P
PRmerger
Guest
Please cite your source for the Orthodox teaching. Thanks.Yes, Prmerger.
See below.
Please don’t adopt such a condescending tone when you reply to me. Thanks.
See above.
I just have.
Sarah x
- Status
A
atheistgirl
Guest
I have asked you to stop being so condescending in your posts.Perhaps it’s because you don’t know what contradictory means..
I’ve given you the contradictory statements regarding purgatory.
Sarah x
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yep. It’s like a math problem that your professor, in whom you have great faith, has given the answer.From everything I’ve been reading I wouldn’t be ‘‘rejected’’ but rather, I would be encouraged - encouraged to keep searching, keep reading, keep studying, keep discussing … until I eventually believed as you did
Sarah x
You can’t quite get to the answer, so you keep searching, reading, studying, discussing, until you come to the correct answer provided for you by your prof.
“Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer”. --Cardinal John Henry Newman.
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Even my children have grown out of such childish taunts.I won’t if you won’t.
Sound fair?
We’re done.
Sarah x
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Hey, nobody’s holding a gun to your head. Just like you say, you’re always welcome to ask and such, no pressure asked.
How MUCH you want to learn is entirely up to you. Like X-Files said, the Truth is Out There…
Since coming here I’ve learned tons about the Catholic faith. Hey, even enough to defend Catholics in their absence when someone in my hearing said Catholics worship statues and worship Mary as a God.
I expect I’m coming to the end of my curiousity about the faith. Nothing about it convinces me there is a Deity, but it’s been very interesting learning about what Catholics believe, and I think I’ve informed myself quite well, between here, the Bible, and the online Catechism and the Vatican website along with a few other apologetics sites I dip into.
I’m looking at the Jewish faith and Orthodoxy now more, and I’m going to look more closely at the protestant faiths, as I know little about them, particularly Baptists and Lutherans for no particular reason other than I’m very impressed with certain Lutheran and Baptist posters here.
If I remain an atheist, ($10 says I will
) it won’t be because I know nothing about what formal religions teach, which was previously the case. Sarah x
P
PRmerger
Guest
whatshouldwecallme.tumblr.com/post/18880210632/when-my-friend-her-bf-are-having-the-same-fight-theyEven my children have grown out of such childish taunts.
We’re done.
Sarah x
V
Viviphilia
Guest
Hi Sarah,I have asked you to stop being so condescending in your posts.
I’ve given you the contradictory statements regarding purgatory.
Sarah x
Did you know the forum has an ignore list? I’ve found that a very few people are just too disrespectful to pay any attention to.
If you go to profile > control panel > edit ignore list, you can copy and paste the user names of any trolls who are bothering you and they will bother you no more!
I know, I know, it’s nice to be open minded and try to listen to everyone. But I’ve found that forums can be much more enjoyable when the really noisy trolls are silenced. You can even use the “view post” feature to look at a person’s post and check in occasionally and see if their behavior has improved at all! :bounce:
- V
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Hi Viviphilia,
Thank you.
I’ve used this feature to good effect and you’re right, it does make the reading of threads and the forum in general much more enjoyable.
In some cases, I’ve been trying really hard not to use this feature, but alas, as is almost always the case, initial impressions were right all along.
It’s done.
Sarah x
V
Viviphilia
Guest
Hi Char,I’ve already answered these points, except to offer that what’s really trivial is that which is bound to perish. If you have a soul that will perish, because you think it dies with your body, then I can see why you think your immortal soul is trivial and you won’t bother worrying about it.
But here’s the bottom line: you are here at Catholic Answers; so you are worrying about it … and therefore it is not trivial to you.
If you talked about those points, I might have overlooked it.
I don’t know if we have immortal souls or not. What I’m saying is that if we did have an immortal soul, it is not supernatural. Rather, it would be explainable under a scientific worldview. The possibility of us having a souls is an interesting sort of thing to think about when the idea comes up, which isn’t often. What would a real, physical “soul” be like? Would it be a virtual presence on a huge computer, as in the simulation argument?
The reason I’m here at Catholic Answers is to learn more about the ways in which Catholics think. This is because I’m trying to understand my father better. Speculative metaphysics can be interesting, but I like to try and stick with more natural problems such as epistemology and ethics.
