So, basically following a time-tested (or perhaps yet to be tested?) plan (or theory, if it has yet to be tested) and sticking to it. Basically, following the scientific method to a tee. What an odd phrasing when the two concepts are one and the same. — Outlander

What?

You think science assumes its conclusions and then argues for them? What two concepts are the same - Thomism and science?

A weak sauce, indeed.

You equate "the government" with the President. The US constitution effectively elects a king. But there were - until recently - other powers to keep that monarch in check. The breach of the separation of the powers we see now was not prevented by your owning guns.

The argument that owning guns keeps the government in check rings very hollow.

Indeed, this whole argument, this discussion of gun control as a democratic principle, is a Furphy, a distraction. The US failed to provide an adequate mechanism for social support, allowing a gross disparity in the distribution of wealth. The result is, unsurprisingly, an oligarchy.

The issue is equitable distribution of power, not of guns.



SO which...

I do think that our guns would help prevent an authoratative regime shift. — Bob Ross

or

(gun owenership) prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. — Bob Ross

You want your cake and to eat it.

A part of restoration is a price being paid to the victim in some form proportionate to the crime. I agree with you: I think you are talking passed my points. — Bob Ross

You can see the advantages of restorative practices, to the extent that you now seek to subsume them into your retributive account of justice. I'll count that as progress.

But which is to be master? Is the purpose of justice to punish the wicked, or is it to restore the good?

And what possible place could there be for eternal damnation in a restorative practice?

I can't make sense of eof such a view. It appears morally culpable.

I understand why you said that, because you are assuming I believe in the Son of God because of the Bible. I don’t. — Bob Ross

Well, no, since for several posts you have made it clear that your belief is somewhat different. I understand that.

That framing - "the argument from change, essences/existences, contingency/necessity, parts vs. wholes, etc." - is Thomism. So what you are saying is that you accept a framing that derives from revelation, while claiming that it does not depend on revelation... A long stretch.

That second paragraph, for example, in positing such things as an "absolute simple", supposing "pure act of will" makes sense, and so on, adopts a very particular view of how things are. It is very far from neutral, and has been used for centuries to defend christian revelation.

Seems to me that you are getting exactly what you set out to find, which no doubt is most satisfactory.

So while you might believe that your views derive from a neutral natural theology, it does not look that way to me. It looks like you have adopted a particular anachronistic account in order to achieve an already chosen outcome.

I was asking you what you think the best possible totality of creation would be. — Bob Ross

And you think that @RogueAI is suitably placed to answer that question? RogueAI, are you happy with that responsibility? And are you, Bob, in a position to assess RogueAI's response? You don't know if a world without carnivores is metaphysically possible without removing the possibility of the virtues, free will, and eudaemonia, so you say. Do you have a basis for saying it is impossible? That's what theology has to claim, if it is to explain how the world as it is is the will of a loving and omnipotent being.

Isn't "I don't know" a good response here, rather then taking on a convolute, ad hoc and unsatisfactory doctrine?

Retributive justice focuses on punishing the perp, as seen hereabouts. Restorative justice focuses on fixing the problem.

Which focus should a loving and beneficent being choose?

What's the purpose here?

Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. — Bob Ross

This is the USA we are talking about? So having guns is preventing the downfall of your democracy, unlike those other western nations were there are gun controls...

Hows' that working out?

My arguments didn’t rely on scripture. I keep telling you this, to no avail. — Bob Ross

But that's not so. You do make use of scripture. I explained this, here:

Your post relies on god's having a son, and an ontology that includes sin and the dignity of god and damnation and so on. These are from scripture and revelation. So the arguments there are not examples of natural theology. — Banno

These ideas derive from scripture, not natural theology.

It's about synthesizing justice and mercy. — Bob Ross

You take it as granted that justice involves retribution. See the SEP article for some critique of that view, and consider if it is an ad hoc move. Your "synthesis" takes it as granted that God will seek to punish, not to restore and mitigate.

...they need rehabilitation which would normally be in the form of a punishment — Bob Ross

Rehabilitation is punishment? No wonder the jails are so full.

The alternative on offer to retribution is not natural justice, but restorative justice.

I really hadn't anticipated that restorative justice would be such a foreign concept here. It seems neither you nor have heard of it.

How odd.

:grin:

Presumably there is a theology that explains all this...

Not much. The list of Western Nations that maintain capital punishment has one member. What is it about that nation that makes this so? Is it, at least in part, adherence to a retributive notion of justice? I think this might be an interesting topic for a sociologist to follow up on.

A quick google search will provide plenty of articles justifying capital punishment, from Christians.

...retribution is required for justice... — Bob Ross

I don't agree. as this is somewhat a side issue, I'll refer you to the SEP article, which might give you som idea of the problems thereof. it's conclusion begins:

Retributive justice has a deep grip on the punitive intuitions of most people. Nevertheless, it has been subject to wide-ranging criticism. Arguably the most worrisome criticism is that theoretical accounts of why wrongdoers positively deserve hard treatment are inadequate. — SEP

Retribution is more a caricature of justice than an implementation.

