Catholic Exchange

Angels, Part 1

As the existence of everything from SETI to Star Trek attests, our civilization is fascinated with the question of the existence of non-human intelligences. The Faith says that we already know of at least one such class of creature. It is called an "angel". However, our culture's response to the existence of the angelic is deeply confused.

Materialists have long scoffed at angels in their knee-jerk way, but now are (unwittingly) placing themselves in a bit of a bind in their effort to go on scoffing at God.

It's like this: the universe science is discovering is fantastically fine-tuned. If the strong nuclear force constant were not just so, either no hydrogen or nothing but hydrogen would have formed after the Big Bang. If the gravitational force constant were not just so stars would be too hot or too cold for life. If the electromagnetic force constant were not just so, chemical bonding for life could not occur. If the expansion rate of the universe were not just so, either no galaxies would form or the universe would collapse back to a singularity. And on and on this goes for over thirty different variables, all requiring fine tuning of such a degree that expressing the odds of getting them all right would require writing more zeros than I can fit in an 800 word article.

 Because of the immense fine-tuning of the universe, sensible theists are rather understandably reminded of Paul's remarks in Romans 1 that "Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made." But fallen man is nothing if not ingenious, so not a few materialists have lately attempted to lick this problem of the fine-tuned universe by positing what is known as the "Multiverse" theory. According to this evidence-free theory, the ultra-super-duper fine tuning of basic physical laws which strongly suggests that You Know Who might have had a hand in the creation is just a statistical illusion. Based on absolutely no facts at all, some materialists insist the reason the universe looks ultra-fined for life is that we just happen to be lucky enough to live in the one-out-of-an-infinite-number-of-universes where all the physical laws happen to be fine-tuned enough to produce us. According to this theory, there are, in fact, an infinite number of other universes with other physical laws tuned to other variables. This is not the sort of thing that would keep you from getting shot in Deadwood, South Dakota in the 1880s ("Wal, pardner, I cain't hep it if every hand I'm dealt is four aces. We jes' happen to live in the multiverse where I always git four aces!") but it is a consolation to atheist materialists desperate to avoid You Know Who.

The problem for the atheist is this: If, for the special purpose of getting rid of God, you can say there are an infinite number of "natures" out there, why can't the Christian say the same thing?

Christianity does not really posit a three story universe (Hell, Earth, Heaven). It posits a universe with (potentially) any number of natures—and even the possibility that such natures can interact. In the Tradition, "Earth" refers to the creation we can see: not just the planet on which we live but the whole field of time, space, matter and energy to the furthest reaches of the furthest galaxy. Similarly, "Heaven" refers, not simply to God (the "Highest Heaven"), but to the realm(s) of the angels and even of the demonic "powers and principalities". Such natures are "higher" than we are in the order of nature and so the angels are traditionally pictured floating around in Heaven next to God. But, of course, there is an infinite gulf between the Creator and his angels just as there is an infinite gulf between the Creator and us (in the order of nature).

Revelation speaks of these "in between" angelic natures only insofar as it concerns us so we know only a little. The angels, which are pure intelligence without corporeal bodies, exist to praise God and to help us in our salvation. The demons are angels who have refused an affirmative to the fundamental law of existence: to worship the Triune God who is life, love, truth, goodness and beauty. They are the enemies of creation because they are the enemies of the Creator. For the purposes of our salvation, all we need to know is that.

Unfortunately, the devil being a liar, we have been fuddled. So rejecting atheistic materialism is not enough. Next week, we will look at the opposite problem from atheistic materialism: the New Age tendency to love angels more than angels want to be loved.

(This piece was first published in the National Catholic Register.)

Comments

145 responses to “Angels, Part 1”

  1. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Yet another installment against atheists! This time concerning the so called "argument from design" which, as an argument, fails. When Mark quotes Paul, here is an example of argument from design.

    The basic problem with these arguments is that they are self referentially refuting. Example. This means, among other things, that the one who looks at the intricacies of the universe – lets say in an objective scientific manner – and is amazed at how well it all interdependently orks together and then exclaims the following: "Wow! It is not just intricate and well fitting, it must have got that way because of a designer who made it happen that way." Here then is an utterly  unwarranted conclusion taken from the premises. 

    Anyone possessing a modicum of knowledge of logic can immediately see the fallacy here. The conclusion " Wow! A Designer!" is not warrantedly taken from the mere objective observation of the intricate workings of the universe.  Not warrnted from the premises.

    As an argument, all Arguments from Design are tautological. In essense they say, " Because the cosmos looks so intricate it looks sort of well fitted, and as well fited, also fine tuned. It must have been designed to be so well fitted and fine tuned, thus there must be a Designer."  It reduces to saying, " The universe is made by God because it is fine tuned by God." This is meaningless babble as an argument.

    To introduce God from the observation of intricating and minutely well fworking cosmos is a bogus move in argument.

    "Design" is not "evidence" of anything. Argument from design is not evidenced based. "Multi-universe " is however evidenced basde although not uniformly accepted by scientists. Design arguments look alluring at firts blush. They fail because  presupposing what they seeks to prove.

  2. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    A good article for a starting point on several points of discussion.  Concerning the first reply to this article, I wonder why it is that atheists and others who deny that the Almighty created this universe will not address what many physicists are saying now: there is order and structure to Creation and it came from somewhere.  Furthermore, what a physicist will say about origins is becoming an increasingly different statement than an evolutionary theorist.  Cosmological Theory is in many ways, at issue with Evolutionary Theory but that will not be discussed in the mainstream media for fear of not being politically correct.

    Joseph Bailey

  3. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall, St. Paul under inspiration of the Holy Spirit said that "Ever since the creation of the world [God's] invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made." He goes on to say — under inspiration — that all human beings are without excuse regarding the recognition of a Creator. You seem very determined to offer just exactly the excuse that God says athiests do not possess. Apparently you do not believe that the Apostle is inspired, and you do not believe what the Church teaches in saying that natural reason is sufficient to establish the existence and attributes of God. We get that Lwall. We really do get it.

  4. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan,

    Are you actually suggesting that because the Bible and the Catholic Church teach us that God is the Creator of the Universe and all that is in it that we should profess it publicly? 

    How should we react to those (atheists/agnostics/humanists/etc.) with radically different beliefs that they hold as dearly as we hold our beliefs?  And how should we react when attacked, not questioned with a sincere intent to understand, as being delusional, ignorant, bigoted, etc. because we don't value their interpretation of the origin of the world? 

    By the way, you may get it, but you're about to get an earful about how you really don't get it…

  5. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    If we're looking for examples of meaningless babble, how about the statement: '"Design" is not "evidence" of anything'. This posting is a classic example of fingers-in-the-ears-eyes-closed-and-humming atheism.

    Assuming design from fine-tuning is objective, scientific and perfectly logical (until a better argument comes up, or course). Do we know of any other reason for fine-tuning? If we find a watch in the desert, must we assume that it 'just happened' on its own? Insisting on that daft multiverse idea isn't science, it's ideology masquerading as science – and a particularly vicious, intolerant and dangerous ideology at that!

  6. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    To give lwall credit what he has quoted is the straw man argument against design theory which is put forward by those trying to refute it.  He has also shown he has no understanding of the basic premises of the actual theory.  Not that the article in this editorial style was intended to or attempted explaining it either.

      

    Let me try and elucidate somewhat:

     

     

    Suppose their existed in deep space a space station.  There are 30 variables that need to be maintained in order to support life within the station.  Gravity, air, heat, etc.

      

    Further let’s say the gages instruments had to be set with extraordinary accuracy ( + or – 1millenth)  or the fail safe mechanism in the station would shut them all down to 0.

      

    When the original builders of the station finished building it they shut everything down.

      

    Upon return they found ALL 30 gauges were set to precisely the necessary values to support life.

      

    Which do you think more likely?

     

    a)      that some kind of (unaccounted for) intelligence was responsible for the setting of the gauges ?

     

    b)      that some random chance occurrence caused all the gauges independently to take the correct value?

      

    Design theory chooses (A) and suggests as evidence the extraordinary unlikelihood of something of this nature occurring randomly as evidence to support the hypothesis.

      

    They also make ( perhaps someone misguidedly) an attempt to equate the criteria used to recognize that an artifact ( in the case of archeology ) or an signal ( in the case of the SETI program) are caused by intelligence.

      

    Specifically ( it’s occurrence is not easily accounted for without the interference of intelligence).  The primary issue of coarse being they are applying the criteria to a sample size of 1.  I suppose arguably a sample size of 30?

  7. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mamreilly, uh, yes we should profess it publically and we do every Sunday Mass. At least I do; don't know about you.

    You asked: "How should we react when attacked, not questioned with a sincere intent to understand, as being delusional, ignorant, bigoted, etc. because we don't value their interpretation of the origin of the world?"

    If we are attacked and there is no sincere desire to understand on the part of our opponents, then we should probably just pray for them.  At the same time, we should make sure that we understand them as well as we can, both in order to protect those whose souls are in our care and in order to be ready to give our opponents an answer should they have a change of heart that opens their ears.

    But it is just silly to decide that the Church should stop declaring the truth that God created the world just because a tiny minority of people don't accept it. And I remind you that in all of human history up to today only the tiniest sliver of humanity has ever rejected the argument from design (as iterated by St. Paul) — for most poeple it is self-evident the moment they look up at the sky.

    As for "valuing" the atheists' "interpretation of the origin of the world," allow me to point out that there is no such animal. There are several materialistic speculations of the origin of what we see and how it is that we see it (for some account of consciousness is incumbent upon anyone who takes up the question), but all of them actually stop before what could be called an "origin." To take the mulitverse theory for example — it is nonsense to say that positing many universes instead of one solves any question of origin. It does not in anyway address existence itself. Some materialists admit that getting to the question of existence itself leads to metaphysical considerations that they have a priori ruled out as not legitimate subjects of inquiry, but they shrug that off as leaving them in no worse position than the theist who cannot answer, "Where did God come from." I think philosopically theirs is the much weaker position, since they must posit existence as an attribute of everything they observe but can give no account of existence itself. Whereas the theist is able to say that existence itself (being personal) possesses the ability of sharing being with other things. In other words the athiest is left with no acount of being or consciousness (other than to theorize an epiphenomenon and claim that "someday" we will prove it) whereas the theist has a conscious account of being itself.

    For anyone who is determined not to believe (and expereince and Scripture tells there are such) this will not be enough. Nothing will be enough and they may mock us with any number of epithets.  I don't understand why that should worry you so much. consdiering that some Christians have been torn apart by lions for confessing Christ, being called names is not much of a badge of martyrdom.

  8. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Fishman: I have no what? I sat on a symposium panel for 6 months at my university where we examined design theory for 6 months! I think I know whereof I speak.

    The panel consisted on profs of religion, biology, evolutionists,creationists, philosphers, grad students in math and bio, and political theorsts. Go take a cold shower.

    The upshot is that one can not logically infer "designer" from the fact of order.

    The Paley watch example is lame. All made man arifacts have a maker!

    That a watch found on the shore side points to a human maker can not be inflated to say that all things in nature have a maker. Simple logic.

     You may want the argument  to work so as to advance your anti-atheist attack of irrrationality ad nauseum ala Mark's package; or to assuge spiritual angst.

     But it does not work as an argument, nor as  a demonstaion, nor as a proof.

     

    Terms like "fine tuning" and "design" stack the deck a priori! They assume what pretends to be the object of the proof ; they locate the conclusion in the premis! Thus to say fine tuned assumes a fine tuner. To say designed assumes a designer.

    This is not an argument. This is not proof.

    Is there no one out theer with brains enough to see that? 

  9. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan : Paul made no argument. He made a confession.  Faith  in God as Creator is what we state in the Creed. That is to say, it is a belief. It is not the conclusion of arguments from design nor from any argument whatever.

  10. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall,

    There are forms of knowledge besides strict logic.  Besides, no one is trying to PROVE that God exists, only show that based on reason it is much more likely than the alternative.

    You may say that order does not infer a designer.  Maybe not absolutely, logically speaking, but as a matter of fact, we always assume that order of a certain level of complexity is, in fact, designed.  As a matter of fact, there is no absolute proof that the wedding ring I am wearing right now was designed.  However, I am quite confident that it was, even though theoretically it could have been created by some as-yet unknown natural process on the moons of Jupiter and brought here by a chance orbit of a comet.

    You claim yourself to be a Catholic, yet dispute statements made in the Bible and by the First Vatican Council (as pointed out in last weeks Shea thread).  You may want to look into that.

     

  11. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mckochan,

    I'm sorry – I was actually being facetious.  I just got done with a long drawn out discussion with lwall in the Marcellus D'Ambrosio article on humility and was trying to prepare you for the backlash that was coming…  You might find the whole thing interesting reading before you engage lwall in a "debate"…  by the way, I love your "pray for them" response – I posited the same argument to lwall and was told I was a narrow-minded bigot…

    I don't worry about what atheists think other than to know what the enemy is thinking so as to better be prepared to defend against it and warn others against the folly of their belief (or non-belief as it were) system.

  12. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Pillar : We Cathiolics need to start making sense! Everytime someone proffers arguments, appeals to reason, refers to proofs etc. which are subsequebtly shown by me to be far from the mark, then all of a sudden all the prior lofty ( and erroneous ) claims get retracted! "Oh, we did not mean them as proofs! We did not mean then as an rational argument leading to a conclusion."

    Under duress, you change the color of your stripes!

    This type of slippery move and dishonesty is one among other things which makes us look so bad!

    And we deserve it!

     

  13. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Usually I keep quiet and simply read the discussion threads, but this time I'll jump in.

    With respect to the first comment that was made, I think Mark is smarter than that.

    If the Statue of David were unearthed tomorrow in a gravel pit, nobody would say that its self-evident beauty, precision, and perfection were the result of mere chance. Nobody would try to explain the statue as the result of random natural forces; instead, all would agree that a sculptor had been at work. Nobody would claim that, obviously, there were a trillion trillion other statues out there in other gravel pits in other universes and ours just happened to be the one that was just right, with that perfect air of preternatural beauty and the toenails clipped just so.

    The problem with materialist philosophy is that nobody lives that way. Any ten-year-old will tell you that when Mom says, "Go upstairs and clean your room," it does no good to sit on the bed and stare at the mess, waiting for it to order itself. It takes a mind that knows where things should go and muscle to put them in their places–in short, an intellect and a will–to bring order out of the chaos of a messy room. Yet many scientists, with their advanced degrees and prestigious positions at large universities, seem to lack the common sense of a ten-year-old.

    What is the remedy? I'm not sure, but it would really help to put the "philosophy" back in "doctor of philosophy," so that our degree holders will have a way of thinking about reality that leads to conclusions grounded in common sense and everyday language.

    So, what about the thoughts of whoever's next in line?

  14. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall you wrote: Paul made no argument. He made a confession.  Faith  in God as Creator is what we state in the Creed. That is to say, it is a belief. It is not the conclusion of arguments from design nor from any argument whatever.

    True But what exactly is it a confession of substantially Lwall?  It is a confession of the belief not merely that God made the world, but that God's "eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made" — so here is my question: Do you also confess with St. Paul that God's eternal power and deity has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made, or not?

  15. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall,

    Where I part ways with you is that I don't think an argument must necessarily be a PROOF, much less a proof in the scientific sense, and I don't think anyone has said that any argument is a proof of God's existence.  As I and others have pointed out, if it WERE a proof, we would no longer need faith.

    I could advance many arguments to show that my wife loves me.  I can, however, advance no proofs.  A cynic could poke a logical hole in every single argument I could make to show that my wife loves me.  However, is there any doubt in my mind?  None whatsoever.

    How about Pascal's Wager?  That certainly is not a proof that we should follow God, nor does it even purport to be.  It does, however, make a pretty effective argument.

  16. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Don't know of any atheist scientists who have given their life in martrydom for what they know or suspected to be true. There is however a St. Mark and others who said "I stake my life on it". The ultimate witness. We do know of some in la-la land who have taken their own life in confusion. That doesn't count. I suspect (no evidence) that one of the many unique spots in hell will be a symposium of very intelligent people who will discuss the big questions and at the end of it they will always come back to the beginning and never get anywhere.

  17. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    No. Not if that beautiful Pauline confessional statement gets manipulated by you and others, harnessed to a horse, and then whipped by you into an "argument" or "proof".

    It is not a proof nor an argument. It holds no water as a proof as all other rguments from design are leaky.

    Pual's is an appeal to allow ourselves to be awed, as was Paul, by the beauty of creation as well as to let oneself experience the existential shock that there is something not nothing.

    It is more akin to St. Augustine's beautiful little confessional play contained in  ? "Book One" of the Confessions  where the stars etc. answer back,

    Paul can not be made into a "Biblical basis" for arguments from design. Paul made no argument. Paul had no idea of the intricacy and stats that fuel the design argument

     Paul was as Augustine, a mystic and a lover who "knew" with the certainty that flows from the leap into faith.

     

    Besides, "has been clearly perceived" does not mean " perceived" as in direct sense knowledge, as "I see the bird on the tree."

    Rather, perceived captures the poetic features of a confession made from the heart in the face of an enormity and an existential awarewness which is beyond rational words.

    Nor does "perceived" mean some quality of experience such that I am now compelled to translate that experience into a rational argument or proof.

    Recall that even St Thomas did not think of his five proofs as incontrovertible proof!

     

  18. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Or as Christoph Cardinal Schönborn,  lead editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, put it: 

    The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.

    Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense – an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection – is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

    Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature:

    "All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator."

    He went on: "To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems."

    Note that in this quotation the word "finality" is a philosophical term synonymous with final cause, purpose or design. In comments at another general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, "It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity."

    Naturally, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees: "Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason." It adds: "We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance."

    Read his New York Times column here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?ex=1278388800&en=95804819e49f4832&ei=5090

    I think Lwall would find this caution from the same author congenial however:

    One thing should be clear, and it requires a frankly theological explication: Let us not be excessively hasty in wanting to demonstrate “intelligent design” everywhere as a matter of apologetics. Like Job, we do not know the answer to suffering and chaos. We have been given only one answer—but that from God himself: The Logos, through whom and in whom everything was created, has assumed flesh; the cross is the key to God’s plan and decisions. As important and indispensable as renewed effort in matters of natural philosophy may be, the Word from the cross is God’s final Wisdom. For through his holy cross, he has reconciled the entire world. And the cross is the gate to the Resurrection.

