WHY should we assume/suspect that the Christian doctrine is true?

[Marcgal]

Probably because “scientism” is an excellent tool for providing facts, but an it’s not a very good tool at providing meaning.

That seems true, nonetheless even the religion that aims to provide meaning should be well-founded, and even more, there must be some meaning in the first place

As these things are not measurable

This statement may be untrue.Science does attempt to measure culture, morality and the likes.

Since then, we have mostly replaced fascism with ideological radicalism of some stripe.

Can Singularitarianism be the today’s replacement? Ahhh, I believe that’s beyond the scope of this already too broad topic.

Yes, I find it to be more plausible. It’s what people were claiming.

It is what His disciples were claiming. If the followers of a cult claim some implausible supernatural miracles, allegedly performed by their leader, is this already a sufficient reason to believe these miracles are real? If someone’s body is missing, is this a sufficient reason to believe that he has been resurrected? If these two conditions are combined… is this still a sufficient reason to believe that the resurrection has really taken place?

And people were being killed for the claim.

Followers of the infamous Jim Jones were also inclined to give up their lives for him.

 

[Marcgal]

First and foremost, it feels right.

True, but given how often our intuition and common sense errs, this is not a plausible argument.

Second, because God loves us, He has revealed Himself to us in ourselves and in the universe around us. For example. God has revealed His is a Blessed Trinity. When I consider the universe, I see that Time is also a trinity, past, present and future, seamlessly melded into one thing. Space is also a trinity. Height, length, and depth, seamlessly combined into one thing.

This argument… I am somehow very dubious of its validity.

Third, there are so many things in this world which can not be explained by natural causes. They must be supernatural.

For example. Science has very recently discovered that this universe should not exist. There are to many anti-matter particles. The anti-matter particles should have destroyed all existing matter. They can’t figure out why the universe exists amidst in conjunction with these destructive forces.

This is the dreaded God of the gaps concept, I believe considered fallacious by Catholic theologians themselves.

And, there are the pre-existing laws of physics. These tell us how the all matter behaves. Thus, the universe is ruled in an orderly fashion by these laws. And if there are laws, there must be a Law Maker who put them in place.

This may look more convincing for me.

But we don’t have to go very far to be stunned to silence by the wonder of our world. Just look at yourself. Even the least of any creature is superbly made. Who could have done it, but God?

Now I’m not sure, but isn’t this the dreaded Intelligent Design concept, dismissed by Catholic theologians and scientists themselves?

 

[Marcgal]

Whew. I’m done, for today.

Guys, I’m deeply grateful for Your replies. Really. And I’m deeply sorry for discussing it in this way. Answering everything in a wall of text and in such a hasty manner.

 

[De_Maria]

True, but given how often our intuition and common sense errs, this is not a plausible argument.

You’re contradicting yourself. I said that it feels right. That is the definition of plausible:

plau·si·ble
ˈplôzəb(ə)l/Submit
adjective
(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.
“a plausible explanation”
synonyms: credible, reasonable, believable, likely, feasible, tenable, possible, conceivable, imaginable; More
(of a person) skilled at producing persuasive arguments, especially ones intended to deceive.
“a plausible liar”

So, I said, “It feels right”. And you said, “True”. Therefore, you agreed that it’s plausible.

Then, for no apparent reason, you said it’s not plausible.

I think you’re trying too hard to find a reason to disagree.

This argument… I am somehow very dubious of its validity.

Yep. In this case, you don’t even provide a reason. You simply disagree.

This is the dreaded God of the gaps concept, I believe considered fallacious by Catholic theologians themselves.

No. I read an article this morning that says that scientists are wondering how the world can exist when anti-matter should have destroyed it when it was created. It should have been a still birth, so to speak.

However, speaking of the God of the Gaps idea. That is a term ascribed to St. Paul’s reasoning which says that nature screams out the evidence for the existence of God. It is actually a very good reason to believe. But skeptics dismiss it because that’s what they do. They have no reason except to say, “I don’t think so.” That’s not a reason. Here’s what St. Paul said:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

This may look more convincing for me.

The truth is true whether you believe it or not.

