A
- Status
V
Viviphilia
Guest
Correct me if I’m wrong.
We are supposed to be able to conclude, with certainty, that supernatural things must exist because there is a logical necessity for such things? For example, the creation of the natural universe requires something supernatural to have created it - because things must be created by some other thing (uncaused cause, etc…)?
We are supposed to be able to make conclusions about supernatural things, with certainty, and without necessary use of empirical arguments, because science is by definition limited to the natural world and thus cannot confirm or reject supernatural things - and logic alone can confirm or reject supernatural facts?
How are we ever supposed to know if something we are examining is a natural thing and not a supernatural thing? If logic can explain both natural and supernatural things, then why would we ever choose empirical evidence over logical argumentation? Isn’t that position basically the reverse of scientism?
Don’t we require some combination of empirical evidence and logical argumentation in order to have certainty?
We are supposed to be able to conclude, with certainty, that supernatural things must exist because there is a logical necessity for such things? For example, the creation of the natural universe requires something supernatural to have created it - because things must be created by some other thing (uncaused cause, etc…)?
We are supposed to be able to make conclusions about supernatural things, with certainty, and without necessary use of empirical arguments, because science is by definition limited to the natural world and thus cannot confirm or reject supernatural things - and logic alone can confirm or reject supernatural facts?
How are we ever supposed to know if something we are examining is a natural thing and not a supernatural thing? If logic can explain both natural and supernatural things, then why would we ever choose empirical evidence over logical argumentation? Isn’t that position basically the reverse of scientism?
Don’t we require some combination of empirical evidence and logical argumentation in order to have certainty?
D
davidv
Guest
I have been attempting to follow this thread but I have not seen anything stated that supports your opening supposition. Why did you conclude certainty is part of the proposal? Very few Christians would say they never had doubts.
Both empirical evidence and logical arguments exist, yet they don’t yield certainty, to the point that some claim neither exist. This lack of certainty has been no barrier to those who have pursued and attained the highest order of holiness.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Vivi
**Don’t we require some combination of empirical evidence and logical argumentation in order to have certainty? **
It would be great to have such combinations. But the combination of those two does not always lead to certainty. Sometimes they lead to an illusion of certainty. One person’s logic can contradict another person’s logic. One scientist’s experiments can contradict another scientist’s experiments.
As for theological truth, faith is another way of knowing with certainty … yet amid a plethora of doubts that must be constantly overcome or succumbed to.
Certainty is like trying to clutch water. Now you see it, now you don’t.
The certainty we do have is that we have to believe and hope in certainty. If we don’t, we become mentally unstable and frivolous.
**Don’t we require some combination of empirical evidence and logical argumentation in order to have certainty? **
It would be great to have such combinations. But the combination of those two does not always lead to certainty. Sometimes they lead to an illusion of certainty. One person’s logic can contradict another person’s logic. One scientist’s experiments can contradict another scientist’s experiments.
As for theological truth, faith is another way of knowing with certainty … yet amid a plethora of doubts that must be constantly overcome or succumbed to.
Certainty is like trying to clutch water. Now you see it, now you don’t.
The certainty we do have is that we have to believe and hope in certainty. If we don’t, we become mentally unstable and frivolous.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes. As Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft says: Faith is certain but it is also *mysterious. *Vivi
**Don’t we require some combination of empirical evidence and logical argumentation in order to have certainty? **
It would be great to have such combinations. But the combination of those two does not always lead to certainty. Sometimes they lead to an illusion of certainty. One person’s logic can contradict another person’s logic. One scientist’s experiments can contradict another scientist’s experiments.
As for theological truth, faith is another way of knowing with certainty … yet amid a plethora of doubts that must be constantly overcome or succumbed to.
Certainty is like trying to clutch water. Now you see it, now you don’t.
The certainty we do have is that we have to believe and hope in certainty. If we don’t, we become mentally unstable and frivolous.
And as the CCC: “[Faith] is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God, who cannot lie”–CCC157
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Couldn’t this be said of all faiths also? Since they all claim, in their own way, to have the fullness of truth?
Just as one faith contradicts another, one religious leader contradicts another. I’m thinking here of the split between Rome and the Orthodox faiths.
Seems to me ultimately it just comes down to making a choice - then sticking with that choice and learning the apologetics of the faith you’ve chosen to defend your position.
I listened to - arrggg - I’ve forgotten his name just as I was typing
- an English Bishop who became an Orthodox Bishop - Weir? Ware? I’ll look it up in a minute, but anyhows, boy could he defened the Orthodox faith and justify why it alone had the fullness of truth.I’ve also listened to the guy who runs the Bible Christian Society and I subscribed to his emails for a while, and he too defended the Catholic Faith just like Bishop Ware defended Orthodoxy.
(I unsubscribed from him after months and months of what appeared to me to be quite uncharitable gloating when he went through debates with other non Catholic Christians - there’s only so much self righteousness this atheist can stand
- but that’s just me.)While one can look at conflicting scientific results and think
I look at all the faiths, the claims, the apologetics and think Sarah x
P
PRmerger
Guest
I don’t think so.
For the Catholic and Orthodox to have contradictory beliefs one would have to proclaim and the other would have to say .
There are no Catholic/Orthodox teachings that meet this criterion.
The closest would be the Orthodox teaching on the primacy of the pope. And since they view him as a “first among equals”, that certainly does not contradict the Catholic teaching regarding the primacy of Peter.
A
atheistgirl
Guest
I do.
Their beliefs in purgatory and the nature of original sin contradict each other, to give just two examples, which is interesting to an outsider looking in considering both faiths claim to be founded on and by Jesus, both faiths have apostolic succession, both faiths have valid sacraments, both faiths claim to be the one with the fullness of truth - that alone is a contradiction - and so on.
