Powerful evidence for Design?

[Gaber]

An additional good sign here - - you’ve finally committed yourself to a positive affirmation of a Catholic source.

And I’ve been doing that all along, starting with the Jew who started it alll in your opinioon, and those few in the Church who didn’t drop the ball on Him. I’ve refered to manyu of them. What the heck are you misreading that you can say that at this late point in the conversation???

From an essay which I’ve only read this beginning of, but from a scholar of St. John of the Cross’ mystical theology:

[while] our cognition of God through reason and revelation, then, is necessarily incomplete. The contributions of traditional theological disciplines are not, for that reason, understood to be irrelevant. To the contrary, St. John was well schooled in scholasticism at the University of Salamanca and relies a great deal on Dogmatic Theology as a propadeutic to the mystical journey. As a journey of faith, it is Dogmatic Theology which enables us to the reach the vestibule safely; it is the compass whose unchanging ordinals, divinely illumined, give us bearing in the dark night of the soul. Constituting, as it does, an index of truth in the form of dogmatic certainties, it provides essential definition in the face of gathering obscurity, and so disabuses us of error, which St. John sees as constituting one of the principal impediments to the soul in its journey to union with God.
johnofthecross.com/introduction-to-the-philosophy-of-st-john-of-the-cross.htm

That’s great. And there can be the illusion of safety in dogma, as you are expereincing. But there’s a darn sight more that is “propadeutic” to the mystical journey than the very dogma many use to hide from it. And how, pray, did all those who are not Catholic and have dogma or non dogma come to be in agreement with St. John as to the end of the journey?

I maintain that the journey is possible not becuase one is Catholic, that even hindering the prcess in some cases inmy opinion, but because we are all, each and every one, without exception, made in the image and likeness of God, and therefore have the identical rights and means to the path of inquiry, Catholic flavored or not.

So again, neither I nor anyone like me would or could do other than extoll those who are Catholic, or not, who have accomplished. Your appearant assertion that this is the first time I have commited myself to a positive affirmation of a Catholic source is both nonsense, and coupled with the way you put conclusions in my mouth, rather embarrasing, and revealing a defensive attitude worthy of the imperfection of your hyping of “design.”

The Source is God, not a particular allignment with a religious paradigm. And such a paradigm, whether religious or of any other kind, even grave depression or doubt, or even trauma, serves only to do what heavy reaserch does in the cases of intuitions that reveal truths about math, biology, chemistry, or even the Arts. The mind is for a moment short circuited so that Vison may occur.

The revelation is not* in *the religion, even if the discipliine of a particular religion led to the receptivity that allowed the descent of Grace. Aquinas, for instance. Then, of course, if one maintains the mental frame of expression of their original faith, which has now been replaced with something of actual expereintial Meaning, that is great. And it is common. But then scholars who have book learning and an agena tell y’all what to think about it instead of going there to find out for yourself. I’m going to make T-shirts for y’all that say "Vamos a ver!’ What size do you wear?

 

[Gaber]

Do you really contend that atheists who volunteer willingly of their time, money, and expertize for the betterment of their fellow man, are left with a feeling of loss, and don’t feel they get anything back from their voluntary and charity activities, never mind the ad hoc daily ‘‘good deeds’’ they might routinely carry out?

Really?

I’ll be sure to let them know what a bunch of losers they are

Perhaps you should read some of their stories.

atheistvolunteers.org/node/49

Sarah x

Very cool! Thanks. Liked the BF quote very much:

“two hands working do more than a million clasped in prayer”.

 

[reggieM]

Do you really contend that atheists who volunteer willingly of their time, money, and expertize for the betterment of their fellow man, are left with a feeling of loss,

I don’t know what their feeling is. Can you provide some scientific source that explains what it is and how it necessarily results from certain actions?

and don’t feel they get anything back from their voluntary and charity activities

As above, the atheistic-materialist view has to trace every feeling through a cause and effect and explain everything in terms of neurology and ultimately physics.

never mind the ad hoc daily ‘‘good deeds’’ they might routinely carry out?

There is no reference point for me to judge that they performed good deeds at all. What is that reference in terms of matter and energy. Where in the mindless natural processes that supposedly control all of the universe do we see the distinction between good deeds and bad deeds? Where is that defined scientifically?

I’ll be sure to let them know what a bunch of losers they are

There can be no losers if there is no goal. In atheism, there is no goal – so there’s no need to call anyone a loser or a winner.

Within atheistic-materialism (evolutionism, etc) there is no goal. Not even survival. The fact that a species survives or not is a matter of indifference. That one competing species survives versus the one it displaced is not even “good” for the survivors – since survival itself cannot be considered good or bad.

Since everything is the result of a mindless, unconscious, amoral, irrational process (according to the atheistic view), then there can be no appeal to goodness.

That’s the problem with the atheistic view. You can’t cite Christian morality to support a sense of morality since Christian morality has God as a necessary moral reference point.

 

[reggieM]

That’s great. And there can be the illusion of safety in dogma, as you are expereincing.

You don’t know what I’m experiencing. But apparently you think you have that divine power somehow.

And how, pray, did all those who are not Catholic and have dogma or non dogma come to be in agreement with St. John as to the end of the journey?

You’ll have to find the answer from St. John, as one you cited as “correct”. He insisted that correct dogma was necessary for the journey and that theological error was a great impediment and danger.

I maintain that the journey is possible not becuase one is Catholic, that even hindering the prcess in some cases inmy opinion, but because we are all, each and every one, without exception, made in the image and likeness of God, and therefore have the identical rights and means to the path of inquiry, Catholic flavored or not.

Here’s where you conflict with St. John of the Cross – and that’s not surprising to me at all. You’ve established yourself as the highest authority in the mystical life – sifting through the Catholic masters of theology and dismissing them.

But then scholars who have book learning and an agena tell y’all what to think about it instead of going there to find out for yourself.

If you’re trying to dismiss “book learning” and also claim to be an expert in all matters of spirituality I think you’re going to have a hard time getting anyone to listen.

None of the Catholic saints took that attitude. As I pointed out, St. John of the Cross was a master of scholastic philosophy and Catholic dogma.

 

[atheistgirl]

That’s the problem with the atheistic view.

Nope, no problem here.

You can’t cite Christian morality to support a sense of morality since Christian morality has God as a necessary moral reference point.

I don’t.

