Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

AqAd

Regulars
  • Posts

    86
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AqAd

  1. "Given the number of people who can't receive transfusions based on religious objections, this could be very helpful." Actually, there aren't that many, at least here in the West. I think that Seventh-Day Adventists and a few other fringe groups have an objection to transfusions, but they're a tiny percentage (of Christians, at least---I'm not sure if Hinduism or other Eastern religions have similar groups with this aversion to blood transfusions).
  2. So you are saying that a person such as Hugh Hefner is living a "terribly sad life"? He doesn't seem to think he is. Can you give me some kind of objective evidence that proves he is sad?
  3. "Where a Christian tends to beleive the world is fallen and worthless; jews, in my understanding, tend to try and make the world a better place." Tikkun, Orthodox Christianity is no different than orthodox Judaism in its view of the world as good, worthy, and meaningful (after all, God made it), though fallen. That there are Manichaen-like strains of heterodox Christianity out there does not affect that---just thought you should know before you go on making generalizations.
  4. "I think it's time for you to move on to a suitable hole somewhere." Do you honestly think that that's an adequate and rational response?
  5. SoftwareNerd, You wrote: "However, if UFO abductees are not delusional, I do not know who could be called delusional." Hah! I'm in agreement with you on this one...some years back, while working late on a job that often required my working late hours to complete, I happened to tune into Art Bell on the radio. (There's not much else on late at night, what can I say...) Over a period of some nights here was a parade of various UFO-believing types. I would say that some probably were in need of psychiatric care, while some seemed to be making a living in this particular niche. All of which brought to mind the famous quote (often attributed to Chesterton, though incorrectly so): "When men stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing; they believe in anything".
  6. Bold Standard, You wrote: "I submit that, since the Dark Ages, Christians have claimed that various illnesses, physical and psychological, were the direct result of Demonic influences." What are you basing this on? The "Dark Ages" are, as defined by objective historians, that period of time roughly between 410 (when the Roman Empire collapsed) and about 900, when Europe began to get back on its feet. "Since" the Dark Ages, Christian scientists moved forward: between the twelfth and the fourteenth centuries about forty universities were founded in Europe, partly by private initiative, partly by princes or popes, in most cases by the combined efforts of both together with the members of the university. To many of the professors' chairs, ecclesiastical benefices were applied by the popes without other obligation than that of teaching science. If you're claiming that Christians believed that illness wasn't worth studying because it was due to demonic influences, you're simply ignoring the advances in science and medicine that were made by Christians. Use facts, if you desire credibility. Hal, I tend to agree. The events of Fatima in 1917 are also interesting: it seems unusual, to say the least, that 70,000 people (including agnostics and atheists) would have been subject to a mass delusion at the same time.
  7. "Doesn't the pope oppose to stem cell research?" No, only embryonic stem cell research (because the embryos are destroyed for the research). There is nothing unethical, in Catholic theology, in stem cell research using umbilical cord blood or adult stem cells.
  8. "In TVOR, Rand wrote: "The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism"." In other words then, it's the state of mind that determines whether or not this act is morally justified. Objectively, of course, there is no difference between a parasite taking public money or an Objectivist taking public money: in either case, public money is taken. The way a person regards the act is too subjective a criterion, in my opinion. Demetrius, you stated: "So, in practice, calculate the money taken from you to support the "welfare state", add interest and this is the amount you should be comfortable receiving from the state for restitution. In the meantime, you should continue to oppose and vote against the welfare state. This is not hypocrisy." I agree with you---as long as you have had taxes taken from you, it is not hypocrisy to want to get that money back while at the same time voting against the welfare state. However, in the case of public scholarships or, in the case of drawing unemployment when you haven't put that much in, the situation does become hypocrisy. Saying that "my parents paid in" is a cop out, in my mind: you aren't automatically entitled to money your parents put in. This is merely rationalization, an effort to get around having to put your money where one's mouth is. Either you can support yourself on your own without government assistance, or you can't. Thinking that an act is wrong for others because they don't have a proper sense of life, but it's OK for you because you do have a proper sense of life, is too subjective a criterion to effectively judge an act with.
