Metaphysics and religion

[Qoeleth]

I am interested in people’s views- can the rejection of metaphysics be reconciled with faith?

I have been re-reading Carnap’s important paper, “The Elimination of Metaphysics”. He argues that metaphysics is technically meaningless, since specifically metaphysical terms do not have a criterion for application, or, to put it simply, any proper definition. He observes that such terms may have originally had an empirically verifiable meaning, but in metaphysical usage, this is lost- indeed, what makes metaphysics “meta” is precisely and essentially that it is unverifiable. He says that to be meaningful, a statement must either be logical (in the sense of being analytically true), or, at least in principle, relate to some empirical content. If not, he argues, it is technically meaningless.

This does seem to be true, at least in a way.

It also seems to me that metaphysics can conceal, among theologians, a lack of real faith. For example, if a person said, “Oh yes, God is in control of all things. But that does not mean He is literally or physically in control of all things, but metaphysically.” Or “I believe in Heaven and Hell, but, of course, not literally, but rather as metaphysical concepts reflecting the non-temporal transcendental consequences of actions.” Isn’t this just a cover for lack of meaningful belief (I say this primarily as a self-accusation of my own faith life, not to disparage anyone else’s experience)?

A few years ago, one of my favourite lines was, “God always answers our prayers. But the answer He most often gives us is His silence.” At the time, it seems to make sense, but now it seems like patent rubbish- essentially a reification of silence. Also- it seems equally nonsensical to say that “The existence of Existence itself is evidence of God, since God is Pure Being.” But is God really Pure Being, if “Pure Being” is a meaningful term at all? Isn’t He REALLY a loving Father in our Heavenly Homeland?

Now, is Christianity compatible with a rejection of metaphysics? Is it better to base our faith on empirical evidence (either our own inner or outer feelings, or those of reliable witness, such as the Gospels and the writings of the saints), or even emotional responses to images and prayers? The belief in the existence of the soul as an immortal spirit, and in God as a creator who lives in the Heavens and has issued commands and will judge us after death, and in Jesus as the spirit of God taking on humanity- none of this seems actually to require metaphysics at all, if we take it as actually and (sorry for this term) ‘quasi-physically’ to be true. But why not?

I am wondering if it is better to throw out metaphysics altogether? Can theology be supported empirically, drawing its data soley from experiences of our inner and outer life, and testimony of reliable witnesses, such as Scripture? Admittedly, such a theology could at best be ‘probabilistic’…

 

[Elostirion]

The phrase (a statement must either be logical (in the sense of being analytically true)).
What does this mean precisely? It seems most metaphysical statements are at least tenable.

I have no choice but to agree with your statements on “palatable excuses/proclamations” in the 4th and 5th paragraphs. However that people behave this way is not a good reason to reject the usage of metaphysics. People seem clever enough that with it’s rejection they will still justify whatever they find “palatable” for whatever reasons.

It does not seem to me that Christianity is compatible with a complete rejection of ALL metaphysical assumptions (such as the soul) but is compatible with a rejection of metaphysics being used, in that there would be no metaphysicians. For it is not necessary to justify through logic that which can be held by faith through revelation, which is certain, only that those things that are necessary to hold are held (even if not reasonably held).

Those experiences of others empirically gained are not valid to transfer form individual to individual completely since they will have knowledge from their senses I can never partake in. Similarly, feelings could be subject to corruption or impedance. Perhaps even being taken over by a malicious force (which seems another thing we couldn’t reject and not necessarily observable in itself though its effects may be).

I wish I was more knowledgeable on this subject, and thus more helpful. A very interesting question though.

 

[Qoeleth]

The phrase (a statement must either be logical (in the sense of being analytically true)).
What does this mean precisely? It seems most metaphysical statements are at least tenable.

I have no choice but to agree with your statements on “palatable excuses/proclamations” in the 4th and 5th paragraphs. However that people behave this way is not a good reason to reject the usage of metaphysics. People seem clever enough that with it’s rejection they will still justify whatever they find “palatable” for whatever reasons.

It does not seem to me that Christianity is compatible with a complete rejection of ALL metaphysical assumptions (such as the soul) but is compatible with a rejection of metaphysics being used, in that there would be no metaphysicians. For it is not necessary to justify through logic that which can be held by faith through revelation, which is certain, only that those things that are necessary to hold are held (even if not reasonably held).

Those experiences of others empirically gained are not valid to transfer form individual to individual completely since they will have knowledge from their senses I can never partake in. Similarly, feelings could be subject to corruption or impedance. Perhaps even being taken over by a malicious force (which seems another thing we couldn’t reject and not necessarily observable in itself though its effects may be).

I wish I was more knowledgeable on this subject, and thus more helpful. A very interesting question though.

In answer to your fist question, a statement (in order to be meaningful) must be logically true (e.g. “the square root of 144 is 12”), or empirically testable (e.g. “it will rain on Thursday.”) If a statement is neither of those things (e.g. “Being itself neither is nor is not”), it is, technically, meaningless. This is not necessarily my view, but Carnap.