Science can’t destroy religion, and never will in my opinion.
But considering the two faiths described as the two lungs of the same body can’t agree and contradict each other, never mind other Christian faiths and their conflicts, and non Christian faiths, I think religion will do a wonderful job of destroying itself, all on it’s own.
Sarah x
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Sarah,I do.
Their beliefs in purgatory and the nature of original sin contradict each other, to give just two examples, which is interesting to an outsider looking in considering both faiths claim to be founded on and by Jesus, both faiths have apostolic succession, both faiths have valid sacraments, both faiths claim to be the one with the fullness of truth - that alone is a contradiction - and so on.
Science can’t destroy religion, and never will in my opinion.
But considering the two faiths described as the two lungs of the same body can’t agree and contradict each other, never mind other Christian faiths and their conflicts, and non Christian faiths, I think religion will do a wonderful job of destroying itself, all on it’s own.
Sarah x
I don’t see a contradiction in Orthodox and Catholic teaching on Purgatory. Catholics and Orthodox would agree with the Orthodox belief…as stated below…
The Western mind however in its zeal to define…has defined further what is stated above as Purgatory, however I don’t see that Purgatory is in conflict with the above…
S
Sair
Guest
Are you really still peddling “chance” as the only possible alternative to design?
Your claim was that any hypothesis that purports to explain everything actually explains nothing - I was agreeing with you, and offering the hypothesis of “god did it” as an example. Even you would have to acknowledge that scientific theorising allows for both chance and for determined causation.
A
atheistgirl
Guest
I’ve read so much stuff that contradicts this, for example:The Western mind however in its zeal to define…has defined further what is stated above as Purgatory, however I don’t see that Purgatory is in conflict with the above…
Anyhow, without going into all the word games that will invariably follow, the simple fact that the Orthodox Church say they are the** one true Church **founded on Christ, and the Catholic Church headed by the Pope says it’s the **one true Church **founded by Christ, is contradiction enough.
Sarah x
I
inocente
Guest
I said Jesus was having a go at “those in love with dogma”, nothing to do with metaphysicians. But if you want to read it that way, who am I to blow against the wind.
Christ cares more for esoteric intellectualizing than for us? And has to run off to a hidey-hole to escape the clutches of science?That other place is his ivory tower, where he is not subject to verification by a scientific experiment … and yet where truth is to be found if it is to be found anywhere.
Yikes.
I
inocente
Guest
Errrm … 2+2=4 is defined to be true. Look up axiomatic.inocente
Try to conduct a scientific experiment proving that 2 plus 2 equals 4.
Then try to find a way that this equation is subject to falsification.
Finally, try to find atoms that exist in numbers.
If mathematics is not metaphysical, I’ll eat my metaphysical hat!
Errrm … math is abstract, not metaphysical. Look up the definitions.
You seem to be calling absolutely everything metaphysics and absolutely everyone, including Christ, a metaphysician. Metaphysically, how is that in any way useful? Or to put it your way: Metaphysically, metaphysical metaphysical metaphysical metaphysical metaphysical metaphysical metaphysical?
I
inocente
Guest
That may make sense in some philosophical ivory tower, but as you’ve never shown any understanding of science, forgive me for not taking any lessons from you.
T
tonyrey
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
No, Sarah.
Let’s just take the teaching on purgatory.
In order to prove your point, you’ll need to proffer both teachings on purgatory and show that one says [A] and the other says [Anti–A].
That’s what contradictory means, right?
So, if you could provide the teaching from the Orthodox Church (any of the churches will do) and the teaching from the CC, and then show where one says [Not-A] or [Anti-A] on this, you will have proved your point.
You will not be able to do it.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Words, definitions, arguments, apologia are important, Sarah, when one attempt to define concepts that are bigger than a breadbox.
Your dismissal of “word games” could also be used by a Muslim who objects to the Christian teaching on the Trinity. He could say, using your paradigm: “Everything I’ve read says that you guys believe in 3 gods. All this trinitarian stuff is just word games. The bottom line is you believe in 3 gods and all your explications to the contrary that will invariably follow are just word games.”
But that would demonstrate a great ignorance about Catholic teaching, don’t you think?
I
inocente
Guest
Say what you like, I’m still not interested in getting into it with you.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
inocente
Excuse me for laboring at what you have already said … which is that metaphysics is for people in ivory towers who like to sit still and think deep.
That is precisely what a mathematician does. You don’t see a mathematician examining numbers through a telescope or a microscope or placing them on a petri dish to be examined. The mathematician’s laboratory, like the chess player’s laboratory, is in his head. That where he finds truth. How do you think Euclid discovered geometry? Was geometry out there in the world to be discovered like someone panning for gold?
I’ll repeat what you so easily try to brush aside. Science begins in the head, not in the laboratory. It ends in the laboratory. Metaphysics and mathematics also begin in the head. The notion that truth cannot be found in the head without going to the laboratory is defeated by one simple sentence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident …” (not requiring scientific proof)
Excuse me for laboring at what you have already said … which is that metaphysics is for people in ivory towers who like to sit still and think deep.
That is precisely what a mathematician does. You don’t see a mathematician examining numbers through a telescope or a microscope or placing them on a petri dish to be examined. The mathematician’s laboratory, like the chess player’s laboratory, is in his head. That where he finds truth. How do you think Euclid discovered geometry? Was geometry out there in the world to be discovered like someone panning for gold?
I’ll repeat what you so easily try to brush aside. Science begins in the head, not in the laboratory. It ends in the laboratory. Metaphysics and mathematics also begin in the head. The notion that truth cannot be found in the head without going to the laboratory is defeated by one simple sentence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident …” (not requiring scientific proof)
T
tonyrey
Guest
I’m not surprised!
- Status