R
rvilbig
Guest
Is the fallacy of false dichotomy a universal principle of logic, or is it only nominal?
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
- Status
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
L
LogisticsBranch
Guest
Interesting. Are you sure it was millions of US Catholics? The CARA Catholic Poll Methods do state:
-“The national random sample includes adult, self-identified Catholics in the United States and is typically conducted in January or February each year.”
-“The number of respondents varies from year to year but always includes at least 800 Catholics, for a margin of sampling error of no more than ±3.5 percentage points. National surveys are typically of sample sizes of at least 800 to 1,000 where the overall margin of sampling error is less than ±4 percentage points and allows for sub-group analyses where the margins of sampling error are less than ±10 percentage points. For example, with a total sample of 1,000, a sub-group that is half of the interviews, or 500 persons, the resulting margin of sampling error would be ±4.4 percentage points. The minimum number of respondents within a sub-group that can be analyzed is about 100, resulting in a margin of sampling error of ±9.8 percentage points.”
cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/CCPMethods.html
L
LogisticsBranch
Guest
A pleasure to met you, WmJack.
I can’t speak on behalf of all women. I do know for myself , the right man can’t be wrong if he proposes marriage and I accept! 
Women and men aren’t always right or wrong.
That isn’t a cliche. I think it is a human survival trait. Wishing you the best in life.
W
WmJackP
Guest
Whether something makes errors or not is a value judgment–not a fact of natural science. It is true, of course, that nature departs, ever so often, from its programmed DNA sequence. And this fact accounts for and is what drives evolution. If we are compelled to make a value judgment then, we would have to say that’s good because that is what allowed us to be here.,However, in its most literal sense, to say that nature commits error is really to assign a non existent value to what nature does.
Does nature have a purpose? That is your econd question. That is an amazingly interesting issue, and, one that many people are struggling to answer. Nature certainly seems driven to come into being (ie the so called big bang), then once it possesses “being”, then it is driven produce more and more complexity to the point of producing “life”, and, then ultimately “sentient” life. The emergence of the DNA structure is, by far, the most difficult phenonemon for science to explain even allowing for the persuasive power of evolution theory. I personally think that there is an underlying rationality to reality which produces the emergent qualities which culminate in rational beings like us. The hypothesis that there is a divine personal god is too bizarre to seriously consider. For one thing it would imply that the infinitely complex (personal god) regresses to the infinitely simlplistic (the most fundelmental particles of matter).
Having said all of that, I don’t think you presented Alex with a legtimate choice.
R
rvilbig
Guest
Actually in Catholic theology, God is absolutely simple, not “infinitely complex.” This is from Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica:
“For there is neither composition of quantitative parts in God, since He is not a body; nor composition of matter and form; nor does His nature differ from His “suppositum”; nor His essence from His existence; neither is there in Him composition of genus and difference, nor of subject and accident. Therefore, it is clear that God is nowise composite, but is altogether simple.” (STh I q.3 a.7)
In His essence, God’s Divine attributes are all simple and unified, hence the Psalmist writes of the Beatific vision: “Mercy and faithfulness will meet; righteousness and peace will kiss each other” (Ps 85:10). God does not have complex parts; He is simple. Even fundamental particles are more complex because they’re made of matter and form. Make sense?
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
J
jmcrae
Guest
I would recommend that they attend Catechism classes.
H
hecd2
Guest
Aquinas is quite clear that he’s talking about “the first formation of things” not about a process that is going on today. Furthermore, if you think that his opinions that a) animals are more perfect than plants and b) that, in the first formation of things, animals could be generated from plants or inanimate matter, are compatible with the Theory of Evolution then you really don’t understand much about that theory at all. As I have said, the notion that Aquinas (or Aristotle) understood Darwinian or neo-Darwinian theory before Darwin or the Synthesists formulated them is preposterous.
Yes - Agassiz as an anti-evolutionist was attempting to use this conflict to undermine evolutionary theory using the notion of platonic forms. Today, it is the notion of Platonic forms that is refuted by what we know of evolution.
