The Atheism vs Theism Debate: I'm frustrated

[gearhead]

Also, skepticism is not a virtue in every circumstance. It can be sometimes with some things, but I think it’s wrong to be skeptical about the mind’s ability to grasp reality at all. Also, I believe it’s wrong to be skeptical about first principles.

Why would that be wrong? I think it’s perfectly valid to ask ourselves what we really do know, how we can be sure that we know it, and what might really be if we’re wrong.

Would you say, Gearhead, that it’s wrong to be skeptical that skepticism is a virtue in any circumstance? Would it be wrong for you at least? You seem to be pretty certain that skepticism is a virtue … except with regard to that statement? No?

No. Skepticism isn’t a matter of being undecided on every issue; it’s the principle that our beliefs should be based on something real as much as possible, and that we should endeavour to confirm or deny our presuppositions with evidence as much as we can.

In the case of skepticism, I base my assessment of it on its excellent track record. Also, whatever its flaws, it seems to me that the alternative (i.e. accepting statements as true without a proper basis) has even more problems.

 

[gearhead]

True. As in the example I gave. There can be many more. For example, when a child says that he loves his mother and father, should the parents first response be skepticism? How about a husband who treats his wife’s every word with skepticism?

Well, yes. And every person I know does it.

As a first stroke, we all have a “reasonableness filter”: a child saying “I love you” to a parent passes this test; a child saying “I’m the king of Mars” does not (not outside the context of some game, anyhow).

And we do look for evidence. We don’t tend to think much before we accept that our spouse who acts lovingly toward us does mean it when he or she says “I love you” - it seems obvious. But I think that it would probably be unreasonable for someone to similarily accept those words if she were being told “I love you” by a husband who assaulted her several times a week.

Atheists who claim to be skeptics betray this claim by the trust that they put in many claims especially from science. The untrained atheist accepts the scientific claim without doing research or lab testing on the claim itself. But that would be required in a skeptical world view. But this would paralyze a person – every claim would have to be independently verified and nothing could be trusted on the word of another.

It would actually destroy society and create a world where nothing could be trusted in business, community, social interactions or even in family matters.

Luckily, your mischaracterization of skepticism isn’t accurate, so these things aren’t actual consequences of actual skepticism.

 

[reggieM]

Luckily, your mischaracterization of skepticism isn’t accurate, so these things aren’t actual consequences of actual skepticism.

I could take a skeptical attitude towards your view on this. You assert something and provide no evidence in support of the assertion. Your view is therefore false until proven otherwise.

 

[Filius_Prodigus]

I wonder: would you be as willing to oblige if a Muslim asked you to pray to Allah for help? If the doubt is the existence of a god itself, then it’s certainly unreasonable to ask someone to pretend that they believe in that god, pray to them, and not do so with other gods. To be fair, Christians would have to undergo this process for every god imaginable. Something tells me that most Christians would refuse.

If one has to have faith in something’s existence to see the evidence for it, then they are probably only seeing what they want to see. Evidence precedes belief, not vice-versa.

Please think.

Of course the advice was for a Christian to trust God, not for an atheist (a-theos = god-less)! The person the message was for is, as far as I can gather, a believer struggling with faith.

 

[crazzeto]

I skipped that intentionally as I saw it as a “lets blame the 60s get off my lawn” tangent. You also implied in it that my position was that we should reject things we don’t understand which is ridiculous and a straw man.

So I guess in addition to believing that there is no truth in the world you also believe that cultural beliefs (such as yours) just come from no where? Please, there’s a clear history with this belief system, it does come from the 60’s counter culture (and I’m not even hostile in principal to it, I was a big time “hippy” growing up and in quotes because I grew up in the 80s (child) & 90s (high school)). It’s not a straw man when it’s factual.

You asked me what my thoughts are, there they are. There was a unforseen nasty uglyness attached with a culture of “question and challenge power”. That uglyness is question everything, whether or not you understand it just question and challeneg it if it seems to be an authority. That’s where we are now.

So let me ask you this. Why not assume that the cultural norms (i.e. the ones the “counter culture” ran counter to) became norms for a reason. Then yes, investigate them, figure them out and ask why they’re norms and how they apply to your life. But start out with a spirit of “well there might be a good reason why these norms are what they are”.

 

[gearhead]

I could take a skeptical attitude towards your view on this. You assert something and provide no evidence in support of the assertion.

There’s a difference between skepticism and laziness. You’re more than able to do a quick Google search and find out what skepticism actually is.

