Questions for a Catholic

Post by Skyfire

Reading something doesn't mean you know it by heart.

Or understand it...

Post by MyTie

So, as it stands, I am now a Catholic who is completely ignorant of Catholicism. If judgement day comes, and I find out that Catholicism is right, I'll just explain that I remained ignorant of God's will on purpose, so that I could please Him. When He asks where I got that foolishness from, I'll just point the finger at Hyperspacerebel.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

Modern day catholicism sure reminds me of Judaism around the time of Christ ... too many traditions and rituals that have been tacked on to actual scripture and a complete perversion of what it means to practice Christianity.

But, maybe it's just me. I'd really like to weight in on this thread, if I can ever find the time to read all of it and form up a full response.

And what does it mean "to practice Christianity"?

@ MyTie - I've said this before, if you're going to make fun of things and not be serious, this isn't the place.
I'd also recommend you read about vincible ignorance.

Post by Squishalot

MyTie, I'm fairly certain that you can't become a Catholic simply by declaring yourself to be a Catholic. To be Catholic, as opposed to a Christian with Catholic-like beliefs, I believe that you still need to follow Catholic dogma and so on. I'm sure there are many non-denominational Christians who share many Catholic beliefs, but as long as they don't follow Catholic dogma / canon (and wilful failure to seek out information is probably as damning as willful ignorance) then they can't be construed as Catholic.

Anyway, your original point was a tautology. You won't be a 'Christian-Muslim-Catholic', you'll be a 'Muslim-Catholic'. It's impossible to be Catholic without also being Christian.

@ Hyper - it's all good.

I doubt that many people on the forums are like you, who think in terms of the technical terms. I appreciate the fact that you might find it a struggle to work in terms of 'ordinary language', but turn it around another way, I'm trying to explain things in terms that most people would understand.

Perhaps it's just my working background, but whenever I explain something, my goal isn't to make the best case possible, it's to make sure my target understands what I mean at the end of the day. If your goal is to explain something, you've failed if the person on the receiving end doesn't understand you.

I know you said that when you're talking with a 'peer', you're not going to dumb things down. That's fair enough, and perhaps it's the people you work with, but not all peers have the same background training as you will have had. I've got an actuarial degree by background, the people I've worked with have had accounting degrees, IT degrees, business degrees, numerous other qualifications. That doesn't make them any less intelligent, that they don't understand me if I'm using actuarial jargon, nor does it mean that I'm dumbing things down if I'm not using jargon.

If I need to explain why I'm using an actuarial life table to forecast home loan behaviour, it's not going to work if I spill out my actuarial thought processes. I'll consider the context that they come from, and create an explanation that utilises what they know.

Which brings us back to discussing Christianity. For most Christians, discussing Christianity with a non-believer is equivalent to bashing your head against a wall, because it's so frustrating that the non-believer just doesn't *get* where you're coming from. And vice versa, from the non-believer's point of view.

The real value is when both parties can take a step back, and debate from the context of the other person. So in my case, it's every time I say "So, even if we assume that X is correct...". Every time I'm arguing and assuming that the Bible is accurate in some respect, I'm taking myself out of my context and putting it into yours.

The corollary would be for a Christian to take a step out of their beliefs and attempt to see things from a non-believer's point of view for a while. Non-believers often try to encourage them to do that, though perhaps not always in the best way - "FFS YOU CAN'T ASSUME GOD EXISTS IF YOU'RE TRYING TO PROVE IT!". But generally speaking, Christians do find it quite difficult to argue from an outsiders perspective without reference to the terms they're used to (eg, God is good, the Bible is right, etc), which is why you get people like lostguide who become frustrated by the circular argument.

Anyway, back to the topic of free will. Give me the benefit of some doubt when I try to use some of the terms that you're using.

there is no meaning to discussing God's attributes if you assume he doesn't exist. It's like arguing whether all unicorns are white.

That's a reasonable statement There is no point in discussing attributes, unless there's some reason to place importance on it.

