P
- Status
M
mgoforth
Guest
Huh??? When has science ever proven such a thing? If what you say is true, there should be an experiment with a title that you can share with us. If there isn’t, then I hope you have enough integrity to retract this silly statement.… and you are telling me that because science has proven that bread categorically cannot structurally change into human flesh, it is an “appearance” that is not “reality”???
J
jochoa
Guest
I am sorry to hear the struggles you are faced with my friend. I feel your pain. I have walked in your shoes. Here are some ideas to consider as to the proper motives for faith:
-Ask yourself, “Do you want to live as long as possible?” If so, recognize that the longest amount of time to possibly live is eternally. The only possible way to guarantee an eternal life is through faith, specifically the faith in a Creator, who created and purposed an after-life for you.
Reconciling the Sacrament of Eucharist and faith in living forever with the reasonable science of how to continue living:
-In order to continue living , we must eat another life, perhaps plant or animal life. The energy/nutrients obtained from the life will determine how long we can continue living, until we need to eat another life.
-Since we want to live forever, we must eat the life which lives forever. The only life to live forever is God’s Life.
-The Eucharist is the only way to eat, and become one with, the Body of God/Jesus.
These are only a couple ideas I have in my personal attempts to reconcile faith and reason. I have many more if you are interested!
May your journey be as peaceful as possible!
A
arabic99
Guest
Hey brothers and sisters.
It seems as though my line of challenging questions are possibly irritating some, so I will stop here.
For the record, I am not trolling, I am simply presenting perspectives from an atheistic viewpoint which I have become familiar with. If these viewpoints are causing irritation, it is important for your own faith to address them, so that during conversation your faith is not come across as superstitious.
I’m sorry for the excessive challenge, y’all
It seems as though my line of challenging questions are possibly irritating some, so I will stop here.
For the record, I am not trolling, I am simply presenting perspectives from an atheistic viewpoint which I have become familiar with. If these viewpoints are causing irritation, it is important for your own faith to address them, so that during conversation your faith is not come across as superstitious.
I’m sorry for the excessive challenge, y’all
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Your last sentence belies the denial that you are trolling. Your rhetorical questions, not intended to understand but to belittle were all put to rest. Yet, even after being decisively countered, you claim a status of “excessive challenge” and label anything contrary to your opinion as “superstitious.”Hey brothers and sisters.
It seems as though my line of challenging questions are possibly irritating some, so I will stop here.
For the record, I am not trolling, I am simply presenting perspectives from an atheistic viewpoint which I have become familiar with. If these viewpoints are causing irritation, it is important for your own faith to address them, so that during conversation your faith is not come across as superstitious.
I’m sorry for the excessive challenge, y’all
Did you even bother to consider Feynman or Popper’s points on the limits of science? You didn’t even try to support your position in response to your scientism and yet you want to have the last word by merely asserting your challenge was “too excessive” to counter.
This is classic “hit and run” trolling.
A
arabic99
Guest
Peter, as I’ve already asserted, I am not trolling. I have seen atheists converse with Catholics and the moment they are challenged, they (the atheists) are numbered amongst the “dead”…it’s sad to see people turn totally away from God.
I feel calling me a troll is disrespectful.
This is not about the limitations of science. This is about believing something that goes contrary to what has been observed in the world so far.
When you believe in something that goes against what has been observed, or at least some “sign” of it’s existence, then you cannot deny the weird and whacky belief systems their rights to believe. What is the difference between the Catholic faith and UFO worshippers, or breatharians, or Scientology?
These are important questions worthy of discussion, there are too many souls turning away from God altogether to not address these issues
I feel calling me a troll is disrespectful.
This is not about the limitations of science. This is about believing something that goes contrary to what has been observed in the world so far.
When you believe in something that goes against what has been observed, or at least some “sign” of it’s existence, then you cannot deny the weird and whacky belief systems their rights to believe. What is the difference between the Catholic faith and UFO worshippers, or breatharians, or Scientology?
These are important questions worthy of discussion, there are too many souls turning away from God altogether to not address these issues
A
AuditVocemMeam
Guest
God’s existence is absolutely certain by reason alone. I wrote an article on the logical necessity of faith here: romanlight.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-logical-necessity-of-faith.html
I hope it might be of some help.
I hope it might be of some help.
A
arabic99
Guest
Cheers to you Audit!
Great article!
If I may quote from it:
“So how are we to know the truth? It is unacceptable to say that we cannot, because if God wills to reveal Himself to us, then surely we can. Divine revelation is how God can show Himself to us. If God tells us something about Himself, then we know it is true by His authority; we place our faith in God by accepting what He tells us about Himself.”
There are few people on earth who can deny the validity of truth revealed in the Bible (OT and NT) however where the problems arise and where atheists start having major issues is on how the truth in the Bible is “interpreted”
For example, who is to say that the way Rastafarians interpret the Bible is correct or incorrect?
Why is the Catholic interpretation more valid than the Protestant or JW interpretation.
Again atheists leave God for a more scientific understanding of life due to the many contradictions, and for hundreds of years it seems as though God is in conflict
Great article!
