Observations by a non believer

[WmJackP]

1. When I hear people of faith use words like “faith” I have to ask what do they mean? I think they must really mean “hope”. For example," I hope there is a God who loves me" or " I hope that my sins are forgiven." Noone can truly have “blind faith” and still maintain that it is rational, Isn’t that so? . I can have “faith” in only one sense that makes sense, and, that is if the faith arises from past experience. But the past experience–to be validly a function of faith–must certainly be reality based. For example, I can have faith that my mother loves me. That is based on experience, ie contact with real tangible past events. Mom always brought my lunch to me at school, she always was there for me, she did this or that. That’s real and that is a basis for the faith that you might have that she’ll be there for you tomorrow or the next day. I submit, that when those professing religious beliefs say that they have faith, they really only hope.
2. If water is H2O then it cannot be, at the same time NaCl. If it is two parts hydogen and one part oxygen then by definition it is water. Is that not so? I agree we can utter the words that that 2 plus 2 are 5 and we can say that a circle is round. But saying such things only are words strung together with out corresponding to the meaning of the words themselves . So, then, if bread is flesh and wine is blood when in fact the chemical composition belies that reality, how then can one rationally sustain the position that such is true? Faith makes it so? I submit that one merely "hopes"that somehow 2 plus 2 can make 5.
3. I am a cradle catholic–clearly,fallen away at this point—I have studied in earnest and believe myself to be well informed. At least, My conclusions are sincerely held. I try to lead an ethical life, albeit based on rational precepts. By what logic then can one (who views these dogmas of faith such as virgin birth, transubstantiation, the trinity, etc to be so much mystical nonsense) roast in all eternity. Isn’t it a bit like “the fox guarding the chicken coop” to say that if one is exposed to your version of the truth to be eternally damned if he departs from that version of the truth? That is certainly not in conformity with the ideal of justice–so how then can such anabsurd position be defended.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

1. I am a cradle catholic–clearly,fallen away at this point—I have studied in earnest and believe myself to be well informed. At least, My conclusions are sincerely held. I try to lead an ethical life, albeit based on rational precepts. By what logic then can one (who views these dogmas of faith such as virgin birth, transubstantiation, the trinity, etc to be so much mystical nonsense) roast in all eternity. Isn’t it a bit like “the fox guarding the chicken coop” to say that if one is exposed to your version of the truth to be eternally damned if he departs from that version of the truth? That is certainly not in conformity with the ideal of justice–so how then can such anabsurd position be defended.

I’ll just comment on your #3 real quick. The idea that; “you believe in God, you go to heaven, you don’t, you go to hell” is a simplistic fundie idea. No Catholic who professes to believe knows for sure whether they will die in a state of Grace, or with sins unrepented. No one knows if the Pope is going to heaven when he dies, just because someone believes in God, they don’t go straight to heaven. Your position is really that of a little kid, i.e. silly. And it also happens to be a common atheist strawman argument

 

[jmcrae]

1. When I hear people of faith use words like “faith” I have to ask what do they mean? I think they must really mean “hope”. For example," I hope there is a God who loves me" or " I hope that my sins are forgiven." Noone can truly have “blind faith” and still maintain that it is rational, Isn’t that so?

Christian faith is not blind faith. Nor is it hope. It is grounded in the experience of the resurrected Christ.

I can have “faith” in only one sense that makes sense, and, that is if the faith arises from past experience.

Right. The past experience in our case is the collective past experience that Christ became a human being, died for our sins, and then rose again from the dead.

But the past experience–to be validly a function of faith–must certainly be reality based.

Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection are historical events; not just stories made up to explain something else.

1. If water is H2O then it cannot be, at the same time NaCl. If it is two parts hydogen and one part oxygen then by definition it is water. Is that not so? I agree we can utter the words that that 2 plus 2 are 5 and we can say that a circle is round. But saying such things only are words strung together with out corresponding to the meaning of the words themselves . So, then, if bread is flesh and wine is blood when in fact the chemical composition belies that reality, how then can one rationally sustain the position that such is true? Faith makes it so? I submit that one merely "hopes"that somehow 2 plus 2 can make 5.

