...because I have not the time or training yet. You really should be debating Fr. Robert Barron. I've attended a retreat with him and he is brilliant. Start with this vidio, work your way through the rest, and perhaps chech out his site. As you can see in the YouTube comments, he actively answer questions/challenges. He does it so much better then I ever could and he should, he's the Francis Cardinal George Chair of Faith and Culture at University of St. Mary of the Lake/Mundelein Seminary in Mundelein, Illinois.
Sorry about the delay, but I'm over loaded with reading, writing and general seminary business.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Where I Stand
It’s always good to know where one stands on things. It puts them in perspective. Allowing others beforehand to know those positions saves time. Thus, I thought I’d compose a list, by all means incomplete, of where I stand on topics that will likely arise.
Assumption: I make one assumption about the world we live in: it follows a set of rules. By observation, we can learn these rules. We can make predictions. These predictions are based upon observations, repeated testing, and verification. That’s it, one assumption.
Claim: Science has improved our lot in life vastly more than religion. The very computer you’re using wasn’t the result of believers praying but the end result of decades of study, which in turn was based on centuries of study. Buildings, cars, medicine, jobs, travel, technology in general, and tons of other improvements to our life have all been because of science and the scientific method. Best of all, it’s a self-correcting approach to reality. When mistakes are made, theories proven false, science adapts and changes according to “revealed truth”.
Claim: Religion hasn’t improved our life to any where near the degree science has. Religion has, in fact, been at the core of such atrocities as wars, racism, slavery, torture, et al. I’m unaware of a war being started over whether or not the atom exists. Religion often makes special claims, saying it’s above provability, testing, and verification.
Claim: All religions are merely adaptations of religions before them, going back to primal religions. Islam is an extension of Judeo-Christian faith. Christianity is a melding of Judaism, Platonism, mystery religions, and others. Judaism was influenced by Zoroastrianism and other surrounding religions of the Levant.
Claim: For the most part, the religion you follow will be based on your upbringing and environment. If you were raised in a Christian home and/or are surrounded by Christians, you likely will be a Christian. If you were raised in India, you will likely be a Hindu or Muslim. If you were raised in the Yoruba culture before the influence of outside faiths, you would have likely have been a practitioner of the Yoruba religion. This isn’t a belief, it’s an observable fact.
Claim: No creator is needed to explain our existence. If one cannot believe the odds of life arising on earth, one needs to remember there are billions of galaxies just in the observable universe. Our own milky way galaxy is estimated to have 200 to 400 billion stars. A billion times 200 billion produces and outstanding sum making the odds of life to develop essentially a given. It should also be noted earth produced a certain type of carbon based life. It’s possible other life forms have developed based on other elements, such as silicon. If one makes the claim nothing was needed to create a creator, one can counter-claim nothing is required to create the universe.
Claim: There’s nothing distinctively reasonable about being a Christian than any other faith or non-faith. Virtually any faith claim about Christianity can be made by another religion. Purpose, existence, afterlife, et al are all covered by other faiths. For Christianity’s faith claims to hold weight, it must offer testable evidence.
Claim: The Bible is a collection of myths, legends, and history. Oftentimes it is difficult to separate the three from each other. It is a fascinating collection of documents that are, however, severely dated and written by men who lacked access to the volume of knowledge present day man has of the world.
Claim: Jesus of Nazareth likely didn’t exist. Perhaps the most controversial position I hold. However, it was a position not achieved lightly nor without a lot of introspection about the data. However, it explains several facts: the diversity of early Christianity; Paul’s lack of mentioning anything of the earthly life of Jesus; the various portrayals of Jesus in the Gospels. It is a detailed and nuanced argument but not, I think, without weight.
Claim: Atheism is a position, not a philosophy. By my reckoning, Buddhists are atheists, although not all are Naturalists (no, Jay, I didn’t say Naturists). Atrocities committed by atheists often cited by apologists often neglect that such individuals are far more shaped by their political and personal agendas rather than their unbelief in a deity. Contrary to this is the full documentation of atrocities committed explicitly in the name of the faith of various individuals and societies.
Claim: The idea of God is incoherent. The Christian deity lacks clarity; its believers are emphatic that God is unknowable and beyond our understanding. Such statements as “fully god” and “fully man”, three yet one, and omniscient yet we still have choice are made with a thorough disregard for the meaning of the words used. If similar statements were made about a flying spaghetti monster (nod to Professor Dawkins), its existence would be dismissed without question.
Claim: The burden of proof falls on the one who asserts the positive. A positive statement should, by definition be easier to prove than a negative one. If I propose unicorns exist yet fail to produce a unicorn or some other valid form of evidence, one would be rational to disregard the existence of unicorns. It would be invalid for me to state that if you can’t prove unicorns don’t exist, then I win by default. Rather, it’s the other way around.
