Reason, is Fr. Barron doing it wrong?

[JiminyCricket]

Wow! Lots to respond to here.

MPat: You’re right, my critiques of Aquinas are mostly the cheap shots that Atheists commonly make. I could read Ed Feser’s book and perhaps learn why God doesn’t need a cause, but I’ve heard so many descriptions of God that it makes my head spin. God is love, unknowable, vengeance, infinite, existing outside space and time, present in every moment and every place, capable of transforming matter, unconcerned with human suffering, entirely concerned with humanity, answers prayers, doesn’t answer prayers, he cares what you do with your own genitalia, but doesn’t care that children die from leukemia. It is so blatantly obvious to me that people are defining God however it suits them. God doesn’t need a first cause? Fine. How do you explain the rest of the Articles of Faith?

Jaaanosik: Another assertion that Faith and Reason work together without addressing the places they are clearly in conflict! It’s like you are building a model of the world using both blocks and anti-blocks. The model breaks down unless you purposefully ignore huge amounts of evidence! That’s not working together, that’s conflict. In my mind that conflict rings so loudly that being asked to believe extraordinary claims, even very tempting ones, on faith is like being asked to lie.

Patty23: I already have a father who is good enough for me. I’m content with a flawed, human father who loves me. I don’t need or want a magical one who does what the God of Abraham is said to have done.

abucs: Are you implying that I’m insane? The source of life on this planet is the Sun,(not the Father slaps knee)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I like the succinct way Chesterton put it in 1910.

“The most orthodox doctors have always maintained that faith is something superior to reason but not contrary to it.”

 

[MPat]

MPat: You’re right, my critiques of Aquinas are mostly the cheap shots that Atheists commonly make.

I suspect that was said sarcastically… I will use it as a pretext to encourage you to use “smilies” more often.

I could read Ed Feser’s book and perhaps learn why God doesn’t need a cause, but I’ve heard so many descriptions of God that it makes my head spin.

I cited blog posts, not books.

And if you do not want to read about the topic, why did you start a discussion about it?

God is love, unknowable, vengeance, infinite, existing outside space and time, present in every moment and every place, capable of transforming matter, unconcerned with human suffering, entirely concerned with humanity, answers prayers, doesn’t answer prayers, he cares what you do with your own genitalia, but doesn’t care that children die from leukemia. It is so blatantly obvious to me that people are defining God however it suits them.

Those would be descriptions, not definitions.

Also, “people are defining God however it suits them” looks like an “extraordinary claim” to me… Are you going to offer “extraordinary evidence” to support it? Or any evidence at all? No, “It is so blatantly obvious to me that” doesn’t look like evidence to me.

God doesn’t need a first cause? Fine. How do you explain the rest of the Articles of Faith?

Sorry, but I don’t see what that has to do with the topic of discussion. By the way, I have asked you to clarify the topic, but you didn’t respond to that post. I’ll cite a part of it here:

But in the original post you didn’t ask for a different argument. You have said that, in your opinion, “Faith does defy rationality” and it is not compatible with what Fr. Barron wrote.

And I think it would be a good idea to find out what exactly did you mean. I suspect that “Faith” meant Catholicism, but I don’t know what exactly did you mean by “does defy rationality”. Does it mean “is self contradicting”? Or “is not possible to understand completely”? Or “cannot be reached by reason without revelation”? Or something else?

(Of course, if would be nice to get an answer to the rest of that post as well…)

Jaaanosik: Another assertion that Faith and Reason work together without addressing the places they are clearly in conflict!

You have asserted that there is a “conflict” many times. Maybe you could actually give some evidence (“extraordinary” or other) to support your claim…?