  9. Thanks, SoftwareNerd. That clarifies it.
  10. Felipe, You stated, "Funny, I never knew that using Aquinas's five ways was equivalent to using reason and logic." Yes, they are. If you disagree, point out the specific logical errors in the syllogisms. You asked, "Maybe I should stop using reason and logic and use Aquinas's five ways more often?" There's no conflict between his arguments and logic. So yes, read more Aquinas. You might just learn something. You wrote: "Regarding your "caused things need causes" statement, there is no support for the assertion." How about simple observation? Everything I see does not contain within itself the ability to cause itself to come into being. They are all caused. Provide evidence of a sense-perceptible entity that is not caused, but causes itself to come into being (which involves the logical impossibility of preceding itself). There is absolutely no support for your assertion that finite entities just spring themselves into being. You stated: "I think you are raping the law of causality and it's had enough." I haven't referred to any "law of causality". I have stated the very simple, common-sense, and logical observation that caused entities require causes. I would have thought this was obvious from observation. You stated, "In your application of this principle, you are inventing some super-entity that miraculously causes "matter" to exist." Again, I have not referred to the "law of causality", or applied its principles. I'm relying on common sense and logic. You stated, "The statement "all finite things in existence" has already identified everything that exists". No, it identifies all finite things. You are making the unsupported assertion that the infinite does not exist. Since we can conceptualize infinity (infinite progression of numbers, etc), are you saying that such concepts do not exist? I'll have to get to the rest of your post later. Again, I'd appreciate continuing this discussion via private message, as it is a more profitable use of my time (that is, I know you will get them, which I have no assurance of here).
  11. SoftwareNerd, No, I don't agree that Allen denies the existence of reality and truth. In an earlier post he states, "I Believe that reality exists and that I am a part of it". Though Allen and I would probably disagree in many areas, he does point out some weaknesses in the claim of objectivity in Objectivism. Gabriel, you stated: "That valid axioms cannot be proved does not mean that they do not have a rational explanation (that's your erroneous assumption). Therefore, it does not follow that their acceptance is based on faith". That's essentially the point I make in reply to the assertion that belief in God is based on faith alone. Felipe, You wrote: "Are you not able to argue on your own two feet? Do you need Aquinas and his 'five ways' to prove your point? Can't you state your case simply using reason and logic?" I don't feel the need to re-invent the wheel and the internal combustion engine every time I choose to drive a car. Aquinas' arguments do use reason and logic. You stated, "Your entire argument is based on this false assertion that existence needs a cause." No, my assertion is that caused things (i.e., matter) need a cause. If astronauts found a computer on the moon, they wouldn't assume that it just created itself: they would know, by logic and simple common sense, that it was made and put there. You wrote: "One more time, second verse same as the first: the universe refers to everything that exists, so to say that "something caused the universe" is a gross contradiction." The universe consists of all finite entities that exist. It is not a contradiction to posit that the finite universe was caused.
  12. Mister Swig, Let me try to address your assertions one by one---this might take a while, so try to be patient. You wrote: "But what about the real point of that specific sentence: that, to the Catholic, this ability to think in opposition to God is an indication of Original Sin? You conveniently bypassed that part." I didn't "bypass" it, I disagreed with the premise that Catholics think that. You might forget: I am a Catholic. The "ability to think in opposition to God" is not, as you claim, an indication of Original Sin but is a logical consequence of free will. Free will entails the freedom to reject God. You stated, "You may not believe that such evil, scheming people could exist in the Church. I do. You may not believe that Christianity is a deliberately evil system. I do, and I'm trying to prove it." Well, you'll just have to try a bit harder, as I'm not persuaded. But I'm enjoying your efforts. As for the existence of "evil, scheming people" existing in the Church, why, I believe that. It's a fact of life. But to suggest that these people are responsible for "concept of concupiscence" is not plausible. The Church has existed far longer than any other institution in the West, and false concepts tend to fall away with the passage of time. In any case, the concept of concupiscence pre-dates the Church, coming as it does from Judaism. You wrote: "Your simple disbelief, however, is not an argument. You have done nothing to prove my theory impossible. Thus, it stands as a theory. I don't claim to have proven it yet, but I do claim to have presented some evidence to support it--evidence which you simply refuse to consider." You can propose any theory, no matter how fantastic, and it's likely that no one could "prove" that it's impossible. So that particular "argument" doesn't say much. History, however, doesn't support your theory: as I mentioned, the