|
|
|
I don't know if anyone else deals with this (bjorn, I'd be surprised if
you hadn't dealt with it at some point) but I have an issue I'd like to
discuss.
I rarely hear from my family. Like almost never, unless I call first.
There's one exception. My family is devoutly Roman Catholic and every
year or so I'll get a call out of the blue from one or another of my
five brothers. (Good Catholics all)
After a few minutes of idle chatter, they always come around to it. My
family is on a mission to bring me "back into the fold". Now there's
exactly zero chance of that, but I don't really want to offend them
since this is the only way I hear from them.
With my parents I've come to an uneasy (on their part) agreement to
agree to disagree. With some of my brothers I simply haven't been
allowed a dissenting word. They weren't confident enough to hear me
out.
Then I recieved a series of e-mails from my brother-the-PhD-in-theology.
On the bright side he's confident enough to hear me out -- and by e-mail
he pretty much has to let me have my say anyway. But he's also a much
more experienced debater than I am, and much better able to marshall his
resources on the fly.
So far he hasn't come up with any arguments I've never heard before, so
I've had answers for him, but I'm uncomfortable that either I'll seem to
be attacking him personally or that he'll feel he's "won" if I state my
points too firmly or don't I have an answer to some point of "logic" he
brings up.
Now mind you, I have a lot of practice debating door-to-door
evangelists, but some of my tactics are none-too-kind. This is my
brother and I've seldom heard from him in the 20 years since we left
home. I want to encourage him to keep in touch without giving him the
impression he's "won".
Heres a "ferinstance":
Point: If idea A and idea B are in contradiction, then there are only
three possible truths:
o A is correct and B is incorrect
o B is correct and A is incorrect
o both A and B are incorrect.
Counterpoint:
There is a fourth possibility. A and B may both be correct, but
we don't yet recognize the mechanism that drives them both.
For instance Einsteinian physics and quantum physics are both
true, yet seem to be contradictory. Probably they are parts
of a larger truth that we don't yet comprehend.
He wants to try to approach the religious question through logic. If he
sticks to logic and it continues to be this flawed I'll have no trouble
not losing the argument, but will I lose my brother?
If any of you have tried to deal with this missionary zeal from your
families, would you be willing to share what you did and said and how it
worked out?
Thanks...
64 responses total.
You have my sympathies - it is a shame that any one should take up the
name of Christ so strongly that they forget the words and beliefs of Christ,
who embraced the sinner before the saint.
I'd think that, based on my own experiences debating theology, that
the best you're going to be able to do is to achieve a truce - it's not an
argument that is based on rational, post-literate drives, but rather
fundamental needs - the person who is confident in their beliefs may try to
convert, but will not feel a need to do so in order to justify their own
beliefs.
I'd suggest reading Eric Hoffer's _The True Believer_ for a good
understanding of the mindset you're up against - though he offers precious
little in the way of working against that mindset.
Another good source of information about non-Canonical Christianity
which can be quite shocking to Christians (for example, the evolution of
Judaic and Christian beliefs from local religions, the influence of the
Yahwist tribes of Israel upon the Ba'al/Yahweh-and-Ashera-worshipping tribes,
the influence of Zoroastrianism on the Judaic councept of Sheol and on the
times and actions of the Meschiah) check out www.infidels.com - it's primarily
an athiest's resource, but it's very good debate fodder for any of us up
against the "one truth" people.
FWIW, Einstienian physics have recently been proven wrong (1986, Paris,
France) about several key concepts - I'll provide more info if necessary.
(from _In Search of Schroedinger's Cat_).
Thanks, Jazz. (Oh well for my physics argument. *sigh* That wasn't an auspicious start.) I'm definitely going to look up the infidels page -- he's very academic and it'll be interesting to see what he makes of the historical arguments. ;)
I tried the infidels page -- it hasn't a DNS listing. Was it moved?
Try www.infidels.org instead. (Why do people assume that every Web domain is commercial???)
Because I listed it as a .com TLD. :) My bad.
I can think of several fields wherein there are many different ways
to view a given subject, often contradictory, although the only scientific
field that comes to mind is neurology versus psychology - perhaps that'd make
a comparable argument?
