Rene Descartes: Catholic attitudes toward him

[greylorn]

I like your example, Greylorn. I’m a grad student in theoretical astrophysics.

And I agree with the philosophical point you made. What would a thought divorced from a subject even be? We could have statements or facts, but we wouldn’t call them “thoughts” - if only as a matter of semantics.

Thanks, kindred spirit! My own background was physics by way of education, astronomy by way of experience. You’ve chosen a powerful subject. Have you looked for ways to integrate intelligent engineering into astrophycical issues?

If you open your mind fully to thought, I predict that you will have the kinds of thoughts I described. I have. The most memorable for me was a deep understanding of time. It was connected to something else, some other aspect of the universe which I’d never heard of and could not put into words or images. No drugs involved. It lasted no more than a few seconds, and disappeared for lack of the ability to wrap the right math around it. While you might find a similar experience frustrating, when it happens, embrace it. The core understanding is there, awaiting the right context or language.

 

[greylorn]

Yes it means that, but, he uses it at his starting principle of his philosophy, which, I disagree with. I believe that sense knowledge is the first principle of all knowledge, not an intellectual act of thinking. Sense knowledge bears testimony to a sensing creature, which precedes the act of thinking, as Descartes had it. That I sense is beyond the need for proof, and that I exist sensing things needs no proof, because it is self-evident. Since all of our knowledge comes by way of the senses, leaves the Cartesian critical question superfluous and illogical and absurd. Why?

Because in order to doubt the validity of any one sensation or any class of sensations in a conceptualization, we would have to judge the sensation, or conceptualization if you want, - test it- by comparing it to other sensations known to be valid, formed as concepts perhaps. But what about thinking?

Sense data delivers the goods of existence to the intellect, and the intellect, can do nothing but accept the existence delivered, the existence, I say. This preceding sentence does not touch upon phantoms, or other abberations.

I once read a philosophy book used in the 18th Century for Catholic seminary students, and under consciousness, it defined it as the living light and rule of existence, or something to that effect. The sense data delivers to the intellect, at all waking moments, that things exist, and since things exist, there must be receiver of that sense data, and active receptor of the sense data, which belongs to the man of whose senses he would sense himself, no doubt.

The critique is an absurdity.

Now, if there is any Catholic defense of Descartes, specifically, in the 19th or earlier 20th centuries, I would like to know about it.

Your reliance upon sensory information has set boundaries to your understanding.

Imagine the existence of God before his construction of the universe. He had thoughts, but there is no reason to attribute senses to Him. Sight would have been useless, as there was nothing to see. Sound useless, for there was nothing to hear. Etc. God was a pure mind, unencumbered by sensory appendages.

I propose that the first entity to do a cogito ergo sum was the Creator.

 

[greylorn]

I gave the “classical” Thomist response to Kant in my posting. If ontology is the science of the structure of being in itself and beings in themselves, then Kant has erected a serious obstacle. In this sense, Kant is an elaboration on Hume.

Some have argued that there was still a metaphysical “afterglow” to Kant. Because his a priori space and time, and his a apriori schematized categories, were posited as “universal” and unchanging, independent of history and culture.

Maybe Kant is the beginning of something new and different. Certainly, Heidegger had great reverence for Kant, in particular the a priori. The everyday “world”, language, the “sendings” of Sein (crossed out), become the “historical” a priori for Heidegger. The universal and unchanging character of the a priori drops out. But at least there is still a sense of a time-related “transcendental” dimension that structures the empirical and the ontic.

Maybe Heidegger too is basking in a metaphysical “twilight”.

I just love all this philosophical jargon.

I can tell!

However, I barely understand a word of it. Everytime I read a philosopher I have to resort to a dictionary to deal with the obfuscating jargon. Not my thing. I did take one philosophy course, postgrad (me, not the course) after writing a philosophy book, and realized how much I appreciate plain language.

Admittedly, having worked in technical fields my entire life I know the value of jargon, but it has no place in common language. I once worked with a group of computer programmers who had taken up the habit of communicating in computerese irrespective of the subject. It was solely a demonstration of erudition on the part of ordinary or below ordinary programmers.

IMO there is a time and a place for jargon, as with any language. Once I knew some basic Russian, which I never used until the night I met a beautiful communist from Moscow.

