The most baffling mystery of all

[Think_About_It]

Do you mean the definition, expression and experience of love is totally different for each person? We certainly express our love in different ways but we cannot do it by torturing, mutilating or killing some one! Doesn’t love imply a desire for, and efforts to ensure, the welfare and happiness of others?

The expression and experience of love is totally subjective (you agree with me that far). The definition is operationalized within a range of criteria, and is not limited to or inclusive of every concept of love. Your concept of love may contain self-sacrifice, where my concept of love doesn’t necessarily (but only potentially). When you’re working with potentialities, you’re not working with objectivity.

I still don’t understand how subjective experiences can be social necessities unless they are based on objective facts. A social necessity suggests a relationship between individuals which exists beyond the mind.

Not seeing the problem here. The objective fact is that we experience them, the subjective fact is how. A social necessity is only necessary to the end of our social benefit, and there is nothing objective in that we must attain this social benifit. Nothing is implied beyond the mind, whatsoever. Where are you getting this?

“fairly” suggests an objective element. So does the fact that the basic tenets are found in many cultures - which can hardly be a coincidence. Could they be truths that are discovered rather than constructed? We soon discover when we lose our freedom, are treated unjustly or suffer as the result of evil…

Fair enough. They are entirely subjective then. As molecules, there world be no such thing as justice for us. As primitive, hundred-cell organisms, there would no such thing as justice for us. The only point, you now see, when we can suggest that justice exists is when we can say that it does, thereby making justice, freedom, goodness, or whatever, a subjective thing; it only exists because we say it does. That you acknowledge things like justice don’t exist in the animal kingdom is evidence that it is something of our own devising.

I understand and agree but “less important” does not mean unimportant. Love cannot be irrelevant to the OP because it is one of the most important aspects of reality (if not the most).

You’re confusing important for and important to. Love is important to us as social creatures; love is not demonstratably important for anything, at least as it acts as a means to an end.

Like justice, freedom, and goodness it exists whether we recognise it or not. Denying that they exist doesn’t make them disappear!

I think I’ve successfully refuted this point above.

From the testimony of others and the principles on which all knowledge is based.
What is science based on - apart from observation?

Okay, I was including testimony in with my experiences. I do rely on testimonies, especially for those demonstratably subjective experiences like love. A love, for example, that is forced to rely on speculations as to the reciprocation it desires is understandable, but a love that relies on speculations as to the existence of the beloved is hogwash. Science is based, likewise, on those testimonies - but testimonies that can be verified.

I mean we can understand a lot about its physical and chemical structure but it need not be so. We could be like animals which know nothing about atomic particles or evolution. It is also possible the universe could be so disorderly that very intelligent persons could not make sense of it.

Many potential permutations are possible, I agree. What follows from that except that we are more advanced than animals? it’s not like animals are igonorant of the world around them, but their understanding is certainly primitive compared to ours.

It is an assumption that is very difficult to dispense with. I’m glad you leave a loophole, implying that there are other truths apart from that which we observe.

Well, continuing on with the love example. I believe that my wife-to-be loves me very much, but I can’t confirm it as truth. How much less so if I couldn’t see, hear, smell, taste, or touch her? I have no problem speculating about experiences that we have in nature and in real time. I don’t have any reason to speculate about things outside of it.

And what about ourselves? Is our knowledge of our thoughts only apparent? Surely our knowledge is based on our thoughts…

My point was that our thoughts lead us to believe that we have knowledge, which, in the strictest sense, can never be confirmed. We can make guesses based on the world around us (and some of us make guesses based on possible worlds beyond us). I just stop one world shorter.

 

[Think_About_It]

do you have any evidence for this at all?

not just the claim that it is possible. but actual evidence of forgery?

let me know which ones. there are mountains of discussion on the topic. there are some very specific ones that apply to Jesus. i would think one can only make that claim by cherry picking a few out of context.

im not sure what you are refering to here. other than some supposed Christain agenda. but then Christianity was illegal for the first few centuries, what possible agenda could people have to get themselves tortured to death? how does that benefit them if its a lie? and if you say they were fooled then the same thing applies to the Apostles and their followers. what motivation would those people have had to suffer for decades as slaves, prisoners, outcasts, poor and frequently assaulted? they did it because they lived with Christ and saw His work themselves. even if Christ did it all by sleight of hand, when the Apostles began to work ‘miracles’ if ti were only sleight of hand, why would they suffer for a lifetime and then die as martyrs?

even modern cultists dont really suffer for their beliefs for decades and then die by torture. they just commit suicide. usually painlessly. and they never suffer as slaves or prisoners, or being stoned, etc.

you would need some really strong evidence and motivation to even begin to make that case.

do you have any evidence for this agenda at all?

You’re all bait and no hook, Pete. I only have time for a few discussions. As for my personal views on this, it doesn’t surprise me that people could be motivated in complete ignorance and on completely false premises, even to their own detriment. Hell, esspecially to their own detriment. If you don’t know about any theological theorizing on multi-layered verses, you’re probably not equipped to first have this discussion.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You’re all bait and no hook, Pete.

so you dont have any evidence to support the claim that Messianic Prophecy is a forgery?

I only have time for a few discussions. As for my personal views on this, it doesn’t surprise me that people could be motivated in complete ignorance and on completely false premises, even to their own detriment. Hell, esspecially to their own detriment.

the apostles were motivated by what they witnessed Christ do, the Prophecies He fulfilled, and then by the miracles they could do after the Pentecost.

there were no premises, it was all a matter of empirical experience for them.