    If the Resurrection of Christ is, as Pope Benedict said in his 2006 Easter Homily, the “explosion of love” that has dissolved the indissoluble network of “death and becoming,” then we may also say that this is the goal of evolution. We know its meaning from its end, its fulfillment. Even if it sometimes seems without goal or direction in its individual steps, the lengthy path has had a purpose toward Easter and from Easter onward. We gladly affirm the Christian understanding, derived from Greek and Jewish culture before, that unaided reason can attain basic knowledge of the purposes built into nature and the intelligence behind it. But it is only through God’s self-revelation in Christ, and our response of faith, that we can begin to glimpse the ultimate purpose of the cosmos and to trust in God’s provident care of all cosmic details. It is not that “the path is the goal.” Rather, the Resurrection and the Second Coming of the Lord are the purpose of the path.

    This last from the good Cardinal's article in First Things found here: http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5464

  19. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I do not want to speak for lwall, but I get the impression from his postings that to be a believer requires not a convincing rational proof, but a personal, subjective experience in relationship to God.  His position seems to be that to argue with a non-believer that one can come to belief without this subjective, individual relational experience is futile.

    So, as I understand lwall, we believe not because we buy into the argument that atheists are illogical or irrational. We believe because we have this personal experience.

    Unless I'm wrong about lwall's take on this.

    Mary's take is that the Church teaches that it is possible to come to believe from our natural reason.

    I might add that lwall's style is somewhat provocative, which causes pretty strong reactions.

  20. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    protect –

    You might also add that if you understand lwall's position correctly ( which I hope you don't) his position in heretical because it has been declared in the church that it is possible to come to God by the light of the intellect.  ( as did , perhaps , Aristotle ).  This is to take nothing away from faith, but a great complement to the creation that man is meant to be.

  21. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    That's right PTR, it's the personal experience that touches the heart and soul and the person appears to act irrationally as believers and lovers often do. God acted irrationally in: "For God so loved the world…." To argue all of this using the scientific model puts you in another tailspin. A person must go into these discussions with the free will that wants to reconcile these seemingly opposing faculties. To persist in seperating them is to look at the complex wonder that is a person in fragmented terms and is the work of the Devider. The Church in all it's wisdom teaches us to intergrate these faculties and not pit them against each other. To do otherwise is to wage a battle of disitergration and self-distruction. Are not these the makings of wars and ultimatley hell?

  22. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Theses are now finally some interesting posts.

    As to distinction between arguments and proofs, which now many on this site believes rescues their position : " Oh. Mark and I do not intend proofs. Just a convincing argument that eveyone is obligated to see on pains of going to hell in the case of not!"

    Fine. Make your distinction. It's factitious at best.

    There is no way to conclude from the fact of order and structure to  the conclusion for God as creator.

    St Thomas attenuated the force of his own proofs.

    Actualy, as I write this, it comes to me that it is a  most futile task. I quit.

    Go ahead. Keep railing on and on about proofs and arguments, how atheists are irrational, incapable of the good, should be avoided, are incoherent…pick'em apart til they  drop dead if that makes you happy.

    I think it would make you happy.

  23. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall –

    " I have no what? I sat on a symposium panel for 6 months at my university where we examined design theory for 6 months! I think I know whereof I speak. " 

    I intended no offense but made an assumption based on your poor argument against design theory and your misstatement of the hypothesis.  My apologies.  

    If one considers that it is possible that a cell phone, or watch or other extremely complex thing may have come to be through random chance deep in a cave where it is assumed no intelligent being is has trod.

     One must also accept it is by far and large not the likeliest explanation.

    The fact that the existence of the universe capable of supporting life is probabilistically of vanishingly small odds, so unlikely indeed in the common nomenclature one would say impossible. Does not necessarily mean that the odds were 'fixed'.

    Also, that fact that someone wins the California lottery 100 times consecutively should not cause us to jump to the conclusion the lottery is fixed either. ( but anyone who doesn’t is still a fool.)

    The likelihood it wasn’t fixed is vanishingly small. 

    Science requires a type of faith as well.  The assumption is that if something can be shown to be true within an accepted percentile (usually the 90th or 95th ) percentile that it is ‘most likely to be true’. 

    So then what should we make of the fact that the odds of the universe that can support life could come into existence without someone or thing fixing the variables is a vanishingly small probability? 

    Well, there are really only three ways to solve the problem, isn’t there?  

    The odds are fixed.

    Infinite lotteries ( either mulitverse or infinite regression)

    (some other thing that we have not yet discovered or even conceived of). 

    Believing in any of them is a matter of faith not science.  I’d say there is only one that meets the test of common sense though.

     

    If one accepts the totally unsupported (at least unsupported by anything other then reality as we experience it) idea that there is only one universe.  The conclusion that the lottery is fixed is not forgone but vanishing small so much so that it falls well within the normal requirement of less then 5% chance against necessary for scientific proof.

    So, anyone saying that belief in God is ‘superstitious’ or irrational has failed to support their conclusion by real evidence.  The atheist must in the end admit that his/her belief require as much faith in unseen and improvable ‘realities’ as the deist.  Hopefully we can get to the point where we can stop trying to use science to beat each other up or to ban each other from the political sphere.

  24. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Once again, here we are with inevitable by-product of M. Shea’s article: Iwall’ s erudite ‘commentary’.
    What is worse is the fact that people continue to respond and engage Iwall in his own terms.
    The reason why, last time, I did not dream to question the way Iwall understands the import of St. Thomas ‘quinque viae’, or question, this time, his amusing way to characterize the argument from design is that I do not wish to take away the focus from the relevant object.
    That is: Iwall’s style should not be encouraged on sites like this.
    Everything in his prose is pompous, self-aggrandizing, superficial and out-of-focus.
    In his replies Iwall expresses his contempt for other participants inability to measure up to his learning achievements and distributes scores.
    If you do not see in Iwall’s intervention the embodiment of what the Scripture exposes as ‘carnal wisdom’ or knowledge- that-inflates’, than there is nothing to add.
    I just thought that, since many, in their juvenile years have gone through the ‘Iwall syndrom’- before discovering a different ‘mode of thinking’, people would just deprive Iwall of the needed attention.
    Unfortunately that did not happen; instead i saw a reply of Iwall himself, who (sadly) informed us that he is in his forties!
    (In th esame reply, he also stated that HE IS a philosopher, BECAUSE he is a philosophy associate professor:
    there is something terribly missing in that equation).
    At any rate, this is my last intervention on the topic.
    I do not believe in lingering in interminable rejoinders.
    If what I wrote makes some sense to anybody i will have achieved my goal. Vice versa, let’s depart in peace.

  25. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall, it would be nice if you could show us where ANY of us called atheists incapable of the good, where ANY of us said they should be avoided, where ANY of us said they are incoherent…ETC. ETC…

     

    Fact:  The Church affirms that the existence of God CAN be demonstrated rationally.  (PLEASE, lwall, notice the distinction between "can be" and "mustbe" or "will be".)

    In fact, let me be more specific.  The Church professes, that "God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason, through the things that he created" (Denzinger-Schonmetzer 3004, 3026; cf. CCC 36-38)

    Fact:  This is dogma, that is, a revealed truth solemnly defined by the Magisterium of the Church.

    Fact:  the motu proprio Sacrorum Antistitum (St. Pius X in 1910) states: "God, the origin and end of all things, can be known and demonstrated with certainty by the natural light of reason starting from the created world, that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause is known through its effects."

    Fact:  The Second Vatican Council clearly states in Gaudium et Spes that atheism is not something spontaneous in man.  It is instead, an unnatural development that has both intellectual and moral causes. 

    The facts above I give, not because they are facts to put forth to atheists…they are facts to put forth to lwall who seems to think that our "natural" state is atheism, and one cannot use reason alone to demonstrate the existence of God.

    No one here wants atheists to drop dead.  We want them to come to know and to love God.  And it is good to hear of different ways this can be done.  You certainly haven't given us any.

  26. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    It's the Iwall merry-go-round and it's all Marks fault, yep! I was thinking of one post and one follow-up per poster but that could leave the topic short changed. Iwall was hired to be the athiests' mouthpiece and he gets paid per word, that's what I believe.

  27. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    reachrai,

    I was trying to attempt to warn the group after getting sucked into the lwall blackhole on an earlier post.  It's almost like once you get into the discussion, you can't extract yourself from it until you realize that he's just on this website to antagonize and provoke. 

    I would presume to say he's probably a nominal Catholic at best, if that, and is coming on this website to promote confusion.  Now, who would be interested in creating anger, confusion, and strife between Catholics?  Could it be… Satan?

    I think you had the best advice – ignore him. 

  28. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Iwall, you should sense the love and compassion that everyone has expressed to you in the above posts.  Your friends at CE don’t want atheists to die.  They are concerned about your eternal happiness.  We were all born to love and serve God and to be happy with Him in heaven—for eons.

  29. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I don't think everyone has expressed love and compassion.  Some people have expressed exasperation.

  30. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lpioch : You are hallucinating again. Where on this site were atheists called incoherent, you ask?  Surely, you jest.

     Are you unaware that the title and substance of Mark's soporific trilogy was called " The Incoherence of Artheism". You are dead ringer wrong again. Sorry. I want you to admit your error in bold face type on this site.

    Just as I am right on that, so on your other point . Dead wrong again. ( You are having a bad night.) Many of the posts that followed along with the Incoherence trilogy – as much of a disaster though it was ! -were rife with all sorts of idiotic anti-Christian cliams : atheists are incapable of good, are not to be in dialogue with, have no grounds for doing the good, are angry, pent up, disturbed, immoral..ad nauseum!  Yes. You are wrong again.

    As to your quotes about knowing God by the natural light of reason, why don't you proceed to demonstate it to us. ( I suggest you look up "demonstare" before embarking on this challenge if u don't already know what this means) 

    Dogma, mind you, means only teaching and not necessarily infallible teaching of the Church.

    The Church also taught that the earth was the center of the universe. As she is not infallible in science, she may not be infallible in philosophcal arguments either. So, if you so much believe that one can demonstrate certain knowledge of God by the light of natural reason, please, go ahead!  

    In fact, all posts amount only to ad hominem arguments. This is very, very cheap. There is not one weighty objection to what I ahve said. I am strong enough to stomach your junk, however.

    In fact, I have not been refuted on one single point. No one has shown me an argument from design, much less a quasi-convinvcing one that can not also be refuted. No one answere my excerpts from V!! re: non-believers. Convenient that you did not, huh? 

    Again. There is no possible way that, from the observation of order and structure, one is thereby compelled to conclude to the existence of an order-er or a structure-er. One may not extrapolate from the artifacts of human beings, as inwatches and automobileswhich we all know are manufactured, to claim the same of natural beings and natural existents. If you think otherwise, please supply the missing linking statement.

    Lets see the conundrum. How might it work…?? 

     "I see a watch here on the shore. It's inner workings are just right to make it a watch. Natural things aren't like this brassy, tick-tock thing that indicates the time. And it is for human use. Thus, someone must have made it for humans and designed it for our use."  [  Mr. Paley surely knows of many watches and knows alreday that they are made by humans in watch factories! His is hardly an unbiased thought experiment!)

    Now for the unwarranted extrapolation:

    " I now see this marvelous cosmos and all its intricate order  [ at this statement, Immanuel Kant turns over in his grave! ] and how it all fits together so marvelously and intricately… against all odds of any chance occurrence { Oops! The stacking of the deck has already begun at this turn in the "argument") …  Hmmm….The order and design in the watch I saw yesterday was attributable to a watchmaker-designer. Likewise, it MUST be that the cosmos has a designer-God. Wow!"

  31. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan,

    Agreed.  This guy wants to teach us about love, affirmation, and tolerance?

  32. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Happy to leave lwall's last submission as evidence that lwall is uninterested in the teachings of the Catholic Church.  But lwall is very interested in pride and self-back-patting. 

    The "incoherence of atheism" is a far cry from saying "(all) Atheists are incoherent."

    Kinda like saying "The intelligence of humanity" is a far cry from saying "(all) humans are intelligent" (lwall's previous post exhibit number 1).

    Enjoy!

  33. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Oh that dummy, Aristotle, who concluded that there had to be a Prime Mover Unmoved. Followed by that fool, Thomas Aquinas, who thought that what Aristotle had done was quite clever but that the important question was not what or who set all things in motion, but how they came to be, that what was necessary was not a Prime Mover Unmoved, but Being Self-existent, which Being logically must be personal because it would require a decision on the part of that Being to share existence with anyone or anything else.

    Like a certain Bard said — "To be or not to be," that is the question. Being is the question. The first question of philosophy is why is there anything at all. Science deals not with this question, BTW, because science deals only with what is in existence and only with those existent things that can be examined scientifically. Science does not deal with Being at all. As soon as a sceintist begins to approach that subject he or she has left the field of science and entered metaphysics — philosophy.

  34. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall, stop me if I'm wrong, seems to be proposing that the universe is fundamentally unknowable. If we can't draw analogies from human experience and scale them up to make statements about Everything, then how do we expect to understand the nature of things? Everyone, scientist included, behaves as though the universe is at its root understandable. Witness the proliferation of scientific Theories of Everything that seek to unify in a single equation all of the forces that affect matter. If all of us, scientist and religionist alike, are that befuddled then the universe is an absurd place indeed. Stop the world, I want to get off!

  35. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Has anyone read the works of Stanley Jaki? I find them very helpful. He makes a distinction between design and purpose. Purpose requires a will. If we find purpose (small or big) in the universe then there must be a will behind it.

     

    Humans are tortured animals. We look for meaning and purpose. Why can't we just be like dogs? Dogs are comforting because you look into their eyes and find contentment and no anxiety about the meaning of life or the lack thereof.

  36. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear Iwall,

    I'm trying to figure you out.  Are you really a Catholic seeking a better argument than Mark can provide?  Perhaps you could give us one, then, to refute our athiest friends, as ideas do have consequences. Since we cannot argue from design and your previous comments have said that St. Thomas Aquinas' arguments have proved nothing, and that the stupendous public miracle at Fatima is not supernatural, then what rational do you use to refute athiests?  When people on this board respond to your comments, you quickly reach for your credentials, as if that should silence us who are so ignorant.  My brother-in-law does as much, being a self-proclaimed agnostic, and highly educated (and I do respect his intelligence), but I do believe my children have more wisdom that he does.  Again, if you are you concerned that Mr. Shea's arguments are to weak to defend against our athiest friends, then please give us some of your own defenses.  If you cannot, I will consider you a phony and a fraud. 

    I enjoyed reading all the responses to Iwall, especially M.Kochan.  Thanks and God bless!

     

  37. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    There is no way that I can compete with the intellegence displayed in these posts.

    All that I can say – as an uneducated convert to the Catholic faith is – if lwall calls himself a Catholic then we have no worries about those who are not.

    It must be a great thing to be so smart.

    I will stay the simple Catholic

    Thank you

    Walter Brietzke

  38. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Frfrancis, good thinking. When Iwall throws you a stick, you can go fetch it. I doubt any of us will.

  39. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall,

    You said,
    "Dogma, mind you, means only teaching and not necessarily infallible teaching of the Church."


    That is incorrect.  A dogma (according to the Church) is an immutable divinely revealed truth.  It is by definition an infallible teaching since it is revealed by Truth itself.  


    Fron the Catechism:


    88 The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to
    the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths
    contained in divine Revelation or having a necessary connection with them,
    in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of
    faith.
  40. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I had a seminary professor who once said: "Gentlemen, we have educated ourselves beyond our own level of ignorance."

    In our attempt to prove with scientific sufficiency some answer to an athiest's objection to a Designer, we are allowing "ignorance" (read: "modern-scientific-analysis must be accepted as the pinnacle of intelligence") to hold center-of-the-field.

    Faith and reason do go hand-in-hand, be it Faith in God or faith in modern-scientific-analysis. Both must take steps – even leaps – of faith. For someone who appears to have taken that step – or leap – toward faith (emphasis on the small "f"), the step of Faith seems like ignorance. Or maybe it is better to be referred to as a stumbling block.

    The foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of men. How then compares the wisdom of God?

  41. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    The contingency of material reality makes it reasonable to believe in the existence of a necessary entity from which the whole of material reality initially came.  This I believe is the philosophically precise way of stating the arguments for the likelihood of the existence of God.  The word PROOF is a strong word because it is used in the empirical sciences and entails the the use of empirical evidence that is verifiable in a laboratory test or in an experiment.  I believe that this is the root of the conceptual misuderstading here.  However, the bottomline here is that as Catholics, we must believe that the EXISTENCE of God can be known through REASON, as taught by the Church.         

  42. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    To All: What is so much at stake in arguing that God can be proved, either as an abstract argument or from the so-called argument from design.

    So many of you are so cock- sure that He can be known from the light of natural reason. Yet when challenged, not one of you can nor has thus far proffered such an argument. Only have you hurled nasties at me!

    That is because there is no knock-down argument or rational demonsatation from the "light of natural reason. The Church offers none!

    What I sense lurks beneath your angst and demonization of me ( incontinuing your ad hominem style) is fear. And, in another direction, a desire to hold in your hands a "strong weapon" that will buttress your possibly underlying tenuous faiith and moreeffectively fight off and/or converst ahteists. Proofs will not work. Only genuine faith and the certainty of faith will work. But faith is not in the realm of proof. And faith is not "subjugation " of my will and intellect to authoruty. 

    Considfer: The Church has never once proffered an approved proof or argument for God's existence. Although she assrets that He can be known through "light of natural reason", there is no "official proof" nor anapproved list of same endoresed by the Church. Rather, She spaeks of intuitive knowing so to spaek. She speaks of the history of salvation and of God creating a people through whom comes the Christ etc. It is important to know why the Church has eshewed proofs in favor of intuition and the grand historical narrative of God's salvific action in history.

    Not only has the Church never officially proffered nor canonized any proof(s) – although there are those in the Church who are cock certain that knock-down proofs abound somehow, somewhere, nonetheless! – same goes for the Church Fathers- no proofs, just belief in possible proofs.

    Augustine saw God as the underlying and the presupposed unconditional reality of finite existence. As immanent in being as its unconditional uncreated light, there could be no sense in attempting to get behind Him and to prove His exsitence. Unfortunately, Thomas dissolved the Augustinian view in claiming that we must begin with sense knowkedge and work our way u to God, hence the 5 ways. All comers however recognized the vaccuiotyof the 5 ways as proofs. Rightly so.

    The scholastic legacy of Thomas included  Duns Scotus who upheld an insuperable gap between finite mind and the infinite; that Thomas's proofs are not proofs because they necessarily remain confined to the finite realm and only, at best, acheive an "idea" of God as theoretically possible.  Note that one of the 5 ways Scotus sees as "remaining confined to finitude" is the very argument under discussion in this post, the so-called "argument from design".. ( "discussion" is  a polite term for glossing the detritius being hurled at me daily…lucky for me that I am agile at getting out of the way of junk). Duns Scotus saw the failure here also and "resolved" the dilemma by to  appealing to Church aurthoruity! Note that this "solution", as an appeal to Church authority, is an abdication of  the claim "knowing God form the light of natural reason". 

