The atheist bus

[rusmeister]

I'd say your wife is far more right than you are and you are well-advised to accept her faith and make a choice to believe in spite of material evidence. It's called "faith". (Never mind the benefits of family unity )

This is the part that disturbs me. The rest of your post I am fine with, however, this judgment of my marriage is, frankly, uncalled for in this debate. What if I were to say, "I'd say you are a spineless coward for not sticking to your principles even though you got married, and giving up what you believe to appease your wife by converting to Christianity. Sounds to me like your beliefs now can't really be accepted as viable, if your beliefs before were so easy to drop at your wife's whim".

Now, I absolutely don't believe that to be the case. And even if I did, I'd have too much respect for you and your choices to come right out and say it. But then, I suppose, from your vantage point, I'd be "deliberately avoiding the truth" of your "intellectual cowardice".

I'll gladly discuss my beliefs here, how I got to them, and why I maintain them. But I'm not going to "well-advise" you to do anything. Respect or silence as that may be.

You are right as far as debate goes. It's a personal opinion and useless for debating purposes. I suppose I ought to try more to weed my opinions out of debate or at least flag them as personal remarks (meaning my opinion, not insult).

You're close but not quite correct on the idea of the viability of my beliefs. I had already reached a point where my beliefs (what I'd call lazy agnosticism - "I don't know and I don't want to know - my life is fine without any God") had become unviable and I had already come to the conclusion that I needed to return to Christianity. I knew from what I had learned over my life that returning to the Baptists and other Protestants I had grown up with was not possible - my experience with other countries and languages had shown that the propositions of Sola Scriptura (never mind "The King James Bible is the only Bible") are illogical and don't work across languages, cultures, space and time, and I was left with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I had arguments against Catholicism that I still think valid, but a lot of it was simple Baptist-induced prejudice, while I knew next to nothing about Orthodoxy despite standing dutifully during the services. (This was all while I was part of a men's group, btw.) It was in investigating it that it it became more and more attractive. It was in learning the history, in reading (Fr) Alexander Schmemann that I began to realize that a lot of my objections - to organized religion, Church hierarchy, confession in front of a priest - were stuff and nonsense. The last was an objection that I retained until speaking to Fr Victor Sokolov (I linked to his wikipedia page somewhere above) and I realized that I had been "confessing" in front of my entire men's group on a weekly basis and didn't have any problem with that (think of AA 'confessions' to get the idea). In short, all of my objections wound up being of that nature.

In your case, you haven't reached a point of unviability of your beliefs as I did, so that is merely anecdotal evidence and is not helpful for you. But my remarks about knowledge are meant to say that despite attending services, you very likely don't know much about the Catholic Church (beyond what you have physically seen - certainly I didn't and I see clearly how it is possible to see things and not understand them).

I think where we differ is that your approach of silence (what you call respect) enables living together peacefully with people with whom you strongly disagree. This is often a good thing. However, when you wish to examine truth and determine whether a thing is worth accepting or rejecting then it is not respect at all. It is merely refusing to engage with it, to examine it and determine what worth it has. In this case, it is not an admirable thing at all. If you would state your objection it might be possible to see where you misunderstand and correct the misunderstanding. But silent "respect" prevents that from happening. (You could often still be right. But that approach makes it impossible to really determine that - to get to the bottom of an objection.)

I'm not Catholic - but I would advocate it because I DO understand Catholicism 1000 times better now than I did before my conversion to Orthodoxy and having compared my lack of knowledge as an agnostic with what I have learned since then, can say (personal opinion based on experience:) that if one will not be Orthodox, the next best thing they can do is Catholicism. Also, my statement about family unity is based on that personal experience. I now deeply regret the times I stepped outside the church to make or take a cell phone call (or just because I was bored at what I didn't understand), and my older son saw me, and he began 'skipping', too, and while I have since converted, he has moved away. My choices then led to splintering now. But on the whole, it is something that we do together, as a family, and it does help to unite us. It provides a common philosophy as a basis on which to agree and make decisions (not that we always agree, but I remember what it was like before and it has made a big difference) and in general live our lives as something lived in common, because the faith is a central thing that guides in every aspect of our lives.

[rusmeister]

The question this deliberately evades is "Who's right?" It's fine for avoiding confrontation. It is worse than useless for establishing truth. It says "There is no truth" and this is a deliberate choice of ignorance regarding a world that we see before us that was definitely formed somehow.

"Who's right?" does not apply. No more than "Which painting is more beautiful?" It is subjective. The universe exists. That doesn't mean it was intentionally formed. And even if it was intentionally formed, that doesn't mean it was done so for the purposes that you believe in.

The fallacy here is that there are not two paintings. There is only one. It was either intentionally formed or came about by a freak accident (what are the odds of that happening?).
If it was intentionally formed, then it has the meaning the author intended, whether or not I understand it or invent my own understandings of its meaning. I can say that Picasso's Guernica is meaningless, but my attempt to invent "my own truth" ignores that Picasso did mean something. I am inventing a false world in my own head that is not consistent with the external world and objective truth.

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

And yet, this may well be the case. I believe it is. No meaning. Not in the objective, "This is the one, true answer" sense.

My approach has been to start at the beginning. Can the universe be uncaused? If you think it can not, then make your case. If you convince me, then make a case for a creator, as opposed to a mere cause. It you convince me, then make a case for the creator you believe in.

Your approach is to jump right to the end: "The God I believe in exists, and you should all choose to believe in Him." That's not how things work. But you say that our attitude of respecting your beliefs, accepting that the answers you have found work just as well for you as our answers work for us, is evading the question "Who's right?". Incorrect.

The fallacy here is that you start by stating that you prefer to believe in the universe, which you can see. However, what you can see is that nothing in the material world in all of our experience is uncaused - everything has a cause. this is the primary case against a natural causelessness of the natural universe.

The case for the Creator (that would apply here) is internal, rather than external. It lies in the universal search for meaning and the existence of morality. The modal verbs "should" and "ought to" are theological clues. Why "should" I anything?

So I deny "jumping right to the end". You have not then understood what I have been saying (although I do admit to sometimes saying things badly). For me, the starting point was Lewis's "The Screwtape Letters", which is entirely about the internal state of man. My wife read it to me while I was driving her around sunny California, and at first I thought to myself "Yeah, yeah..." and then /WHACK/ "Hey! That's about me! I don't talk about that to anybody!" and then /WHACK/ Again! And the whacks started coming faster and faster.

OTOH, you guys believe you've found the one and only, true answer, and I'm going to Hell.

Again, this is an example of taking your personal experiences of Christianity - typical in, say, the Bible Belt - and applying it to every form of the faith. I do not claim to "know" where you are "going". In Orthodoxy heaven and hell are less of a destination and more something we begin creating in our lives - so that, as Lewis put it, our lives are either the beginning of eternity in heaven or in hell. (See Lewis's "The Great Divorce" for an excellent fictional treatment of the concept.)

God is your Judge, not me. I'm more concerned (in that sense) about my own soul.

But my point there is that all of your understandings of Christianity have to be deconstructed and reconstructed. If you wish yo engage with and learn about a given faith (or prove that your own beliefs are superior), you must deal with the best and wisest of what that faith has to offer; not the worst.

