"Required to believe". An odd concept?

  • Thread starter Thread starter a_priori
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi a priori,

My mind only has trouble dialing in on the dogma that my mind and body want to break. The flesh is weak. After reading all the reason behind the dogma I always agree with the Church – but I still have to fight temptation.

I think we are held accountable for our actions. We may think it would be enjoyable to break the rules but we don’t. I’ll call that fighting temptation. We get bonus points for that as that builds treasure in heaven. I think by the grace of God we can actually dial in the mind, understand the dogma and accept it. It takes an open mind to listen and process the logic behind the dogma. If the mind is closed then we refuse to believe in the truth. Trust in mother church goes a long way when it comes to accepting dogma.

God Bless.
I understand what you are saying. I have a very open mind. But processing the “logic behind the dogma” is extremely subjective. On the very long and complicated continuum of beliefs and dogmas, how is one to be certain one has found the correct one? Is the Hindu who sat at his mother’s knee as a child and heard the words of the Bhagavad Gita alone to be cursed for not having had access to the Bible? I don’t know. Maybe. I have trouble processing that.

We can pretty much figure that we should feed the hungry, heal the sick and clothe the naked. I think that’s a good starting point. But I just don’t know how, when sifting through a hundred college brochures, the student can be eternally condemned for picking the wrong school.

I cannot argue these things. I don’t know. I have been reading and studying for over 50 years and I feel no closer to being able to make a dogmatic pronouncement than when I started. Perhaps many can do that and I’ll concede to them their confidence. I just don’t have it.
 
a priori: thanks for your thoughtful response. These questions keep me up sometimes, too. I’m not upset by these prospects, rather, I find their potential conclusions quite a relief. We argue quite a bit, here on the ground, about this idea or that, and the meat of the argument centers on each person believing that with enough force or evidence, they could be proven “right” – eventually! Sometimes the desire to be “right” is centered in one’s own ego; other times it is the desire in one’s heart to defend a teaching, a belief system, an ideal.

I try to imagine God viewing all of these arguments from His vantage point, where He of course can foresee their origins before either pundit had opportunity to formulate the thoughts; where he can foresee the outcome before it is “decided” by the ground-level contingent; where he can understand every assertion, and the roots of every assertion – and find the kernels of truth, in each, as well – regardless of who “wins.”

I try to imagine God viewing all the various religious people, in their moments of heartfelt worship, as well. The Hindus, the Jews, the Muslems, the Episcopalians, the Buddhists, the Catholics. Since He is God, and knows and sees all – since you can’t really surprise God – since God understands the motivations for every action and inaction – I find it hard to imagine that he ever truly disapproves of anything. Perhaps He looks down and, seeing someone is of a mind that will lead him toward restlessness, anguish, lack of faith, despair – that might give Him a moment’s regret, that here again we see one more child who is bound to suffer in this life, due to (essentially) his pessimistic world view. But God knows what we do not – we might see some outside agitator. God sees the little boy who scarcely felt love, who reached out for compassion and yet did not find it. Does He condemn the adult the boy became?

But even then, God understands. He knows how that fellow got himself into such a bind.

I know that Catholicism states that the only path to God is through His Son, and through the strict dogma of the Catholic Church. I just don’t see God, in His infinite dimensions, being “a Catholic.” I think He has a vantage point that is superior to ours (that’s a given, naturally), and thus, He can’t really find Himself offended by those who worship differently, yet who He finds in deep repose, obviously sincere of heart in their intentions to find Him, and to show their gratitude, their remorse, their sincere adoration, their love.

Whatever teachings those individuals might follow; whatever Good Books they might read; whatever prayers or rituals they might undertake, I find myself deciding that all God can do is witness these quiet moments, and gauge for Himself the true intent of these many men and women the world over who do not consider themselves to be Catholic. Whatever they call themselves instead, I imagine God is above concerning Himself with the specific name or style of that religious practice. Instead I imagine Him smiling, grateful that yet another small group of people are seeking to find Him; seeking to pay their thanks and praise; seeking to let Him know they are down here, worshiping Him.

