I have in mind to set out plainly what I often say to those who have been deprived, sometimes robbed of an authentic faith, by the heresy of Calvinism. It is the case that often people will feel overwhelmed by the semantics, the conflations, the prevarications, the assumptions, and the general confusion of Calvinism. Not to mention the perplexity the paradox, the heresy of Calvinism brings to the human mind, because of its cruelty and its mercilessness, its uncompromising absolutism. Many people feel a slave to Calvinism, some are never at rest in their own faith and theology (and they ought not be), others don't know how to refute and therefore defend themselves from the blight of this heresy, still others don't know how to save their loved ones from this insidious error. I intend to lay many of these refutations out in the form of syllogism, as it seems most concise, and most effective. So much then for Calvinism and explanations.
The first place to begin is with God, and it seems reasonable to start at the beginning. The greatest question in regards to Calvin's heterodoxy is God's sovereignty. What does it mean? The onus is on the Calvinist to prove that double predestination is a necessary accident of the qualities of God. Further, the onus in on the Calvinist to prove that by predestination it is meant 'double predestination,' and not something more observable, demonstrable, and reasonable.
In order to talk about God's sovereignty, we must talk about what he can do, what he must do, and if there be anything that he cannot do, we must find that, too. We will, we must, take for granted, as a preliminary, that evil is the lack of some good, virtue, or knowledge. This is the classical form of evil, the working model, the very model used by the scholastics and therefore, by John Calvin himself. Indeed, it has always been the view of evil held by Christianity, and therefore does not need to be explained.
So, let us begin briskly, by getting to the quick of it, and saying that God can do anything good, and that he is the cause of every good. Everything which actually exists, or may actually exist owes itself and it's cause to him. Further, let it be stated that all these are accidents of God, not necessary to God: for God is sovereign and without needs. Indeed, nothing can be added to him or taken away. Everything in nature must exist for the sake of itself, God receiving full glory. So much then for what God can do.
For the question of what he must do, the answer is similar. He must do what is right, which is different than what is just. Otherwise, he would not have the capacity for mercy. Therefore, being a just and merciful God, he must do what is right. Being omniscient and benevolent, he can do no wrong, and is without error. But if he predestines all things, then his will is synonymous with the actions, thoughts, and intentions of man, whom Calvin says is 'totally depraved.'
The Calvinist will reply to that sorry fate of the one predestined to be 'a vessel of wrath,' predestined to damnation, without a choice or a chance, other than that of farce," God is sovereign. Who are you to question his ways. And will the pot question the potter, as to why he made it thus?" Then, to add license to this vulgar argument, they will make it an ad verecundiam, implicating St. Paul as the main progenitor of such vulgarity. All this, when it is clear to see that God is merely saying through his servant," I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy." For it is not always right and good to have mercy, least of all upon the unrepentant, nor in the case of the man who will profit more from punishment.
None of this, however, hides the most saline point that if God predestines all things, because he necessarily must as an omnipotent God (if that be an accurate reckoning of what omnipotent implies and means), then it follows necessarily that he is complicit to all the evil of man. But God cannot do nothing, because he is actual. In him there is no admixture of potentiality, so that he is weaker in one moment and stronger in the next; there is no variation in God, and he cannot be weak. Ergo, God cannot do evil, which is the lack of something. So, that God predestines all things, to include the wickedness of man and evils, such as plagues, famines, droughts, death, and damnation is a necessarily false statement.
It seems good to reiterate what I am often saying, here, in this refutation. That is, it is in order to expound on what Almighty God 'cannot' do. Technically, God can do all things, because he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent: He is 'Almighty.' But because of the weakness of our language, bear with me if I say there are things which God cannot do; in particular certain things which cannot be conceived of. God cannot do true paradoxes, he cannot engage in something necessarily false. For instance, God cannot make men who are women, married bachelors, things that are green all over and red all over at the same time, and square circles. God couldn't make a population that is both greater than and less than a given population of other things, nor could he make a universe where there is an unmovable object and an unstoppable force. God cannot make the proposition of this sentence true," This sentence is false." and neither can he make it false. God cannot do true paradoxes, because they are necessarily false. But because they are false, they do not exist, and because they do not exist, they cannot be done or occur. Ergo, by not being able to bring them about, God's sovereignty and omnipotence are not diminished or delimited.
So, it doesn't follow that God predestines all things; and the fact that he doesn't, does not delimit his sovereignty. In fact, the opposite is necessary for God to be God. Let me not delay then, in being more practical and straight to the point:
.1.) Depravity is evil.
:2.) Evil is the lack of something, viz. a 'good.'
.:3.) Existence is something, and therefore a 'good.'
/.:4.) Therefore, to be 'totally depraved' is to be non-existent.
Again...
.1.) Depravity is evil.
:2.) Evil is the lack of something.