Faith doesn’t make it so, but rather, by faith, we know that it really happens.

1. I am a cradle catholic–clearly,fallen away at this point—I have studied in earnest and believe myself to be well informed. At least, My conclusions are sincerely held. I try to lead an ethical life, albeit based on rational precepts. By what logic then can one (who views these dogmas of faith such as virgin birth, transubstantiation, the trinity, etc to be so much mystical nonsense) roast in all eternity. Isn’t it a bit like “the fox guarding the chicken coop” to say that if one is exposed to your version of the truth to be eternally damned if he departs from that version of the truth? That is certainly not in conformity with the ideal of justice–so how then can such anabsurd position be defended.

It can’t. Luckily, it’s not a tenet of our faith.

We believe that each of us will be judged according to what we had the ability to do, and the ability to know. If someone is born without the sense that allows him to perceive the action of God in his life, he will be judged less harshly for being an atheist than someone who has a strong spiritual sensitivity, but chooses to attribute the work of God to something else, merely to be thought “intelligent” by unbelievers.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

1. When I hear people of faith use words like “faith” I have to ask what do they mean? I think they must really mean “hope”. For example," I hope there is a God who loves me"

We, or at least i, naturally seek perfection; we seek the perfection of our being, and this is revealed by the mere fact that we evidently seek to better our existence and attempt to avoid imperfections. The hope of God is an expression of an intrinsic desire to be existentially fulfilled as personal beings to a perfect degree. To place ones hope in God is a radical attempt to fulfill ones intrinsic objective nature in its absolute entirety. Its a radical positivity in the face of the possibility of existential nihilism. You could say that “Faith” is to live according to that hope. Faith is something that is lived rather than something that is hoped for. Faith is an expression of hope. But faith can mean different things depending on the context.

Faith perhaps isn’t rationally demonstratable in the contextual sense of a “mathematical truth”, but few things that really matter to us are. However; faith is a rationalization non-the-less. Its a practical rationalization developing out of the fact that one has life, and the intrinsic meaning that life expresses to us in our experience of it motivates us to protect it and fulfill it in a manner that is consistent with ones objective nature. It would be irrational to jump into a fire if you don’t want to burn. It would be irrational to kill ones self if you want to live and be happy. It would be irrational to starve yourself if in fact you do not want to starve yourself. It would be irrational to do anything that contradicts your intrinsic nature or desire unless there is a greater good that can be gained from repressing ones desire. We often call people crazy for behaving in a manner that appears to be not intelligible. My mother (an atheist) has said on many occasion that she just knows when somebody is crazy or doing something that is immoral. Some come to realize that only the concept “God” can perfectly fulfill the intrinsic meaning that we find in life, and thus it would be practically and existentially irrational not to place ones hope in God, unless some greater perfection can be gained from rejecting God. God makes intelligible sense out of being alive and being a person.

Without direct revelation or proof for Gods existence, you can look at this in two ways. One can say that the desire for God is natural, but ultimately a subjective fantasy. Or you could say that such a desire is exactly what we would expect in a reality where God truly exists as the fulfillment of human nature. I.e, the natural desire for perfection is only consistent with a reality where perfection has intrinsic meaning.

 

[JohnDamian]

1. When I hear people of faith use words like “faith” I have to ask what do they mean?

Faith is belief of the heart, or an emotional belief. Knowlege is an intellectual belief.

So, then, if bread is flesh and wine is blood when in fact the chemical composition belies that reality, how then can one rationally sustain the position that such is true? Faith makes it so?

Transubstantiation is justified by the fact that materials are accidental properties of a particular thing. The substance is the body and blood of Christ, the materials and the form of bread and wine are *accidental *properties. This is why we use the word “host”, because the accidental form of bread and wine is the percieved form which the substantial presence inhabits.

