"Why Won't God Heal Amputees?"

[greg]

I didn't doubt you would say anything different (not that there is anything wrong with that  0:)).

This is a common criticism of religion.  If you believe in the Christian God, then I can believe in vampires, or Hercules, or Frankenstein or a flying monster made of pasta.  Or, because you don't have any proof, you just want your God to exist because it makes you feel good.

These are very good criticisms, in my opinion.  The key component these arguments miss, and this is still a difficult one for me, is that belief in the (Christian) God generates Truth in the physical world.  Faith tells believers the right way to live.  Faith gives believers morals.  Faith motivates believers to humble themselves and be kind to their neighbors.  This is because only God holds the objective Truth, so he does not lead us astray.  Faith tells us what to do, and even when a believer doesn't follow it, he knows he should have.

Belief in other things, though, does not offer this moral consistency.  You may have morals, but if they are not grounded in an objective truth, they are arbitrary.  You may say that you get your morals from Frankenstein, but in reality you are just making them up on your own.  Even the evolutionary model of morals has this problem, because that theory simply states that the morals we have now are just the emergent set of whatever history we've had, not that these are the best set of morals.

This sounds like an explanation to my diving board analogy question, except I'm not sure i understand, still.......

[orbital]

Interesting post, Catison.

That is correct. However, science (not naturalism, if you mean philosophical naturalism; science has risen on a Christian background) will never be able to answer the ultimate questions of where did it all come from, why things are the way they are (I have extensively discussed this on "The Religion Thread" from not just a philosophical but also a scientific perspective, being a scientist myself). Thus, putting faith in science because in principle, "one day", it should be able to answer all questions is misguided.

I never claim that science will be able to answer all questions. Some of the questions may be well beyond the scope of science. However it is also misguided to think that just because they are out of the scope of science, they are automatically in the scope of something else (i.e. God). There is a good probability that they may not be in the scope of anything since or if such questions are not valid to start with. Just because we have the mental capacity to ask them does not automatically guarantee that there is a valid answer -with or without a God involved. We can ask what the last decimal digit of Pi is, but there is no answer to that. Of course, I understand that these two questions are not equally important to us, but we do not decide on the answers, only on the questions that we desperately think should have an answer that we can comprehend [either scientifically, and if that does not happen, then spiritually].

Inserting a deity into the equation will not give us answers, it will only make the questions disappear. And that's perhaps fine if we can keep it at that. But we should also acknowledge that since no theist can claim to understand God, we will be back at where we started. We will either not understand God or we will not understand the universe. The difference between the two camps, perhaps, depends on which of these two we are more doubtful about.

[karlhenning]

I never claim that science will be able to answer all questions.

Some here do, though.

Inserting a deity into the equation will not give us answers, it will only make the questions disappear.

Why do you suppose so?

[greg]

Quote from: orbital
Inserting a deity into the equation will not give us answers, it will only make the questions disappear.

Maybe way back then when maybe people weren't allowed to ask certain questions, but I don't see how it makes questions disappear. nowadays.

[Catison]

Inserting a deity into the equation will not give us answers, it will only make the questions disappear. And that's perhaps fine if we can keep it at that. But we should also acknowledge that since no theist can claim to understand God, we will be back at where we started. We will either not understand God or we will not understand the universe. The difference between the two camps, perhaps, depends on which of these two we are more doubtful about.

Great post.  However, I would be careful with a statement that we can't understand God.  It is true that we cannot know his face, his height, or if these physical attributes have any meaning for God.  We cannot know his methods of creation or when/if he will wipe us off the earth.  But we can know he created us, for we are here, and that he loves us, for he has given us the capacity to love him in return.  We can know that he has given us free will, for we can freely sin.  These are examples of ways to know about God without fully understanding him.  These small truths tell us what he wants for us and how we should live our lives.  So while you are right that we can't understand him, we can understand about him.

