Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

[Amandil]

As great and elaborate post as Josh put forth(and praise God for inspiring him to do such), there is a very simple yet profound definition of “love” which necessarily involves all other “lesser” forms:

Love is “to desire the highest good of the beloved and any action taken for them to receive or obtain that good.”

 

[Oreoracle]

As great and elaborate post as Josh put forth(and praise God for inspiring him to do such), there is a very simple yet profound definition of “love” which necessarily involves all other “lesser” forms:

Love is “to desire the highest good of the beloved and any action taken for them to receive or obtain that good.”

Thanks for offering a definition, but I do take issue with it. How is this different than goodwill?

With that definition, it is possible for me to love someone that I have never actually met. For example, if I give money to a charity and I’m told that my money is used to sponsor an Indian child, do I love them? After all, I desire their health, and I’m acting so as to help them achieve that end.

 

[Amandil]

Thanks for offering a definition, but I do take issue with it. How is this different than goodwill?

“Goodwill” can be in fact false and falls within the same realm as compassion and/or kindness. The question is who’s will are you referring to in regards to the term?

A doctor committing euthanasia may be doing so out of “goodwill” or kindness or compassion and a desire to end someone’s suffering.

But euthanasia is in fact not an act of love.

Goodwill is also passive, where love is in fact active.

With that definition, it is possible for me to love someone that I have never actually met. For example, if I give money to a charity and I’m told that my money is used to sponsor an Indian child, do I love them? After all, I desire their health, and I’m acting so as to help them achieve that end.

Absolutely!

The idea that love must involve some emotional connection is a modern novelty. Surely the emotional component can and often does result from acts of love, but the emotional concomitance is not necessary for acts to be loving.

 

[Oreoracle]

“Goodwill” can be in fact false and falls within the same realm as compassion and/or kindness. The question is who’s will are you referring to in regards to the term?

A doctor committing euthanasia may be doing so out of “goodwill” or kindness or compassion and a desire to end someone’s suffering.

But euthanasia is in fact not an act of love.

Yes, I suspected that you had a particular good in mind when you proposed the definition.

Goodwill is also passive, where love is in fact active.

I’m not sure if we mean the same things by passive and active, but it seems that this notion of love is passive in the sense that it requires very little intimacy, passion, or commitment to love by the standard you describe. Let’s extend my example of giving to charity to paying high taxes in spite of being offered tax breaks. The tax money goes to aid people throughout the nation, and I, in a vague sense, desire for everyone to be supported by it. Do I love every U.S. citizen by your standard?

In fact, I would say most people desire for humanity in general to have “the highest good”, but it seems strange to call this “love”. We usually reserve the term for people with whom we are personally familiar.

 

[Amandil]

I’m not sure if we mean the same things by passive and active, but it seems that this notion of love is passive in the sense that it requires very little intimacy, passion, or commitment to love by the standard you describe.

It’s not dependent upon subjective feelings or emotions.

Nor are those feelings required for love to be loving.

It’s by no means dispassionate. Nor is it lacking in commitment or human solidarity.

It’s disinterested in that there is no concern for the self at all. IOW, I’m not looking to be satisfied in any way, either materially or emotionally; what I am doing is wholly for the good of the other person.

Let’s extend my example of giving to charity to paying high taxes in spite of being offered tax breaks. The tax money goes to aid people throughout the nation, and I, in a vague sense, desire for everyone to be supported by it. Do I love every U.S. citizen by your standard?

Taxes are not freely given but imposed. But you do pay them, and in that very strict sense you show love for your country which necessarily includes the citizens therein.

In fact, I would say most people desire for humanity in general to have “the highest good”, but it seems strange to call this “love”. We usually reserve the term for people with whom we are personally familiar.

But why? Why do you reserve that term for people with whom you are personally familiar with?

 

[Oreoracle]

It’s not dependent upon subjective feelings or emotions.

Nor are those feelings required for love to be loving.

It’s by no means dispassionate.

I’m sorry, but it strains my imagination to try to conceive of passion without “feelings”.

It’s disinterested in that there is no concern for the self at all. IOW, I’m not looking to be satisfied in any way, either materially or emotionally; what I am doing is wholly for the good of the other person.

