“The image of homo religiosus is that of a man who craves to flee from the concrete, empirical world and escape into the realm of eternal being.” — Hanover
this self-narration in order to try to salvage one's past utterances is obviously not philosophy. It's just a vain attempt to save face. — Leontiskos
It's the little word puzzles that are interesting, more than that it relates to god — Banno
[talking about talking] that's what Philosophy is. — Banno
Are you homo religiosus? — frank
I agree that it's not my job to tell other people what kind of relationship they should have to religion, but somewhere short of actually getting offensive, challenging a belief can shed light. Maybe it doesn't shed light on strict philosophical issues, though. Maybe it's more about psychology. — frank
The point here is that none of us care to argue the esoteric points of Catholicism to determine whether the trinity is sustainable within the dictates of that logical system and to otherwise point out the tensions from within that system. — Hanover
Perhaps; perhaps. seems to think the wounds worth keeping open. I wonder if that's why he commits to these fora.Yes, these threads have very little value when folks just want to tell us what their beliefs are. — Hanover
I'll again make explicit that I agree. It has a place in a language game, a use. So it is not meaningless, if meaning is use; nor is it worthless, not for the faithful, and not for those who might try to understand them. And without sense, if we are to understand that in terms of coherence - the contradiction in the Trinity is what leads to the ad hoc self-justification of Thomism and such.The Trinity isn't stupid, worthless, or even nonsense — Hanover
Same substance, different form. — DingoJones
It almost became a discussion between two sides of an issue a couple times, but earnestness is hard to fake on TFP. — Fire Ologist
...you are always more interested in talking about talking, rather than in what is actually being said. — Fire Ologist
Ok. But is that all it is? — Fire Ologist
Right. I think there are cases where religious discussion can be quite fruitful:
Interreligious dialogue between contrasting religious approaches — Leontiskos
It has been fruitful. I've picked up quite a bit about the ancient Greeks from Christians on TPF. — BitconnectCarlos
The Analytic, with his tiny set of norms, must ultimately admit that pretty much everything passes muster, at least on Analytic grounds. — Leontiskos
Analysis becomes a form of worship. — Hanover
the analytic tradition need not be atheistic — Hanover
I just point out that both sides to our hearty debate are being myopic if they think analytic thought entails atheism. What entails atheism or theism is worldview, which relates to form of life. — Hanover
Between the Atheistic Analytic and the Catholic... — Leontiskos
Analytic philosophy as the sanctification of rules...The sanctification of rules results in their analysis... — Hanover
In conformity with the usage of the inspired writers of the New Testament, theologians give the name mystery to revealed truths that surpass the powers of natural reason. Mystery, therefore, in its strict theological sense is not synonymous with the incomprehensible, since all that we know is incomprehensible, i.e., not adequately comprehensible as to its inner being; nor with the unknowable, since many things merely natural are accidentally unknowable, on account of their inaccessibility, e.g., things that are future, remote, or hidden. In its strict sense a mystery is a supernatural truth, one that of its very nature lies above the finite intelligence.
Theologians distinguish two classes of supernatural mysteries: the absolute (or theological) and the relative. An absolute mystery is a truth whose existence or possibility could not be discovered by a creature, and whose essence (inner substantial being) can be expressed by the finite mind only in terms of analogy, e.g., the Trinity. A relative mystery is a truth whose innermost nature alone (e.g., many of the Divine attributes), or whose existence alone (e.g., the positive ceremonial precepts of the Old Law), exceeds the natural knowing power of the creature.... — New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia
The existence of supernatural mysteries is denied by Rationalists and semi-Rationalists. Rationalists object that mysteries are degrading to reason. Their favourite argument is based on the principle that no medium exists between the reasonable and the unreasonable, from which they conclude that the mysterious is opposed to reason (Bayle, Pfleiderer). This argumentation is fallacious, since it confounds incomprehensibility with inconceivableness, superiority to reason with contradiction. The mind of a creature cannot, indeed, grasp the inner nature of the mysterious truth, but it can express that truth by analogies; it cannot fully understand the coherence and agreement of all that is contained in a mystery of faith, but it can refute successfully the objections which would make a mystery consist of mutually repugnant elements. — New Advent
No, but it might be all that can be said. — Banno
Analytic philosophy as the sanctification of rules...
Not so much. — Banno
...I meant an Analytic philosopher who is an atheist, thus implying that not all Analytic philosophers are atheists — Leontiskos
Atheism is a very different thing to analytic method. — Banno
But I’d ask for a small step back from you as well in some form of confession that your original post with it’s reference to lobotomies and belittling caricatures of Christianity might have been a factor in the hostility on the thread. — Fire Ologist
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. 16 Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.
