Question on Invincible Ignorance

[TheInquisitor]

I was just talking to a Maronite rite (I think that’s the term for it) Catholic about Invincible Ignorance.

My position is that I will convert at the drop of a hat to Catholicism. As a matter of fact I would even like to become Catholic. I just see no reason to become one because of logical reasons.

I’m not asking for any of you to make a judgement for me. But let’s assume that Hypothetical me had these exact criteria, would I be invincibly ignorant?

His response was “You have seen a Catholic Church and weren’t forced away with psychical actions to keep you away, you do not have invincible ignorance. You’re going to hell if you don’t convert.”

What do you guys think my state would be in this Hypothetical scenario?

Thanks,
Ryan

 

[FOlson]

I finished reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. In the book, he brought up a concept that I had never thought of before. Every one of us has certain personality characteristics that are biological or learned, but we do have free will. What we do with our free will is up to us and if we use it correctly, for our unique situation, we will be saved. Only the Great Judge knows if we have used it to the best of our ability or not. This will provide many surprises on the day of judgement. Virtuous people may be that way by their very nature, and so they aren’t using their free will to do good, but are naturally that way, and so they could end up in hell. The same could be said of an evil person, but that they aren’t nearly as evil as they would be with their characteristics because they are using their free will for good, so they could end up in heaven.

I’m also not sure if I agree with C.S. Lewis on this concept or not. I would say that I agree to it to some degree, but that it only can go so far. (if that makes sense)

God Bless…

 

[jttierney1]

I finished reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. In the book, he brought up a concept that I had never thought of before. Every one of us has certain personality characteristics that are biological or learned, but we do have free will. What we do with our free will is up to us and if we use it correctly, for our unique situation, we will be saved. Only the Great Judge knows if we have used it to the best of our ability or not. This will provide many surprises on the day of judgement. Virtuous people may be that way by their very nature, and so they aren’t using their free will to do good, but are naturally that way, and so they could end up in hell. The same could be said of an evil person, but that they aren’t nearly as evil as they would be with their characteristics because they are using their free will for good, so they could end up in heaven.

I’m also not sure if I agree with C.S. Lewis on this concept or not. I would say that I agree to it to some degree, but that it only can go so far. (if that makes sense)

God Bless…

Are you paraphrasing? I don’t recall that from Mere Christianity?

 

[malambo]

About that, God alone will judge, he that sees through our most inner thoughts and desires. You are searching. Go on searching, until you discover that God has found you long ago. In some way, you have already been touched. Allow yourself to be touched. All of us need to do the same: to be touched by the people we meet, the things we see and experience. In the end, according to one of Jesus’ parables, we will be judged by the way we relate to the others. If in our lives, there is no place for the others, God will no find an opening to come in. He does not force himself. He just knocks at the door, most of the times silently but insistently.

 

[jttierney1]

My position is that I will convert at the drop of a hat to Catholicism. As a matter of fact I would even like to become Catholic. I just see no reason to become one because of logical reasons.

I’m not asking for any of you to make a judgement for me. But let’s assume that Hypothetical me had these exact criteria, would I be invincibly ignorant?

His response was “You have seen a Catholic Church and weren’t forced away with psychical actions to keep you away, you do not have invincible ignorance. You’re going to hell if you don’t convert.”

What do you guys think my state would be in this Hypothetical scenario?

No one can judge your state of “Heaven or Hell,” only God can. Period
However, if you refuse to join the Catholic faith “knowing” it to be true, you do condemn yourself…

I’m a bit confused, you would like to become Catholic but see no logical reason??? What does that mean?

Can you profess the Apostles Creed and mean it? If so than waiting might be dangerous and mortal…

 

[Christine85]

What’s with all the condemnation being thrown around these days… People won’t convert to any faith through fear. That is just wrong

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I was just talking to a Maronite rite (I think that’s the term for it) Catholic about Invincible Ignorance.

My position is that I will convert at the drop of a hat to Catholicism. As a matter of fact I would even like to become Catholic. I just see no reason to become one because of logical reasons.

I’m not asking for any of you to make a judgement for me. But let’s assume that Hypothetical me had these exact criteria, would I be invincibly ignorant?

His response was “You have seen a Catholic Church and weren’t forced away with psychical actions to keep you away, you do not have invincible ignorance. You’re going to hell if you don’t convert.”