concept of concupiscence predates the Church, and is a concept shared by many of the world's religions. Thus, the idea of a few evil and scheming Church members concocting this concept is not plausible. You wrote: "AqAd, you are the one claiming the existence of concupiscence. Yet you have offered no proof of its existence." Humans do not have perfectly strong wills and perfect intellects, but instead show a range of capabilities in those areas. The idea that people are perfect, and always choose rationally, is not supported by observation. Concupisence is simply the recognition that man is not perfect in these areas: his concept of what is good and wise is not always in accord with reality, and man tends to pursue lesser values in his search for happiness, for a variety of reasons that correspond to defects in will and intellect. This is simply what is called "concupiscence". Observation of man indicates its existence. You wrote: "I am now offering evidence and theories for your Church's evil nature, and still all you can do is demand more quotes from the Catechism? Why don't you deal with the quotes and reasoning I've already provided? " You haven't offered any evidence, but have simply given your opinion. The quotes you have provided (thank you) don't say what you claim they do, and I don't see "reasoning"---I see your opinion. This does not constitute a reasoned, logical argument. I've got to run--I'll answer more later if I have time.
  13. Felipe, "You can't keep dancing around the cold brick wall of reality headed straight for you"? Shzeesh...no need to be melodramatic. I see no reason to "Throw Aquinas and his "five ways" out the window". His "First Cause" states, as can be ascertained by reason, that finite entities need causes. Scientific observation does not support the idea that matter can cause itself to come into existence---it is caused. Nor can there logically be an infinite regression of causes. There needs to be, logically, an uncaused cause: an entity that has as part of its identity "being"---existence---itself. "Reality" includes this entity. Science also shows us, at both the macro and micro level, that there are specific "laws" which govern the physical universe. In other words, design, not randomness. The existence of universals also indicates a reality that is not measurable by merely scientific means. Objective truth means "existing outside of mind". If the human mind is simply the result of random chance, then any theory or philosophy a human comes up with is purely subjective. Self-awareness (consciousness) is not necessary for survival, as no other animal has it, yet they survive. How does consciousness evolve from non-consciousness, and why? What is the purpose of consciousness? Reality exists regardless of your ability to perceive, measure, or acknowledge it. Reason and faith are simply two different ways of perceiving reality. You did not give me an example of how they contradict (they can't).
  14. Felipe, You asked, "If there weren't mischaracterizations regarding Catholic doctrine, would you have a reason to be here?" Yes. As I stated in a much earlier post, I came here because I am discussing Objectivism with an Objectivist acquaintance. Since it's been years since I studied Objectivism, I figured I would read posts on various topics here to re-acquaint myself with the philosophy. (It is very frustrating, as you no doubt know, to spend time discussing anything with someone who has misconceptions of the subject at hand. I wished to avoid that, and so far it's been useful.) As for the rest of your post, I agree with your assertions. However, the existence of God can be arrived at by reason, by observing facts of reality. And yes, this is what Aquinas sets out in his "five ways". The belief in God is reasonable. Is faith required at some point? Yes, I'm not denying that. But reason and faith do not contradict one another.
  15. Capitalism Forever, You made my point for me: man is not evil, though he can choose to be so. This is what Catholicism teaches. Felipe, You stated: Speaking of childishness, complaining about the administrative actions taken against you in public is like Johnny complaining to the Joneses about how his parents never let him watch late-night TV." That's a fair charge---my apologies for whining. Won't happen again. You wrote: "Speaking of your presence here, you've not defended either of two major claims you've made during your stay--that faith does not contradict reason and that God exists--instead you've chosen to discuss the details of Catholic doctrine for days on end." I've been asked a number of times what is my purpose here. In addition to my main purpose which I have already stated, I also stated that I was not here to argue against Objectivism (which would indeed be a violation of forum rules), but would correct mischaracterizations that I see of Catholicism. That is the only reason why I have chosen to discuss "details of Catholic doctrine for days on end." If forum members here would not state mischaracterizations regarding Catholic doctrine, I will not have to discuss those details. As for the two topics you wish to discuss: I am curious: why do you wish to exclude Aquinas? I see no reason to, as it was my study of Aquinas (among others) that made a theist out of this atheist. Nor have I seen any reason to assume, as you do, that faith and reason are in opposition: they are simply two ways of discovering truth, and truth cannot contradict itself. Perhaps a better way of starting such a discussion would be for you to give me an example of what you perceive to be such a conflict.
