Is God a good teacher?

[jonathan_hili]

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.

Just to respond to this point, Tyrion, because I think it’s important - let’s bracket the question of God’s existence for the time being.

I get that you’re speaking of “good” or “bad” with regards to a teacher in a utilitarian sense but even if this is true, it ultimately requires an objective moral standard. Why?

(i) We can understand whether a teacher fulfills his function according to his purpose.
(ii) The closer a teacher is to fulfilling his function, the more “good” he is - in a utilitarian sense.

• This we can both agree on. -
  However, I would suggest a further point:
  (iii) Supposing that a teacher is able to fulfill his function, the question remains: should the teacher fulfill his function? It doesn’t always follow that because someone is capable of doing something and is therefore “good” in a utilitarian sense, that he should therefore do so. An assassin may be perfectly “good” at killing people, a rapist “good” at raping people, a thief “good” at stealing, but are the fulfilling of these purposes “good” in themselves. This, I think, is a question of morality - a moral “good”. We cannot know whether a teacher should fulfill his function unless we have an objective moral standard by which to justify such a function.

Now, you could perhaps push the utilitarian argument a step further: there are utilitarian reasons why a teacher should fulfill his function. But I think no matter how further you push the argument, you are always going to come up with the moral issue.

Does this relate to our discussion at present? I think it does. A Christian would argue that God is a “good” teacher in a utilitarian sense quite easily - and it is difficult to see how that could be refuted. The real question is the moral one, that is, should God fulfill His teaching capability: all the time, or in this or that specific situation. I don’t think that can be answered from your perspective on morality.

 

[Tyrion]

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.

I am not stubborn, merely demanding the same level of evidence no matter what the claim is. If a new-ager would claim that pyramidal shaped buildings have curative power, and when christian believers claim that prayer “works” (as in having a desired outcome, which is the result of that supplicative prayer) or when a pharmaceutical company claims that a new drug cures a certain disease - the level of evidence the skeptic requires is the SAME. There is no prejudice toward the claims of believers, and I don’t see how can one be more open than that?

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.

Unfortunately that reality is objective, regardless of how I would like it to be. There is hunger, pain, wars - they are not a figment of my imagination. That is reality, no matter how repulsive it is.

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.

My denial of absolute, universal morality is based upon the fact that when you examine the different societies, you will see a different set of “moral rules”. Just to pick a few ones, in some societies public nudity is immoral, in other ones it is perfectly acceptable. In some societies cannibalism is horrible, in others it is normal. In some societies sex is revered in all forms (as a ways and means to get closer to their pagan gods and goddesses), in others it is only accepted if … you know what I mean. Corporal punishment was A-OK a few dozen decades ago (do not spare the rod - said the bible), today it is not acceptable. We do not tolerate child labor, in the Victorian era it was the norm. We do not accept “indentured servitude” today, much less the idea that those “indentured servants” can be beaten as long as they can get up (and continue to work) after three days… None of these are prejudicial statements.

By the way, when the problem of slavery is brought up, the believers’ “defense” is that “those were different times”… I wonder, if you see that the defense explicitly admits that “morality” is contingent upon the times and societies, and it is NOT absolute. Do you see the discrepancy?

So, I suspect this kind of discussion is pointless.

Probably. But it can be interesting as an insight as to how the other person’s mind works.

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.

Let’s don’t and say we did. It would really derail this thread. But if you wish to talk about somewhere else, I am game. Before you do that, I suggest you read the article in the following link: The Tale of the 12 officers. It presents in a slightly playful format all the presented defenses against the “problem of evil”, and it shows how woefully inadequate they are.

 

[MPat]

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.

You wrote: “The same syllogism was offered in a slightly modified format:”. If you want to emphasise that “syllogism” is a word used by someone else, please, use quotation marks.

Anyway, that is of little importance. What about the rest of my post? Did you have fun playing with the tool I linked to…? Did you learn something while doing that…?

 

[jonathan_hili]

I am not stubborn, merely demanding the same level of evidence no matter what the claim is. If a new-ager would claim that pyramidal shaped buildings have curative power, and when christian believers claim that prayer “works” (as in having a desired outcome, which is the result of that supplicative prayer) or when a pharmaceutical company claims that a new drug cures a certain disease - the level of evidence the skeptic requires is the SAME. There is no prejudice toward the claims of believers, and I don’t see how can one be more open than that?