If you don’t know about any theological theorizing on multi-layered verses, you’re probably not equipped to first have this discussion.

this discussion isnt about theology, its about mathematics. or it will be once we get past this claim of conspiracy, for which you have not provided any evidence. for now its an epistemological discussion.

 

[R_Daneel]

My original point in bringing up the Peter Singer argument was to show that we are all really equipped (esp in the West!) to be co-participators in good acts, whether we’re assisting God or not.

No matter how “well” the world is equipped to help some of the misery (and that “some” is quite miniscule), it is not equipped to deal with all or even most of it. There is no way to prevent natural disasters (for example) and - as we all know - an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. There would be no need to ask for dealing with the problem of diseases if there would be no harmful microbes, would there? Would anyone miss leprosy? We cannot cure degenerative diseases. Children are born with progeria (premature aging) who die in less than 10 years, and who are aware of this fact. It is a horrible condition, and yet, God allows it to happen. In my eyes it is wicked and evil.

And as regards faith, those beliefs ‘which can be supported in some way in a rational manner’ is precisely how most Catholics would think of “faith.”

Oh, I am sure that all the believers think their faith is rational. I don’t intend to be rude, but no lunatic ever believed that they are delusional. To them their delusion is rational.

I continue to use Richard Dawkins’ amateurish definition of “faith,” as the best formulation of what is really “blind faith,” - Dawkins says that faith is the belief in something without any evidence. To my mind, that’s a textbook definition of “blind faith.”

The question is: “what constitues evidence”, much less convincing evidence? This is the problem where our assessment differs.

Testimonially, I see no difference in the epistemic support of either type of belief, due to the historical nature of Christ, etc. However, one would have to grant, and I do, the very important difference in the subject matter of theology/religion and that of science. If theology has as its primary subject the supernatural, and yet the sciences have as their subject matter the natural world, therein lies an essential difference. But, this does not get at any essential difference in epistemic justification, because in both areas, many beliefs are going to remain testimonially grounded.

I was hoping that you will see the true difference. In science the chain of testimonies ends differently from the chain of religious testimonies. At the end (or rather the beginning) of the chain science produces the incontrovertible, physical evidence, which can be tested by anyone and everyone. If you are skeptical about any claim of science, you can redo the experiments, and you (personally) can verify if the claim is true or not. In other words, the testimonial chain is just an epistemological shortcut, or mental lazyness.

The religious claims do not have this property, it is “turtles all the way down”. Supposedly there was a physical occurrence (like Jesus performing miracles), but there is no supporing physical evidence, moreover, all the millenia of science refutes those claims. No one has ever produced a body resurrected after days of decay, and biology tells us that it would be impossible. If is not just “blind faith” of no evidence, it is much worse, it is “blind faith” in the face of refuting evidence.

ok, well if “good” is a positive property which can be exemplified by any intelligent being, and if “evil” is a privation of some good, as Catholic theologians have argued, and further, God can be argued to be purely actual (no privations/potentiality), infinite Being (as has been argued by many), there we have rational support for the belief that God is benevolent.

Except “evil” is not just a privation of good, it is intentional harm-doing, or withholding help when the help would not “cost” the helper anything. And, of course, you do not argue here on non-theological ground.

In that specific context, if one reads the entire passage (which is always recommended when reading prose/narrative), it is fairly plain that Christ’s words are a bit of a rebuke to Thomas’ own attitude of “unless I see the holes in his hands and touch the hole in his side, I will not believe…” in other instances, Christ exhorts his disciples and those of John the Baptist to believe on the basis of the “works,” the miracles, themselves.

The exitence of those miracles is also just testimonial.

I agree completely. That’s one reason why I appealed to Peter Singer rather than Mother Teresa or Pope John Paul II. And why above, I offer a scholastic argument for God’s goodness, rather than quote the Scriptures. 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.

That was not a scholastic argument, sorry. You see, I do not subscribe to the usual adage, that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”. I ask for the same kind of proof, in every instance. Not more evidence, but also not less evidence. The same evidence. What more could you ask for?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No matter how “well” the world is equipped to help some of the misery (and that “some” is quite miniscule), it is not equipped to deal with all or even most of it. There is no way to prevent natural disasters (for example) and - as we all know - an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. There would be no need to ask for dealing with the problem of diseases if there would be no harmful microbes, would there? Would anyone miss leprosy? We cannot cure degenerative diseases. Children are born with progeria (premature aging) who die in less than 10 years, and who are aware of this fact. It is a horrible condition, and yet, God allows it to happen. In my eyes it is wicked and evil.

your opinion that suffering is evil. is just that, an opinion. not a basis for an argument. Sffering has a purpose.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris_en.html

suffering is like medecine, we may not like it, but it is beneficial.

even better, Jesus suffered with us.

this is called leading from the front. He isnt asking us to undergo anything worse than what He has suffered.

 

[tonyrey]

The expression and experience of love is totally subjective (you agree with me that far).

When?!

The definition is operationalized within a range of criteria, and is not limited to or inclusive of every concept of love.

Doesn’t all love imply a desire for, and efforts to ensure, the welfare and happiness of others?

Your concept of love may contain self-sacrifice, where my concept of love doesn’t necessarily (but only potentially).

If your concept of love doesn’t contain self-sacrifice it is defective. Genuine love consists in identifying yourself with the person you love and sacrificing yourself - at least sometimes. Your fiance wouldn’t be impressed if she knew your opinion of love!

When you’re working with potentialities, you’re not working with objectivity.

When you’re working with your wife it will be a very different story.

I still don’t understand how subjective experiences can be social necessities unless they are based on objective facts.

