¶ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Light is a strange thing. No one knows exactly what it is: whether it's material, or shall we say, spiritual.
If the world begins as scientists now claim 15 billion years ago, and if the universe is 15 billion light-years wide, as scientists now claim, then the universe is expanding at the speed of light.
Are we light? Are we made of light? If so, what is light?
And what are we?
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
76 comments:
the "world" began
April 19, 1941 in Washington, D.C. Sibley Hospital at 3:14 a.m.
that's the day I was born.
it was an haiku-ish/zen-ish
moment
What is light? You ask hard questions, Kirby.
I don't know that it will ever be possible to know what light is. The best we can hope for is to know and understand more and more of how it behaves. (It's kind of like God that way. I don't think I have any hope of ever knowing what God is, but I can see some of the things He's done.)
In any case, since energy and matter are two sides of the same coin, in a sense we are made of "frozen" light. A standard view of the Big Bang is that, just after the beginning, all there was was energy. After things cooled down a bit, it coalesced and matter formed. We came quite a bit later, but all matter is formed from that initial burst of light.
Also, if the universe began 15 bn years ago and has been expanding at the speed of light since it should be 30 bn light-years across.
George,
I don't know if I'd classify it as frozen light -- we're doing an awful lot of motion in our quarks and electrons etc.
the world began for anonymous
when a little spermcell
eagerly bore through
the outer wall
of an ovum
in his mother's womb
and a spark of light
invisible to everyone
started a veritable cascade
of being
one might even say poetically
that the sparks in the eyes
of his father and mother
were the lightly prelude
to a life
you must remember this
cell sighs for cell
loins sigh for loins
the fundamental things apply
the scientists and
the poet of genesis 1
agree at least on this
light is the first thing
every soul carries with it
the spark of eternity
the body is the form
of the eternal soul
every form
like and unique
to every other
in all that we do
in all that we think and say
let there be light
while never discounting the shadows
let there be light
sparky
G.M.,
Frozen is all relative. Even in ice, there is some motion of the particles; that's what heat is, after all. But really, it was just an analogy. There's a phase transition of some sort there, kind of the like the phase transitions between solid, liquid, and gas.
For example, at first after the Big Bang, space was more or less opaque; light was constantly being absorbed, emitted, and reabsorbed, and couldn't travel any real distance, because the energy density was just too high. But, when the density got low enough (it didn't take long), a phase transition occurred, and space was suddenly transparent to light. We can still see the light from that time in the so-called cosmic background radiation. It has been massively red-shifted since then, but it's still out there, and it shows the inhomogeneities in the original distribution of mass/energy in the universe. I find it remarkable that we can still detect the background "glow" from the Big Bang, although it's cooled off considerably.
george
you write as if
the bigbang is empirical truth
it's a nice idea
but completely hypothetical
it's what most bothers me about scientists
they state things like that
and expect everyone to just believe it
a few people have access to a telescope and they say they see the truth
makes galileo look like an idiot
no one not you not
hawkings
nobody
can say in any way other than theoretically that something like the big bang happened
it's a new myth
little more
sorry
j
jh,
There's no need to apologize. I honestly don't care whether you accept the Big Bang hypothesis or not. I have no idea whether it really happened that way or not. However, it's the best explanation I am aware of for (1) the observed fact that the universe is currently expanding; and (2) that there is a pervasive cosmic background microwave radiation at a black body temperature of 2.7 K. If you know of a better explanation, I would love to hear it.
Also, if you have some reason you can point to to say it's definitely wrong, I'd be happy to hear that, too.
I don't know whether Galileo would accept it or not, either, but it certainly doesn't make him look like an idiot. And I think he'd at least have considered it as a possibility.
george
happy to hear you use the word theory
i think we should qualify any discussion about the beginning of the universe with that word
we don't know
we're like little gnats with flashlights looking into an abyss
there is not an observed fact for the expansion of the universe
there is some mechanically enhanced observation and some mathematical theorization
i propose the whisper theory
the silent gentle breeze theory
the impassioned kiss of the divine intellect onto the lips of his beloved theory
the turd of the coyote theory
far more accessible
far more mysterious
time for scientists to step down
they've assumed a high spot
in the hierarchy of knowledge
for much too long
time for some epistemological honesty
poetics
philosophy
theology
all much higher in value and in
intellectual challenge
than any physical science
the genesis account is great poetry
rarely do i hear an acknowledgement of that from any scientist
and for its time
it was the best stuff going
and we still admire the sequence and the charm of the tale
it was read beautifully during the easter vigil 11 days ago at night with darkness in the church
and once again
i was riveted
the bigbang always strikes me as little more than a cosmic fart
hardly worth the attention it gets
galileo at least tried to teach his critics the logistics of the telescope...he failed ultimately...they didn't get it
but he had faith that one day they would...and he never lost his faith
went to mass every day until his final days...he knew what he saw confirmed copernicus but he also knew his struggle to get there was beyond the ability of most men even the educated ones...most scientists state today that we are simply beholden to their work and it will be taught and some will coem to get it most won't most don't care nor should they
i spoke to a young man recently who dropped out of astronomy becaue it was all math and very little by way of looking at the stars...he just wanted to look at the stars and perhaps know the names some pretentious scientist gave to them
time for a return to a science
without instruments
use the naked senses
for god's sake
light is to life
what kisses are to love
or kind thoughts to love
the BB theory is definetly wrong because
no one was there to see it
and no one will ever know
until perhaps
the wisdom of god
is manifest in the wisdom of man
and it won't be a mathematical theory
i would acknowledge that there is something sort of beautiful in the working out of the whole scenario of physics...at least it lends itself to the human desire for knowledge
and i think the unspoken desire is for god
but i'd like to hear more scientists say that
if they're not saying it then in effect they're saying our hypotheses are facts and they prove that there is no god
i have the same epistemological discomfort when people use the word evolution as if it is a proven fact
there are observations and conjectures
but the fact remains
no one has ever observed the process or the mutations or the species morphing into whatever
it's a myth
without a captivating narrative
modern science has bit into the apple in the garden of knowledge
and has basically told god to phuq off "we're not leaving the garden"
so god esablished another garden while science decimates the one they think they own
humility would state
we do not know much at all
peace
j
I'm stuck in Carlisle PA where my car broke down.
It seems the idler pulley yanked the serpentine belt off, and now in the morning we're hoping to get it fixed.
It's a rather material problem.
Carlisle, incidentally, is where Marianne Moore lived as a little girl. It's strange to be stuck here of all places since I'm writing a book about her (or trying to).
We're at a hotel right next to where we got off the highway.
Light is one thing, little grindings in the engine another thing, idler pulleys, massive explosions in outer space seem far away. We still have two days between us and my father's big day.
Geez, I miss him. I now have to move up and be a little more responsible.
I hope the conversation between JH and George continues apace. I especially like to hear the two of them. It's like a discussion between two characters in a novel I've never read.
We landed in a good hotel (Quality Inn on Harrisburg Pike right off 81 S), and the car company (Keller Bros.) has fixed our car (water pump blew and tore off the serpentine belt, or something, for a reasonable price (less than $200), and they were super-nice. Everybody in these parts has been super-nice.
I think that somehow we are beings of pure light who have crystallized into a more solid form of energy (light is energy?), and hence the Two Kingdoms notion.
The car company was very Christian, and seemed to indicate great sympathy and respect forour predicament -- which really helps in a tmie like this when we're all feeling so fragile and vulnerable.
At any rate, onwards!
jh,
the BB theory is definetly wrong because
no one was there to see it.
So, I take it you believe that there were never any dinosaurs? That atoms don't exist? There is no far side of the moon? That Mary wasn't assumed into heaven?
Kirby,
It doesn't rain but it pours. You and your family remain in my thoughts and prayers.
george
i understand that some very old bones have been found
and people have pieced them together
and used their imaginations
to come up with something
they call dinosours
but nobody can tell me they know
something about the creatures
or what they looked like
it's largely science fiction
even heisenberg was uncertain
that what we called atoms
were
what we called them
the knowledge of them has never done me
a bit of good
i know the moon exists
i've seen it
and it always appears the same
when it's full
i assume it has a backside
i honor all
that the church teaches
de fide
i also state with admancy
we have no business
inside the nucleus
of a cell
science must be constrained
j
Jh's anti-science stance, if taken up by the wider American community, would lead to the downfall of Western Democracies and the victory of communism over the earth.
If the Godfull are anti-technology, the Godless will be in charge.
jh,
but nobody can tell me they know
something about the creatures
or what they looked like.
So your claim is bones can tell you absolutely nothing about what a creature looks like or can do?
even heisenberg was uncertain
that what we called atoms
were
what we called them.
If you're referring to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, it says nothing of the sort. And if you're really claiming that Heisenberg doubted the existence of atoms, do you have a reference?
the knowledge of them has never done me
a bit of good.
I have no doubt that your knowledge of them hasn't done you any good, but other people's knowledge of them has done a lot of good.
i assume it has a backside.
Based on what, exactly?
i honor all
that the church teaches
de fide.
But you claimed that if something isn't observed directly, it can't be true. I quote: "the BB theory is definetly wrong because
no one was there to see it." Or does the word "because" not mean the same thing to you it does to everyone else? Nobody saw Mary assumed into heaven. Therefore it's definitely wrong. Right?
i also state with admancy
we have no business
inside the nucleus
of a cell
science must be constrained.
What does this have to do with scientific truth? We shouldn't punch people in the nose for no reason, but that doesn't mean that we have to insist that people don't have noses. The truth is out there regardless of what we do with it.
Brett,
That's just silly. Communist science was just about as accurate as liberal science.
That is, when there is no political position to be gained, it tends to be pretty accurate (say, chemistry currently) but when politics are involved (global warming and physics for now, agriculture back then) the science is shoddy and people die (or are likely to die) because of it.
I went on at some length about this in one of my blog comments a while back.
Light seems to be some kind of ultimate "stuff" in the universe. The highest form of energy, the material out of which everything acquires substantiality.
Matter is "arrested" or "sluggish" light.
Interesting idea.
Time is the other conundrum. What we "see" as incoming image from the far away edges of the "near" universe is light that began its "journey" to us long before our earth even existed. Put that in your pipe. Light years.
How about dimension? Are we particles in some mammoth structure--itself animate? Are viruses tiny galaxies with their own countless worlds?
How far is big? How large is forever?
We're just blips. Blip! You're gone!
the bones can tell us something
something existed
and by conjecture and imagination
we can come up with an image
of
what some of these creatures might have looked like
but nobody knows
they give them names and
build up this whole
jurassic narrative
to fuel the already warped
imaginations of kids fed on
hollywood pap
they are pieces to a puzzle
and there are a zillion pieces to the puzzle
we have about a hundred pieces
relatively speaking
kids should not be told
that dinosaurs existed
unless they are told
that it's like santa claus
heisenberg accepted the
principles of investigation of atomic and subatomic "particles"
but he had the good sense the common sense to realize that the inquiries were altered by the fact that an experiment is taking place and this brings the question to the fore as to what in fact people were looking at in the accelerator photos...a wave a particle??
the first use of atomic energy was a big bang
the japanese people still remember
there has been a harnessing of the energy
but it could prove to be a curse
my bet is
it will
i don't doubt that there is a coherence in atomic physics
i simply go on the fact that it's all invisible and largely unknowable to the vast majority of people
and largely unnecessary
life in the world would not change too much if people stopped looking for subatomic particles or waves
every sphere i've ever looked at had a side i could not see
i think tom hanks actually saw the backside of the moon
and pink floyd
come on now
there was a band called pink floyd
that's enough for me
i'd like to see NASA grounded for 10 years
just a bunch of overeducated and largely illiterate kids playing with big powerful toys in a fantasy game
i believe in mystery
far more than i trust in
preoccupations of science
de fide means
by faith
my faith tells me
that mary was assumed into heaven
it's more like enchantment
i'm willing to be a child when it comes
to matters of faith
it doesn't need to be proved
the story needs to be told
and told well
that's all i need
when i pray the hail mary
i need very little by way of
didactic certainty
knowing by faith isn't real popular these days
but it is an actual cognitive experience for many people
reason without faith is
intellectual tyranny
my statement about the nucleus of the cell refers primarily to the genome project
to which i take serious objection
even watson and crick
are pretty dubious in my book
science becomes coersion
people trust more in what they cannot see
or that only a handful of people see and assert as truth
and doubt everything they do see
descartes is largely to blame for
this cognitive farce
i'm interested in what is known directly by the senses
but also very much interested in what has come to me handed down through time in the tradition of faith
william barrett wrote an interesting little book entitled
the illusion of technique
i recommend it
i trust in science at the level of
aristotles'
physica
basic sensory observation and description
i trust gregor mendel and lamarck more than darwin
i am far more interested in metaphysics as articulated
by thomas aquinas
than anything put forth
by contemporary physical science
modern science is cognitive inflation
all the budgets should be cut way back
most science majors these days
are illiterate
they know nothing of philosophy or poetry
for this i fear for our world
the 21st century should see if nothing else
a serious critique of the presuppositions of science
jacques maritain put forth a superb example (which nobody reads)
entitled
the degrees of knowledge
most philosphy is not up to the task
but it is necessary
the aristotelean and aquinas tradition will rise again
great sparring here
j
GM - I don't see how your point in any way addresses my own.
Technology is a huge determining factor in the military and economic power of a country.
JH's let's-back-away-from-the-atom-
and-the-genome approach
would weaken America and the West relative to the rest of the world, and over time, this would lead to our untimely and ultimate downfall.
Though I am playing for hyperbole a bit, I do actually think that there are factions in conservatism And liberalism both fighting for backwardness RE: technology, and if this unholy accidental alliance is successful, it will mean the end of freedom on the earth.