Of course, I’m not suggesting you don’t claim the same level of evidence, only that - because of your presuppositions - you discount the evidence. For example, you point evil as a reality. Yes, it is a reality - an objective reality, as you say - and I won’t suggest that it isn’t a problem for people who believe in a good God. However, the existence of evil is not of itself proof that there is no God because it depends the way you approach it: for those who disbelieve in God, it confirms them in disbelief; for those who believe in God, it can be understood within their worldview and actually confirm them in their belief. As Chesterton pointed out: “Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved”.

My question would be, how do you really explain good and beauty? I mean, do they point to anything or not? Are they real or not? I mean, can you be filled with joy by knowing someone who is inexpressibly good and that this good is real?

My denial of absolute, universal morality is based upon the fact that when you examine the different societies, you will see a different set of “moral rules”. Just to pick a few ones, in some societies public nudity is immoral, in other ones it is perfectly acceptable. In some societies cannibalism is horrible, in others it is normal. In some societies sex is revered in all forms (as a ways and means to get closer to their pagan gods and goddesses), in others it is only accepted if … you know what I mean. Corporal punishment was A-OK a few dozen decades ago (do not spare the rod - said the bible), today it is not acceptable. We do not tolerate child labor, in the Victorian era it was the norm. We do not accept “indentured servitude” today, much less the idea that those “indentured servants” can be beaten as long as they can get up (and continue to work) after three days… None of these are prejudicial statements.

Sure, I get what you mean about morality, however, I think these are minor differences. I think many of these stem for issues over facts rather than issues over morals, how one understands human nature and the individual.

For example, take corporal punishment. Why was it acceptable - and still remains so - in many societies? Because it was seen as an effective form of discipline and teaching of people. Why isn’t it today? Because it isn’t seen as an effective form of discipline and teaching, and is considered harmful too. No change has really occurred over morality - the issue of whether discipline and teaching is a good thing to do hasn’t changed, just the means.

As for slavery, I think we need to distinguish between slavery as an ancient institution and modern slavery. Modern slavery was completely abhorrent. When it was morally justified by people it was on the grounds that blacks were not fully human, the moral caveat being that it is okay to enslave someone who isn’t human. Again, it’s a question of facts: are blacks human or not? With ancient slavery, it’s slightly different because it was often a result of war or economic debt.

 

[Tyrion]

Just to respond to this point, Tyrion, because I think it’s important - let’s bracket the question of God’s existence for the time being.

Sure thing.

I get that you’re speaking of “good” or “bad” with regards to a teacher in a utilitarian sense but even if this is true, it ultimately requires an objective moral standard. Why?

I am paying attention.

(i) We can understand whether a teacher fulfills his function according to his purpose.
(ii) The closer a teacher is to fulfilling his function, the more “good” he is - in a utilitarian sense.

• This we can both agree on. -

Yes, this is agreeable.

However, I would suggest a further point:
(iii) Supposing that a teacher is able to fulfill his function, the question remains: should the teacher fulfill his function? It doesn’t always follow that because someone is capable of doing something and is therefore “good” in a utilitarian sense, that he should therefore do so. An assassin may be perfectly “good” at killing people, a rapist “good” at raping people, a thief “good” at stealing, but are the fulfilling of these purposes “good” in themselves. This, I think, is a question of morality - a moral “good”. We cannot know whether a teacher should fulfill his function unless we have an objective moral standard by which to justify such a function.

Undoubtedly.

Now, you could perhaps push the utilitarian argument a step further: there are utilitarian reasons why a teacher should fulfill his function. But I think no matter how further you push the argument, you are always going to come up with the moral issue.

I would like to address this kind of issue, but maybe not here. It would again derail this thread but I can offer a very short treatise on this.