Tell you what - I’ll do the work for you. Here’s the dictionary definition; 2(b) is the relevant one here:

Main Entry: skep·ti·cism
Pronunciation: \ˈskep-tə-ˌsi-zəm
Function: noun
Date: 1646
1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)

An expanded explanation is offered by skeptic.com:

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.

Your view is therefore false until proven otherwise.

If you were actually being skeptical, you wouldn’t assume that my claim is false; you’d just refrain from accepting it. There’s nothing skeptical about assuming things without evidence just to be contrary with the person you’re talking to.

 

[Filius_Prodigus]

As one who lived in the Provo, Utah area for a couple years a ways back, I got to be quite familiar with “Moroni’s promise”, the challenge given by Mormon’s to unbeleivers to read the Book of Mormon and pray sincerely to God and ask God in all earnesty if what they have read is true, and of God.

It doesn’t take a lot of sophisticated reasoning to see that this is clearly prejudicial in its construction.

Your response here seems similarly prejudicial. If one does have honest, strategic doubts, it seems that praying to God and trusting him to help you out would be a way to corrupt the reasoning process, inserting a prejudicial bias into the analysis, no? If I’m trying to discern the credibility of source A, it seems being told to reason yes, but continue to rely on source A as a way to work out your decision is perfectly unreasonable as a way to proceed. It defeats the purpose of reasoning, which is to weigh things without bias as best we are able.

I don’t begrudge any questioning believer in taking that path – I certainly did, for a long while as a doubting Christian. And that does help, does work to sustain belief and support for faith. But the fact that it does works against the idea that reason is really the judge here, in the Christian view.

I think the message that comes across is that reason’s “fine”, but “faith” is really what drives the matter. Reason alone can’t help you, nor is it advised. Correct?

-TS

As in my response to the other participant above, please think. The person I was replying I gather is a believer struggling with faith. My response was prejudicial? Perhaps yours was… either that or you are not reading very well.

I would never ask an atheist to pray. Atheists don’t want to know, especially if they come to a Christian site to debate. I know because I was a diehard atheist, and the only way to believe is to honestly open yourself up to the evidence, and also to apologetic argumentation.

As an ex-atheist I know the mindset. Atheists pretend to be open-minded, but they are also very quick in “but… but… but”, which is not really being open-minded (one thing is tohave a lot of questions and doubts and you want to find if they necessarily hold, and another quite different is using it to refute and “deconvert”, which only shows your true goal). I will tell you what is really being open-minded: for example, admitting the room for the possibility that the apologetic arguments may be right while you read them, versus being even more literal than a fundamentalist in your reading of the Bible (like the famous “The Bible says ‘four corners of the earth’ somewhere, therefore they were flat-earthers!!!”); or stop repeating what the (in)famous so-called “Jesus Seminar” says (a minority clique of skeptic historians who depart very much from the majority consensus of scholars regarding the historicity of Jesus, using doubtful methodology nobody else uses for any other personage in history). And so forth.

It isn’t easy, it wasn’t for me, as years went by thinking I was open-minded when I was not. We all tend to protect our cherished views, believers and unbelievers all the same. It takes guts to walk in the shoes of the guy with the opposte view.

That is all I would ask atheists. For the believer in doubt there s much more they can do.

---

By the way, the Book of Mormon has absolutely no archaeological nor historical evidence to back it up. It contradicts everything we know of the history of civilization, ethnicity and DNA, etc. Of course the “Pray to God” advice will convince you much more than “Research the facts of history”! The Catholic Church on the other hand, relies on reason.

 

[reggieM]

Tell you what - I’ll do the work for you. Here’s the dictionary definition; 2(b) is the relevant one here:

I appreciate you doing the work and then asserting which of the three (or more) definitions is the correct one.

the doctrine that true knowledge … is uncertain

That is where the term originated – in the belief that there is no certain knowledge. But it remains a definition today. “True knowledge is uncertain”. This idea contains all of the problems that described previously.

It may be best to say that you’re only talking about your own personal version of what skepticism means – that is, definition number two, edited to exclude the parts that you don’t want.

That makes the conversation a lot easier.

 

[Touchstone]

Christians shouldn’t pray to other gods because they have a doctrine against all other gods. Agnostics do not (at least, that’s not intrinsic to agnosticism). Atheists, I suppose, would have a doctrine against the existence of God (unless they’re Agnostic Atheists, I suppose).