I think you’re disqualifying feelings from the start by treating them as inherently selfish. When most people say they love someone, it’s implicit that they want to be around that person, get to know them, be there while they’re pursuing their ambitions, etc. This is clearly not the case when sponsoring a child or paying taxes. I wouldn’t say that the feeling of wanting to be intimate with someone is selfish.

Taxes are not freely given but imposed. But you do pay them, and in that very strict sense you show love for your country which necessarily includes the citizens therein.

This is why I specified that the person declined tax breaks that were offered to them (the rich sometimes do this). The person is choosing to give more than is required, so the act is supererogatory.

But why? Why do you reserve that term for people with whom you are personally familiar with?

Because I find the term “goodwill” sufficient for what you’re describing, but insufficient for my relationship with friends and family.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Because I find the term “goodwill” sufficient for what you’re describing, but insufficient for my relationship with friends and family.

It would seem insufficient because “goodwill” is not necessarily specific. It is a general attitude towards “others” in a non-specified sense.

However, it would also be insufficient to claim to love someone and not be concerned about their highest good. It might be closer to the truth to say that the more you love someone the more you take on a kind of “prime” or proximal responsibility for insuring that the person’s highest good is within their reach or attainable by them.

So “goodwill” describes a kind of general attitude towards all human beings where their “highest good” is promoted or, at least, not thwarted by our actions.

Love describes an attitude of mind and will toward those specific individuals who are proximal to us and for whom we assume a kind of personal responsibility for directly bringing about their “highest good” as an important aspect of our actions in daily living and as part of our purpose for being.

 

[Oreoracle]

Love describes an attitude of mind and will toward those specific individuals who are proximal to us and for whom we assume a kind of personal responsibility for directly bringing about their “highest good” as an important aspect of our actions in daily living and as part of our purpose for being.

You’ve added several qualifications to Amandil’s definition:

Love is “to desire the highest good of the beloved and any action taken for them to receive or obtain that good.”

Namely, you’ve added the components of proximity, personal responsibility, importance in daily living, and the specificity of love. I find this revised version much more representative of how “love” is commonly used.

Notice also that, unlike Amandil’s definition, offering aid to more or less anonymous persons from a distance (such as sponsoring a child through charity) doesn’t constitute loving them by your definition. “Aid from a distance” lacks at least 3 of the 4 extra qualities of love you proposed, and all 4 in the case that you don’t know the person you’re helping very well.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You’ve added several qualifications to Amandil’s definition:

Namely, you’ve added the components of proximity, personal responsibility, importance in daily living, and the specificity of love. I find this revised version much more representative of how “love” is commonly used.

Notice also that, unlike Amandil’s definition, offering aid to more or less anonymous persons from a distance (such as sponsoring a child through charity) doesn’t constitute loving them by your definition. “Aid from a distance” lacks at least 3 of the 4 extra qualities of love you proposed, and all 4 in the case that you don’t know the person you’re helping very well.

I disagree. “Aid from a distance” may fulfill all four qualities because ‘proximity’ is a relative term. If someone were to merely “send aid” to assuage their conscience, that wouldn’t be an act of love, although it wouldn’t necessarily conflict with “good will” towards others. There may be, however, other instances where sending aid may or may not be an act of love. It is also conceivable that the aid giver does act at some distance for virtually the same reasons that they do with regard to their “loved ones.” It would be a kind of extension of their love to include anonymous individuals who are conceived or imagined to require specific aid to meet their needs.

The definition therefore, does not preclude loving “from a distance,” although it allows that goodwill need not be as specific as love, but under the same umbrella as “willing the highest good” for others because of a common attitude of mind and will that acts “according to” love with regard to those not personally known.

 

[Oreoracle]

If someone were to merely “send aid” to assuage their conscience, that wouldn’t be an act of love, although it wouldn’t necessarily conflict with “good will” towards others.

But why? I’m assuming you agree with Amandil’s stance that love doesn’t involve passion. So if a person dispassionately concludes that the moral action is to send aid–that is, he does good for goodness’ sake–then why would this be disqualified as love? He is acting for their highest good.

