells.

 

[Tyrion]

But that’s the entire point - no one does “learn on their own”. At the very least, the upbringing of children by parents and communities directs individuals, which is a “starting kick”.

That is the case when the blind leads the unsighted. NO ONE is privy to the requirements of the behavior which will allow one to get to heaven. There are zillions of behavioral “do’s” and “don’t’s”, and God never gave out the comprehensive list.

Moreover, I’d still hold that there is a universal moral sense that can be reasoned to (as well as other aspects of life, such as the order of nature, beauty, the thirst for the numinous, etc.) that are all part of this “starting kick”. I think you need to demonstrate adequately that God doesn’t work through human nature and nature generally to teach us, which is difficult to do.

A child’s play. There is no universal human nature concerning the so-called “moral behavior”. Our forefathers in the caves saw nothing wrong with killing and eating the people in the neighboring tribes, saw nothing wrong with kidnapping and raping their women. In the medieval Japan the sexual conduct was extremely “permissive”, all behaviors were accepted, heterosexual, homosexual, bestiality, you name all the “perversions”. It is time that you faced that fact that there in no “universal moral code” scratched or scribbled on the “hearts” or the “small intestines” of all humans.

Why is it a bad example? Obviously there are times when you would try to prevent someone doing something destructive to themselves or others, but you are assuming God does not try likewise.

An argument from ignorance does not help. There is no sign that God attempts to do anything of the kind.

I think you need to draw the distinction between (i) someone killing themselves, (ii) someone dying naturally of a condition, and (iii) someone else killing someone. The last is never morally acceptable, and I think that’s what you’re alluding to here.

I am sure you forgot the killing in (self)-defense. But I am not talking about such trivial cases. Only in YOUR (plural) opinion about morality it is reprehensible to perform a mercy killing.

Don’t be silly, Tyrion. In a case like that, a person is killing others too!

Sure, but some people say that any limitation on freedom is unacceptable. Yet others contend that the freedom of will has nothing to do with freedom to act on that will. In their eyes it is perfectly sufficient to have the internal freedom to come to a decision, regardless of the ability (or lack of it) to put that decision into practice. It might be a grand idea to come into agreement with your fellow believers.

Haha He’s been doing it all the the time and in practically every way.

Yeah, right… such generalities are useless…

Obviously no-one wants or wishes to have eternal pain but… some people don’t like the alternative either: a God who challenges us in life to live morally, to desire Him and all that is good.

Since God never manifests his actual existence, or his requirements concerning “moral life”, there is no “challenge” which could be fulfilled.

It isn’t so much about people desiring hell but not desiring God.

Since God’s existence is doubtful, there is nothing to be “desired”. This whole dichotomy between heaven and hell is such a childish superstition. As if everything would be either black or white… these are the only two colors you can imagine.

Hell is the absence of God and this is necessarily painful. Therefore any desire to not be with God is hell. So technically there isn’t heaven or hell but heaven or hells.

Oh, yes, the “new, improved, politically correct” presentation of hell. In this existence we are separated from God, and it is not too shabby. Could be better and could be worse. What you suggest is exactly as unacceptable as the usual allegory, namely that some people “choose” prison by performing illegal actions. What nonsense! People do not “choose” to go to prison, they must be DRAGGED there. Likewise no one is pounding on the gates of hell, demanding admittance, they must be “thrown” there by God (who might outsource the actual action to his “dark minions”.)

But all that is a side-track. Present the precise list of “do’s” and “don’t’s” of getting into heaven. If you cannot, do the proper incantations to “nudge” God to do it. Then we shall have something to talk about.

 

[jonathan_hili]

That is the case when the blind leads the unsighted. NO ONE is privy to the requirements of the behavior which will allow one to get to heaven. There are zillions of behavioral “do’s” and “don’t’s”, and God never gave out the comprehensive list.

From what perspective are you speaking, Tyrion? I mean, it can be very simply stated, I suppose, that if knowing the good you strive to live a good life you are moving towards God (which is heaven). From a Catholic perspective, God judges us on what we know: what we knowingly do with what we know and what we knowingly reject. It isn’t so much as ticking off lists to be with God; it is more of a state of being: you become someone who desires God.