I have no need for the God hypothesis when determining what is a moral action, and what is an immoral action.

Sarah x

 

[prodigalson2011]

Nope, no problem here.

I don’t.

I have no need for the God hypothesis when determining what is a moral action, and what is an immoral action.

Sarah x

I would like to pose a dilemma to you (I have considered starting a thread about this particular point.) This is a point that, during my time as an atheist, led me to abandon the idea of objective morality. As valiantly as I tried to defend against it, I could not, on the basis of a reality lacking in objective purpose, provide any solid moral reason that this insane vision should not be carried out.

A friend of mine, who’s an anti-theist and, more importantly, an extreme misanthropist, has long been given to rants about his desire to effect the elimination of the entire human race. Based on the amount of violence, greed, abuse, etc. that mankind, himself included (he suffers no delusions of moral superiority), perpetrates he contends that the universe would be a better place without us in it. His proposed means of accomplishing this goal is total nuclear annihilation. It would be quick and painless; no one would know it was coming and no one would suffer–in fact, the “lynchpin” of his argument is that it would put an end to the unending cycle of suffering that life is for most of humanity. In the absence of a higher moral authority than man himself, can you present a solid moral objection to this proposal?

Do you, as I did, even for a moment, get the creeping feeling that this vision is perhaps the most rational of materialistic moralities? In the absence of God, the evils of our world are irredeemable and platitudes about reason and progress fall upon deaf ears in the form of those who do not share in the material benefits enjoyed by an incredibly small minority of the human race. Why not end it once and for all? Sure, others may not want to die, but they won’t know it and there’ll be no one around to object afterwards, so what’s really lost in the end?

That realization wasn’t what led me back to belief, but looking back, it definitely put cracks in my armor and completely shattered any notion of the possibility of an objective morality in a materialistic paradigm. I don’t mean to be confrontational; this is just an experience that was very “mind altering” for me and I feel called to share it. I hope you don’t feel that I’m assaulting your beliefs, even if I kind of am.

 

[Gaber]

If you’re talking to me, then you’re completely mistaken.

But I will say that the above post (virtually all of it, not just what I quoted) is the best and most coherent argument that is somewhat close to being on-topic that I’ve seen from you thus far…

Goodness! I feel so patronized now!

Your biggest problem is that you don’t understand or recognize the distinction between philosophy and teachings on the practice of mystical contemplation.

It’s not, though through your eyes it may seem that way. I’m trying to demonstrate that for this particular question relative to the idea of “design,” claiming “Powerful evidence” is useless unless the “philosophy” supporting such a view is based in the Reality that would be the field of design. Smilar to someone onm another thread who wanted to show a non believer that dogmas and teachings are blocks used to arrive at God, God is not an arrival point but the Source.

So a philosophical structure aimed at showing that “design” is at work in the Universe is taking on a cosmological question and by inference, a “designer.” So even if you wish to support a logical proof of the existence of a god on the designer sense, and you have available a way of diong that for yourself if you engage it, then two things become apparent: First, you have an exoereintal base from which to asses if the design idea is at alll valid, and second, from that position it will not be necessary to make any assertons on any intellectual basis of a God.

That becomes completely unnecessary. And as a bonus, you can de-construct your realization by means of your brilliant intellect which is now even moreso as it integrtes all the stray ends from having beliefs as distinct from knowledge. So if I may say so, this is yet a question of direction: A tower of Babel up? Or a beam of LIght down. the “up” part may be useful as a scaffolding, but is not ultimately the structure you step on to as expereince. And I would think that with such a vital queston at hand the experience would trump the speculation.

That’s not a difficult problem to fix. I have pointed the way for you. I have opened the door. You just need to walk through it.

Yes, you can quote my words back at me, but your division of philosophy is artifical in order to suit your narrowness of perspective that legitimizes your argument for you. If you wish, I can recommend a book that has the entire philosophical pointer regardomg a this formulated as aphorisms and footnotes. If there is any philosophy woth studying, it would very welll be the one regarding Divivnity.

All other -osophys stem from that one. And mistaken it becomes theology. And in that less thatn useful distinction lies your abiltiy to parse out something you claim to be independent of it. It cnnot be. If there is any logic or reason applicable to design it must start with I AM. And that whole separation of thises and thatses clouds the issu of the underlying Unity with the divisive faculaty of the mind untethered from the unitive factor of the source of awareness.

I’ll try again … you conclude:

Sutting up is a strategy. No one asked for tactics.

That has basically been your sole message in this entire thread. You’ve really just said that over and over – no matter what point is raised, that’s your answer.

Well, it is all I have to say that is possibly useful in stemming thought from a relative paraqdigm.

But that obviously doesn’t work. Philosophy has its own grammar. Logic has rules that we can learn.

Yes, it’s like Chesterton said about Christianity: “It’s nto that it doesnt’ work, no one has tried it yet.” A little overblown like much of his stuff, but in this case a useful idea for the most part. And I agree about the rules of logic. And about the principles of General semantics. It would be reallly cool if you guys used them.

When learning and discussing these things, we cannot say “Shut up your thinking …”

Except I did, and I mean it in the best possible way.

That is an appropriate command for those learning to enter into deeper prayer and contemplation.

That leading to what is in fact the only useful basis for philosophy. It ends speculation.

But it’s not an appropriate command for those exploring the products of human reason and thought.

Of course not; it defieats its meandering! it puts a rein on the horse of the mind so you can direct your gamboliing over the feids as distinct from being taken for a ride that ends???

When you can fully accept and embrace that simple, basic distinction that I gave here – then you’ll either leave this thread because you’re not interested in philosophy, or you’ll join it within the limits of this discipline.

Again you give two alternatives that do not cover all the possibilities and think that they are the only choices. Two valued logic is just another way to reach a wrong conclusion. OOPS there it is! I concluded.!

If you want to learn calculus, for example, you don’t start by explaining that the rules of math are irrelevant and that all one needs to do is attain mystical union with God.

yes, unless as you imply by the direction and scope of your argument, as you do by involving speculation regarding the nature of the Universe, that we need Divine calculus.

 

[Gaber]

My point is quite simply that you have abandoned reason in favour of a private revelation which makes you regard all those who disagree with you as benighted numbskulls! I really don’t understand why you are wasting your time and energy on individuals you judge to be virtually certifiable and in a hell of their own making rather than devoting your attention to those who inhabit the heaven you have succeeded in attaining…

Because if someone is about to fall headonlg into a ditch, it is charitble to warn them.

