Observations by a non believer

[WmJackP]

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.

I accept rationality because “it is the only game in town”. When you make the argument that my acceptance of rationality is really a disguised basis resting on faith, you are employing rational discourse: How about a syllogism?

                                 1. If one accepts something without evidence it is faith.
                                 2.  WmJackP accepts rationality without evidence
                                 3. Therefore, WmJack accepts rationality on faith

Some people would call that a tautology, or, others might call it "a cat chasing its own tail, but, I say that we are a rational people and if we want to stay that way, we will pass on the magic, superstition, mythology and make our decisions on evidence.

 

[jmcrae]

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?

Well, Louis Pasteur knew by faith that there were such things as germs long before anyone ever saw one under a microscope, because of their effects.

Stephen Hawking knows by faith that there are black holes and dark stars - no one has ever seen such things, but Professor Hawking has observed their effects.

In the same way, those who are sensitive to spiritual things perceive the effects of Christ in the Eucharist, and other everyday miracles.

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.

I suspect that you were being raised Catholic in the same decade that I was being raised Protestant - and although they never told us that we were going to Hell, we were firmly convinced that the poor little African babies would go to Hell, if we didn’t put our dimes in the collection basket to support the missionaries - and you didn’t want to be the cause of even one of those poor little babies going to Hell, now, would you? Just think of the look on dear Jesus’ face, when He sees you keeping that dime for yourself, and spending it on candy. :tsktsk:

Our parents and teachers were people of their own era, doing and saying the things they thought would help us grow up to be moral people, good Christians, and upright citizens. We can laugh at them today, but is what we do for our children really working, either?

 

[awatkins69]

I must agree with the original poster that you cannot disprove reason by reason. Those scientists did not have faith. They drew probable hypotheses. They only drew those hypotheses because of other evidence and facts. However, I’d still like the OP to reply to what I’ve said.

And it is true that those who separate themselves from the truth, by extension separate themselves from God, who IS truth. This is the most basic definition of hell, that is, separation from God. It’s not just trying to scare you into believing. It’s a necessary consequence of God’s essence and being.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jack,

You are not unlike many young Catholics today who have been seduced by the whore Reason. Sooner or later you will see through her. But first I daresay she will sell you dogmas a good deal more dangerous than the Trinity, the Eucharist, and the Incarnation.

The first lie she will tell you is that you are smarter than God almighty.

And you will believe it!

 

[Abu]

WmJackP
I say that we are a rational people

Really? Then see post #16, and consider Alfred North Whitehead here.

Science consists of an organized effort to explain natural phenomena. Why did this effort take root in Europe and nowhere else? Because Christianity depicted God as a rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being, and the universe as his personal creation. The natural world was thus understood to have a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting (indeed, inviting) human comprehension.

Christians developed science because they believed it could—and should—be done. Alfred North Whitehead, the great philosopher and mathematician, co-author with Bertrand Russell of the landmark Principia Mathematica, credited “medieval theology” for the rise of science. He pointed to the “insistence on the rationality of God,” which produced the belief that “the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith.”
Whitehead ended with the remark that the images of God found in other religions, especially in Asia, are too impersonal or too irrational to have sustained science. A God who is capricious or unknowable gives no incentive for humans to dig deeply into his essence. Moreover, most non-Christian religions don’t posit a creation. If the universe is without beginning or purpose, has no Creator, is an inconsistent, unpredictable, and arbitrary mystery, there is little reason to explore it. Under those religious premises, the path to wisdom is through meditation and mystical insights, and there is no occasion to celebrate reason. [My underlining].
See catholicleague.org/research/catholicism_and_science.htm
Rodney Stark is professor of sociology at the University of Washington. This piece is excerpted from a longer piece, False Conflict: Christianity Is Not Only Compatible with Science—It Created It, which appeared in the October-November 2003 issue of The American Enterprise.

 

[WmJackP]

Really? Then see post #16, and consider Alfred North Whitehead here.

Science consists of an organized effort to explain natural phenomena. Why did this effort take root in Europe and nowhere else? Because Christianity depicted God as a rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being, and the universe as his personal creation. The natural world was thus understood to have a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting (indeed, inviting) human comprehension.

