The Atheism vs Theism Debate: I'm frustrated

[Areopagite]

I think the problem obtains in working through “appears contradictory”. In the show you were watching, I suspect a quick demonstration by the guy with the flail might have been sufficient for you (or I) watching to see that paradox resolved. Perhaps we’d have to handle the weapon ourselves, but the point is that the “apparency” is demosntrated in that case, shown to be a superficial conflict, a bit of counter-intuitive dynamics we can prove out.

Indeed. However, if one could not figure out how this was true, could he correctly say, “Reason shows that this is impossible.” I would say no. Or, if he is reasonable would he say, “Even though I can’t see how swinging around the flail faster would be easier to control, I also can’t show by reason that swinging it slowly would be easier. It just seems to me that slower would be easier, but I guess … I can’t technically prove that it would be.” This is, I think, essentially the situation with Divine Mysteries. They may appear crazy at first, but we can’t demonstrate that they are.

In theological questions, reducing this ostensible contradiction to a matter of mere apparency is often very difficult to do, in my experience.

I hear you. I suppose the truth that “divine mysteries merely appear to be contradictions but are not actual contradictions” is something that cannot be known naturally. However, the way to try and debunk these alleged supernatural claims is to try and show that the mysteries are more than appearance but real contradictions … and this entails not just saying “I can’t see how this could be true” but rigorously laying down the logic. But (the claim is) one cannot do that (i.e. cannot prove that these mysteries are absurd), just as that confused person can’t prove that swinging the flail faster is not actually easier.

But perhaps the claim (that one cannot disprove a Christian Mystery) is wrong … but to prove the claim is wrong, it must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong and not merely asserted without strict logical argumentation.

I kind of repeated myself a lot there, but hopefully in one its rotations, it was clear.

It does make sense as a clarification. Your last statement there – there is no never any contradiction, even though we are unable to prove or disprove the actuality of seeming contradiction, seems a problem. Doesn’t follow directly, although I suppose this is where you are applying a theological override – there cannot be a true contradiction, so there is not a true contradiction?

Once again, if you show a logical contradiction in a Christian mystery, no theological override will save it. It is true that theology says that “No Christian Mystery is contradictory” but that claim would be wrong if someone proved that a Christian Mystery IS contradictory. But until that happens, the claim stands.

 

[Areopagite]

Fair enough, but as you know, valid syllogisms are rarely the problem – those are formalities, literally. The problems that suggest contradictions obtain in the premises, and as such, are not adjudicated by checking for modus ponens, and/or scanning for undistributed middles, etc.

…

If I think about all the objections and criticisms I have in Catholic thinking, NONE of them are syllogistic errors. They all stem from shaky, unwarranted premises, premises which I’m sure Catholics will say are not shaky, or unwarranted. Much of the time, the arguments aren’t formally syllogized, and we are just arguing about one premise or another. It’s assumed that if the premise can be established, the syllogistic packaging can developed as needed.

Okay, yeah, I see what you’re saying, I think.

I think, though, I would have to ask what you mean by “shaky, unwarranted premises.” Does this mean premises that are contrary to natural reason?

In the Cosmological Argument for God (and I fully realize that defeat of this argument does nothing to disprove God, but just the argument), the validity of the argument is trivially establish, and all the problems and controversy obtain in the soundness as obtains from the premises. Saying “We ready retreat from invalid forms” is great, but a kind of token concession. All the action happens in assessing the premises, and here there is no clear-cut formal disqualification.

Right. And I would say that denying any of the premises is contradicting a truth of natural reason (and this has nothing to do with any alleged truths of divine revelation). The premises are expected to be accepted by anyone of sound natural reasoning. But it is true that most of those premises are denied by a lot of people, and thus the work that theologian must do here is defend the truths of the premises. But … perhaps … that might be another thread.

Yes, but that’s a scenario where again, the “turn its back on reason” phrase springs to mind again. It’s NOT reasoning to abandon reason at that point, it’s faith, reasoning being overruled… “turning your back on reason”. I understand why this is done, but this seems to be a blindspot Catholics have about how reason gets applied in an ad-hoc way, yet the “ad-hocness” is denied or not acknowledged. I know “turn our backs on reason” was not your phrase, but when reason only is given credence at the extremes – in the “cut and dried” cases, we miss the primary utility of reasoning, don’t we? Most of real world reasoning obtains between the extremes, no?