All atheists are agnostics to some degree, necessarily. The non-existence of God can never be knowne with certainty.

A fair objection.

But … I don’t think so. If you know that God doesn’t exist, then it would be unreasonable to pray to Him. If you simply have doubts that God exists, that would imply you are uncertain about the subject, and must remain open to the possibility. It’s not always unreasonable to try something even if you have big doubts about it, especially if the thing you’re trying is worth it if you achieve it.

If we are relying on reason, as opposed to faith, I think being open to the possibility of God’s existence is mandatory. But the propriety/efficacy of prayer itself is what is at issue here. If that is in the docket, it’s a form of deliberative bias to be relying on that as part of the process.

Maybe it’s easier to see from the opposite direction. If I’m an atheist/agnostic who’s deliberating the merits of theism, it would be distortive for me to make “atheist creed meditation” or some such part of my inquiry process. If I want to see clearly, I need to identify that as prejudicial to the process.

One is certainly advised to use reason, but indeed reason alone can’t save you, nor can it explain things more fully without the assistance of faith.

See, that response is illustrative of the problem. What’s at issue for one really working from a position of doubt is whether “save you” has any merit at all in the first place. If you can convince me that I must be saved, the matter is settled ahead of any reasoning that may follow. It would be just as prejudicial if I were to convince a doubter that “remember, you don’t need to be saved”. That goes to the heart of the matter being considered.

I’m not begrudging you the claims you’d like to advance here, but the role of reason becomes problematic this way. If we say “reason, but remember it won’t save you”, we have bound reason’s hands behind its back. Filius Prodigius says “The Church doesn’t turn its back on reason” and uses it abundantly, but if it must be used under the proviso that it “won’t save you”, I think that’s very much turning one’s back on reason at the highest level.

-TS

 

[gearhead]

I appreciate you doing the work and then asserting which of the three (or more) definitions is the correct one.

I’m telling you which sense I’m using the word.

That is where the term originated – in the belief that there is no certain knowledge. But it remains a definition today. “True knowledge is uncertain”. This idea contains all of the problems that described previously.

It may be best to say that you’re only talking about your own personal version of what skepticism means – that is, definition number two, edited to exclude the parts that you don’t want.

That makes the conversation a lot easier.

I’m talking about the definition used by me and by the modern skeptic movement.

 

[brandymmiller]

The Catholics here have all been nice to me and some of them thought stimulating to me. But I think most are caught in the mind-trap of not thinking outside the box. Most cannot release themselves from the shackles of theological/ creedal thinking just for a moment to try to look at things from the other side without the religious glasses.

Summa -

You’re searching for the truth. That’s to be applauded. But you yourself are starting with a few misunderstandings about the Truth, and about how to find it.

If you want to know whether something is true or not - test it! You doubt the Catholic Church’s teachings are true? That’s fine - TEST THEM!

There are three primary ways of testing these truths:

1. Examination of the lives of those who have been obedient to the teachings and careful analysis of the results;
2. Obedience to the teachings of the Church and analysis of the results on your own life;
3. Disobedience to the teachings of the Church and analysis of the results on your own life.

Now, I strongly recommend that you carefully do number 1 BEFORE you do number 2 if you have any doubts at all about where those teachings will lead you. Look at the lives of the Catholic Saints and study them. See what fruit their lives produced. You identify the type of tree you are looking at by the fruit that it bears (fruit is not meant in literal sense here). Once you are confident, experiment away. Try obedience to the Church’s teachings for 30 days. Remember, religion is like exercise. The more faithful you are to its practice the quicker and more satisfying the results will be.

Of course, this is my advice based on how I went about things during my own time of doubt. I tested through disobedience and realized the result was misery for myself and everyone around me. Obedience has resulted in the opposite - an increase in my capacity to give and receive love and thus an increase in my level of happiness for myself and everyone around me.

Ultimately the entirety of the laws of the Bible, the works of Christ, and everything the Church teaches can be summed up in one single word: Love. God is Love. The two are one and the same. This love is not romantic, but it is passionate. It is a love of choice. Choosing to love in spite of the unlovable behavior of the object of your love. The Bible is a very lengthy love letter written to humanity by a God who continues to pursue us even when we stray. Although much of it is historical fact, much more of it is poetic device and allegory and everything else you would expect to see when writing to a beloved.

 

[reggieM]

I’m telling you which sense I’m using the word.
I’m talking about the definition used by me and by the modern skeptic movement.

