"Why Won't God Heal Amputees?"

[Joe_Campbell]

I have never been to Canada, BTW, but I have seen it twice - once from the islands NW of Seattle (that may be about the area you are moving to) and once from the US side of Niagara Falls. But, following the llogic of the woman who wants to become one of the most powerful people in the world, that means I know and understand everything about Canada.

Haha...well Canada certainly has a lot more to offer than the current American Republican's VP candidate thinks.

How poetic. Does that actually impress any girls you know? (I bet it does.)

I would never say that to girls I know for a couple of reasons:
- None of the girls I know are even remotely interested in an artificial cell-shaded world
- Reading it again on here, I'm pretty unimpressed with how it sounds anyways...

[Brian]

"Why Won't God Heal Evangelicals?"

their heads, that is.

[Joe_Campbell]

Hey, Brian...how did your summer abstinance from GMG go? Did you get a ton of reading in?

[M forever]

"Why Won't God Heal Evangelicals?"

their heads, that is.

Again, because there are no gods. So all these people can ply their trades freely. Talk about deregulation. And society picking up the bill. That makes the damage done by all those financial wizards and the 700-billion-or-however-much-exactly-that-was bail out appear minute in comparison.

[orbital]

As to why I am a Christian? If God cares so much about our universe that he has endowed it with exquisite fine-tuning, it would be rational to assume that he has revealed himself to a resulting life-form that is able to accept his message – us, at the least. Historically it may be reasonably argued that if there was a revelation by God, it first happened to the Jewish people, who then believed in one single God who made all of nature, whereas all other peoples continued to believe in many gods (by the way, the associated demystification of nature into mere things led to a mindset that made the rise of science possible). It may further be argued that the prophecies of the Old Testament regarding the appearance of a saviour reached their fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

That's a good enough reason, but Al, doesn't it also have something to do with the fact that you were born in the US to a Christian family? Even if your immediate family does/did not have much to do with religion, you were presumably raised in en environment that was awash with Judeo-Christian traditions, knowingly or not. Do you believe that if you were born in, say, Syria... would you still be saying what you said above?

What I am trying to say is, the foremost reason why a person belongs to the religion that they say they do is, 999999 times out of 1000000, is simply because they were born into it. There are the converters of course, a real small minority for whom I have a deep respect for. They must have had the courage to question their own faith and decide in the end that it does not speak of the real truth.

I don't know you, but I have not met one person who has even considered changing their religion. Actually, that's not exactly the truth  I know a few people (all female) who have converted to Judaism -but simply for pragmatic reasons, i.e. to be able to marry their Jewish sweethearts 

[Catison]

I don't know you, but I have not met one person who has even considered changing their religion. Actually, that's not exactly the truth  I know a few people (all female) who have converted to Judaism -but simply for pragmatic reasons, i.e. to be able to marry their Jewish sweethearts 

Raises hand.  I am currently converting to Catholicism, after being a very strict Atheist.

There are a lot of arguments on this thread that basically boil down to, "Look how stupid religious people are".  I will have to admit that there are a lot of stupid people who are religious.  There are religious people who unquestioningly follow their church.  There are religious people who refuse to understand any other belief system.  There are religious people who do stupid things in the name of their own religion.

You don't have to focus on those people though.  There are brilliant theologians, e.g. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, who have been devoutly religious and devoutly rational.  In fact, one of the things that drew me to the Catholic church initially was its use of classical philosophy in its theology.  If you choose to, you can understand your religious reality "through your head".

There is an encyclical by John Paul II entitled Fides et Ratio, which would be very apt in these discussions.

[Al Moritz]

That's a good enough reason, but Al, doesn't it also have something to do with the fact that you were born in the US to a Christian family? Even if your immediate family does/did not have much to do with religion, you were presumably raised in en environment that was awash with Judeo-Christian traditions, knowingly or not. Do you believe that if you were born in, say, Syria... would you still be saying what you said above?

What I am trying to say is, the foremost reason why a person belongs to the religion that they say they do is, 999999 times out of 1000000, is simply because they were born into it. There are the converters of course, a real small minority for whom I have a deep respect for. They must have had the courage to question their own faith and decide in the end that it does not speak of the real truth.

I don't know you, but I have not met one person who has even considered changing their religion. Actually, that's not exactly the truth  I know a few people (all female) who have converted to Judaism -but simply for pragmatic reasons, i.e. to be able to marry their Jewish sweethearts 

See Catison's post.

Also, while I was brought up Catholic, I could not have sustained my faith through all phases of doubt (yes, the atheist myth that all religious people are full of fanatic and dangerous security in their beliefs, devoid of any doubt, is nonsense) without finding a firm basis in rationality. I cannot divorce my rationality from any aspects of my life, and that includes religion as well. My thinking is one, and not conveniently divided into "compartments".

