Kevin's Watch

Seven Words wrote: The Catholic Church was the first and only Church for a long time. Then there was the Catholic vs. Orthodox split, then the Protestant Reformation.

Hi, 7W!

The trouble with the way you expressed your (understandably simplified) version of Church history is that when you say "Catholic", it is automatically and universally assumed to be referring to the Church of Rome, which leads back to my question:

Were there any other significant Church centers besides Rome?

.

The black hole of knowledge about the Eastern Church is a main point I'd like to make. The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) encouraged this lack of knowledge, imo, and this ignorance of history continues to this day in the West - certainly in the English-speaking world.

It would be much more accurate to say that there was one Church that gradually split apart (Copts in the 5th century - a small iceberg, the Great Schism being the major catastrophe) - and in the West, they began speaking as if the Roman Church was the only Church that ever was. And you'll find little in public school textbooks to contradict that - which is where most people get their ideas of history from).

I highly recommend Timothy Ware (now Metropolitan Kallistos)'s "The Orthodox Church", which is a thorough introduction to both the history and practices of the (Eastern) Orthodox Church.
I was just given a cool updated version; but important highlights from the book are available here: www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/englis ... ware_1.htm
(FWIW, "Father Alexander" was a (now-deceased) bishop for the ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia, now reunited with the Russian Church).)
Since it was decidedly not covered in school, I'd recommend it as a beginning to learning more.
It would do much to clarify speech, bring about precision and in general shed unexpected light on the topic. (Plus, it is neither Lewis nor Chesterton! )

Is science a religion?

nope.

rusmeister wrote:(Plus, it is neither Lewis nor Chesterton! )

I may have to nominate this post for a Watchy!

Prebe wrote:No, no! That guy was INSIDE James Earl Jones.

Eww....


Wait...like a guy inside your head? I've got a few of those.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:( www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/englis ... ware_1.htm
Plus, it is neither Lewis nor Chesterton! )

I may have to nominate this post for a Watchy!

As long as you read the link I don't mind!

Heh. No way. That link's waaaaaaaay too long. I'm not nearly that interested in the history of the Orthodox Church.

Fist and Faith wrote:Heh. No way. That link's waaaaaaaay too long. I'm not nearly that interested in the history of the Orthodox Church.

Well, ignorance (in the sense of not knowing) is a choice. It's hardly one that gives one the authority to claim to knowledge, though, and the advantage lies with those that do know something over those that don't.

Not that I don't sympathize on reading anything that takes time. But when speaking of complex things, like faith and philosophy, you can't reduce them to soundbites and pretend to know or make decisions based on knowledge.

Rus--

I think something less focused on the history of the Orthodox church, and more on the doctrines would meet a much better response. You gave me a link a while back...annoyingly large amount of history not relevant to the teachings of the faith. I did slog through the entirety of the article. Interesting intellectually, but nothing that moved me.

Seven Words wrote:Rus--

I think something less focused on the history of the Orthodox church, and more on the doctrines would meet a much better response. You gave me a link a while back...annoyingly large amount of history not relevant to the teachings of the faith. I did slog through the entirety of the article. Interesting intellectually, but nothing that moved me.

Part two of that book is the practices and doctrines of the OC.
www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/englis ... ware_2.htm

Also, a special for Fist:

If there is no design existing beforehand, and no goal existing already, how are we to know whether any entirely new thing is a good thing or not? All attempted answers to this question are evasions of the question. We may say that man must judge by his best moral standards; but that is to admit that there are standards by which we can judge the standards. We may say that he must follow where the best light leads him; but that is to admit that there is a difference between light and darkness which cannot change. And why should it not change if everything else changes?

10/15/1927

and:

What we call personality (...) has become the most impersonal thing in the world. Its pale and featureless face appears like a ghost at every corner and in every crowd. ... Individualism kills individuality, precisely because individualism has to be an 'ism' quite as much as Communism or Calvinism. The economic and ethical school which calls itself individualist ended by threatening the world with the flattest and dullest spread of the commonplace. Men, instead of being themselves, set out to find a self to be: a sort of abstract economic self identified with self-interest. But while the self was that of a man, the self-interest was generally that of a class or a trade or even an empire. So far from really remaining a separate self, the man became part of a communal mass of selfishness.

2/25/1928

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Heh. No way. That link's waaaaaaaay too long. I'm not nearly that interested in the history of the Orthodox Church.