 

[ynotzap]

When I hear strong opinions, and statements about faith and reason, I hear a lot debating back and forth. I know that we can’t give what we don’t have, and we give what we do have. And I also am aware of peoples limitations, and making some self–righteous statements apparently not having sufficient knowledge of the subject, but the statements keep coming. I observe that the essence of wisdom is that a man knows that he can’t judge the wisdom of his own judgement but strives to be open, advance in familiarity of the opponent’s knowledge, source and experience. I don’t really see this happening on the part of those that are contesting about reason and faith . It is obvious that some buy science as the real source of truth, and anything regarding faith is a lot of hocus pocus, yet they believe in science, and I can honestly say, the truths of science are very questionable, and misleading in some areas
They haven’t even discovered the spirituality of the human soul, or even know what spirituality is, or how do we discover it, it certainly isn’t discovered by the empirical sciences. Yet people treat it as the Holy Bible, if science says it true, then it must be true. As Bishop Fulton Sheen said " A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it, and the truth is the truth if no one believes it’" I just pray " Lord open our eyes that we may see."

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I’m content with a flawed, human father who loves me. . . .

You are fortunate; hopefully you thank him and let him know that you love him. That’s what it’s all about. That’s what we as Catholics do together in the mass and, joining with all the angels and saints, in prayer.

 

[Jaaanosik]

…
Jaaanosik: Another assertion that Faith and Reason work together without addressing the places they are clearly in conflict! It’s like you are building a model of the world using both blocks and anti-blocks. The model breaks down unless you purposefully ignore huge amounts of evidence! That’s not working together, that’s conflict. In my mind that conflict rings so loudly that being asked to believe extraordinary claims, even very tempting ones, on faith is like being asked to lie.
…

There is only one truth.
If there is a conflict between a reason supported by evidence and an object of faith taught by an authority then one of them is in error. They can not be in conflict.
If it’s important then one ought to study the issue till the conflict is resolved. Eventually the truth will prevail.
The model will be solid afterwards.

 

[abucs]

abucs: Are you implying that I’m insane? )

No, why? Do you have doubts?

The source of life on this planet is the Sun,(not the Father slaps knee)

Actually the Sun sustains material life on this planet, but it is not the source of life.

To understand Christianity, you have to think of the material universe as a secondary created reality, not the primary reality.

To think of the material universe as a secondary created reality you have to study physics at the smallest level and scientific investigations into the limits of cause and effect, and the special place of consciousness written into the laws of physics.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

To think of the material universe as a secondary created reality you have to study physics at the smallest level and scientific investigations into the limits of cause and effect, and the special place of consciousness written into the laws of physics.

I see you are up on your Aristotle!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There is only one truth.
If there is a conflict between a reason supported by evidence and an object of faith taught by an authority then one of them is in error. They can not be in conflict.
If it’s important then one ought to study the issue till the conflict is resolved. Eventually the truth will prevail.
The model will be solid afterwards.

Good point.

By the twentieth century astronomers were somewhat convinced the universe was uncreated, thu contradicting Genesis. This was certainly Einstein’s view. Then by mid-century came the happy convergence of science and revelation.

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Book of Genesis: Centuries before Christ: “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

 

[JiminyCricket]

MPat, okay, to spell it out here are the articles of Faith and a suggestion for each about how to approach that same idea rationally. I’ve been claiming that faith is irrational because of these extraordinary claims:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.

• Before the big bang there are a few hypotheses, including a creator entity as postulated by Thomas Aquinas, but there is no reason to consider that the leading hypothesis just because it jives with the folklore.

And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

• There is no good evidence that Jesus existed.

Who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary

• Which is more likely: one magical conception millions of years after the first hominids started wandering the earth in tribes, or a bronze age rabbi was mythologized by storytellers? Virgin births are a common theme in mythologies. There is no more reason to accept the story of Jesus’ conception than Krishnas. Both defy what we know about biology and both stories predate empiricism.

He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

• I think it’s reasonable to accept this one, if Jesus in fact existed.

He descended into hell. The third day he arose again from the dead.

• Resurrection is impossible given what we know about biology. There were supposed to be many witnesses, but where are their testimonies? The story of the resurrection was written many years after his death, again, by people who were even less intellectually rigorous than the shepherds currently living in the mountains of Afghanistan. Why should we take their word for it, when we know it to be impossible?

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.

• Everything about this is impossible given what we know about science. Heaven hasn’t been found in our solar system, or on our planet. If heaven is another dimension, perhaps the same magical dimension from which God kicked off the big bang, then how does a human body live there? It’s absurd on every level. On the other hand, maybe someone just made it up, that seems like a reasonable explanation.