1. 
   *]Good and bad can only make sense in a world, where there is “life”. The tide will make the pebbles nice and smooth, but neither the water, nor the pebble “cares”.
   *]When there is life - without a nervous system! - then everything that furthers life is “good”, and whatever hinders life is “bad” for the specific living entity. Yet, here already comes a problem, the issue of limited resources. One living entity may hinder the life of another one (a tree’s shade limits the growth the grass under it, but again, neither one “cares”).
   *]When there is life with a nervous system, but without consciousness, the same criteria applies. When a predator tears open the belly of its victim, it is definitely “good” for the predator, and “bad” for the prey. Again the problem of limited resources and the BIOLOGICAL need of the different entities arise.
   *]Finally, when there is life and consciousness, then the concept “morality” comes up. Only in such a world can one speak of “morally good” and “morally bad” - which is usually called “evil”. So the only acceptable definition of “evil” would be: “to cause INTENTIONAL harm and suffering to another being with a nervous system, which is not BIOLOGICALLY necessary”. (I discard the usual definition of “evil” as the “privation of good”, as a totally nonsensical approach.)
   
   Any definition of “good” and “bad” boils down to biological foundation, and this is again an objective standard. I know that this was a very short and inadequate summary, but that is all I can offer in this thread.
   

   Does this relate to our discussion at present? I think it does. A Christian would argue that God is a “good” teacher in a utilitarian sense quite easily - and it is difficult to see how that could be refuted.

   Very easy to refute it. As the bible says (not a verbatim quote): The road to heaven is narrow and only a few will find it. The road to hell is wide. If we measure the “goodness” of God as a teacher, then he failed.
   

   The real question is the moral one, that is, should God fulfill His teaching capability: all the time, or in this or that specific situation. I don’t think that can be answered from your perspective on morality.

   It depends on God’s alleged purpose. If he “wishes” everyone to be with him, he should teach everyone according to the student’s ability. Even in this life, the good teacher “tailors” the teaching to the ability of the students. If someone needs extra “conversation time” or special tutoring, then it should be given. Yet another secular concept: “the principle that one size fits all” is incorrect. And again, as the bible says: “the sun shines and the rain falls on the righteous and the wicked alike”, so obviously God violates this principle - and as such he would be a very bad teacher (if he existed). Now, if God does not care if Joe Shmoe makes it to heaven, then we have a whole different ballgame - but that would not be on YOUR playing field.

 

[Tyrion]

You wrote: “The same syllogism was offered in a slightly modified format:”. If you want to emphasise that “syllogism” is a word used by someone else, please, use quotation marks.

Sorry about the oversight.

Anyway, that is of little importance. What about the rest of my post? Did you have fun playing with the tool I linked to…? Did you learn something while doing that…?

Not yet. When I will have more time, I will return to it.

 

[Tyrion]

Of course, I’m not suggesting you don’t claim the same level of evidence, only that - because of your presuppositions - you discount the evidence. For example, you point evil as a reality. Yes, it is a reality - an objective reality, as you say - and I won’t suggest that it isn’t a problem for people who believe in a good God. However, the existence of evil is not of itself proof that there is no God because it depends the way you approach it: for those who disbelieve in God, it confirms them in disbelief; for those who believe in God, it can be understood within their worldview and actually confirm them in their belief.

Please read the “Tale of the twelve officers”.

As Chesterton pointed out: “Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved”.

Proved? You cannot be serious.

My question would be, how do you really explain good and beauty? I mean, do they point to anything or not? Are they real or not? I mean, can you be filled with joy by knowing someone who is inexpressibly good and that this good is real?

No, they are not “real”. These are concepts, which have no ontological existence. They describe our reflection to the objective reality.

Sure, I get what you mean about morality, however, I think these are minor differences.

Minor differences? What are the “major” issues? Masturbation? Fornication? What I presented are the important issues, and their resolution depended upon the actual societies. Most societies “subscribed” to the notion of aggressive wars, and only today we start to accept that violence is only acceptable as a defense, and even then it should be the last resort. Do you really think that genocides are also a “minor issue”, since that was also endorsed in the bible. Looks like we cannot even agree what is important and what is not, when talking about “moral” considerations.

 

[Tyrion]

Of course, I’m not suggesting you don’t claim the same level of evidence, only that - because of your presuppositions - you discount the evidence.

In my book that would be the worst kind of “sin” (intellectual dishonesty) to discount some evidence, just because I don’t like what the evidence supports. It would be a cowardly way to “hide my head in the sand”, so to speak.