What do you guys think my state would be in this Hypothetical scenario?

Thanks,
Ryan

Only God judges in the end, as others have said; however, I would ask what you mean by saying that you “see no logical reason to.” My response to your question will be heavily based on how you answer that.

 

[FOlson]

Are you paraphrasing? I don’t recall that from Mere Christianity?

Yes. He did say something to that extent in the book.

 

[TheInquisitor]

Hello, to clarify a few things I said in my original post and answer a couple of questions.

I am asking for an answer about me in a hypothetical scenario. I understand that you can’t judge for God, but lets assume I am this type of person (which I do personally think I am in reality).

I could not in good conscience and with my current reasoning say the apostles creed and believe it. If in the future I were given reason to believe the contents of the apostles creed, I would do it at a moments notice. I just feel stuck because I can’t find a way to believe in it. So I take a position of not believing.

When I say I want to convert. It’s because I enjoy the thought of becoming Catholic, but like I stated above, I can’t in good conscience or with my current reasoning do this.

So, if I am hypothetically open to converting at the first moment I have a reason to believe, am I currently under invincible ignorance?

Also, I don’t think I am allowed to share my reasons because I saw that Atheism/skeptical related discussions aren’t allowed in this forums.

Thanks and I hope this clarified my question,
Ryan

 

[steve_b]

I was just talking to a Maronite rite (I think that’s the term for it) Catholic about Invincible Ignorance.

My position is that I will convert at the drop of a hat to Catholicism. As a matter of fact I would even like to become Catholic. I just see no reason to become one because of logical reasons.

I’m not asking for any of you to make a judgement for me. But let’s assume that Hypothetical me had these exact criteria, would I be invincibly ignorant?

His response was “You have seen a Catholic Church and weren’t forced away with psychical actions to keep you away, you do not have invincible ignorance. You’re going to hell if you don’t convert.”

What do you guys think my state would be in this Hypothetical scenario?

Thanks,
Ryan

Let’s take it out of the hypothetical. What you describe is not invincible ignorance.

 

[onemangang]

I was just talking to a Maronite rite (I think that’s the term for it) Catholic about Invincible Ignorance.

My position is that I will convert at the drop of a hat to Catholicism. As a matter of fact I would even like to become Catholic. I just see no reason to become one because of logical reasons.

I’m not asking for any of you to make a judgement for me. But let’s assume that Hypothetical me had these exact criteria, would I be invincibly ignorant?

His response was “You have seen a Catholic Church and weren’t forced away with psychical actions to keep you away, you do not have invincible ignorance. You’re going to hell if you don’t convert.”

What do you guys think my state would be in this Hypothetical scenario?

Thanks,
Ryan

As people said, that’s God’s call, not ours.

What is separating you from belief?

If they are philosophical, then you may want to further explore that in the philosophy section, there has been a pretty good debate going on there recently. I would look at many of the theist arguments Peter Plato on this forum makes, on a thread called morality without God.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=748996

In other words ???

These obstacles can be overcome, God is truth,beauty, and love!

Why put your hope in trust in invincible ignorance, when you can put it in Jesus

 

[TheInquisitor]

As people said, that’s God’s call, not ours.

What is separating you from belief?

If they are philosophical, then you may want to further explore that in the philosophy section, there has been a pretty good debate going on there recently. I would look at many of the theist arguments Peter Plato on this forum makes, on a thread called morality without God.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=748996

In other words ???

These obstacles can be overcome, God is truth,beauty, and love!

Why put your hope in trust in invincible ignorance, when you can put it in Jesus

Haha, I’m not putting my trust in Invincible Ignorance, I’m just seeing if I qualify for it at the moment.

So Steve, God would send me to hell for something I don’t see as reasonable, but if I did, I would follow him at a moments notice? Harsh.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Haha, I’m not putting my trust in Invincible Ignorance, I’m just seeing if I qualify for it at the moment.

So Steve, God would send me to hell for something I don’t see as reasonable, but if I did, I would follow him at a moments notice? Harsh.

First off, you definitely need to correct this misconception: God does not send people to Hell. I’m not sure where people get that idea, but it is incorrect. Hell is chosen by an individual. Look at it this way; if a person spends their whole life rejecting God, then why would they, on death, suddenly change completely and chose him. Remember, even Satan, who had direct and personal knowledge of God, chose to reject him.

