Why do some people think that Science is the only source of knowledge?

[Peter_Plato]

God’s not in our image, we’re in His image.

Correct. And the disguishing features features that make us human are:

1. Ability to reason
2. Are consciously aware
3. Have a personal identity
4. Have a capacity to make freely determined choices, aka, free will.
5. Are morally responsible
6. Are creative beings

Note that 1,4 and 5, at least, require us to determine the nature of truth and its implications in making choices. We reason from axioms or premises to arrive at the implications that come from those. In fact, it could be argued that even a clear and lucid understanding of Scripture requires sound reasoning.

It is interesting, and quite inconsistent, that you are so adamant about reading Paul literally regarding his reference to philosophy, but then completely dismiss what he says about homosexuality.

 

[Peter_Plato]

God’s not in our image, we’re in His image.

Please refer to 1 Cor 1. If Christ is a philosopher why does Paul ask where is the philosopher of this age? I guess the possibilities are (a) Paul got Christ badly wrong, or (b) Paul was having a crisis of faith that day, or (c) Christ is God.

Call me old-fashioned but I’ll go with (c).

If you read Paul more comprehensively you’ll note that he also says:

1I want you to know how hard I am contending for you and for those at Laodicea, and for all who have not met me personally. 2My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. 5For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how disciplined you are and how firm your faith in Christ is.

Spiritual Fullness in Christ

6So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, 7rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.(Col 2:1-8)

Paul is arguing against “fine sounding arguments” that are “hollow and deceptive.” His case is not against philosophy itself, but philosophy badly practiced that leads to false and deceptive conclusions.

He, in fact, argues that we should want all the “treasures of wisdom and knowledge” that are found in God. This is not a case against philosophy, but instead against philosophy badly practiced that leads to false conclusions. Perhaps similar to how you are taking Paul’s points and concluding falsely that he was making a case against philosophy itself - which he wasn’t.

 

[tonyrey]

Marxism is based on dialectical materialism.

Whether he used the term or not is irrelevant. Marxism is an example of dialectical materialism which inverted Hegel’s idealism but retained the concepts of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

Relativism, nihilism, hedonism, etc. are also based on philosophical principles. Marxism has been claimed on this thread as philosophy. Schopenhauer was antisemitic. The Nazis used some of Nietzsche’s philosophy.
Philosophical principles = do whatever you like in the knowledge that you can use a philosopher somewhere to make it sound principled.

                               *That statement reveals misunderstanding of the nature of philosophy and metaphysics in particular.*How? Please teach me.

A philosophy forum presupposes some knowledge of philosophy.

btw, do you think none of the UHDR is based on Christ’s teaching, or if so are you calling His principles mere philosophy, hence Christ is merely a philosopher?

  *The principles of liberty, equality  and fraternity are not scientific but philosophical. They are based on  the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father in  heaven.*Then logically you are claiming that Christ is a mere philosopher  and is not God, or else you have downgraded God to the status of mere  philosopher.

Non sequitur.

If you cannot refute my statements there is no point in continuing this discussion:

1. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not scientific but philosophical.
2. They are based on the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father in heaven.

 

[inocente]

A philosophy forum presupposes some knowledge of philosophy.

Evasion - I thought you wouldn’t be able to explain your statement, which was why I asked. So again, Schopenhauer was antisemitic, the Nazis used some of Nietzsche’s philosophy, philosophical principles = do whatever you like in the knowledge that you can use a philosopher somewhere to make it sound principled. Thus it is meaningless to say that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is based on philosophical principles since anything and everything can be called a philosophical principle.

*Non sequitur.

If you cannot refute my statements there is no point in continuing this discussion:

1. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not scientific but philosophical.

1. They are based on the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father in heaven.*

Liberté, égalité, fraternité is a motto of the French Revolution, in which the Church lost a great deal of power. So are you claiming that the Church never worked out those principles in the one thousand eight hundred years before the Revolution, or that it kept them a big secret, or what?

 

[inocente]

Correct. And the disguishing features features that make us human are:

1. Ability to reason
2. Are consciously aware
3. Have a personal identity
4. Have a capacity to make freely determined choices, aka, free will.
5. Are morally responsible
6. Are creative beings

Not by a long way - according to 1 someone who cannot reason isn’t human, according to 2 we are not human when sleeping, 3 is culturally bound, etc.