Well, ignorance (in the sense of not knowing) is a choice. It's hardly one that gives one the authority to claim to knowledge, though, and the advantage lies with those that do know something over those that don't.

Not that I don't sympathize on reading anything that takes time. But when speaking of complex things, like faith and philosophy, you can't reduce them to soundbites and pretend to know or make decisions based on knowledge.

I don't claim to have any knowledge about the Orthodox Church. I have never made such a claim. I have never had, much less expressed, an interest in acquiring such knowledge. Are you suggesting that only those who possess such knowledge can claim knowledge of faith or philosophy?

Again, I'm discussing the ideas I'm discussing because they are a starting point. Again, I don't have reason to believe there's any creator at all. But, since I have no reason to rule out the possibility, I like to explore it. If there is one, I'd surely like to know about it! However, understanding Constantine's role in the history of the Orthodox Church, the different things people mean when they say "The Church," "Catholicism," and various other things, is not remotely the place to start. Suggesting it is is silly. In fact, as billions of people have proved, believing there is a creator may never include these topics.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Heh. No way. That link's waaaaaaaay too long. I'm not nearly that interested in the history of the Orthodox Church.

Well, ignorance (in the sense of not knowing) is a choice. It's hardly one that gives one the authority to claim to knowledge, though, and the advantage lies with those that do know something over those that don't.

Not that I don't sympathize on reading anything that takes time. But when speaking of complex things, like faith and philosophy, you can't reduce them to soundbites and pretend to know or make decisions based on knowledge.

I don't claim to have any knowledge about the Orthodox Church. I have never made such a claim. I have never had, much less expressed, an interest in acquiring such knowledge. Are you suggesting that only those who possess such knowledge can claim knowledge of faith or philosophy?

Again, I'm discussing the ideas I'm discussing because they are a starting point. Again, I don't have reason to believe there's any creator at all. But, since I have no reason to rule out the possibility, I like to explore it. If there is one, I'd surely like to know about it! However, understanding Constantine's role in the history of the Orthodox Church, the different things people mean when they say "The Church," "Catholicism," and various other things, is not remotely the place to start. Suggesting it is is silly. In fact, as billions of people have proved, believing there is a creator may never include these topics.

First of all, you know very well that ignorance of a position makes it extraordinarily difficult to deny that position. Secondly, my remarks also generally assume a general audience, as they are not private.

All I can do is show that my faith is at least as reasonable as anything you believe, and not less so. Further, I hold it as an advantage that it is not "my" belief; ie, it is not something that I myself formulated, but rather discovered - which is generally the nature of truths that are acknowledged to be such.

Umberto Eco:

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

danlo wrote:Umberto Eco:

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

Foucault's Pendulum! I should read that [yet] again.

Awesome quote.

Don't remember it from the book, but that's scarcely surprising, there's so much stuff in it. Perhaps I should re-read it again too. (Enjoyed it, but prefered In the Name of the Rose to be honest. An easier read anyway.)

--A

rusmeister wrote:First of all, you know very well that ignorance of a position makes it extraordinarily difficult to deny that position.

Yes. But what are you talking about? I do not make the slightest attempt to deny the Orthodox Church. I do not address it at all. I'm not going to get into the specifics of any religious system before I have reason to believe there's a creator. That's all I've been talking about. (Well, and saying you are wrong that the only possible endpoint for those who truly believe that there is no objective, God-given meaning is despair.) I'm trying to examine the possibility of a creator from whatever angle anybody suggests.

-Does the universe need to have been created? All things being equal, it is no more or less reasonable to believe that a universe can be uncreated than that an infinite creator of a universe can be uncreated. But all things are not equal. I have no reason to believe a creator exists, yet I have every conceivable reason to believe the universe exists. Therefore, in this case, as opposed to theoretically, it is more reasonable to believe the universe was uncreated.

-I've read Lewis' idea of a moral compass. I did not agree with his premise. I've begun rereading it, to see if I still disagree, since it's been a while, and I can't honestly say I remember what he said in great detail. But in the first couple chapters, he interprets what we all see much differently than I do. Therefore, this approach isn't giving me evidence of a creator.

-I have to try Miracles again, and see if I can interpret what he said in a way other than what it seems. Because if he is saying what I think he is, I disagree early on there, too. And if the premise of his chain of logic is wrong, then all the links in that chain are already invalid.

rusmeister wrote:Secondly, my remarks also generally assume a general audience, as they are not private.