George is a much more reliable adversary in terms of addressing JH's specific statements, so I will leave that to him for now.
Brett,
Do you know about solar cycles? That the sun is likely to be spewing out a lot of electromagnetic radiation in 2012? That it may wait until 2023 or 2034, but likely as not it'll just wait 3 more years?
And that said radiation, if large enough (which it should be -- as we seem to be overdue for a big burst of em from the sun), will wipe out all our electrical networks?
And not just a power failure, but the frying of most of our delivery system.
The problem with that being we only have parts to replace about 10% of the system (at the most) and new parts take years to make, even now.
So we can prattle on about how China's going to overtake us because they're more up on the genome, but we're all going to be facked if we don't soon come up with a way to fix our coming electrical nightmare.
One good thing is that, if the solar burst waits until after the possible singularity, it may do the Good job of knocking out all those silly murderous robots that our technology has wrought on us.
jh,
the bones can tell us something
something existed
and by conjecture and imagination
we can come up with an image
of
what some of these creatures might have looked like.
You're vastly underselling what we can learn by looking at bones. We can look at teeth and tell what sorts of things an animal ate. We can look at the marks left on bones where the ligaments and tendons attached and tell how big and strong the muscles were. We occasionally have imprints of skin texture and feathers preserves, so we can know something about external appearance. We can see how broken bones were sometimes able to heal, and learn about the growth and healing capabilities of the animals. In short, we can know a lot about, for example, how big and strong a tyrannosaurus was, what it ate, and how it moved. With more care, we can learn a lot more.
kids should not be told
that dinosaurs existed
unless they are told
that it's like santa claus.
This is just nonsense. Catholic teachings about Mary have a lot more in common with Santa Claus than our knowledge about dinosaurs does.
heisenberg accepted the
principles of investigation of atomic and subatomic "particles"
but he had the good sense the common sense to realize that the inquiries were altered by the fact that an experiment is taking place and this brings the question to the fore as to what in fact people were looking at in the accelerator photos...a wave a particle??.
Of course. Heisenberg was hardly alone in this. This is the view of virtually all physicists of the last hundred years. This has nothing to do with whether atoms exist. It has everything to do with how atoms behave. Atoms are what they are, and we observe them and their behavior in order to understand them. Atoms, of course, are neither waves nor particles. They're atoms.
the first use of atomic energy was a big bang
the japanese people still remember
there has been a harnessing of the energy
but it could prove to be a curse
my bet is
it will.
Everyone still remembers, not only the Japanese. And, in any case, that certainly wasn't the first use of atomic energy. For example, x-rays from radioactive atoms had been known and used for almost 50 years before that.
i don't doubt that there is a coherence in atomic physics
i simply go on the fact that it's all invisible and largely unknowable to the vast majority of people
and largely unnecessary
life in the world would not change too much if people stopped looking for subatomic particles or waves.
Very similar things can (and have) been said about God. I think either statement simply shows that the person hasn't really thought through what they're saying.
every sphere i've ever looked at had a side i could not see.
How many spheres have you seen? Have you always walked around to the other side to make sure?
i believe in mystery
far more than i trust in
preoccupations of science.
Science is part of the mystery of the world that God created. Why would you turn your back on that?
de fide means
by faith.
I know.
my faith tells me
that mary was assumed into heaven
it's more like enchantment
i'm willing to be a child when it comes
to matters of faith
it doesn't need to be proved.
Perhaps it doesn't need to be proved. But it does need to be justified. Anyone can make up stories. What do Catholic made-up stories have to do with truth?
knowing by faith isn't real popular these days.
This is just absolutely wrong. Knowing by faith is extremely popular these days. Why do most people who believe recycling is good for the environment do so? Have they taken the time and effort to find out what it takes to recycle newspaper or metal and compare that to putting them in a landfill to make an informed decision? Do people who take homeopathic concoctions look at medical studies to find out whether they work or not? Do people who insist that vaccinations cause autism take the time to look at the evidence? Everywhere I look, I see people knowing things by faith.
reason without faith is
intellectual tyranny.
And what is faith without reason?
science becomes coersion.
Then what was the Spanish Inquisition?
people trust more in what they cannot see
or that only a handful of people see and assert as truth
and doubt everything they do see.
I can't tell whether you're talking about science or the Catholic church here.
i'm interested in what is known directly by the senses
but also very much interested in what has come to me handed down through time in the tradition of faith.
And I'm interested in what's actually true.
i trust in science at the level of
aristotles'
physica
basic sensory observation and description
i trust gregor mendel and lamarck more than darwinThis doesn't make sense at all to me. Aristotle wasn't all that big on observation. He believed a heavy metal ball would fall faster than a lighter wooden ball. He couldn't ever have actually observed this, because if he had, he would have known it wasn't true. Gregor Mendel made wonderful observations about breeding plants, and performed experiments to try to understand this better. Lamarck, like Darwin, believed the observed truth that organisms evolved. Their main difference was in the mechanism. And Darwin's mechanism (based on genetics and differential reproduction and survivability) is much closer to Mendel's work than Lamarck's mechanism (based on passing on acquired traits to offspring). Either mechanism is a reasonable hypothesis, but Darwin's fits the observed facts of reality, and Lamarck's doesn't.
i am far more interested in metaphysics as articulated
by thomas aquinas
than anything put forth
by contemporary physical science
modern science is cognitive inflation
all the budgets should be cut way back.
Having read Aquinas, I can say that if anything fits the mold of cognitive inflation, it's Aquinas.
most science majors these days
are illiterate
they know nothing of philosophy or poetry
for this i fear for our world.
Nonsense. Most people are illiterate, knowing nothing of philosophy or poetry, and even less of science. Science majors are better than average in my experience. Personally, I think there is value in philosophy, poetry, and science. Do you think that philosophical concepts have never been used to advance evil? That poetry has never been base and unworthy? One of the Catholic church's great failings has been in its tendency to suppress and persecute the search for truth and understanding of the world God made. I would fear for this world if the Catholic church once again gained the ascendency.
George:
This is just absolutely wrong. Knowing by faith is extremely popular these days. Why do most people who believe recycling is good for the environment do so? Have they taken the time and effort to find out what it takes to recycle newspaper or metal and compare that to putting them in a landfill to make an informed decision? Do people who take homeopathic concoctions look at medical studies to find out whether they work or not? Do people who insist that vaccinations cause autism take the time to look at the evidence? Everywhere I look, I see people knowing things by faith.I <3 this.
I also use this argument against most scientists who say that faith is bad -- pointing out to them that most of their scientific "knowledge" is in fact faith.
About the Catholic Church -- they do do a good job of being concerned about women's health and the environment. I'd love to see the constant pumping of hormones into our water supply stop.
G.M.,
About the Catholic Church -- they do do a good job of being concerned about women's health and the environment. I'd love to see the constant pumping of hormones into our water supply stop.
The Catholic Church does a good job with a great many things. I admire a great deal about it. I just don't see how it can honestly claim the exalted status within the Christian Church that it does claim. As far as I can tell, for example, the path from who Mary was to what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary is very similar to the path from who St. Nicholas was to modern stories about Santa Claus. But the Catholic Church claims that it gets to be the final arbiter on what should be considered universal truth to the Christian Church, and it has historically backed that up in some shockingly nasty ways. Today, it no longer has the political power to do what it once could, and I think it would be very bad for the world, the Catholic church, and the Christian church as a whole if it regained it.
GM - That solar flare will be larger than anyone anticipates, and the world will end.
December 21st, 2012.
I just pretend these things away and don't like to talk about them. It's a defense mechanism for dealing with the end of earth.
The Knowing...oh The Knowing
Brett,
(If you're not totally joking),
I doubt it will fry the world -- an event like likely can't happen.
But a lot of our technology, oh yes.
Like a thousand Katrinas all at once.
Brett and G.M.,
I can't sleep at night worrying about the impending reversal of the earth's magnetic field.
George,
Why? From what I've read it will be a fairly lengthy (1000+ year) event.
Reading something I should be?
Don't put me in a Cage, Nic. I don't want the answers, but that's where they are.
Aliens and the tree of life.
G.M.,
It was (supposed to be) a joke. Darn these text-based internets!
K --
It's hard to tell some(all)times. . .
Brett -- what's the reference?
as for old bones
they're just old bones
everything associated with them
is a guess
somewhat educated
mostly reliant on the imagination
but the bones iz bones mr bones
the science (if you want to call it that) is very new...the matter is very old...and i would believe no one on the evidence
the story about mary and the "cult" which grew up around the memeory of her is a historical fact....laden with popular desires and pious hopes...but the continuing reality of devotion is rooted in faith so much so that it defies reasonable response....people pray the rosary and give their hearts over to all that it signifies and that is enough...there is solace there which no science can bring
st nicholas was an actual guy
he was an ascetic known for extraordinary acts of charity
highly revered in the eastern orthodox rite
santa claus is an invention of wall street a means to make the consumers feel warm and fuzzy about buying all kinds of shit nobody needs
it's an atrocity
it sickens me more than organized sports
to have to even consider the whole sham
are there atoms simply because somebody has observed something with an electron microscope and given the phenomenon a name
i think what we call atoms are something else
but i'm not telling
i'd sort of like to witness the mayhem that would come about if god was no longer a factor in the lives of ordinary people
it is rationally safe to say that no one needs atomic science the world would get along just fine without it
it's an epistemological distraction
highly over funded
and we will pay dearly in the long run
i'm not turning my back on science
i think the whole affair needs to be put into a more reasonable perspective
science has assumed the territory
once established by philosophical endeavor and theology
in the library of knowledge scientists are the janitors and little more...they should get busy and clean some things up
anyone who achieves a phd without knowing the history of philospophy and at least some ability in discussing the rhetoric of philosophical thought is not worthy of a phud
i'd like to hear the scientific world state -
well yes we've created at least as many problems as we've solved
we've done some horrible damage
we've gotten quite a few things dead wrong
if you drop a heavy metal ball
from the tower of pisa
at the same time you drop a ball made of pinewood of the same size
which will reach the ground first?
what more is necessary to know??
now if the pinewood ball is larger and weighs the same well we have a little different experiment
time for some wine and pasta
o OK velocity and mass can be factored in
but aristotle was right
heavier things fall faster than lighter things
and i'd rather be hit on the head with a pinewood ball
than a shotput anyday
on second thought
where's that hard hat
the christian stories are rooted in revelation
a matter that precedes christianity
and has been carried through with considerable attention to reasonable argument by minds far more astute than the one with which i am endowed pray tell
faith without reason is
a reckless pietism
very dangerous
i strongly suggest people move away from
anything that looks like that
faith in search of reason
reason bolstered by faith
i like the naturalists
especially the ones who knew how to draw
aristotle was a naturalist
and it is believed that he drew what he observed
of course
nothing of that exists
but i like to imagine the old guy out with a piece of charcoal
and some pigments
adn he articulated a coherent approach to metaphysics which is still valid
and sadly ignored
i detest the word mechanism
when considering the
truth of nature
please don't use it again
it disturbs me
more damage has been done by men who have disavowed the teachings of faith than has ever been promulgated by the catholic church
the church merely states
hey wait a minute
man empowered with tools of manipulation and a hunger for riches at any expense is likely to respond
sorry
we don't have a minute
the inquisition cannot be understood apart from the crusades
and the religious/cultural animosity which grew up in a very complcated time
i exonerate no one
i simply state
the historical context illumines much
the ideologies of the 19th and
20th centurys fostered so much more by way of human degradation violence and bloodshed
yet we tend to look at it all and say
how marvelous man's pursuit of reason
the scourges of wwI and wwII are rooted deep in the rise of rationalism and man's lust for technological advantage
the church stood back in horror
man out of control
the scientific rationalism propagated by the third reich lives on in a seeming innocuous way in modern medicine and scientific research
it must be stopped
the church has insisted that the goal is god not truth as it is defined by rationalistic philosophy devoid of metaphysics
the truth will set you free
it will be gained not by man's effort
but by grace
let's all try to be open to that
atheistic humanism is bestial
light more light
j
JH is suffering from what most people suffer from - egocentrism.
"My interest should be the interest of all."
Which is a friend of "my field of expertise is the way that all have to view the universe."
Language poets say all is text...
GM says everything is literature, and that it's the only way we can understand anything.
Mathematicians, economists, and politics can all make the same sorts of claims.
Nic. Cage. Knowing. GM.
Oh. Is a big solar flare what The Knowing is about? I haven't watched a first run Nicholas Cage film since The Rock, though I tend to enjoy them on DVD.
i tend to acknowledge in this miasma of relativism that there is a moral high ground
and i aspire to live it out every day
that there is a place for the elite
that some people have thought things through with more acuity than others
i do not pretend to be of the elite
but i try to find them and read them
thomas aquinas was far more logical far more insightful and more universal in scope than descartes kant or hegel or all three put together
that's why i read him
and jacques maritain was the most insightful philosopher of the 29th century
dylan is a better songwriter than
britney spears
there is a hierarchy of knowledge
without it there's no hope
be perfect as the father is perfect
j
i mean the 20th century
maybe nick cage knows about the 29th
j
jh,
as for old bones
they're just old bones
everything associated with them
is a guess
somewhat educated
mostly reliant on the imagination.
Perhaps "somewhat reliant on the imagination" would be more accurate. But I think you're overstating your objections. Can you give an example of a claim made about dinosaurs for which you think the evidence is insufficient?
the story about mary and the "cult" which grew up around the memeory of her is a historical fact....laden with popular desires and pious hopes...but the continuing reality of devotion is rooted in faith so much so that it defies reasonable response....people pray the rosary and give their hearts over to all that it signifies and that is enough...there is solace there which no science can bring.