Note that 1,4 and 5, at least, require us to determine the nature of truth and its implications in making choices. We reason from axioms or premises to arrive at the implications that come from those. In fact, it could be argued that even a clear and lucid understanding of Scripture requires sound reasoning.

Premises/axioms can’t be proven, the best we can do is prove that theorems follow from the axioms. That’s the basic problem with philosophy. For centuries it was thought the only geometry is Euclidean because the axioms intuitively seem true. Today, courtesy of science, we know that even space itself is not Euclidean.

It is interesting, and quite inconsistent, that you are so adamant about reading Paul literally regarding his reference to philosophy, but then completely dismiss what he says about homosexuality.

It’s against forum rules to switch threads but in any event if you read the entire epistle rather than mining a couple of lines out of context you will see he wasn’t speaking of that.

 

[inocente]

Paul is arguing against “fine sounding arguments” that are “hollow and deceptive.” His case is not against philosophy itself, but philosophy badly practiced that leads to false and deceptive conclusions.

He, in fact, argues that we should want all the “treasures of wisdom and knowledge” that are -]found/-] in God. This is not a case against philosophy, but instead against philosophy badly practiced that leads to false conclusions. Perhaps similar to how you are taking Paul’s points and concluding falsely that he was making a case against philosophy itself - which he wasn’t.

Paul doesn’t say “found” he says “the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”.

You are complicating things. God is neither a philosopher nor a truck driver and we don’t need to be a philosopher or truck driver to be saved.

Paul is saying that never in a million years could reasoning produce the message of Christ crucified, for the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing …] Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? …] But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You are complicating things. God is neither a philosopher nor a truck driver and we don’t need to be a philosopher or truck driver to be saved.

Nor, according to you, a scientist; so you should stop defending the scientific method since the “hidden” treasures cannot be found by evidential means either. So science must also be useless according to you.

Your argument is quite over-the-top. Catholic teaching is that knowledge attained through natural means and both science and philosophy have their place, but some aspects of God’s plan are properly considered beyond human means and must be revealed. That does not nullify everything that is not revealed, i.e., science and disciplines in philosophy.

You still didn’t answer your inconsistent reliance on Paul. Consistency would cause you to amend your views on homosexuality. I suspect the motive you have for your poor view of philosophy is that you don’t like a basic tenet of philosophy: the law of non-contradiction. You prefer to do your own mining; not merely with Paul but with reality and truth in general. The law of non-contradiction stands in the way of your inconsistency so you trash philosophy.

 

[inocente]

You still didn’t answer your inconsistent reliance on Paul. Consistency would cause you to amend your views on homosexuality. I suspect the motive you have for your poor view of philosophy is that you don’t like a basic tenet of philosophy: the law of non-contradiction. You prefer to do your own mining; not merely with Paul but with reality and truth in general. The law of non-contradiction stands in the way of your inconsistency so you trash philosophy.

To contradict your memory:

It’s against forum rules to switch threads but in any event if you read the entire epistle rather than mining a couple of lines out of context you will see he wasn’t speaking of that.

And to contradict it again:

It’s against forum rules to switch threads but in any event if you read the entire epistle rather than mining a couple of lines out of context you will see he wasn’t speaking of that.

And to contradict it one more time:

It’s against forum rules to switch threads but in any event if you read the entire epistle rather than mining a couple of lines out of context you will see he wasn’t speaking of that.

 

[Peter_Plato]

To contradict your memory:

And to contradict it again:

And to contradict it one more time:

I am merely pointing out two facts:

1. You “mined” Paul’s quote and selected a translation where Paul’s word would be more accurately rendered “disputer” or “dialectition” rather than as “philosopher.” So you are not really going with Paul at all, but a peculiar rendition of Paul. Paul also specifically added “of this age” meaning to the Corinthians the debaters or rhetoricians of their pagan culture, not seekers of wisdom or truth as a general category. Are you saying God is not the God of truth? Or that those who honestly seek the truth are not seeking God?
2. You brought Paul into the discussion as if you appeal to him as a definitive authority on philosophers. My point is that you are inconsistent in your appeal to Paul because you completely dismiss Paul’s words regarding homosexuality. Yet you clearly state, “I will go with Paul,” as if he is the definitive authority for your point of view. Your point is weakened because you do not “go with Paul” all the time as you claim, but merely in this thread to make a weak point. Your inconsistency across threads is what weakens your point in this one. It is you that made a claim about Paul’s authority in such matters. I am pointing out that you do not adhere - as you claim to do - to Paul’s authority in all things. That is being inconsistent

The fact that you refuse to answer the objection to your inconsistent use of Paul is telling as far as your argument goes. Feel free to report me, but at least come clean - if to no one but yourself - about when and where your thought processes falter.

