Theism is Rational; Christianity is Not

[Gerry_Hunter]

…
Would you say that this reflects accurately the teaching of Tradition or is there additional information?

It’s a comment on the presence or absence of written records, not a commentary on the particulars of a teaching.

It should be noted, though, that we must not think of a census then as we do of a census now. Today, everyone gets, and fills out, a form on a designated day (in Canada, anyway). Back then, a census could take quite a while, certainly more than a day, and folks didn’t get counted all at once.

In any event, if one is hung up on documents, and prejudiced against Holy Scripture, Christ is mentioned by Josephus, a Jew who wrote to please Rome, and so had no axe to grind. The point is that Jesus Christ is historical, and so Christianity is rooted in history (even before the incarnation), and not just some intellectual construct.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[KarenNC]

To be accurate, I’m using the term as it is used in theology.

GH

Would appear not exclusively, unless you consider philosophy and theology to be entirely separate entities.

as.ua.edu/rel/aboutreldefinitions.html

Department of Religious Studies University of Alabama

Theism - [Greek theos, meaning god] a philosophical position to name a family of belief systems that presuppose the existence of God or gods; sub-types could include such belief systems as monotheism (belief in one God) or polytheism (belief in many gods); to be distinguished from atheism.

Note from the head of the page:
Although a number of resources have been used to create this page, readers interested in more detailed discussions of some of the following concepts should consult the two primary works used: Jonathan Z. Smith (ed.), The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion. HarperSanFrancisco, 1995 and Mircea Eliade (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion. Macmillan, 1986 [2nd. edition 2005].

 

[aristotle]

Aristotle, I’m not sure I understand your reasoning. Perphaps you can better explain to me this attraction in laymen’s terms.

You seem to be doing quite well.

If God can only think of God, then wouldn’t that Idea or Logos be perfect as well? If that Logos is indeed perfect, then it must be Infinite. And the only one whom is Infinite is God. Therefore it is possible for God to have a Son–a Second Person within His Godhood.

Aquinas would agree, I think. He seemed to think highly of the fact that as God has a relationship with God, and since humans cannot have relationships by themselves, it would imply multiple persons in God.

While the Trinity is not itself illogical, it is at best a mystery, something that cannot be attained by philosophical conjecture, or by any scientific study. The common rebuff would be, then, that multiple persons would not need be added if the meaning of “relationship” applied differently to God than it does to us (and indeed to beasts). God’s relationship is not a social one, neither Its love for Itself, nor Its thinking only of Itself. As Aristotle distinguished in terms of relationships, a man, unless born a beast or a god, is a social animal.

 

[aristotle]

Well, that’s your definition of happiness, but others may not agree.

And those others would be wrong, at least apparently so. Humans naturally, as currently understood and observed, desire to be happy, in that manner, and often make themselves miserable when they attempt to attain happiness not in an intrinsic good (such as knowledge, friendship, etc.) but in extrinsic goods (food, drugs, money).

God thinks?

Yes.

How does God thinks? Do you know how God thinks??

The exact method of God’s thinking is beyond the capabilities of human understanding. Even an approximation is not possible for me, as I have not studied the subject enough to make one.

Again, relative.

Yes, but objective.

So death is the end, huh?

That’s all you know about your existence?? That’s pathetic!

But all good I do, since it is eternally realized by God in Itself, will be immortal in It. The activity of my soul will be immortalized.

I strongly encourage you to believe in fairies.

They are very romantic.

 

[aristotle]

Have fun.

Will do.

 

[KarenNC]

It’s a comment on the presence or absence of written records, not a commentary on the particulars of a teaching.

It should be noted, though, that we must not think of a census then as we do of a census now. Today, everyone gets, and fills out, a form on a designated day (in Canada, anyway). Back then, a census could take quite a while, certainly more than a day, and folks didn’t get counted all at once.

