Right to life.. right to anything?

[R_Daneel]

I can’t help you on finding a Jesuit other than to suggest checking out Catholic universities or colleges in your area to see if any are teaching there. They often teach at Catholic high schools too.

Have you ever listened to Bishop Fulton J. Sheen? He was a philosopher and theologian who had radio and TV shows in the mid 20th century. He had a real gift for teaching and speaking. I’ve listened to him often and find something new each time.
You can find about 25 hours worth of his recordings here. Scroll half way down the page for the links to the mp3s - each one is 30 min long.
bishopsheen.excerptsofinri.com/

You can’t dialog with him but if you haven’t listened to him, give him a try.

Thank you very much

 

[Thing]

I see what you mean, but my understanding is a bit different. The phrase one “can know God through reason alone” I understand as “it is possible to have a line of reasoning, which only contains certain axioms and a sound logical reasoning chain, which will inevitably lead to the acceptance of ‘therefore God exists’ type of conclusion”. That kind of reasoning rests, of course, on the axioms themselves. If one accepts the axioms, then mere logic will ensure the acceptance of the conclusion. If one does not accept the axioms, then there will be no conclusion. And that is what I am missing there. To be sure, the axioms must be rational, cannot rely on faith, and they cannot postulate the desired result (cannot be circular).

You were brought up catholic/christian and you later rejected that. To start again, attempting to look for reasoning for the existance of God you are starting at a disadvantage. A predjudiced position. You want to push your car up the slope, so to speak. To begin afresh you would need somehow to put aside your predjudiced mind and excuses for not following every possible avenue of experience.
Its very difficult for you. You on the one hand say prove it to me and on the other you refuse help. I still like those words which say you must become as little children, you need to learn to trust as a child and start from there, otherwise this just becomes an exercise in finding excuses to do nothing.

 

[R_Daneel]

empiricism is self refuting, as are verification/falsification principles, as has been demonstrated to you many times.

You have definitely demonstrated your intellect when you said: “a sentence does not have to be self-referential to itself to be self-refuting”. I have nothing else to say.

 

[manygift1spirit]

Thank you very much

I’ll second the plug for Sheen. I have heard a lot of good qualities about his work, and exactly two criticisms:

1. He was once a preacher on television, so he must be a fundamentalist nutcase.
2. (from a woman I know and respect) He is too intellectual and over my head.

I suspect your opinion of the first criticism is similar to mine. As to the second, it seems his level of rigor might be just what you are looking for.

 

[Image_of_God]

You were brought up catholic/christian and you later rejected that. To start again, attempting to look for reasoning for the existance of God you are starting at a disadvantage. A predjudiced position. You want to push your car up the slope, so to speak. To begin afresh you would need somehow to put aside your predjudiced mind and excuses for not following every possible avenue of experience.
Its very difficult for you. You on the one hand say prove it to me and on the other you refuse help. I still like those words which say you must become as little children, you need to learn to trust as a child and start from there, otherwise this just becomes an exercise in finding excuses to do nothing.

He might also consider asking himself the question, “Why are things the way they are?” The question outright does not say much about God, but if you think deeply about it, the consideration of God’s existence might take more serious weight. The question is outside the realm of science, but is not to be dismissed.

 

[momor]

… I still like those words which say you must become as little children, you need to learn to trust as a child and start from there, otherwise this just becomes an exercise in finding excuses to do nothing.

I absolutely agree with this. You can intellectualize yourself right out of any understanding of God at all. My personal opinion is that philosophy has made more people atheists than believers (no offense intended to the philosophers here who obviously do believe).

 

[R_Daneel]

I’ll second the plug for Sheen. I have heard a lot of good qualities about his work, and exactly two criticisms:

1. He was once a preacher on television, so he must be a fundamentalist nutcase.
2. (from a woman I know and respect) He is too intellectual and over my head.

I suspect your opinion of the first criticism is similar to mine. As to the second, it seems his level of rigor might be just what you are looking for.