I know that the above probably looks like a lot of rationalization - a bunch of mumbo jumbo designed to confuse the issue.  Perhaps you might think these theological "answers" are available only to make the ignorant feel as if they know something without telling anything.  Or that the "answers" were generated after the doctrine, so that the Church could force its will upon people.  But this is not what they are.  These answers, however incomplete, were arrived at through intense theological effort, an effort anyone can freely examine.  In a way, it parallels science in its rigor.

This difficulty, though, should not daunt a person from knowing God.  Afterall, what good is the effort if we are only given a small picture?  A parallel often used is love between people.  A man and woman don't fall in love because they are sure they are perfect for each other.  They don't examine health records, go through interviews, or take tests in order to love, they simply love without knowing exactly (in the scientific sense) who they love.  In Catholic teachings, this earthly love is a guide for how to love God.  We don't have to completely understand all aspects of God in order to follow him, we simply do.

And following God gives us Faith, and that Faith informs us of the Truth (whatever small piece we can discern).  And the Truth tells us "Why?".  This is, of course, the canonical question unreachable by materialism.  Science itself cannot tell us what our purpose is.  This is why theology is needed.  It doesn't take the place of science, but compliments it, so that we know "How?" and "Why?".  So I would not agree that God and science are two sides of the same coin, both incapable of being understood.  It is much more complicated than that.

[Al Moritz]

In Catholic teachings, that is just being dirty and animal-like. And strictly forbidden.

Undoubtedly, your statement is a vivid testimony to your deep understanding of Catholic theology 

[orbital]

Sorry for the long post, and all those quotation breaks.

Why do you suppose so?

Because if it did provide the answer, there would not be any logical reason why it would not be accepted by every sane person in the world. It is not like (all) the atheists have something against God and that they all bury their heads to what is obvious. As long as there are atheists around, it should be accepted that the religious answer is not all-encompassing. Just like the other way around. As long as religion is alive it also means that positive science has not answered the questions objectively and once and for all.
Also, I think saying "God created us" takes its credit from nothing else other than the only source that claims its existence.

To me, religion is like saying "Look, we are curious about a lot of things, but we can not answer them. However, if there was this entity called 'God' it would all make perfect sense."
This is a plausible way of thinking, no contest. But it does not provide an answer as much as it shows a way out. But that way out does not lead anywhere. And we are still curious about "how" he did it, but are given that we cannot know it, for he works in ways that we can never understand.

Great post.  However, I would be careful with a statement that we can't understand God. 

Perhaps I did not phrase it correctly. I should have said "we cannot know God in its entirety What we can know about him is -by its very definition- limited to what he chooses to let us know. And he does/did it by giving us a mental capacity to that effect.

It is true that we cannot know his face, his height, or if these physical attributes have any meaning for God.  We cannot know his methods of creation or when/if he will wipe us off the earth.  But we can know he created us, for we are here, and that he loves us, for he has given us the capacity to love him in return.  We can know that he has given us free will, for we can freely sin.  These are examples of ways to know about God without fully understanding him.  These small truths tell us what he wants for us and how we should live our lives.  So while you are right that we can't understand him, we can understand about him.

But if it is not full knowledge -and since it can never be- how is that any different than what Al objects to about naturalism? We don't know exactly how God created the universe, just that he created it. Similarly we don't know how universe came to be, just that it did.
Hence my claim that God does not answer the question(s) as much as it makes them disappear. We accept what is revealed to us by religious texts or we except what we have so far found based on scientific theories and settle for the possible fact that we may not go to the very bottom of it all.

In either case, I still believe that the questions are not valid.
Let me try to give another example for questions that may not have an answer readily at hand:
To the extent of our knowledge of physics, we must accept that we have never been or will never be visited by extraterrestrial beings (should they exist in the first place), and similarly that we will never meet with them with our own effort. The limit of current science says that the speed of light is not breachable, and thus a contact is physically impossible. But the question is not easily answerable, still. We are not in a position to say that the reigning scientific theory will hold in the future, so whether we will be able to go to distant galaxies to search for life cannot be answered with a "yes" or a "no". We simply do not know at this point.