A child’s play. There is no universal human nature concerning the so-called “moral behavior”. Our forefathers in the caves saw nothing wrong with killing and eating the people in the neighboring tribes, saw nothing wrong with kidnapping and raping their women. In the medieval Japan the sexual conduct was extremely “permissive”, all behaviors were accepted, heterosexual, homosexual, bestiality, you name all the “perversions”. It is time that you faced that fact that there in no “universal moral code” scratched or scribbled on the “hearts” or the “small intestines” of all humans.

Well, I’m not sure how to respond to this, apart from pointing out the remarkable agreement on moral matters throughout different cultures throughout history. Also, I’m not sure how anyone can be certain what our forefathers did in caves, precisely since it is prehistory. It is a bit presumptuous to adjudicate on such a point.

If there is no universal moral code, as you state, I’m not sure how you can call God a bad teacher, since “goodness” and “badness” require a standard by which to judge them. For example, you mentioned “feedback” before as a criteria for a good teacher. But why? I mean, perhaps a good teacher is one that allows students to suffer and learn from themselves with little help from the teacher. If there is no universal standard it’s difficult - perhaps impossible - to come to such a conclusion.

An argument from ignorance does not help. There is no sign that God attempts to do anything of the kind.

I understand that you don’t see such signs, but many others claim to do so. So I guess it’s a question of interpretation and, on this point, we probably see what we want from out worldview.

I am sure you forgot the killing in (self)-defense. But I am not talking about such trivial cases. Only in YOUR (plural) opinion about morality it is reprehensible to perform a mercy killing.

This might be true, Tyrion, but notice the difference: we (I suppose you mean Catholics) can hang our hat on a hook here. Since we believe in universal, objective morality, we can say “such and such is good for X reason, which is binding” but I don’t think you can say that. If all you can say is “mercy killing is good” - and by “good” mean “my preference” or something of the such - then I don’t see what the real value of such a moral statement is, and why anyone should adopt it.

Do you understand why the Catholic Church thinks it is wrong to perform “mercy” killing?

Yeah, right… such generalities are useless…

But usually the truth is only seen in generalities. As Chesterton said, he believed in the truth of Christianity not because one thing proved it but everything proved it. I suppose when you look at the world through Christian lenses, you begin to see how it all fits, but without them, it is not the same.

Since God never manifests his actual existence, or his requirements concerning “moral life”, there is no “challenge” which could be fulfilled.

But Christians, Jews and Muslims believe God has manifested such things in one way or another. Moreover, it is also a question of using our moral instinct and reason to reach such requirements on us.

Since God’s existence is doubtful, there is nothing to be “desired”. This whole dichotomy between heaven and hell is such a childish superstition. As if everything would be either black or white… these are the only two colors you can imagine.

Well, Tyrion, I don’t understand why you bother to post at all, to be honest. I don’t mean to be rude but if you’re going to completely reject the possibility of God’s existence and His revelation to people, then what is the point of questioning whether He is a good teacher? It’s like me arguing that Ted Kennedy is a bad president when he obviously was never one.

Oh, yes, the “new, improved, politically correct” presentation of hell. In this existence we are separated from God, and it is not too shabby. Could be better and could be worse. What you suggest is exactly as unacceptable as the usual allegory, namely that some people “choose” prison by performing illegal actions. What nonsense! People do not “choose” to go to prison, they must be DRAGGED there. Likewise no one is pounding on the gates of hell, demanding admittance, they must be “thrown” there by God (who might outsource the actual action to his “dark minions”.)

But all that is a side-track. Present the precise list of “do’s” and “don’t’s” of getting into heaven. If you cannot, do the proper incantations to “nudge” God to do it. Then we shall have something to talk about.

Sorry dude, I just find your manner a bit too brusque and disrespectful to respond any further. I think you’re stuck in an interpretation of Christianity that is on the level of a 10-year-old. I’d honestly suggest speaking with a local priest or reading up on what some Catholic theologians during the 20th century have said.