Well … I’m not sure why reasoning is “only used in the extremes” when one must accept truths of the Christian faith. You can use reason to your heart’s content, so long as you don’t believe any conclusions that disagree with Catholic doctrine (unless, once again, those conclusions are absolutely certain rather than merely likely … for if they beyond a shadow of a doubt, then it proves Catholicism wrong). But there is infinite elbow room between the doctrines to reason about all kinds of stuff and even to come up with vastly different conclusions than another person who nonetheless believes the same doctrine.

So, I’m not sure what you mean when you say that faith only allows reason to be “used in the extremes.”

I feel my post here was highly unsatisfactory. I apologize, if so.

Also, thank you for being an incredibly reasonable person.

 

[Touchstone]

Indeed. However, if one could not figure out how this was true, could he correctly say, “Reason shows that this is impossible.” I would say no.

I would agree, in general. I’ll reserve the right to make exceptions for specific cases, but I am with you on that.

Or, if he is reasonable would he say, “Even though I can’t see how swinging around the flail faster would be easier to control, I also can’t show by reason that swinging it slowly would be easier. It just seems to me that slower would be easier, but I guess … I can’t technically prove that it would be.” This is, I think, essentially the situation with Divine Mysteries. They may appear crazy at first, but we can’t demonstrate that they are.

Well, I’ll give you credit for one of the more interesting and provocative metaphors I’ve run across for Divine Mystery.

My strong impulse here is to say that that’s not reasonable, and I will stick with that as my answer. But I will allow that in many cases, we do not have the “necessary (name removed by moderator)uts” to apply reason, if by ‘reason’ we mean a careful, principled analysis of the evidence and dynamics of some question or process.

Sometimes, you have nothing to go on but your “gut”. I get that. But I don’t call that reasoning. I call that intution, or maybe just a hunch. I that’s all you have to rely on, that’s all you have to rely on. You work with what you have, right?

That said, I think such a “seems” brings with it a commensurate tentativity: It’s just a hunch, and that’s all. I’m going with it because it’s all I got, but I know how unreliable my subjective intuitions can be…

I hear you. I suppose the truth that “divine mysteries merely appear to be contradictions but are not actual contradictions” is something that cannot be known naturally. However, the way to try and debunk these alleged supernatural claims is to try and show that the mysteries are more than appearance but real contradictions … and this entails not just saying “I can’t see how this could be true” but rigorously laying down the logic.

Fair enough. But the invidious aspect of this is that these putative contradictions are often delivered as intractable propositions. That is, if we suppose there’s some conflict between God’s foreknowledge and free will, we are COMPLETELY at a loss as to how to do just what you recommend. How would one go about showing that God’s foreknowledge is NOT determinative and exclusive of man’s agency?

So, your instincts are fair and noble in response, but as a pragmatic matter, moot. These putative contradictions only persist this long to the present day because they are outside the limits of objective adjudication.

But (the claim is) one cannot do that (i.e. cannot prove that these mysteries are absurd), just as that confused person can’t prove that swinging the flail faster is not actually easier.

Yeah!

But perhaps the claim (that one cannot disprove a Christian Mystery) is wrong … but to prove the claim is wrong, it must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong and not merely asserted without strict logical argumentation.

Hah. I had to make a chart in my head to grok that one. Well, how about this: for someone making the claim, we just ask, as a matter of course: *OK, fine. So how would you establish the falsehood of this proposition, if it is, indeed, false? *Same as a scientific hypothesis, where liability falsification is a requirement.

That is, if you make the claim that this mystery is soluble, who would you know if it wasn’t?

Once again, if you show a logical contradiction in a Christian mystery, no theological override will save it. It is true that theology says that “No Christian Mystery is contradictory” but that claim would be wrong if someone proved that a Christian Mystery IS contradictory. But until that happens, the claim stands.

My objection is that this is just a tautology. It’s only trivially true, as stated. As you know, tautologies are immune to falsification. Given that, you are completely insulated, I grant.

But that’s a bad place to be, right?

When I make a claim to knowledge, or a ‘truth’, I want to offer a path, available at least in principle, whereby claim could be objectively falsified. To the extent I can’t show or allow for that liability to falsification, my claims to that being ‘true’ or ‘knowledge’ are weak at best, euphemistic. How, in principle, would any Christian mystery (pick one, any one) be shown to be a devastating contradiction? What would the world have to look like for that to be concluded?