I’m never surprised to think that humans might argue over this point or that; what I find impossible to imagine is God feeling similarly moved to reject this view point over this other one. He knows where each of us find our justifications, our reasons, our beliefs, our doubts. And because He does know all the myriad circumstances that play out in our lives, leading us to this sacred moment . . .I believe He can simply remain our ever-vigilant witness: our ever-vigilant Father, who loves us to our cores. Faults and all. Doubts and all. Pain-in-the-neck, and all. You cannot surprise God!
I understand your impulses here. First, I don’t think human language can be used to ultimately describe God. So to ascribe human attributes to God by saying He “likes” this or this makes Him “happy” or this makes Him “sad”, is to lower Him. The god’s of the Pantheon were merely exaggerated humanity with all the impulses of men writ large. I have trouble with God being characterized this way and figuring out what it means ultimately.

At the same time, it would seem necessary that an intelligent God who created everything would call for some sort of differentiation in metaphysical as well as physical things. Life is full of binaries,up/down, good/bad, thesis/antithesis etc. So there must be some organizing principle in the Godhead and all that He brings into existence. I can’t quite grasp the concept that all is in God and that everything is equal.

While I can’t understand the my-way-or-the-highway view of some in Christendom (and elsewhere), I also can’t understand the everything-is-correct concept either. I don’t “know” much actually. The mileage of others may vary. I appreciate your thoughts Light.
 
It is said frequently in these parts that "If you want to be a , you are required to believe ". I find the concept of “required belief” to be an interesting one. Is belief volitional? Is there a switch under one’s scalp that can be used to “dial in” the correct hermeneutical coordinates?

It seems that some people start with their destination religion and work backwards to “smush” in the doctrine. I know many Catholics who would end up somewhere else if they had to fill out a questionnaire first on all the “required beliefs” one by one, as they have been delineated by many posters here on CAF.

Is it possible to be held accountable for a conclusion your mind (having a mind of its own) gives you regarding your own ontology? Philosophically, doesn’t the potential exist for placing the cart before the horse?

This may not be the right place for this thread. Please move as necessary Thank you.
Consider the following assertion:

“To be Catholic, one must believe in the assumption.”

In this statement, “must” can be construed to have 2 separate meanings, and I think your confusion comes from a failure to recognize this.

“Must” can be either prescriptive or definitive. In the former case, the above statement would mean that Catholics are required to believe in the assumption in the same sense that they are required to attend Sunday Mass. Here, “must” is simply stating a rule or law that the faithful must follow, lest they should sin.

In the latter case, “must” is definitive, that is, it defines something. With this meaning, the above statement means that one who is Catholic by definition believes in the assumption, and contrapositively, that anyone who does not believe in the assumption is not Catholic. This is often the meaning of words like “must” and “required” when used in the example you have used.

In the former case, our membership to a particular religion doesn’t depend on whether or not we do what is required; we can miss Sunday Mass and still be Catholic. In the latter, a failure to believe something as required by definition precludes membership. After all, it would be dishonest to say, as so many do, that “I am a Catholic, but I disagree with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.” Such a statement is deceitful and abusive, since it uses a definition of “Catholic” other than what the word really means.
 
Hi 4horse,

I agree with the sentiment. I have a friend who is a hardcore, raging Republican. He’s a 100% red-state down the line talking points believer. He was protestant his whole life. At age 52 he started to realize that the Catholic Church coincided with his GOP beliefs regarding

same sex marriage
gays
abortion
stem cells
pre marital sex
anti-communist
traditional and opposed to innovation
etc.

So he and his wife converted. He has been a hardcore Catholic all the way. When the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops took up Obama’s universal healthcare cause, my friend’s statement was “it’s not from the pope, not infallible so forggggget it!”

Same with the open borders policies of Bush and Obama, not infallible, not mandatory, not buyin’ it!

On and on. He basically became Catholic because it fit HIS mindset that he already had. The things he doesn’t like to hear like “just war” in relation to George W. Bush’s Iraq crusade? Bah, ignore that…so he came to Catholicism to find a religion that suited him. The parts that don’t, they’re not infallible anyway so pooey! He never misses Mass, goes to confession weekly, follows the rules all the way. On other things he tends to just trust the pope in which seems to me to be a “heck, the pope agrees with ME on everything else so I’ll agree with him. Two great minds. He must be right so I’ll follow.”