About the soul, its existence does not seem to be necessarily metaphysical. Can it not be simply the spirit inside us, or as Tertullian put it, an invisible, immortal being (he even calls it ‘corporeal’, but of finer texture than our mortal body), which will either live in Heaven or in Hell? This does not need to be ‘metaphysical’, in the sense of outside of time and space, but an actually, real spirit? Can Heaven and Hell be actually
‘places’ (granted there are inaccessible to us now), not just ‘transcendent states’?

I agree that personal experiences cannot really be transferred (if someone says, “I felt the Holy Spirit”, that will hardly convince other people.) But, since our faith starts from a recorded, concrete experience (i.e. the life of Jesus), surely our strongest theological datum is this piece of empirical evidence.

 

[bzkoss236]

If you reject metaphysics, you are left only with that which is physical, which would the imply that God, if you believe in God, is a physical being. But, if God is the creator, he cannot be part of his creation as you cannot create something in which you reside. I require the universe for existence, therefore I could not have created the universe. God must therefore be beyond his creation (ie. exists in a metaphysical reality).

You would also have to reject heaven and hell, the human soul, the mind, even math, logic, reason, and anything else non-physical, as they are not defined by the physical realm and therefore are metaphysical.

To reject the metaphysical is to reject the reality of existence beyond that which is physical.

Essentially, to reject metaphysics is to be an atheist.

At least that is how I understand it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I am interested in people’s views- can the rejection of metaphysics be reconciled with faith?

The apostles didn’t need metaphysics to believe that Jesus was the Christ so I am not sure what your question really means.

He argues that metaphysics is technically meaningless,…he observes that such terms may have originally had an empirically verifiable meaning, but in metaphysical usage, this is lost… "

This seems pretty much a tautology, like your thing about God answers with silence. To me its says no more than “metaphysics does not use the scientific method” which is pretty much true, indeed it may well be close to the definition of metaphysics which, unsurprisingly, is the “physics of physics” and operates on different criteria for arriving at certainty.

I think what is really at stake is whether the truths that metaphysics arrives at are helpful.

Metaphysics makes much use of induction. From effects we posit causes. While we may be readily and repeatedly mistaken about the nature of a cause or how it actually operates…no one practically doubts the existence of unseen causes and mechanisms and their linkage with “effects”. Scientists keep trying to discover causes even when they fail so often to get the right one. And even when we get a good explanation we know it cannot be 100% certain its the correct one…but we still believe there is an explanation and this one will do as a provisional model until another comes along.

If you believe in that you believe in metaphysics I suggest - and science seems to simply assume/use the principle without examining whether it is true or not. Causality cannot be “proven” yet it is the assumed basis of all enquiry, including Science. Its proof is that it works so far (and if it doesn’t we call it “God” as a space-filler ).

Also- it seems equally nonsensical to say that “The existence of Existence itself is evidence of God, since God is Pure Being.” But is God really Pure Being, if “Pure Being” is a meaningful term at all? Isn’t He REALLY a loving Father in our Heavenly Homeland?

Why cannot God be both? I suggest the 2nd truth is far more important than the cold existence of a being who may or may not care for us. However, if we know the 2nd then the 1st helps us to love and be comforted even more - for we come to some inkling of how God is Mighty for us. Who was it that said “I believe that I might know and I know that I might believe.” Also, intellectual enquiry is useful for keeping faith honest and fencing it off from the quicksand of wishful-thinking and JonesTown scenarios.

Is it better to base our faith on empirical evidence (either our own inner or outer feelings, or those of reliable witness, such as the Gospels and the writings of the saints), or even emotional responses to images and prayers?

Sorry, I class none of these as empirical evidence. Some of it borders empiricial evidence…but anything finally resting on trust or witnesses or “feelings” is prob not the sort of hard, objective “emprical evidence” that science or physics attenmpts to move forward on.

Admittedly, such a theology could at best be ‘probabilistic’…

Personally I believe faith is not certain (though medieval theology has always maintained it is - maybe certainty meant something different back then) … though probabilistic may not be quite the word I would choose. However my faith is theoretically capable of being emprically proven wrong.

For example if it could be authentically proven that Jesus’s bones had been discovered what would that do to your faith?

Of course most people would never accept that the discovery was authentic regardless of the quality of the evidence. (Pretty much like your God answers with silence tautology).

For me it would mean that the Apostles did not really see a truly Resurrected Christ. For some Christians that wouldn’t be a problem (eg Bishop Spong’s crowd) because it was never literal in the first place.

However I believe Christianity stands or falls on a resurrection/Ascension that requires removal of Jesus’s earthly body from the earth.

I wouldn’t lose belief in the God of the Old Testament and would therefore prob become a Jew. Having been badly mistaken once I’d have to think carefully about whether or not God’s major saving acts as reported in the OT were literally true though.

If I decided that anything supernatural reported in ancient writings was never literally true but just a teaching device, mythology or the building up of impossible legends over time then… Buddhism would probably be the next choice.

However I am not sure my psyche could handle the shock of it all so maybe I would automatically say “naah, the evidence that its Jesus’s bones is just too weak.” There always is enough uncertainty in science/history to go this path isn’t there .

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I have two points here: first, a general observation on the tendency to do things like this, and second a comment on the particular way this guy is trying to do it.

