Reason, is Fr. Barron doing it wrong?

[ynotzap]

Ans to last statement:

I gave you my reasons for quoting Abe. I with passion and strength and truth of my convictions and experience know that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, it is the guardian of Divine Revelation, and the truths of the Faith, and morals. I t contains the real answers to all of the human misery in the world, wars, murder, greed, lust, pride, intemperance, ignorance, lies, illness, physical and mental, crimes of passion, arrogance, and hatred. I can also testify to; the reality of the conversion experience magna cum laudae by the work of the Holy Spirit. and also to the encounter with Jesus Christ. You see many may profess religion but never had an encounter with Jesus Christ because as I stated repeatedly is a gift of Amazing Grace, and not one of reason, but one of Love from the Father , through the Son, and by the Holy Spirit. True Faith is so far beyond human reason.

 

[phil19034]

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:

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

• There is no good evidence that Jesus existed.

I’m going to address this one first. Even Roman documents, history books and other non-Christian sources make reference to Jesus.

If he never existed, the Jews would not be claiming that he’s not the Messiah. The Jews would claim that he never existed. But they do not, they acknowledge that he was a rabbi.

Why would the Apostles risk their lives if Christ wasn’t real? When the Romans sentenced Peter to Crucifixion, why would he insist on being crucified upside down because he didn’t feel he was worthy of being executed in the same manner as Jesus?

These people lead a movement and were facing death for several hundred years until the Roman Empire adopted Christianity.

It’s not logical that these people would have dropped their lives, traveled the world, risked their lives, etc. if Christ wasn’t real. They all experienced something.

I’m not going to attempt to prove Christ is the Son of God here (I know he is, but I am not going to make that argument), but I will make the argument that Christ was born, lived, founded a Church, and was crucified. Then, his followers risked certain death to preach his message around the know world at that time. From Western Europe to India and then eventually to western China. The message of Christianity was being being spread all over until the introduction of Islam in the Middle East, Arabia, Persia and Northern Africa.

And this was all done with out conquering armies.

I ask you to ponder this.

 

[MPat]

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?

Sorry, but that doesn’t look very rational. First, “success requires mangling reason” hasn’t been demonstrated yet (and I’m afraid that the demonstration might depend on ruling out this explanation, which would make it an example of circular reasoning). Second, let’s not forget that Catholicism claims that God is not just “loving”, but also just. And that, if it was not for God’s mercy, we would clearly deserve that eternal torment. And then it appears that this “test of faith” gives God a chance to avoid sending us to Hell.

As you can see, there is no logical contradiction and you haven’t suggested any problems with reasoning. Thus I’m afraid that the only “irrationality” here is your rejection of this explanation based on reasoning that, um, leaves something to be desired…

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.

So, you reject the miracles, because “the Church is comprised almost entirely of people who have grown comfortable with magical thinking”. And, let me guess, you “know” that “the Church is comprised almost entirely of people who have grown comfortable with magical thinking”, because they accept miracles…? Looks circular to me. Not very rational…

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.

Sorry, but that is hopelessly wrong. First, people who believe in “gods of rain and fire” still exist - for example, I suspect that Shintoists and Hinduists have some. Second, belief in such gods ended up extinct in Europe and some other places because of those same monotheistic faiths - mostly, Christianity and Islam.

And I’d like to add that supporting your beliefs by “history” that is so completely fictional (at least it is not yet self-contradicting - you didn’t complain about Crusades, Inquisition etc. yet) is not very rational…

 

[Patty23]

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.

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)

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

Fair enough. If you’re honest enough to ask all the possible questions concerning “Everything”, would you be patient enough to read this? I’m just curious what your reaction would be.

marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm

 

[Aloysium]

. . . 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

Actually you believe likewise. If you take a good look at all the objections you have about the Creed, you will find that they are founded on things that you believe to be true. So faith and reason do not conflict. You seem to want people to believe what you believe and then explain how we can be Catholic. I see the world very differently than you do and my world is completely ordered.

If you don’t want to consider what I or the Church would say, how about from the other side of the spectrum - Nietzsche:

We have arranged for ourselves a world in which we can live - by positing bodies, lines, planes, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content; without these articles of faith nobody could now endure life. But that does not prove them.