Christians developed science because they believed it could—and should—be done. Alfred North Whitehead, the great philosopher and mathematician, co-author with Bertrand Russell of the landmark Principia Mathematica, credited “medieval theology” for the rise of science. He pointed to the “insistence on the rationality of God,” which produced the belief that “the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith.”
Whitehead ended with the remark that the images of God found in other religions, especially in Asia, are too impersonal or too irrational to have sustained science. A God who is capricious or unknowable gives no incentive for humans to dig deeply into his essence. Moreover, most non-Christian religions don’t posit a creation. If the universe is without beginning or purpose, has no Creator, is an inconsistent, unpredictable, and arbitrary mystery, there is little reason to explore it. Under those religious premises, the path to wisdom is through meditation and mystical insights, and there is no occasion to celebrate reason. [My underlining].
See catholicleague.org/research/catholicism_and_science.htm
Rodney Stark is professor of sociology at the University of Washington. This piece is excerpted from a longer piece, False Conflict: Christianity Is Not Only Compatible with Science—It Created It, which appeared in the October-November 2003 issue of The American Enterprise.

Well, I really ain’t no 'fessional philosopher, but, isn’t Whitehead the father of process philosophy which posits an ever changing dynamic God in an ever changing dynamic universe? And if I’m right and Alf is your authority, then I think you may be a bit more gnostic than you want to admit to.

As for science being the Church’s favorite pasttime that isn’t exactly the way Galelio remembers it.,

 

[WmJackP]

Jack,

You are not unlike many young Catholics today who have been seduced by the whore Reason. Sooner or later you will see through her. But first I daresay she will sell you dogmas a good deal more dangerous than the Trinity, the Eucharist, and the Incarnation.

The first lie she will tell you is that you are smarter than God almighty.

And you will believe it!

.Please try to remember that that whore is the one that brought you the microchips that you’re using right now to call her a whore. And if you were lost, I think even you would admit that you’d rather have a GPS than your hymnal.

 

[reggieM]

Well, I really ain’t no 'fessional philosopher, but, isn’t Whitehead the father of process philosophy which posits an ever changing dynamic God in an ever changing dynamic universe? And if I’m right and Alf is your authority, then I think you may be a bit more gnostic than you want to admit to.

As for science being the Church’s favorite pasttime that isn’t exactly the way Galelio remembers it.,

I’ll jump in and offer some thoughts …
First, you didn’t address Whitehead’s proposal but instead, attacked him as an authority.
Secondly, are you saying that it would have been better to present the views of a believing-Catholic philosopher? If so, there is no lack of them who state the same thing that Whitehead stated.
As for your final comment, I find this often when there is no rebuttal offered – it’s just an irrelevant attack on the Catholic Church and it may be true that you really don’t know anything about the history of Catholic scientists and what they contributed.

 

[awatkins69]

Hey Jack.

I’d really like to hear what you think about my replies.

Blessings.

 

[Abu]

Where ignorance is bliss ‘tis folly to be wise.
WmJackP doesn’t seem to know that the great figures of the heyday of scientific discovery—including Copernicus, Descartes, Galileo, Newton, and Kepler—actively professed their absolute faith in a Creator God, whose work incorporated rational rules awaiting their discovery. Far from being a rejection of religion, the “Scientific Revolution” was led mostly by deeply religious men acting on religious motivations.

There is profound ignorance about Galileo and his compeers, and the Catholic Church. BTW, the Rationalist Society in England assigned one of its anti-Catholic journalist members, Sherwood Taylor, to write a book attacking the Church over Galileo. “After studying the case, Taylor was converted and received into the Catholic Church – grace sometimes works in strange ways!” The Six Days of Creation, Br Thomas Mary Sennott, Ravengate 1984, p 186]

The Catholic Church’s alleged hostility toward science may be her greatest debit in the popular mind. The one-sided version of the Galileo affair with which most people are familiar is very largely to blame for the widespread belief that the Church has obstructed the advance of scientific inquiry, as WmJackP fantasizes.

From Science and the Church, Rev. Bro. Dr. V. McKenna, B.A., M.Sc., Ph.D.
An edited version of an address given by Rev. Bro. Dr. McKenna at the University of Western Australia, June, 1964 in which he shows that:
First, Galileo picked a very inopportune time to attack the Bible following Catholic Luther’s revolt and errors over the Scriptures.
Second, he was publicly disrespectful and disobedient.
Third, he was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible.
Fourth, he was wrong in his Physics.

 

[LilyM]

.Please try to remember that that whore is the one that brought you the microchips that you’re using right now to call her a whore. And if you were lost, I think even you would admit that you’d rather have a GPS than your hymnal.

