Reason vs. Faith...

[numinus]

Well, I don't notice you providing any self-evident truths to support original sin or baptism

Knowledge without ethics leads to self annihilation. Self-evident enough for you?

or priests molesting children.

Nope. That would be homosexual men more than priests. Duh?

 

[numinus]

Then am I incorrect in thinking that Catholic dogma states that all non-Christians will go to Hell?

Even christians will go to hell. Heck, some are still alive but are already in hell.

Strictly speaking, most people who call themselves atheists (of which I am one) are technically agnostic. We recognize the limits of our knowledge, but we refuse to speculate on what lies beyond those limits.

Any field of inquiry that does not give room for speculation is a dead end.

Thus, if you could indeed prove that the nature of the universe requires a supra-material origin, then I would accept the possibility of the supra-material. But such a antiseptically logical approach to metaphysics seems a far cry from the superstitions and dogmas that fill most religions.

FAITH AND REASON.

It has always been that way, from augustine to aquainas to the present.

I would also be interested in seeing the chain of reasoning the leads from observations about the nature of the universe to claims about the nature of "God." It is one thing to hypothesize about the origins of the universe, and quite another thing to (for example) claim that an intelligent being answers our prayers.

Google the proof provided by aquainas in suma theologia. The bottom line, god is both immanent and transcendent.

Mare Tranquility's comment about child molestation was uncalled for, but I do think you need to explain the connection (if there is one) between your "axioms" and the Catholic religion. I can see a metaphoric basis for things like original sin and baptism, but the church takes them very literally. Do you think there is a rational basis for practices like exorcism and celibacy?

I'm sorry but they are SACRAMENTS.

They are external rituals manifesting grace. They aren't meant to be LITERAL. In fact, most sacraments require you to attend a short seminar explaining all these.

Oh, and you need not worry about mare's comments. He's a very angry individual.

 

[Wiffle]

Even christians will go to hell. Heck, some are still alive but are already in hell.

Well that's depressing.

Any field of inquiry that does not give room for speculation is a dead end.

There's nothing wrong with speculation. The problem is when someone declares that speculation to be immutable truth and is prepared to commit acts of violence to defend it.

FAITH AND REASON.

It has always been that way, from augustine to aquainas to the present.

Theologians use reason, but only within the boundaries of their faith. They begin with certain assumptions, such as the truth of the Bible and the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity. The problem is that these assumptions are largely unfounded. They are what you call "axioms," and what I call "myths."

Google the proof provided by aquainas in suma theologia. The bottom line, god is both immanent and transcendent.

I haven't had the opportunity to read all of it, though I'll try to get around to it. One argument I did notice was the First Cause Argument. I think the problem here is that God is left without a cause. If something is going to be uncaused, it may as well be the universe rather than a hypothetical intelligent entity.

I'm sorry but they are SACRAMENTS.

They are external rituals manifesting grace. They aren't meant to be LITERAL. In fact, most sacraments require you to attend a short seminar explaining all these.

Some people seem to take those things awfully literally. Perhaps Catholicism doesn't actually teach that miracles can occur in cheese sandwiches, or that demonic possession is real, but the church doesn't seem to be making much effort to straighten people out.

 

[9sublime]

Ok numins, I'm going to be dense and say that to me Catholic doctrine is not self evident at all. I can't think of any way in which the story of Adam and Eve, or the idea of the eucharist, to be truth, let alone a self evident one.

 

[numinus]

Ok numins, I'm going to be dense and say that to me Catholic doctrine is not self evident at all.

I find that hard to believe. Are you aware that even utilitarian ethics borrows abundantly from christian theology? From utilitarianism, classical liberalism is merely a stone's throw away.

I can't think of any way in which the story of Adam and Eve, or the idea of the eucharist, to be truth, let alone a self evident one.

I have already stated the meaning of that particular story in genesis.

And the eucharist is merely a meal for the spirit in the same way as food is for the body.

It is such a waste if you are unable to appreciate that.

 

[numinus]

Well that's depressing.

Not at all. Every reward (or punishment) that you get comes from your own permission. I mean, what can be depressing about that?

There's nothing wrong with speculation. The problem is when someone declares that speculation to be immutable truth and is prepared to commit acts of violence to defend it.