Now I’m not sure, but isn’t this the dreaded Intelligent Design concept, dismissed by Catholic theologians and scientists themselves?

No. It’s from the Bible.

Psalm 139:14
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

Yep. You seem sort of bent on dismissing any reasons to believe.

 

[DetectiveNiko]

Why, if I recall I’ve read a Catholic! commentary to the Scripture, which implied that in the times of Jesus they were SINCERILY convinced otherwise, since a totally different interpretation of the prophecies was believed by them!

I would agree to some extent.But just cause the the Jews thought so, does not mean they were right.
For example they expected a rebuilding (again) of the temple. And that never happened in a literal sense.
They were used to literal temple rebuilding and thought it would be the same that time, but in fact Jesus was the temple itself that was rebuilt. (Ressurected)

Well when I was making the point for the church lasting 2000 years, I would agree with you its pretty short, but I see it a bit differently in my eyes. If you look online today, christanity is most under attack and while the Church could do a lot to make it more stable, it never changes any beliefs for the sake of clearing up a mess. This can be seen from example today when the church is constantly under attack for its teaching on the theology of the body. Yet it hasn’t changed a single rule like : “X is not a sin anymore”
That is what I meant by fallen apart. If you also look at it, people back in history had way less attacks on faith because people believed everything they were told as they didnt have any way to check it.

Maybe, though as far as I’m aware Catholic scientists like Michał Heller the Templeton Prize winner think this philosophy was obsoleted by modern science.

The closest thing I could find is this
But that only shows that he holds this worldview, and doesn’t show the objections , so I would ask if you could give me sources for the refutations of Thomistic thinking.
While I don’t agree that its made obsolete,I agree that it should be extended to fit with modern science.
Theres not a lot to change though from my point of view, as Thomas rarely makes scientific claims, only metaphysical ones. Metaphysics is more philosophy than physics.

As far as I’m aware according to Catholic theology the Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle and private apparitions that happen since then cannot add anything new, but rather they can only help people understand the Revelation and apply it to their contemporary times. Granted, this might not invaluate your argument, though. Still, each private apparition needs to be proved itself

I would agree, and I would say Fatima has always fascinated me,and its one of the apparitions that has a lot of evidence to back it up.
By revelation I meant apparitions,sorry if that confused you.I do agree that public revelation is pretty much over with the death of the last apostholes.

This guy is not Catholic but he gives good points regarding the ressurection
Well I was reffering to things in general being consistent not just doctorine. Doctorine changes over time, while infallible teachings are yet to be challanged.

 

[MonteRCMS]

If you want to freak out, then read up on “dark matter” … Around 70+% of the energy “out there” is unexplainable.

Make up for it by frequent visits to The Blessed Sacrament.

Eucharistic Adoration.

 

[Vonsalza]

That seems true, nonetheless even the religion that aims to provide meaning should be well-founded, and even more, there must be some meaning in the first place

I can dance to that. As long as all dancing-parties involved also recognizes that “well founded” is wildly subjective.

This statement may be untrue.Science does attempt to measure culture, morality and the likes.

Generally poorly, and with the heavy use of proxies [enter: selection bias]. Scientific replies are generally summed up with with the popular debate line from the 2000s boom of these kinds of debates; “It’s not that science can’t answer the question, it’s that you’re asking the wrong question”.

And because it came from the charismatic mouth of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, everyone went “Oooh. Ok” instead of “No, that’s the question I asked. If you can’t answer it, just say so”.

Can Singularitarianism be the today’s replacement? Ahhh, I believe that’s beyond the scope of this already too broad topic.

No no no. Today’s replacement is simply radical ideology of all stripes. Including a skewed “scientism”.

 

[eddietoo]

we can all be sure that believing only the physical world exists and is real is a totally blind faith. why? because their is no evidence supporting such a belief.

everyone, except for the psychotically delusional, accepts the existence of the physical world. that is not in question. also, it is not a belief. it is a fact.

but to posit that ONLY the physical world exists is totally a belief; and, it is a belief based on NOTHING, i.e. a totally blind belief.

a person can adopt such a belief, but to expect anyone to join them in such a display of absurdity without some kind of evidence is absurd.