 

[atheistgirl]

I would like to pose a dilemma to you ----------- I hope you don’t feel that I’m assaulting your beliefs, even if I kind of am.

I’ve read your posited dilemma.

Unfortunately I’ve got to be elsewhere right now, so I will return to this in a few hours time, or maybe tomorrow if things overshoot here.

But for now I’ll say I do think the idea of total obliteration by nuke is possibly kinder and more humane than a slow terrifying death by drowning in a global flood

And I don’t feel like your assaulting my beliefs so fear not

Sarah x

 

[reggieM]

Goodness! I feel so patronized now!

I was trying to compliment you and I apologize for putting it in negative terms. In that previous post, you had an argument and you delivered it well. I disagree with your view, but I understood it and you were defending a clear position.

**I’m trying to demonstrate that for this particular question relative to the idea of “design,” claiming “Powerful evidence” is useless unless the “philosophy” supporting such a view is based in **the Reality that would be the field of design.

As above – I hate to criticize style, but the bolded text is excellent – you’re being deliberate and clear. You are working to demonstrate a truth. The “evidence” in question is useless, unless … etc. But then the point drops off completely. The last, unbolded phrase doesn’t follow, or perhaps I just don’t follow it myself. I don’t think we would say “the field of design” – but again, it remains unexplained and enigmatic.

God is not an arrival point but the Source.

Does it sound like you limiting what God is? “I will draw all things to myself”.

So a philosophical structure aimed at showing that “design” is at work in the Universe is taking on a cosmological question and by inference, a “designer.” So even if you wish to support a logical proof of the existence of a god on the designer sense, and you have available a way of diong that for yourself if you engage it, then two things become apparent: First, you have an exoereintal base from which to asses if the design idea is at alll valid, and second, from that position it will not be necessary to make any assertons on any intellectual basis of a God.

That seems like a very good summary to me – and I do not mean that in a patronizing manner.

That becomes completely unnecessary.

Certainly, it’s unnecessary for … some things. However, it is extremely necessary for other things.

So if I may say so, this is yet a question of direction: A tower of Babel up? Or a beam of LIght down. the “up” part may be useful as a scaffolding, but is not ultimately the structure you step on to as expereince. And I would think that with such a vital queston at hand the experience would trump the speculation.

The above is not clear and it does not build on what you were trying to demonstrate.

Yes, you can quote my words back at me, but your division of philosophy is artifical in order to suit your narrowness of perspective that legitimizes your argument for you.

I wouldn’t reduce this to a personal opinion. I can support my view on what philosophy is from an abundance of sources. I didn’t just invent that distinction.

If you wish, I can recommend a book that has the entire philosophical pointer regardomg a this formulated as aphorisms and footnotes. If there is any philosophy woth studying, it would very welll be the one regarding Divivnity.

Sure, but let’s not disparage other objects of philosophical investigation. Science itself is a product of philosophical structures.

If there is any logic or reason applicable to design it must start with I AM.

That is a very interesting point worth debating.

A little overblown like much of his stuff, but in this case a useful idea for the most part. And I agree about the rules of logic. And about the principles of General semantics. It would be reallly cool if you guys used them.

Ok, but I think you got my point. We cannot “Stop the thinking …” when it comes to using semantic rules. We have to learn them and use them correctly.
There’s a time and place for them. Just as there’s a time and place for abandoning one’s own logical-rational process in prayer and union of love with God.
In fact – even outside of mystical prayer – we don’t use scientific reasoning as our language of love or romance (with girlfriend, etc) or in finding a poetic voice.

So, it’s not either or, but both and – in the right time and place.
In this discussion, we’re bound by the limits of nature and reason - like Natural Theology or cosmological arguments. That’s a definite limit – certainly. But it has it’s purpose. It shows what human reason can discover without direct need for revelation.

Two valued logic is just another way to reach a wrong conclusion. OOPS there it is! I concluded.!

That was a good one.

yes, unless as you imply by the direction and scope of your argument, as you do by involving speculation regarding the nature of the Universe, that we need Divine calculus.

No, it was just an analogy about a different kind of knowledge.

 

[tonyrey]

Just when I thought the thread was petering out it has reached new heights! What a flurry of excellent posts! It’s impossible to respond to all of you at once but in the meantime thank you all for your encouraging contributions. :clapping:

They have a common theme summed up by John Stuart Mill who remarked that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied rather than a pig satisfied! Some might think he was referring to intellectual achievement - associating Socrates with philosophy - but they would be mistaken:

“An unexamined life is not worth living.”

Socrates chose to die for his principles, a fact which has profound implications. Philosophy is not just an academic exercise but a way of life. Everyone has a philosophy even without knowing what it is or never having studied it or thought about it. Even if we think Socrates was misguided he was right in his view that we do not live by bread alone. It is trite to say - but still true - that it is better to die for freedom rather than live as a slave.

In other words at the core of life is spiritual development. What counts most is not how much power or wealth we acquire but how far we “live up to our ideals”. That is an abstract expression yet it has very practical implications and consequences. It means we don’t put ourselves first at the expense of others. We have moral values that we didn’t invent. They are universal, eternal truths about how we should live, no matter who we are or whatever planet we happen to inhabit.

Morality is not a matter of emotion but inexorable logic. Ethical values are not based on empathy but on reason. All our virtues bring their own reward and all our vices incur their own punishment. Pride, for example, is a form of ignorance which stems from regarding ourselves as superior to others. We may be superior **in some ways **but not fundamentally because we are all equal in the face of death and eternity.

What we believe determines whether we are happy or unhappy. If we think we deserve more out of life than others we have an unbalanced attitude towards life - and ultimately we become frustrated and miserable because we are never satisfied. We didn’t create ourselves nor do we have a right to regard ourselves as gods who determine what is good or evil, right or wrong, just or unjust. Those are objective facts determined by our very nature as rational, social and sentient beings.

The Greek concept of Nemesis and the Indian concept of Karma are both insights into** cosmic justice**. At the psychological level we all obtain precisely what we deserve. It doesn’t pay to be proud, selfish, lazy, callous or corrupt because we are destroying ourselves. If our treatment of others is inhuman we cease to be human and become not bestial - because beasts are neither innocent nor guilty - but diabolical.