Granted. However, if you and I are having a conversation, public though it may be, we can't be blamed for assuming that our remarks to each other address each others' points.

rusmeister wrote:All I can do is show that my faith is at least as reasonable as anything you believe, and not less so.

Heh. I'm sure you consider your faith MUCH more reasonable than anything I believe. Just as I consider what I believe much more reasonable than your faith. We all filter reality through our own, individual brains and perspectives, eh? How could either of us not think our way more reasonable than any other.

rusmeister wrote:Further, I hold it as an advantage that it is not "my" belief; ie, it is not something that I myself formulated, but rather discovered - which is generally the nature of truths that are acknowledged to be such.

Exactly the same with me and my belief. Although I don't truly consider it "belief." I simply speak what I observe. It's not so much a belief that there's no creator; I simply don't observe one. If I observe one, it will not be a belief, it will be an observation.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:First of all, you know very well that ignorance of a position makes it extraordinarily difficult to deny that position.

Yes. But what are you talking about? I do not make the slightest attempt to deny the Orthodox Church. I do not address it at all. I'm not going to get into the specifics of any religious system before I have reason to believe there's a creator. That's all I've been talking about. (Well, and saying you are wrong that the only possible endpoint for those who truly believe that there is no objective, God-given meaning is despair.) I'm trying to examine the possibility of a creator from whatever angle anybody suggests.

-Does the universe need to have been created? All things being equal, it is no more or less reasonable to believe that a universe can be uncreated than that an infinite creator of a universe can be uncreated. But all things are not equal. I have no reason to believe a creator exists, yet I have every conceivable reason to believe the universe exists. Therefore, in this case, as opposed to theoretically, it is more reasonable to believe the universe was uncreated.

-I've read Lewis' idea of a moral compass. I did not agree with his premise. I've begun rereading it, to see if I still disagree, since it's been a while, and I can't honestly say I remember what he said in great detail. But in the first couple chapters, he interprets what we all see much differently than I do. Therefore, this approach isn't giving me evidence of a creator.

-I have to try Miracles again, and see if I can interpret what he said in a way other than what it seems. Because if he is saying what I think he is, I disagree early on there, too. And if the premise of his chain of logic is wrong, then all the links in that chain are already invalid.

rusmeister wrote:Secondly, my remarks also generally assume a general audience, as they are not private.

Granted. However, if you and I are having a conversation, public though it may be, we can't be blamed for assuming that our remarks to each other address each others' points.

rusmeister wrote:All I can do is show that my faith is at least as reasonable as anything you believe, and not less so.

Heh. I'm sure you consider your faith MUCH more reasonable than anything I believe. Just as I consider what I believe much more reasonable than your faith. We all filter reality through our own, individual brains and perspectives, eh? How could either of us not think our way more reasonable than any other.

rusmeister wrote:Further, I hold it as an advantage that it is not "my" belief; ie, it is not something that I myself formulated, but rather discovered - which is generally the nature of truths that are acknowledged to be such.

Exactly the same with me and my belief. Although I don't truly consider it "belief." I simply speak what I observe. It's not so much a belief that there's no creator; I simply don't observe one. If I observe one, it will not be a belief, it will be an observation.

Thanks, Fist. There is much I agree with and grant.
Refutations that remain:
1) One thing that we do generally find in this universe is that phenomena have origins - there is no phenomenon that can be shown to be uncreated, and any number that can be shown to be created. Thus, even though you know the universe exists, everything we see in it points to the necessity of it having originated somehow and nothing points to eternal uncreation - you may use this as an argument against the existence of God, but it is equally an argument against an uncreated universe. I see that as unarguable. That's where I have to say that your logic is wrong.

2) In chapter one of MC, this is Lewis's premise:

First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

And this is where I would have to give it up. If that is what you do not agree with, then we are back to Chinese and the end of all discussions. If what you observe actually completely denies that, then it is like a conversation between people living on completely different planets. But perhaps it is merely a matter of identifying the exact point at which you disagree with him.

I do agree with your point on the chain in Miracles. In fact, there was one point (in the Socratic Club where he read his works and probably the most ideal debates between believers and unbelievers ever were organized) where he was grilled by a sharp thinker and ultimately rewrote that part of his argument - but it underwent heavy vetting before publication.
It remains to be seen whether there really is a serious weakness.