I’m not so sure that’s kosher and healthy either. And I talk to a lot of hardcore conservative Republicans in CAF that seem to fit this mold!
Hello gurneyhalleck1,

I don’t want to guess the mindset of your friend as far as how deep his Catholic faith goes. But the fact that he left the Protestant church to enter the Catholic Church is a big change and shows that he was thinking about his situation probably for some time. I don’t think one just suddenly jumps to change their whole way of thinking and even living without thoroughly investigating the alternatives. I mean, it’s not like changing from Kellogg’s cornflakes, after eating them for 3 years or whatever time, to pop tarts. (Usually, people change eating habits to become healthier, which is a decision based on reason).

So, in effect, I think your friend did follow his reason to enter the Church, and, in so doing, he is giving his all. However, he should realize that even the Pope can make mistakes in judgment unless, of course, he is speaking infallibly. And there are certain conditions for that which a theologian can express better than I can.

All in all, I think we should always use our reasoning powers that God gave us and question our thinking on just about everything, or we could become stuck in a paradigm of thought and emotion that may have error. (Here, I’m not referring to your friend’s decision–a rational act–to enter the Church). I could give an example. A person who desires to marry must evaluate his/her potential spouse . . . in other words, really getting to know a person’s character BEFORE fallling in love. It’s a lesson well-learned. 👍
 
Well, this is a good example because it’s testable.

If the water from Lourdes really has healing properties, beyond that of a placebo effect that can be created by a sugar pill, let’s test it. Take a few hundred patients with terminal diseases of various kinds, sprinkle one group with water from Lourdes and another group with regular tap water. Neither the patients nor the doctors will know which group is getting which water – the water bottles will be labeled with symbols that only the experiment’s coordinators know the meanings of – so the experiment will be double blinded.

Do you think the patients being given the water from Lourdes will demonstrate a remission rate significantly higher than the general population (what we would expect naturally from chance)? Do you think that this experiment can be performed again and again and again, consistently producing results far above those remission rates expected without magic water?

See, if you can demonstrate this – which, obviously you could if this stuff were real – then you would have hard evidence that something is special about this particular water. That, in and of itself wouldn’t be evidence of the truth of your religion, but it would be one heck of start, and all of a sudden you’d have actual scientists seriously interested in investigating other Catholic miracles. You’d have grant money pouring in, people seriously taking an interest in your claims, and you’d be on the road to confirming that your religion is true.

Why do you suppose that such an experiment has never been done and never will?
No, it’s not testable. I see you’re attempting to use the scientific method, which is inoperable when it attempts to go beyond its usefulness. The healings at Lourdes have nothing to do with testing the water, but upon God’s desire to heal (for His own reason). Generally, one needs to believe first.
I think that there probably was a person (or people)upon whom the Jesus legends were based (in the same way that a historical king [or kings] probably served as the basis of the King Arthur legends).
I don’t think that there is enough evidence to say that the Jesus who is depicted in the Gospels – i.e. working magical miracles – actually existed. The evidence of a handful of stories passed down by a cult that worshipped the guy isn’t sufficient to confirm that the supernatural accounts are true.
Everybody generally believes something on the authority of someone else if it is reasonable. The contemporaries of Jesus, His apostles and disciples could be considered as witnesses. We trust witnesses in the court of law since they have “seen.” Why wouldn’t you trust the 12 apostles and 72 disciples who have been there and “seen?”

At first, the apostle, Thomas, doubted the resurrection until he “saw” the wounds and maybe “thrust his fist” into the side of Jesus where He was lanced. Jesus tells us that “Blessed are those who have not seen and still believed.”

Then, too, St. Paul was knocked off his horse to “see” really “see” TRUTH. Usually, we must take a step in God’s direction before He allows us to “see” the Truth.
I think that an important part of education is learning about world religions and the roles that they’ve played in history. For example, a working knowledge of the Bible is imperative if you want to understand a lot of literature, even literature written by skeptics and atheists.
Joseph Campbell’s work on comparative mythology provides a nice introduction to world myths, and gives an interesting – if not necessarily correct – framework for thinking about them. That’s a good place to start learning about the myths of various nations.
I agree. It’s a necessary part of education to learn of other cultures and religions. God loves all of his children, not just Catholics. He loves atheists, too, and continues to call them to His eternal home. “And when I am lifted up (cross), I will draw ALL men to me.” But in the Catholic Church is found the fullness of faith.
I was implying it, actually, and I didn’t specifically have anyone in mind – other than the people who hold such a position.
LOL! 😛
 
I have personal standards of conduct.
So AntiTheist is a little god in his little universe.