All these facts demonstrate that existence has a rational basis and is not ruled or dominated by blind Fortune. There is an element of chance but it is within the context of Design - which is borne out by the sensational success of science. There are strict limits to our insight and knowledge but we know enough to realise existence is not valueless, purposeless and meaningless. Nor is it only rational but inspired and created by Love…

 

[reggieM]

Just when I thought the thread was petering out it has reached new heights! What a flurry of excellent posts! It’s impossible to respond to all of you at once but in the meantime thank you all for your encouraging contributions. :clapping:

They have a common theme summed up by John Stuart Mill who remarked that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied rather than a pig satisfied! Some might think he was referring to intellectual achievement - associating Socrates with philosophy - but they would be mistaken:

“An unexamined life is not worth living.”

Socrates chose to die for his principles, a fact which has profound implications. Philosophy is not just an academic exercise but a way of life. Everyone has a philosophy even without knowing what it is or never having studied it or thought about it. Even if we think Socrates was misguided he was right in his view that we do not live by bread alone. It is trite to say - but still true - that it is better to die for freedom rather than live as a slave.

In other words at the core of life is spiritual development. What counts most is not how much power or wealth we acquire but how far we “live up to our ideals”. That is an abstract expression yet it has very practical implications and consequences. It means we don’t put ourselves first at the expense of others. We have moral values that we didn’t invent. They are universal, eternal truths about how we should live, no matter who we are or whatever planet we happen to inhabit.

Morality is not a matter of emotion but inexorable logic. Ethical values are not based on empathy but on reason. All our virtues bring their own reward and all our vices incur their own punishment. Pride, for example, is a form of ignorance which stems from regarding ourselves as superior to others. We may be superior **in some ways **but not fundamentally because we are all equal in the face of death and eternity.

What we believe determines whether we are happy or unhappy. If we think we deserve more out of life than others we have an unbalanced attitude towards life - and ultimately we become frustrated and miserable because we are never satisfied. We didn’t create ourselves nor do we have a right to regard ourselves as gods who determine what is good or evil, right or wrong, just or unjust. Those are objective facts determined by our very nature as rational, social and sentient beings.

The Greek concept of Nemesis and the Indian concept of Karma are both insights into** cosmic justice**. At the psychological level we all obtain precisely what we deserve. It doesn’t pay to be proud, selfish, lazy, callous or corrupt because we are destroying ourselves. If our treatment of others is inhuman we cease to be human and become not bestial - because beasts are neither innocent nor guilty - but diabolical.

All these facts demonstrate that existence has a rational basis and is not ruled or dominated by blind Fortune. There is an element of chance but it is within the context of Design - which is borne out by the sensational success of science. There are strict limits to our insight and knowledge but we know enough to realise existence is not valueless, purposeless and meaningless. Nor is it only rational but inspired and created by Love…

Yet another great post, Tony – and thank **you **for keeping this discussion alive.

On this point: “Philosophy is not just an academic exercise but a way of life.” – that is excellent and important to remember. In fact, I think Gaber’s view is more supported with that quote than what I’ve been arguing (so I’ll give him credit where credit is due!).
If a person strips away the fullness that philosophy is supposed to entail, then you would just have bits and pieces of intellectual exercises. Some syllogisms prove various things – but they don’t really add up to anything.

So again, to support Gaber’s view – the philosophical approach is a step upward. It moves from the “unexamined life” to one that considers the value and meaning of things.

But philosophy has to stop at revelation. That’s where we get a higher value of data for our knowledge – and actually, we have more certainty with theological knowledge because it comes from God.

After that – there’s is “experiential knowledge of God” which is the highest of all.

When St. Thomas Aquinas reached that level he just stopped writing philosophy entirely. The direct experience was far greater – to an infinite degree.

But moving up those steps, we usually need to go through the foundation of philosophy. That helps us know the reason for things. We learn that there is a rational basis to reality – and it can be trusted to give us real knowledge (however limited).

So, even without revelation we encounter many evidences of the existence of God and even some of his being and nature.

 

[atheistgirl]

A friend of mine, who’s an anti-theist and, more importantly, an extreme misanthropist, has long been given to rants about his desire to effect the elimination of the entire human race.

Back to this post as promised

It sounds like your friend has issues.

he contends that the universe would be a better place without us in it.

That’s an odd thing to contend because the universe doesn’t know we’re here and doesn’t care.

His proposed means of accomplishing this goal is total nuclear annihilation.

This sounds better and more attractive to me than a slow death by drowning, which seems to be God’s prefered method.

It would be quick and painless; no one would know it was coming and no one would suffer

Well, just so long as they let off enough explosions to wipe the earth out in an instant, but I agree, it’s way better than drowing.

I wonder what creatures would evolve and what they’d be like when life re-established itself on a nuclear fallout infected rock. Bet they’d look like the creatures we imagine live in outer space.

the “lynchpin” of his argument is that it would put an end to the unending cycle of suffering that life is for most of humanity.

Like I said, he has issues.

Vast populations have it terrible, for sure. But look at the overall levels of poverty, education, womens health, and health in general. All improving. With the standard of living, globally, when taken overall, even in these dire economic times, improving.

In the absence of a higher moral authority than man himself, can you present a solid moral objection to this proposal?

I don’t believe there is a higher moral authority. We are creatures of nature, compelled to live, eat, and reproduce. No matter how bad it gets, not matter how dire, there will never be, ever, a global agreement to end it all. There will come a time, billions of years from now, when the earth wont exist. Our sun is dying out. That’s why we’re looking not at other possible planets as perhaps being habitable and working on the technology to get us there. We’ll do it too, when you look at what science has achieved in just 100 years. We’ve got billions of years to get it right, get there, and populate another planet, or maybe even planets.
We’re not sitting back saying oh heck, we’re all going to die anyhow as the earth will die eventually, so let’s just sit back and do nothing.
Nature has made us, nature compells us to live. We’ve learned over the years the benefit of working together and have developed morals that reflect this, and reflect the best possible case for the individual and the group to succeed.

Do you, as I did, even for a moment, get the creeping feeling that this vision is perhaps the most rational of materialistic moralities?

Nope. We’re driven to live and succeed.

In the absence of God, the evils of our world are irredeemable and platitudes about reason and progress fall upon deaf ears in the form of those who do not share in the material benefits enjoyed by an incredibly small minority of the human race.

We strive daily to redress this balance, and we’re not doing too bad a job.