Actually, neurology vs. psychology is a fairly good analogy for athiesm
versus theism ... there are many schools of theism, which often disagree
violently, and seem incompatible, but use similar means to explain the same
basic phenomena. :)
That's a good idea -- because David is a much better debater than I had expected and much more up on science than I am. I don't really expect or want to "win", but it's becoming much more clear that he couldn't care less what I think, he's just determined to "save" me. Unfortunately his arguments aren't as stupid as most of the doorstep prostelytizers. If you can grant his primary asssumptions, it's all very logical. Course, his primary assumptions are that there's only one right way and that's his way. <grin> I did eventually find the infidels page and that has kept my spirits up though it didn't especially help with the arguments. (It occured to me to try .org anf there it was!) If anyone is interested I could post segments of his notes -- I'd be -um- very interested in how others would handle specific arguments.
I would like to see that, yes. I don't know that I'd be much better at arguing, but I'd like to see that 'logical explanation' you mentioned.
OK, when I get home I'll log in here and post it. It's coming out in bits and pieces so far, but that may be what's making it hard to get a good grip on. Or there may be other reasons...
Hey Misti! Item 111, coolness.
I don't get evangelized so much, as guilted about how I'm educating my kids,
how they ought to be in Hebrew school, etc. <sigh>
Seems to me that you can either;
a)tell your brother that familial ties are sufficiently important to you that,
rather than damage them, since neither one of you is going to convince the
other,you'd sooner avoid discussing religion, and if he's concerned about your
soul thanks for the concern, keep it to himself...
b)pull out all the stops and let him cope as best he may--after all, he
started it, and if being right is more important to him than being kin, his
loss.
c)Figure that you don't necessarily pick your family and that, if he *weren't*
family you wouldn't bother with him, so let the whole thing drop as quickly
as possible and blow him off.
d)continue honing your skills against him as gently as possible and hope for
the best.
Anybody think of any other options?
I guess the one(s) you select is a reflection of how important this
relationship is to you.
And of course the answer to "who's right?" is "both and". He's not gonna get
that broad a perspective, probably.
Or you could pose a similar question to *him* and ask for a rational,
logical answer:
You're convinced someone else's religious beliefs are wrong, and wish
for them to take up the same beliefs that you have, yet in the process you're
sure to cause them emotional pain, and in most cases lose them forever.
What do you do?
"Shoot the hostage" :)
Jazz- like it! You're a wicked person. <g>
I guess, Kami, that I've decided to go with number 3. Can't really
explain why except that it seems important. (I'll probably resort to
your suggestion when we come to a bloody draw, Jazz.)
Here's the salient bits of the second message; it's pretty long. MT is
me from a previous message, DD is him from this message DD> is him from
a previous message:
***********************
MT I don't think that's the best way to paraphrase my religious views.
MT I think that religion was developed by people to serve human needs.
MT (Completely aside from whether diety exists.)
DD While it is true many religions were developed by humans, it is not
DD true that all religion was. The worship of God is innate to our
DD being. There are two sources of knowledge about God. That which we
DD can derive from the process of reason, and that which is revealed.
DD If an element of knowledge cannot be shown to be knowable from
DD reason alone, to accept it - you must be able to proove that it came
DD from God. But I know I am ahead of some basic elements
DD upon which we do not (yet) agree, so I will move on.
********************************
MT Along with the Bhuddists, I believe there are many correct paths to
MT the truth, and the truth is not a small easily conceived thing. It's
MT enormous - beyong any human ability to comprehend the whole. Each of
MT us can hope, at best, for a glimpse of one part. For me, reason per
MT se is irrelevant to religion. Religion isn't a logical process. It's
MT the "other side" of reason: knowing. You recognize spiritual truth
MT not with your mind but with your heart...and sometimes what seems to
MT be true on one level will see to be contradicted on the other. But,
MT as with the story of the blind men and the elephant, that isn't
MT because one truth is more correct than another but because we aren't
MT capable of understanding the whole of the truth.