On my rational analysis of the situations I face, coupled with my values, which derive from a number of sources, not all of which are rational. For example, as a human being who is part of a race that evolved with a tendency towards cooperative behavior, I have **a natural, non-rational feeling of displeasure at seeing someone else in pain. **As a result, when I see someone in pain, part of my desire is to alleviate my own discomfort by helping. I weigh this desire against options and (likely) potential outcomes, and I decide upon a course of action.

Aha! You mentioned the word “natural” which means from nature. We have a human nature which is likened to the divine since we are made in the “image and likeness of God.” So feeling displeasure at seeing someone in pain is natural, from nature’s God. However, I’m wondering what you meant by displeasure. Disgust? Empathy? Is your first impulse to “allleviate” your own “discomfort” or to give aid to the person in pain to alleviate his/her discomfort? Naturally, you use your reasoning to choose a course of action based either on your own feelings of displeasure, or, possibly, your feelings that reach out to others in need.
I don’t go around identifying with labels. They’re conventions useful in discussions like these, and not much else.
What do you call “warped, life-denying mind?”

I’m pro-life, btw.
I did a lot of reading and thinking, and I came to the conclusion that belief in supernatural beings is not justified by reason, based on the evidence that is currently available.
You might try some different books. Start with C.S. Lewis, Peter Kreeft, and a bunch of other often mentioned. I’m reading New Proofs for the Existence of God–Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Robert J. Spitzer
 
Absolutely. Agreed. He didn’t jump into Catholicism at all. His wife was nagging and pestering him to do it for years and he wouldn’t, mostly because of his protestant upbringing and his views on Mary, etc.

I’m not trying to say he’s empty-headed or not legit in his beliefs. He’s an awesome friend. I’m simply saying a lot of his “comfort zone” played a part. He was willing to jump into it because they agreed with HIM on 8 out of 10 things so they must be right on the rest, right!? kind of thing…

I’m simply saying that we use our own values, our own views, our own expectations, our own reasoning to let the pope think for us so in effect he’s not really thinking for us as pope if we’re already in agreement and letting him do so, so to speak.
Hello gurneyhalleck1,

I don’t want to guess the mindset of your friend as far as how deep his Catholic faith goes. But the fact that he left the Protestant church to enter the Catholic Church is a big change and shows that he was thinking about his situation probably for some time. I don’t think one just suddenly jumps to change their whole way of thinking and even living without thoroughly investigating the alternatives. I mean, it’s not like changing from Kellogg’s cornflakes, after eating them for 3 years or whatever time, to pop tarts. (Usually, people change eating habits to become healthier, which is a decision based on reason).

So, in effect, I think your friend did follow his reason to enter the Church, and, in so doing, he is giving his all. However, he should realize that even the Pope can make mistakes in judgment unless, of course, he is speaking infallibly. And there are certain conditions for that which a theologian can express better than I can.

All in all, I think we should always use our reasoning powers that God gave us and question our thinking on just about everything, or we could become stuck in a paradigm of thought and emotion that may have error. (Here, I’m not referring to your friend’s decision–a rational act–to enter the Church). I could give an example. A person who desires to marry must evaluate his/her potential spouse . . . in other words, really getting to know a person’s character BEFORE fallling in love. It’s a lesson well-learned. 👍
 
Absolutely. Agreed. He didn’t jump into Catholicism at all. His wife was nagging and pestering him to do it for years and he wouldn’t, mostly because of his protestant upbringing and his views on Mary, etc.
I wouldn’t consider this to be typical of most converts, although certainly it is true of a few.
I’m not trying to say he’s empty-headed or not legit in his beliefs. He’s an awesome friend. I’m simply saying a lot of his “comfort zone” played a part. He was willing to jump into it because they agreed with HIM on 8 out of 10 things so they must be right on the rest, right!? kind of thing…
That can happen, yes.