If I may quote from it:
“So how are we to know the truth? It is unacceptable to say that we cannot, because if God wills to reveal Himself to us, then surely we can. Divine revelation is how God can show Himself to us. If God tells us something about Himself, then we know it is true by His authority; we place our faith in God by accepting what He tells us about Himself.”
There are few people on earth who can deny the validity of truth revealed in the Bible (OT and NT) however where the problems arise and where atheists start having major issues is on how the truth in the Bible is “interpreted”
For example, who is to say that the way Rastafarians interpret the Bible is correct or incorrect?
Why is the Catholic interpretation more valid than the Protestant or JW interpretation.
Again atheists leave God for a more scientific understanding of life due to the many contradictions, and for hundreds of years it seems as though God is in conflict
A
AuditVocemMeam
Guest
Thank you for the compliments.
We know that the Catholic interpretation is the correct interpretation because it is taught by the Church which Christ founded while He walked on Earth; its teachers descend in direct and unbroken line from the Apostles whom Christ called.
I quote from another post I wrote on that same site:
*"One cannot logically obey Christ and reject His Church, as He says definitively to those whom He sent: “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me” (Luke 10:16).
Other Biblical texts give additional certainty to the founding of the Catholic Church by Christ. We have, for example, the statement of Christ to the disciples that “as the Father hath sent me, I also send you” (John 20:21). Pope Leo XIII discusses the two Biblical passages just mentioned in his encyclical Satis cognitum:
We see that Christ willed that His people be taught by living shepherds. Further Biblical passages confirm this: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven” (Matthew 16:18-19). “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19). “He [Jesus] said to him [Peter] the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep” (John 21:17).
If the Church were not governed by living shepherds and only had, for example, the Bible to be the rule of its faith, how would the Christian faith remain constant and unchanging? Different people might have different interpretations of the same text if there is no authoritative interpretation of the text. If one side claims that the Eucharist really is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and another side claims that the first side is wrong, one of the two necessarily must be wrong. But we know that we have “one faith” (Ephesians 4:5) so how can we tolerate a disagreement over a fact so important to our salvation? Christ places a high importance on truth: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Why would He not preserve the truth of His faith for those who came after His time on earth, or why would He allow disagreements on central dogmatic or doctrinal points? “And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever…But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.” (John 14:16, 26). From this we see that the truth of Christ is to be preserved, and this is to be done in the Church according to Christ’s command."*
Christ established one faith. It’s clear that the Bible alone is not enough to preserve that one faith, because who gets to decide which interpretation is correct? So in addition to an inanimate rule of faith (non-living, as in a document, as in the Bible), we should look for an animate rule of faith (living, as in people, as in the Church) to preserve the one faith which Christ founded.
But it is clear from the Bible that Christ founded His Church, against which the gates of hell would not prevail, upon Peter. The Pope is the successor of Peter in direct line, and the bishops are the successors of the Apostles. Christ willed that His Church should be led by living shepherds, and the shepherds we have today are the direct successors to the original ones. The Church is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). So we have the same Church today which was the pillar and ground of the truth then. It becomes apparent that we should follow the Church’s judgment in interpreting the Bible. Especially because the only reason we know that the canonical books of the Bible are in fact canonical is because the Church - the Catholic Church - declared that. If we reject the Catholic Church’s teaching on how to interpret the Bible, how can we honestly accept the Catholic Church’s teaching on which books are canonical? If one goes, both go.
We know that the Catholic interpretation is the correct interpretation because it is taught by the Church which Christ founded while He walked on Earth; its teachers descend in direct and unbroken line from the Apostles whom Christ called.
I quote from another post I wrote on that same site:
*"One cannot logically obey Christ and reject His Church, as He says definitively to those whom He sent: “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me” (Luke 10:16).
Other Biblical texts give additional certainty to the founding of the Catholic Church by Christ. We have, for example, the statement of Christ to the disciples that “as the Father hath sent me, I also send you” (John 20:21). Pope Leo XIII discusses the two Biblical passages just mentioned in his encyclical Satis cognitum:
Code:
'Hence He commands that the teaching of the Apostles should be religiously accepted and piously kept as if it were His own...Wherefore the Apostles are ambassadors of Christ as He is the ambassador of the Father...Hence as the Apostles and Disciples were bound to obey Christ, so also those whom the Apostles taught were, by God's command, bound to obey them. And, therefore, it was no more allowable to repudiate one iota of the Apostles' teaching than it was to reject any point of the doctrine of Christ Himself.'If the Church were not governed by living shepherds and only had, for example, the Bible to be the rule of its faith, how would the Christian faith remain constant and unchanging? Different people might have different interpretations of the same text if there is no authoritative interpretation of the text. If one side claims that the Eucharist really is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and another side claims that the first side is wrong, one of the two necessarily must be wrong. But we know that we have “one faith” (Ephesians 4:5) so how can we tolerate a disagreement over a fact so important to our salvation? Christ places a high importance on truth: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Why would He not preserve the truth of His faith for those who came after His time on earth, or why would He allow disagreements on central dogmatic or doctrinal points? “And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever…But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.” (John 14:16, 26). From this we see that the truth of Christ is to be preserved, and this is to be done in the Church according to Christ’s command."*
Christ established one faith. It’s clear that the Bible alone is not enough to preserve that one faith, because who gets to decide which interpretation is correct? So in addition to an inanimate rule of faith (non-living, as in a document, as in the Bible), we should look for an animate rule of faith (living, as in people, as in the Church) to preserve the one faith which Christ founded.