-TS

 

[StillWondering]

Well, I thank you sincerely for that offer. I have a many around me who’ve made similar offers, and while I have abandoned Christianity all together, the Catholics in my life have been much more available and eager to address “faith and reason” issues, and in a head on way than the Protestant evangelical circles I grew up in and which I remain in as far as extended family, neighbors, homeschool co-ops etc. That commends Catholics and their faith to me.

-TS

Dear Touchstone,

I appreciate your kind and fair response to my offer. The offer still stands.

I love sharing with others about this awesome God that has been with me throughout my life. One of the difficulties that I commonly face in sharing the faith is to explain in definitive terms for others why I believe. There is no hesitation, on my part, and my answers are clear and without reserve. However, these answers are difficult for one without faith to take into their hearts and wrestle with. The relationship God has given me is so profound that is is not easily distilled into mere descriptions taking as thoughts in the mind. They need to be pondered over, tasted, and sifted through using the totality of one’s being (the heart, the mind, the body to understand the physical implications).

One thing I can attest to is that even if it takes decades, a sincere and open heart will find this same Truth that has vindicated itself over and over through my life. It is important to know that if you are seeking the true God, he would not be limited or in need. God has no need for any vindication nor does he, as complete love, would need us but he offers himself to us as a loving Father because he loves without needs. He loves us for our own salvation and ultimate happiness.

That said, one of the most difficult mysteries within the Catholic doctrine is the Trinity. This doctrine came into our understanding 2 millennium ago not by reasoning but by revelation. After it is reveal individuals can attest to the reality of God being a Trinity by their own devout experience. However, there is no physical proof one can provide that is self-explanatory without bringing in personal stories. This would fit into your comments about how contradictions cannot be found simply because of the way the mystery is presented. Well, that is true in a cursory sense. Yet, it is a pale observation in light of the great depth that is needed to come to a personal understanding of the Trinity. God, if God is true and exists, would not be understandable else he would not be God. However, one can “know” God on a very deep and personal level without needing to “understand in totality” God.

Yes, there can be no physical metric to determine whether the claim of God being is the Trinity is true or false. There is much more than physical truth as I’m sure you can attest to in your own personal lives. How does one love? Sure there are biochemical signals, but try to dissect a person with deep love for humanity into biological chemicals and it would not make sense. In the biochemical analysis of one individual and another can the greatest of scientist in this age or another determine who has a great love for humanity or who simply loves their five million dollar home? Why physical proof is there that Mother Theresa did her works of mercy simply because she loves God. There are truths one can accept on a personal level that others cannot verify except by induction base on the fruits of your work. There are other ways to understand and accept truths we see in our daily lives.

I present to you a link to an audio recording about the Trinity from Dr. Scott Hahn. (No donation required.) He is a deep thinker and is sincere and honest in his approach to seeking a deep relationship with God. This audio file is targeted to those who assent to the dogma pertaining to the Trinity but lack understanding. Your “atheist” tag would presume that you do not have a convincing reason to believe the God exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus you are not the target audience. Nevertheless, your past investigations and your intellectual openness may find the talk interesting to say the least.

As I begun in this post, my purpose in writing here is to extend my open offer at being a person for you to bounce your ideas and thoughts about God and the Catholic faith.

Best wishes, Stillwondering.

 

[Touchstone]

Okay, yeah, I see what you’re saying, I think.

I think, though, I would have to ask what you mean by “shaky, unwarranted premises.” Does this mean premises that are contrary to natural reason?

What I intended by that was premises that don’t obtain from any identifiable warrant (there’s that word again). “Natural reason” is a squirrelly term, especially in conversations with Catholics, as I understand that term to grounded in the way that Aquinas grounded the term: as the outworking of natural theology, “preambles to the articles of faith”.

Insofar as you mean “natural theology” – something that comports with Rom 1:20 (“The unseen things of God are visible through his manifest works.”) – I would say “natural reason” is an exercise in shaky, unwarranted premises.

If you meant something else by “natural reason”, I apologize for the misread, and ask you to clarify. I suppose “natural reason” could be a term you are using as one I might use – empirical and rationalist heuristics deployed by man because he is naturally equipped with a brain that can use those heuristics.