[orbital]

Raises hand.  I am currently converting to Catholicism, after being a very strict Atheist.

Good for you Catison. Any decision arrived after deliberations -provided it does not harm others, of course- is worthy of admiration. But my point is, had you been in Turkey during this time of transformation, you'd most likely about to be a Muslim and not a Catholic.

See Catison's post.

Also, while I was brought up Catholic, I could not have sustained my faith through all phases of doubt (yes, the atheist myth that all religious people are full of fanatic and dangerous security in their beliefs, devoid of any doubt, is nonsense) without finding a firm basis in rationality. I cannot divorce my rationality from any aspects of my life, and that includes religion as well. My thinking is one, and not conveniently divided into "compartments".

So is mine. It's just that, just like theism, atheism can not be unproven either so it is an every bit as valid thought system. Plus, naturalism and its predecessors have been consistently good in explaining things we once thought were wondrous, so it is not very unsafe to assume that it is likely to provide more answers in the future.
The difference between the two schools is that one puts its faith in its process while the other puts its faith in stone.

[Catison]

See Catison's post.

Also, while I was brought up Catholic, I could not have sustained my faith through all phases of doubt (yes, the atheist myth that all religious people are full of fanatic and dangerous security in their beliefs, devoid of any doubt, is nonsense) without finding a firm basis in rationality. I cannot divorce my rationality from any aspects of my life, and that includes religion as well. My thinking is one, and not conveniently divided into "compartments".

The final thread which broke in my Atheism was the realization that my belief in science was based upon a philosophy of materialism and naturalism.  Ultimately, all Atheists (distinct from agnostics) have to rationalize their beliefs through the lens of logical positivism, the philosophy that in order to have meaning an idea must be based on a physically tangible reality and must be falsifiable.  Moreover, most Atheists believe that we can study the world through science and arrive at an objective understanding of that reality.  I think it would be incorrect to characterize Atheists as needing proof to believe.  More generally, they believe that if there is no chance for objective proof, then it is irrational to believe.

Contrast this with a negativism view of the world, in which everything is true until it is objectively proven false.  A negativist accepts there are many "correct" versions of reality in line with our scientific understanding, but there are certainly versions completely false.  So it is rational to think there is a God, but irrational to think the world is flat.

Positivism and negativism are, however, the two extremes of philosophy of science.  There are other philosophies that find a middle ground, most notably Kuhnian philosophy.

The ultimate stumble of Atheists is that they don't see how their positivist ideology is one of several, equally rational, ideologies.  They find comfort that their's is the only objective ideology.  But there in lies the fallacy. The belief in an objective, tangible reality is based upon an understanding of science, a creation of humanity (for what else could have created it?), that is subjective.  When Bacon first determined the rules of science, he did so subjectively, using his own philosophical insights which, however beautifully reliable they may be, are ultimately his own interpretation.  Bacon didn't discover science; he created it.  Positivism destroys itself if it admits only an objective truth.

My point here isn't to say that Atheists are bad people, but that it is wrong to think Atheism is without its philosophical hurdles or is the most rational of the philosophies.  There is nothing wrong with being an Atheist, but an Atheist must be comfortable with these problems.  I wasn't.

[Al Moritz]

Interesting post, Catison.

Plus, naturalism and its predecessors have been consistently good in explaining things we once thought were wondrous, so it is not very unsafe to assume that it is likely to provide more answers in the future.

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.

[karlhenning]

Well done, Brett.

. . . Thus, putting faith in science because in principle, "one day", it should be able to answer all questions is misguided.

And, well done, Al.

[adamdavid80]

You're all crazy. 

[Catison]

Thanks guys.  These discussions are so interesting, especially now.

Thus, putting faith in science because in principle, "one day", it should be able to answer all questions is misguided.

This was another stumbling block for me.  I thought that humanity would triumph over itself by the means of science.  As we learned what made reality, we could apply that to make ourselves progressively better: more civilized, living longer with a better quality of life.

Again, I hadn't noticed the fallacy that in addition to science giving us access to amazingly useful things, e.g. medicine and computers, it also gave us access to destructive things, e.g. atomic and biological weapons, and there was no guarantee that the useful side of science would win out.  Salvation cannot be found in science alone.  We may end up destroying ourselves.

[M forever]

You don't have to focus on those people though.  There are brilliant theologians, e.g. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, who have been devoutly religious and devoutly rational.  In fact, one of the things that drew me to the Catholic church initially was its use of classical philosophy in its theology.  If you choose to, you can understand your religious reality "through your head".