The objective fact is that we experience them, the subjective fact is how. A social necessity is only necessary to the end of our social benefit, and there is nothing objective in that we must attain this social benefit. Nothing is implied beyond the mind, whatsoever.

Isn’t co-existence and social harmony beyond the mind? You seem to be erecting an artificial barrier between the subjective and objective aspects of personal existence. Where does one stop and the other begin? Is there a sharp dividing line between the mental and physical aspects of a person?

“fairly” suggests an objective element. So does the fact that the basic tenets are found in many cultures - which can hardly be a coincidence. Could they be truths that are discovered rather than constructed? We soon discover when we lose our freedom, are treated unjustly or suffer as the result of evil…

Fair enough. They are entirely subjective then. As molecules, there would be no such thing as justice for us. As primitive, hundred-cell organisms, there would no such thing as justice for us. The only point, you now see, when we can suggest that justice exists is when we can say that it does, thereby making justice, freedom, goodness, or whatever, a subjective thing; it only exists because we say it does.

“it only exists because we say it does”. I’m sorry but this is utter nonsense! First you compare us to molecules and then to “primitive, hundred-cell organisms”. Doesn’t it strike you as absurd? Your criterion of our value and significance is based **solely **on how you suppose we originated! You would certainly change your tune if you lost your freedom, were treated unjustly or suffered as the result of evil…

That you acknowledge things like justice don’t exist in the animal kingdom is evidence that it is something of our own devising.

More nonsense, alas! Only an entrenched physicalist could make such an assertion… It implies that truth, equality and justice are arbitrary concepts which refer to nothing in reality. If you stood up in court and used that as a defence you would soon find yourself behind bars!

You’re confusing important for and important to. Love is important to us as social creatures; love is not demonstrably important for anything, at least as it acts as a means to an end.

Not as an objective means to personal fulfilment and happiness as well as peace and harmony in human society - without which all life on this planet could be destroyed?

Like justice, freedom, and goodness it exists whether we recognise it or not. Denying that they exist doesn’t make them disappear!

I think I’ve successfully refuted this point above.

“Think” is the operative word.

Science is based, likewise, on those testimonies - but testimonies that can be verified.

Science is based on nothing more than testimonies???

It is also possible the universe could be so disorderly that very intelligent persons could not make sense of it.

Many potential permutations are possible, I agree. What follows from that except that we are more advanced than animals?

The fact that the universe is intelligible when it need not be and that we can make sense of it - something you take for granted but which is more significant than you realise… Superior intelligence alone does not guarantee either contingency. There is also the question of how and why the power of reason has originated and developed to such an extent from unreasoning molecules. If that doesn’t strike you as an incredible feat I don’t know what will…

Well, continuing on with the love example. I believe that my wife-to-be loves me very much, but I can’t confirm it as truth. How much less so if I couldn’t see, hear, smell, taste, or touch her? I have no problem speculating about experiences that we have in nature and in real time. I don’t have any reason to speculate about things outside of it.

Thereby conferring on physical reality an **absoluteness **it doesn’t possess and overlooking those attributes of your wife-to-be which are far more significant than her body.

My point was that our thoughts lead us to believe that we have knowledge, which, in the strictest sense, can never be confirmed. We can make guesses based on the world around us (and some of us make guesses based on possible worlds beyond us). I just stop one world shorter.

It seems as if you stop at the world around us and neglect our inner world - if we are to judge by your emphasis on sense data! Is your knowledge of the lady in your life entirely a matter of guesswork? Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to you that love may be the highest and most valuable form of knowledge…

 

[Think_About_It]

When?!

Oh, maybe not…

Doesn’t all love imply a desire for, and efforts to ensure, the welfare and happiness of others?

That may very well be a good criterion

If your concept of love doesn’t contain self-sacrifice it is defective. Genuine love consists in identifying yourself with the person you love and sacrificing yourself - at least sometimes. Your fiance wouldn’t be impressed if she knew your opinion of love!

It doesn’t necessarily. I can make sacrifices without loving, and I can certainly love someone without sacrificing anything.

Isn’t co-existence and social harmony beyond the mind? You seem to be erecting an artificial barrier between the subjective and objective aspects of personal existence. Where does one stop and the other begin? Is there a sharp dividing line between the mental and physical aspects of a person?

If you’re trying to make a point, do so. By hiding only behind questions, you save yourself from scutiny. You tell me why you think differently if you do…

“it only exists because we say it does”. I’m sorry but this is utter nonsense! First you compare us to molecules and then to “primitive, hundred-cell organisms”. Doesn’t it strike you as absurd? Your criterion of our value and significance is based **solely **on how you suppose we originated!

That’s right…

You would certainly change your tune if you lost your freedom, were treated unjustly or suffered as the result of evil…

Change my mind about what? Would I think there was objectivity to what I know very well is defined by people just because I was experiencing it? “Oh the humanity of it all! I see now that freedom is a concrete term because I’m not experincing what I think it represents!” Not very likely…

More nonsense, alas! Only an entrenched physicalist could make such an assertion… It implies that truth, equality and justice are arbitrary concepts which refer to nothing in reality.

I didn’t say they mean nothing. I said their meaning comes from us. We can only subscribe meaning to it because we have the cognitive faculties to do so.

If you stood up in court and used that as a defence you would soon find yourself behind bars!

I would never suggest in court that their idea of justice was made up, only because I agree with much of it. If their sense of justice was that I should take the punishment for someone elses wrongdoing (ooooh, he inserted the famous Christian vicarious-redemption), then I would say "Your idea of justice is appauling!"