In any event, if one is hung up on documents, and prejudiced against Holy Scripture, Christ is mentioned by Josephus, a Jew who wrote to please Rome, and so had no axe to grind. The point is that Jesus Christ is historical, and so Christianity is rooted in history (even before the incarnation), and not just some intellectual construct.

Then please refer me to the actual commentary on the particulars of the teaching that deals with this.

I am not “prejudiced against Holy Scripture” just aware that its primary function is not as an historical document. I don’t take the sacred writings of any religion at face value. As anyone who cares to read the site I referenced initially can see, there is more of an issue of "everyone getting a form and being counted on the same day, " we are talking multiple years that simply don’t mesh. It is precisely the record left by Josephus about the people and dates involved that raises some of the questions about the census. This is totally ignoring the issue that the mentions of Jesus by Josephus are believed by some historians to be a later interpolation. It is not an argument from silence, but rather a failure of all the information that is known to agree.

I believe you are the one who brought the census into the discussion as a proof that your religion is valid because it is rooted in history while others are not. If you use the existence of a particular event as a proof, then the “presence or absence of written records” or other substantiation does indeed become an issue. If that proof does not hold up to examination, seems a bit disingenuous to then say that the person pointing out this discrepancy is automatically “prejudiced” and “hung up on documents.”

I will certainly grant that Judaism is rooted in history before the incarnation of Jesus, but not that Christianity was, except in as far as Christianity has claimed that it is an extension and fulfillment of Judaism. There were no “Christians” before Christ. Those people were Jews, Gentiles, etc.

 

[aristotle]

And how is the universe something less,or unworthy,than could be thought by God,who is thought itself?

If the universe were worthy of being thought of, it would have to be the best thing to think of. But God is the best thing to think of. So the only way God would think of the universe is if the universe were God.

But this is not so.

And what would be the nature of the attraction that moves the universe?

A very deep question. There are two reasonable possibilities, neither of which I have yet accepted, but am considering carefully. Either (a) there are a finite number of steps to God. For example, fire burns because of four causes: the material (it is made of wood), the formal (the wood is organized into a pile for burning, and is being consumed), the efficient (someone needed to set the wood up and light it on fire), and the final (it burns to produce warmth). It produces warmth because warmth actualizes more energy, and this is in emulation of (out of love of) God. It is possible that (b) the connection is continuous.

By allegory, the nature of the attraction is like my desire for pizza. The pizza does not need to move in order to cause my motion. But this cause is not efficient (I caused my own motion), material (it does not make me up), or formal (it is not of a similar design), but rather final. I get up in order to get the pizza.

 

[aristotle]

To be accurate, I’m using the term as it is used in theology.

Christian theology. And possibly Muslim and some Jewish theology. And then, only some Christian theology.

Hegel’s or Whitehead’s theology uses the term differently. As would Greek Theology. And much of Jewish theology.

 

[RobNY]

To be happy.

This is attained by living a virtuous life, a life attracted toward by my desires, ultimately by my desire to be like God.

Ah, this brings back happy memories of reading the Ethics. It’s a very noble work.

And those others would be wrong, at least apparently so. Humans naturally, as currently understood and observed, desire to be happy, in that manner, and often make themselves miserable when they attempt to attain happiness not in an intrinsic good (such as knowledge, friendship, etc.) but in extrinsic goods (food, drugs, money).

What do you think of those philosophers who locate the supreme Good in God?

But all good I do, since it is eternally realized by God in Itself, will be immortal in It. The activity of my soul will be immortalized.

Could you be more explicit about what you mean? I remember reading a little bit of Al-Farabi, who is a medieval philosopher indebted to Aristotle, and from what I remember he had some theory whereby the human soul was assumed into the Agent Intellect after death. Is that actually in Aristotle? Or anything like it?

Could you say anything more about what you mean the good you do is eternally realized by God in Itself?

There is no thought of immortality of the individual intellect, is there?