 

[polytropos]

The final outcome - according to the church - is to get to heaven or to burn in hell - forever. To achieve the first and to avoid the second one must conform to the “do’s” and avoid the “don’t’s”. The trouble is that neither the “do’s” nor the “don’t’s” are listed in an unambiguous, crystal clear format. I would say that the number one requirement is to tell the “students” the precise circumstances of success and fail. God never did that, and the church never attempted to do it. To say that Jesus made a condensed commandment: “Love God and love your neighbor” is too nebulous to be useful.

Of course the fundamental question is not if I committed a mortal sin, but: “what constitutes ‘full knowledge’ to decide if action ‘X’ is a grave matter?” And that question is left unanswered, no matter how many times it is asked… And God does not come and answer it either.

I have seen you make similar statements before, but you will have to clarify what you mean because I don’t understand. Do you really feel that the Church does not articulate the do’s and don’t’s - what we must do and avoid in order to get to heaven? Part 3 of the Catechism is devoted entirely to that. To say that the moral system laid out there is unclear is, I think, false. While every specific action is not enumerated, because that would be impossible, the guiding principles (ie. the virtues) should be sufficient for a reasonable man to figure things out. If not, you just need to have a chat with your priest.

I also do not understand what is ambiguous about the term full knowledge. Did you know that a given action was a sin when you committed it - or not? If the answer is “no” or “kind of,” then you did not have full knowledge. We can’t quantify knowledge, sure, but someone with, say, 80% knowledge of having committed grave matter probably ought to go to confession anyway. Honestly, even if you had no knowledge, it’s still a great idea to go to confession after you learn that the action was a sin.

This seems to me to be the biggest assumption you make about Catholic morality and salvation, that it’s all about do’s and don’t’s. I heartily disagree that the Church has not sufficiently articulated the do’s and don’t’s, but in any case, the cultivation of virtue (which the Church defines as a firm disposition to do good) is more important than specific actions.

Your misunderstanding in this area explains why you made this topic. You did not respond to my earlier post that said that you had not sufficiently demonstrated that the type of teacher you were proposing would produce the type of believers that God wants. God does not want believers who avoid committing bad actions because in the past he has chastised them; he wants believers who do the good because they love God and their neighbor.

The problem is not that God is not whispering in your ear. The problem is that you will find any reason not to follow his laws if he does not whisper in your ear. You will not “risk” undertaking his morality unless he is willing to pat you on the back. You will put your fingers in your ears and keep saying that you don’t know what full knowledge is, that you have no reason to believe the Church, that God hasn’t said anything to you verbally, that you can’t count on revelation.

 

[MPat]

I am not interested in “proving” anything.

Then what are you trying to do here…?

That is not correct. I am starting from the teaching of the church, without assuming that it is either true or false. The hypothesis is left open. Then examine the facts and I use reason and logic (no “faith”) and see what are the corollaries of that teaching. In other words: “let’s see where the chips may fall”. What you say is something like this:

1. Assumption: All elephants can play the violin.
2. Fact: Jumbo is an elephant.
3. Observation: But Jumbo cannot play the violin.
4. Conclusion: "#3 was a measurement error, since it contradicts #1, and one is obliged to assume that #1 is true.

Please, don’t laugh. The same syllogism was offered in a slightly modified format:

1. Assumption: God is all-good, all-loving and all-caring.
2. Fact: An all-good, all-loving and all-caring being would feed the hungry, heal the sick, rescue the tortured.
3. Observation: There are hungry, sick and tortured people.
4. Conclusion: #3 was a measurement error, since it contradicts #1, and one is obliged to assume that #1 is true.

Cross my heart… it was offered and not just once but several times.

Sorry, but that is too important, thus everything else will probably have to wait…

First of all, what you have given is not a “syllogism” (not even a malformed one). A standard syllogism starts with two (2) premises and reaches one (1) conclusion. And all those statements must be of form “All/some A are/are not B.”.

Second, as far, as Logic is concerned, there is no reason to classify the premises into “assumptions”, “facts” and “observations”. Something either is a premise (or a “temporary premise”, “temporary assumption”, “hypothesis”), or is not.

Third, the statement of the form “if A, then B.” can be proved using natural deduction by making a temporary assumption A and showing that B follows.