Those are important clarifications. The problem here is that I offered the statement that “Skepticism about the Faith for any Catholic is a very serious sin” and you stated that you did not understand that mindset. Clearly, if you were imposing your definition of skepticism (out of the several that you could choose) onto the statement I made – then it would be difficult to understand what I meant.

But aside from that – its your main point that concerns me and it doesn’t have much to do with the definition of skepticism. That point is – you do not understand the mindset that considers skepticism against the Catholic Faith, by Catholics, to be very seriously sinful".

If you’re looking for understanding on this point (and I hope you are sincerely doing that), then it’s important to recognize where the breakdown in understanding occurs.
In this case, I don’t know how you could fully understand how anything could be sinful, since you do not believe that God exists.

Sin is an offense against God - it damages the relationship between God and man. So, for an atheist, there would be no sin – since there is no God.

You may have been interpreting the word “sin” as something like “ethical lapse”. But that’s a misunderstanding of the term.

To understand what I meant by the idea that skepticism is a sin (notice I said, skepticism against the Faith, committed by Catholics) – it’s necessary to understand the idea from the Catholic point of view, not from a worldview were God doesn’t exist and therefore sin does not exist.

In the Catholic view, Faith is a supernatural gift. It is given freely by God, and is recieved by all those who are receptive or open to it, and who desire the gift for what it provides. Faith brings us to the “pearl of great price” – which is the knowledge of God, and living a union with God. Catholics believe that God has a personal and immediate care for every human being and that He communicates that care to us. That is why Catholics pray – to build that relationship between God and man.

Thus, sin damages the relationship. Skepticism about what God has taught, and about what has made public testimony to affirm is a sin. In the same way, breaking a vow is an ethical violation even for atheists.

 

[reggieM]

Look at the lives of the Catholic Saints and study them. See what fruit their lives produced. You identify the type of tree you are looking at by the fruit that it bears (fruit is not meant in literal sense here).

Excellent advice – and good post. The fruits of the lives of the saints were (and remain) transcendent. That is the gift of the Catholic Faith, since it brings us to eternal joy. That gift comes with the need for a response.

 

[summa8447]

Christian Cadre: christiancadre.org/
… is an interdenominational site with a wealth of argumentation refuting atheists. It was instrumental to my departure from atheism.

Bede’s Library: bede.org.uk/
… also good.

---

P.S.:
Off the top of my head, those are the one’s I remember. By the way, Christian Cadre has many links to several apologetics sites. It has an exclusively Roman Catholic list of links.

P.S.#2:
Although the author’s not a Catholic, Lee Strobel’s books are great. They helped me a ton.
amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_0_8?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=lee+strobel&sprefix=lee+stro

P.S.#3:
It appears I’m on an “editing” spree here! I almost forgot Catholic Answers has… er, um, answers for you. Click on the top where it says “FAITH”, the page it gets you to, has a search thingie, just tap the main words of your doubts and presto, you got it.

Thank you kindly.
Bede’s I have been to and read something refuting Earl Doherty. Strobel I can’t stand, he is very restricted in his sources and in what sort of challenge he will look at. But I will look at others. Thank you,

Summa8447

 

[Filius_Prodigus]

Yes, Strobel interviews a few, he doesn’t write formal apologetic books, his books are a popularization, with the effect you run smoothly page after page, its exciting and absorbing, not scholarly which commonly means dry.

If you want something more “big-league”, then try William Lane Craig. He also has a site. He’s evangelical, but what he says is compatible with all mainstream Christianity (which of course includes Catholic).

The Christian Cadre site is still my first recommendation for anybody. It’s sort of a collection and a hub for other sites.

 

[summa8447]

Yes, Strobel interviews a few, he doesn’t write formal apologetic books, his books are a popularization, with the effect you run smoothly page after page, its exciting and absorbing, not scholarly which commonly means dry.

If you want something more “big-league”, then try William Lane Craig. He also has a site. He’s evangelical, but what he says is compatible with all mainstream Christianity (which of course includes Catholic).

The Christian Cadre site is still my first recommendation for anybody. It’s sort of a collection and a hub for other sites.

I have felt William Lane Craig does good at times (I mean debates) but other times his smugness and approach to debate like a sport is egotistical. His attitude rubs me the wrong way. In his debate with Bart Ehrman he went into some ridiculous convoluted equation to explain the likeliness of the resurrection and Frankly I think he just memorized it and did not understand it himself. I think he does that with many of his presentations. He often sounds like he is reading something.