By the way, I'd like to wish you and all Watchers here a Merry Christmas!!! (and that, if true, the Incarnation and Resurrection are the most important events in human history!)

rusmeister wrote:1) One thing that we do generally find in this universe is that phenomena have origins - there is no phenomenon that can be shown to be uncreated, and any number that can be shown to be created. Thus, even though you know the universe exists, everything we see in it points to the necessity of it having originated somehow and nothing points to eternal uncreation - you may use this as an argument against the existence of God, but it is equally an argument against an uncreated universe. I see that as unarguable. That's where I have to say that your logic is wrong.

My logic tells me that, if everything must have a cause, we have a chain stretching into an infinite past. And that's another possibility. Our universe may, indeed, have been caused by something. Maybe even a creator. And that cause or creator would also have been caused by something.

But if you want to say there is not an infinite chain of C&E behind us, that something was uncaused, then it is no more logical to assume it is an unverifiable creator than the verifiable universe.

rusmeister wrote:2) In chapter one of MC, this is Lewis's premise:

First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

And this is where I would have to give it up. If that is what you do not agree with, then we are back to Chinese and the end of all discussions. If what you observe actually completely denies that, then it is like a conversation between people living on completely different planets. But perhaps it is merely a matter of identifying the exact point at which you disagree with him.

Correct. That is what I do not agree with. Not all human beings have an idea that they ought to behave in a certain way. There's no way to get accurate numbers on these things, but if there way, I'd bet that not even the majority of people agree that they should not steal. The fact that so many do steal suggests that they do not feel they shouldn't.

And this is the problem with Lewis. His real starting point is that God give us a moral compass. And if individuals aren't behaving as though we have one, there must be a reason that we are ignoring it.

The real starting poing should be, if individuals aren't all behaving according to some moral compass, we don't have reason to believe there is a moral compass.

What we really have around us is individuals behaving many different ways. There is variation all around us, in all things we look at. From the composition of stars to the composition of atoms. It should come as no surprise that human beliefs and behaviors also vary. So:

-Some do feel the way Lewis says all do.

-Some feel very different than the way Lewis says they do. (Some about certain topics, others about other topics.) They do not think the restrictions on behavior that society must, if it is to survive, place on us are morally better than they way they feel. But they follow the rules anyway, because they don't want the consequences that society gives for breaking them.

-Some feel very different than the way Lewis says they do. (Some about certain topics, others about other topics.) They do not think the restrictions on behavior that society must, if it is to survive, place on us are morally better than they way they feel. And they try to break those rules in sneaky ways. The can't or won't stop themselves from acting the ways they don't feel are wrong in the first place. They don't think they should have to. Still, they don't want to be fined or go to jail, so they aren't obvious about it.

-Some are obvious about it. They don't give a damn about the rules society must have if it is to survive. They don't care if society survives. They believe they'd be happier in anarchy. "If it's survival of the fittest, I'm gonna be fittest!"

rusmeister wrote:By the way, I'd like to wish you and all Watchers here a Merry Christmas!!! (and that, if true, the Incarnation and Resurrection are the most important events in human history!)

Merry Christmas to you!! To me, Christmas is family; seeing kids' faces light up when they open presents; hearing them laughing and playing; good food;... But, even if it means those things to you (and I realize it may not), it has other meaning entirely. And I'm very happy that that meaning brings you the joy and fulfillment it does!

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:1) One thing that we do generally find in this universe is that phenomena have origins - there is no phenomenon that can be shown to be uncreated, and any number that can be shown to be created. Thus, even though you know the universe exists, everything we see in it points to the necessity of it having originated somehow and nothing points to eternal uncreation - you may use this as an argument against the existence of God, but it is equally an argument against an uncreated universe. I see that as unarguable. That's where I have to say that your logic is wrong.

My logic tells me that, if everything must have a cause, we have a chain stretching into an infinite past. And that's another possibility. Our universe may, indeed, have been caused by something. Maybe even a creator. And that cause or creator would also have been caused by something.

But if you want to say there is not an infinite chain of C&E behind us, that something was uncaused, then it is no more logical to assume it is an unverifiable creator than the verifiable universe.

Ding ding ding!

I meant to have observed sooner (and might have, I dunno, and too lazy to go back and check, but the thought occurred to me again just now) that I think it was Lewis who said something about only the Judeo-Christians have a God who was actively involved in creating the world.

Sorry, but that's crap. Even a cursory study of myths shows that many cultures' origin myths feature active divine involvement in the creation of the Earth.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:1) One thing that we do generally find in this universe is that phenomena have origins - there is no phenomenon that can be shown to be uncreated, and any number that can be shown to be created. Thus, even though you know the universe exists, everything we see in it points to the necessity of it having originated somehow and nothing points to eternal uncreation - you may use this as an argument against the existence of God, but it is equally an argument against an uncreated universe. I see that as unarguable. That's where I have to say that your logic is wrong.