[rdhopeca]

I'd say your wife is far more right than you are and you are well-advised to accept her faith and make a choice to believe in spite of material evidence. It's called "faith". (Never mind the benefits of family unity )

This is the part that disturbs me. The rest of your post I am fine with, however, this judgment of my marriage is, frankly, uncalled for in this debate. What if I were to say, "I'd say you are a spineless coward for not sticking to your principles even though you got married, and giving up what you believe to appease your wife by converting to Christianity. Sounds to me like your beliefs now can't really be accepted as viable, if your beliefs before were so easy to drop at your wife's whim".

Now, I absolutely don't believe that to be the case. And even if I did, I'd have too much respect for you and your choices to come right out and say it. But then, I suppose, from your vantage point, I'd be "deliberately avoiding the truth" of your "intellectual cowardice".

I'll gladly discuss my beliefs here, how I got to them, and why I maintain them. But I'm not going to "well-advise" you to do anything. Respect or silence as that may be.

You are right as far as debate goes. It's a personal opinion and useless for debating purposes. I suppose I ought to try more to weed my opinions out of debate or at least flag them as personal remarks (meaning my opinion, not insult).

You're close but not quite correct on the idea of the viability of my beliefs. I had already reached a point where my beliefs (what I'd call lazy agnosticism - "I don't know and I don't want to know - my life is fine without any God") had become unviable and I had already come to the conclusion that I needed to return to Christianity. I knew from what I had learned over my life that returning to the Baptists and other Protestants I had grown up with was not possible - my experience with other countries and languages had shown that the propositions of Sola Scriptura (never mind "The King James Bible is the only Bible") are illogical and don't work across languages, cultures, space and time, and I was left with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I had arguments against Catholicism that I still think valid, but a lot of it was simple Baptist-induced prejudice, while I knew next to nothing about Orthodoxy despite standing dutifully during the services. (This was all while I was part of a men's group, btw.) It was in investigating it that it it became more and more attractive. It was in learning the history, in reading (Fr) Alexander Schmemann that I began to realize that a lot of my objections - to organized religion, Church hierarchy, confession in front of a priest - were stuff and nonsense. The last was an objection that I retained until speaking to Fr Victor Sokolov (I linked to his wikipedia page somewhere above) and I realized that I had been "confessing" in front of my entire men's group on a weekly basis and didn't have any problem with that (think of AA 'confessions' to get the idea). In short, all of my objections wound up being of that nature.

In your case, you haven't reached a point of unviability of your beliefs as I did, so that is merely anecdotal evidence and is not helpful for you. But my remarks about knowledge are meant to say that despite attending services, you very likely don't know much about the Catholic Church (beyond what you have physically seen - certainly I didn't and I see clearly how it is possible to see things and not understand them).

I think where we differ is that your approach of silence (what you call respect) enables living together peacefully with people with whom you strongly disagree. This is often a good thing. However, when you wish to examine truth and determine whether a thing is worth accepting or rejecting then it is not respect at all. It is merely refusing to engage with it, to examine it and determine what worth it has. In this case, it is not an admirable thing at all. If you would state your objection it might be possible to see where you misunderstand and correct the misunderstanding. But silent "respect" prevents that from happening. (You could often still be right. But that approach makes it impossible to really determine that - to get to the bottom of an objection.)

I'm not Catholic - but I would advocate it because I DO understand Catholicism 1000 times better now than I did before my conversion to Orthodoxy and having compared my lack of knowledge as an agnostic with what I have learned since then, can say (personal opinion based on experience:) that if one will not be Orthodox, the next best thing they can do is Catholicism. Also, my statement about family unity is based on that personal experience. I now deeply regret the times I stepped outside the church to make or take a cell phone call (or just because I was bored at what I didn't understand), and my older son saw me, and he began 'skipping', too, and while I have since converted, he has moved away. My choices then led to splintering now. But on the whole, it is something that we do together, as a family, and it does help to unite us. It provides a common philosophy as a basis on which to agree and make decisions (not that we always agree, but I remember what it was like before and it has made a big difference) and in general live our lives as something lived in common, because the faith is a central thing that guides in every aspect of our lives.

Dude, my wife and I discussed it and came to an agreement. There is no point to discussing it further with her. Personally, if I were to convert for the sake of family unity, as you say, that would be teaching my son that a) your personal truths are less important than everyone else's, b) it's ok to simply "change your mind" to keep family peace, c) it's ok simply to give up on your principles to appease those around you, and d) such dishonesty is a noble thing (which it's not). Everyone around me is quite aware of where I stand on this issue. I simply choose not to make it an issue with them by not "showing my respect and speaking up" as you claim I should. I respect them as I think they should be respected, as I mentioned. This line of confrontation you feel I should take with those around regarding "truth" is missing one key factor: I am totally at ease with my beliefs and have no need to discuss them with anyone around, and I'd guess that 95% of the people around me are at ease with their beliefs as well. There is no need for such confrontation or discussion.

You are starting to remind me of my uncle, who used to booze it up in school and get into all kinds of trouble with the law, became a minister, and told us he was going to heaven while we were all going to hell. The very kind of self-serving, I-believe-and-you-don't totally non-supportable ethical and moral superiority that is exactly what drives me away from any organized religion. I used to not understand, but now I do, and you are all fools for not realizing what I realized, and will be eternally punished for it.

Bull sh*t.

That said, I think I am going to withdraw from this conversation. It is going nowhere and starting to repeat itself, and I can't think of anything else I need to say. I'll leave the defense of my truth to others, with all due respect.

[Fist and Faith]

"Who's right?" does not apply. No more than "Which painting is more beautiful?" It is subjective. The universe exists. That doesn't mean it was intentionally formed. And even if it was intentionally formed, that doesn't mean it was done so for the purposes that you believe in.

The fallacy here is that there are not two paintings. There is only one. It was either intentionally formed or came about by a freak accident (what are the odds of that happening?).

I don't have any reason to believe the odds are any better for any sort of creator (even if not an infinite one like the God you believe in) coming about by a freak accident.

If it was intentionally formed, then it has the meaning the author intended, whether or not I understand it or invent my own understandings of its meaning. I can say that Picasso's Guernica is meaningless, but my attempt to invent "my own truth" ignores that Picasso did mean something. I am inventing a false world in my own head that is not consistent with the external world and objective truth.

You jump way too many steps. You've now (below) addressed the idea of the universe being causeless. (Aside from what I just said above, I'll address what you say below.) But even if you convince me the universe must be caused, the next step would be to discuss whether it was intentionally created. If you convince me it was, then we can discuss whether or not the creator has any meaning for it. (Could be the creator's nature is to create, and meaning may not have any role in it. Or, could be the creator said, "I wonder if I could can do this...) And, of course, if we get past all that, I'm still not necessarily going to care about the creator's meaning. Not knowing what meaning Picasso had in mind does not prevent me from getting my own meaning from, and having an emotional reaction to, his works.

The fallacy here is that you start by stating that you prefer to believe in the universe, which you can see. However, what you can see is that nothing in the material world in all of our experience is uncaused - everything has a cause. this is the primary case against a natural causelessness of the natural universe.

