What is Truth?

I find it really interesting when people put down Catholicism as mere opinion, then put forth some suspect science as "reality" with the only proof being that it is "new". Reminds me of Stanford Nutting:

Comments

Theodore M. Seeber said…
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....
July 25, 2013 at 3:08 AM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
Only because you personally insist it isn't so, without anything close to enough data for proof.
July 25, 2013 at 6:10 AM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
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.
July 25, 2013 at 7:13 AM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
Funny, that's something that is required for scientism as well.
July 25, 2013 at 7:52 AM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
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?
July 25, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
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.
July 25, 2013 at 10:10 AM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
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.
July 25, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
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.
July 25, 2013 at 11:35 AM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
" with the 2000 years of church history playing around with this stuff, it's an excellent choice.
July 25, 2013 at 12:53 PM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
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.
July 25, 2013 at 12:58 PM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
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.
July 25, 2013 at 1:05 PM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
"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.
July 26, 2013 at 2:53 AM
Theodore M. Seeber said…
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.
July 26, 2013 at 6:51 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Father claims 15 year old girl is capable of consent in Lesbian Rape Case

Father claims 15 year old girl from another family is capable of consent : I'm beginning to really like the change in Florida's government.  First they stop handing out welfare checks to junkies.  Now they are treating Lesbians under the same rules as Heterosexuals, gasp, what a concept!  Don't sign this petition unless you are FOR statutory rape of younger girls by predatory lesbians. How many 18 year old boys have been prosecuted for having sex with 16 year old women under "minors can't give consent"?    Special treatment for lesbians?  Please, no.
Read more

Fundamentalist Atheism

Strange Notions is a new Disqus site run by Brandon Vogt to try to discuss Rationality and Reason with Athiests. He may well succeed with some, but there is one subset of atheism he will never succeed with. On Richard Dawkin's spectrum of theistic probability , those with a score 6 and above often fall into something I term fundamentalist atheism. Many of them come from fundamentalist Christian backgrounds, if not in their generation, then within three generations of their recent past. Fundamentalist Atheism starts with the assumption that the supernatural doesn't exist and that the natural world is all there is, and runs with it, denying any data to the contrary. I've always been one to consider the natural to be a subset of the supernatural- that is the only real difference between the natural and the supernatural to me is the line of the shared scientific knowledge of mankind. A scientist, therefore, if he is to learn anything new about the universe, needs to have h...
Read more

Call them what you like, Broken Families are still a TRAGEDY!

Yes, liberals value family , but not enough to recognize that a broken family is a tragedy. Divorce is actually worse than death as far as the grieving process goes- especially when there are children, custody battles, parental support, and alimony involved. And homosexuals raising children? That is tragic, not something to be celebrated. Maybe if we'd *recognize* that a broken family is a tragedy we would be more willing to say, pay taxes for WIC so that the single mother working a minimum wage job actually has the ability to choose life. Maybe we'd have more men willing to stick around and help raise the children they cause because the condom broke while they were stupidly using sex only for recreation. Maybe, just maybe, we'd be raising men instead of a generation of cowardly wimps who choose homosexuality and suicide over real life. Suffering and tragedy is valuable- but only if we recognize that it exists.
Read more