Questions For Those Who Converted To Catholicism

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1732310' date='Dec 19 2008, 10:51 PM']Sounds more like deism and no reason to embrace the irrational tenets of theism.[/quote]

Deism is a subset of theism. If you are a deist, you are a theist. All deists are theists, not all theists are deists.

[quote]I trust the food/wather is healthy, I have a lack of belief it will make me sick. Religious faith is a positive belief there is a god, it's a conscious belief.[/quote]

Okay, now we're talking semantics. Trust/faith in God, trust/faith in the quality of the water supply ... there is no practical difference ... you have a positive belief that your water is clean.

What do you mean "conscious" belief? A lot of people go about their day just assuming God's existence, never even thinking about it, in the same way you go on drinking water, just assuming that it won't make you sick.


[quote]Einstein wasn't a theist, not in the strict sense of what theism is. He didn't believe in prayer, miracles and revelation. I think his understanding of what god is is substantially different from your own.[/quote]

Of course Einstein's understanding of what God is different than mine. I believe in a personal God, he didn't.

There have been many, many philosophers who came to the conclusion that God must exist. Socrates, Aristotle, Plato ... these were not irrational idiots.

Einstein eventually explicitly said he believed in Spinoza's God (a God who is responsible for reason and order permeating the Universe, but not involved in personal affairs. )

I am deliberately not addressing the logic behind Catholic beliefs because I think it's useless to talk about specificity when general terms are still unsettled. I don't talk about the virtue of faith based charter schools with someone who doesn't believe in charter schools at all; I'd first need to talk with them about charter schools in general; that is if I'm interested in a genuine, worthwhile exchange, which is my goal here.

[bonkers]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' post='1732341' date='Dec 19 2008, 11:08 PM']Deism is a subset of theism. If you are a deist, you are a theist. All deists are theists, not all theists are deists.[/quote]

Not all deists are theists. Somone who believes god created the universe but has no play in it, is not a theist but a deist.

[quote]Okay, now we're talking semantics. Trust/faith in God, trust/faith in the quality of the water supply ... there is no practical difference ... you have a positive belief that your water is clean.

What do you mean "conscious" belief? A lot of people go about their day just assuming God's existence, never even thinking about it, in the same way you go on drinking water, just assuming that it won't make you sick.[/quote]

Of course there's a difference. I'm sure you would agree faith is more than just mere belief? Faith is emotive, it involves love, repentance, guilt, devotion, compassion and so forth. [i]Faith[/i] in the cleanliness of food/water is absent of any feeling and emotion or conscious thought. We just take it for granted. If I did have hope food wasn't poisonous, it would be because of a past experience which made me sick, so naturally I become skeptical (but less over time) towards eating dodgy food, otherwise I wouldn't question it. If anything the passive hope I have in food being ok is based on fear, it's more like a psychological process than [i]faith[/i].

[quote]Of course Einstein's understanding of what God is different than mine. I believe in a personal God, he didn't. Einstein eventually explicitly said he believed in Spinoza's God (a God who is responsible for reason and order permeating the Universe, but not involved in personal affairs. )[/quote]

Spinozas god isn't really a "god" at all. It isn't like a separate spiritual entity, it doesn't have omnipotence, intelligent or a personality. It isn't conscious and it didn't decide to create the universe. It's more like a metaphor for describing nature.

[quote]There have been many, many philosophers who came to the conclusion that God must exist. Socrates, Aristotle, Plato ... these were not irrational idiots.[/quote]

No but they didn't know about things like science and evolution back then either. We don't know what Socrates believed.

[quote]I am deliberately not addressing the logic behind Catholic beliefs because I think it's useless to talk about specificity when general terms are still unsettled. I don't talk about the virtue of faith based charter schools with someone who doesn't believe in charter schools at all; I'd first need to talk with them about charter schools in general; that is if I'm interested in a genuine, worthwhile exchange, which is my goal here.[/quote]

Strictly speaking, I don't think deism (the belief in a creator) is irrational or illogical, just not supported by evidence. As I said my reasons for atheism is the rejection of theism and the tenets of it, so I feel the specifics of religion would be important here.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1732545' date='Dec 20 2008, 11:13 AM']Not all deists are theists. Somone who believes god created the universe but has no play in it, is not a theist but a deist.

Of course there's a difference. I'm sure you would agree faith is more than just mere belief? Faith is emotive[/quote]

Faith does NOT have to be emotive. Feelings of trust, love, confidence, etc., may accompany faith, but they do not define it, and their presence does not demonstrate it.

Faith IS belief. Is is an intellectual assent to an unproven proposition as true. Up until last month, Einstein's theory of relativity was unproven. Scientists took that as truth for nearly a century, on faith. It was accepted as a fact, even though it was unproven. They had good reasons for their faith, but it was faith.