.:3.) The total lack of something is nothing.
/.:4.) Therefore, for man to be totally depraved is for man not to exist, at all.
.5) Man exists.
/.:6.) Therefore, man is not totally depraved.
Also, it may be said, according to Catholic orthodoxy, and in opposition to Calvin's heresy...
.1.) Man is not perfectly man, because he is fallen.
/:2.) Therefore, man is depraved.
.:3.) Man cannot be totally depraved, because of the aforesaid syllogisms.
/.:4.) Therefore, it is rightly said that man is depraved in all of his parts; because the body is not man, but the body of a man. Likewise, the soul is not man, but the soul of a man. Hence, he is only totally depraved in relation to the idea that each of his parts is depraved, in particular.
//.:5.) Ergo, no part of man is completely depraved, or that part would not exist. Without each of his parts, man does not exist. Therefore, no man is totally depraved, not even in one of his parts. We've no reason to despair of anyone's salvation, and the whole man may hope in Christ.
Further...
.1.) God is good.
:2.) God is the source of every good.
.:3.) God is not evil.
::4.) God is not the author of evil.
.::5.) Depravity is evil.
/:::6.) Depravity is not of God's authorship.
Also...
.1.) God is the author of predestination.
:2.) God is not the author of depravity.
/.:3.) God does not predestine anyone to depravity.
And, to borrow from a previous writing of mine...
1.) Damnation is justified (right)= Damnation is willed by God.
2.) What God wills is right. (substantive & synthetic)
3.) What God wills is willed by God. (trivial & analytic)
4.) Proposition 3 is identical to proposition 2.
5.) Proposition 2 is both analytic & not analytic (i.e. synthetic). *contradiction, i.e. an untrue statement..)
6.) Damnation is right =/= Damnation is willed by God.
Something which is analytic cannot be synthetic, because an analytic statement is necessarily true all the time and in all possible "worlds," whereas a synthetic statement merely tells us about something that is dependent. So for instance: All bachelors are unmarried males, is an analytical statement. Whereas, to say Scott is a bachelor, is synthetic, because bachelorhood isn't necessary to Scott's existence; it isn't necessarily true. Otherwise, if Scott got married, he would die! He would cease to exist and become a non-person, yeah? So, the Calvinist proposition cannot be true, because it says that," What God wills is right." is both analytic and synthetic, which is contradictory and therefore the conclusion of the premises is false. It can be analytic or it can be synthetic, but it cannot be both.
So, the Calvinist, faced down with all these contradictions and paradoxes, which are necessarily false, may not make himself out to be a martyr of faith, at the murderous hands of reason. It has been demonstrated, and is the case, that God is not lawless, but that because of his own qualities certain ends and causes follow naturally and logically from his person. And the Calvinist may not now despise reason, which they previously attempted to use in their own cause. Calvinism, like all heresies, is devoid of reason. True paradox is the mark of all heresy. If then, faith is all that is left, guilt of another heresy is present, that of fideism. Faith and reason constitute orthodoxy, not one or the other. If we have reason only, we are nothing. And if we have faith only, then we are like the other heresies of Mormonism, Fundamentalist Islam, and Fundamentalism Protestantism.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
Showing posts with label Reason. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reason. Show all posts
Monday, 16 January 2012
Sunday, 26 December 2010
Why Every Christian Needs the Catholic Church-Things You've Never Thought About
I'm in the process of transferring a lot of my notes, so bear with me:
It's been quite some time since I've written anything to the Protestants. But they have entered into my mind once again, with their assertions that the Catholic religion is superfluous to Christianity. I am convinced that the majority of those who hold this opinion have never given any real thought to the matter. So, being willing and quite able to supply, I figured that I would do through exercise of reason what they have lost the ability to do by the atrophy thereof, namely, reason. Let it be noted that this is a general reply to certain assertions made by Protestants. I'll just begin...
The Protestants claim that Catholicism is superfluous to Christianity; they do this through a number of stock charges, all of which are fallacious, the majority of which are strawmen. But that is neither here nor there. I do not feel compelled to defend the Church; I've see enough feeble assaults against it by Protestants to convince me that it is in fact unassailable. I am much more interested in what the Protestants who make this argument think they know.
If the Catholic religion is a superfluity, if it is a body of man-made traditions, doctrines, and dogmas unnecessary to salvation and a proper Christian faith and they claim to have discovered this, then, it follows that they must know what is essential to the Christian faith. In fact, I don't think that there is any danger in me saying that Protestants must imagine that they are bare essential Christians.
If I was to ask them what things are essential to the Christian faith, what can we imagine them to say? I suppose that they would say several things are necessary: faith in salvation through Jesus Christ, the bible, the Holy Spirit. Further, if I were to then ask them which person has a purifying effect upon the people of God, I would get several different answers: the pastors, the community of believers, and the Holy Spirit.
