RE: Meaningfulness v meaninglessness; theism vs atheism;
January 10, 2011 at 5:11 pm
(This post was last modified: January 10, 2011 at 5:16 pm by dqualk.)
In response to Doubtvsfaith,
I suppose the only point I'm trying to make is that there are legitimate systems of belief within Theism which account for an objective reason. This is important because it allows us to be what we are, moral creatures. Each of us have within us the conviction that we are meaningful, and that there is in fact an objective right and wrong. We all acknowledge a broken world, where something is missing. This thing that is missing is the unmoved mover, not only of material things set in motion, but of our longings and most basic desires. I believe Christianity more than any other system gives an account that best fills that hole that we know exists. Within Christianity I believe that Catholicism has the greatest claim to being the actual body that has guarded and handed down the teachings of Christ. The former statement is beyond the scope of this discussiong, and frankly I do not beleive it would make any sense without first passing the initial hurdle of believeing in a God that is omnipotent and omnibenevelont. After which one would accept a personal God who seeks to fellowship with us, I believe Christianity best suits the purpose, in every way, rationally and intuitively. Once that hurdle is passed I beleive one will come to the conclusion that Jesus' teachings make most sense within Catholicism. I do not even intend to argue the latter two points because they are points that are built upon way more elementary points that would have to be made first.
Catholicism is not irrational because you can not use reason to demonstrate that it is irrational. You can say that it is not necessarily true, to which I would respond, why yes, that is exactly what Jesus teaches us when He says that one must come to God with faith. That is actually a very rational thing for Jesus to say as it is irrational to say that one can have a rational knowledge of the Divine, as the Divine is not natural or temporal, but supernatural and eternal.
One could claim that it is irrational to believe that someone could be risen from the dead, but this is not irrational if one presupposes that there is a Supernatural being. I am not saying that this should be convincing, only that it is certainly not irrational, if one assumes the supernatural. It seems to me that when one hits on the ressurection you're still hitting on the same point I intend to make in this forum, that is that is death and meaninglessness the ultimate reality, or is it possible that there is the Supernatural. If anyone is interested there is this really interesting debate between Bart Ehrmand and William Lane Craig on youtube that talks about whether or not Hume is correct in saying that believing in a God is always irrational due to the problem of miracles. Craig offers very compelling reasons as to why Hume's argument is not necessarily sound.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac
In Christ
to the darkestofangels (anothe fairy tale name, this is hilarious, it reminds me of this study that showed that atheist are something like 5 times more likely to be supersticious then christians when it comes to horroscopes astrology etc)
Go ahead and try to prove an objective fact or truth apart from God concerning morality or success. Yes I recognize that morality is still not easy, even within Theism, but at least within Theism you pass the first hurdle, and say yes there is morality, now lets attempt to make sense of it.
I suppose the only point I'm trying to make is that there are legitimate systems of belief within Theism which account for an objective reason. This is important because it allows us to be what we are, moral creatures. Each of us have within us the conviction that we are meaningful, and that there is in fact an objective right and wrong. We all acknowledge a broken world, where something is missing. This thing that is missing is the unmoved mover, not only of material things set in motion, but of our longings and most basic desires. I believe Christianity more than any other system gives an account that best fills that hole that we know exists. Within Christianity I believe that Catholicism has the greatest claim to being the actual body that has guarded and handed down the teachings of Christ. The former statement is beyond the scope of this discussiong, and frankly I do not beleive it would make any sense without first passing the initial hurdle of believeing in a God that is omnipotent and omnibenevelont. After which one would accept a personal God who seeks to fellowship with us, I believe Christianity best suits the purpose, in every way, rationally and intuitively. Once that hurdle is passed I beleive one will come to the conclusion that Jesus' teachings make most sense within Catholicism. I do not even intend to argue the latter two points because they are points that are built upon way more elementary points that would have to be made first.
Catholicism is not irrational because you can not use reason to demonstrate that it is irrational. You can say that it is not necessarily true, to which I would respond, why yes, that is exactly what Jesus teaches us when He says that one must come to God with faith. That is actually a very rational thing for Jesus to say as it is irrational to say that one can have a rational knowledge of the Divine, as the Divine is not natural or temporal, but supernatural and eternal.
One could claim that it is irrational to believe that someone could be risen from the dead, but this is not irrational if one presupposes that there is a Supernatural being. I am not saying that this should be convincing, only that it is certainly not irrational, if one assumes the supernatural. It seems to me that when one hits on the ressurection you're still hitting on the same point I intend to make in this forum, that is that is death and meaninglessness the ultimate reality, or is it possible that there is the Supernatural. If anyone is interested there is this really interesting debate between Bart Ehrmand and William Lane Craig on youtube that talks about whether or not Hume is correct in saying that believing in a God is always irrational due to the problem of miracles. Craig offers very compelling reasons as to why Hume's argument is not necessarily sound.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac
In Christ
to the darkestofangels (anothe fairy tale name, this is hilarious, it reminds me of this study that showed that atheist are something like 5 times more likely to be supersticious then christians when it comes to horroscopes astrology etc)
Go ahead and try to prove an objective fact or truth apart from God concerning morality or success. Yes I recognize that morality is still not easy, even within Theism, but at least within Theism you pass the first hurdle, and say yes there is morality, now lets attempt to make sense of it.