Yes, totally incompatible, because these idealised forms simply do not exist, except to the extent that humans categorise a population of individuals together using conventional criteria - pure nominalism. Perhaps the Creator had a separate thought about each individual organism, but that is incompatible with the notions of universal rabbitness or dog-kind.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
G
grannymh
Guest
While I am not qualified to discuss universal rabbitness or dog-kind, I do know that the Creator had a separate thought about each living human person–which can be called the spiritual soul.
Blessings,
granny
“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert
W
WmJackP
Guest
I think we agree. The difference is that your description of God is complex because you posit a “person” (actually a triune God). I posit only that existence is rational. Similar perhaps to my saying that mathematiocs is rational. You hardly can make mathematics into a person without adding to its complexity. Reread my original post and then comment more.
R
rvilbig
Guest
This is why it’s important to read the original source Alec:
“[M]any things were made after the seventh day, and the production of many individual beings, and even of certain new species that are frequently appearing, especially in the case of animals generated from putrefaction…species, also, that are new, if any such appear, existed beforehand in various active powers; so that animals, and perhaps even new species of animals, are produced by putrefaction by the power which the stars and elements received at the beginning.” (Thomas Aquinas, STh I, q. 73, a. 1)
This is also how Augustine understood God’s work in creation (the days were only allegories for ages of soteriological history):
In the beginning, God created species “potentially in their causes, before they could evolve through intervals of time, as they are now known to us in the works on which God is continuing to work until now (Jn 5:17)” (Augustine, Literal Meaning of Genesis, V.45)
Alec, I’m simply arguing that the notion of *formal *change and survival are compatible with Catholicism. Lammarck, for example, was a Catholic, and as Father Andrew Pinsent has pointed out, many of Christ’s parables have to do with survival and bearing good fruit. Moreover, Aristotle and Aquinas had reasoned all the essential features of evolution: species change and the favorable changes are preserved. No one despises Newton for not having developed general relativity, why not recognize the insight of Aristotle and Aquinas in evolutionary theory?
Since human reasoning is formal, you’re really not contradicting Thomism by thinking that these categories exist in the human mind. You’ve just made the decision that there is no Mind behind nature Who also recognizes such categories. Your worldview strikes me as very sad.
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
R
rvilbig
Guest
A person’s form (i.e. soul) is actually simple. In Catholicism, the hierarchy increases in simplicity from inanimate matter to God. Consider what Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote:
“A single material thing taken as such represents a wealth of being, proper to the material sphere as a whole … It is different with the sphere of organic life. In any single organism much more is “said” as it were, than in a piece of lifeless matter; at the same time, it manifests a far greater simplicity in that it is all subordinated to one principle… And, while the spiritual person has far more substantiality and depth than has the living organism, let alone lifeless matter, by the same token it also possesses much more simplicity… Metaphysically speaking, the higher an entity is, the greater its simplicity… The absolute simplicity of God precludes the distinction, not only between form and matter but between existence and essence, between actus and potentia. Yet, God is the infinite plenitude of being” (Transformation in Christ, page 74-76, excerpts).
In other words, simplicity actually implies personhood, so God is 3 persons indeed.
-Ryan Vilbig
W
WmJackP
Guest
You argue on the basis of authority, and, in the words of that C & W popular hit: “that don’t impress me much”. Hence, I will resist the urge to counter-argue with snipletts from Bertram Russell, Friedrich Nietzche and others as I am certain you’ll have the same reaction.
Regardless what medeval theologians may have posulated, or, even the 19th century one you mentioned, ,the argument that a person is anything but complex cannot be logically sustained. It is well established in science (I certainly hope you agree) that complexity arises from the ground up, not, the top down. That is why, the next time you see an ant colony and marvel at its intricantly “designed” chambers, you won’t be able to find a mayor or central planning commission.
R
rvilbig
Guest
I wouldn’t mind discussing Russell’s and Nietzche’s ideas. Pope Benedict discussed Nietzche in his encyclical Deus Caritas Est, so why would the faithful shy away from talking about his writings?
