Proof: impossible I think...maybe

[SFH]

Is it possible for a single “Truth,” whether Catholic tradition, atheism, or another religion be actually proven. I just want to hear examples. Also, if you can prove that proof is possible that would be equally appreciated and probably more respected.

(I am going to try to disprove all of these proofs, not because I think they are wrong, but because I think it helps me understand the issue better, and I think it is good sport, brain teasers you know).

It is impossible to “prove” a single truth beyond the shadow of a doubt (even your existence) because all proofs depend on human reason which is subject to error. That is why “faith” is a higher truth. Faith relies, not on reason which can err, but on God who neither deceives nor can be deceived.

 

[Ocarm]

Let’s say they made sure the tomb was well guarded and that after Jesus’ burial his disciples had dreams and visions of Jesus. I don’t think we have any reason to assume that they would definitely rush to the tomb to see if Jesus’ body was still there.

Hi there, aEA, me old pal.

This has relatively little to do with the subject you’re discussing (!) but as a point of information: it was predictable that some of Jesus’ followers would want to visit the body, because it had not been prepared according to Jewish custom. This would have been the intent of the women who approached the tomb.

What that says about the need for the tomb to be guarded, or how easy it would be to disseminate/ stop the dissemination of information about the body’s disappearance is open to question, but it makes sense that the Roman authorities would have known that disciples would approach the sepulchre, because this would have happened before when other political or religious dissidents had been executed.

Oh, and just in case anyone feels inclined to suggest that this would offer a fine explanation for why the body might be taken away by the disciples - hence an empty tomb - that would be contradictory: they would be concerned that the body had not been shown the proper respects, and so would want to carry out the rituals involved, hence their going to the tomb; but to remove the body would break taboos and show sufficient disrespect that it would defeat the object of their going there in the first place. So there.

With all that said, I agree with you that the biblical accounts, or a synthesis thereof, are only convincing evidence of something if you make an *a priori *assumption - that they are divinely inspired. As a good Catholic boy, I do believe that, obviously enough. But I don’t think that provides a sufficiently sound argument in and of itself to make non-believers believe.

Best wishes as always.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

To sustain that growth to the present there necessarily must have been something that happened in people’s lives over the centuries for “The Way” to grow into by far the largest religion in the world, or it surely would have died out many centuries ago.

I think this is a very bad argument. Must there also be truth to Islam for it to grow to almost the same size as Christianity in significantly less time? You may say the reason Islam succeeded is because it spread fast early on through conquest. But you also have to consider Mormonism which has so far been spreading at a faster rate than early Christianity did.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi there, aEA, me old pal.

This has relatively little to do with the subject you’re discussing (!) but as a point of information: it was predictable that some of Jesus’ followers would want to visit the body, because it had not been prepared according to Jewish custom. This would have been the intent of the women who approached the tomb.

What that says about the need for the tomb to be guarded, or how easy it would be to disseminate/ stop the dissemination of information about the body’s disappearance is open to question, but it makes sense that the Roman authorities would have known that disciples would approach the sepulchre, because this would have happened before when other political or religious dissidents had been executed.

Oh, and just in case anyone feels inclined to suggest that this would offer a fine explanation for why the body might be taken away by the disciples - hence an empty tomb - that would be contradictory: they would be concerned that the body had not been shown the proper respects, and so would want to carry out the rituals involved, hence their going to the tomb; but to remove the body would break taboos and show sufficient disrespect that it would defeat the object of their going there in the first place. So there.

With all that said, I agree with you that the biblical accounts, or a synthesis thereof, are only convincing evidence of something if you make an *a priori *assumption - that they are divinely inspired. As a good Catholic boy, I do believe that, obviously enough. But I don’t think that provides a sufficiently sound argument in and of itself to make non-believers believe.

Best wishes as always.

Thanks for the information. Glad to hear from you again.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

It is impossible to “prove” a single truth beyond the shadow of a doubt (even your existence) because all proofs depend on human reason which is subject to error. That is why “faith” is a higher truth. Faith relies, not on reason which can err, but on God who neither deceives nor can be deceived.

What about “I think therefore I am”? Even if I don’t know what form I take or anything else, don’t I at least know that I am some sort of entity?

And faith is only reliable because it relies on “God who neither deceives nor can be deceived” IF that God exists. I just don’t think it has much meaning to say that you are justified to believe in God if that God exists.

 

[Ocarm]

I know that there are very few times the pope has spoken ex cathedra, but haven’t there been a decent number of teachings from the various ecumenical councils? If you know more about it, I’d be interested in finding out about how much is really infallible.