    Also, Okkam, contending that God can not be reached either in intuition nor in abstract argument but only in the "habit of grace" iwhich is experienced in one's unconscious mind. This inner experince moves the will to a Scotus -like subjugation to Church authority! This too is an abdication of "knowing God by the natural light of reason" or by any thing finiteat all!

    The current design arguments merly retrace this old ground albeit by applying more scientific and sophisticated statistical probability theory to the so-called "problem." Naturally, these new arguments also fail and pretty much fort he same reasons that Thomas realized of himself and as Scotus and Okkam realized of Thomas.

    One can not reach God by thought nor by " beginning with the senses" and working one's way up, so to speak, as with Thomas and design argument.  Attempts to pound folks over the head with forceful arguments from design utterly fail and, in fact, are themselves a cause of atheism! For any God proveable by reason or by the senses is not the God behind the universe, not the God of Almighty power and transcendece. He has become a "thing among other things" who can be pulled down, so to speak, by man! One is correct to reject such a God who after all has now become just another piece of existential finitude, the conclusion of a deductive  argument ( all bad arguments though they be, some people still "believe" in them). Who would not balk at such a God!

    God is knowable but not proveable or demonstrable. When one "argues" from design, he /she already carries into the argument a deep belief in God. The cosmos looks designed to us, because we already believe in God. We do not believe in God because the universe looks designed. And certainly not by this current specious genre of new design arguments which Mark et. al. deploy as their latest and greatest weaponry against "THE NON-BELIEVERS"! " Go get'm, guys!"

    Keep fighting. Keep on denigrating them. Go after them with new powerful arguments. You will only make for more atheists!

  43. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Much appreciate the last several comments.

    I have been repeatedly calling Lwall's attention to philosophical arguments regarding God as the necessary Ground of Being and he has yet to engage them. I believe the quoted statement of St. Paul regarding the knowledge of God available to humans by observation of creation, as well as the CCC statement reiterated here several times encompass everything from "design" arguments to philosophical arguments from contingency — that is to say the numerous approaches that human reason makes to the subject of the existence of God.

    Lwall, is, if his claims about himself are to be believed, quite an accomplished gentleman.  But it seems to matter to him overmuch that he appear intellectually credible to his atheist fellow academicians as though they set the bar for reasoned discourse in all matters. One generally finds though that atheists are unable to engage in discussion  of substantial realities, tending toward nominalism — a pretty serious handicap in the use of human reason.

  44. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Having said the above, I would add that Lwall has things to say that are not merely provocative, but instructive.  We should not consdier atheism to be a monolithic structure but we should try to understand every person we encounter as an individual.  We should not attribute immoral or dishonest motives to atheists. And we should not consdier that some single slam-dunk arguement is what is being referenced by St. Paul and the CCC.

    However, Lwalls caricuture of design arguments fails to deal with a very simple fact — that for millions of people belief in God is just a simple as looking at a sunset or a mountain or a starry sky and saying to themselves, "Someone just had to have made this!" It may lose something in the translation to the "watch in the desert" example, but that is not all that far off and Lwalls supercillious dismissal of it naturally creates doubt about his Catholicity for the Church profoundly respects that nearly universal human intuition and in fact sees those who lack it as the ones with the problem.

    So far Lwall has offered nothing to bridge the gap but perhaps he will yet.

  45. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan: Yes, as I have said over,and over, and over again on this post…it is a "nearly universal intuition" and not a proof. Intuition!!

    And,it does not neceaarily provoke or warrant condemnatory and/or denigrating judgment of an individual by you, Mark Shea, the Church, or anyone for those who do not intutit God at any specific point in time. Later, he/she just might!

    Stop trying to evagelize with a hammer.

  46. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan,

    Our objections, at least my objections, to lwall are not with his intellect or his academic credentials. 

    His hypocrisy is rampant.  He complains about "ad-hominem attacks" and yet his posts are full of vitriolic assaults on anyone who would dare question him in any manner. 

    He complains that we "evangelize with a hammer" and yet he bludgeons everyone with, to use his word, soporific (I had to look it up to make sure he hadn't mistyped "sophomoric") posts that have more place in a PHD dissertation than a Catholic website. 

    He calls us to be loving and affirming to those that are unlike "us", and yet I would challenge anyone to find anything in his posts, on this topic or others, where he is loving and affirming to anyone who is or thinks unlike him.

    I agree that, as the Church teaches, we should not discriminate against unbelievers and that everyone should be treated as a child of God.    However, the Church doesn't teach that we need to be granting their arguments and opinions equal status with people who share the Faith and align their thinking with the teachings of the Church.  lwall calls this bigoted and hateful.      

    We are all fallen, as I have asserted several times in the last couple of days.  We (Catholics) are all working out our salvation one day at a time with the understanding that we were put here on this earth by God to know, love, and serve him.  With that knowledge of the meaning of our existence, it dramatically affects the way that we approach issues and I would contend that it is radically different than the manner and motivation that an atheist would approach issues. 

    For instance – Pope Benedict XVI just spoke out on the need to protect the environment.  Catholics will recognize the need to safeguard the earth's environment because it puts God's creation at risk and endangers His children.  While an atheist may agree that we need to protect the environment, I guarantee you that the solutions posited will likely be anti-Catholic in nature (birth control, abortion, euthanasia).  When an atheist (or a lapsed Catholic for that matter) posits these anti-Catholic solutions to the issues of the world, they should be called what they are – "unfruitful works of darkness."  lwall would again call this bigoted hatred.

    So, I don't find lwall's rants to have any more merit than the views of his atheist friends that he places on a pedestal for us to admire.  Even from a utilitarian perspective, there isn't enough of merit in lwall's post to merit a response from any of us.  Even your attempt to acknowledge some merit in his posts was met with more vitriol and demands that you change your behavior/methods to meet his expectations.

  47. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Iwall, you must be thinking of Thor, the god of thunder. Our God comes to us in the whisper of the wind and the cry of a babe. This is as simple or as difficult as you make it. You've chosen the latter, O.K.! Stay tuned for Andels Part 2.

  48. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    The problem Lwall is that you are confusing Catholic-to-Catholic discussion with evangelization. Mark's recent series of articles was originally published in the National Catholic Register, not the Skeptical Inquirer.  It should be possible for us to have a discussion amongst ourselves of the truths of the faith among which is the teaching that the existence of God is known by human reason apart from Divine Revelation without you inferring from it an entire constellation of assumptions about what Mark would say to an atheist in personal conversation.  Have you ever actually heard Mark having a conversation with an atheist? How do you know he hammers away at the person? You don't.

    And you are wrong to say that this nearly universal human intuition of the existence of God is not proof. The burden of proof is on anyone who posits the existence of a natural human drive without an end. Name another one.

  49. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I don't have to hear Mark in "personal conversation". Reading the Incoherencetrilogy and this last bit is enough!

    I would asume thre to be no disjunction between what Mark says privately to and about non-believers and what he writes publicly.

     Is that a safe asumption to make?

  50. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall,

    Maybe you are familiar with this quotation:

    http://www.online-literature.com/chesterton/innocence_father_brown/3/ 

    It is from G.K. Chesterton's Father Brown series edisode called "The Queer Feet", and is also where Evelyn Waugh found the title for Part II of "Brideshead Revisited" [emphasis is mine]

    Father Brown got to his feet, putting his hands behind him. "Odd, isn't it," he said, "that a thief and a vagabond should repent, when so many who are rich and secure remain hard and frivolous, and without fruit for God or man? But there, if you will excuse me, you trespass a little upon my province. If you doubt the penitence as a practical fact, there are your knives and forks. You are The Twelve True Fishers, and there are all your silver fish. But He has made me a fisher of men."

    "Did you catch this man?" asked the colonel, frowning. Father Brown looked him full in his frowning face.

    "Yes," he said, "I caught him, with an unseen hook and an invisible line which is long enough to let him wander to the ends of the world, and still to bring him back with a twitch upon the thread."

    I submit the unseen hook and invisible line is the reasonableness of belief. The unseen hook may be refuted by our intellect and denied by our will, but it is real nevertheless. And the role of the Church to provide the fishers of men to twitch upon the thread is just as real.

  51. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Do you just willfully miss points?

    I don't know what Mark Says in one-to-one conversation with an atheist; I just know Mark well enough to know that he isn't a hammer to the head kind of person. The POINT was that neither this article, nor the series that preceeded were written to atheists — they were not evangelism pieces.

    Why don't you tell us what you say in one-to-one conversations with atheists since you are the self-proclaimed resident expert on what everyone else is doing wrong? Or should I assume that what you have written here is what you say, as in: "My dear atheist friend, our religion and indeed even our belief in God is completely irrational. By the light of human reason you can know nothing of it. Most Catholics are ignorant boobs compared to us. I myself personally reject some of the teachings of my own Church for example and see no contradiction in declaring that I am Catholic even while doing so, for I believe nothing on the basis of authority.  But my own personal experience of my personal relationship with God is so wonderful that it is the basis of what I believe and I extend an invitation to you to join me in this faith.  Not on the basis of the authority of the Church or the witness of the Apostles or the light of reason, but on the basis of my authority, on the testimony of Lwall — just leap and believe!"

    So how's that been workin' for you?

  52. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mokochan: Is this flair for hyperbole and deliberate misreading a newly acquired talent or a life long burden?

    1. Mark's articles and most posters here are overltly denigrating of non-believers.

    2. I insist this is a distinctly un-Christian attitude.

    3. Meant for evangelization or not, the various posts and articles clearly reveal the inner person's thoughts, attitudes, dispositons.

    4. Yes. Our beliefs in incarnation, resurrection, etc. are certainly ir-rational, not susceptible to reason, not made intelligible by reason,tranascend finite categories, and in this very eal sense, are absurd. 

    5. No one can possibly believe "on the authority" of anyone else. This is a human imposibilyt and contradiction. While other testimony plays a role in preparing one for an existential leap into faith, ultimately that commitment and that total giving over of oneself can only be a "work" of one' s own person; can not come about by the authority of another person, persons, or the Church.

    5. You have stooped to caricature of me. Of you, I am a little surprised.

    6. I do not believe based on the light of resaon. You are correct.

    7. It's working beautifully, for I have been grasped by God as mediated to me in Scripture, Sacrament, and the Holy Spirit, thank you. 

  53. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Yes, as I have said over,and over, and over again on this post…it is a "nearly universal intuition" and not a proof. Intuition!!

    And I imagine all that would really matter if I had ever used the word "proof" with regard to the various arguments for the existence of God I have put forward.  In fact, I only used the word "proof" twice in any of the five pieces that have you so exercised and on neither ocassion was it used with respect to the question of the existence of God.

    I wish I could understand what you are getting at, lwall, but I honestly don't.

    As to this particular series, it isn't really about atheism.  It's about the existence of other "natures" beyond this universe.  My point is that atheists have themselves in a bind if they are going to posit an infinite number of "natures" in order to reduce the likelihood of You Know Who fine-tuning this one while simultaneously scoffing at the idea of the angelic (which is simply an acknowledgement that there may well indeed be other orders of creation than the one we are familiar with.  My main goal in the series is to then take a look at what (little) we know of these other orders of creation from revelation.  It is not to spend much time on the absurd and evidence-free multiverse theory put forward by a few desperate materialists.  Pope Benedict did this better than me so there's no need to gild the lily.

  54. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mark: we have elsewhere visted the proof vs " be convinced by my argument distinction" and it is a difference that makes no difference when used for the sake of expoing the alledged incoherence of one's position. I am exercised and very bothered by your arguments and dnigaration of non-believrs, Mark. If you look at the poster fall out your articles generate, perhaps you would agree.

    You are concerned to expose the "atheists"  bind? I really don't get it!

    I am not trying to be contrary.

    Would you mind running the bind past me again?

     

  55. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." ~ Stuart Chase

  56. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    "1. Mark's articles and most posters here are overltly denigrating of non-believers."

    Iwall why do you play these games? as if I didn't know. You are an atheist, an unbeliever and most likley an agnostic. You've studied and borrowed words that would put you in company of believers. The devil is never far from the Church, he always has his eye on the herd. You're dangerous because you know the terminology and the doctrine. You infiltrate, spin and confuse but you picked the wrong website. You've been exposed and so you cry: bloody murder! Who knows maybe the Holy Spirit put you here because He's got bigger things for you. Maybe if and when you're converted you'll go back and change the hearts of that "lot" you work with and tell them that the "Hound of Heaven" is hot on their trail. Take that as good news.

  57. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Would you mind running the bind past me again?

    Christian:  There are orders of nature beyond what we commonly call our "universe".  We refer to creatures which are higher than us as "angels".

    Materialist: Rubbish.  This Cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be.  This I believe!  Angels are superstitious nonsense with no evidence to support their existence.

    Christian: The extreme fine-tuning of the universe suggests rather strongly to me that we are looking at more than a 10 to the 137 power lucky break.  In the words of philosopher John Wayne, "There has to be a God or how does all this stuff work?"

    Materialist:   Rubbish.  The Cosmos is not all there is or was or ever will be.  There are an infinite number of universes!  Ours is the one out of more than 10 to 137 power number of universes that happened to produce us.  In an infinite number of universes, we were bound to turn up sooner or later.  I have no actual evidence for this contention, but I much prefer it to the possibility of You Know Who, so I will go on asserting it.  There are lots of other "natures".  However God did not create any of them and angels don't exist because that's too religious for my taste.

    Forgive me if I think that this is a "heads we win, tails theists lose" approach to things.

  58. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    No, Lwall, I did not caricature you.  I simply applied to you the "rule" that you tried to apply to Mark: that what he wrote in conversation with fellow believers could be extrapolated into what his conversation with an unbeliever would look like. if you feel unfairly characterized thereby, then perhaps you are unfairly characterizing Mark.

    And I remind you and sundry that Mark's 2nd materailist statement above still does not respond the question of being, an issue merely multiplied but in no way answered by the multiverse theory. The assertion I have repeatedly made here is that belief in God is the more reasonable explanation for why there is anything — as opposed to nothing. It is atheism, not theism that suffers most in the light of human reason (regardless of the very high esteem in which you hold the intellectual powers of your atheist friends) which is why our Church says that man may know for a certainty that God exists by the light of human reason.  This is a teaching that you, Lwall, consistenly deny.

  59. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    "4. Yes. Our beliefs in incarnation, resurrection, etc. are certainly ir-rational, not susceptible to reason, not made intelligible by reason,tranascend finite categories, and in this very eal sense, are absurd. "

    John Paul II wrote a beautiful encyclical, Fides et Ratio, that would contradict this statement in its entirety.  Oh, he was just the Pope…  don't worry about the infallibility of his teachings.

    "I am exercised and very bothered by your arguments and dnigaration of non-believrs, Mark. If you look at the poster fall out your articles generate, perhaps you would agree."

    lwall is the only one on this post that is exercised and bothered by Mark's articles.  The rest of us are exercised and bothered by lwall's obnoxious behavior.  But that is probably the reaction he was looking for, I'm sure. 

  60. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mark and mkocahan: To both…I hope you do not side with goral's post. This is most intolerable. It is radical types as goral that……..oh well. 

    Now, mkochan, the the notion there "must" be a Prime Mover or as you put it in paraphrase of other thinkers:  "Why there is something, not nothing!".

    But one does not "have" to ask that question! 

     Thus, against John Wayne, there does not "have" to be an Unmoved Mover or a Designer, or as the great Paul Tillich says [ mkocahn, please stifle the ad hominem thoughts you are now having on Tillich!]  – the "power of being" in Being Itself.

     Nor does there "have to be" anything "behind" the Big Bang.

    There is no logical necessity involved for any of these. 

    For the universe just as well may be infinite if one is looking at the "problem of origins" purely philosophically. See below on Kant's antinomies.

    However, to side with there being an Unmoved Mover is as reasonable as to side with an infinite universe. But what is important here is that neither side is  proveable, and neither side is guilty of a "failure of reason" or a failure of "yielding before the facts/evidence" as Mark insists.

    This is why I am so against attempts to convict or convert atheists on their supposed failure of reason or to "respect the facts" !

    Not everyone is haunted by the "question of origins."  Kant, for example, argued in his four "antinomies of reason" – that is, reason in its transcendent use – that the question of origins is, if you will, an artifact of theoretical reason which is forever and inextricably bound up in its own self-generated unresolvable dialectic. Antinomies 1 and 4 are relevant here for us. I assume that one or both of you know some Kant.

    The point of relevance is that postulating multi-universes is but one side of reason's dialectic. The other side is the "one universe which had to have had a beginning in/with time " idea.

    But, neither side is possibly right.

    And, neither one is more "rational" than the other.

    And neither one marks out a moral deficiency or, conversely, a moral accolade for its respective adherents.

    mkochan: One does not "have" to account for why there is something, not nothing." This is born out empirically by the thoughts of many people who just are not worried about the "question of origins". I would guess you too know some of them.

    It is inherent to resaon to be engaged in this unresolvable transcendental dialectic with itself.

    Thus to accuse non-believers of a rational defectibility, or as being stubborn before the evidence, or as being morally obtunded and culpable is actually non-sense! 

    In addition to the dismissive and judgmental attitudes such an accusation spawns, it is also naturally very inflammatory. This inflammation is quite justified and is one important cause of so much "hostile" literature aimed back at those who have drawn first blood by those accusations and denigration! No big surprise. 

    Another way to put it: the multi-universe adherents are as much "justified" in their insouciance about "fixing the problem origins" as you are "justified" in your anxious and shrill insistence that "the problem be fixed."  

    I side with the problem needing to be fixed. But, there is no rational way – either by arguments from design, ontological proofs ala Anselm and  Descartes, the "5 ways" of St. Thomas –  for me, you, or Mark to uproot them from the other side of the dialectic.

    Human reason on its own power can not escape. Can not get out of the fly bottle.

    Yet! It does happen that some of us do! The process whereby we do escape is itself  not by a resolution of the dialectic of resaon, of the antinomies.

    It is not by way of killing off the one side's argument by a forceful rational argument, or by facts, or by probabilties and statistics. 

    It is, however, wholly a matter of one's experience of grace whereby one is incorrigibly grasped in the totality of one's being by God, by that which transcends the dialectic and renders it lifeless to the mind. Here, reasons and arguments simply don't count. For they are no longer needed. 

    This experience of grace asf being-grasped can be called by another word, faith.

    Not faith in any specific content or propositions. That may or may not come later.  As being -grasped, I am above reason's unsolvable antinomies.

