Science and Religion

I got a chance to read the essay by Bertand Russell that was recently posted. We have talked about many of these things before and his reliance on bad theology, misunderstanding of Catholic teaching, and myths is disappointing. Just a few quick responses to the article, especially his arguments against the existence of God.

His understanding of the first cause argument seems to be at the level of what maybe an 18 year old would think, he admits as such in the essay. He obviously doesn't understand the nature of God as explained in theology as will also be evident in his other arguments. However, here it is painfully clear he doesn't seem to know about what we have all been talking about recently in regards to contingency and the problem of an infinite regress. He seems to think that God is also material and therefore subject to the question, "Who made God?" If he understood a little more about the nature of God being spiritual and non-contingent and the source of all creation having the reason for being in itself I think he would quickly realize that his argument does not hold water.

In regards to the Natural Law argument he again likes to make God into some creation itself subject to law. His thought that if God created these laws because they were reasonable then God is subject to some law above Himself. What he fails to consistently see is that God is logos, reason. God doesn't create these laws because He is following something above Himself, but rather is reason itself and the source of it.

When talking about Design I am intrigued that his main examples are really concerning human sin, such as the KKK and fascists. There have been much better critiques of proving God's existence through design recently using nature.

Again in discussing the Natural Law argument he fails to see that God is not just good, but is good itself and the source of all that is good.

Finally in regards the need for final justice he surprises me in how quickly he tries to avoid the real question by moving it into the field of science, which is not where a discussion regarding a human value or virtue like justice can truly be discussed. His example using oranges is particularly weak and seems to not be on the point. He would do well to wrestle more honestly with this question when he thinks about heaven and hell.

Quote: FrGamble

I got a chance to read the essay by Bertand Russell that was recently posted.

This essay was a huge deal in
1927. You just didn't say
what you really thought of
Christianity then. The Xtions
went nuts vilifying Russell,
just as you're trying to do.

I've never read so much truth
about Xtionity in one place.
He became an instant hero
to atheists everywhere. He
lived another 43 years after
this was published and never
backed down from any of it.
In fact, he became even more
outspoken about the god
religions.

I've watched several long
interviews with him, my gosh
he was a smart man. He
evolved from many opinions
he had in the 20's and 30's,
and changed his mind completely.
He never changed any of his
stances on god and atheism.

Russell won a Nobel Prize in
1950:

“In recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought.”

He was one of the most important
philosophers and logicians
of the 20th century.

I never vilified him nor doubted his intellect. He is simply wrong about his understanding of God and the teachings of Christianity.

Quote: FrGamble

He is simply wrong about his understanding of God and the teachings of Christianity.

From the reality you have created,
I'm sure he's 100% wrong. From
the reality of someone on the
outside who has no dog in the
race, he's totally right on the
money. That's the big argument,
BTW, that Xtions always take
against Russell, that he just didn't
'understand' Xtionity. But neither
does anybody else, that's why
there are 2500 offshoots and
growing. Xtionity is anything
you want it to be.

No Christianity is not what you want it to be. That has been one of your biggest problems in these discussions. You don't really want to hear or accept what the Catholic Church really teaches. You are not really interested in the truth just the version that someone has told you and that you want to believe.

(edit: by the way the first arguments don't have anything to do with Christianity they are just his misunderstanding of the nature of God and not knowing about certain things concerning these arguments. I know it is some chutzpah trying to say that Russell is mistaken or doesn't understand something, but it happens to the best of us.)

Quote: FrGamble

You are not really interested in the truth just the version that someone has told you and that you want to believe.

That describes you, does it not?
Of the 2500 versions, the only
one you're interested in promoting
is the one you grew up with. The
others might as well not exist at
all in your world.

I thought you would find everything
Russell said to be wrong. None of
it fits into the reality the Church
has created for you to live in. It's
a stifling reality that I would find
intellectually suffocating. You've
convinced yourself that it's a
wonderful way to live, you have
to feel that way or you wouldn't
do it.

From where I stand I see both sides,
my mind is open. Where your's
is closed like with all organized
religions.

Bob, I don't know about the other 2,499 versions you think exist (by the way I am not sure where you get that number). However, I am sure about the Catholic Church and Catholic teaching. Don't you find it ironic that you consistently refuse to believe me when I tell you something that the Catholic Church teaches. You would rather believe very strange things that someone tells you. Ask yourself again if you honestly want to know what the Church teaches? If you refuse to listen to a priest who loves the Church and consistently say such silly things as it is Vatican propaganda or wrong because it doesn't fit what you or others want the Church to teach. You need to really honestly ask yourself if your mind is really open, because I do not think it is. You assume always the worst and you painfully and obviously will not listen or try to understand. I'm embarrassed for you that you continue to say such false things about the Church even when we have discussed them over and over again. I understand that you disagree and I'm totally fine that you do. All I ask is that you disagree with what the Church really teaches and not your made up version of things.

Quote: FrGamble

However, I am sure about the Catholic Church and Catholic teaching.

You better be, after 7 years in seminary.
You act like I don't know what the
Church teaches, what it's about. I
don't want to know it like you know
it, why would I. That's your reality,
not mine. I know enough about it
to realize it's based on faulty hearsay
information reported in the NT.

Quote:

I don't know about the other 2,499 versions you think exist (by the way I am not sure where you get that number).

2500 is playing it down. The Christian
Encyclopedia says there are far
more than that.

As defined here, world Christianity consists of 6 major ecclesiastico-cultural blocs, divided into 300 major ecclesiastical traditions, composed of over 33,000 distinct denominations in 238 countries,

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm

Quote: Evenbob

2500 is playing it down. The Christian
Encyclopedia says there are far
more than that.

As defined here, world Christianity consists of 6 major ecclesiastico-cultural blocs, divided into 300 major ecclesiastical traditions, composed of over 33,000 distinct denominations in 238 countries,

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm

Good god

Quote: petroglyph

Good god

Good God indeed. This is a perfect example of the mistake that Evenbob makes so often. A willingness to believe an annoymous article written from a strange website. This is what has gotten him in so much trouble before. He couldn't have proved my point any better about his willingness to believe anything as long as it fits with his closed-minded view of Christianity. How dare he say he is open to the truth? He clearly does not want to not only believe he is also not serious in regards to any real conversation on the topic, so very sad.