So passing made-up stories off as received truth is okay if it makes people feel good?
st nicholas was an actual guy
he was an ascetic known for extraordinary acts of charity
highly revered in the eastern orthodox rite.
Mary was also a real person. For me who she was is sufficient. I adore, admire, and thank her. I don't need great piles of additional nonsense heaped atop that. Why is okay to do that with Mary if not with St. Nicholas?
santa claus is an invention of wall street a means to make the consumers feel warm and fuzzy about buying all kinds of shit nobody needs
it's an atrocity
it sickens me more than organized sports
to have to even consider the whole sham.
This is a vast oversimplification of how the story of Santa Claus came to be. There were certainly certain influences from some companies (particularly Coca-Cola), but the story was already there to be built upon. And again, why is okay for the Catholic church to do what it has done with Mary, but not okay for others to do what they have done with St. Nicholas? Many people find great solace in Santa Claus. Why isn't that enough?
are there atoms simply because somebody has observed something with an electron microscope and given the phenomenon a name
i think what we call atoms are something else
but i'm not telling.
There was much learned about atoms long before electron microscopes ever existed. Atoms are what they are, regardless of what we call them. They aren't something else. They are themselves, your secrets notwithstanding.
it is rationally safe to say that no one needs atomic science the world would get along just fine without it
it's an epistemological distraction.
Lack of knowledge can be just as distracting as its presence.
science has assumed the territory
once established by philosophical endeavor and theology.
Nonsense. Science is a merely a way of acquiring knowledge, a particularly useful one. Do you think God doesn't want us to understand His creation to the best of our abilities?
in the library of knowledge scientists are the janitors and little more...they should get busy and clean some things up
anyone who achieves a phd without knowing the history of philospophy and at least some ability in discussing the rhetoric of philosophical thought is not worthy of a phud.
One could also say that theologians and philosophers are the snake-oil salesmen. At least janitors do something useful, right? I think anyone who achieves an Ph.D. without knowing the basics of science is not worthy, too.
i'd like to hear the scientific world state -
well yes we've created at least as many problems as we've solved
we've done some horrible damage
we've gotten quite a few things dead wrong.
I'd like to hear the Catholic church say that. And scientists have said such things many times. That said, I think the average person on earth is much, much better off today than even a hundred years ago. Just the fact that half our children don't die before their fifth birthday makes me thankful I live today rather than centuries ago.
if you drop a heavy metal ball
from the tower of pisa
at the same time you drop a ball made of pinewood of the same size
which will reach the ground first?.
They'll reach the ground at the same time. This has been done, you know.
what more is necessary to know??
now if the pinewood ball is larger and weighs the same well we have a little different experiment.
Yes, but they'll still reach the ground at the same time.
o OK velocity and mass can be factored in
but aristotle was right
heavier things fall faster than lighter things.
No, Aristotle was wrong. Heavier things fall at the same rate as lighter things.
and i'd rather be hit on the head with a pinewood ball
than a shotput anyday.
Yes, but this isn't because the shotput falls faster. It doesn't.
the christian stories are rooted in revelation
a matter that precedes christianity
and has been carried through with considerable attention to reasonable argument by minds far more astute than the one with which i am endowed pray tell.
So you say. I think Christian stories are rooted in revealed truth. But many Catholic stories are rooted in air, with no foundation.
faith without reason is
a reckless pietism
very dangerous
i strongly suggest people move away from
anything that looks like that.
Unfortunately, this is what Catholicism has become. Faith without reason. "This is true because we say it is, because we've been saying it is for a long time. Trust us. Don't worry about where the story originated. It's tradition."
i like the naturalists
especially the ones who knew how to draw
aristotle was a naturalist.
By which it is meant that he didn't believe in any supernatural world. This has nothing to do with the modern sense of "naturalist", meaning someone who studies nature.
adn he articulated a coherent approach to metaphysics which is still valid
and sadly ignored.
Coherent doesn't mean correct. He was coherent. He was also very often wrong.
i detest the word mechanism
when considering the
truth of nature
please don't use it again
it disturbs me.
I'm sorry it disturbs you, but it's a correct word in the context I used it.
more damage has been done by men who have disavowed the teachings of faith than has ever been promulgated by the catholic church.
I suppose it should be some consolation to those who were killed by the Catholic church in the name of their faith, that they weren't quite as numerous as those killed by Mao or Stalin in the pursuit of their faiths.
the church merely states
hey wait a minute.
The Catholic church states a heck of a lot more than that.
man empowered with tools of manipulation and a hunger for riches at any expense is likely to respond
sorry
we don't have a minute.
Tools of manipulation and a hunger for riches is as much a part of the history of the Catholic church as it is a part of scientific endeavor.
the inquisition cannot be understood apart from the crusades
and the religious/cultural animosity which grew up in a very complcated time
i exonerate no one
i simply state
the historical context illumines much.
The major crusades were over by the end of the thirteenth century, and the Spanish Inquisition was not begun until the late fifteenth century. But I suppose it's easy enough to explain evil away as a product of its time. Unfortunately, that evil was promulgated by the Catholic church in the name of God. That's the very definition of blasphemy. I hope God is merciful for their sakes.
the ideologies of the 19th and
20th centurys fostered so much more by way of human degradation violence and bloodshed
yet we tend to look at it all and say
how marvelous man's pursuit of reason.
If the last two centuries fostered more human violence than the height of the Catholic church in the centuries before, it is only because there were more humans around. In proportional terms, I don't believe you.
the scourges of wwI and wwII are rooted deep in the rise of rationalism and man's lust for technological advantage
the church stood back in horror
man out of control
the scientific rationalism propagated by the third reich lives on in a seeming innocuous way in modern medicine and scientific research
it must be stopped.
The Catholic church has always stood back in horror at wars it has not itself prosecuted. That is its way. But it has prosecuted many wars, resulting in plenty of human degradation, violence, and bloodshed in its long history. Modern medicine has little to nothing in common with the horrors practiced by the Nazis or Chinese Communists. It is offensive for you to compare them.
the church has insisted that the goal is god not truth as it is defined by rationalistic philosophy devoid of metaphysics.
No, the Catholic church has insisted that the goal is the advancement of the Catholic church. When I go to the Catholic church here with my wife, I am not permitted to commune, although I have been a Christian my whole life. Do you believe that that divisiveness is for the glory of God, that God insists upon it? Yet unless I profess that the Catholic church is the true church and turn my back on the rest of Christianity, that is what the Catholic church insists on.
the truth will set you free
it will be gained not by man's effort
but by grace
let's all try to be open to that.
"Seek, and ye shall find." Note that the seeking comes first. All worthwhile things are achieved through God's grace, but that certainly doesn't mean that we need make no effort.
light more light.
Indeed. The light of God and his truth.
JH you're posing a false analogy -
I'm all for hierarchies and experts.
I'm just saying that experts from a specific theology shouldn't pretend that their expertness in that narrow thing necessarily leads to a greater understanding of something unrelated, say, quantum mechanics, or the physical way the world works.
We need scientists, devoted to science, to do those things.
The fact that you believe two objects of different weights fall at different speeds is pretty baffling...
That's the classic elementary school example of how you get things horribly and obviously wrong if you don't use the scientific method.
Bob Dylan is a better songwriter than Beyonce, but that doesn't make him a better hip-hop dancer.
jh,
i tend to acknowledge in this miasma of relativism that there is a moral high ground
and i aspire to live it out every day
that there is a place for the elite
that some people have thought things through with more acuity than others.
Yes, but this is largely irrelevant. Even the wisest can be wrong and the most foolish right in any particular. Each claim needs to be examined on its own merit.
thomas aquinas was far more logical far more insightful and more universal in scope than descartes kant or hegel or all three put together
that's why i read him.
Aquinas is interesting but in many cases absurd. Reading much of what he wrote, I have to believe that not even he was convinced by this arguments. His five proofs of the existence of God are a good example of this. They all boil down to there having to be a first or most extreme of everything, and then calling that first or most extreme thing God. In other words, it assumes its conclusion. For example, his first proof is that there must be a first mover, and then he states that the first mover is God. Aquinas is like this all the way through. It'll only convince the pre-convinced.
and jacques maritain was the most insightful philosopher of the 29th century.
If you say so.
dylan is a better songwriter than
britney spears.
Yup, and Britney Spears is a better singer than Bob Dylan, even if she sings crap.
there is a hierarchy of knowledge
without it there's no hope.
I don't know what you mean by this. Above, you talk about essentially a hierarchy of authority, saying some people are better thinkers than others. Again, this may be true, but just because someone is a better thinker than another doesn't mean they are necessarily more correct in any particular. Each claim needs to be examined on its own merit, and even if Maritain is the best thinker of the last century doesn't mean any particular thing he said is correct.
be perfect as the father is perfect.
Impossible. I can but strive to be the best I can.
I don't think Britney or Beyonce write their songs. . .
Beyonce writes some of her songs.
And is far superior as a performer to B.S.
i once dropped a stone and a baseball off a cliff in montana
my friend told me in no uncertain terms
the stone hit first
the cliff was about 40ft
the stone was much heavier
a bowling ball
and a pingpongball
which would be first
a shotput and a BB
which would hit first
a grandpiano and a spanishguitar
which one
yes they fall at the same rate
but heavier things fall faster
aquinas states that there is movement
things are moving
it is an observation from common physics
in the initial proposition he only states what is obvious to anyone who observes motion
and he utilizes a principle that if something moves it must be moved
this doesn't prove the existence of god in terms expected by modern scientific inquiry
however
in lieu of a better explanation
some(one)thing must have gotten it to move
i'm just here
i'm contingent
the fullness of my being is not to be had here
but i sense very powerfully
perfection is attainable
why play bach if it isn't?
there is no salvation outside the roman catholic church
on your knees
just kidding
i think if you would ask someone 150 yrs ago as to intellectual aspirations of higher education and propose the question - what would be the highest order of knowledge? - the consensus would have been philosophy and theology
in most institutions of higher learning... these disciplines are hardly interesting anymore
even in schools founded upon religious tradition
'sall bidness and science
no one resorts to philosophy anymore except philosophy majors
and some writers
a preacher now and again
theology is sort of inbred these days as well
karl rahner anyone??
during the crusades all sides took their blows
during the inquisition
i estimate fewer than 1000 souls met their miserable ends
pitiful indeed nontheless
one could argue the wars of religion in the wake of reformation did more than make up the odds those fighting the church were at times merciless to those who wanted to stay true
religious zeal can bring out the worst in people
boy could i tell you stories
what you call nonsense
may be the fuel for faith for
an old lady with a rosary
try telling her that it's nonesense
the church has always left enormous space for the religious imagination
in the andes you can see a lot of carry over from the prechristian symbolism and ritual
and in other places as well
there has been tension at times but generally
the openness to the inspiration from simple folks has been acknowledged
medjugorje is a good example
there has been no official approval or denunciation from rome
but i've spoken to people who went there as skeptics and returned with expresseions of utter amazement
so
i don't know
that sort of thing just happens i guess
it's hard for me to address
your reactions here
george
were you to merely glance at the writings of the previous holy father and the present one
you'd find ample resource for
reasonable discussion in matters of the world and in faith
and within the halls of catholic higher education
there are lively debates
on a constant basis
where faith and reason
are in creative tension
the only apology i can make for the catholic church is that it is a human institution
and the fact that it continues
and remains a source of hope for so many is attributable to the holy spirit
she lives in spite a human failing
in spite of ignorance and sin
even at the top (or is that supposed to be the bottom)
i would be willing to go to bat on the argument that there exists in the world today no institution
where matters of faith and reason are constantly worked out more vitally than in the RCc
aristotle was wrong about nothing
he just didn't have all the fancy toys people work with these days
and he most certainly entertained
the possibility of supernatural forces
he did so quite soberly it would seem
OK people live longer today
in USA they do
and in some european countries they do
but not everywhere
we spend a lot of time and effort keeping people alive on the old age end of things
and we're killing off millions
at the earliest stage of life end of thngs
so what's the sense
thanks to science
and we're pretty damn selfish about what's good for americans
it's not how long one lives
it's how beautifully one lives
that makes the difference
dylan has more colors on his pallette
than any hiphopper
as much as i like beyonce's bounce
i'd pay more to see and hear dylan anyday
it would be interesting to find someone who could upend aristotle's principles of metaphysics
(we can at least thank kant for having tried)
very basic and logical inquiries into matters not physical
the soul
the mind
eternity
essence
the mystery of creation
angels
the effort of the church in securing jerusalem
did much to form the thoughts about nonchristian peoples and the policies of church/culture for many years many centuries
we can't undo history
but it's far more complicated than
generalized judgements allow
i've forgiven her for being so obstinant and blind and selfish
why can't everyone else
i guess because i'm married to her
the inquisition was promulgated by a very small but powerful minority in the church
there was considerable defiance and resistance from within
some gave their lives in opposition
some forgave the church before they were burned
hey
our whole schtick
is based on a bloody unjust murder
i see the spirit of cartesian doubt is alive and well
skepticism can be healthy
it can also be a disease
holiness is possible
perfection once intuited
can be ardently pursued
opening the heart to grace
is our work here
i write things here that i might not write in a formal paper
and jabbing and jibing are all part of the fun
i don't always clarify what can be taken with a grain of salt
i wish to honor
everyone's intellectual contribution
a lot of clear and distinct ideas
let there be light
let us remember kirby and his family today
i think the funeral and burial are today
i'm amazed that i feel so strongly about it
and i've never met the guy other that here
it is a strange new world
fallibly yrs
j
jh,
i once dropped a stone and a baseball off a cliff in montana
my friend told me in no uncertain terms
the stone hit first
the cliff was about 40ft
the stone was much heavier.