Ultimately, evolution is driven from the top down, for the laws of the universe were instituted by God to achieve the effects He decided upon, as Cardinal Newman wrote:
“As to the Divine Design, is it not an instance of incomprehensibly and infinitely marvellous Wisdom and Design to have given certain laws to matter millions of ages ago, which have surely and precisely worked out, in the long course of those ages, those effects which He from the first proposed. Mr. Darwin’s theory need not then to be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill. …] I do not [see] that ‘the accidental evolution of organic beings’ is inconsistent with divine design — It is accidental to us, not to God.” (link)
Hope this helps,
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
L
LoverofMary
Guest
I am not a Roman Catholic, though I think I can contribute something on faith.
My faith, for me, is a way of looking at the world. It is not factual. It is not objective. It is not science, and it should not be confused with logic. It is not rational. Rather, it is a way of seeing. It is a way of trusting.
I believe that what Christianity has lost in modern, post-enlightenment times is the ability to see in any other way than a cold, calculating, rational way. We no longer read mythology as mythology. We read mythology as historical fact. We don’t look at our faith as one way of seeing the world. It is the absolute, factual truth, in the sense that mathematics is true, or proven hypotheses.
For me, the stories, the rituals, the Sacraments, the Virgin birth, the resurrection, and so forth, are windows into another way of seeing the universe and all of reality, and that way of seeing changes our heart and thus the way we relate to the universe and the rest of humanity. I don’t need my way of seeing to be “right” in the sense that 2 + 2 = 4 is a correct statement. I need it to pull me beyond myself, into transcendence, and to feel that transcendence become immanence. This is what the Eucharist is to me. The Sacred in humble, material bread.
This is faith for me. A form of trust. A way of seeing. A means of grace. I should also point out that faith had more than one meaning in ancient times, and unfortunately we tend to focus on only one interpretation.
Faith is assensus, faith as belief. This is the dominant emphasis today, but faith is more than mere assent, and it must also be pointed out that a dogma can be assented to as truth but interpreted in more than one way, not only literally.
Faith is fiducia. This is trust, radical trust in God, in the goodness of the universe. It takes a certain way of seeing to enter into this trust, to maintain a contemplative state even while in distress.
Faith is fidelitas. Faithfulness, fidelity. It is a commitment of the heart, loyalty.
And faith is visio. This is vision, and it suggests a way of seeing, as I’ve been explaining. It is how we see the whole of all that is.
My faith, for me, is a way of looking at the world. It is not factual. It is not objective. It is not science, and it should not be confused with logic. It is not rational. Rather, it is a way of seeing. It is a way of trusting.
I believe that what Christianity has lost in modern, post-enlightenment times is the ability to see in any other way than a cold, calculating, rational way. We no longer read mythology as mythology. We read mythology as historical fact. We don’t look at our faith as one way of seeing the world. It is the absolute, factual truth, in the sense that mathematics is true, or proven hypotheses.
For me, the stories, the rituals, the Sacraments, the Virgin birth, the resurrection, and so forth, are windows into another way of seeing the universe and all of reality, and that way of seeing changes our heart and thus the way we relate to the universe and the rest of humanity. I don’t need my way of seeing to be “right” in the sense that 2 + 2 = 4 is a correct statement. I need it to pull me beyond myself, into transcendence, and to feel that transcendence become immanence. This is what the Eucharist is to me. The Sacred in humble, material bread.
This is faith for me. A form of trust. A way of seeing. A means of grace. I should also point out that faith had more than one meaning in ancient times, and unfortunately we tend to focus on only one interpretation.
Faith is assensus, faith as belief. This is the dominant emphasis today, but faith is more than mere assent, and it must also be pointed out that a dogma can be assented to as truth but interpreted in more than one way, not only literally.
Faith is fiducia. This is trust, radical trust in God, in the goodness of the universe. It takes a certain way of seeing to enter into this trust, to maintain a contemplative state even while in distress.
Faith is fidelitas. Faithfulness, fidelity. It is a commitment of the heart, loyalty.
And faith is visio. This is vision, and it suggests a way of seeing, as I’ve been explaining. It is how we see the whole of all that is.
