The Modern Materialist


#43

Faith is acting on behalf of the testimony of others, whether about natural matters, or supernatural matters.

Responding to God, with faith (acting on the behalf of testimony of others before us) is EXACTLY what God asks us of us: to love Him “beyond reason” (beyond our intellectual powers)!


#44

And contrary to what you believe, we almost never do that. Especially when it comes to things that can kill us.


#45

We do it every day. When you eat a frozen pizza, you’re acting on faith.


#46

No, I’m not. I’m acting on an understanding that millions of people eat frozen pizzas every day, and very, very few of them suffer any ill effects. I’m not discounting the fact that I may be one of the rare exceptions. But the evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor. Thus it’s not an act of faith, it’s an act of measured risk.

It’s not that faith is telling me that I won’t get sick, it’s that the odds are telling me that I won’t get sick.

Faith arises when one expects a favorable outcome in spite of the odds, not because of them.


#47

Nonsense. You’re relying on the testimony of others (and their actions provide ongoing testimony) to guide your behavior.

You’re acting on faith, on temporal matters, not supernatural matters, but you’re still acting on faith.

If you went to the airport and everyone was refusing to get on a particular plane…you’d change your behavior.

Welcome to the world of faith.

Step 1: Completed.

Step 2: Now you’ll have to sort through what this truth teaches you about how you live your life regarding immaterial matters, such as matters of love, hope, joy, yearnings, and the world of moral behavior.


#48

So it’s your argument that if you have faith in something and the testimony of others contradicts that faith - you change your mind.

As I say, your argument belittles that which you claim.


#49

No, my argument is that faith is a natural and a supernatural gift


#50

Now that’s just delusional. I’m not relying on their testimony, I’m relying on the fact that they’re not DEAD. Why they choose to get on the plane or not is up to them. Their choices or actions aren’t determining my choice. Their not dying is determining my choice.

Faith has nothing to do with it. It’s a matter of measured risk.


#51

Which is about as far from describing it as ‘…acting on behalf of the testimony of others’ as one could possibly get.

As I said, the confidence one has in getting on a plane or driving over a bridge is not a result of ‘a natural and supernatural gift’ (‘natural’ AND ‘supernatural’?)

Glad we’ve cleared that up.


#52

I haven’t seen such a thing but it can be explained as a local deviation in laws of nature.


#53

Regarding your personal insult (“Delusional”)…no gaslighting here please.

Terms of service violation.


#54

No it’s not.

Acting on the testimony of others (whether about supernatural matters or temporal matters (getting on a plane)) is faith, and it’s a gift.

It’s a huge time saver, we don’t have to test and sort out everything ourselves! And we can build unity among the people of God at the same time.

Thus, it’s a great gift.

Sarcasm and snark don’t strengthen arguments.


#55

Hmmmm!!! So your referring to my argument as “nonsense” is fine, but my referring to yours as “delusional” isn’t?

For some reason I’m picturing a pot and a kettle, and an argument that’s been defeated.


#56

Nonsense means makes no sense.

That’s different than dillusional.

One relates to an argument that doesn’t hold together.

The other relates to someone having dillusions.


#57

Thats a fairly tautological and hence less than meaningful statement it seems.
(ie the “new” conclusion is but a repeat of whats hidden in the subject anyways).

You are saying no more than " levitation (which seems to deny the current laws of nature) is a “local” denial of the laws of nature."

Yes, if we accept that levitation happens its a denial/deviation re laws of science. We already know that which is why we are perplexed and ask for a scientific explanation…

The problem is that laws of science are meant to be inviolable unless another deeper law counteracts it.

Which is why iron boats can float and metal planes can fly.

So have another go!
What is the hidden law of science (if there actually is one) that explains levitation which denies all the usual anti-gravity “trumping” laws (eg Archimedes principle for iron boats and the Bernoulli principle for metal aircraft wings) we currently know about.

All “true believer” scientists I know realise this … and simply deny that levitation is ever possible.
Which is not helpful for dialogue with “believers” who cannot deny the evidence of their senses.
Nor is it a Philosophically tenable position because it can never be falsified by actual observation…they will always say there is a hidden wire, edited video, etc etc etc.
In other words it is a pre-biased statement re what reality is capable of.