But that does not happen. I will give you a scenario, which would not be “proof”, per se, but which would stop any skeptic in his tracks, and would be impossible to “explain away”. Allegedly, God answers prayers - in a positive fashion - meaning that you ask, God listens, and then some event happens. This is exactly the method which is used when someone’s “sainthood” is being considered, for example in JPII’s or Mother Theresa’s case.

So this is what the believers should do. Ask the CSICOP to set up a properly organized, double blind experiment, with a control group. Both groups should contain people with some “incurable” diseases. Collect a few million believers and ask them to pray for the people in the actual group. Do not even mention the existence of the control group. After a certain amount of time, check if there is a statistically significant difference between the two groups - in the favor of the actual group.

If that experiment would show an actual, strong, positive correlation (usually the 95% confidence level is sufficient), then you could present it as a good, objective evidence. After all just ONE person’s prayer and an alleged “miraculous healing” was considered by the Vatican that JPII and Mother T. were eligible for “sainthood”. Having a group of (say) ten thousand with a 20% healing rate would be more than sufficient to declare a REAL evidence.

Now here comes the fun part. I predict that there will be no positive result. And I predict that the “apologists” will proclaim loud and clear that God is not a vending machine, that one cannot “test” God and thereby “explain away” the lack of evidence. Which is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty, to discard the negative evidence (and negative evidence is just as useful as positive evidence), because of one’s prejudices. And you (sort of) “accused” me that I am not willing to accept evidence, because of my presuppositions. So I am challenging you (all christians) to set up this kind of experiment, and see “where the chips may fall”. I give you my word, that in case of strong, positive correlation I will change my mind, and will consider the hypothesis : “God exists” seriously. Can you give my your word that if there is no strong, positive correlation, then you will discard your presuppositions? Your word of honesty will suffice.

By the way, you (in general) definitely treat God as a “vending machine”. Just look at the forum: “Prayer intentions”, and look at the plethora of irrelevant, ridiculous requests for “divine intervention”.

 

[Tyrion]

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

Very serious misunderstanding. Of course there is objective good and bad. There is no absolute good and bad. Do you see the difference?

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.

You mean a human teacher would have problems with “tailoring” the teaching method to a few million students? Sure, but God is supposed to be a tad better than a human teacher.

Talk about empty and unimpressive platitudes.

It is true that I used to be a believer. And then the old joke came to life: "An ad appears in the newspaper, and it says: ‘Christian puppies are for sale’. In two weeks a lady shows up at the address and wishes to buy one of those christian puppies. The owner says: ‘Sorry, I only have atheist puppies’. The lady protests: “but you advertised christian puppies!’. ‘Yes, and it was true… those puppies were christian’ - says the owner, ‘but’ he adds 'during the last two weeks their eyes opened!”. If you don’t like it, exchange the ‘atheist’ and the ‘christian’… I like it as is.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . It is true that I used to be a believer. And then the old joke came to life: "An ad appears in the newspaper, and it says: ‘Christian puppies are for sale’. In two weeks a lady shows up at the address and wishes to buy one of those christian puppies. The owner says: ‘Sorry, I only have atheist puppies’. The lady protests: “but you advertised christian puppies!’. ‘Yes, and it was true… those puppies were christian’ - says the owner, ‘but’ he adds 'during the last two weeks their eyes opened!”. If you don’t like it, exchange the ‘atheist’ and the ‘christian’… I like it as is.

This is Catholic (not Calvinist) Answers Forums, so what you describe, is something that is accepted as being possible, although understood in a radically different way. You should go on their forums; I think that they would say that you never believed in Christ.

As to your OP question, I would assert that God is the teaching/Truth, Jesus is the Way.
Angels are messengers, the ones through whom God may speak.
And, we all know that they come in all sorts and shapes.

 

[TEPO]

I know that most believers like to speak of God using superlatives, so I wonder if they realize that God - as a teacher - fails the “test”.

Good teachers give immediate feedback to their students. The feedback mechanism tells the students if they are right of wrong and what was their error (if any). Only an incredibly bad teacher would give out test papers, score them secretly without telling the students how they fared, and only at the end of the school year provide a summary evaluation, when there is no more opportunity to learn.

So those people who argue that the problems and the misfortunes happen to us because God wants us to grow, and become better obviously never thought their “arguments” through.