That is good You see, I have read quite a few apologist books, Peter Kreeft, Lee Strobel, and others. All of them were horrible. Poor reasoning, sometimes downright primitive. Contrived, nonexistent “problems”, which were then gloriously “refuted”. I also read Rabbi Kuschner’s “When bad things happen to good people”. I found it an excellent writing, even though I disagreed with some of his conclusions. (Not all, mind you). You don’t have to agree with a book to appreciate the clarity of the reasoning. But all those other books were just pure junk.

 

[R_Daneel]

He might also consider asking himself the question, “Why are things the way they are?” The question outright does not say much about God, but if you think deeply about it, the consideration of God’s existence might take more serious weight. The question is outside the realm of science, but is not to be dismissed.

Let me ask: which meaning of “why” do you have in mind? If you use it as: "What is the reason… ", or “what is the cause…” then I agree, it is a valid, good question. If you use it as “What is the purpose…” then the question is simply meaningless.

For example: both charcoal and diamond are composed of carbon atoms. They have a different pattern for those atoms. The carbon atoms is charcoal are arranged in a flat, hexagonal pattern, while the same carbon atoms in diamond are arranged on the vertices of an octahedron. Charcoal is not transparent, diamond is. Charcoal is soft, diamond is hard. The question: “how does the different arrangement result is such different characteristics?” - is a valid question. The other possible question: “What is the purpose of the hardness and transparency of diamond?” - is unanswerable and meaningless.

 

[R_Daneel]

My personal opinion is that philosophy has made more people atheists than believers (no offense intended to the philosophers here who obviously do believe).

More than just your personal opinion. It is very true. Let’s put it this way: “most people believed in God until philosopers and theologians started the process to prove it”.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I absolutely agree with this. You can intellectualize yourself right out of any understanding of God at all. My personal opinion is that philosophy has made more people atheists than believers (no offense intended to the philosophers here who obviously do believe).

i can see how you might feel that way, but i like bacons thought ion it the best.

A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.

FRANCIS BACON, Essays

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You have definitely demonstrated your intellect when you said: “a sentence does not have to be self-referential to itself to be self-refuting”. I have nothing else to say.

as i stated on the other thread you attempted to dodge arguments you cant answe ron, i will repeat here.

and it doesnt in the way you implied at the time, which i took to be the ‘liars statement’.

you meant “its a member of the set of all propositions” then when i pointed out that a sentece doesnt need to refer to itself, then you changed up to ‘indirectly refered to itself’

instead you just kept calling them ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ based on the operator, when they are actually the strong and weak version. because you didnt know what was going on. which was completely confusing the issue.

yes, that statement was wrong, if you always meant ‘indirectly’, that simply wasnt how i took it at the time. see me admitting a mistake? thats how you do it.

now do you care to support the self refuting verification and empirical statements?

or are you ready to defend the weeak versions?

trying to dodge on some pretext, only points out that you likely cant support your own beliefs and are unwilling to face the consequences that would have on your atheism.

cognitive dissonance.

 

[Image_of_God]

Let me ask: which meaning of “why” do you have in mind? If you use it as: "What is the reason… ", or “what is the cause…” then I agree, it is a valid, good question. If you use it as “What is the purpose…” then the question is simply meaningless.

For example: both charcoal and diamond are composed of carbon atoms. They have a different pattern for those atoms. The carbon atoms is charcoal are arranged in a flat, hexagonal pattern, while the same carbon atoms in diamond are arranged on the vertices of an octahedron. Charcoal is not transparent, diamond is. Charcoal is soft, diamond is hard. The question: “how does the different arrangement result is such different characteristics?” - is a valid question. The other possible question: “What is the purpose of the hardness and transparency of diamond?” - is unanswerable and meaningless.

Why not all the meanings contained in the question. You are mistaken in your assumption that because a question is not answerable in a concrete manner, then it is meaningless. You should know that there isn’t always a direct answer for every question. Sometimes you have to do some searching. You have no logical reason to assume that there is no purpose in the hardness and transparency of a diamond. There might not be, but you cannot assume so on purely logical grounds.

 

[momor]

i can see how you might feel that way, but i like bacons thought ion it the best.

Quote:
A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.

FRANCIS BACON, Essays

---

Perhaps it could also be said:
A little philosophy leads a person to pride but depth in philosophy leads a person to humility.