As for your question about being indefensibly ignorant, I don’t really think there’s a way for us to determine that. We have no way of knowing what prevents you from believing. We can’t know if it’s a choice you make based on something as simple of not wanting to accept a dogma, or if you truly find it impossible to believe. If it’s the former, I don’t think you qualify, if it’s the latter, you might. It’s a topic I’m not too clear on personally, so don’t accept mine as any sort of definitive word.

I would very much be interested in knowing why don’t believe. I’m fairly sure the ban an atheistic threads is more geared towards the “Atheism is a superior method, and all of you are stupid for believing” type threads; not those whose purpose is true learning. I’m pretty sure yours would fall under the seeking knowledge category since you seem open to Catholicism. I’d say go ahead and tell us, and if the mods don’t like it they’ll let us know. ^^

 

[TheInquisitor]

First off, you definitely need to correct this misconception: God does not send people to Hell. I’m not sure where people get that idea, but it is incorrect. Hell is chosen by an individual. Look at it this way; if a person spends their whole life rejecting God, then why would they, on death, suddenly change completely and chose him. Remember, even Satan, who had direct and personal knowledge of God, chose to reject him.

As for your question about being indefensibly ignorant, I don’t really think there’s a way for us to determine that. We have no way of knowing what prevents you from believing. We can’t know if it’s a choice you make based on something as simple of not wanting to accept a dogma, or if you truly find it impossible to believe. If it’s the former, I don’t think you qualify, if it’s the latter, you might. It’s a topic I’m not too clear on personally, so don’t accept mine as any sort of definitive word.

I would very much be interested in knowing why don’t believe. I’m fairly sure the ban an atheistic threads is more geared towards the “Atheism is a superior method, and all of you are stupid for believing” type threads; not those whose purpose is true learning. I’m pretty sure yours would fall under the seeking knowledge category since you seem open to Catholicism. I’d say go ahead and tell us, and if the mods don’t like it they’ll let us know. ^^

Ok, I’ll give something a go.

Let’s talk about using Naturalism when it comes to deciding what happened in certain historical accounts. To be specific, the events in Jesus life. I’m willing to admit a lot more historicity in the gospels happened then historians claim. I’m willing to admit that a group of people experienced something they couldn’t explain.

Why, in all of history, since we can explain almost all other supernatural claims with naturalistic scenarios do we have to assume the supernatural in this case? For example, it’s easy to understand that the Hindu mythologies are just that, mythology. We don’t assume that Ganesha in the 90’s actually drank milk from his statues, no matter how fantastic the claims are from the eye witnesses. We assume that something natural happened or they were mistaken. Why can’t we assume the same for the Gospel accounts? Doesn’t it seem more likely that a rare natural event happened then the astronomically large chances that this one time, something supernatural happened?

To add on to this. When we accept the supernatural. Don’t we accept anything at this point? Who’s to say that Jesus wasn’t a trickster pagan god. Or a magical creature? Sounds ridiculous? It sure does to me. But I find no more reason to accept that it was a supernatural God named Yahweh who did all of this then I do any other supernatural explanation such as magic.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Why, in all of history, since we can explain almost all other supernatural claims with naturalistic scenarios do we have to assume the supernatural in this case? For example, it’s easy to understand that the Hindu mythologies are just that, mythology. We don’t assume that Ganesha in the 90’s actually drank milk from his statues, no matter how fantastic the claims are from the eye witnesses. We assume that something natural happened or they were mistaken. Why can’t we assume the same for the Gospel accounts? Doesn’t it seem more likely that a rare natural event happened then the astronomically large chances that this one time, something supernatural happened?

I honestly feel like you’re starting at the wrong end of the discussion, sorry if that seems rude, but in order to address this question, I feel that we need to start somewhere else.

Since you claim yourself an atheist, where we need to start is : Why do you reject the existence of God (Christian or otherwise)?

We can get into particulars about this religion or that later on, since the question of “Why is Catholicism any more right than Hinduism” is one that cannot be addressed until you first accept the existence of God.

To add on to this. When we accept the supernatural. Don’t we accept anything at this point? Who’s to say that Jesus wasn’t a trickster pagan god. Or a magical creature? Sounds ridiculous? It sure does to me. But I find no more reason to accept that it was a supernatural God named Yahweh who did all of this then I do any other supernatural explanation such as magic.