I am probably guilty of slipping in some physics terms on individual replies to posters who are engaged in such a subject, but try to keep my language as common as possible in case someone else might be curious. I want everyone to understand what I write.

I’ve read Kant’s (or Locke’s— don’t recall which) philosophical discovery of the Milky Way and deep-space galaxies, long before astronomers used big telescopes to help them figure out the same ideas, but nothing else. In the context of current information they did not seem to me to offer useful ideas about the beginnings of things, which is my focus. Read some Hume, but my ideas are closer to Descartes than anyone else, so I quite reading Hume after tiring of disagreeing with him. Bright man, but working from the wrong hypothesis, IMO. Read Heidegger enough to be disappointed at his ignorance of physics. His basic ideas are okay but his categories seemed odd to me, and I found no relevance in anything of his that I read. His understanding of time reflects his ignorance of physics.

Now if you want me to understand anything of this post, you’ll have to translate it into English. That would have the general benefit of opening up your ideas to other informal, common-language philosophers who might be reading this stuff

 

[Cecilianus]

Greylorn, can you explain how Heidegger’s view of time reflects an ignorance of physics? I read him as describing the psychological experience of time, which is certainly different from the physical measurement of it, but all I can remember really clearly is his description of boredom (a fascinating, a quite true description - boredom is time temporalizing itself. Ever since reading that, I have never been bored. Understanding the nature of boredom makes it interesting, rather than boring.)

My own philosophical views are Heideggerian. I don’t see his rejection of science (which goes deeper, and more intentional and volition, than just ignorance) as inherent to his actual phenomenology - just an attitude he adopted probably out of ignorance and maybe professional jealousy. I don’t think it touches the heart of his philosophy any more than his Nazi sympathies did.

 

[Cecilianus]

Dear friends,

the ‘I’ remains as a vessel or witness (awareness), but is occupied with the power and consciousness of Christ: Thy will be - instead of of the ‘I think therefore I AM’. The intellect can never identify and understand the essence of God, the I AM reveals Himsef to the heart only, as He is LOVE and the intelligent, creative power of this universe but NOT comparable to our little, limited, human intellect. The power of our intellect doesn’t make us equal to God, this is what the fallen angel tries to convince us of: if you are able to distinguish between good and bad you’ll be like God! This knowledge belongs to dialectics and caused the whole mess for us, we’re in now! Or do you feel our so-called technologies and sciences offer the key to happiness and harmony in the world? Undoubtedly they were necessary at some stage and to some extent, otherwise we would still be sitting in caves, but the intellect is not the final and most glorious achievement of evolution. Maybe now it’s the time to recognize its limits and step out of its false self-glorification into a new dimension? Not I AM but Thou Art, Lord, therefore I exist in and through your Wisdom and Love! AMEN!

Weiße Moewe

Speaking of Heidegger, the intersection between German existentialism and Protestant theology (Heidegger) and Indian thought (the Upanisads and Vedanta) fascinates me. May I ask (out of curiosity and desire to read more) what writers and books have influenced you?

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn, can you explain how Heidegger’s view of time reflects an ignorance of physics? I read him as describing the psychological experience of time, which is certainly different from the physical measurement of it, but all I can remember really clearly is his description of boredom (a fascinating, a quite true description - boredom is time temporalizing itself. Ever since reading that, I have never been bored. Understanding the nature of boredom makes it interesting, rather than boring.)

My own philosophical views are Heideggerian. I don’t see his rejection of science (which goes deeper, and more intentional and volition, than just ignorance) as inherent to his actual phenomenology - just an attitude he adopted probably out of ignorance and maybe professional jealousy. I don’t think it touches the heart of his philosophy any more than his Nazi sympathies did.

Cecill,
I cannot elaborate in detail about my Heidegger opinions and judgments without making stuff up. It has been over 30 years since I read him, and I did not like him then, so did not read much of him.

Can’t speak for you, but I find as I go through life and encounter various people, whether in person, by phone, in books, or on the internet, I get different feelings about them. These have proven to be accurate. I’ve learned that failing to pay attention to them proves costly (e.g: never fall in love with a lying woman). I saw Obama as a smarmy, but artful liar during his first televised speech, and also predicted his presidency, knowing the shmoos he would be up against.