By what logic then can one …who views these dogmas of faith

I would be quite happy to go through each individually in greater details; but this shall suffice, please note I am justifying these things purely philosophically and not touching theology:

the trinity

The trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit are clearly not really distinct; but as constiant elements of the same thing they more than just individual perspectives, and are thus not merely conceptually distinct, they are certainly not modally distinct; because that would imply a numerical unity. Evidently, from a philosophical standpoint the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit are Formally Distinct… In the same way as the intellect and the will are below really distinct, and above conceptually distinct; and in the same way as the quiddity of a thing and it’s existence are formally distinct so then are the parts of the Trinity. Three seperate, but united things, that are distinct but not independant.

roast in all eternity.

As the Catechism defines the chief punishment of hell to be seperation from God, it is entirely prudent that this possibility exists. For it not to exist a contradiction would be entailed as we would not be free.

virgin birth

This is distinct from the Immaculate Conception (which I can cover later if you wish). For the idea of the Virgin Birth and Perpetual Virginity one must understand that virginity in the church reflects a bodily integrity suggested by virtuous motives. Therein, it may persist after sex. The church teaches that God preserved the *integrity *of Mary even after child-birth.

eternally damned

From the nessecary definitions of Mortal Sins, that is, full knowlege and consent coupled with Gravity. One can only choose to be away from God - which then, according to the Catechism, constitutes an afterlife where the chief punishment is the eternal fulfillment of your choice - seperation from God. This is nessecary for our free will.

 

[mlund]

You know what I actually hope? I hope that my senses aren’t cheating me or being deceived. Ultimately, a man can only hope that what he sees, touches, hears, smells, and tastes are truly experiences of the world around him.

One could, after all, be nothing but a brain in a jar somewhere hooked up to electrodes feeding one’s nervous system stimuli that create a facsimile of experience without providing any true knowledge of the world itself. It is within the realm of possibility that everything one experiences as material reality through the senses is just a ruse.

Funny thing, that. We must take the world (through our senses) on nothing but a matter of blind hope, supported by no evidence. However, if we accept that then we can take the Word as a matter of Faith supported by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

• Marty Lund

 

[JohnDamian]

Funny thing, that. We must take the world (through our senses) on nothing but a matter of blind hope,** supported by no evidence.** However, if we accept that then we can take the Word as a matter of Faith supported by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

• Marty Lund

If you want evidence, or a Good reason to believe it, then any liker of Avicenna would happily oblige.

• Anyone who denies the Law of Non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as to not be burned.*
  Avicenna (980-1037)

I can only say it was lucky for Descartes that he never encountered any *real *philosophers.

 

[mlund]

If you want evidence, or a Good reason to believe it, then any liker of Avicenna would happily oblige.

• Anyone who denies the Law of Non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as to not be burned.*

Perhaps someone should go attempt to beat and burn the brothers Wachowski for the Matrix? I’m sure prison is quite lovely this time of year.

Sadly, such an argument is completely misapplied. This is not an instance of contradiction, but rather exhibiting a lack of evidence for the source of stimuli. Yes, we react to painful stimuli such as burning because of the impact of the experience. That does not prove, in any valid way, where the stimuli actually comes from. Science has proven such perceptions can be completely fabricated.

So stimuli give us a good reason to respond to those stimuli, regardless of the source. We are left with no valid evidence, however, as to the source of said stimuli.

If would be more interesting to ask if one of Avicenna’s disciples would prefer to be burned and beaten bodily, or have his brain permanently placed into a system that would give him the same exact stimuli as being burned and beat would do.

• Marty Lund

 

[JohnDamian]

It does give us a good reason to respond to that stimuli, regardless of the source. It provides us with no proof, however.

Perhaps someone should go attempt to beat and burn the brothers Wachowski for the Matrix? I’m sure prison is quite lovely this time of year.

• Marty Lund

It can be inferred that it is indeed practical to avoid negative stimulae. However as you point out, it cannot be proven beyond all conceivable impracticalities. I would take that the majority of entities avoid negative stimulae as proof per se that the negative stimulae has at the very least a relative significance and value; even if it cannot be demonstrated objectivally in toto.

