What is compelling about RC belief?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WmJackP
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WmJackP

Guest
I believe it to be self evident that reality is full of wonder. The cosmos appears to be wondrously rational and consistently invoked awe in such intellectual giants as Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and (while you may be surprised) also Richard Dawkins. The study of chemistry, mathematics, earth sciences and even less science based fields like economics, sociology and history, all of these areas of study and reflective reasoning sustain a recognition that the universe is rational.

However, while I suspect that most apologists of the RC faith will fully support what I’ve just said, here is where I am certain that we depart. Why is it necessary to personalize this “rationality” be proclaiming that it is a personal God who is the rational force behind this wondrous reality? Is it not so much simpler (indeed, Occam’s razor-ish) to simply marvel at a rational reality?

Most assuredly, I do not intend to be offensive, but, I really cannot see how many of the dogmatic statements of Christianity withstand critical analysis.
 
WmJackP #1
intellectual giants as Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and (while you may be surprised) also Richard Dawkins.
Click to expand...
What defines and intellectual giant? Certainly Einstein has been recognised in science – the others babble on but where is the wisdom?

Answering The New Atheism, by Dr Scott Hahn and Dr Benjamin Wiker exposes the stupidities of Dawkins.

I really cannot see how many of the dogmatic statements of Christianity withstand critical analysisNeither could Antony Flew, the most notorious atheist, who now attests to reason and is now a deist.
“I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence,” he affirms. "I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source.
“Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than half a century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature.” (There Is a God, 2007, pp. 88-89).

The next step to a critical analysis is to examine the claims of the Catholic Church.
 
I know one shouldn’t answer a question with a question, but as this is the only way I can begin to answer your question, I will by saying that the question rightly ought to be, what is so compelling about a strictly rationalistic view of the universe?
 
Occam’s razor only work if both things fully explain what is Fill in the blank. Is a rational force enough to defeat Hume? Is a rational force even a sufficient cause for a wondrous reality as you put it?

It may not be fair to answer your question in question form. I guess I just do not fully understand what you believe. please excuse a bit of socratic method
 
Part II of my answer: I still feel that the most compelling thing about the catholic faith (although not exclusive to the catholic faith, it needs to be said) is the fact that it explains what is wrong with the world. To quote Chesterton, the answer of course is “me.”
 
What’s compelling about the Catholic Church?
It has something to offer. 😃

It’s like the old married couple who were still standing in our church one Mother’s Day when the priest asked married couples to stand until the said the number of years they’d been married. When he said “seventy years” one couple was still standing.
They had been married seventy-two years and had gone to our church all their lives. Apparently the Catholic Church had something to offer to them.

THE STANDARD ANSWER TO ALL ATHEIST CLAIMS;
The eminent English philosopher Edmund Burke wrote:

“The writers against religion, whilst they oppose every system, are wisely careful never to set up any of their own.” – A Vindication of Natural Society ( 1756 )

In other words, atheists have nothing to offer. Their system, if they bother to describe one, is easily torn apart for the error it is.
 
Rational reality is believing what? If I pray to God, and say 50 prayers are truly answered, is it rational reality to say, science doesn’t accept them, so believing in the reality of an answered prayer is irrational? Just wondering.
 
What was the point of Jesus dying on a cross and claiming to be the Son of God? He is either a lunatic or he is the Son of God. Given that the RC Church was founded by Jesus in 33AD and has continued to this day, I would say that the RC Church offers the truth and is guided by a divine authority. Name any other empire or organization that can claim such a feat.
 
WmJackP said:
I believe it to be self evident that reality is full of wonder. The cosmos appears to be wondrously rational and consistently invoked awe in such intellectual giants as Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and (while you may be surprised) also Richard Dawkins. The study of chemistry, mathematics, earth sciences and even less science based fields like economics, sociology and history, all of these areas of study and reflective reasoning sustain a recognition that the universe is rational.

However, while I suspect that most apologists of the RC faith will fully support what I’ve just said, here is where I am certain that we depart. Why is it necessary to personalize this “rationality” be proclaiming that it is a personal God who is the rational force behind this wondrous reality? Is it not so much simpler (indeed, Occam’s razor-ish) to simply marvel at a rational reality?

Most assuredly, I do not intend to be offensive, but, I really cannot see how many of the dogmatic statements of Christianity withstand critical analysis.
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ offers us eternal life, which is something Einstein, Hawking, and Dawkins can’t.
 
WmJackP said:
I believe it to be self evident that reality is full of wonder. The cosmos appears to be wondrously rational and consistently invoked awe in such intellectual giants as Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and (while you may be surprised) also Richard Dawkins. The study of chemistry, mathematics, earth sciences and even less science based fields like economics, sociology and history, all of these areas of study and reflective reasoning sustain a recognition that the universe is rational.