I don't "prefer" to believe in the universe. The universe exists, so I believe in it.

As for your argument, that is a point worth considering. In fact, I thought of it too. However, again, I don't have reason to believe it is a less likely thing for a cause & effect system to have, itself, been uncaused than for a creator of such a system to have been uncaused. Which, of course, would make the creator a part of the cause & effect system anyway.

The case for the Creator (that would apply here) is internal, rather than external. It lies in the universal search for meaning and the existence of morality. The modal verbs "should" and "ought to" are theological clues. Why "should" I anything?

I've stated why the part about the search being universal doesn't convince me of what you think it should. (Many different answers have satisfied many different people.)

As for "should" and "ought to"... Who says you should/ought to?? I think we're compelled to. It's a part of us. In a way, it's much the same as sneezing when inhaling pepper. But, of course, that analogy may be too mundane for some to take seriously. This is from Sophie's World:

"Think of a newborn baby that screams and yells. If it doesn't get milk it sucks its thumb. Does that baby have a free will?"

"I guess not."

"When does the child get its free will then? At the age of two, she runs around and points at everything in sight. At the age of three she nags her mother, and at the age of four she suddenly gets afraid of the dark. Where's the freedom, Sophie?"

"I don't know."

"When she is fifteen, she sits in front of a mirror experimenting with makeup. Is this the moment when she makes her own personal decisions and does what she likes?"

Nobody tells her she should do these things at these ages, she does them because they're human nature. Just as our search for meaning. A psychological equivalent to pepper and sneezing.

So I deny "jumping right to the end". You have not then understood what I have been saying (although I do admit to sometimes saying things badly).

I don't mean you jumped right to the end in your own beliefs. I'm sure you got where you are step-by-step. I mean you're jumping to the end in your attempts to convince us of anything.

For me, the starting point was Lewis's "The Screwtape Letters", which is entirely about the internal state of man. My wife read it to me while I was driving her around sunny California, and at first I thought to myself "Yeah, yeah..." and then /WHACK/ "Hey! That's about me! I don't talk about that to anybody!" and then /WHACK/ Again! And the whacks started coming faster and faster.

Yes, I thought the same thing when I read it. Of course, I don't attribute the things members of our species have in common to a creator.

But my point there is that all of your understandings of Christianity have to be deconstructed and reconstructed. If you wish yo engage with and learn about a given faith (or prove that your own beliefs are superior), you must deal with the best and wisest of what that faith has to offer; not the worst.

All well and good. But this is more jumping to the end. What reason do I have to believe that the true version of Christianity is the one you follow if I don't yet even have reason to believe the universe was caused?

[rusmeister]

This is the part that disturbs me. The rest of your post I am fine with, however, this judgment of my marriage is, frankly, uncalled for in this debate. What if I were to say, "I'd say you are a spineless coward for not sticking to your principles even though you got married, and giving up what you believe to appease your wife by converting to Christianity. Sounds to me like your beliefs now can't really be accepted as viable, if your beliefs before were so easy to drop at your wife's whim".

Now, I absolutely don't believe that to be the case. And even if I did, I'd have too much respect for you and your choices to come right out and say it. But then, I suppose, from your vantage point, I'd be "deliberately avoiding the truth" of your "intellectual cowardice".

I'll gladly discuss my beliefs here, how I got to them, and why I maintain them. But I'm not going to "well-advise" you to do anything. Respect or silence as that may be.

You are right as far as debate goes. It's a personal opinion and useless for debating purposes. I suppose I ought to try more to weed my opinions out of debate or at least flag them as personal remarks (meaning my opinion, not insult).

You're close but not quite correct on the idea of the viability of my beliefs. I had already reached a point where my beliefs (what I'd call lazy agnosticism - "I don't know and I don't want to know - my life is fine without any God") had become unviable and I had already come to the conclusion that I needed to return to Christianity. I knew from what I had learned over my life that returning to the Baptists and other Protestants I had grown up with was not possible - my experience with other countries and languages had shown that the propositions of Sola Scriptura (never mind "The King James Bible is the only Bible") are illogical and don't work across languages, cultures, space and time, and I was left with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I had arguments against Catholicism that I still think valid, but a lot of it was simple Baptist-induced prejudice, while I knew next to nothing about Orthodoxy despite standing dutifully during the services. (This was all while I was part of a men's group, btw.) It was in investigating it that it it became more and more attractive. It was in learning the history, in reading (Fr) Alexander Schmemann that I began to realize that a lot of my objections - to organized religion, Church hierarchy, confession in front of a priest - were stuff and nonsense. The last was an objection that I retained until speaking to Fr Victor Sokolov (I linked to his wikipedia page somewhere above) and I realized that I had been "confessing" in front of my entire men's group on a weekly basis and didn't have any problem with that (think of AA 'confessions' to get the idea). In short, all of my objections wound up being of that nature.

In your case, you haven't reached a point of unviability of your beliefs as I did, so that is merely anecdotal evidence and is not helpful for you. But my remarks about knowledge are meant to say that despite attending services, you very likely don't know much about the Catholic Church (beyond what you have physically seen - certainly I didn't and I see clearly how it is possible to see things and not understand them).

I think where we differ is that your approach of silence (what you call respect) enables living together peacefully with people with whom you strongly disagree. This is often a good thing. However, when you wish to examine truth and determine whether a thing is worth accepting or rejecting then it is not respect at all. It is merely refusing to engage with it, to examine it and determine what worth it has. In this case, it is not an admirable thing at all. If you would state your objection it might be possible to see where you misunderstand and correct the misunderstanding. But silent "respect" prevents that from happening. (You could often still be right. But that approach makes it impossible to really determine that - to get to the bottom of an objection.)

I'm not Catholic - but I would advocate it because I DO understand Catholicism 1000 times better now than I did before my conversion to Orthodoxy and having compared my lack of knowledge as an agnostic with what I have learned since then, can say (personal opinion based on experience:) that if one will not be Orthodox, the next best thing they can do is Catholicism. Also, my statement about family unity is based on that personal experience. I now deeply regret the times I stepped outside the church to make or take a cell phone call (or just because I was bored at what I didn't understand), and my older son saw me, and he began 'skipping', too, and while I have since converted, he has moved away. My choices then led to splintering now. But on the whole, it is something that we do together, as a family, and it does help to unite us. It provides a common philosophy as a basis on which to agree and make decisions (not that we always agree, but I remember what it was like before and it has made a big difference) and in general live our lives as something lived in common, because the faith is a central thing that guides in every aspect of our lives.

Dude, my wife and I discussed it and came to an agreement. There is no point to discussing it further with her. Personally, if I were to convert for the sake of family unity, as you say, that would be teaching my son that a) your personal truths are less important than everyone else's, b) it's ok to simply "change your mind" to keep family peace, c) it's ok simply to give up on your principles to appease those around you, and d) such dishonesty is a noble thing (which it's not). Everyone around me is quite aware of where I stand on this issue. I simply choose not to make it an issue with them by not "showing my respect and speaking up" as you claim I should. I respect them as I think they should be respected, as I mentioned. This line of confrontation you feel I should take with those around regarding "truth" is missing one key factor: I am totally at ease with my beliefs and have no need to discuss them with anyone around, and I'd guess that 95% of the people around me are at ease with their beliefs as well. There is no need for such confrontation or discussion.