 

[mlund]

It can be inferred that it is indeed practical to avoid negative stimulae. However as you point out, it cannot be proven beyond all conceivable impracticalities. I would take that the majority of entities avoid negative stimulae as proof per se that the negative stimulae has at the very least a relative significance and value; even if it cannot be demonstrated objectivally in toto.

While responding to stimuli gives us some sort of hope to avoid negative stimuli (the rules of the game could, in any moment, change arbitrarily), it does not give us any true evidence of the nature of the source of the stimuli themselves. The validity of the information conveyed by the stimuli is, without evidence or proof, presumed to be an accurate. It is impractical to assume otherwise without cause. The best an individual can do is hope for accuracy.

Furthermore, because accurate correlation between stimuli and physical reality can not be proved the existence and behavior of other entities is itself unproven.

That accuracy can never be proven by stimuli itself, only disproved in individual instances through contradiction.

• Marty Lund

 

[DOShea]

Noone can truly have “blind faith” and still maintain that it is rational, Isn’t that so?

It would depend upon the circumstances. You are making the assertion that a set of religious beliefs taken as a whole constitute “blind faith,” but you’ve not given any compelling argument for that assertion.

Blind faith is generally thought to be faith apart from anything else, be it experience or reason. It would be as though you were on the 50th story of a building and someone said, “Just walk off the edge… you won’t fall.” There is nothing in our experiences and no way to reason to the conclusion that you would be suspended in mid air. Thus if you did step off, you’d be acting totally on blind faith. In this case it would probably be unreasonable. What about if you were trapped in a canyon and suddenly a rope appears over the edge. A voice says, “Tie yourself on, I’ll pull you up.” You don’t even know who’s up there nor do you “know” their intent, but in this case, considering the alternatives, placing “blind faith” in them might be a good bet.

Belief in the Catholic concepts of religion are not like that. We have several pieces of information with which to go on, experiences, and we can make reasonable approaches to what the faith contains. We have Jesus human existence; first-hand, eye-witness accounts of his life and interactions with others, including miraculous healings and restoration of the dead to life on more than one occasion; we have some 58 predictions of the events of His human life written down centuries before they happened, all with stunning accuracy (side note: what are the odds of 58 of 58 predictions coming true for anything?); we have the actions of people alive in the years immediately following Jesus’ life, most of them ending up dying gruesome deaths rather than give up their faith. That suggests there was something more to it than whimsical or faddish following. There are many more, but those will serve to illustrate the point.

I can have “faith” in only one sense that makes sense, and, that is if the faith arises from past experience.

Then it is not a matter of faith, but is instead a matter of history.

Does this mean you refused to believe in solar eclipses until you actually saw one? Or that you don’t believe in such things as planets orbiting other stars in our galaxy? I know you haven’t experienced one of those because no one yet has outside of a handful of astronomers in Chile, the rest are all believers because of reason, not experience. Nothing else rationally explains a fixed-period, continual wobble of a distant star aside from a large mass (i.e. - a planet) orbiting it. So though we cannot see (or “experience”) it, we can pose a logical basis for a faith that they exist.

The same is true for the existence of God, and for Catholicism. Each of these has rational arguments that, while not “proving” them, certainly make having faith in them something rational rather than simply a matter of blind faith. St. Peter, in fact, strongly implies that we should NOT have blind faith, saying in his first epistle that we should be “ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you…”

 

[JohnDamian]

While responding to stimuli gives us some sort of hope to avoid negative stimuli (the rules of the game could, in any moment, change arbitrarily), it does not give us any true evidence of the nature of the source of the stimuli themselves. The validity of the information conveyed by the stimuli is, without evidence or proof, presumed to be an accurate. It is impractical to assume otherwise without cause. The best an individual can do is** hope for accuracy.**

If accuracy is potential, then an accurate objective reality must exist, for the conformation of the prior to the latter is predicated by the nessecity of a univocal understanding of accuracy. Hence, if it is possible to have an accurate rendition of any thing, it is possible to have an objective and true understanding of such a thing.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I try to lead an ethical life, albeit based on rational precepts.