When I was an undergraduate taking physics, we did this experiment off the top of a bell tower. We had balls of 4 different weights, all the same size. They all hit the ground at the same time.
yes they fall at the same rate
but heavier things fall faster.
Huh?
aquinas states that there is movement
things are moving
it is an observation from common physics
in the initial proposition he only states what is obvious to anyone who observes motion
and he utilizes a principle that if something moves it must be moved.
Yes, and then he states that there must be a first mover, which he calls God. But this argument doesn't work. Why must there be a first mover? Why can't there be "movers all the way back"? Note that I'm not saying that I think God doesn't exist. But this argument is nonsense.
this doesn't prove the existence of god in terms expected by modern scientific inquiry.
It doesn't prove the existence of God in any terms.
however
in lieu of a better explanation
some(one)thing must have gotten it to move
i'm just here
i'm contingent.
Yes, certainly, contingency is everywhere, everything is interrelated, but this is no proof of God.
the fullness of my being is not to be had here
but i sense very powerfully
perfection is attainable
why play bach if it isn't?.
Yes, perfection is attainable, but not by us. Do you honestly feel that Bach is not worth playing without perfection in the offing?
there is no salvation outside the roman catholic church
on your knees
just kidding.
You say you're kidding, but the Catholic church states this outright, as you well know.
during the crusades all sides took their blows.
Is this just war theory? Is that what the Crusaders told the people of Constantinople as they pillaged and sacked? What goes around comes around?
during the inquisition
i estimate fewer than 1000 souls met their miserable ends
pitiful indeed nontheless
one could argue the wars of religion in the wake of reformation did more than make up the odds those fighting the church were at times merciless to those who wanted to stay true.
There were over 1000 people killed by the Spanish Inquisition alone, and they did more than merely kill people. And one could argue lots of things. The wars following the Reformation were nasty on all sides. A pox on all their houses. Why did these things happen? Because people on all sides said that they got to be the final determiners of God's will and message and that they had the authority (from God Himself!) to enforce that.
what you call nonsense
may be the fuel for faith for
an old lady with a rosary
try telling her that it's nonesense.
Oh, I have. But most people have no desire to examine their beliefs. It's probably because of the lack of interest in philosophy and theology. And faith is only a good thing if it's placed where it ought. Faith in false teachings is not a good.
the church has always left enormous space for the religious imagination
in the andes you can see a lot of carry over from the prechristian symbolism and ritual
and in other places as well
there has been tension at times but generally
the openness to the inspiration from simple folks has been acknowledged.
So you can believe whatever you want so long as you say the Pope's in charge, huh? So what's the Catholic church about, the truth or the power?
medjugorje is a good example
there has been no official approval or denunciation from rome
but i've spoken to people who went there as skeptics and returned with expresseions of utter amazement
so
i don't know
that sort of thing just happens i guess.
Over a million people a year visit the city of Varanasi (Benares) in India. They wash in the Ganges River and many are healed of various afflictions.
it's hard for me to address
your reactions here
george
were you to merely glance at the writings of the previous holy father and the present one
you'd find ample resource for
reasonable discussion in matters of the world and in faith.
What makes you think I don't read these things? I do. I have had many reasonable discussions of matters of the world and in faith with many people, and learned a great deal from all sorts. But whenever I talk to Catholics, there is never given to me any even slightly convincing foundation for their claims of authority and the provenance of their traditions. I'm sorry, but "the Magisterium teaches" is not sufficient. And when I see the suffering, affliction, and conflict that those claims of authority have caused over the centuries, I find it appalling. Many, many Catholics over the years have done many, many wonderful things, and there is much to be admired and emulated in them, but I see little good in the Catholic bureaucracy and hierarchy.
and within the halls of catholic higher education
there are lively debates
on a constant basis
where faith and reason
are in creative tension.
This is hardly exclusive to the Catholic church.
the only apology i can make for the catholic church is that it is a human institution
and the fact that it continues
and remains a source of hope for so many is attributable to the holy spirit.
Many people find a source of hope in their washing in Ganges at Varanasi, and have done so since before the birth of Christ. Is that attributable to the Spirit as well?
she lives in spite a human failing
in spite of ignorance and sin
even at the top (or is that supposed to be the bottom).
I can assure you that it's the top. Just ask anyone at the bottom.
i would be willing to go to bat on the argument that there exists in the world today no institution
where matters of faith and reason are constantly worked out more vitally than in the RCc.
How much familiarity do you have with the Orthodox tradition or the Lutheran? This is just willful blindness to the reality of other Christian traditions.
aristotle was wrong about nothing
he just didn't have all the fancy toys people work with these days
and he most certainly entertained
the possibility of supernatural forces
he did so quite soberly it would seem.
Come on now. You honestly believe that Aristotle was wrong about nothing? He said that time never began (which contradicts Aquinas's argument that there had to be a first mover, by the way). He said that the heavens weren't created. He claimed that the dead could never rise again. He said that all things were made of five elements: Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Aether. Look, it's not hard to say. Aristotle was sometimes, even often, wrong. There's no shame in it. Everybody is wrong sometimes, even the Pope.
OK people live longer today
in USA they do
and in some european countries they do
but not everywhere.
The life expectancy at birth of even the worst country today (Swaziland at 32.23 years according to the CIA World Factbook) is better than during the Roman Empire (which I've seen at about 25 years). The Roman Empire had an infant mortality rate higher than 30%. People live longer today everywhere in the world than they did 2000 years ago. Yes, it's not the same the world round, but it's better than it was before.
we spend a lot of time and effort keeping people alive on the old age end of things.
Indeed we do. But life is a precious gift, not easily set aside.
and we're killing off millions
at the earliest stage of life end of thngs
so what's the sense
thanks to science
and we're pretty damn selfish about what's good for americans.
The abomination that is abortion has nothing to do with science. The Hippocratic Oath from the fourth century BC contains the line "I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion". Don't pretend that abortion is a purely modern scourge.
it's not how long one lives
it's how beautifully one lives
that makes the difference.
It's hard to live beautifully or otherwise if you die as an infant. Modern science has lowered the infant mortality rate to under 0.5% worldwide. (Yes, there are vast differences in countries around the world--Sierra Leone's 16% rate seems to be the worst--and, yes, it would be a great good if we could lower the rate in some of these countries.)
it would be interesting to find someone who could upend aristotle's principles of metaphysics
(we can at least thank kant for having tried)
very basic and logical inquiries into matters not physical
the soul
the mind
eternity
essence
the mystery of creation
angels.
In other words, whenever it's possible to gather real evidence to test Aristotle's conclusions, we find he was often, if not usually, wrong. But when it isn't possible to test his conclusions, he must have been 100% right all the time. Gotcha.
i've forgiven her for being so obstinant and blind and selfish
why can't everyone else
i guess because i'm married to her.
Forgiveness requires repentance. For example, in 2004, the Vatican published a report (overseen by Agostino Borromeo) that the Spanish Inquisition tried around 125000 people in Spain for heresy, but only executed about 1% of them. In Portugal, 5.7% of more than 13000 people were executed in the 16th and early 17th century alone. John Paul II at the time recalled that the Catholic church has asked pardon for "errors committed in the service of truth through recourse to non-evangelical methods" in 2000. Would a confessor accept that from a petitioner? The fact is that the Inquisition was an ecclesiastical institution acting under the direct orders of popes, claiming to be acting out God's will. The Vatican has not repented of this.
the inquisition was promulgated by a very small but powerful minority in the church
there was considerable defiance and resistance from within
some gave their lives in opposition
some forgave the church before they were burned
hey
our whole schtick
is based on a bloody unjust murder.
The Inquisition was promulgated by a very small but powerful minority in the church? It was promulgated by the papacy itself! Innocent IV authorized torture in "Ad exstirpanda" in 1252, confirmed by Alexander IV in 1259 and Clement IV in 1265. Although clerics were not at first allowed to be present during the torture itself, in 1260 Alexander IV (and confirmed by Urban IV in 1262) said that inquisitors could absolve one another of this. At first, torture was only allowed to be employed once, but this was quickly circumvented by having each new piece of evidence reset the clock, or by the simple expedient of not stopping in the first place. The Spirit in action, I suppose?
i see the spirit of cartesian doubt is alive and well
skepticism can be healthy
it can also be a disease.
As can misplaced faith. Skepticism, at least, rarely moves people to kill one another.
holiness is possible
perfection once intuited
can be ardently pursued
opening the heart to grace
is our work here.
A striving to holiness is possible. Only God is holy. The pursuit of perfection is possible. Only God is perfect.
i write things here that i might not write in a formal paper
and jabbing and jibing are all part of the fun
i don't always clarify what can be taken with a grain of salt
i wish to honor
everyone's intellectual contribution
a lot of clear and distinct ideas.
As do I. I earnestly wish that I could be Catholic. It would make my wife extremely happy. But my questions are never answered. I've attended RCIA classes. I've talked to priests. I've read more than you'd probably believe. If the popes are truly Christ's representatives on earth, graced with the Holy Spirit, how can so many have acted with such evil? Why should I believe that it was intended for anyone to have the authority the Catholic church claims?
let us remember kirby and his family today
i think the funeral and burial are today
i'm amazed that i feel so strongly about it
and i've never met the guy other that here.
Amen.
it is a strange new world.
Yet, there is nothing new under the sun.
the very idea of catholicism
was summed up in modern terms best
by james joyce
"here comes everyone"
the truths are contradictory insofar as they do not apply to some people...thus the principles must apply all the way around for it to assume the title catholic
the truths espoused there
are not ones any needs to fear
just think of it as part of the ethical discussion about how to live in the world and the catholics saying
in our schtick everyone is included
by it's very name it embraces what is true for all men and women
and she won't change a whole hell of a lot
didnt newton say something about maximum velocity and mass
KACHING
peace
j
jh,
But the very name "Catholic" is a lie. The Catholic church doesn't accept me as a member, for instance, although I am a Christian--and I am hardly alone. The Catholic church emphatically does not include all Christianity. So James Joyce was wrong: the very idea of catholicism is "my way or the highway".
And who said anything about fearing the "truths" the Catholic church espouses? There's no need to fear the Catholic church any more; that power is gone. I merely examine these "truths" and find many of them wanting.
And, unfortunately, I think you're right that the Catholic church won't change. Their rules are written in stone, although not by the finger of God on Mt Sinai. And even if they're wrong, especially if they're wrong, they're Catholic, and that's that.
I've followed especially George's and jh's exchanges on faith/religion and reason/science with interest. A few observations on the matters covered:
On the great bogey of the Spanish (as distinct from the others, like the Roman) Inquisition: I condemn and regret such historical aberrations (to our eyes at least), though, as I've already mentioned, the political security of the kingdom of Ferdinand and Isabella in the late 14th-early
15th centuries played no small part in the willingness of the secular arm to root out and punish heretics, who presented a real or imagined threat to the integrity of Christian Spain after a bloody 800-year reconquista effort to wrest all of the Iberian peninsula from Muslim domination (I unabashedly applaud at least this success--so sue me). Like the truce of the Peace of Augsburg
(1555) that at least mitigated the violence of the Catholic-Protestant religious wars, those living in territories controlled by Protestant princes were expected to adhere to the dominant religion (according to the principle of "cuius regio, huius religio"; "of whose region, so of that religion") and vice-versa; the rest were expected to convert to the dominant religion or decamp. The several thousand victims of the Inquisition over several centuries can easily be matched by, for example, the burning of 6000 "witches" in Protestant Scotland from 1560 to 1600 (while "Bloody" Mary claimed about 250 victims from 1553 to 1558). Regrettably, both sides claimed credit for saving souls through coercion and executions during this age. Accusatory tu quoques in these disputes, as in politics, can be endless, but cui bono?
On Aquinas's "First Mover" way of knowing God: It's questionable whether Aquinas offers this "way" as an actual "proof" of God, but an infinite chain of causation seems pretty speculative and in the main contrary to our experience. The argument from "contingent being" or the "cosmological argument" may also draw strength from the "ontological" one, which has its modern philosophical adherents (Charles Hartshorne and Alvin Plantinga come to mind here), but suffice it to say that it cannot be refuted by mere contrary assertion. In general, it seems Aquinas's works and the questions he posed are not only of interest to religious philosophers, but also to modern secular philosophers, as Anthony Kenny has demonstrated in his volume on Aquinas.
On the (4th) Crusaders' sack of Constantinople (1204): None was more aggrieved and angered by this action (save some of the faction-ridden Byzantines into whose imperial succession intrigues the Crusaders intruded, egged on by the cunning Venetians, as I recall) than the reigning pope who'd urged the crusade against the Muslim reconquista of the Holy Land, not a schismatic Christian power.
On great thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Galileo, Pascal, Newton, et alii: Those giants who established the very physical and human sciences (as well as and the arts and humanities as we now know them--Homer, Thucydides, Sophocles, Dante, Montaigne, Cervantes, Shakespeare, et al) are due much more credit than they often receive from those dwarves who correct their errors or imitate their genres or seminal works. The reiteration of the jejeune truth that any attentive college freshman in physics "knows" more physics than Newton belies the astounding genius of the initial inventor or creator, whose achievement is exponentially greater than of the mere learner who avails him- or herself of the cumulative learning of thousands of far lesser followers.
Jacques,
I agree that both Catholics and Protestants did much that was wrong. The difference nowadays is that the Catholic church still says that, although it was wrong to do some of the things it did, it had (and has) the authority to do so. This is my main objection.
An infinite chain of progression, on the contrary, is very much in keeping with our experience. How did I come to be? I had a mother and father. How did they come to be? They had mothers and fathers.