Any disagreement?

What you fail to understand is that God has given us all the answers to the ‘test’ -built into our consciences. The only way we can fail is if we refuse to honor the answers as truth.

 

[Portofino]

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.

Hi there, Tyrion.

I think I share your sense of irony regarding some of the paradoxes of the Church’s claims to certainty about things which it is – in principle – very difficult to know, coupled with rather surprising claims of uncertainty.

For example:

—the Church declares no certainty as to the fate of unbaptized infants; limbo was a provisional hypothesis, you could say, for many centuries, which has since been put to rest (more or less) by Benedict’s admitting that the Church is not even sure that limbo exists. The Church admits this freely – it does not know what happens to unbaptized infants, though it has reason to hope that God is merciful towards them.

Would that be something “important” to know? Surely, yes! Think of all of the grieving parents who are looking to the Church for direction, in cases where an infant has died before baptism, and the Church telling that parent, “we cannot know for sure what the fate of your unbaptized baby will be.”

Another example, as you mentioned, is whether zygote or an embryo, that is flushed out of a mother’s system – often, without her knowledge – has an immortal soul. When she gets to heaven, is she going to see 20, 30, or 40 children that she would have had, whose existence she was never aware of?

The Church suspends judgment as to when ensoulment occurs; it does not know.

But I cannot help but find it a great irony that the Church knows exactly how purgatory works, positing A. that we know for a fact that purgatory exists, and is no mere hypothesis; B. when we grant indulgences, we know the exact effect that those indulgences will have on those in purgatory; and C. when there are prayers for those in purgatory, we know the exact effect that this will have.

If such a level of certain knowledge is possessed regarding purgatory – which regards the afterlife – how can it not be possessed regarding whether “limbo” actually exists, or not? And regarding the fate of unbaptized infants, or when ensoulment actually occurs?

If anybody is going to know this, it is the Church. Why does it not know this? Is it that God has chosen not to reveal to the Church? Really? To declare absolute certainty about ensoulment will clear up any gray area, any ambiguity, regarding whether a zygote, embryo, or fetus has an immortal soul. To say that we should “err on the side of safety,” though it is morally laudable, is nonetheless a profession of ignorance.

Likewise, to know for certainty whether limbo exists, and what an unbaptized infant can “expect” to experience in the afterlife, would be useful knowledge because that uncertainty is one more aspect of the grieving of a parent who lost a child before it could be baptized.
Normally, a priest’s words about the afterlife — and, again, the Church knows exactly how purgatory works – are means of comforting the aggrieved. After all, the priest is supposed to know these things; that is why folks listen to him, and to the Church.

I suppose, in many important respects, the Church is in the same boat as the rest of us. But this simply opens the door to critics saying, “in truth, in all respects, the Church is in the same boat as the rest of us. It cannot know any of these things, with absolute certainty.”

 

[TheHolyGhost]

So far all the respondents chose to ignore the number one requirement: “give feedback”. Why does no one touch on that?

God gave the Catholic Church the authority to speak in His name and the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ here on earth which His spirit guides. When the Church gives us feedback, it’s God speaking through the Church. Therefore, God gives us feedback. The Church also gives non-believers feedback, because God’s commandments are universal and aren’t limited to believers. So He has indeed given you feedback and a guiding light.

Do you really think that genocides are also a “minor issue”, since that was also endorsed in the bible

Genocide was never endorsed in the Bible. It was talked about in the Bible, but never endorsed. I hope you realize the difference.

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.

How funny, this was actually today’s Gospel reading. The man asks Jesus what he has to do to attain eternal life and Jesus answers him crystal clear.

“Love God and your neighbor” isn’t nebulous at all. If you think deeper, loving your neighbor and God encompasses all areas of morality. Absolutely all of them.

The Church suspends judgment as to when ensoulment occurs; it does not know.

The Church teaches ensoulment occurs at conception.

 

[Portofino]

The Church teaches ensoulment occurs at conception.

Although the Church teaches that life occurs at conception – which is a question of science – it does not claim to know when ensoulment occurs (which is a question of theology, albeit one for which it has no definitive answer). The Church is “agnostic” on the question of the ensoulment of zygotes, embryos and fetuses, just as it is agnostic regarding the fate of unbaptized infants.

catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0116.htm

 

[Tyrion]

Hi there, Tyrion.