 

[JiminyCricket]

Actually you believe likewise. If you take a good look at all the objections you have about the Creed, you will find that they are founded on things that you believe to be true. So faith and reason do not conflict.

There is a HUGE difference between believing what scientists and experts tell you and believing the articles of faith. Scientists follow the scientific method, their claims are peer reviewed and tested. Science also changes it’s claims when new evidence emerges. Most importantly applied science works. My ‘faith’ that resurrections are impossible is not based on a very old Jewish folk tale, it’s based on a vast body of medical knowledge that is hard at work curing people of illness every minute of the day. Your faith requires allowing for magic to be possible.

You seem to want people to believe what you believe and then explain how we can be Catholic. I see the world very differently than you do and my world is completely ordered.

What do I want? That’s a good question. This thread started with an article by Fr. Barron wherein he claimed that faith was supra-rational. What I want I suppose is to scuttle that claim, and attempt to restore the standing of reason. When we or our representatives are discussing social issues in the public sphere arguments from reason should always trump arguments from faith. Why? Because reason works and it crosses every faith boundary. Reason should be our ‘common ground’ in the marketplace of ideas, but if each religion elevates it’s faith above reason then we are stuck. If each religion can only defend it’s position with appeals to the authority of it’s holy text then how are we supposed to reach agreement?

-JC

 

[Patty23]

There is a HUGE difference between believing what scientists and experts tell you and believing the articles of faith. Scientists follow the scientific method, their claims are peer reviewed and tested. Science also changes it’s claims when new evidence emerges. Most importantly applied science works. My ‘faith’ that resurrections are impossible is not based on a very old Jewish folk tale, it’s based on a vast body of medical knowledge that is hard at work curing people of illness every minute of the day. Your faith requires allowing for magic to be possible.

What do I want? That’s a good question. This thread started with an article by Fr. Barron wherein he claimed that faith was supra-rational. What I want I suppose is to scuttle that claim, and attempt to restore the standing of reason. When we or our representatives are discussing social issues in the public sphere arguments from reason should always trump arguments from faith. Why? Because reason works and it crosses every faith boundary. Reason should be our ‘common ground’ in the marketplace of ideas, but if each religion elevates it’s faith above reason then we are stuck. If each religion can only defend it’s position with appeals to the authority of it’s holy text then how are we supposed to reach agreement?

-JC

Good question. Following your line of thinking that religion is supported by it’s own scriptures, then what supports reason outside the person doing the reasoning? You can say the empirical world is enough evidence, but I know you are aware solipsism has not been fully refuted yet and I doubt it will be.

 

[JiminyCricket]

I’m going to address this one first. Even Roman documents, history books and other non-Christian sources make reference to Jesus.

If he never existed, the Jews would not be claiming that he’s not the Messiah. The Jews would claim that he never existed. But they do not, they acknowledge that he was a rabbi.

Why would the Apostles risk their lives if Christ wasn’t real? When the Romans sentenced Peter to Crucifixion, why would he insist on being crucified upside down because he didn’t feel he was worthy of being executed in the same manner as Jesus?

These people lead a movement and were facing death for several hundred years until the Roman Empire adopted Christianity.

It’s not logical that these people would have dropped their lives, traveled the world, risked their lives, etc. if Christ wasn’t real. They all experienced something.

I’m not going to attempt to prove Christ is the Son of God here (I know he is, but I am not going to make that argument), but I will make the argument that Christ was born, lived, founded a Church, and was crucified. Then, his followers risked certain death to preach his message around the know world at that time. From Western Europe to India and then eventually to western China. The message of Christianity was being being spread all over until the introduction of Islam in the Middle East, Arabia, Persia and Northern Africa.

And this was all done with out conquering armies.

I ask you to ponder this.

I accept your argument. There is some evidence that Jesus existed.
-JC

 

[JiminyCricket]

Good question. Following your line of thinking that religion is supported by it’s own scriptures, then what supports reason outside the person doing the reasoning? You can say the empirical world is enough evidence, but I know you are aware solipsism has not been fully refuted yet and I doubt it will be.