Not as an objective means to personal fulfilment and happiness as well as peace and harmony in human society - without which all life on this planet could be destroyed?

Love is important to us because it brings about those qualities in life. We’re probably not in disagreement here.

Science is based on nothing more than testimonies???

No, science is based in a method of inquiry. Our belief in much of science is in terstimonies…

The fact that the universe is intelligible when it need not be and that we can make sense of it - something you take for granted but which is more significant than you realise… Superior intelligence alone does not guarantee either contingency. There is also the question of how and why the power of reason has originated and developed to such an extent from unreasoning molecules. If that doesn’t strike you as an incredible feat I don’t know what will…

It certainly seems incredible. There are evolutionary explanations for how reason has been bread into us (i’ll point out, again, that animals have reasoning abilities). Why it developed is not really a question we can answer. It did. I don’t know anything further than that

It seems as if you stop at the world around us and neglect our inner world - if we are to judge by your emphasis on sense data! Is your knowledge of the lady in your life entirely a matter of guesswork? Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to you that love may be the highest and most valuable form of knowledge…

I think love is the most valuable form of knowledge, but my experience of it is extremely subjective. What I know of her love for me is guesswork, but it’s guesswork based on many sense-related cues. I hear when she tells me she loves me (and all the sentiments). I can see that she loves me when she does nice things for me, and smiles when she greets me. I can feel that she loves me in intimacy. I can guess that she loves me by her fidelity (that there is no physical evidence to my knowledge of her infidelity). I can’t confirm that she loves me because I can’t know it it’s an elaborate hoax, but I can feel certain because the physical cues are there. The thing I love most about her is that she exists, and I don’t have to wonder if she does before I wonder if she loves me…

 

[LilyM]

TIA, you’ve said several times words to the effect that love is necessary to humans for their survival or evolution.

What makes you think that? Animals, as far as we can tell, do not experience emotions of any kind. Even less so do plants. Yet both animals and plants evolve just fine. For that matter some species seem to evolve a lot better and quicker than humans do. So in what way is love necessary, or even beneficial, for human evolution?

 

[Think_About_It]

TIA, you’ve said several times words to the effect that love is necessary to humans for their survival or evolution.

What makes you think that? Animals, as far as we can tell, do not experience emotions of any kind. Even less so do plants. Yet both animals and plants evolve just fine. For that matter some species seem to evolve a lot better and quicker than humans do. So in what way is love necessary, or even beneficial, for human evolution?

I didn’t say love was essential for the survival of all organisms; I have said that it has aided us in ours (although I’m not convinced no other animals experience emotion - dogs and gorillas cry - I can’t confirm it as “emotion” but neither can I in you if I should see you cry). To Parallel your concern: “Humans, as far as I know, don’t have claws to ward off preditors, yet humans have evolved just fine.” evolve “quicker”? “Better”? You’re comparing apples and oranges. Some adaptations are more efficient for one species than others, and acquired at different rates for different reasons. Every single living thing that exists is a successful product of evolution.

And not to say that love is necessary for survival, but rather that it is necessary for socialization, which aids in our survival. It is no gaurantee. It increases the probability, is what I’m saying.

 

[GEddie]

Animals, as far as we can tell, do not experience emotions of any kind. Even less so do plants. Yet both animals and plants evolve just fine. For that matter some species seem to evolve a lot better and quicker than humans do.

Animals have no emotions? Youv’e never had a dog or cat?

And why is ‘quicker’ evolution in any way an advantage? A stable form should not evolve further for hundreds of generations.

ICXC NIKA

 

[R_Daneel]

You are persisitent in **polluting **every thread, aren’t you?

your opinion that suffering is evil. is just that, an opinion. not a basis for an argument. Sffering has a purpose.

That “opinion” happens to be shared by 99.9999…% of humanity - when it comes to their own suffering. Indeed, there are only a handful people, who “enjoy” pain, some even had themselves crucified. But they are an insignificant minority, and I don’t think they are sane.

I bet, you don’t “enjoy” a nice toothache, and instead of wallowing in the “pleasure” of emulating Christ’s suffering, you run to the dentist. So, you are just another hypocrite, who is “heroically” willing to endure someone else’s suffering, but never his own. Why don’t you practise what you preach, and seek out some gangs, provoke them until they beat the living daylight out of you, so you can enjoy your own suffering?

Besides, the Church may **declare **that suffering is “good for you”, but that is just a bunch of empty words. When it comes to action, the CC maintains hospitals, dedicated to cure, and alleviate suffering. And since acts speak louder than words, the Church refutes its own words by acting in a contrarian fashion. Indeed, the Church is hypocritical, trying to blow both cold and hot from its collective mouth.

If only God would fulfill one wish, I would ask him to make hypocrisy painful, so all you hypocrites would scream in your well-deserved pain. I would be happy to wear earplugs.

 

[Magnanimity]

No matter how “well” the world is equipped to help some of the misery (and that “some” is quite miniscule), it is not equipped to deal with all or even most of it. There is no way to prevent natural disasters (for example) … It is a horrible condition, and yet, God allows it to happen. In my eyes it is wicked and evil.

Your reaction expressed in the last line above is precisely the reaction which just about everyone is going to have to the phenomena you mention. If you gather from the specific things seriously wrong with the world that there is something generally wrong here (or that there is an unacceptable amount and/or quality of evil and suffering in this world), I don’t think my judgment would be much different from yours. If you’re of the mind that most Catholics are like ostriches on this score, you’d be terribly mistaken. And yet all of these individuals remain theists? This isn’t curious to you?