One consequence of this is that a retributive god appears to be morally questionable.

...my belief in based solely on natural theology — Bob Ross

My understanding of "Natural Theology" is that it does not rely on scripture, revelation or mystery. Your post relies on god's having a son, and an ontology that includes sin and the dignity of god and damnation and so on. These are from scripture and revelation. So the arguments there are not examples of natural theology.

Further, they take these revealed notions as givens, and present arguments for them, rather than subjecting them to analysis. Now an ad hoc assumption is one that is adopted specifically to maintain a given position n the face of an objection. In that regard, the post is ad hoc. That's about the logical structure of the argument. If you choose to see it as belittling and dismissive, that's down to you.

We don’t have to start with the question of whether God exists to decipher God exists.… — Bob Ross

That's not the issue. I'm saying that theology takes revelation as given and seeks to show how it can be made consistent. It doesn't just assume that god exists, but attempts to make coherent the whole revealed shemozzle. It is not a branch of philosophy, although it has links with philosophy. Philosophy isn't only defined by content but also by method. Theology lacks the neutrality of philosophy.

Thomism may appeal to you because it helps justify some of your beliefs - I don't know. But Thomism is one small, somewhat anachronistic approach, with considerable problems of it's own making. So using it to frame natural theology is itself presumptuous.

Acoss breakdown of Australian taxation. Good information.

The biggest voices need to admit Australia is a low-taxing nation before joining the economic reform conversation

The various methodological issues raised here apply to theology generally, not just catholicism.

Much the same goes for the specific issues as well, a consequence of the poor method seen in theology.

The discussion is not specific to Catholicism.

If you imagine that God does actually exist theology makes sense. — Punshhh

Rather, if the God described by some given theology makes sense, then that theology makes sense. It's not as if there are no alternative views on God, nor various ways in which folk have attempted to provide a coherent account of god. There is no "theology", there are "theologies".

Almost as if they were made up.

Although as I was saying to Frank, Catholicism took its theologies too far. Where it became an apology for controlling populations. — Punshhh

If Catholicism is right, then if Catholicism does indeed demand "controlling populations", then controlling populations would thereby be right.

I'm not seeing much here apart from the tautology that if some doctrine is right, then it is right.

One aim (of justice) is certainly punishment. — boundless

That's one view.

It suggests that justice is concerned with retribution, with affirming a moral order, with giving folk what they deserve.

A clearer view might be that justice involves equity and fairness rather than retribution. On such a view, the aim would be to repair or mitigate the harm done, and re-integrate and reform the wrong doer.

Punishing folk doesn't thereby fix the problem, or take away the injury.

But again there is a methodological point here. The Book says that punishment will occur, so it is not open to the theologian to question whether justice ought include punishment. That's a given. All that remains is for the theologian to attempt to show how this is coherent with a loving god.

Hence your rather long post excusing god's approach.

There's also the issue, raised elsewhere in the forums, of how an eternal punishment can ever be proportional.

A few side issues: Karma is not about punishment, but about restoring a balance. It is far more an example of restoration than retribution. The suggestion that a slave ought pay for their release is quite remise. And there's somewhat more to addiction than mere akrasia.

well, yes, although I would relate this back to my two ways to philosophy thread. theology has to be more discursive than critical. Philosophy should be more critical than than discursive. .

That most Christian of Western nations is the one that still allows capital punishment. The acceptability of retribution, indeed the equating of retribution and justice - hadn't thought of that as a Christian attribute.

Each biblical reference here supports the methodological point that theology presupposes its conclusion.

Perhaps we are arguing semantics then. — MrLiminal

Well, yes - we are discussing whether theology is a part of philosophy, and that means discussing whether "philosophy" can be appleid to things theological.

Retribution is necessary for justice because the offended’s dignity has to be restored — Bob Ross

So all that was about restoring god's dignity?

Ok.

More seriously, can you see how to one who does not accept the tenants of faith, that post at least looks like self-justifying, ad hoc confirmation bias?

I would not think that constraining philosophical beliefs to a specific framework and set of assumptions would make it not philosophy. — MrLiminal

it's not the beliefs, it's the method. Not what is being affirmed, but why it is being affirmed.

Hence:

the final end of justice is bringing everything under the proper respect of the order of creation. — Bob Ross

Religion was the original philosophy — MrLiminal

Is it open to a theologian to conclude that there is no god and remain a theologian?

A philosopher may do so and remain a philosopher.

It partly comes from primitive intuitions about inheritance. — frank

As if blame were genetic. The story of original sin appears morally indefensible. Theology is that defence.

Theology is not philosophy.

Theology starts with a conclusion, and seeks to explain how it fits in with how things are. It seeks to make a given doctrine consistent.

Philosophy starts with how things are and looks for a consistent explanation.

Theology can't say "That's inconsistent", and so eventually has to rely instead on mystery.

...because God is perfect, he cannot interact with imperfect beings directly — MrLiminal

Wouldn't a god that can interact with imperfect beings, and lead them to the light, be better than a god who cannot interact with imperfect beings?