So, here I have the Protestant faith in general which states that a biblical faith in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation. Further, that the whole community of believers has a refining effect upon the Christian and that the Holy Spirit is his guide in all of this. Now, we have six things to examine, here, six essentials beyond which the Christian, according to the Protestant, has need of nothing.
So, let us discuss pastors in general. How are they chosen? Are they selected from seminaries or do they begin as house church leaders, or something like that; or do all of those things occur? Certainly, all of those things occur; no one would say that all Protestant pastors have seminary and likewise no one would say that none of them do. In any case, who does the selecting? The individual churches, of course, choose their pastors. In some cases, the former pastor will choose a new pastor and so on. But in the end, if the church is discontented with the pastor, whether he has seminary or not they will eject him from their employ. And if the people do not have the power to eject him they will leave and go to another Church.
So, I must ask the question again, who does the choosing? It is the people who choose. Further, having seminary might be a means of more directly gaining employment as a pastor, but it is not usually a factor in whether or not a pastor keeps his position. Ergo, if a man without seminary finds himself employed as the pastor of a protestant community, his having seminary on his resume is not going to be a factor of whether or not he remains the pastor. Therefore, there is no real advantage to seminary beyond gaining employment. What matters is the people's opinion of the man.
This I find extremely strange. When a man goes to receive his doctorate in the medical arts, he does not go before a board of nurses, but instead he goes before a board of medical doctors. Or if a person went to receive a license of any kind, don't we all know that they must receive the license from someone else so licensed? Whoever obtains a drivers license must obtain the license from someone who can drive, and whoever obtains a license for gun ownership must obtain it from someone apt in teaching the laws concerning ownership. Therefore, the person without seminary who claims themselves a pastor is like a person who claims to license themselves.
Also, if the community decides that he is to be a pastor, I find this even more strange. The ignorant are commissioning a teacher as though they are qualified to do so! A person is a teacher because they are apt in knowledge, the pupil is the pupil because he is ignorant of what the teacher teaches. If the pupil is ignorant of what he will be taught, then it follows necessarily that he is ignorant of what he needs to be taught, who knows it, and who is able to teach it. Imagine, that we took a rhetorician, whose task it is to convince through routine the ignorant of whatever he pleases, and placed him in with eight doctors. Let us further say that we placed them before a crowd of average people. Whom do you suppose the ignorant mass of people will say is the best of the doctors? It is certain they will say the man who speaks the best is the best doctor. They have no objective way of gauging the excellence of the doctors, because they are ignorant of the art. It is for the very reason of their ignorance that they need a doctor!
So, having selected the rhetorician to be their doctor, do you suppose they will enjoy many benefits because of this? Do you suppose that they will enjoy great health by him? No, they certainly will not. And so we know that not only are the people ill equipped to select good teachers for themselves because of their ignorance, but that they have even less business choosing a teacher from amongst their ignorant fellows. The person without seminary has no business in either case, whether he chooses himself or is chosen by his fellows, to be a pastor.
Now, concerning the man who has been to seminary, let us examine. If we went to a doctor and became dissatisfied with him and demanded his license to be revoked, how would we go about this? We would take him to court and lawyers would go find his peers, true doctors, and his practice would be examined. If his peers found that he was guilty of malpractice then he would surely be punished to the fullest extent possible. We would not simply strip him of his license and rights because a rabble of discontented folk, ignorant in medicine, brought an accusation against him. Never!
Likewise, if we find that a doctor is guilty of malpractice, but the patients love him and make many excuses for him will this in anyway prevent the law from delivering what it must, namely, justice? Will pathetic pleas and stories of how great and faithful a family doctor he was save him from the fact of his malpractice of medicine? No, never! He will be striped of his license and prevented from practicing medicine wherever the law can prohibit it and fines and possibly imprisonment will follow.
In this way, the doctor is aloof from the ignorance of his patients. When he is a good doctor and they are bad patients he is safe and secure in his position and they still have recourse to him because he provides to them what they cannot provide to themselves. When he is a bad doctor, the ignorant nostalgia and favoritism of his patients will not save him and he will no longer be allowed to misapply the art of medical science. The doctor is established by his peers and knowledge which no man takes away.
It should be the same with pastors. However, as our inquiry has revealed, this is not the case. Ordained ministers find themselves a congregation of one if they do not do as the ignorant require. The ordained minister is not protected from the ignorance of his people at all. He must be careful not to hurt them, even if he must; he must be careful to entertain them and conform to their expectations. If he doesn't they will abandon him or eject him from employment. If at any time they become discontented with the ordained minister, they will prefer the unordained man who knows how to tickle their ears, to him.
And how can we be sure of this? Which would children prefer, the teacher who teaches or the teacher who gives them games? The one who gives them games. And which do the children prefer to listen to, a block of instruction, or a story? A story. And which one will the people rather encounter, a police officer who is lax or one who delivers justice? The officer who is lax. And I could continue on this way, ad infinitum.