You believe the water out of your tap is clean, and you act on your belief by drinking it, thus proving your faith in the systems which ensure the safety of the water supply.

We are getting lost in definitions here.

Deism is a type of theism. That is its literal definition. It just is. When I wrote my papers in Western Religion, that was the consensus of all my references.

I know that "popular" definitions of things like faith and theism are somewhat different than the literal ones. People think faith must have something to do with God because they conflate the two. Their typical experience of the term almost always involves religion or feelings of trust and confidence in something/someone. But that is not the actual definition of what faith is.

And theism does [u]not [/u]mean belief in a God of revelation or miracles. That is a narrower definition assigned by popular culture, because the common man conflates theism with religion that asserts the existence of a personal God, since that is his typical experience of theism.

[bonkers]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' post='1732578' date='Dec 20 2008, 12:30 PM']Faith does NOT have to be emotive. Feelings of trust, love, confidence, etc., may accompany faith, but they do not define it, and their presence does not demonstrate it.

Faith IS belief. Is is an intellectual assent to an unproven proposition as true. Up until last month, Einstein's theory of relativity was unproven. Scientists took that as truth for nearly a century, on faith. It was accepted as a fact, even though it was unproven. They had good reasons for their faith, but it was faith.

You believe the water out of your tap is clean, and you act on your belief by drinking it, thus proving your faith in the systems which ensure the safety of the water supply.

We are getting lost in definitions here.[/quote]

You are obviously subscribing to very literal definition of the word 'faith'. I assumed in the context of a religious discussion faith would mean more just a just a hollow, empty belief in anything (which I think is not was faith in god is). I think when you draw comparisons between faith of a supreme being and faith in mundane, trivial things like food/water the word itself loses meaning. From a Christian perspecitve, faith is not just a mere belief or acknowledgement of belief in god, it is the "... the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". To quote wiki;

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith[/url]
"Rather than being passive, this leads to an active life of obedience to the one being trusted. Faith causes questions and seeks answers from God and transforms, it sees the mystery of God and his grace and seeks to know and become obedient to God. Faith is not static but causes one to learn more of God and grow, faith causes change as it seeks a greater understanding of God. Faith is not fideism, or simple obedience to a set of rules or statements."

This contrasted from the more literal, non-religious use of the word 'faith', and obviously has different practical considerations. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow? Really? I don't think, in a practical sense, faith would be the correct word to use. Confidence, belief, maybe, but I don't know how important having a perfectly literal understanding of the word faith is important to this discussion. I think we can easily contrast between faith in god and faith in other things. For example, everything I have faith is in some degree emperically established, scientific and/or reliable. Yes, I have faith in Einsteins theory, but the difference between faith in his theory and faith in god is his theory is supported by evidence.

[quote]Deism is a type of theism. That is its literal definition. It just is. When I wrote my papers in Western Religion, that was the consensus of all my references.

I know that "popular" definitions of things like faith and theism are somewhat different than the literal ones. People think faith must have something to do with God because they conflate the two. Their typical experience of the term almost always involves religion or feelings of trust and confidence in something/someone. But that is not the actual definition of what faith is.

And theism does [u]not [/u]mean belief in a God of revelation or miracles. That is a narrower definition assigned by popular culture, because the common man conflates theism with religion that asserts the existence of a personal God, since that is his typical experience of theism.[/quote]

Well I subscribe to the popular definitions of these words, those that are understood in our modern day culture. Surely having a literal understanding of certain words, knowing their history and what Greek/Latin words they derived from and what they meant 3000 years ago is not required to make a compelling, rational case for the existence of god?

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1732611' date='Dec 20 2008, 02:22 PM']You are obviously subscribing to very literal definition of the word 'faith'. I assumed in the context of a religious discussion faith would mean more just a just a hollow, empty belief in anything (which I think is not was faith in god is). I think when you draw comparisons between faith of a supreme being and faith in mundane, trivial things like food/water the word itself loses meaning. From a Christian perspecitve, faith is not just a mere belief or acknowledgement of belief in god, it is the "... the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". To quote wiki;

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith[/url]
"Rather than being passive, this leads to an active life of obedience to the one being trusted. Faith causes questions and seeks answers from God and transforms, it sees the mystery of God and his grace and seeks to know and become obedient to God. Faith is not static but causes one to learn more of God and grow, faith causes change as it seeks a greater understanding of God. Faith is not fideism, or simple obedience to a set of rules or statements."

This contrasted from the more literal, non-religious use of the word 'faith', and obviously has different practical considerations. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow? Really? I don't think, in a practical sense, faith would be the correct word to use. Confidence, belief, maybe, but I don't know how important having a perfectly literal understanding of the word faith is important to this discussion. I think we can easily contrast between faith in god and faith in other things. For example, everything I have faith is in some degree emperically established, scientific and/or reliable. Yes, I have faith in Einsteins theory, but the difference between faith in his theory and faith in god is his theory is supported by evidence.[/quote]

As I have said before: If you insist you will not believe anything that cannot be demonstrated with empirical evidence, then you are limiting your investigation of truth to a smart part of human experience.