Why not end it once and for all?

We can’t. We’re not programed to allow mass extinction on a global scale. We’re programed to live and reporduce.

I hope you don’t feel that I’m assaulting your beliefs, even if I kind of am.

No I dont think you’re assaulting my beliefs at all, even if you are You have a nice posting style

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Yet another great post, Tony – and thank **you **for keeping this discussion alive.

On this point: “Philosophy is not just an academic exercise but a way of life.” – that is excellent and important to remember. In fact, I think Gaber’s view is more supported with that quote than what I’ve been arguing (so I’ll give him credit where credit is due!).
If a person strips away the fullness that philosophy is supposed to entail, then you would just have bits and pieces of intellectual exercises. Some syllogisms prove various things – but they don’t really add up to anything.

So again, to support Gaber’s view – the philosophical approach is a step upward. It moves from the “unexamined life” to one that considers the value and meaning of things.

But philosophy has to stop at revelation. That’s where we get a higher value of data for our knowledge – and actually, we have more certainty with theological knowledge because it comes from God.

After that – there’s is “experiential knowledge of God” which is the highest of all.

When St. Thomas Aquinas reached that level he just stopped writing philosophy entirely. The direct experience was far greater – to an infinite degree.

But moving up those steps, we usually need to go through the foundation of philosophy. That helps us know the reason for things. We learn that there is a rational basis to reality – and it can be trusted to give us real knowledge (however limited).

So, even without revelation we encounter many evidences of the existence of God and even some of his being and nature.

I agree with you entirely, Reggie. I have stated several times there are strict limits to what the Design argument can achieve. It has to be supplemented by Revelation and prayer but this forum exists for nonbelievers as well as believers. It is a waste of time discussing spiritual matters if a person doesn’t believe in spiritual reality. Some one has to do the spade work and cultivate the soil until it becomes fertile enough to accept even the possibility of spiritual reality. Otherwise we might as well be on different planets!

We have to have common ground and that is where philosophy comes in. We discover what beliefs we share and proceed from there. Once the nonbeliever agrees that Chance is an inadequate explanation the main barrier to growth is removed. That is why I stressed the fundamental role of morality as a set of truths about the life of every person. Once the **objective reality of good and evil **is recognised the sky’s the limit (metaphorically of course!). I should have said “Heaven’s the limit!”

 

[prodigalson2011]

Back to this post as promised

It sounds like your friend has issues.

Oh, he absolutely does. You’ll find no contention on my part there.

That’s an odd thing to contend because the universe doesn’t know we’re here and doesn’t care.

It was a bit of a poetic expression. What his rage stems from is a view of humanity as a race of self-deluding animals who exist for no reason other than natural accident who make themselves feel good by “doing good things,” to distract themselves from their true nature which is to dominate the weak and consume the world around them. This is coupled with a history of extremely negative life experience (to say he’s had it rough would be an understatement–in terms of abuse, he’s suffered extremes of it in every imaginable form and in great amounts.)

This sounds better and more attractive to me than a slow death by drowning, which seems to be God’s prefered method.

This is an entirely different philosophical discussion. I won’t digress into a treatise on it because it’s besides the point. I’ll just say, and this is going to sound trite and callous, but understand that it’s a very superficial comparison: this is a bit like the question of whether there is a difference between an artist altering his work or a third party doing the same.

Well, just so long as they let off enough explosions to wipe the earth out in an instant, but I agree, it’s way better than drowing.

Certainly more painless. However, your analogy draws to the fore one of the central problems inherent in his thinking: in the absence of God, he is assuming that role for himself: the arbiter of life and death.

I wonder what creatures would evolve and what they’d be like when life re-established itself on a nuclear fallout infected rock. Bet they’d look like the creatures we imagine live in outer space.

Funnily enough, this is one of the “positive side effects” he proposes.

Like I said, he has issues.

Like I said, I know he does. You have no idea how many. In fact, given that I am, by his own admission, about the only “positive light” in his life, as he has no faith and most of his friends are as nihilistic as he, I’m surprised he’s not dead or in jail.

Vast populations have it terrible, for sure. But look at the overall levels of poverty, education, womens health, and health in general. All improving. With the standard of living, globally, when taken overall, even in these dire economic times, improving.

Yes, but in his view the inevitability of human evil and the absolute objective meaninglessness of life outweigh any material (and, in a materialistic view, necessarily ephemeral) improvements to the quality of life. Even in rich communities, children are still abused. Even in the healthiest city in the world, people are still ostracized and exploited. Material progress does not equate to moral progress. Mankind is still just as inclined to evil today as it ever was.

I don’t believe there is a higher moral authority. We are creatures of nature, compelled to live, eat, and reproduce. No matter how bad it gets, not matter how dire, there will never be, ever, a global agreement to end it all.

I know you don’t, that’s precisely why I posed this question to you! In the scenario I have described, a global agreement is not only not required, it is assumed to be absent. Nuclear holocaust could be enacted by a very small amount of people against the will of the other 6.99999 billion people on Earth. Whether or not everyone would consent is not the point. The point is that if someone so deranged and inclined were to do so, you can’t really posit a moral objection to it without there being an objective, transcendent moral order.

There will come a time, billions of years from now, when the earth wont exist. Our sun is dying out. That’s why we’re looking not at other possible planets as perhaps being habitable and working on the technology to get us there. We’ll do it too, when you look at what science has achieved in just 100 years. We’ve got billions of years to get it right, get there, and populate another planet, or maybe even planets.
We’re not sitting back saying oh heck, we’re all going to die anyhow as the earth will die eventually, so let’s just sit back and do nothing.

I’m not sure how this relates to the question. Actually, it is inversely related. The question is not about the ability or inclination of man to survive. It is about someone seeing that very drive to survive and flourish as perverse and wishing to put a stop to it.

Nature has made us, nature compells us to live. We’ve learned over the years the benefit of working together and have developed morals that reflect this, and reflect the best possible case for the individual and the group to succeed.

The same nature that compels you to live compels some to destroy. By a naturalistic view, there is nothing “moral” about either side of the coin. It is sheer determinism. One man’s altruism is another man’s nihilism. One man’s charity is another man’s avarice. One’s martyrdom is another’s homicidal rampage. Neither is more moral than the other. Nature has simply dealt them different hands. Of course, we see less of these opposite extremes, because like losing card hands, nature weeds them out of the game. Still, if they are simply products of nature, we can’t say there was anything more morally deficient about them than a bad hand in a game of poker.