Claim: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (nod to Carl Sagan). Rather than being based on presuppositions, it follows a chain of reasoning. Say you know me very well. Suppose you’re very familiar with my activities, my physical fitness, and my mentality. However, one day I state I competed and won the Olympic gold medal in skiing. Now, this requires no supernatural cause. Skiing is a perfectly natural occurrence and all recognize skiing, as a sport and activity exists. However, you know I’ve never skied in my life. You also know I’ve never had time to learn to ski at all, let alone to the degree required to even make it to the Olympics. You also know the Winter Olympics were last held in Turin, Italy and I was never away from home long enough during that time to go compete. Thus, for you to believe my claim, I’d have to present some extraordinary evidence to convince you. Religious claims are extraordinary. Therefore, they require extraordinary evidence.
All these claims, I propose, are based on observable evidence. They make no special demands of knowledge and are testable and challengeable. They don’t require belief.
As always, I fully acknowledge my positions are certainly subject to fallibility.
Assumption: I make one assumption about the world we live in: it follows a set of rules. By observation, we can learn these rules. We can make predictions. These predictions are based upon observations, repeated testing, and verification. That’s it, one assumption.
Claim: Science has improved our lot in life vastly more than religion. The very computer you’re using wasn’t the result of believers praying but the end result of decades of study, which in turn was based on centuries of study. Buildings, cars, medicine, jobs, travel, technology in general, and tons of other improvements to our life have all been because of science and the scientific method. Best of all, it’s a self-correcting approach to reality. When mistakes are made, theories proven false, science adapts and changes according to “revealed truth”.
Claim: Religion hasn’t improved our life to any where near the degree science has. Religion has, in fact, been at the core of such atrocities as wars, racism, slavery, torture, et al. I’m unaware of a war being started over whether or not the atom exists. Religion often makes special claims, saying it’s above provability, testing, and verification.
Claim: All religions are merely adaptations of religions before them, going back to primal religions. Islam is an extension of Judeo-Christian faith. Christianity is a melding of Judaism, Platonism, mystery religions, and others. Judaism was influenced by Zoroastrianism and other surrounding religions of the Levant.
Claim: For the most part, the religion you follow will be based on your upbringing and environment. If you were raised in a Christian home and/or are surrounded by Christians, you likely will be a Christian. If you were raised in India, you will likely be a Hindu or Muslim. If you were raised in the Yoruba culture before the influence of outside faiths, you would have likely have been a practitioner of the Yoruba religion. This isn’t a belief, it’s an observable fact.
Claim: No creator is needed to explain our existence. If one cannot believe the odds of life arising on earth, one needs to remember there are billions of galaxies just in the observable universe. Our own milky way galaxy is estimated to have 200 to 400 billion stars. A billion times 200 billion produces and outstanding sum making the odds of life to develop essentially a given. It should also be noted earth produced a certain type of carbon based life. It’s possible other life forms have developed based on other elements, such as silicon. If one makes the claim nothing was needed to create a creator, one can counter-claim nothing is required to create the universe.
Claim: There’s nothing distinctively reasonable about being a Christian than any other faith or non-faith. Virtually any faith claim about Christianity can be made by another religion. Purpose, existence, afterlife, et al are all covered by other faiths. For Christianity’s faith claims to hold weight, it must offer testable evidence.
Claim: The Bible is a collection of myths, legends, and history. Oftentimes it is difficult to separate the three from each other. It is a fascinating collection of documents that are, however, severely dated and written by men who lacked access to the volume of knowledge present day man has of the world.
Claim: Jesus of Nazareth likely didn’t exist. Perhaps the most controversial position I hold. However, it was a position not achieved lightly nor without a lot of introspection about the data. However, it explains several facts: the diversity of early Christianity; Paul’s lack of mentioning anything of the earthly life of Jesus; the various portrayals of Jesus in the Gospels. It is a detailed and nuanced argument but not, I think, without weight.
Claim: Atheism is a position, not a philosophy. By my reckoning, Buddhists are atheists, although not all are Naturalists (no, Jay, I didn’t say Naturists). Atrocities committed by atheists often cited by apologists often neglect that such individuals are far more shaped by their political and personal agendas rather than their unbelief in a deity. Contrary to this is the full documentation of atrocities committed explicitly in the name of the faith of various individuals and societies.
Claim: The idea of God is incoherent. The Christian deity lacks clarity; its believers are emphatic that God is unknowable and beyond our understanding. Such statements as “fully god” and “fully man”, three yet one, and omniscient yet we still have choice are made with a thorough disregard for the meaning of the words used. If similar statements were made about a flying spaghetti monster (nod to Professor Dawkins), its existence would be dismissed without question.