Sure, one way for us to get stuck is for our arguments to reduce to holy books, another way to get stuck is to get hung up on solipsism. I’m not recommending that. I suppose it depends on what is being discussed. I’m mostly concerned with public policy. Surely we don’t need to establish existence before digging into an issue like marriage equality?

-JC

 

[Aloysium]

There is a HUGE difference between believing what scientists and experts tell you and believing the articles of faith. Scientists follow the scientific method, their claims are peer reviewed and tested. . . . .

How about some (name removed by moderator)ut from someone who actually works in a field of applied science:

After many years, people throw lots of money at me for doing what I love.
I say what I love, because I have devoted my life to this branch of science - from the eighty plus hours/week that I put into it for decades to the point where I am now semi-retired.
As a result of my work, I have status in the social hierarchy, along with a loving family and no financial worries.
In spite of this, because of other circumstances, there are very very few people who would trade places with me.
Why am I saying this? To put your idea of science into perspective. This is life, existence.

There is no peer review of life. There is God.
What determines if I am a success? Has my life been worthwhile to have been lived?
Is happiness an interplay of endorphins, seratonin, norapinephrine and dopamine, or is it something that goes to the Core of reality?
Where is that to be found? Actually, in whom is that to be found?

I am going to be blunt; what you say about science means nothing.
I do agree naturally, that science has imortant contributions to make, but this is with respect to what is of true importance -giving of ourselves to one another.
If science is a consideration at the end of your life, it will be only in regards to the nature and meaning of the life that is coming to an end.

When I hear these sorts of arguments, I’m sorry to say, the image that comes to mind is of some gamer, totally into his make-believe computer simulated world, sitting in a dark disordered room, bills unpaid, relationships strained.
All this philosophizing while all around us, in the actual world, there is death, disorder, and ugliness of every kind that fails to be addressed.
In this sense, science is a denial of reality. It is a setting in order of things that don’t matter in order to deny the chaos of existence.
It is pure illusion, magic in the face of the abyss.

 

[MPat]

There is a HUGE difference between believing what scientists and experts tell you and believing the articles of faith. Scientists follow the scientific method, their claims are peer reviewed and tested. Science also changes it’s claims when new evidence emerges. Most importantly applied science works. My ‘faith’ that resurrections are impossible is not based on a very old Jewish folk tale, it’s based on a vast body of medical knowledge that is hard at work curing people of illness every minute of the day. Your faith requires allowing for magic to be possible.

What do I want? That’s a good question. This thread started with an article by Fr. Barron wherein he claimed that faith was supra-rational. What I want I suppose is to scuttle that claim, and attempt to restore the standing of reason. When we or our representatives are discussing social issues in the public sphere arguments from reason should always trump arguments from faith. Why? Because reason works and it crosses every faith boundary. Reason should be our ‘common ground’ in the marketplace of ideas, but if each religion elevates it’s faith above reason then we are stuck. If each religion can only defend it’s position with appeals to the authority of it’s holy text then how are we supposed to reach agreement?

You keep repeating those insults (you know, “a very old Jewish folk tale” adds nothing to your argument), but look at the discussion.

Wasn’t it your position that was often presented using strong assertions without argument?

Wasn’t it your position that was supported by a story how “Science” got rid of belief in “gods of rain and fire”? A story that is not just unproved - it is clearly false.

Wasn’t it you who complained that you were asked to support your claims?

Wasn’t it your position that was supported by various fallacious arguments (like circular reasoning)?

Didn’t you support “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” with an argument that has failed to support it and actually led to “Pascal’s Wager”?

Even here you claim that your faith in impossibility of resurrection is supported by science, yet you fail to cite any actual paper (peer reviewed or not) that would support your position.

Have you at least considered the possibility that it is not the Catholic position that is irrational here…?

And next time, please, try to offer less insults and more arguments.

 

[JiminyCricket]

How about some (name removed by moderator)ut from someone who actually works in a field of applied science:

After many years, people throw lots of money at me for doing what I love.
I say what I love, because I have devoted my life to this branch of science - from the eighty plus hours/week that I put into it for decades to the point where I am now semi-retired.
As a result of my work, I have status in the social hierarchy, along with a loving family and no financial worries.
In spite of this, because of other circumstances, there are very very few people who would trade places with me.
Why am I saying this? To put your idea of science into perspective. This is life, existence.

