Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

[Pallas_Athene]

I don’t understand what point you are trying to argue.
People have replied that your concept of atonement does not reflect Catholic teaching.
Do you believe that Christ’s died and was resurrected?
If so, why do you think this was?
If you don’t, are arguing that it did not happen because the reasons that are given for its happening, do not fit with your ideas of what constitutes justice?

My idea of justice is exactly the same as the Catholic one. Good deeds merit reward, bad deeds merit punishment - and in both cases they must commensurate to the deed. I am arguing that the arguments presented by the apologists are “fluid” and inconsistent.

 

[icamhif]

I went and read it. Let’s just say that it is not an easy read. But I went and researched it further. The conclusion is twofold. 1) Not even Catholics agree upon the concept. 2) And when they try to talk about it, they say that it is a “mystery”. As soon as the “mystery” is mentioned, I am not interested any further. I am only interested in the mysteries of Agatha Christie.

If someone could explain in a few simple sentences just HOW does the sacrificial death of an innocent “atone” for the sins, I would be glad to read it.

I commend you for doing some research on the topic. However, your observations are not so much “disagreements among Catholics” as they are variations of theories of the atonement that Catholics are allowed to believe. (Catholics, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you are also allowed to believe in the Recapitulation Theory.) What IS agreed upon and non-negotiable in Catholicism is that the atonement exists and that the Penal Substitution Model is wrong.

Here is a quote from Aquinas about the Satisfaction Theory:
“If we speak of that satisfactory punishment, which one takes upon oneself voluntarily, one may bear another’s punishment…. If, however, we speak of punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal, then each one is punished for his own sin only, because the sinful act is something personal. But if we speak of a punishment that is medicinal, in this way it does happen that one is punished for another’s sin.”

 

[icamhif]

I commend you for doing some research on the topic. However, your observations are not so much “disagreements among Catholics” as they are variations of theories of the atonement that Catholics are allowed to believe. (Catholics, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you are also allowed to believe in the Recapitulation Theory.) What IS agreed upon and non-negotiable in Catholicism is that the atonement exists and that the Penal Substitution Model is wrong.

Here is a quote from Aquinas about the Satisfaction Theory:
“If we speak of that satisfactory punishment, which one takes upon oneself voluntarily, one may bear another’s punishment…. If, however, we speak of punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal, then each one is punished for his own sin only, because the sinful act is something personal. But if we speak of a punishment that is medicinal, in this way it does happen that one is punished for another’s sin.”

 

[Aloysium]

My idea of justice is exactly the same as the Catholic one. Good deeds merit reward, bad deeds merit punishment - and in both cases they must commensurate to the deed. I am arguing that the arguments presented by the apologists are “fluid” and inconsistent.

You didn’t answer my questions for your reasons.
Do you believe that Jesus Christ is your saviour and redeemer?
If so we can explore that mystery.
It is Truth, but how we conceptualize and explain it differs among Christians.
I believe someone earlier referred to your thinking as being fundamentalist.
There may be contradictions in approaching this and other religious matters from that perspective. These problems reflect how that sort of thinking is associated with inaccurate interpretations.
Fact remains - Jesus died for our sins and as a result we are heaven-bound.
Take it as you will.

You may wish to explore the matter of what constitutes a good deed.
In pursuit of an answer you will delve into all sorts of mysteries, including:

• the nature of human being
• free will
• the nature of the good
• what is evil?
• how we know good and evil?
• what is knowledge?
• what is truth?
• etc
• God

 

[PRmerger]

I went and read it. Let’s just say that it is not an easy read. But I went and researched it further. The conclusion is twofold. 1) Not even Catholics agree upon the concept. 2) And when they try to talk about it, they say that it is a “mystery”. As soon as the “mystery” is mentioned, I am not interested any further. I am only interested in the mysteries of Agatha Christie.

Firstly, this demonstrates an impoverished understanding of what a mystery is in Catholic theology.

Secondly, the fact that “not even Catholics” agree upon the concept is irrelevant.

You need to refute what Catholicism professes, not what Catholics who disagree with Catholicism profess.

Otherwise, you could say that “not even Catholics agree that abortion is wrong”.

And, yet, you should know that Catholicism professes that abortion is wrong.

It’s irrelevant what individual Catholics say who have divorced themselves from the kerygma, when attempting to discuss Catholic teaching.

Learn what the Church teaches, and then address it, ok?

 

[PRmerger]

If not, then simply quote anything I wrote and tell me where it is incorrect.

Will do.

But do you agree to tell us where each of these assertions is wrong, too?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[PRmerger]

Justice is never served by multiplying the injustice.

That is what I was saying all along.

Excellent. You are very Catholic when you say this “all along”.

Was it an injustice on the part of humanity to commit all those “sins”?

Of course.

Was it an injustice on the part of humans to crucify the innocent Jesus?

Indeed.

If you answer with “yes”, then multiple injustices have been performed… therefore justice could not be served.

