Humility: Good or Bad?

[Larry]

Crimson Flyboy, how do you explain that at least 70,000 people saw the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, and that the secular, anti-Catholic press reported seeing it as well? How do you explain the Miracles of healing at Lourdes? How do you explain the Holy Shroud of Turin? And on and on...

I have heard a lot about the miracle of the sun, but don't know about a lot of the details.  The miracles at Lourdes are dubious.  Hundreds of thousands people go to Lourdes every year, yet we only hear of a few supposed miracles.  This could very well be a statistical anomaly.  There isn't much evidence that the shroud of Turin is actually the shroud Jesus of Nazareth was buried with.  Miracles in general are highly dubious as there normally is not much evidence.  And if we are defining miracle as a suspension of natural laws, then the presence of miracles would create problems as it would mean that our natural laws would be thrown into doubt and we couldn't be sure if we knew anything at that point.  It would be a disaster for the scientific community.

The Miracles of Lourdes are not dubious. The reason we only hear of a few is because they must meet strict requirements to be considered miraculous. The miracles recognized have absolutely no natural explanation.

As for the Shroud, there is no paint on it, and no one knows how the image was formed. I suggest a book called "Report on the Shroud of Turin" by John Heller. Dr. Heller is a non Catholic scientist, and most of the research in his book was supplied by the late Alan Adler, a secular Jew with absolutely no bias towards the Shroud being authentic. Lots of material is also available on the website:
http://www.shroud.com/

That website is run by Barry Schwortz, one of the scientists involved with the investigation of the Shroud. He, too,is Jewish, and believes the Shroud's authenticity because of the preponderance of the evidence supports that fact.

[james03]

P.S. Your pushing me on this topic has helped me to formulate this idea much better, thanks.

Unfortunately after 3 pages you still have given no explanation of justice with reason alone.  You said you can explain it without God, and yet when asked, you could not deliver.

[Probius]

P.S. Your pushing me on this topic has helped me to formulate this idea much better, thanks.

Unfortunately after 3 pages you still have given no explanation of justice with reason alone.  You said you can explain it without God, and yet when asked, you could not deliver.

I did so right here:  It doesn't make any sense to explain ideas like justice and rights by simply saying God did it, that is an insufficient explanation and is utterly wanting.  It dodges the question as well.  The real way to explain these ideas is with reason.  Here we go: All men are born equal, because all men are born with Locke's tabula rasa.  Since no man can lay claim to superiority by birth it stands to reason that no man can lay claim to the right to rule over any other man.  As all men are equal and men need a way of working together in a shared society in which they strengthen each other and achieve what none of them could possibly achieve as individuals, they are going to need a way to associate with each other as a society.  This is where Rousseau's social contract comes in.  These men associate freely with one another through a social contract that establishes the basis by which they create laws to aid in their endeavor to create a society in which they may all flourish as individuals and as a society.  From this social contract and the succeeding laws we get concepts like 'justice' and 'rights'.  I hope this makes sense.

What do you think of this explanation.  It was late last night when I wrote this, but I was still proud of it.

[james03]

It fails.  You can not explain the concept of justice, of how it can exist.  Society can work just fine with a 55% looting class and a 45% maker class.  As an atheist, if it works, you can't argue against it.  And if you are in the lucky 55%, it most certainly works for you, whatever "you" is since you are just a pile of atoms.

[james03]

Alright, I'll give you another chance.  I'm the socialist looter, and you have given me your argument of why I should sacrifice for you and give up the good life:

The real way to explain these ideas is with reason.  Here we go: All men are born equal, because all men are born with Locke's tabula rasa.  Since no man can lay claim to superiority by birth it stands to reason that no man can lay claim to the right to rule over any other man.

We weren't born equal.  I was born to a family of socialists.  Our party is in charge and you Libertarians are out of power.  We have the guns and the exclusive use of deadly force.  That is why you work and I get drunk.  Because we aren't equal.  So no, I'm not going to sacrifice for you and give this up.

Continue your explanation using reason.

[rbjmartin]

Here we go: All men are born equal, because all men are born with Locke's tabula rasa.  Since no man can lay claim to superiority by birth it stands to reason that no man can lay claim to the right to rule over any other man.  As all men are equal and men need a way of working together in a shared society in which they strengthen each other and achieve what none of them could possibly achieve as individuals, they are going to need a way to associate with each other as a society.  This is where Rousseau's social contract comes in.  These men associate freely with one another through a social contract that establishes the basis by which they create laws to aid in their endeavor to create a society in which they may all flourish as individuals and as a society.  From this social contract and the succeeding laws we get concepts like 'justice' and 'rights'.  I hope this makes sense.