I think I share your sense of irony regarding some of the paradoxes of the Church’s claims to certainty about things which it is – in principle – very difficult to know, coupled with rather surprising claims of uncertainty.

For example:

—the Church declares no certainty as to the fate of unbaptized infants; limbo was a provisional hypothesis, you could say, for many centuries, which has since been put to rest (more or less) by Benedict’s admitting that the Church is not even sure that limbo exists. The Church admits this freely – it does not know what happens to unbaptized infants, though it has reason to hope that God is merciful towards them.

Would that be something “important” to know? Surely, yes! Think of all of the grieving parents who are looking to the Church for direction, in cases where an infant has died before baptism, and the Church telling that parent, “we cannot know for sure what the fate of your unbaptized baby will be.”

Another example, as you mentioned, is whether zygote or an embryo, that is flushed out of a mother’s system – often, without her knowledge – has an immortal soul. When she gets to heaven, is she going to see 20, 30, or 40 children that she would have had, whose existence she was never aware of?

The Church suspends judgment as to when ensoulment occurs; it does not know.

But I cannot help but find it a great irony that the Church knows exactly how purgatory works, positing A. that we know for a fact that purgatory exists, and is no mere hypothesis; B. when we grant indulgences, we know the exact effect that those indulgences will have on those in purgatory; and C. when there are prayers for those in purgatory, we know the exact effect that this will have.

If such a level of certain knowledge is possessed regarding purgatory – which regards the afterlife – how can it not be possessed regarding whether “limbo” actually exists, or not? And regarding the fate of unbaptized infants, or when ensoulment actually occurs?

If anybody is going to know this, it is the Church. Why does it not know this? Is it that God has chosen not to reveal to the Church? Really? To declare absolute certainty about ensoulment will clear up any gray area, any ambiguity, regarding whether a zygote, embryo, or fetus has an immortal soul. To say that we should “err on the side of safety,” though it is morally laudable, is nonetheless a profession of ignorance.

Likewise, to know for certainty whether limbo exists, and what an unbaptized infant can “expect” to experience in the afterlife, would be useful knowledge because that uncertainty is one more aspect of the grieving of a parent who lost a child before it could be baptized.
Normally, a priest’s words about the afterlife — and, again, the Church knows exactly how purgatory works – are means of comforting the aggrieved. After all, the priest is supposed to know these things; that is why folks listen to him, and to the Church.

I suppose, in many important respects, the Church is in the same boat as the rest of us. But this simply opens the door to critics saying, “in truth, in all respects, the Church is in the same boat as the rest of us. It cannot know any of these things, with absolute certainty.”

Thank you for the great summary.

 

[TEPO]

Hi there, Tyrion.

I think I share your sense of irony regarding some of the paradoxes of the Church’s claims to certainty about things which it is – in principle – very difficult to know, coupled with rather surprising claims of uncertainty.

For example:

—the Church declares no certainty as to the fate of unbaptized infants; limbo was a provisional hypothesis, you could say, for many centuries, which has since been put to rest (more or less) by Benedict’s admitting that the Church is not even sure that limbo exists. The Church admits this freely – it does not know what happens to unbaptized infants, though it has reason to hope that God is merciful towards them.

Would that be something “important” to know? Surely, yes! Think of all of the grieving parents who are looking to the Church for direction, in cases where an infant has died before baptism, and the Church telling that parent, “we cannot know for sure what the fate of your unbaptized baby will be.”

Another example, as you mentioned, is whether zygote or an embryo, that is flushed out of a mother’s system – often, without her knowledge – has an immortal soul. When she gets to heaven, is she going to see 20, 30, or 40 children that she would have had, whose existence she was never aware of?

The Church suspends judgment as to when ensoulment occurs; it does not know.

But I cannot help but find it a great irony that the Church knows exactly how purgatory works, positing A. that we know for a fact that purgatory exists, and is no mere hypothesis; B. when we grant indulgences, we know the exact effect that those indulgences will have on those in purgatory; and C. when there are prayers for those in purgatory, we know the exact effect that this will have.