Heidegger came across to me as someone I did not trust. I recall a self-centered, narcissistic writer— which is why he was good at describing an internal perspective. But he made many obvious errors (it has been too long to detail them) and I stop reading every writer who is wrong from the get-go. Life is too short. If I need to fulfill my daily (name removed by moderator)ut quota of b.s. I can turn on MSNBC.

It was no surprise to me to learn, years later, that he was a Nazi. It was a natural outcome, given the man’s general personal arrogance and inherent stupidity. Not an accident at all.

He’s the kind of person who I classify (from my style of Cartesianism) as having a tiny, incompetent mind (soul) but an extremely good brain. In other words, someone capable of processing and recalling large amounts of information, but totally incapable of analytical thought. He had no chance at effective critical thinking, because his brain was in the way of it.

Obama is exactly such a person. Good brain, which fools people into imagining that he is an intelligent, thoughtful man, despite the verbal evidence from his impromptu off-the-teleprompter moments which show that he is a mindless dolt.

An example from personal experience— years ago I dated a topless dancer who was ostensibly a very bright person. Straight-A’s in History from U. W. Madison. (I was lucky to get C’s in college-level Am.History— too much nonsense to memorize.) But behind her excellent brain (and fine heart), there was little by way of mind. She spent 20 years as a topless dancer until getting too fat to dance, then going on welfare and later retiring on an inheritance.

Brain-centered thinkers like Heidegger are natural candidates for Nazism, communism, socialism— any large movement which depends upon the manipulation of human brains and bodies which treats the mind as a problem to be eliminated— because the movement is filled with the same mindless, brain-centered people as themselves. The most articulate of them imagine that because of their comparatively superior intellect they can obtain a position of control and importance over what amounts to a crowd of brain-driven thugs, which almost never happens because they are spotted and terminated by more cunning opponents within the movement.

My philosophy is more Cartesian in character because it is what you might call “soul-focused.” The brain’s importance is only as a facilitator for the development of soul-level consciousness. After the first years of a human’s life, the brain just gets in the way, because it is a programmed machine.

I am negatively prejudiced towards philosophers. They are ignorant about physics not by choice, but by virtue of an inherent inability to engage in critical thinking and problem solving. In a word, philosophers are generally not smart enough to understand physics.

Apparently, Heidegger wrote something which you found to be of personal value. Good. But there’s no need to “be a Heideggerian” on account of that. I’ve done and said things which have positively affected individual lives, but I don’t expect them to stick up for all the stupid things I’ve said on that account.

You might want to look into a philosophy that looks in more detail at the nature and purpose of “soul.” Perhaps a reread of once-cherished and once-disliked philosophers would disclose things previously overlooked. Even better, study some physics. You’re smart enough. Just don’t expect physics stuff to read like a newspaper story. Re-read everything, a hundred times if needed until you get it. The result is rewarding, I promise.

There is no doubt that I am a snob about the relevance of physics to philosophy. But I earned my snobbery. Physics was hard to understand and took work. Philosophy required no more effort to understand than the daily newspaper. I found that philosophers often try to make it appear more difficult than it is by introducing obfuscating terminology. Remove the jargon, and pedants like Heidegger are just reiterating the ideas normal humans kick around on their own in dorm rooms, bars, and dinner parties.

As I wrote elsewhere, “A philosopher or mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but cannot imagine how a physics course might be helpful.”

 

[MindOverMatter2]

As I wrote elsewhere, “A philosopher or mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but cannot imagine how a physics course might be helpful.”

A true philosopher knows that science has its place, and has nothing to say about ultimate reality. A true scientists knows that good Christian philosophy deals with ultimate questions and has nothing to say about the particularities of physics. Philosophy deals with one aspect of reality (Questions such as, “why is the world rational?” is philosophy) and science deals with another aspect (Questions such as, “what kinds of physical natures exist?” is a scientific question). Science is merely a way of knowing one particular aspect of reality. Science cannot explain all of reality, and it is fallacious to suggest that it can.

