The Catholic Response to Feuerbach's "Man created God"?

[EZweber]

IF you had all of those things you need, you would not need religion.

The first two happen to be needs I am told I have by religion.

In other words, religion IS man-made, and stems from our fear of death, suffering, or desires and wants.

This is a non sequitur.

I will always remember the day I was brought to the Principals office to meet my mother after I asked a nun why being gay was wrong. And I’m not gay. I just wanted to know why.

On behalf of the Church, I would like to apologise for that. If I were your teacher, I would have given you the answer and extra credit. Unfortunately, no one in the Church (Millitant) is perfect yet.

 

[Gorgias]

Do you believe prayer is effective? Then it is easy to predict where the effects will occur.

Those experiments have been attempted. And, I’d assert, their methodology is flawed. Prayer isn’t ‘medicine’, such that you can run double-blind trials with doses (as well as placebos) in order to measure results.

In fact, from a Catholic perspective, prayer doesn’t change God, it changes us, so that we can come to accept God’s will for our lives. Look at it this way: suppose I set up an experiment where each of us on CAF buys a Powerball ticket. Half of us pray on it, and half do not. Would you suggest that merely looking at the roster of winners would prove or disprove the efficacy of prayer? I wouldn’t – after all, our goal in prayer is to become attuned to the will of God, not bend His will to ours.

The evidence is actually very much against a historical Jesus

You might want to read up on modern scholarship. These days, scholars do not dispute that there was a “historical Jesus”. (They might dispute whether He was the Son of God, or performed miraculous healings, or was raised from the dead, of course… but they don’t doubt that Jesus existed.)

My point is obvious. Moses CLAIMED God gave him the commandments.

Peter CLAIMED he was working through God. Of course they could be lying.

Fair enough. What proof do you have that they were lying? After all, you’re making a positive claim here. Therefore, you need to substantiate it (or else admit that you’re just throwing out wild accusations). So… I’ll call your bluff – show us what you’ve got!

But if you look at the facts, it is OBVIOUS that men created the commandments, wrote the Bible, started the Church.

According to the Scriptural account, Moses wrote the second set of tablets, having had them dictated by God. If you call the scratching of stone “creation”, then you can stand firm on that claim (although it’s a trivial one at best).

Even moreso with your claim about the Bible: sure, humans wrote the words on the page, but would you claim that they misrepresented the events which they’re reporting? If so… where’s the evidence?

Your claim points to construction rather than creation / authorship. It, itself, is a trivial claim. If you think that it illumines… well, I think you’re mistaken. Look beyond the actual chisel-to-stone or ink-to-scroll acts of construction – that’s where the question needs to be asked.

 

[Gorgias]

You must not have gone to Catholic School.

17 years.

You must not have gone to grade school. Approaches to pedagogy – especially with younger students – require the students to trust their teachers and accept what they’re being taught. Some teachers (even in secular schools!) take this a step further and demand absolute obedience. (Some don’t, of course.)

Later, as the student matures, he gains the ability to ask “is this stuff real? Is it reasonable? Is it believable?”

If you think that the Church wants us to halt our development to the level of a grade-schooler, then you’re seriously mistaken. “Blind obedience” – even if it works as a means to bootstrap education – is replaced with rational, deliberate thought.

We are not to question the Church.

Not true. We’re supposed to form our conscience properly; that means that we question, ponder, and reach our own conclusions. (I might ask what special kind of hubris says “my conclusions on morality are more reasonable than the thought of 2000 years of philosophers and theologians, not to mention the truths taught us by Christ”? But hey… that’s just me. )

For example, the Church wanted to police its own in terms of sexual predators.

Apples and oranges. The Church doesn’t claim to be infallible in managerial matters (after all, it was founded on a guy who denied Christ and was rebuked by Him as ‘satan’!). If you’re gonna castigate the Church’s teaching based on it’s managerial acumen, then you’re missing the point.

I can still remember getting in trouble for asking the tough questions in Catholic school.

