Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote:I once had several conversations with a Muslim about Islam, but I acknowledge (to myself) that his interpretation was only from his perspective, and may not have included all who claim to be Muslim. So your understanding of Deism may not be universal to all Deists. And Catholics may be the majority, but they may not represent the true beliefs of Christians. There have been many who have disagreed with the Catholic church's interpretation of Christianity, and many still do.

Agreed. Mainline Catholicism (i.e. the Catholicism approved by popes and cardinals) is decidedly not Deistic. Deism regards God as a sort of "absentee Landlord," who created things but was not afterward involved with them. Catholics believe in miracles, prayers, saints, transsubstantiation, Heaven and Hell, the Incarnation, the doctrine of General Grace, and a whole bunch of other things that are completely incompatible with Deism because they posit a God intimately involved with the universe. So whomever he was talking to, it was not someone who understands Catholicism...let alone Christians as a general type.

But most Catholics I meet -- and I know a lot -- do not believe in the Catholicism of the cardinals. For example, many are quite laissez-faire about private morality, they don't object to homosexuality, they practice contraception, they don't' go to confession, they attend Mass only irregularly (if at all), and are pretty nominal about their beliefs in general. All these things the Catholic church itself is dead against. Some, of course, are more earnest about holding onto traditional Catholicism, and are more devoted the the total package: but there are a lot of modernists who call themselves Catholics too, and they may not buy much of it.

Ask them what they are, and they say "Catholic." Ask them what church they will be buried beside, and they'll say "Catholic." Ask them what they want their kids to be, and they'll say "Catholic." But Catholicism is a big package...and they pick and choose pretty freely from it. So "street" Catholicism is quite different, often, from the Catholicism of Rome.

Many people who profess a particular religion, do not hold the official beliefs of that religion. I tend to rationalize many of the beliefs that Lutherans are supposed to accept as articles of faith, and reinterpret them in my own way. People can call themselves whatever they want, but if you dig deep enough you will find that they don't really hold the official beliefs. And that causes endless difficulty for outsiders who see a label and automatically attribute certain beliefs to that label, even if those beliefs are not always accurate.

thedoc wrote:

bahman wrote:

thedoc wrote: So your concept of God is that God is bound by human logic, that seems a bit limiting, and I don't accept those limits for God.

1+1=2 whether you are God or human. God cannot defy logic.

You don't know that, and saying it does not make it so. God is not bound by human logic.

Logic is logic. Human's logic is not against God's logic. There is a single logic.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: My Deist understanding of God coming from discussion with Catholic who are majority in Christianity.

Catholics are not Deists, so I fear you've misunderstood your what your friend has told you.

God is in state of timeless before creation. He is only allowed to perform one act since He is in timeless state. That is the act of creation since we know that universe exist. God cannot enter into temporal state and then go to timeless state since He is allowed to perform one act in timeless state. Hence Deist God is true and Theist God is false.

bahman wrote:God is in state of timeless before creation. He is only allowed to perform one act since He is in timeless state. That is the act of creation since we know that universe exist. God cannot enter into temporal state and then go to timeless state since He is allowed to perform one act in timeless state. Hence Deist God is true and Theist God is false.

Well, it doesn't become true just because you say it is.

Again, you seem to want to recycle this fallacious syllogism because it's somehow "working" for you. What can I say about that? You can take your consolations where you want them.

It doesn't make them logical, though, and it doesn't make them true. It certainly doesn't make them "Catholic" either. You can verify that for yourself if you care to do so.

thedoc wrote:Many people who profess a particular religion, do not hold the official beliefs of that religion. I tend to rationalize many of the beliefs that Lutherans are supposed to accept as articles of faith, and reinterpret them in my own way. People can call themselves whatever they want, but if you dig deep enough you will find that they don't really hold the official beliefs. And that causes endless difficulty for outsiders who see a label and automatically attribute certain beliefs to that label, even if those beliefs are not always accurate.

Yep. Don't know what I can say about that, except "you're right."

bahman wrote:Logic is logic. Human's logic is not against God's logic. There is a single logic.