There was no direct empirical evidence of Einstein's theory until last month. None. His theory looked like the most probable explanation for the behavior of matter, so it was taken on faith, as fact.

Einstein's original formula indicated that the Universe had a beginning. This disconcerted Einstein, because the only logical solution to a Universe with a beginning was a Creator. Motion has to have a Mover.

So, Einstein modified his original formula by adding a cosmological constant, attempting to make a static, unmoving Universe the logical conclusion to his theory. Einstein counted this as one of the worst mistakes of his life. We know now that the Universe is expanding, and a lot of people think its actually accelerating in its expansion. So as the Universe expands, it grows increasingly empty. The stars burn out, one by one, and eventually nothing will be left but vast darkness. All intelligent life then dies, in a "Big Freeze."

It's very interesting. Sorry about the tangent. Lately I'm turning into a fangirl of cosmology.

Einstein did abandon his additions to his original formula. The point is, I guess, that if you accept Einstein's formula as fact, then it itself is empirical evidence of a creator. People never agree of course; there are competing explanations for evidence of anything. But the most probable explanation is the existence of a Creator.

[quote]Surely having a literal understanding of certain words, knowing their history and what Greek/Latin words they derived from and what they meant 3000 years ago is not required to make a compelling, rational case for the existence of god?[/quote]

If you are really going to search for the truth, you've got to use precise language. Language is such a fundamental part of logic ... it would be impossible to describe how many experiments and theories and arguments have hinged on one, exact word.

I use the popular "fudge" definitions of words in my daily life. In most situations "you know what I mean" is "good enough." But when it comes to questions about the nature of reality, existence, destiny, etc. ... these things may as well be life and death issues to me, and I strive to use the best, most correct word I can. I don't expect to find the truth if I'm using blunted tools in the search.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1732545' date='Dec 20 2008, 11:13 AM']No but they didn't know about things like science and evolution back then either.[/quote]

Aristotle didn't know about [i]science[/i]?

[Apotheoun]

Anaximander had a theory of evolution.

[MithLuin]

I agree that empirical evidence and the scientific method, while beautiful and useful tools, do not apply to everything.

It depends what question you want to ask, and whether or not the explanations you put forward are falsifiable. If not, it does not apply, and science is silent on the topic.

If the question is "Do you love your mother?" no one is going to answer this question with evidence that can be independently verified and peer-reviewed. They are going to answer based on their experiences and convictions, and the person asking the question will either have to accept what they say or not.

If the question is, "Do aliens exist?" science is likewise silent. The best we can do is say, "The universe is a very big place and there are many other stars and (likely) planets out there, so there is a good [i]chance[/i] that aliens exist." But in the absense of evidence, we do not know, and deciding that aliens are real (forget about UFOs and them visiting earth for a moment) is left to the realm of personal belief. That does not mean that no one is interested in pondering the question, "Are we alone in the universe?" or coming up with answers to it, but merely that science is not the tool that will give you the answer to such a question. (If the universe were truly infinite, then every possibility would be a reality, but that [i]is[/i] as ridiculous as it sounds - the universe pretty much has to be finite.)

When you asked people what they would do if it was proven that God did not exist, I am sure many of them were thinking something like, "I would be skeptical of the supposed 'proof'." In other words, they have confidence in their own reasons for believing in God, but would think of some mathematical construct as a cheat. Arguments cannot just hold together, they must [i]convince.[/i] Faith and reason do work together, so that the trust faith demands of us is not taken to the level of absurdity. People believe because the tenets of faith resonate as true to them, not because (despite everything their brain is telling them) they feel they ought to.

Moments of doubt can be scary, frustrating or disconcerting, depending on what else is going on. I don't recall grabbing a Bible, but I [i]do[/i] remember grabbing the table to keep the world from spinning

[Graciela]

I was only 15 at the time and there were no Eastern Orthodox churches in my hometown or nearby, so it was pretty much off the radar screen.

I had been raised Methodist. What I did not do at the time was consider the Episcopal Church- I don't recall that being a conscious decision, more a coincidence of opportunities. In retrospect, I regret it very much. I joined the Roman catholic Church at the height of post-Vatican II renewal and ever since that time, the institution has been going more retrograde. The RC hierarchy's collusion in covering up child sex abuse by priests was the last straw, and after 20 years, I became Episcopalian, which is what I should have done in the first place. If I could retrace my steps, I would not have joined the RC church at all- in my heart, my faith was always that of the Episcopal Church- not only theologically but also ecclesiastically.

