Starting to doubt Catholicism

[Platonist]

Plato’s forms theory indicates that there is precise uniformity in nature.

Huh? The material world is only a “lower” reality compared to the realm of unchanging Form… you can’t actually “see” them in this life. You know them through logic, like how you know the concept of a perfect triangle exists even though its impossible to find in nature.

 

[Platonist]

I think the principle of simplicity should actually mean that there could be no point in time, no “at once”, when God created anything . And yet it would be true that all souls owe their existence to Him.

Right, by “at once” I mean created in eternity.

 

[Platonist]

Plenty of philosophers believe neifher in the reality of God or the immortality of the soul. So.it certainly does.not appear to be sufficiently self-evident that it literally requires nothing beyond philosophy.

If they deny the forms or God, they aren’t real philosophers.

 

[Platonist]

So I’m not a believer in god(s) or anything like them

You should correct that, do some reading.

You should maybe do a bit of anthropology before continuing as a philosopher.

lol

 

[Freddy]

Bertrand Russel is not understanding (or not applying) the concept of both/and here. He is rigidly (in fundamentalist fashion) applying either/or to faith and reason. Faith and reason are integrated.

I think that Ana is pointing out that it’s entirely possible to accept God via faith and to understand his existence using reason (which means that you actually don’t need faith, but we’ll skip that bit). But if you can’t or even don’t agree with the reasons then you have to accept them…on faith.

Hence irony.

 

[Freddy]

So I’m not a believer in god(s) or anything like them

I might suggest that the lack of belief is a result of a lot of reading. Not a result of a lack of it.

 

[Freddy]

Plenty of philosophers believe neifher in the reality of God or the immortality of the soul. So.it certainly does.not appear to be sufficiently self-evident that it literally requires nothing beyond philosophy.

Russell wasn’t a real philosopher? Bentham? Churchland? Hume? Sartre? I’ll have to tear out some of the pages from my ‘100 Greatest Philosophers’ tome.

 

[Platonist]

I might suggest that the lack of belief is a result of a lot of reading. Not a result of a lack of it.

read more.

Russell wasn’t a real philosopher?

LOL no. You either conform your desires to the Truth, or you conform the truth to your
desires. . . .

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I might suggest that the lack of belief is a result of a lot of reading. Not a result of a lack of it.

read more.

Russell wasn’t a real philosopher?

LOL no. You either conform your desires to the Truth, or you conform the truth to your desires. If you actually have positive views on Bertrand Russell of all people, then this thread might be above your pay grade.

If you suggest that one should only read philosophers that write what you want to read then ‘read more’ won’t result in obtaining a very wide variety of views.

But then again, my pay grade is probably not sufficient to make such impudent comments.

 

[Platonist]

I’m suggesting that if you actually find charlatans like Russell compelling-- who, even with the inanity of materialism aside, held onto obsolete atomism in the age of quantum mechanics, and spent his entire life trying to intellectualize his sexual misbehavior-- then you’re . . . mistaken.

 

[bruisedreed]

Everyone here just wants to find some way of helping you, and now you are name calling posters?

That isn’t the right way forward. What is rational about that?

 

[Freddy]

I’m suggesting that if you actually find charlatans like Russell compelling-- who, even with the inanity of materialism aside, held onto obsolete atomism in the age of quantum mechanics, and spent his entire life trying to intellectualize his sexual misbehavior-- then you’re an idiot.

Well, thanks for putting me straight. I look forward to learning more from you.

 

[Quasi_Tenebrous]

Ah, now the temperature here is beginning to be comfortable; who likes cold, stoical threads?

now you are name calling posters?

Admittedly, calling a person an idiot is a bit direct, but not any worse then some of the abuse directed his way, such as being told by one who is both joyful and active:

you seem to be a snob

some hours before the same person joyfully and actively accused him of being a kind of intellectual terrorist whose ideas:

are leading you to self-destruction and the actions that come from that arrogance bringing disaster to others.

He’s also been accused of being one of the those who “sit around thinking themselves into a hole and making prideful remarks about superiority of intellect,” (post 30) and derogatorily told “you remind me of my children” (28).

So, perhaps, we reap what we sow. Nonetheless, it seems a shame that your systematic analysis should go to waste, @bruisedreed. There are some questions I have for you. I have never heard the credibility of God described in quite this way, and it interests me:

Now something is to be trusted only in direct proportion to its authority. Since the authority of God is infinite, we have every reason to trust God.

Should God chose to show me all the grandeur of the universe and demonstrate that He has absolute authority over it, and me, and everything else, I believe I would have to acknowledge that He is powerful - even maximally powerful - but I do not see how it means that I have reason to trust Him. Could you elaborate?

 

[Platonist]

I wanna make clear that I’m pretty sure Catholicism is still true, and that these doubts do have answers. I definitely didn’t mean for this thread to devolve into atheist cringe. Sorry CAF!

 

[fhansen]

Admittedly, calling a person an idiot is a bit direct, but not any worse then some of the abuse directed his way, such as being told by one who is both joyful and active:

Nah, snob seems to fit the bill pretty well after that last post if it was meant to be directed at the other poster, while idiot is never called for. But forgiveness should abound here-following the God of revelation and faith, anyway- as Freddy demonstrated.

 

[Quasi_Tenebrous]

Goodness man, my last post to you is utterly ignored, and you concern yourself with the snob-index of another poster? Philosophy is fun, but it makes blood boil sometimes.

 

[bruisedreed]

No problem friend @Platonist, it’s kind of you to apologize.

@Quasi_Tenebrous thank you very much for your question.

Because my impression was that @Platonist already found God to be trustworthy in Himself, I didn’t elaborate on this point in my argument. I’m grateful you brought it up.

If I understood you correctly, you’re asking why it should follow from God’s supreme authority or power that He is also true to His declarations and promises. In my opinion this question only seems pressing in light of human reality in which power and goodness are separable, but in the divine simplicity they are perfectly one.

Since God lacks nothing in His beatitude, and contains in Himself an over abundant and eternal joy, he is not moved towards his creature otherwise than in the interest of the creature in love.

I think it follows from this that God’s declarations and promises can for this reason be infallibility believed to be in my interest and for my own good. Therefore they can be trusted, since He lacks nothing and has the means, the authority, necessary in order to obtain for me everything.

I think it does not follow from this that God is not capable of a certain divine trickery. Take for example the last minute trick He pulled on Abraham. But we can rest knowing that even God’s tricks, concealments, and seductions will be for our perfect good.

That’s the best I can do right now in defense of what I said. It might be better to clarify what I said by stating that something is to be trusted in proportion to its authority, but not that its authority is a sufficient condition of its being trusted. The authority must also be good. But in God this is given.

If I said anything wrong please correct me.

 

[fhansen]

Goodness man, my last post to you is utterly ignored, and you concern yourself with the snob-index of another poster? Philosophy is fun, but it makes blood boil sometimes.

Oh, ok- I’m a snob too . But your post wasn’t ignored but rather read and acknowledged- there simply wasn’t much need or call for a response to it.

 

[MarysLurker]

It is good to see a lot of very smart people put down the swords and share greetings.

 

[Freddy]

I wanna make clear that I’m pretty sure Catholicism is still true, and that these doubts do have answers. I definitely didn’t mean for this thread to devolve into atheist cringe. Sorry CAF!

I was going to thank you for editing your posts. But then I noticed that it was done for you…