In my own case, the Church didn’t “agree with me” on very much at all - I was a liberal feminist and liberal Protestant. I had to learn and study and change my thinking on just about everything.
I’m simply saying that we use our own values, our own views, our own expectations, our own reasoning to let the pope think for us so in effect he’s not really thinking for us as pope if we’re already in agreement and letting him do so, so to speak.
There is a point at which you have to say, “Okay, I don’t get it, but I will trust it, because I have faith that this is God’s work.” But there is a process involved with arriving at that point - someone doesn’t just wake up one day and decide to believe everything that the Church teaches, without a whole lot of groundwork being laid ahead of time.
 
Consider the following assertion:

“To be Catholic, one must believe in the assumption.”

In this statement, “must” can be construed to have 2 separate meanings, and I think your confusion comes from a failure to recognize this.

“Must” can be either prescriptive or definitive. In the former case, the above statement would mean that Catholics are required to believe in the assumption in the same sense that they are required to attend Sunday Mass. Here, “must” is simply stating a rule or law that the faithful must follow, lest they should sin.

In the latter case, “must” is definitive, that is, it defines something. With this meaning, the above statement means that one who is Catholic by definition believes in the assumption, and contrapositively, that anyone who does not believe in the assumption is not Catholic. This is often the meaning of words like “must” and “required” when used in the example you have used.

In the former case, our membership to a particular religion doesn’t depend on whether or not we do what is required; we can miss Sunday Mass and still be Catholic. In the latter, a failure to believe something as required by definition precludes membership. After all, it would be dishonest to say, as so many do, that “I am a Catholic, but I disagree with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.” Such a statement is deceitful and abusive, since it uses a definition of “Catholic” other than what the word really means.
nbtrap, Either way you slice it semantically, there is the presupposition that believing something is volitional. To say “I choose to believe…” is a non sequitur to me. Thank you for your thoughts.
 
nbtrap, Either way you slice it semantically, there is the presupposition that believing something is volitional.
Of course I agree. I’m only demonstrating that if we understand a statement like “A Catholic is required to believe…” as definitive/descriptive instead of prescriptive, then it does not violate the inherent “volitivity” of a belief, and it ceases to seem “odd”.
To say “I choose to believe…” is a non sequitur to me.
You mean that it’s redundant? I agree.
 
I’m simply saying that we use our own values, our own views, our own expectations, our own reasoning to let the pope think for us so in effect he’s not really thinking for us as pope if we’re already in agreement and letting him do so, so to speak.
You’ve squeezed a lot in that sentence. Let me see if I understand you correctly. I agree with the first part in bold, but I wouldn’t word it that the Pope is doing our thinking for us. The Pope is speaking for the Church, in effect, for Christ Himself whether we agree with him or not. Maybe you mean that if we assent to agree with all of what the Catholic Church teaches under the leadership of our Holy Father, then you would be allowing the Pope/Church to speak for you. That’s because the Church is simply saying what God has revealed. And that’s why you are in agreement with it.

(Maybe that attempt to clarify is not so clear afterall! 😦
 
Consider the following assertion:

“To be Catholic, one must believe in the assumption.”

In this statement, “must” can be construed to have 2 separate meanings, and I think your confusion comes from a failure to recognize this.

“Must” can be either prescriptive or definitive. In the former case, the above statement would mean that Catholics are required to believe in the assumption in the same sense that they are required to attend Sunday Mass. Here, “must” is simply stating a rule or law that the faithful must follow, lest they should sin.

In the latter case, “must” is definitive, that is, it defines something. With this meaning, the above statement means that one who is Catholic by definition believes in the assumption, and contrapositively, that anyone who does not believe in the assumption is not Catholic. This is often the meaning of words like “must” and “required” when used in the example you have used.