Just to show how complex this whole area can be, there is some disagreement over the number of times that *ex cathedra * statements have been made. The default position would be twice - regarding the doctrine of papal infallibility itself, and regarding the assumption of Our Lady. Some people make a claim for a few other occasions, but this is dependent on interpretation of the mechanism itself, which can be understood to be not applicable retrospectively, thus limiting its use to the last 100+ years.

As you say, ecumenical councils can also engage magisterial infallibility, but this doesn’t mean that all statements from ecumenical councils are infallibly proclaimed; this is sometimes used as a means to question whether anything promulgated at Vatican II was infallibly proclaimed, but since two dogmatic constitutions were produced by the council, the answer is obviously yes.

Unbroken tradition can also be appealed to as a source of infallible teaching but as an exercise of the ordinary (not extraordinary) magisterium; this also leads to disagreements because there is often a weak understanding of what should be considered as tradition.

The above is summarised in canon law (fairly comprehensibly for non-Catholics) at

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

What may be of more interest to you is a document prepared by then-Cardinal Ratzinger for the CDF which lists the matters taught infallibly by the Church (he does acknowledge that it may not be exhaustive):

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

When you consider that the Church has been around for 2000 years, and produced untold millions of words, it is a surprisingly short list.

And one final point to ponder; although the CDF proclaims matters authoritatively, it does not and cannot proclaim infallibly. So the document is not a conclusive statement, merely an informed opinion.

Hope this helps. Yet another proviso: although you will find plenty of barrack-room canon lawyers here who will have you believe that they are expert in the matter of papal and magisterial infallibility, the truth is that very few people are that sure of their facts; and that includes me, so my statements here are open to challenge.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

11 of Jesus closest associates submitted themselves to brutal torture and murder because of their belief in the resurrection. Please explain how a person could do that based on a lie. How could 1 person die for a lie let alone 11?

From what I’ve seen, there is not very good evidence that all 11 were killed because they believed in the resurrection. There are independent sources to support the deaths of a couple of them, but not all 11. Unless someone already believes in Christianity, I don’t think they’d have any reason to believe what the church traditionally says happened to those 11 any more than you would trust the historical accounts of other religions.

The earliest Church was imprisoned, beaten and, or executed. There were neither material, nor status gain for the earliest followers. The only thing they could rationally expect from either the Romans or the Jews was torture and death based on spreading this new religion. In that light which was reality at the time give a cogent explanation of the rise of Christianity if it was based on a lie.

Well, I think it’s completely possible that the disciples believed that Jesus had appeared to them. I heard about one woman (in the present) who said that Jesus had come to her in a dream and promised that she would live to a certain age. She was absolutely convinced that it was a real appearance and that the promise would be kept. However, there could certainly be a psychological explanation for dreams such as this. So if the disciples had vivid dreams or visions of Jesus, and I think there’s a good chance that they would have given the mental state they were probably in after Jesus’ death, they may have fully believed that Jesus had appeared to them. Through word of mouth, their stories may have been exaggerated. But they still would have been certain that Jesus had appeared to them and have been willing to die for their beliefs.

 

[Ocarm]

It is impossible to “prove” a single truth beyond the shadow of a doubt (even your existence) because all proofs depend on human reason which is subject to error. That is why “faith” is a higher truth. Faith relies, not on reason which can err, but on God who neither deceives nor can be deceived.

This is a self-defeating statement. If human reason is always subject to error, it cannot with certainty know that truths are impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, because this conclusion might be a manifestation of that tendency to error. That’s another version of the paradoxical anti-realist position which would say that nothing is knowable - which if true, means that it is impossible to know that nothing is knowable, hence it can’t be true.

Whilst I agree that ‘faith’ and ‘proof’ belong to different categories, I don’t think that simple fact leads us to the conclusion that faith is a higher form of truth. Faith in God does rely on God - it is a default Christian belief that faith in Christ is a gift, not a reward for logical thinking (although that does not derogate the need for logical thinking). But this does not provide a corroborating proof that can be externalised and shown to others as evidence.

Again, this is paradoxical: if faith can only survive because of the intervention of the being that requires faith of us in the first instance - God - then no faith is required, because the fact of that intervention confirms that this being exists. Thus their presence is now proven and is no longer a matter requiring faith.

Or so it seems to me.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Just to show how complex this whole area can be, there is some disagreement over the number of times that *ex cathedra * statements have been made. The default position would be twice - regarding the doctrine of papal infallibility itself, and regarding the assumption of Our Lady. Some people make a claim for a few other occasions, but this is dependent on interpretation of the mechanism itself, which can be understood to be not applicable retrospectively, thus limiting its use to the last 100+ years.