However, it fails to respond fairly to the original point, which was querying why you felt it necessary to assume that we have a non-physical element to us before you could participate in meaningful discussion. You're placing importance on a person's will, and I'm not disagreeing that will exists.

We're raising the question of whether it exists in a non-physical way, or whether it's a byproduct of biological consciousness. By saying that there's no meaning if it's explained using reductionism, what you're really saying is that 'a will defined in such a way isn't will as you define it'. If you could still define it as 'will', it should still be important, right?

Post by Hyperspacerebel

Given:

Every agent acts for an end that has the nature of a good.

To try to put that in simpler terms: every action is done for some apparent good.
Can we agree on that? If so we can move on.

Something can only have a specific end if the end itself is attainable (ie in its nature).

A thing's end derives from its nature, so it must therefore be 'natural' to the thing. A rock's end is not to write poetry--its ultimate end is in fact 'rockiness'. Now it can have proximate ends that are different (hold down the pile of napkins, kill Goliath, etc.) but those too must be in its nature; no matter how hard you try, you can't use a rock to check your email.

Man's end is the ultimate/infinite/unqualified/universal good

This plate of ravioli is a good, however it's also lacking in goodness insofar as it's finite. Once you finish it has your nature been completed/fulfilled? No, you want more.
Likewise, every finite good can also be seen as a lack of good, insofar has something more could be added.

But for our nature to drive us to the super-physical end, there must be something in us oriented towards it.

That is our intellect. We can know universals. I see a good floral arrangement, I see a good cook, I see a good virtuous act. Those are all particulars, but I see something common among them: goodness. I know the universal.

Will is a power of the intellect. Now if the intellect itself is immaterial, its powers are too.

Added to this, if the will were not immaterial, it could never achieve its end of infinite good, thus it really wouldn't be the end. But as we've shown, no finite good can be the ultimate end. So then the will has no end, and with no end there is no motion (philosophical motion, not locomotion). But that is empirically incorrect.

Post by Squishalot

Post by MyTie

It's not that I'm making fun of your religion. There is just an obvious loophole in your logic. I'm pointing it out.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

But you've clearly outlined objects with no intellect, no will, that have an end.

Just because Man's end is infinite good, why does that presuppose that it must have will and intellect? There's a jump in your logic that you haven't explained there. How can you say that a rock has a finite end? If a rock's end is infinite 'rockiness', then your argument would suggest that it too has intellect, as it is in its nature to tend towards that super-physical end.
But the rock's end is not infinite 'rockiness.' Is there any motion on the rock's part to anything higher? When we encounter a good that is not adequate, we continue to move in the direction of a higher good. It is by virtue of intellect and will that we can move toward the infinite.

Just to clarify though - what makes something immaterial? I haven't said anything about being immaterial. (Also, just to check: immaterial to me = not important. Are we still clear?)
Immaterial = no matter. This is matter in the philosophical sense...anything that exists physically. Something not bound by accidents (quality, quantity, etc.).

Post by Hyperspacerebel

It's not that I'm making fun of your religion. There is just an obvious loophole in your logic. I'm pointing it out.

No, you're ignoring everything I say for a good laugh.

Post by MyTie

It's not that I'm making fun of your religion. There is just an obvious loophole in your logic. I'm pointing it out.

No you're ignoring everything I say for a good laugh.

I'm not laughing, dude. Nothing I am doing is at your expense. I'll just exit this thread, to avoid a confrontation. Good day, sir.

Post by Squishalot

But the rock's end is not infinite 'rockiness.' Is there any motion on the rock's part to anything higher? When we encounter a good that is not adequate, we continue to move in the direction of a higher good. It is by virtue of intellect and will that we can move toward the infinite.