We can, therefore, confidently know which man the congregation will prefer. So, what Protestants posses is democracy, which is the worst form of government. Democracy descends into despotism, because mob always gives birth to a tyrant. Democracy always murders itself and chooses the wrong instead of the good. It is short sighted, selfish, ignorant, anarchic. In this "democratic Christianity" that Protestants possess who is in charge? Obviously, the same people who are in charge in all democracies, man in general. I can devise of no other form of government which is more dissimilar to monarchy than democracy. Where is the singular rule of Apostolic authority? Where is Christ the king? How ironic that they accuse the Catholic Church of being an organization of men, when they have democracy. Their communities simply could not be more man-made. You begin to see why I said I don't think that Protestants have given any real thought to their position on the Catholic religion.
But we should hold right here, because here we find that the Protestants have been consistent in one thing: they asserted that the whole community of faith has a refining effect on the Christian. This keeps with their democratic attitude. And I'm certain that when I said," Where is Christ the king?" some of you were saying," He is in all of us!" So, Protestants claim then, that they whole community of faith has a refining effect on the Christian. Then, you have only to shut off from the outside world and make your communities exclusive and you will be excellent. But what does history tell us about such experiments? I think that the Puritans are sufficient evidence that this is not true, witch trials and all.
Protestants claim that because they have the holy Spirit, the bible, and have Jesus in their hearts, that they all have a refining effect upon one another. But what about health, because the business of the church primarily is the health of the soul, or as the Protestants like to say, the spirit? So, what about other kinds of health? What of mental health? Do all people have a refining effect on the health of the mind, or do only some people have a positive effect on the mind? And bodily health, too; do all people have a positive effect on the health of the body, or only a few people? Obviously, only a few people do good to these and the rest do damage or nothing.
And what about people who live in houses, do they all know how to build houses because they possess them? Or people who drive cars, do they know how to make them, because they own them? Or people with tumors, do they know how to treat them because they possess them? No, only a few know how. But here, then, the Protestant stands confuted with his mouth open, because it is obvious even to children that there is no way that everyone has a refining effect, but rather that only a few have this effect. So, the democratic nature of Protestant Christianity is necessarily counter-intuitive to the end of religion, just as it would be counter-intuitive to bodily health if suddenly everyone claimed to be a surgeon.
If they understand this, why are they doing this?
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
It's been quite some time since I've written anything to the Protestants. But they have entered into my mind once again, with their assertions that the Catholic religion is superfluous to Christianity. I am convinced that the majority of those who hold this opinion have never given any real thought to the matter. So, being willing and quite able to supply, I figured that I would do through exercise of reason what they have lost the ability to do by the atrophy thereof, namely, reason. Let it be noted that this is a general reply to certain assertions made by Protestants. I'll just begin...
The Protestants claim that Catholicism is superfluous to Christianity; they do this through a number of stock charges, all of which are fallacious, the majority of which are strawmen. But that is neither here nor there. I do not feel compelled to defend the Church; I've see enough feeble assaults against it by Protestants to convince me that it is in fact unassailable. I am much more interested in what the Protestants who make this argument think they know.
If the Catholic religion is a superfluity, if it is a body of man-made traditions, doctrines, and dogmas unnecessary to salvation and a proper Christian faith and they claim to have discovered this, then, it follows that they must know what is essential to the Christian faith. In fact, I don't think that there is any danger in me saying that Protestants must imagine that they are bare essential Christians.
If I was to ask them what things are essential to the Christian faith, what can we imagine them to say? I suppose that they would say several things are necessary: faith in salvation through Jesus Christ, the bible, the Holy Spirit. Further, if I were to then ask them which person has a purifying effect upon the people of God, I would get several different answers: the pastors, the community of believers, and the Holy Spirit.
So, here I have the Protestant faith in general which states that a biblical faith in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation. Further, that the whole community of believers has a refining effect upon the Christian and that the Holy Spirit is his guide in all of this. Now, we have six things to examine, here, six essentials beyond which the Christian, according to the Protestant, has need of nothing.
So, let us discuss pastors in general. How are they chosen? Are they selected from seminaries or do they begin as house church leaders, or something like that; or do all of those things occur? Certainly, all of those things occur; no one would say that all Protestant pastors have seminary and likewise no one would say that none of them do. In any case, who does the selecting? The individual churches, of course, choose their pastors. In some cases, the former pastor will choose a new pastor and so on. But in the end, if the church is discontented with the pastor, whether he has seminary or not they will eject him from their employ. And if the people do not have the power to eject him they will leave and go to another Church.