Where did the green pepper I chopped for dinner last night come from? From a pepper plant, which grew from a seed, which came from another pepper.
So I am not refuting Aquinas's argument "by mere contrary assertion". I am observing that there are many processes in the present day that have no apparent beginning and no obvious end. It is, however, mere assertion to say that everything must have a beginning somewhere, just because your mind would boggle otherwise.
And as for your last paragraph, give me a break. It's no insult to point out that, as brilliant as Aristotle was, and as important in the history of thought that he is, he was still quite often wrong. There is no shame in being wrong. Of course it's easier for people who come later and who have the benefit of previous effort and ideas. That doesn't make wrong right. That's what learning is.
George:
Far be it my place to argue for the authority of the RC Church (or against it; or on the issue of Mariology; or on the Incarnation and its ramifications concerning the Holy Family) to one who has taken his stand against it, for I'm not a theologian, though I am familiar with some theological controversies that separate Catholics and Protestants.
On an infinite progression of causes as part of our experience, it can be said with some assurance that it's certainly part of our mathematical and speculative experience, but I'm not so sure it can be asserted so confidently in our existential experience, the way of understanding that is most essential to our sense of the aim, end, and worth of human life.
Aquinas suggests that if we postulate an infinite series of contingent beings, it seems reasonable to say that there should have been a time when no contingent being existed, and as Shakespeare's Lear has it (in of course a different context), nothing comes from nothing. One may speculate on an infinite chain of causes and contingent beings in continuing to ask the cause ad infinitum at least to the limit of our mortality, but that merely lengthens rather than deepens the chain (one more figurative tortoise hardly seems to make a difference in an infinite stack of them). Aquinas suggests a "self-caused being" is the ultimate cause (causa sui) whose existence requires no further explanation than His own nature. And that may be where the argument from contingency links to the ontological argument in the idea of a perfect being that must correspond to reality or it would be incomplete, mortal, and contingent, and thus not perfect. Of course some Kantians and anti-Kantians differ on the formers' insistence that existence is not a predicate, and this influences their lack of receptivity to the ontological argument. But it makes sense to me that the 17th c. Protestant theological Richard Hooker is on to something significant when he avers that those who demand a reason for everything thereby utterly overthrow reason. For if we are lacking a reason or cause that escapes us or is beyond our present ken, perhaps that very reason or cause may be the crucial one that changes our whole view of the cosmos and its origins, and this may impugn the very value of reason itself to offer any sustainable aim, end, or worth of reference, meaning, truth, etc. In an infinite chain where all is equally possible, perhaps the monkeys tapping on keyboards have, do, or will write Shakespeare's plays for him. Perhaps this is why Aquinas's ounce of faith in every pound of reason makes sense to me, though non-believers are often perhaps too quick to condemn the faith that to them "contaminates" the reason. Dogmatic skeptics of the Metrodorian "we don't know what we don't know" bent often like to play this tune ad tedium. These remarks of mine are not meant to constitute an argument, however, but only to offer a few ruminations.
As for your closing remarks, I didn't insinuate that Aristotle and other great thinkers shouldn't be corrected or that you were dismissive of their accomplishments. Nevertheless, that he invented or codified (in his logical, rhetorical, metaphysical, political, ethical, and proto-scientific works, among others) a number of the propaedeutical, categorical, and intellectual tools that enable us to judge and correct his work is more than a great achievement in itself, it has enabled many other great achievements in the West and beyond.
great continuing exchange there between jacques and george
cyberdialectix
as for matters of inclusion and belonging in the catholic arena george i think it might do you some good to realize that there are people within the body who have much sgtonger difficulties than yours but who remain within the fold nontheless...they choose to struggle within the context
thus it behooves us to ask where lies the problem
katholicos = universal
a concept which suggested to those who adopted the title not that what they believed had unversal application but that what they believed was in line with all that was best for mankind - that ability to seek and find what was noble good and true in every people
adn to see there god's will
i think in terms of the bridges that must be built and crossed today it is important to focus on what we have in common the differences are all to glaring
at any rate there are good souls who trudge to the table of sharing every sunday who harbor issues of difficulty equal to and/or far more poignant than your criticisms
yet acknowledge that the matters can be worked out in hope
it is ascent and assent
john henry cardinal newmans' struggle is instructive
the issues where the church does not budge much are matters of extreme importance not just for the church but for everyone in the world
the teaching authority serves more by way of beckoning and challenging than by doctrinal proclamation
jacques your historical contributions to the jousting here
are superb
as to the great minds
and our debt to them
would that i could write
something which others would read
and wrestle with
next year
let alone 2000 yrs
it's hard to knwo where the great minds are
in our day
it all seems so relative and selfish
so much publishing going on
i know kirby wouold suggest luther and andre breton
and codrescu and soupault
i look to names like etienne gilson or mercia eliade perhaps e.m. cioran but certainly henri du lubac and karol wojtila wittgenstein perhaps as a mind which makes one really focus yet hardly inspires
as the table expands and more food is brought forth perhaps we all in our day simply share what is best with one another
george grady
i've found that my own periods
of doubt and internal disturbance with church teachings were more a matter of my insufficient intellect than the teaching themselves
i cannot think of one issue or position in the church that has not withstood some argument and change in the past 50 yrs
including the authority invested in the papal throne...john paul II opened up a lively discussion as to the possibility of the vatican requiring some re-evaluation and change
i admire your honesty in the struggle and struggle it must be
ever sing jacob took the name israel or simon became a rock
i should only hope that hope enlightens more than despair
for me the matter has been more of being open to light
rather than demanding light
of the externals based on my limited intellect
the church i know has to do a constant balancing act between recognizing the needs of the simplest of the faithful and the demands of the most intense intellectual minds
the most intelligent man i ever had the pleasure of spending time with had aristotle aquinas and edmund husserl at his fingertips
adna working knowledge of everything else and was (still is at age 97) fully alert to and engaged with every and any issue of the world and the church...in the classroom his mind was free in a way i've never witnessed since...his bearing in the world was that of an innocent intent upon prayer and little else...he showed me that my struggles be they intellectual or of faith were best worked out before the cross
and then with books and writing
everyone who thinks
travels down a unique
via negativa
but the path turns up at somepoint
the path turns up
j
Jacques sounds kinda like a criminal, minimizing and justifying by blameshifting and focusing on someone elses' wrong.
Happens all the time. Tell a kid to fix his hat because it's not up to the program's dress code, and he'll point out that Johnny over There's got an untucked shirt.
Has no effect on the wrongness of ones hat not being up to dress code.
Sheeshers!
That, and Jacques also sounds like a whiney bleedin' heart liberal - "He jus'n can't help'n it, you knows, was treated poorlike in the past. Just the upbringing...can't be held accountable for them aksheeuns. Had it hard growin' ups, he did. Poor guy. Is all someone else's fault but not his own..."
No more minimizing! No more justifying!
You're better than that, Jacques...
And JH sounds like a mystic pretending to point to reason, and he seems not to understand wind resistance.
i understand wind resistance
and recalcitrance
brett
in all your contributions here
i'm not sure what you know
but keep at it
it's bound to make sense sooner
or later
sometimes the blow hard intransigent
is nought but a breaking wind
if nothing else jacques elucidates with solid historical substance
some of what the rest of us would only argue on principle
my historical awareness is pretty shallow in comparison
so i appreciate his input
keep on rockin the free world
j
Jacques,
Far be it my place to argue for the authority of the RC Church (or against it; or on the issue of Mariology; or on the Incarnation and its ramifications concerning the Holy Family) to one who has taken his stand against it, for I'm not a theologian, though I am familiar with some theological controversies that separate Catholics and Protestants.
I haven't taken any real stand against it. I would just like some reasonable justification for it. I have never been given one, although I have asked many people for one. As just one problem with it, the early apostles who were given authority by Christ were also given by the Spirit the ability to perform signs to demonstrate that authority (the ability to heal, speak in previously unknown languages, even the ability to raise from the dead in the case of Peter). Where are those with these abilities now? Why should anyone accept authority by people who have been denied the outward significations?
On an infinite progression of causes as part of our experience, it can be said with some assurance that it's certainly part of our mathematical and speculative experience, but I'm not so sure it can be asserted so confidently in our existential experience, the way of understanding that is most essential to our sense of the aim, end, and worth of human life.
It's not just our mathematical and speculative experience. For example, every spring around here, the dandelions sprout on lawns, go to seed, and the wind disperses the seeds. Where in our existential experience do we see the beginning of the cycle? It's fairer to say that our existential experience tells us neither that there was a beginning nor an eternal cycle. We have experienced neither.
Aquinas suggests that if we postulate an infinite series of contingent beings, it seems reasonable to say that there should have been a time when no contingent being existed, and as Shakespeare's Lear has it (in of course a different context), nothing comes from nothing.
This makes no sense to me. Supposing that there was a time when no contingent being existed is to say there isn't an infinite series of contingent beings. To say nothing comes from nothing is to argue, rather, that at no time was there nothing, for then nothing would exist now.
One may speculate on an infinite chain of causes and contingent beings in continuing to ask the cause ad infinitum at least to the limit of our mortality, but that merely lengthens rather than deepens the chain (one more figurative tortoise hardly seems to make a difference in an infinite stack of them). Aquinas suggests a "self-caused being" is the ultimate cause (causa sui) whose existence requires no further explanation than His own nature.
This is precisely the problem. Assuming that there is an ultimate cause begs the question.
But it makes sense to me that the 17th c. Protestant theological Richard Hooker is on to something significant when he avers that those who demand a reason for everything thereby utterly overthrow reason. For if we are lacking a reason or cause that escapes us or is beyond our present ken, perhaps that very reason or cause may be the crucial one that changes our whole view of the cosmos and its origins, and this may impugn the very value of reason itself to offer any sustainable aim, end, or worth of reference, meaning, truth, etc.
Well, yes. In fact, it seems possible to me that some things occur for no particular reason. Some situations are inherently unstable and cannot be maintained indefinitely. When the instability breaks, some direction of events must occur, but why must there be some reason that one particular direction happened rather than another?
In an infinite chain where all is equally possible, perhaps the monkeys tapping on keyboards have, do, or will write Shakespeare's plays for him. Perhaps this is why Aquinas's ounce of faith in every pound of reason makes sense to me, though non-believers are often perhaps too quick to condemn the faith that to them "contaminates" the reason.
I don't understand the connection.
As for your closing remarks, I didn't insinuate that Aristotle and other great thinkers shouldn't be corrected or that you were dismissive of their accomplishments. Nevertheless, that he invented or codified (in his logical, rhetorical, metaphysical, political, ethical, and proto-scientific works, among others) a number of the propaedeutical, categorical, and intellectual tools that enable us to judge and correct his work is more than a great achievement in itself, it has enabled many other great achievements in the West and beyond.
Well, yes, again, but that Aristotle said one thing in particular is not in itself evidence for or against it.
jh,
as for matters of inclusion and belonging in the catholic arena george i think it might do you some good to realize that there are people within the body who have much sgtonger difficulties than yours but who remain within the fold nontheless...they choose to struggle within the context.
That's all very well for them, I suppose. Part of my point is that I feel I am already within the fold of Christianity. I struggle within that context. But the Catholic church insists on a wall of separation. Again, as one example, it permits neither that I can commune with my wife, nor that she can commune with me. It insists upon that separation, unless or until I acknowledge its authority. But it will not give me an acceptable answer for whence it derives that authority, or evidence that it possesses the authority.
thus it behooves us to ask where lies the problem
katholicos = universal
a concept which suggested to those who adopted the title not that what they believed had unversal application but that what they believed was in line with all that was best for mankind - that ability to seek and find what was noble good and true in every people
adn to see there god's will.
What's the distinction between having universal application and being in line with all that is best for mankind? Was the Orthodox/Catholic schism God's will? Was the Protestant Reformation God's will? If so, where does that leave Catholic claims of universal authority? If not, how is God's will determined?
at any rate there are good souls who trudge to the table of sharing every sunday who harbor issues of difficulty equal to and/or far more poignant than your criticisms
yet acknowledge that the matters can be worked out in hope.
My problem is not that I won't trudge to the table of sharing (as you put it), but that I am not permitted to do so, by the Catholic church. Nor will they trudge to my table to share with me. So where does the problem lie here?
the issues where the church does not budge much are matters of extreme importance not just for the church but for everyone in the world
the teaching authority serves more by way of beckoning and challenging than by doctrinal proclamation.
I don't see how you can claim this. If it's not about doctrinal proclamation, why does the Catholic church insist upon proclaiming so much as doctrine?
george grady
i've found that my own periods
of doubt and internal disturbance with church teachings were more a matter of my insufficient intellect than the teaching themselves.
Very well. But this doesn't help my difficulties. You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Where is the basis of the Catholic church's authority? I've asked and asked and asked. I asked the deacons in RCIA. I asked the priests at the local parish. I've read books and articles. I've searched the Vatican's website. All the answers I've gotten are dubious assertions of historical lines to the apostles. But these seem to apply equally well to, say, the Orthodox church, and even the Lutheran church. And if they have the authority of the apostles, why do they not have the abilities of the apostles?
i cannot think of one issue or position in the church that has not withstood some argument and change in the past 50 yrs
including the authority invested in the papal throne...john paul II opened up a lively discussion as to the possibility of the vatican requiring some re-evaluation and change.
Of course all the current positions have survived argument in the past. If they hadn't, they wouldn't be the current positions. But why the insistence on taking so many positions? Why the fear in saying "either way is okay."
the church i know has to do a constant balancing act between recognizing the needs of the simplest of the faithful and the demands of the most intense intellectual minds.
