Login

Faith Hope Charity · 01-01-2007, 05:36 AM

Peace RT,

Thanks, but I'm not worthy.

Yes, you are.

Ya’ know what, kiddo, no you can’t. I know where you’re going with this. The first thing we must understand is that faith, in and of itself, is not a pathway to access knowledge.

You're kinda right! It's the other way around - knowledge is a pathway to acquiring faith.

Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence), there are no ways to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the gods of modern society. Each statement of belief carries the same level of validity, i.e., none.

Ultimately, it does boil down to faith. That's the point I was trying to make to Submit in my earlier post. I could mention the fact that God sent His only Son to the world as evidence but not even the people during Jesus' time accepted Him & proof was staring them right in the face!

Another one of my infamous analogies... Do you believe that Shakespeare wrote 'Romeo & Juliet'. Why is it easy to believe in history but not religion? You weren't sitting beside Shakespeare as he wrote. You choose to believe in documentation & oral tradition, right? Well, faith is even stronger than that. I have more doubts that Shakespeare is the author of R&J than that God exists.

Faith cannot be used as a tool to access knowledge because it is random. Faith-based assertions carry validity (sic) not because there is any criteria to back them up, but because a group of people deem it so, and by definition, faith asks that one does not question validity. If one is questioning their faith, it is considered that they are also losing their faith, not strengthening it.

Ways of coming to know God...

By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.

Created in God's image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of converging and convincing arguments, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These ways of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: 'For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 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'.

The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God's existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material, can have its origin only in God.

The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality that everyone calls God (CCC)

Ultimately, there is a deep difference between trust and faith. Faith is belief despite or contrary to evidence, whereas trust requires evidence to be maintained. People talk about "faith" in one's doctor, and "faith" in one's friends, but I guarantee you it's really trust based upon their behavior-- if your doctor butchers you or a loved one or a friend fully betrays you, your "faith" is gone. What you had all along was trust, which they betrayed, which is why you no longer trust them.

That's 'blind faith'.

Biblically/scripturally speaking, god doesn't want us to discover-- he couldn't care less, and in fact punishes men for trying to attain knowledge he considers threatening (Tree of Knowledge, Tower of Babel) --

Well, I can only speak on behalf of Catholicism (I'd be stoked with input from Muslims on this matter too), our purpose in this life is to know, love & serve God. God created each one of us with an intellect. We can't love Him if we don't know Him. Knowledge is good but pride is bad. We shouldn't try to be Him.

I have trust that my father is, in fact, my father in part because I kinda’ look like him. More to the point, your analogy is a poor one. Whether or not my parents are my real parents or not still place both them and me in a demonstrable reality. Not so with your asserted god(s).

It's a shame you don't believe in your Heavenly Father - you were made in His image & likeness. Are you aware that science has proven every single human on earth is descended from one woman - formally known as Eve???

But theism makes claims of an eternal nature -- issues that affect our existence during infinity Doesn’t that raise the stakes considerably as opposed to whether or not I have a blood tie to my parents?

How can you possibly not believe in life after death? Have you ever lost a loved one? Don't you still feel their presence? Or do you just cease thinking about them altogether once they're gone? Do you believe in spirits? Demons? Ghosts? What's your essence? Do you have a human nature? Please define your nature for me in relation to other natures.

how can lesser standards support a far more extraordinary claim, like there exists a supernatural realm?

How can we know the existence of a Supreme Being?

The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
The argument of the first cause (ex causa).

The argument of necessity (ex contingentia).

Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.

It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent.

Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).

The argument of degree (ex gradu).

Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.

These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.

The argument of design (ex fine).

(St Thomas Aquinas)

Would you say the gods of Greece and Rome and Babylon and the Norsemen are all “real” or were they made up to explain things that couldn’t readily be explained? Assuming you admit these other cultures did do precisely that, why does the God of the desert you believe in not adhere to an obvious conclusion that men create gods for any number of reasons? Why does yours exist and theirs do not?

There is one God. There are many false idols - & not all are figures. People worship money, food, pleasure, fame - anything that takes your love & attention away from the true God is idolatry.

Therefore, if God is excused for being created from nothing, then why can't the universe be excused for being created by nothing?

Because the universe is finite. God was not created out of nothing. God is uncreated. If He were created then there'd be a power above Him. God is not composite or made up of parts. If you'd like to know more, read the Catechism.

Whatever did we do before religion?

I'm sorry, I can't comprehend the notion.

Your idea that it's god-implanted is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both). Furthermore still, we see simple indigenous tribes have better morality than industrial nations have -- for instance, many tribes have no concept of thievery because they communally share everything. Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.