In the former case, our membership to a particular religion doesn’t depend on whether or not we do what is required; we can miss Sunday Mass and still be Catholic. In the latter, a failure to believe something as required by definition precludes membership. After all, it would be dishonest to say, as so many do, that “I am a Catholic, but I disagree with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.” Such a statement is deceitful and abusive, since it uses a definition of “Catholic” other than what the word really means.
That’s an excellent philosophical observation. I would think that gurneyhalleck1’s friend would fall under the “definitive” case as is the correct way of thinking as a Catholic. Yet, at the same time, a Catholic does not relinquish his/her reasoning powers, of course, but usually conforms them to the outlook of the Church. For example, I used to fret over the use of artificial contraception until I understood the reasoning behind it. I’m still debating with myself over the use of capital punishment, however, even though recent popes have condemned it.
 
nbtrap, Either way you slice it semantically, there is the presupposition that believing something is volitional.
Of course it’s volitional - it takes place in the mind. We live in the age of communications, and we have access to nearly every idea in existence. We choose our beliefs from among the possibilities given to us, and we choose whom to trust - not necessarily always rationally, but even so, our choices of whom to trust define in broad strokes what we will choose to believe, and the details come when we make a study of the teachings presented to us by our trusted sources.
 
Of course it’s volitional - it takes place in the mind.
I understand your point. But I think that a distinction can be made between something that happens in the mind and volition. Volition happens in the mind, but what happens in the mind isn"t necessarily volition. When one processes information and reaches a conclusion, it isn’t always the conclusion hoped for or the one the thinker would have necessary chosen beforehand as the most desirable.
 
The healings at Lourdes have nothing to do with testing the water, but upon God’s desire to heal (for His own reason). Generally, one needs to believe first.
If one “needs to believe first,” then you can’t use these healings as evidence for belief, which is the purpose you invoked them for in the first place.

At any rate, if you’re telling me that the water can’t heal people at a rate higher than what we’d expect through normal remission rates, if you’re saying that god heals who he pleases, which is some of the people who use the water, apparently at a rate no higher than the natural remission rate, then your “miracle” is completely and totally indistinguishable from regular old remissions of illnesses.

When coupled with your other point that people can whip themselves into an emotional frenzy and “see” and “believe” all manner of crazy things, it becomes very hard to see how you can cite Lourdes as any kind of evidence for your beliefs
Everybody generally believes something on the authority of someone else if it is reasonable.
We take testimony into account when making decisions, but in this case, we’re not talking about testimony – we’re talking about non-eyewitness fourth- or fifth-hand legends passed down through a cult that worshipped a figure.

This is not sufficient evidence to accept supernatural claims, particularly when we do not consider eyewitness evidence of UFOs to be sufficient evidence of that particular outlandish claim.
 
So AntiTheist is a little god in his little universe.
Not at all. I’m a person, and as such, I have to decide how to act. My decisions as to how I will act constitute my standards of behavior.
Aha! You mentioned the word “natural” which means from nature. We have a human nature which is likened to the divine since we are made in the “image and likeness of God.”
You can’t start from the conclusion you want to demonstrate and then reason back to it – that’s called a circular argument.

You have to start from an observation – like, for example, the observation that most people don’t like seeing others in pain – and then demonstrates how that necessarily supports your conclusion.

You’re going to have a tough time getting there, particularly since empathy is explained quite adequately by evolutionary science, as confirmed by the fact that other social animals similarly exhibit empathy toward their own kind. It’s a survival tactic that’s hardwired into social animals.
 
You’re going to have a tough time getting there, particularly since empathy is explained quite adequately by evolutionary science, as confirmed by the fact that other social animals similarly exhibit empathy toward their own kind. It’s a survival tactic that’s hardwired into social animals.
I wouldn’t be so quick to hang my hat on that one if I were you.
I know several evolutionary scientists who would disagree (and not the wackadoo evolutionary scientists who are making dioramas of dinosaurs getting roasted over an open pit by cavemen). That debate is far from closed. 🤷
 
If one “needs to believe first,” then you can’t use these healings as evidence for belief, which is the purpose you invoked them for in the first place.