So why do you have to join the club because of that? Can't you just read these and whatever other texts you find interesting and still stay open to other religious/philosophical/mythological concepts? Why do you need a membership card? Becase you are afraid you are going to hell without it?

Again, I hadn't noticed the fallacy that in addition to science giving us access to amazingly useful things, e.g. medicine and computers, it also gave us access to destructive things, e.g. atomic and biological weapons, and there was no guarantee that the useful side of science would win out.  Salvation cannot be found in science alone.  We may end up destroying ourselves.

Maybe. Or maybe not. But we *have* tried to destroy each other for countless millenia, often fueled by or in the name of such things as religion or ideologies. So what you just said there is incredibly silly. Things are slowly getting better in that respect. Large parts of the world which fought countless wars among themselves, like Western Europe, have now come together and it is extremely unlikely that these countries will ever attack each other again based on such things (or anything, really).
And in all of these countries, religion does not play a significant role in society anymore. Maybe on a private level, definitely not on a political level. There is a direct connection between these phenomena.
OTOH, the one Western country which is very backwards in this respect, the US, is the one in which politics and public life are still heabily influenced by religion, and - oooops! - it also happens to be the one Western country which still likes to attack other countries, usually backed up by the declaration of the conviction that "God is on our side". There is a direct connection here, too.

[Catison]

So why do you have to join the club because of that? Can't you just read these and whatever other texts you find interesting and still stay open to other religious/philosophical/mythological concepts? Why do you need a membership card? Becase you are afraid you are going to hell without it?

Well, what you've tried to do here is characterize my beliefs as reactive to fear.  They aren't.

I'll admit, the jump from philosophy of science to religion is a big one, but it is the path I took.  A single post won't do it justice.  But in a nutshell, once I was able to accept the possibility of supernatural phenomenon, I was interested how Christianity presented these events.  I read the Gospels with an open mind and, from what I read about the history of the early Church, decided that there was nothing inconsistent between history as we know it now and the possibility that the Gospels, while not necessarily historical, are a reliable account of Jesus.  From my reading of the Gospels, it was clear to me that Jesus had, himself, established the Catholic Church.  I started to seriously examine what the Catholic Church said, and I was surprised to find it remarkably consistent with something the ideas I had always had about the world.  Then I sought out the theological resources at my disposal, including the local priest, who answered all of my questions.  I am now satisfied, although still searching, with the truth as presented by the Church.  The decision to convert was easy.  Now I am in the RCIA program and will make the final step to become Catholic this Easter.

Maybe. Or maybe not. But we *have* tried to destroy each other for countless millenia, often fueled by or in the name of such things as religion or ideologies. So what you just said there is incredibly silly. Things are slowly getting better in that respect. Large parts of the world which fought countless wars among themselves, like Western Europe, have now come together and it is extremely unlikely that these countries will ever attack each other again based on such things (or anything, really).
And in all of these countries, religion does not play a significant role in society anymore. Maybe on a private level, definitely not on a political level. There is a direct connection between these phenomena.
OTOH, the one Western country which is very backwards in this respect, the US, is the one in which politics and public life are still heabily influenced by religion, and - oooops! - it also happens to be the one Western country which still likes to attack other countries, usually backed up by the declaration of the conviction that "God is on our side". There is a direct connection here, too.

This is a common, although not persuasive argument.  Using the same logic, because Hitler was German and killed people, the entire German culture is worthless.

Notice that the Church is a human institution, just like science.  No one is perfect, so we can't rely upon the human nature of anything for salvation.  This was my point.  The difference, though, between the Church and science is that the Church is also blessed with a supernatural guidance and objectivity, so it has the potential to actually save.

[M forever]

Well, what you've tried to do here is characterize my beliefs as reactive to fear. 

I didn't. I asked.

From my reading of the Gospels, it was clear to me that Jesus had, himself, established the Catholic Church.

This is complete bullshit. You can't even read that from the gospels and other parts of the NT. We can learn even from the canonical sources that what developed into the Catholic Church was in direct contradiction to what the original followers of Jesus believed.

This is a common, although not persuasive argument.  Using the same logic, because Hitler was German and killed people, the entire German culture is worthless.

I didn't say that religion in general is useless. I said that your argument that religion may be important in keeping us from destroying each other is nonsense because it has triggered and served that purpose ***countless*** time in history. And it is an obvious fact that there is a direct connection between rationality and peacefulness in politics and international relations and the recession of religion into private spheres and out of the public and political sphere. Nobody in Western Europe says anymore "let's go to war because god wants us to be there".