Come to think of it, I’m not sure how a Catholic could ever distinguish “assuaging their conscience” from doing the right thing. Morally correct behavior doesn’t require emotional commitment to anyone in the Catholic conception, so why chide the person for doing good for goodness’ sake?

There may be, however, other instances where sending aid may or may not be an act of love. It is also conceivable that the aid giver does act at some distance for virtually the same reasons that they do with regard to their “loved ones.” It would be a kind of extension of their love to include anonymous individuals who are conceived or imagined to require specific aid to meet their needs.

This sounds less like an extension and more like a fabrication. It involves me pretending that others are like those who are familiar to me when they most likely aren’t. You are describing loving a (false) idea of people, not the people themselves.

 

[Amandil]

But why? I’m assuming you agree with Amandil’s stance that love doesn’t involve passion.

That’s not my position.

I never said that “love doesn’t involve passion”.

I said that “passions” or feelings are not necessary for acts to be loving.

This sounds less like an extension and more like a fabrication. It involves me pretending that others are like those who are familiar to me when they most likely aren’t. You are describing loving a (false) idea of people, not the people themselves.

It’s not about being “familiar” but with being “familial”; we are all essentially part of a whole human family.

 

[Oreoracle]

That’s not my position.

I never said that “love doesn’t involve passion”.

I said that “passions” or feelings are not necessary for acts to be loving.

Okay, but the problem I mentioned persists: a completely dispassionate person who merely behaves as they know they should would be loving by this standard.

If you don’t see this as problematic, consider this: I had an elementary school teacher that I hated (who didn’t, right? ). She was a demon of a woman. She had no way with children and turned me off to education for years to come. In spite of this, I bear no ill will toward her. In fact, if I knew she were in a tight spot, I would help her as I would help anyone else. If I knew her well enough to recognize her highest good, I would help her attain it.

I would love that woman by your standard. Sure, I feel no passion for her, nor affection. But those, as you say, are unnecessary for love. So essentially I could love someone that I hate.

It’s not about being “familiar” but with being “familial”; we are all essentially part of a whole human family.

But to put this idea in context, Peter suggested that love is for specified individuals. I cannot simply conceive of an abstract, arbitrary human, say that I love it, and generalize this love throughout the population. I have to know someone well enough for my conception of them to be detailed. Peter suggests that I basically pretend someone I don’t know is someone that I do know to achieve that end. This is a fabrication.

 

[Amandil]

Okay, but the problem I mentioned persists: a completely dispassionate person who merely behaves as they know they should would be loving by this standard.

It’s not problematic at all. It’s only problematic if you assume that love explicitly requires intimate feelings before an act can be loving.

If you don’t see this as problematic, consider this: I had an elementary school teacher that I hated (who didn’t, right? ). She was a demon of a woman. She had no way with children and turned me off to education for years to come. In spite of this, I bear no ill will toward her. In fact, if I knew she were in a tight spot, I would help her as I would help anyone else. If I knew her well enough to recognize her highest good, I would help her attain it.

I would love that woman by your standard. Sure, I feel no passion for her, nor affection. But those, as you say, are unnecessary for love. So essentially I could love someone that I hate.

Yes you can; we do it all the time.

Love and hate are not diametrically opposed to each other-you can love and hate the same person at the same time.

What you cannot do is love someone and at the same time be indifferent towards them.

Nor can you hate someone and at the same time be indifferent towards them(try it, it’s impossible).

“Indifference” is the true antonym of love, not hate.

But to put this idea in context, Peter suggested that love is for specified individuals. I cannot simply conceive of an abstract, arbitrary human, say that I love it, and generalize this love throughout the population. I have to know someone well enough for my conception of them to be detailed. Peter suggests that I basically pretend someone I don’t know is someone that I do know to achieve that end. This is a fabrication.

I’m not going to assume what Peter suggested. I’ll only say that the love I’m speaking of is directed towards them as persons, the fact of human solidarity, and their ontological goodness.

You know them because you know yourself. You love them as you would want them to love you, for God’s sake and for their own.

If you need to develop feelings of intimacy, to “pretend” or “fabricate” a connection, in order to see another person as an object to be loved or to know that they have as much right to those universal goods which you do-IOW that they deserve to be happy(not in the subjective sense but true contentedness)-well…

 

[Oreoracle]

Yes you can; we do it all the time.