If such a level of certain knowledge is possessed regarding purgatory – which regards the afterlife – how can it not be possessed regarding whether “limbo” actually exists, or not? And regarding the fate of unbaptized infants, or when ensoulment actually occurs?

If anybody is going to know this, it is the Church. Why does it not know this? Is it that God has chosen not to reveal to the Church? Really? To declare absolute certainty about ensoulment will clear up any gray area, any ambiguity, regarding whether a zygote, embryo, or fetus has an immortal soul. To say that we should “err on the side of safety,” though it is morally laudable, is nonetheless a profession of ignorance.

Likewise, to know for certainty whether limbo exists, and what an unbaptized infant can “expect” to experience in the afterlife, would be useful knowledge because that uncertainty is one more aspect of the grieving of a parent who lost a child before it could be baptized.
Normally, a priest’s words about the afterlife — and, again, the Church knows exactly how purgatory works – are means of comforting the aggrieved. After all, the priest is supposed to know these things; that is why folks listen to him, and to the Church.

I suppose, in many important respects, the Church is in the same boat as the rest of us. But this simply opens the door to critics saying, “in truth, in all respects, the Church is in the same boat as the rest of us. It cannot know any of these things, with absolute certainty.”

I think you’re wrong on a lot of your understandings of Catholicism. ‘Private Revelations’ such as Limbo, indulgences and prayers for those in Purgatory are all merely that – Private Revelations. Private Revelations are merely traditions, which should be considered as being merely ‘unharmful’ to Catholic faith. we’re not forced, as Catholics to believe in them unlike Public Revelations such as the existence of Purgatory, which are Truths provided by the Holy Spirit through the scriptures.

…the Church doesn’t claim to have the fullness of all truths, but at the same time, she does posess infallibility on those truths that have been revealed to her.

 

[Tyrion]

…the Church doesn’t claim to have the fullness of all truths, but at the same time, she does possess infallibility on those truths that have been revealed to her.

God gave the Catholic Church the authority to speak in His name and the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ here on earth which His spirit guides. When the Church gives us feedback, it’s God speaking through the Church. Therefore, God gives us feedback. The Church also gives non-believers feedback, because God’s commandments are universal and aren’t limited to believers. So He has indeed given you feedback and a guiding light.

Yes, I “know”…

• where is it reported? in the bible.
• who compiled the bible? the catholic church.
• It is also reported in the “holy tradition” of the church.
• So the church asserts (infallibly) that God established the church…
• But wait!
• How do we know that the church is infallible?
• It is declared infallibly by the church.
• …
• And the dog just keeps chasing its own tail…

The phrase you (both) should be looking for is: “circular reasoning” and/or “self-authentication”.

Genocide was never endorsed in the Bible. It was talked about in the Bible, but never endorsed. I hope you realize the difference.

It was ORDERED. If that is not the strongest endorsement, I don’t know what is. Along with the endorsement of slavery / indentured servitude. Along with corporal punishment… and a whole lot of other practices. So don’t try to whitewash the bible.

How funny, this was actually today’s Gospel reading. The man asks Jesus what he has to do to attain eternal life and Jesus answers him crystal clear.

“Love God and your neighbor” isn’t nebulous at all. If you think deeper, loving your neighbor and God encompasses all areas of morality. Absolutely all of them.

Only in your opinion.

The Church teaches ensoulment occurs at conception.

Portofino answered this perfectly.

 

[Tyrion]

I will be back at the end of the week, so take your time composing your answers.

Have a wonderful week!

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hi Portofino, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I’d like to clarify a couple of points you made, as you seems to have misunderstood how the Church lays claim to knowledge. The sources of knowledge for the Church can be categorised under two broad headings: reason and revelation, with the former including the deliverances of reason, scientific data, philosophy, etc. and the latter including Scripture and Tradition. The Church can’t just magically come up with something she claims to be knowledge, but rather must rely on what can be known through these means.

For example, you say:

—the Church declares no certainty as to the fate of unbaptized infants; limbo was a provisional hypothesis, you could say, for many centuries, which has since been put to rest (more or less) by Benedict’s admitting that the Church is not even sure that limbo exists. The Church admits this freely – it does not know what happens to unbaptized infants, though it has reason to hope that God is merciful towards them.
Would that be something “important” to know? Surely, yes!