17 Repay no one evil for evil. Have[e] regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 Therefore
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
If he is thirsty, give him a drink;
For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.”
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. — Paul in Romans 12:14-21
Don’t hit back; discover beauty in everyone. If you’ve got it in you, get along with everybody. Don’t insist on getting even; that’s not for you to do. “I’ll do the judging,” says God. “I’ll take care of it.”
20-21 Our Scriptures tell us that if you see your enemy hungry, go buy that person lunch, or if he’s thirsty, get him a drink. Your generosity will surprise him with goodness. Don’t let evil get the best of you; get the best of evil by doing good. — MSG version
did you guys think the NT makes sense? Because it doesn't — frank
whether “the Catholic Church holds the Trinity to be beyond human understanding — Fire Ologist
Theologians distinguish two classes of supernatural mysteries: the absolute (or theological) and the relative. An absolute mystery is a truth whose existence or possibility could not be discovered by a creature, and whose essence (inner substantial being) can be expressed by the finite mind only in terms of analogy, e.g., the Trinity. A relative mystery is a truth whose innermost nature alone (e.g., many of the Divine attributes), or whose existence alone (e.g., the positive ceremonial precepts of the Old Law), exceeds the natural knowing power of the creature.... — New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia
If you will, read the following from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, and see if you can understand how a person would get the impression that the Catholic Church holds the Trinity to be beyond human understanding.
...
In other words, they're drawing a distinction between incomprehensibility and inconceivableness. At first glance, it doesn't seem that such a distinction is supportable. Don't these two words mean the same thing? When the topic is mystery, the answer is no. A mystery is incomprehensible, but not inconceivable. They're denying that the Trinity is a contradiction, but they admit that it's superior to reason. Another way to say that is that it is beyond reason. — frank
Something does not need to be contradictory to be a mystery. Indeed, I'd argue that if something is contradictory, in a strict logical sense, it is simply absurd, not a mystery at all. To say, in a univocal, properly logical sense, that God is both numerically one and not-numerically one, and that the Father is the Son and also is not-the Son, isn't a statement of mystery, it is nonsense. It is nonsense because we are saying something, and then negating it, and not in the fashion of apophatic theology, where we affirm in one sense, and then negate the creaturely sense, but in the strict univocal manner appropriate to logic, so that we are actually not saying anything at all, because everything we have said has been negated.
But, there is a difference between strict contradiction and merely apparent contradictions, or contradictions that arise through equivocation, or not making proper distinctions. And there is a difference between what is beyond human reason, or beyond the domain of logic and of univocal predication, and what is contrary to reason (contradictory). — Count Timothy von Icarus
all that we know is incomprehensible, i.e., not adequately comprehensible as to its inner being; — Mystery | Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)
This argumentation is fallacious, since it confounds incomprehensibility with inconceivableness, superiority to reason with contradiction. — Mystery | Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)
Sure. All cards on the table, the inspiration for the OP was the fact that there were two open threads attacking the OT, one on the basis that some of the folktales in it don't seem possible, and one complaining that the OT deity seems vengeful. I was like, did you guys think the NT makes sense? Because it doesn't. — frank
So I disagree with the New Advent quote above where it says “can be expressed…only in terms of analogy.” — Fire Ologist
It is precisely the fact that reason is a separate function than belief that one can believe before seeing reason — Fire Ologist
So I agree with you and Banno that the Trinity strains credulity. — Fire Ologist
One question here is surely whether the Trinity is to be understood as a starting point, as a hinge proposition, not to be doubted; or as a deduction from first principles as Bob Ross would have it; or... — Banno
As I mentioned, it's been said that God is like a coffee cup. The handle is an analogy. The mind is the index finger. In other words, the mind can only grasp God in a limited way. — frank
Since everything is knowable according as it is actual, God, Who is pure act without any admixture of potentiality, is in Himself supremely knowable. But what is supremely knowable in itself, may not be knowable to a particular intellect, on account of the excess of the intelligible object above the intellect; as, for example, the sun, which is supremely visible, cannot be seen by the bat by reason of its excess of light. — Aquinas, ST I.12.1
Yes, that's something of the idea. — Leontiskos
I guess no one wanted to take up Hanover's comment? — jorndoe
The perennialists sometimes bring up the parable of the blind men and an elephant.
Might be better suited for pluralism. — jorndoe
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.