DD I agree that there are many paths to the Truth, what is the Truth
DD that we are searching for and what is the best path to that. I will
DD try to show that Truth is that there is one God who created us, sent
DD His Son to die for us, and left a Church here to guide us to what
DD "no eye has seen, no ear has heard, what God has waiting for those
DD who love Him." Most religions have some truth in them, but I
DD contend that they are the result of a process akin to the old game
DD of "gossip" that have left the true path God has set and error in
DD the one Truth has crept in and clouded the entire truth. I also
DD agree that the entire Truth is much more than any human can
DD comprehend, but that doesn't mean we cannot understand what we need
DD to for our salvation. Religion is not only a logical process, but
DD it cannot be illogical. Faith cannot deny reason. While faith
DD doesn't come from reason alone, it must be part of the process.
DD With the story of the blind men, I don't remember it verbatim;
DD however, as I do remember there was no contradiction here, only
DD evidence that seemed to conflict with initial assumptions with
DD regard to what the truth was. That simply shows that the "model"
DD used for making predictions was incorrect. In Catholicism I have
DD found no data, no evidence that conflicts with the "model." It all
DD makes sense logically and God confirms it through His Grace that I
DD respond to -- my faith.
***********************************
MT Well, I firmly believe that truth is where you find it, and that for
MT *you* and for millions of others, yours is the one truth. It feeds
MT your need for understanding in a way that no other path will.
DD What you are assuming here is that religion only exists to serve our
DD earth needs. In that case it is nothing more than as you said
DD before, a human creation. However, while religion can benefit us on
DD earth, that is not it primary purpose. Its purpose is to know God,
DD to understand His Will, and follow His Will. The reason for this is
DD not because God is some demanding being, but because we need it.
DD Things go wrong when we live outside of the Truth, whether we do it
DD purposefully or not. We are all one Body, the Mystical Body of
DD Christ (for those who have been baptized). When one part suffers,
DD we all suffer; when one part is glorified we are all glorified.
**********************************
MT The only place I disagreewith that is in your idea that other paths
MT can't be the one true path to understanding for other people.
DD The Truth cannot be changed, nor does it change. One cannot just DD
choose something as the truth because it fits with what one wishes DD
to believe or because it justifies how one wishes to live. Many DD
people have taken different paths to the truth, they end up finding DD
it in the Catholic Church -- and here they are really satisified, as DD
is not possible any other way.
************************************
<long story about a wierd experience snipped>
DD One cannot always explain how the Holy Spirit. The cure may not DD
have been a sign for you. It may have been for someone elses DD
sanctification. The cure may have been given at the Mass and delayed DD
for some reason, or God may simply have let the illness take its DD
course. Having worked as an analyst and studied some logic, I do DD
know that human beings tend to apply the most recent cause" to the DD
"effect" they see and this many times gets us into trouble. Effect DD
can sometime immediately follow cause, but not always, sometimes it DD
is delayed.
DD As an example, a hockey player once during a game was hit very hard.
DD He got up and finished the game. Several hours later at dinner, he
DD falls limp in his chair. Everyone rushes to him supposing that he
DD choked on his food. What actually happened was that his vertebrate
DD had been lacerated during the game, during dinner and he moved just
DD right (wrong) and cut his spinal cord. The short story long,
DD whether this incident was a miracle or not I don't know, but God
DD could not have given you a sign that would take you away from His DD
Truth.
*************************
DD> Tolerance I think has come to mean that everyone's beliefs can be
DD> true. However, that is not possible if they contradict one another.
DD> The fundamental law of logic is that of non-contradiction.
DD> Therefore, if two positions say the opposite, there are only three
DD> possibilities, A is correct, B is correct or they are both
DD> incorrect. In that case you need to find out which is the case.
MT Not necessarily true, David. Look for instance at how einsteinian
MT physics and quantum phsyics appear to be true in their own realm and
MT yet appear to be contradictory. There is a fourth possibility -- MT
sometimes both are true but we don't yet understand the mechanism or MT
see the whole picture.
