Altruism as good as sex and chocolate?

[Choobus]

SteveG wrote

uh....no, not quite right, but so close.:D

Damn! I thought I had it. Lily has been educating me you see, but it seems I am not a good student....

[Irreligious]

The article, in essence, says that there can be no cause without the Original ol' G. He set it all in motion, but made allowances for the exercise of "free" will independent of [H]is own. I get that. My problem with it is that it's not an explanation for anything; it's speculation. Navel gazing, if you will.

[Philboid Studge]

Isn't there some serious question-buggering going on in this?:

Thomas points out that the judgment that there is a conflict here results from confusion regarding the nature of creation and natural change. It is an error that I call the “Cosmogonical Fallacy.” Those who are worried about conflict between faith and reason on this issue fail to distinguish between cause in the sense of a natural change of some kind and cause in the sense of an ultimate bringing into being of something from no antecedent state whatsoever. “Creatio non est mutatio,” says Thomas, affirming that the act of creation is not some species of change. So, the Greek natural philosophers were quite correct: from nothing, nothing comes. By “comes” here is meant a change from one state to another and this requires some underlying material reality, some potentiality for the new state to come into being. This is because all change arises out of a pre-existing possibility for that change residing in something. Creation, on the other hand, is the radical causing of the whole existence of whatever exists. To be the complete cause of something’s existence is not the same as producing a change in something. It is not a taking of something and making it into something else, as if there were some primordial matter which God had to use to create the universe. Rather, creation is the result of the divine agency being totally responsible for the production, all at once and completely, of the whole of the universe, with all it entities and all its operations, from absolutely nothing pre-existing.
Strictly speaking, points out Thomas, the Creator does not create something out of nothing in the sense of taking some nothing and making something out of it. This is a conceptual mistake, for it treats nothing as a something. On the contrary, the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo claims that God made the universe without making it out of anything. In other words, anything left entirely to itself, completely separated from the cause of its existence, would not exist—it would be absolutely nothing. The ultimate cause of the existence of anything and everything is God who creates, not out of some nothing, but from nothing at all.

I'll give it this, though: it explains nothing. Heh heh.

(I like it when eggheads try to coin terms, but “Cosmogonical Fallacy” sounds like something Ghoulslime would have to treat with penicillin.)

Philboid Studge wrote

Isn't there some serious question-buggering going on in this?:

I'll give it this, though: it explains nothing. Heh heh.

(I like it when eggheads try to coin terms, but “Cosmogonical Fallacy” sounds like something Ghoulslime would have to treat with penicillin.)

I'm betting it makes more sense if you're on acid, or those mushrooms they were eating at Fatima.

[SteveG]

I think the article, and I, have already explained what Irr asked me to. The fundamental question was in regards to whether 'Godidit' is true or not. Fundamentally, the answer is yes, but with some explanation of how we understand that. So in that regard it explained exactly what it was intended to.

I think you are now faulting it for not answering how it works, which is not what is being addressed.

[Irreligious]

RenaissanceMan wrote

I'm betting it makes more sense if you're on acid, or those mushrooms they were eating at Fatima

Ooh, ooh! I've been to Fatima in Portugal! My ex, a nominal Catholic (or maybe not so nominal; it was hard to know for sure) loved visiting these alleged holy shrines. He also visited Our Lady of Lourdes in France and Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City (I accompanied him on that trip, too).

Fatima was fascinating. They actually sold mannequin limbs there, ostensibly because they possessed the mystical powers to heal things like bursitis, gout or tennis elbow. Many of the folks who visited these shrines were very sincere and, as you can imagine, desperate.

Edit

SteveG wrote

I think you are now faulting it for not answering how it works, which is not what is being addressed.

You are correct, SteveG. C'est la vie.

Choobus wrote

Damn! I thought I had it. Lily has been educating me you see, but it seems I am not a good student....

You haven't tried hard enough... This will hurt me more than it will you.

[Professor Chaos]

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths these people go to justify their beliefs.

1.) Christians believe God did "X," because the Bible says so.

2.) Time passes, and science ultimately explains that "X" happened naturally, in manner "Y."

3.) Christian "thinkers" decide that yes, we agree, but God was the mechanism of manner "Y." (Though a large percentage of Christians proclaim manner "Y" to never have happened and link "science" with communism, atheism, devil-worship, and reality-TV watching.)


Never once* considering the possibility that God does not exist, Christians concoct cute little pieces like the one above to convince themselves that their beliefs are not absurd.











*Sweeping generaliztion made for hyperbolic reasons.

Steve, is that ultraman on your avitar?