Summa8447

 

[M0nkey]

You can apply a bit of reason…

1. I have identified that the new atheists’ critique of the horrors in the Old Testament (they all do that). They like to talk about the butchering of the Amalekite children, etc.
   for example listen to these Mike Earl - Bible Stories Your Parents Never Taught You
   reasonworks.com/ . Note he is an ex-Mormon who seems to have been disgruntled by that.

Well, do you think the pagans were any better at the time? At least the Jews had a moral code and structured order which other civilizations lacked. In fact, this is the first time in world history that a peoples upheld any kind of law (specially moral), which is a pretty significant contribution to modern civilization.

1. Couple that with various archeological evidence out there that like Ze’ev Herzog’s Deconstructing the walls of Jericho (http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/Deconstructing.htm) (and here is a critique of him by Hershel Shanks, “Herzog’s Attack on the Bible Unjustified” lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/1999-November/004758.html and some agreements and disagreements individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik/jesuit/IsraelFinkelstein.html and I had a critique of Shanks critique of Hezog but I can’t find it now)
   
   Herzog’s basic points:
   “This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story - now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people’s emergence are radically different from what that story tells.”

That was the intro to it. It sounds like the Adam & Eve, flood, Patriarch Age, slavery in Egypt and exile in the desert were myth. The Davidic Kingdom wasn’t so expansive and grandiose. I can’t figure out all the finer points of his paper, but it seems Israel emerged from a sub-set of Cannanite culture and religion. Ashera was Yahweh’s (son of El and brother of Baal) consort. Elohim is used in Chapter 1 of Genesis and Yahweh in Chapter 2 creation.

Combine these issues with my extant incredulity to vicarious redemption to a vicarious original sin, the whole thing has become toxic to faith.

This is much speculation in part of those who try to vilify the faith. I think the bottom line is this: it cannot be proven either way; now, do you stand for or against God?

1. Next problem: Redactionism. Bart Ehrman Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255919537&sr=8-3 .
   Scribal errors, accidental and intentional, etc.

Many gnostic gospels where written right around the time the authentic gospels were. This is a heresy the Church fought tooth and nail to defend Christ’s divinity, which the early Church fathers were even willing to give their lives for, as most of them did. Now, do you accept the testimony of a number of heretics who could care more or less about Christ? Or those who gave witness with their own blood? I for once would not give a drop for a hoax. Clearly, if the gnostic testimony is right, then there is no point to the gospel and could be dismissed.

In order to defend this, the early Church fathers put it simply; Jesus Christ is either a bad man (“malus homo”) or God made flesh.

 

[Filius_Prodigus]

I have felt William Lane Craig does good at times (I mean debates) but other times his smugness and approach to debate like a sport is egotistical. His attitude rubs me the wrong way. In his debate with Bart Ehrman he went into some ridiculous convoluted equation to explain the likeliness of the resurrection and Frankly I think he just memorized it and did not understand it himself. I think he does that with many of his presentations. He often sounds like he is reading something.

Summa8447

A doctor in theology and philosophy, maybe it’s that: too long in academia?

On the other hand, when he is not debating, he sounds like a next door neighbor, very kind and witty. He sounds as if he had profound understanding of what he is saying… maybe it’s the tense situation of debate that makes him sound like that to you? I dunno, I’m just musing.

I guess if I had to debate, well, my exasperation would drive me into something less than smiley and cheerful. I wouldn’t want to debate in public. I’m used to writing my thoughts too, so my oral style might be weird. Oh, I also have the memory of a chicken when I explain things orally!

 

[Areopagite]

First of all, ReggieM, I’m on board with everything you’ve said down to the smallest detail. Good man.

Skepticism isn’t a matter of being undecided on every issue

I understand now that you have a different definition of skepticism (which is different from the one that’s been used for the last 2,400 years). It was a bit misleading when you said “Skepticism should be used in every circumstance” and yet you didn’t mean “one shouldn’t be undecided on every issue.” But no matter.

Also, whatever its flaws, it seems to me that the alternative (i.e. accepting statements as true without a proper basis) has even more problems.

Of course, what does “proper basis” mean? I don’t see how theological faith lacks proper basis.

All atheists are agnostics to some degree, necessarily. The non-existence of God can never be known with certainty.

That sounds reasonable.