But it is clear from the Bible that Christ founded His Church, against which the gates of hell would not prevail, upon Peter. The Pope is the successor of Peter in direct line, and the bishops are the successors of the Apostles. Christ willed that His Church should be led by living shepherds, and the shepherds we have today are the direct successors to the original ones. The Church is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). So we have the same Church today which was the pillar and ground of the truth then. It becomes apparent that we should follow the Church’s judgment in interpreting the Bible. Especially because the only reason we know that the canonical books of the Bible are in fact canonical is because the Church - the Catholic Church - declared that. If we reject the Catholic Church’s teaching on how to interpret the Bible, how can we honestly accept the Catholic Church’s teaching on which books are canonical? If one goes, both go.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Your initial post set up an opposition between Catholic beliefs and science, so my points were intended to show that the limitations of science and the claims of Catholicism make these two human endeavors reconcilable and not in opposition.
In the above post, you again characterize Catholic belief as “contrary” to science, intending, it appears, to reassert an opposition as if science (what has been observed in the world) is authoritative in all respects. My points about the limitations of science should have made you somewhat wary of sneaking this one in under a new guise.
Try: youtube.com/watch?v=FyxUwaq00Rc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Observable phenomena may be difficult to reconcile with religious beliefs but in no way are they by that fact “contrary” as you claim.
This claim that accepting “something that goes against what has been observed” means that you have to abdicate all rationality and not deny all the weird and whacky belief systems reveals something of the lack of logic in your position. Slippery slope fallacy! I suggest trying “judge each on its own merits” rather than your potpourri method of sniffing out the truth.
To compare Catholic beliefs to UFO worship, breatharian ideology, etc., implies that you have a very limited view of Catholic theology as a whole. With the huge number of resources available here on Catholic.com and other places, and your purported familiarity with St. Thomas Aquinas, my troll suspicions are aroused in that you haven’t been able to detect a difference between Catholicism and the “whacky belief systems” you pointed to. Are you just being lazy with your research, waylaying due diligence onto others, or are you just baiting an unsuspecting “believer” with your difficult challenges?
You previously mentioned the Resurrection and the Eucharist as being difficult to reconcile with a “scientific” world view. In some sense they are, but recall that the current scientific understanding of the origin of the universe is that space, time, matter and energy with the entire panoply of galaxies, star clusters, the ensuing abundance of life on earth, all came into existence from essentially “nothing” some 13.7 billion years ago. It seems to me that this brute and magical fact of cosmic origins involves a far greater affront to your “what has been observed in the world” paradigm and a far more difficult one to rationally explain than God raising Jesus from the dead.
I would submit that the reason that “too many souls” are “turning away from God” has less to do with the belief system of Catholicism than it does with the perceived demands of that belief system on their lives. Catholic theology and doctrine is deeply coherent and profoundly meaningful. Most people, even most Catholics, do not have even an inkling of the richness of this tradition, but that is not the issue. The issue is one of perceived “freedom.” Modern secular culture operates under the misapprehension that “No one, not even God, can tell me what to do with my life!” Scientism provides an alternative myth, an escape from the responsibility to God that rationalizes egotism, ethical relativism and secularism because “science” has proven that only observable, quantifiable reality (aka matter) exists.
Turning from God is more often a choice that has been rationalized than it is a rational choice.
U
untruestory
Guest
TO THE OP:
Faith is not opposed to reason. It is the natural conclusion to reason.
I was atheist and the two main reasons I came to Catholicism is because of its intellectual depth and its practical results I observed in others. There’s not another system of beliefs secular or religious that is as well thought out as the Catholic faith.
Read about Pascal’s Wager and understand how it applies to you. Faith artificially motivated isn’t a replacement for a genuine faith but if you can justify your faith from the perspective of a pragmatic agnostic then I can’t imagine being able to regress past it.
Eliminate the idea that reason and faith are contrary to one another. Study, pray, and spend time during the week in Mass and adoration.
Faith is not opposed to reason. It is the natural conclusion to reason.
I was atheist and the two main reasons I came to Catholicism is because of its intellectual depth and its practical results I observed in others. There’s not another system of beliefs secular or religious that is as well thought out as the Catholic faith.
Read about Pascal’s Wager and understand how it applies to you. Faith artificially motivated isn’t a replacement for a genuine faith but if you can justify your faith from the perspective of a pragmatic agnostic then I can’t imagine being able to regress past it.
Eliminate the idea that reason and faith are contrary to one another. Study, pray, and spend time during the week in Mass and adoration.
- Status