  16. Mister Swig, Thank you for your quote from the Catechism, which conspicuously lacks the teaching that you say it does, namely, that the Church teaches that man's nature is evil. You're doing my work for me. I find this comment of yours curious: "According to the Catechism, of which you are so fond"---why do you suppose I am "fond" of it? I refer to it because it is the "official", if you will, compilation of Church teaching. My feelings, whether of fondness or some other emotion, are not involved. Why do you suppose emotions of "fondness" are involved? You stated: "I fully understand the Catholic view on this matter, and I addressed this issue of separating one's identity (one's nature) from one's actions in a previous post, which you have ignored entirely." First, there is nothing in any your posts which indicate an informed knowledge or evidence of serious study of this or any other Catholic doctrine. You are simply criticizing what you do not know, which is not a proper use of reason. And no, I did not ignore your post regarding the separation of action from identity: I disagreed with it, which is not the same thing. You are mistaken when you state, "1. First, it seems that to the Catholic our perfectly natural ability to think about rejecting God (or disobeying God's word) is an indication of Original Sin". No, it's an indication of our having free will. You wrote: "I personally believe concupiscence is a viscious fantasy designed to combat free will and reason. I would be willing to bet that the concept of "inherited sin" was a planned fraud originally invented to trick those who through the use of common sense and scientific findings were contemplating rejecting the myth of God, and thus were about to deprive the God-pushers of their blood money. When the rational thinker started on the path toward atheism, the God-pushers invented a new scheme. They started telling people that their inclination to reject God was a sign of their inherently flawed nature. And, thus, the concept of concupiscence was delivered unto man." Ahh, it's a conspiracy! Now that explains everything....Frankly, I don't have a lot of respect for the intellects of those who indulge in such things. Nor does this make much sense: "There's no such thing as concupiscence. It's a myth. It is most likely an attempt to demonize our human nature of reason and free will." Reason and free will are goods. To demonize them would be to go against Catholic teaching. If you're going to make such claims, then back them up with quotes from the Catechism which say that these goods are, in fact, evil. "We are conceptual animals, born with moral blank slates." Perhaps you don't know many parents of large families, which might explain a comment so easily disproved. No parent of a large family would agree with you, based on their observations of reality. Some kids are more difficult than others (and yes, in the moral arena) despite consistent upbringing. You wrote: "I also want to point out--very briefly--that even if we did have a concupiscent nature, it would prove nothing about the existence of God or Original Sin" I never claimed that it did. Next straw-man, please... "Promoting the idea of concupiscence is evidence of a true, deep, and sinister hatred of man." Hardly, but since you clearly have not studied this to any great depth it is more understandable that you would think this. And as for "hatred of man"---one of the remarkable traits of the Objectivists on this forum is the palpable hatred and contempt for theists. Since that basically means the vast majority of the human race who have ever lived and are living now; and keeping in mind your earlier posts regarding man's nature and man's actions; then it would be reasonable, using your logic, to conclude that Objectivists hate man.
