An Interesting Quote;

[peter]

Absolutely not Wos! But it might take time on a Grand Scale! It's going to take an hour for me to sort out the first sentence of your above post.........

( Only kidding, but I do need to nail down some meanings in order to 'tighten up' my understanding of what you have said.)

[Skyweir]

+JMJ+

We, in the evolution of our minds, have conceptualised what we take 'being' to be. This conception is on pretty shakey ground if subjected to rigorous probing philosophically speaking - there's an entire branch of the discipline devoted to it isn't there? By this logic I'm thinking there might be whole armies of God's out there beyond the limits of of our powers of understanding (of the nature of being). Granted, this will have no bearing on the original quote because it will by definition be beyond our purview, our concept of being being tied intimately with extension in time and space within our own Universe.

I would have you keep in mind that, at least from the Catholic POV, the regulative principle involved regarding the knowledge/correspondence between the Creation and the Creator is neither that of Equivocity (an absolute unknowing which would sanction a fanciful irrationalism/fideism) nor that of Univocity (an absolute knowing which would establish a tamely predictable, colorless cult of Reason) but, rather, that of Analogy.

Not only, as I'd said earlier, is this methodological Analogicity demanded by the structure of Catholicity itself, but further, it is expressly formulated by the Fourth Lateran Council: "One cannot note any similarity between Creator and creature, however great, without being compelled to note an even greater dissimilarity between them." ("maior dissimulitudo in tanta similitudine")

Though there's prolly more I could say, I'd better stop here for now. Cuz there's a whole universe of Catholic culture here to unpack, and that might bore everyone to tears.

Are you saying that the relationship is simply analogous. If so smacks of Croissan who says pretty much everything is allegorical.. that nothing in the Bible is literal or really even historical .. ie the historical Christ. That he is a representation of a revolutionary new way of thinking and hence being. I guess more of a philosophy in reality.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Absolutely not Wos! But it might take time on a Grand Scale! It's going to take an hour for me to sort out the first sentence of your above post.........

( Only kidding, but I do need to nail down some meanings in order to 'tighten up' my understanding of what you have said.)

Here is a remarkably helpful thumbnail encapsulation: The Golden Key to Thomas Aquinas: Analogy

And though I'm not just pawning you off on a book …

If yer interested in further reading, I'd suggest starting here: Proofs of God: Classical Arguments from Tertullian to Barth



Though I've not read it, the little I've read from Levering has been eminently worth the time.

——————————————————————————————

Are you saying that the relationship is simply analogous. If so smacks of Croissan who says pretty much everything is allegorical.. that nothing in the Bible is literal or really even historical .. ie the historical Christ. That he is a representation of a revolutionary new way of thinking and hence being. I guess more of a philosophy in reality.

[Skyweir]

So what are you saying then

[Vraith]

So what are you saying then

The same thing all the similar [hah...so much the same you can't help noticing how different they are....which MUST mean so damn different you can't help notice how identical they are....] say:

You have to believe to know.
Funny thing....as far as I can tell, the official position of all Christian churches is that postmodernism and relativity [in the moral/social, not the physics sense] are somewhere between nonsense and the First Word of the Devil.
But share essentials...and I MEAN essential. Can't survive without it.

[[can't anyway, but can't even fool a 7 year old, which is why indoctrination begins before vocalization]].
Read the books...better yet, read Aq. He fails...but it's a strong, thoughtful, challenging failure.
Unlike all the people who think he was successful and write about/explain it by explaining what he really meant...which he, in fact, didn't mean...so he must have meant it, analogically.
All the same.
Or all the different.
Or both.

[Skyweir]

You have to believe to know
But if you KNOW you have no need of belief



Wos Please, please return and elaborate further ... lol .. but refrain from using really BIG words

Do you think religiously minded folk can rationalise their belief with logic Or is it there that faith must fill in the gaps. If so its a convenient and rather clever substitute for knowing .. from a religious perspective

[peter]

Don't know if this holds true - but I'd guess that in the face of an evermore rational understanding of the world we live in there would be ever increasing pressure to rationalize any aspect of it you were presenting as a belief system or structure upon which you asked people to hang there lives. After the enlightenment I'm thinking that this approach would cut it less and their would be something of a return toward where (I'm again thinking) we are now; that most people who believe do so more on the basis of faith than ratiocination.

[Skyweir]

Fuck I had to look up ... ratiocination .. I was sure it was a typo disaster .. but actually a word .. for the process of reasoning .. or rationale .. who knew

I have to say I worked in law enforcement, national security in government policy and in law and theres a push to use plain English .. its actually the fashion .. so instead of using obtuse vernacular you use plain English .. what about we take that challenge

Youre all reasonably intelligent folk .. what about try to convert complex meaning into simple language.. just for fun and see where we get with it

I do think though religious leaning humans do engage in ratiinalisation.... otherwise we wouldnt have the invention of .. intelligent ent design ..

