The crazy stuff I can't post anyplace else
Well, on one hand we have this religion that not only encourages the truth but is in itself "the Truth". This religion promotes the concept of "faith" which is our ability to believe the Truth. Those with faith will be saved and the Truth shall set them free. Those without faith will wallow in ignorance and misery and will be damned for eternity. So, if this is true, then I am choosing not to have faith at my own peril. Yeah. But it isn't, so....
Only because you personally insist it isn't so, without anything close to enough data for proof.
I have enough data to make an informed decision. The idea that I must believe in order to be saved is the first turn-off. Once I was able to state for certain that that is not true, the rest falls in place.
Funny, that's something that is required for scientism as well.
It is required for any free thinking. Its amazing what an obstacle it can be to your whole way of thinking to have to be worried about the potential consequences of unbelief. Who cares whether I believe or not?
Of what use is free thinking to the individual? I can see it being useful in certain contexts and on specific issues, but free thinking in my mind is a bit like the fundamentalist Baptist reading the Bible- all it does is turn into a mirror of your own wants and desires without illuminating the outside world at all.
Your comments about freethinkers and fundamentalists seem to suggest that we cannot think for ourselves and need the Catholic Church to guide us. Of am I reading too much into your response? Sorry. If that is what you have in mind, I have to reject that idea.
Not necessarily the Catholic Church, though with the 2000 years of church history playing around with this stuff, it's an excellent choice.But then again so is Zen Buddhism, on that scale.The real point is that objective data isn't what we think it is. Most Americans think objective=repeatable, when in reality objective=outside one's own mind.
" with the 2000 years of church history playing around with this stuff, it's an excellent choice.
2,000 years of experience does not help the Church because it is not a self-correcting entity. It proclaims a dogma and then defends it forever.
What do you mean it isn't a self correcting entity? Haven't you read Nostra Aetate? All the dogma was proclaimed 2000 years ago and hasn't changed, that's true. But there's a layer of doctrine *on top* of the dogma that changes whenever the magisterium thinks they are right (and they're darn careful about that, doctrine, on average, takes 854 years between first being proposed as a theological theory and being actually taught, and plenty of theological theories get proven wrong/useless along the way, just ask anybody who still believes in selling sacraments/sacramentals or in Limbo). In addition to that there's discipline, the small t traditions that are constantly being introduced, renewed, revoked, retranslated, re,re,re.If anything, Catholic teaching from the magisterium is the prototype for the scientific method. It's just far more conservative than the scientific method- and requires a much, much higher standard of proof.
"It's just far more conservative than the scientific method- and requires a much, much higher standard of proof."I don't know what proof you are talking about. Just about everything the Church declares is accepted on faith and does not need to be proven. That is the problem.
I would suggest staring with Augustine again if you think that. Precisely his arguments with Jerome. Theology is not called the highest science for nothing.
Post a Comment
by Ted Seeber is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.Based on a work at http://outsidetheaustisticasylum.blogspot.com.