If we are relying on reason, as opposed to faith, I think being open to the possibility of God’s existence is mandatory. But the propriety/efficacy of prayer itself is what is at issue here. If that is in the docket, it’s a form of deliberative bias to be relying on that as part of the process.

Maybe it’s easier to see from the opposite direction. If I’m an atheist/agnostic who’s deliberating the merits of theism, it would be distortive for me to make “atheist creed meditation” or some such part of my inquiry process. If I want to see clearly, I need to identify that as prejudicial to the process.

Well … I must admit, I’m not quite sure what you’re saying (probably my fault).

See, that response is illustrative of the problem. What’s at issue for one really working from a position of doubt is whether “save you” has any merit at all in the first place. If you can convince me that I must be saved, the matter is settled ahead of any reasoning that may follow. It would be just as prejudicial if I were to convince a doubter that “remember, you don’t need to be saved”. That goes to the heart of the matter being considered.

I wasn’t actually assuming you (or any atheist) would agree that salvation is necessary. I was more saying that theological faith is necessary for salvation, and reason cannot accomplish that on its own. It was in answer to the question “Why is faith necessary? Or what is it for?” (which I think you asked, but maybe not). You may say that saying such a thing to an unbeliever is totally worthless, but sometimes proclaiming something about the faith (like that) would awaken some supernatural realization in him. But sometimes, and most often not. Worth a try. So, nevermind.

I’m not begrudging you the claims you’d like to advance here, but the role of reason becomes problematic this way. If we say “reason, but remember it won’t save you”, we have bound reason’s hands behind its back. Filius Prodigius says “The Church doesn’t turn its back on reason” and uses it abundantly, but if it must be used under the proviso that it “won’t save you”, I think that’s very much turning one’s back on reason at the highest level.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. If you think that reason can save a person, then your objection makes sense. However, if you don’t even believe in salvation, then why would one object to saying that it can’t save a person? “Bounding reason’s hands behind its back” seems to imply that we are claiming a limitation on reason when if in fact there is no such limitation. It must be proved that reason can save somebody, if in fact we are bounding reason’s hands. Otherwise, for as much as you or anyone knows, we may be treating reason exactly how it should be treated.

Now perhaps a more precise explanation of what we mean by “reason not being able to save you.” It is true that reason can play a part in one’s salvation (and perhaps one could argue that it’s an essential ingredient), but our claim is “reason alone cannot save you.” The thing that actually saves one is grace (which includes the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity … one must have all three to be saved). However, sometimes one does not accept these things because they have a false conception of them or of truths connected to them (either because they lied to themselves or because they were told something untrue). Correct reason can thus show that these things do not contradict reason, and hence remove intellectual obstacles that stand in the way of a person and his acceptance of grace (including the faith). Even if one has these virtues, one can hesitate from deepening them on account of some intellectual error … but correct reasoning can repair this, and make it possible to continue to progress in them.

See if that makes any sense (maybe it doesn’t).

 

[summa8447]

“Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.” (James 1:2-8)

Thanks Luke,
I have heard that passage before. That’s a relevant one. I will look that up in my Navarre, Ignatius Study Bible (Scott & Mitch) and Jerome Biblical Commentary and contemplate it.

You must also remember I am also skeptical about the “inspired by God” nature of scripture and its integrity from alterations, accidental and intentional, from the original authors, you know, reductionism.

Did you know that some of the Ignatius of Antioch writing are disputed in authorship, just as I think Marcion (declared heretic) supposedly had somehow wrote some things pseudonymously (common of writings of the day) under someone or another’s name. I think he had an altered version or else it may have been a more original and less altered version of Luke (he only accepted the Gospel of Luke and Paul’s writing in the New Testament and none of the Old T as scripture).

Also scholars only agree on 7 Pauline writings as authentically by Paul. The others may be pseudonymous. They are probably influenced by Paul. The ones that seem contextually to relate to later times after Paul’s death were probably writing by his pupils. I believe that in some of the others, the difference in writing style may not be accounted by pseudonymity but possibly Paul had scribes take his dictation and they may have transcribed it often in slightly different sentence structuring, in other words paraphrasing a little. See, I’m an equal opportunity skeptic. I’m critical of historical Biblical critics. I really try to be skeptical of all sides of these issues. I figure you guys may not perceive that. I’m really not trying to debate anyone here, but just trying to lay out different arguments/ points of view because I’m picking your brains for some leads on an answer. I have no overwhelming desire to side with anyone on these things, I just want to find the truth. I find myself constantly criticizing all sides on many issues.

Summa8447