Why does either need to entail such an excluding attitude?
everyone who thinks
travels down a unique
via negativa
but the path turns up at somepoint
the path turns up.
Why cannot we as Christians all walk our paths together? Perhaps not arm in arm, but with the same destination in mind? Unfortunately, the Catholic church says my path and struggle cannot be countenanced.
george
i doubt that i have it within me
or in my arena of knowledge
to help you very much
the catholic church honors your baptism
the catholic church honors your marriage
the catholic church in effect
honors your struggle
rome may be a stumbling block
i don't know
i know a number of people who have come over and found their home with her
at table we're reading a book entitled NO ORDINARY FOOL by a guy named john jay hughes who went through a process of conversion from a deeply entrenched ecclesial but anglican family
i'm finding the whole thing rather tedious but the story is interesting and he writes with an anglicised honesy
it seems that his father who was an anglican priest
all but disowned him as a son
before the process was complete
you might also find it interesting to read the wikipedia account of frere roger schutz one of the founders of TAIZE
i regard TAIZE as the heartbeat of christian ecumenism
the music emerging from there is
one of the great modern treasures of christianity
or so i believe
i was once confronted by a woman who rather persistently wanted to know why the church insisted upon
excluding noncatholics from holy communion
my response while i felt it was perhaps insufficient went something like this
we can't ignore the theological and logistical problems that happened 500 yrs ago and have continued and in many cases been magnified right down to our own day
the notion of sacrament as it has been worked out theologically by RC is quite different than how the ritual has been appropriated by other ecclesial communities
that being said
we can't unwrite the historical problems
and in effect
the communion we share on any given day in any given catholic church cannot be distinguished from the eucharist celebrated in rome
we acknowledge it as a unity
where does that authority come from??
well we have inherited the traditon passed down very carefully
from one generation to the next
and it has been done with an interest in preserving the integrity of church..it hasn't always been crystal clear and corruption has been apparent it is a human institution
by receiveng the body and blood in the context of catholic ritual a person is saying in effect i believe in the holy father i beleive in my bishop i beleive in all that it means to be catholic
if a person does not believe that
there is no point really in receiving holy communion
while the effect of grace as it works itself out in any one persons' life is a subjective matter
the willingness to step forth and receive is conditioned by the whole
gamut the whole of the theology (even if not clearly understood) the whole practice of what it means to be catholic
we cannot unwrite the history but perhaps we each have a role to play in the reconciliation of it all
she was grateful for my explanation
but i recall feeling a little like in some way i had betrayed and dismissed her
the whole thing turned into an interesting friendship with her sister however
and we are still very close friends
even if she lives in the alps above grenoble
one should perhaps do a history of heresy and discover there the role it has played in forming doctrine and the "presumptions" of authority in the church
it's funny to think that the schism between the east and the west seems to boil down to a few words and the interpretation of them...even so there have been some interesting attempts and successful attempts to accomadate eastern rite liturgies with catholic practice...the armenian and maronite rites come to mind
it seems from what you've written
and i do not wish to be judgemental
that your insistent demand for the church to come clean on the apostolic authority issue is weighted in favor of a dialectic of doubt
i could only say that your desire for answers would be satisfied in practice and not through intellectual debate
it may be that the lord has a special experience of illumination in store for you
seek find
knock it will open
ask and you will receive
maybe not right away
but it will happen
chestertons'
ORTHODOXY
would do anyone well
even the entrenched catholic
the pope is the pope
he's not a dope
he's the man with the goods
the whyfores and the shoulds
it ain't so hard
it ain't so bad
it means nothing harsh
it means nothing brash
a story is told of st theresa of avila
she was travelling with her sisters and they were forced to ford a rushing stream
it was a messy affair and they
emerged on the other side drenched in water and mud
given to constant conversational prayer she asked her lord
why do you treat me with such disgrace
and the voice came to her
my dear one
don't you know this is the way i treat all my friends sooner or later
she retorted
perhaps dear lord that is why you have so few friends
(i'm sure it sounds better in spanish)
i feel woefully inadequate
but i am willing to walk with you
if only on cyber trails
peace
j
jh,
I thank you for your patient responses.
we can't ignore the theological and logistical problems that happened 500 yrs ago and have continued and in many cases been magnified right down to our own day.
I don't understand why the choices have to be so stark. Why cannot we both discuss our differences and celebrate our unity in Christ?
the notion of sacrament as it has been worked out theologically by RC is quite different than how the ritual has been appropriated by other ecclesial communities.
I question if "worked out" is really the right phrase here. Certainly decisions were made, but it's not clear to me that they were really valid conclusions from what God has told us. And I also disagree with the word "appropriated" here. Communion is part of our common Christian heritage. There was no appropriation.
the communion we share on any given day in any given catholic church cannot be distinguished from the eucharist celebrated in rome
we acknowledge it as a unity.
I agree. How can it be distinguished from that celebrated anywhere else, either?
by receiveng the body and blood in the context of catholic ritual a person is saying in effect i believe in the holy father i beleive in my bishop i beleive in all that it means to be catholic.
Really? That's one of the most depressing things I've read in some time. That seems to be just more of the Catholic church's unfortunate change of focus from Christ to itself. Did Christ say, "Do this as acknowledgment of your belief in Peter as leader"? No; he said, "Do this in remembrance of me."
if a person does not believe that
there is no point really in receiving holy communion.
Again, really?
the willingness to step forth and receive is conditioned by the whole
gamut the whole of the theology (even if not clearly understood) the whole practice of what it means to be catholic.
Once again, really? It's not conditioned on what it means to be a follower of Christ, but rather on what it means to be Catholic? It's not done to remember, to acknowledge, to take part in Christ's sacrifice, but rather to proclaim our Catholicism?
that your insistent demand for the church to come clean on the apostolic authority issue is weighted in favor of a dialectic of doubt.
Many different groups within Christianity (and within other religions) claim authority. It's not so much that I doubt any particular group's claims, but that I doubt them all. When I look at the Bible, when God granted someone authority over others to accomplish some task, he gave them the ability to demonstrate their authority. Moses called plagues on Egypt, and water from a stone. Aaron's rod turned to a serpent. Joseph saw people's dreams and read the future. The apostles performed many miracles.
On the other hand, God doesn't seem to have wanted someone permanently in charge. When the people of Israel wanted a king, it was over God's objections. Some kings, of course, performed closer to God than others. Why should I see the popes as occupying a position more like the apostles than like the kings of Israel and Judah? If God truly wants the popes (or anyone else!) to have authority, why can't they demonstrate it?
This is a serious question. Why do you view Catholic claims of authority more reasonable than Orthodox, or even Mormon claims?
one should perhaps do a history of heresy and discover there the role it has played in forming doctrine and the "presumptions" of authority in the church.
I have looked at some of the history of various heresies. Quite often, the correct response to many heresies seems to me to be "We don't know, and you don't either." But that rarely seems to be the response.
the pope is the pope
he's not a dope
he's the man with the goods
the whyfores and the shoulds
it ain't so hard
it ain't so bad
it means nothing harsh
it means nothing brash.
The Catholic church has been fortunate in its popes for a while now. But there have certainly been popes who have been lacking in whyfores and shoulds, who have been hard, bad, harsh, and brash. What would you do if your pope were truly evil? If he (in his authority) required you to do something contrary to what you believed to be God's will? People have been put in this position. Would you torture on the pope's authority? Burn someone at the stake? Is authority legitimate if it asks you to do so? If past pope's authority has not always been legitimate, where does that leave the Catholic church?
i'll begin with your last comment
for i don't have the inclination to be as systematic and detailed in my responses to anyone on the web
unless it is a personal interaction
however
there is a long standing principle in moral theology which goes as far back as the church fathers i think it was either ireneus or
justin martyr who first stated the principle it was articulated by st augustine ( and luther was inspired by the principle via augustine) and thomas aquinas of course treated the idea as well
it is stated most simply as
-- the autonomy of the conscience -- a principle which honors the moral judgement of anyone resisting evil in any case
therefore
if an action from authority or even a doctrine and declaration is viewed as being wrong there is a moral obligation for a person of faith to follow his conscience
in more recent articulations of that principle there has been discussion about the informed conscience and cardinal newman did a lot to clarify that
he said that he trusted the infallibility of the pope in matters of doctrine but reserved the right to criticize humbly in the case of conflict of interest
(it was said that this comment when heard in rome influenced his elevation to cardinal)
there was considerable appropriation
if we were to focus on the eucharistic prayers alone
the tendency stemming from luther and having even more incentive from calvin and zwingli was to toss out the eucharistic prayers competely...the lutherans preserved one or two of them but they were'nt used much and the practice of stating the ancient prayers was relegated to once a month or so and they insited on their own rather slipshod german translations... i learned this from a lutheran church historian
what was worked out in catholic circles most eloquently in the past 100 yrs was the connection in the eucharistic prayers to the sabbath rite in judaism...that knowledge had been more or less submerged in the stoney formalization of the liturgy after the council of trent...for general use only one eucharistic prayer was used...as a way of insisting upon uniformity...for larger celebrations and in monasterys the other eucharistic prayers were used but the use of them was rather oblique and watered down...so that was a sort of working out...but starting in the late 1800s there was a movement to "return to the sources" and the beauty and practicality of the 8 or 9 other eucharistic prayers was re-discovered and they are now used rather lavishly in some places...in many simple parsih churches there is still the practice of using only one or two
so that meant something
the very context of the words which derive from prechristian sabbath and passover celebrations was forgotten by the protestants
(i will admit that the high anglican church preserved some of the eucharistic prayers and used them in a very dignified manner)
as the congregations splintered off one from another and where there remained an interest in preserving the imperative of the gospel command to "do this in memory of me" it was done so largely in ignorance of 1500 yrs of tradition
most all the eccesial bodies connected to the calvin and zwingli tradition developed more and more as nonliturgical and focused more and more on the word proclaimed the sermon delivered and the songs well sung
this was also problematic because the tradition of concensus regarding the sequence of readings throughout the liturgical year...a pattern that developed rather beautifully over time and corresponded to the natural change of seasons for people in europe at least...this was disregarded in the reformed tradition (except for the big seasonal readings of easter and christmas where the story pretty much held together even if the gospels differed...e.g. john rather than matthew)
i suppose we could make a case for the freeform activity of the holy spirit in the reform churches and say that it is just as legitmate as the insistence upon formal sequences and highly structure ritual...if so then i guess it would boil down to a matter of taste...but then it becomes something else something other than one church..often i take great comfort and solace knowing that my brother and sister catholics are hearing the same gospel on sunday perhaps in a completely different language...the weekday readings are more flexible...but there too there is a consistency throughout the year which makes for a sense of "familial expression" throughout the world
i think as catholics we put a lot of stock in this program of world wide consistency...and that's all i meant by saying to accept the eucharist in catholic circles is a way of accepting the whole damn show
to treat your question once more
(and then off to bed)
regarding authority
why do i consider catholic claims to authority more reasonable than
say the eastern orthodox or mormon claims??
here again i lean on the word katholicos
what i appreciate about the orthodox rite is their emphasis on the holy the solemnity which they present rather naturally ( it seems catholics have to work pretty hard to come close to the eastern rites)and while i don't claim profound knowledge of their theological bearings it seems to me their strength is that very thing...their unshaken insistence on the power of the liturgy...they dont go in for broad universal claims about much of anything...they seem to believe and i cannot help that they do so with some good conviction stemming from their experience that when the faithful are drawn into the mystery of the life and words of Jesus and the mystery evoked by the flow of their liturgy it will be all that is necessary to sustain the faith of the faithful...yet i think it fair to say that this emphasis has never borne itself out in forms of apostolic ministry...in contrast to rome where the religious zeal followed the explorers and developers of the new world and institutions like schools and hospitals were given ample time and space and money to develop
most roman catholic ritual is soft ball compared to the hardball of the east
it would seem that your reluctance ot recognize the claims to authority in any church movement would make you a potential disciple of joseph smith and brigham young...for their vision was fortified by the spoken words of maroni that they were to follow none of the christian traditions that had come before...for they were all deluded...a pretty safe policy if sustained in ignorance...the claims of mormonism are a bit too far fetched... i always ask of them...what about historians...what about writers...what about philosphers are there any? generally the answer is no...they seem to think that the visions and the development since joseph smith are self contained truth not to be analyzed by anyone from without the fold...and they reject the primary teaching principle of the divinity of christ...they've continued on with consistencey and even with some flexibility...i mean some 15 years ago they actually acknowledged that black people were human and worthy of salvation...at least they showed themselves willing to hop on the wagon...i can't trust any religion that denounces wine...that's their biggest flaw in my book
in the worst of times in the catholic story the authority of teaching when it could not be upheld by the popes was upheld by great men and women of faith who were not shaken by the corruption at the top...in every era one can point to theologians who expressed the truth far more eloquently than the popes...and any pope worth his crosier humbly acknowedges his indebtedness to men and women with expertise surpassing his own...the fullness of truth can never be fully invested in one man...the pope merely promises to protect the truths of faith to the best of his ability with the assistance of his brother bishops and in consultation with the faithful..that some do this much better than others could be described as a cosmic snafu...but it is something again in which i take great consolation
with that i must retire
carry on adamant warrior
j
I have been reading through the comments and loved them. I was almost sorry to add a new post, but I wanted to write about my dad.
Thanks for keeping the comments going. They are so interesting to read!
jh,
he said that he trusted the infallibility of the pope in matters of doctrine but reserved the right to criticize humbly in the case of conflict of interest.
But why? What reason is there to trust the infallibility of the pope in matters of doctrine? If the pope cannot be trusted in small matters, why should he be trusted in large matters?
there was considerable appropriation
if we were to focus on the eucharistic prayers alone.