There is something seriously wrong with pain, suffering and death. But then, that’s been a part of Judeo-Christian teaching from the beginning. Recall, the theology of the “Fall.” Recall further such theological lines from St Paul like, “Just as in Adam all died, even so in Christ, all shall be made alive.” This juxtaposition of the horribleness of suffering/death with that of “life to the full” is such a fundamental tenet of Christian theism, that i can only assume you’re aware of this fact. So, I’m not exactly sure of the point you’re trying to make here. Is this little more than a simple outline of an “argument from evil?”

I don’t intend to be rude, but no lunatic ever believed that they are delusional. To them their delusion is rational.

I don’t think such a comment is necessarily rude (unless we were friends maybe), but it seems pretty clearly ill-informed and misplaced criticism. What exactly is the allegation now? That the overwhelming majority of everyone on this planet, since they are religious, are delusional? Or perhaps you mean something slightly less outrageous, like that 33% of the world’s population who are theists are delusional? I wouldn’t even know how to take either claim seriously. It could only be borne out of a shallow familiarity with the writings/thoughts of some of the world’s more prominent religious thinkers, to say nothing of the much longer list of individuals in the history of Western Civilization who, while having specific focuses outside of religion (eg, science, literature, history), have nevertheless been religious themselves. Delusional?

The question is: “what constitues evidence”, much less convincing evidence? This is the problem where our assessment differs.

That may be part of the problem, but Dawkins-like unfamiliarity with the subject he’s trying to address (eg, religion) is actually rampant among the more popular ‘new atheists.’ I can appreciate the likes of JL Mackie, Kai Nielsen, MIchael Ruse, and Michael Martin, but these new popularizers, they’re really not even trying to engage theists on their own grounds. I’m afraid your principle of intellectually meeting people where they are cuts both ways.

I was hoping that you will see the true difference. In science the chain of testimonies ends differently from the chain of religious testimonies…

OK, it’s nice to talk like anyone could repeat experiments (which isn’t really true) but it doesn’t change the fact that nearly 100% of everyone who holds beliefs about science does so on the basis of testimony nearly 100% of the time, effectively making these beliefs testimonially grounded as all your beliefs from history are.

The religious claims do not have this property, it is “turtles all the way down”. Supposedly there was a physical occurrence (like Jesus performing miracles), but there is no supporing physical evidence…,

Is it reasonable to request “physical evidence” of historical claims of this nature (of a dead man rising)? I’m not even sure what that would mean. Take something like the resurrection appearances, like you allude to. (The Resurrection itself is distinct from the appearances, but leave this issue aside if you’re not already aware of it.) That one Jesus of Nazareth was confirmed as dead by crucifixion, buried, and subsequently seen very much alive a few days later by hundreds on many separate occasions, is historical. Any testimonial chain would end in the historical fact of the appearances which have been handed down.

moreover, all the millenia of science refutes those claims. No one has ever produced a body resurrected after days of decay, and biology tells us that it would be impossible.

Scientific principles of nature are induced (or inferences are made on the basis of induction). It isn’t meaningful to say that science could “refute” anything. You, an intelligent individual, could attempt to refute. But, biology doesn’t “talk.” This is all metaphorical and not likely to get you anywhere in an argument.

“No one has ever produced a body resurrected after days of decay…” this is nothing more than a priori refusal to accept evidence to the contrary viz-a-viz the case of Jesus of Nazareth.

Except “evil” is not just a privation of good, it is intentional harm-doing, or withholding help when the help would not “cost” the helper anything…

Unfortunately for you, the burden of demonstrating that evil is some positive something rests squarely on your own shoulders, as most of the history of Western thought on this issue has sided against you. I would just be recapitulating others who have put forth various versions of the argument. Feel free to counter it.

 

[Think_About_It]

If only God would fulfill one wish, I would ask him to make hypocrisy painful, so all you hypocrites would scream in your well-deserved pain. I would be happy to wear earplugs.

Haha such poetry! I delight in your inflammatory, fire-fraught rebuttals. I think a lot of non-believers hide their passion for knowledge and truth under the assumption that emotive dialogue can not also be rational. You seem to’ve maintained both, however. Well done.

 

[R_Daneel]

Haha such poetry! I delight in your inflammatory, fire-fraught rebuttals. I think a lot of non-believers hide their passion for knowledge and truth under the assumption that emotive dialogue can not also be rational. You seem to’ve maintained both, however. Well done.

Thank you very much. I don’t mind uninformed posts, I don’t even mind bigotry or closed-mindedness. But there is one thing that I cannot and will not tolerate, and that is hypocrisy. There are seven deadly sins. They all can be practised in a part-time fashion. One may be proud sometimes, humble at others. One may be gluttonous once in a while, etc… But hypocrisy (which is somehow not mentioned) is a full-time job. There are no part-time hypocrites. And I cannot stand them. The old saying goes: “he preaches water, but drinks wine” - and that kind of attitude infuriates me.

 

[R_Daneel]

Your reaction expressed in the last line above is precisely the reaction which just about everyone is going to have to the phenomena you mention. If you gather from the specific things seriously wrong with the world that there is something generally wrong here (or that there is an unacceptable amount and/or quality of evil and suffering in this world), I don’t think my judgment would be much different from yours. If you’re of the mind that most Catholics are like ostriches on this score, you’d be terribly mistaken. And yet all of these individuals remain theists? This isn’t curious to you?