DD I think you mean the newtonian physics seems to break down at the DD
quantum level. That is true; however again there is no
DD contradiction here. As with the incorrect model used with the blind
DD men and the elephant, the newtonian model simply is the incorrect
DD model to use to predict what happens at the quantum level. We don't
DD yet have a model that bridges the gap between the quantum level and
DD the macro level; however the models don't contradict one another.
DD An example of what I mean: I say there is a chair sitting behind
DD me and you say there isn't. We cannot both be correct, it cannot be
DD true for me and not for you. When I sit down we then find out what
DD the object truth was. If I fall to the floor "my truth" was
DD incorrect, your "truth" was THE truth. The same logical principle
DD holds at all levels, two contradictory things cannot both be true,
DD in the same way at the same time, in the same place.
DD With regard to religion, if I say there is only One true God and
DD there are no others besides Him, and you say other deities exist,
DD either you there are no others besides Him, and you say other DD
deities exist, either you are correct or I am (or in this case an DD
athiest could offer a third possibility) we cannot both be correct. DD
One (or from the perspective of the athiest both of us) of us is DD
wrong. The only way to know is to use reason/logic and any existing DD
data one can make an argument for. We cannot go our separate ways DD
with nothing happening sooner or later we will sit down
DD (when we die) and then we will find out the truth. In the meantime,
DD we must use the faculties God gave us to find the Truth.
********************
MT That sort of faith doesn't work for me. I operate from my heart --
MT and yes, my feelings about my children have always been intense: I
MT love them beyond reason, and no one can make me as angry. Not even
MT Larry has a greater draw on my emotional resources. Even when
MT things are neither very, very good nor very, very bad, I feel an MT
intense rightness when I'm with the kids.
MT I need a religion that feels that right, too. Like the Native MT
Americans, I find that rightness in my connection to the earth and MT
like the Hindus I find that singing of my soul through imagery and MT
poetry. The Catholic church leaves behind in my life a taste for
MT pageantry and ritual and my experience as a woman demands a religion
MT that is honest in its expression and respectful of the reality of
MT my life and the lives of my ancestors.
DD You have already advised that you do use reason as a guide (at least
DD partially) in faith . You said you couldn't understand the Catholic
DD faith and that is your reason, at least in part, for rejecting it.
DD I would suggest that the methods you used were perhaps not correct
DD for you, but I disagree that the faith cannot be correct for you.
DD It is a fact of creation that it is correct for you, that is because
DD it is the all encompassing Truth to which you earlier referred. It
DD is true we will never understand all of it, but that is the happy DD
consequence from God's infinite Being. It is a necessity that we DD
not understand it all, otherwise God would be finite and within our DD
minds. It is also true that God has revealed that which is DD DD
sufficient to understand what we need for our salvation. I would DD
suggest that you make another attempt at understanding the Catholic DD
faith in its fullness before rejecting it. I would be more than DD
glad to help. Once you comprehend it, then the possibility of the DD
heartfelt acceptance is possible.
*******************************
MT I've found that religious expression through neo-paganism. Neo MT
because though it's based on the pre-Christian European religions, MT
it's actually only been practiced openly since the 1920s. Paganism MT
because it's open to filtering reality through the lenses of many MT
dieties to see what gold-dust of truth we'll find there.
DD Again, if you use incorrect models ("the lenses of many dieties")
DD you will get erroneous answers. These will only be seen as error if
DD you use reason and logic for the filtering. The probability of
DD error is high in a passive environment, it is greatly enhanced in an
DD environment of active evil. If you reject the possibility of the DD
devil (which is his desire) than you have no defense against his DD
temptations and lies.
DD This is pretty long already so I will have to put off the proofs for
DD the existence of God and what attributes the proofs show God must
DD have until my next e-mail.
DD God Bless
So the gist of his argumebnts is "If you view the universe the wrong way, you get the wrong view of Truth; if you view it correctly, you get the correct truth"? I'd love to see his argument that the Catholic "lens" is the correct one - I'd think that the vast number of non-Xians in the world who haven't been smited down cruelly proves that, if there is one God, he at least tolerates other beliefs. This may have been mentioned somewhere earlier in the item, but I only have an hour before I go to bed, so... >8) What does your brother think happens to those who do not see the one correct Truth?