Has it ever crossed your mind that the concept of rationality is problematic?
What does it mean?
Do you accept it without question? (Isn’t this faith?)
Can you prove that rationality exists? (I’d like to see some material evidence).
Is rationality perhaps a western philosophical construct?

I’d say that…rationality itself rests upon an underlying precept and if you were to seek to explain that you would have to rely upon a further precept and so on in a process of infinite regression. At some point your belief in rationality requires an act of faith in the concept itself and the life (for better or worse) it is deemed to make possible.

Just a thought.

 

[RWMorris]

Faith is not Hope, but Hope is a part of Faith. Our Christian Faith is our trust that God exists, and we have that trust because all evidence, empirical, and human reasoning, demonstrates his existence.

You cannot believe unless you want to believe. Faith is a learned skill. The vast majority of people learn that skill early in life. Everyone learns that skill to one degree or another. Even if one has radical doubt about just about everything they still have enough faith in gravity that they can walk. They have enough faith in the laws of physics that they know better than to walk onto a busy expressway, or routinely jump off tall buildings, or walk into a roaring inferno of flames.

Scientists are some of the most faith filled people around. If they weren’t they would have to re-invent the automobile each morning to drive to work.

 

[Monica4316]

1. When I hear people of faith use words like “faith” I have to ask what do they mean? I think they must really mean “hope”. For example," I hope there is a God who loves me" or " I hope that my sins are forgiven." Noone can truly have “blind faith” and still maintain that it is rational, Isn’t that so? . I can have “faith” in only one sense that makes sense, and, that is if the faith arises from past experience. But the past experience–to be validly a function of faith–must certainly be reality based. For example, I can have faith that my mother loves me. That is based on experience, ie contact with real tangible past events. Mom always brought my lunch to me at school, she always was there for me, she did this or that. That’s real and that is a basis for the faith that you might have that she’ll be there for you tomorrow or the next day. I submit, that when those professing religious beliefs say that they have faith, they really only hope.

Hi, I disagree that our faith is totally “blind” and not based on any experience. When I think of God’s love, I remember the times when He’s shown His love to me, and it’s not any less real to me than my mother’s love. We don’t just believe in Christ, we know Him… I’m a convert and I used to be an agnostic, and in the beginning, my faith felt based on nothing too. But over time, as I prayed, I gained more experience with God. St Augustine said: “we believe in what we do not see, and the reward of our faith is to see and enjoy what we believe”. I think that is very true, and not only for Heaven

1. If water is H2O then it cannot be, at the same time NaCl. If it is two parts hydogen and one part oxygen then by definition it is water. Is that not so? I agree we can utter the words that that 2 plus 2 are 5 and we can say that a circle is round. But saying such things only are words strung together with out corresponding to the meaning of the words themselves . So, then, if bread is flesh and wine is blood when in fact the chemical composition belies that reality, how then can one rationally sustain the position that such is true? Faith makes it so? I submit that one merely "hopes"that somehow 2 plus 2 can make 5.

I think that we don’t have enough knowledge of the world to say that the Eucharist can’t be. For all we know, “substance” and “accidents” can be true.

But in any case… you’re describing the way things are in nature, when they take their own course, and follow the laws of nature. The Eucharist is a miracle, which means that in that particular case, God interfers with those laws. He’s interfering with “cause and effect”.

1. I am a cradle catholic–clearly,fallen away at this point—I have studied in earnest and believe myself to be well informed. At least, My conclusions are sincerely held. I try to lead an ethical life, albeit based on rational precepts. By what logic then can one (who views these dogmas of faith such as virgin birth, transubstantiation, the trinity, etc to be so much mystical nonsense) roast in all eternity. Isn’t it a bit like “the fox guarding the chicken coop” to say that if one is exposed to your version of the truth to be eternally damned if he departs from that version of the truth? That is certainly not in conformity with the ideal of justice–so how then can such anabsurd position be defended.