** He will come again to judge the living and the dead.**
-Which is more likely: he actually will return from the magical dimension and sort through the billions of living and dead individuals, or that this claim was made and persists as a way of enforcing the rules of the church? Just you wait till your Father gets home!

I believe in the Holy Spirit

• This one is difficult because the exact nature of the holy spirit is so poorly defined. It appears to be very similar to the divine essence that Buddhists believe inhabits all life. It has been theorized that our extraordinary consciousnesses, and our complex social and emotional lives, create a convincing illusion of a ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’, and that these traits have been socially selected for through our evolution. There is more evidence supporting that theory than there is supporting actual ghosts of any kind.

** the holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints**

• which is more likely: that all these preceding magical claims are true, and, all other religions are false; or that all religions, most of which also claim to be exclusively true, and inerrant, are all false? All religions have their great philosophers, all claim divine authority, all contain strong emotional hooks, but most people believe one and not the other only because of where and when they were born.

the forgiveness of sins

• This is a dangerous concept. Sins’ or social transgressions ought to be dealt with through societies laws. It’s not good enough to be forgiven by the Church, where there is no transparency and little respect for evidence and due process. We have seen how the Church can fail to address sins within it’s own ranks. Did the pedophile priests go to confession? Presumably. What tangible good did that do? None.

the resurrection of the body

• Once again, we know that resurrection is impossible without magic. There is no evidence that this has ever happened or ever could.

And in life everlasting

• This is a nice idea…or is it? As immortality myths go I actually prefer the Tam Dao Buddhist one wherein you remain a spirit among your family until you pass from memory Then you are re-incarnated and get to live another lifetime on earth. Great story! Too good to be true you might say. There is every bit as much evidence that this story is true as there is that Catholic heaven story is true, which is to say none. A reasonable hypothesis is that humanity, cursed as we are by the capacity for abstract thought, are the only species with a real dread of death and so we make up stories that we hope are true. When your child reaches the age of reason and asks the deep questions it is natural to want to comfort them.

I did read the blog post by Ed Feser that you linked me to, however he doesn’t actually make his argument defending Thomism from the common skeptic critiques in that post. He expresses a lot of frustration and then refers the reader to his book.

In my experience on this thread, I’ve been asking for arguments that make these 12 claims rational for weeks, but been met with attempted reversals (where’s* your *evidence?) appeals to authority, appeals to emotion (god is love don’t you like love? God is your Father, don’t you need a father?) and unconvincing attempts to elevate faith above reason. If you believe, based on what the Church and Thomas Aquinas says that faith and reason do not conflict then you simply aren’t paying attention!

-JC

 

[ynotzap]

To an atheist or unbeliever Jesus Christ being God and allowing men to crucify Him is absurd and masochistic To a Christian believer it is salvation and redemption from the spiritual bondage they once shared with atheist and unbelievers. A bondage to sin, irrational actions, pride, ignorance, greed, avarice, lust, laziness, intemperance, despair, a superficial life, vanity, arrogance and hate, to name a few. Christians with the help of God’s grace can overcome these difficulties, it’s a lot of self-discipline, and impossible to do on our own, but Jesus makes it all possible with extreme happiness with Him as a result, What do others offer?

 

[MPat]

MPat, okay, to spell it out here are the articles of Faith and a suggestion for each about how to approach that same idea rationally. I’ve been claiming that faith is irrational because of these extraordinary claims:

Actually, that is called the “Apostles’ creed”. I had no idea that you were asking about that…

And you still haven’t explained what exactly do you mean by “irrational”, so it looks like we’ll have to do a lot of guesswork…

Finally, the whole creed is a bit too much for one thread. It would be better if you would choose some part of it. That is why I will not respond to all of your post here.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.

• Before the big bang there are a few hypotheses, including a creator entity as postulated by Thomas Aquinas, but there is no reason to consider that the leading hypothesis just because it jives with the folklore.

Is there any reason to think that Big Bang is not that same creation?