Claim: The burden of proof falls on the one who asserts the positive. A positive statement should, by definition be easier to prove than a negative one. If I propose unicorns exist yet fail to produce a unicorn or some other valid form of evidence, one would be rational to disregard the existence of unicorns. It would be invalid for me to state that if you can’t prove unicorns don’t exist, then I win by default. Rather, it’s the other way around.
Claim: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (nod to Carl Sagan). Rather than being based on presuppositions, it follows a chain of reasoning. Say you know me very well. Suppose you’re very familiar with my activities, my physical fitness, and my mentality. However, one day I state I competed and won the Olympic gold medal in skiing. Now, this requires no supernatural cause. Skiing is a perfectly natural occurrence and all recognize skiing, as a sport and activity exists. However, you know I’ve never skied in my life. You also know I’ve never had time to learn to ski at all, let alone to the degree required to even make it to the Olympics. You also know the Winter Olympics were last held in Turin, Italy and I was never away from home long enough during that time to go compete. Thus, for you to believe my claim, I’d have to present some extraordinary evidence to convince you. Religious claims are extraordinary. Therefore, they require extraordinary evidence.
All these claims, I propose, are based on observable evidence. They make no special demands of knowledge and are testable and challengeable. They don’t require belief.
As always, I fully acknowledge my positions are certainly subject to fallibility.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
And Now for Something from the Catechism....
MAN'S CAPACITY FOR GOD
I. The Desire for God
27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:
The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.1
28 In many ways, throughout history down to the present day, men have given expression to their quest for God in their religious beliefs and behaviour: in their prayers, sacrifices, rituals, meditations, and so forth. These forms of religious expression, despite the ambiguities they often bring with them, are so universal that one may well call man a religious being:
From one ancestor (God) made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him - though indeed he is not far from each one of us. For "in him we live and move and have our being."2
29 But this "intimate and vital bond of man to God" (GS 19 # 1) can be forgotten, overlooked, or even explicitly rejected by man.3 Such attitudes can have different causes: revolt against evil in the world; religious ignorance or indifference; the cares and riches of this world; the scandal of bad example on the part of believers; currents of thought hostile to religion; finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.4
30 "Let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice."5 Although man can forget God or reject him, He never ceases to call every man to seek him, so as to find life and happiness. But this search for God demands of man every effort of intellect, a sound will, "an upright heart", as well as the witness of others who teach him to seek God.
You are great, O Lord, and greatly to be praised: great is your power and your wisdom is without measure. and man, so small a part of your creation, wants to praise you: this man, though clothed with mortality and bearing the evidence of sin and the proof that you withstand the proud. Despite everything, man, though but a small a part of your creation, wants to praise you. You yourself encourage him to delight in your praise, for you have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.6
1 Vatican Council II, GS 19 # 1.2 ⇒ Acts 17:26-28.3 GS 19 # 1.4 Cf. GS 19-21; ⇒ Mt 13:22; ⇒ Gen 3:8-10;⇒ Jon 1:3.5 ⇒ Ps 105:36 St. Augustine, Conf. I, I, I: PL 32, 659-661.
A Failure to Communicate
Several centuries ago, the Pope decreed that all the Jews had to leave Italy. There was, of course, a huge outcry from the Jewish community, so the Pope offered a deal. He would have a religious debate with a leader of the Jewish community. If the Jewish leader won the debate, the Jews would be permitted to stay in Italy. If the Pope won, the Jews would have to leave.
The Jewish community met and picked an aged Rabbi, Moishe, to represent them in the debate. Rabbi Moishe, however, could not speak Latin and the Pope could not speak Yiddish. So it was decided that this would be a "silent" debate.
On the day of the great debate, the Pope and Rabbi Moishe sat opposite each other for a full minute before the Pope raised his hand and showed three fingers.
Rabbi Moishe looked back and raised one finger.
Next, the Pope waved his finger around his head.
Rabbi Moishe pointed to the ground where he sat.
The Pope then brought out a communion wafer and chalice of wine.
Rabbi Moishe pulled out an apple.
With that, the Pope stood up and said, "I concede the debate. This man has bested me. The Jews can stay."
Later, the Cardinals gathered around the Pope, asking him what had happened.
The Pope said, "First I held up three fingers to represent the Trinity. He responded by holding up one finger to remind me that there was still one God common to both our religions. Then I waved my finger around me to show him that God was all around us. He responded by pointing to the ground to show that God was also right here with us. I pulled out the wine and the wafer to show that God absolves us of our sins. He pulled out an apple to remind me of original sin. He had an answer for everything. What could I do?"
Meanwhile, the Jewish community crowded around Rabbi Moishe, asking what happened.
"Well," said Moishe, "first he said to me, 'You Jews have three days to get out of here.'
So I said to him, 'Up yours'. Then he tells me the whole city would be cleared of Jews.
So I said to him, 'Listen here Mr. Pope, the Jews ... we stay right here!"