Justice was served because God transformed the most evil act in history, deicide, into the greatest act of love.

And we’ve already established that you see that love and sacrifice go together. In fact, you went even further than I did and asserted that sacrifices that you make were not burdensome at all.

That’s exactly Christ’s view as well.

usccb.org/bible/john/10

 

[tonyrey]

The trouble with all these attempts is that one cannot atone for the deeds (sins) of others. Even if the act is voluntary. Two wrongs do not make a right. A just judge would never accept the volunteer’s sacrifice. Funny that I had to spell this out several times, and no one even tried to argue against it…

Your entire argument is based on the unjustified assumption that this life is brought to a complete full stop at death. No wonder you cannot understand the meaning of atonement! I shall be grateful if you reply because I can’t understand whether you really believe life is meaningless. And if it isn’t what gives it meaning?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

You explicitly agreed that two wrongs cannot make a “right”. That is the common ground for the conversation. And then you changed it as follows:

Justice was served because God transformed the most evil act in history, deicide, into the greatest act of love.

Sorry, that is nonsense. “Evil” cannot be transformed into “good”. If that would be logically possible, then there would be no way to declare that action “X” is evil… after all we might just be waiting for God to “transform” it into something good. If there is no clear-cut way to separate good and evil acts, then there is no “morality”.

And we’ve already established that you see that love and sacrifice go together.

No, we did NOT. I affirm that the willingness to sacrifice oneself MAY BE part of love. But from that it does not follow that sacrifice is the integral part of “love”. There can be love without a sacrifice - if there is no NEED for the sacrifice; and sacrifice could come from a different source, not “love”.

 

[PRmerger]

You explicitly agreed that two wrongs cannot make a “right”.

Yes. That is correct.

Sorry, that is nonsense. “Evil” cannot be transformed into “good”.

Well, yes and no.

An inherently evil act, such as, say torture of a child for fun, can never be transformed into good.

God can certainly transform a bad thing into a good thing.

As Scripture states: What you meant for evil, God used for good.

 

[PRmerger]

I affirm that the willingness to sacrifice oneself MAY BE part of love.

Excellent.

So you can see the great act of love as limned by Christ’s willingness to be crurcified.

But from that it does not follow that sacrifice is the integral part of “love”.

Again, if you’ve never sacrificed for your wife, you never loved her.

There can be love without a sacrifice - if there is no NEED for the sacrifice; and sacrifice could come from a different source, not “love”.

Well, I’ll grant you that if you had a wife for about 5 minutes, and then something tragically happened to one of you, the above scenario would be applicable.

But let’s talk about reality.

If you love, you sacrifice.

Or else, you are one mighty selfish individual.

“I’m not getting up in the middle of the night to get you a drink of water while you’re in a cast. But I do love you, honey!”

See how that doesn’t work?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Well, yes and no.

Thanks for the good laugh. Always fun to see such unambiguous utterances.

An inherently evil act, such as, say torture of a child for fun, can never be transformed into good.

Hmmm… so the vicarious torture of the “lamb of God” is not as evil as the torturing a child? Very strange, indeed. Is God not omnipotent any more?

God can certainly transform a bad thing into a good thing.

As Scripture states: What you meant for evil, God used for good.

I am sure you are aware that scriptural references are not convincing for this discussion.

Let me repeat: “Evil” cannot be transformed into “good”. If that would be logically possible, then there would be no way to declare that action “X” is evil… after all we might just be waiting for God to “transform” it into something good. If there is no clear-cut way to separate good and evil acts, then there is no “morality”.

Again, if you’ve never sacrificed for your wife, you never loved her.

Your usage of the word “sacrifice” is vague to the point of becoming meaningless. Getting up in the middle of the night to bring a glass of water is NOT a sacrifice. Only a hopelessly egotistical person would consider it a sacrifice. You keep forgetting your own principle: “let’s talk in the abstract”. Most lives do not need a real sacrifice, giving up something important. Of course one should be prepared to do it IF the need would arise. But just because such events never materialize, it does not indicate the lack of “love”.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for the good laugh. Always fun to see such unambiguous utterances.

Another example of your being unable to think in the abstract.

I am more and more seeing the truth to this utterance: scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.

Here’s an example of such fundamentalist thinking: “How can something be yes and no at the same time? That’s absolutely impossible!”

And yet, I am 100% certain that you or someone whose intellect you respect has uttered these very same words.

Why am I so certain about this?

Because it’s a common enough remark, (422,000 hits on Google!) and when understood in its context, can be an appropriate answer.

But for some reason, sometimes atheists become quite unable to apply this abstract thinking when it comes to theological dialogue.

One has to wonder about this inability…

 

[PRmerger]

Another example of your being unable to think in the abstract.

I am more and more seeing the truth to this utterance: scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.

Here’s an example of such fundamentalist thinking: “How can something be yes and no at the same time? That’s absolutely impossible!”

And yet, I am 100% certain that you or someone whose intellect you respect has uttered these very same words.

Why am I so certain about this?