You are starting to remind me of my uncle, who used to booze it up in school and get into all kinds of trouble with the law, became a minister, and told us he was going to heaven while we were all going to hell. The very kind of self-serving, I-believe-and-you-don't totally non-supportable ethical and moral superiority that is exactly what drives me away from any organized religion. I used to not understand, but now I do, and you are all fools for not realizing what I realized, and will be eternally punished for it.

Bull sh*t.

That said, I think I am going to withdraw from this conversation. It is going nowhere and starting to repeat itself, and I can't think of anything else I need to say. I'll leave the defense of my truth to others, with all due respect.

I think I understand where you are coming from. I don't think you understand where I'm coming from and I'm sure that my iown failures and the limitations of electronic forums have a lot to do with it. I'll just say that some of the things you express about perceptions of my beliefs and attitude are not what I in fact hold. I do not hold, for example, to being morally superior - the prayer we say before Communion reminds us that in a special and important way, I am the worst of sinners.
For example, I do not recommend confrontation with your wife and I do agree that you should act on your beliefs. You seem to have taken my conclusions based on my view of truth to mean what I didn't intend.
Nor do I hold that you are a fool or that hell is a special destination for you that I am excused from. In Orthodoxy, like Catholicism, there is no doctrine of "Once saved, always saved" - something that actually denies free will - the free will to, at a later point, reject God and faith. Thus, I, too could find hell as a destination, or more accurately, as something that I am slowly preparing myself for now. Seeing oneself as right by no means necessarily means believing oneself to be superior or better. If two men are on a boat heading for a waterfall, and one sees it and the other does not, that implies no moral superiority of the one man over the other.

Regarding family and conversion, I didn't say half the things I would have liked to say, and in general, (again, the limitations of forums like these) I find it impossible to express every thought and cover every base so that you would see that it is not arrogance or narrow-mindedness standing behind what I believe (perhaps I could have averted some of the impressions you seem to have if I had written more - but I think it would have to be a LOT more). I have already made a case that it is necessary to refer to outside sources; for example, to read books and do research. Having a discussion does not add up to learning if one (myself or anybody) has little or no knowledge of a topic. Some things - like faith - are too big to fit into posts. Even the topic of education and public schools is too big. Perhaps most serious topics are too big. This, again, is more of a reason to abandon forums than to remain in them.

One side note - on the bugbear of "organized religion", I'd like to suggest that we also disorganize science, education and pretty much everything else. Organization always leads to corruption, right? We'd all be better off without all this organization stuff.
(Hopefully, that doesn't eclipse my main points.)

[aliantha]

How about we declare a moratorium on the phrases "You're wrong" and "I'm right".

In an Internet forum, because we can't see body language and we can't hear tone of voice, some phrases pack more of a punch than they might in real life.

"You're wrong" is fightin' words. It sounds like you're judging the whole person, not the specific comment with which you disagree. In fact, "I disagree" is a much better phrase.

"I'm right" sounds just plain arrogant. Plus it implies "you're wrong."

Just a suggestion. It might go some little way toward keeping tempers in check around here.

Oh, and btw, everybody -- happy Yule.

[rusmeister]

Hi Fist!
Sorry about the delays. I do "triage" on posts here - it seemed more urgent to respond to Rob's post.With three kids and a fourth on the way I'm finding myself having to cut out more computer time (probably a good thing).

"Who's right?" does not apply. No more than "Which painting is more beautiful?" It is subjective. The universe exists. That doesn't mean it was intentionally formed. And even if it was intentionally formed, that doesn't mean it was done so for the purposes that you believe in.

The fallacy here is that there are not two paintings. There is only one. It was either intentionally formed or came about by a freak accident (what are the odds of that happening?).

I don't have any reason to believe the odds are any better for any sort of creator (even if not an infinite one like the God you believe in) coming about by a freak accident.

The point I am making here is that there is only one objective universe, however we perceive it. Any confusion comes from the glasses we wear, not that the phenomenon actually changes its nature for each person. Anything else is unreason. Again, the painting could have come about by splashing a paint bucket on the paper. But the probability is so much lower than that of an external creator outside of the painting (Mary Poppins and the kids inside Bert's paintings come to mind) that "random development" doesn't even bear talking about. Such randomness is improbable even with only one phenomenon.The order we see on all levels in practically all phenomenon makes random chance for the whole "kit and kaboodle" improbable in the extreme. Tolkien called it "sub-creation" - the means by which we can enjoy, for instance, SRD. I don't know what "steps" I could take to convince you of that when to me is self-evident.

If it was intentionally formed, then it has the meaning the author intended, whether or not I understand it or invent my own understandings of its meaning. I can say that Picasso's Guernica is meaningless, but my attempt to invent "my own truth" ignores that Picasso did mean something. I am inventing a false world in my own head that is not consistent with the external world and objective truth.

You jump way too many steps. You've now (below) addressed the idea of the universe being causeless. (Aside from what I just said above, I'll address what you say below.) But even if you convince me the universe must be caused, the next step would be to discuss whether it was intentionally created. If you convince me it was, then we can discuss whether or not the creator has any meaning for it. (Could be the creator's nature is to create, and meaning may not have any role in it. Or, could be the creator said, "I wonder if I could can do this...) And, of course, if we get past all that, I'm still not necessarily going to care about the creator's meaning. Not knowing what meaning Picasso had in mind does not prevent me from getting my own meaning from, and having an emotional reaction to, his works.

Perhaps I "jump steps" in explanations. But I would also question whether some steps are not unnecessarily added - that they are actually dealt with by a prior argument.

I feel that I have stated the argument against causelessness of the universe as simply as it can be stated. Since natural phenomenon are not causeless on any level, the causelessness of the big natural phenomenon (the whole) can also be safely ruled out. The probability of something outside the universe causing it is just so much greater that it holds no water. (Never mind that sci-fi fans love to assert that nothing is more probable than other things existing outside of our universe (parallel universes, for example) - although they usually hate the idea of having an actual Creator over them.) OK, that last is not formal argument - just an observation.

One "step" that I may have skipped (for your needs/purposes) is the order in the world (referred to above) that makes random formation improbable in the extreme.

Those concepts, accepted, would deal with most of the steps you listed.

On the last, being ignorant of Picasso's meaning and making your own, is just being satisfied to know less while claiming understanding. It would be like my taking a cave painting and making up my own meaning for it, rather than attempting to learn what the cavemen meant by it. It would be the embracing of ignorance rather than attempting to learn its intended meaning. An additional point is that ignorance of authorial intent allows the author to slip their philosophy past us unawares, and perhaps even into us. Thus, being unaware that Tolkien was Christian and that while he didn't intend conscious allegory, nevertheless the worldview of Middle-Earth is ultimately Christian, or of being unaware that Shaw was an atheist who believed that a woman working in her own home was domestic slavery and that all you needed to change human nature was education (Pygmalion/My Fair Lady, anyone?), is ignorance that makes it far more difficult for you to grasp the meaning of the work.

