The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[SKO]

Does it bother anyone else that so much intellectual energy has been wasted on questions of FAITH when that energy could have been used to actually advance human kind and further our understanding of the world?

You spend hours and hours in this place, but you think it's a waste of time to discuss faith, reason, meaning, etc.?  After all, you could have been out advancing human kind and furthering your understand of the world.

Sounds like someone needs a reprogramming.

You must stop imagining that posterity will vindicate you, Eli. Posterity will never hear of you. You will be lifted clean out from the stream of history. We shall turn you into gas and pour you into the stratosphere. Nothing will remain of you: not a name in a register, not a memory in a living brain. You will be annihilated in the past as well as in the future. You will never have existed.

[RD]

I realise this is a day late and all, but I just wanted to add that I wouldn't hang my hat on the advent of farming as the all important factor concerning hypertrophy of the human brain and divergence from the rest of the primates.  Damsel fishes of the Stegastes genus farm marine algae and we don't consider them some super-brained mega-animal.

[CubFaninHydePark]

Also, evolution and any Christian faith are 100% incompatible.  God could not have "created" a random process.  It ultimately doesn't jive with omnipotence, and it implies absolute predestination.  If "evolution" as it is scientifically understood is really the work of God, then not only did it (thinking of God as having a gender is just retarded--and reveals a lot about the size of the mind of those who think of God as 'He') set the wheels in motion, but it knew what every outcome for every living entity at all points in time would be at the point it set the wheels in motion.  If it didn't know this outcome, then it wouldn't be omnipotent.

I think your understanding of Christian theology and its history is lacking. I gather that you're not a Christian (or religious at all), so you probably don't give a shit, nor should you.

At the same time, it's pretty uncharitable to project what you seem to assume others' beliefs should entail onto their faith only for the sake of calling bullshit on it.

Questions of free will vs. determinism are hardly the sole province of Christian theologians. They also comes into play in decidedly atheistic philosophical debates over physicalism, for example. And some Christian theologians have in fact embraced predestination, notably by Augustine and Calvin.

As for the implications of omnipotence, you're hardly the first to raise this difficulty, among many others.

In short, these very issues have been debated and wrestled with and mulled over by some tremendous thinkers for centuries. You may well find their answers to these questions unconvincing or just plain bullshit.

But don't just flatly assume that they were all ignorant or unthinking because you think you've found some Achilles heel paradox that must have simply never occurred to them.

And honestly, any religion capable of espousing something as bizarre and counter-intuitive as the Trinity (following a heavy dose of old school Greek philosophy) is surely capable of reconciling creation with evolution.

1. I assume that followers of a faith actually embrace the faith's doctrine.  I think that "Catholics" who believe in ordaining women, think transubstantiation is impossible as it violates the law of conservation of matter, etc. aren't really Catholics.  If you don't want to play by the doctrinal rules, find the confidence to call yourself something else.  If you want the label, take on the intellectual/moral baggage.

2. It doesn't matter how many people of varying degrees of intelligence--many far smarter than me--have grappled with the omnipotism/free-will paradox.  It's debilitating.  If you want to embrace the idea of an omnipotent God, then embrace predestination.  Ultimately even "liberal" protestant faiths' official doctrines bite the predestination bullet, like Methodists.

All I really want is for people to be intellectually honest.  That means accepting the necessary logical and moral implications of identifying with a faith.

If you want to be religious, but "free" to agree/disagree with whatever you want to, there's a church for you--it's called 'Universalist.'

3. By evolution being "random," I mean that there are factors that cannot be controlled--e.g. random weather patterns that push animals to environments that require adaptation, plant germination in some direction...because it involves probability, by definition it is random, right?

4. Determinism/freewill obviously plays out across psychology, etc.  But in the religious context, there's nothing persuasive in favor of free will, IMO.

[Jon]

I disagree with your definition of "random." Evolution is heavily directed and constrained by myriad events that are not very predictable, but "random" has a meaning and implication that leads one to logical fallacies if it is used to describe Natural Selection. Random implies that anything can happen and nothing is predictable. But, as is, since the changes in speciation are very, very incremental, there are really only a few places each offspring can go in change at a generational level. Random is just not the right word.

[morpheus]

1. I assume that followers of a faith actually embrace the faith's doctrine.  I think that "Catholics" who believe in ordaining women, think transubstantiation is impossible as it violates the law of conservation of matter, etc. aren't really Catholics.  If you don't want to play by the doctrinal rules, find the confidence to call yourself something else.  If you want the label, take on the intellectual/moral baggage.