Yes, I think that's true. But I would add that human logic is always something in need of review: for humans are limited, flawed beings, and even using logic they sometimes make mistakes. Limited information, plus a tendency to wander into fallacies, are characteristic of human interactions with logic: so human logic can sometimes appear to be contrary to God's logic. We need a virtue called "philosophical humility" when we take human logic and try to make it teach us things about God.

in regards to the two "users" of logic, the error is, of course, only and always on the one side, not the other.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: God is in state of timeless before creation. He is only allowed to perform one act since He is in timeless state. That is the act of creation since we know that universe exist. God cannot enter into temporal state and then go to timeless state since He is allowed to perform one act in timeless state. Hence Deist God is true and Theist God is false.

Well, it doesn't become true just because you say it is.

Again, you seem to want to recycle this fallacious syllogism because it's somehow "working" for you. What can I say about that? You can take your consolations where you want them.

It doesn't make them logical, though, and it doesn't make them true. It certainly doesn't make them "Catholic" either. You can verify that for yourself if you care to do so.

No, I made an argument and I expect an counter argument if you can offer anything. It is up to you if you want to leave the discussion like this but that does not make your belief correct.

Immanuel Can wrote:

bahman wrote: Logic is logic. Human's logic is not against God's logic. There is a single logic.

Yes, I think that's true. But I would add that human logic is always something in need of review: for humans are limited, flawed beings, and even using logic they sometimes make mistakes. Limited information, plus a tendency to wander into fallacies, are characteristic of human interactions with logic: so human logic can sometimes appear to be contrary to God's logic. We need a virtue called "philosophical humility" when we take human logic and try to make it teach us things about God.

in regards to the two "users" of logic, the error is, of course, only and always on the one side, not the other.

I agree with what you stated.

bahman wrote:No, I made an argument and I expect an counter argument if you can offer anything. It is up to you if you want to leave the discussion like this but that does not make your belief correct.

I pointed out your fallacy. You think that "personal change" and "change of relationship" are equivalent. They're not. I "offered" this, and you rejected it. What more can I say, if I explain why you're making an error, and you decide not to see it?

At that point, I can't go forward, because I would have to accept your supposition to do so: and your supposition is wrong, so I cannot do that.

There are several problems with the Christian Bible, (and as a side note, it was stated to me that the Koran is just the retelling of the Bible to Mohammed), One is that fundamentalists want to read the Bible literally with their own meaning to what is written. Another is that atheists first want to say that the Bible is no good, not history and not science and then want to use the Bible stories to denounce the religions of the Bible.

Finally there is a problem that is not necessarily related to the Bible and that is that human logic is not the end all and be all of logic. Humans have limited knowledge of the universe, so the base of knowledge on which to base their logic is also limited. Human logic is limited, and there probably is a higher, more complete logic based on a more complete knowledge of and understanding of the universe.

bahman wrote:God is changeless. Relationship is about cause and effect. As an example, you do something to please another person (act), this act changes the person (effect), the person in reply does something to please you. This means that making relationship with God is impossible since we cannot change Him.

NO! A relationship is first and foremost, a connection, association, or involvement with something else. There are no constraints on a relationship other than those that participants in said relationship impose.

thedoc wrote:...it was stated to me that the Koran is just the retelling of the Bible to Mohammed...

You may have been told that, but it is untrue. You can tell, simply by comparing the Koran to the Torah or the New Testament.

Mohammed had some familiarity with a branch of Christians known as "Nestorians," and some familiarity with Judaism. But he was illiterate (as Islamists will happily confirm to you), and so had to rely on his memory in the retelling of the bits of those books he used to back his own play. His memory failed him, you'll see: there are serious contradictions between the Koran and all the ancient manuscripts from which Mohammed allegedly drew.

And actually, Muslims recognize that there are profound differences between Koran and the other documents. But they explain them as follows: that Mohammed's memory was correct, and the manuscripts of the Bible were subsequently "corrupted" so as no longer to be consonant with Mohammed. Of course, they are unable to produce one stitch of evidence for this "corrupting" process, but they insist on it anyway. It's the only way they can account for the Koranic departures without casting doubt on the Koran.

The bottom line is this: Islamic, Christian and Jewish scholars all agree there are profound dissimilarities between the Bible and Koran. They just don't agree about why.

IC have you read the "Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdie, I just heard the author reading an excerpt on the radio once, but I believe he was trying to give the basic gist of the book.

thedoc wrote:IC have you read the "Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdie, I just heard the author reading an excerpt on the radio once, but I believe he was trying to give the basic gist of the book.

No: not that I would object to doing so, but it just hasn't been on my reading list. That being said, I know what the actual "Satanic Verses" are, and what the idea is behind them.