Right. And I would say that denying any of the premises is contradicting a truth of natural reason (and this has nothing to do with any alleged truths of divine revelation). The premises are expected to be accepted by anyone of sound natural reasoning. But it is true that most of those premises are denied by a lot of people, and thus the work that theologian must do here is defend the truths of the premises. But … perhaps … that might be another thread.

Right, and this is modernism, the light of skeptical critique shining everywhere it can be pointed, illuminating problems and challenges in all sorts of places that were traditionally protected, or otherwise given a pass from critical thought. An “actual infinitite multitude” is impossible (that’s how Aquinas put it, IIRC)?

How so? Well, to read Aquinas, because he could not think of a way, or even come up with a number for infinity.

Well, yikes, that may have been compelling then, but it sure looks facile in the light of skeptical analysis. Georg Cantor comes along in the 19th century and shows how infinities and transfinites can be processed numerically, mathematically.

But Aquinas’ problem is much more severe than that. Cantor’s insights just show the weakness of Aquinas’ “natural reasoning” about mathematics. What it much more problematic is the detachment from the premise – a mathematical notion, if a faulty one – from any thing having to do with reality. Not only does Aquinas just suppose that “actual infinite multitudes” are impossible, he compounds the error by supposing, without any warrant at all, that such notions are probitive on reality itself. Reality can’t be this way because I can’t imagine how it could be this way!

Modernist inquiry has been a procession of insights that overthrow that kind of intuitive thinking. Intuition is borne out in all sorts of local contexts for humans, at familar scales and on common, mundane subjects. But human intuition as a probe for nuances of fundamental reality… that’s just nuts to think that’s knowledge. Sorry, not “nuts”, it’s just wholly uncritical to think that way.

Well … I’m not sure why reasoning is “only used in the extremes” when one must accept truths of the Christian faith. You can use reason to your heart’s content, so long as you don’t believe any conclusions that disagree with Catholic doctrine (unless, once again, those conclusions are absolutely certain rather than merely likely … for if they beyond a shadow of a doubt, then it proves Catholicism wrong).

That’s an example of what I meant by the extremes. Why is Catholicism only liable to falsification at the extremes – beyond the shadow of a doubt? Why, as a matter of reasoning, reject any conclusions that disagree with Catholic doctrine if those conclusions are the more compelling, even if just a bit more? This is the unreasoning deployment of reasoning, is it not?

But there is infinite elbow room between the doctrines to reason about all kinds of stuff and even to come up with vastly different conclusions than another person who nonetheless believes the same doctrine.

Perhaps, but why go for such acrobatics? If we say “this is the fair understanding of Catholic doctrine, and given that interpretation, it’s likely false”, why would the response be “But wait! We can shift things all around and contort that conventional understanding to now stretch, twist and accommodate the objection!” That may be possible to do, but what is the reasoning behind choosing that path?

So, I’m not sure what you mean when you say that faith only allows reason to be “used in the extremes.”

I feel my post here was highly unsatisfactory. I apologize, if so.

Also, thank you for being an incredibly reasonable person.

No, this was good, and while we’re opposed in conclusions, I think we are circling around a fundamental issue here. It’s ground gained, IMHO, to achieve clarity and understanding about what we disagree on and how. The “extremes” issue gets right down to the core, I suspect. Agreement is good and desirable, but not the only good available to us. Understanding about how and where disagreement obtains is valuable in its own right.

-TS

 

[summa8447]

Good question. Let me ask a question first. What do you mean by a “reasoned belief?” What are some example of things you know by reason?

What do you mean by “irrational thinking?” Usually the word “irrational” means “against reason.” If that’s what you mean, then the answer is no. If you mean “irrational” as in “not within the realm of (human) reason” then … yes.

I might be misunderstanding you, though.

I believe that I can use reason to believe it reasonable for God to exist, but it seems irrational to believe any given religion to accurately represent that God. Primitive man’s notions are just that. And if God did really come to the Israelites then as Christ it seems that he would continue to update it as humans advanced in understanding of creation so as to eliminate the “chaff” in the teachings so to speak.

Good question. Detecting grace is not possible by natural human faculties (I am open to correction on this). Hence, it is never naturally certain whether one is even in a state of grace.

