T
Thomas_White
Guest
I would question anything and everything from the Cato Institute.
Pope Blames Refugee Crisis on 'God of Money,' 'Socio-Economic System That Is Bad, Unjust'
- Status
B
Birdpreacher
Guest
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Sorry if you feel offended by the data. Facts can be so insensitive.Oh no…here we go again…:stretcher:
I was referring to both our.countries in thr.sense of religious diversity…
You play elite now. We are JV. If that is what you need to hear it is so obvious…
Just let us meet at a.soccer game every now and then.
B
Birdpreacher
Guest
No I’m attacking your argument that correlation = causation and your grasp on history.
To look at USA and Argentina’s economies and say well they made this decsion 100 years ago and thats why they are poor and we are rich is just lazy and selfserving.
You don’t even recogonize the numerous liberal and conservative economic policies that both the USA and Argentina have instituted over the last 100 years. Its not like either country was constantly espousing only one economic philosophy for the last century. Both countries made thousands of economic decisions that range from liberal to conservative.
And then there’s the fact that these countries were DIFFERENT countries with different population demos and problems and foreign policies.
But hey the Cato institute says the pope (or his ridiculously smart advisors) dosen’t know what he talks about when he speaks on economic morality.
G
graciew
Guest
No , I truly do not feel offended. At all. I would not have joked.about soccer…
I love your country and people.
Texas is my second home.
And I have nothing but gratitude and good memories.
That s all.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Yep, the Cato Institute isn’t exactly noted for its objective analysis.
Ah, was down along the SPID this afternoon.
P
pnewton
Guest
I will grant that it is rhetoric. I do not agree it is uncharitable. However, did you know that this particular “clever theologian”, perhaps the most clever theologian ever, lived almost 2000 years ago? The connection of greed and idolatry first appeared in the letter St. Paul wrote to the Colossians. From Chapter 3:
Now those who did not know this verse have learned something new.
Oh, and Islam does not have “actual” idols, if it was Islam to which you efer.
P
pnewton
Guest
Ditto. But I am south of Houston. I will however be in Corpus later in October. I get to spend the night on the Lady Lex with some scouts.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I’m sure you didn’t intentionally misrepresent what I said. But go back and see what I called clever theologians were those who rationalized Islam.
Here it is stated more simply: A is bad bad because it is like B but B is not so bad after all but A is still bad.
No wonder pews are emptying.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I’m glad to hear that. Everyone else seems to be having a cow after I provided the evidence that was requested.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
While I would not agree that the difference between philosophy and religion is artificial, the comment is interesting. Philosophy is an academic discipline and no doubt has influenced religion, but religion includes practice in a way philosophy does not. This could be said the difference between the reasoned approach of Aquinas and mysticism. It was Augustine who presented an Asian religion to the Western World by framing it in Hellenistic thought, and this development remains dominant, at least in the U.S. and Europe. It is my perception that Pope Francis tends toward the intuitive.
Martin Luther was of course influenced by the paradigm shift of the early Enlightenment in a way the Catholic Church rejected. The difference concerns Reason in liberalism, the freedom or independence to do what one will, but this is only an influence on Protestantism which remained Christianity. In the U.S., concepts of the Enlightenment were instrumental to its founding documents, and the U.S. has never been a Catholic country. I suppose the Protestant work ethic was very much a development in the U.S., and I can see that this introduced a tension that remains between the branches of Christianity in the U.S. and within Cotholicism as well. While this is all in flux, with no clear lines and not an either/or proposition, one nevertheless can perceive among ‘conservative’ Catholics the tendency toward the Protestant ethic as it concerns the rise of industrial capitalism. On this issue, a small number of ‘conservate’ Catholics are in basic disagreement with Catholic teaching, and this small group accepts every moral teaching other than the freedom to do as one pleases in the economic sphere. This view is not going to prevail in CatholicIsm. Is this headed toward schism? I don’t know, but if so it would be equivalent to another Reformation but by a small group. Yet it is not that simple. In the U.S. neither the political left nor the political right is in full agreement with Catholic social teaching, and in instances some Democrat politicians appear delusional relative to the Church’s very clear condemnation of abortion. Where this leads I do not know, but the Church is large, and its center is not in the U.S. The center is no longer even in Europe, and the Church in some sense will move on if it must.
In his speech to the conclave of bishops that would soon elect him as the next pope, Pope Francis described clericalism as the gravest threat to the Church. This is the exclusive focus on doctrine. Reliance on doctrine is a tendency of conservative thinking generally since it seeks a fixed reference point and a static teaching, but in a world of change this inevitably results in a downward spiral toward irrelevance. The source Church is becoming Latin America and the historical peripheries as Hispanics become the majority among U.S. Catholics.
This period was seminal to what would come, but in the Church scholastism continued.
Maybe, but I am very sure that in Laudato Si Pope Francis pays attention to the paradigm of science and the scientific method that began with the modern philosophy of Descarts and not with Martin Luther. It is this he specifically describes in Laudato Si as the very problem of the current cultural paradigm. Simply stated, it is to view both humans and nature as objects in the objective way of science and the scientific method. This concerns modern philosophy and not Protestantism.
