The Divorce of Fatih & Reason

[stanley123]

Topher:

Just because most people do not believe something today, does not mean that those people are right.

So you would agree with the following?:
"… in a secondary sense the image of God is found in man, and not in woman: for man is the beginning and end of woman; as God is the beginning and end of every creature. So when the Apostle had said that “man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man,” he adds his reason for saying this: “For man is not of woman, but woman of man; and man was not created for woman, but woman for man.” Summa Theologica I, qu. 93, art. 4 ad 1.

 

[lillysan]

Topher:

Just because most people do not believe something today, does not mean that those people are right. Furthermore, I think that Thomas needs to be understood in context. Women are equal to men in dignity but, they were created by God to image man and the fact that they tend to let their emotions rule rather than reason is not something that should be considered good. Don’t get me wrong, their are alot of wonderful and beautiful things about women but this is not one of them. On the other hand, men have their problems too, but they tend to be less ruled by their emotions than women.

For your information Mr. Topher not all women rely on their emotions for any type of decision. I actually know men who rely more on their emotions or are so afraid of their emotions that they are at a disadvantage to finding their way to heaven. Emotions are not inherently bad they are actually needed as long as they are ruled by reason. Actually I find it quite offensive that you would say that emotions of a women are not good, period. There is a problem with this because, can you imagine a world without women? Then, from what you are saying, there would be no “evil” emotions in the world. The Lord created women and all that comes with them for a reason. We need to have both men and women. As was stated by someone above the perfection is found in the meeting and combing of men and women. We are equal with different purposes. I personally would not advocate for men to stop using their reasoning. So sorry but there is nothing wrong with a women who has emotions that are governed by reason. Do you think that men have no emotions?

 

[mosher]

In reference to the quote given by St. Thomas it is not a matter of greater or lesser. This is the problem with the modern western mind as it is always looking for “zero-sum.” However, this is not the case with St. Thomas. The defense of his point is simple as we say the same thing today with different words. Men and women are equal in dignity but different in kind and purpose. While man is the image of God and woman is the image of man is very accurate because women do not image God in all the ways that men do in the masculinity of men it is true that woman images God in so far as she is the image of man being created from him and for him. Thus in a sense it is true to say that both men and women are in the image of God as we say today but it is also true to say that they image God in different ways.

 

[mosher]

stanley123:

Would this be an inherited or an acquired characteristic?

Neither, as it is intrinsic to the very being of woman in her femininity.

 

[Topher]

lillysan:

For your information Mr. Topher not all women rely on their emotions for any type of decision. I actually know men who rely more on their emotions or are so afraid of their emotions that they are at a disadvantage to finding their way to heaven. Emotions are not inherently bad they are actually needed as long as they are ruled by reason. Actually I find it quite offensive that you would say that emotions of a women are not good, period. There is a problem with this because, can you imagine a world without women? Then, from what you are saying, there would be no “evil” emotions in the world. The Lord created women and all that comes with them for a reason. We need to have both men and women. As was stated by someone above the perfection is found in the meeting and combing of men and women. We are equal with different purposes. I personally would not advocate for men to stop using their reasoning. So sorry but there is nothing wrong with a women who has emotions that are governed by reason. Do you think that men have no emotions?

I wonder if you actually read my post or just created a caricature of it. I did not say emotions are evil. I agree with you that they are good and created by God. The problem is when one allows their emotions to rule them rather than reason. What I said concerning women is that the TEND to be ruled by their emotions and that is not good. I did not say that all women are always ruled by their emotions but they TEND towards that much more than men do. And yes men do sometimes let their emotions rule them but they are much less suseptible to that than women are. I also pointed out that their are many beautiful things about women but the tendency to be ruled by emotion is a weakness.

 

[Topher]

I think that this thread is going off into tangents again though. The whole point is that reason can help us to determine truth, and that feelings, although good, do serve such a purpose.

 

[Tibbar]

Nobody, to my knowledge, has perfect faith or perfect reason. Faith and reason are components of a whole in the life of a Catholic Christian.

As Catholics, we need the infused guidance of God’s Holy Spirit, accompanied by a life of dynamic prayer, and frequent reception of the sacraments. As Catholics, we also acknowlege that Christ has not left us orphaned, but has established a Church that has been entrusted with a deposit of faith that assists and guides us as a both a theological and a moral compass.