Frustrating, Misti. And also, a delightfully skilled debate partner, if it were not a matter of such personal importance to both of you.
Holy Frijole. That's a long and convoluted post.
My advice would be this: paraphrase what he's been saying with (to
borow the terms from Swift and programming) "big-endian", say, for
Catholicism, and "little-endian", say, for what you believe. But do it in
your head - it sounds a bit silly when you do it verbally in a debate. Or,
you can switch the terms for what he believes and what you believe, to get
the impact of the statement clearly.
I only saw one thing I wouldn've let rest - on the whole he seems
reasonable, but convinced that his way is the true way and others are
distortions or reflections - WHY is he so lucky to have been born into the
true way, and how does he know it isn't a similar distortion or reflection
as he admits other religions are?
(The very question that I was pondering all day at work...)
(Not to try and divert attentions from Misti, but I'd kinda like to know..) What's the best way to cope being at a Catholic school and believing everything you're being taught is a bunch boo-hockey? Or suggestions on how to handle questions directly asked to you about beliefs and god etc? (Cause it doesn't look like this years teacher is going to let me sit back and never talk in his class Bother.) Thanks..
oy. you were right when you said he's a skilled debater, mta. as far as your question in #15, jazz, the answer to that is easy: in order to be a good roman catholic, one *must* accept that the roman catholic church is the one true church, founded by jesus himself. "i call you `peter,' which means `rock,' and on this rock i build my church..." is accepted in the roman catholic church as jesus' appointment of peter as the first pope. it is roman catholic dogma that their church is the only one started by jesus, therefore it's the only one which could possibly hold any validity whatsoever, since jesus is the son of the one true god, and therefore *all* other religions are *wrong*. (but you won't find too many rc non-clergy these days who are willing to put it that strongly.) and obviously, he was lucky enough to have been born into the one true faith because it was god's will.
So why did God allow us to be born into a false path? Is it because he's a flaming asshole who wants us to go to Hell? Or maybe he doesn't mind other faiths?
Right, but here we're talking about someone who ostensibly has a
certain amount of logic in their faith - the question begs to be answered:
how is it that, among all of the religions that have followers amongst all
of the peoples of the Earth, how is it that he was so lucky to be born into
the One True One - and how can he, as a rational philosopher, tell the
difference between the One True Faith and the others, outside of being born
into it?
The chances of him - just precisely him - having been born at all are staggeringly tiny. Throwing in "the one true religion" doesn't make it much more unlikely. The best way to deal with family missionaries is to be as nice as possible, find as much common ground as you can, and leave it at that. The Goddess, the Green Man, Jesus Christ, Allah, the Tao, the Creator Spirit, and yod-hey-vov-hey all want it that way.
Re 20 - But that's the easy part for him to explain. Some number of people are born into the One True Faith, others aren't. He happens to be one of the lucky ones. If he had been born into a false faith and then found the True one, he would probably be willing to admit that he had had an unlucky start.
it's the job of roman catholic missionaries to take the word of their god to all the peoples of the world. it's up to the peoples of the world to seek out the word of that god and become converts. if they don't seek out the word, or if they hear the word and still don't convert, then they're going to hell for refusing to realize and reform the errors of their ways. if you want to be strict about it, it is the job of every roman catholic to bring those poor lost sheep into the fold. good catholics are utterly convinced that theirs *is* the one true faith and everyone who doesn't follow it is going to spend eternity in hell. of course, anyone who follows the one true faith can tell that it's the one true faith among all the others because, among other things, it was founded by the savior of all mankind. in order for roman catholicism to be a logical religion, one must first accept its basic premise as true. but then, the rantings of the paranoid schizophrenic and the plots and actions of the psychotic follow a logical progression from their own basic premises, as well.