So, I must ask the question again, who does the choosing? It is the people who choose. Further, having seminary might be a means of more directly gaining employment as a pastor, but it is not usually a factor in whether or not a pastor keeps his position. Ergo, if a man without seminary finds himself employed as the pastor of a protestant community, his having seminary on his resume is not going to be a factor of whether or not he remains the pastor. Therefore, there is no real advantage to seminary beyond gaining employment. What matters is the people's opinion of the man.
This I find extremely strange. When a man goes to receive his doctorate in the medical arts, he does not go before a board of nurses, but instead he goes before a board of medical doctors. Or if a person went to receive a license of any kind, don't we all know that they must receive the license from someone else so licensed? Whoever obtains a drivers license must obtain the license from someone who can drive, and whoever obtains a license for gun ownership must obtain it from someone apt in teaching the laws concerning ownership. Therefore, the person without seminary who claims themselves a pastor is like a person who claims to license themselves.
Also, if the community decides that he is to be a pastor, I find this even more strange. The ignorant are commissioning a teacher as though they are qualified to do so! A person is a teacher because they are apt in knowledge, the pupil is the pupil because he is ignorant of what the teacher teaches. If the pupil is ignorant of what he will be taught, then it follows necessarily that he is ignorant of what he needs to be taught, who knows it, and who is able to teach it. Imagine, that we took a rhetorician, whose task it is to convince through routine the ignorant of whatever he pleases, and placed him in with eight doctors. Let us further say that we placed them before a crowd of average people. Whom do you suppose the ignorant mass of people will say is the best of the doctors? It is certain they will say the man who speaks the best is the best doctor. They have no objective way of gauging the excellence of the doctors, because they are ignorant of the art. It is for the very reason of their ignorance that they need a doctor!
So, having selected the rhetorician to be their doctor, do you suppose they will enjoy many benefits because of this? Do you suppose that they will enjoy great health by him? No, they certainly will not. And so we know that not only are the people ill equipped to select good teachers for themselves because of their ignorance, but that they have even less business choosing a teacher from amongst their ignorant fellows. The person without seminary has no business in either case, whether he chooses himself or is chosen by his fellows, to be a pastor.
Now, concerning the man who has been to seminary, let us examine. If we went to a doctor and became dissatisfied with him and demanded his license to be revoked, how would we go about this? We would take him to court and lawyers would go find his peers, true doctors, and his practice would be examined. If his peers found that he was guilty of malpractice then he would surely be punished to the fullest extent possible. We would not simply strip him of his license and rights because a rabble of discontented folk, ignorant in medicine, brought an accusation against him. Never!
Likewise, if we find that a doctor is guilty of malpractice, but the patients love him and make many excuses for him will this in anyway prevent the law from delivering what it must, namely, justice? Will pathetic pleas and stories of how great and faithful a family doctor he was save him from the fact of his malpractice of medicine? No, never! He will be striped of his license and prevented from practicing medicine wherever the law can prohibit it and fines and possibly imprisonment will follow.
In this way, the doctor is aloof from the ignorance of his patients. When he is a good doctor and they are bad patients he is safe and secure in his position and they still have recourse to him because he provides to them what they cannot provide to themselves. When he is a bad doctor, the ignorant nostalgia and favoritism of his patients will not save him and he will no longer be allowed to misapply the art of medical science. The doctor is established by his peers and knowledge which no man takes away.
It should be the same with pastors. However, as our inquiry has revealed, this is not the case. Ordained ministers find themselves a congregation of one if they do not do as the ignorant require. The ordained minister is not protected from the ignorance of his people at all. He must be careful not to hurt them, even if he must; he must be careful to entertain them and conform to their expectations. If he doesn't they will abandon him or eject him from employment. If at any time they become discontented with the ordained minister, they will prefer the unordained man who knows how to tickle their ears, to him.
And how can we be sure of this? Which would children prefer, the teacher who teaches or the teacher who gives them games? The one who gives them games. And which do the children prefer to listen to, a block of instruction, or a story? A story. And which one will the people rather encounter, a police officer who is lax or one who delivers justice? The officer who is lax. And I could continue on this way, ad infinitum.
We can, therefore, confidently know which man the congregation will prefer. So, what Protestants posses is democracy, which is the worst form of government. Democracy descends into despotism, because mob always gives birth to a tyrant. Democracy always murders itself and chooses the wrong instead of the good. It is short sighted, selfish, ignorant, anarchic. In this "democratic Christianity" that Protestants possess who is in charge? Obviously, the same people who are in charge in all democracies, man in general. I can devise of no other form of government which is more dissimilar to monarchy than democracy. Where is the singular rule of Apostolic authority? Where is Christ the king? How ironic that they accuse the Catholic Church of being an organization of men, when they have democracy. Their communities simply could not be more man-made. You begin to see why I said I don't think that Protestants have given any real thought to their position on the Catholic religion.
