Dealing with apparent contradictions in Church teaching
#71
(08-18-2012, 09:28 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: See, this is why engineering is the superior profession and field of study.  Not this namby pamby I'm OK you're OK words don't have meaning crap.

Try denying unit conversions for a space probe to Mars, and instead of a nice happy orbit, you have a $300 million fireball of expensive space parts.

How expensive do you think the fireball of souls is, has been, and will yet be because of such nonsense?

I agree with you 100%, of course.  Except about engineering being superior to (good) theology, if you meant that (which I doubt).
Reply
#72
(08-18-2012, 09:47 PM)Walty Wrote:
(08-18-2012, 09:44 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Theology is based ultimately on our dim perceptions of the knowledge that God has of himself and has chosen to reveal to us. The natural sciences are concerned only with contingent, temporal things. We should avoid thinking of the natural sciences as the preeminent way of discovering truth.

No one said that they were the preeminent way of discovering truth.  What is said is that the universe and its Creator are intelligible and that we can come to an objective truth which exists outside of us, independent of us, via our reason and our sense perception (Thomistic Realism).
I was going to give the same answer you did. I was was caught up with something and came back and saw your post.
Just to mention Pope St. Pius X:


In the encyclical Doctoris Angelici, Pope Pius X cautioned that the teachings of the Church cannot be understood without the basic philosophical underpinnings of Thomas' major theses:

    "The capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church"
Reply
#73
(08-18-2012, 09:35 PM)Walty Wrote:
(08-18-2012, 09:28 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: See, this is why engineering is the superior profession and field of study.  Not this namby pamby I'm OK you're OK words don't have meaning crap.

Try denying unit conversions for a space probe to Mars, and instead of a nice happy orbit, you have a $300 million fireball of expensive space parts.

When you compare fields like mathematics and natural science to modern theology you begin to see the absurdity.  The nature of truth isn't different between these disciplines.  How ridiculous would it be if we argued that 30 mLs was essentially 28 mLs, or that even though the scale says we have 12.4 grams of Vitamin C we can't really know how much Vitamin C is actually there.

This is why +Williamson always quotes Orwell in saying "2+2=5".

Indeed, indeed. Strawberry fields forever.
Reply
#74
(08-18-2012, 09:47 PM)Walty Wrote:
(08-18-2012, 09:44 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Theology is based ultimately on our dim perceptions of the knowledge that God has of himself and has chosen to reveal to us. The natural sciences are concerned only with contingent, temporal things. We should avoid thinking of the natural sciences as the preeminent way of discovering truth.

No one said that they were the preeminent way of discovering truth.  What is said is that the universe and its Creator are intelligible and that we can come to an objective truth which exists outside of us, independent of us, via our reason and our sense perception (Thomistic Realism).

Okay, I was objecting more to the idea that theology and the natural sciences have the same standard for what counts as true, which I do not believe to be the case. As an aside, I don't think trads should attempt to defend modern subjectivism or rationalism. They wish to counter the nihilism of "postmodernism," but they don't realize that this nihilism was always implicit in modern philosophy, including Wolff and the rest.
Reply
#75
(08-18-2012, 06:08 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-18-2012, 03:11 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: :LOL:

Wow Jayne. 

What jpii meant by "may St john the baptist protect Islam," a noncatholic religion, was doctrinally sound. 

There's nothing to say but "wow."

I did not say it was an acceptable statement.  I don't think it was.  I said that, for all I knew, what he meant by it was doctrinally sound.  He could have just been expressing himself badly.  It happens.

You are missing the point, again:

1) this is itself censurable
2) there is no way in which any orthodox theology could have led to such a statement

Your behaviour on this thread shows a reluctance to take things to their logical conclusion, an attempt to have your cake and eat it, to both believe orthodox theology and yet not condemn the opposite ideas merely because popes expressed them and a sort of blind loyalty and obedience. This sheds much light on your criteria and the reasoning behind it, reasoning which is plainly not sound.
Reply
#76
(08-18-2012, 11:44 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(08-18-2012, 09:47 PM)Walty Wrote:
(08-18-2012, 09:44 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Theology is based ultimately on our dim perceptions of the knowledge that God has of himself and has chosen to reveal to us. The natural sciences are concerned only with contingent, temporal things. We should avoid thinking of the natural sciences as the preeminent way of discovering truth.