 

[inocente]

I am merely pointing out two facts:

1. You “mined” Paul’s quote and selected a translation where Paul’s word would be more accurately rendered “disputer” or “dialectition” rather than as “philosopher.” So you are not really going with Paul at all, but a peculiar rendition of Paul. Paul also specifically added “of this age” meaning to the Corinthians the debaters or rhetoricians of their pagan culture, not seekers of wisdom or truth as a general category. Are you saying God is not the God of truth? Or that those who honestly seek the truth are not seeking God?
2. You brought Paul into the discussion as if you appeal to him as a definitive authority on philosophers. My point is that you are inconsistent in your appeal to Paul because you completely dismiss Paul’s words regarding homosexuality. Yet you clearly state, “I will go with Paul,” as if he is the definitive authority for your point of view. Your point is weakened because you do not “go with Paul” all the time as you claim, but merely in this thread to make a weak point. Your inconsistency across threads is what weakens your point in this one. It is you that made a claim about Paul’s authority in such matters. I am pointing out that you do not adhere - as you claim to do - to Paul’s authority in all things. That is being inconsistent

The fact that you refuse to answer the objection to your inconsistent use of Paul is telling as far as your argument goes. Feel free to report me, but at least come clean - if to no one but yourself - about when and where your thought processes falter.

You are a master of over-complication. Put aside winning debating points for a while and in Matthew Henry’s words, read with a simple heart and a teachable spirit. Then Paul’s meaning is clear, that God confounds human wisdom. He even quotes the Lord from Isaiah: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate”.

I suppose you’ll say those pesky translators got Isaiah all wrong as well, and the Lord actually said “I will listen carefully to the wisdom of philosophers, for they could teach me a thing or two”. And I suppose 1 Cor 1:26-27 should read “Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. Well you guys don’t stand an earthly, no chance of redemption without at least a PhD in metaphysics.”

Don’t quite work does it? Read with a simple heart and a teachable spirit.

And although I’ve said it four times now, you’ve not answered my objection that “if you read the entire epistle rather than mining a couple of lines out of context you will see he wasn’t speaking of that”. To repeat your last para, the fact that you refuse to answer this objection to your inconsistent use of Paul is telling as far as your argument goes. At least come clean - if to no one but yourself - about when and where your thought processes falter.

 

[tonyrey]

Evasion - I thought you wouldn’t be able to explain your statement, which was why I asked. So again, Schopenhauer was antisemitic, the Nazis used some of Nietzsche’s philosophy, philosophical principles = do whatever you like in the knowledge that you can use a philosopher somewhere to make it sound principled. Thus it is meaningless to say that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is based on philosophical principles since anything and everything can be called a philosophical principle.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité is a motto of the French Revolution, in which the Church lost a great deal of power. So are you claiming that the Church never worked out those principles in the one thousand eight hundred years before the Revolution, or that it kept them a big secret, or what?

1. The most fundamental branch of philosophy is **metaphysics **which is concerned with the interpretation of reality.
2. Theism is the **metaphysical **belief that there is a personal God.
3. The teaching of Jesus is based on the metaphysical fact that there is a personal God.
4. The **metaphysical **principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are based on the **metaphysical **fact revealed by Jesus we are all children of the same Father in heaven.
5. It is a fundamental Christian belief that there is a personal God who created us all to be free, equal and fraternal.
6. There is no other rational basis for the **metaphysical **principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Don’t quite work does it? Read with a simple heart and a teachable spirit.

I am not prepared to be simple-minded and gullible.

Recall:
**
"I’m sending you out like sheep among wolves. So be as cunning as snakes but as innocent as doves. (Matt 10:16)**

 

[inocente]

Don’t quite work does it? Read with a simple heart and a teachable spirit.
Peter Plato;10896413:

I am not prepared to be simple-minded and gullible.