And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

• There is no good evidence that Jesus existed.

Who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary

• Which is more likely: one magical conception millions of years after the first hominids started wandering the earth in tribes, or a bronze age rabbi was mythologized by storytellers? Virgin births are a common theme in mythologies. There is no more reason to accept the story of Jesus’ conception than Krishnas. Both defy what we know about biology and both stories predate empiricism.

OK, so, your version is that “a bronze age rabbi, for whose existence no good evidence exists, was mythologized by storyteller [for whose existence no good evidence exists either]”…? And that is supposed to be “rational”…?

Seriously, New Testament is clearly evidence showing that Jesus existed. If you want to show that this evidence is not good, you will have to define “good evidence” and offer an argument.

I did read the blog post by Ed Feser that you linked me to, however he doesn’t actually make his argument defending Thomism from the common skeptic critiques in that post. He expresses a lot of frustration and then refers the reader to his book.

I have linked two (2) blog posts. I guess you have missed my post where I have given you another link.

In my experience on this thread, I’ve been asking for arguments that make these 12 claims rational for weeks

No, you haven’t.

First, you didn’t actually ask for that before this post.

Second, your first post happened on 2014-07-19, on 2014-07-22 you have said “I’ve spent too much time on this thread over the last few days, and need to get some work done”. And now you had one more post (not counting this one). That would be four days, not “weeks”.

, but been met with attempted reversals (where’s* your *evidence?)

Well, if you make a claim and demand evidence from others, you should be ready to offer evidence as well.

appeals to authority, appeals to emotion (god is love don’t you like love? God is your Father, don’t you need a father?) and unconvincing attempts to elevate faith above reason.

That is how some pieces of evidence look like. I will note that you haven’t offered anything better, or even equally good… Arguments from authority outrank “proof by assertion”.

(Hint: at least say “[Some atheist] says that [something].”… That would be an improvement. )

Oh, and perhaps I should once again (although you probably didn’t notice the first time) point out the Pascal’s Wager as an argument showing that it is a good idea to believe even without “extraordinary evidence”…

If you believe, based on what the Church and Thomas Aquinas says that faith and reason do not conflict then you simply aren’t paying attention!

Are not paying attention to what?

 

[JiminyCricket]

MPat, You’re my favorite. You’re also very detail oriented, has anyone ever told you that?

It sure feels like weeks. Anyway, during my upbringing in the Catholic Church the Apostles Creed was also known as the Articles of Faith. The Creed was the verses themselves…the articles I suppose referred to the verses and accompanying doctrinal commentary.

Is there any reason to think that Big Bang is not that same creation?

Not necessarily, but what I’m pointing out is that assuming so is an example of confirmation bias. If you accept the need for a first cause (and not all theoretical physicists do), sure it’s possible that cause is a creator entity, but there’s no reason to think it’s any more plausible than it being an undiscovered physical force, or some other kind of entity. Consciousness itself does appear to require an actual brain, so assuming intention as a property of this creator force is assuming quite a lot. Assuming this creator force is the God of Abraham is a staggering leap.

When I say ‘irrational’ I mean reasoning that doesn’t hold up to logical standards of validity. Ideas are irrational when they are self contradictory, ignore contradictory evidence, over-value confirming evidence, ignore contradictory reasoning, or ignore more plausible hypotheses (I’ve just improvised this definition of irrationality, it’s probably flawed in some way)

OK, so, your version is that “a bronze age rabbi, for whose existence no good evidence exists, was mythologized by storyteller [for whose existence no good evidence exists either]”…? And that is supposed to be “rational”…?

Seriously, New Testament is clearly evidence showing that Jesus existed. If you want to show that this evidence is not good, you will have to define “good evidence” and offer an argument.