Acts of violence, themselves, contradict the moral imperatives of the church. That your speculation of religion results in acts of violence says so much about the quality of speculation being done, no?

Theologians use reason, but only within the boundaries of their faith. They begin with certain assumptions, such as the truth of the Bible

Take note -- catholics believe that god's self-revelation is an ON-GOING process. It simply doesn't make any sense that god stopped bridging the gap to humanity 2000 years ago.

and the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity. The problem is that these assumptions are largely unfounded. They are what you call "axioms," and what I call "myths."

How can you call something mythical if you have not even provided any credible proof against the arguments provided?

Isn't that faith?

I'm sorry but I simply have not time speculating about how many angels can stand on a pinhead or some such nonsense that some catholics in the very distant past indulged in. I do not think that is at all necessary for my faith in the more logical dogma of catholicism.

I haven't had the opportunity to read all of it, though I'll try to get around to it. One argument I did notice was the First Cause Argument. I think the problem here is that God is left without a cause. If something is going to be uncaused, it may as well be the universe rather than a hypothetical intelligent entity.

If the entire universe has no cause, then parts of it have no cause as well, no? But we already know that everything follows cause and effect.

Take the thought experiment of democritus, for instance. At some point, matter becomes indivisible, since one cannot divide a finite thing into an infinitely many pieces of nothing. To say otherwise results in the banach-tarski paradox.

Some people seem to take those things awfully literally. Perhaps Catholicism doesn't actually teach that miracles can occur in cheese sandwiches, or that demonic possession is real, but the church doesn't seem to be making much effort to straighten people out.

Demonic possessions, undoubtedly, cause the church some embarassment. Certainly, it is cause for a huge amount of skepticism, even ridicule.

But, to reject the WHOLE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE the church has been accumulating for 2000 years on this ground alone, is BASELESS. It is supreme arrogance that can only come from a mind that is fundamentally ignorant.

 

[9sublime]

Numinus, every argument you give for the Catholic doctrine being true can be applied to the Protestant religion, Buddhism etc. etc.

You have no more proof that your religion is right over any other, which makes the fact that you follow it as the truth irrational.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Numinus, every argument you give for the Catholic doctrine being true can be applied to the Protestant religion, Buddhism etc. etc.

You have no more proof that your religion is right over any other, which makes the fact that you follow it as the truth irrational.

Or maybe it's just that there are some universal truths that all religions accept as a matter of course, and only narcissistic secularists attempt to deny or disprove them, even when their own God "science" can't explain them either.

 

[numinus]

Numinus, every argument you give for the Catholic doctrine being true can be applied to the Protestant religion, Buddhism etc. etc.

Why can't they ALL be true, within reasonable degrees of error, hmmm? And why can't they ALL be subjective manifestations of a single, immutable truth, hmmm? And if you look at the ethical standard of all major religions in the world, are they not all based on some fundamental principle discernable by all?

I'm sorry, but you are asking for ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE, something not even science nor mathematics nor logic can provide. And if these fields of inquiry cannot provide absolute knowledge, they cannot say with absolute certainty what is or isn't correct.

You have no more proof that your religion is right over any other, which makes the fact that you follow it as the truth irrational.

I am sorry but you are, to my mind, demonstrating the fundamental defect of an intolerant world-view. By this alone, you are no more different from the goat-herders of the middle-east spewing nonsense rhetoric.

I have already provided proof. I have already said that MY decision in adhering to catholicism stems from the fact that it is the MOST EPISTEMOLOGICALLY CONSISTENT with the conclusions of ontology.

Does that preclude any other religion from manifesting an alternative view of ontology? Certainly not! Does that invalidate the cultural expression in their religion of some people halfway across the world? Certainly not! Do you believe your smug agnosticism more correct than say, the devout who flagellates himself publicly on holy week? MOST CERTAINLY NOT.

 

[9sublime]

Or maybe it's just that there are some universal truths that all religions accept as a matter of course, and only narcissistic secularists attempt to deny or disprove them, even when their own God "science" can't explain them either.

So its ok for religious parents to push this on their children, even if they can't prove the validity of their religion. Greeeaaaat. Someone needs to point out this idiocy of organised religion, whether it makes me a narcissitic secularist or not.