[Eva]

i have a severely retarded cousin. he used to operate at the leve of a 2 year old but i guess that was because he was never taken to any special schools, ever. this uncle and his wife were very catholic. after my aunt died, uncle took cousin to lourdes because he thought the virgin would cure my cousin if they went there. live, not via satellite like from puerto rico, you know.
nothing happened. my cousin was more than 40 years old at the time.
then he put him in a special school/home were in a matter of months he learned to do so many things he was moved to a group home with a supervisor. he can do many tasks already, like dressing himself, talking intelligibly and many manual tasks. he is happier than ever before and loves his community.
my uncle is not rich....but he regrets not having done the special schooling before...

one of life's bittersweet stories, trivialized by religion....

[SteveG]

Professor Chaos wrote

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths these people go to justify their beliefs.

1.) Christians believe God did "X," because the Bible says so.

2.) Time passes, and science ultimately explains that "X" happened naturally, in manner "Y."

3.) Christian "thinkers" decide that yes, we agree, but God was the mechanism of manner "Y." (Though a large percentage of Christians proclaim manner "Y" to never have happened and link "science" with communism, atheism, devil-worship, and reality-TV watching.)

Never once* considering the possibility that God does not exist, Christians concoct cute little pieces like the one above to convince themselves that their beliefs are not absurd.

I am really struggling to see how this comes out of either the discussion at hand or the article.

The article was not at all a treatise on full Thomism, or a proof for God. It was limited to a discussion of why Thomistic philosophy doesn't think much of ID based on the underlying philosophical principles of Thomism.

If anything it's supportive of evolutionary theory. How this is transformed into a criticism of the nature you offer above is really surprising to me.

Thomism, which predates modern science by hundreds of years, as applied in this case doesn't do anything close to what you are suggesting. Closer to reality is something like this..

1) Christians believe that all things exist because of God.
2) Over time, science explains the mechanisms by which this existence operates.
3) Christian thinkers affirm this and find it totally unsurprising. Things like those referenced in Mog's original post are totally in keeping with what our understanding already was and has been for more than 500 years. It's interesting at the least, possibly very beneficial to humanity at best. Great to hear!

So, back to the original post and point by Mog. OK, so humans actually get pleasure from doing good. Wow, what a revelation. And water is wet.

[SteveG]

Just Us Chickens wrote

Steve, is that ultraman on your avitar?

:D

good pick up!

[Professor Chaos]

SteveG wrote

Closer to reality is something like this..

1) Christians believe that all things exist because of God.
2) Over time, science explains the mechanisms by which this existence operates.
3) Christian thinkers affirm this and find it totally unsurprising. Things like those referenced in Mog's original post are totally in keeping with what our understanding already was and has been for more than 500 years. It's interesting at the least, possibly very beneficial to humanity at best. Great to hear!

So the notion of man being created "in God's image" wasn't taken to mean his physical image before Darwin?

[Irreligious]

SteveG wrote

OK, so humans actually get pleasure from doing good. Wow, what a revelation. And water is wet.

And Ol' G is responsible for it all (Well, except for the bad stuff; that's the devil and willful humans' fault for bringing things like cancer, genocide and tsunamis on themselves). Glad we cleared all that up.

[SteveG]

Eva wrote

i have a severely retarded cousin. he used to operate at the leve of a 2 year old but i guess that was because he was never taken to any special schools, ever. this uncle and his wife were very catholic. after my aunt died, uncle took cousin to lourdes because he thought the virgin would cure my cousin if they went there. live, not via satellite like from puerto rico, you know.
nothing happened. my cousin was more than 40 years old at the time.
then he put him in a special school/home were in a matter of months he learned to do so many things he was moved to a group home with a supervisor. he can do many tasks already, like dressing himself, talking intelligibly and many manual tasks. he is happier than ever before and loves his community.
my uncle is not rich....but he regrets not having done the special schooling before...

one of life's bittersweet stories, trivialized by religion....

I honestly don't get it. At times you seem to want to use almost anything you can get your hands on to bash religion. Please explain to me how this man's plight was trivialized by religion?

What religious precept kept your aunt and uncle from doing the totally prudent thing and putting your cousin in that school from the beginning? What doctrine tells a parent to hope for a miracle but in the meantime not do anything else. I really want to know how this is religions fault.

In addition, can we ask how many of the people who work in that school do so because of their faith, because they want to help the least among us. And no, I am not saying those without faith can't so the same, but asking you to look at the whole picture here. Do those of faith who help the mentally handicapped get 'credit' for doing so, or is their faith trivializing him also.