The Wise Men got a star, and safely reached their destination. The Israelites got pillars of cloud and fire to guide them, and safely reached the promised land. Similarly Abraham reached the land of Canaan and Jonah Nineveh. That’s four for four using GPS (God’s Positioning System)

Last time I was driven by someone using en electronic GPS it got them lost for a good ten minutes and made us late for where we had to go. Time before that, it guided the driver to a ‘petrol station’ that had been closed for quite some time by the looks of it. That would make 0 for 2 for anyone lost in the desert.

I know which method is reliable, and it ain’t man’s way.

Not to mention my troubles with computers and microchips - I could spend hours telling you all about 'em.

 

[WmJackP]

Hey Jack.

I’d really like to hear what you think about my replies.

Blessings.

That the definition of hell is “seperation from God”? Yes, I heard some of that from certain catholics, principally Jesuit instructors I have had.Some philosophy buffs would say it is an intesting way around the “just God” theorum, but, altogether it doesn’t materially differ from the concept that impenitents will burn and/or be tortured in hell. Both versions require the survival of the human personality with emotions (or feelings of some sort) after death. In the classical version of hell, the damed suffers pain, anguish and gnashing of the teeth. In your “seperation” version, the damned senses despair and mental agony for an unrequited love. So this not a case of a difference without a distinction?

 

[WmJackP]

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.

John, just to pick a topic, because as you correctly noted, it is no simple task to take on the full gambit of beliefs with precision in this kind of setting. OK… transubstantiation:

1. If one is justified in believing something on faith, does that mean you can accept concepts which are non-sensical? If the answer to this question is, in your mind, “yes” then I can go no further because my arguments are all based on the precept that “things must make sense in order to be believed”.
2. If, therefore you agree that “things must make sense to be believed” then you must agree that even if some authority (your favorite and most learned college professor, for example) said that a square is really a circle, or,any other set of contradictory pairings, then you would have to be intellectually honest enough to say that the statement makes no sense–ie it is, in fact, nonsense.
3. So what is bread? Is it not a combination of types of atoms? Is it not so that the atomic composition of bread differs from that of human flesh? If you continue to agree with me, then if we call bread “Atomic composition X” and we call human flesh “Atomic composition Y”, then can we really (I mean really, John) say that X equals Y? Well, I guess we can say it, but, it doesn’t make any more sense than saying that squareness is roundness. There is another problem too with transubstantiation and that is you claim that any “Atomic combination X” equals the same identical “Atomic composition Y” belonging to one specific human, namely Jesus Christ. Hence you say that not only can one generic thing be the same thing as another generic thing, but that the one generic combination of atoms can be, not only entirely different atoms, but, also the specfic atoms which comprised the DNA of a specific person.
4. I hope you continue to agree with me, John when I say that is quite a string of words; and, what I want to know is does that even make sense?

This is more than just a problem with faith. Much more than a problem with accepting a proposition on the word of another because one lacks sufficient information of his own to make a judgment; this is a problem will the willingness to entertain Orwellian doublethink and to accept it as truth.

1. Your comments on “accidents”, John, I am afraid, is simply dated. I am familiar with Thomistic philosophy and, I’m OK with the contributions Plato and other Greek philosophers made to the formation of an interesting dialog, later picked up by Thomas, and turned into a perplexing weltanschaluung. All of this was excellent assistance in developing thought and analytical reasoning—but, John, that was several centuries ago. It was before Leeuwenhook, Mendeleev, before the quantum and the systematic study of matter. I would hate to think that in the 21st century, you were defending transubstantiation on no firmer basis than 12th century analysis.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*.Please try to remember that that whore is the one that brought you the microchips that you’re using right now to call her a whore. And if you were lost, I think even you would admit that you’d rather have a GPS than your hymnal. *

You can soft peddle the whore Reason any way you like. You think like a lawyer!

I would any day rather not have these computer chips than to have nuclear weapons (produced by the whore Reason) in sufficient numbers to annihilate the human race and most life forms on the planet. What good will the Internet be if there is no one around to use it? Your faith in science and technology is touching, but quite misplaced. Only God will save us from the demonic will of Satan to see us blast ourselves to smithereens.

As for my hymnal, “Amazing Grace” still works for me. See if you can persuade your computer chips to match it. Mozart’s “Ave Verum Corpus” even better.

 

[jmcrae]

As for science being the Church’s favorite pasttime that isn’t exactly the way Galelio remembers it.,

Oh yay the Galileo myth again.