And what cant be adequately rationalised is put up as an exercise in faith. At the end of the day when humans cant reconcile jarring gaps in reason they employ cognitive dissonanace ... and thereby are able to increase the longevity of their belief structures.

Thats been my experience .. but .. we dont all travel on the same paths ..

[peter]

C'mon Sky - how many times a week do I get to use the word ratiocination; if I can't use it on you guys on the Watch ......where can I? The volumes of verbose verbiage peppering my procrastinations, pertinacious and profligate in equal alliquot, are fundamental features of it's frivolous function!

[Skyweir]

mmm.. acquiescing to your prolix use of alliteration and your vexing inclination for loquaciousness .. I am beholden to inform and forewarn you that it will result in arguably limited utility and at least in my reduced comprehension capability



Fuck that for a joke

[Vraith]

mmm.. acquiescing to your prolix use of alliteration and your vexing inclination for loquaciousness .. I am beholden to inform and forewarn you that it will result in arguably limited utility and at least in my reduced comprehension capability



Fuck that for a joke

The only problem with that is the peter is anti-loquacious. But kudos.
Also--[prior post] I didn't know you were "The Man"
Must occasionally [given your other things] give you a fun moment---
Like when people give me a military-perspective lecture/slap and I say "I'm a vet."

[Skyweir]

On your first ... Petes pretty chatty .. and when you add to that his penchant for vocabulary flourishing .... I hold by my loquacious... call

On your second .. it would seem a lot of folks these days think Im A man .. now my whole life makes complete sense .... and all these years at the Watch when everyone assumed I was A man .. lol ... cos I sound like a dude ... or worse, look like one ... lol ... but I seriously digress ..

.. so back to your second ... do you guys in the US call anyone who works for govt in particular law enforcement THE man ... then ... yup

On your third .. yes and hell yes

Less fun sometimes too lol .. especially Im talking .. oh say firearms ... when they tell me Im talking shit .. and Im fucking not .. in those scenarios less fun is had But I concede Australia is VERY VERY different to what I hear the US is like


Maybe THATS it .. its an Aussie thing .. not that Im a true Aussie .. being ex pat Brit and all

[Vraith]

o you guys in the US call anyone who works for govt in particular law enforcement THE man ... then ... yup

Yea, pretty much nowadays. Law enforcement is the more common application now...originally it was more Fed/Military...
[[[Got a letter from the MAN
Sending me to VietNAM...

when I was in..
Sending me to I-I-RAN.

we all chanted at basic, being bad-ass fuckers doing our kill-duty for shits in ties making speeches.

it MAY be older than 'Nam, and have other histories, but I don't know them.
And it's all tangled up with African-American usages/applications/histories.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

[...]

Wos Please, please return and elaborate further ... lol .. but refrain from using really BIG words

Do you think religiously minded folk can rationalise their belief with logic Or is it there that faith must fill in the gaps. If so its a convenient and rather clever substitute for knowing .. from a religious perspective

I'm not really sure what you're asking. Are you having trouble with Analogy? Something else?

Are you even sure what you're asking?

Just off the bat, if you're thinking that I'm suggesting that one can "get to" Revealed Faith (i.e. the specific content of Catholic Faith) by the use of Reason or Logic acting alone, then no, I'm not saying that.

[Skyweir]

Hahaha ... fair criticisms all

So ... where for example scientific knowledge conflicts with religious understanding and disparity results .. how do you as a proponent of religion deal with that.

From an outside observer. I see the development of so called Intelligent Design .. as being an effort of religion in that direction

How then is it possible to perpetuate religious belief in the face of scientific discovery

You are a very intelligent human, there is absolutely no doubt about that .. but how does intelligence survive in the face of belief

You see, what I have observed is that when the fact vs faith arises .. you often are directed to simply exercise faith, or are told ... only god knows .. and ... there are some things humans are not meant to know etc.

My experience in life and in religion was one that challenged that approach by questioning.. asking questions, searching and researching .. when I came across an inconsistency... of which there are innumerable in the Bible .... the answer I always got was ... never mind .. the ways of god are mysterious

That to me is unsatisfactory .. as a response. Why are they mysterious, what advantages are in their mystery Its just an act or expression of convenience. Not questioning .. does not challenge belief .. it perpetuates it in the blindest possible way.

Now .. hopefully you can make sense of some of that
And ... youre welcome

[Skyweir]

o you guys in the US call anyone who works for govt in particular law enforcement THE man ... then ... yup

Yea, pretty much nowadays. Law enforcement is the more common application now...originally it was more Fed/Military...
[[[Got a letter from the MAN
Sending me to VietNAM...

when I was in..
Sending me to I-I-RAN.

we all chanted at basic, being bad-ass fuckers doing our kill-duty for shits in ties making speeches.

it MAY be older than 'Nam, and have other histories, but I don't know them.
And it's all tangled up with African-American usages/applications/histories.