In the Catholic Church, we don’t presume to know the eternal fate of particular people. It depends on your heart and why you departed from the truth. (there aren’t any “versions” of truth, it is objective, not subjective). Our salvation rests on how much we have cooperated with God’s grace. If He is giving you grace to come back to Him, and you are rejecting it, then you are rejecting Him in your heart. All I can say is that if you truly sincerely seek for the truth, you will find it. But if you’ve already made up your mind that it’s all nonsense, then nothing would change your mind, even if God were to give you a miracle… you would just explain it away. I suggest trying to be open to whatever the truth is. it doesn’t hurt to say to God: “if You are real, please help me to believe and help me understand You are real”. Would you say a prayer like that and mean it? If you would, then you are probably open. If you wouldn’t, why not? - after all, if there’s no God, you have nothing to lose by saying it… but if there is, then it’s giving Him a chance to show you.

Hope that makes sense.

here’s a good article on the subject: conversiondiary.com/2008/04/finding-god-in-5-steps.html

God bless, and all the best

 

[Abu]

WmJackP
I can have “faith” in only one sense that makes sense, and, that is if the faith arises from past experience
I have studied in earnest and believe myself to be well informed.
one (who views these dogmas of faith such as virgin birth, transubstantiation, the trinity, etc to be so much mystical nonsense

As a fallen away Catholic, who believes only what he experiences, why should you trust what you have read, studied, or been told, in anything?

First, looking at what we think we know to be true, Fr Thomas Dubay has it right:
“Much of our practical knowledge in life and almost all of our theoretical knowledge are based on human faith. Children take almost everything on the word of their parents, while students absorb almost all they learn from their textbooks and the lectures of their teachers. We learn what is going on in our city, country and the world almost exclusively from reports in the print and electronic media, all of them informing us through human faith.’’ (Faith And Certitude, Ignatius 1985, p 84).

If we do not search and learn what the facts are we are left with prejudices. We won’t know what the facts are, and reasoned conclusions, without that time and effort. It’s so easy to accept what may be thrown out from a book, TV, or internet or a forum without real examination.

So very much of what you know is based on human trust.

What you seem never to have known is that as a fact of history a man existed who was Jesus of Nazareth. That it is most reasonable to accept the historical accounts in the Gospels factually through eyewitnesses which show the miracles of Jesus, His claim to be God and His Resurrection. These are all historical. Why then should there be a lack of trust, so far?

 

[LilyM]

1. If water is H2O then it cannot be, at the same time NaCl. If it is two parts hydogen and one part oxygen then by definition it is water. Is that not so? I agree we can utter the words that that 2 plus 2 are 5 and we can say that a circle is round. But saying such things only are words strung together with out corresponding to the meaning of the words themselves . So, then, if bread is flesh and wine is blood when in fact the chemical composition belies that reality, how then can one rationally sustain the position that such is true? Faith makes it so? I submit that one merely "hopes"that somehow 2 plus 2 can make 5.

Let me make two points. Firstly things can resemble each other without being the same. Identical twins have near perfect physical resemblance, right down to having the same DNA. Doesn’t stop Twin A being fundamentally a different person from Twin B.

On the other hand - fundamental identity can change while physical appearance remains the same.

Let’s say I get married. That is a fundamental shift in one’s identity - the difference between being single and being part of a couple, ‘one flesh’ wiht another as the Bible says.

So much so that it is often marked, in the case of a woman at least, by a name change to signify this marital union. So ‘Lily Smith’ becomes a very different person indeed when she marries Bob Jones and becomes ‘Lily Jones’. She even calls herself something different. But she certainly doesn’t look any different. There’s no way someone could put her DNA under a microscope and say ‘yep, there’s the married gene’ or anything like that.

Or let’s say until the age of 20 Lily finds out that Mr and Mrs Smith, who she had thought were her biological parents, in fact adopted her, and that her biological parents really are Mr and Mrs Jones. MASSIVE, huge, fundamental, identity shift, probably more so than marriage. In essence Lily is very different to what she was before. And yet physically Lily remains exactly as she was.