I did, too, but my question was about abortion. The fact that Sister didn’t like my question doesn’t mean that “the Church” doesn’t want us to question – just that she didn’t like getting questioned by a teen-ager. If you want to take that as proof, then you’re really stretching credulity…

On behalf of the Church, I would like to apologise for that.

Meh. “The Church” didn’t censor him – one (offended) teacher did. For some reason, we tend to think of the nuns as if they’re part of the magisterium. (They ain’t. )

 

[EZweber]

Meh. “The Church” didn’t censor him – one (offended) teacher did. For some reason, we tend to think of the nuns as if they’re part of the magisterium. (They ain’t. )

The nun is still a member of the Church.

 

[Gorgias]

The nun is still a member of the Church.

Agreed. Yet, so is the usher at Mass. You wouldn’t assert that the usher teaches from the mind of the Church, or acts as an ‘agent’ of the universal Church, would you?

 

[EZweber]

Agreed. Yet, so is the usher at Mass. You wouldn’t assert that the usher teaches from the mind of the Church, or acts as an ‘agent’ of the universal Church, would you?

I have not apologised for the nun’s teaching. I apologized for the nun’s action. The official Church is not at fault (for the most part), but on the individual level, there are many faults.

 

[Gorgias]

The official Church is not at fault (for the most part), but on the individual level, there are many faults.

Yep!

Still, though, you can see the dynamic in play here, right? @LateCatholic perceived the “actions” as being of the institutional Church. The apology, then, would be perceived of as apologizing for the institutional Church, wouldn’t you think?

The issue here is “one nun” / “one teacher” / “one anybody-who’s-not-an-official-representative-of-the-Church” is not who they are being presumed they are. And therefore, the change needs to be in perception more than anything else.

 

[Wozza]

LateCatholic:

Do you believe prayer is effective? Then it is easy to predict where the effects will occur.

Those experiments have been attempted. And, I’d assert, their methodology is flawed. Prayer isn’t ‘medicine’, such that you can run double-blind trials with doses (as well as placebos) in order to measure results.

What you are saying here is that you don’t believe that prayer is effective if someone asks for a cure for a family member or a lost child to be found. Which is exactly what LC is saying.

 

[Gorgias]

What you are saying here is that you don’t believe that prayer is effective if someone asks for a cure for a family member or a lost child to be found.

No, what I’m saying is that it can’t be measured by the methods used to evaluate medical therapies.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

What you are saying here is that you don’t believe that prayer is effective if someone asks for a cure for a family member or a lost child to be found.

No, what I’m saying is that it can’t be measured by the methods used to evaluate medical therapies.

You’re either saying it can’t be measured. In which case it appears to be a lost cause - effectively saying that you have no idea if it works. Or…you have a way to show that it does.

I’m not sure there’s a third option. So which is it?

 

[Gorgias]

You’re either saying it can’t be measured.

One way I’ve heard folks talk about ‘answers to prayer’ is that God gives one of three answers: “Yes”, “No”, and “I have something better in mind for you.”

If that’s the case, then all prayers are answered – but only one of these can be “measured” in any empirical sense. So, if there are three outcomes, but we cannot detect two of them, then no – there’s no empirical means of measuring what we’re trying to measure. Nevertheless, I’m not saying “I have no idea whether [prayer] works”, but, given that we’re talking about the operation of a spiritual being, I would say that it’s not reasonable to suggest that we must “have a way to show that it does.”

The third option, of course, is “spiritual realities transcend physical measurement”, or in a Pirsig-esque way of saying it, “mu – re-ask the question.”

 

[EZweber]

Still, though, you can see the dynamic in play here, right? @LateCatholic perceived the “actions” as being of the institutional Church. The apology, then, would be perceived of as apologizing for the institutional Church, wouldn’t you think?

I think that the only one who can answer that is @LateCatholic himself.

