Question to ex-Catholics

[mofca]

[quote]Your problem is that you come to this with a prejudiced mind - you say claim that nothing we cannot physically experience can be real, and you demand that articles of religious Faith be proven without dealing with anything concerning religious faith! That is simply absurd, like demanding proof for a mathematical fact without any refrence to mathematics or mathematicians. [/quote]
I will limit my response to this quote in the interest of staying on topic. Perhaps we can discuss some of these other issues in other threads.
All I'm saying is that something which is claimed to be objectively true should also be universally accepted as true, should come with corroborative evidence, and that articles of Faith are not universally accepted as true, do not come with logical evidence outside the realm of faith, and therefore are not objectively true.

[mofca]

[quote]western philosophy emphasises intellect as well dry.gif... you have a very superior attitude towards a great number of smart minds throughout history; it is the mark of insanity to assume a vast majority of men to be ignorant of the special understanding you alone possess. keep yourself on an equal playing field with religious men; they are not dellusioned by their dogmas any more than you or I are delusioned by our own presumptions. [/quote]
My apologies if I sounded disrespectful. I'm getting to the point on this thread where I'm starting to think out loud, so thanks for keeping me in check. I guess I'm starting to stumble over my "self". Besides, I take the implication of my insanity as a compliment.
Thanks you guys for a great discussion, but I need to give it a rest for a while or my head will explode. I definitely have a better understanding of where the Church is coming from, especially thanks to Aloysius. Even when we disagree, I think lively, respectful discussions such as this can get people thinking, and thats always a good thing, right?

[mofca]

[quote]western philosophy emphasises intellect as well dry.gif... you have a very superior attitude towards a great number of smart minds throughout history; it is the mark of insanity to assume a vast majority of men to be ignorant of the special understanding you alone possess. keep yourself on an equal playing field with religious men; they are not dellusioned by their dogmas any more than you or I are delusioned by our own presumptions. [/quote]
My apologies if I sounded disrespectful. I'm getting to the point on this thread where I'm starting to think out loud, so thanks for keeping me in check. I guess I'm starting to stumble over my "self". Besides, I take the implication of my insanity as a compliment.
Thanks you guys for a great discussion, but I need to give it a rest for a while or my head will explode. I definitely have a better understanding of where the Church is coming from, especially thanks to Aloysius. Even when we disagree, I think lively, respectful discussions such as this can get people thinking, and thats always a good thing, right?

[Aloysius]

haha it's cool. I wasn't upset with you or anything, just tryin to nudge you towards understanding that there is a great intellectual tradition within the Church and the stereotypes of it being against free thought are false; the only hindrances to free thought on either side are ignorance and presumption.

I encourage you to re-think what you term "objective truth". you continue to describe it as "observable" or "provable" truth, when it is in fact not. the oxymoronic statement that we should not hold our beliefs (articals of faith) as objective truths is a formula that was created as part of a cultural mentality which seeks to limit free thought and free discussion in our culture in favor of a pluralist status quo. you know: don't discuss religion or politics et cetera. the problem is that if you believe in something based on faith, then you believe it to be the objective truth.

example: I believe in God, I believe that the existence of God is an objective truth apart from whether or not I believe it and is applicable to everyone. An athiest believes there is no God, he believes this as an objective trutha part from whether or not anyone believes him. These are the foundations for a great discussion. But if we put in the formula you seem to allude to in your definition of objective truth, neither of us should claim our "belief" or "artical of faith" as an objective truth. therefore it becomes "I believe that there is a God for me" and "I believe that there is no God for me"... and there is no discussion to be had. No, if you believe something exists outside yourself then you hold it as an objective truth, even if you have arrived at that conclusion through some mode of faith.

Anyway, thank you for a great discussion as well. I thouroughly enjoyed it. It's always great to get people thinking

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I agree mofca, this thread has made me smarter.