I believe strongly in the Natural Moral Law. But according to you who is its author? Are you saying its relative? Subject to change? Who decides? What you consider to be right, others might deem wrong, & vice versa. If certain Muslims/Christians/Jews/e.t.c., can go to bed with a clear conscience after beating someone to death, having pure intentions, then who are you to say that they've acted immorally? Every Philosopher who believed in the 'Golden Rule' believed in a higher power.

I cannot logically resolve a vengeful, vicious god. “His” message comes with an underlying threat that is repulsive. He can wash away all sins if he wants to. He doesn't want to. Thus he permits the eternal condemnation of most of his children. If his concern was truly safety, he'd change his behavior to one that really embraces safety.

Now we're starting to get somewhere! I knew you were angry & bitter with God. So was the Psalmist. Ever read the lamentations contained in the book of Psalms? Are you a former Christian?

God isn't vengeful. He is justice itself. Yet another poor human analogy... If you do something wrong, your parents will punish you - not because they want to hurt you but because they love you. They're not going to let you run loose, defy them, harm yourself & not suffer any consequences. But throughout it all, they'll never cease to love & care for you. It's the same with our Creator. We condemn ourselves to eternal damnation by choosing freely to commit evil. God doesn't will anyone to enter hell but He doesn't force us all into Heaven either. I think I've used this example before on these boards... If you meet the girl/guy of your dreams & you wish to marry him/her, you can't demand that they spend the rest of their life with you against their will. That's not true love. They have he God-given gift of freedom to accept or reject your invitation.

Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.

If you're going to make extraordinary claims, you need to back them up with extraordinary evidence. Please try again.

Help me out here, FHC. So I'm conflicted on how to handle a domestic issue, and the absolutely universal law of God is not making it clear how I should proceed. Here's my conflict, from Leviticus 25:45-46

Here's my problem. One of the 4 year old children of the heathens around me actually has converted to Judaism. Now, technically he is still heathen, at least by blood. Can I buy this child anyway, or does the conversion override the bloodline issue? I suspect that a 4 year old isn't old enough to make such a decision regarding their status, so I can buy and enslave him anyway.

Can you enlighten me on how the bible resolves such a conflict?

Sure thing, pal!

"Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. So that the law was our custodian until Christ came. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian (Mosaic Law)... for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to a promise" (St Paul's Letter to the Galatians 3:23-29).

Thanks.

Anytime Mate!

Bet on it. History proves it. Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.

False gods - yes. The one true God, Alpha & Omega - impossible!

It’s already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism.

You're in for a big surprise, my friend! Take my word for it (trust me).

I think that's all I'll comment on for the time being. Submit (or another Muslim) can handle the rest on Islam. I'm taking on all of ya'. Praise Zeus (PBUH).

Hahaha! Whoa... Look out!

Theists like to portray critical assessment as some sort of weakness to the naive, but it's really the strength of science: Eliminate the ideas that are proven or provable and make the mechanisms withstand all criticism. That is how we get to knowledge. In fact, FHC, it's how you came to your belief systems, to some extent. You just left out the critical assessment part. You wouldn't believe as you do if you hadn't eliminated competing concepts and ideas, assuming you chose your religion and didn't merely inheret the belief system you were born into. So don't use a process for yourself and then try to denigrate others for using the exact same process to come to a knowledgeable conclusion.

St Anselm defined Theology as "Faith seeking understanding."

Through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts; it is in particular theological research which deepens knowledge of revealed truth. From the intimate sense of spiritual realities which believers experience, the Sacred Scriptures grow with the one who reads them (CCC 94).

Here are some snippets from an essay I wrote recently...

"Generally speaking, Theology and Science use different methods in their effort to ascertain truth and knowledge. Theology utilises methods that are based upon subjective interpretation of personal intuition or experience, and/or the authority of a perceived prophet or a sacred text through revelation. Science, on the other hand, uses the scientific method; an objective process of investigation based upon physical evidence, subject only to observable and verifiable phenomena. Similarly, there are two types of questions which theology and science attempt to answer: questions of observable and verifiable phenomena (such as the laws of physics, of human behaviour), and questions of unobservable phenomena and value judgements (such as how the laws of physics came to be, and what is “good” and “bad”). Science and theology are quite compatible although they appear to contradict each other in terms of how they approach the world. In understanding reality, science pursues the “what” and the “how,” whereas theology is more interested in the “why.” There is great value in both. Theology and science need not be enemies" (various sources).

May God richly bless you, RT. You can count on our prayers.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me