Of course I don’t think so. There are ample number of posts expressing the poster’s doubts and their struggle with the discrepancy between a loving God and the state of affairs they observe. There is no big difference in the assessment of the generic “Joe Schmoe”, be he Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or atheist. Most people want to help and try to help - to the extent of their ability. But the point is not that. You said that one should be helpful, if one can. I agree, and bring up the question: “if it is a prerequisite to be helpful, if one wishes to earn the title ‘benevolent’ and ‘loving’ when we speak of a human being, then why should we abandon this norm, when it comes to God?”. And I do not accept the “quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi”. The goddess of Justice is depicted blindfolded, so she could render a just eveluation of the deed, regardless of person who committed it.

There is something seriously wrong with pain, suffering and death. But then, that’s been a part of Judeo-Christian teaching from the beginning. Recall, the theology of the “Fall.”

As you are aware, I do not accept theologically based arguments. But, suppose that for a moment I would accept it, it would still not explain the non-show of God when disasters strike. We are not responsible for what Adam and Eve (allegedly) did. (Who was there to write down the events?) If they did wrong, they should have been punished, not their progeny. And the usual argument that their lack of obedience somehow “corrupted” the world holds no water. Disobedience does not make the Earth tremble, does not create hurricanes, does not create famine, does not cause plagues, etc…

I don’t think such a comment is necessarily rude (unless we were friends maybe), but it seems pretty clearly ill-informed and misplaced criticism. What exactly is the allegation now? That the overwhelming majority of everyone on this planet, since they are religious, are delusional? Or perhaps you mean something slightly less outrageous, like that 33% of the world’s population who are theists are delusional?

No, not at all. I don’t have numbers at my disposal, but an overwhelming majority of the people never even thinks about their basic worldview, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack of it. Most Christians go to church once in a while, and even then just as a habit, not from an innate need. Most people do not think about these matters, because it is not important to them. They never think about reason and faith.

What I had in mind is those people, who do think about it, who engage in conversation, and when pointed out the problem of “evil”, make nonsensical arguments. Whose “faith” is akin to Tertullian’s stance:

Natus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;
et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;
et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.

“The Son of God was born: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is unsound.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible.”

This is what I call blind, unquestioning faith, totally antithetical to reason.

That may be part of the problem, but Dawkins-like unfamiliarity with the subject he’s trying to address (eg, religion) is actually rampant among the more popular ‘new atheists.’ I can appreciate the likes of JL Mackie, Kai Nielsen, MIchael Ruse, and Michael Martin, but these new popularizers, they’re really not even trying to engage theists on their own grounds. I’m afraid your principle of intellectually meeting people where they are cuts both ways.

I am not really sure this pertains to the question of evidence. But I may have overlooked it.

OK, it’s nice to talk like anyone could repeat experiments (which isn’t really true) but it doesn’t change the fact that nearly 100% of everyone who holds beliefs about science does so on the basis of testimony nearly 100% of the time, effectively making these beliefs testimonially grounded as all your beliefs from history are.

Sorry, that is again not the point. Of course most people will not and cannot repeat the experiments. But it can be done for the scientific claims. And the claims of religion cannot. And those claims do not all pertain to the dead past. Many of them pertain to the present.

Is it reasonable to request “physical evidence” of historical claims of this nature (of a dead man rising)? That one Jesus of Nazareth was confirmed as dead by crucifixion, buried, and subsequently seen very much alive a few days later by hundreds on many separate occasions, is historical. Any testimonial chain would end in the historical fact of the appearances which have been handed down.

Unfortunately, it was not confirmed by independent sources. When it comes to historical claims a handful of people’s testimony is simply not enough. Mind you, I am not asking for extraordinary evidence. I am asking for the same evidence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You are persisitent in **polluting **every thread, aren’t you?

i am not the one doing th polluting.

That “opinion” happens to be shared by 99.9999…% of humanity - when it comes to their own suffering. Indeed, there are only a handful people, who “enjoy” pain, some even had themselves crucified. But they are an insignificant minority, and I don’t think they are sane.

who enjoys suffering? no one sane. but only a hedonist equates “good” with “pleasurable”. my neighbor hated his physical therapy, but he is awful pleased with the results.

I bet, you don’t “enjoy” a nice toothache, and instead of wallowing in the “pleasure” of emulating Christ’s suffering, you run to the dentist. So, you are just another hypocrite, who is “heroically” willing to endure someone else’s suffering, but never his own. Why don’t you practise what you preach, and seek out some gangs, provoke them until they beat the living daylight out of you, so you can enjoy your own suffering?

actually, i do accept suffering in my life. suffering should be accepted like an old friend. there is a big difference between accepting suffering as a part of life, and not doing anything about a medical condition.

you are confusing accepting suffering and enjoying suffering.

Besides, the Church may **declare **that suffering is “good for you”, but that is just a bunch of empty words. When it comes to action, the CC maintains hospitals, dedicated to cure, and alleviate suffering. And since acts speak louder than words, the Church refutes its own words by acting in a contrarian fashion. Indeed, the Church is hypocritical, trying to blow both cold and hot from its collective mouth.

its not a declaration of the Church its from Scripture. Jesus healed people too, yet He also accepted suffering Himself. alleviating suffering is a good action and experiencing suffering is a beneficial. they are not mutually exclusive.

but as we arent masochists as you seem to imply, given a problem one can alleviate. one does so.

If only God would fulfill one wish, I would ask him to make hypocrisy painful, so all you hypocrites would scream in your well-deserved pain. I would be happy to wear earplugs.

so much hate. wishing others to be hurt because they dont agree with you. that is simply intolerant and beneath any rational human being. you should apologize for that kind of statement.

as ive demonstrated your understanding of suffering is faulty. you are confusing ‘pleasure’ with ‘good’. which leads you to the idea that we are masochists who enjoy suffering. thats not the case.

even when one practices mortification of the flesh, one doesnt seek to do permanent damage, but to suffer by discomfort so that one may offer that sacrifice up to G-d for its redemptive value. if it was enjoyable, it wouldnt be suffering.