    Besides,God does not come to us primarily as One Grand Resolver of Reason's Problems and Conundrums."  This is why it is utterly fruitless to engage in appeals to rationality when engaging atheists.

    Mark, honestly, have you not encountered the feeling that there is just something impenetrable when presenting your very forceful, albeit, one sided [ one side of the antinomy] rational arguments to atheists? Has it not baffled you? Do you think the explanation really consists in their willful stubborness to "yield to the evidence" ? Maybe you do.

  61. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    It is too bad that the very first responder to Iwall did not tell him, "Your comments in this first post of yours have nothing to do with what Mark wrote, since he never claimed to have any kind of proof of God's existence; please post something relevant."

    One thing that is relevant is that the multiverse theory is one of two great retreats of atheists from a comfortable position that many if not most of them held two hundred years ago. This position was that this physical universe is all there is, and it has always been here.

    The second part of that position has been all but universally abandoned with the general acceptance of the Big Bang theory. Some atheists (especially those in the former Soviet Union) have tried to modify it to the pulsating universe theory, according to which the Big Bang was merely the latest in an infinite series of expansions and compressions; but that too is falling by the wayside as evidence piles up that the universe is expanding at an accelrating, not a decelerating rate.

    What Mark and others call the "fine-tuning" of the universe that makes it hospitable to life is undermining the other part of the old atheist position. That has now become the least tenable of three competing theories, the two others being the theory of divine creation of the universe, and the multiverse theory. The idea that the one and only physical universe just happens to have all the physical constants just right for making it hospitable to life requires a far greater leap of faith than the existence of an intelligent creator does.

  62. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I do have one question for Iwall: you said,

    "Design" is not "evidence" of anything. Argument from design is not evidenced based. "Multi-universe " is however evidenced basde although not uniformly accepted by scientists.

    As far as I know, the only evidence for the multiverse is the same as the evidence for a supernatural designer of our universe: the fantastic improbability of the one physical universe being so orderly and well suited for producing not just life, but intelligent life. You seem to think that Kant would turn over in his grave if he saw what I wrote just now, so did you have any other thing in mind as evidence for the multiverse?

     

  63. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    The problem Lwall is that we are not on the other side.  We are not on the fence. We have faith. And our faith actually has content or it is mere fideism (a heresy BTW, although I know you hate whenever I point them out). To say that one is grasped by faith, but not grasped by a Person, is incomprehensible because it is nonsensical. The faith that grasps us is faith in Someone and that Someone actually says some very specific things to us.

    "I hate divorce."

    "Have no other gods before me."

    "Do this in remembrance."

    "Make disciples."

    And one of the things He says is that man by the light of reason may know for a certainty that He exists: "The fool hath said in his heart, ‘there is no God.'" So once we have been grasped by faith and once we know that Person, we have no reason to doubt that man by the light of reason may know for a certainty that He exists because He is the Creator and He certainly knows the reasoning ability of man far better than you do.

    You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want faith and God, but you want to deny what God and the faith clearly say.

  64. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I am sorry my comments seem to have been too easily dismissed earlier. lwall seems to have thought I was denigrating him. In reality, what I was saying was simply that to someone who has "bought into" the atheist or "modern scientist" view cannot credit the notion of Faith having a reasonable approach to thought.

    I agree with many of the latest postings here that lwall seems to be trying to "pick a fight." It is as if he cannot allow for reasonableness as an expression of Faith. Reason seems, by his postings, to belong solely in the scientific/atheistic/agnostic mindset.

    I, too, would like to know if he has read Fides et Ratio by John Paul the Great.

    Furthermore, I find his postings to be the bigoted ones in this thread. He appears to deny the possibility of reasoned thought coming from a Catholic mindset, yet insists that the reasoned thought of the "other side" is legitimate. Has he yet answered the question put to him of showing some proof of a multiverse? To my understanding it is a theory. And a theory is not a proof. Theories stand until sufficient proof is given to dismiss them in favor of other theories.

    I am a mathematician by training and now am a priest. I can allow for conceptualizations of a multiverse, and still have an insistance on the reality of a "Designer" for all the universes. And, yes, I do also acknowledge that the "intelligent design theory" is just one more theory. Unless I misread him, I believe that is part of what Mr. Shea was trying to get at.

    Placing his invective aside, lwall seems to be the one most afraid that there may actually be some reasonableness to the Faith.

    Yet an atheistic scientist refuses to allow for reasonableness in Faith while insisting on a reasonableness in his/her own set of theories.

    I am not a philosopher, I am "just a country pastor," with a math background, yet I find lwall's comments throughout this thread – and others where he has contributed – to be … quite uncharitable. And yet he accuses others of the same.

    Troubling … very troubling …

    Finally, I agree with the comments that Mr. Shea was writing a piece intended for a Catholic audience. Thus it was filled with Catholic reasonableness. The fact that lwall dismisses Catholic reasonableness reminds me again of the "obstacle" and "stumbing block" of St. Paul's writings – which was the point of my first posting. I would hope and pray the phrase "never the twain shall meet" will not ring true for any and all who are – at this time – blinded by a rigidity of scientific theory that dismisses out-of-hand any other reasonableness. The rigidity so often laid as an accusation against Catholic thought is even more entrenched in the camp lwall is trying to champion. Troubling … very troubling.

  65. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Shall I quote Chesterton here?  I think I shall!

    From Orthodoxy:
    "Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom."


    and 


    "To accept everything is an exercise, to understand everything a strain. The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits."


    In other words, a person of faith would likely define in broader terms what is reasonable because he, like the poet, has no need to restrict reason to a set of constructs which must be adhered to tightly.  
  66. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    plowshare: Disagree. Mark's overarching motive is to debunk atheists – I suppose in order to show them God's love???  Go figure! – as u clearly see in his Incoherence triology and in this particular article, where he wants to say that Christian belief in angels is warranted by the same token that allows astrophysicists to posit mutiverse theory.

    As Mark refers and implies in his article, the proof of God from design and the "fine tuning for life' [ note fine tuning prejudices things by a priori implying a tuner ] – is a compelling argument which has caused worried astrophysicists to make up an evidence free theory ad hoc, just to squirm out from under having to admit God's existence. So you see, atheism and its debunking is the grounding force and raison d'eter for his article. You are sorely mistaken. Read  it again. While you are at it, read the Incoherence trilogy and the wonderful and denigtaring comments by so many of you very Christian brothers and sisters.

    You yourself fall in line with Mark's ludicrous image of astrophysicists' knee-buckling scamble "in retreat", huddling together to concoct a science fiction theory just to avoid the advancing theist position. This is truly laughable. Do you really believe that?

    You are wrong on the scienec in para 3. What drives multiverse theory is not so much Big Bang but the implications of string theory, dark energy, dark matter, worm wholes, black wholes,etc…

    Multiverse theory is not evidence free. True, no empirical data exists. But that does not mean the various theroies not matematically nor model predicted. Many discoveries begin as empirically evidenve free. Mind you that many great minds regard multiverse theory variation as directly issuing from accepted models if not at least compatible with them. It is an utter distortion to depict multiverse theory as concocted "on the run" and  as non-evidentairy without at the same time acknowledgeing its degree of acceptance by many in the scientific community.  

    Finally, the last sentence is also false. There is no difficulty for multiverse theory to account for the fine tuning of this universe or life on this planet! This non-problem has alreday been addressed by by multiversists by reverting to the anthropic principle! Another allied response is a species of  "just so" argument : this particular universe came about by its universe- specific primordial laws of physics>matter>life such that we have what we have. 

     

    See, there plausible explanations on either side.

     

  67. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan : I have to figure if you are just angry at me ( and then I would have to figure why), uncomprehending, or just what.

    Being grasped by God and grace in the totality of my being is the moment of faith without which I may not fully approprite any content of faith. Fideism does not carry the totaliy of my being in realtion to God as does faith. Feidism is a naked assertorail posit.

    Millions all over the world and in various ways know this being- grasped to be true. The CCC and VII attest to it. Christ is the definitive and final One who grasps.

    Now, we experience faith first and enduringly as the incorrigible experience of  being- grasped by God before faith has any specific content. If the opposite movement were held – that first comes faith in doctrinal content, for example, then later if at all ever { that is, some never move beyond being "good dutiful Catholics" who are good because holding to doctrine yet devoid of  inward life) comes the moment of inward conversion, of being- graspied, and total giving over of myself – we would then be at risk an idolotrous faith.

    That is, we would be worshipping the content of what He has given us through inspired human authors rather worshipping Him. The Bibliolatry of many evnagelical preachers as example

    Faith's propositional content is not identical to the certainty of faith where faith is understood as a highly subjective, inward leap of my total self into Him, because He has first loved me. ( I John 4.) Faith then is not primarily first an assent to doctrine, nor is it belief on the authority of the Apostolic witness although both are preparartory occasions for faith.

  68. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall, you wrote: No one can possibly believe "on the authority" of anyone else. This is a human imposibilyt and contradiction.

    I think here we get to the crux of the problem you have for this is a patent untruth and contrary to our faith.

    Catholics believe what the Church teaches because God who cannot lie has revealed it. We believe on the authority of the Church.

    Most of the things your own children believe about the world, they believe on the basis of your and your wife's authority. In Faith and Reason JPII explaned that this trust in what parents pass on to children is the very beginning of faith. Faith is in fact in large part trust in authority. Faith comes by hearing, Saint Paul said.

    Anti-faith, atheism, is driven by rebellion against authority. This is why in your defense of the purity of the atheists motives you are inexorably drawn yourself to deny the authority of the Church. It becomes, as noted, above a kind of madness, wherein the very simplest of aspects of human knowing — such as the truth that most of what all of us believe has been handed to us (as tradition, if you will) by some authority whether that be our parents, who by authority even give us our name and history, or our teachers, through years of schooling.

  69. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I am not angry with you, Lwall.

    And what you say above about faith being an experience of being grasped is simply in no way universally the case.  All baptized infants are grasped just this way by God. But whether or not they have a subjective exprience of it — they are born again.  They are given faith at that point — though they cannot themselve grasp the content of the faith, the faith they are given is not contentless.  They are actually given the Catholic faith, the complete deposit of the faith of the Church.

    Whether, as they grow, they ever experience being grasped by God is quite another thing.  Some do; some do not. That subjective experience in no way determines the quality of their faith, nor does it affect the objective Sacramental reality.  Some people mysteriously recieve many spiritual consolations; some do not. Some people have had great epiphanies in the reception of Holy Communion; for others the subjective experience is never any different than if the host had never been consecrated, but they still believe — on the authority of the Church speaking for God — that Christ is really present. They do not love God any less than the others, nor does God love them less.

  70. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    "Anti-faith, atheism, is driven by rebellion against authority." That's all it is, mkochan. We've just been exposed to intellectual pornography. It the beginning it has all the appearences, nuances and suggestions of what we recognize as human sexuality (reason) then it takes a turn towards the un-natural, convoluted and perverse. It's insatiable and will not recognize a censor, an authority. The worship of the true God is unreasonable and becomes idolotry and the mind enters it's own hell of: "string theory, dark energy, dark matter, worm wholes, black wholes,etc…" What is conspicuously absent? Light! To add to fjindra… most troubling!

  71. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Personally, I love physics even though I cannot follow the math. I actually think that miles-long particle accelerators are all in all not a bad way to spend tax dollars. I find string theory wonderful and not in the least hellish. It is quite poetic, really, and evokes the music of the spheres; sort of like Tolkein's creation account in the Silmillarian where the universe is sung into being. From a heart not darkened by rebellion against God it all elicits wonder and praise. Maybe in heaven I can learn the math!

  72. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Spoken like a truly smitten, stary-eyed lover. "Where were you when I laid out the firmament" the Lord asks us. The answer is: you were already in My Mind because I love you, you fuzzy little speck of gallactical dust. So wonder and be amazed. One day we'll all be infinitley more amazed. Mathematicians, physicists, philosophers and goat-herders included.

  73. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan, you said, I actually think that miles-long particle accelerators are all in all not a bad way to spend tax dollars.

    *sigh*…where were you (and all the advocates?!?) when I was a junior in college and congress killed my career path by defunding the Superconducting SuperCollider in Texas?  I was in my thesis advisor's office (he was the Chairman of the Scientific Policy Committee for the SSC) when he got the call after the final lethal vote.

    Given I wasn't really willing to move to Switzerland or Japan to work, the inevitable career path was changed.  Granted, maybe it was – in the end – better for me…but certainly not better for pure science.  As with all pure science, it's the unexpected benefits that are truly powerful.  Seeing some of the results of Fermilab's medical proton accelorator (they just split some of the beam off the ring) would make you cry for joy.

     

    And as for lwall's science knowledge, stating,

    You are wrong on the scienec in para 3. What drives multiverse theory is not so much Big Bang but the implications of string theory, dark energy, dark matter, worm wholes, black wholes,etc…

    is such a non statement (so general, not to mention, inaccurate) he may want to stick to his day job as a philosopher.  Nice try, though.

  74. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan: We will most probably never see eye to eye on the role of "authority of the Churcrh" as it relates to faith.

    I certainly agree that Church witness and testimony as well as Apostolic testimony are without doubt do produce forceful movements of the spirit. They are important occassions for and preparatory elements for faith.

    However,one does not believe nor does one not commit one's entire being [ def faith ] to any other thing based solely or even primarily upon that entity's authority.

    This massive movement and giving of the entire person in faith is not at all identical to a child's having trust and confidence in the parent's answers to questions. You are wrong in that analogy.

    Faith involves totalization of one's personality and one's being. It is a matter of ultimate concern. Trusting in adult answers does not. 

    We believe what the Church teaches because we have in, a prior fashion, been grasped by Her, that is to say, we are in love with Her teachings and more so Her Spouse. We want to be suffused with Church and Christ. We are in a love affair.  

    Believing by authority is patently inimical to this eternal love affair.

    This is not to say that Apostolic witness is not authoritative nor formative.

    It is however to deny – because humanly impossible – that one moves to belief and faith [ not at all synonymous terms, yes? ] because of authority.  Authority then is an occasioin but not the cause of faith.  

  75. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Your argument then is with JPII since the analogy is his.

    I did not say that authority was the cause of faith, but the authority gives us the content: Believe this! Have faith in that! Without the this and that there is nothing and no real faith.

  76. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkocah: Excusse me. But that is precisely what you have blistered me with for several days now. You and other more strident and offensive ones.

    NOW, you agree with me!!

    Consider that if you mkochan hold that there be no "saving faith" apart from a faith which is said to be based on or caused by authority of the Church, then you will find yourself in contradiction of Church teaching.

     For the Church clearly teaches that non " I-believe-based-on-the-authority-of-the-Church" Christians may too be saved  because partaking of the One True Church, albeit, imperfectly.

    For you, faith apart from that which is engendered by authority is merely ersatz and bogus.

    You can not have it both ways,sorry.  

  77. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I hope you do not side with goral's post. This is most intolerable. It is radical types as goral that……..oh well. 

    I don't believe in mind-reading.  I wish guys like goral would not attempt it. 

    Thus, against John Wayne, there does not "have" to be an Unmoved Mover or a Designer.

    You're still not getting me.  John Wayne could have said, "There has to be an infinite stack of cosmic turtles" for all I care.  The point is that the materialist rebuttal would still be self-contradictory because, on the one hand, we are to believe that the idea of other created natures is absurd when posited of "religious" things like angels, but solid rationalism when trotted out for the express purpose of getting around those 10 to the 137th power to 1 odds against the extreme fine-tuning which makes this universe able to exist.  One can, I suppose plump for either form of blind rationalist materialism.  The attempt to plump for both at the same time looks an awful lot to me like saying "I will prefer anything to the possibility of theism."

     But one does not "have" to ask that question!

    That's true.  One does retain the freedom to be radically intellectually incurious.  But it is still deeply inhuman.  Not to mention folly.

  78. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mark: I think we might as well put the point that, whereas a religious positing of other worlds/natures is, shall we say, metaphysically  grounded, the positing of other worlds/natures by scientists is more shall we say, intellectually rigorous even if wrong…complex models, intricate physics and the like. Thus apparently more rational.

     

    I would like to take "evidence for God's existenec " out of the proof and argument arena altogether.

    Thus I am insouciant – when not put tp sleep -towards theistic claims as well as the anti-theistic fall out of the astrophysicists.

  79. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Oh, now we see, metaphysics is not intellectually as rigorous as natural science — because it uses complex models and intricate physics, you understand — even when the particular natural science is purely speculative and therefor examining nothing in the natural world at all while the metaphysics is exploring the implications of the revelation of the mind of the very Creator of the natural order. Thank you, Lwall for ending this on such a comic note.

  80. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan: You're welcome.

    If you read me carefully, neither metaphysics nor astrophysics do the trick.

    I believe that Kant did a petty good job, not to mention numerous  of his offspring! Metaphysics is dead wood.

    By the way, did u answer my question…how your requirement for belief by "authority of Church" leads you to contradict Church teaching?  

  81. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I would like to take "evidence for God's existenec " out of the proof and argument arena altogether.

    So I gather.  But both St. Thomas and Vatican I disagree, and I will go with them.

  82. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Bravo mshea and mkochan. We see what his problem is ,not with you two,but with the Angelic Doctor.Thanks guys that was a good read.

  83. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I can't wait for Angels, part 2…

  84. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Iwall, you still haven't tried to explain how your first post was relevant to anything Mark has written. What you did in it was to rehash a one-dimensional simplification of the design argument, the sort of simplification of which the atheist Wallace I. Matson was fond. That was relevant to some clumsy expositions of the teleological argument, a.k.a. the argument from Design. But those clumsy expositions bear no resemblance to anything Mark wrote, either in Angels, Part I or his articles on the Incoherence of atheism.

    Ipioch, I would be interested in hearing more from you (and from Iwall too, for that matter) about what Iwall wrote:

    You are wrong on the scienec in para 3. What drives multiverse theory is not so much Big Bang but the implications of string theory, dark energy, dark matter, worm wholes, black wholes,etc…

    To which you responded:

    is such a non statement (so general, not to mention, inaccurate) he may want to stick to his day job as a philosopher. Nice try, though.

    I can see some inaccuracies myself, but I'm curious to hear your take on them too. The theories of dark energy and dark matter, for example, say nothing one way or the other about other universes, but only seek to explain phenomena in this one. Worm holes are purely hypothetical at this point, and they are only believed to be tunnels from one part of our universe to another.

    Black holes are real enough, but the ones of which we know are offshoots of our universe, and Hawking's theory that they will eventually leak all their contents back into our universe via quantum events, is generally accepted now. If correct, it rules out speculation that black holes are the beginnings of new universes–and that's all it is or was, speculation.