The necessity of the objectivity of meaning is the only way that knowledge can be passed on and developed. if we admit that everyone can make up their own meaning for a creation or phenomenon, then only chaos can ensue. Our civilization is certainly not built on that principle - if anything, the principle of creating your own meaning is a 'postmodernist' ( a really stupid term) idea that presages anarchy. But there I go, no doubt, jumping steps again.

The fallacy here is that you start by stating that you prefer to believe in the universe, which you can see. However, what you can see is that nothing in the material world in all of our experience is uncaused - everything has a cause. this is the primary case against a natural causelessness of the natural universe.

I don't "prefer" to believe in the universe. The universe exists, so I believe in it.

As for your argument, that is a point worth considering. In fact, I thought of it too. However, again, I don't have reason to believe it is a less likely thing for a cause & effect system to have, itself, been uncaused than for a creator of such a system to have been uncaused. Which, of course, would make the creator a part of the cause & effect system anyway.

My bad on the use of the word "prefer". I was loosely quoting you.

The basis of "uncaused" is based on our understanding of the natural universe. If a thing is outside of that universe, then the laws of our universe (such as cause and effect) would by no means necessarily apply to it.

The case for the Creator (that would apply here) is internal, rather than external. It lies in the universal search for meaning and the existence of morality. The modal verbs "should" and "ought to" are theological clues. Why "should" I anything?

I've stated why the part about the search being universal doesn't convince me of what you think it should. (Many different answers have satisfied many different people.)

As for "should" and "ought to"... Who says you should/ought to?? I think we're compelled to. It's a part of us. In a way, it's much the same as sneezing when inhaling pepper. But, of course, that analogy may be too mundane for some to take seriously. This is from Sophie's World:

"Think of a newborn baby that screams and yells. If it doesn't get milk it sucks its thumb. Does that baby have a free will?"

"I guess not."

"When does the child get its free will then? At the age of two, she runs around and points at everything in sight. At the age of three she nags her mother, and at the age of four she suddenly gets afraid of the dark. Where's the freedom, Sophie?"

"I don't know."

"When she is fifteen, she sits in front of a mirror experimenting with makeup. Is this the moment when she makes her own personal decisions and does what she likes?"

Nobody tells her she should do these things at these ages, she does them because they're human nature. Just as our search for meaning. A psychological equivalent to pepper and sneezing.

Free will is something that applies to choice: "Should I do this? Or that? It is generally inapplicable to automatic actions (such as breathing), although it can be applied in extraordinary situations to consciously negate the automatic action or reaction (such as someone holding their breath under water, where knowledge trumps reaction and free will still reigns). But by and large it is nonsense to seek out the extreme cases, such as "Should I breathe?" - but if you do, you can see that even there it is possible to apply free will. It is not difficult to demonstrate how free will can negate all of these actions. Its exercise depends on knowledge and experience. We don't speak of a baby's free will except where we know that it can make a choice. Certainly martyrs and heroic stories of self-sacrifice are excellent examples of free-will trumping instinct (natural reaction). It is here that the verbs 'should' and 'ought to' raise their heads and remain an inexplicable problem for a world that one would see as devoid of meaning.

For me, the starting point was Lewis's "The Screwtape Letters", which is entirely about the internal state of man. My wife read it to me while I was driving her around sunny California, and at first I thought to myself "Yeah, yeah..." and then /WHACK/ "Hey! That's about me! I don't talk about that to anybody!" and then /WHACK/ Again! And the whacks started coming faster and faster.

Yes, I thought the same thing when I read it. Of course, I don't attribute the things members of our species have in common to a creator.

My point there is that I found the things described there to be true of human nature and it is this commonality of human experience that is the basis for accepting the concept of moral law.

But my point there is that all of your understandings of Christianity have to be deconstructed and reconstructed. If you wish to engage with and learn about a given faith (or prove that your own beliefs are superior), you must deal with the best and wisest of what that faith has to offer; not the worst.

All well and good. But this is more jumping to the end. What reason do I have to believe that the true version of Christianity is the one you follow if I don't yet even have reason to believe the universe was caused?

You're right (I mean, I agree that it is jumping), of course. You are not there by any means. I suppose that statement is directed more at others than at you. There is so much false "knowledge" of Christianity here...
But if you have any ideas about what Christianity is now, you may (perhaps) still need to be prepared to revise them.
Every time someone says to me "You think I am going to hell and you are not and you are better than me" - something multiple posters have done, applying their experience with (possibly evangelical or fundamental?) Christianity to my view of it - I think about the need to deconstruct those incomplete (to say the least) understandings.

This stuff can't fit into posts, Fist. It'd take the rest of my life. That's why I say, "read this and read that". Sure, I may not always hit the mark of what you are asking about Christianity (since TEM, evidently, doesn't strike the heart of what you are interested in) but to learn about anything big, you have to really study it. No one would suggest learning Russian or physics via internet posting. Theology and philosophy face the same problems, generally speaking. Taking Russian as an example I am eminently qualified to teach, I could get you, via posting, to read and write "This is a car". This is a woman" and "I am a doctor". But as you said, that's baby steps. Only that's as far as you can get with baby steps. Not very far.

[rusmeister]

How about we declare a moratorium on the phrases "You're wrong" and "I'm right".

In an Internet forum, because we can't see body language and we can't hear tone of voice, some phrases pack more of a punch than they might in real life.

"You're wrong" is fightin' words. It sounds like you're judging the whole person, not the specific comment with which you disagree. In fact, "I disagree" is a much better phrase.

"I'm right" sounds just plain arrogant. Plus it implies "you're wrong."

Just a suggestion. It might go some little way toward keeping tempers in check around here.

Oh, and btw, everybody -- happy Yule.

You're right
I mean, I agree.
Thanks, and a Merry Christmas to you, too! (Some time have to talk about why it is a merry event and such a big deal.)

[Fist and Faith]

Hi Fist!
Sorry about the delays. I do "triage" on posts here - it seemed more urgent to respond to Rob's post.With three kids and a fourth on the way I'm finding myself having to cut out more computer time (probably a good thing).

Well, I wasn't worried. As my long delay might indicate.

But, really, I don't think it matters at this point. We aren't saying anything we haven't been saying for a while. We don't see it the same way. And my reason for participating in these things - exchanging views, ideas, etc - has been accomplished. I don't see any point in repeating ourselves further. Not meant in any negative way at all, mind you. It's been fun, but... Ya know?

[rdhopeca]

Actually, I have a question I wish to pose to Rus in the context of this thread, but not in the context of my belief system per se. I've given this some thought over the holiday season.

Several times during our debate I have mentioned that I go to church regularly in support of my wife, I generally pay attention to what is said, and can in general, yet fairly complete, terms, what the Catholic faith means and represents and wishes its worshipers to do in their day to day lives. At each time, you have responded with comments that generally can be reduced to the following:

Most people who go to church have not thoroughly studied everything they need to and do not have the true knowledge of the Saints, et. al. that they should to truly know the meaning of God

By making this statement, are you saying that the American Catholic church does not adequately educate its members? If, as you have said, I should "accept my wife's faith for my own well-being", how can that help me, when you have stated that this will not be satisfactory in your eyes as faith? If most of the Catholic brethren are uneducated, how does it then help me to abandon my own beliefs to join a belief system that seems unworthy in your eyes, based on what you have stated?