Now, I agree with you that this is an important theological issue and the Church would love to be certain about it. However, on the whole Scripture and Tradition are silent on the matter, as is philosophy.

Similarly, you say:

Another example, as you mentioned, is whether zygote or an embryo, that is flushed out of a mother’s system – often, without her knowledge – has an immortal soul. When she gets to heaven, is she going to see 20, 30, or 40 children that she would have had, whose existence she was never aware of?

Again, we just don’t know. There can be theological speculation on the issue but it can’t be known for certain from the sources of knowledge.

However, when you state:

But I cannot help but find it a great irony that the Church knows exactly how purgatory works, positing A. that we know for a fact that purgatory exists, and is no mere hypothesis; B. when we grant indulgences, we know the exact effect that those indulgences will have on those in purgatory; and C. when there are prayers for those in purgatory, we know the exact effect that this will have.

We need to be clear on the point that the Church is not precisely clear about all aspects of purgatory - e.g. how duration works there. (And this is true for many doctrines, on which there can be development.) However, because of what we know from Tradition and theological thought over time, she has come to a better understanding of things.

To answer your question about how knowledge can held in one instance, but not in the other, is that - just like someone who is not Christian - you can only be certain about what you know, and you can only know with data. The Church didn’t choose to know this and not that, but rather has a given set of data with which to work. And certainly on some aspects, as you rightly point out, the Church doesn’t know any more than you or I precisely because the Church is people not some kind of magical society.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Interesting response, Tyrion.

*]Good and bad can only make sense in a world, where there is “life”. The tide will make the pebbles nice and smooth, but neither the water, nor the pebble “cares”.

If you mean moral goodness and badness, certainly. It requires a rational mind for morality to take place. But what I see from below, I don’t think you mean in a moral sense at all but in a sense of “desirability”?

*]When there is life - without a nervous system! - then everything that furthers life is “good”, and whatever hinders life is “bad” for the specific living entity. Yet, here already comes a problem, the issue of limited resources. One living entity may hinder the life of another one (a tree’s shade limits the growth the grass under it, but again, neither one “cares”).

I’m not sure this is true. Does a fly have a sense of desire for life, and recognise this as good? Surely only rational creatures can reflect on this: what is good (desirable) or bad (undesirable)? Aren’t we just applying the categories of “good” and “bad” onto forms of life that have no sense of desirability? Now, I suppose you could argue that the instinct for life - that is, prolonging existence for an entity or species - shows that life is desirable, but I still think this is ascribing volitional qualities to non-acting entities.

*]When there is life with a nervous system, but without consciousness, the same criteria applies. When a predator tears open the belly of its victim, it is definitely “good” for the predator, and “bad” for the prey. Again the problem of limited resources and the BIOLOGICAL need of the different entities arise.

Again, this is something rational creatures are able to perceive, but it doesn’t follow that a slug regards being eaten undesirable, since I don’t think it is capable of understanding such a thing. If anything, this “desire” would be automatic, according to instinct.

*]Finally, when there is life and consciousness, then the concept “morality” comes up. Only in such a world can one speak of “morally good” and “morally bad” - which is usually called “evil”. So the only acceptable definition of “evil” would be: “to cause INTENTIONAL harm and suffering to another being with a nervous system, which is not BIOLOGICALLY necessary”. (I discard the usual definition of “evil” as the “privation of good”, as a totally nonsensical approach.)

Hmmm I’m not sure how you jump from unconscious, non-volitional desirability because of an instinct to life to volitional morality. Furthermore, it seems clear that the two are not equivalent: when people use moral ideas they don’t often mean the utilitarian ones you do, I believe.

Any definition of “good” and “bad” boils down to biological foundation, and this is again an objective standard. I know that this was a very short and inadequate summary, but that is all I can offer in this thread.

If that were true, then it wouldn’t be an objective standard at all precisely because you would need to stand outside of the system of life-death struggle to perceive and judge it. If you were part of the system then from a rational standpoint, there is no moral difference between the life-struggle of an ant and that of a human being, since both are legitimate life-struggles. Therefore, we should apply morality to the behaviour of ants - which seems silly - and not prejudice our own species, country, family, etc. in moral decision making.