Recall:
**
"I’m sending you out like sheep among wolves. So be as cunning as snakes but as innocent as doves. (Matt 10:16)**

Then you’re not following your own CCC: Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the Spirit is not fully "understood except by the Spirit’s action’. - CCC 137

A simple heart because Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. - Matt 5:8

A teachable spirit because the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you… - John 14:6

But it’s up to you if you want to deny that God confounds human wisdom.

And although I’ve said it four times now, you’ve not answered my objection that “if you read the entire epistle rather than mining a couple of lines out of context you will see he wasn’t speaking of that”. To repeat your last para, the fact that you refuse to answer this objection to your inconsistent use of Paul is telling as far as your argument goes. At least come clean - if to no one but yourself - about when and where your thought processes falter.

That makes five times. But yes, Romans is a long epistle, takes some reading.

 

[inocente]

1. The most fundamental branch of philosophy is **metaphysics **which is concerned with the interpretation of reality.
2. Theism is the **metaphysical **belief that there is a personal God.
3. The teaching of Jesus is based on the metaphysical fact that there is a personal God.
4. The **metaphysical **principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are based on the **metaphysical **fact revealed by Jesus we are all children of the same Father in heaven.
5. It is a fundamental Christian belief that there is a personal God who created us all to be free, equal and fraternal.
6. There is no other rational basis for the **metaphysical **principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Err… if metaphysics is the interpretation of reality then there are no metaphysical facts, there are only metaphysical interpretations.

The teaching of Jesus was certainly NOT based on anything as flimsy as metaphysical interpretations, Jesus IS god, no metaphysics required.

Jesus did not teach metaphysics, Jesus did not get His disciples from the metaphysics department of a university, Jesus does not require we have a PhD in metaphysics for salvation. To imagine so would be to deny Christ.

According to you every word, every thought, is metaphysics, which makes metaphysics meaningless, since absolutely anything goes.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité is quite obviously not a “fundamental Christian belief”, since it was never mentioned by any Christian church in the eighteen hundred years prior to being adopted as a motto of the French Revolution, when it was post-rationalized as Christian.

One of many examples of lack of liberté, égalité, fraternité was the suppression of Wycliffe’s Bible by a powerful minority who could read Latin, to keep their status quo.

Wycliffe was branded a heretic - the very concept of heresy denies liberty and equality.

 

[tonyrey]

*1. The most fundamental branch of philosophy is **metaphysics ***

Thank you for expressing your opinions.

 

[inocente]

Thank you for expressing your opinions.

Thank the Lord you finally saw the light.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then you’re not following your own CCC: Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the Spirit is not fully "understood except by the Spirit’s action’. - CCC 137

A simple heart because Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. - Matt 5:8

A teachable spirit because the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you… - John 14:6

But it’s up to you if you want to deny that God confounds human wisdom.

That makes five times. But yes, Romans is a long epistle, takes some reading.

God does not confound all human wisdom, only the audacious type practiced by human beings who think they can know God’s intentions on their own without relying on Apostolic Tradition and the authority of the Church guided by the Spirit.

Interesting that when you quote Scripture it is not engaging in quote mining, but when anyone else does it is. I guess just as long as it is in agreement with your rendition, things are fine.

I think it is a dangerous thing to assume the wisdom you possess is from God and not susceptible to being confounded just because you think it is. A teachable spirit Is one that is open to the truth, not one that thinks it already possesses the truth. You must have a very high opinion of your possession of truth and of being guided by the Spirit if you have the confidence to render personal interpretation as gospel truth. My benchmark is the Church and Church teaching. I don’t presume to be guided by the Spirit in all things.

The Catholic Church has a long tradition of using philosophy and logic to balance wild forays into heretical beliefs. The CCC does not advocate throwing out philosophy as you do, neither does it look with contempt on human thought processes, as you do. If you want to use the CCC to back up your points, then at least be honest and accept its authority in all things - not just in what you find agreeable. Speaking again of quote mining, this time with the CCC.

Again, your accusations of quote mining remain shallow until you can explain your inconsistency regarding Paul.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But it’s up to you if you want to deny that God confounds human wisdom.

Your take on God “confounding” human wisdom is interesting because it would seem to be not unlike what Satan does in his role as “deceiver” of human beings. According to you we are in real trouble because, on one side we have Satan who deceives us and on the other God who confounds us. Here we are stuck in the middle.