How do you know? Just because there is no immediately obvious physical action? What if the path to infinite 'rockiness' is to be more rock-like? Just like the path to 'goodness' was to be more 'godlike'? (Plato's reasoning, I believe)

Taking a step backwards, the earth appears to have motion - it constantly shifts, changes, moves. Can you say that the earth has motion towards an infinite end? Could a tree's end is to grow infinitely?

I'm just highlighting other examples, because I don't buy the idea that having an infinite end is sufficient to imply that a being has will. Do animals have will? Psychologists note that most animals don't have consciousness. Yet they have an end of infinite good, in the same way that people do. Can you have intellect without consciousness? (Or did you not want to confuse the two, since consciousness is man-defined?)

Just to clarify though - what makes something immaterial? I haven't said anything about being immaterial. (Also, just to check: immaterial to me = not important. Are we still clear?)
Immaterial = no matter. This is matter in the philosophical sense...anything that exists physically. Something not bound by accidents (quality, quantity, etc.).

Ok, i.e. non-physical? I can work with that.

Added to this, if the will were not immaterial, it could never achieve its end of infinite good, thus it really wouldn't be the end. But as we've shown, no finite good can be the ultimate end.

So what you're saying is that if we had a physical will, it could never achieve infinite good, therefore, its end must be finite. And that because we have demonstrated that Man has insatiable tendencies for more good, its end must be infinite. Therefore it has an immaterial will, since a physical will cannot have an infinite end. Am I right?

However.

Irrespective of whether we have a physical will or not, Man (as a combination of a physical body and an immaterial will) cannot ever achieve infinite good. By your argument, Man's end cannot be infinite good, only some attainably high quantity of good.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

Because, the rock is...a rock! It's achieved it. There is nothing more "rock" than a rock. It's is truly the perfection of a rock.
And again, I'm not talking solely about locomotion. Obviously there is no locomotion in a rock. Motion is any movement or change toward something: learning something, getting a tan. The rock isn't changing at all, there is no motion to an end qua rock.
We are are not perfectly good. There is always some lack in what I do. Therefore the is motion.

Consciousness can mean many things--if you mean it as a function of the brain, then it is not connected to intellect or will.

Do animals have will? Will is a power of the intellect, so the first question is do they have intellect. Now that is a large topic on its own and I'd rather not move onto it until we've got humans down.

Can you say that the earth has motion towards an infinite end? The end of gravitational locomotion is defined by the center or source of the gravity. Note the earth is not self-moving, so the motion is the product of some other nature moving it. We call that gravity. So the nature of gravity determines what the end of the motion is. The nature of gravity is to pull all things together (or something like that--I'm no physicist). So that is the end of the earth's motion. And a big ball of everything crumpled up seems a pretty finite thing to me.

Could a tree's end is to grow infinitely? No, it is not in its nature. Oak trees always grow between x and y feet high. That's its nature defining it. And since ends arise from nature, it could not have an end of infinite height.

Irrespective of whether we have a physical will or not, Man (as a combination of a physical body and an immaterial will) cannot ever achieve infinite good
And you can prove that?

Post by Squishalot

Oooh boy, now you've dug yourself a hole, mate :)

Why is it that you can reduce the Earth's 'motion' down to a series of physical events, but you can't reduce Man's motion down to a series of biological events? If you're going to pick apart the earth and ascertain the nature of all of its material parts, why aren't you picking apart the human body and ascertaining the nature of it? There is no motion in the physical elements of the human body either. The only motion, in the sense that you're describing, is that of the immaterial will, which you can't use as a basis for its existence (circular argument).

Why is it impossible for Gaia, the spirit of the earth, to exist apart from its physical aspect, in the same way that you assert that the human spirit/will exists apart?

Irrespective of whether we have a physical will or not, Man (as a combination of a physical body and an immaterial will) cannot ever achieve infinite good
And you can prove that?

No less so than you can prove that a rock has no infinite end.