I said I was done with this thread. I simply cannot keep myself from following it though! I guess I lied... Anyway, here is what is going through my mind. I'll give it another shot.

To prove the Real Presence without revelation is like teaching calculus before simple addition - all the while forbidding that prior mathematical concepts be used in the lesson. If you are interested in Catholicism, I highly suggest another path of investigation. Start "simple".

Objective truth is reality. We can observe something and come to the wrong conclusion. This fallacious conclusion is not the truth. The truth is not dependent on our own observation or assent. The concept that something cannot be true because it cannot be observed is illogical. The truth exists outside observations, tests, verifications, etc.

[SirMyztiq]

Hmm...

Science(straight forward proof)

or...

God(Unproven and unable to be proven)


I think we all know the answer.

[ReinnieR]

hi there

[Anomaly]

SirMyztiq,
Unfortunatley for your post, science prooves that God or a First Cause or Intelligent Design is the most reasonable and likely explanation.

[SirMyztiq]

...No it doesn't. "Intelligent Design" is just a disguise for "scientific creatism"...which is an oxymoron.

There was no intelligent design. The Universe is too vast and too huge NOT to believe that it has been here for ages. String theory might prove it in my opinion. Just wait until they find it. Which they are very close to doing.

BTW, It isn't reasonable at all!

[Anomaly]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' post='1036189' date='Aug 2 2006, 07:20 AM']
...No it doesn't. "Intelligent Design" is just a disguise for "scientific creatism"...which is an oxymoron.

There was no intelligent design. The Universe is too vast and too huge NOT to believe that it has been here for ages. String theory might prove it in my opinion. Just wait until they find it. Which they are very close to doing.

BTW, It isn't reasonable at all!
[/quote]
Start another thread.
'string theory' is a fairy tale for atheist wannabes to whistle in the dark.
What about First Cause?
How does the age of the universe and the Big Bang Theory exclude the existince of a "god"?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Why is there something and not nothing?

[jswranch]

Mofca,
Please help me understand. Your following two quotes seem to contradict.

[quote]QUOTE(mofca @ Jul 31 2006, 10:27 PM)

It is firmly established, and has been said over and over on this thread that objective truth is that which is true, whether we believe it or not.[/quote]

[quote]QUOTE(mofca @ Aug 1 2006, 08:53 AM)

As I have said before, objective truth in reality does not rely on belief in a deity to exist. If the Eucharist is truly objective, I should be able to know it regardless of what I believe.[/quote]

[mofca]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1036464' date='Aug 2 2006, 01:50 PM']
Mofca,
Please help me understand. Your following two quotes seem to contradict.
[/quote]
Please explain the contradiction. I don't see it.

[jswranch]

[quote](mofca @ Jul 31 2006, 10:27 PM)
It is firmly established, and has been said over and over on this thread that objective truth is that which is true, whether we believe it or not.[/quote]


[quote](mofca @ Aug 1 2006, 08:53 AM)
If the Eucharist is truly objective, I should be able to know it regardless of what I believe.[/quote]

In the first sentence, you state objective truths exist whether you know them or not.
In the second sentence, you state the Eucharist cannot be an objective truth because you do not know it.

From these two sentences you seem to expect that, if the Eucharist is an objective truth, you would know it by now. Yet, you admitt that objective truth is truth whether or not you know it.

Why do place your knowledge as a requirement for it to possibly be an objective truth? Shouldn't you profess that sufficient evidence has not been provided to you, vice denying transubstantiation? Shouldn't you be agnostic on the issue?

[Socrates]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' post='1036189' date='Aug 2 2006, 07:20 AM']
...No it doesn't. "Intelligent Design" is just a disguise for "scientific creatism"...which is an oxymoron.

There was no intelligent design. The Universe is too vast and too huge NOT to believe that it has been here for ages. String theory might prove it in my opinion. Just wait until they find it. Which they are very close to doing.

BTW, It isn't reasonable at all!
[/quote]
Oh yes, of course . . . the universe is just way too darned BIG for God to have created it!
That should settle the issue!