As you say, ecumenical councils can also engage magisterial infallibility, but this doesn’t mean that all statements from ecumenical councils are infallibly proclaimed; this is sometimes used as a means to question whether anything promulgated at Vatican II was infallibly proclaimed, but since two dogmatic constitutions were produced by the council, the answer is obviously yes.

Unbroken tradition can also be appealed to as a source of infallible teaching but as an exercise of the ordinary (not extraordinary) magisterium; this also leads to disagreements because there is often a weak understanding of what should be considered as tradition.

The above is summarised in canon law (fairly comprehensibly for non-Catholics) at

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

What may be of more interest to you is a document prepared by then-Cardinal Ratzinger for the CDF which lists the matters taught infallibly by the Church (he does acknowledge that it may not be exhaustive):

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

When you consider that the Church has been around for 2000 years, and produced untold millions of words, it is a surprisingly short list.

And one final point to ponder; although the CDF proclaims matters authoritatively, it does not and cannot proclaim infallibly. So the document is not a conclusive statement, merely an informed opinion.

Hope this helps. Yet another proviso: although you will find plenty of barrack-room canon lawyers here who will have you believe that they are expert in the matter of papal and magisterial infallibility, the truth is that very few people are that sure of their facts; and that includes me, so my statements here are open to challenge.

Thanks, I’ll check out the links. I had tried researching infallibility some on my own and found it pretty confusing.

 

[CentralFLJames]

But you also have to consider Mormonism which has so far been spreading at a faster rate than early Christianity did.

Data sources please…

As long as we are all shooting from the hip here with unsubstantiated opinions let me offer my own counter-opinion to what you are asserting.

Recollect that Mormonism immediately fractured and re-fractures into various sects at the death of Joseph Smith. Don’t assume Mormonism’s highly fractured growth can be properly aggregated to “Mormonism” since the sects all believe different things. Also be careful not to assume its growth is casual with respect to its spiritual appeal - I suspect its more of a social effect and a parasitic effect of an wildly expanding world population and high speed exchange of information.

To get a better perspective of what is happening compare Mormonism mere 13 million members to the massive increase in world wide population growth rates over the same periods it was founded till today. That 13 million is insignificantly small when further divided into the many new Mormon sects. It is a mere fraction of the over 3 billion Christian and Muslim religious peoples on the planet - not to mention the many other non monotheistic religions. So, do the math on the remaining world population and current population growth rates and I think we see that the Mormon growth rate is carried along primarily by population explosion and will not scale. Tell us how many centuries we must wait for Mormons to take over the planet and declare the USA the new Israel? Eventually common Mormons are going to wake up to the fact that there is only enough room in heaven for 166,000 elect and all those spots were taken by the first generation Mormons. The new converts are going to cranky having to settle for some cold and obscure deep space planet to be ruling gods till some already in heaven can be excommunicated out to open up new seats. And the current African growth is bound to peter out when they catch on to the fact that Mormonism’s blatant racism excludes them from anything more relevant than to be servants to the corporate headquarters in the USA. That’s the other problem with Mormonism - it is essentially an Americana religion and some just have not caught on yet. The ponzi salvation scheme is destined to eventually truncate their growth as education levels increase and people actually start reading the ever changing Doctrines and Disciplines that only a few obscure inner-circle people control by committee…

Frankly, Growth Rate never impressed me since it can rarely be long sustained. It’s kind of like going out and buying a high acceleration Maserati and finding out that within a few seconds and fractional miles of neck-snapping acceleration one had run out of highway and has to stand on the brakes to prevent running up somone else’s’ back bumper - bummer.

Also note that the Mormon leadership infrastructure has many single points of failure and bottlenecks. The inner-circle simply does not want to share control with its down-line franchises. It is by and large a dictatorial system with only a few “in the know” secret members calling all the shots. That means Mormonism will collapse by its own weight in the same way a person dies on the gallows by the force of its own weight acting on its support system (e.g. the noose). In a nut shell, Mormonism systemically just won’t scale and is doomed to endless internal fracturing and Balkanization as disenfranchised members (in the literal sense of the corporate structure) spin off their own new sects to get around the bureaucratic business structure that is coupled into Mormon’s doctrines and disciplines. One just plagiarizes the policy manual and strikes out the embarrassing theological histories then creates a new not-for-profit corporation with silent ownership.

This sort of systemic dysfunction is seen in all US corporate structures (which Mormonism is). High growth rates are always ultimately self-defeating since the organizations can never absorb more than 3 or 4 short term size doublings before the administrative overhead and cultural assimilation washes out the parent culture and it all stresses the founders who can not accommodate “the success”. High growth in this kind of context is literally like a cancer - wild growth takes over the body like a parasite and eats its own corpus for lunch from the inside.