  17. edward j williamson, If human beings are not flawed, then why are they not all Objectivists? Don't you claim an objective standard to which man should aspire to, yet very, very few people accept the standard? If a person has perfect understanding, yet rejects Objectivism, is that person then evil or sub-human? If we have perfect intellects, how could anyone reject Objectivism? If we have perfect understanding and intellects, why would there be a Holocaust, or torture, or cruelty, to either man or animal? If we are perfect (unflawed), then there would be no reason or impulse to do anything evil. Catholicism recognizes that the flaw---the inclination to sin---is there, affecting our judgement, and does not therefore condemn everyone who rejects Catholicism as necessarily evil. Objectivism, by rejecting that the intellect and emotions are flawed in any way, rejects as evil those who understand Objectivism yet reject it. After all, if we have perfect intellects and wills, then we won't misunderstand Objectivism once exposed to it, right? If we're perfect, why aren't we all "naturally" Objectivists? Why wouldn't everyone naturally gravitate towards truth, if we are perfect? Ayn Rand's works sell by the thousands and have for many years, but Objectivism is fading after its heyday in the seventies, and despite all of those copies sold, atheists still make up only a small fraction of the population, and only a fraction of those are Objectivists. Clearly, then, Objectivism has been rejected by vast numbers of people: are those people all just evil? If they simply didn't understand Objectivism, why not? Aren't our intellect and wills unflawed? If someone understands Objectivism and rejects it, wouldn't that indicate a serious "flaw", since a perfect intellect and will would perfectly choose truth? BroncoBobby, you clearly were poorly taught. Perhaps your priests were unfamiliar with Church teaching: not an unknown occurrence, unfortunately, especially if those priests were educated in the 60s and 70s. However, since what you say is so far from orthodoxy and is such a caricature of Christianity, I have to suspect that you are exaggerating. I would request of you and others that you back up your subjective interpretations with quotes from the Catechism, the "official" document of Church teaching. You asked, "Why would God hold us responsible, and send us to hell, for a flaw he himself created in us?" I don't understand: who is going to hell? I didn't say anything about hell, so I'm wondering where this comes from. As to God creating us "flawed"---this statement reinforces my suspicion that you were not truthful in relating what you were taught by Catholics, as this is such kindergarten-level understanding. But no, we weren't created as "flawed"---we have free will. Authentic free will must carry the potential to reject that which is offered. I find it interesting that my posts must be approved by a moderator. I have not used the insulting and vulgar language that my "opposition" has, but apparently foul language and illogical "arguments" are perfectly fine as long as one's target is a self-made caricature of "mysticism". I suspect that the real reason I'm being subject to censorship is that I do not fit your convenient and childish caricature of a theist, and so represent, I suppose, a potential threat.
  18. Mr. Swig, Please show me a quote from the Catechism which defines concupiscence, as you claim the Catholic Church teaches, as a "tendency toward evil actions". I don't think you understand the difference between "inclination to sin", which is how the Catholic Church defines concupiscence, and actually committing evil acts. I may desire, in a passing moment of anger, to hit an especially stupid person in the head with a brick if he is insulting. This is because I am not perfect, and is an indication of concupiscence in my nature. However, if I control my anger, I have not committed evil. You do not understand Catholic theology. Thus, it is not surprising that you state, "Catholics teach that man, as a race, tends to do evil, because of Adam's sin. Thus man, according to Catholicism, is evil", in complete contradiction to Catholic teaching. I'm not interested in giving you a dumbed-down version of Sunday school: you will have to do your own homework and at least back up your statements from actual Church documents such as the Catechism. Since you are clearly ignorant of Catholic teaching, then reason would suggest that you restrict your comments to areas that you might have some familiarity with.
  19. Mr Swig, I haven't varied from my position. You asked, "Is man's nature evil, or is it not? Pick one and stick with it." No, man's nature is not evil. You are confusing Catholicism with Protestantism: Protestant founders such as Luther and Calvin did in fact that teach that man's nature was evil: Luther viewed man's nature as a "dungheap"; Calvin taught "total depravity", which pretty much explains itself. However, Catholicism teaches that man's nature is flawed (which is verified by watching the news), not evil. Catholicism does not believe or teach that man's nature is evil.
  20. Mister Swig, I'll post this in the possibly vain hope that it will be admitted. The Catholic Church pre-dates (be a few hundred years) the collection of writings that it later gathered together and defined as what you know as the Bible. Therefore, it can't logically be the foundation of the Church, which was the claim advanced by some which I denied. As for "Catholicism"---the teaching and practices and creeds of the Catholic Church---that implies doctrine, does it not? The Bible is part of the doctrine of Catholicism, but it is not the sole foundation. Look again at the Catechism quotes which you yourself provided---a stool has more than one leg. This isn't as difficult as you are making it out to be. AqAd
  21. Mr.Swig, Can you not see the difference between doing evil and having an evil nature (being, not doing, evil)? AqAd
  22. Mr. Swig, The correction I made was to the mistaken idea that the Bible was the only foundation of Catholicism. I did not say that it was not part of the foundation. A stool, after all, has more than one leg...this distinguishes it from Protestant churches who adhere to "sola scriptura" (Bible alone). I'm not "escaping" any facts---you're simply not understanding.