Joan of Arc, when on trial, was asked, “Are you in a state of grace?” in order that they might catch her in a contradiction. She responded, “If I’m not, may it please God to put me in a state of grace. If I am, may it please God to keep me there.”

However, God could give you the* particular* grace that gives you the knowledge whether you are have grace or not, or even whether someone else has it or not. We cannot figure out a method to figure out if an action was done by grace. But many times, God gives us the particular grace to see the grace in another person’s action (in which case, the love of God is made known to us) … the more grace that action has, the more grace we will see (provided, once again, we are given that sight at the time).

Why can’t we always see these things? Why aren’t we always given the grace to see grace? Why does God cover our eyes? Well … there’s several answers and several ways to talk about the answers. One reason is to give you humility … to try and get you to realize your lack of omniscience, for example, and how you need grace to know supernatural realities (for if you think you could identify divine things by your own power … you may suffer from a bit of pride).

One, without grace, can perform objectively good works. However, without grace, fallen man cannot do objectively good works with perfectly good intentions/motivations. In that sense, “man can do no good” (because every act without grace is tainted by less that perfect motivation).

That is doctrinally speaking. Of those I am generally aware, and I think you said them accurately, However, my query is not to how do we know (as in awareness) but how do we recognize? From the natural sphere I can physically recognize a dog from his shape, features, bark, etc.; but from the supernatural sphere how do I identify the presence of grace?

 

[reggieM]

Also what is the way of discerning when you have grace? I mean it is possible to do/think good, moral actions/things apart from anything supernatural things like grace. So what is the verifying identifier of Grace?

Supernatural grace is conferred on people through the sacraments – as given by Christ. Through the redemption, God made a supernatural life possible for people to live. God communicates his divine power to people – through His Son (through His redemptive death and resurrection).

There are a few ways to discern whether you truly have grace or not.
The first, necessary means is Baptism. That is a one-time sacrament that opens the path to grace – it lifts the soul to the supernatural life, making a person capable of receiving grace. It transforms the soul entirely – changing the person.
After Baptism, the most obvious way to determine that you possess the gift of grace, is if you’re living in a state of grace. By this, it is meant that you do not have unconfessed mortal sin on your soul. Mortal sin kills the life of grace in the soul for a person – so that’s the clearest and most obvious sign.
Through confession and sacramental absolution – supernatural grace is restored to the soul.
After this, there are other means that are necessary to discern the state of one’s soul.
First, one must examine one’s conscience and actions – are there manifestations of grace in the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity? These virtues are the gifts from God – different from the natural virtues that we can work on and build within ourselves.
How do we know that there are these manifestations? This is a personal matter, but one can look for signs of the power of God working in the soul.
Grace is a light in the mind – it guides actions towards perfection – and it moves acts of charity that would not be possible without grace.
Am I living with a greater charity and love towards others? Am I moving closer to God in prayer – desiring prayer and union with God more and more? Do I have a deeper hunger for the Eucharist and the Word of God in my life? Can I sense God’s presence guiding, helping, forming, moving and improving me? Do I live more and more by Faith – trusting God in things more? Am I losing a taste for the things of the world, sensual consolations, self-love and various distractions – in favor of living in the presence of God? Have I recognized the workings of grace in my life in other ways?

This is the work of discernment. St. John of the Cross gives detailed teaching on it. St. Ignatius Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises (through the Ignatian Retreat) teaches this discernment very clearly.

What kind of battle do I perceive with the Enemy of souls? What kind of temptations do I perceive and what is my response?

This is very much the work of grace. The opposite of living in grace is living in a condition of sin (to one degree or another). A person who is living in sin – cut off from grace – cannot defeat Satan’s temptations. Sooner or later (usually sooner) he will fall and stay fallen for a while.

This brings us back to the normal means of restoring grace – Confession and sacramental absolution. That restores Baptismal purity to the soul. That is the gateway to heaven and eternal life.

No, it’s not possible to think or do good things (Good as defined by God) outside of the state of grace. Outside of grace there is sin.

The Faith we receive from Christ, through the Church is a gift. It’s a power – not an argument. It transforms through power – changing a person within and making the person a new creation. It’s the power of the resurrection – transcending nature.

 

[reggieM]

However, my query is not to how do we know (as in awareness) but how do we recognize? From the natural sphere I can physically recognize a dog from his shape, features, bark, etc.; but from the supernatural sphere how do I identify the presence of grace?