There is no peer review of life. There is God.
What determines if I am a success? Has my life been worthwhile to have been lived?
Is happiness an interplay of endorphins, seratonin, norapinephrine and dopamine, or is it something that goes to the Core of reality?
Where is that to be found? Actually, in whom is that to be found?

I am going to be blunt; what you say about science means nothing.
I do agree naturally, that science has imortant contributions to make, but this is with respect to what is of true importance -giving of ourselves to one another.
If science is a consideration at the end of your life, it will be only in regards to the nature and meaning of the life that is coming to an end.

When I hear these sorts of arguments, I’m sorry to say, the image that comes to mind is of some gamer, totally into his make-believe computer simulated world, sitting in a dark disordered room, bills unpaid, relationships strained.
All this philosophizing while all around us, in the actual world, there is death, disorder, and ugliness of every kind that fails to be addressed.
In this sense, science is a denial of reality. It is a setting in order of things that don’t matter in order to deny the chaos of existence.
It is pure illusion, magic in the face of the abyss.

I hate to disappoint you but I’m a middle aged dad who is fairly functional in life. My video games are gathering dust.

You are appealing to the meaning you find in faith. I get that. It’s true that skepticism, in and of itself does not offer meaning. Since you’ve opened your heart I will try to open mine, knowing full well that you will probably find my ‘meaning’ lackluster in comparison to the dazzling romantic mysteries of Christianity. However, it works for me.

Why does my life, and the decisions I make matter? My temporary existence in the universe is experienced through my consciousness. Lucky as I am that I have a sense of self, I can recognize that you do too. If I ‘zoom out’ and view this short existence from a light year away it’s clear that life is incredibly rare in the universe, and consciousness, however you define it, is even more rare. How lucky are we! It’s not our mere rarity that makes us valuable, it’s the fact that we actually experience joy and suffering. Life is better than not life. By better I mean more interesting, beautiful, surprising…it has an effect on our consciousness that the absence of life does not. Among living things humanity has taken a great leap and separated itself from the pack. Our arts and culture and our capacity for imagination means that our experience on this planet is richer than any other living creature. How lucky we are that we’re not insects! We are not only a way for the universe to know itself (as Carl Sagan said); we manifest all sorts of wonderful experiences such as love and comedy that no other creature can do. To my mind this is what it means to be a humanist: simply recognizing the wonder that is us and wanting to see us flourish. I don’t ‘worship’ science. Don’t be absurd! This is what is good to me: the flourishing of conscious creatures. This is what is evil to me: the suffering of conscious creatures.

How does this inform my life? In many ways. I should be a vegetarian, but because of health issues I cannot be. I’m an activist, picketing and fundraising for good causes. I try to live a low-ecological footprint lifestyle. I see the injustices and suffering in the world and I want to make it stop. I try to teach my children to be just, reasonable, loving, generous…all the things that enhance the experience of the people we share the planet with. I am an artist. I try to make thought-provoking beauty. At the end of my days if I have managed to create some good humans, some good art, and if the impact I’ve had in the world of ideas has moved the needle toward flourishing and away from suffering, even if just slightly, I’ll consider it a life well lived. Do I expect any sort of reward for living well? No, I only hope that my children also have a good life. If I lose my mind and descend into selfish hedonism do I expect punishment? No, having wasted my time would be the punishment. Do I console myself with the thought that bad people will be punished by god? No, I think we need to stop them now.

It so happens that* recently* science has done more to advance the cause of human flourishing than religion. Will religion give us the tools to cope with climate change? Will religion convince the extremists to stop killing people? I doubt it, but science might and reason might.

It seems to me that it is religion that is the “magic in the face of the abyss”. My world view means that at the end of my life I will enter that abyss and make room for other life. How much of a loss will that be? Probably not much, hopefully my children will be grown and I’ll have already made the best art I’m ever going to make. What would I do with eternity? What on earth is magical about my world view? What is wrong with simply valuing people, all people, and wanting to see them happy and healthy?

