Wait a minute! If i understand you correctly, you may hold to an opinion which itself is at risk of being unreasonable. I cannot take an individual seriously who would maintain that otherwise highly educated and thoughtful people (of which they number in the thousands in the 2000 yr history of the CC) would hold to so easily seen a contradiction and hence are themselves irrational?! Maybe I’m overstating your case here, but if this is the position you hold to, there’s probably no way forward for us in a discussion on this point.
Actually, when it comes to their most basic, most cherished beliefs, people can show incredible resistence to arguments against them. This is not restricted to believers, of course, it is a universal human trait. The belief systems which we have been exposed to (since the earliest childhood) are almost impossible to “dislodge”. I happened to take a few tests in psychology, and my trait of “openness” (being receptive to new ideas) was simply off the chart (100%). And that is extremely rare. Of course, I am just lucky to be able to examine all my beliefs without preconditions, and let the chips fall where they may. (That is how I was able to abandon my childhood religious upbringing.) Most people don’t even want to know about opposing evidence, much less be able to look them without an unbiased attitude.
I know of no Catholic theologian who would abandon this norm for God, so i don’t know who you think you are arguing against here. Voluntarism is left to the Muslims to figure out. Essentialalism is the de facto position in the CC in this respect. God IS infinitely good and this is the basis of his good acts in the world (and our co-participation in those acts of charity and mercy).
Theologians hold God’s “benevolence” as an axiom, which is the basic problem. Since the actual events we observe do not conform with this axiom, they are simply written off as “measurement errors”. In science this is called “cherry picking”.
To this, let me quite myself from earlier in this thread: “I wouldn’t go overboard though, in these respects. They are religious beliefs and so occupy a unique place among the overall corpus of one’s beliefs in that they are bolstered by both theology and philosophy, religious poetry and history. I think that to overemphasize the secular or sacred support in these discussions would be a crucial mistake.” iow, the content of our discussions here in this thread is necessarily theological. There is really no way to have a discussion of theology while trying to avoid “theologically based arguments.” Again, I don’t even know what that would look like-to discuss theological topics in a purely secular way. At the very least, you need to be willing to engage in these topics in the tradition of those atheists I mentioned, which could be called “philosophy of religion” or “philosophical theology.” Otherwise, this is just the spinning of wheels.
Yes, I read it in your previous post. Of course you can always quote the Scriptures (etc) to **qualify **your position, to offer me greater insight into what you believe. However, you should never offer those as
arguments. It simply does not work.
OK, two arguments presented here. The argument from natural evil I think all theists grant as a powerful atheistic argument. Some theists maintain it is really the only powerful argument in favor of atheism, but it is so large a topic, I defer to another thread (or more able-bodied Christian philosophers) to address it. Or, do you really mean to engage on this topic here and now?
No, I would agree not to derail this thread.
Second, you’ve mentioned the illegitimacy of the notion of inheriting original sin. I frankly don’t see the problem here. I suppose you’re crying “Not fair!” But, if you’d approach your own existence with a little more humility, I think you’d begin to appreciate that your entitlements are really very few.
I don’t cry “not fair”, though it is a legitimate objection. I cry “no love, and no caring”. But it would be legitimate to ask for more “entitlement”. If God created us, then he assumes direct responsibility for us. I ask for the same care as any child can ask for. As soon as we grow up to the same level of knowledge and power as God has, he can declare us adults, and allow us to take care of ourselves. But not until then.
And what does that have to do with punishing the offspring of the offenders? It is unfair to punish the innocent for the “sins” of their fathers.
OK, this would be an example of your need to go a little deeper. Tertullian’s remarks above remind me somewhat of Hans Urs von Balthasar’s theology of the Incarnation. It is basically the central dogma of Christianity, and it is certainly the central mystery–that the Son became man. What you’ve done here is to basically take that mystery articulated by Tertullian in a way that seems almost poetical and alleged that it is against reason. As if by merely quoting him, that’s done all the arguing for you.
The quote is there. Tertullian declares that if something is outrageously absurd, then it must be true. That is faith, not reason.
Yes, I know that anti theistic individuals like to make this point, but epistemically it doesn’t place you in a better position, unless you’d care to argue how. It’s a distinction that, at least regarding the historical claims of Christianity, doesn’t make a difference. Epistemically, you’re in the same boat.
This is the point where I start to lose patience. No, we are not in the same boat - not by a long shot. Now I will go into a bit more detail. The results of science are being verified by
you and
me and
everyone else millions of times a day. The applications of science assure that. Every time when you take a medication, you verify (unknowingly and implictly) that the experiments were correct. Every time you turn on your TV, or fire up the computer, you verify all those basic experiments that were carried out. You don’t have to go into the labs, and personally do those experiments. You enjoy the real world applications of physics, chemistry, biology, etc… You are the tester, even if you are not aware of it. (And when there are errors, which there are, then we suffer the consequences, as seen in the horrible events of Thalidomide).
Contrast that to the claims of religion, for example the efficacy of prayer. Try to depend on Jesus’ words: “
whatever you ask in my name, I will fulfill it, because I will go the Father”. Does it “work”? Obviously not. Does it shake your faith? Obviously not. So what do you do? Rationalize. You will say, that Jesus did not really mean “all” when he said “all”. And that is shameless rationalization.
No, we are not in the same boat.
Again, you’ve countered on an issue which is better to just defer to another thread or to theists whose writings have already amply addressed these points (eg, G Habermas & W L Craig).
Fine.
I can agree with your first line above and yet maintain that I think you oversimplify the situation here. The world just isn’t so easily boxed up and tidy. Yes, most people do show resilience in maintaining themselves in their own beliefs, despite arguments to the contrary. (You and I are likely doing a bit of that now in this thread.) However, just as you can point to yourself as an example of someone who didn’t just stick with childhood beliefs, so can innumerable others. For myself, I was raised in an irreligious, New Agey home, became Pentecostal Christian in high school, and then became Catholic in 2004 immediately after graduating from an Evangelical seminary. Many others, it is reasonable to believe, have led similarly complex lives to you and me, with regard to religious matters. On the other hand, some will maintain themselves in their childhood beliefs for their entire lives, and this isn’t only true of Christians. Reading the intro to Michael Martin’s book, Atheism: a Philosophical Justification, I was surprised to learn that Martin has pretty much been an atheist since a very young age, mostly due to the influence of an older family member on Martin (was it an uncle or grandfather?) who was himself atheistic. You are flatly oversimplifying here.