Your definition of justice rests on a dubious premise. What proof do you have that all men are born equal? The evidence all around me seems to suggest otherwise. The fact that we are each born as a blank slate doesn't necessarily equate to saying we are all born equal. Maybe my slate is bigger than yours, or maybe it is smoother and easier to write on (to carry the analogy further). I think you will be hard-pressed to prove that all men are born equal. If that were the case, one would have to assume that twins who were brought up in the exact same environments with the same influences would be identical people, but we know this is not the case. No, every individual seems to exhibit innate gifts and weaknesses. Some men exhibit physical gifts more than others. Other men exhibit mental gifts more than others. Some men seem more creative. Others seem to be more technical.

If your definition of justice rests on such a dubious premise, I think your definition must fail.

[rbjmartin]

If you don't mind, there are a couple of points from earlier in the thread that I would like to take up.

I'll explain further.  A contingent thing didn't have to exist, it isn't necessary.  But to equate contingency with a need for a creator seems to be assuming that there is some purpose to existence and that existence is objectively better than non-existence.  I don't think that's the case.  Existence is subjectively better from our point of view only.

How can you dispute that existence is better than non-existence? How can you say a tree is not objectively better than _______? If we can't even think of _______ or conceive of any notion of _______, how could it be equal to or better than something that I can think of or perceive or talk about? I can't say that ______ is better than anything because I can't say anything at all about _______, other than it doesn't exist.

While we're at it, what do you mean by "better"? Do you really mean this as a comparative of "good"? This is the language of spiritual valuation.

[rbjmartin]

As mentioned earlier, I have studied the five ways of Aquinas and I find them insufficient.  I find the contingency argument to be the weakest.  Just because a thing is contingent does not necessarily mean that something created it.  A contingent being could very well have come about by chance.

I find the use of "chance" as an explanation of a thing's existence to be severely insufficient.  Atheists use it as a sort of deus ex machina argument (how ironic), but it isn't an explanation at all. If anything, it is an admission that "I have no idea how this thing came about," in which case, you must still be open to the possibility of God creating the thing, which would preclude one being positively atheist (unless you are an atheist by faith).

[Probius]

If you don't mind, there are a couple of points from earlier in the thread that I would like to take up.

I'll explain further.  A contingent thing didn't have to exist, it isn't necessary.  But to equate contingency with a need for a creator seems to be assuming that there is some purpose to existence and that existence is objectively better than non-existence.  I don't think that's the case.  Existence is subjectively better from our point of view only.

How can you dispute that existence is better than non-existence? How can you say a tree is not objectively better than _______? If we can't even think of _______ or conceive of any notion of _______, how could it be equal to or better than something that I can think of or perceive or talk about? I can't say that ______ is better than anything because I can't say anything at all about _______, other than it doesn't exist.

While we're at it, what do you mean by "better"? Do you really mean this as a comparative of "good"? This is the language of spiritual valuation.

One simply cannot use terms like good or bad in any objective way.  The terms are meaningless outside of a human context.  Allow me to propose a thought experiment.  Consider a situation somewhat similar to that of 'It's A Wonderful Life', but inverted.  Instead of one man being taken out of existence, lets say all men are taken out of existence.  Now, in this human less universe, could there really be such a notion as good or bad?  If two planets slam into each other, would it make a hill of beans?  There is no meaning outside of human experience.

[rbjmartin]

If you don't mind, there are a couple of points from earlier in the thread that I would like to take up.

I'll explain further.  A contingent thing didn't have to exist, it isn't necessary.  But to equate contingency with a need for a creator seems to be assuming that there is some purpose to existence and that existence is objectively better than non-existence.  I don't think that's the case.  Existence is subjectively better from our point of view only.

How can you dispute that existence is better than non-existence? How can you say a tree is not objectively better than _______? If we can't even think of _______ or conceive of any notion of _______, how could it be equal to or better than something that I can think of or perceive or talk about? I can't say that ______ is better than anything because I can't say anything at all about _______, other than it doesn't exist.

While we're at it, what do you mean by "better"? Do you really mean this as a comparative of "good"? This is the language of spiritual valuation.

One simply cannot use terms like good or bad in any objective way.  The terms are meaningless outside of a human context.  Allow me to propose a thought experiment.  Consider a situation somewhat similar to that of 'It's A Wonderful Life', but inverted.  Instead of one man being taken out of existence, lets say all men are taken out of existence.  Now, in this human less universe, could there really be such a notion as good or bad?  If two planets slam into each other, would it make a hill of beans?  There is no meaning outside of human experience.

Wait a minute. You started this thread and named it "Humilty: Good or Bad?" Why would you pose such a question if you don't believe in objective "good" and "bad"?