But in a nutshell, once I was able to accept the possibility of supernatural phenomenon, I was interested how Christianity presented these events.  I read the Gospels with an open mind and, from what I read about the history of the early Church

Apparently you read some books about that written from the Catholic perspective only, but apart from that, if you consider the possibility of "supernatural phenomena", why select these accounts? There are endless other accounts from all over the world.

[adamdavid80]

I didn't. I asked.


This is complete bullshit. You can't even read that from the gospels and other parts of the NT. We can learn even from the canonical sources that what developed into the Catholic Church was in direct contradiction to what the original followers of Jesus believed.


I didn't say that religion in general is useless. I said that your argument that religion may be important in keeping us from destroying each other is nonsense because it has triggered and served that purpose ***countless*** time in history. And it is an obvious fact that there is a direct connection between rationality and peacefulness in politics and international relations and the recession of religion into private spheres and out of the public and political sphere. Nobody in Western Europe says anymore "let's go to war because god wants us to be there".

Apparently you read some books about that written from the Catholic perspective only, but apart from that, if you consider the possibility of "supernatural phenomena", why select these accounts? There are endless other accounts from all over the world.

I don't recall who said it, but I've always found lots of truth to the quote "Religion is te only thing keeping the lower class from killing the upper class."

[greg]

Unimportant to whom? You decide what's important. Who cares what the annals of history say?

Maybe that's the wrong term? Uninteresting may be a better word, though I might've already used that. Just like here, of course...... no history, no culture.......

This is mildly depressing to read. I can't imagine cell-shaded anime being even close to seeing, for example, the sun shining through clouds.

Well, whenever I feel like doing that, i could take off the headset........

[Catison]

I didn't. I asked.

Fine.  You asked a leading question.

This is complete bullshit. You can't even read that from the gospels and other parts of the NT. We can learn even from the canonical sources that what developed into the Catholic Church was in direct contradiction to what the original followers of Jesus believed.

For you, complete bullshit.  For me, it isn't.  The New Testament (NT), as we know it, was assembled by the Church over a period of about a hundred years.  Of course, the entire content of Christian theology is not contained in the NT, but also in the tradition established by what became the early Church.  Unfortunately, this is the mistake Protestants make when condemning the Church for practicing extra-biblical theology.  What is in the NT is only part of the story.  So you are right that you wouldn't be able to read the NT and somehow construct the Catholic church out it.

What you can know is that Jesus established a church, headed by Peter, in which he would continue Jesus' ministry.  Peter was given special power to develop doctrine for this church.  In Acts, you can see Peter use this power.  After Jesus dies, Peter, as the head of this church, makes his first use of doctrine when he declares pagans are able to join.  In this way Peter extends Jesus teaching to an area Jesus himself did not explain.  So this church, whichever church it is, has Peter at the head, establishing doctrine about the state of souls in the world with a power given to him by Jesus himself.

So what you can know is, at least, consistent with what the Church teaches.  If you are willing, the rest is a historical connecting the dots.

I didn't say that religion in general is useless. I said that your argument that religion may be important in keeping us from destroying each other is nonsense because it has triggered and served that purpose ***countless*** time in history. And it is an obvious fact that there is a direct connection between rationality and peacefulness in politics and international relations and the recession of religion into private spheres and out of the public and political sphere. Nobody in Western Europe says anymore "let's go to war because god wants us to be there".

I am not sure what your argument here is.  Just because people have done horrible things in the name of some idea doesn't mean that the idea itself is at fault.  Not to bring up Hitler again, but countless have been killed in the name of Social Darwinism.  Should we reject Darwinism?  There are people, indeed entire movements, which take an idea and twist it to rationalize horrible acts.

This may surprise you, but rationality is not exclusive to secularism.  This was the argument I presented here.  Peacefulness has always been a part of Christianity.  But what is most important to understand is that religion, at least Catholicism, is an evolving thing.  New doctrine and understanding is being added to its lexicon of theology.  I would never directly attribute a cooled off Europe to the Church, but I would not be surprised if the fact that there are fewer killings motivated by God would please it.

Apparently you read some books about that written from the Catholic perspective only, but apart from that, if you consider the possibility of "supernatural phenomena", why select these accounts? There are endless other accounts from all over the world.

You seem to think you know a lot about me from only a few posts.  How do you know that my reading was Catholic literature only?

Regardless, the answer to your question, why?  My own research could only get me so far.  I had to humble myself, admit I couldn't exhaustively study all of the world's religions, and accept that what I had learned from the Catholic Church made sense to me.  This was a hard step because it went against a lot of what I had told myself was the right thing to do.  But this was my leap of faith.  All converts have their's, this was mine.

[karlhenning]

. . . This may surprise you, but rationality is not exclusive to secularism.

The simple truth, which many of our neighbors fail to grasp.