You can recognize a dog from his shape.
You can recognize grace in two ways – indirectly, through the actions of grace on nature (the best and easiest place to see these actions is through careful observation of your own moral life).
And directly, through the direct manifestations of grace.

 

[StillWondering]

You can recognize a dog from his shape.
You can recognize grace in two ways – indirectly, through the actions of grace on nature (the best and easiest place to see these actions is through careful observation of your own moral life).
And directly, through the direct manifestations of grace.

Bold added by me so I can lead into a down to earth take on this topic. Thanks Reggie for the explanations above.

A priest preached in a homily that boils down the Sacraments. He told us that in the days of the Baltimore Catechism Catholics can recite from heart that a Sacrament as a physical sign of a supernatural grace (my paraphrasing). And then he explained that God knows we as humans sometimes needs discernible signs.

So the Sacrament of Baptism and Reconciliation are physical and personal events performed in a particular way according to the format the Christ taught us. These are physical acts that bring about supernatural grace. These are not the only way grace comes into our lives but it is a great way to show us that it does since we are physical beings who sometimes need tangible evidence. Another example of something physical that gives us a hint of the supernatural are icons and beautiful churches to help us think about and wrestle in our minds the beauty and reality of the saints and the worship.

 

[reggieM]

Right, StillWondering.

There are other manifestations:

1. Growing revulsion against sin and evil
2. Greater taste and desire for prayer
3. Enlightenment in the mind regarding the mysteries of God
4. Experiencing both consolation of the spirit and desolation of the spirit in more acute ways
5. Signs that prayers have been answered
6. A more sensitive conscience
7. More endurance and fortitude in prayer and meditation
8. Charitable acts that go beyond the routine things we do
9. Feeling of refreshment, joy and energy in serving God
10. Greater obedience to the teachings of the Church
11. Seeing one’s own life more clearly – with humility and truth
12. Living by faith and not by one’s own mental powers
13. Recognizing the spiritual combat taking place against Satan (temptations, persecutions)
14. A desire for penitental acts, mortification of the senses and living in union with the Cross (rejoicing in pains that God grants for reparation).

These are just some of the very many examples of the “workings of grace on nature”. We see the results in our life and we can notice that grace is present.

The more direct way of perceiving grace is through direct mystical experience. Some of the examples given above are like that.

Mystical experiences will include prophecy (seeing some future events), counsel (saying the right thing to a person at exactly the right time), “serendipity” (God-directed coincidences which are actually miracles) – and numerous interior states (interior visions of Our Lord and Our Blessed Lady or the Saints, guidance through interior words directed by God) – Contemplative prayer brings even more mysticism with the apprehension of God in His glory.

St. Thomas Aquinas experienced that and once he did he set aside his philosophical work and regarded it as nothing but straw.

That’s what faith is all about – transcendence and union with God through grace.

The flip-side of all of this is “how do we know that we’re in the state of mortal sin”?
That condition has its own manifestations - parallel and opposite to the state of grace.

 

[summa8447]

Supernatural grace is conferred on people through the sacraments – as given by Christ. Through the redemption, God made a supernatural life possible for people to live. God communicates his divine power to people – through His Son (through His redemptive death and resurrection).

There are a few ways to discern whether you truly have grace or not.
The first, necessary means is Baptism. That is a one-time sacrament that opens the path to grace – it lifts the soul to the supernatural life, making a person capable of receiving grace. It transforms the soul entirely – changing the person.
After Baptism, the most obvious way to determine that you possess the gift of grace, is if you’re living in a state of grace. By this, it is meant that you do not have unconfessed mortal sin on your soul. Mortal sin kills the life of grace in the soul for a person – so that’s the clearest and most obvious sign.
Through confession and sacramental absolution – supernatural grace is restored to the soul.
After this, there are other means that are necessary to discern the state of one’s soul.
First, one must examine one’s conscience and actions – are there manifestations of grace in the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity? These virtues are the gifts from God – different from the natural virtues that we can work on and build within ourselves.
How do we know that there are these manifestations? This is a personal matter, but one can look for signs of the power of God working in the soul.
Grace is a light in the mind – it guides actions towards perfection – and it moves acts of charity that would not be possible without grace.
Am I living with a greater charity and love towards others? Am I moving closer to God in prayer – desiring prayer and union with God more and more? Do I have a deeper hunger for the Eucharist and the Word of God in my life? Can I sense God’s presence guiding, helping, forming, moving and improving me? Do I live more and more by Faith – trusting God in things more? Am I losing a taste for the things of the world, sensual consolations, self-love and various distractions – in favor of living in the presence of God? Have I recognized the workings of grace in my life in other ways?