 

[greylorn]

A true philosopher knows that science has its place, and has nothing to say about ultimate reality. A true scientists knows that good Christian philosophy deals with ultimate questions and has nothing to say about the particularities of physics. Philosophy deals with one aspect of reality (Questions such as, “why is the world rational?” is philosophy) and science deals with another aspect (Questions such as, “what kinds of physical natures exist?” is a scientific question). Science is merely a way of knowing one particular aspect of reality. Science cannot explain all of reality, and it is fallacious to suggest that it can.

And a true Christian follows the principles of Jesus Christ, using them as guidelines to run his life. A true Christian realizes that Christ taught behavior, and the basic principles of getting along with one another, with integrity. A true Christian realizes that Christ did not teach philosophy, science, or metaphysics, and would keep his wet nose out of such subjects, if only from awareness of his own lack of competency.

Or he would acquire competency and speak from that professional level, rather than making up nonsense about the religious opinions of “good scientists” to support his arguments.

Good science, so far unrealized, can indeed explain all of reality. So could a really good theology, or a good philosophy. The subjects are not the problem— their practitioners are at fault. You are a good example of a dogmatic practitioner who is certain to contribute nothing to the understanding of anything.

Please go away and don’t reply to any posts of mine again. I requested that before, but you seem to be unable to read well. I’ve no interest in communicating with dull, unimaginative, programmed dogmatists. This is supposed to be a Philosophy section. There are other places on CAF where you can happily recite dogma to your little heart’s content without disturbing anyone’s neurons.

Your description of what philosophers do is, unfortunately, correct. They are mostly irrelevant nits, getting paid by large organizations, to remain as irrelevant as possible while supporting the status quo.

There actually are people, several whom I’ve encountered on CAF, who actually think, wonder, and speculate about relevant ideas, like the origin and purpose of the universe, the nature and purpose of the soul, and of God Himself. I’d never insult any of them by calling them philosophers. While I disagree with them more often than not, they have real minds.

 

[Cecilianus]

Good science is not going to explain spiritual reality separate from matter - angels, demons, and God. We just can’t do experiments on a purely spiritual being. Good science will tell us everything we could know about the physical world - but nothing more.

A man once asked me how I reconciled my research in physics with my believe in God. I told him they never even touched each other - entirely irrelevant to each other. That’s good science.

 

[JDaniel]

Tony,
With respect for prior communications, I cannot let that paragraph full of nonsense go unchallenged. You’ve not the right nor the insight to speak for atheists, or against them.

I’ve been beaten, and defended myself from beatings more times than I can count, by Christians and Catholics, and the only kid who ever took my backside was a public school atheist.

My first mentor was a priest, and my second was an atheist astronomer/engineer. I never met a better man. He was loving of his family, absolutely faithful to his unfaithful wife, forgiving of those who did him wrong, always looking for the good in people and bringing out hidden good as a result. He told no lies, and never was the hypocrite.

Most of the men I worked with throughout my careers were scientists, engineers, and consequently atheists. I was never mistreated by any of them. They treated my religious (Catholic back then) proselytizing with forebearance. Contrary to the angry rants I get from good Catholics here on CAF, they treated my beliefs honorably, offering rational, lively, and friendly discussion.

I’ve lived my life with an elbow that doesn’t work, thanks to a good Catholic contractor who cut corners on a construction job. I walk with crutches and have a titanium hip as the result of trusting the promise of a Baptist minister. When I confronted him a while back he said, “There’s no prohibition against lying in the Ten Commandments.” Then he grinned, like our church-going “President.”

And I’m sure getting tired of whiny hypocritical posters all full up with the teachings of Jesus Christ and practicing not a one of them. Don’t you condemn atheists because they are atheists, because by my experience, I have been lied to, cheated, beaten, and robbed by many a good Christian, many absolved of responsibility for their actions by a few “Our Fathers” and “Hail Marys,” but I’ve never been screwed or hurt by an atheist.

There are rotten atheists, and I know some of them. But one thing I never got from an atheist is the kind of hypocritical snobbery, the better-than-thou-because-I’m-a-Christian attitude common to religious people of every stripe (Buddhists are even worse than Christians— walking embodiments of institutionalized hypocrisy).

Take a reload on your post, Tony, and ask yourself if it is something that Christ would say, even in a fit of badly disguised self-righteousness.