 

[LateCatholic]

Still, though, you can see the dynamic in play here, right? @LateCatholic perceived the “actions” as being of the institutional Church. The apology, then, would be perceived of as apologizing for the institutional Church, wouldn’t you think?

Well, as a 7th grader, you do perceive it as being from “The Church”.
Here’s the whole story. Sister Mary Barbara (yep, that was her name) literally read from the text of our health book that being gay was wrong, that “God hates it”, and it is a sin.
I had no gay feelings whatsover, but it still bothered me. “But they can’t help it, why is it wrong” was literally my question. Sister said nothing, but was not pleased.
As school ended, announcements said I should go to the office. Principal, Sister, and my mother were waiting. They were more worried I was gay than actually answering the question. They were more concerned why I didn’t like girls. I of course DID like girls, but the school was 40 miles way from our home (my mother was a teacher there and I commuted 45 min every day with her) so I had no school friends as they were so far away.
The culture of the Church is the problem, in my opinion. Remember this was long ago.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

You’re either saying it can’t be measured.

One way I’ve heard folks talk about ‘answers to prayer’ is that God gives one of three answers: “Yes”, “No”, and “I have something better in mind for you.”

If that’s the case, then all prayers are answered – but only one of these can be “measured” in any empirical sense. So, if there are three outcomes, but we cannot detect two of them, then no – there’s no empirical means of measuring what we’re trying to measure. Nevertheless, I’m not saying “I have no idea whether [prayer] works”, but, given that we’re talking about the operation of a spiritual being, I would say that it’s not reasonable to suggest that we must “have a way to show that it does.”

The third option, of course, is “spiritual realities transcend physical measurement”, or in a Pirsig-esque way of saying it, “mu – re-ask the question.”

Never mind about some folk. I’d like to know your position.

If you support the three options, then at least some of the time the prayers will have been answered. And it actually doesn’t need to be shown that prayers are answered all of the time. Just some of the time.

Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[EZweber]

Sister Mary Barbara (yep, that was her name) literally read from the text of our health book that being gay was wrong, that “God hates it”, and it is a sin.
I had no gay feelings whatsover, but it still bothered me. “But they can’t help it, why is it wrong” was literally my question. Sister said nothing, but was not pleased.

Just a clarification that you have probably already received, the Church does not teach that having homosexual inclinations is sinful. Encouraging them or engaging in homosexual actions is.

 

[EZweber]

If you support the three options, then at least some of the time the prayers will have been answered. And it actually doesn’t need to be shown that prayers are answered all of the time. Just some of the time.

Wouldn’t you agree?

The thing is, that is difficult to measure as well. For example, when my brother got a job interview, I prayed that it would go well. How do you measure that? He got the job. You still can’t measure it.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

If you support the three options, then at least some of the time the prayers will have been answered. And it actually doesn’t need to be shown that prayers are answered all of the time. Just some of the time.

Wouldn’t you agree?

The thing is, that is difficult to measure as well. For example, when my brother got a job interview, I prayed that it would go well. How do you measure that? He got the job. You still can’t measure it.

Of course you can. Just pick x number of people with the disease of your choice and pray for them. Then pick y number as a control and don’t pray for them. All things being equal, if more people being prayed for get better then prayers have been answered.

I did some facts and figures for Lourdes a few years ago on a different forum. Number of people attending, people who had been cured of cancer (as agreed by the Catholic Church), rate of spontaneous remission etc.

What we ended up with is that the rate of people cured by attending Lourdes was less than the rate who had spontaneous remission. That is, you had a better chance of getting through it if you DIDN’T go to Lourdes.

 

[EZweber]

God has two other options. There is also the possibility that when I prayed for my brother’s interview, God could have made it not go well when it would have.

 

[Wozza]

God has two other options. There is also the possibility that when I prayed for my brother’s interview, God could have made it not go well when it would have.

Forget your brother. Stick with the option of praying for a cure.

 

[EZweber]

Forget your brother. Stick with the option of praying for a cure.

In that case, the same dynamic applies.