The Modern Materialist

  • Thread starter Thread starter otrrl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lisaandlena said:
It’s obvious that this argument is flawed, because science can’t create problems, only philosophy can
Click to expand...
great! (I can’t think like this anymore )this was in, of all places, an auto club of CA publication. This was obviously not the journal of everlasting wisdom.
 
Can science prove historical events?
Can science prove anything at all or is it really a system of probability? Only philosophy or mathematics can prove something. Science can only speak in probabilities. Science can be useful but it can not answer the most basic questions like what is the meaning of life.
 
Humans use methods to solve problems.
Science doesn’t solve anything.

It’s the human will, using various approaches, that solve problems.
 
Science only deals with the material world.

It is one method to find truth in the material world. That’s it.

There are other approaches to finding truth in the material world, for example, logic, mathematics.

And there are approaches to finding truth about the immaterial world: metaphysics, theology, divine revelation, even prayer.
 
Last edited:
Sure they can. They can help us find truth of immaterial things.

You believe your aircraft is safe when you get aboard. But you don’t base that action on any science, but isntead on the testimony of others. That’s the definition of faith.

You act on faith! Not science.

There’s an offshoot of “Modernism” that’s called scientism. Your comment is dismissive of my knowledge, which you know nothing about.

You’re guilty of an error called scientism.

This topic should be renamed the Modern Modernist.

Most Catholics have no idea what Modernism really is, and what the Church has written about it since the 1870s…and they’re guilty of many of its errors.
 
Last edited:
Is it unprovable that God loves us?

What evidence do we have…loads.

You know nothing about the particular air worthiness of the aircraft you get on. Nothing. You likely know nothing or proportionately little even of the theoretical and applied science behind air flight, not to mention nothing of the actual tests performed recently on the aircraft you get on.

Nothing.

But you act on it. No science, all faith, or foolhardiness, or idiocy.

You do just what a faithful Catholic does, taking the testimony of others to act in a particular way.
 
You need to spend some time learning about philosophy. Yes, there is subjectism in philosophy, but there is also objective truth. Your understanding of philosophy sounds very pop culture. Philosophy is about seeking the truth. You could not even do science without a philosophy of science. We all do philosophy even if we don’t realize it. One thing philosophy is useful for is defeating bad arguments. In philosophy if the premises are all true and the conclusion follows from them then the conclusion is also true. For instance

All men are mortals
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal

There is no subjectism in such a conclusion since the premises are true and the conclusion follows from them.

Now there are some arguments where the premises may not be certain and therefore the conclusion is less certain. However, if the premises are reasonably certain then so is the conclusion. And one is rational for holding such a conclusion as long as the premises can not be shown to be false or the conclusion doesn’t follow.
 
Last edited:
I think fisherman nicely summarized your grasp of philosophy, logic. And I have summarized your grasp of science. I have a ph.d. in engineering. I understand science, and its limits.

I have also since graduate school take up philosophy, metaphysics, bioethics, theology.

Have a good day.
 
Edward_H said:
Is it unprovable that God loves us?

What evidence do we have…loads.

You know nothing about the particular air worthiness of the aircraft you get on. Nothing. You likely know nothing or proportionately little even of the theoretical and applied science behind air flight, not to mention nothing of the actual tests performed recently on the aircraft you get on.

Nothing.

But you act on it. No science, all faith, or foolhardiness, or idiocy.

You do just what a faithful Catholic does, taking the testimony of others to act in a particular way.
Click to expand...
When I get in a plane or drive across a bridge I don’t have faith that I will be safe. I would even hesitate to say that I believed I would be safe. What I have is a reasonable expectation. Lots of planes fly millions of miles every day and millions of cars cross thousands of bridges every day. And the number of accidents are so small that we accept that it would be unreasonable not to fly or not to drive across a bridge because we didn’t have full knowledge of how planes and bridges are built and operate.

And you can prove that a plane can fly safely and that a bridge won’t collapse but you can’t prove that God loves you. That’s why you need faith. Which isn’t a bad thing. Just don’t confuse it with everyday reasonable expectations. It belittles faith.
 
Faith is acting on behalf of the testimony of others, whether about natural matters, or supernatural matters.

Responding to God, with faith (acting on the behalf of testimony of others before us) is EXACTLY what God asks us of us: to love Him “beyond reason” (beyond our intellectual powers)!
 
Last edited:
We do it every day. When you eat a frozen pizza, you’re acting on faith.
 
Nonsense. You’re relying on the testimony of others (and their actions provide ongoing testimony) to guide your behavior.

You’re acting on faith, on temporal matters, not supernatural matters, but you’re still acting on faith.

If you went to the airport and everyone was refusing to get on a particular plane…you’d change your behavior.

Welcome to the world of faith.

Step 1: Completed.

Step 2: Now you’ll have to sort through what this truth teaches you about how you live your life regarding immaterial matters, such as matters of love, hope, joy, yearnings, and the world of moral behavior.
 
Edward_H said:
If you went to the airport and everyone was refusing to get on a particular plane…you’d change your behaviour.
Click to expand...
So it’s your argument that if you have faith in something and the testimony of others contradicts that faith - you change your mind.

As I say, your argument belittles that which you claim.
 
No, my argument is that faith is a natural and a supernatural gift
 
Edward_H said:
No, my argument is that faith is a natural and a supernatural gift
Click to expand...
Which is about as far from describing it as ‘…acting on behalf of the testimony of others’ as one could possibly get.

As I said, the confidence one has in getting on a plane or driving over a bridge is not a result of ‘a natural and supernatural gift’ (‘natural’ AND ‘supernatural’?)

Glad we’ve cleared that up.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top