2. It doesn't matter how many people of varying degrees of intelligence--many far smarter than me--have grappled with the omnipotism/free-will paradox.  It's debilitating.  If you want to embrace the idea of an omnipotent God, then embrace predestination.  Ultimately even "liberal" protestant faiths' official doctrines bite the predestination bullet, like Methodists.

All I really want is for people to be intellectually honest.  That means accepting the necessary logical and moral implications of identifying with a faith.

If you want to be religious, but "free" to agree/disagree with whatever you want to, there's a church for you--it's called 'Universalist.'

3. By evolution being "random," I mean that there are factors that cannot be controlled--e.g. random weather patterns that push animals to environments that require adaptation, plant germination in some direction...because it involves probability, by definition it is random, right?

4. Determinism/freewill obviously plays out across psychology, etc.  But in the religious context, there's nothing persuasive in favor of free will, IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that he is (in some way) the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God understood and employed to help life grow and flourish.

This view is accepted (or at least not rejected) by major Christian churches, including Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and some mainline Protestant denominations; some Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures. Various biblical literalists have accepted or noted openness to this stance, including theologian B.B. Warfield and evangelist Billy Graham.

There's an excellent discussion of free will and Christian religions here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm .  It's not like it's irreconcilable.

[Tank]

1. I assume that followers of a faith actually embrace the faith's doctrine.  I think that "Catholics" who believe in ordaining women, think transubstantiation is impossible as it violates the law of conservation of matter, etc. aren't really Catholics.  If you don't want to play by the doctrinal rules, find the confidence to call yourself something else.  If you want the label, take on the intellectual/moral baggage.

I think that you don't understand the doctrine of Transubstantiation at all if you think it necessarily violates conservation of matter, which has nothing whatsoever to do with "substance" in the sense that it is was used by either the Scholastics or the Early Church.

Therefore I assume that your notion of what the "doctrinal rules" of Catholicism are is necessarily mistaken and, as I said earlier, uncharitable.

[Brownie]

1. I assume that followers of a faith actually embrace the faith's doctrine.  I think that "Catholics" who believe in ordaining women, think transubstantiation is impossible as it violates the law of conservation of matter, etc. aren't really Catholics.  If you don't want to play by the doctrinal rules, find the confidence to call yourself something else.  If you want the label, take on the intellectual/moral baggage.

You're taking quite a leap. Catholics who ordain women priests are not really Catholics. Catholics who disagree with the Church's teachings are Catholics, some of them very prominent Cardinals that the Vatican turns to.

As for transubstantiation, the official doctrine is that while the change in the bread and wine is undetectable, a change has occurred making the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ. The matter has not changed. Similarly, I go to Bleed Cubbie Blue and while the computer monitor has not changed as far as matter goes, the monitor is quite different from what it was before I went there.

2. It doesn't matter how many people of varying degrees of intelligence--many far smarter than me--have grappled with the omnipotism/free-will paradox.  It's debilitating.  If you want to embrace the idea of an omnipotent God, then embrace predestination.  Ultimately even "liberal" protestant faiths' official doctrines bite the predestination bullet, like Methodists.

Methodists embrace predestination?

All I really want is for people to be intellectually honest.  That means accepting the necessary logical and moral implications of identifying with a faith.

If you want to be religious, but "free" to agree/disagree with whatever you want to, there's a church for you--it's called 'Universalist.'

Intellectual honesty would also recognize that many organized religious denominations have room for disagreements, whether you are talking about Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Reform Jews, Orthodox Jews, Sunni Muslims, or Bahai.  And even the most religious have had lingering doubts about their faith. Mother Teresa had persistent doubts and disagreements with the Vatican, but are you going to suggest she's not Catholic?

4. Determinism/freewill obviously plays out across psychology, etc.  But in the religious context, there's nothing persuasive in favor of free will, IMO.

Why isn't there anything persuasive in favor of free will? Why wouldn't God, to use another bad metaphor, swallow His whistle and let us play? If this world is but a test and a dress rehearsal for the next one, why wouldn't He let us figure out how to get things right?

Tank has already articulated a position I agree with far better than I have, but let's repeat it:

In short, these very issues have been debated and wrestled with and mulled over by some tremendous thinkers for centuries. You may well find their answers to these questions unconvincing or just plain bullshit.

But don't just flatly assume that they were all ignorant or unthinking because you think you've found some Achilles heel paradox that must have simply never occurred to them.