[rusmeister]

Actually, I have a question I wish to pose to Rus in the context of this thread, but not in the context of my belief system per se. I've given this some thought over the holiday season.

Several times during our debate I have mentioned that I go to church regularly in support of my wife, I generally pay attention to what is said, and can in general, yet fairly complete, terms, what the Catholic faith means and represents and wishes its worshipers to do in their day to day lives. At each time, you have responded with comments that generally can be reduced to the following:

Most people who go to church have not thoroughly studied everything they need to and do not have the true knowledge of the Saints, et. al. that they should to truly know the meaning of God

By making this statement, are you saying that the American Catholic church does not adequately educate its members? If, as you have said, I should "accept my wife's faith for my own well-being", how can that help me, when you have stated that this will not be satisfactory in your eyes as faith? If most of the Catholic brethren are uneducated, how does it then help me to abandon my own beliefs to join a belief system that seems unworthy in your eyes, based on what you have stated?

Hi, rd!
First of all, let me say thanks for not taking offense on my previous posts.
Offense can be offered and not taken - the Christian ideal - and it can be unintended and taken anyway - an ideal of the author of confusion. Sometimes I fall away from the Christian ideal. I apologize for any offence given!

On your post, we're jumping several steps ahead, as Fist would say (as long as we acknowledge that, I can answer the questions you pose).

By making this statement, are you saying that the American Catholic church does not adequately educate its members?

If most of the Catholic brethren are uneducated, how does it then help me to abandon my own beliefs to join a belief system that seems unworthy in your eyes, based on what you have stated?

The Church (whether you determine it to be Orthodox or Catholic*) - is far more than merely an amalgam of its living members. It is a product and respository of tradition (with a big 'T') that has so much knowledge and wisdom that you could spend the rest of your life digging through it and never come to the end. Now I do think that education of members is a problem. But it seems like you're limiting its knowledge and value to the living believers you encounter. That would be a big mistake.

Another issue is the Christian who seriously attempts to learn and apply his faith, vs the nominal Christian. I was referring to nominal Christians to a great extent in speaking of education. If we can eliminate nominalism from consideration and talk about serious learning - just as you would eliminate the quack (and ignorance in general) in medicine or science, that would be good. The person who attempts to learn speaks to their priest and other learned people of the Church, reads what they point out to him, seeks understanding and attempts to put into practice, to the extent that it is possible, what they learn. (A Catholic, for example, among other things would refer to the writings of saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, for example, for authoritative and deep learning - Aquinas is particularly impressive for rationalists, imo).

* I see it to be Orthodox - but the Catholic Church holds much in common with Orthodoxy that we would both acknowledge to be true - there is a thousand years of common history, simply put.

The other question you put

If, as you have said, I should "accept my wife's faith for my own well-being", how can that help me, when you have stated that this will not be satisfactory in your eyes as faith?

is one that strikes at the essence of faith. It is making a choice where the limits of your rational mind end. It IS very personal, so the only guidance I can offer here is from the Gospels. An unbelieving father, driven to desperation by the illness of his son, comes to Christ for help:

23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

(Mark 9:17-27)

Basically, it is about the ability to make a choice - the ability to CHOOSE to believe, regardless of what the evidence of our eyes tells us. My personal opinion is that this often requires some kind of catastrophe - something that brings home our mortality, the mortality of our family, something that knocks down the house of cards we try to build - the better job, the better car, house, etc... But it doesn't have to happen that way. We can simply choose. It is, if you like, the Indiana Jones in the Last Crusade making the choice to believe, or the little girl in "Miracle on 34th St" saying (at the end) "I believe, I believe, it's silly but I believe..."

That's all a person has to do - "I believe, Lord, help my unbelief!" It really IS that simple.

For a sense of the depths that can begin to take you to, read this short piece - it assumes faith, but the author is highly respected in Orthodox (and probably Catholic) circles:
www.metropolit-anthony.orc.ru/eng/eng_80.htm

In today's Gospel, as in other parts of the New Testament, we see men, women and children coming or being brought to Christ, in the hope that they will be healed — healed of their physical disease, healed of misery, of pain, of agony of life. And every time Christ says to them, "Dost thou believe that I can do this?” And on this occasion, the man who was asked about it concerning his ill son said, 'I believe, Lord, help my unbelief’. But if we believe that Christ our Lord has power to save, there is more to it, because what we are expected to believe is not in the divine power only, but in divine compassion.

The text of today's Gospel speaks of mercy. Mercy means tenderness, it means caring, but beyond this, there is this very great, and in a way frightening word, ‘compassion’, which means readiness, and indeed not only readiness but reality of suffering together, of carrying together the whole suffering of another person. And indeed this is what God has done in His incarnation. He has taken upon Himself not only the human nature with all its frailty, but all the pain, all the suffering, all the agony of each of us. And if we turn to Him, asking for healing, for help, what we really mean to say is, 'I believe, Lord, that Your love is such that there is no pain of mind, no agony of mind, no suffering of body which You do not participate in. Yes, You have been crucified, sharing not only our death, but the pain which sears at every heart and tears every limb.' Can we turn to God in our need and say, "Lord, I believe in Your compassion. I believe that whenever I suffer, justly or unjustly, for my own fault or not, You suffer with me, You share my agony; and beyond this, Your agony is greater than mine, because You know, more than I do, about what I could be, in body and soul.'

And so when we are in need of divine mercy or divine help, let us not simply turn to Him and say, "Lord, I am in need and You have the power”, let us turn and say, “I know, Lord, that there is no suffering, no pain, no agony which You do not share with me; I worship Your love, I bow down before Your crucifixion, I accept the horror of Your sharing all my suffering, and, because I believe in Your compassion so profoundly, so entirely, grant me to share in Your wholeness”. Amen.

I hope that goes some distance towards "finding the eye of the paradox" (c'mon, had to stick an SRD-ism in here somewhere!)

[[Syl]]

Heaven for the Godless?

Nearly half also thought that atheists could go to heaven — dragged there kicking and screaming, no doubt — and most thought that people with no religious faith also could go.

Also, many Christians apparently view their didactic text as flexible. According to Pew’s August survey, only 39 percent of Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, and 18 percent think that it’s just a book written by men and not the word of God at all. In fact, on the question in the Pew survey about what it would take to achieve eternal life, only 1 percent of Christians said living life in accordance with the Bible.

[rdhopeca]

Actually, I have a question I wish to pose to Rus in the context of this thread, but not in the context of my belief system per se. I've given this some thought over the holiday season.

Several times during our debate I have mentioned that I go to church regularly in support of my wife, I generally pay attention to what is said, and can in general, yet fairly complete, terms, what the Catholic faith means and represents and wishes its worshipers to do in their day to day lives. At each time, you have responded with comments that generally can be reduced to the following:

Most people who go to church have not thoroughly studied everything they need to and do not have the true knowledge of the Saints, et. al. that they should to truly know the meaning of God

By making this statement, are you saying that the American Catholic church does not adequately educate its members? If, as you have said, I should "accept my wife's faith for my own well-being", how can that help me, when you have stated that this will not be satisfactory in your eyes as faith? If most of the Catholic brethren are uneducated, how does it then help me to abandon my own beliefs to join a belief system that seems unworthy in your eyes, based on what you have stated?