Edit: Actually, I probably can prove that. There is no way to achieve infinite good, by the same argument that you say that man is striving towards infinite good. By very definition, it can never reach there by adding more good. It can tend towards it, much the same way that a line will tend towards an asymptote. But never reach it.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

Why is it that you can reduce the Earth's 'motion' down to a series of physical events, but you can't reduce Man's motion down to a series of biological events?
His locomotion is very much a series of biological events, yes.

If you're going to pick apart the earth and ascertain the nature of all of its material parts, why aren't you picking apart the human body and ascertaining the nature of it? There is no motion in the physical elements of the human body either. The only motion, in the sense that you're describing, is that of the immaterial will, which you can't use as a basis for its existence (circular argument).
Humans move towards a universal good. That is a a given. The motion is a given--it's empirically obvious.

Why is it impossible for Gaia, the spirit of the earth, to exist apart from its physical aspect, in the same way that you assert that the human spirit/will exists apart?
Firstly, what does that have to do with this?
And secondly, I think there are lots of spirits in the world. I would call them Powers and Virtues, governed by Dominions. That you call one Gaia is irrelevant.

No less so than you can prove that a rock has no infinite end.
Pick up any rock. What is lacking, that its nature demands? Nothing.
Point at any human. What is lacking, that its nature demands? Goodness....there is always a lack of it.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

Edit: Actually, I probably can prove that. There is no way to achieve infinite good, by the same argument that you say that man is striving towards infinite good. By very definition, it can never reach there by adding more good. It can tend towards it, much the same way that a line will tend towards an asymptote. But never reach it.

We don't achieve it on our own. We have the capacity for it, but God gives it all to us.
That we can't reach it on our own is no proof that it can't be attained.

Post by 204878

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Squishalot

Humans move towards a universal good. That is a a given. The motion is a given--it's empirically obvious.
Pick up any rock. What is lacking, that its nature demands? Nothing.
Point at any human. What is lacking, that its nature demands? Goodness....there is always a lack of it.

Demonstrate it to me. You still haven't shown me why humans have a natural demand that cannot exist in a rock or in the earth as a whole. You keep pointing at human nature and saying that it's a given, and pointing at "nature"'s nature and saying it's a given.

At risk of merging threads, you can't prove that a rock has no infinite end in the same way that humans have an infinite end.

You say that a human's infinite end is to continually seek more good. Gravity's infinite end would be to continually draw more towards it. How is it any different? You say that a crumpled up mass of everything is very finite. Well, once you have everything in the universe, you can't get any more good, so that would be pretty finite too. You can argue that human's nature would still be to want more, but then, so would gravity's.

The reason I brought up the concept of a 'spirit' is because the 'earth argument' suggests that the human body is irrelevant to the discussion. A bunch of blood and bones has no end other than to exist biologically, no?

Man's end is the ultimate/infinite/unqualified/universal good

I do believe that in this statement is the implicit belief that there is a 'will' already, even prior to proving it. Your 'proof' that the good must be infinite is based on the premise that it is insatiable. But then you can follow the same logic with gravity, and demonstrate that it must therefore an intellect, on the basis that its nature to pull other objects towards it is insatiable?

Post by Squishalot

Post by Hyperspacerebel

Why are you part of a religion that supported slavery
I could ask you why you are a part of a country that supported slavery.

Or I could point out that no Church document supports slavery. The closest you'll find is in 340 at the Synod of Gangra where the Church condemned a group that in part was fomenting slaves into rebellion. If you base your entire accusation on that, then your obviously not here to seek any kind of truth, just to attack.

and covers up it's priests molesting children?
Blatant, unfounded accusation is blatant and unfounded.

Post by mmorpgaddict

My question... What made you choose the christian bible as the answer to life, the universe, and everything, when there are so many other more interesting works of fiction to choose from?

Perhaps it was not a choice, but instead is because as a child you had this nonsense thrown at you and were told to believe it... OR ELSE?

Do you think you'd be christian if you were born in India? Or is it likely you'd be worshiping Shiva right now and making love to a sacred cow?

Questions for a Catholic

Post Reply