And finally, can you explain to me how it is that the form of the human body, the soul, is created and how it comes to be in the individual human? (Do you hold with Thomas that the intellect is, in fact, if we want to be more specific, the form of the body?)

-Rob

 

[aristotle]

What do you think of those philosophers who locate the supreme Good in God?

I would, for the most part, agree with them, in principle. We cannot be like God exactly, but we can strive to be like God by analogy.

I am not familiar with too many philosophers who hold this, except in a greatly idealized sense (like Hegel’s evolution of history).

Could you be more explicit about what you mean? I remember reading a little bit of Al-Farabi, who is a medieval philosopher indebted to Aristotle, and from what I remember he had some theory whereby the human soul was assumed into the Agent Intellect after death. Is that actually in Aristotle? Or anything like it?

Possibly. It is unclear what Aristotle thought of the afterlife. What I accept likely differs from his thought on this matter. God knows the best of everything, because the best of everything is inside God. So all good I do will be (and is being) thought of by God.

The passage that I can find that most relates to this, from Aristotle, is “On the Soul”, where he speaks of the immortality of the active intellect, and the mortality of the passive intellect.

“Actual knowledge is identical with its object: in the individual, potential knowledge is in time prior to actual knowledge, but in the universe as a whole it is not prior even in time. Mind is not at one time knowing and at another not. When mind is set free from its present conditions it appears as just what it is and nothing more: this alone is immortal and eternal (we do not, however, remember its former activity because, while mind in this sense is impassible, mind as passive is destructible), and without it nothing thinks.” (Aristotle, On the Soul, Book 3, Part 5, Tr. J.A. Smith, a fair translation; but the best I have immediatly at hand.)

There is no thought of immortality of the individual intellect, is there?

I do not believe that I will be immortal in the sense that I, as my individual intellect, will surive the death of my body.

And finally, can you explain to me how it is that the form of the human body, the soul, is created and how it comes to be in the individual human?

I do accept that the soul is the form of the body. And our soul is an intellectual soul comprised of both active and passive parts. The soul is the quality of life. So anything living has a soul. The attributes of our soul arise when we are born, start thinking, and perform actions. The more we can do this, the better formed our soul, and the less we can do this, the worse formed our soul. When we die, our soul dies, save for the active intellect, what we did, and this lives in God’s active thought thinking itself.

In short, the soul is created by the birth-act.

-Rob

Thank you for the interesting discussion.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

…
I will certainly grant that Judaism is rooted in history before the incarnation of Jesus, but not that Christianity was, except in as far as Christianity has claimed that it is an extension and fulfillment of Judaism. There were no “Christians” before Christ. Those people were Jews, Gentiles, etc.

Thank you for admitting your clear anti-Christian bias. Apart from merely pointing out that Jesus himself, and the first Apostles, were all Jews, and the continuity that indicates, I’ve learned long ago that interacting with such anti-Christian bias is pointless.

And your assertion that I somehow made the whole truth opf the Christian faith hang on the counted in the census counting is such utter nonsense that to do more than note that is to dignify it beyond its merit.

Happy hating.

Shaking the dust from my sandals,

Gerry

 

[Keikiolu]

It is very likely that God, a single being, exists, where God is defined as that which cannot be perceived, and from this definition and certain assumptions has the characteristics of being the best thing, thought thinking itself.

This “philosophy” was my last stop before becoming Catholic.

The reason that I left philosophy for religion was the uselessness of the tools of philosophy in living life, as compared to the unimaginable power of the tools of religion (THE true one, Catholic).

The “god” of philosphy gives one the sense organs and manipulative “tools” to perform intricate and sterile intellectual masturbation for a lifetime.

“God is in a better state. And life also belongs to God; for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God’s self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal. We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God.” (Aristotle, Metaphysics Lambda, Trans. Ross)

God, defined in this manner, can be defended, and this God I accept.

There is no “linkage” between what you describe as “god” and why you would say it (or rather why Aristotle would say it).