Hi, rd!
First of all, let me say thanks for not taking offense on my previous posts.
Offense can be offered and not taken - the Christian ideal - and it can be unintended and taken anyway - an ideal of the author of confusion. Sometimes I fall away from the Christian ideal. I apologize for any offence given!

On your post, we're jumping several steps ahead, as Fist would say (as long as we acknowledge that, I can answer the questions you pose).

By making this statement, are you saying that the American Catholic church does not adequately educate its members?

If most of the Catholic brethren are uneducated, how does it then help me to abandon my own beliefs to join a belief system that seems unworthy in your eyes, based on what you have stated?

The Church (whether you determine it to be Orthodox or Catholic*) - is far more than merely an amalgam of its living members. It is a product and respository of tradition (with a big 'T') that has so much knowledge and wisdom that you could spend the rest of your life digging through it and never come to the end. Now I do think that education of members is a problem. But it seems like you're limiting its knowledge and value to the living believers you encounter. That would be a big mistake.

Another issue is the Christian who seriously attempts to learn and apply his faith, vs the nominal Christian. I was referring to nominal Christians to a great extent in speaking of education. If we can eliminate nominalism from consideration and talk about serious learning - just as you would eliminate the quack (and ignorance in general) in medicine or science, that would be good. The person who attempts to learn speaks to their priest and other learned people of the Church, reads what they point out to him, seeks understanding and attempts to put into practice, to the extent that it is possible, what they learn. (A Catholic, for example, among other things would refer to the writings of saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, for example, for authoritative and deep learning - Aquinas is particularly impressive for rationalists, imo).

* I see it to be Orthodox - but the Catholic Church holds much in common with Orthodoxy that we would both acknowledge to be true - there is a thousand years of common history, simply put.

The other question you put

If, as you have said, I should "accept my wife's faith for my own well-being", how can that help me, when you have stated that this will not be satisfactory in your eyes as faith?

is one that strikes at the essence of faith. It is making a choice where the limits of your rational mind end. It IS very personal, so the only guidance I can offer here is from the Gospels. An unbelieving father, driven to desperation by the illness of his son, comes to Christ for help:

23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

(Mark 9:17-27)

Basically, it is about the ability to make a choice - the ability to CHOOSE to believe, regardless of what the evidence of our eyes tells us. My personal opinion is that this often requires some kind of catastrophe - something that brings home our mortality, the mortality of our family, something that knocks down the house of cards we try to build - the better job, the better car, house, etc... But it doesn't have to happen that way. We can simply choose. It is, if you like, the Indiana Jones in the Last Crusade making the choice to believe, or the little girl in "Miracle on 34th St" saying (at the end) "I believe, I believe, it's silly but I believe..."

That's all a person has to do - "I believe, Lord, help my unbelief!" It really IS that simple.

For a sense of the depths that can begin to take you to, read this short piece - it assumes faith, but the author is highly respected in Orthodox (and probably Catholic) circles:
www.metropolit-anthony.orc.ru/eng/eng_80.htm

In today's Gospel, as in other parts of the New Testament, we see men, women and children coming or being brought to Christ, in the hope that they will be healed — healed of their physical disease, healed of misery, of pain, of agony of life. And every time Christ says to them, "Dost thou believe that I can do this?” And on this occasion, the man who was asked about it concerning his ill son said, 'I believe, Lord, help my unbelief’. But if we believe that Christ our Lord has power to save, there is more to it, because what we are expected to believe is not in the divine power only, but in divine compassion.

The text of today's Gospel speaks of mercy. Mercy means tenderness, it means caring, but beyond this, there is this very great, and in a way frightening word, ‘compassion’, which means readiness, and indeed not only readiness but reality of suffering together, of carrying together the whole suffering of another person. And indeed this is what God has done in His incarnation. He has taken upon Himself not only the human nature with all its frailty, but all the pain, all the suffering, all the agony of each of us. And if we turn to Him, asking for healing, for help, what we really mean to say is, 'I believe, Lord, that Your love is such that there is no pain of mind, no agony of mind, no suffering of body which You do not participate in. Yes, You have been crucified, sharing not only our death, but the pain which sears at every heart and tears every limb.' Can we turn to God in our need and say, "Lord, I believe in Your compassion. I believe that whenever I suffer, justly or unjustly, for my own fault or not, You suffer with me, You share my agony; and beyond this, Your agony is greater than mine, because You know, more than I do, about what I could be, in body and soul.'

And so when we are in need of divine mercy or divine help, let us not simply turn to Him and say, "Lord, I am in need and You have the power”, let us turn and say, “I know, Lord, that there is no suffering, no pain, no agony which You do not share with me; I worship Your love, I bow down before Your crucifixion, I accept the horror of Your sharing all my suffering, and, because I believe in Your compassion so profoundly, so entirely, grant me to share in Your wholeness”. Amen.

I hope that goes some distance towards "finding the eye of the paradox" (c'mon, had to stick an SRD-ism in here somewhere!)

I am not limiting anything. I was asking your thoughts on, shall we say, the "intellectual quality" of the worshipers as a general rule that follow the Catholic faith in America. I've received what I expected to be your opinion on the subject (that for the most part there is no true learning in the layman Catholic in America).

Now in terms of how you arrived at your opinion, I am curious. How many American Catholic masses have you attended? How many adult education classes? How many Marriage encounters? How many baptism classes? Explain to me how you came about this opinion of American Catholicism, and how its current state of tradition and education is any more or less valid than it was during its inception, and how much research you did specifically to arrive at this opinion?

I will divulge the following as my experience regarding American Catholicism. I have attended roughly 500 masses in the last ten years, 10 marriage encounter classes, and 1 (soon to be 2) baptism classes.

In all fairness, you attempt to answer questions regarding your Orthodoxy faith with much content that represents a learned opinion. However, I have to question based on your experience, your opinions based on other faiths. I could be wrong. It just seems to me that you appear to indicate your expertise in more faiths than you could have fully researched.

Interestingly, a personal catastrophe led to the conversion of my sister to Islam. I can't say any more about it in terms of what the catastrophe was, however, I will say that that does not in any way affect my opinion on belief systems in general. Choosing a belief system because you are trying to establish control over personal crises, or perhaps establish an understanding of what is going on around you, is, IMO, on the same level as the Maori fearing the "fire god" after a comet hit the planet. When people reach out to understand the non-understandable, it does not then follow that a Divine Entity exists. It only follows that the human mind can accept a variety of explanations for the unexplainable. Essentially, to each their own truth.

[rusmeister]

I am not limiting anything. I was asking your thoughts on, shall we say, the "intellectual quality" of the worshipers as a general rule that follow the Catholic faith in America. I've received what I expected to be your opinion on the subject (that for the most part there is no true learning in the layman Catholic in America).