A
Abu
Guest
Having admitted that there is no answer to transubstantiation other than to deny God and His omnipotence, the only reasonable conclusion is the “visible consequences of a divine intervention which in itself would remain invisible, e.g., in the assumption of a human nature by a divine Person or in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist.” (Msgr John F McCarthy at rtforum.org/lt/lt80.html )
If first principles of all things are not relevant to this thread then the moon is made of green cheese. Belief or non-belief hinges on first principles. 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.
Even Friedrich Nietzsche (‘God is dead’) wrote: “Strictly speaking there is no such thing as science ‘without any presuppositions’… a philosophy, a ‘faith’, must always be there first, so that science can acquire a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method, a right to exist… It is still a metaphysical faith that underlines our faith in science.” (Genealogy of Morals III, 23-24).
For the last fifty years, virtually all historians of science – including A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, Stanley Jaki, Thomas Goldstein, and J.L. Heilbron – have concluded that the Scientific Revolution was indebted to the Church.” (How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Thomas E Woods Jr., Regnery Publishing, 2005, p 4).
Science includes historical science, philosophical science, and theological science, based on realist metaphysics and which is thoroughly aware of its own scientific medium of thought.
W
WmJackP
Guest
Why would I want to shy away from exchanging “deep thoughts” about Friedrich N. and others? Because, communicating via an exchange of these post-it notes is hard enough, and, then once we get into swapping quotes we will not accomplish anything (if indeed, we are even now). But, here is what amazes me---------on the one hand you exhibit familiarity with quantum physics, history and other disciplines—world religions too (if I recall your profile); but yet you seem to stuck in a belif system derived from first century mystry religions as supported intellectually by 13th century revamping of Aristotelian rationales.
Forgive me, but, I just don’t understand how that works. It seems so obvious to me that the terchings of Paul (and/or Christ) are so closely tailored to mesh with the pagan beliefs that the fit was necessarily made to allow Constantine to “sell well in Peoria.” The doctines that emergedand the academic support, in major part, came later.Now in the 21st century, don’t we have sufficient science and cause to declare that these mythologies and attempts to “personalize” reality have all lost their useful shelf life. I mean Thomas believed in spontaneous generation—now of course, since Pasteur and others, that view is discredited. Why, remain stuck in 13th century rationales anymore than in 13th century science?
Does it not seem to you–as it does to me— that by saying God is a person–a being (albeit the Supreme Being) that we are just like primitives who made persons of thunder, lightening or who invested personal qualities in natural phenonomen?
I am entirely with you on the conclusion that there is rationality in the universe. That we need to have an ethical predicate on which to live our lives. That “meaning” and “significance” must be fashioned to aide us in dealing with the human condition—but, can’t we do it without the magic? Without the hocus pocus?
I have known a lot of really intelligent people, many of them I admired, who believed as you seem to–and I could never understand why? If you have an extensive background in world religions, you perhaps know of some theory which explains why? Because I am at an utter loss to understand it. Perhaps itis that I was given a classical education and the benefit of solid academics while still not being submerged in these arcane beliefs
R
reggieM
Guest
You cannot fashion an ultimate meaning for yourself or the universe.
You can create some trivial, unnecessary and ultimately purposeless meanings for yourself, but these are no better than the “magic” that you attempt to avoid.
God, as necessary being and creator who confers ultimate purpose and meaning to His creation is not “magic” but rather the origin and source of rationality.
G
grannymh
Guest
Small clarification about how the visible Catholic Church operates.
Divine Revelation was completed around the end of the apostolic age. Yet, even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for the living Church to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
Individuals before and after Thomas Aquinas have contributed to making Divine Revelation more explicit. But that does not mean that their every thought is part of Catholic doctrine. Practically speaking, a lot of (name removed by moderator)ut, from all kinds of sources modern to ancient, goes into official Catholic teaching. Eventually, a major decision is made with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
is the universal source for correct Catholic teaching. It can be surprising as well as enlightening to check the footnotes for sources.
What I am trying to say is that posters often quote writings from famous thinkers. Nothing wrong with that. But that does not mean that Catholicism is stuck in 13th century rationales.
Blessings,
granny
The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
G
grannymh
Guest
The ethical predicate is – The human person is worthy of profound respect.
- Status