That’s right. The story exists, therefore the storyteller(s) exist. It’s certainly possible a human matching the description of Jesus existed, but the history of the bible itself is very sketchy. For example, I’ve heard that the story where Jesus stops the stoning of a woman by declaring “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” wasn’t in the earliest versions of the gospel of John. So…are we to believe that as a true testimony when is wasn’t even written down until centuries after the alleged event? Testimony is evidence of a sort, but in a court of law in the US, it is considered one of the worst forms of evidence. Often it is inadmissible just because the witness had had some wine. Now reflect that the testimony you are holding up as evidence is thousands of years old, told and re-told verbally before being written down, by people with no education in empiricism, and whom are not available to be cross-examined. It is terrible evidence. The Mahabharata is every bit as qualified to be evidence of truth.

Good evidence for Jesus existing would be clear Roman census records, living relations who could be genetically tested to build up a picture of his family line, the shroud of Turin had it not been shown to be false. A genetic sample…say a hair follicle preserved on a crown of thorns (did he have a Y chromosome!?). I understand that there are some references in non-biblical sources, some letters and such that refer to a rebellious Jew in trouble with the law. I admit it’s possible he did exist, but his mythology is so large and difficult to believe that simply showing the existence of a man at the right time and place still isn’t evidence of his divinity or all the miracles attributed to him.

As for contradictory evidence, I would offer any time a young lady has lied about having had sex, and every time someone has died and not come back from the dead. Both things happen with some regularity. As for the competing theories for the origins of faith as a cultural and psychological phenomenon “the God Delusion” is a good start.

Pascals wager isn’t compelling because it fails to make a case that Christianity is the safe bet. If I had been raised in India, pascals wager would encourage me to worship Brahma. Also, wouldn’t an omniscient god see through the ‘safe bet’ faith, wouldn’t she demand more earnestness?

What you are not paying attention to is how unnecessary God is. Not necessary for the universe to begin, not necessary for life to begin on this planet, not necessary for us to evolve, not necessary for morality, not necessary for anyone to love their neighbor and be awestruck by the wonder of reality, not necessary for one to honor ones vows or live without a crippling fear of death. The other thing you seem to not be acknowledging is just how magical these claims are. You claim to believe in a trinity of supernatural entities that will have the power to judge us and either reward or torment us after death. It’s as magical as any Marvel comic book.

-JC

 

[ynotzap]

Faith will never be subjected to man’s reason, it is a gift from Jesus Christ who merited it for those who believe in Him. We know as believers that Faith does not oppose reason, but in agreement with it since God is the Author of both, and all truth. Faith is also superior to man’s reason because it is Divine Revelation which man’s reason could never achieve. We can’t give what we don’t have and trying to rationalize away things of Faith is an experience in futility. Faith will humble man’s reason because it comes from God. There are some in society that are gods unto themselves making their own rules and statements. Take a good look at society and it becomes obvious. To an unbeliever no argument is sufficient, to a believer no argument is necessary.

 

[ynotzap]

Did you ever consider that the reason other than the testimony of the l2 Apostles that God desires belief in Him and not empirical evidence, although believers can supply this evidence. There are records kept of miracles that are not explained by scientists There is the prophetic words of Christ, wars and rumors of wars. There is the evidence of diabolical possessions. There is the evidence of miracles of the Eucharist, and bodies uncorrupted for years bodies of Saints, even of the Apostles. How the Catholic Church survived persecution, and still does and she survives. How would you explain man’s inhumanity to man? Corruptions all over the place, on Wall Street as well as on Main Street? Is it because rational man is acting irrationally? What about personal conversions, there are plenty of those. How about the Holy Land, where people believe that Jesus lived, are they all wrong? I am convinced that if a person was really interested in knowing the truth he would find it regarding the truths of the Catholic Faith Do you think a myth would last this long? As Abe Lincoln said "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and fool some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

 

[adawgj]

First off JiminyCricket cool name

Please note this is just my comment and opinion.

The type of evidence that you are looking for is very difficult to find when it comes to ancient history and the ancient world. There are many historical figures in the ancient world that have very little evidence of existence, but still existed. For example Shutruk Nakhunte comes to mind.

 

[MPat]

MPat, You’re my favorite. You’re also very detail oriented, has anyone ever told you that?

Um, thank you.