If you really want to compare things worth comparing - then compare Mormonisms sect fracture rate to Christianity’s. The latter was remarkably monolithic until the Reformers reinvented a neo-Christiantiy in the 1500s and spun off a whole new secular-Christianity which was more like a sentimental return to babel than it was speaking in a common spiritual tounge as at Pentecost. The Protestant sect fracture rate when weighed by the western world’s population growth rate would be a more accurate forecast of what we can expect from Mormonism’s so called “growth”. That is, we can take Protestantism’s own original high growth rate as a proof-case for what to expect. Let me assure you it won’t be a mustard seed suddenly sprouting into a huge bush but rather more like a legion of Mormon tumbleweeds rolling around the prairies with each one seeking its own destiny like so much dust in the wind.

James

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Data sources please…

I’d actually have been a little surprised if you hadn’t wanted to see my sources for this. I get this from Rodney Stark, a prominent sociologist of religion who actually crunched the numbers. Now we cannot know Christianity’s growth rate for sure, but he approximates its rate of growth based on what we know. For more details, you might want to check out his book, The Rise of Christianity. In pages 4 to 7 he explains how he estimated Christianity’s growth. Those pages are currently freely available on Google Books, so you won’t have to run to the library to check my sources.

As long as we are all shooting from the hip here with unsubstantiated opinions let me offer my own counter-opinion to what you are asserting.

Recollect that Mormonism immediately fractured and re-fractures into various sects at the death of Joseph Smith. Don’t assume Mormonism’s highly fractured growth can be properly aggregated to “Mormonism” since the sects all believe different things.

True, but it’s not like there was only one branch of Christianity in its first few hundred years. There might even have been more divergent views within Christianity than within Mormonism. See scborromeo.org/truth/figure1.pdf for a chart that shows the branches of Christianity. I think it can be fascinating to read about some of those early Christian sects.

Also be careful not to assume its growth is casual with respect to its spiritual appeal - I suspect its more of a social effect and a parasitic effect of an wildly expanding world population and high speed exchange of information.

That’s true; those factors could have helped Mormonism spread faster. But at the same time, there are reasons why Christianity should have spread faster than Mormonism. For example, in Christianity’s early days, it was the only prominent religion in the area that proselytized. Jews did not try to proselytize non-Jews and the same held for other religions. However, Mormonism faces a lot of competition with other religions that actively try to win converts. Most of the religions that Mormonism is competing against have holy books, whereas the only big rival textual religion that Christianity faced was Judaism. Having written religious texts can make it easier to spread a religion. Also, Christianity benefited from having a powerful ally in Emperor Constantine and Mormonism did not have anything comparable. Also, Christianity offered greater equality for women, which could entice more female converts. Meanwhile, women in Mormonism have slightly lower status than in other religions (and as you point out, Mormonism has a history of racism). Finally, while we have plenty of historical documents that undermine Mormonism (such as sworn witnesses later recanting and Joseph Smith’s criminal past), we have no records of similar documents which discredit Christianity. So I am not trying to say that Mormonism is much more spiritually appealing; what I am trying to say is that the growth rate of Christianity is not that unusual and certainly does not provide evidence that it is true.

To get a better perspective of what is happening compare Mormonism mere 13 million members to the massive increase in world wide population growth rates over the same periods it was founded till today. That 13 million is insignificantly small when further divided into the many new Mormon sects. It is a mere fraction of the over 3 billion Christian and Muslim religious peoples on the planet - not to mention the many other non monotheistic religions. So, do the math on the remaining world population and current population growth rates and I think we see that the Mormon growth rate is carried along primarily by population explosion and will not scale. Tell us how many centuries we must wait for Mormons to take over the planet and declare the USA the new Israel? Eventually common Mormons are going to wake up to the fact that there is only enough room in heaven for 166,000 elect and all those spots were taken by the first generation Mormons. The new converts are going to cranky having to settle for some cold and obscure deep space planet to be ruling gods till some already in heaven can be excommunicated out to open up new seats. And the current African growth is bound to peter out when they catch on to the fact that Mormonism’s blatant racism excludes them from anything more relevant than to be servants to the corporate headquarters in the USA. That’s the other problem with Mormonism - it is essentially an Americana religion and some just have not caught on yet. The ponzi salvation scheme is destined to eventually truncate their growth as education levels increase and people actually start reading the ever changing Doctrines and Disciplines that only a few obscure inner-circle people control by committee…

I do not claim to know whether Mormonism will maintain a fast growth rate. I was merely using it as evidence that a religion can grow very fast in its early years regardless of whether it is true. I mentioned Islam as an example of a religion that has gained a huge percentage of adherents worldwide and continues to grow.