It is not mysterious but no major philosophers emerged during this period and would not until Descartes. It is this development, as science and the scientific method, that is relevant to the current cultural paradigm. However, I would agree that what began with Martin Luther is an an influence on U.S. conservative Catholics.
I do not know what else you might be hearing, but the comment was in line with Catholic teaching.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Before I reply to your post I wanted to give you a chance to correct it, or at least to explain your odd chronology.
The Enlightenment is generally regarded as the 1620s whereas Martin Luther is 1483 – 1546.
I think you have the cart before the horse and this is quite significant to our discussion.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
T
Thomas_White
Guest
In the history of philosophy, Descartes, as the father of modern philosophy, is considered the first major philosopher following the Scholastic period. As such, in the history of philosophy he is often described as a thinker of a period described as the early Enlightment or of its earliest beginnings. The same would hold true for Luther. This is not the historical period of the Enlightenment, but it is what I meant. I think of it as a paradigm shift that was evolving from an earlier period of history, and in that sense there is no precise date. Luther and Descartes lived in this milieu of the early beginnings of a paradigm shift where both philosophy and theology were in flux. I do not think of either as isolated thinkers but as a continuation of a process.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Descartes also follows, did not precede, was not a contemporary of, Martin Luther.
1596 – 1650
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes
You seem to want to include the two of them as part of a milieu but whereas you were previously happy to credit Descartes as an early influential thinker you seem loathe to include Martin Luther as such and are even now willing to drag down Descartes into mere participants in the forces of history.
Why are you trying so hard to exclude Luther’s influence?
To me it is quite clear that Martin Luther, and the Protestant Reformation that he launched, had a profound effect on the history of thought and, more importantly, on the popular culture.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I am not trying to exclude Martin Luther. Descartes was a major philosopher in the history of philosophy and Martin Luther was not. That’s all. This is hardly my unique understanding. History is a process, and I agree there is a connection between the Reformation and the Enlightenment. What I cannot see is where Luther is relevant to the cultural paradigm as it is described in Laudato Si whereas Descartes is central to it. It is in this way that Martin Luther is excluded. He is simply not relevant.
No doubt Martin Luther had a profound effect on Christianity. But I assure you, Martin Luther is not a major figure in the history of philosophy, though he certainly is in Christianity. But it is Descartes, science and the scientific method that are relevant to Laudato Si.
Was Martin Luther an influence among at least some U.S. Catholics? More than likely the Reformation was, but how is it relevant here? I do see this as very relevant to the division in the U.S. Church today, but it seems a separate topic.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Here is why Martin Luther, and the Reformation he launched, are crucial to understanding the progress of human history outside of religion: Martin Luther challenged the authority of the Church. He made it socially acceptable to challenge authority and tradition, to think new thoughts not authorized by a hierarchy, indeed directly contrary to it.
It is little wonder, then, that so many innovative thinkers followed Martin Luther chronologically. Ineed, that the Englightenment itself did. It also helps to explain the end of monarchy, the rise of science, and why the Protestant world pulled ahead of the Catholic world economically. It’s hard to find anything in modernity that does not trace back to Martin Luther.
Why is this relevant to Laudato Si? Because Laudato Si is mistakenly focused on the consequences of the industrial revolution and gives no attention to its causes. It attacks what it perceives to be unwanted side effects but actually blunders into undermining some of the ideas that are crucial to human progress and survival.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Section II, Chapter Three of Laudato Si begins with a description of a one-dimensional paradigm in which a subject, “using logic and rational procedures” progressively gains control of an object. The subject is described as making “every effort to establish the scientific and experimental method”, a technique of “possession, mastery and transformation”. I do not think these are the techniques of either Martin Luther or the Protestant Church. They are the techniques of the objectivity of science and have their roots in Descartes and modern philosophy. I would think this awareness pays abundant attention to and is the philosophical basis of what would become the science and technology of the industrial era.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Science is not mere objectivity. It requires, before anything else, a questiong approach to the current understanding of the world. It requires a willingness to personally apply one’s intellect to advancing human knowledge. It requires the courage to challenge the established authority of prevailing theory.
That, in a nutshell, is how Martin Luther enabled modern science. Science is not mere logical and rational procedure. While those skills are necessary they are not sufficient.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Yes, modern science often begins with an hypothesis or proposition that is an assumption, and whether the hypothesis is true or false is at best only a statistical truth with a probability it is false. But the cultural and epistomological paradigm described in Laudato Si specifically concern science and the scientific method. I don’t question that the Enlightenment enabled scientific development, but I don’t agree that it was Martin Luther that enabled science itself to develop. I think you are overlooking the epistomological consequences of the cultural paradigm from which moral relativism and the secular mantra of the Providence of Reason evolved by attributing this development to Martin Luther unless he is rather improbably viewed as an atheist. The epistomological component is a very important aspect of the cultural paradigm and is intrinsic to its resolution.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Martin Luther did not deny the existence of God, he denided the infallibilty of the Catholic Church.
Yes, we are talking epistomology here and this is exactly where Martin Luther made his most important and valuable contribution.
Modern science does not begin with a hypothesis, it begins with a doubt and an inspiration. Scientists are professional skeptics and visionaries who are convinced of, and dedicate their lives to, the proposition that authority and tradition are wrong and that they, personally, have something to add to the domain of knowledge.
Thank you, Martin Luther.
- Status