So yes, physical properties aren’t always perfectly related to essential identity such that if the one changes the other must change.

I would add the Eucharist is not a case of 2+2 no longer equalling 4. It’s akin to the process by which flour, when being added to other ingredients and baked, becomes something fundamentally different - a cake. The cake retains the physical properties of the flour (carbohydrates and calories and vitamins and minerals), but it is incorrect to merely call a cake ‘flour’. It has been changed into something different.

 

[awatkins69]

1. When I hear people of faith use words like “faith” I have to ask what do they mean? I think they must really mean “hope”. For example," I hope there is a God who loves me" or " I hope that my sins are forgiven." Noone can truly have “blind faith” and still maintain that it is rational, Isn’t that so? . I can have “faith” in only one sense that makes sense, and, that is if the faith arises from past experience. But the past experience–to be validly a function of faith–must certainly be reality based. For example, I can have faith that my mother loves me. That is based on experience, ie contact with real tangible past events. Mom always brought my lunch to me at school, she always was there for me, she did this or that. That’s real and that is a basis for the faith that you might have that she’ll be there for you tomorrow or the next day. I submit, that when those professing religious beliefs say that they have faith, they really only hope.
2. If water is H2O then it cannot be, at the same time NaCl. If it is two parts hydogen and one part oxygen then by definition it is water. Is that not so? I agree we can utter the words that that 2 plus 2 are 5 and we can say that a circle is round. But saying such things only are words strung together with out corresponding to the meaning of the words themselves . So, then, if bread is flesh and wine is blood when in fact the chemical composition belies that reality, how then can one rationally sustain the position that such is true? Faith makes it so? I submit that one merely "hopes"that somehow 2 plus 2 can make 5.
3. I am a cradle catholic–clearly,fallen away at this point—I have studied in earnest and believe myself to be well informed. At least, My conclusions are sincerely held. I try to lead an ethical life, albeit based on rational precepts. By what logic then can one (who views these dogmas of faith such as virgin birth, transubstantiation, the trinity, etc to be so much mystical nonsense) roast in all eternity. Isn’t it a bit like “the fox guarding the chicken coop” to say that if one is exposed to your version of the truth to be eternally damned if he departs from that version of the truth? That is certainly not in conformity with the ideal of justice–so how then can such anabsurd position be defended.

Hi WmJackP.

1. Well, the existence of a loving God is completely rational (although sometimes so rational that it is hard to understand). I will not go into God’s existence, because that is a whole other question. If you don’t believe God exists feel free to e-mail me, and I will prove it (with Saint Thomas’ proofs), and also draw the consequential attributes from the conclusions. Anyways, this is directly from Saint Thomas.

“God loves all existing things. For all existing things, in so far as they exist, are good, since the existence of a thing is itself a good; and likewise, whatever perfection it possesses. God’s will is the cause of all things. It must needs be, therefore, that a thing has existence, or any kind of good, only inasmuch as it is willed by God. To every existing thing, then, God wills some good. Hence, since to love anything is nothing else than to will good to that thing, it is manifest that God loves everything that exists.”

That God exists and loves infinitely can be proven by reason. However, you criticize faith, saying that it must be experiential. But this is the distinction we make between intellectual assent (better called, dead faith, which even the demons know) and a living faith. A living faith involves not only believing in God and His love, but also living it out as part of yourself. It involves making God’s love part of your behavior, attitude, and generally your entire life. It involves recognizing it not only intellectually, but to the fullest extent of your being.