This is the work of discernment. St. John of the Cross gives detailed teaching on it. St. Ignatius Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises (through the Ignatian Retreat) teaches this discernment very clearly.

What kind of battle do I perceive with the Enemy of souls? What kind of temptations do I perceive and what is my response?

This is very much the work of grace. The opposite of living in grace is living in a condition of sin (to one degree or another). A person who is living in sin – cut off from grace – cannot defeat Satan’s temptations. Sooner or later (usually sooner) he will fall and stay fallen for a while.

This brings us back to the normal means of restoring grace – Confession and sacramental absolution. That restores Baptismal purity to the soul. That is the gateway to heaven and eternal life.

No, it’s not possible to think or do good things (Good as defined by God) outside of the state of grace. Outside of grace there is sin.

The Faith we receive from Christ, through the Church is a gift. It’s a power – not an argument. It transforms through power – changing a person within and making the person a new creation. It’s the power of the resurrection – transcending nature.

Bold added by me so I can lead into a down to earth take on this topic. Thanks Reggie for the explanations above. …

Right, StillWondering.

There are other manifestations:…

Sorry, posts were too long, had to truncate.
These are very good answers to me. They don’t answer everything I wonder. I’m going to start a new thread query soon.

So based on what I am reading here, evidence of the presence of Grace is seen through its effects. I don’t know if every good effect you all described has to be through Grace but its all worth reflection. Thanks.

Summa8447

 

[reggieM]

So based on what I am reading here, evidence of the presence of Grace is seen through its effects. I don’t know if every good effect you all described has to be through Grace but its all worth reflection. Thanks.

Through effects is the ordinary, most common way.
The direct evidence through mystical experience is the less-common way.

Discernment helps to distinguish whether it is the effect of grace or possibly a temptation from an evil spirit, or perhaps just a natural effect.

Discernment is done through spiritual reading, meditation, guidance from spiritual direction and one’s confessor.

 

[M0nkey]

I do not think that is true. There was hamurabi’s code and probably others. They were just primitive systems as was the Israelites in some ways.

Well, how does Hamurabi’s code relate to the Ten Commandments? Which one was written first? Also, have you looked into the Israelites’s laws regarding jubilee? There is the right to property embedded into these, which is a modern understanding, where else in the ancients do you see such laws? These are the questions you should be able to answer.

Is it? Let me know what you are basing your statement on. Your words don’t have enough meat to help me with that.

Is there any “proof” that the Jews were not in Egypt? If it cannot be shown through substantial evidence, then it is rightfully called speculation.

I’m sorrycM0nkey, you are not answering me. I haven’t discussed Gnosticism. I do not find it a tenable correct teaching. It was among a chaotic era of disputing sects. But the sarcisist (physical resurrectionists) many not be the authentic early church either. Jesus may be mythical.

Gnosticism is just one example of “redactionism” in the early church, which is why I gave this as an example. The bottom line is this, you can idly speculate whether Jesus is mythical or not, but at some point you must make a decision and take action. The truth is that whichever path you choose you will have to rely on the authority of whoever told you and my point is that I much rather go with the early martyrs of the faith. It’s all a matter of drawing a line in the sand, becoming a biblical or historical scholar won’t do.

 

[Leela]

Hi summa,

I don’t think you need to be troubled about your doubts. If the Catholics have it right, then you, with all of your doubts, are exactly the way God made you. God knows exactly the sort of evidence or arguments that would convince you of the truth of Catholicism, but apparently he chooses not to provide them to you. God just hasn’t granted you the gift of faith. It would seem that the problem is out of your hands. In other words, it’s not your problem. Well…unless the Catholics are also right about God damning you for you lack of disbelief, but that would hardly seem just if you have no power to force yourself to believe what you are not already convinced of. Anyway, if you were going to worry about that then you may as well worry about being damned for not being a Muslim or a Mormon or whatever other religions claim about life after death.