For example, have a look at the tool proofmood.com/en/Fitch/fitch.php . In its documentation a proof of “If A then C” given the premises “If A then B” and “If B then C”. The exported proof would be:

A $ B ;B $ C entails A entails B elim 1,3 ;C elim 2,4 ] ;A$C intro 3-5 ] !line_cnc6

You can also try a proof that disproves a hypothesis (A and not A):

entails A & ~A entails A :& elim 2 ;~A :& elim 2 ;^ :^ intro 3,4 ] ;~(A&~A) :~ intro 2-5 ] !line_cnc6

And you can also have a look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_deduction#Hypothetical_derivations .

So please, no “cheating”. If you want to show that Catholicism is self-contradicting, start with hypothesis that Catholicism is true and your view is wrong. And don’t abandon it until you run into a contradiction. Otherwise it is just too easy to show that your reasoning is faulty…

 

[Ion]

Then what are you trying to do here…?

Sorry, but that is too important, thus everything else will probably have to wait…

First of all, what you have given is not a “syllogism” (not even a malformed one). A standard syllogism starts with two (2) premises and reaches one (1) conclusion. And all those statements must be of form “All/some A are/are not B.”.

Second, as far, as Logic is concerned, there is no reason to classify the premises into “assumptions”, “facts” and “observations”. Something either is a premise (or a “temporary premise”, “temporary assumption”, “hypothesis”), or is not.

Third, the statement of the form “if A, then B.” can be proved using natural deduction by making a temporary assumption A and showing that B follows.

For example, have a look at the tool proofmood.com/en/Fitch/fitch.php . In its documentation a proof of “If A then C” given the premises “If A then B” and “If B then C”. The exported proof would be:

A $ B ;B $ C entails A entails B elim 1,3 ;C elim 2,4 ] ;A$C intro 3-5 ] !line_cnc6

You can also try a proof that disproves a hypothesis (A and not A):

entails A & ~A entails A :& elim 2 ;~A :& elim 2 ;^ :^ intro 3,4 ] ;~(A&~A) :~ intro 2-5 ] !line_cnc6

And you can also have a look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_deduction#Hypothetical_derivations .

So please, no “cheating”. If you want to show that Catholicism is self-contradicting, start with hypothesis that Catholicism is true and your view is wrong. And don’t abandon it until you run into a contradiction. Otherwise it is just too easy to show that your reasoning is faulty…

You can say it in a more simple way :“Jumbo didn’t want to play the violin”

 

[Tyrion]

I have seen you make similar statements before, but you will have to clarify what you mean because I don’t understand. Do you really feel that the Church does not articulate the do’s and don’t’s - what we must do and avoid in order to get to heaven? Part 3 of the Catechism is devoted entirely to that. To say that the moral system laid out there is unclear is, I think, false. While every specific action is not enumerated, because that would be impossible, the guiding principles (ie. the virtues) should be sufficient for a reasonable man to figure things out. If not, you just need to have a chat with your priest.

The problem is that the church admits that it is not in the position of knowing even the simplest case: “the fate of a miscarriage, or a not-implanted zygote, which is flushed out of the woman’s system”. How could it then speak about the complicated issues? Yes, I heard, that there was never a “revelation” about this specific issue, but that is exactly the problem I am pursuing: “why is there no clear revelation about the all these problematic issues?”. How can you reconcile God’s alleged “love” for us, by keeping us in the dark? And what you consider a “revelation” is not sufficient in the eyes of the non-strictly-super-ultra-orthodox catholics.

I also do not understand what is ambiguous about the term full knowledge. Did you know that a given action was a sin when you committed it - or not? If the answer is “no” or “kind of,” then you did not have full knowledge.

That is funny. Since I do not accept even the concept of “sin” (being an atheist), does that give me a “get out of jail free” card? Does that make me “invincibly ignorant”? Not according to the church, but again, the church is not an authority for a non-Catholic. As such the question: “what constitutes full knowledge” is of utmost importance. If person “A” says that action “X” is sinful, while person “B” say that it is not sinful, then there is a valid need for an objective epistemological method to decide, which opinion is correct, and which one is not. Don’t you agree?