 

[eddietoo]

why would a person believe an absurdity such as ONLY the physical universe exists when there is absolutely no evidence to support such a belief?

one reason i can think of is because such a person does not want to acknowledge there is something superior to themselves. it is a kind of arrogance and overweening pride. to acknowledge the existence of the spiritual realm is to place oneself in of acknowledging there is something greater than oneself.

 

[eddietoo]

there is an abundance of evidence that something besides the physical world exists.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

No , we are not asked to assume something is true. Instead, we are called to “prove everything; hold fast to what is good.” (1 Thess 5:21). In other words, when we evaluate the evidence, we must use reason, experience, and compare that to testimony.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Some skeptics erroneously cling to a theory of knowledge that only that which is seen is to be believed. That’s absurd, as it is not how anybody on the planet actually gathers knowledge or commits to certain decisions in their life. For example, I have never seen the dark side of the moon. Should I therefore doubt its existence? Of course not. Even though I have not personally experienced something, I do also conclude based upon reason and the testimony of others.

God wants us to reason. “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD” (Is 1:18); “You shall reason with your neighbor” (Lev 19:17); “ lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me” (Dan 4:34); “Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence” (1 Pet 3:15).

In order to reason, we need to learn how. Unfortunately, many people never learn how.

 

[Marcgal]

You’re contradicting yourself. I said that it feels right. That is the definition of plausible:

OK, you got me: I used the words incorrectly, blame my English. This still doesn’t invalidate the argument that saying that something feels right for our intuition or common sense is still FAR from proving that something is true.

Again, our intuition and common sense errs so many times… the argument that something “feels” right is weak.

Yep. In this case, you don’t even provide a reason. You simply disagree.

Let me elaborate myself. What you say is that God is in Trinity and many things in the word are also triple-in-one. However, proving correlation is still FAR from proving causation, and in this case even the correlation might be coincidental.

Many things in the world are round. There are squares, of course, but a perfect square is an impossibility, and even more fundamentally than a perfect circle. We can say that there can be no perfect square; but a perfect circle doesn’t exist purely because if the imperfection and enthrophy of our world. Does this mean that God is rotund? Does this mean that the figure of circle has some inherent phylosophical, metaphysical, mystic meaning? I’m afraid that going down this path will only lead to nonsense at best and some dangerous esoterical crap at worst.

No. I read an article this morning that says that scientists are wondering how the world can exist when anti-matter should have destroyed it when it was created. It should have been a still birth, so to speak.

This is the most classical God of the Gaps fallacy. Please read about how Newton was thinking that God must be preventing the world from imploding. AFAIK a scientific explanation why the world is not imploding has been already found.

The problem of this fallacy is that the fact that science cannot explain a NATURAL phenonenon yet simply means that science is not advanced enough yet and not that the problem is unexplanable by science! Again, even theologians reject this line of argument.!

St. Paul’s reasoning which says that nature screams out the evidence for the existence of God.

That may be so, however if it is true then the argument must be more subtle than that, probably more akin to Aquinas’ FIve Ways cited in this thread a few times already. To citing Thomas my answer is “maybe”: I’m to weak philosophycally to judge.

No. It’s from the Bible.

Intelligent Design fallacy incorrectly assumes that under the laws of physics the world could not evolve to its present form only by natural processes and it must have been guided by some external intelligence. They even try to “scientifically prove” it. If this is not what You mean , then I’m sorry.

If, on the other hand, you mean Aquina’s argument from degree or Aquina’s teleological argument (4th and 5th argument from the Five Ways), then as above, you may have a point, thought I’m too weak philosophycally to judge.

 

[Marcgal]

Yep. You seem sort of bent on dismissing any reasons to believe.

I’m 90% sure that your argument from anti-matter is fallacious EVEN UNDER CATHOLIC THEOLOGY and, say, 70% sure that the same can be said about your argument from trinity.

This may look more convincing for me.

THis is because the same cannot be told about the argument from the Law Maker.