Personally, I think this is far too complicated. I doubt very much that God confounds those who honestly seek him and want with their whole heart to know the truth. He may confound those who have ulterior motives for gaining knowledge or use it for gain, but not simply to toy with our minds. God is not a deceiver and Christ is the truth. The best of science, philosophy, ethics and human thought generally are ordered towards the truth.

So, no I do not think God confounds human wisdom, but rather aides and abets it if and when it seeks him.

We are called to be absolutely sincere in our approach to truth (guileless as doves) and in our desire for goodness (pure of heart) but to not let clever word bending persuade us to believe things that are clearly not true (cunning as serpents.)

 

[inocente]

God does not confound all human wisdom, only the audacious type practiced by human beings who think they can know God’s intentions on their own without relying on Apostolic Tradition and the authority of the Church guided by the Spirit.

When you read Romans, you’ll find that Paul has answers for anyone who tries to frighten you with authority figures or makes you doubt whether you really received the Spirit. Answers like “the Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again” and “for I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation [including posters on the internet ], will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Interesting that when you quote Scripture it is not engaging in quote mining, but when anyone else does it is. I guess just as long as it is in agreement with your rendition, things are fine.

You don’t appear to know what the phrase means. Quoting verses is standard (and scholarly) practice, as a reminder of what an author said. On the other hand, quote mining refers to taking verses out of context and using them in contradiction to the author’s intention.

I think it is a dangerous thing to assume the wisdom you possess is from God and not susceptible to being confounded just because you think it is. A teachable spirit Is one that is open to the truth, not one that thinks it already possesses the truth. You must have a very high opinion of your possession of truth and of being guided by the Spirit if you have the confidence to render personal interpretation as gospel truth. My benchmark is the Church and Church teaching. I don’t presume to be guided by the Spirit in all things.

There are a couple of other posters who have said that, and I’ve asked where is this fabulous stuff which interprets scripture and only Catholics get to see, but then other posters said it doesn’t exist.

And be careful about not letting the Spirit guide you - back to Romans: “For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God”.

The Catholic Church has a long tradition of using philosophy and logic to balance wild forays into heretical beliefs. The CCC does not advocate throwing out philosophy as you do, neither does it look with contempt on human thought processes, as you do. If you want to use the CCC to back up your points, then at least be honest and accept its authority in all things - not just in what you find agreeable. Speaking again of quote mining, this time with the CCC.

Where did I say I have contempt for thinking? Did I quote CCC 137 contrary to the authors’ intentions? How?

First you jump threads on me, now you accuse me of dishonesty, please try to keep your male ego in check, all I’m doing is arguing that philosophy is a poor substitute for modern science.

Again, your accusations of quote mining remain shallow until you can explain your inconsistency regarding Paul.

There is no inconsistency, as I’ve said many, many times now, you’ve not answered my objection that “if you read the entire epistle rather than mining a couple of lines out of context you will see he wasn’t speaking of that”.

I guess it’s a compliment that all you’ve got left is ad hominem.

 

[inocente]

Your take on God “confounding” human wisdom is interesting because it would seem to be not unlike what Satan does in his role as “deceiver” of human beings. According to you we are in real trouble because, on one side we have Satan who deceives us and on the other God who confounds us. Here we are stuck in the middle.

Just read what’s written and leave aside my ham-fisted attempt to explain.

The only online Catholic commentary I know of is Haydock, who is too dry for me, but he says things like:

*Ver. 18. For the word of the cross. That is, the preaching that the Son of God, both God and man, died nailed to an infamous cross, is folly, is looked upon as ridiculous and incredible, by all obstinate unbelievers that perish: but it is received as the work of God, and an effect of his divine power, by such as are saved. (Witham)

Ver. 19-20. I will destroy the wisdom of the wise. I will confound the false and mistaken wisdom of the great and wise philosophers, of the learned doctors or scribes, of the curious searchers of the secrets of nature.*

Surely you can see Paul’s point here, it’s not rocket science?

We are called to be absolutely sincere in our approach to truth (guileless as doves) and in our desire for goodness (pure of heart) but to not let clever word bending persuade us to believe things that are clearly not true (cunning as serpents.)

Well good, do it.