We can’t quantify knowledge, sure, but someone with, say, 80% knowledge of having committed grave matter probably ought to go to confession anyway. Honestly, even if you had no knowledge, it’s still a great idea to go to confession after you learn that the action was a sin.

But that is again the problem. The one who states that action “X” was sinful has no credibility when he presents his opinion. Naturally, I am trying to lead as good a life as I can. Never have I killed anyone, or cheated anyone, or done anything major(!) that is against the law. (Minor things, obviously.) I try to be helpful toward the homeless, help out my sick neighbor, share my home with others… Not that any of these “helps” - according to the church, since one cannot “earn” heaven by good works, alone. (By the way, such utterances of the church play a major role why the church has absolutely no credibility in the my eyes.) But I performed many acts that the church considers “sinful”. Since in my eyes the church is wrong, why should I seek its advice on those matters?

Your misunderstanding in this area explains why you made this topic. You did not respond to my earlier post that said that you had not sufficiently demonstrated that the type of teacher you were proposing would produce the type of believers that God wants.

Sorry, but none of us is in the position to speak authoritatively about what kind of a believer God “wants”.

God does not want believers who avoid committing bad actions because in the past he has chastised them; he wants believers who do the good because they love God and their neighbor.

That would be fine, though it would still require a “revelation” about God’s existence and another one about the nuances of “what constitutes ‘to love’ God”.

The problem is not that God is not whispering in your ear. The problem is that you will find any reason not to follow his laws if he does not whisper in your ear. You will not “risk” undertaking his morality unless he is willing to pat you on the back. You will put your fingers in your ears and keep saying that you don’t know what full knowledge is, that you have no reason to believe the Church, that God hasn’t said anything to you verbally, that you can’t count on revelation.

There is no and there was no “revelation” - to any of us, in a fashion that we could recognize as such. I am totally in the dark as to what those “laws of God” might be - so I am left to my own devices as to figure out them. Sure, I can surmise that applying the concept of reciprocity (a fully secular concept) and being kind and helpful to others is something that God might want, but this us woefully insufficient, since one cannot “bribe” one’s way to heaven.

Besides, what is wrong with a gentle pat on the head and a whisper (as you say): “well done my beloved child!”, or a slap on the wrist: “no, don’t do that”. To guide someone in the right direction or warn away from the wrong one does not take away from the “free will” - though some people would say that. As a matter of fact, God could have started by actually instilling in all of us a good “disposition”, a true moral compass, which would act as an internal “whisper” to guide us. But there is no such “compass”.

 

[Tyrion]

From what perspective are you speaking, Tyrion? I mean, it can be very simply stated, I suppose, that if knowing the good you strive to live a good life you are moving towards God (which is heaven). From a Catholic perspective, God judges us on what we know: what we knowingly do with what we know and what we knowingly reject. It isn’t so much as ticking off lists to be with God; it is more of a state of being: you become someone who desires God.

Please read what I posted to polytropos.

Well, I’m not sure how to respond to this, apart from pointing out the remarkable agreement on moral matters throughout different cultures throughout history.

At best on a few matters, and even there were and are exceptions.

If there is no universal moral code, as you state, I’m not sure how you can call God a bad teacher, since “goodness” and “badness” require a standard by which to judge them. For example, you mentioned “feedback” before as a criteria for a good teacher. But why? I mean, perhaps a good teacher is one that allows students to suffer and learn from themselves with little help from the teacher. If there is no universal standard it’s difficult - perhaps impossible - to come to such a conclusion.

I am not talking about “morally good, or morally bad”, rather simply of utilitarian sense. A good teacher achieves good results, a bad teacher does not.

This might be true, Tyrion, but notice the difference: we (I suppose you mean Catholics) can hang our hat on a hook here. Since we believe in universal, objective morality, we can say “such and such is good for X reason, which is binding” but I don’t think you can say that. If all you can say is “mercy killing is good” - and by “good” mean “my preference” or something of the such - then I don’t see what the real value of such a moral statement is, and why anyone should adopt it.