But the higher point is the methodological one made above, that theology consists in justifying a given series of doctrines, not in their critique.

It starts with the conclusion and works through to the explanation, unable to reach an alternate conclusion.

Right, so the narrative is that Jesus redeems us from the curse of Adam. Without that redemption, we're condemned. — frank

The idea that children should be held responsible for the sins of their parents is also... problematic.

Doubtless there are theological explanations.

And here again we face a problem with the method of theology, which aims to explain what is already taken as granted. It is not open to the theologian to conclude that God is wrong to visit the sins of Adam on his children. Theology as the institutionalisation of confirmation bias.

Of course, some theological approaches might avoid this accusation. But I do not see them hereabouts.

...its default sycophantic tilt — Count Timothy von Icarus

We can agree on a dislike for the tone, to be sure. It was your suggestion to make use of it, and again you seem to renege when faced with the consequence.

So I asked it about Frank's post, and it sugested the following re-write of Frank's post:

The Catholic Church teaches that God, in His infinite love, entered into our world — not to appease His own anger, but to rescue humanity from the alienation brought about by sin. This rescue took the form of Jesus Christ freely undergoing death — not as a victim of divine rage, but as an act of perfect self-giving love.
Still, it remains mysterious: God reconciles the world to Himself by suffering at the hands of those He came to save. Justice is not satisfied by punishment, but by a love so radical it absorbs violence and answers it with forgiveness. — ChatGPT

It then asks :

Why is such suffering needed at all for God to forgive or heal? — ChatGPT

Now that is a good question. Here's an issue worth considering. Chat is of course only inferring, from a huge DB of word strings, the appropriate next words in a string of words that starts with Frank's OP, and this is what it comes up with. The question follows from Frank's OP.

Is your answer the same as ChatGPT's? That is it a "mystery"?

Or is your reply only the tu quoque of your parody on atheism?

Is it possible to have a productive conversation concerning the consistency of God?

Well, for my part, there appear to be issues of consistency that have been raised here that you and Tim have not yet addressed. Mind you, I haven't finished reading the additions form overnight yet. But yes, the conversation has not been productive.

It might be helpful to continue to distinguish the Thomist view you are using for rhetorical purposes, from your own.

The premise here is that the aim of justice is punishment. Why should we accept that?

He said:

I read your post. It just didn't make any sense to me. — frank

So it seems your attempt to reach him was unsuccessful.

Frank would not be the first name to come to mind hereabouts, as being "intellectually vicious".

I gather form your other comments that Thomism was more a rhetorical strategy than a statement fo your actual view? Now for Thomism, Jesus is god. I think I see why Frank may have not understood your point.

An interesting statement. — AmadeusD

Conclusion.

If "A picture captures a moment in a narrative", and some paintings do not capture moments in a narrative, then not all paintings are pictures.

Yep.

It looks like avoidance.

This is ridiculous. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Is it?

You asked what ChatGPT thought. It said:

This is not merely irreverent. It's a crystallization of several profound theological problems — or aporia — that critics, skeptics, and even believers have long wrestled with. — ChatGPT

and proceeds to unpack a series of issues, ending with

The Catholic Church isn’t unaware of these criticisms. In fact, many modern theologians have tried to move away from juridical, retributive models. The Church emphasizes:

● God is not angry and vengeful. “Wrath” describes the alienation caused by sin, not God’s disposition.
● Jesus is not punished by God. He shares in human suffering, in solidarity, and opens a path back to God by showing perfect love.
● The Cross reveals love, not wrath. It’s not a price paid, but a revelation of God’s nature.
● In this view, atonement isn’t God changing His mind — it’s God changing ours.

The question now is: Does Christianity survive this tension? Or does it deepen the mystery in a way that still speaks to human guilt, suffering, and hope? — ChatGPT

It might be helpful to at least recognise the difficulty had by a non-Catholic, in coming to terms with what is not as simple a doctrine as it might seem for Catholics.

The full Chat is at:
https://chatgpt.com/share/687f097f-f0a0-800f-900a-c8f130cc2bb9

(Here I am attempting to use ChatGPT to fill in the account it seems to me you have been unable to present)

The Davidsonian point that we all agree about most things is true when it comes to everyday stuff. Not so much when it comes to aesthetics. — Janus

Not so sure. But a discussion worth having.

What might a Davidsonian aesthetic look like?

Oh, ok. You were just saying that the meaning of words is not fixed.

...now you are making my case for me. — Janus

It might help if you were to explain what your case is...

Here's mine:

...something being art is dependent on how we chose to talk about it. — Banno

How does yours differ?

I can articulate it just fine — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm looking forward to your doing so, then.

Oh, . it's just such a tidy koan.

Without an interpretation, how could the question have an answer?

Buggered if I know.

See, perhaps, Encoding the Dreaming - A theoretical framework for the analysis ofrepresentational processes in Australian Aboriginal art

The argument there is for ongoing interpretation.

What might Davidson make of this?