Since you say, explicitly, that “god cannot be percieved”, you MUST be describing something you CAN’T percieve, which I dare say would be not description of “reality” but wholesale hallucination.

That you have your hallucination is fine with me, but why should your hallucination be anything but an invention of your “psychosis” to me?

The simple, and very annoying, proposition that “My Christian God has revealed Himself to me, and that is why I believe in Him”, utterly trumps your “invention” in my thinking, and proves me to be an utter “nut-burger” to you, as a hyper-rationalist.

As long as we can agree that we are each these things to each other, and still be friends, or at least friendly toward each other, then I have no problem with having an interesting conversation with you.

But the Christian God I cannot. God had no son, no mother, does not write books, and indeed has no power to move things, but moves all things only by attraction.

Since you define “god” such as to not be perceptible, and apparently to not be “perceptable” by his “works”, as he doesn’t “work”, even your statement that “god moves all things only by attraction” is ALSO a hallucination on your part, thus informing me further that you are (at least) “conflicted” in your definitions of “god” and his “ways”, or are outright “psycho”.

Omnipotence is all-power, infinite potential, the ability to do and be anything. Only nothing is omnipotent. God has no potential, for anything that God could do God does.

Your assertion that only “nothing” could be onmipotent is unsupported, and irrational.

You actually MEAN that omnipotence doesn’t exist, because if it did ANY use of it would be a “violation” of "that which is (the universe). Thus, only NOTHING can have that characteristic.

Now, if only “god” is “the best thing”, which is a round-about way of saying “omnipotent”, and omnipotent is only a characteristic of nothing, then you equate “god” with nothing, meaning “god” doesn’t exist.

Since you posit that both “god” exists, and “god” doesn’t exist simultaneously, then you are indeed of “ill-mind”.

I actually agree with you that “god” (small “g”), which you propose/deny, is indeed nonsense.

But since your “logic” applies only to your “god”, and not my God, I can be most agreeable with you that your “god” certainly doesn’t exist and that my God does exist.

Are we cool, then…?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[cathgal]

And those others would be wrong, at least apparently so. Humans naturally, as currently understood and observed, desire to be happy, in that manner, and often make themselves miserable when they attempt to attain happiness not in an intrinsic good (such as knowledge, friendship, etc.) but in extrinsic goods (food, drugs, money).

You say the purpose is to be happy. They are doing what their hearts desired, but you think your way is the only way to happiness. What do you based on?

The exact method of God’s thinking is beyond the capabilities of human understanding. Even an approximation is not possible for me, as I have not studied the subject enough to make one…

You claimed that to be happy is to desire to be like God, like God thinks, and here you said to know God’s thinking is beyond one’s comprehension?

How can you claim to desire to be like God if you don’t know Him??

But all good I do, since it is eternally realized by God in Itself, will be immortal in It. The activity of my soul will be immortalized.

What make you think this is true?

Are you finally admitting that you really believe in fairies?

 

[KarenNC]

Thank you for admitting your clear anti-Christian bias. Apart from merely pointing out that Jesus himself, and the first Apostles, were all Jews, and the continuity that indicates, I’ve learned long ago that interacting with such anti-Christian bias is pointless.

And your assertion that I somehow made the whole truth opf the Christian faith hang on the counted in the census counting is such utter nonsense that to do more than note that is to dignify it beyond its merit.

Happy hating.

Happy hating???

You said:
*The god of Aristotle’s construction may have some attractive intellectual attributes. However, it has no basis in history.

God, on the other hand, and His Son in particular, do. God’s Son, while on earth, was counted in a Roman census.*

I replied
Have to say that the census claim raises some rather specific problems.
Then asked for further clarification when you said that Traditional Catholic teaching.

From this I get accused of being “hung up on documents, and prejudiced against Holy Scripture.”