At any rate, if you’re telling me that the water can’t heal people at a rate higher than what we’d expect through normal remission rates, if you’re saying that god heals who he pleases, which is some of the people who use the water, apparently at a rate no higher than the natural remission rate, then your “miracle” is completely and totally indistinguishable from regular old remissions of illnesses.
Yes, I say that God heals whom He will. But He also converts unbelievers. I don’t know why he chooses certain people over others. He knows who needs help and He knows whose hearts are so hardened. Yet, He can choose both. Maybe it depends a lot on the people who are praying intensely for the healing and/or conversion of their loved ones. Anyhow read about these two incredible OBVIOUS cures at Lourdes:

olrl.org/stories/lourdes.shtml

The following is just the opener:

INTRODUCTION TO LOURDES

In 1858 in the grotto of Massabielle, near Lourdes, France, the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared 18 times to Bernadette Soubirous, a 14 year old peasant girl. She identified herself as The Immaculate Conception. She gave Bernadette a message for all: “Pray and do penance for the conversion of the world.” The Church investigated Bernadette’s claims for four years before approving devotion to Our Lady of Lourdes. Lourdes has since become one of the most famous shrines, attracting more than a million pilgrims each year. There have been thousands of miraculous cures at this shrine.

A Medical Bureau was established in 1882 to test the authenticity of the cures. The doctors include unbelievers as well as believers and any doctor is welcome to take part in the examination of the alleged cures. As many as 500 medical men of all faiths or no faith have taken advantage of the invitation each year. Many books and movies tell the story of Lourdes. Even Hollywood made a movie of this remarkable event in the 1940’s entitled “The Song of Bernadette” which won six academy awards.
We take testimony into account when making decisions, but in this case, we’re not talking about testimony – we’re talking about non-eyewitness fourth- or fifth-hand legends passed down through a cult that worshipped a figure.
This is not sufficient evidence to accept supernatural claims, particularly when we do not consider eyewitness evidence of UFOs to be sufficient evidence of that particular outlandish claim.
Truly, eye-witness evidence is often mistaken even though a witmess may believve s/he is correct. However, Jesus told His apostles He would send the Holy Spirit, who would bring to mind all that He did and said. “John, as you know, baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit, and within the next few days . . . you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you and you will bear witness for me in Jerusalem, and all oveer Judaea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:4-5)

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of you sins . . . and you will receive the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you, and to your children and to all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God may call.” (Acts 2:37-39)

(I can’t find the exact reference that I’m looking for, but I’m in a bit hurry right now).
 
I understand your point. But I think that a distinction can be made between something that happens in the mind and volition. Volition happens in the mind, but what happens in the mind isn"t necessarily volition. When one processes information and reaches a conclusion, it isn’t always the conclusion hoped for or the one the thinker would have necessary chosen beforehand as the most desirable.
This is called, changing your mind based on new information.

We are always allowed to change our minds. 🙂
 
Not at all. I’m a person, and as such, I have to decide how to act. My decisions as to how I will act constitute my standards of behavior.
First should come your set of “standards of behavior.” Otherwise your decisions may change at a whim. In other words, you need to proceed deductively when it comes to rules and standards. Here’s a quote:

Many people distinguish between two basic kinds of argument: inductive and deductive. Induction is usually described as moving from the specific to the general, while deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific; arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws, rules, or other widely accepted principles are best expressed deductively.
You can’t start from the conclusion you want to demonstrate and then reason back to it – that’s called a circular argument.
Here’s an explanation of deductive and inductive reasoning. In fact, much of the discussion on this thread seems to involve starting from what seems to be an end result. For example, gurneyhalleck1’s friend actually proceeded from the observational (inductive reasoning, first of all, and decided his ideas matched the Catholic Church. When he joined the Catholic Church, he accepted her teachings as well as the Pope’s, so he decided to accept all dogma without considering each one in particular. So he proceeded, in that instance, from a deductive point of view, a priori.

I don’t see how my argument is circular.
You have to start from an observation – like, for example, the observation that most people don’t like seeing others in pain – and then demonstrates how that necessarily supports your conclusion.
That’s how science proceeds, which is sensible.
You’re going to have a tough time getting there, particularly since empathy is explained quite adequately by evolutionary science, as confirmed by the fact that other social animals similarly exhibit empathy toward their own kind. It’s a survival tactic that’s hardwired into social animals.
I saw a documentary on t.v. in which some apes seemed to show empathy, but maybe they are just comforting one another, like a dog will try to comfort his owner. Animals cannot choose right from wrong except with certain types of training. They can’t imagine themselves in any way. They can’t consider future goals. They merely react to various stimuli. (But I had the smartest Golden Retriever, but she passed away recently at age 14and a half.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top