There was no appropriation. That was part of the common heritage.
the very context of the words which derive from prechristian sabbath and passover celebrations was forgotten by the protestants.
I don't know what to make of this. You yourself stated that the Catholic church only "rediscovered" these in the past 100 years. So in what sense where they forgotten by the Protestants?
as the congregations splintered off one from another and where there remained an interest in preserving the imperative of the gospel command to "do this in memory of me" it was done so largely in ignorance of 1500 yrs of tradition.
I think you're selling the Protestant fathers short here. They were not ignorant of Catholic tradition. They disagreed with it. That is not nearly the same thing.
this was also problematic because the tradition of concensus regarding the sequence of readings throughout the liturgical year...a pattern that developed rather beautifully over time and corresponded to the natural change of seasons for people in europe at least...this was disregarded in the reformed tradition (except for the big seasonal readings of easter and christmas where the story pretty much held together even if the gospels differed...e.g. john rather than matthew).
This seems an odd thing to say to me. The cycle of readings in the Catholic church grew in the context in which the readings were done in Latin, and very few (if any) of the laity could understand a word of it.
I don't really know very much about the Reformed tradition (the times I've gone to such services, I didn't feel that it was for me), but the Lutheran tradition, at least, has a three-cycle of readings very similar to the Catholic.
i suppose we could make a case for the freeform activity of the holy spirit in the reform churches and say that it is just as legitmate as the insistence upon formal sequences and highly structure ritual...if so then i guess it would boil down to a matter of taste...but then it becomes something else something other than one church.
How does it become other than one church? All congregations must do the exact same things at the same times in the same ways, or they're not part of the same Christian church? So when in the Nicene creed you state you believe in one church, you don't mean it? Or you do mean it, but only your way counts?
often i take great comfort and solace knowing that my brother and sister catholics are hearing the same gospel on sunday perhaps in a completely different language.
I don't understand where the comfort lies in this, but I believe you. I think, however, that very often different congregations are in different places spiritually, and could have different needs. Such rigidity doesn't seem to me to necessarily be an unalloyed good.
why do i consider catholic claims to authority more reasonable than
say the eastern orthodox or mormon claims??
here again i lean on the word katholicos.
So, because the Catholic church calls itself catholic, that is enough?
most roman catholic ritual is soft ball compared to the hardball of the east.
Oh, yes, I agree. There is a remarkable, I don't know the proper word here, but perhaps, virility in the Orthodox tradition. The times I've been to Orthodox services, I was impressed by this.
it would seem that your reluctance ot recognize the claims to authority in any church movement would make you a potential disciple of joseph smith and brigham young.
Oh, no, Mormonism is not for me. I think the Mormon church resembles the Catholic church more than any other of the mainstream Christian denominations, but it adds layers of, I don't know, ridiculousness. But it certainly claims to possess authority similar to that claimed by the Catholics. So I don't understand your comment here.
i can't trust any religion that denounces wine...that's their biggest flaw in my book.
Heh. Coffee and tea, too.
the pope merely promises to protect the truths of faith to the best of his ability with the assistance of his brother bishops and in consultation with the faithful.
I think this responsibility lies with us all. In fact, this was the essential motivation of the Reformation, that the Vatican was more interested in protecting its power than the truths of the faith.
that some do this much better than others could be described as a cosmic snafu...but it is something again in which i take great consolation.
Please don't take this comment amiss, but you seem to take consolation in something if and only if it is Catholic, regardless of whether it is a good thing or not. What consolation is there in that some popes have been simply evil?
George:
It's reasonable that you should pose the questions you do about why the RC Church relies upon both Bible and centuries-long (and to the Catholic, unbroken) tradition instead of Scripture alone for access to revealed truth, on which as you know the claim to magisterium is based; but I'm simply not theologically competent or worthy to make the case for the biblical, apostolic, and traditional supports for the magisterium or to explain how that teaching authority should be denied to all Church authorities who do not perform the signs and wonders you seem to require of each of them to justify their powers to teach the faithful and the attract the curious. Nevertheless, there seem to be ample theological resources available to address, if not answer, your questions and objections, perhaps including even on-line and "interactive" ones.
In citing our "existential experience" distinguished from our mathematical or speculative abilities I should have been clearer. I meant to refer to the moments of intellectual leisure or "skhole" (otium, as the Latin has it) we take to meditate upon questions like "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or "What is it to mean 'to be'?" and the like. The beginning of the cycle seems when we turn our rational and speculative powers to these questions. That is what I meant by "existential experience," not simply our awareness of the operation of our sensory powers in marking the growth cycles of dandelions and the winds that disperse their seeds. It's when we turn to such questions we may get beyond the accidents of our tiny niches in the scheme of creation. For we seem to require in these all too rare moments what makes "being" understandable and why anything should "be." It is in this sense that our existential experience begins the cycle.
Nevertheless, we seem to have a strong sense of our contingency or temporality in the world, though where our mortality is concerned, it must remain vicarious and not directly experienced, for we cannot retrospectively describe our own deaths. The philosophical argument from temporal and contingent being to eternal and necessary being is fraught with complications, but Aquinas's position seems to be that, like Maimonides and various Arab commentators, contingency requires necessity in order to be understood, so our reason permits us at least to entertain the possibility that there is a being who exists beyond such temporality and contingency. Given infinite time and the thus the probability that all contingent beings should disappear (or rather, never come into being), then even now there would be nothing in existence, because, as Aquinas has it, "what does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing." The ontological argument supporting Aquinas's way of reasoning, that is, that God is a being greater than that which can be thought, and if we confine this understanding to an idea alone and not to reality, then there would be an idea of something superior to it--actual existence--which contradicts the given hypothesis. So this seems to indicate that a being, eternal, perfect, and necessary, may indeed exist.
The assumption that all events can be investigated and explained seems to me to be the foundation of not just philosophical and theological enquiry, but scientific as well. But as I interpret Hooker's commentary, a postulated infinite chain of reasons for any event or occurence would obviate the efficacy of the search, for one would seem to be always equidistant from a proper or even plausible explanation of it. It seems that even randomness can be "accounted for" in particle physics, though theoretical research and experimentation has proceeded and presumably will proceed in this field. I don't see the concept of randomness of some events as a ne plus ultra or final explanation likely to deter further investigations.
While I get the sense we're not necessarily in disageement on Aristotle's great contributions to the history of thought, I'm not sure of the point you're making in your closing sentence. Perhaps you might clarify your remark there, if (this one's for Brett, not you, George), as the modest and industrious monarch Louis XIV was wont to say to his servants, "it's not too much trouble."
george
as i presumed before beginning my "apology" you are entrenched in your own spirit of skepticism
and it has the character more of an annoying disease rather than a genuine spirit of constructive discourse
a disease from which nothing short of your ascent to faith will extricate you
your questions or reactions are laced with the inability to really hear or understand what i am saying
so i find the whole matter hopeless
from an intellectual point of view
you've disproved nothing that i say
your dialectic of doubt only raises more questions in your mind
and you fail to see what sense there is even in the historical bald facts
yours is a kneejerk reactionism
the protestant movement did reject the liturgical coherence that had been established up until 1500
so they were the ones who rejected the "common heritage"...and they did so often quite violently
they also rejected the philosophical heritage
the eucharistic prayers remained viable and were used in the church but not widely
there was the option taken for uniformity of practice
but monasterys by amd large retained the use of all the eucharistic prayers
the rediscovery was made as part of an effort to pull together the loose strands of practice which got set aside during the counterreformation
there were no evil popes
just good popes who did some bad things
like everyone else
i don't wish to encourage you or even acknowledge your questions and reactions any longer
it is a form of relentless insidiousness
and i can only feel a bit of pity
you want to win
it does not appear that you wish to learn
you'll get where you need to go one way or another
good luck
j
Jacques,
Thank you for your kind response.
I'm trying to understand your explanation of Aquinas's argument. What do you mean by "contingency requires necessity in order to be understood"? To me, if something is contingent, that means it wasn't necessary, but rather is the one of many possible things that could have occurred, by happenstance, as it were. Also, when you say:
-Given infinite time and the thus the probability that all contingent beings should disappear (or rather, never come into being), then even now there would be nothing in existence, because, as Aquinas has it, "what does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing."-
Wouldn't that depend on the relative rates at which contingent beings disappeared vs. at which they came into being? I wonder what Aquinas would have said if he knew the modern mathematical understanding of infinity...
But as I interpret Hooker's commentary, a postulated infinite chain of reasons for any event or occurence would obviate the efficacy of the search, for one would seem to be always equidistant from a proper or even plausible explanation of it.
But, to me, that just seems like there would always be more and more interesting things to learn!
I don't see the concept of randomness of some events as a ne plus ultra or final explanation likely to deter further investigations.
I think you're quite probably right (how's that for randomness?), but the modern view of physics in quantum mechanics has irreducible probability woven completely through its structure. But when (and if) this is ever reconciled with general relativity, who knows what it will look like?
I'm not sure of the point you're making in your closing sentence.
I was too glib there, I think. I meant only that, as important in the history of thought that Aristotle was, one cannot merely say "Aristotle wrote thus" and leave it at that.
JH -- the Protestant Reformers disagreed, but each Pope disagrees with all the others, too.
It's not that uniform.
Plus there are lots of reformist movements inside the church.
Franciscans, to name only one.
None of the orders inside Catholicism completely agree, and inside of each order are dissidents, and within each member of the Catholic whole there remains a kind of individualism.
Unity is good, but freedom of conscience is better.
Marxists maintain unity at the price of freedom of thought.
Are you secretly a communist, JH?
There has to be commonality, but it can't be at the expense of freedom of thought. Without freedom of thought, there is nothing at all.
Papal infallibility -- where did Jesus set up that tradition? What's the precedent?
I love to read Aquinas but he's so non-empirical. He tries to deduce whether or not fingernails will grow in the afterlife, and his answers strike me as willy-nilly.
I once asked my Finnish Lutheran pastor why we don't have anyone investigating the probabilities of the afterlife, and he said quite simply that we were not interested, but for those who were, they'd just have to wait and see.
jh,
I see that I have offended you. I am truly sorry for that. I meant no offense.
I do honestly have these difficulties with the Catholic church and its theology. And not only the Catholic church, but the Orthodox and Lutheran and Calvinist theologies, as well. The Catholic just weighs heaviest on my mind and spirit because my wife is Catholic, and so I've had more and closer discussions on Catholic vs. Lutheran issues.
I wish I could have answers to the difficulties I have with Catholic theology, to understand how Catholics reconcile these things. Probably they cannot. Not that that is a particularly Catholic problem! All groups have similar problems I think. That is why philosophy is not finished.
I know I can push too hard. Thank you for your long patience. God bless you.
so much is answered by the knowledge that
comes from faith
and i don't know how to get anyone to go there
it is so different than
didactic learning
or analytical discourse
welcome back kirby
i've had you on my mind
pretty persistantly over the past few days
strange
we've never met
all the orders agree at least
on the structure and order of the eucharist
we all follow the lectionary for the most part
the orders are characterized by charisms and direction of effort
and styles of education and apostolic focus
but when it comes to liturgy
there is considerable unanimity
it all looks very roman
the benedictines are the most communist of orders
and the most democratic
the most autonomous
and the most ecclesially engaged
we desire to shine the little light
every day
j
George:
Thanks to you too for your thoughtful comments and crisp analysis. I wish I had time to write more extensive comments, say, on the problem of contingent being and the ontological arguments, but my time is limited tonight, and I want to read Kirby's remembrance of his dad before I've got to leave.
On contingent being: I meant to say that part of the notion we have of a broad category like contingent being derives from the explicit contrast with its opposite, necessary being (with its corollary attributions, such as eternality and perfection, but I haven't time to take these points up at present). Once the idea of contingency is established, the connection with Anselm's ontological arguments can be made, which lends at least plausible support to the cosmological and perhaps the teleological ways of knowing God exists.
On Aquinas's view of necessary being essential for contingent being: Aquinas seemed to take over Aristotle's view of an eternal universe (not that, of course, he didn't take the Genesis account literally) necessitating a time when, if there were only contingent beings, they would only be theoretical constructs because they could never have existed at all; for in an infinite time all possibilities can and will be realized, and thus there would have been a time when nothing existed and thus nothing could then be created. That way of reasoning seemed to suggest to Aquinas that necessary being (as conceived by Maimonides and others) was, well, necessary. I haven't my books where we're staying, so my memory of his development (much more subtle than I could recapitulate) is itself . . . contingent.
On Hooker's view paraphrased above: that's a fresh and optimistic suggestion you've made, but I think Hooker is referring to the obviation of any certainty of any principle or observation (even apparent laws of nature) if the chain of reasoning must of necessity be endless. As Aristotle recognized, axioms are essential to progress in science or thought in order to test hypotheses (and Aquinas as well as most other philosophers are in accord on this) even if those axioms are later adjusted to accord with new discoveries and theories that come into favor (Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is instructive if rightly read, though many literary types have woefully misread and misused it). This is an important point, and it has an ancillary point of interest in late medieval philosophical debates over whether God could or would fundamentally change the laws of nature (Aquinas thought no; the fideist Duns Scotus yes, and incidentally sharply distinguished those truths held of theology from those of philosophy). Perhaps there may be some connection here with mathematicians who hold to the "Platonist" view that the mathematical axioms and properties held to be true in the field obtain throughout the universe and in prior eons of time, but I'll be instructed by you on this observation.
On randomness: I'll have to defer here to your grasp of physical science concepts of which I have only a glimmer of remembered acquaintance (freshman college physics and calculus four decades ago--so be gentle!).