    Even this multiverse theory is a far cry from the infinitude of universes of which Mark spoke, because the various universes which make up the hypothetical multiverse are still connected to each other and share many physical properties, and they are finite in number. To really come to grips with the fantastic un-randomness of our physical laws, one has to either posit an actual infinity of universes (in the strict sense that the set of integers is infinite) or else a fantastic finite number much greater even than Mark mentioned, with the overwhelming majority of universes full of utter garbage.

    By the way…Iwall got mixed up when he mentioned the Big Bang in this context: that was not relevant at all to the claim that this universe is all there is—or as atheist Carl Sagan said at the beginning of his Cosmos series: the cosmos is all there is or was or ever will be. It is the fantastic un-randomness of our universe that makes this idea seem incredibly naive.

  85. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Its been a lot of years since I was putting my head into all this, but weren't multiverse theories originally philosophical (as opposed to physical/mathematical) constructions, proposed to solve certain causality and time problems and even "free will" issues?  I mean, none of this is new, really. I think a survey of mid 20th century science fiction would turn up plenty of examples.

  86. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mark: When I say I would like to take "evidence for God's existence out of the picture", I am urging that evidence as in rational arguments/proofs become obsolete as a conversation tool.  They do not work as proofs, they rarely if ever lead to conversion, and they provoke quite good, justified, and sophisticated defenses which I am sure your own exepriences tell you.

    The Church has never once proffered or canonized an official knock down evidentiary proof or argumemt. Don't you wonder why that is so?

    Oh, She refers to St. Paul and She refers to man's ability of arriving at a certain knowledge of God from the "natural light of reason". Below.

    Nonetheless, there is no official document and no canoized proof. Why?

    Besides, the phrase "from the natural light of reason", is itself an ambiguius term up for grabs.

    For example, it might refer to what Tillich refers to as "the depth of resaon" wherein resaon comes finally to realize that her drive for completeness in knowing all things, a very Kantian tale here, is implicitly to ask the existential question of the unconditional. It – this drive of resaon to its own depth -is already an acknowledgement of the unconditional! The answer, according to Tillich, is given in the asking. For the existential yearning itself, according to Tilich, presupposes the reality of the ultimate about which reason is "ultimatelyconcerned" in its depths. Could this be Paul's andthe Church's meaning of natural light of resaon?

    "Natural light of resaon" could as well refer to the so called "God of the philosophers", to wit ,Aristotle's Prime Mover, Liebniz's God, Anselm's ontological proof, Cartesian proofs, even Alfred North Whitehead's process  God. The natural man can logically posit God in argument. Is that the natural light of reason the Church declares? Thus, could Paul have been referring to the God of the philosophers which abstract God Paul acknowledges must now be concretized in the God of Isreal then as fulfilled and made definitive by the Christ? But that would not be a proof, although it would constitute an argument or an appeal. Ah! But then the paradox of the Cross which Paul was quite aware of and preached not despite the Crosst but because of it!

    "By the natutal light of reason" might refer to the Augustinian "illumination of mind and reason", that is, knowledge of God is given in immediate experience and is the basis for all experince, as "prior" to the subject-object split of finite existence. Thus, God is known and, in fact, only known in im-mediacy. At the same time, this im-mediate knowinig, according to the Augustin- Franciscan tradition, experience is at the same time certainty. since God is present in and behind finite existence, that is, prior to human resaon or reasonings as in proof/arguments, they get us no where.

    However, once this Augustinian immediacy became attenuated by the encroachemnt of nominalism, reason began to take precedence over the natural light of the Augustainian im-mediated "God as prius". Mediated reason, as in arguments and proofs, began to proliferate.

     The 5ways is paradigmatic of this unfortunate turn which the human race has never recovered from, later picked up and totalaized by the Enlightment, and has been recurring in theological/scientific "debates" in various garbs up til the present, as in Argument From Design.

     It would take Kant to show us the folly and absurdity of these arguments and, later, Wittgenstein then others to show us that all the while we had been merely "buzzing around in a fly bottle".  

    The certainty of the Augustinian light of immediacy is now regrettably replaced by a newly perceived so called "necessity" that man begin in nature/ and with his senses, then work his way up to "knowledge of God" philosophically, deductively. Knowldge of God is not im-mediate but must be mediated by argument!  And if you don't see the proofs as proofs, then just submit yourself to the authority of the Church. That was the solution Scotus and Ocam offered. Man was envisaged to be in need of strong, virile, "can't- quarrel -with -this -type of proof" deomstartions and arguments to fill the void of an immediacy absconded.

     Once the experience of immediacy recedes in any given historical epoch, the human race then desparately reaches for its holster where the pistol of Resaon, which as we all surely realize, shoots strong and powerful bullets! This will surely wll bring us back into the expeience of God we are so missing!

    Reversion to strong, convincing facts and evidences, irrefuatble arguments/ proofs, and other arguments of reason recalls the postmodernist's critique of the deployment of Reason in Western thought as "phallogocenrtic" that is,,as stiff, masculine, and dominating. There is, in this reversion to hard facts and arguments, an implicitly dismissive and denigrating attitude towards soft and fuzzy sentiment, feeling, and intuition – all of which are entailed in the Augustinuan immediacy now lost.  Just too feminie, and as femine mere folly when it comes to what we really need: strong, compelling, in your face evidences and facts. This, Mark, is what I see you doing.

    It is a sure "sign of the times' that an epoch's or an individual's strong and ceratin intuitive and immediate knowledge of God has indeed receded from the spirit when retreats to argument and proofs begin to creep into the mileu.

    The point is : we have an intellectual history of reason's self- enclosed and self-captured  internal dialectic which is at the saame time a history of resaon's failure. It would take Kant later on then many other of his children to make explicit just why God can not be reached in human thought.

     NONE OF THE MEDIEVAL PROOFS WORKED THEN NOR WILL "NEW PROOFS/ARGUMENTS" WORK NOW.

    Actually there are no "new proofs/evdences." All merely recapitualte in new garb the inherent antinomous dialectic and limitation of reaon in its transcendental use, in reasons attempt to prove/argue for the existence of God.

     

    So, Mark, I wonder why you say that you are content to keep proffering arguments that don't work etc. { I take it that's the meaning of " I will go with them"}; that  you go with V1 and St Thomas when Thomas himself admits of the failure of his 5 ways? Why?

    So we now ask, "What exactly did St Paul mean?" He certainly does not tell us. 

    Did he mean that we can, by the natural light of reason, come to make rational arguments beginning with sense experience then concluding to God as with the 5 ways?

    Or did Paul and the Church intend somehting quite different? I have already noted that the Churth has proffered no canonized knock- down rational argument that would make us believe. Does She see Paul as inviting us to make rational natural light arguments? I doubt it. 

    So we are left wondering what this natural light of reason Paul sites and reiterated by the Churcjh actually refers to!

    I have gestured at that true meaning above. 

    Yes, it is possible to make a joyful noise unto the Lord by attempting to resonate with Him and praise  Him in thought; to priase Him in proffering our pitiful little human proofs and arguments -sacrifices and confessions.

    But human reason at best is only a confession that, in the depths of human experience – rational, moral, aesthetic, communitarian – there seems to be revealed an unconditional depth, an ultimacy, an unconditonal quality that points beyond itself.

    And that pointing beyond is itself a species of the Augustinian immediacy which many on this post including Mark and mkocahn apparently are devoid of.

    Reversion to the "need" for arguments etc. exposes this very void, at least as you have opened up yourselves on this post. I do not presume to know more of you than what I read of you here, however.

     For this "depth of reason" and this "pointing beyond itself" given in experience are not conclusions from any argument, or any proof, or any conclusion to God's existence from design arguments.  This "natural light of resaon" then is "reason driven beyond the need for argument" because driven to its finite limits where it is now readied and emptied to ask the question of God; and where in its existential depth of asking, has already received its answer.

    Paul is not inviting us to join in a "design argument" some  2000 years down the road. Thr true meaning of his ejaculation  would be formulated later by the Augustinian- FRanciscan way. "By the things made" drives resaon to her depth. It does not load up resaon with proofs and arguments.

    This depth and natural light is an immediacy that renders proofs unnecessary, which is quite good since proofs/ arguments utterly fail..Anselm, Descartes Meditations 3 and 5,  Thomas, design argument. None of the above prove the unproveable.They at best point to reasons limitations and to her depths which then ask for God..

    Thus, I again say to you, Mark…engaging non-believers on the level of "rational argument" is futile.

     

    Several posts back, I gave you a quite good summary of the Kantian view as to why arguments don't and can't work. All yes's and no's pertaining to God- arguments are but one pole of a dialectical dilemma of transcendental reason's own antinomies. I was hoping that at least you might be familiar with this ..I beleive you possess a masters degree in philosophy, no? 

  87. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Kant was responding to Hume.  It is Hume who contracted the province of reason so that we do not know causality or substantial realities. The Church simply rejects the Humean contraction of reason and calls us back to knowing truth.  In the face of this modern project the Church tells human beings that they can judge the natures of things and can know truth. Please read Faith and Reason — it is all about this. You are too enamored of Kant et al.

  88. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan: I am more enamored of others in addition to Kant….Rorty, Dewey, Wittgenstein, Davidson, and Kuhn for starters, and of course, your favorite, Soren Kierkegaard.

    Catholic theologian Matthias Scheeben and the enormoulsy important Paul Tillich are on my list too, thank you.

     

    By the way, and for the third time, where is your answer to my question put to you about "saving faith" apart from that faith which is based on "authority of the Church"?

    I will not stop asking for your response.You are too simplistic and vague on Kant on Hume. 

    Hume's treatment of causality was brutal, honest, and correct. Rather than ascribing the attribution of causality to habit, as did Hume, Kant relocates it in the structure of mind/Verstand in its mode of sense experience . He argued that all synthetic a priori propositions must contain certain categories – causality as one of them – since the understanding itself  contibutes such categories to the judgment prior to experience.  

     

    Now the Church calls us back to what??? What ever are you referring to? A pre- Humean position? What is THAT?

    Please explain. I am unaware that the Church has refuted Hume!

     

    Yes. I will be happy to review Faith and Resaon.

    In the meantime, I am still waitng for you to direct me to a Church canonized argument /demonstartion of "certain knowledge of God" than  shown by the natural light of resaon or whatever.

    You know, an argument that will slaughter all possible counter arguments of non-believers.

  89. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Re authority: My response is simply that I never said what you claimed I said. But I am not really interested in taking a trek down your rabbit hole.

    Re Hume: I have an entire file on modern philosophy's rejection of the concept of substance with an entire timeline of quotes, but right now — due to a computer crash a couple of weeks ago — it is sitting with most of my other files in an external hard drive and I cannot get to it. On Tuesday I have a technician coming here to get those files onto my computer. When that occurs I will post the quotes. The Church rejects Humes conclusions very explicity — for example he locates the origin of religion in human psychology, rejects divine revelation, and proposes a naturalistic rebuttal to the very idea of miracles. Surely I don't need to multiply examples. And surely you as both philospher and Catholic know this perfectly well.

    Re existence of God known for certainty by light of human reason: Since I am not accepting the premise that a Church canonized argument or demonstration of proof is required to accept the Church teaching on this point, I guess you will just continue to wait.

  90. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan : You are ptetty good at retraction . I look forward to Hume and you.

    Later

  91. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan, the connection of free will with multiverses that I know of is in the "many worlds" theory of quantum mechanics. This posits that every possible outcome of an indeterminate event represents a splitting of the universe into two or more universes that are absolutely identical except for the outcomes of that one event, at least until the next indeterminate event. Scientific American, which never was a peer-reviewed scientific journal, had quite a field day with this idea many years ago in an article on the subject. It included two pictures, one depicting our universe at the moment Judas kisses Jesus, and another like it in every way except that Judas is not in the picture.

    I don't remember any more whether the people who concocted this idea were philosophers or physicists, nor whether they thought that free will would be illusory if we live in such a universe. I suspect they did, because each decision is matched by a decision in a different direction, and there seems to be no reason to think that either one was freely decided on by the agent.

    Anyway, this theory is not of much help to anyone wanting to get around the fantastic un-randomness of our universe: the many worlds share a common set of physical laws, and only the specific events in them are variable.

     

     

  92. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    For any God proveable by reason or by the senses is not the God behind the universe, not the God of Almighty power and transcendece. He has become a "thing among other things" who can be pulled down, so to speak, by man!

    It would seem from this, Iwall,  that, your alleged Catholicism not withstanding, you do not believe in the Incarnation, in the "emptying himself" of which  Paul speaks in the Epistle to the Phillipians.  It represents God pulling himself down to one of the lowest levels of "things among things," first a human zygote, then a human embryo, then a newborn human baby in swaddling clothes… 

    One is correct to reject such a God who after all has now become just another piece of existential finitude,

    Same song, second verse.  And how Robinsonian you sound here! I am referring to J. A. T. Robinson in Honest to God, who ridiculed theism by characterizing it as belief in a divine watchmaker who wound up the universe and periodically winds it tight. He rejected the very idea of a God who is a person, or three divine persons, on the basis that this idea is not as lofty as the concept of "Ground of All Being" or even of "ultimate concern".

    The conclusion of a deductive  argument ( all bad arguments though they be, some people still "believe" in them).

    They are not bad arguments, they are just not airtight–and they are not as one-dimensionally deductive as you made them out to be in your first post. 

    It seems strange that you, who love using words like "ultimate", "unconditional" etc. as loosely as Robinson and Tillich used them, should be so dead set against anything short of a rigorous mathematical proof when one talks about  rational arguments for God's existence.

     Who would not balk at such a God!

    I would not like it if, just because someone did a video of me winding up an alarm clock, to be ever after referred to as "the alarm clock winder-upper."  On the other hand, if it were rumored that I was dead, the video would serve just as well as a more lofty demonstration that I am alive. 

     

  93. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    plowshare: You are once again in la-la land. The Incarnation is NOT an instance of man pulling down God, as would be the case if man could -which unquestionably he can not -prove the existence of God by deployment of a rational airtight argument.

    You are so cock sure of it. Go ahead. Give us all your airtight proof or else please stifle this boring refrain of yours.

    I am not "against proofs of God', I jus haven't seen any and that's because there can notbe any!

    I deny that Tillich used unconditional and ultimatr loosely.

    I also would bet some money you ahve read next to nothing of tillich.

    Am I right?

  94. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall:

    I get what you are saying about not reducing God to a "thing" as though he is simply the conclusion of a math problem.  But I don't buy that saying "God exists" is really doing this.  How is it that God can say "I AM" and that's okay, but for us to say "He is" is a ridiculous act of arrogance?  And if somebody says, "Why do you think he is?" how is it a bad thing to give an answer?  I'm still not following you.

  95. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mshea: Thank you for the question.

    The contrasting implications of I Am" and "God exists" hold much theological weight and can be made to bear on our discussion. I will attempt a brief response. No promises, however.

    The Exodus portrayal of this nature theophany to Moses should be viewed as revealing a developing God -concciousness by Isreal rather than as a literal happening.  But, if one insists on video/audio tape reality of the theophany, I see little theological damage done in this insistence. 

    Either way we are witnessesing divine pedagogy – an emerging corporate consciousness or direct pedagagy of God in time to Moses and the human race. Either way, we learn what God wishes to called by humans because the name "revealed" reflects who He is.

    Who He is as conveyed by the name " I AM" has profound implications for how the human race stands in relation to Him. For the name " I AM" portarys God as ultimately transcendent to the human race and creation. The phrase connotes " I am that being who bes" and " I am that who powers beings".

    This last sentence is most important. God is revealing not just that the "one" of the " Shema, Ysrael!" in Deuteronomy is more than a monotheistic numerical one. For the Hebrew one of the shema ( my spelling will be very wrong) as "ehud" also means unique being, nothing like Him, and unlike us.

    God is " I AM". His transcendent uniqueness is as ground of being. And as such, God precedes existence. He is its ground and source. Thus,He is not known nor approachable by any ordinary name. He stands behind and above all that is  – [ metaphors and symbolism are necessary when speaking of that which is beyond space/time.]

     The transcendent and ground/abyss quality of God expressed in "I AM WHAT AM"  and the "one" of Deuteronomy is reflected in the OT "respect for the divine name." Never should it be uttered! That would be blasphemous. It would be tantamoount to pulling God down and assigning him an earthly name, one amomg other earthly names, this God a thing among other existing things albeit great and poweful. It deflates God of His true essense.

    We often forget that the enigma of Christ's Cross was not the only offense to the Jews, but that the idea of God appearing in time as Son of God  – or whatever proto- expresison of the hypostatic union at the time – was equally offensive. This offense, of course, reflects the long tradition of Jewish fear and respect for God's transcendence captured in "IAM" and in the "one" of the shema.

    As corollary, no Jewish mind would ever conceive of proffering "proofs" for God's existence. He is "I AM WHAT AM; WHAT BES OF ITS OWN BEING"

    His reality for Israel is known as surely as one breathes the morning air. All OT reminders and calls to faith of Israel consist in the anamnestic  recalling/representing of God's salvific acts in history and, especially, the exodus and Sinai Covenant. But never do the Isreali intellegentsia feel compelled to develop or argue rationally for God's existence, for example, as in construting certain snappy ontological or cosmological proofs for God's existence. His reality was known! We should take a lesson big time here.

    Arguments for His existence would be to dethrone God as God. For any God "proveable" and captuarble by rational thoughts issuing from mere [ fallible and fallen] man would not the same Almighty God who revealed Himself as the transcnedent ground of power and being in the burning bush theophany, who surely is not one among other finite existents but rather their ultimate source and ground. As HE WHO BES, he is the supplier of being to all that bes. He is not a part of this ontology, this realm

    His ontology is far above and ultimately eminent to ours! This is something important for man to know, and it is salutary to the spirit of man. It defines a baseline ontological relation between God and man that may not be breached except on pain of deleterious effects to the soul. One must become properly spiritually disposed and intellectually humble before God – take off your shoes before Holy ground and calm down the churning wheels of you finite, limited reason. 

    Only later would there be a peculiar Christian preoccupation with proofs and arguments. Taking leads from ancient philosophy's attempts at proofs – eg, Aristotle – Christian theologians began { the geneis of this tendency to proofs and its historic causation I will skip } ceratin Christian authors felt compelled also to offer proofs.

    Here then is the great temptation which Israel more or less successfully fought off but which Christians succumbed to and continue to do so.  For it is a temptation both of the spirit and mind of man to try to capture God in a proof, arguments, evidences. It is temptation because God has "told" us in the I AM and the shema that He is cause, the power of being in being, and thus beyond existential categories as I will expalin "existence" below. And that His transcendence must be respected and feared. Proofs and arguments rob God of God in the spirit of he who attempts to make them. They attenuate His transcendence and grandeur. 