I know that the above probably looks like a lot of rationalization - a bunch of mumbo jumbo designed to confuse the issue.  Perhaps you might think these theological "answers" are available only to make the ignorant feel as if they know something without telling anything.  Or that the "answers" were generated after the doctrine, so that the Church could force its will upon people.  But this is not what they are.  These answers, however incomplete, were arrived at through intense theological effort, an effort anyone can freely examine.  In a way, it parallels science in its rigor.

I don't find it mumbo jambo at all. Just that it only makes sense to people who already believe.

This difficulty, though, should not daunt a person from knowing God.  Afterall, what good is the effort if we are only given a small picture?  A parallel often used is love between people.  A man and woman don't fall in love because they are sure they are perfect for each other.  They don't examine health records, go through interviews, or take tests in order to love, they simply love without knowing exactly (in the scientific sense) who they love.  In Catholic teachings, this earthly love is a guide for how to love God.  We don't have to completely understand all aspects of God in order to follow him, we simply do.

What you can know about God is limited. It is limited to what he cared to let you know. If you believe in his omnipotence, how can you be positive that he does not have myriads of other facets that he has not revealed to you? You love him by the things that he has shown you, and that's perfectly fine. But I think that claiming to know him above and beyond the Bible/Koran/Talmud [if that counts] would be a delusion.

And following God gives us Faith, and that Faith informs us of the Truth (whatever small piece we can discern).  And the Truth tells us "Why?".  This is, of course, the canonical question unreachable by materialism.  Science itself cannot tell us what our purpose is.  This is why theology is needed.  It doesn't take the place of science, but compliments it, so that we know "How?" and "Why?".  So I would not agree that God and science are two sides of the same coin, both incapable of being understood.  It is much more complicated than that.

I think the dilemma here is that science can dismiss God at a whim. However, looking from the opposite perspective, science is a creation of God anyway, so they cannot be separated. Science has the luxury to say "We do not care about the 'how's' and particularly the 'why's, you may ask yourself these questions but it is not our responsibility to answer them." This puts belief at a small disadvantage since the rational believer will have to reconcile his beliefs with the scientific findings while the non-believer scientific crowd will only have to care about God when and if a scientific finding points in God's direction.
I sense that some see this as the atheist's arrogance while in most cases it is the natural outcome of this way of thinking and it can't be helped.

[Catison]

orbital,

You ask good, serious theological questions.  The amazing thing is that these questions have been mulled over for thousands of years, and occasionally there are very good answers.  The Catholic Church, again surprisingly, has been a source of some of the best philosophical thinking and provides a multitude of answers that I think are worth exploring, even for an atheist.  St. Thomas Aquinas is a classic example, but you may also be interested in Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) by the recent pope John Paul II, who deals with the problem of how faith and reason intertwine.  He was actually a very good philosopher, in the classical sense of the word.

So I am going to punt on your questions, not because they aren't interesting, but because I don't have the time.   However, it would be a mistake, IMHO, to give up on these ideas, because if you can't connect the dots, it doesn't mean someone else hasn't, and successfully.

[greg]

i still feel left hanging....... 

[Catison]

i still feel left hanging....... 

Sorry Greg.  If you (or anyone else) PM's me, I would be happy to chat about the things I have come to believe.

[karlhenning]

Because if it did provide the answer, there would not be any logical reason why it would not be accepted by every sane person in the world.

I don't mean to do you any discourtesy by excising the remainder of your post, which has many good ideas to it.  But I don't know that this quite follows at all.  Consider what I find a piercingly incisive remark by Archbishop Fulton Sheen:  You cannot make a man good against his will.  No amount of logic ensures that anyone's will shall conform to what, logically, you demonstrate to be good to him.