Nope. We’re driven to live and succeed.

That’s a rather broad statement. Some are quite driven to maim and destroy. Biological drives don’t equate to morality.

We strive daily to redress this balance, and we’re not doing too bad a job.

Indeed, but in the meantime (and the past-time), there are billions who will never enjoy any of this and will lives of destitution and suffering with no hope in this world.

We can’t. We’re not programed to allow mass extinction on a global scale. We’re programed to live and reporduce.

That’s a dangerously naive perspective, I think (a thousand pardons.) A few powerful people with the proper motivation and lack of empathy could certainly do it. And they don’t need anyone to “allow” them to do it. Nuclear weapons have rendered power in numbers an obsolete notion.

But anyway, in conclusion, as predicted, you were unable to provide a compelling objective MORAL reason for it not to be done. Those reasons you provided were accidents of nature which are demonstrably subject to variation and thus not definitive or binding, and certainly not moral in the sense of right and wrong… only in terms of being beneficial and detrimental.

That’s all I really intended to illustrate through this hypothetical scenario: that describing things in terms of “morality” in the absence of a transcendent order is a misappropriation of such terms.

No I dont think you’re assaulting my beliefs at all, even if you are You have a nice posting style

Thank you. I try. Sometimes.

 

[Gaber]

I was trying to compliment you and I apologize for putting it in negative terms. In that previous post, you had an argument and you delivered it well. I disagree with your view, but I understood it and you were defending a clear position.

Appearantly not clear enough yet. And I am not defending anything. There is nothing to defend. I am si;mply stateing things as someone amongst uncountable many who have expereinced a state of awareness accessible to anyone, or darned near, who wishes to make the effort. It is necessarily the default position of human awareness, as you will inevitabley discover. Hopefully that will occur before you have to start with another personality.

As above – I hate to criticize style, but the bolded text is excellent – you’re being deliberate and clear. You are working to demonstrate a truth. The “evidence” in question is useless, unless … etc. But then the point drops off completely. The last, unbolded phrase doesn’t follow, or perhaps I just don’t follow it myself. I don’t think we would say “the field of design” – but again, it remains unexplained and enigmatic.

C’mon. You and others relish criticizing my style. Some even positively!
I am not seeking to demonstarte a truth. You guys keep skipping a step, I’m only encouraging the engagement of any technique, including prayer, but especially contemplation, that would result in you experiencing and being able to reason from a truth yeilded by self inquiry. I cannot prove any truth, and as St Augstine said, near as I remember, “If you understand God, what you understand isn’t God.” Same for proofs about God or any such thing, But as happened with a friend who witnessed the occurance which changed my life, he thought I was nuts and needed psychatric help. But then it happened to him, and he said “Wow. Now I see. I’m the one who couldn’t understand.” Then we were able to talk, and had the same vocabulary as necessitated by the quality and kind of expereince. So I’m not by any means offering a “proof” or even an argument. I’m only presenting an invitation.

Does it sound like you limiting what God is? “I will draw all things to myself”.

Who said that, in what language, and at what level of mystical understanding, if tha kind of thing can be said? Who translated it? What was theri knowledge of “inner” states? Does it reaally sound to you like I am doing that, after my extolations of Divinity, or are you reading not much of what I post here and jumping to conclusions?

That seems like a very good summary to me – and I do not mean that in a patronizing manner.

Thanks.

Certainly, it’s unnecessary for … some things. However, it is extremely necessary for other things.

It becomes unnecessary to you as a “prover” as then you have no ax to grind and other’s states are just what they are, and you know that all you can do is point and speak from your own God’s little green acre.

The above is not clear and it does not build on what you were trying to demonstrate.

i’m saying that intellections that surmise on speculative premises are a structure like the tower and fail thier end. However, if you can discover what the foundation of your awareness is, then you are speaking from a solid rock, out from expereince and with outhority. Otherwise you have book learning, hypothesizing, and teleology until you break through your own story about yourself.

I wouldn’t reduce this to a personal opinion. I can support my view on what philosophy is from an abundance of sources. I didn’t just invent that distinction.

erhaps not. but you are using it as a defense against inclusivity and depth. You will note that I also used categories of philosophizing as examples. But if you are not awarem you don’t philosophie. and what is the use of philosophizing with a tool whose nature you are not fully acquainted with? It’s like filling your personal jet with cruse oil or just using the thing for taxiing around because you don’t know it can fly.

Sure, but let’s not disparage other objects of philosophical investigation. Science itself is a product of philosophical structures.

Science is a methodology restricted in its use that can be philosophized about. It is not itself a philosophy and is a prodouct more of teleology and honest curiosity than of philosophy, unless we are talking about two different kinds of science.

That is a very interesting point worth debating.

Why debate what you can discover?

Ok, but I think you got my point. We cannot “Stop the thinking …” when it comes to using semantic rules. We have to learn them and use them correctly.
There’s a time and place for them. Just as there’s a time and place for abandoning one’s own logical-rational process in prayer and union of love with God.
In fact – even outside of mystical prayer – we don’t use scientific reasoning as our language of love or romance (with girlfriend, etc) or in finding a poetic voice.

Ys, being a published poet, I understand that. And Poetry is a phenomenally appropriate vehicle of adoration. Have you read Love Poems from God, by Daniel Ladinsky? And again, all of those rules of thought and grammar and sematics are applicable from the standpoint of book learning and intellection, or as exegesisi of a genuine encounter. I would never within my abioity of choice give thoose up; only hone them. But I would do that in an effoer to more clearly and precisely point to the Ineffable.

So, it’s not either or, but both and – in the right time and place.
In this discussion, we’re bound by the limits of nature and reason - like Natural Theology or cosmological arguments. That’s a definite limit – certainly. But it has it’s purpose. It shows what human reason can discover without direct need for revelation.

Yes, if you think that your Nature and reason hve the limits you now shroud them with. And “Natural Theology” is what? Something that serves as a stop-gap until vision occurs and has, as I hope you will come to see for yourself, severe limits. And cosmological arguments are just that and willl remain that. As Augustine.

That was a good one.

Yes, as an example of what we are limitied to and is inadequate to the question at hand.
No, it was just an analogy about a different kind of knowledge. Yes, of which to a human there are four species and nine levels, at least. So if we are going for something on a cosmic scale, such as the hypothesis of design, it might be most useful to be operate at the highest level and in all four quadrants.