First, I caution you against this sort of thing. The argument appears to be “I can’t sink my teeth into it, so it’s not there.” But my fish in its fishbowl can’t sink his teeth into my steak either, and I can attest that it is definitely there. Or was, anyway.

But seriously: This sort of thing is an entirely artificial limiting of what we consider. It’s a taking of things we either don’t like, or don’t understand, and deciding that reality cannot really be big enough to contain them. What, when you come right down to it, would be the difference between this man dismissing metaphysics because he sees no meaning in it, or no way of experimentally verifying stuff, and a cave man dismissing astronomy because he sees no value in wondering about those random points of light, and has no tools at his disposal to figure out what they are?

It was the awe and wonder that led to the tools, not the other way around. Stomping on wonder because we can’t (supposedly) make it precise just yet should obviously never be considered a good thing.

Which is actually a pretty good analogy. We see points of light, stars. That hints at the more fundamental question of what these stars are. These days we have tools to learn lots about them, but not too long ago that was false.

This guy is admitting that we see points of light, things that cause us to wonder what exactly is going on here, but then saying that because (he thinks) we lack the capability to figure out what the things are, the points of light must not really be there - or at least, not be worth studying more. And why? Because his particular method of figuring stuff out - doing the same thing over and over and watching it happen - doesn’t do much good in that region of study. But a caveman’s tools of rocks tied to sticks don’t help much with stars either. But amazingly enough, those cavemen have learned a lot about the stars over the millenia, despite this initial hurdle, and are now launching things at them to learn even more.

Leaving the analogy aside: Such discarding of large parts of philosophy (the whole of it, in this case, I would argue) tend to be a result of at least one of these two things: 1) either the person realizes that any sort of real approach to this sort of thing leads to God, but doesn’t like that so says it’s meaningless or not possible to really know anything about, or

1. this person is so in love with the idea of empiricism, of testing the same thing over and over again, that he forgets that that empiricism is NOT fundamental, that the reason why we get truth from that approach is because of the non-empirically verifiable (indeed, one might say metaphysical) assumption that the patterns that we notice are in fact reflections of greater rules that govern things and not, say, either completely random chance or some random demon playing games with our minds ("I bet if we always lower apples towards the ground at some point, these mortals will think there’s actually some sort of fundamental force involved. Ha, it worked!)

And a last comment along these lines - applying this to God is a step backwards. People believed in sky fairies and thunder throwing giants for a long time - the metaphysical approach to God (and everything) came about as an attempt to apply logic here. That is why we have metaphysics. It is not good to try to reduce God to only be what we’ve experienced or been told or heard. It is also not good to reduce Him to only that plus what we can think about. But if we want to know as much about God as we can, we need to apply both the noggin (we must think about Him) which leads to metaphysical stuff, and the eye, the observing part. To throw out all of the results of one is a mistake.

He says that to be meaningful, a statement must either be logical (in the sense of being analytically true), or, at least in principle, relate to some empirical content. If not, he argues, it is technically meaningless.

What, exactly, does this mean?

For example, the first cause argument is entirely logical. Shortened, that sort of argument can become “If there is no such thing as existence, things cannot exist.”

I imagine he would say that the word existence is “meaningless” in that sentence because it is in someway metaphysical, but that would not be true - it may be that we don’t understand all the ramifications of the definition, but that does not mean that it is meaningless. If there was no such thing as existence, then things could not exist - by definition.

Further, there is in fact a relationship between the metaphysical and the empirical. Namely, I observe things existing, therefore things exist (if not necessarily exactly as I observe, but the mere fact that observation is happening implies something exists). So metaphysics does relate to some empirical object - namely, everything.

A metaphysical hypothesis may not be empirically verifiable though, but then again neither is the statement “there is a non-standard model of the theory of the natural numbers within first order logic,” and you don’t have people questioning that. Because it’s logical. It makes sense. (And probably because most people don’t know what it means, but still.) Metaphysics and philosophy in general are (at least when done correctly) highly logical. Rather like abstract mathematics.

And abstract mathematics has this habit of becoming very much non-abstract every now and then, when the empirical scientists stumble across some new thing or other. One would think that an understanding of the deeper reality behind everything would as well. Probably at least once, anyway. When we stare that deeper reality face to face.

 

[Qoeleth]

Thanks for the replies, to everyone. I am by no means an ‘empiricist’, and certainly not a scientificist. I have spent years studying philosophy and metaphysics, so I know a little of their methods.

But I wonder if we become committed to a ‘metaphysical’ God at the expense of an ‘actual’ God. A ‘primitive’ faith permits God (Saboath, Zeus, Odin) to be understood as an Ancient Father, who looks down from Heaven, and rules in a benevolent yet mysterious manner. Why can’t we believe that anymore? (I include myself in those people who having trouble with believing that). But maybe, it IS true. May God has actual emotions, He becomes angry, pleased, etc. Maybe the stories in the Bible are actually true. Granted, it doesn’t tally with Plato or Aristotle, but maybe Aristotle got it wrong.

Are we too quick to make Heaven, Hell, the Day of Judgment, the soul, the resurrection, etc., all metaphors for some ‘metaphysical truths’, when they could be exactly real, physical things?