Follow my argument for just a moment longer - either there's a
fantastic and logical argument for being born into the One True Religion, or
there is an act of faith in contradiction to logic - and I've a feeling it's
the latter. Faith that the religion you're born into is true. If you can
point out to a logical and rational person that their faith is based on flimsy
premises, then they may accept this ad back off. :)
No, I don't think that's going to work. Apart from the obvious problem that nothing is going to convince this guy that he's wrong >8), simple set logic actually does back him up. Assume two sets of people in the world - Set T, those born into the True faith (regardless of what faith they hold now) and Set F, those born into false faiths (again regardless of their current faith). (Oddly, this would make me a member of Set T, from a Catholic viewpoint.) Now, we start off assuming that both sets are non-null, i.e. there is at least one person in each set. Just about anyone except a Shaker would accept that set T is non-null >8) and only those weird Buddhists and pagan types would even consider that set F might be empty. If Set T is non-null, then there has to be *somebody* in the world who was lucky enough to be a member in that set. So the challenge here is not to prove that mta's brother didn't just happen to be born into set T - somebody had to be, so why *not* him? He has the same chances as everyone else in the world. The challenge is to get him to stop worrying about T's anf F's and let mta be who she wants to be.
the thing is, he can't stop worrying about t's and f's and remain a good catholic. and if it is logically pointed out to him that his faith is based on flimsy premises, then i'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that he'll fall back on some sort of "we mere humans are incapable of understanding the true nature of deity" statement, or some sort of centuries-old rc propaganda. look at his above statement that "the worship of god is innate to our being." the principles of logic can be used to support almost anything, no matter how absurd. "the shrub is green. the frog is green. therefore, the shrub is a frog" and all that. am i making sense to anyone but myself here? i'm starting to feel like i'm ranting a bit.
I think we're all ranting. It's innate to our being. >8) While I was born Catholic, our family didn't stay long enough for me to be confirmed, so I really don't know that much about the doctrines. Most of the Catholics I've known were willing to question their beliefs at least a little, then again, most of the Catholics I know aren't good Catholics - if they were, they wouldn't be talking to me, would they? Another problem we may have here is simply the differences between various priests and churches, who (for all of the Vatican's best efforts) really do vary wildly. (Does anyone else remember the episode of TV Nation where Janeane Garofalo did confession at several dozen NYC churches for the exact same sin, to comparison shop and see which priests were more strict and which were more lenient?) I once saw an interview with a priest in San Fransisco who flat out said (to the camera!) that if a married couple asked for a special dispensation to use birth control, he'd rather give it to them than risk seeing them leave the Church. So much for the supreme power of the Pope...
i was raised rc as well. not only that, i was informed in no uncertain terms that i would attend church until i was 18. i attended ccd and was confirmed and all the rest of it. the dogma/doctrines i've been quoting here are the strictest possible interpretations; it sounds like mta's brother is even more rc than my mother was. what i've been trying to do is give some notion of the rc mindset which gives rise to the sort of tactics the mta-sib seems to be using. the vatican has had almost two thousand years to come up with logical arguments as to why roman catholicism is the one true faith, and covers any logic-holes with dogma and blind faith. american rc's are regarded as something of a problem in rome. it seems that american rc clergy and congregants, having spent all or most of their lives in a representative democracy, have trouble accepting blindly the edicts of the church. on the other hand, the church is having trouble dealing with members who want to discuss and argue with its edicts rather than blindly follow those edicts. in short, american catholics, having so much freedom of choice in the rest of their lives, have a lot of trouble accepting that the pope is their final, no-appeal religious authority. in spite of that, the number of american rc's who are embracing strict dogma and doctrines is slowly but steadily growing, and has been for the last ten years or so. i could relate at least half-a-dozen anecdotes about rc's who have accosted my friends or me in attempts to save our souls. most of them are not nearly as well-read or articulate as the mta-sib, but they have all the zeal of born-agains or witlesses.
One wonders whether the growth of strict RC in this country is really a sign of the less strict folks leaving the church...
But to admid that one's beliefs are based on faith, changes the nature
of a debate ...
re #30: yes, it does. the two basic premises have to be taken on faith: first, that jesus is the son of god and the savior of all mankind, and second that because jesus started the roman catholic church, it is the only one with any validity. the rc church has had some of the finest minds in the history of the western world come up with logical arguments to support not only those two premises, but the rest of rc dogma and doctrines.
What is the Catholic Church's premise for claiming that they represent a direct line from Jesus?