I do not believe in heaven or hell as suitable explanations for an afterlife, but I promise you that I couldn’t stand being among the hypocrites expecting to go to heaven for more than a minute.

Like you, Greylorn, I can’t help inserting myself here: the problem is, Greylorn, that you have NEVER respected our religion. You came to this site (a Catholic and Christian one, at that) for the sole purpose of discrediting the Church, Catholicism, Christianity, and Christianity’s adherents. Your tirade above is just another good example of this. Sorry to be so blunt: but, you are intractable. I do hope our overworked moderator soon notices this, as you do not provide anything but hurt and negativity.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The “cogito ergo sum” is open to dispute. (I) know there is thinking happening, a sucession of mental states, but what grounds are there for regarding them as a diachronic unity (an ‘I’). The proposition is in fact circular- cogito meaning “I thinking”

Cogito (I think) is not accurate. It is more accurate to say “Cogitans est” (there is thinking), but an “ergo sum”, does not logically follow from this.

In fact, the deconstruction of the “I” is at the heart of Christian morality- “Love others as yourself”. It breaks down the idea of self.

This is my critique of the famous Cogito.

Qoeleth:

I agree and would take it even further. Would it not be more reasonable to assert: “I am, therefore I think?” The way Descartes is quoted seems to presuppose an I that not only is but also exists (and the two are not precisely the same).

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I agree in a way … but citing the transcendental apperception of Kant might get you in a little hot water … Kant blocked any direct cognition of the real self by putting an abyss between phenomenon and noumenon, between appearance and being … all that we are directly know is phenomenal, i.e., “appearances” … we don’t have access to beings in themselves … so Kant represents the end of metaphysics …

Levinas:

Yes, which always made me wonder if he ever ate.

God bless,
jd

 

[levinas12]

Now if you want me to understand anything of this post, you’ll have to translate it into English.

A very reasonable request … but philosophy seems to lend itself to a very abnormal use of normal words … especially German and, subsequently, French philosophy … but, as you well know, 20th century physics is itself not immune to this aberration.

 

[Cecilianus]

Like you, Greylorn, I can’t help inserting myself here: the problem is, Greylorn, that you have NEVER respected our religion. You came to this site (a Catholic and Christian one, at that) for the sole purpose of discrediting the Church, Catholicism, Christianity, and Christianity’s adherents. Your tirade above is just another good example of this. Sorry to be so blunt: but, you are intractable. I do hope our overworked moderator soon notices this, as you do not provide anything but hurt and negativity.

God bless,
jd

No, the problem with the tirade is bad Christians. I’m enjoying his contribution to the conversation. Unlike him, I will not abandon my faith because there are sinners as well as saints. As one good Orthodox priest, says, Christ did not come to make good men better. He came to make dead men live. But some inside the hospital of the Church are still more dead than alive.

 

[Cecilianus]

Like you, Greylorn, I can’t help inserting myself here: the problem is, Greylorn, that you have NEVER respected our religion. You came to this site (a Catholic and Christian one, at that) for the sole purpose of discrediting the Church, Catholicism, Christianity, and Christianity’s adherents. Your tirade above is just another good example of this. Sorry to be so blunt: but, you are intractable. I do hope our overworked moderator soon notices this, as you do not provide anything but hurt and negativity.

God bless,
jd

No, the problem with the tirade is bad Christians. I’m enjoying his contribution to the conversation. Unlike him, I will not abandon my faith because there are sinners as well as saints. As one good Orthodox priest says, Christ did not come to make good men better. He came to make dead men live. But some inside the hospital of the Church are still more dead than alive.

 

[JDaniel]

No, the problem with the tirade is bad Christians. I’m enjoying his contribution to the conversation. Unlike him, I will not abandon my faith because there are sinners as well as saints. As one good Orthodox priest says, Christ did not come to make good men better. He came to make dead men live. But some inside the hospital of the Church are still more dead than alive.

C:

No, the problem with the tirade is “bad Greylorn.” Perhaps you have not read his stuff for as long as I, and a number of others, have. He has a tirade tendency. But, his tirades do not take the form of combating ideas until long after he does what he can to strip his respondee of all self-worth. Greylorn first tries to destroy the respondee’s self worth, then, by the graciousness of feigned altruism, maybe, just maybe, bring the respondee back into the fold and include him/her in future conversations with a modicum of decorum.