But I have a very good objective reason for saying that. I apply the principle of reciprocity (a variant of the golden rule). It is more than a personal “whim”.

Do you understand why the Catholic Church thinks it is wrong to perform “mercy” killing?

Sure, but understanding is not the same as agreeing.

But usually the truth is only seen in generalities.

If that general view cannot be applied to the particulars, it is pretty useless.

As Chesterton said, he believed in the truth of Christianity not because one thing proved it but everything proved it.

Such platitudes! And am I supposed to value such utterances?

I suppose when you look at the world through Christian lenses, you begin to see how it all fits, but without them, it is not the same.

Been there, done it, have a t-shirt to prove it. Why do you think I stopped being a christian? Because as soon as took off those “distorting lenses”, the world started to make sense.

But Christians, Jews and Muslims believe God has manifested such things in one way or another. Moreover, it is also a question of using our moral instinct and reason to reach such requirements on us.

And other multitudes of people do not see those manifestations. Also read again my post to polytropos, please.

Well, Tyrion, I don’t understand why you bother to post at all, to be honest.

I like stimulating conversations. All those post I reply to indicate that there was something in them I considered interesting. The rest I never respond to. The most obnoxious posters I simply put on my ignore list.

I don’t mean to be rude but if you’re going to completely reject the possibility of God’s existence and His revelation to people, then what is the point of questioning whether He is a good teacher?

I am not closed to the possibility that there is some “higher entity” out there. I am curious, how can you (the believers) reconcile your beliefs with the reality.

Sorry dude, I just find your manner a bit too brusque and disrespectful to respond any further. I think you’re stuck in an interpretation of Christianity that is on the level of a 10-year-old. I’d honestly suggest speaking with a local priest or reading up on what some Catholic theologians during the 20th century have said.

I don’t know what your problem might be. I am a bit sarcastic sometimes, that I admit. But I think that you are overreacting.

 

[Tyrion]

Sorry, but that is too important, thus everything else will probably have to wait…

First of all, what you have given is not a “syllogism” (not even a malformed one).

I did not say that it is a syllogism. I simply quoted responses (or opinions) from some actual posters around here. So, please do not shoot the messenger.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I am not closed to the possibility that there is some “higher entity” out there. I am curious, how can you (the believers) reconcile your beliefs with the reality.

From where I’m standing, and probably many others, you seem incredibly closed for a very simple reason: your presuppositions are built upon there being no God, and consequently you respond to any evidence that Christians claim for God from that presupposition. When you say “how can you (the believers) reconcile your beliefs with the reality” you have already constructed reality through your own perspective, which could never be reconciled.

For example, I suggest that universal morality is a way God guides us towards Himself and the way to live, but you deny there is universal morality because - I guess - you don’t believe there is a God who ordained one. If I didn’t believe in God, I would find it difficult to justify universal morality too.

So, I suspect this kind of discussion is pointless. Anything we put forward as evidence that God is a good teacher will be rejected because you come from the presupposition that God does not exist.

Take suffering as another issue. As Christians we believe not only that there can be value to suffering in this life, but that this life is not the be-all-end-all. However, since you don’t believe in an afterlife, you can only hold that this life is all there is and so suffering is intolerable. Hence, you seem to reject God as a good teacher because of the presence of suffering.

I don’t see how this can be resolved. All I can ask is that you try to understand how a Christian might see things.

 

[LilyM]

Please read what I posted to polytropos.

At best on a few matters, and even there were and are exceptions.

I am not talking about “morally good, or morally bad”, rather simply of utilitarian sense. A good teacher achieves good results, a bad teacher does not.

But this doesn’t make sense. What constitutes a good or a bad result? That is surely a matter about which there is as much, or more, genuine disagreement than the morality of cannibalism.

No such thing as objective good or bad, remember? At least according to your philosophy.

And the fact that teachers achieve inconsistently with their students and students inconsistently with their teachers would indicate that different methods and styles work with different teachers and different students - and as no teacher can be a thorough master of all the methods out there nor in applying the correct method to the correct student, there iSight room for debate as to under what circumstances any teacher can be called good.

Been there, done it, have a t-shirt to prove it.

Talk about empty and unimpressive platitudes.