 

[reggieM]

I am si;mply stateing things as someone amongst uncountable many who have expereinced a state of awareness accessible to anyone, or darned near, who wishes to make the effort. It is necessarily the default position of human awareness, as you will inevitabley discover. Hopefully that will occur before you have to start with another personality.

Of course you’re defending your own view and trying to convince me to accept it.
But you’re doing this by repeating an assertion. From my perspective, I accept that you could be 100% correct. But I cannot validate that unless I experience what you claim I must. You state that your view is necessarily the default position.
Again, where is the inclusiveness in that statement? The view that you’re offering – the things that you’re stating – are claimed as the necessary default.
You can only know that:

1. If you personally know the entire contents of human awareness (the God-view) yourself.
   or
2. God directly revealed this to you.

Again, I admire your insights and you as a person but I can’t see any evidence that either of those things are true. So I can’t accept your own either-or scenario here.

You guys keep skipping a step, I’m only encouraging the engagement of any technique, including prayer, but especially contemplation, that would result in you experiencing and being able to reason from a truth yeilded by self inquiry.

Ok, that is perfectly understandable. I would just counter that, as above, there is a level of truth that is higher than what one gains from self-inquiry – namely, divine Revelation.
I don’t know if you’re getting at the notion that “we are all gods” or “I and God are one” – but if so, that’s another interesting view. If not, then the point stands – we have a revelation - through Christ and through the prophets. The Church holds the key to that highest Truth. And that’s really the foundation for understanding God (to the extent that we can).

Who said that, in what language, and at what level of mystical understanding, if tha kind of thing can be said? Who translated it? What was theri knowledge of “inner” states?

You’re shredding the Gospel and the Deposit of Faith through your own subjective/personal filters. What is left is basically nothing. Since we do not have Christ’s words in an original text anywhere, then doesn’t your criticism leave us with a completely unreliable source?

Does it reaally sound to you like I am doing that, after my extolations of Divinity, or are you reading not much of what I post here and jumping to conclusions?

No, I just spot many contradictions in your view. You use either-or/binary conclusions. You speak in absolutes (which are very non-inclusive to other realities and philosophies). And in this case, you define God as only a Source and not also as an arrival point.
You used the analogy of a door that we walk through – clearly, that’s a journey to arrival.
So, at the very least, I hope I can help you clarify your expressions.

i’m saying that intellections that surmise on speculative premises are a structure like the tower and fail thier end

This doesn’t follow for a few reasons. First, just because something is a speculation does not mean it is necessarily false. Secondly, the entire structure of your discussion here on CAF is based on several speculative, uncertain points that you (apparently) accept uncritically. If speculation alone was enough to cause the tower to fall, then all of your posts here would be, necessarily, failures.
We must build on speculations, just as you do while claiming otherwise.
As below, you criticized drawing conclusions then caught yourself making a conclusion.

However, if you can discover what the foundation of your awareness is, then you are speaking from a solid rock, out from expereince and with outhority.

Exactly. Our Lord taught us that very thing. He was asked to validate His claim as a prophet and he did not point to a pedigree or the testimony of others (although He could have with St. John the Baptist) – but pointed to his “works”. The lame walk, the blind see … That’s how we validate the experience that is claimed. That’s why we recognize His authority.

I think you can see the difficult position this puts you in. Your claims (as I read them) are very significant. You have a privileged view of the universe and of all reality. You understand truths through direct experience that all philosophy must be built on, necessarily.

erhaps not. but you are using it as a defense against inclusivity and depth.

On the contrary. I’m using it as the foundation for inclusivity and depth. As proven many times, you cannot begin to post here without that foundation. It’s the grammar of the spiritual life, of our understanding of God. Sure, we can rise to great poetry from that point, but you have to start with foundations – which are explicable. Your foundations simply are not. Virtually nobody can start from direct experience alone. We need a means of interpretation.

Ys, being a published poet, I understand that. And Poetry is a phenomenally appropriate vehicle of adoration. Have you read Love Poems from God, by Daniel Ladinsky?

No, I haven’t read him but I agree with your views on poetry (and of the arts in general).

I would never within my abioity of choice give thoose up; only hone them. But I would do that in an effoer to more clearly and precisely point to the Ineffable.

Here we’re in full agreement. I will merely claim that teleological arguments or the cosmological arguments are the grammar or semantic rules for understanding “some aspects” of God and reality. They’re a necessary step in gaining a full knowledge.

And “Natural Theology” is what? Something that serves as a stop-gap until vision occurs and has, as I hope you will come to see for yourself, severe limits. And cosmological arguments are just that and willl remain that.

You’re taking a very negative view and misinterpreting what natural theology and cosmological arguments are for. You’re applying the wrong standard to them and therefore condemning them for being something they were never intended to be.

Sure, some people might misuse those arguments as “the only” method we have for accessing truth about God. And yes, I have seen some Catholics even on this forum fall into that dangerous idea – over-intellectualizing and rationalizing about God and never wanting to experience Him through prayer and contemplation.

So, I agree with your warning but not with your blanket condemnation of these arguments. They have a purpose. Not as a stop-gap, but as a step in our learning process. If one disregards the rules of logic, for example, he will not be able to reason correctly and this can affect his spiritual life, actually.

So if we are going for something on a cosmic scale, such as the hypothesis of design, it might be most useful to be operate at the highest level and in all four quadrants.

It could be, but I disagree. The Design argument starts at the lowest level and then moves to the higher. That’s discursive reason – inferring causes from effects.
That’s a very necessary process – although not the only one.

 

[reggieM]

I agree with you entirely, Reggie. I have stated several times there are strict limits to what the Design argument can achieve. It has to be supplemented by Revelation and prayer but this forum exists for nonbelievers as well as believers.

Good point, Tony. I will add that the organization Catholic Answers has a definite mission for apologetics. There are limits to what the activity of apologetics is also. What that usually means is that this entire forum is oriented to “a reasonable defense of the Faith”. This assumes that we have to defend what we believe from others who do not accept or know our Faith.

That is a lot different from a forum where the starting point is baptized and confirmed Catholics seeking to grow in the spiritual life.

It is a waste of time discussing spiritual matters if a person doesn’t believe in spiritual reality. Some one has to do the spade work and cultivate the soil until it becomes fertile enough to accept even the possibility of spiritual reality. Otherwise we might as well be on different planets!