OTOH, there is a sense in which you are right, here.  Choosing to do ill when when understands what is good, and has the power to do good, is not quite sanity.  It is only that under that understanding, all the sane people in the world may not be quite the overwhelming majority we might wish.

[Al Moritz]

I think the dilemma here is that science can dismiss God at a whim. However, looking from the opposite perspective, science is a creation of God anyway, so they cannot be separated. Science has the luxury to say "We do not care about the 'how's' and particularly the 'why's, you may ask yourself these questions but it is not our responsibility to answer them." This puts belief at a small disadvantage since the rational believer will have to reconcile his beliefs with the scientific findings while the non-believer scientific crowd will only have to care about God when and if a scientific finding points in God's direction.
I sense that some see this as the atheist's arrogance while in most cases it is the natural outcome of this way of thinking and it can't be helped.

This perspective is understandable, but it is based on a number of misconceptions.

a) "Science can dismiss God at a whim." No, it can't, because the question of God's existence is not the domain of science. Science can only analyze things, what and how they are, but it cannot say anything about why they are there in the first place. Certainly, science is a problem for the "God of the gaps", but this is not the God of mainstream theology.

As Ken Miller, one of the most prominent defenders of evolution today (he was also one of the star witnesses in the Dover trial against Intelligent Design), writes:
(http://www.templeton.org/belief/essays/miller.pdf)

"The categorical mistake of the atheist is to assume that God is natural, and therefore within the realm of science to investigate and test. By making God an ordinary part of the natural world, and failing to find Him there, they conclude that He does not exist. But God is not and cannot be part of nature. God is the reason for nature, the explanation of why things are. He is the answer to existence, not part of existence itself."

(This should be self-evident if God created nature -- then He stands outside nature.)

b) "This puts belief at a small disadvantage since the rational believer will have to reconcile his beliefs with the scientific findings." This reeks of the old fallacy that believers have to be in the defense position. However, since for believers the natural world is a creation of God, science, which investigates this natural world, can never truly contradict religion. It simply studies the works of God, while divine revelation (including the Bible) is the word of God, to paraphrase what the first scientists who started the scientific revolution said.

Science did not start in opposition of religion, but from a religious foundation -- all the opposite of a "defense" position. As biochemist, atheist and Nobel Prize winner Melvin Calvin writes in Chemical Evolution (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), p. 258: "The fundamental conviction that the universe is ordered is the first and strongest tenet [of science]. As I try to discern the origin of that conviction, I seem to find it in a basic notion discovered 2000 or 3000 years ago enunciated first in the Western world by the ancient Hebrews: namely, that the universe is governed by a single God, and is not the product of the whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to his own laws. This monotheistic view seems to be the historical foundation for modern science."

The "conflict thesis" of science vs. religion is dismissed by all notable historical scholars in the field today, it only lives forth in the popular imagination and in the atheist mind. The relationship between Church and science has overall been a smooth ride, only with the Galileo case as an (admittedly serious) bump in the road -- yet even there the dispute was not about science in a clear-cut way, but also mingled with politics and theology (Galileo wanted to re-write the Bible, something that obviously has nothing to do with science).

What about the creation story in the Bible? Already in the 4th century St. Augustine warned against a literal interpretation of the Bible. Basically, it was a non-issue a 1000+ years before the rise of science -- no "defense" adjustments of interpretation in the wake of the advances of science were needed.

And evolution? The great Cardinal Newman – considered for sainthood in the Catholic Church – dismissed Paley's "proof of God" (the watchmaker analogy, attacked by Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker) already several years before Darwin's The Origin of Species appeared. And in an 1863 entry in his Philosophical Notebooks, four years after the publication of The Origin of Species, he endorses Darwin's views as plausible and suggests he might "go the whole hog with Darwin". Newman believed that God let His work develop through secondary causes, and in 1868 he wrote "Mr. Darwin's theory need not be atheistical, be it true or not; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill."

c) "while the non-believer scientific crowd will only have to care about God when and if a scientific finding points in God's direction." It should care but it doesn't. While the apparent fine-tuning of the laws of nature has convinced some atheists that God must exist, others refuse to even consider the issue properly, as is evident from all the unbelievable and mostly uninformed fake excuses that I have read on the issue. As I had said before, those who are not willing to abandon naturalism will always find a way to convince themselves that it is not necessary.