 

[mosher]

Tibbar:

Nobody, to my knowledge, has perfect faith or perfect reason. Faith and reason are components of a whole in the life of a Catholic Christian.

As Catholics, we need the infused guidance of God’s Holy Spirit, accompanied by a life of dynamic prayer, and frequent reception of the sacraments. As Catholics, we also acknowlege that Christ has not left us orphaned, but has established a Church that has been entrusted with a deposit of faith that assists and guides us as a both a theological and a moral compass.

Very true, however the gist of this thread is to help solve the problem of the divorce of faith and reason. You are correct that all starts with faith as theology is done as a believer and not a sckeptic. However, to just believe and rely on faith alone is opposed to the understanding of the relationship between faith and the nature of man as a rational being and it is that rationality that I am trying to tap into because it seems that many do not like ot hear a reasoned approach to faith because to them it sounds cold and uncaring and they don’t like the feeling they get whe they hear particular axioms. This leads to many problems but in the end you are correct that all begins with grace and prayer.

 

[2perfection]

oldfogey:

It’s also interesting that somehow the Church is always held to a higher standard than science in these discussions. If the Church develops a fuller understanding of something, it must have been “wrong” previously. Was Newton “wrong” when he wrote his laws? His laws did not explain all motion, as we now know from Einstein’s theory. And are the Newtonian Laws now invalid? No, of course not, and they are still used all the time in their proper context. But if the Church develops a new understanding for something, watch out, she has somehow conspired against truth.

Well, two things.

All findings in science are provisional. They never claim to be absolutely right, and await refutation. Newton was replaced by Einstein because Einsteins model predicted more and better.

By contrast there is the doctrine of Papla infalibility. Thouhg I believe it is now confined to spiritual matters, there is no way to avoid the fact that the heliocentric model of the solar system was rejected.

You cannot claim infallibility and be wrong. Actually, you cant logically claim infallibility and modify your answer. Your first answer was exaclty perfect for all purposes because you were infalllible.

You might like to explain doctrine to people in terms of PI. Generally calling PI 3.14295 (or what ever it is) is close enough, but as time passes PI get quoted with ever more accuracy (5 million decimal places and counting), but I doubt that would impress sceptics.

 

[2perfection]

Has it occured to any of you that faith and reason split because:

Reason applied to Faith does not make you healthier, wealthier, or make lives easier…

and that Reason applied via science does?

“Have faith” is no answer to “have a vaccination”.

 

[Topher]

2perfection:

Has it occured to any of you that faith and reason split because:

Reason applied to Faith does not make you healthier, wealthier, or make lives easier…

and that Reason applied via science does?

“Have faith” is no answer to “have a vaccination”.

That is not the point that we are arguing. What we are saying is, “If your beliefs are not reasonable, then why believe them?”

 

[Topher]

2perfection:

Well, two things.

All findings in science are provisional. They never claim to be absolutely right, and await refutation. Newton was replaced by Einstein because Einsteins model predicted more and better.

By contrast there is the doctrine of Papla infalibility. Thouhg I believe it is now confined to spiritual matters, there is no way to avoid the fact that the heliocentric model of the solar system was rejected.

You cannot claim infallibility and be wrong. Actually, you cant logically claim infallibility and modify your answer. Your first answer was exaclty perfect for all purposes because you were infalllible.

You might like to explain doctrine to people in terms of PI. Generally calling PI 3.14295 (or what ever it is) is close enough, but as time passes PI get quoted with ever more accuracy (5 million decimal places and counting), but I doubt that would impress sceptics.

We are not talking about close enough when we discuss infallibility. What we are saying is that the pope is only infallibile when he speaks ex cathedra and only with regaurds to faith and morals. That does not mean he is inaccurate with regaurd to infallible statements. It just means that the pope is only infalliblie in specific instances.

 

[stanley123]

Topher:

That is not the point that we are arguing. What we are saying is, “If your beliefs are not reasonable, then why believe them?”

Because of Revelation. For example some people (including Jews and Muslims for example)may find the idea of the Trinity unreasonable.