Galileo wasn’t censured for his science (otherwise, Copernicus would have met the same fate - which obviously he did not - instead, Copernicus founded the Vatican observatory, nearly a century before Galileo was born, and providing Galileo with the equipment he needed to make his observations) - he was censured for trying to promote his scientific theory from the Christian pulpit as established religious dogma.

Nothing worse than house arrest ever took place - he was never tortured, and never burned at the stake. He died naturally in his sleep, in old age. He was reconciled with the Church - and in any case, even at the height of his heretical ramblings, he was never an atheist.

The reason for the house arrest was that he was going around in the streets claiming that his theory that the sun is the centre of the Universe (it isn’t, by the way - the sun also orbits something - we don’t know what, yet - and not everything in the Universe orbits the sun - only its’ own planets) should have been dogmatized as religious truth by the Pope.

 

[jmcrae]

The Wise Men got a star, and safely reached their destination. The Israelites got pillars of cloud and fire to guide them, and safely reached the promised land. Similarly Abraham reached the land of Canaan and Jonah Nineveh. That’s four for four using GPS (God’s Positioning System)

Prayer does work, when you’re lost.

Last time I was driven by someone using en electronic GPS it got them lost for a good ten minutes and made us late for where we had to go. Time before that, it guided the driver to a ‘petrol station’ that had been closed for quite some time by the looks of it. That would make 0 for 2 for anyone lost in the desert.

I was using one on my last holiday, and was nearly killed when it directed me down a one-way street, the wrong way!

Not to mention my troubles with computers and microchips - I could spend hours telling you all about 'em.

Technology is wonderful, until it quits working right.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jack

*I would hate to think that in the 21st century, you were defending transubstantiation on no firmer basis than 12th century analysis. *

And I would hate to think that with your brilliant legal mind the whore Reason could have duped you into thinking that the most recent heresy must be the truth. Wouldn’t that be a little like saying that the Constitution contains a privacy clause allowing the killing of the unborn because it is done in private, and then saying that it must be in the Constitution because it is the Supreme Court’s most recent take on the Constitution?

Or perhaps Chesterton put it better when he said he was getting a bit weary of people who insist that what is said on Thursday must be truer than what was said on Tuesday.

 

[WmJackP]

Oh yay the Galileo myth again.

Galileo wasn’t censured for his science (otherwise, Copernicus would have met the same fate - which obviously he did not - instead, Copernicus founded the Vatican observatory, nearly a century before Galileo was born, and providing Galileo with the equipment he needed to make his observations) - he was censured for trying to promote his scientific theory from the Christian pulpit as established religious dogma.

Nothing worse than house arrest ever took place - he was never tortured, and never burned at the stake. He died naturally in his sleep, in old age. He was reconciled with the Church - and in any case, even at the height of his heretical ramblings, he was never an atheist.

The reason for the house arrest was that he was going around in the streets claiming that his theory that the sun is the centre of the Universe (it isn’t, by the way - the sun also orbits something - we don’t know what, yet - and not everything in the Universe orbits the sun - only its’ own planets) should have been dogmatized as religious truth by the Pope.

I don’t think you really want to get into a debate on the subject of how science friendly the Church has been historically, do you? If you do, then please buckle up and drag out your heavy rain gear, cuz it’s going to storm. Just let me know.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jack

I don’t think you really want to get into a debate on the subject of how science friendly the Church has been historically, do you?

I’d like that very much. But I think you should start up another thread for that purpose. Let me know if you do.

In the meantime, what scientist other than Galileo ever suffered anything so bad as, or worse than, house arrest?

 

[awatkins69]

That the definition of hell is “seperation from God”? Yes, I heard some of that from certain catholics, principally Jesuit instructors I have had.Some philosophy buffs would say it is an intesting way around the “just God” theorum, but, altogether it doesn’t materially differ from the concept that impenitents will burn and/or be tortured in hell. Both versions require the survival of the human personality with emotions (or feelings of some sort) after death. In the classical version of hell, the damed suffers pain, anguish and gnashing of the teeth. In your “seperation” version, the damned senses despair and mental agony for an unrequited love. So this not a case of a difference without a distinction?

Hi Jack

No, I wanted you to reply into my more in-depth reply, where I answer all three of your questions.

The primary torture of hell is separation from God. We do teach that the damned are punished by eternal torment. The torment is in proportion to the crimes of which the person is unrepentant. In terms of degree, the punishments is directly proportional, so it is just. The duration is just, since those who never decide to repent should never cease to be punished.

But no, please reply to my other post.