But God draws straight with crooked lines and I managed to get to the right spot none the less, for which I am very grateful. God is good and the Pope does not control God!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Graciela' post='1734084' date='Dec 22 2008, 09:36 PM']I was only 15 at the time and there were no Eastern Orthodox churches in my hometown or nearby, so it was pretty much off the radar screen.

I had been raised Methodist. What I did not do at the time was consider the Episcopal Church- I don't recall that being a conscious decision, more a coincidence of opportunities. In retrospect, I regret it very much. I joined the Roman catholic Church at the height of post-Vatican II renewal and ever since that time, the institution has been going more retrograde. The RC hierarchy's collusion in covering up child sex abuse by priests was the last straw, and after 20 years, I became Episcopalian, which is what I should have done in the first place. If I could retrace my steps, I would not have joined the RC church at all- in my heart, my faith was always that of the Episcopal Church- not only theologically but also ecclesiastically.[/quote]
1) There was just as much sex abuse in the Episcopal Church as in the Catholic Church, despite less media coverage.
2) Most of the Catholic sex abuse cases took place during the "height of post-Vatican II renewal" as you call it (the '60s-70s) and thus being "retrograde" had nothing to do with it.
3) Most of the clergy involved in cover-up were of the heterodox "liberal" variety, so blaming "retrograde" theology is absurd.

[quote]But God draws straight with crooked lines and I managed to get to the right spot none the less, for which I am very grateful. God is good and the Pope does not control God![/quote]
Neither does the Episcopal Conference.

[Graciela]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1734158' date='Dec 22 2008, 10:05 PM']1) There was just as much sex abuse in the Episcopal Church as in the Catholic Church, despite less media coverage.
2) Most of the Catholic sex abuse cases took place during the "height of post-Vatican II renewal" as you call it (the '60s-70s) and thus being "retrograde" had nothing to do with it.
3) Most of the clergy involved in cover-up were of the heterodox "liberal" variety, so blaming "retrograde" theology is absurd.

Clearly you missed my point. I did not deny that sex abuse by clergy occurs in all denominations. The final straw for me was the widespread cover-up of priest abusers by Roman Catholic bishops and cardinals- the testimony for which has been admitted in courts of law in the Boston and Los Angeles archdioceses. The millions and millions of dollars that the Catholic church has paid out to abuse victims in recent years if massively more than any settlements that have affected the Episcopal church- none ofour diocese have had to declare bankruptcy because of such settlements. My point was not about theology but about the abuses of authority by a hierarchy that does not have any accountability except to itself and the Pope. In the Episcopal Church the polity includes involvement of lay reprentatives in governance at all levels, so there is such accountability built in to the system.

Neither does the Episcopal Conference.[/quote]
There is NO Episcopal "Conference" so clearly you have NO idea about our polity. We have diocese and bishops and a trienniel General Convention at which clergy and lay delegates meet to make decisions affecting the nation al church. And no one anywhere in the Anglican Communion claims infallibility as the Pope does.

[princessgianna]

[quote name='Graciela' post='1734084' date='Dec 22 2008, 08:36 PM']God is good and the Pope does not control God![/quote]

Who has ever said the Pope controls God????

That whole idea is totally absorbed!!

[Maggyie]

Graciela, welcome! One of the things Catholics believe in is respectful dialogue. We will loooove talking with you, but at the same time it's important for you to adopt a non-combative and respectful attitude, the same as you would with any other faith community you disagree with! Making comments about the Pope controlling God is sort of like somebody making a snide remark about Muslims worshiping a rock. It's just not right OR Christian -it's hateful. Most Episcoplians I have known don't behave like that, either you are the exception or you are just having a bad day, I suspect it's the latter.

[Graciela]

Maggie-

Let's see whether I understand this-

it is NOT hateful to raise the question whether torture and murder of so-called heretics is defensible today or to pronounce another poster heretical, but I am being hateful for addressing misinformation about my denomination and other snide remarks about "Priestesses" being "creepy"?

Looks like an instance of "I see the splinter in another's eye but not the log in my own."

If I had experienced the respectfulness of which you speak by other posters on PM, perhaps I would not have been so offended and thus, cranky.

Graciela

[mortify]

[quote name='Graciela' post='1734343' date='Dec 23 2008, 12:46 PM']it is NOT hateful to raise the question whether torture and murder of so-called heretics is defensible today or to pronounce another poster heretical, but I am being hateful for addressing misinformation about my denomination and other snide remarks about "Priestesses" being "creepy"?[/quote]

It's an honest question whether the punishment for heretics can be carried out today, but the answer is no. However, we should not forget that burning heretics alive was done by Protestants as well, and if I'm not mistaken more were burned by Prots than Caths...

But anyway no need to be cranky, it's just a forum


God bless and welcome,
Mort