But we should hold right here, because here we find that the Protestants have been consistent in one thing: they asserted that the whole community of faith has a refining effect on the Christian. This keeps with their democratic attitude. And I'm certain that when I said," Where is Christ the king?" some of you were saying," He is in all of us!" So, Protestants claim then, that they whole community of faith has a refining effect on the Christian. Then, you have only to shut off from the outside world and make your communities exclusive and you will be excellent. But what does history tell us about such experiments? I think that the Puritans are sufficient evidence that this is not true, witch trials and all.
Protestants claim that because they have the holy Spirit, the bible, and have Jesus in their hearts, that they all have a refining effect upon one another. But what about health, because the business of the church primarily is the health of the soul, or as the Protestants like to say, the spirit? So, what about other kinds of health? What of mental health? Do all people have a refining effect on the health of the mind, or do only some people have a positive effect on the mind? And bodily health, too; do all people have a positive effect on the health of the body, or only a few people? Obviously, only a few people do good to these and the rest do damage or nothing.
And what about people who live in houses, do they all know how to build houses because they possess them? Or people who drive cars, do they know how to make them, because they own them? Or people with tumors, do they know how to treat them because they possess them? No, only a few know how. But here, then, the Protestant stands confuted with his mouth open, because it is obvious even to children that there is no way that everyone has a refining effect, but rather that only a few have this effect. So, the democratic nature of Protestant Christianity is necessarily counter-intuitive to the end of religion, just as it would be counter-intuitive to bodily health if suddenly everyone claimed to be a surgeon.
If they understand this, why are they doing this?
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~
When the 'Reasonable People' Make Unreasonable Demands
I have no desire to address the demeanor of atheists or theist. However, I would like to address this one statement I keep hearing from Atheist without relent; so, I may have to address their demeanor just a little bit and in a general sense. I've been arguing with a guy recently who basically has a very poorly informed Atheism, and by that I mean most Atheist would be ashamed of him. So, I apologize if this seems like I'm railroading Atheist. I have great respect for many Atheists and their arguments. That being said, this is designed as a treatment of the Atheists who commit the error discussed, so that theists can recognize it and defend accordingly; I have no intentions of painting with a brush all Atheists. Many people who don't know what to believe think that being an atheist is a magic pill to being smarter than everyone else, but we all know that really they're just as ignorant as before. In fact, I think that 'The Amazing Atheist' on Youtube says something to the same effect.
Likewise, theists in general take for granted that they are right and hobble around on crutches, arguments that dismiss people on principle. They parrot to themselves and to each other," They're blinded by the god of this age." or," The ways of God are foolishness to men and the ways of men are foolishness to God." or ,"The cross is foolishness to those who are perishing." So, if they do make fools of themselves and say something stupid, and someone points it out and holds them accountable for it... suddenly their opponents are written of as having been hopelessly deceived by the great Satan himself. And other utterly stupid, unenlightened, and superstitious beliefs have they.
There never seems to be a shortage on the internet of fundamentalist Atheists and fundamentalist Christians to fight each other. It's as if each is the others private hell. They pass their time, futily trying to control each others beliefs and thoughts. In the midst of all this, they deteriorate into bizarre irrationalism and abandon what they said they had a sole claim to in the first place; namely, reason.
The product is a seemingly endless droning of illogical reasoning designed not so much to reveal the truth, but to torture and shame one another. Out of this comes an Atheist argument which seems natural," Show me God." However, very often they don't employ it to soundly defeat the theist or even to dumbfound them, but rather to embarrass the theist in front of whoever is watching. This argument is of course is a rather ignoble means on the Atheist's part, when so employed, to end the exhausting discussion by shaming his opponent instead of nobly claiming victory if it can be had through arguing well. Beginning like a man the atheist finishes like a boy, looking for a way to make his escape.
Further, before I continue onto my point which is actually quite brief, I have another criticism for both of them. That is, both sides only argue until one side is worn out; and the end point in the conversation is always for both of them their own position."We'll argue until one of us seems so right that the other is shamed beyond recovery." Yeah, that's the way to find the truth. And this is why I have a very egalitarian disposition towards the members of all such discussions, regardless of their beliefs.
Anyway, back to the whole point of the note, here. "Show me God," it seems to be a natural argument, doesn't it? Now, a natural question is necessarily a reasonable question, because reason is the course of nature and pertains to what exists and is fiduciary. However, the whole reason an Atheist supplies a reasonable question is to demonstrate that the theist has no reasonable answer.
But what we have here is a bifurcated strawman, which is an error of logic. If theists were claiming that God is quantitative, then asking to be shown God would be a reasonable request. However, it's quite the opposite isn't it? Mainstream theists, specifically Christians, maintain that God is uncreated and immeasurable. There are no measurable traits concerning God.