- V
P
PRmerger
Guest
'zactly.
And the profession that one must always follow one’s conscience is a great argument for the existence of God.
The only source of absolute moral obligation left is something superior to me. This binds my will, morally, with rightful demands for complete obedience.
Thus God, or something like God, is the only adequate source and ground for the absolute moral obligation we all feel to obey our conscience. Conscience is thus explainable only as the voice of God in the soul. The Ten Commandments are ten divine footprints in our psychic sand. source
D
davidv
Guest
I think you have misinterpreted the section you quoted. I says “faith is certain” not believe with certainty. It seems to me there is more than a sutle difference between the two phrases.
Some supernatural facts, like the Incarnation are also accessible to science. Jesus, when he was alive, presented much empirical data. He was seen, heard, and touched.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes.
We are certain not of our minds but of *God’s *mind.
Faith is like a bright light (certainty) surrounded by
darkness (mystery), a light that keeps growing and illuminating
new areas of the darkness.–Peter Kreeft
I
inocente
Guest
In any other field of endeavor it’s very easy to list important work over the last 100 years, but you’re saying metaphysics could have closed up shop centuries ago as anything that was remotely useful had already been done. Agreed.
You’re not making much sense to me, as I’ve already pointed out.
I know of no one these days who would agree that math is metaphysics, perhaps you would cite a few. It might have been true in antiquity, I don’t know, but you’re on the internet dude, you can’t be that ancient.
Or can you?
If that guy was a logical positivist he can be ignored - their concept of verifiability fell out of fashion, as I’ve already pointed out.
Basically what I’m getting from this conversation is you only read really old stuff, so just to let you know that Lincoln is dead and movies now have sound.
I
inocente
Guest
But if we allow anyone else to dictate whether our conscience is well-formed, we are not letting our conscience be our guide and so fall at the first hurdle.
Ultimately, after listening to others, we must trust our own judgment. You can’t love your neighbor until you’ve learned to love yourself.
We both are, see Paul’s argument in Romans 14.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
inocente
I know of no one these days who would agree that math is metaphysics, perhaps you would cite a few. It might have been true in antiquity, I don’t know, but you’re on the internet dude, you can’t be that ancient.
Is Bertrand Russell recent enough? Or is anyone who lived before you an idiot?
“Mathematical knowledge appeared to be certain, exact and applicable to the real world; moreover it was obtained by mere thinking, without the need of observation. Consequently, it was thought to supply an ideal, from which everyday empirical knowledge fell short. It was supposed, on the basis of mathematics, that thought is superior to sense, intuition to observation. If the world of sense does not fit mathematics, so much the worse for the world of sense. … Mathematics is, I believe, the chief source of the belief in eternal and exact truth, as well as a super-sensible intelligible world.” Bertrand Russell, Mathematician
If you don’t see the implied term “metaphysical” in Russell’s description of mathematics, I guess you just don’t want to see it.
I know of no one these days who would agree that math is metaphysics, perhaps you would cite a few. It might have been true in antiquity, I don’t know, but you’re on the internet dude, you can’t be that ancient.
Is Bertrand Russell recent enough? Or is anyone who lived before you an idiot?
“Mathematical knowledge appeared to be certain, exact and applicable to the real world; moreover it was obtained by mere thinking, without the need of observation. Consequently, it was thought to supply an ideal, from which everyday empirical knowledge fell short. It was supposed, on the basis of mathematics, that thought is superior to sense, intuition to observation. If the world of sense does not fit mathematics, so much the worse for the world of sense. … Mathematics is, I believe, the chief source of the belief in eternal and exact truth, as well as a super-sensible intelligible world.” Bertrand Russell, Mathematician
If you don’t see the implied term “metaphysical” in Russell’s description of mathematics, I guess you just don’t want to see it.
I
inocente
Guest
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.inocente
I know of no one these days who would agree that math is metaphysics, perhaps you would cite a few. It might have been true in antiquity, I don’t know, but you’re on the internet dude, you can’t be that ancient.
Is Bertrand Russell recent enough? Or is anyone who lived before you an idiot?