Yeah I cant begin to even imagine what that was like. We dont have a kill duty in law enforcement.. lol .. thank god. In fact there are significant disincentives to discharging s firearm period .. though there are times when you have no alternative to shooting.

Its a smaller world here too .. yes things go pear shaped with unwanted frequency ... and I have seen and dealt with a lot of fucked up shit. Seen more death, cruelty, misery and gratuitous violence than Im comfortable with. My baby girl wanted to follow in her mums footsteps and applied for the Australian Federal Police .. I didnt want that for her.

I cant see shit like that and my stomach not turn. Its a hard job and a thankless one. No one wants you .. till they need you. And I get that .. I do. Sometimes you need to talk about the shit, but mostly you cant. Because its too much for most people. Most people prefer to live in their bubbles and thats pretty appealing. Its a job that wears you down. We have course reunions regularly .. some have wised up and moved on to other jobs ... we are coming up to 35 years soon. Its a long slog. Those that remain in the job that long, age. I moved to federal law enforcement when we moved to the capital and worked on a number of task forces and across various directorates with far better conditions. So yeah the man I might be guilty right there of waxing lyrical

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Hahaha ... fair criticisms all

So ... where for example scientific knowledge conflicts with religious understanding and disparity results .. how do you as a proponent of religion deal with that.

From an outside observer. I see the development of so called Intelligent Design .. as being an effort of religion in that direction

How then is it possible to perpetuate religious belief in the face of scientific discovery

You are a very intelligent human, there is absolutely no doubt about that .. but how does intelligence survive in the face of belief

You see, what I have observed is that when the fact vs faith arises .. you often are directed to simply exercise faith, or are told ... only god knows .. and ... there are some things humans are not meant to know etc.

My experience in life and in religion was one that challenged that approach by questioning.. asking questions, searching and researching .. when I came across an inconsistency... of which there are innumerable in the Bible .... the answer I always got was ... never mind .. the ways of god are mysterious

That to me is unsatisfactory .. as a response. Why are they mysterious, what advantages are in their mystery Its just an act or expression of convenience. Not questioning .. does not challenge belief .. it perpetuates it in the blindest possible way.

Now .. hopefully you can make sense of some of that
And ... youre welcome

Firstly, it seems like yer asking me to play the apologist. Thing is, I'm not an apologist, not even an armchair one. Apologists spend their time trying to convince various non-Catholic interests that Catholics aren't crazy/wrongheaded/evil. Nothing wrong with being an apologist, of course. They do valuable work for the Church. I'm simply not one.

Secondly, beyond reciting ubiquitous platitudes (which I'm not saying are untrue, of course) to the effect that Catholicity and science (or more accurately, Faith and Reason) are are compatible, I would probably just stand on the flat incompatibility of Catholicity with "Scientism" (which is a philosophical interpretation of scientific data). Scientism, though dominant paradigm unconsciously assumed by most science nonspecialists, has largely been abandoned (or at least, has widely been put in question) within specialist circles -- both those of hard-scientists and of philosophers -- whether atheist, secularist, christian, agnostic, etc. There are good books on the ill-founded aspirations of Scientism, some of which I could recommend if the need arose.

Thirdly, I think it would be generally unfruitful and/or counterproductive to try to "Wos-splain" the Catholic (or a Catholic) perspective. Catholicity is a living tradition; a "divine family". As Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) said, "Christianity is not an intellectual system, a collection of dogmas, or a moralism [although it does entail these obligations -- Wos]. Christianity is an encounter, a love story; it is an event."

As such, it's prolly best that, if you find yer curiosity or incredulity piqued, you simply casually "follow" good ol' Wos as he dutifully goes about his daily drudgery here on the Watch. Things might very well intermittently fall-into-place in haphazard bits-and-pieces over the long haul. But then again, they might not. Wos might not be the one to make Catholicity sing for you. Either way, even though "now is the day of salvation", it would do no good for me to disturb either your peace or mine with sensationalistic histrionics or facile argumentation.

At any rate, if you ever became that curious about the Catholic enigma, my advice would always be to "Come and See!" by starting with your local parish. I've got nothing that you couldn't find there, given the investment of your own goodwill and effort.

[Skyweir]

Ok well I guess we will have to leave it there then.

I dont believe in the existence of a jesus. Historically or in its divine being. There is no evidence

... only faith. The Bible itself is riddled with conflict and contradiction and a lot of retrospective reworking.



I respect you and understand this is your faith

I dont understand .. but thats my lack not yours.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

[...]

I dont believe in the existence of a jesus. Historically ...

[...]

I didn't know that this was a common position amongst current historians. Of course, that's not much of a surprise, since -- amongst other things -- I don't follow a lot of current historical or archaeological research/trends.

True dat, if there was no historical Jesus, then that certainly puts the kibosh on everything else. Paul's "If Christ has not been raised, our faith is in vain", certainly covers "If Christ never existed from the get-go, ...".

[Skyweir]

Tips hat in Woses general direction