[james03]

CF,
Please tackle the question on justice.  You claim that you can prove it with reason alone.  In the example, you made your opening remark and the atheist socialist has responded.  He doesn't believe he is born equal.  He pointed out he was born into socialism, has all the guns, and it quite happy with the system.  He refuses to sacrifice for you.  Your turn to respond, with "reason" only.

[LouisIX]

There are a lot of presuppositions of meaning in your premises, Crimson.  This meaning and value is defeating to your overall worldview.

[Probius]

CF,
Please tackle the question on justice.  You claim that you can prove it with reason alone.  In the example, you made your opening remark and the atheist socialist has responded.  He doesn't believe he is born equal.  He pointed out he was born into socialism, has all the guns, and it quite happy with the system.  He refuses to sacrifice for you.  Your turn to respond, with "reason" only.

You seem to act as if the concept of God is an objective immutable rock from which the concept of justice may be built, and human reason is unreliable.  The concept of God just complicates the matter, however.  As mentioned before, if God created justice, then justice is a whim and meaningless.  If Justice is according to reason, and God is merely informing us of what justice is, then he in an unnecessary component of the equation.  The concept of God seems to be a cop out and a way to avoid asking what justice is.  We cannot avoid this, we are going to have to role up our sleeves and do the work in order to understand these concepts by using our reason.  It is tough work, but rewarding.  And it is unavoidable, as reason is all we have.  Reason allows a man to live as a man.

[Probius]

Okay.  The two genealogies from Matthew and Luke was the first problem I noticed.  They are way off, and not even close to each other.  Who is Joseph's father?  Matthew tells us he is Jacob, Luke tells us he is Heli.  Really?

The genealogies are not intended to be the same.  They're attempting to show geneaology in two different ways.  These are both synoptic gospels, and they are very related.  This wouldn't be an "oops" moment as the writer of one most likely had access to the information of the other.  Keep in mind that each evangelist is intending to portray a different aspect of Christ.  If you'll notice, Matthew's Gospel is most concerned with Christ as a man, the Suffering Servant of Psalm 22, who comes to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah.  The selection of whom to name in Christ's lineage reflects Matthew's concerns and what he hopes for his largely Jewish audience to notice about Jesus.

I will explain more later.

Later in Matthew he calls Jacob Joseph's father.  Later in Luke he calls Heli Joseph's father.  How can Joseph have two fathers?  And if Jesus is the promised messiah, why is he not capable of claiming the Jewish throne?  The lineage in Matthew is cursed because of Jeconiah.  The lineage in Luke does not contain Solomon.  He had two cracks at it and neither panned out.  If he cannot sit on the throne of David, he is not the messiah.  Further the Jewish messiah was never meant to be God either.  That would be abhorrent to Jewish theology, God simply cannot become a man.  The messiah was supposed to only be a righteous man and not God.

It was abhorrent because the Jews didn't listen to all of the prophecies of the Incarnation.  Seriously, it's all over the Old Testament.

There is no mention anywhere in the Old Testament of the messiah being God.  Further, there was never supposed to be one messiah.  The Hebrew word we have anglicized into 'messiah' just meant anointed.  All of the kings and priests of Israel and Judah were messiahs.  The OT prophets had just prophesied that another messiah would come along to restore the kingdom.  Then there are all of the prophecies Jesus did not fulfill, such as: the in gathering of the exiles, the building of the third temple, world peace, the resurrection of the dead, etc.  And all of this is without mentioning that there is no actual evidence that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed at all.

[james03]

You seem to act as if the concept of God is an objective immutable rock from which the concept of justice may be built, and human reason is unreliable.  The concept of God just complicates the matter, however.  As mentioned before, if God created justice, then justice is a whim and meaningless.  If Justice is according to reason, and God is merely informing us of what justice is, then he in an unnecessary component of the equation.  The concept of God seems to be a cop out and a way to avoid asking what justice is.  We cannot avoid this, we are going to have to role up our sleeves and do the work in order to understand these concepts by using our reason.  It is tough work, but rewarding.  And it is unavoidable, as reason is all we have.  Reason allows a man to live as a man.

Where have I mentioned God in this example?  I took the part of an atheist socialist.  You said you could establish the existence of justice with reason only.  Admit you can't or do it.

As far as reason, it comes from Truth, and is a great thing.  Aquinas is held very high in the Church after all, and even Rand respected him.  And of course all of Greek Realism is held in high esteem.  Even Liebniz, who I believe was Lutheran and was a great contributor to math and logic, is generally respected by Catholics.

Anyhow, please continue with the example I created.  An atheist socialist needs to be convinced to sacrifice for you by giving up his loot.  Obviously the argument against his lifestyle is justice.  So here's the perfect opportunity for you to establish the existence of justice with reason only.  Go to it.