When I say ‘irrational’ I mean reasoning that doesn’t hold up to logical standards of validity. Ideas are irrational when they are self contradictory, ignore contradictory evidence, over-value confirming evidence, ignore contradictory reasoning, or ignore more plausible hypotheses (I’ve just improvised this definition of irrationality, it’s probably flawed in some way)

Good, it’s much clearer now.

But the things you included are clearly of two different types. Self-contradiction concerns statements, propositions. Everything else concerns reasoning that supports them.

There is a great difference between those things: something self-contradictory is false, but something badly supported can be either true or false.

It looks like you haven’t offered any suspected self-contradictions, so (unless you’ll offer some) we might conclude that Catholicism is not irrational in that respect.

That leaves the reasoning. Now, in most cases the reasoning is basically this: “Church says that X. Church is trustworthy on this matter. Therefore, X.” (in this case I will ignore the differences between Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium). If premises are true, the conclusion follows.

Thus we have to see how the premise “Church is trustworthy on this matter.” is supported. The problem is that getting from nothing to Catholicism takes a lot of reasoning. Feser’s blog post “Pre-Christian apologetics” (edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/05/pre-christian-apologetics.html) is pretty long even if he only gets to Christianity in general and only gives an outline of reasoning, skipping most of the arguments…

So, I guess it would be best to discuss one part in this thread and to leave everything else for other threads.

Pascals wager isn’t compelling because it fails to make a case that Christianity is the safe bet. If I had been raised in India, pascals wager would encourage me to worship Brahma. Also, wouldn’t an omniscient god see through the ‘safe bet’ faith, wouldn’t she demand more earnestness?

That would be a good answer if “Pascal’s wager” was a standalone argument in favour of Catholicism, but it is not. It is a tiebreaker, just as “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” (although I’d say that “Pascal’s wager” is supported by much better reasoning).

That is, if you find a Catholic claim that is supported by some evidence, that outweighs contrary evidence, but not as much, as you’d like (or where we have something close to a “draw”), “Pascal’s Wager” advices you to accept the claim (at least provisionally), because that is safer. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” would advice you to reject this claim, because, um, well, I am not completely sure why…

Testimony is evidence of a sort, but in a court of law in the US, it is considered one of the worst forms of evidence. Often it is inadmissible just because the witness had had some wine. Now reflect that the testimony you are holding up as evidence is thousands of years old, told and re-told verbally before being written down, by people with no education in empiricism, and whom are not available to be cross-examined. It is terrible evidence. The Mahabharata is every bit as qualified to be evidence of truth.

Good evidence for Jesus existing would be clear Roman census records, living relations who could be genetically tested to build up a picture of his family line, the shroud of Turin had it not been shown to be false. A genetic sample…say a hair follicle preserved on a crown of thorns (did he have a Y chromosome!?). I understand that there are some references in non-biblical sources, some letters and such that refer to a rebellious Jew in trouble with the law. I admit it’s possible he did exist, but his mythology is so large and difficult to believe that simply showing the existence of a man at the right time and place still isn’t evidence of his divinity or all the miracles attributed to him.

As for contradictory evidence, I would offer any time a young lady has lied about having had sex, and every time someone has died and not come back from the dead. Both things happen with some regularity. As for the competing theories for the origins of faith as a cultural and psychological phenomenon “the God Delusion” is a good start.

And that looks like a good example. You’re discussing existence of Jesus and, at best, you have reached a “draw” (well, in fact it is still far from draw, but that’s the closest thing I have at the moment). Then you still have to decide if you accept or reject the claim. And that’s where tiebreakers come in.

What you are not paying attention to is how unnecessary God is. Not necessary for the universe to begin, not necessary for life to begin on this planet, not necessary for us to evolve, not necessary for morality, not necessary for anyone to love their neighbor and be awestruck by the wonder of reality, not necessary for one to honor ones vows or live without a crippling fear of death. The other thing you seem to not be acknowledging is just how magical these claims are. You claim to believe in a trinity of supernatural entities that will have the power to judge us and either reward or torment us after death. It’s as magical as any Marvel comic book.

So, I guess I should look for a “Marvel comic book”…?