    In addition, while I might prove or asert the "existence" of many finite things, I can not do the same of God. He is beyond essense and existence. Our very language presupposes and reveals certain finite existential ontological features – individuation/participation; subject/object split; dynamics and for,etc. – which are inescapble as long as man is man. At the same time, these existential categories as finite categories define the limitation of human thought, langauge, and reason. We cannot as human beings re-build Babel so as to reach God in the form of rational arguments.

    We can of course justifiably erect rational arguments and scientific hypotheses that quarks exist and the same of any existentail ontic thing. But this is only because dogs, rocks, and quarks exist, thatis to say, they are aspects of existential finitude. They are thus congenial to our language, our resaon, and our ontological limits.

     Howver, importantly, God does not exist. Of quarks we can posit there existence, because they are assumed to be components of this fallen ontology and are finite exsitents. But we can not say the same of God Almighty, the great "I AM" who in revealing His name reveals who He is – the ground/abyss beyond finite categories. 

     Attempts by fallen reason to prove or rationally argue God's existence then is equivalent to denying the profound significance of the great "I AM" by wresting Him from His transcendence and plunking Him down amidst finite categories.

    It is a profound profanation and tempataion to be avoided. Attempts are not only revocating of the divine essense but also are utterly futile and, I will risk saying, also somewhat demonic. They certainly viloate the insuperable gap between God and man which God has revealed should be respected.

    If this gap is ever to be overturned, it would be upon God's own initiative. We call this the Incarnation, and even more has God's mystery been manifest as mystery and sustained by it rather than providing us a new argumentative/rational proof for a Tower of Bable.

    For it is that the great "I AM " who reaches us, and not the other way around.

    I have previously referred to Kant. He and others before him and many after him – I happen to favor Kant over Hume, but both have much value for us today – have beautifully argued the limitations of human reason. We should re-visit these greats! Likewise, as anathema as he is to many on his site who dountless know next to nothing of Kierkegaard but have opinions nonetheless –  Kierkegaard even more beautifully speaks of the uniqueness and transecendence of God even and especially as they are mantained in the paradox and mystery of the Incarnattion.   

    Mark, it would run counter to the theological import and meanings of "I AM" were one to translate " I AM " as " I exist." God is beyond existence as its ultimate ground, sustainer, and cause. Existents comprise the domain of spacetime and ontic beings. Furtermore,"eixstence" portrays the ontology of "things" – such ontological categories as individuation, subject- object split, limited reason, dynamics and form, anxiety, and most of all, finitude! 

    St. Augustine knew all if this. He eschewed proofs of God, for he knew of God's transcendence while at the same time, by virtue of the Incarnation, His immanence. But that immanence given us in the Incarnation also preserves the eminent transcendence and ontology of God in Christ. It appears as the prius of being and is not a new bridge for now capturing God in rational argument, evidences, and proofs.  Existence remains fallen cosmos. Man remains man even after the Incarnation albeit now graced and qualified by the Incarnation.

    The theological weight of  "I AM" and the "uniqueness" of God's being invoked in the shema must never – nor can they ever – be dismantled by human rationation. God can not and will not be pulled down and made thereby  presentable to the human race in an argument.

    Thus, do I claim as with many others and as consonant with the long tradition of Isreal, that arguments from design, from reason or logic as with Descartes Med 3 and 5 and Anselm, 5 ways of St Thomas, or whatever evince both a very human urge but also at the same time temptation which must be resisted!  Faith is already injured even as one embarks on such a journey.

    God "bes", He does not "exist."

    I AM connotes His being as ground, abyss, and beyond. And, as such, it reveals His utter resistence to being captued by our existential ontology and its categories. Not by reason, nor the by senses, nor by deduction  from design argument ( or is the design argument not more properly called an induction invalid as it is.? }

    The legacy of proofs and arguments their failures throughout the ages should have served as a spirtual lesson to the human race, but no. The tempattaion and urge are evidently too great. Kant is right. Reason flies off in its transcendent use into irresolvable antinomies.

    I am more than satisfied and filled by His mystery. As with Kierkegaard and Matthias Scheeben… I believe because of the absurd and because the mystery. It is all utterly beyond me, and this is the one and decisive way I know with the certainty of faith that I personally am being met by God Almighty, the great I AM of Exodus, in the Mystery of Incarnation, Resurrection, sacrament, and  Church beyond all expectation and beyond all finite categories.

    This is my faith. I can not bring it down into time as a proof or as rational argument. Nor should I desire it.

    Reason posits the conceptual possibility of God. But His realuity is known in the Incarnation. And this is not a rational thing.

    This is my answer to your question, Mark.

       

     

  96. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mshae: Addendum: Todays reading from Wisdom.

  97. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    "Or who ever knew your counsel, except you had given wisdom
    and sent your holy spirit from on high?
    And thus were the paths of those on earth made straight."  (Wisdom)

    Continue with the text lwall and the "except" is the answer and the reason. God has given us enough to make rational conclusions. Not completely and conclusively rational and not infinitely perfect but enough of what we need to sufficiently satisfy all the senses. That's all that I read in Marks article. You're stuck in the OT way of thinking. The Incarnation that you claim to believe gives us the freedom and latitude to explore God's creation and to posit proofs within a tolerance of reasonable doubt and imperfection. As a catholic, why are you spending so much time with Kant and Hume? Is the Church exploring the possibility of including their writings as dogma or doctrine? What have these guys contributed to the repository of faith for which the Church specifically (by name) gives them credit? I don’t know. 

     

  98. Guest Avatar
    Guest

     Well -I think we've hit bedrock…

    Howver, importantly, God does not exist.

    God "bes", He does not "exist."

    I don't think you can honestly say, even with all this high-minded, academic gibberish surrounding these two statements, that this is at all in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church. 

    Here's a newsflash:

    God does exist.      He came down from Heaven and became man.  He suffered died, and was buried.  He exists in the form of bread and wine at every Mass in the Eucharist.  He IS as real as you and me. 

    By the way, the Catholic faith is not meant to be so complicated that the only person who could understand it is someone who has been educated to the point where they could say that they believe in a God who "does not exist."

  99. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mamreilly:  I am sorry to hear how anti-intellectual you really are. The Church has been and is still quite full of us. By the way, have you heard of our new Pope?

    God did not "come down from heaven and become man." That is a horrific distortion of the meaning of the hypostatic union and an   impossibility stated as such: God did not cease being God and "turn int' man.

    God as the Second Person effected a miraculous union with the human nature and thereby entered into our ontology and into our existential realm as a unique Person, the Divine Person, Jesus of Nazareth.

    Jesus was and is an unrepeatable person, the God-man, in whom and through whom His Incarnation is perpetuated such that this hypostatic union perdures eternally and substantially ,really, and sacramentally in His Mystical Body.

    Confusion and ignorance on this basic seminal tenet of our faith gives great scandal. 

      

    The Catholic faith becomes complicated only when Mystery is supplanted by too much hubristic human verbiage.

    That, my friend, is one of the valuable things about studying Hume, Kierkegaard and others.

    It helps and councils us to tame the urge to say too much, because it is pointless to say too much. We are thereby redirected and situated  before Mystery where we belong.

    An aside… watch the personal attacks on me and ad hominem arguments. If I see it again, I will ask mshea and mkochan to  remove it and deny you future access on this site. I have tolerated more than enough of that from you!  I have warned you fairly in advance. 

     

  100. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    goral : The wisdom that Wisdom anticipated, albeit in a shadowy manner, did not refer to a future dispensation and a funding of the human race with a set of new , powerful rational arguments and proofs.

    In fact, the dimly longed for Incarnation – wherein God Himself would mysteriously, miraculously, and beyond all human comprehension { that includes the human capacity for reason } manifest His glory in and through the human race. This actually woukld be expected to render just the oppossite : before this Incarnational Myster and Church we must become silent. There is really nothing we can say to explain or capture it in words, or reasons, or proofs. We must surrender to it and be "in the Mystery."

    The spirit of wisdom in Wisdom then anticipates a future making our paths straight in as much as "your spirit on high" will acheive a finality and a resolution of all human longing to the extent to which we accept His Mystery, and to the extent to which we are given over to Christ in Mystery. This has absolutely nothing to do with a wisdom as in wise and final arguments and proofs.Such are not the Incarnation! It is NOT a matter of argument, reasonings, or proofs.

    In fact, herein lies great value in studying Hume, Kant,and Kierkegaard, and others. Since you sort of asked me, I am happy to explain. We learn from them the limits of human reason and its arguments, and we are counciled thereby silently to  enter His Mystery and to eschew all human rational moorings.

  101. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mamreilly: I forgot.

    Yes. God does not exist for to exist refers to created finite entities and  things. God then , if He were said to "exist", would be counted as one among all other things.

    Rtaher, He is the power of being in being (s) but not Himself a being.

    We exist.

    But God eternally bes or  "I AMs".

    Remenmber, goral, "…begotten not made, ONE IN BEING WITH THE FATHER ?"

    Things and humans exist because they are made and they cease to exist.

    Is God like that"? Of course not.

    God is eternally self -begotten not made, not existing, not finite, not capable of not exsisting. He  " IAms"eternally.

    Catherine Siena is particularly poetic on this in her Dialogues. Want to give it a shot? Get a copy. It's really great stuff.

    Hope you will do it.

  102. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    goral: I slipped up!

    Should have read "..not capable of not being or AMing" and not as I wrote "not existing." 

  103. Guest Avatar
    Guest

     "There is really nothing we can say to explain or capture it in words, or reasons, or proofs. We must surrender to it and be "in the Mystery."

    Your statement above.  Ans. Fine!, agreed. But we're not deaf mutes, we use words, just count yours. Your favorite philosophers wrote volumes on how we should just shut-up. Your own occupation thrives on this very peculiar tendency for the human mind and spirit to go on exploring and arriving at the same conclusion a million different ways. Most of us find this futile exercise fascinating. I myself am a little bit of a "doctrinal coward". I find solace in mooring my faith within the confines of the Catholic Church. As I read you in your ongoing comments you seem to be coming closer to what I would recognize as some form of faith, therefore I go on record as retracting my earlier comments that you are an unbeliever. Due to my own shortcomings, I just can't follow you very well. You however have an obligation to present your comments in such a way that they are not interpreted to be a threat to Catholic Orthodoxy. It's no coincidence that most of us interpreted it to be that way. Not to mention that they were somewhat off the topic. If you come and sing an English song at a French reception you will not get ethusiastic applause.

  104. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    This is ridiculous nonesense.  "To be" is a verb meaning "to exist." The first person singular form is "am;" the second person singular form of the verb "to be" is "is;" the past tense is "was" as in: "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "the one who is and who was and who is to come, the almighty."

    Existence is precisely the very quaility that God the Holy Trinity in infinite overflow of Love itself, shares with all creation. His existence is uncontingent and necessary; while all Creation is contingent and dependent. What deliniates God from Creation is not existence, but contingency and dependence.

    To say that God is Being Itself means nothing other than to say that God is Self-Existent. (It does not of course mean that we can fit that concept into our finite minds.)

    Maimonides argued for the existence of God as First Cause on the basis of contingency and I dare say that he was more of Jewish thinker than Lwall whose highly tendentious reading of the OT ignores a number of passages in which incipient cosmological reasoning is presented.

    Jews did not always eschew the pronunciation of the Tetragrammatan. It appeared originally more that 6000 times in the OT. Fear of The Name ever being used in vain caused the Jews to begin to substitute Adonay (Lord) for every instance of it, other than phrases such a hallelujah (the jah at the end being a shorted form of Yahweh (J=Y) represented in Hebrew by YHWH because vowels weren't written).  You can see this in your own copy of the OT wherever the word LORD is in all caps it is substituting for YHWH in Hebrew. This somewhat superstitious fear of pronouncing God's name – which none of the OT prophets shared and which arose late (post-exilic) in Jewish history — had the providential effect of making the Christian declaration that Jesus is Lord even more mysterious and wonderful. Jesus is Yahweh.

  105. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan: I agree with your last statement.

     I disagree with your analysis of existence. To use the same term to decribe the reality and life of God and that of the human being viz. "exists" is blasphemous. 

    Israel always and even now intuits and fears/reverences the profound sense of God's transcendence even when pronouncing "Adonai." You are truly misguided in thinking otherwise.

    There is much, much more to be said in referring to God as the Ground of Being. It denies that He exsits since that would place Him in the realm of exisyent things. His life and being are not equiavalent to ours, who indeed exist! I explained that in previous post today.

    Yes, that the Almighty God, who is so Other in being, has in the Incarnation taken on a/the human nature – fully God and fully man- indeed blows the categories out of the water. I agree. I have been urging the same and against no small amount of insulting remarks from you and others.

    Where we significantly part company is that you believe this Mystery is describable somehow rationally or intellibly and even somehow susceptible to some type of – I know what -rational demonastration or something of the sort.It cleraly makes you angry that I claim this of you.

    Where you think I am unorthodox, I see your view- if I have understood you well – bordering upon profanization. 

  106. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    The Incarnation is NOT an instance of man pulling down God,

    Obviously not, Iwall, but that wasn't what you objected to; read your own words more carefully:

    He has become a "thing among other things" who can be pulled down, so to speak, by man!

    Or as Paul put it, "…taking the form of a slave…he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross." (Philippinas 2 7-8).  And note what precedes that: "though he was in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God something to be grasped."

    "equality with God" makes no sense to me if you equate God with the Ground of Being.  Does it make sense to you? 

    You are so cock sure of it. Go ahead. Give us all your airtight proof or else please stifle this boring refrain of yours.

    Not only did I not claim to have a proof, everything I and Mark Shea have writtem should make it clear that neither us is claiming to have one. 

    I am not "against proofs of God', I jus haven't seen any and that's because there can notbe any!

    Until God provides it at the Last Judgment. 

    But what I said was that you are against any argument that falls short of a proof, not that you are against proofs.  I on the other hand am content with arguments that make the faith reasonable enough so that any atheist could see its reasonabless even while agreeing to disagree. There is always a leap of faith involved, but you seem to want to make the leap as prodigious as possible, thereby playing into the hands of atheists who accuse believers of "blind faith".

    By the way, I have read more than one book by Tillich, starting with  The Shaking of the Foundations. I consider him to be greatly overrated, hardly to compare with a true philosopher like William James or Hans Jonas.

  107. Guest Avatar
    Guest

     One Poster gave a link to JP2's encyclical -Faith and Reason. I've been studying it this afternoon. A bit much in one sitting. Here's paragraph 19. There were so many that jumped out at me but I had to pick one. Strangely enough I found it to be quite readable as some of these are not intended for the laymen.

    19. The Book of Wisdom contains several important texts which cast further light on this theme. There the sacred author speaks of God who reveals himself in nature. For the ancients, the study of the natural sciences coincided in large part with philosophical learning. Having affirmed that with their intelligence human beings can “know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements… the cycles of the year and the constellations of the stars, the natures of animals and the tempers of wild beasts” (Wis 7:17, 19-20)—in a word, that he can philosophize—the sacred text takes a significant step forward. Making his own the thought of Greek philosophy, to which he seems to refer in the context, the author affirms that, in reasoning about nature, the human being can rise to God: “From the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator” (Wis 13:5). This is to recognize as a first stage of divine Revelation the marvellous “book of nature”, which, when read with the proper tools of human reason, can lead to knowledge of the Creator. If human beings with their intelligence fail to recognize God as Creator of all, it is not because they lack the means to do so, but because their free will and their sinfulness place an impediment in the way. (end of P19)

    I did make reference to the stubborn will of the unbeliever in an earlier post. I would suggest that this leap of faith that has been given at times undue importance is just the proclivity of the will in it's state of grace or sinfullness, which is a choice.

  108. Guest Avatar
    Guest

     An aside… watch the personal attacks on me and ad hominem arguments. If I see it again, I will ask mshea and mkochan to  remove it and deny you future access on this site. I have tolerated more than enough of that from you!  I have warned you fairly in advance. 

     

    lwall,

    Consider it seen. Go ahead and make the request.

    Someone as tolerant as you shouldn't have to put up with someone like me.

     

  109. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    goral: Tillich's Shaking is a nice collection of his sermons at a lay persons level. I am quite sure if you were to take a couple of years to study his three volume Systematic Theology and other major works, you would surely change your tune to fall in line with the multiple surveys showing Tillich to be the single most influential theologian in many academics and pastors life!

    We have passed by this sentiment more than once. It;'s becoming soporific. This perception of the Creator is just that, perception as in a affirming feeling and it is NOT equiivalent in meaning to  "and ye shall be armed with powerful arguments from desig to go out and convince the non-believer." Rather, this perception is more of a deep feeling and intuiton.

    Again. There is no successful argument from design – as in a rational demonstration that only an idiot or a "willful and sinful person" could fail to see!!

    If you think there is, why don't you show it on this post.

  110. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mamreilly : You are forewarned.

  111. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    God did not "come down from heaven and become man." That is a horrific distortion of the meaning of the hypostatic union and an   impossibility stated as such: God did not cease being God and "turn int' man.

     

    lwall,

    From our Profession of Faith:

    For us men for our salvation

    he came down from heaven:

    by the power of the Holy Spirit

    he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

     

  112. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Excellent post Goral.  What seems to me to be absurd in this argument is the insistence that the philosophy of St.Thomas has created more athiests.  Are there statistics on this or is this another personal experience?  Maybe this is the case with some high-minded intellectuals who reject the intellect's ability to know truth and distrust sense knowledge.  Few Catholics would lose sleep over those.  Practically speaking, the closest I ever came to being an athiest is when as a young boy I came home from school and arrogantly told my family how random evolution was responsible for life, not God.  I only wish then somebody would have introduced me to St. Thomas.  It couldn't have done any worse.

  113. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Interesting Lwall; you determine the legitimacy of the argument by design, or in broader terms, the cosmological argument, to be contingent upon its ability to convince those whom it does not convince.  Those who do find it compelling (probably the majority of human beings) don't count and are written off as ignorant boobs. As long as a single atheist protests, you will side with him. Moreover you have made the independent judgment that the motives of that atheist are pure and noble and devoted to a pursuit of truth while the motives of the believers are corrupted by their very belief. And this over agianst the teaching of the Church that God's existence is knowable for a certainty by human reason and that moral culpablity (however it may be diminished) lies with the unbeliever.

    But if anyone points out the obvious arrogance of your position, it is an ad hominem attack, of course.

    I'm slowly vering toward being amused, but I admit that being disgusted still has the upper hand.

  114. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Twice, I know. 

    Are you familiar with the Nicene Creed? 