-JC

 

[JiminyCricket]

You keep repeating those insults (you know, “a very old Jewish folk tale” adds nothing to your argument), but look at the discussion.

I’m sorry if this upset you. My intention was not to cause discomfort, but just to point out how the rest of the world views what you might call ‘the Divine Revelation’. It was an attempt to re-frame your perspective on the text. How would you describe the Bhaghavad Gita? It’s an old book of Hindu folk tales isn’t it? I’ll try to be more sensitive to that fact that you consider it sacred.

Wasn’t it your position that was often presented using strong assertions without argument?

Wasn’t it your position that was supported by a story how “Science” got rid of belief in “gods of rain and fire”? A story that is not just unproved - it is clearly false.

Wasn’t it you who complained that you were asked to support your claims?

Wasn’t it your position that was supported by various fallacious arguments (like circular reasoning)?

Didn’t you support “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” with an argument that has failed to support it and actually led to “Pascal’s Wager”?

Even here you claim that your faith in impossibility of resurrection is supported by science, yet you fail to cite any actual paper (peer reviewed or not) that would support your position.

Have you at least considered the possibility that it is not the Catholic position that is irrational here…?

And next time, please, try to offer less insults and more arguments.

I’m disappointed that you feel that this is how this discussion has gone. I’ll try to do better at justifying my position, but remember, I came here to ask you Catholics why you think faith is rational, focusing on the 12 Articles of Faith. I have heard some reasonable, if not totally convincing, arguments in response to the existence of god, and the existence of a human named Jesus. But everyone has let the meatiest parts of Creed (virgin birth, resurrection, heaven) sit undefended, except for appeals to the authority of the Church and the text. But I’ll back up and try to address your points.

As to the demise of the gods of tide and fire, maybe science contributed to their demise, maybe not, my point was simply that those who held those beliefs, most of the world at one time, were wrong. I was responding to the argument from majority. Could all those people who believe in god be wrong? Yes, it doesn’t matter why they abandoned those gods, all that matters to my point is that entire populations can, and often do hold false beliefs.

Okay, if I understand you correctly Pascals wager is only used as a tie-breaker then we’d need a situation where the Catholic worldview hypothesis is nearly as likely as the secular world view and that both of them are more likely than any other religion. That’s not the situation we are in is it? From my point of view there are scores of active faith-based religions in the world today that claim exclusive access to the truth. Okay, but ignoring that for minute let’s pretend that it really is Catholicism or non-belief that are our two options. One problem is that Catholicism is more than just belief in god, there are 12 articles of faith! I also have to believe in virgin births, resurrection, heaven, the holy ghost and a day of judgement…I could assign each of these things a likelihood of being true, and even if the the odds were 1 in 2 for each one the odds that they all are is very small. This is one reason I don’t find the wager convincing, the other reason is that only one of the two world views proposes risk of any kind. It is not the skeptic who claims that we should all be skeptics otherwise we’re going to hell! So you see, if I accept Pascals wager I have to first accept that the threat of hell is real. I don’t see any reason to believe it’s real. The claim is coming from an old book, I’m sorry but I can’t call it a divine revelation because I don’t believe that’s what it is. If a Scientologist tried to convince you to try Scientology using Pascals wager would you find it at all tempting?

Is a resurrection after 3 days in a tomb 2000 thousand years ago impossible? Brain death occurs within 6 minutes of the heart ceasing to beat. The lack of oxygen causes cells in the brain to die. There has been some success in stretching that time out using deep freezing techniques but most of the time it doesn’t work and if someone is brought back often there is permanent brain damage. I believe I’m representing the science correctly here, but I don’t claim to be an expert. There is plenty of reading on this, all you have to google is brain death. So I’m sticking with my assertion that resurrection is impossible (without magic). It’s not like we haven’t tried!

-JC

 

[clem456]

“'To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”
Thomas Aquinas

Faith assumes some degree of trust in the subject matter.
Fr Barron is spot on with his description of “supra-rational”.
If you want to understand the Catholic point of view on this issue, here is a good place to spend some time:

ewtn.com/library/encyc/jp2fides.htm

If you don’t want to understand it, it’s impossible to have a “good faith” discussion.