 

[SweetieVietnam]

I am interested in people’s views- can the rejection of metaphysics be reconciled with faith?

I have been re-reading Carnap’s important paper, “The Elimination of Metaphysics”. He argues that metaphysics is technically meaningless, since specifically metaphysical terms do not have a criterion for application, or, to put it simply, any proper definition. He observes that such terms may have originally had an empirically verifiable meaning, but in metaphysical usage, this is lost- indeed, what makes metaphysics “meta” is precisely and essentially that it is unverifiable. He says that to be meaningful, a statement must either be logical (in the sense of being analytically true), or, at least in principle, relate to some empirical content. If not, he argues, it is technically meaningless.

This does seem to be true, at least in a way.

It also seems to me that metaphysics can conceal, among theologians, a lack of real faith. For example, if a person said, “Oh yes, God is in control of all things. But that does not mean He is literally or physically in control of all things, but metaphysically.” Or “I believe in Heaven and Hell, but, of course, not literally, but rather as metaphysical concepts reflecting the non-temporal transcendental consequences of actions.” Isn’t this just a cover for lack of meaningful belief (I say this primarily as a self-accusation of my own faith life, not to disparage anyone else’s experience)?

A few years ago, one of my favourite lines was, “God always answers our prayers. But the answer He most often gives us is His silence.” At the time, it seems to make sense, but now it seems like patent rubbish- essentially a reification of silence. Also- it seems equally nonsensical to say that “The existence of Existence itself is evidence of God, since God is Pure Being.” But is God really Pure Being, if “Pure Being” is a meaningful term at all? Isn’t He REALLY a loving Father in our Heavenly Homeland?

Now, is Christianity compatible with a rejection of metaphysics? Is it better to base our faith on empirical evidence (either our own inner or outer feelings, or those of reliable witness, such as the Gospels and the writings of the saints), or even emotional responses to images and prayers? The belief in the existence of the soul as an immortal spirit, and in God as a creator who lives in the Heavens and has issued commands and will judge us after death, and in Jesus as the spirit of God taking on humanity- none of this seems actually to require metaphysics at all, if we take it as actually and (sorry for this term) ‘quasi-physically’ to be true. But why not?

I am wondering if it is better to throw out metaphysics altogether? Can theology be supported empirically, drawing its data soley from experiences of our inner and outer life, and testimony of reliable witnesses, such as Scripture? Admittedly, such a theology could at best be ‘probabilistic’…

Sau m?t th?i gian bánh tráng bo Sweetie ra d?i, bên c?nh vi?c nh?n du?c r?t nhi?u s? ?ng h? t? m?i ngu?i, thì Sweetie cung dã vÃ* dang ti?p nh?n m?t s? góp ý c?a các b?n. VÃ* l?n nÃy, nh?m dáp ?ng nhu c?u c?a các anh ch? nhân viên van phòng, và các b?n h?c sinh, sinh viên b?n r?n, không có nhi?u th?i gian d? có th? thu?ng th?c món bánh tráng bo Sweetie cu?n. Nay Sweetie xin mang d?n cho m?i ngu?i m?t lo?i bánh tráng bo m?i - Bánh tráng bo tr?n.

NgoÃi uu di?m bánh tráng du?c tr?n s?n, phù h?p d? thu?ng th?c nhanh, trong th?i gian ng?n, bánh tráng bo tr?n Sweetie cung có m?t s? thay d?i v? thÃnh ph?n, dó lÃ* thay nu?c s?t me thÃnh hÃnh phi. Nhu v?y, thÃnh ph?n c?a m?t túi bánh tráng bo tr?n Sweetie s? bao g?m bánh tráng, bo, chà bông, hÃnh phi và mu?i.

Sweetie r?t hi v?ng s? ti?p t?c nh?n du?c s? ?ng h? c?a m?i ngu?i!

Giá:

• 25.000 VND /1 túi

Liên h?:
D?a ch?:

1. 66 Tân M? F. Tân Thu?n Tây Q.7
2. 2A/7 Nguy?n Th? Minh Khai F.Da Kao Q.1 (g?n c?u Th? Nghè, d?i di?n c?ng vÃo S? THÚ, k? bên ngân hÃng Quân D?i ( MB Bank))
   D?t tru?c 1 ngÃ*y d? luôn có s?n ph?m m?i.
   Trên 100k thì mình m?i giao nhé (có ship)
   Trên 250k thi mình s? free ship.
   Giao trong qu?n 1-3-4-7.

Liên l?c:
SDT: 01212.789.689
Website: sweetie.vn/shop/food/banh-trang-bo-tron/
Facebook: facebook.com/sweetievietnam

H?n s? d?ng:

• T? 3-4 ngÃ*y

Chú ý:

• B?o qu?n các thÃ*nh ph?n trong bao zipper.
• Bo ph?i b?o qu?n trong nhi?t d? phòng ( không d? bo trong t? l?nh)
• Nên dùng h?t t? 1-2 ngÃ*y sau khi dã m? bao.