"And then?" asked a woman. "Who knows?" said Rabbi Moishe. "We broke for lunch."
The Jewish community met and picked an aged Rabbi, Moishe, to represent them in the debate. Rabbi Moishe, however, could not speak Latin and the Pope could not speak Yiddish. So it was decided that this would be a "silent" debate.
On the day of the great debate, the Pope and Rabbi Moishe sat opposite each other for a full minute before the Pope raised his hand and showed three fingers.
Rabbi Moishe looked back and raised one finger.
Next, the Pope waved his finger around his head.
Rabbi Moishe pointed to the ground where he sat.
The Pope then brought out a communion wafer and chalice of wine.
Rabbi Moishe pulled out an apple.
With that, the Pope stood up and said, "I concede the debate. This man has bested me. The Jews can stay."
Later, the Cardinals gathered around the Pope, asking him what had happened.
The Pope said, "First I held up three fingers to represent the Trinity. He responded by holding up one finger to remind me that there was still one God common to both our religions. Then I waved my finger around me to show him that God was all around us. He responded by pointing to the ground to show that God was also right here with us. I pulled out the wine and the wafer to show that God absolves us of our sins. He pulled out an apple to remind me of original sin. He had an answer for everything. What could I do?"
Meanwhile, the Jewish community crowded around Rabbi Moishe, asking what happened.
"Well," said Moishe, "first he said to me, 'You Jews have three days to get out of here.'
So I said to him, 'Up yours'. Then he tells me the whole city would be cleared of Jews.
So I said to him, 'Listen here Mr. Pope, the Jews ... we stay right here!"
"And then?" asked a woman. "Who knows?" said Rabbi Moishe. "We broke for lunch."
One more thing.....
Last one guys, I promise! Logan, when the standard was set, Adam was fully capable of meeting it. And he did for a time. But when presented with a choice he chose to rebel. Let there be no mistake, Adam was there when the fruit was offered to Eve. "She also gave some to her husband , who was there with her, and he ate it." (Gen 3:6) He could have stopped it, but made a choice not to just as much as Eve did. The reason that Lucifer fell was because he wanted God's position. He actually thought he could get it by fighting! The reason why Adam and Eve fell is because they wanted God's position (eat it and you will be like God). The reason mankind fails is because they want God's position (your not in charge of me, I dont have to do what you tell me to). They are doing what mom and dad (Adam and Eve) taught them to do.
A side note here, my husband and I have an ongoing debate about this. Kevin is in the camp with Pelegius in that man is capable of not sinning but he chooses not to (Its much more nuanced than that, but thats it in a nutshell without having to write another blog). I on the other hand am standing firm with Augustine in that there is no way I can not sin. Our talk times can be quite interesting to say the last. Rabbit trail!!!.....
Christ came to earth. The Creator became the created. People like to say Jesus was God, without pointing to the fact that he was also fully man. (how is that.....?????..... believe me........another blog) Jesus was fully man that was fully tempted with the full array of man's sins. He came to show us that it could have been done, and he did it in a much harsher climate than Adam and Eve ever had ! My personal belief for the thousand year reign is so that we can see what the Garden of Eden should have been like. (another side note)
All this to say.... what would our world be without standards to meet? What would our world be if people didnt chose to meet them? If every one were allowed to walk around meeting their standards with no consequence...... I dont even want to think about it! Its already going on to the people in Sudan and Somalia and some other nations. No respect for people, no respect for women, no respect for children...... We might not like standards sometimes, but they have to be there. They are boundries to keep our sinful nature from running wild, destroying us and those around us, until the close of time.
A side note here, my husband and I have an ongoing debate about this. Kevin is in the camp with Pelegius in that man is capable of not sinning but he chooses not to (Its much more nuanced than that, but thats it in a nutshell without having to write another blog). I on the other hand am standing firm with Augustine in that there is no way I can not sin. Our talk times can be quite interesting to say the last. Rabbit trail!!!.....
Christ came to earth. The Creator became the created. People like to say Jesus was God, without pointing to the fact that he was also fully man. (how is that.....?????..... believe me........another blog) Jesus was fully man that was fully tempted with the full array of man's sins. He came to show us that it could have been done, and he did it in a much harsher climate than Adam and Eve ever had ! My personal belief for the thousand year reign is so that we can see what the Garden of Eden should have been like. (another side note)
All this to say.... what would our world be without standards to meet? What would our world be if people didnt chose to meet them? If every one were allowed to walk around meeting their standards with no consequence...... I dont even want to think about it! Its already going on to the people in Sudan and Somalia and some other nations. No respect for people, no respect for women, no respect for children...... We might not like standards sometimes, but they have to be there. They are boundries to keep our sinful nature from running wild, destroying us and those around us, until the close of time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)