[M forever]

Consider what I find a piercingly incisive remark by Archbishop Fulton Sheen:  You cannot make a man good against his will.  No amount of logic ensures that anyone's will shall conform to what, logically, you demonstrate to be good to him.

Basically the same attitude, only in slightly milder form these days, which is behind what the churches practiced for a very long time and which is also behind Stalin's (and other hardline "communists'" and other ideological fanatics') "philosophy": the people need to be re-educated, and if they don't get that, we put them in labor camps, if they don't get that, we just deport them to remote places or simple execute them".

How nice of Mr Sheen to think of himself as a particularly good person who is in a position to tell other people what's best for them.

[Catison]

Basically the same attitude, only in slightly milder form these days, which is behind what the churches practiced for a very long time and which is also behind Stalin's (and other hardline "communists'" and other ideological fanatics') "philosophy": the people need to be re-educated, and if they don't get that, we put them in labor camps, if they don't get that, we just deport them to remote places or simple execute them".

Actually, I think you'll find that one of the Church's great tenets is man's free will.  It is commonly used to show how man is made in God's image.  God is all knowing (complete, perfect knowledge) while man has intellect.  God is all powerful (complete, perfect ability) while man has free will.  In both cases, man has been given an ability in the image of God but not in the fullness of God.

How nice of Mr Sheen to think of himself as a particularly good person who is in a position to tell other people what's best for them.

I hate to break it to you, but this is entirely a church's job.

[karlhenning]

How nice of Mr Sheen to think of himself as a particularly good person who is in a position to tell other people what's best for them.

But, M, that is an amusingly bizarre reading of the statement.  You aren't really missing the point, are you?  Of all the people on this board to resort to strawmen and smokescreens . . . .

[M forever]

What is the point I am missing?

I hate to break it to you, but this is entirely a church's job.

I think you are right about that. That's what they all try to do, all the different "faiths" and "denominations". And all the central party committees and propaganda ministeries etcetc of history and of today. That is why it is so good that we have gotten rid of that to a large degree. Although there is still work to be done.

Of course, if you personally decide to follow this or that prescribed "path" to "salvation", or "enlightenment", or even "resurrection", you should be allowed to do so, too. Religion shouldn't be outlawed as it mostly was under the communist systems.

Just don't tell other people what is best for them in that respect. Or actually, you can tell them, preach to them, try to convince them, why not? But there should be no worldly powers invoved in making people follow this or that religion or ideology.

[Bulldog]

I hate to break it to you, but this is entirely a church's job.

And that's one of the primary reasons why I hate to be located in a religious facility.  Tomorrow morning I'll be in one, and I'm already trying to get into the stupor mode.

[Catison]

Just don't tell other people what is best for them in that respect. Or actually, you can tell them, preach to them, try to convince them, why not? But there should be no worldly powers invoved in making people follow this or that religion or ideology.

I couldn't agree more.  Which is why, at least in this country, religious institutions don't make people follow anything.

[M forever]

Ooops, sorry, all the time I thought you were located in the US. Where are you actually located?

[M forever]

And that's one of the primary reasons why I hate to be located in a religious facility.  Tomorrow morning I'll be in one, and I'm already trying to get into the stupor mode.

I was in one earlier, actually. A Catholic nun convent, if that is the right term. They called us because the Lord had decided to let their A/V presentation equipment go to hell (pun intended). I actually am more involved in the cinema/studio area, and A/V stuff is typically handled by our commercial sound department, but since they were all out and I couldn't come up with anything to pretend I was busy, so I went and fixed that for them. They were actually all very nice. So now, Jesus is back on screen, thanks to me!