V?i bánh tráng bo tr?n thì trên 4 túi Sweetie s? giao có tÃ*nh ship nha m?i ngu?i.
Trên 10 túi thi Sweetie s? free ship ^^.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am interested in people’s views- can the rejection of metaphysics be reconciled with faith?

I have been re-reading Carnap’s important paper, “The Elimination of Metaphysics”. He argues that metaphysics is technically meaningless, since specifically metaphysical terms do not have a criterion for application, or, to put it simply, any proper definition. He observes that such terms may have originally had an empirically verifiable meaning, but in metaphysical usage, this is lost- indeed, what makes metaphysics “meta” is precisely and essentially that it is unverifiable. He says that to be meaningful, a statement must either be logical (in the sense of being analytically true), or, at least in principle, relate to some empirical content. If not, he argues, it is technically meaningless.

This does seem to be true, at least in a way.

It also seems to me that metaphysics can conceal, among theologians, a lack of real faith. For example, if a person said, “Oh yes, God is in control of all things. But that does not mean He is literally or physically in control of all things, but metaphysically.” Or “I believe in Heaven and Hell, but, of course, not literally, but rather as metaphysical concepts reflecting the non-temporal transcendental consequences of actions.” Isn’t this just a cover for lack of meaningful belief (I say this primarily as a self-accusation of my own faith life, not to disparage anyone else’s experience)?

A few years ago, one of my favourite lines was, “God always answers our prayers. But the answer He most often gives us is His silence.” At the time, it seems to make sense, but now it seems like patent rubbish- essentially a reification of silence. Also- it seems equally nonsensical to say that “The existence of Existence itself is evidence of God, since God is Pure Being.” But is God really Pure Being, if “Pure Being” is a meaningful term at all? Isn’t He REALLY a loving Father in our Heavenly Homeland?

Now, is Christianity compatible with a rejection of metaphysics? Is it better to base our faith on empirical evidence (either our own inner or outer feelings, or those of reliable witness, such as the Gospels and the writings of the saints), or even emotional responses to images and prayers? The belief in the existence of the soul as an immortal spirit, and in God as a creator who lives in the Heavens and has issued commands and will judge us after death, and in Jesus as the spirit of God taking on humanity- none of this seems actually to require metaphysics at all, if we take it as actually and (sorry for this term) ‘quasi-physically’ to be true. But why not?

I am wondering if it is better to throw out metaphysics altogether? Can theology be supported empirically, drawing its data soley from experiences of our inner and outer life, and testimony of reliable witnesses, such as Scripture? Admittedly, such a theology could at best be ‘probabilistic’…

It would not be a sin against Faith to ignore or disbelieve the science of Philosophy ( Philosophy of Nature, Metaphysics, and Theodicy ). But the Popes since the 19th century have encouraged, focefully, the study of Philosophy, especially Thomistic Philosophy. They have continued, through Benedict XVI, to insist that it be studied in seminaries. Certainly, there are benefits in studying Philosophy for ordinary Catholics who have the time and ability, but not necessary.

You are right in implying there are dangers in studying Philosophy. Only those solid in their Faith should attempt it, for if they fail to understand something they might, on that accout, reject some teaching of the Church.

You have said some other things here that are not correct but I won’t go into them now. I will just say that the author you quoted is wrong in what you report he said. If you are studying Philosophy and having trouble, you should get hold of " Aquinas " by Edward Feser. He presents the main tenants of Thomism about as simply and clearly as it may be expressed.

Linus2nd

 

[Qoeleth]

You have said some other things here that are not correct but I won’t go into them now. I will just say that the author you quoted is wrong in what you report he said. If you are studying Philosophy and having trouble, you should get hold of " Aquinas " by Edward Feser. He presents the main tenants of Thomism about as simply and clearly as it may be expressed.

Linus2nd

Qui non habet difficultatem com philosophia cessavit esse Philosophus! Nonne sicut?

Quippe, legit tota opera Thomasae in originale, plusquam semel, plusquam bis…

 

[1AugustSon7]

I agree that personal experiences cannot really be transferred (if someone says, “I felt the Holy Spirit”, that will hardly convince other people.) But, since our faith starts from a recorded, concrete experience (i.e. the life of Jesus), surely our strongest theological datum is this piece of empirical evidence.

Yes. Faith and Revelation strengthen and confirm right reason; and right reason can help lead to Faith and the acceptance of Revelation.

The Ressurection of Christ and the Virgin Birth are empirical, historical phenomena, which is exactly why they are so hotly contested: God has seemingly left the speculative world of metaphysics and entered concretely into material reality; He has entered into “our” world. For many, this is an intolerable violation and a kind of supreme category error.

Because of the Incarnation, you cannot even study the human body anymore without doing or touching upon Theology; and again, for many, this is intolerable and even an outrage.

And I don’t follow your friend. Metaphysics is a result of physics: when we study material reality we finally end up in metaphysics or, in other words, the empirical points to the metaphysical. But of course immaterial things cannot be put under a microscope or be verified with a telescope. Ordinarily, it takes good logic and an amount of belief. When Christ preached and healed and performed miracles people were actually in the presence of God and experiencing God’s actual power; however, not all would believe it though the works and Person of Christ all pointed and attested to it. In one sense, they disbelived the empirical and verifiable evidence. Hence the Lord told them that He would not perform any other signs, since they had already seen them; and if they did not believe those, then neither would they believe others.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Qui non habet difficultatem com philosophia cessavit esse Philosophus! Nonne sicut?