You say “The point is that Jesus Christ is historical, and so Christianity is rooted in history (even before the incarnation), and not just some intellectual construct”

to which I reply that “I will certainly grant that Judaism is rooted in history before the incarnation of Jesus, but not that Christianity was, except in as far as Christianity has claimed that it is an extension and fulfillment of Judaism. There were no “Christians” before Christ. Those people were Jews, Gentiles, etc.”

Where is “hating?” In pointing out that the Roman census is probably not your best evidence of Jesus being historical? That there were no Christians before the incarnation? Expecting factual accuracy is now “hating” and “prejudiced” and “hung up on documents?”

 

[Boanerges]

Why should I accept that Adam and Eve existed?

Why shouldn’t you? Everything finite has a beginning and an end. It’s a lot more credible than believing we came from a puddle of goo (which, by the way, flies in the face of Newton’s Law.) Randomness cannot move from disorder to order without that “outside energy”. Simply looking at the incredible complexity of life is enough natural evidence.

Besides, the vacuous “logic” of evolution lacks any connection with man’s beginning and requires “faith” from the one proposing such an idea since there is simply no evidence.

AMDG

 

[angelusm]

God had no son

Yes he had. Father sent his Son to redeem the mankind.

no mother

Before redeeming the mankind Jesus had to come to the world somehow. Being born is quite a reasonable way of coming to the world. It’s impossible without a mother.

does not write books

I agree, God didn’t use a pen or anything else to write a book, he inspired a Scriptures written with people’s hands.

and indeed has no power to move things, but moves all things only by attraction.
Omnipotence is all-power, infinite potential, the ability to do and be anything. Only nothing is omnipotent. God has no potential, for anything that God could do God does.

Sorry, but it’s really weird. Especially: only nothing is omnipotent and God has no potential. We believe in God who is almighty, he can do everything. And he is doing amazing things.

Aristotle’s opinion about God doesn’t matter much for me. Why should it? People are errant and make mistakes. You cannot fully know God unless he reveals himself to you. Aristotle lived in ancient Greece where people invented man-like gods and he had no idea about Father, Son and Holy Spirit. People’s image of God can be very different from God’s real image.

 

[angelusm]

One more thing, I’m talking about pre-existing one God in Trinity, not about creating Son by Father or anything like that.

 

[aristotle]

Keikiolu,

Thank you for your post. And thank you all; I was off on vacation, so I have been for a time unable to respond properly. I am getting back to you now, and I apologize for the confusion delay causes in such things as forums.

I must admit, I did not understand what you meant by “intellectual masturbation”, and with philosophy not being able to provide life answers. My philosophy (though it is not truly mine) helps me live life far better. Maybe religion would improve my life even further (maybe even from happiness to blessedness, I don’t know). This is, in part, what I intend to explore on these forums.

There is no “linkage” between what you describe as “god” and why you would say it (or rather why Aristotle would say it).

Why Aristotle would say what?

Since you say, explicitly, that “god cannot be percieved”, you MUST be describing something you CAN’T percieve, which I dare say would be not description of “reality” but wholesale hallucination.

Is reality defined by our perceptions? Or even by what can and cannot be perceived? God cannot even be an hallucination, for that is perception without substance, the true absence of being. Rather, God is substence without our perceiving it, the direct opposite of an hallucination.

The simple, and very annoying, proposition that “My Christian God has revealed Himself to me, and that is why I believe in Him”, utterly trumps your “invention” in my thinking, and proves me to be an utter “nut-burger” to you, as a hyper-rationalist.

You are not completely a nut. What you believe is desirable. But desire does not make a thing so. That you think your proposition trumps my invention, that you even think your proposition is proposition, and my proposition is invention, is perfectly natural. But why should I agree with you?

As long as we can agree that we are each these things to each other, and still be friends, or at least friendly toward each other, then I have no problem with having an interesting conversation with you.

Except for the “nutburger” line. I think you (likely) a sane person, though lost in impossible (or unlikely) dreams. These dreams are desirable, and as far as I know, do not make it so that you cannot operate usefully in the world.