  115. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mamreilly, you just really must read Tillich, then you would understand that asking that question will just lead you down the rabbit hole because first the resurrection will be redefined as some psychological appropriation of the disciples over the special way that Jesus made them all feel so that they also felt compelled to tell stories about him working miracles and of course this miracle worker had to have been special from birth, hence the Virgin Birth. Woolah, we can in good conscience stand in Church and "confess" the creed without actually beileving a single word of it in the ordinary sense of "believe." But in the rarefied heights of academia they have advanced beyond such primitive concepts as belief and truth.

    Of course Lwall knows the Nicene creed and he probably says it every Sunday. Now does he mean by it anything that the rest of us would even recognize as resembling the Catholic faith? No.  But that is not about to stop him, trust me.

  116. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mamreilly, I was re-reading the comments so that I could find the reference to Fides et Ratio prior to me posting a paragraph from it. You were one. Randallino, if you have time, do the same and you'll find it to be a good example of random evolution. I actually found it to be more ammusing than disgusting, mkochan. I also found my comments to be the most strident, and yet lwall's ire was turned toward mamreilly. You will get an indulgence for taking the fall.

  117. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mkochan/goral,

    Okay, now we're having a good chuckle…

  118. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Thank you for your comments on Tillich, mkochan. I got the same impression from everything I read by him. One passage I still remember very well, and it is very much in line with the redefining of the Resurrection of which you wrote. It said that "modern ontology" has solved the mind-body problem by showing that body and mind are two aspects of the same thing and that when the body dies, so does the mind. Contrast this amateurish comment with the true philosophy displayed by William James in Human Immortality and by Hans Jonas in The Phenomenon of Life.  Even the Chandogya Upanishad showed more understanding of the mind-body problem than Tillich did.

  119. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    To All: What viloence in your words! What do you think I've said to deserve such rancor?

    That proofs for God's so called "existence" fail? That bothers you?

    That God can not be captured in rational arguments? That bothers you?

    That to say "God exists" robs Him of divinity, whereas God as the Ground of Being prior to all that finitely exists honors it. How that phrase resonates with the holiness and transcendence of "I AM." This bothers you?

    That the great theologian Paul Tillich held to a non-orthodox view of the resurrection [which I do not accept ]…that bothers you?

    That I use Kierkegaardian categories particulary re: faith and the Abrurd, etc which, if you reseach you will see him alluded to favoravbly in Catholic archives.

    That I rejecttrying tio argue with atheists,denigate their views as incoherent, irrational,just recalcitrant bvefote the facts…That bothers you that I denounce that behavior?

    That I believe non-believers are capable ogf the good against the viicious attacks on me for saying this and agaicst Church teacvhibg. That bothers you?

    That I am an intellectual. That bothers ( explcitly stated so by two posters) you?

    That the phrase "God became man" taken literally is impossible. Yes. I know what the Creed says. The phrase was so problematical that it was the major concern of Christological controversies resolved iby the accepted view of n the hypostatic union. That is what we believe as taught by the Church. That bothers you?

    That I believe bad arguments only serve to solidify atheists in their atheism or tend to produce n more of the…That bothers you?

  120. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan: Response to your post @ 9:16

    I determine the value of proposed arguments from design and other attempted proofs of God just as any intelligent non-biased person – by whether or not they succeed as arguments or as proofs.

    It is not only atheists who reject these arguments and proofs. It is mostly by Christians. Thiu, pace your insinuations against me,there does not have to be a residing prejudice in order to see that the proofs fail as deductive arguments.

    The ontological arguments are easily judged on their deductive soundness. I find the Cartesian and Anselmian proofs quite sound, but as the classic objections goe both proofs succeed in positing a necessary God concept but not in establishing God in fact. That would  hingeson whether one accepts the Kantian criticism that existenece is not a predicate.

    As to the cosmological argunments, the conclusion "God exists" does not follow deductively from the premisies at all. There is non non-circular arrival at the conclusion from the premises.

     So perhaps the 5 ways is a quasi inductive argument then? The compelling force of the 5 ways claimed by "millions" as you say  I would suggests follows from their (erroneous) belief in its inductive force. But 5 ways does not succeed as an inductive argument either.

    It and other proofs and arguments, however, do well analyze the conundrum of reason [ reasons antinomies] as to space, time, origins, teleology, et. which analysis may – in the properly disposed person- serve as an occassion for one's leap into the qualitative sphere of "faith", letting go, and being grasped. That bothers you?

     

    Basically, all proofs – ontological and cosmological including the recent genre of Design –  are actually just explanations of creation, origins, form, etc – claiming that their source is God, how cosmos workings are by Him, how it all fits together, etc.  But explanations are not proofs. However, they may make their object more or less intelligible but this graetly depending on the listener's underlying cognitive biases. 

    As such, proofs and rational arguments are expressive of a deep intuitive faith transposed into words that wish to prove but actually only explain a faith perspective. Proofs are basically confessions. And that's fine and beautiful.

    They capture a correct analysis of the human's existential estrangement and longing. They quicken the human experinece of fragmentatiion. Thus they serve to quicken the existential question as to the longed for and possible resolution of existenetial estrangement. Below. 

     But they do not prove anything nor provide the answer to the question implicit in existence.  If ever deployed "against all those evil atheists and humanists" out there, proofs and arguments should be presented not as knock down arguments such that only a fool or willful sinner could reject. But as a well composed, deep analysis of the existential situation of estranged man – how thoughts, sentiments, and longing for God might be aroused in studying them with seriousness.

    I must pointout that the precondition for one's being moved by God and his salvation, as well as by Scripture presupposes a certain readiness of the spirit. This applies to us Catholics as well as a non-believers. This readiness comes about in the depths of estrenged existence. It may not ever become self-consciously explicit, may remain largely on the  unconscious, unreflective level but effective nonetheless.

    The intuitive depth and limits of existential resaon, of one's realizing the unrelenting nature and weight of one's guilt, despiar, anxiety, and failure; or the everpresent, overbearing yet unheeded interior longings– these [ call them the "ambiguities of existence"] ready the spirit and bring it around to ask for that which might resolve the ambiguities of existence.

    If such a spirit asks with unconditional seriousness and asks out of the depths of his estranged existenece – see the above descriptors – for that which might cure them; asks with ultimate concern for  that being which might bear unambiguous existence, then he/she now stands within the spitulaly salutary state of  "ultimate concern".

    Such a spirit is readied for the answer, which answer can only be the Christ. For her spirit has now asked in its existential depths, where alone she might offer God her denuded self. She has asked the question of existential estarngement in a state of unconditional, ultimate concern.

    However, one can not hear the answer as "answer" unless he/she has asked the questsion! It is an existential asking permeating all dimensions of the spirit which alone can hear the answer as "answer".

    My analysis has many and important implications for catechesis, eductaion of childen and adults, evangelization, engagement with non-believers, and comes to bear upon our current discussion:

    The point:  Denigrating non- believers for not being convinced by arguments from design or from the light of natural reason misses the point altogether. Many listeners have not asked the question of God with ultimate existential seriousness at all! So to offer an "answer" especially as a [ illicit ] proof is like shoving food down someone's throat who is not hungry!

    For the proofs are not proofs! At best, and here is their potential value in the right hands, they may quicken and assist a spirit to progress on the way to asking the existential question with unconditional seriousness and perhaps to arrive at true existential ultimate concern. As said above, the poofs do effectively analyze the epistemic conundrua and ambiguous meanings of existential finitude. They have their utility.

    But you can't logically argue sioeone into ultimate concern, that required precondition of spirit where alone he/she can hear the answer. There first must have been the qusetion.

    Proofs may aid the asking but can not supply the answer.

    For it is God alone, His actual presence in grace and in His Christ who could ever supply the answer. Man can not.

    "Successful proof" is oxymoronic.

    Successful arousal of ultimate concern is possible and spiritually salutary and necessary.

    We must stop forcing answers down people's throats who have not even yet even asked the question.

    I know how rationocentric and phalligocenetric – suffused with powerful convicting and compelling force – you and others wish these arguments to be.

    But they are not.  

    We must find our way another way.

  121. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall,

    Of course your analysis is important. You don't need to tell us that.

  122. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    protect : Thanks for the much anticipated sarcasm. I 've grown accustomred to its face here.

    It is not my original analysis. It is borrowed.

    Do you find fault and deficiencies with it?

    Maybe you should read it carefully, if not already,and shall we say, break to the mold and habit of ejacualtory and ad hominen responses that I am learning – fianally! – chacacterize most of those on this website.

    I would expected you of all posters to have discussed  this analysis without  emotionalism and hyperbole.

  123. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall wrote: My analysis has many and important implications for catechesis, eductaion of childen and adults, evangelization, engagement with non-believers, and comes to bear upon our current discussion

    Wrong Lwall, your analysis is very limited; it does not have the great universal application that you imagine it does.  Are there a few people who the Hound of Heaven must drive into existentail crisis before they stand before the abyss of meaninglessness and despair to see their need for God, yes. Are their ranks increased by the doctrines of the "philosphers' that you so admire? Indeed. (Hint, hint –this just might be part of our problem with them.)

    But is this the way of catechetics? Hell, no.

    "Yet you drew me forth from the womb, made me safe at my mother's breast. Upon you I was thrust from the womb; since birth you are my God."

    Faith is mother's milk to many — it is supposed to be that way. The idea that we have to take our dear little children and instead of bringing them to the lap of Christ, we should plunge them into existential angst and ontological insecurity to make them know their need for God is utter insanity.

    Boy, Easter must really be a fun time at your house. Your poor kids.

  124. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan: I do not claim this anaysis is the only paradigm of catechesis for all children, especially not for the young ones.  I remind you however of the increasing sense of detachment and loss of meaning among our teens and young adults expressed in so many destructive ways especially in an increasing suicide rate.

    No, of couse, one does not have to sink down to the exaggerated depths of despair – once again we have a trademark  "kochan caricature" of lwall – to desparate depths of depression and despair; doubt and anxiety. 

    These are, however, ubiquitous and irremediable features albeit in varying degress definatory of the human beingsd who walk this earth.

    Milk is milk only unto those who hunger and thirst. Spirtual solace and giving of its milk is not genuine unless answering a need, mkocahn, otherwise it is just a force feeding.

    To drape upon a person, by virtue of mere birthright, a "Catholic religious identity"  is tanatmount to giving answers to unasked questions unless at some point in that persons life a journey into existential estrangement happens. In that case, Christ becomes answer and importantly, He becomes my answer.

    Otherwise, we keep just keep churning out thousands upon thosands of banal, arcosed, and inconscious "faithful" who gradulally drift away or, what is more and more the case, a perennial mass exodus of young adults from the Church without return.

    Denial to an individual soul his/her right to religious freedom by not granting a sufficient space for personal journey is ultimately to deny that person the passion and inwardness required for authentic faith.

    And by "faith" I intend more than reciting the Creed and affirming the teachings of the Church. It includes these, but it is much more than these.

    The. "This is answer! " feature that I refer to is exemplified by many converts to the faith. Marcus Grodi on EWTN gives us many examples of jpeoples journeying into the faith. The journey traverses various paths and concerns. But to a person, there is finally a profound sense of Answer to a deeply felt existential question(s).

    Perhaps in reflecting upon your own conversion from JW, you might better grasp this deep sense of "home" and " answer" I refer to and by which you were are blessed. This home sense and answer sense is important, and I should think you and Mark know exactly what I mean. 

    We need continued conversion of the baptized in the Church as the in CCC notes. Souls of genuine existential and genuine faith.

    Such conversion involves a catechesis which is pastoral and often involves addressing the existential analysis I have proffered. In addition the conversion needs to be content oriented that is a very,very basic study of the tenets of our faith, such as, by group study of the CCC.

  125. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    When mkochan says: Hell, no and PTR is accused of sarcasm; it's time for goral to check out because my comments are no longer needed. I have a strange feeling all of our paths will cross again. Vaya con Dios!

  126. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Tomorrow I will post the promised anti-substance quotes, but past that I am done with this thread.

    I think the notion that people are committing suicide because they are made too secure, too early, in the faith and don't have enough exposure to the thinking of Hume, Kant and Tillich has just about exhausted my imagination.

    Group study of the CCC is just about the only thing that you have proffered that makes any sense, Lwall — as long as you aren't leading it.

    See ya' 'round, Goral.

  127. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan: Another confusion and conflation by you, mokochan.

    I did not say people are committing suicide from a dirth of Hume , Kant, and Tillich. But I do believe there is a loss of meaning and purpose traceable to forcing answers upom proprl without prior existentail questions. This is obvious in the Church but also in others "churches" as well. 

    Genuine adult,subjective, pasisonate faith are needed.

    Propounding doctrine and scripture from on high sans correlation to the existential situation or addressing the many questions which inevitably arise is productive of …well.. the current crisis situation in the Catholic Church!

    I have been teaching CCC for adullts now for about ten years in two separate parishes. Most adults's ignorance of the most basic tenets of the faith as well as the most basic outline of salvation history – not to mention total confusuion on scripture – is massive! This evinces a monumental defect of the Church. This needs remedy.

    Have you ever pulled together a non-preslected group of adult Catholics? Folks who feel they need and long to understand the faith better? Not a group garthered around the famed mkochan. I mean just  ordinary just ordinary Catholics?

    If not, I recommend it. If so, surely you know what I mean. 

    I am waiting for three things before you sign off this thread:

    1. The answer my question to whether saving dfaith exists outside of the authority of the Church.

    2. An example of proof, or persuasive argument,  or however you now wish to desribe it…  as to God's existence from the light of natural reason and from the things made. You were so certain of it, mokocahn.

    3. The feelimg of "home" and "answer" come your way upon leaving Jehovah's Wintess and becoming Catholic. How did that all happen and how did that feel? Aren't others granted a similar personal appropriation of the faith ?

    As to Hume and substance, it would be intriguing to see your refutation of his refutation of substance.

  128. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    "As far as I know, the only evidence for the multiverse is the same as the evidence for a supernatural designer of our universe"

     

    there is some secondary evidence from quantum physics for the multi-universe theory.  It was abondoned in the 70's but has regained popularity largely due to the athiestitic , highly intellegent , and severely unwise stephen hawkins.

     

    Honestly though the thoery , while entertaining on some level is almost inconcievalble, much harder to  believe in then an immmortal God , IMNHO.

     

    The theory tries to accont for the fact that quatum particles 'seem' to make 'decisions' and startes that EVERTIME a quatom particle 'decides' something a new universe is spawed to actualize that possiblility.

     

    Note that means that every time a so much as a photon of light is emmited a new universe instantanously appears to account for the fact it might not of.

     

    So is there some evedence for it, I suppose that is depends on what you call evidence. 

     

    What seems truely disengenous to me about lwall is the instance that what is observable and used to point out one hypothesis seems to be systemenatically ignored when it can equally or more properly be used

    to support another.  he seems to require an completely different criteria of evidence in support for the hypothesis of intelegent design vice the ypothesis of an infinate number of universes existing. 

     

    In my mind at least the evidence is inconclusive either way and there is a mildly stronger argument in favor of the design hypothesis.

     

    lwall's repeated reminders that this is not proof should be obvious from the definition of the word hypothesis. 

    A hypothesis is an UNPROVED model that is suggested by the given data which a scientist uses to predict other useful properties of the system modled and is either rejected or revised when it is confronted with definative data. 

  129. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I doubt that I am famed.

    I agree about the ignorance; it is the reason for this site.

    Yes saving faith exists outside; I never denied it and saying that the Church provides the content of faith does not do so.

    I believe the entire constellation of arguments/reasons made over the millenia and needing no further rehearsal here have satisfied and continue to satify millions and agree with the what the Church teaches on this point (existence of God knowable by reason) whereas you do not. The fact that I agree with the Church and you do not makes me correct and you wrong — something you just don't seem able to "get."

    I don't have time to answer your third, but you can pay me to come to your parish and speak about it if you are so interested.

    The purpose was (and is) not "refuting" Hume, merely demonstating that there was an attack on the concept, through a series of quotes. Hume is already refuted by the truths of the Catholic faith.

    You see, Lwall, if someone comes along and contradicts the faith — like oh say, Tillich, or Lwall, even, we Catholics really aren't obligated to devote our precious time and resources to "refuting" him. We can if we like, but he is already refuted simpy by the fact that he has contradicted the truth. As Newman pointed out, a single sentence of falsehood may require an entire book to answer. In many cases it is simply a waste of time.

    Telling someone the truth prior to them asking a question is in no way wrong.  What a silly thought. My kids never asked me a question about what would happen to them if they ran in the road, but I still told them. A while ago some educators whose minds were filled with Rousseau's BS decided that children should be educated by being allowed to ask questions and that nothing should be "imposed" on them but that their teachers should be entirley guided by the questions the kids asked. That was exactly the kind of disaster that sane people could easily predict. Transfering the concept to catechisis won't improve it.

    Do let us know how your kids enjoy the discussion about the hypostatic union around the Christmas tree.

  130. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall,

    Apologies for my sarcasm, but I was trying to get you to see you what you come across like to the rest of the forum.

    Your posts are absolutley dripping with verbiage that sends the message that anyone with a modicum of brains would see the points you are making and surely anyone who has ever read a book can see that the other view is twaddle. And so forth.

    It makes posting on threads with you very, very tiring indeed.

    But I do try to read what you post and I have learned some things.

    Again, sorry if my pointing this out offends.

    God bless.

  131. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    That the great theologian Paul Tillich held to a non-orthodox view of the resurrection [which I do not accept ]…that bothers you?

     Why don't you accept that, Iwall?  

     Anyway, Anthony Wilhelm, on page 89 in Christ Among Us didn't accept it either, because he evidently took Tillich at his word when he wrote that Herod, Pontius Pilate, etc.  "probably would have seen nothing had they been with the apostles when Christ appeared after his resurrection." 

     That book had its Imprimatur withdrawn recently, and I would be very surprised if this weren't one of the offending passages. The Church has always made a sharp distinction between visions to private persons like Bernadette, and the Resurrection Body of Jesus.  The gospels depict him as eating fish, asking Thomas to put his finger into the wounds…

  132. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    But really, why would the Church remove the Imprimatur? I mean it isn't as though heresy really harms souls, now, is it?

    Christ Among Us was given to me as my first book to explain the Catholic faith.  Given to me by a priest who also couldn't really see why I would even bother considering conversion from the Lutheran Church. The book was terrible and I felt like I had asked the priest for bread and been given a stone. I almost gave up on the idea of converting.  I was reading some of the saints but coming to the sad conclusion that whatever Church they had been in, it just didn't exist anymore. I expressed this sadness to a dear friend, an elderly Anglican pastor, who told me not to give up on the Catholic faith.  He went to a Catholic priest friend of his and obtained the Catechism for me. Therein I read the truth.