 

[Topher]

stanley123:

Because of Revelation. For example some people (including Jews and Muslims for example)may find the idea of the Trinity unreasonable.

Ah but they would be wrong. The Trinity is not unreasonable. It does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

 

[stanley123]

Topher:

Ah but they would be wrong. The Trinity is not unreasonable. It does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

They find it to be unreasonable as it appears to them to be a weakening of their traditional monotheistic belief. Further, it cannot be proven from reason alone, and it is necessary to support the belief by reference to Revelation and the traditional teaching of the RCC, which they do not accept.

 

[Topher]

stanley123:

They find it to be unreasonable as it appears to them to be a weakening of their traditional monotheistic belief. Further, it cannot be proven from reason alone, and it is necessary to support the belief by reference to Revelation and the traditional teaching of the RCC, which they do not accept.

Of course but we can give evidence that something revealed is genuine reveltation. We can first Give proof from natural reason alone that one, good, loving, powereful, omnipotent, omniscient, God exits. Then we can give the historical argument for the historical reliability of the Gospels and for the Historical fact of the resurrection of Christ. Then form their we can argue from the Gospels and other early Christian writings that Jesus established a church and that Chruch is the catholic Chruch and that the Church he established is infalliblel and thus, any of the official teachings of the Catholic Church, including papal infallibility, are true.

 

[fix]

2perfection:

By contrast there is the doctrine of Papla infalibility. Thouhg I believe it is now confined to spiritual matters, there is no way to avoid the fact that the heliocentric model of the solar system was rejected.

You cannot claim infallibility and be wrong. Actually, you cant logically claim infallibility and modify your answer. Your first answer was exaclty perfect for all purposes because you were infalllible.

This is an incorrect characterization of papal infallibility and history.

Can you provide some citations to prove your position?

 

[stanley123]

Topher:

Of course but we can give evidence that something revealed is genuine reveltation. We can first Give proof from natural reason alone that one, good, loving, powereful, omnipotent, omniscient, God exits. Then we can give the historical argument for the historical reliability of the Gospels and for the Historical fact of the resurrection of Christ. Then form their we can argue from the Gospels and other early Christian writings that Jesus established a church and that Chruch is the catholic Chruch and that the Church he established is infalliblel and thus, any of the official teachings of the Catholic Church, including papal infallibility, are true.

However, there is a group consisting of fairly intelligent people, who disagree that it is reasonable. It is alleged that this group may be somewhat more intelligent and skilled with the use of reason than the world population at large. The allegation bears some looking into, because if you look at relative number of doctors, the relative number of lawyers, the relative number of scientists, the relative number of Nobel prize winners, the relative number of chess masters, the relative number of professors, etc.,you might find that the high achievers are disproportionately represented from this group. In fact, the group has overachieved so much in some countries, that the governmental authorities had to institute numerical limitations on successful applicants to the university solely on the basis of belonging to this particular group. This might indicate that this group is more skilled in using reason and argumentation, and yet this group would certainly not agree with you that the argument you have presented is acceptable to them. For 2000 years they have not found it to be reasonable.

 

[FernandoO]

Reason and Faith; Science and Religion; matter and spirit; matter and energy: ALL PART OF THE SAME CREATION…

Science tries to explain the physical world, religion the spiritual world.

We are ONE could very well imply that Everything is One…

Mother Nature IS NOT separate from God; It was created by Him…

Nothing in existence is Outside…

So, NO Divorce is allowed…

Fernando

 

[Topher]

stanley123:

However, there is a group consisting of fairly intelligent people, who disagree that it is reasonable. It is alleged that this group may be somewhat more intelligent and skilled with the use of reason than the world population at large. The allegation bears some looking into, because if you look at relative number of doctors, the relative number of lawyers, the relative number of scientists, the relative number of Nobel prize winners, the relative number of chess masters, the relative number of professors, etc.,you might find that the high achievers are disproportionately represented from this group. In fact, the group has overachieved so much in some countries, that the governmental authorities had to institute numerical limitations on successful applicants to the university solely on the basis of belonging to this particular group. This might indicate that this group is more skilled in using reason and argumentation, and yet this group would certainly not agree with you that the argument you have presented is acceptable to them. For 2000 years they have not found it to be reasonable.

But that does not change the fact that they are wrong.