Quippe, legit tota opera Thomasae in originale, plusquam semel, plusquam bis…

Don’t know if that is true or not. Don’t know if Feser has read the whole corpus, few have, but he is quite competent. When you have read him I will be happy to suggest more. I know others ( i.e. Etienne Gilson and others but they are more difficult and Feser covers more in a shoter space ).
Linus2nd

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes. Faith and Revelation strengthen and confirm right reason; and right reason can help lead to Faith and the acceptance of Revelation.

The Ressurection of Christ and the Virgin Birth are empirical, historical phenomena, which is exactly why they are so hotly contested: God has seemingly left the speculative world of metaphysics and entered concretely into material reality; He has entered into “our” world. For many, this is an intolerable violation and a kind of supreme category error.

1AS7 you make some good points but I am not so sure about this one. I personally (and regretfully) accept that the space of 2000 years since the alleged announcement of a purportedly literal Resurrection/Empty-Tomb and the vagaries of intermediary testation over that time have slowly eroded the value of the so called historical “evidence” to the point of such significant uncertainty that reason is probably more agin the historical datum re the truth of the Resurrection than for it.

Today it takes almost as much faith to believe that the historical testimony (re the empirical Wonders of Jesus and his Resurrection) handed down through so many flawed intermediaries and entropic circumstances has remained uncorrupted and intact (instead of being the same sort of myth/exaggerations that other ancient writings/religions acrrue) as it does to believe the actual content of it - i.e. that Jesus rose from the Dead and Ascended.

Jesus’s teaching was always associated with empirical wonders and ultimately the Resurrection surely because without them it is not very reasonable to make such a huge leap of faith in the unheard of teachings that Jesus revealed. “Not very reasonable” does not mean what Christians preach is illogical or impossible…just very difficult to accept as true on the basis of “he’s a compassionate good guy” alone.

Unfortunately with the passage of time that assistance, I believe, is no longer available to us as strongly as in times past. People say the institution of the Church and its survival is equivalent to the same thing now. Yeah right, its shining moral virtue, unity, love and members who are significantly more virtuous than the rabble outside isn’t really doing it for me because it doesn’t seem to be that true (statistics re divorce, abotions etc etc all back that up) or startlingly different from any other long time religion or institution. Buddhism and Islam seem to be surviving very well also so I do not think ecclesial longevity has much wonder about it.

Of course true-believers will say I am concentrating on the negatives. Unfortunately it is not the true-believers that Jesus is wanting to convert, its the “lost” truth-seekers on the outside. They do not seem to be in rapturous agreement over the very visible wonder of the Christian Church so there does seem to be rose-tinted thinking going on if we take the angle that the long existence and size of the Catholic Church against all odds is the present wonder of the world that points to the veracity of Christ and his Resurrection.

Still I have to admit that the Church is still “big” enough in the eyes of the world that its message cannot be ignored in the sense that truth-seekers would demonstrably not be truth-seekers if they didn’t at least look at the Christian message becaue it is unavoidable.
Maybe that is all that wonders were ever meant to do. Make us sit up, look, listen…and make a decision. If that is the case then yes, Jesus’s message is no longer associated with Wonders…but the Church still fulfills the role that the ancient Wonders formerly supplied - that we look and make a decision.

Ordinarily, it takes good logic and an amount of belief. When Christ preached and healed and performed miracles people were actually in the presence of God and experiencing God’s actual power;.

Yes I fully agree - unfortunately that direct experience of Jesus’s Wonders is no longer available.

In one sense, they disbelived the empirical and verifiable evidence. Hence the Lord told them that He would not perform any other signs, since they had already seen them; and if they did not believe those, then neither would they believe others

Not sure about this one either.

The problem back then was not disbelieving the verifiable evidence (“direct witness testimony” may be called “verifiable evidence” I suppose but after the last apostle died off I think we can safely say that we no longer have “verifiable evidence”. All we have is a witness … to a witness etc that knew a direct witness of the Resurrection. Not at all the same thing). So the real problem for Thomas was that he did not humanly trust his fellow disciples when they said they had literally seen the Lord.

When Jesus said “you believe because you have seen” what was it that Thomas believed in? It couldn’t simply be a belief in the Resurrection as that was no longer a matter of belief as Jesus was standing before him, that was fact.

I do not think we are saved by believing in the literal physical reality of the Resurrection (or the Virgin Birth for that matter) as no further religious certainties automaticly follow such acceptance. However those “facts” make the leap of faith much easier.

Yes we must still believe without seeing like the apostles. But we seem far worse off than
generations closer to that time because the helpful testimony about the wonders associated with Jesus’s life (which help faith make its leap) becomes less and less reliable with each subsequent generation.

 

[Elostirion]

Are we to hold that actual physical substances are corruptible?