His is a strategy that overrides the intent of this forum, which is to include even the novice at philosophy in it. And, just an aside, I know Christ (at least to some extent) and he is no Christ. If he would just stop taking opportunistic pot-shots at Catholics, other Christians, the Church, its Saints, its philosophers, novices, and newbies, his (name removed by moderator)ut might just be intelligible. I can’t get past his disdain for others and his blatant inhospitality. That puts me and others on edge almost immediately.

Sorry.

God bless,
jd

 

[Cecilianus]

C:

No, the problem with the tirade is “bad Greylorn.” Perhaps you have not read his stuff for as long as I, and a number of others, have. He has a tirade tendency. But, his tirades do not take the form of combating ideas until long after he does what he can to strip his respondee of all self-worth. Greylorn first tries to destroy the respondee’s self worth, then, by the graciousness of feigned altruism, maybe, just maybe, bring the respondee back into the fold and include him/her in future conversations with a modicum of decorum.

His is a strategy that overrides the intent of this forum, which is to include even the novice at philosophy in it. And, just an aside, I know Christ (at least to some extent) and he is no Christ. If he would just stop taking opportunistic pot-shots at Catholics, other Christians, the Church, its Saints, its philosophers, novices, and newbies, his (name removed by moderator)ut might just be intelligible. I can’t get past his disdain for others and his blatant inhospitality. That puts me and others on edge almost immediately.

Sorry.

God bless,
jd

As far as I can remember this is the first thread where I’ve met him, so you’re reacting against something I haven’t seen.

In this post he defended the basic human goodness of some atheists. He is not wrong to do so, though I think the context was bad - the desolation of atheists is not a “paragraph full of nonsense”, but something well-documented in postmodernist literature, which I took a whole class on at college. Some of the best people I’ve known have been atheists, ones with horribly childish notions of God, but good, sincere, authentic friends. He then complained about self-righteousness among Catholics, something I do ALL the time. He might be in a better position to make such a complaint if he were a saint himself rather than one who gave up the fight (not that I’m a saint - but at least I’m trying, and I hope I don’t put on airs of self-righteousness about it).

He then complained about grievances in his life from Christians, and unfairly extended it to the rest of us.

The rest of his posts have been constructive and insightful. I am a practicing Catholic, but I share his objection to scholastic philosophy (which I got a really bad taste for in college - I would end up getting so angry with it that it began to hurt my faith, and I dropped my philosophy major to stop short at a minor (I was also a physics major), and translating to the Eastern rite which has no place for the Western philosophical tradition helped rescue my religion from the nausea that anything connected with Aristotle gave me). Hopefully someday the Catholic metaphysical tradition will be re-thought in light of the science of today rather than the science of 2300 years ago, and the disdain that philosophers have for science (as I put up with for four years at college) can come to an end.

As Greylorn said, a philosopher is one who wants to understand the universe, but doesn’t see how a physics class might be helpful. I got a degree in physics because I wanted to be a better philosopher - I wanted to understand the universe. But the way to do that is in physics, and I have yet to see a coherent Catholic metaphysics based on modern physics according to the hierarchy of knowledge that Aristotle and St. Thomas wanted.

 

[JDaniel]

As far as I can remember this is the first thread where I’ve met him, so you’re reacting against something I haven’t seen.

C:

Precisely.

In this post he defended the basic human goodness of some atheists. He is not wrong to do so, though I think the context was bad - the desolation of atheists is not a “paragraph full of nonsense”, but something well-documented in postmodernist literature, which I took a whole class on at college. Some of the best people I’ve known have been atheists, ones with horribly childish notions of God, but good, sincere, authentic friends.

No doubt. There was a time that I embraced atheism. I was a capitalist swine for many years, besides earlier teaching biology, zoology and botany. It made little sense to love money - actually, it was really a love of my own personal prowess in the economic marketplace - and love God. But, that lunacy is behind me. I asked for forgiveness and believe I have been forgiven.

He then complained about self-righteousness among Catholics, something I do ALL the time.

You aren’t alone, brother.

He might be in a better position to make such a complaint if he were a saint himself rather than one who gave up the fight (not that I’m a saint - but at least I’m trying, and I hope I don’t put on airs of self-righteousness about it).