Now in terms of how you arrived at your opinion, I am curious. How many American Catholic masses have you attended? How many adult education classes? How many Marriage encounters? How many baptism classes? Explain to me how you came about this opinion of American Catholicism, and how its current state of tradition and education is any more or less valid than it was during its inception, and how much research you did specifically to arrive at this opinion?

I will divulge the following as my experience regarding American Catholicism. I have attended roughly 500 masses in the last ten years, 10 marriage encounter classes, and 1 (soon to be 2) baptism classes.

In all fairness, you attempt to answer questions regarding your Orthodoxy faith with much content that represents a learned opinion. However, I have to question based on your experience, your opinions based on other faiths. I could be wrong. It just seems to me that you appear to indicate your expertise in more faiths than you could have fully researched.

Interestingly, a personal catastrophe led to the conversion of my sister to Islam. I can't say any more about it in terms of what the catastrophe was, however, I will say that that does not in any way affect my opinion on belief systems in general. Choosing a belief system because you are trying to establish control over personal crises, or perhaps establish an understanding of what is going on around you, is, IMO, on the same level as the Maori fearing the "fire god" after a comet hit the planet. When people reach out to understand the non-understandable, it does not then follow that a Divine Entity exists. It only follows that the human mind can accept a variety of explanations for the unexplainable. Essentially, to each their own truth.

Of course, I said, "It seems..." A lot of what we all say here just seems to be one thing, but actually turns out to be somewhat different on closer inspection.
I do not make a judgement specific to Catholicism - I made a general synthesis of all of my experience about what I have found to be true in general in all faiths, denominations, and even pre-denominational Churches - and is even true for people in the Orthodox Church.

GK Chesterton was Catholic and I respect his writings more than any other modern writer. Point is, I was not saying there is no learning among Catholics, and this is a frequent problem - what is understood is not what I intended. However, I don't think it would be difficult to go out among Catholic ranks and find the ignorance I describe along with people who are remarkably well-informed.

My upbringing was quite anti-Catholic - and this in spite of the fact that my father's family was all Catholic. It has been my pleasant discovery as an adult to find out how much I agree with Catholics on and to find a whole new level of respect for them.

I don't think that one necessarily be an expert in all faiths - we learn as we go through life. It's good to learn as much as you can - but nominalism tends to be the rule, not the exception in the world today.
In my specific case, I do not need to thoroughly examine every aspect of the Catholic faith - so much of it is the same as Orthodoxy - it is the differences that I find of interest and learn about. The same general principle applies to all other faiths. That Buddhism or Islam (or even atheism) contain truth is not news - they wouldn't survive more than a generation if they didn't - it is where they go wrong that interests me and why the philosophy or faith is false. It is a question of degree of truth rather than presence of truth. I happen to think that Catholicism is the closest of all faiths to that "fulness of the truth" besides Orthodoxy, so it is difficult to get me to criticize Catholicism. As I said, if a person won't be Orthodox, they might as well be Catholic. The important thing is that they try to get as close as possible to God and to the Truth.

Choosing a belief system because you are trying to establish control over personal crises

I see this differently - that a personal crisis reveals the bankruptcy of a life based on a materialist and usually agnostic philosophy. Being faced with death Or REALLY serious crisis - one connected to life and death - brings the most important things to the forefront and strips away our illusions of self-sufficiency. So it's not about trying to "control your crisis" - you're trying to react to the truth about life that is revealed to you.

Again, I think that my posts are being taken as more hostile than intended.

[rdhopeca]

Rus, I am deliberately trying NOT to take them as hostile and to engage this debate more on a "research" and "knowledge" basis, after taking a break for a bit. It just occurred to me that some of what you had said was merely opinion, and possibly just as uninformed as mine might be, regarding faiths and/or belief systems not our own.

[SoulBiter]

www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/31/inaugur ... index.html

The new lawsuit says in part, "There can be no purpose for placing 'so help me God' in an oath or sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God exists."

Im guessing this person also forgets that the opposite is also true.

"There can be no purpose for leaving out 'so help me God' in an oath or not sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God does not exist."

[rdhopeca]

www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/31/inaugur ... index.html

The new lawsuit says in part, "There can be no purpose for placing 'so help me God' in an oath or sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God exists."

Im guessing this person also forgets that the opposite is also true.

"There can be no purpose for leaving out 'so help me God' in an oath or not sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God does not exist."

Seems to me my word should be able to stand on its own without any quantifying phrasing relating to the existence of any Divine Entity (or any other entity for that matter...for example, if I added "I swear on the grave of my father"). If my word is not good, me saying "so help me God" isn't going to make a bit of difference.

[SoulBiter]

www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/31/inaugur ... index.html

The new lawsuit says in part, "There can be no purpose for placing 'so help me God' in an oath or sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God exists."

Im guessing this person also forgets that the opposite is also true.

"There can be no purpose for leaving out 'so help me God' in an oath or not sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God does not exist."

Seems to me my word should be able to stand on its own without any quantifying phrasing relating to the existence of any Divine Entity (or any other entity for that matter...for example, if I added "I swear on the grave of my father"). If my word is not good, me saying "so help me God" isn't going to make a bit of difference.

Seems to me

Funny you should phrase it that way because that is kind of what the atheists are saying in this lawsuit. That even if the President elect is a believer, that they shouldnt be allowed to have a prayer or to acknowledge God. Why? Because they dont believe therefore those that do cant show in public that they do either. Because they might be 'promoting' religion.

In your example.... the reason that "so help me God" isnt going to make a difference to you.. is because you dont believe.

[rdhopeca]

www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/31/inaugur ... index.html
Im guessing this person also forgets that the opposite is also true.

"There can be no purpose for leaving out 'so help me God' in an oath or not sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God does not exist."

Seems to me my word should be able to stand on its own without any quantifying phrasing relating to the existence of any Divine Entity (or any other entity for that matter...for example, if I added "I swear on the grave of my father"). If my word is not good, me saying "so help me God" isn't going to make a bit of difference.

Seems to me

Funny you should phrase it that way because that is kind of what the atheists are saying in this lawsuit. That even if the President elect is a believer, that they shouldnt be allowed to have a prayer or to acknowledge God. Why? Because they dont believe therefore those that do cant show in public that they do either. Because they might be 'promoting' religion.

In your example.... the reason that "so help me God" isnt going to make a difference to you.. is because you dont believe.

It also doesn't make any practical difference. It's only there to make you, who does believe, feel better about the oath I've just sworn. It has no practical impact on whether or not I will honor it.

I phrase things with a "seems to me" mostly to avoid the "hey I'm right and you're wrong" mania that tends to show up here. That's how it seems to me, ie my opinion.

[SoulBiter]

It also doesn't make any practical difference. It's only there to make you, who does believe, feel better about the oath I've just sworn. It has no practical impact on whether or not I will honor it.

As a believer, an oath that is sworn before God and perhaps to God is more binding than an oath sworn just to myself or to the public. It may or may not have any impact on those that hear it, but if the person is a true believer then that oath will be more binding. So that being the case it does have a practical impact on whether it is honored or not. I grant that it might not have any practical impact on someone who truly doesnt believe.