Because it’s a common enough remark, (422,000 hits on Google!) and when understood in its context, can be an appropriate answer.

But for some reason, sometimes atheists become quite unable to apply this abstract thinking when it comes to theological dialogue.

One has to wonder about this inability…

http://38.media.tumblr.com/7127396a53b05b1bd47d4bdb28a5b8b5/tumblr_inline_my3mdeJJn71r79k32.gif

Oh, and let give a preemptive strike to a response that I’m certain is forthcoming.

Here’s what will be proffered: “Oh, so you think ‘yes and no’ is an appropriate answer, do you, PR? Well, then is the answer to the question, ‘Is marriage always between 1 man and 1 woman and never between 2 men?’…‘Well, yes and no’?”

That, friends, would just be another example of fundamentalist thinking.

Just because SOME things can be “yes and no” doesn’t mean that ALL things are “yes and no”.

So let’s just countermand that response and move on.

 

[PRmerger]

Let me repeat: “Evil” cannot be transformed into “good”.

Sorry. That is absolutely incorrect.

God transforms evil into good all the time.

Scripture is full of examples of that, and in fact, quite explicitly states that our evil intentions can be made into good.

“What you meant for evil God meant for good”–Genesis 50:20.

Incidentally, (you *should *know this), but are you aware what Christendom calls the day that the most evil thing in the world occurred?

It’s called…

wait for it…

wait for it…

GOOD …

Friday.

#good

#thinkaboutit

 

[Pallas_Athene]

God transforms evil into good all the time.

All the time? Can you bring up an actual example of this? A REAL example… please.

You know…
wait for it…
wait for it…
gasp…
gasp…
puke…
puke…
“REAL” example.

(The reason that I emulated your style is to show how unnecessary it is to “build up” the suspense and the expectation… you can safely leave it off. I will read your post without it.)

Scripture is full of examples of that, and in fact, quite explicitly states that our evil intentions can be made into good.

I already told you that the scripture is not an argument for non-Christians.

Incidentally, (you *should *know this), but are you aware what Christendom calls the day that the most evil thing in the world occurred?

Why should I “think about it”? A nonsensical utterance will stay nonsensical no matter how many people say it; and no matter how many times it is being said. No matter how many times the believers say that the “trinity” is a “mystery”, it will stay a nonsensical concept for all non-Christians.

You did not enlighten me: if God can willy-nilly transform an evil act to something good, then how do you know that any act is evil? Maybe God is still contemplating just what kind of “good” can he bring out of it? And why is the vicarious torture of a child “impossible” for God to turn into something good? On what grounds would you say that the Holocaust was “evil”… maybe God still did not transform it into something “good”??? But that “transformation” is just around the corner?

 

[Bradski]

Will do.

Still waiting. Too save you looking it up, here it is again. So where I am I going wrong here. Please quote the part where I have misrepresented the situation.

‘What happened to that tribe over there that was disobeying you’.
‘Ah, I had enough of them. I killed them all. Well, all but a few. Noah and a few relatives. They can start again. Give it another go. And this time they better get it right’.
‘Yeah! Too right! Or you’ll kill them all again!’.
‘Nah. If it happens again, they’re going to have to make a sacrifice. To show that they are sorry. Something really important’.
‘But what happens if they won’t or can’t do that? Gonna kill them again?’
‘Mmm…no. Done that already. Need something a little different’.
‘Hey, I know. If they can’t make a sacrifice, why don’t YOU make it?’
‘Me?’
‘Yeah. You can…I dunno…kill your son?’
‘That’s it! But I won’t do it. I’ll send him over there and they can kill him’.
‘Brilliant…’

 

[Bradski]

I’d order you a Victoria Bitter, but I sense you are a Pure Blonde or perhaps the internationally trendy Corona Light sort of guy.
Me, never really understanding the point of one beer, I gave up drinking for health reasons.
It sounds sort of girly, but I’l have a ginger ale…\quote]

Holy Toledo. Well off the mark! Well, except for the point of just the one beer. But I guess I don’t have your will power.

A VB is what I call a lawn mower beer. If you’ve spent a few hours working in the garden (as I just did) and you are REALLY thirsty, then a VB hits the spot. Just like the adverts…slam it down, wipe your mouth with the back of your hand and move on to the next one. Then poke around in the beer fridge for something worthwhile. A carbonated it ain’t.

Anyway, too late to reply to your post, but I’ll try to do so tomorrow.

 

[PRmerger]

All the time?

Sigh.

If you’re going to focus on the quantity, then I happily will remove the quantification: God can and does turn evil into good.

How about that?

 

[PRmerger]

Still waiting. Too save you looking it up, here it is again. So where I am I going wrong here. Please quote the part where I have misrepresented the situation.

Sorry. I guess I didn’t make it clear. The first part of my post was predicated upon your agreement on the 2nd part.

Will do.

But do you agree to tell us where each of these assertions is wrong, too?

http://pictures.mastermarf.com/blog/2010/100702-atheism.png