My logic tells me that, if everything must have a cause, we have a chain stretching into an infinite past. And that's another possibility. Our universe may, indeed, have been caused by something. Maybe even a creator. And that cause or creator would also have been caused by something.

But if you want to say there is not an infinite chain of C&E behind us, that something was uncaused, then it is no more logical to assume it is an unverifiable creator than the verifiable universe.

It seems to me that your logic ignores the combination of two facts:
1) that there is no thing we can find in this universe that is actually uncaused; that everything, in fact, has a cause.
2) the law of entropy
These two, combined, deny any infinity of C+E. Ergo, the earth (and by extension, the universe) had a definite starting point. Thus, one is back to either random formation (out of what???) or special creation. Both are EQUALLY unprovable and incredible. The fact that the universe exists does not in any way deny the points I listed above or make infinite existence of an existing thing whose every sign shows that it CAN'T have infinitely existed somehow "more logical" merely by the fact of its existing.

"What DO they teach them at school these days?"

Prof. Digory Kirke*

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:2) In chapter one of MC, this is Lewis's premise:

First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

And this is where I would have to give it up. If that is what you do not agree with, then we are back to Chinese and the end of all discussions. If what you observe actually completely denies that, then it is like a conversation between people living on completely different planets. But perhaps it is merely a matter of identifying the exact point at which you disagree with him.

Correct. That is what I do not agree with. Not all human beings have an idea that they ought to behave in a certain way. There's no way to get accurate numbers on these things, but if there way, I'd bet that not even the majority of people agree that they should not steal. The fact that so many do steal suggests that they do not feel they shouldn't.

And this is the problem with Lewis. His real starting point is that God give us a moral compass. And if individuals aren't behaving as though we have one, there must be a reason that we are ignoring it.

The real starting poing should be, if individuals aren't all behaving according to some moral compass, we don't have reason to believe there is a moral compass.

What we really have around us is individuals behaving many different ways. There is variation all around us, in all things we look at. From the composition of stars to the composition of atoms. It should come as no surprise that human beliefs and behaviors also vary. So:

-Some do feel the way Lewis says all do.

-Some feel very different than the way Lewis says they do. (Some about certain topics, others about other topics.) They do not think the restrictions on behavior that society must, if it is to survive, place on us are morally better than they way they feel. But they follow the rules anyway, because they don't want the consequences that society gives for breaking them.

-Some feel very different than the way Lewis says they do. (Some about certain topics, others about other topics.) They do not think the restrictions on behavior that society must, if it is to survive, place on us are morally better than they way they feel. And they try to break those rules in sneaky ways. The can't or won't stop themselves from acting the ways they don't feel are wrong in the first place. They don't think they should have to. Still, they don't want to be fined or go to jail, so they aren't obvious about it.

-Some are obvious about it. They don't give a damn about the rules society must have if it is to survive. They don't care if society survives. They believe they'd be happier in anarchy. "If it's survival of the fittest, I'm gonna be fittest!"

I can completely grant that people feel that way about laws of society - which, at their best, only reflect attempts at the human ideal, and that that in no way negates Lewis's point. The answer is that people feel that way about laws that they feel are actually unjust. If the command against stealing means that the rich may steal from the poor, but the poor may not steal from the rich (as is usually the case), then the rich will feel that the law is a good thing and the poor feel that the law is wrong. However, as outside observers both you and I (and anyone else) would agree that such a state of affairs is wrong, and that such laws ought to be thrown out in favor of laws supporting a fair and just society for all. However, if there is a fair and just law regarding stealing (your example), show me the person who will say there ought to be no such law ensuring that poor and rich alike really are subject to and I will show you a mentally and/or spiritually ill person - an extreme exception, and the kind that a healthy and viable society restrains. In fact, where such laws really do exist, those who steal really do everything they can to justify it and do not, in fact, say 'to hell with that standard'; at the very least, they really do appeal to that standard when it works in their favor; they actually do get angry when someone steals from them - they do not philosophically hold that everyone has an equal right to disdain those standards; they always make an exception in their own case. People actually do not differ on this point, and so we are back to a compass. Lewis doesn't "start with the compass" - he comes to it reasonably.



*I actually think I know the answer to this question, based on my special experience with both public and private education, but it's a looong answer.