And I’ll note that you haven’t given the arguments in favour of the things you said… But let’s stay on topic…

 

[JiminyCricket]

Did you ever consider that the reason other than the testimony of the l2 Apostles that God desires belief in Him and not empirical evidence, although believers can supply this evidence.

I was offered this explanation at a very young age. Then and now it sounds like a disingenuous rationalization. What kind of loving god would engineer a test of faith where success requires mangling reason, and failure results in eternal torment?

There are records kept of miracles that are not explained by scientists There is the prophetic words of Christ, wars and rumors of wars. There is the evidence of diabolical possessions. There is the evidence of miracles of the Eucharist, and bodies uncorrupted for years bodies of Saints, even of the Apostles. How the Catholic Church survived persecution, and still does and she survives.

I’m aware of these mysteries. I don’t find them very compelling, the Church is comprised almost entirely of people who have grown comfortable with magical thinking. Relics of questionable origin are like Sasquatch footage, very difficult to verify or disprove. I can hardly blame any scientist who wishes to be taken seriously for not digging into these claims.

How would you explain man’s inhumanity to man?

In the case of the Palestinian Israeli conflict and terrorism it’s a direct result of faith-based ideologies. But of course there are bad people and bad ideas outside of religion as well.

Corruptions all over the place, on Wall Street as well as on Main Street? Is it because rational man is acting irrationally?

Yes. Acting rationally is often hard. I’m sure I make several irrational decisions every day. We do the best we can. I’m not sure what you are asking me to explain though. Yes, evil exists with or without religion.

What about personal conversions, there are plenty of those.

Many people take a more instinctive approach to decision making. They sometimes make bad decisions.

How about the Holy Land, where people believe that Jesus lived, are they all wrong? I am convinced that if a person was really interested in knowing the truth he would find it regarding the truths of the Catholic Faith Do you think a myth would last this long? As Abe Lincoln said "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and fool some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

Yes, I suspect that they are all wrong. The entire world has been wrong before! How many eons did humanity wander the plains imagining gods of the tides, gods of rain, gods of fire? Christianity has been around for a blink of an eye comparatively. Science killed the gods of rain and fire by removing the need for them. It’s progress! Because those gods are dead we now can have pocket cigarette lighters and weather reports.

I appreciate your passion and earnestness, but this last post of yours reads a bit histrionic. Do you really see Catholicism as a solution to these woes? One of the problems with faith is that if you are entitled to yours, then the Muslim is entitled to his and if the two of you disagree, and neither of you will listen to reason we are doomed to see bloody conflict over and over.

-JC

 

[Patty23]

Wow! Lots to respond to here.

MPat: You’re right, my critiques of Aquinas are mostly the cheap shots that Atheists commonly make. I could read Ed Feser’s book and perhaps learn why God doesn’t need a cause, but I’ve heard so many descriptions of God that it makes my head spin. God is love, unknowable, vengeance, infinite, existing outside space and time, present in every moment and every place, capable of transforming matter, unconcerned with human suffering, entirely concerned with humanity, answers prayers, doesn’t answer prayers, he cares what you do with your own genitalia, but doesn’t care that children die from leukemia. It is so blatantly obvious to me that people are defining God however it suits them. God doesn’t need a first cause? Fine. How do you explain the rest of the Articles of Faith?

Jaaanosik: Another assertion that Faith and Reason work together without addressing the places they are clearly in conflict! It’s like you are building a model of the world using both blocks and anti-blocks. The model breaks down unless you purposefully ignore huge amounts of evidence! That’s not working together, that’s conflict. In my mind that conflict rings so loudly that being asked to believe extraordinary claims, even very tempting ones, on faith is like being asked to lie.

Patty23: I already have a father who is good enough for me. I’m content with a flawed, human father who loves me. I don’t need or want a magical one who does what the God of Abraham is said to have done.

abucs: Are you implying that I’m insane? The source of life on this planet is the Sun,(not the Father slaps knee)

Probably you don’t need one but that’s not my point.