I definitely hope we can get along.

Since you define “god” such as to not be perceptible, and apparently to not be “perceptable” by his “works”, as he doesn’t “work”…

God, eternally, does a lot of work. Its work is thinking about God. God does not work on us, except to attract us to It, by Its mere existence.

even your statement that “god moves all things only by attraction” is ALSO a hallucination on your part, thus informing me further that you are (at least) “conflicted” in your definitions of “god” and his “ways”, or are outright “psycho”.

This I do not understand. Where is the conflict? Why “psycho”? I’m lost.

Your assertion that only “nothing” could be onmipotent is unsupported, and irrational.

I agree, it may be unsupported, for now. But it is not irrational.

The support is this: Nothing can become anything if attracted to, so if nothing can become anything, it is potentially anything. That means that nothing, with the right motivation, has the power to be anything, so nothing is all powerful, so nothing is omnipotent.

You actually MEAN that omnipotence doesn’t exist…

I am rather applying attributes to “nothingness”. But, if someone would cry fowl at doing so, I can simply agree that omnipotence does not exist.

Now, if only “god” is “the best thing”, which is a round-about way of saying “omnipotent”…

Only if you define “omnipotent” in a different way than I do. I define “omnipotent” as “having the potential to do/be anything (poss. within one’s nature).” The best thing, God, has no potential, and so cannot be omnipotent.

And there it ends.

A very interesting set of points.

 

[aristotle]

You say the purpose is to be happy. They are doing what their hearts desired, but you think your way is the only way to happiness. What do you based on?

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. What are you asking the basis of? Who is doing what his/her heart desires? Happiness is that which results from the virtuous life; I don’t remember giving a “way” or “method” for that life.

[qutoe]You claimed that to be happy is to desire to be like God, like God thinks, and here you said to know God’s thinking is beyond one’s comprehension?

It is impossible to understand God’s thinking entirely, or to become like God is entirely. We must become our ideal, which is closer to God than we are now, but not identical to God.

How can you claim to desire to be like God if you don’t know Him??

I am not sure I understand this question either. I know about God. But we are not friends. Even if I knew nothing about God (if I were a rock or a telephone) I would still move and change in such a way that I would eventually become more like It.

What make you think this is true?

If God is complete actuality, of all types, if, in other words, God is infinitely active, then any activity I partake in, anything I do, or say, or make so, any energy I expend, is already represented in God. In that sense, I am already immortal within God, but not in any way where I would be conscious, etc.

I do not believe in heaven.

Are you finally admitting that you really believe in fairies?

I want to believe in faeries. Help me with my unbelief.

 

[aristotle]

Why shouldn’t you?

This is insufficient reason to accept anything. I do not desire to accept Adam and Eve, therefore, without good reason, I won’t accept Adam and Eve.

It’s a lot more credible than believing we came from a puddle of goo (which, by the way, flies in the face of Newton’s Law.)

How so? How does evolution violate Newton’s Law?

Randomness cannot move from disorder to order without that “outside energy”.

Like God, and the sun. We got it covered.

Simply looking at the incredible complexity of life is enough natural evidence.

It is evidence that the sun exists.

Besides, the vacuous “logic” of evolution lacks any connection with man’s beginning and requires “faith” from the one proposing such an idea since there is simply no evidence.

I think people enjoy using “vacuous” to describe those types of reasoning with which they cannot agree, and against which they cannot argue.

But my big question would be: what does evolution have to do with Adam and Eve?

Let’s say evolution never happened. I think it did, and there’s plenty of evidence for it, but let’s say it never occurred. Why Adam and Eve? Why not some other mechanism still undiscovered? Or maybe Aristotle was right about this too: maybe humans always existed, and the gods, by some special power, wipe the planet every now and again, and clean it up with their feces and urine.

Ignoring evolution, there are limitless explanations, each as likely as the other. Why should I accept yours?