 

[clem456]

…
Faith assumes some degree of trust in the subject matter.
…

I mis-spoke there. Faith assumes some degree of trust, but more accurately, the essence of Christian faith is in a person, which is “supra” the subject matter, or the concepts. Anyone who has close relationships like marriage knows this. You can know a person’s name and all the details about them, but to have faith in them is a much deeper knowledge.

To give one’s assent to a person, in this case a divine person, takes faith beyond reason and into all the personal and relationship attributes, like trust, hope and love, without which Christian faith seems nonsensical (foolish). Faith cannot be reduced to explanation of facts or concepts.

 

[Patty23]

How about some (name removed by moderator)ut from someone who actually works in a field of applied science:

After many years, people throw lots of money at me for doing what I love.
I say what I love, because I have devoted my life to this branch of science - from the eighty plus hours/week that I put into it for decades to the point where I am now semi-retired.
As a result of my work, I have status in the social hierarchy, along with a loving family and no financial worries.
In spite of this, because of other circumstances, there are very very few people who would trade places with me.
Why am I saying this? To put your idea of science into perspective. This is life, existence.

There is no peer review of life. There is God.
What determines if I am a success? Has my life been worthwhile to have been lived?
Is happiness an interplay of endorphins, seratonin, norapinephrine and dopamine, or is it something that goes to the Core of reality?
Where is that to be found? Actually, in whom is that to be found?

I am going to be blunt; what you say about science means nothing.
I do agree naturally, that science has imortant contributions to make, but this is with respect to what is of true importance -giving of ourselves to one another.
If science is a consideration at the end of your life, it will be only in regards to the nature and meaning of the life that is coming to an end.

When I hear these sorts of arguments, I’m sorry to say, the image that comes to mind is of some gamer, totally into his make-believe computer simulated world, sitting in a dark disordered room, bills unpaid, relationships strained.
All this philosophizing while all around us, in the actual world, there is death, disorder, and ugliness of every kind that fails to be addressed.
In this sense, science is a denial of reality. It is a setting in order of things that don’t matter in order to deny the chaos of existence.
It is pure illusion, magic in the face of the abyss.

Well put. If all meaning and reasoning is science, then I guess the only meaningful life is to have become a scientist. But then if one argues the opposite, then we can ultimately say that not everything is within the scope of science. C’mon, there’s more to our lives than being merely a scientific data.

I really do suggest you read Sartre’s Existentialism is a Humanism, he’s a well know atheist and he holds that all kinds of meaning are impossible without God. Dropping God from the equation of the world has fundamental consequences. One cannot hold on to any sort of morality/standard, you cannot even complain if tomorrow you transform into a caterpillar.

marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm

I also suggest you read C.S Lewis’ Grief observed, excerpts are below. Those are the strongest “arguments” I can see. They’re not exactly arguments in the philosophical sense but they’re fundamental questions that have to be dealt with. Grief Observed is Lewis’ essay describing the pain he felt after losing his wife Helen Joy.

Excerpt from Grief Observed:

***"If H. ‘is not,’ then she never was. I mistook a cloud of atoms for a person. There aren’t, and never were, any people. Death only reveals the vacuity that was always there. What we call the living are simply those who have not yet been unmasked. All equally bankrupt, but some not yet declared.

But this must be nonsense; vacuity revealed to whom? Bankruptcy declared to whom? To other boxes of fireworks or clouds of atoms. I will never believe — more strictly I can’t believe — that one set of physical events could be, or make, a mistake about other sets."***

If you still have the time, please take time reading more parts here:

pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/ownwords/grief.html

 

[MPat]

It seems to me that it is religion that is the “magic in the face of the abyss”. My world view means that at the end of my life I will enter that abyss and make room for other life. How much of a loss will that be? Probably not much, hopefully my children will be grown and I’ll have already made the best art I’m ever going to make. What would I do with eternity? What on earth is magical about my world view? What is wrong with simply valuing people, all people, and wanting to see them happy and healthy?

What is magical about the view you have presented? Why, the explanation, of course!

Let’s look at something you wrote previously:

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.