[heavenseeker]

I think God made the universe, my question is whats the point of makeing it so big if Earth is the only planet with life.

[mofca]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1036565' date='Aug 2 2006, 05:09 PM']
In the first sentence, you state objective truths exist whether you know them or not.
In the second sentence, you state the Eucharist cannot be an objective truth because you do not know it.

From these two sentences you seem to expect that, if the Eucharist is an objective truth, you would know it by now. Yet, you admitt that objective truth is truth whether or not you know it.

Why do place your knowledge as a requirement for it to possibly be an objective truth? Shouldn't you profess that sufficient evidence has not been provided to you, vice denying transubstantiation? Shouldn't you be agnostic on the issue?
[/quote]
Ok, I think I can clarify.
First of all, in the first sentence I used the word know, not believe. There is a big difference. I can believe that I am looking at a ceiling that is made of tile, but if what I am observing is actually a floor made of wood, it is a floor made of wood regardless of what I believe. Furthermore, it can be demonstrated with solid physical evidence and without question that I am looking at the real presence of a floor made of wood, and it is in fact an objective truth that the object is a floor made of wood, and this truth can be made known.

The point I was trying to make in the second line is that objective truth should be universally accepted knowledge by everyone if it is truly an objective truth. There are plenty of people, myself included, who have knowledge of the Eucharist and still do not see the evidence to support it as truth. Perhaps I could have chosen my words better and said that if the Eucharist is truly an objective truth, EVERYBODY should be able know it if there is objective evidence regardless of faith. I can say that it is a fact that Catholics believe that the Eucharist is Christ's true presence, and that would be an objective truth.

[Aloysius]

It is a fact that Catholics believe the Real Presence to be an objective truth.

Again, "objective truth" is not the same as "observable truth" or "provable truth". There are many things in heaven and earth, horatio, which are not dreamt of in your philosophy.

Imagine that there exists somewhere out in the deepest corners of space something completely invisible, completely intangible, completely unsmellable, completely untasteable, and completely silent. Absolutely no human sense can pick it up. But it is there, and that is objective truth. We'll never know it's there, and we'll never know it's objective truth, but it's true even though we cannot know it (which is precisely what makes it objective)

now, imagine there exists such an object right here on earth somewhere. or on the moon. or anywhere; because such a thing could exist, and if it doesn't have any accidental nature detectable to our limited human senses, we'll never know.

but say it made sense that it should be there. that someone took a roundabout philosophical way and showed that it makes more logical sense that such an object should be there rather than not being there. that could not be proven, but it would lead some people to believe it actually was there. like dark matter, no one has ever observed or proven the existence of that. imagine that it cannot be proven (it may be able to be, but imagine for a second that it exists like the object I described above). a roundable philosophical argument proves it to many people: that there has to be more mass in the universe for it to act the way it does. whether or not it is an objective truth does not depend on whether people know, observe, or believe in it.

[mofca]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1036823' date='Aug 3 2006, 07:37 AM']
It is a fact that Catholics believe the Real Presence to be an objective truth.

Again, "objective truth" is not the same as "observable truth" or "provable truth". There are many things in heaven and earth, horatio, which are not dreamt of in your philosophy.

Imagine that there exists somewhere out in the deepest corners of space something completely invisible, completely intangible, completely unsmellable, completely untasteable, and completely silent. Absolutely no human sense can pick it up. But it is there, and that is objective truth. We'll never know it's there, and we'll never know it's objective truth, but it's true even though we cannot know it (which is precisely what makes it objective)

now, imagine there exists such an object right here on earth somewhere. or on the moon. or anywhere; because such a thing could exist, and if it doesn't have any accidental nature detectable to our limited human senses, we'll never know.