  133. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan:

    How am I " contradicting" the faith. Tell me.

    Please, indeed, don't waste your time on me.

    My parish might be intetested in your transition from Jehova's Witness to Catholicism? There has recently been a few istors at the doors of several of us here and isome nterest was raised.

    I hope your series of quotes on Hume isn't just a series of ad hoc sound bites pulled together to advance your agenda. I am pretty good on Hume.

    Another mkochan signature caricature laced with hyperbole!

    Now, mkochan, you surely know that I never advocated letting kids questions run the show. Hyperbole. Very cheap.

    I would reiterate that true faith does not come by force feeding. That somewhere along the line and at many times, there must be a continual personal appropriation and re-appropriation of the truths of the faith.

    Often, this entails questioning, facing doubts, overcominmg some gobble-dee-goop hammered  at parochial school, or finally addressing deep suppressed { at times merely perceived} hurts incurred by Church, bafflement on doctrine, discipleship…and, yes, even that horrible concept that robs the warm fuzzies of the Christmas tree….the hypostatic union!  

    Why you are so AGAINST SPEAKING OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION I HAVE NO IDEA. 

    The kid you tell not to cross the street will obey you because of your authority and power. Only when he/she realizes the goodness involved in your command will he/she truly own that advice and show thanks and gratitude towards you. The analogy to engendering a mature authentic faith speaks for itself !! To wit, do you want obedient kids for life or mature adults who are able to love and be loved?

    Actually, the hypostatic union is one of, f not the single  most sublime tenets of the faith.

    Why do you scoff at teaching this sublime truth?

    One must teach it when teaching the CCC. Most adults get it quite quickly and often say how unconstipated they now feel, having relieved from their system certain nonsensical verbiage foisted upon them in their early years! How this doctrine makes intelligible the sacramental mystery of church as mystical body of Christ as well, and especially, how the doctrine links the earthly body of Christ to the Eucharist wherein He super-eminently continues to be united to us even as He sacramentally draws us into that union that is Him in the sacrament. 

    But we should not bother using our brains, right mkochan? Just keep'em feed and happy, innocent, sheeplike, ignorant of the most sublime doctrines of the faith. Why we even could call 'em the "kochans kids." !

    Actually, mkochan, my 8 year old son several years back during Christmas and …hope you are sitting down! …as we were looking at our Christmas tree ask me, " Dad, how did God become a little baby?"  I explained that God is all powerful and his range of activity is infinite. He undesrtood that. And because of that, God could choose to join Himself by a miarcle to all human beings ( I did not distinguish human nature) and become one of us, but not just like us because He did not stop being God when he became a human being. He also understood that.

    His twin brother that next Easter asked me , " Dad, Jesus rose from the dead. It was good for him all right, but I do not understand why it is good for us too!"  I thought his question was "right on." I answered him that those who believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and try to live the life Jesus wanted of them would also be raised from the dead, go to heaven, and never die again. It sufficed.

    So you see, mkocahn, not everyone is a little non-inquisitive fluffy sheep. Love the Lord with all thy heart and mind.  Remember?

    Maybe the world of obedient uninquisitive little sheep is the world you know; maybe it's the world you fantasize were true.

    But it is not the world of most Catholics.

  134. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    protect: Comments appreciated.

    Yes, I am wordy and tiresome. I am not being sarcastic. I agree with you.

    I aspire to reform. ( I've been saying that for 30 years I must admit! )

  135. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall, obviously tweaking you there — I'm sure you let your kids enjoy Christmas without forcing them to rehearse theology that is over their heads.

    You have way too much disdain for ordinary Catholics to hang out here. You can't figure out why a heretic like Tillich makes us bristle. The result is that we are accused of being anti-intellectual. You seem quite immune to the sense of responsiblity we feel souls around here.  I don't know why you are here and why you have chosen to dog me and Mark online like this.

    I'm just really getting tired of it and the constant accusations and your desire to set up some kind of agenda that we have to answer point by point.

    I say that I am going to post quotes showing that the concept of substance has been abandoned by modern philosophers and you start salivating over some non-existent contest you think I am going to have with you over Hume and twist it into my saying that I am going to refute him. (I don't have to refute it, because its contradiction of Catholic teaching already refutes it.)

    The only reason this thread is still open is because I said I would put up those quotes and I don't want to go back on my word, but you have so turned this into what it is not.

    You don't seem to enjoy us except to score points on some scoreboard in your own head. I prayed for you at Mass yesterday, but I really doubt that anything edifying is happening here.

     

  136. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkocahn: I can read {between} the lines.

    I will never post on this site again. 

    Good night.

  137. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    As much as I think that continued conversation along these lines is leading us both to sin against one another and should cease, I am sorry that you are going.  But I do think you are right to do so.

    [Note to all: There will be no nipping at Mr. Lwalls heels as he departs, or I will delete it.]

    Lwall, God's richest blessings upon you and your family. Let us all pray for one another that we meet one day as friends in a better place.

  138. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    fishman, your understanding of the "many worlds" theory of quantum mechanics coincides with mine, but what you call evidence I would only call a description–a spelling out of details that do not explain why one would think the theory is true.  It takes more than having a coherent, detailed and (seemingly) consistent theory to claim that there is evidence for it.

    there is some secondary evidence from quantum physics for the multi-universe theory.  It was abondoned in the 70's but has regained popularity largely due to the athiestitic , highly intellegent , and severely unwise stephen hawkins.

    I read his book, A Brief History of Time, a few years ago and I can't recall anything there that would support this "many worlds" theory where new universes, identical to ours except in one miniscule detail, spring into existence just so that all possible outcomes of some indeterminate event should be realized.  On the contrary, Hawking seemed to have everything, including time itself, all wrapped up in a neat little package that included our universe in all its present and past and future states–but nothing else.  Have you seen anything by him where he actually supported the "many worlds" theory?

    Hawking himself admitted to being "severely unwise" in having theorized, at one point, that time itself would run backwards if the universe were to start to contract again.  In other words, we would all be experiencing the universe as if it were were watching a videotape being rewound!  So there you have another nice coherent theory with an inexhaustible supply of details, yet incredible to anyone with a common sense understanding of time and space, and without a scintilla of evidence for it!

  139. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    well, a 'theory' is exactly that isn't it ? A guess? Something that is by no means proved and something one attempts to support or refute with evidence.   My point has never been that intelligent design theory proves the existence of God, but that it is just as much a valid scientific theory as any other.  there is significant supporting evidence for it as a matter of fact.  I find it's dismissal as 'having no proof' to be highly unscientific. There is also some minimal data that suggests the possibility of the multiuniverse theory so to toss it out completely is also not fully objective.   The point of doing science is to let the chips fall where they may from the data.  If two theories are equally supported you can have yours and I can have mine.  No harm , no foul.  I don't really care that hawking isn't interested in believing in God , but likewise I'd have a right to be offended if he tried to claim the belief in God is unscientific, which is what he does.  It is at least as scientific as the theory he proprots to be true. 

     

  140. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Aristotle made his own analysis of what would happen to philosophy if the concept of substance was abandoned. The words of Enlightenment philoso­phers demonstrate that the loss of the concept of substance has diminished the scope of phi­losophy, narrowed the human horizon and disordered modern moral discourse. (For more on that last point see After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntryre.)

    Substance was conceived of as that which made each form of being what it was, so that the form was an expression of an underlying identity. In the Metaphysics, Aristotle sees the discussion of substance as the very nature (or substance) of philosophy: "But inasmuch as it was described as dealing with the first causes and that which is in the highest sense object of knowledge, the science of substance must be of the nature of Wisdom." The discussion of substance goes to the very heart of our ability to know:

    There is a difficulty connected with these, the hardest of all and the most necessary to examine [:] If, on the one hand, there is nothing apart from individual things, and the individuals are infinite in number, how then is it possible to get knowledge of the infinite individuals? For all things that we come to know, we come to know in so far as they have some unity and identity, and in so far as some attribute belongs to them universally.

    What would happen if this concept was repudiated?

    Sensation is knowledge.

    If there is nothing apart from individuals, there will be no object of thought, but all things will be objects of sense, and there will not be knowledge of anything, unless we say that sensation is knowledge.

    Nothing will be eternal.

    Further, nothing will be eternal or unmovable; for all perceptible things perish and are in movement.

    Neither can there be a process of coming to be.

    But if there is nothing eternal, neither can there be a process of coming to be; for there must be something that comes to be, i.e. from which something comes to be, and the ultimate term in this series cannot have come to be. . .

    No longer would it be the function of the philosopher to investigate all things.

    It is evident, then, that it belongs to one science to be able to give an account of these concepts as well as of substance . . . , and that it is the function of the philosopher to be able to investigate all things.

    According to Aristotle, genuine philosophy is comprehensive; it is the one science which can investigate everything. The loss of the concept of substance begins to narrow the field of philosophical inquiry. This narrowing is very dramatic, especially considering that the initial thrust of the Enlightenment was the bold assertion that those things which were previously the domain of religion were going to be laid open to the probe of reason:

    Descartes:

    Those long chains of reasoning, simple and easy as they are, of which geometricians make use in order to arrive at the most difficult demonstrations, had caused me to imagine that all those things which fall under the cognizance of man might very likely be mutually related in the same fashion; and that, provided only that we abstain from receiving anything as true which is not so, and always retain the order which is necessary in order to deduce the one conclusion from the other, there can be nothing so remote that we cannot reach to it, nor so recondite that we cannot discover it…And for this purpose it was requisite that I should borrow all that is best in Geometrical Analysis and Algebra, and correct the errors of the one by the other… For, in conclusion, the Method which teaches us to follow the true order and enumerate exactly every term in the matter under investigation contains everything which gives certainty to the rules of Arithmetic…But what pleased me most in this Method was that I was certain by its means of exercising my reason in all things, if not perfectly, at least as well as was in my power. And besides this, I felt in making use of it that my mind gradually accustomed itself to conceive of its objects more accurately and distinctly; and not having restricted this Method to any particular matter, I promised myself to apply it as usefully to the difficulties of other sciences as I had done to those of Algebra…But having noticed that the knowledge of these difficulties must be dependent on principles derived from Philosophy in which I yet found nothing to be certain, I thought that it was requisite above all to try to establish certainty in it…I thought, too, that I should first of all employ much time in preparing myself for the work by eradicating from my mind all the wrong opinions which I had up to this time accepted, and accumulating a variety of experiences fitted later on to afford matter for my reasonings, and by ever exercising myself in the Method which I had prescribed, in order more and more to fortify myself in the power of using it (Discourse on the Method by Rene Descartes 1637).

    Descartes' optimism is like a bold explosion of human inquiry. Euphoric with its mathematical "certainty", nothing lies beyond its grasp. But this explosion is followed by a rapid contraction, not back to the point from which Descartes departed but beyond. What is so paradoxical about the ruminations of the philosophers at this time is the way they continue to assert the mastery of human reason even as they radically limit philosophical discourse. If reason is the judge and guide of everything the ultimate mastery of the human mind over all it surveys would seem accomplished but not so, for all that this mind surveys is itself.

    Not until Hume does this contraction, with its attendant implications, begin to be recognized. It belongs to him to explicate the paradox of the unlimited mentality that is actually confined within narrow boundaries. To Aristotle, who believed that "it is the function of the philosopher to be able to investigate all things" whatever may come after this, it would no longer be what he would recognize as philosophy.

    Hume:

    The only method of freeing learning, at once, from these abstruse questions, is to inquire seriously into the nature of human understanding, and show, from an exact analysis of its powers and capacity, that it is by no means fitted for such remote and abstruse subjects . . . But though our thought seems to possess this unbounded liberty, we shall find, upon a nearer examination, that it is really confined within very narrow limits.

    According to Aristotle this would lead to infinite regress.

    [T]here are certain properties peculiar to being as such, and it is about these that the philosopher has to investigate the truth. . . . . Some indeed demand that even this shall be demonstrated, but this they do through want of education, for not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education. For it is impossible that there should be demonstration of absolutely everything (there would be an infinite regress, so that there would still be no demonstration); but if there are things of which one should not demand demonstration, these persons could not say what principle they maintain to be more self-evident than the present one.

    Hume:

    But to hasten to a conclusion of this argument, which is already drawn out to too great a length: We have sought in vain for an idea of power or necessary connexion in all the sources from which we could suppose it to be derived. It appears that, in single instances of the operation of bodies, we never can, by our utmost scrutiny, discover any thing but one event following another, without being able to comprehend any force or power by which the cause operates, or any connexion between it and its supposed effect. The same difficulty occurs in contemplating the operations of mind on body — where we observe the motion of the latter to follow upon the volition of the former, but are not able to observe or conceive the tie which binds together the motion and volition, or the energy by which the mind produces this effect. The authority of the will over its own faculties and ideas is not a whit more comprehensible: So that, upon the whole, there appears not, throughout all nature, any one instance of connexion which is conceivable by us. All events seem entirely loose and separate. One event follows another; but we never can observe any tie between them. They seem conjoined, but never connected. And as we can have no idea of any thing which never appeared to our outward sense or inward sentiment, the necessary conclusion seems to be that we have no idea of connexion or power at all, and that these words are absolutely, without any meaning, when employed either in philosophical reasonings or common life.

    Historian Jeffery B. Russell, describes the modern end of the infinite regress: "For deconstructionists, meaning recedes infinitely owing to the inherent inability of language (the signifier) to reach or even to point toward the signified. This collapse of meaning, this endless devolution of nonmeaning into nonmeaning, is Dante's hell, the endless circling downward and inward into darkness and helplessness."

    Or as Aristotle warned, such a man will not be capable of reasoning, either with himself or with another.

    We can, however, demonstrate negatively even that this view is impossible, if our opponent will only say something; and if he says nothing, it is absurd to seek to give an account of our views to one who cannot give an account of anything, in so far as he cannot do so. For such a man, as such, is from the start no better than a vegetable. Now negative demonstration I distinguish from demonstration proper, because in a demonstration one might be thought to be begging the question, but if another person is responsible for the assumption we shall have negative proof, not demonstration. The starting-point for all such arguments is not the demand that our opponent shall say that something either is or is not (for this one might perhaps take to be a begging of the question), but that he shall say something which is significant both for himself and for another; for this is necessary, if he really is to say anything. For, if he means nothing, such a man will not be capable of reasoning, either with himself or with another. But if any one grants this, demonstration will be possible; for we shall already have something definite. The person responsible for the proof, however, is not he who demonstrates but he who listens; for while disowning reason he listens to reason. And again he who admits this has admitted that something is true apart from demonstration (so that not everything will be 'so and not so').

    Descartes:

    But afterwards many experiences little by little destroyed all the faith which I had rested in my senses…and so in an infinitude of other cases I found error in judgments founded on the external senses. And not only in those founded on the external senses, but even in those founded on the internal as well; for is there anything more intimate or more internal than pain? And yet I have learned from some persons whose arms or legs have been cut off, that they sometimes seemed to feel pain in the part which had been amputated, which made me think that I could not be quite certain that it was a certain member which pained me, even although I felt pain in it. And to those grounds of doubt I have lately added two others, which are very general; the first is that I never have believed myself to feel anything in waking moments which I cannot also sometimes believe myself to feel when I sleep, and as I do not think that these things which I seem to feel in sleep, proceed from objects outside of me, I do not see any reason why I should have this belief regarding objects which I seem to perceive while awake. The other was that being still ignorant, or rather supposing myself to be ignorant, of the author of my being, I saw nothing to prevent me from having been so constituted by nature that I might be deceived even in matters which seemed to me to be most certain. And as to the grounds on which I was formerly persuaded of the truth of sensible objects, I had not much trouble in replying to them. For since nature seemed to cause me to lean towards many things from which reason repelled me, I did not believe that I should trust much to the teachings of nature. And although the ideas which I receive by the senses do not depend on my will, I did not think that one should for that reason conclude that they proceeded from things different from myself, since possibly some faculty might be discovered in me — though hitherto unknown to me — which produced them.

    I think Aristotle was prescient and foretold exactly the state of modern philosophy.  This is why our latest two popes have been calling philosphers back to aspire to know truth, to know substantial realities. I apologize for not sourcing every quote. I am transferring from a footnoted document and am struggling with formatting and time issues, so I have just pulled out a few bits, but I think they are enough for the demonstration.  Every quote can be sourced by entering some phrase from it into an internet search engine.

  141. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mkochan, thanks for the many posts.  I really enjoyed reading them.  I tried to take the positive out of this long debate.  I commend Iwall for demonstrating how athiests will argue (not that he is an athiest); and boy did we get a dose of it!  Along with you, I am not anti-intellectual.  I have commended him to Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom, every day this past week in our family rosary. 

    I skimmed over an article in the Latin Mass Magazine (Summer 2007), titled, "The Undoing of the Skeptics".   It starts off with, "In this secular era of ours, an attack on God, even the questioning of His very existence has become fashionable in many circles.  Unrestrained by sanctifying grace and a pratical religious sense, these self-styled experts meditate in their "think tanks", in the world of academia."   At first I didn't take the article that serious, but after reading all the feedback on these posts, my interest has been greatly renewed.  Of course the author does not blame Aristotle and Aquinas for solidifying athiests in their positions.

    God bless!

  142. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I don't really care that hawking isn't interested in believing in God , but likewise I'd have a right to be offended if he tried to claim the belief in God is unscientific, which is what he does.  It is at least as scientific as the theory he proprots to be true.

    I fully agree with you, fishman.  Hawking's tidy little universe finesses away the need to explain the Big Bang, but only by making some remarkable statements about time and space becoming indistinguishable as we approach the beginning of the universe!  But what Hawking may not realize is that he has no explanation of why this one solitary self-contained universe should be so incredibly congenial to the development of intelligent life. 

    As I have said earlier, the only really credible alternatives are the multiverse theory of which Mark Shea speaks in Angels, Part 1 (and which I've tried to elucidate further, when I spoke of most universes being "utter garbage" if the theory is to fly) and belief in a supernatural Designer.  As I've said, Hawking himself has finished off, at least in his theory, the multiverse theory which is based on the idea of black holes spawning new universes. 

    And maybe Hawking does realize that only those two alternatives are credible, and maybe he actually embraces the former. 

    But he ought to realize that it is just as "unscientific" as belief in God.  For science deals with phenomena that are observable, however indirectly, and the "garbage universes" are by their very nature not observable.

  143. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Randallino, I have edited your post somewhat.  I think it was not unkind, but still I am not going to allow anything to be said about Lwall when he is not in a position to answer.

  144. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    No problem.  Whatever you think best.

  145. Google…

    […]very few web-sites that occur to be comprehensive below, from our point of view are undoubtedly properly really worth checking out[…]…

Leave a Reply