However, while I suspect that most apologists of the RC faith will fully support what I’ve just said, here is where I am certain that we depart. Why is it necessary to personalize this “rationality” be proclaiming that it is a personal God who is the rational force behind this wondrous reality? Is it not so much simpler (indeed, Occam’s razor-ish) to simply marvel at a rational reality?

Most assuredly, I do not intend to be offensive, but, I really cannot see how many of the dogmatic statements of Christianity withstand critical analysis.
Click to expand...
Do you think that the universe can just form itself? All of creation comes from somewhere and that is what we call God. We call it this because we believe that it takes intelligence to make other intelligence and to make something as wonderful as our reality.
 
“and even less science based fields like economics, sociology and history”

Economics, sociology, and history are indeed science based.
They fall under the scientific branch of social science, which differs from life and physical science.
 
WmJackP (post 1) – I’m not sure about anything being ‘compelling’, but for people who have any idealistic awareness of a fifth dimension (especially a spiritual dimension) in reality and experience, RC belief is a very attractive paradigm in relation to the Absolute.

Abu (post 2) – Thank you for those references, especially the 2007 quotation from Antony Flew.
 
As it is, the universe exists out of a rational and scientific impossibility, at least according to human logic. There are two possibilities:
  1. The universe was created out of nothing. This of course, is impossible, since how could something just magically appear out of nothing? Matter cannot simply come from nowhere. How did something simply just “come to be”?
OR
  1. The universe has always existed (or continues and has always continued eternally, possibly with or without a cyclical Big Bang / Big Crunch creating constant renewal). If this is true, how could matter simply just “always have existed”? Surely something had to create it? Surely it had to have had a beginning?
It is impossible for the universe to always have existed, and it is impossible for it to have come to be out of nothing. YET… one of these MUST be true. We must simply take it on faith that this is true, since it is in the realm of metaphysics. It exists and we know for a FACT it exists, but it cannot be defined in any way by science. In other words, the very basis of the universe is predicated on faith.

Another possibility is that the normal state of the universe is to exist completely outside of time. In this case, everything would exist simultaneously at all points, and time would simply be an illusion. Yet, it is this eternal timelessness that is the very definition of the realm of God.

Finally, there is the old axiom “I think, therefore I am”. Consciousness is also in the realm of metaphysics. I know that I’m alive and that I’m thinking. I’m a sentient being. However, there’s no scientific way to prove that. If it’s true for me, it’s likely true for all other humans and living animals on earth. Consciousness must be some kind of a state. It physically exists as a part of our universe. Why could there not be some larger form of consciousness that inhabits the universe which we define as “God”?

I choose to believe in Catholicism because it answers those critical questions about the universe that cannot be answered because science completely breaks down. Known science is simply an instruction book that informs us of how God chooses to run the universe. I see no major incompatibility.
 
WmJackP said:
I believe it to be self evident that reality is full of wonder. The cosmos appears to be wondrously rational and consistently invoked awe in such intellectual giants as Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and (while you may be surprised) also Richard Dawkins. The study of chemistry, mathematics, earth sciences and even less science based fields like economics, sociology and history, all of these areas of study and reflective reasoning sustain a recognition that the universe is rational.

However, while I suspect that most apologists of the RC faith will fully support what I’ve just said, here is where I am certain that we depart. Why is it necessary to personalize this “rationality” be proclaiming that it is a personal God who is the rational force behind this wondrous reality? Is it not so much simpler (indeed, Occam’s razor-ish) to simply marvel at a rational reality?

Most assuredly, I do not intend to be offensive, but, I really cannot see how many of the dogmatic statements of Christianity withstand critical analysis.
Click to expand...
What Christians and Jews believe about creation is not assigned or attached, as it might appear. All of our beliefs have been revealed to us in the supernatural realm. God is the Revealer.
 
WmJackP said:
Most assuredly, I do not intend to be offensive, but, I really cannot see how many of the dogmatic statements of Christianity withstand critical analysis.
Click to expand...
No offense taken, searching for truth is an honorable goal.

Which dogmatic statements of Christianity do you feel can’t withstand critical analysis? Maybe if you list them out, we can address them directly (hopefully to your satisfaction).

Michael
 
Rolltide said:
As it is, the universe exists out of a rational and scientific impossibility, at least according to human logic. There are two possibilities:
  1. The universe was created out of nothing. This of course, is impossible, since how could something just magically appear out of nothing? Matter cannot simply come from nowhere. How did something simply just “come to be”?
OR
  1. The universe has always existed (or continues and has always continued eternally, possibly with or without a cyclical Big Bang / Big Crunch creating constant renewal). If this is true, how could matter simply just “always have existed”? Surely something had to create it? Surely it had to have had a beginning?
It is impossible for the universe to always have existed, and it is impossible for it to have come to be out of nothing. YET… one of these MUST be true. We must simply take it on faith that this is true, since it is in the realm of metaphysics. It exists and we know for a FACT it exists, but it cannot be defined in any way by science. In other words, the very basis of the universe is predicated on faith.