On Aristotle: Agreed; appreciation and praise where right or interesting, but no "sic ille dixit" ("thus he said") approval by "perinde ac cadaver" ("just as a corpse") or loosely translated, "corpse-like obedience" (however we college profs may occasionally savor the prospect). Interesting however, how Aquinas sets up the Summa with "The Philosopher" (Aristotle) receiving nearly as much attention as Scripture. In this way Aquinas could enjoin the views of philosophers of other faiths on which he relied for earlier commentaries on Aristotle, namely Jewish and Muslim thinkers like Maimonides and Averroes, repectively. The length of this great, dry, and staggeringly complicated and lengthy work caused one medieval copyist to write his marginal thanks to God that he had at last finished his task. And I mine for tonight. Cheers,
"sic ille dixit," or, in its usual formulation: "ipse dixit"
jacques for your clarity on the philosophical end of things i am quite humbled
i used to write like that
but the further i drifted from organized academia the more haphazard and emotional became my writing
so i felt almost as if i were reading gilson or maritain
i would only add that aquinas takes as much time with augustine especially in the clarification of theological matters as he does with aristotle and scripture...to the point where i believe it is almost senseless to read augustine without referring to aquinas' nuanced interpretations and at times some downright clear corrections
i read recently that anselms' take on the ontological proof was inspired by the line in the psalms
"the fool says in his heart - there is no god"...perhaps i read it in the proslogium so many years ago
but it stood out as new when i read it recently
that at least contextualizes his purpose of addressing the issue
and it seems to me you nuance thomas' distinction pertaining to that argument rather sweetly as well
george probably stands more to gain from you than me
at least on the didactic front
thanks
all in all
great banter here
pax
j
jh: Thanks much for your encouraging reply; I just hope I haven't mangled Aquinas's expositions too badly, or, by extension, those of Gilson or Maritain, two 20th c. thinkers of whom I am ever in awe. You're right of course about Aquinas's attention to Augustine; your message reminds me of how subtle and nuanced is the thought of those great medieval philosophers like Aquinas, Anselm, et al--so far from the caricatures of that have been made of them by devotees of Voltairean skepticism. At any rate, I just wish they had been as frank and personal in their writings as the mighty and yet intimate Augustine, who serves to nourish the thought of Catholics and Protestants alike so well. jh, it's good to have your back. Though I know we'll go the rounds over politics, your (sometimes jaunty) contibutions to this blogsite mean more to me than you can know. Pax tibi--now, back to our regularly scheduled programming . . .
I think it's rare in cyberspace for discourse to soar like this -- and to have good minds like George actually apologize, and to say, "God Bless You."
I love it!
I love all of it. I like that true lefties like JH and true righties like Jacques can genuinely admire one another.
It's how it should be!
Last night I read in the Wall St. Journal an article about how groupthink has even invaded economic circles. Committees generally either blindly agree with one another, or with the leader; or else they form into warring factions, and then can't listen to one another.
The author of the article suggested that the only committees that work are those where everyone is free to speak their mind, but also where everyone listens carefully to the others. When a group isn't in that mode, no learning is taking place.
And all kinds of bad decisions are getting made.
The country at its top layers is functioning very poorly.
But here we are doing fine, thanks to all of you!
Thanks! It's an encouraging thing on such a fine morning where the birds are singing and my father has passed away, and I am between weeping jags.
Jacques,
I understand now what you were saying about contingency vs. necessity.
On Aquinas's view of necessary being essential for contingent being: Aquinas seemed to take over Aristotle's view of an eternal universe (not that, of course, he didn't take the Genesis account literally) necessitating a time when, if there were only contingent beings, they would only be theoretical constructs because they could never have existed at all; for in an infinite time all possibilities can and will be realized, and thus there would have been a time when nothing existed and thus nothing could then be created. That way of reasoning seemed to suggest to Aquinas that necessary being (as conceived by Maimonides and others) was, well, necessary. I haven't my books where we're staying, so my memory of his development (much more subtle than I could recapitulate) is itself . . . contingent.
Hmmm, okay. However, I don't necessarily agree that in an infinite amount of time, all possible things must occur. Some possibilities might be mutually exclusive. There might be some sort of progression such that once one possibility occurs, other possibilities at the same "level" of progress are now precluded. So I still don't really know what to make of the argument as a whole.
On Hooker's view paraphrased above: that's a fresh and optimistic suggestion you've made, but I think Hooker is referring to the obviation of any certainty of any principle or observation (even apparent laws of nature) if the chain of reasoning must of necessity be endless. As Aristotle recognized, axioms are essential to progress in science or thought in order to test hypotheses (and Aquinas as well as most other philosophers are in accord on this) even if those axioms are later adjusted to accord with new discoveries and theories that come into favor (Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is instructive if rightly read, though many literary types have woefully misread and misused it).
I don't understand why an infinite descent of axiomatic structure would cause a problem here. For example, Newton's mechanics describe reality very well, within certain limits. When you go outside those limits, and Newton no longer is adequate, you might use relativity for your description (for the very large or very fast), or you might use quantum mechanics (for the very small). It's not necessarily the case that Newton was wrong, it's just that it is only an approximate description of reality, which does better in certain circumstances than others. Similarly, general relativity and quantum mechanics are also approximate descriptions of reality, which have larger realms of applicability than Newton. Similar progressions for chemistry (from earth, air, fire water, aether; to alchemical descriptions; to modern chemistry), biology, medicine, etc. have occurred. Why could this not continue indefinitely?
This is an important point, and it has an ancillary point of interest in late medieval philosophical debates over whether God could or would fundamentally change the laws of nature (Aquinas thought no; the fideist Duns Scotus yes, and incidentally sharply distinguished those truths held of theology from those of philosophy).
I suspect God could or could not as he wishes, and doubt that pure thought could arrive at a definite answer one way or the other. Now, whether or not he has is another issue.
Perhaps there may be some connection here with mathematicians who hold to the "Platonist" view that the mathematical axioms and properties held to be true in the field obtain throughout the universe and in prior eons of time, but I'll be instructed by you on this observation.
I don't really work much with people in foundations, but from my conversations with mathematicians in the past, I don't think most mathematicians think of axioms as true or false, but rather either applicable in certain circumstances or not.
On randomness: I'll have to defer here to your grasp of physical science concepts of which I have only a glimmer of remembered acquaintance (freshman college physics and calculus four decades ago--so be gentle!).
One modern view of quantum field theory is that the equations (such as Schroedinger's equation) describe the evolution of probability distributions of positions and velocities of "particles", and nature chooses from the available possibilities "at random". But I'm not a physicist, either, and although I have worked with and taught about the mathematics of the equations, I don't really understand all the applications. I'm not sure that anyone really does.
george i think it is at least important to keep in mind
that aquinas and aristotle were looking at the world with the naked eye
and
the uncertainty associated with observation at the very small or very large should be enough to place those perceptions in a system of thought where necessity and contingeny are irrelevant
thomas was rather adamant about
sensus communis
however it would also be fair to say phenomena associated with modern physics must at least be understood as "pieces" of a much grander phenomenon (even if that is only the expanding universe)...it would seem
were thomas looking at the world through the glasses of modern day physics (something maritain seems to have been able to do...with thomas in mind) i think he'd aver the ancient principle of necessity/contingency
i further think i am safe in boiling jacques' concise commentary down to the level of immediacy --
everything that is seen (with the naked eye) needs be understood in terms of contingency
and that begs the question
---is anything necessary?
perhaps thomas' most brilliant definition of god is
--god can only be explained in terms of what he is not (paraphrase)--
jacques i've heard it stated that our shared understanding of augustine will do more to repair planks on the bridge(s)
aquinas perhaps bolstering the arches below
i appreciate too your honest description of your father and his death and you alone in the house...something flannery o'connor might have worked into a story
peace all the way around
j
jh,
aquinas and aristotle were looking at the world with the naked eye.
Hmmm, okay, but we needn't do so, I think.
the uncertainty associated with observation at the very small or very large should be enough to place those perceptions in a system of thought where necessity and contingeny are irrelevant.
I don't agree that the uncertainty of observation at the very small or very large is any greater than that with the naked eye. Perhaps the difficulty involved in achieving such observations is greater, but that's not really the same thing. I understand that Aristotle and Aquinas labored within the technological limitations of their times, but if our philosophy doesn't take into account modernly available observations, how can that promote a better overall philosophy?
thomas was rather adamant about
sensus communis.
If I remember correctly, Aristotle was as well, right? I think experiments in the extremes, however--like the very large or very small in physics--can help us be more aware of exactly what these shared assumptions are, and help us examine them more critically. If these assumptions can be examined more critically, especially empirically, shouldn't they be? If certain assumptions can be shown to lack applicability in some areas, isn't it better to know?
however it would also be fair to say phenomena associated with modern physics must at least be understood as "pieces" of a much grander phenomenon (even if that is only the expanding universe)...it would seem.
I agree, but I don't think phenomena associated with, for example, ancient physics can avoid such an understanding, too.
were thomas looking at the world through the glasses of modern day physics (something maritain seems to have been able to do...with thomas in mind) i think he'd aver the ancient principle of necessity/contingency.
Perhaps.
i further think i am safe in boiling jacques' concise commentary down to the level of immediacy --
everything that is seen (with the naked eye) needs be understood in terms of contingency
and that begs the question
---is anything necessary?.
I don't understand why you seem to be giving primacy to naked-eye observation. Why should observations done with, say, a telescope or microscope be any more suspect than those done with naked eye? An argument could be made that they should be less suspect, since they increase the acuteness of the observation in certain directions.
The question of necessity is difficult.
perhaps thomas' most brilliant definition of god is
--god can only be explained in terms of what he is not (paraphrase)--.
Well, that's more of a template for a definition than a definition itself, but I see your point. I'm not sure I agree with it, though. I haven't ever seen what I thought was an adequate definition of God (which I guess is Aquinas's point, more or less).
jacques i've heard it stated that our shared understanding of augustine will do more to repair planks on the bridge(s)
aquinas perhaps bolstering the arches below.
I find Augustine more difficult and rewarding than almost anything I've read. He seems to have held nothing back.
most of what is happening in observation with instruments
is inaccessible to most people
and it requires a great deal of trust in the observers
we have to be able to say
well they're scientists trained to do this stuff and they're not going to lie to us
but i think it healthy to incorporate a certain amount of skepticism in that direction
the highly convoluted equations and even the language...given the uncertanty of what is being observed...is it pointing to something real or does it merely remain in the realm of the theoretical?...and can we assume it to be logical that something is stated in terms of scientific fact?...like the black hole...i know i'll never see one...i'll never observe one through a scope...i highly doubt what is being observed is what they say it is...they've given a name to a phenomenon which corresponds to the system of concepts worked out by equations etc...but it will always mean exactly nothing to me...empty signification...the same with the concept of light travelling from the stars to my eye over
"light years"....i look at the stars at night and i see directly a sparkle of light and there is not a soul on earth who can convince me the light has travelled such and such light years to reach my eye...i see it now that is all i need...the physics of it all holds nothing for me...only the wonder lending itself perhaps to poetry or song
"the nights or so lonely
lord sorrow runs deep
and nothing is worse than
a night without sleep
i walk out alone
and stare at the sky
to lonesome for words
to desperate to cry" - utah phillips
the instrument compounds the uncertainty in my estimation
much like the recording industry has distorted the experience of music...i don not consider listening to a recording listening to music
only if i am in the presence of the person or persons making the music will i acknowledge the sound as music
yet
everyone needs something to do
j
George and jh:
Thanks both for your elucidating commentaries and sympathetic replies.
On contingency: For example, it seems conceivable that there may be a point, given not even infinite time, that contingent human and all other life on earth should disappear (though I'm not sure how far in future the best scientific estimate of this phenomenon will occur) and in a broad sense that our search for the origins, meaning, and end of that phenomenon of extant life by analogy should involve the recognizing categories of contingency and necessity. Perhaps we are not entitled to believe in a being beyond eternal contingency, but it also seems conveivable that we cannot do without those categories, and this brings us to the threshold of the ontological ways of knowing God exists (and that He is self-caused) alluded to above. The ontological argument, however, rests on the assumption that existence is a predicate, and in this case, not just grammatically (which seems obvious), but metaphysically as well.
On axioms: Certain unchanging axioms seem necessary to test hypotheses and proofs according to the falsifiability principle. Could we, for example, change the axioms of Euclidean geometry (describing parallel lines, e.g.) without dissolving its structure? Perhaps we could change their form of representation, as Hilbert did in reducing them to logical forms without accompanying spatial diagrams, but does this alter the meanings of the axioms from which proofs in Euclidean geometry derive? A mathematical Platonist like Hilbert seemed to think that among the many various kinds of axioms accounting for space, time, and measurement, they all must be conceived in terms of number and that, like Plato and Pythagoras thought, numbers can stand for objects, and thus have a reality independent of our calculations. (And what is real could also be called what is true.) If so, then it seems number may be an entity beyond the proofs we use to discover them. Though I'm not competent to test the consistency or veracity of Hilbert's claims and proofs, the case for an analogy to the logic of the ontological proofs seems a plausible topic for development in that they proceed from logical calculation and not from scientific experimentation. In the history of thought then, newer is not necessarily truer, let alone better.
George, I appreciate the time you've taken on these questions, to which I wish I had more cogent replies, but this exchange has been most productive for me in setting out some areas in which to read and think on.
jh, thanks for joining in this exchange and reminding me to return to parts of Aquinas I'd long neglected--in particular his treatment of the via negativa.
Yes, Augustine has almost unfathomable depths, though his letter exchanges with Jerome are interesting for the deferences he makes to Jerome's linguistic expertise in discussing the question of biblical translation and interpretation. It's no wonder Jerome is the patron saint of translators. Shalom,
Post a Comment