So, you think that appeals to emotion are not rational? Yet now you have given little else but appeals to emotion to support your position.

Yes, in many cases emotions suggest us something good. For example, they have told you that you have to care about your children. Yet they do not offer a rational explanation. Thus you haven’t explained why you should care about your children (“What is wrong with simply valuing people, all people, and wanting to see them happy and healthy?” is simply asking us what is wrong with having no rational explanations for one’s views and actions). Well, Catholicism can offer you a rational explanation - the Natural Law theory. Have you looked at it?

 

[MPat]

I’m sorry if this upset you.

I wouldn’t say that it made me upset, but repeating it again and again is a bit annoying.

My intention was not to cause discomfort, but just to point out how the rest of the world views what you might call ‘the Divine Revelation’. It was an attempt to re-frame your perspective on the text.

First, what difference does it make how “the rest of the world views what you might call ‘the Divine Revelation’”?

Second, if you find the argument from popularity useful, remember, that you are in minority. Look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Worldwide_percentage_of_Adherents_by_Religion.png: Christians and Muslims make up more than half of the world’s population. Atheists make up less than three per cent. Appeals to popularity work in our favour, not in yours.

How would you describe the Bhaghavad Gita? It’s an old book of Hindu folk tales isn’t it?

I don’t think I know enough about it to be willing to describe it. But anyway, if it has a name, I think it would be useful to use it in discussions, instead of a longer and less specific description.

I’m disappointed that you feel that this is how this discussion has gone. I’ll try to do better at justifying my position, but remember, I came here to ask you Catholics why you think faith is rational, focusing on the 12 Articles of Faith.

Well, in that case you should have asked so. You didn’t ask very clearly, yet added many declarations that Catholic faith is not rational. And now it is those declarations that are the topic of discussion.

Also, as I have told you, “why you think faith is rational, focusing on the 12 Articles of Faith.” is a big question. Too big for one thread. It should be divided into parts that should get different threads.

I have heard some reasonable, if not totally convincing, arguments in response to the existence of god, and the existence of a human named Jesus. But everyone has let the meatiest parts of Creed (virgin birth, resurrection, heaven) sit undefended, except for appeals to the authority of the Church and the text.

OK, so, you gave a question that is too big, you got some partial answers (because anything else would run into the character limit of this forum), and you are not happy about that?

As to the demise of the gods of tide and fire, maybe science contributed to their demise, maybe not, my point was simply that those who held those beliefs, most of the world at one time, were wrong. I was responding to the argument from majority. Could all those people who believe in god be wrong? Yes, it doesn’t matter why they abandoned those gods, all that matters to my point is that entire populations can, and often do hold false beliefs.

In such case, please, do not present fictional stories as fact, while criticising others for that same thing you do.

One problem is that Catholicism is more than just belief in god, there are 12 articles of faith! I also have to believe in virgin births, resurrection, heaven, the holy ghost and a day of judgement…I could assign each of these things a likelihood of being true, and even if the the odds were 1 in 2 for each one the odds that they all are is very small.

Probabilities do not work that way. You can only multiply probabilities to find the probability of several events happening together if the events are independent. And in this case they are not. For example, it makes no sense to believe that Jesus was Son of God, and, at the same time, that God doesn’t exist.

This is one reason I don’t find the wager convincing, the other reason is that only one of the two world views proposes risk of any kind. It is not the skeptic who claims that we should all be skeptics otherwise we’re going to hell! So you see, if I accept Pascals wager I have to first accept that the threat of hell is real.

No, you do not have to accept one of possibilities beforehand. But you must think that they are possibilities.

I don’t see any reason to believe it’s real. The claim is coming from an old book, I’m sorry but I can’t call it a divine revelation because I don’t believe that’s what it is.

Then you do not need a tiebreaker.

So, in fact, you didn’t gather enough courage to make a temporary assumption that Catholicism is true with probability 1/2, although you have said that you are going to…

If a Scientologist tried to convince you to try Scientology using Pascals wager would you find it at all tempting?

He hasn’t gotten to the point where tiebreakers are necessary. And this tiebreaker doesn’t work in his favour anyway.