He then complained about grievances in his life from Christians, and unfairly extended it to the rest of us.

One thing he and every one of us should try to remember is that we get people on here who make claims that might not be true: about themselves. We are, after all, anonymous.

The rest of his posts have been constructive and insightful. I am a practicing Catholic, but I share his objection to scholastic philosophy (which I got a really bad taste for in college - I would end up getting so angry with it that it began to hurt my faith, and I dropped my philosophy major to stop short at a minor (I was also a physics major), and translating to the Eastern rite which has no place for the Western philosophical tradition helped rescue my religion from the nausea that anything connected with Aristotle gave me). Hopefully someday the Catholic metaphysical tradition will be re-thought in light of the science of today rather than the science of 2300 years ago, and the disdain that philosophers have for science (as I put up with for four years at college) can come to an end.

I almost…almost…feel a certain sense of loss when I purposely skip by many of his longish posts because I suspect that there may well be some good stuff in them. But I have grown to feel about him the way you seem to feel about Scholasticism.

As Greylorn said, a philosopher is one who wants to understand the universe, but doesn’t see how a physics class might be helpful.

Well, that’s plain wrong. Anyone who restricts learning in that way is, to be sure, a philosopher in name only.

I got a degree in physics because I wanted to be a better philosopher - I wanted to understand the universe. But the way to do that is in physics, and I have yet to see a coherent Catholic metaphysics based on modern physics according to the hierarchy of knowledge that Aristotle and St. Thomas wanted.

You seem to be young enough to live that through. The major problem that people who harbor problems with Aristotle and Aquinas seems, at all turns, to be related to simply not spending enough time with them. And, when one is studying physics, I admit, there isn’t much spare time to allot. Anyway, when you discover all there is to know about the universe, I hope you will share (at least some of) that knowledge with the rest of us.

God bless,
jd

 

[MindOverMatter2]

And a true Christian follows the principles of Jesus Christ, using them as guidelines to run his life.

I agree. But what has that got to do with the truths of science and philosophy?

A true Christian realizes that Christ taught behavior, and the basic principles of getting along with one another, with integrity.

I agree, but if these are truly lacking in your opponents, this only proves that human beings are imperfect. But enough of ethics. Lets get back to showing you why your Ideas about science and philosophy is invalid. Science deals with one aspect of reality (the physical) and philosophy deals with another aspect of reality (ultimate questions that science cannot answer). I gave a good example of that fact in my previous post which you have chosen to ignore. Is this the lack of basic principles and integrity you was talking about? Ignoring what people say, twisting their words, and then going on a hypocritical rant about Christian morals. It is certainly evident to me that you are lacking morals and basic manners.

A true Christian realizes that Christ did not teach philosophy, science, or metaphysics, and would keep his wet nose out of such subjects, if only from awareness of his own lack of competency.

That Jesus didn’t teach metaphysics is of no relevance to whether or not a Christian has the competency in understanding philosophy and science. There is no good rational reason to suggest that a Christian should not or cannot achieve a good understanding in science and philosophy, and your attempt to suggest otherwise only shows your incompetency in understanding what Christianity actually teaches. what you have said is just completely ridiculous and amounts to nothing more than an evasion and a straw-man. People can study if they want to without being scientists or philosophers themselves; they can learn about the subject. Most people are capable of learning if they want to, and you have no right to dictate to me what i can or can’t know.You are just attacking my character instead of addressing what i really said. Yet it is you who seems to lack a competency in just basic logic let alone science.

… wonder, and speculate about relevant ideas, like the… …purpose of the universe, the nature and purpose of the soul, and of God Himself. I’d never insult any of them by calling them philosophers. While I disagree with them more often than not, they have real minds.

The subjects you speaking about here are all philosophical subjects, accept for perhaps identifying the first physical object, since that fall within the realm of science. They are not scientific subjects. You simply do not understand the meaning of philosophy or metaphysics, or the distinction between philosophy and science, or just the general act of thinking reasonably. Your ridicule only proves that you are not really capable of addressing my post honestly, and you are here to express your dogma and that you are not open to what anybody else has to say. Everything i have said is a necessary consequence of good reasoning, which includes a healthy amount of studying and an understanding of what distinguishes the various modes of knowledge and the epistemological authority they serve in their distinct disciplines.