That’s exactly right. I can fully understand and appreciate why it might seem to others like we’re wasting time giving rational evidence for the existence of God. If this was our only interest or our only understanding of who God is – then our knowledge would be very deficient! But there are many who have zero knowledge or understanding of God – as we know. The Design Argument is oriented towards materialist atheism. Personally, I think it has a huge benefit for all parts of one’s life – psychological well-being, confidence, and even in matters of meditation (understanding the beauty, order and purpose of nature).

I think the Design Argument would be a tremendous benefit to artists or actually people in any field also. A teleological view means that everything has a purpose – and we can discover how it fits into a larger order. Even the worst things – tragedies, disasters, personal losses, heartbreaks … these all have meaning because we judge them from their End, their final value and not just from what they seem to mean in this life alone.

We have to have common ground and that is where philosophy comes in. We discover what beliefs we share and proceed from there. Once the nonbeliever agrees that Chance is an inadequate explanation the main barrier to growth is removed.

Yes, definitely. That’s why it’s important to keep investigating what the claim from Chance really says. It’s also important to look at the consequences of the non-purpose view. There’s no sense in going beyond that point if there is a disagreement about what the Chance-origin view actually means.

That is why I stressed the fundamental role of morality as a set of truths about the life of every person. Once the **objective reality of good and evil **is recognised the sky’s the limit (metaphorically of course!). I should have said “Heaven’s the limit!”

Very good.

Probably the biggest obstacle to that understanding (for those who disagree) is that they recognize a moral sense within themselves. “I am an atheist and I believe in doing good deeds to others!” That’s a very common theme.

But that’s why philosophy is so important – we’re looking at the foundation of why you believe things and what you think about reality.

If, for example, “nature compels us” to do all of the things we do, then anything and everything we do is because we’ve been compelled by nature to do it.

But then things like guilt, obligation, atonement, reparation, correction, responsiblity, conscience, learning and even progress – would be unexplainable.

 

[reggieM]

Gaber – in case I sounded too critical and for the record I want to support your views:

1. I agree with and fully support your most fundamental and important point (as I determined what that is ) that a contemplative awareness of God is a vastly superior transformation of mind and person than can ever be achieved through philosophy.
2. The use of rational/logical processes **alone **in seeking to understand the Divine is not only a limit but an impediment to full understanding.
3. Philosophy is a way of life and not just a collection of arguments.
4. The Design Argument has inherent limits.
5. One cannot fully prove anything in the most absolute sense – and this is true of the existence of God. (Where I disagree with you is that we do have valid proofs for God’s existence which are based on conditions which are necessary from a human perspective).
6. It is not fully possible to express the ineffable nature and presence of God.
7. If Catholics and others do not spend the sincere effort to grow in sanctification (theosis, illumination, enlightment, transformation) by grace – then they are missing the most important thing and time spent on technical arguments will be ultimately wasted.
8. Sincere prayer will bring a person to an inexplicably higher state of awareness about God than any amount of philosophizing could ever do.
9. Poetry offers a way to express the sublime presence of God, at least to some degree, that other forms of expression cannot match (as does fine art, music and drama).
10. Poetry can serve as the language of adoration – an expression of the spirit, of the intuitive and of the depths that the soul can reach.

… ok, I said it. I’ll add that I corrected my own view as a result of your perspective so thanks for that also.

The list is just about as long on the points where I disagree with you but I think you know that by now.

 

[tonyrey]

Good point, Tony. I will add that the organization Catholic Answers has a definite mission for apologetics. There are limits to what the activity of apologetics is also. What that usually means is that this entire forum is oriented to “a reasonable defense of the Faith”. This assumes that we have to defend what we believe from others who do not accept or know our Faith.

That is a lot different from a forum where the starting point is baptized and confirmed Catholics seeking to grow in the spiritual life.

You’re irrepressible, Reggie! How can I restrain you?

Hmmm… On second thoughts I’d be doing you - and me - and everyone else an unDesigned disservice.

That’s exactly right. I can fully understand and appreciate why it might seem to others like we’re wasting time giving rational evidence for the existence of God. If this was our only interest or our only understanding of who God is – then our knowledge would be very deficient! But there are many who have zero knowledge or understanding of God – as we know. The Design Argument is oriented towards materialist atheism. Personally, I think it has a huge benefit for all parts of one’s life – psychological well-being, confidence, and even in matters of meditation (understanding the beauty, order and purpose of nature).

I think the Design Argument would be a tremendous benefit to artists or actually people in any field also. A teleological view means that everything has a purpose – and we can discover how it fits into a larger order. Even the worst things – tragedies, disasters, personal losses, heartbreaks … these all have meaning because we judge them from their End, their final value and not just from what they seem to mean in this life alone.

I’m constantly surprised how apparently unrelated subjects fit into the scheme of persons and things. Even the negative aspects of life have their place. Evil disappears in the materialist’s scheme of things. Persons are just an insignificant anomaly…

Yes, definitely. That’s why it’s important to keep investigating what the claim from Chance really says. It’s also important to look at the consequences of the non-purpose view. There’s no sense in going beyond that point if there is a disagreement about what the Chance-origin view actually means.

Probably the biggest obstacle to that understanding (for those who disagree) is that they recognize a moral sense within themselves. “I am an atheist and I believe in doing good deeds to others!” That’s a very common theme.

But that’s why philosophy is so important – we’re looking at the foundation of why you believe things and what you think about reality.

If, for example, “nature compels us” to do all of the things we do, then anything and everything we do is because we’ve been compelled by nature to do it.

But then things like guilt, obligation, atonement, reparation, correction, responsiblity, conscience, learning and even progress – would be unexplainable.

I’m sure that is an unsurmountable obstacle for the non-Designers! How can a mechanistic explanation of reality justify itself let alone anything else? It amounts to accidentally produced machinery succeeding in discovering how efficient it is. (I nearly used the word “valuable” but that was force of habit. Try as I may I cannot manage to think like a consistent mechanist. Perhaps if I were a mechanic I would have a better chance.

Chance?.. Chance!.. Of course! That explains it** all.**… :newidea:

The beauty of this thread is that everything is the grist to the mill. I’ve already thought of its successor - if I’m spared long enough to see it materialise. (Darn it! Another unfortunate choice of word… :

“Overwhelming evidence for Design?”