 

[Marcgal]

Yet it hasn’t changed a single rule like : “X is not a sin anymore”

Well to be precise… Chinese Rites controversy - Wikipedia

But that only shows that he holds this worldview, and doesn’t show the objections , so I would ask if you could give me sources for the refutations of Thomistic thinking.

Unfortunately at this point I can’t say much more than that: I’ve read that Heller believes that Thomism is at odds with modern science. I suppose that I should read this book of him you’ve linked a review of. I also suppose that to understand Heller’s argument I probably should be more advanced in both Thomism and theoretical physics than I am… I can only say that if a scientist AND theologian thinks so then probably he must have a point.

While I don’t agree that its made obsolete,I agree that it should be extended to fit with modern science.

According to Polish WPedia Heller used to believe this as well, but later concluded that this task would be “backbreaking”.

This guy is not Catholic but he gives good points regarding the ressurection

Thank you for an interesting read. For his arguments I can only say that, again, there were people in the history willing to give up their lifes for some bizzarre claims. Oddly, though, I now think than the argument from ISIS is fallacious, as I recall reading that according to the British intelligence only few people are really driven into this fanatical nonsense by strong religious beliefs.

I really wonder how strong the argument from early CHristian martyrdom actually is. Can this martyrdom be explained by human’s brain’s inclination to strongly believe bizzarre claims? I do not know.

 

[Marcgal]

that “well founded” is wildly subjective.

It shoulnd’t be.

Generally poorly, and with the heavy use of proxies

Maybe. I only know that some scientists claim that applying for example the game theory yields good results in not only explaining, but even predicting people’s behaviors. However, I’m not knowledgeable in the field enough to know how well founded these claims are.

Today’s replacement is simply radical ideology of all stripes. Including a skewed “scientism”.

Isn’t Singularitarianism a pretty radical ideology itself?

 

[Marcgal]

we can all be sure that believing only the physical world exists and is real is a totally blind faith. why? because their is no evidence supporting such a belief.

A scientist would answer that it is not totally blind faith until evidence for the existence of a supernatural world comes up.

Having said that

there is an abundance of evidence that something besides the physical world exists.

I agree that there are some good points to support the claims of the existence of something beyound the physical world.

 

[Marcgal]

This is odd. What you say seems to boil down to claiming that God’s existence is a scientifically proven fact, proven just as unquestrionably as the existence of the other side of the moon. Am I right, or am I misinterpreting your statement?

 

[Marcgal]

If you want to freak out, then read up on “dark matter” … Around 70+% of the energy “out there” is unexplainable.

The dreaded God of the Gaps fallacy, commonly rejected even by Catholic theologians.

Make up for it by frequent visits to The Blessed Sacrament.

Eucharistic Adoration.

This, admittedly, I prob should be doing more consistently.

 

[De_Maria]

OK, you got me: I used the words incorrectly, blame my English. This still doesn’t invalidate the argument that saying that something feels right for our intuition or common sense is still FAR from proving that something is true.

I thought that you had wisely, not asked for proof. But for reasons.

You said:

My precise idea for a topic is to ask You to outline me the reasons why it should be believed that the Catholic doctrine is, simply, true.

We can give you evidence for our belief. But we can’t make you believe. Nor can science give you proof either. All we can do is give you evidence that you can compare.

Again, our intuition and common sense errs so many times… the argument that something “feels” right is weak.

Not if you have confidence in yourself. Not if you consider that in every generation, MOST people have believed in God. Not if you consider that this is only one of the arguments and there are many more. Not if you also consider that in rejecting this argument, the naysayers have nothing but a feeling that it isn’t true. And the naysayers argument about every proof that is provided, amounts to, I don’t believe it. And as you said, that is the weakest argument there is.

Let me elaborate myself. What you say is that God is in Trinity and many things in the word are also triple-in-one.

Name one thing that is not “triple in one”. If you do that, you will have proved that God does not exist.

However, proving correlation is still FAR from proving causation, and in this case even the correlation might be coincidental.

But correlation is evidence for causation. And you have not provided a shred of evidence that there is no causation. You are simply following the atheistic protocol of denying that which is evident and claiming that your simple denial somehow weighs more than the evidence presented.

cont’d