  23. ChristopherSchlegel, I disagree with your statement, "I am not sure it is possible (or if so, even worthwhile) to do that without referring to this more fundamental context" for the simple reason that the misconceptions I was addressing may have arisen from a confusion between Catholicism and Protestantism. I don't think, for example, that it is necessary to address the fundamental divide between theism and Objectivism in order to point out that the Catholic Church is not founded on the Bible. This is a historical correction, not a philosophical one. Just a comment regarding Pelagius: you are largely correct in saying that he saw man as "entirely capable of & responsible for his own moral character", and you are completely correct that Church condemned his particular viewpoint. Pelagius explained the actual existence and universality of sin to the "bad example" which Adam set by his first sin. In contrast, the Church has always taught that while man's nature is not evil, it is flawed---that is, man does not always choose rationally. Because of this view, the Church has always taught that freely-given and freely-received grace was to be cooperated with in perfecting (integrating)oneself. From the Pelagian viewpoint, if one's nature is not flawed, you have no need of grace, but can simply do X number of good deeds, one's will having been strengthened by asceticism (he was influenced by the Stoics in some ways) to "earn" your way into heaven. (Conversly, if one does not choose well it would appear that one would incur severe culpability, as there would be no mitigating circumstances---but I digress.) Frankly, I don't see how Pelagius's views of human nature square with the all-too-frequent acts of horrific cruelty and brutality that we are all familiar with: how could an individual's unflawed and perfectly capable will be led so horribly astray on account of a "bad example"? Does a person rape and torture a victim only because of the bad example of Adam? Though the Pelagian view would seem more palatable to Objectivist tastes (or rather, less unpalatable than others), you can see how this simply doesn't square with what the Church taught or teaches. Ironically, Protestants often accuse Catholics of "working" their way to heaven---i.e., Pelagianism---not knowing that the Church has actually condemned that concept. You are correct in saying, "I think it might be more accurate to say you probably do know what I am talking about but that you disagree". That is a more accurate way of stating the conflict. I think it's fair enough to state, as you do, that "One more reading of how the Church attempts to reconcile faith & reason (or in the context of that paragraph, specifically science) is not going to make me change my mind." I am of a similar mindset: one more reading of Peikoff's and Ms. Rand's attempts to oppose faith and reason is not going to make me change my mind (been there, done that).
  24. Source, Yes, there are a variety of creative, literary means used by different authors to achieve different purposes. I'm glad to see you acknowledge that it's not "one size fits all". I have heard of original sin and am quite familiar with the concept. But my question was: you said that Catholics were born with "guilt". I asked you to elaborate on this, as the idea of being born guilty is not expressed in the Catechism. You did not answer the question. Perhaps it would help to ask: how do you define "guilt"? You stated, "I don't know why you didn't notice, but here I didn't speak of Tolkien any more, but of the evils of catholicism." Since you discovered the significance of March 25th in the article regarding the Catholicism of Tolkien and The Lord of the Ring, I thought it proper to state the figurative device of the Ring as Tolkien uses it. Perhaps that was too subtle for you---I will try to express myself very simply in the future so you are not confused. I hope that will help. Regarding the quote about losing one's life in order to find it: do you understand that literally? What does "die" mean to you in that passage? ?
  25. Source, I'm certainly grateful that great authors have not followed your ideas, and instead have used their creative talents in more subtle ways than what you suggest makes for good writing. Lierature consists of more than manifestos. March 25th is also the date of the Annunciation. In any case, both the Annunciation and crucifixion represent, to switch it to Tolkien, the "unmaking" of the Ring. Hardly a "disgusting" aspect. As for being born "guilty"---care to elaborate? I can't find this in the Catechism. And your understanding of the "valuing of death" in your last paragraph reveals an ignorance of just what that means. Perhaps you could elaborate this as well?
×
×
  • Create New...