 

[Magnanimity]

Of course I don’t think so.

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.

There are ample number of posts expressing the poster’s doubts and their struggle with the discrepancy between a loving God and the state of affairs they observe. There is no big difference in the assessment of the generic “Joe Schmoe”, be he Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or atheist. Most people want to help and try to help - to the extent of their ability. But the point is not that. You said that one should be helpful, if one can. I agree, and bring up the question: “if it is a prerequisite to be helpful, if one wishes to earn the title ‘benevolent’ and ‘loving’ when we speak of a human being, then why should we abandon this norm, when it comes to God?”.

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).

As you are aware, I do not accept theologically based arguments.

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.

But, suppose that for a moment I would accept it, it would still not explain the non-show of God when disasters strike. We are not responsible for what Adam and Eve (allegedly) did. (Who was there to write down the events?) If they did wrong, they should have been punished, not their progeny. And the usual argument that their lack of obedience somehow “corrupted” the world holds no water.

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?

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. With all the natural evil in the world, I would assume this to be an obvious point. There are no self-caused beings, as such is contradictory. You didn’t decide to be here, will yourself into existence and then decide the terms of your own existence. You are subject to the way things are in so many ways. So, why not this way too-a propensity to be selfish. I don’t see what’s so outrageous about the suggestion.

No, not at all. I don’t have numbers at my disposal, but an overwhelming majority of the people never even thinks about their basic worldview, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack of it. Most Christians go to church once in a while, and even then just as a habit, not from an innate need. Most people do not think about these matters, because it is not important to them. They never think about reason and faith.

Is the above supported by any, say, statistical information, or are you conjecturing? In any event, it fails to address the fundamental point. To say that the overwhelming majority is wrong about anything requires excellent reasons on your part to support the allegation.

What I had in mind is those people, who do think about it, who engage in conversation, and when pointed out the problem of “evil”, make nonsensical arguments. Whose “faith” is akin to Tertullian’s stance:

“The Son of God was born: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is unsound.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible.”

This is what I call blind, unquestioning faith, totally antithetical to reason.

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.

Sorry, that is again not the point. Of course most people will not and cannot repeat the experiments. But it can be done for the scientific claims. And the claims of religion cannot. And those claims do not all pertain to the dead past. Many of them pertain to the present.

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.

Unfortunately, it was not confirmed by independent sources. When it comes to historical claims a handful of people’s testimony is simply not enough. Mind you, I am not asking for extraordinary evidence. I am asking for the same evidence.

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).

 

[tonyrey]

Doesn’t all love imply a desire for, and efforts to ensure, the welfare and happiness of others?

That may very well be a good criterion.

I’m glad you agree that love at least leads to action and objective consquences.

If your concept of love doesn’t contain self-sacrifice it is defective. Genuine love consists in identifying yourself with the person you love and sacrificing yourself - at least sometimes. Your fiance wouldn’t be impressed if she knew your opinion of love!

It doesn’t necessarily. I can make sacrifices without loving, and I can certainly love someone without sacrificing anything.

Then you’re an egoist who can work miracles!

Isn’t co-existence and social harmony beyond the mind? You seem to be erecting an artificial barrier between the subjective and objective aspects of personal existence. Where does one stop and the other begin? Is there a sharp dividing line between the mental and physical aspects of a person?

If you’re trying to make a point, do so. By hiding only behind questions, you save yourself from scutiny. You tell me why you think differently if you do…

My first question makes my point quite clearly. Do you agree or disagree?

Your criterion of our value and significance is based solely on how you **suppose **

we originated!
That’s right…

A supposition is a weak basis for a criterion of our value and significance…

You would certainly change your tune if you lost your freedom, were treated unjustly or suffered as the result of evil…

Change my mind about what?

About the reality of losing your freedom, being treated unjustly or suffering as the result of evil…

Would I think there was objectivity to what I know very well is defined by people just because I was experiencing it?

The fact that something is **defined **by people does not mean it exists only in their minds.

“Oh the humanity of it all! I see now that freedom is a concrete term because I’m not experincing what I think it represents!” Not very likely…

Inhumanity is a more appropriate word in this context! Your experience would bring you to your senses…

More nonsense, alas! Only an entrenched physicalist could make such an assertion… It implies that truth, equality and justice are arbitrary concepts which refer to nothing in reality.

I didn’t say they mean nothing. I said their meaning comes from us.

Do we = reality?

We can only subscribe meaning to it because we have the cognitive faculties to do so.

Indeed but the issue is whether the meaning is arbitrary or based on fact rather than opinion.

I would never suggest in court that their idea of justice was made up, only because I agree with much of it.

Conveniently vague! You disagree with the fundamental concept on which justice is based…

If their sense of justice was that I should take the punishment for someone elses wrongdoing (ooooh, he inserted the famous Christian vicarious-redemption), then I would say “Your idea of justice is appauling!”

You have made it quite clear that you would never sacrifice yourself for anyone, not even your wife… “I’m all right, Jack! Let the rest go to hell…”

Not as an objective means to personal fulfilment and happiness as well as peace and harmony in human society - without which all life on this planet could be destroyed?

Love is important to us because it brings about those qualities in life. We’re probably not in disagreement here.

So love has a physical aspect and objective consequences. It doesn’t exist entirely in the mind…

Science is based on nothing more than testimonies???