If you want to define “love” so that’s the case, that’s fine. But no one actually uses the word in that manner in their everyday lives. Have you ever told someone you hated that you loved them?

Love and hate are not diametrically opposed to each other-you can love and hate the same person at the same time.

I believe it was you who once likened me to the kind of person who would define “white” to mean “black”. Projection? Irony? It’s hard to say which applies here.

I agree that you can hate aspects of a person while still appreciating them as a whole. But if I conclusively say, “I despise the only qualities I associate with this particular individual” then it would be confusing to insist that I love them.

What you cannot do is love someone and at the same time be indifferent towards them.

Hmm…I’m not convinced. You say that to love is to desire one’s highest good. I can do that without caring about someone. Indeed, if morality is objective as Catholics say, then someone who is merely logical could infer that they ought to help others pursue their highest good, identify someone’s highest good, and help them by deciding to do good for goodness’ sake. If it’s all objective and dispassionate, no caring is necessary.

I’m not going to assume what Peter suggested. I’ll only say that the love I’m speaking of is directed towards them as persons, the fact of human solidarity, and their ontological goodness.

You know them because you know yourself. You love them as you would want them to love you, for God’s sake and for their own.

If you need to develop feelings of intimacy, to “pretend” or “fabricate” a connection, in order to see another person as an object to be loved or to know that they have as much right to those universal goods which you do-IOW that they deserve to be happy(not in the subjective sense but true contentedness)-well…

Again, I’ve yet to see you offer anything that isn’t already covered by goodwill. To have goodwill toward mankind is to value persons for the sake of human solidarity and their inherent goodness.

 

[Amandil]

If you want to define “love” so that’s the case, that’s fine. But no one actually uses the word in that manner in their everyday lives.

As if you’ve done the poll which even examines the issue.

“Love” in the English language is a term that has several meanings. All of them are sufficiently included in the definition which I provided but are not necessary.

Have you ever told someone you hated that you loved them?

Yes I have.

I believe it was you who once likened me to the kind of person who would define “white” to mean “black”. Projection? Irony? It’s hard to say which applies here.

Personal incredulity, that of the fallacious kind.

Hmm…I’m not convinced. You say that to love is to desire one’s highest good. I can do that without caring about someone. Indeed, if morality is objective as Catholics say, then someone who is merely logical could infer that they ought to help others pursue their highest good, identify someone’s highest good, and help them by deciding to do good for goodness’ sake. If it’s all objective and dispassionate, no caring is necessary.

You keep building strawmen…

You clearly miss the point of “to desire.” “Desire”, “longing” necessarily implies care.

Again, I’ve yet to see you offer anything that isn’t already covered by goodwill. To have goodwill toward mankind is to value persons for the sake of human solidarity and their inherent goodness.

Really? From what I’ve read “goodwill” is defined as “a kindly feeling of approval or support; benevolent interest or concern”.

Exactly where is the moral imperative in that feeling? Feelings come and go.

What one person’s “benevolent concern” may, and in fact can, be to another person be an act of horrible atrocity(such as a forced starvation).

Goodwill, like any feeling, is only good when it is ordered to love.

Basically you’re trying argue more from less.

 

[Oreoracle]

As if you’ve done the poll which even examines the issue.

“Love” in the English language is a term that has several meanings. All of them are sufficiently included in the definition which I provided but are not necessary.

No, your definition isn’t the most general. For example, “define love” on Bing yields as a first result “feel tender affection for somebody: to feel tender affection for somebody such as a close relative or friend, or for something such as a place, an ideal, or an animal”.

Your definition doesn’t require tenderness, affection, or the familiarity of friends and relatives. The above definition coincides more with what I have argued in this thread. Notice that nowhere does that definition even allude to moral imperatives or the like.

Yes I have.

Well, perhaps in the obnoxious “I’ll pray for you” way, but that doesn’t count.

You clearly miss the point of “to desire.” “Desire”, “longing” necessarily implies care.

Most dictionaries also liken desiring to something emotional or passionate. You’re free to disagree with those definitions, but considering that language is conventional, you’re basically saying that a convention is wrong. It’s like telling someone from the U.S. that they’re driving wrong because they use the right side of the road.