Here’s a radical new idea for you: the world is actually a good place–one that we don’t need to focus on escaping from, a place that we need to work to engage in.

Best,
Leela

 

[danojr]

someone on this site pointed me to a book THE IRRATIONOL ATHEIST BY VOX DAY I found it to be informative and entertaining in response to several of the new wave atheist, it is available by downlowding

 

[liquidpele]

someone on this site pointed me to a book THE IRRATIONOL ATHEIST BY VOX DAY I found it to be informative and entertaining in response to several of the new wave atheist, it is available by downlowding

Having read a decent portion of it, I would say it’s more of a book on how to present strawmen.
I’m curious, have you read any of the books by those he discussed like Dawkins, Hitches, etc?

 

[M0nkey]

Having read a decent portion of it, I would say it’s more of a book on how to present strawmen.
I’m curious, have you read any of the books by those he discussed like Dawkins, Hitches, etc?

I’ve read excerpts, my only take is that these two aren’t real scientists. The argumentation is very shallow and sugar coated, and in Dawkin’s case full of vitriolic indignation.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

“And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day.” It isn’t really radical and not new. Things in and of themselves are good, this itself is a grace of God and it is the use of them that can be bad or good. It is the will that chooses good or evil, unlike in irrational creatures or things that cannot make a choice.

The choice for God is effective, as is the choice against Him, leading someone to peace in the correct choice or into the depths of sin and despair with the incorrect one. You are led by the correct choice to a relationship with the Person of God, known by faith and cannot be proven except by action, again an act of the will. Good and evil can be known when it happens to us and the will chooses to return to others from this experiential knowledge. The choice for God is from the will, “If you love Me you will keep My commandments”.

All are free to choose but must live or die ultimately with their own choice. The debate for or against theism is ultimately only one small part of ones assent and should be determined by ones will to serve the good or to not. As Cardinal Newman said, “We can believe what we choose. We are answerable for what we choose to believe” in addition to “It is as absurd to argue men, as to torture them, into believing”. In the end, you will be judged on your faith determined by your will, not how many people you “debated” into belief.

 

[RobbyS]

I believe that I can use reason to believe it reasonable for God to exist, but it seems irrational to believe any given religion to accurately represent that God. Primitive man’s notions are just that. And if God did really come to the Israelites then as Christ it seems that he would continue to update it as humans advanced in understanding of creation so as to eliminate the “chaff” in the teachings so to speak.

That is doctrinally speaking. Of those I am generally aware, and I think you said them accurately, However, my query is not to how do we know (as in awareness) but how do we recognize? From the natural sphere I can physically recognize a dog from his shape, features, bark, etc.; but from the supernatural sphere how do I identify the presence of grace?

How do you recognize a graceful person? Any gifted person? By their actions. You are not going to recognize a gifted pianists whom you pass on the street. The spiritually gifted manifest themselves in ways different from those gifted in other ways. You have to pay attention. The Church demands miracles before it canonizes a good person. I guess it is that saints manage to “pass on” their gifts by sharing their “healed” natures to the yet living. A miracle is no more than a sign of this. Power from a distance, so to speak.

 

[RobbyS]

Hi summa,

I don’t think you need to be troubled about your doubts. If the Catholics have it right, then you, with all of your doubts, are exactly the way God made you. God knows exactly the sort of evidence or arguments that would convince you of the truth of Catholicism, but apparently he chooses not to provide them to you. God just hasn’t granted you the gift of faith. It would seem that the problem is out of your hands. In other words, it’s not your problem. Well…unless the Catholics are also right about God damning you for you lack of disbelief, but that would hardly seem just if you have no power to force yourself to believe what you are not already convinced of. Anyway, if you were going to worry about that then you may as well worry about being damned for not being a Muslim or a Mormon or whatever other religions claim about life after death.

Here’s a radical new idea for you: the world is actually a good place–one that we don’t need to focus on escaping from, a place that we need to work to engage in.

Best,
Leela

The obvious answer is that God extends sufficient grace to all but that we do not all accept it. More to the point: we do not know what God knows, he knows what we know. The answer to Job needs to be pondered. But the Gospel tell us more than Job. If God became man, and then died, it tells men that God does know what it is to be a person as we are persons. But we Christians have no answer to the question: what was it ALL about? The Resurrection is an answer that is an open question.