“Mathematical knowledge appeared to be certain, exact and applicable to the real world; moreover it was obtained by mere thinking, without the need of observation. Consequently, it was thought to supply an ideal, from which everyday empirical knowledge fell short. It was supposed, on the basis of mathematics, that thought is superior to sense, intuition to observation. If the world of sense does not fit mathematics, so much the worse for the world of sense. … Mathematics is, I believe, the chief source of the belief in eternal and exact truth, as well as a super-sensible intelligible world.” Bertrand Russell, Mathematician
If you don’t see the implied term “metaphysical” in Russell’s description of mathematics, I guess you just don’t want to see it.
The first part of your mangled misquote is from Russell’s History of Western Philosophy. He is talking about Pythagoras, and your mangled misquote misses out [the start of the paragraph](books.google.es/books?id=Ey94E3sOMA0C&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=If+the+world+of+sense+does+not+fit+mathematics,+so+much+the+worse+for+the+world+of+sense.&source=bl&ots=Ei5axy37EO&sig=CPzIHMSbiXyXAQrzcoNRildqXMU&hl=es&sa=X&ei=K4r9T5aEN-PE0QWytYixBw&ved=0CFcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=If the world of sense does not fit mathematics%2C so much the worse for the world of sense.&f=false) (page 42), which reads:
Most sciences, at their inception, have been connected with some form of false belief, which gave them a fictitious value. Astronomy was connected with astrology, chemistry with alchemy. Mathematics was associated with a more refined type of error.
Your mangled misquote then follows, where Russell points out the flaws in Pythagoras’ philosophy. Russell isn’t agreeing that math is metaphysical, he is disagreeing.
The last part of your quote is, as far as I call tell, from an entirely different book.
It’s outrageous to bung misquotations together like that, and whoever did it should be shot at dawn. I assume you got it in good faith from a tom dick and harry website, but please always check your sources in future, otherwise you just propagate falsehoods.
So basically then, no, math is not metaphysics. QED
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
inocente
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
This is not a mangled quote. It is precisely what Russell said. You are the one who is trying to mangle it to say something Russell did not say. It’s true Russell did not have any use for metaphysics, but it’s also clear that his definition of the way mathematics is used is precisely the same as the way metaphysics is used. Russell did not deny the usefulness of mathematics (he was a famous mathematician).
If you look at the sentence in blue below, tell me how that differs from any definition of metaphysics you will find in a dictionary of philosophy.
"Mathematics is, I believe, the chief source of the belief in eternal and exact truth, as well as in a super-sensible world. Geometry deals with exact circles, but no sensible object is exactly circular; however carefully we use our compasses, there will be some imperfections and irregularities. This suggests the view that all exact reasoning applies to ideal as opposed to sensible objects; it is natural to go further, and to argue that thought is nobler than sense, and the objects of thought more real than that of sense-perception."
Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. 1945.
Quod erat demonstratum!
P.S. You might also try letting up on the sacrcasm.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
This is not a mangled quote. It is precisely what Russell said. You are the one who is trying to mangle it to say something Russell did not say. It’s true Russell did not have any use for metaphysics, but it’s also clear that his definition of the way mathematics is used is precisely the same as the way metaphysics is used. Russell did not deny the usefulness of mathematics (he was a famous mathematician).
If you look at the sentence in blue below, tell me how that differs from any definition of metaphysics you will find in a dictionary of philosophy.
"Mathematics is, I believe, the chief source of the belief in eternal and exact truth, as well as in a super-sensible world. Geometry deals with exact circles, but no sensible object is exactly circular; however carefully we use our compasses, there will be some imperfections and irregularities. This suggests the view that all exact reasoning applies to ideal as opposed to sensible objects; it is natural to go further, and to argue that thought is nobler than sense, and the objects of thought more real than that of sense-perception."
Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. 1945.
Quod erat demonstratum!
P.S. You might also try letting up on the sacrcasm.
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is a trenchant point, when one considers why non-Catholics have chosen this particular forum in which to dialogue.But here’s the bottom line: you are here at Catholic Answers; so you are worrying about it … and therefore it is not trivial to you.
Why not go to a JW forum?
I don’t know the answer as to why each individual comes here, but something draws them to Catholic Answers, and it is interesting to consider why…
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
PR
I have visited your website. Well done good and faithful servant!
I have visited your website. Well done good and faithful servant!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Oh, p-shaw, friend!PR
I have visited your website. Well done good and faithful servant!
shaw:- Status