Imagine if you will that God is in form like a man. Let's just say that "God" in the most general sense is a man with the attribute of "immeasurability." His eye would be infinitely big and infinitely small; his knee would be infinitely big and infinitely small, and so on. He would be patently unobservable. There would be no point of reference to even make a measurement. These are the natural consequences of the theistic argument; God is immeasurable, therefore, God is unobservable.
Demanding to be shown God, then, is taking the theist out of context and demanding that he defend the strawman. That is absurd and ridiculous; not only because it has nothing to do with the argument of the theist, but because it demands the theist to defend something irrational. It's all highly irregular and unethical concerning civil discussions. Asking to be shown God is the same species of nonsense as if I were to tell you all that morality is 57cm long and periwinkle blue.
Aside from all this, even if this wasn't the case, and it's self-evident that it is, the request is still absurd. Let's say that God is observable, and therefore measurable. Let's play along with the Atheist. Now, imagine a little child begins to petulantly demand that an accurate and exhaustive explanation be given them concerning nuclear reactors. Do you suppose that just anyone of the child's peers will be able to teach him? No. Do you suppose that the older children will be able to teach him? No. Do you expect that the adults will be able to teach him? No. Only certain individuals will be able to supply that sort of knowledge; professors of high calibur, correct? And those scientists, don't they only teach to a select few other adults who have proven at length that they can understand what they will be taught? And so is the child even qualified to be taught by those teachers? No. Is the child even qualified to comprehend the discussion of the students? No. Can the child comprehend or understand the subject, then? No. Can the child's demand be met? Yes, a scientist could tell them everything they wanted to know. Will the child be satisfied? By no means, because he will not understand.
Now, imagine the child begins to mock the scientist because they couldn't teach him. Doesn't the child fail to realize that it was prevented from being satisfied in the inquiry because of its own ignorance and not that of the teacher's? So, if all these things naturally follow, how is it that Atheists have missed this? Not even the child would assume that everyone could be his teacher, but here the atheist demands that everyone who is a theist explain. The Atheist assumes that every theist is apt to teach on a subject they themselves couldn't possibly comprehend(God); it would be more reasonable to assume that all people who use nuclear power are nuclear physicists, and that is an insane notion. Even further, the Atheist takes for granted that they will understand perfectly everything that is propounded to them in the way of religion, science and evidences. What a singular dispensation of fortune these Atheists have, to understand everything and at all times!
How they can justify being dismissive of religion and God because someone made a weak argument for, I cannot tell. What's worse is when some poor wretch comes along and is tricked by the abundance of words into believing that the strawman the Atheist made for them is indeed their argument, then that poor unfortunate fool goes and defends the strawman to the death and fails utterly. And the Atheist pats himself on the back because he tricked a simple fellow into defending a strawman.
So, here we have it, that in both cases the request of the Atheist is irrational, unreasonable; whether we follow the the theists argument, or even if we experiment with the strawman the Atheist creates. I am more and more convinced that man does not want to know the truth; and I am reminded of the ancient words that say," The evil flee from the light and love the darkness." I've never offended more men than when I'm telling the truth and I've never seen them more at ease than when they share a common ignorance. One in a thousand maybe, I have seen who truly care for the truth and rejoice when they find it. Together they hypothesize, experiment, find conclusions, and make theories and strive to understand one another, to find the truth and agree in one thing. These men are excellent and well hated amongst the ignorant who always resent them.
Well, keep these things in mind the next time one of you is debating with an atheist. Make reasonable demands of him, that he not take you out of context or force you to reply to his statements that do not address your position. I find that I am often bettered and taught by a sincere atheist, even more often than I am a theist. If you can walk slowly the path of respect in such inquiries, you may find that you can do much good for each others souls.
Likewise, theists in general take for granted that they are right and hobble around on crutches, arguments that dismiss people on principle. They parrot to themselves and to each other," They're blinded by the god of this age." or," The ways of God are foolishness to men and the ways of men are foolishness to God." or ,"The cross is foolishness to those who are perishing." So, if they do make fools of themselves and say something stupid, and someone points it out and holds them accountable for it... suddenly their opponents are written of as having been hopelessly deceived by the great Satan himself. And other utterly stupid, unenlightened, and superstitious beliefs have they.
There never seems to be a shortage on the internet of fundamentalist Atheists and fundamentalist Christians to fight each other. It's as if each is the others private hell. They pass their time, futily trying to control each others beliefs and thoughts. In the midst of all this, they deteriorate into bizarre irrationalism and abandon what they said they had a sole claim to in the first place; namely, reason.
The product is a seemingly endless droning of illogical reasoning designed not so much to reveal the truth, but to torture and shame one another. Out of this comes an Atheist argument which seems natural," Show me God." However, very often they don't employ it to soundly defeat the theist or even to dumbfound them, but rather to embarrass the theist in front of whoever is watching. This argument is of course is a rather ignoble means on the Atheist's part, when so employed, to end the exhausting discussion by shaming his opponent instead of nobly claiming victory if it can be had through arguing well. Beginning like a man the atheist finishes like a boy, looking for a way to make his escape.