Which is the point of my observation re the sort of statement “science can solve any problem that is real.” If it cannot then just say (1) it isnt a true problem or (2) it isnt real.

Totally non-falsifiable statement - and ultimately meaningless isn’t it?


#58

‘Hey, Ed. Have you heard that everyone says that God exists?’

‘That’s great. I can’t sort these things out myself so that’s a great time saver! And any news on whether they think that new bridge is safe? I need to get to the airport. Ah, which reminds me. When you ask them all about the bridge, could you check one more thing for me?’


#59

Examine, if you can set aside the belittling and sarcasm stirred up, the instances in the Holy Gospels, where word of mouth, leads people to move toward Jesus.

How do you think the 5000 showed up on a hillside? The honest, non-belittling, testimony of others, interested in their neighbors’ good.

How many people are now searching to get closer to Our Lord because of our testimony?

How many are moved by our sincerity, our generosity, our acts of quiet charity, our tone?

How many people become more cynical and lowered by running across hate-fueled and belitting comments from us?

Do we raise the tone around us? Does our testimony of comments bring people to an ever greater good?


#61

No, it is not denial of the laws of nature but deviation in the formal laws of nature, what is normally known as the laws of nature. The formal laws of nature is valid in all place but one. Isn’t it? There is either another laws of nature in another place or randomness.

The laws of science is the most probable in any occasion. We just experiment a setup repetitively for a finite number of times and conclude that a specific behavior is the most probable.

Science is not about an explanation for behavior of a system but a systematic framework which provides a set of laws that any system most likely follow it.


#63

At least I could understand your tautology (which simply refined the problem to be local as opposed to universal but still offering no further information or real explanation). So I have no real idea what you are trying to say here sorry.

I think you are now asserting it is:
(a)

  • not following the laws of nature at the place of levitation
  • another law of nature is operating at that spot

(b)

  • if its not the above then there is “randomness” operating at that place.

May I suggest this is gibberish and does nothing to extend a scientific understanding of why something inconsistent is happening at that one spot on earth. Yes you are saying that spot is unusual…but we already know that dont we? That is why I am asking you to explain!
All you have done is repeated the obvious in a complicated way and still begged the question.

You have also created a further problem.
You assert an unknown law of nature is operating in that place but not in the rest of the world!

Mr Occam (of Occam’s Razor) would have great difficulty with this assumption as most scientists work from the principle that the least complicated reasonable explanation is the most likely one.

I suggest my assertion above is far simpler and more reasonable. That is, yes an unknown law of nature is demonstrated in that place … just as it applies in the rest of the cosmos. But like the first iron boat apparently opposing the law of gravity…noone has yet worked out the design or how to do so in the rest of the world.

It would be silly to say an iron boat only floats in Archimedes bathtub because there is some sort of divinely caused deviation of the formal laws of nature everywhere else and it has nothing to do with the art of Archimedes himself using universal laws of nature noone before realised.

Its just a complicated way of trying to reconcile science and divinity and succeeding in neither.
Therefore a “solution” which suggests laws of nature are not universal seems insupportable.

I have no idea what you mean by solution (b) “randomness”.

You are welcome to have another go at scientifically solving the “problem” of levitation…


#64

This is what I am asserting:
(a)

  • not following the laws of nature at the place of levitation
  • another law of nature is operating at that spot

(b)

  • not following the laws of nature at the place of levitation
  • “randomness” is operating at that place.

To elaborate, any system either behave regularly or it doesn’t. We can find and formulate the behavior of the system in first case. The system behave randomly in the second case so no formulation could be found.

Science cannot explain why any system behave in a specific way. It just can formulate the behavior of the system if the system behave regularly.

The system behave randomly if it doesn’t behave regularly. This means that another laws of nature operates at the point or it is just random.

You cannot say that another laws of nature operate in that place unless you can show that the system behave regularly in that place.

Ok. I hope that things are clear by now.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.