Is a resurrection after 3 days in a tomb 2000 thousand years ago impossible? Brain death occurs within 6 minutes of the heart ceasing to beat. The lack of oxygen causes cells in the brain to die. There has been some success in stretching that time out using deep freezing techniques but most of the time it doesn’t work and if someone is brought back often there is permanent brain damage. I believe I’m representing the science correctly here, but I don’t claim to be an expert. There is plenty of reading on this, all you have to google is brain death. So I’m sticking with my assertion that resurrection is impossible (without magic). It’s not like we haven’t tried!

Ah, but “resurrection is impossible” and “resurrection is impossible (without magic)” are different claims! If you want to get first from the second, you need to add an assumption “Miracles do not happen.” (or “Magic does not exist.”, if you insist on wrong terminology). Where do you get that from? Hint: it is not from science.

 

[JiminyCricket]

Patty23, Thank you for the Sarte link. I’m working my way through it. Very interesting! I did read the CS Lewis. It’s heart wrenching to read. I don’t understand what needs to be dealt with from it though. He is horrified by that thought that H. was ‘a cloud of atoms’, to my mind he’s not seeing clearly enough how amazing it is that such a complex weather system of atoms gave rise to his wife’s consciousness in first place. She was able to experience the best form of existence that the universe has on offer! Is that not good enough?

clem456, I have read Faith and Reason before, my take on it is that it is a somewhat biased summary of the relationship between Faith and Reason. He claims to be seeking truth, but admits that it is only to reach one specific end. Here is a quote I find revealing:

There are many paths which lead to truth, but since Christian truth has a salvific value, any one of these paths may be taken, as long as it leads to the final goal, that is to the Revelation of Jesus Christ. - Chapter IV, 38

MPat, I did spend the first 15 years of my life giving Catholicism the benefit of the doubt, but now, in much the same way that you feel about Scientology, I don’t feel the odds are anywhere close to needing a tie breaker. If the question were merely god or no god, then Pascals wager might be relevant, but there are so many gods to consider and so many claims in the Apostles Creed that are difficult to accept.

I attempted to justify my humanist perspective rationally by pointing out that our consciousness appears to be the most wondrous thing in the universe. Therefore, we are the most important thing in the universe. It is consciousness itself that is inherently valuable, because it is through consciousness that everything else is experienced. Indeed, as you pointed out earlier, It’s possible that it is the only thing that exists.

Ah, but “resurrection is impossible” and “resurrection is impossible (without magic)” are different claims! If you want to get first from the second, you need to add an assumption “Miracles do not happen.” (or “Magic does not exist.”, if you insist on wrong terminology). Where do you get that from? Hint: it is not from science.

Anything is possible if you allow for miracles. Therefore, when someone says something is impossible, you can assume the ‘without magic’ part. I added it just to reinforce the point that the resurrection and many of the other claims in the Apostles Creed require allowing for miracles. I suspect you and I agree on this. Therefore they are impossible. If magic exists we can retire the word impossible, because nothing is. We can also retire reason, because the truth can change at any moment. I have no interest in living in a world where magic exists.

MPat, my dear sir or madame, I’m finding your tone tiresome. You’ve accused me of lying when I was speaking in general terms about the impact of science on superstition. You continually critique my word choice when I need to use the terms I do to express my point of view on the subject, and now you’re attempting to trap me with semantics. It’s as if you are intentionally misunderstanding me. I’ll admit that my tone has been dismissive of faith, maybe even verging on ridicule, but I’m attacking the ideas, not you.

The good people on this thread have given me a lot of reading to do. Thank you so much everyone! You have been very generous with your time, and very tolerant of my disrespectful point of view. I have learned a lot, but I’m starting to feel like we are going in circles. Maybe MPat was right that the subject was too large for one thread. I’m going to sign off this thread for good this time. The Universe does not owe us answers or meaning, to find them requires a lot of work, I appreciate that you are engaged in doing that difficult work.

-JC

 

[abucs]

Patty23, Therefore they are impossible. If magic exists we can retire the word impossible, because nothing is. We can also retire reason, because the truth can change at any moment. I have no interest in living in a world where magic exists.

Is it not the atheist materialist position that retires reason?