No one said that they were the preeminent way of discovering truth.  What is said is that the universe and its Creator are intelligible and that we can come to an objective truth which exists outside of us, independent of us, via our reason and our sense perception (Thomistic Realism).

Okay, I was objecting more to the idea that theology and the natural sciences have the same standard for what counts as true, which I do not believe to be the case. As an aside, I don't think trads should attempt to defend modern subjectivism or rationalism. They wish to counter the nihilism of "postmodernism," but they don't realize that this nihilism was always implicit in modern philosophy, including Wolff and the rest.

Maybe I'm crazy but I thought truth was just truth, doesn't one of the popes say that because science and theology look for the truth they can't really conflict?
Reply
#77
(08-18-2012, 11:44 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(08-18-2012, 09:47 PM)Walty Wrote:
(08-18-2012, 09:44 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Theology is based ultimately on our dim perceptions of the knowledge that God has of himself and has chosen to reveal to us. The natural sciences are concerned only with contingent, temporal things. We should avoid thinking of the natural sciences as the preeminent way of discovering truth.

No one said that they were the preeminent way of discovering truth.  What is said is that the universe and its Creator are intelligible and that we can come to an objective truth which exists outside of us, independent of us, via our reason and our sense perception (Thomistic Realism).

Okay, I was objecting more to the idea that theology and the natural sciences have the same standard for what counts as true, which I do not believe to be the case. As an aside, I don't think trads should attempt to defend modern subjectivism or rationalism. They wish to counter the nihilism of "postmodernism," but they don't realize that this nihilism was always implicit in modern philosophy, including Wolff and the rest.

Maybe I'm crazy but I thought truth was just truth, doesn't one of the popes say that because science and theology look for the truth they can't really conflict?
Reply
#78
(08-18-2012, 09:21 PM)Walty Wrote:
(08-18-2012, 06:08 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-18-2012, 03:11 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: :LOL:

Wow Jayne. 

What jpii meant by "may St john the baptist protect Islam," a noncatholic religion, was doctrinally sound. 

There's nothing to say but "wow."

I did not say it was an acceptable statement.  I don't think it was.  I said that, for all I knew, what he meant by it was doctrinally sound.  He could have just been expressing himself badly.  It happens.

Would you give me the same benefit of the doubt if I blasphemed?  How about if I said "Jesus Christ was not divine but a mere man"?  Would you go on and on in infinity claiming that it's uncharitable for us to assume that I really meant that Jesus Christ was a mere man?  Would it still be impossible for us to know what I meant by my words?

This is post-Modernism and Deconstructionism.  Words don't have any real meaning anymore.  I wonder, as Derrida did, why you'd think anyone should write or say anything in the first place.

We have no real idea what the Council said.  When the Pope speaks we can't really know if he meant what he said (unless, of course, it complies with what we want him to say, then it's ok).

Selective Deconstructionism.  Beautiful.

I think you hit the nail on the head, if words no longer have any inherent meaning they can mean anything or nothing or both. Isn't this the age-old argument about books being condemned in the sense the author meant etc...?  Ultimately it doesn't matter what the author meant, it matters what the natural meaning of the words is. Sure popes could make almost continuous mistakes in their words and thereby become worthy of numerous 'minor' censures I.e rash, badly expressed, offensive to pious ears etc... But if that's all or most of what they do the by far most probable reason is that they themselves are doctrinally unsound.
Reply
#79
What Pope John Paul II said regarding Islam is indefensible. Period.
Reply
#80
(08-18-2012, 10:42 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
(08-18-2012, 09:28 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: See, this is why engineering is the superior profession and field of study.  Not this namby pamby I'm OK you're OK words don't have meaning crap.

Try denying unit conversions for a space probe to Mars, and instead of a nice happy orbit, you have a $300 million fireball of expensive space parts.

How expensive do you think the fireball of souls is, has been, and will yet be because of such nonsense?

I agree with you 100%, of course.  Except about engineering being superior to (good) theology, if you meant that (which I doubt).

Engineering is great because it deals in absolutes.  You can't BS your way through the conservation of mass.  It's there or it isn't, it's right or it's wrong.

Modern theology...  ugh. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)