Another possibility is that the normal state of the universe is to exist completely outside of time. In this case, everything would exist simultaneously at all points, and time would simply be an illusion. Yet, it is this eternal timelessness that is the very definition of the realm of God.

Finally, there is the old axiom “I think, therefore I am”. Consciousness is also in the realm of metaphysics. I know that I’m alive and that I’m thinking. I’m a sentient being. However, there’s no scientific way to prove that. If it’s true for me, it’s likely true for all other humans and living animals on earth. Consciousness must be some kind of a state. It physically exists as a part of our universe. Why could there not be some larger form of consciousness that inhabits the universe which we define as “God”?

I choose to believe in Catholicism because it answers those critical questions about the universe that cannot be answered because science completely breaks down. Known science is simply an instruction book that informs us of how God chooses to run the universe. I see no major incompatibility.
Click to expand...
What you overlook is there may not be a state of absolute nothingness. What may instead be the case is that reality is existence. At least one physicist hypothesizes that “nothing” is an unstable condition.

“I think therefore I am” is also an interesting syllogism. Perhaps the better description is "“there is experience—therefore, existence”. What you and I call our “selves” may in fact be a particular manifestation of experience which appears to have subjective expression as a result of physiological processes.

I do not argue that these descriptions are necessarily convincing models for either the state of the universe, nor, of the “self”----but, rather I suggest to you that there are legitimate alternative explanations which religious belief forecloses. I believe this prevents critical examination because if one is totally convinced that she knows “what’s what”–then she no longer looks for explanations, and, thus scientific inquiry is stifled.
 
Loving_disciple said:
Do you think that the universe can just form itself? All of creation comes from somewhere and that is what we call God. We call it this because we believe that it takes intelligence to make other intelligence and to make something as wonderful as our reality.
Click to expand...
An ant hill is a complex and appears to be an “intelligently” designed structure, does it not? If so, then one should hope to find a “chief architect ant” in charge of each designed complex; but, of course we don’t. Rather, I think what is seen in nature is not top down intelligent design but bottom up design. This is what is called an emergent property. It is one aspect of evolution.

Your perception seems to be that there must be a personality behind the mask of nature which you call or want to be God and you invest this Person with all forms of supernatural powers such as omniscience and omnipotence and you build ritualistic practice around it and develop stories which quite frankly seem closely united with legendary style narratives. This seems very primitive and much like pagan forms of beliefs.
 
inomcoke said:
No offense taken, searching for truth is an honorable goal.
Which dogmatic statements of Christianity do you feel can’t withstand critical analysis? Maybe if you list them out, we can address them directly (hopefully to your satisfaction).
Michael
Click to expand...
Thanks. I certainly appreciate the courtesy evident in your response. Let’s consider transubstantiation, specifically, the concept of what you call “the real presence”.

It must have a real meaning to say that something, for example, salt is something. Stated another way, when we say what something is, we must define it in a way which corresponds to reality. For example, we can legitimately say that salt is one atom of sodium and one atom of chloride. The statement is legitimate because it corresponds to the realty that in chemistry these two element combine to make salt. It means something else to say that alcohol is a combination of atoms described as C2H6O.

Thus, if one claims that salt is alcohol under the molecular structure of salt, the statement is meaningless. In fact, the proposition cannot be understood as true and no rational argument can sustain the proposition within a critical context. Yet, it is a form of such equating that is done when the doctrine of transubstantiation is taught to Catholic school children.

At this point, please allow me to disclose that I grew up RC. I was educated in Jesuit schools through undergrad. Consequently, I am well aware of the Thomistic arguments which supply the intellectual backing for the doctrine. But, this is now the 21st century. We have swapped alchemy for chemistry and other forms of science much more capable of describing matter than Plato ever could have. Thus, if we are to accurately describe flesh and blood, and, to do so honestly and without allusion to magical thinking, then we must do so by some set of terms corresponding to reality. Particularly, if it is not just any flesh and blood, but, in fact the specific flesh and blood united by DNA to a specific person.

In summary, then, the doctrine appears to me to lack internal consistency. I often hear my argument defended against on the basis that it is a mystery of faith. But, to make a proposition worthy of belief–even a mystery–it must possess internal consistency of logic. If bread and wine has a molecular structure in order to be bread and wine, then clearly, anything without that same molecular structure is something other than bread or wine.

I will welcome any response meeting my criticisms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top