 

[1AugustSon7]

I personally accept that the space of 2000 years since the alleged announcement of a purportedly literal Resurrection/Empty-Tomb and the vagaries of intermediary testation over that time have slowly eroded the value of the so called historical “evidence” to the point of such significant uncertainty that reason is probably more agin the historical datum re the truth of the Resurrection than for it.

Okay, my friend; you are in fact living proof of what I am talking about in my original post.

Firstly,** no!** there is no good reason to believe that the Apostles were liars. Moreover, give a single credible proof that at any point the Gospels were universally falsified in any meaningful or essential way: where did it happen? Why did it happen? Who did it and why did they do it? How did they succeed? How come ordinary Christians who knew the original message -presumably till then virtually all of them- did not rise up? In fact, the struggle for orthodoxy throughout the centuries are in fact the historical witness of Christians fighting against corrurptions of the Gospel that they had received, generation after generation.

Second, no: no ancient historical fact is so well attested and reasonable to believe as the Ressurection of Christ and the Gospel. People did not feel compelled to slavishly record and propagate the life, works and deeds of Caesar for generation after generation even when it was yet common knowledge: every Christian Church ever founded does so unfailingly from generation to generation. You have more and better reason to believe that Christ lived, preached, died for our sins and rose from the dead than you do to believe that Julius Caesar conquered Gaul - and this notwithstanding all the innumerable miracles that have accompanied the proclamation of Christ in each and every generation from then 'til now and the lives of the Saints. After all, didn’t those Roman historians have every good reason to lie about their supposed empire and the conquering of their enemies to make themselves look good and powerful? Indeed, they had every good reason to lie to flatter their masters and their own compatriots.

The arguments of atheists are specious and require the most absurd double standards when it comes to denying the credibility of the Gospel records and accounts.

Today it takes almost as much faith to believe that the historical testimony (re the empirical Wonders of Jesus and his Resurrection) handed down through so many flawed intermediaries and entropic circumstances has remained uncorrupted

This is a bad joke.

There was just as much and more reason to believe that our standard accounts of Western history are likewise a pack of lies given the political, ethnic and cultural significance of those events; in other words, there was just as much reason and probably better to lie about the Roman consuls and the Emperors for immediate temporal gains or ambitions as there ever could have been to falisify the Gospels and New Testament testimony. Being an heir of Rome did not become politically meaningless until the last of the Czars (the Third Rome) was murdered. From the time of Julius Caesar to the last Czar the historical records concerning Roman history was of real political significance; yet no one believes that everything we know about the Romans is necessarily false because of so many flawed intermediaries and so many temptations to amputate or falsify the record for expediency’s sake.

Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, lived, preached, cured the sick miraculously, died for us and rose from the dead. There is no credible reason not to believe these things happened as reported without brining into controversy (contrary to reason) God’s absolute Power or falling into the most ludicrous conspirationalism; and God continues to affirm the truth of this testimony in every age, from the answering of prayers of the humblest of people in Christ’s name to the more public and wonderful apparitions and the miracles of healing associated with them. Indeed, this is exactly what keeps the Faith alive and vibrant and strong against so many assaults and controversies and endless hatreds and calumnies: i.e., it is the power of God that makes for believers; the power that accompanies the preaching of Christ Crucified.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Yes I fully agree - unfortunately that direct experience of Jesus’s Wonders is no longer available.

The Sacraments are experiences of Christ’s power. The Church is the Body of Christ and we receive sacramental grace from the Church through the Sacraments.

Luke 8.46 But Jesus said, Somebody touched me; I can tell that power has gone out from me.

Mark 5.30 Jesus thereupon, inwardly aware of the power that had proceeded from him, turned back towards the multitude and asked, Who touched my garments?

Likewise prayer. And - since all grace comes from or flows though the Church - any and every grace received and enjoyed by mankind comes either directly or indirectly through the Church. These are all experiences of Christ’s power.

Christians do in fact still directly experience Christ’s power everytime we approach Him in faith and are healed through His Grace. The Sacraments are the most ordinary means of experiencing this power though, to be sure, then as now, it requires on our part a true and lively faith. Hence Our Lord always said that it was the Faith of the believer that made them well; hence Holy Mother Church teaches us to have a lively faith whenever we approach the holy Sacraments, lest they be of no effect for us on account of unbelief.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Tell me: the Roman historians may have lied and wrote fictions claiming that Julius Caesar wrote them about his supposed conquering of Gaul, sure; but we have Roman roads and forts in France to prove that the Romans were there, and you have but the written records of the Gospels.

And I shall reply: I have the Gospels, to be sure; and I have throughout the world Churches planted by the Apostles and their companions; and not only in France or even only throughout the Roman Empire.

 

[Portofino]

I am wondering if it is better to throw out metaphysics altogether?

You certainly wouldn’t be the first to throw out metaphysics altogether.