 

[ynotzap]

I was offered this explanation at a very young age. Then and now it sounds like a disingenuous rationalization. What kind of loving god would engineer a test of faith where success requires mangling reason, and failure results in eternal torment?
Ans to first statement:
Of course my statement is derived from Faith, and one shouldn’t refer to Faith beliefs to one who doesn.t believe even though I see it as true-you can’t give what you do not have. There is historical evidence of the testimony of the Apostles You might rationalize that away Mangling of reason is your interpretation and we are not infallible. The Catholic church makes that claim when teaching Faith and morals when the Pope proclaims a belief using his endowed and with divine assistance gift of infallibility. Again I speak from Faith so I don’t expect you to accept it. I make a stand for our beliefs, that is what this forum is all about. We give our reasons also. A god who mangles reason, and failure results in eternal damnation is no god at all. What kind of failure results in eternal damnation? Opposition to God? Disobedience to God? Thats not failure on the part of those who appose, they succeeded, and it resulted in getting what they wanted, their wills, and separation from God, and separation resulted in eternal damnation.

I’m aware of these mysteries. I don’t find them very compelling, the Church is comprised almost entirely of people who have grown comfortable with magical thinking. Relics of questionable origin are like Sasquatch footage, very difficult to verify or disprove. I can hardly blame any scientist who wishes to be taken seriously for not digging into these claims.

Ans to third statement
They may not be compelling to you, but as a rational person they should be of some concern,if you are open minded. I don’t know how you can say that the Church is comprised almost entirely of people being comfortable into magical thinking.
How do you come by this evidence? or is it just your opinion? What ever evidence or beliefs are just disregarded by you, is it an indifferent attitude? Why should scientists be serious about such claims, they don’t have answers, and it’s not in their field of endeavor.

In the case of the Palestinian Israeli conflict and terrorism it’s a direct result of faith-based ideologies. But of course there are bad people and bad ideas outside of religion as well.

Ans to fourth statement
You are right but not all inclusive. there are territorial disputes, tribal wars, struggle for power. And I understand some muslims don’t agree with whats going on, and using religion as a cover up.

Yes. Acting rationally is often hard. I’m sure I make several irrational decisions every day. We do the best we can. I’m not sure what you are asking me to explain though. Yes, evil exists with or without religion.

Ans to fifth statement
corruption is endemic, it’s in our nature pointing to something or some condition that is in conflict with our rational nature- this is the point I’m making. You are right in stating evil exists with or without religion. Beliefs that are true, and reality, and a God that’s real is the cure, and we claim that Jesus Christ is this God. But it is obvious you don’t believe that either.

Many people take a more instinctive approach to decision making. They sometimes make bad decisions.

Ans to sixth statement
I don’t speak of instinctive decisions when speaking of conversion experiences- I speak about something supernaturally happening to cause a man to change the ways he conducts his life, a way of immorality, and evil, a way of ignorance, a way of deceit, a way of pride and arrogance, a way of lust, a way of intemperance, and a way of hate to name some and to convert this way into the opposite virtues. I speak of an encounter with Jesus Christ which you at the present will probably deny. Others will testify to this Way, and I for one and many have died in testimony to the objective truth.

Yes, I suspect that they are all wrong. The entire world has been wrong before! How many eons did humanity wander the plains imagining gods of the tides, gods of rain, gods of fire? Christianity has been around for a blink of an eye comparatively. Science killed the gods of rain and fire by removing the need for them. It’s progress! Because those gods are dead we now can have pocket cigarette lighters and weather reports.

Ans to seventh statement:
How can you say you suspect they are all wrong- but you are entitled to your opinion. I guess I should quote Abe again. I referred to him because implanted in man’s nature is the desire to know the truth, it is the natural appetite of the human mind, even a liar doesn’t like to be lied to. I am sure by your posts you desire to know the answers. - so I concurred with Abe because he recognizes that natural desire for man to know the truth.

I appreciate your passion and earnestness, but this last post of yours reads a bit histrionic. Do you really see Catholicism as a solution to these woes? One of the problems with faith is that if you are entitled to yours, then the Muslim is entitled to his and if the two of you disagree, and neither of you will listen to reason we are doomed to see bloody conflict over and over.to reason.

-JC