Ignore it of you want. But please don’t pretend that you know what Science and Philosophy is or what Christianity teaches. What you have said so far proves that you do not.

 

[greylorn]

I agree. But what has that got to do with the truths of science and philosophy?

I agree, but if these are truly lacking in your opponents, this only proves that human beings are imperfect. But enough of ethics. Lets get back to showing you why your Ideas about science and philosophy is invalid. Science deals with one aspect of reality (the physical) and philosophy deals with another aspect of reality (ultimate questions that science cannot answer). I gave a good example of that fact in my previous post which you have chosen to ignore. Is this the lack of basic principles and integrity you was talking about? Ignoring what people say, twisting their words, and then going on a hypocritical rant about Christian morals. It is certainly evident to me that you are lacking morals and basic manners.

That Jesus didn’t teach metaphysics is of no relevance to whether or not a Christian has the competency in understanding philosophy and science. There is no good rational reason to suggest that a Christian should not or cannot achieve a good understanding in science and philosophy, and your attempt to suggest otherwise only shows your incompetency in understanding what Christianity actually teaches. what you have said is just completely ridiculous and amounts to nothing more than an evasion and a straw-man. People can study if they want to without being scientists or philosophers themselves; they can learn about the subject. Most people are capable of learning if they want to, and you have no right to dictate to me what i can or can’t know.You are just attacking my character instead of addressing what i really said. Yet it is you who seems to lack a competency in just basic logic let alone science.

The subjects you speaking about here are all philosophical subjects, accept for perhaps identifying the first physical object, since that fall within the realm of science. They are not scientific subjects. You simply do not understand the meaning of philosophy or metaphysics, or the distinction between philosophy and science, or just the general act of thinking reasonably. Your ridicule only proves that you are not really capable of addressing my post honestly, and you are here to express your dogma and that you are not open to what anybody else has to say. Everything i have said is a necessary consequence of good reasoning, which includes a healthy amount of studying and an understanding of what distinguishes the various modes of knowledge and the epistemological authority they serve in their distinct disciplines.

Ignore it of you want. But please don’t pretend that you know what Science and Philosophy is or what Christianity teaches. What you have said so far proves that you do not.

It is difficult to reply to you, because your arguments are based upon your beliefs, dogma, and doctrine. I prefer facts and logic. A few tips.

Being a Christian is not an inherent impediment to understanding science. I was one throughout four years of math and physics. However, being a nitwit is a severe impediment to understanding physics and pretty much anything else, and there seems to be no cure for it.

Finally, science is a general method for the discovery of truth. You seem to believe that it can only be applied to the material world, but this is not the case.

Science, religion, and philosophy are all methods for the discovery of truth. There is no inherent restriction that I know of which says that one method can only be applied here, another method there.

Historically, religionists and philosophers have attempted to apply their methods to the physical universe, with no particular success. To do what they could not, Galileo invented the scientific method, which proved very useful in the discovery of physical principles. Because the 17th century Church got into a snit over the implications of his work (i.e. that the Church was wrong), we got a conflicted separation between religion and science, which lots of dogmatists whose minds have refused to leave the dark ages insist upon perpetuating.

Their chronic incompetence does not change the fact that the scientific method is a way of uncovering the truth which can be applied to any subject. It can be applied to theology as well as atomic structure, but I know of no one else who has done so. Surely there are many others.

You’ll be pleased to know that attempts to apply the scientific method to theology are greeted with equally mindless, dogmatic objections from atheistic and religious “scientists.” So there’s no need to leave your groove. Just keep whining. You might want to take a summer course in remedial English grammar while about it.

Evidently you think that I am guilty of bad manners. Perhaps you’ve confused manners with political correctness. I have no particular respect for your intellectual ability, and would be lying to you if I pretended otherwise. Doing so would simply encourage you to continue your mostly dogmatic arguments. I’d really like to interest you in simply leaving me alone. Instead of getting yourself all worked up into a snit of your own, why not try that?

Else you will be left posting whiny rants which insult me because I am ignoring your rants. By ignoring me first, you get the high ground. Take it! It’s free.