Further, before I continue onto my point which is actually quite brief, I have another criticism for both of them. That is, both sides only argue until one side is worn out; and the end point in the conversation is always for both of them their own position."We'll argue until one of us seems so right that the other is shamed beyond recovery." Yeah, that's the way to find the truth. And this is why I have a very egalitarian disposition towards the members of all such discussions, regardless of their beliefs.
Anyway, back to the whole point of the note, here. "Show me God," it seems to be a natural argument, doesn't it? Now, a natural question is necessarily a reasonable question, because reason is the course of nature and pertains to what exists and is fiduciary. However, the whole reason an Atheist supplies a reasonable question is to demonstrate that the theist has no reasonable answer.
But what we have here is a bifurcated strawman, which is an error of logic. If theists were claiming that God is quantitative, then asking to be shown God would be a reasonable request. However, it's quite the opposite isn't it? Mainstream theists, specifically Christians, maintain that God is uncreated and immeasurable. There are no measurable traits concerning God.
Imagine if you will that God is in form like a man. Let's just say that "God" in the most general sense is a man with the attribute of "immeasurability." His eye would be infinitely big and infinitely small; his knee would be infinitely big and infinitely small, and so on. He would be patently unobservable. There would be no point of reference to even make a measurement. These are the natural consequences of the theistic argument; God is immeasurable, therefore, God is unobservable.
Demanding to be shown God, then, is taking the theist out of context and demanding that he defend the strawman. That is absurd and ridiculous; not only because it has nothing to do with the argument of the theist, but because it demands the theist to defend something irrational. It's all highly irregular and unethical concerning civil discussions. Asking to be shown God is the same species of nonsense as if I were to tell you all that morality is 57cm long and periwinkle blue.
Aside from all this, even if this wasn't the case, and it's self-evident that it is, the request is still absurd. Let's say that God is observable, and therefore measurable. Let's play along with the Atheist. Now, imagine a little child begins to petulantly demand that an accurate and exhaustive explanation be given them concerning nuclear reactors. Do you suppose that just anyone of the child's peers will be able to teach him? No. Do you suppose that the older children will be able to teach him? No. Do you expect that the adults will be able to teach him? No. Only certain individuals will be able to supply that sort of knowledge; professors of high calibur, correct? And those scientists, don't they only teach to a select few other adults who have proven at length that they can understand what they will be taught? And so is the child even qualified to be taught by those teachers? No. Is the child even qualified to comprehend the discussion of the students? No. Can the child comprehend or understand the subject, then? No. Can the child's demand be met? Yes, a scientist could tell them everything they wanted to know. Will the child be satisfied? By no means, because he will not understand.
Now, imagine the child begins to mock the scientist because they couldn't teach him. Doesn't the child fail to realize that it was prevented from being satisfied in the inquiry because of its own ignorance and not that of the teacher's? So, if all these things naturally follow, how is it that Atheists have missed this? Not even the child would assume that everyone could be his teacher, but here the atheist demands that everyone who is a theist explain. The Atheist assumes that every theist is apt to teach on a subject they themselves couldn't possibly comprehend(God); it would be more reasonable to assume that all people who use nuclear power are nuclear physicists, and that is an insane notion. Even further, the Atheist takes for granted that they will understand perfectly everything that is propounded to them in the way of religion, science and evidences. What a singular dispensation of fortune these Atheists have, to understand everything and at all times!
How they can justify being dismissive of religion and God because someone made a weak argument for, I cannot tell. What's worse is when some poor wretch comes along and is tricked by the abundance of words into believing that the strawman the Atheist made for them is indeed their argument, then that poor unfortunate fool goes and defends the strawman to the death and fails utterly. And the Atheist pats himself on the back because he tricked a simple fellow into defending a strawman.
So, here we have it, that in both cases the request of the Atheist is irrational, unreasonable; whether we follow the the theists argument, or even if we experiment with the strawman the Atheist creates. I am more and more convinced that man does not want to know the truth; and I am reminded of the ancient words that say," The evil flee from the light and love the darkness." I've never offended more men than when I'm telling the truth and I've never seen them more at ease than when they share a common ignorance. One in a thousand maybe, I have seen who truly care for the truth and rejoice when they find it. Together they hypothesize, experiment, find conclusions, and make theories and strive to understand one another, to find the truth and agree in one thing. These men are excellent and well hated amongst the ignorant who always resent them.
Well, keep these things in mind the next time one of you is debating with an atheist. Make reasonable demands of him, that he not take you out of context or force you to reply to his statements that do not address your position. I find that I am often bettered and taught by a sincere atheist, even more often than I am a theist. If you can walk slowly the path of respect in such inquiries, you may find that you can do much good for each others souls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)