 

[9sublime]

Why can't they ALL be true, within reasonable degrees of error, hmmm? And why can't they ALL be subjective manifestations of a single, immutable truth, hmmm? And if you look at the ethical standard of all major religions in the world, are they not all based on some fundamental principle discernable by all?

Well if you believe that, why have you opted for Catholicism?

I'm sorry, but you are asking for ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE, something not even science nor mathematics nor logic can provide. And if these fields of inquiry cannot provide absolute knowledge, they cannot say with absolute certainty what is or isn't correct.

But... you trust what the priest, or you parents etc. tell you about God?

I am sorry but you are, to my mind, demonstrating the fundamental defect of an intolerant world-view. By this alone, you are no more different from the goat-herders of the middle-east spewing nonsense rhetoric.[/QUOTE]

Religion is far more intolerant than me, I can only think of one religion which works in conjuction with other religions, and yours certainly isnt that one.

[/B]I have already provided proof. I have already said that MY decision in adhering to catholicism stems from the fact that it is the MOST EPISTEMOLOGICALLY CONSISTENT with the conclusions of ontology.

But Catholic scripture isn't based on any kind of fact when it comes to the spiritual side of it.

Does that preclude any other religion from manifesting an alternative view of ontology? Certainly not! Does that invalidate the cultural expression in their religion of some people halfway across the world? Certainly not! Do you believe your smug agnosticism more correct than say, the devout who flagellates himself publicly on holy week? MOST CERTAINLY NOT.

I don't believe my agnosticism to be correct, I believe I can never be correct about religion. I could follow what the holy men or brainwashing elders tell me, or I could accept that I don't know and stop believing whatever other people push on me. I just believe those who follow organized religion are wrong, Just like those who follow organized religions believe I am wrong.

 

[numinus]

Well if you believe that, why have you opted for Catholicism?

There really isn't any reason for me to keep repeating myself.

But... you trust what the priest, or you parents etc. tell you about God?

I have no intentions of surrendering my rational faculties to anyone -- not a priest nor my parents.

Religion is far more intolerant than me, I can only think of one religion which works in conjuction with other religions, and yours certainly isnt that one.

Your truth precludes anybody else arriving at the same truth by a different route.

If that isn't intolerant, I don't know what is.

But Catholic scripture isn't based on any kind of fact when it comes to the spiritual side of it.

There it is again. You are forcing the spiritual to conform with your basic scientific evidence. It is as logically defective as apples and oranges.

I don't believe my agnosticism to be correct, I believe I can never be correct about religion. I could follow what the holy men or brainwashing elders tell me, or I could accept that I don't know and stop believing whatever other people push on me. I just believe those who follow organized religion are wrong, Just like those who follow organized religions believe I am wrong.

Nobody is pushing anything on you -- not even the operation of logic. Surely, what is logical will remain logical despite your agnosticism.

 

[9sublime]

Ah I give up numinus. All your fancy wording has failed to show me proof of how the Catholic religion is the true religion over all others.

 

[SW85]

Hasn't he said multiple times now (at least twice in as many days) that he does not regard Catholicism as the "true" religion "over all others"? That, indeed, he regards such reasoning, precisely the kind you're exhibiting, as illogically prejudicial?

 

[Federal Farmer]

So its ok for religious parents to push this on their children, even if they can't prove the validity of their religion. Greeeaaaat. Someone needs to point out this idiocy of organised religion, whether it makes me a narcissitic secularist or not.

OK, so you're a science freak, then answer this one for me Mr. Spock, explain and PROVE Abiogenesis (and be forwarned, Miller/Urey doesn't get the job done). Facts only, no speculation, no equivocation, no hypothesese, nothing but unequivocable, demonstrable, scientific facts will be accepted. Your explaination must meet all of the criteria of a Scientific Law, so no "Theories" will be accepted either.

It must be observable in full, from abiogenesis to life. It must be able to be replicated, unaided at any point once the experiment starts, in natural conditions, and not just in a laboratory. The outcome of the 'experiment' must be specifically predicted prior to the experiment being conducted, and any variation from the prediction automatically invalidates the entire experiment. Until you can satisfactorily answer, and demonstrate this, all of your "science" is, how did you put it, "the idiocy of organized" science as the end all, be all, of the world.

Time to put up, or shut up.