 

[glendab]

Hello JapaneseKappa.

I am well aware that the best defense is a good offence. I’ve seen numerous discussions with religious people who seem to employ that sort of reasoning. Rather than attempt to answer questions directed at their own position, they opt instead to attack irrelevant parts of the questioner’s position. It is for this reason I will avoid aligning myself with any overarching “-ism” or belief system and restrict myself to the very specific claims I wish to make.

In fact, I myself was somewhat guilty of that strategy in this very thread. Rather than restricting myself to the topic and defending my original claim “there is circumstantial evidence against God, e.g. natural suffering” I went off and cited religious texts. While a religion’s texts could be used to argue that a particular religion’s God may be irrational, it doesn’t necessarily mean that there are no rational conceptions of God. I would like to defend myself by saying it is likely that the most people had that particular God in mind when thinking about this question, but that is exactly the reasoning I just got done criticizing.

I will also note that on this forum I will probably be defending at least a few positions I don’t actually believe, and those positions will be unpopular here. The reason for doing this is that by actually making an honest attempt to defend those positions I will come to understand them better. Also, “defending against the choir” isn’t very good exercise, so naturally on a Catholic forum I will be defending non-Catholic positions. Therefore, if I align myself with some “-ism” prematurely and later want to defend a position that doesn’t fit that “-ism” people will likely say something like: “as a ____ist you can’t take that position!”

Thank you for your reply. So, you are discerning - you are deciding and exploring religions in general till you find the one that suits. Keep an open mind. All good things come to those who wait.

Good luck and God bless and thank you again for your candor.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello JapaneseKappa.

I’m still not sure what you’re trying to say. Love is not a rational basis for concluding that God exists anymore than it is a rational basis for a woman to stay with her abusive husband.

What about the rational order of things? Have you ever looked into the higher math forms and how they relate to the Universe? For me, in my spiritual quest to find God before I became Catholic, seeing the mathematical order of things always lifted my mind towards God, always. Nature and her secrets revealed to my mind the workings of God’s mind. All the beauty of it and the grandure of it all. Majesty and magnificence. I still am lifted up by those things and I know it was God showing Himself to me in a way that would reach me. God in Physics. God in Nature and the relationship of the two to Him. Yeah. It reached me long before a Bible became a book on my shelf. So, what about these things? See God in any of them? His Divine ordering of the Cosmos maybe? If so, you’d have to agree there is rational order to it all. And that rational ordering points straight towards God, well at least if you ask me, JapaneseKappa. You’ll have to gaze on the Heavens yourself. Buy a telescope and stay up late. God may show you something.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello Josh.

I believe his book only serves to futher icnite the indifference, hatred and anger of those with the same misunderstandings and misconceptions of our faith.

So then, may I ask, what are you looking for?

I respectfully disagree

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

Actually I think depending on which book you read of Dawkin’s you can see the evolution of his thought process and to which degree is atheism has taken him. Older stuff tends to be tamer and middle aged stuff seems mean and too antisocial. Later on, he seems mellower. Some times while reading some authors I see more of their minds then I think they know is showing. Dawkin’s has a very good mind and some admirable qualities. It is a waste to see them used for negativity.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello Josh.

And it is this kind of love -

Eucharistic Miracle of Poland, Sokólka, October 12, 2008

Sokólka, October 12, 2008 (Part 1) – (PDF: 1.41M)
Sokólka, October 12, 2008 (Part 2) – (PDF: 1.31M)
Sokólka, October 12, 2008 (Part 3) – (PDF: 1.41M)

And the Eucharistic Miracles of Argentina, Buenos Aires, 1992 - 1994 - 1996

(note: The scientific investigations into this Eucharistic Miracle were instigated by Pope Francis then known as the Argentina Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio).

Buenos Aires, 1992 - 1994 - 1996 (part 1) - (PDF: 1.46M)
Buenos Aires, 1992 - 1994 - 1996 (part 2) - (PDF: 1.42M)
Buenos Aires, 1992 - 1994 - 1996 (part 3) - (PDF: 1.25M)

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

Thanks for the PDFs of the Eucharistic Miracles. I’m going to share them with a friend at Church.

Glenda