A lot of it comes from the manner in which religions are carried out, how well they’ve weathered over the years, what their basic concepts are, and how their worship is carried out.

 

[TheInquisitor]

I honestly feel like you’re starting at the wrong end of the discussion, sorry if that seems rude, but in order to address this question, I feel that we need to start somewhere else.

Since you claim yourself an atheist, where we need to start is : Why do you reject the existence of God (Christian or otherwise)?

We can get into particulars about this religion or that later on, since the question of “Why is Catholicism any more right than Hinduism” is one that cannot be addressed until you first accept the existence of God.

A lot of it comes from the manner in which religions are carried out, how well they’ve weathered over the years, what their basic concepts are, and how their worship is carried out.

I understand, we can go a little broader .

Why do I reject the existence of God or otherwise? Because I see no reason to infer considering all of existence, that there is any reason to accept supernatural explanations for our being.

EDIT: I forgot to clarify something. I don’t reject the existence of God. I simply see no reason to accept his existence over a natural explanation of the universe. God could exist, but I see no reason to accept that hypothesis.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Why do I reject the existence of God or otherwise? Because I see no reason to infer considering all of existence, that there is any reason to accept supernatural explanations for our being.

Alright then, we’re probably going to get fairly philosophical here, so let me know if my wording doesn’t make any sense and I’ll try to rephrase. (This probably applies to the rest of my posts in this topic )

Where did the universe come from?

I’m not talking about “WE were birthed in the aftermath of the collapse of another universe;” or, “We’re the remnants of a black hole which exploded;” or, “We’re a byproduct of the existence of a meta-universe above our own.” All of things are very convenient answers, but ignore the primary question of, “Then where did those universes come from?”

When I reference “our universe,” what I mean is the physical reality we inhabit; that is, the material realm which has space, time, matter, etc.

In your estimate, what brought about the physical reality?

EDIT: I forgot to clarify something. I don’t reject the existence of God. I simply see no reason to accept his existence over a natural explanation of the universe. God could exist, but I see no reason to accept that hypothesis.

Then you are an agnostic, which is a much different place to start from

I still think starting as though you were an atheist is the best option though, because it is, at it’s core, an absolute; and it’s much easier to discuss an absolute than it is to discuss a maybe.

 

[TheInquisitor]

Alright then, we’re probably going to get fairly philosophical here, so let me know if my wording doesn’t make any sense and I’ll try to rephrase. (This probably applies to the rest of my posts in this topic )

Where did the universe come from?

I’m not talking about “WE were birthed in the aftermath of the collapse of another universe;” or, “We’re the remnants of a black hole which exploded;” or, “We’re a byproduct of the existence of a meta-universe above our own.” All of things are very convenient answers, but ignore the primary question of, “Then where did those universes come from?”

When I reference “our universe,” what I mean is the physical reality we inhabit; that is, the material realm which has space, time, matter, etc.

In your estimate, what brought about the physical reality?

Then you are an agnostic, which is a much different place to start from

I still think starting as though you were an atheist is the best option though, because it is, at it’s core, an absolute; and it’s much easier to discuss an absolute than it is to discuss a maybe.

Before we move on, lets clarify a definition. A lot of Atheists use my definition of Atheism. Heres a diagram where my beliefs are at the top left : 3.bp.blogspot.com/-mTQMZdLU_jk/TgWwERJO5jI/AAAAAAAAAKw/bQTT6ai5bwI/s1600/Agnostic%2Bv%2BGnostic%2Bv%2BAtheist%2Bv%2BTheist.png

You will find that very few people are gnostic atheists when pressed. Even Richard dawkins is an agnostic atheist. So I’m sorry, but I don’t believe generally in absolutes.

And now to answer your question. I have no idea where the universe came from. It could have been natural or it could have been supernatural. I don’t see why I should accept one alternative over the other.