but say it made sense that it should be there. that someone took a roundabout philosophical way and showed that it makes more logical sense that such an object should be there rather than not being there. that could not be proven, but it would lead some people to believe it actually was there. like dark matter, no one has ever observed or proven the existence of that. imagine that it cannot be proven (it may be able to be, but imagine for a second that it exists like the object I described above). a roundable philosophical argument proves it to many people: that there has to be more mass in the universe for it to act the way it does. whether or not it is an objective truth does not depend on whether people know, observe, or believe in it.
[/quote]

It seems that the key difference in our thinking is the way we view the philosophy of objective reality. We could get into an endless discussion of Epistemology and never arrive at common ground. My way of thinking about objective reality is admittedly pragmatic. I prefer to use the scientific method when I draw conclusions and arrive at the truth. To quote the philosopher Richard Kirkham, he says "to qualify as an item of knowledge, a belief must not only be true and justified, the evidence for the belief must necessitate its truth."
In the examples you've given in the above quote, I would look at them as theoretical evidence of a given object's true existence, and that when something is claimed to be witnessed in reality, it then becomes [b]objectively true when observed in objective reality[/b]. Taking a roundabout philosophical way to show that something makes logical sense is not (imho) a reliable way of arriving at an objective truth. It injects preconcieved notions, different interpretations, and adds complexity to an issue that should be clear cut. In the case of the Eucharist, it is claimed to be an objective truth that is known, and occurs right in front of our eyes (a bolder claim than the existence of dark matter), but it is only a truth that can be known through philosophical reasoning mixed with a leap of faith (sketchy ground for proof of its existence). When you say that "it made sense that it should be there", that does not prove it to be "truth". It makes sense that somebody with an ice cube tray in their freezer would use ice in their glass of water on a hot day. However, this does not prove that they have ice in their water, or that there is even ice in their freezer. Therefore, the logical conclusion that there is ice in his glass is not an objective truth.
In your line of thinking, It seems that any claim can be objective truth. For example (and I intend no disrespect here, this is to illustrate a point) I could say that when I tap my foot three times and say googlybear really fast, an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh becomes present in my floor. There were a handfull of people who also claim this is true based on an interpretation of what the Pharaoh said 3500 years ago, and it was also written in a book and interpreted that way. Philosophically and metaphorically, the king is in my floor because without this floor to stand on, I would be walking on dirt and therefore my feet would be dirty as is my soul. The floor shelters me from the elements, without it I could not survive, so it makes sense that the Pharoh is in my floor. There are lots of people who have believed this for thousands of years, so it must be true. Now, obviously this story is not true, but in the minds of believers it is. Does that make it objective truth? Yet, the Eucharistic claim of truth does not have any additional logical grounds for being the truth. Yes, there is the argument that millions of people believe it is true. There is also the argument that millions of people are taught that this is the truth since birth, by people who claim to be an authority of truth, and questioning it risks eternal consequences, so why should they think any differently? There is the argument that this has been tradition for 2000 years. There is also the argument that this tradition has been filled with error and controversy, and that the Catholic church has a history of dismissing scientific truth as heresy when it is deemed theologically false (in the case of Galileo, for 200 years his work was on the list of books which Catholics were forbidden to read at the risk of dire punishment to their immortal souls).
It makes perfect sense to me that anybody who is raised outside of the Church would be skeptical of these alleged "truths". It also makes perfect sense that if you are born and raised in a Catholic environment, you will firmly believe that you were taught the truth. In both cases, I think its important that when determining the truth, it is the facts that should be examined.

Edited August 3, 2006 by mofca

[jswranch]

[quote name='mofca' post='1036913' date='Aug 3 2006, 10:52 AM']
It makes perfect sense to me that anybody who is raised outside of the Church would be skeptical of these alleged "truths". It also makes perfect sense that if you are born and raised in a Catholic environment, you will firmly believe that you were taught the truth. In both cases, I think its important that when determining the truth, it is the facts that should be examined.
[/quote]
I, like a number of Catholics here, were not raised in the church. We came to it and believed well after the age of reason.