Unfortunately, “deep” philosophical discussions seem far too often to be just exercises in intellectual pride that offer no illumination. That is why I like Bishop Sheen so much. The depth of his intellect is demonstrated by the elegant simplicity with which he can explain his topics.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Perhaps it could also be said:
A little philosophy leads a person to pride but depth in philosophy leads a person to humility.

Unfortunately, “deep” philosophical discussions seem far too often to be just exercises in intellectual pride that offer no illumination. That is why I like Bishop Sheen so much. The depth of his intellect is demonstrated by the elegant simplicity with which he can explain his topics.

i dont know, ive never met a humble man before. i might not recognize one when i saw him!

 

[tonyrey]

I absolutely agree with this. You can intellectualize yourself right out of any understanding of God at all. My personal opinion is that philosophy has made more people atheists than believers (no offense intended to the philosophers here who obviously do believe).

I strongly disagree. People who have not studied philosophy are more likely to accept the simplistic crudity of materialism. As soon as you begin studying the nature of truth, goodness, freedom, beauty, justice and love you reject the notion that reality is restricted to what you can see, touch, hear, taste and smell. You become more convinced that the most important aspects of life are intangible…

 

[R_Daneel]

You have no logical reason to assume that there is no purpose in the hardness and transparency of a diamond. There might not be, but you cannot assume so on purely logical grounds.

The assumption of purpose presupposes someone who appreciates that purpose. There is no purpose in a universe without “someone”, who can recognize that purpose and who can use that “whatever” for a specific “purpose”.

 

[momor]

The assumption of purpose presupposes someone who appreciates that purpose. There is no purpose in a universe without “someone”, who can recognize that purpose and who can use that “whatever” for a specific “purpose”.

I have to disagree with you here. The fact that something seems to have no useful purpose is just due to lack of knowledge/understanding. For the believer everything in creation has meaning and purpose but we accept that the only Someone who knows and makes use of all of it is God.

 

[manygift1spirit]

That is good You see, I have read quite a few apologist books, Peter Kreeft, Lee Strobel, and others. All of them were horrible. Poor reasoning, sometimes downright primitive. Contrived, nonexistent “problems”, which were then gloriously “refuted”. I also read Rabbi Kuschner’s “When bad things happen to good people”. I found it an excellent writing, even though I disagreed with some of his conclusions. (Not all, mind you). You don’t have to agree with a book to appreciate the clarity of the reasoning. But all those other books were just pure junk.

Re Kreeft & Tacelli, (if that is the Kreeft you refer to), it is by no means junk, but it was disappointingly inconsistent: some parts were clearly better done than others. Perhaps a difference in the two authors, but just a guess. (my commentary is intended as much for other readers of the thread as for you; as always YMMV)

 

[R_Daneel]

I have to disagree with you here. The fact that something seems to have no useful purpose is just due to lack of knowledge/understanding. For the believer everything in creation has meaning and purpose but we accept that the only Someone who knows and makes use of all of it is God.

I don’t think this is a disagreement. You say that God gives the meaning of a purpose to something that is “seemingly” without a purpose. That is fine - but what I said is that in a universe without any conscious agent there is no purpose. That is: the existence of a conscious agent is what gives a meaning to concept of “purpose”. Without a conscious agent there is no “purpose”. You say that the conscious agent is God - which is not a disagreement - if you stop to think about it.

As the old poem goes:

Bishop Berkeley addressed himself: “God,
I find it exceedingly odd
How it is that this tree
Should continue to be
Though there’s no one about in the Quad.”

“Dear Bishop: It’s not a bit odd
For I’m always about in the Quad;
Ergo, this tree
Will continue to be.
Signed, Yours respectfully, God”

 

[R_Daneel]

Re Kreeft & Tacelli, (if that is the Kreeft you refer to), it is by no means junk, but it was disappointingly inconsistent: some parts were clearly better done than others. Perhaps a difference in the two authors, but just a guess. (my commentary is intended as much for other readers of the thread as for you; as always YMMV)

The word “junk” only reflects my opinion… and yes, our milage may vary. The point is that I was very disappointed by the quality of his reasoning.