However, I will assume an absolute to make the argument easier. So I’m going to assume that the universe has only natural explanations. As science has plumbed the mysteries of the universe, we have only found natural explanations of the universe. Not once have we found a supernatural claim to be demonstrably true. It’s always been the God of the gaps style arguments. The more that we find though, the gap continues to shrink. Why should I assume a supernatural origin of the universe if all of our evidence so far points to the contrary of the assumption of supernatural causes?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Before we move on, lets clarify a definition. A lot of Atheists use my definition of Atheism. Heres a diagram where my beliefs are at the top left : 3.bp.blogspot.com/-mTQMZdLU_jk/TgWwERJO5jI/AAAAAAAAAKw/bQTT6ai5bwI/s1600/Agnostic%2Bv%2BGnostic%2Bv%2BAtheist%2Bv%2BTheist.png

You will find that very few people are gnostic atheists when pressed. Even Richard dawkins is an agnostic atheist. So I’m sorry, but I don’t believe generally in absolutes.

Fair enough, though I dislike that they’ve been changing the definition, but oh well.

And now to answer your question. I have no idea where the universe came from. It could have been natural or it could have been supernatural. I don’t see why I should accept one alternative over the other.

However, I will assume an absolute to make the argument easier. So I’m going to assume that the universe has only natural explanations. As science has plumbed the mysteries of the universe, we have only found natural explanations of the universe. Not once have we found a supernatural claim to be demonstrably true. It’s always been the God of the gaps style arguments. The more that we find though, the gap continues to shrink. Why should I assume a supernatural origin of the universe if all of our evidence so far points to the contrary of the assumption of supernatural causes?

I’m going to present an arguemnt as to why you not only should, but -must- accept a supernatural explanation.

The problem with your statement (second statement) is they haven’t found -any- explanations for the universe. They’ve come up with theories, had conjectures, debated possibilities; but have not been able to demonstrably prove that something can come from nothing. (Meaning true nothing, not a theoretical meta-universe)

The argument that there are natural causes for the universe is an impossible one. In order for the universe to have come from something natural (i.e. something with a physical reality), something natural had to exist from which it could draw. According to physics, matter cannot be created or destroyed; therefore, since there is no method through which something physical can create matter, it follows that there must be something beyond the physical that created it, otherwise it wouldn’t exist. Reaching this conclusion, something “Beyond the phsyical” would be, by definition, supernatural.

You say that “not once have we found a supernatural claim to be demonstrably true.” The concept that you would be able to demonstrably prove a supernatural claim is laughable. Science is the study of the physical realm; it is limited in capacity to dealing with those things which have physical properties (mass, form, time, etc.). Something that is supernatural is beyond nature, meaning that is has none of these qualities (since all of these qualities are a result of physical “existence”). Therefore, any scientific experiment is absolutely incapable of either verifying or refuting a supernatural claim. Science could no more prove God than disprove him.

This is a major flaw in our culture; our education / media / etc. tells us that the only truth there is is scientific Truth. This claim is also laughable. “Good” and “bad” as concepts are not scientific, and yet most all humans would agree that there is a base-line for both of them. Beauty, also, is not scientific, yet there are things that are almost universally recognized as beautiful. Science can answer questions about our physical reality; how it operates, why things happen the way they do; and maybe one day they’ll be able to explain the exact mechanic through which our specific universe came into being (assuming it’s part of a multi-verse-like scenario.) What it can never do, however, is explain the mechanics which set it in motion.

This is not a God of the gaps argument. A G.O.T.G. arguemnt is “we don’t know, so God.” This is quite the opposite, I am making an affirmative claim that it is absolutely impossible for “reality” to have come into existence without a supernatural force (i.e. God) to act upon it and set in motion.

 

[TheInquisitor]

The problem with your statement (second statement) is they haven’t found -any- explanations for the universe. They’ve come up with theories, had conjectures, debated possibilities; but have not been able to demonstrably prove that something can come from nothing. (Meaning true nothing, not a theoretical meta-universe)

They haven’t found any explanations yet. Why do we assume that they never will? I’m also curious why this means that we should rule out natural explanations simply because we don’t know.

Also, have we ever examined nothingness? True nothingness? I was under the impression that we can examine up to the point of the big bang. To claim what was before is just conjecture. It could have been anything. Yes, the universe had a beginning, but why do we assume it’s nothingness from whence it came? Why not something natural since we can’t examine that particular area as of yet?

To answer another thing you said. You particularly said that science can never say what put the universe in motion. Why can’t we assume that the universe (or possibly multi verse) has eternally existed just like God?

I also find it interesting that you said we can’t scientifically prove God. Do you think that there is any method that can prove Gods existence? Or is it just faith?