That one's so easy even I know it. >8) Peter, one of Jesus' apostles, was the first Pope, and all Popes since have claimed a direct spiritual lineage from him. And since Jesus said to Peter, "You are the rock upon which I shall build my church", that means that Peter got his authority from Jesus. QED.
yep. "i call you `peter,' which means `rock,' and on this rock i build my church" is the quotation. if you want, i can even dig up book, chapter, and verse.
There is a fair amount of credible evidence, if one accepts such things
- at least as much as many commonly accepted historical events - that Jeus
was the meschiah referred to in Judaic lore. So that doesn't have to be taken
entirely on faith - although in all of the cases I've seen it is not a case
of research then faith, but faith then research and jusification.
If someone is presenting their religion as an article of reason, and
suggesting it to others by rational argument as an article of reason, there
should be few or no articles of *faith* in it. ASking someone else to accept
your faith rationally does not work particularly weell ...
Well, we accept gravity 'rationally on faith'. It certainly seems to provide a good explanation for why things fall, but I have no direct proof that things don't fall due to evil spirits or such like. Okay, so I'm reaching...
The general theory of gravity is pretty easy to demonstrate, though,
and reproducible, and familliar to all ... those theories that are not easily
reproducible or familliar to all are usually in dispute and accepted as
theories.
Exactly. I'm reaching.
Viod: You seem to have my brother's number. Thanks for putting his
philosophy in so many words. It makes it easier to get a good handle on
his arguments.
My brother now seems to have now buckled down to actual arguments so
I'll include another post from him. I can't confirm or refute the
statistics he uses (if anyone else can, I'd appreciate a clue) but I see
several interesting loose threads in his arguments.
Thanks, everyone, for your help on this.
DD Your last letter brought up a good point:
MT Granted. But I challenge your assumption that yours is the only
MT correct model. You haven't offered any proofs for that model that
MT weren't based on unprovable suppositions. Those suppositions MT
seem to me to be perfectly valid as a basis for your own beliefs, MT
but when used to judge another's equally unprovable suppositions, MT
they strike me as arrogant.
DD I am continually reminded of the dangers of miscommunication using
DD e-mail. One cannot convey the subtleties of communication we rely
DD on with verbal communication so often times we are taken not as we
DD intend. I don't intend to sound arrogant or to try to steal your
DD intellect (I wouldn't even if I could). What we believe we must
DD assent to with our whole hearts and minds. What I believe, I do
DD first because I can assent with my whole mind, and the with my DD
heart. I may come across as arrogant for many reasons which I
DD don'tintend. I trust though you would agree that someone can be
DD confident enough with a particular position to be willing to
DD relate them to others without being considered arrogant. In
DD anycase, please don't take offense at what I say as none is DD
intended.
DD With regard to your point about my willingness to change my DD
position, I am a seeker of truth and beauty. I know that their is DD
absolute truth and that we can know it and believe that I have DD
found it. This believe comes from the fact that given all the DD
philosophical, historical and scientific data that I have been DD
presented with, the Catholic faith alone corresponds perfectly. I DD
will admit that although I have not seen everything there is to DD
see or know, but I have been exposed to a considerable amount.
DD Therefore, to change my position given these circumstances two DD
things would be necessary:
DD a. I would have to be presented data that proves my position
DD untenable
DD and
DD b. I would have to be shown a position that claimed and
DD proved itself to be the absolute truth.
DD Another good point you made is that I have not yet provided any
DD proof of my position, so I will now try:
DD I will not respond directly to each of your argument unless you
DD wish, but I think that the previous discussions served well to
DD understand each others perspectives. But since the discussions
DD were primarily in generalities there was not much to prove or
DD disprove. I will try to lay out for you why I think that my
DD understanding of the truth is more than simply belief and why it
DD can be known with assurance before one dies. Hopefully we can DD
then discuss the strenghs and shortsfalls of the specific DD
arguements. It is probably better to do in installments since it DD
can get pretty long. First the knowledge that there has to be DD
a God and what we can know of Him although it may at first seem DD
androcentric, later I will hope to show that using a masculine DD
personal pronoun for God is not a human invented convention).