[Philberto]

All this talk of omnipotence and God's power reminds me of something a friend of mine from college always said. He was raised a catholic, now agnostic/borderline atheist. (It was that damn librul Academia) Anyway, I'm sure you've probably heard of it, from Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" And if someone already posted this and I missed it then just DRLP me to your hearts content.

[Tank]

All this talk of omnipotence and God's power reminds me of something a friend of mine from college always said. He was raised a catholic, now agnostic/borderline atheist. (It was that damn librul Academia) Anyway, I'm sure you've probably heard of it, from Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" And if someone already posted this and I missed it then just DRLP me to your hearts content.

This—reconciling the supposed omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of God with the existence of evil—is referred to as "the problem of evil," and is one of the main tasks of theodicy.

[Philberto]

All this talk of omnipotence and God's power reminds me of something a friend of mine from college always said. He was raised a catholic, now agnostic/borderline atheist. (It was that damn librul Academia) Anyway, I'm sure you've probably heard of it, from Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" And if someone already posted this and I missed it then just DRLP me to your hearts content.

This—reconciling the supposed omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of God with the existence of evil—is referred to as "the problem of evil," and is one of the main tasks of theodicy.

The whole question of "evil" has been the main reason I don't subscribe to God in the contexts of the Bible. Now, I could imagine that someone who does would have an argument of "Well God is testing us" or something along those lines.

[Slaky]

All this talk of omnipotence and God's power reminds me of something a friend of mine from college always said. He was raised a catholic, now agnostic/borderline atheist. (It was that damn librul Academia) Anyway, I'm sure you've probably heard of it, from Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" And if someone already posted this and I missed it then just DRLP me to your hearts content.

This—reconciling the supposed omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of God with the existence of evil—is referred to as "the problem of evil," and is one of the main tasks of theodicy.

The whole question of "evil" has been the main reason I don't subscribe to God in the contexts of the Bible. Now, I could imagine that someone who does would have an argument of "Well God is testing us" or something along those lines.

He has a plan, you know. Sometimes it involves the nightmarish butchering of a loved one. But it's a plan.

[Gil Gunderson]

To address the issue of transubstantiation, Catholics believe in the distinction between the substance of a thing, in this case the essence of the bread and wine, and the accidents of the bread and wine, which would be the texture, taste, smell, etc.  The accidents are not changed at all during the Eucharist, merely the substance of the bread and wine.

[powen01]

All this talk of omnipotence and God's power reminds me of something a friend of mine from college always said. He was raised a catholic, now agnostic/borderline atheist. (It was that damn librul Academia) Anyway, I'm sure you've probably heard of it, from Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" And if someone already posted this and I missed it then just DRLP me to your hearts content.

This—reconciling the supposed omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of God with the existence of evil—is referred to as "the problem of evil," and is one of the main tasks of theodicy.

The whole question of "evil" has been the main reason I don't subscribe to God in the contexts of the Bible. Now, I could imagine that someone who does would have an argument of "Well God is testing us" or something along those lines.

He has a plan, you know. Sometimes it involves the nightmarish butchering of a loved one. But it's a plan.

Can you check the plan and let me know if I'm going to get laid this year?

[Canadouche]

You know who this conversation is perfect for?

Paul.

Where's Paul when you need him?

[Tank]

To address the issue of transubstantiation, Catholics believe in the distinction between the substance of a thing, in this case the essence of the bread and wine, and the accidents of the bread and wine, which would be the texture, taste, smell, etc.  The accidents are not changed at all during the Eucharist, merely the substance of the bread and wine.

And even this can be confusing if you don't understand that "substance" does not refer to the same concept as our colloquial use of the word (which I think would be more akin to "matter").

"Substance" as used here comes from the Latin "substantia," which was the Latin translation of the Greek "ousia," which is actually equivalent to the English "being"—but even that is imprecise—and which is also related to the Latin concept of "essence."

Even if the original Christian concept of "substance" didn't hew exactly to Aristotle's idea of it, it came around to it later under the influence of the Scholastics. Regardless, like most philosophical terms of art the concept is tricky enough one to get your mind around. (Just look at the length of this article.)

Incidentally, and not directly related (as far as I'm aware) to the theology of transubstantiation, the confusion caused by the semantic shift in the translation of the Greek ousia into the Latin substantia may have added considerably to the Arian heresy in the Early Church, which resulted in the formalization of Trinitarian Christology in the Nicene Creed and which hinged on the distinction between homoousia and homoiousia—the notorious "one iota" of difference.