No, science is based in a method of inquiry. Our belief in much of science is in terstimonies…

And the method is based on what?

There is also the question of how and why the power of reason has originated and developed to such an extent from unreasoning molecules. If that doesn’t strike you as an incredible feat I don’t know what will…

It certainly seems incredible. There are evolutionary explanations for how reason has been bred into us (i’ll point out, again, that animals have reasoning abilities). Why it developed is not really a question we can answer. It did. I don’t know anything further than that.

I believe it is related to the last point in your post…

I think love is the most valuable form of knowledge, but my experience of it is extremely subjective. What I know of her love for me is guesswork, but it’s guesswork based on many sense-related cues. I hear when she tells me she loves me (and all the sentiments). I can see that she loves me when she does nice things for me, and smiles when she greets me. I can feel that she loves me in intimacy. I can guess that she loves me by her fidelity (that there is no physical evidence to my knowledge of her infidelity). I can’t confirm that she loves me because I can’t know it it’s an elaborate hoax, but I can feel certain because the physical cues are there. The thing I love most about her is that she exists, and I don’t have to wonder if she does before I wonder if she loves me…

Thank God for that! A sincere and heart-felt eulogy which disposes of scientism for once and for all… I’m surprised and delighted you agree that love is the most valuable form of knowledge. Who cares what we call it? Subjective, objective, irrational, unintelligible… Surely it must be taken into account when we are dealing with the OP… Could we be capable of love without the power of reason?

 

[LilyM]

R Daneel:

I don’t intend to be rude, but no lunatic ever believed that they are delusional. To them their delusion is rational.

So what’s with all the people who voluntarily visit psychiatrists seeking treatment for themselves? I’ll admit to being one of them myself - and not a soul pushed me to go or told me that they thought I should go, apart from the doctor who referred me after I asked for a referral. I made the decision very much on my own.

Or those who voluntarily check themselves into (or voluntarily stay in) psychiatric facilities?

These people do so because they KNOW they are deluded and/or not thinking rationally.

However, I take your point that there are also a percentage who do not realise that there is anything wrong with their thinking and have to be involuntarily treated and/or committed. Thankfully these cases are actually rare.

Certainly no-one’s ever been committed for the ‘illness’ of simply subscribing to mainstream Christian belief. Imagine the fantastic living psychiatrists could make if Christianity WERE determined to be a mental illness? You’d think there are enough atheist psychiatrists out there that there would at least have been serious attempts made - that there haven’t been seems to indicate that there is no plausible argument for religion per se being a form of mental illness.

 

[Image_of_God]

What scientists? What are they studying and how?

John Brown and Ray Rodgers are scientists who have looked at the Shroud of Turin for example. These scientists are more accredited than anybody here. They are not Christians either. If you truly look at the Shroud of Turin, you would acknowledge that its not something that you can easily dismiss as a forgery. These scientists have not dismissed it and other well-reasoned scientists have not dismissed it, so why should you?

I believe in unordinary things, and I would believe in miracles if I saw good evidence for one. If God plants miracles among his people, he certainly doesn’t want them to be free of reasonable doubt or controversy. Certainly doesn’t want them to be obvious. Then what’s the point? Those who are already faithful will continue to be edified, and those who aren’t will continue to be incredulous.

Miracles do not prove anything to anyone who persistently choose not to believe. There are many, who even after seeing them will continue to scrutinize and rationalize them. Miracles do not necessarily erase doubts (hence, the Pharisees of the Bible).

Notice that in the Bible, Jesus did not do miracles where people lacked faith. The reason, as explained above, is obvious.

Something that would leave no doubt in the mind of even the staunchest atheist. These miracles are no-doubt aimed at making an appeal to faith, the greatest beneficient of whom are the believers, not those who are lagging (like me).

There is no such thing that would leave the staunchest atheist without a doubt of God’s existence. Miracles are able to make an appeal of faith where a certain degree of openness is present. Some people will continue to rationalize, simply to disprove them. The Shroud of Turin is a good example. When you look at it, the figure is barely visible, but when you take a picture, the figure is clearer. Obviously the figure is a negative image. Furthermore, the figure is drawn in extreme detail (it is impossible to conceive of even the best artist drawing with such detail). Nevertheless, people continue to say it is a medieval forgery, regardless of how illogical the accusation is. The Church doesn’t require anyone to believe that the Shroud is the real burial shroud of Jesus, but it is kind of hard not to believe so. The “evidence” points to something rather extraordinary and strange. I encourage you to look up on the Shroud. It might be the miracle you’re asking for.

It’s a pretty subjective assessment. We happen to be pretty impressed with the order that did form, but if it was different, I’m sure it would be well impressive. It’s not a matter of ill-logic, and it’s not a matter of randomness. The universe didn’t develope the way it did by chance, but by incremental probabilites, none of which were prohibitively unlikely.

I don’t see how the bolded statement is saying anything other than by chance. In other words, the right possibility just happened to come about among others. There was no intention and therefore simply randomness and coincidence.

Not really. I don’t have a preference for whether there is a God or miracles or not. I just don’t see the evidence for them. I don’t have a policy against them, if that’s what you mean. It’s not my first premise. My experience is, and if I have to appeal to every other believers special revelations to gain faith, I should wonder if God wants me to believe at all.

I think God wants you to believe without seeing, like a child. It’s not that different with how you believe in science at current.

I don’t think you have a policy against miracles, but its either you believe that miracles can happen (even if you haven’t seen one yourself) or you don’t. And whichever you choose, that is your belief. Since you don’t have any absolute evidence against miracles, it is a belief.