From my vantage point, I see metaphysics as the exploration of conceptual possibilities. It’s not mere speculation; logic certainly has much to do with metaphysical arguments. Nonetheless, the logical rigor of metaphysics depends on how one defines the terms one employs and – as you’ve pointed out – there is no to way to verify the claims of metaphysics experimentally, nor demonstrate that one’s definitions for certain terms (essential to one’s premise) are based on a right and correct understanding. Verifying the claims of metaphysics experimentally would be a way of settling disagreements over how to define the terms employed in one’s argument, and whether the conclusions drawn are indeed logically necessary or whether there are other conceptual possibilities (for a metaphysical argument to succeed, I think, it has to demonstrate that there are no other possibilities, including the possibility of “maybe we don’t fully understand causality”; “maybe we don’t fully understand the nature of potentiality versus actuality”; “maybe we don’t fully understand the nature of motion”; “maybe we don’t fully understand the nature of time”). If you can show other conceptual possibilities, then it is not a check-mate – the King still has room to manuever. Making predictions and doing experiments would be one way to “collapse” competing speculations into one verified – or numerous falsified – conclusions, but such things are not germane to metaphysics, so there will always be disagreement (and there is disagreement, and has been for the past 2500 years or so, in the west). Let’s not kid ourselves about that; for over 700 years, philosophers have been arguing, essentially, over the Five Ways of Aquinas. No one argues over simple arithmetic. Why is that? Is it because non-believers are so biased? Yet both sides accuse each other of bias, and the skeptics who suspend judgment just end up irritating both.

Regarding something like the uncaused cause, or unmoved mover argument – whose logic can seem persuasive – I see the ultimate conclusion as being, “you would think this would have to be the case, yes?” But you have no way of testing that assumption, which would be a way to silence debate. With Zeno’s paradox, thinkers essentially said, “you would think that would have to be the case, that movement is impossible, wouldn’t you; but movement is possible, it’s empirically verifiable, therefore Zeno’s paradox must not be logically sound.” Testing one’s assumptions or conclusions against the world of experience is a good case of checks and balances; it’s like calibrating a projector to a certain theorized level of sharpness and clarity, but the moment of truth is when you actually turn the thing on and view the picture.

Metaphysics posits logical necessity but its conclusions remain inevitably un-testable. Empirical events like the resurrection of Jesus are another matter. From our vantage point, arguments for the empirical truth of something like the resurrection of Jesus, or the assumption into heaven, deal with the comparatively softer sciences not only of historical research but of psychology. One speaks probabilistically.

So, if you believe the evangelists, what you’re really saying is, “it’s not impossible that they were mistaken, or that they related what they knew to be false, but why would they lie?” (that’s an argument based on psychology and motive, which is not an exact science). “They probably didn’t lie, though it’s not impossible that they did.” Even if the world “probably” is not used, it is implied, insofar as one can never demonstrated the inherent logical necessity of an empirical event such as the resurrection, nor does one have direct firsthand evidence (unless one was, oneself, an eyewitness to the event). There’s an inevitable element of subjectivity and judgment in assessing probabilities in this way, and so the outcome is predictable — the believers think that it’s about 99% certain (perhaps even 99.9%, or more); the non-believers think it is close to 0% certain. Both sides accuse the other of bias. The ones in the middle say that it is “possible, but ultimately unanswerable question. It’s a hung jury.” And, at worst, they get crushed by both sides – by the confident believers and the confident non-believer – who accuse them of wimping out and who are irritated by the logically respectable conclusion of “not enough information to say.”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
Yes I fully agree - unfortunately that direct experience of Jesus’s Wonders is no longer available.

1AS7 I can see you are one of the “true believer” types that Portofino speaks of.
This suggests your admirable christian enthusiasm may be blocking you from a more objective appreciation of what I (and perhaps others) are really saying.

Some things that might be useful to further reflect on…

• saying that Jesus did not literally rise from the dead does not necessarily make either the apostles liars or the Gospels lies.
• identification of the Sacraments with NT wonders/miracles is a common pious sentiment/analogy but one is objectively visible while the other is not. It is distorting the colloquial definition of the word “miracle” to push that one too far. One may of course, but then you would no longer be talking to my point.
• science may not be your strong suit. It may be worthwhile researching more on the distinction between soft and hard sciences and the difference in certainty involved.

I don’t expect you to agree with any of the above but if you mull over these points I think you may eventually see new angles you haven’t yet considered. No need to respond, I won’t be taking this any further.

 

[inocente]

I am interested in people’s views- can the rejection of metaphysics be reconciled with faith?

I have been re-reading Carnap’s important paper, “The Elimination of Metaphysics”. He argues that metaphysics is technically meaningless, since specifically metaphysical terms do not have a criterion for application, or, to put it simply, any proper definition.

The Carnap paper is online here. He makes a good case that metaphysical statements are a content-free zone, interesting but meaningless soundbites, and that metaphysics drops down a hole of its own making halfway between the arts and the sciences, trying to put into words what cannot be put into words:

“Metaphysicians are musicians without musical ability. Instead they have a strong inclination to work within the medium of the theoretical, to connect concepts and thoughts. Now, instead of activating, on the one hand, this inclination in the domain of science, and satisfying, on the other hand, the need for expression in art, the metaphysician confuses the two and produces a structure which achieves nothing for knowledge and something inadequate for the expression of attitude.”

Most of us, including I think most Catholics, have little time for metaphysics anyway. God is empirical, sensed not reasoned. We preach Christ crucified, not logical essence of unmoved mover. The God of scripture is alive, not hypothesis.