1. Again, this is highly rational, much more than you may think. Of course, the acceptance of the doctrine starts with faith, but afterwards it can be explained in a rational manner. We believe, by a divine miracle, that the bread and wine is substantially changed (ie, transubstantiation). The key word here is ‘substantially’. A thing may retain what is called “accidents”, that is, properties that are not key to a things essential nature. Behind accidents remains the absolute substance, which is an individual of a certain nature. We believe our senses deceive us as to the actual nature of the thing, because senses can only receive accidental information of a given thing. All this of course only makes sense for a person who has the faith to believe such things. To increase your faith, look up “Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano” in wikipedia. To understand substance theory, look up “Substance theory” in wikipedia.
2. To the third point, you have a grace misunderstanding of salvation. We believe we are justified by God’s grace, not of ourselves. “For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; Not of works, that no man may glory.” We are saved only by God’s grace, and not by our own merits. The same thing is proven by reason. No matter how good you are on a natural level, you cannot merit supernatural rewards. A basic metaphysical principle states that an effect cannot exceed its cause. A supernatural, infinite, and eternal effect (that is, eternal happiness), exceeds the cause of a natural, finite, and temporal cause (we are all these things). Therefore, we need God’s help if we are to have any eternal gift or reward. This is proven by reason.

I hope this answers somewhat. Pray, especially the rosary. God bless.

 

[WmJackP]

I’ll just comment on your #3 real quick. The idea that; “you believe in God, you go to heaven, you don’t, you go to hell” is a simplistic fundie idea. No Catholic who professes to believe knows for sure whether they will die in a state of Grace, or with sins unrepented. No one knows if the Pope is going to heaven when he dies, just because someone believes in God, they don’t go straight to heaven. Your position is really that of a little kid, i.e. silly. And it also happens to be a common atheist strawman argument

Well, that isn’t quite what I said. My process was a good deal more sophisticated than what you’re apparently willing to credit.

My question was tied to your doctrine of invincible ignorance which would allow a non believer to obtain your conception of an ethereal bliss. In my case, I posit how is it justice that hypothecally I must, by doctrinal teaching,“go to hades” merely because I regard most of your doctines as so much pagan nonsense notwithstanding having been subjected to 8 rears of Jesuit education and 8 years of catholic teaching in gradeschool. If God is a just God (and we must have the same definition of Justice otherwise weare wasting time with even using words to describe God as just if there is another definition for God’s “justice” than that understood by most of us)

So, riddle me that>

 

[WmJackP]

Christian faith is not blind faith. Nor is it hope. It is grounded in the experience of the resurrected Christ.

There is no evidence of this “experience” is there? I mean you can say the gospels, but, that isn’t evidence. Even the authors are unknown. If such a story were presented to a court of law, it would not meet hearsay standards and the narrative is so far fetched it defies credulity.

Right. The past experience in our case is the collective past experience that Christ became a human being, died for our sins, and then rose again from the dead.

Ditto

Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection are historical events; not just stories made up to explain something else.

I’ll have to say ditto again, but, for added wallop, allow me to add: Historical fact? What historian is that? I am certain you don’t mean Matt, Luke et al because whoever they were it is altogether unclear whether they even knew Jesus. If they were there and were witnesses then they couldn’t have been eye witnesses because wasn’t (in at least one of the versions) women who first saw the event----besides, legends are full of such stories anyway. This is the only legend that has sway with those calling themselves christians.

Faith doesn’t make it so, but rather, by faith, we know that it really happens.

I can’t say I have a clue as to what you can possibly mean. We can “know” by faith.? Do you really mean that? Then why don’t scientists other things like if there is microbial life on the moons of Neptune, or, what the cure is for cancer, or when will we will ever stop that spill in the gulf…or is it just virgin births and things like the dead rising that we can know?

It can’t. Luckily, it’s not a tenet of our faith.

We believe that each of us will be judged according to what we had the ability to do, and the ability to know. If someone is born without the sense that allows him to perceive the action of God in his life, he will be judged less harshly for being an atheist than someone who has a strong spiritual sensitivity, but chooses to attribute the work of God to something else, merely to be thought “intelligent” by unbelievers.

Well, you’re being very gentle with me. My Catholic teachers from gradeschool would have said I will toast because I don’t believe some of these really incredible and downright silly doctines. It always seemed to me that the catholic faith was built on a great deal of fear and reinforced its teaching points with the perils of hell. That is really quite freightening.