DD There are two general proofs for the existance of God:
DD The Telelogical proof says generally that nature as we see
DD reflects an elaborate design and therefore there must have been a
DD designer. That designer we call God. It would take up too much
DD space to anticipate all the objections to this argument (nor am I
DD capable); however I will try to mention a couple.
DD a. The universe as we know it is the result of random forces
DD of nature, following natural, repeatable laws that
DD resulted in conditions that led to formations of planets,
DD some of which had conditions that led to the
DD spontaneous formation of life, which evolved from
DD processes of natural selection and mutation (in the
DD revised theory through punctuated equilibrium).
DD Therefore we need not appeal to a superstitious belief in
DD God.
DD The response to this could be a book (but I will spare you, but
DD only a little).
DD 1. First, we can be quite sure from available
DD oservations of the following premise:
DD - from nothing, comes nothing -
DD While we may be able to understand how matter and DD
energy behave at some level, we can't say why they
DD exist.
DD For example, if we were to build a room that was a
DD perfect vacuum shielded from all energy, the current
DD models scientists use for prediction at the macro and
DD quantum levels would predict that nothing would ever
DD appear in that "empty" room that did not first exist
DD someplace else. We can show that all matter and DD
energy has some source of origin; it doesn't have to DD
exist but it does.
DD 2. Evolution is another animal. Without debating is
DD merits and short falls as a theory; even if the
DD theory (although it would need further modification)
DD were true that would only show the way creation
DD works. It would have nothing to say about as to how
DD the matter that evolved, came into being. Looking at
DD evolution statistically there just hasn't been enough
DD time for life to evolve given the two phenomenon on
DD which it relys: again mutation and natural selection.
DD Mutation must be a random process less there be a
DD Guiding Hand behind it. If you look at the
DD improbability of the amino-acid chains coming DD
together by random chance in haemoglobin for example
DD it could be calculated at 1 chance in 1*10**650 (the
DD ** means to the 650th power, or 650 "0s after the
DD "1"). If you look at one of the simplist DNA
DD structures, the T-4 phage (a bacteria), its
DD probability would be 1 in 1*10**78000. To
DD compare this with time, since the big bang there have
DD been 10**18 seconds and there are only and estimated
DD 10**80 atoms in the universe. What this says is
DD that there has not be time enough for life to have
DD evolved anyplace without a significant modification
DD to the theory. By the way, I do believe and admit
DD that the two process, mutation and natural selection
DD are real processes, but they cannot by themselves
DD explain the way we have evolved.
DD 3. The way the nature behaves and can be described by
DD mathematical equations also reveals logic and
DD intelligence. So much less than being evidence DD
against the existence of God, it is more evidence in DD
His favor.
DD 4. Finally, take a look at a design in nature that we
DD have copied and used in technology. The human eye.
DD The human eye takes electromagnetic radiation (light)
DD found in nature and uses both it wave and its
DD particle properties to enable us to see things at
DD many focal lengths and in color. It uses a lens to
DD bend the light to a focal point, an iris to
DD accomodate the dynamic range of the light sensor and
DD different sensors (rods and cones) to detect not only
DD the light but the wavelength of the light. All of
DD this, by the argument of evolution happened randomly
DD overtime. I don't know how to calculate the
DD probablity that the first creatures without eyes
DD would have been eaten before they evolved eyes
DD randomly but it is not plausible. I think that this
DD puts the reliance on evolution as an argument against
DD the existence of God, ironically, in the category of
DD superstition.
DD
DD b. The big bang is where everything came into being.
DD We therefore have the explanation of how thing were
DD created. This simply postpones the inevitable. Who
DD created the energy that comprised the singularity
DD (the point of origin) that allowed the big bang.
DD It did not have to exist, therefore it had to come
DD from someplace.
DD
DD whew..... and this was the short one. The second actually has
DD many correlary proofs which establish the attributes of God. It
DD is called the Cosmological argument.
DD
DD <snip>
DD I am sure that you are tired of reading by now, so I will save DD
that argument for my next tome.
DD God Bless
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss