The existence of evil brings about a greater good.
— frank
??
How does a rape contribute to the greater good, and if it does, why are there laws against it?
Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop
If we don't understand, then how do we know it's a good, or is that presupposed?all sin brings about a greater good whether we understand how or not. — frank
Try thinking for yourself in a logical way. — Gnostic Christian Bishop
I was explaining Thomism on ethics. — frank
If what you put is their ethics, they are garbage. — Gnostic Christian Bishop
For a Thomist, all sin brings about a greater good whether we understand how or not. — frank
Not at all. Thomism launched us toward the scientific worldview we have today, and so is worth examining — frank
all sin brings about a greater good is logically possible, so your faith-based belief in Thomism is not refuted. — Relativist
Yes there are: Edward Feser, and his devotees.I don't think there are any Thomists anymore — frank
While Thomistic metaphysics doesn't entail intervention in the world, it doesn't preclude it either. Aquinas (and Feser) believed all the usual Catholic doctrine, including Jesus' virginal conception, his Resurrection, and transsubstantiation.The Thomist God set the world in motion and then sort of turned away to let it run its course. — frank
A venerable, old, (Augustinian) theodicy for excusing all evil (especially ecclesiastical atrocities).For a Thomist, all sin brings about a greater good whether we understand how or not. — frank
You're referring to Aquinas' antiquated (unquantified), mostly incoherent (teleological), and insufficiently empirical (unpredictive) Aristotelianism, right?Thomism launched us toward the scientific worldview we have today ... — frank
Hear that Adolf? Christened & confirmed Catholic that you were, you need not have painted the bunker wall with your brains in despair "because redemption is assured" ...Give yourself a break because redemption is assured. — frank
While Thomistic metaphysics doesn't entail intervention in the world, it doesn't preclude it either. — Relativist
Give yourself a break because redemption is assured.
— frank
Hear that Adolf? Christened & confirmed Catholic that you were, you need not have painted the bunker wall with your brains in despair "because redemption is assured" ... — 180 Proof
It didn't evolve "out of Chistianity". Rather, it happens to have primarily evolved within a culture that happened to be predominantly Christian. Christianity isn't really on the critical path.
Science didn't pop full-fledged out of nowhere. It evolved, and in the west, it evolved out of Christianity — frank
The existence of evil brings about a greater good. — Gnostic Christian Bishop
It didn't evolve "out of Chistianity". Rather, it happens to have primarily evolved within a culture that happened to be predominantly Christian. Christianity isn't really on the critical path. — Relativist
I'm not sure what you're asking. — Relativist
It didn't evolve "out of Chistianity". Rather, it happens to have primarily evolved within a culture that happened to be predominantly Christian. — Relativist
That for the pagan ancient world (not ever to be confused with any kind of ignorance or stupidity), nature was imperfect, and therefore not really knowable. Observable yes, knowable no. Christianity, on the other hand, believed that nature was made by God, and therefore perfect in itself, and therefore perfectly knowable.I don't see that Christianity was a sine qua non for its development. What am I missing? — Relativist
The "pagan" religion of the Roman empire was based on ritual, not adherence to a world view. There was no ideological barrier to making efforts to understand the world. Aristotelian metaphysics was consistent with pursuing natural explanations for the behavior of the world.That for the pagan ancient world (not ever to be confused with any kind of ignorance or stupidity), nature was imperfect, and therefore not really knowable. Observable yes, knowable no. Christianity, on the other hand, believed that nature was made by God, and therefore perfect in itself, and therefore perfectly knowable. — tim wood
The "pagan" religion of the Roman empire was based on ritual, not adherence to a world view. There was no ideological barrier to making efforts to understand the world. Aristotelian metaphysics was consistent with pursuing natural explanations for the behavior of the world. — Relativist
My read on HItler is that he didn't commit suicide out of remorse. He just didn't want to go through the execution. — frank
all sin brings about a greater good whether we understand how or not. So a Thomist doesn't have to explain individual examples. — frank
Wouldn't intentionally sinning be working toward a positive good? — ZhouBoTong
Aristotle and Aquinas don't accept that a person can sin intentionally. When faced with multiple possible actions, you pick the one that you think will achieve your goal. Even if you know others take a dim view of your actions or goals, you have justified it to yourself. — frank
You can be mistaken, though. You're imperfect. When you discover that your actions didn't really get you what you wanted, you have an opportunity to learn and grow. — frank
Imagine a plant that always gets everything it needs exactly when it needs it. It will grow into a fine example of its species, but it won't have the strength to endure a storm. — frank
Or imagine that you're learning a programming language and your first efforts are bugless. Contrast that to a situation where you're beset by 10 difficult bugs. In the first case, your knowledge of the language will remain somewhat superficial. Having to solve the problems created by your own mistakes will deepen your understanding and thereby draw you closer to the God of Software, which is the direction your nature always silently moved you. — frank
And the real Hitler was just a guy. He wasn't the icon we've made him into. In another place and time, he would have been fine. It was the human world that had descended into insanity. I'm a moral nihilist, so the idea that it could be unforgivable doesn't make sense to me. — frank
If you say it was unforgivable, what do you mean? — frank
What moral framework are you using? — frank
So there is not even the appearance of free will? As someone who does not wholly believe in free will, I still find this very weird. Why would I not be able to intentionally sin? — ZhouBoTong
Or I can be a dick. Who decides everyone else can just burn. Or I can even think I am learning and growing and helping others when I am actually just a self serving ass (I think this is what you are getting for no intentional sin, but this only describes some humans). — ZhouBoTong
If storms are a regular part of life then it sounds like the plant did not get everything it needs. — ZhouBoTong
But I am not sold on how genocide leads to a brighter future? Is America better today because it had slavery for a couple hundred years? And we are still feeling the benefits of 80 years of Jim Crow? Learning from a challenge is a lot different from saying "sin makes us better". — ZhouBoTong
I see no reason to think science wouldn't have advanced had Christianity not gained the big following that it did, but historical what-ifs like this seem an exercise in futility.. Christianity was an influence that allowed those presuppositions to evolve and change. I — tim wood
I don't think that at all, and I've raised that point myself in other discussions. But neither do you know how they thought, and your claim depends on your speculations about their world views, and that these assumed world views were so ubiquitous that it would be impossible for science to develop.The error you're making - that I think you're making - and a common error commonly made by folks who do not really understand history (itself) is that those folks in their thinking were just like us folks in ours, only maybe not-so-far along. And they weren't. — tim wood
I don't think that at all, and I've raised that point myself in other discussions. But neither do you know how they thought, and your claim depends on your speculations about their world views, and that these assumed world views were so ubiquitous that it would be impossible for science to develop. — Relativist
None of this my idea, but from various sources, including R. G. Collingwood on history and metaphysics. — tim wood
You're not getting that observing/exploring nature is not what modern science does. Or, that is, modern science does more than just observe and explore, and that difference is what makes modern science modern science. Modern science puts nature to the question, as approximately expressed c. 1600 by Francis Bacon and developed since then. This system of hypothesis and experimentation, the scientific method, was unknown before that, and given their systems of beliefs, would have been hard to arrive at. As in fact not arrived at until after substantial changes in fundamental presuppositions about the world, much having to do with the influence of the new beliefs in monotheism v. polytheism.What really drove individuals to explore nature? — Relativist
Tenuous except where and when it's a matter of record. And on these matters, reading about the "historical" Jesus (separate question: is there an historical Jesus? This answerable as a matter of fact - do you know as a matter of fact?), isn't going to cut it.I've done a fair amount of reading about the historical Jesus and it's pretty obvious to me that our knowledge of the distant past is very tenuous. And if we can't really know the actual past with any certainty, it is folly to think we can figure out what would have happened under this hypothetical. — Relativist
Under what hypothetical?under this hypothetical. — Relativist
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.