On Wonder
#11
Sophia Wrote:
Quote:Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder. -- Plato, Theaetetus
Every child is born a philosopher.  It is passive entertainment and institutionalized schooling that destroys that sense of wonder.
 
Quote:Have you read astrophysicist Bernard Haisch's book "The God Theory"? Very good book....At one time he wanted to be a priest...or at least his mother wanted him to be a priest....he now says physics is not "all there is"...although his ideas/theory of God is hardly Catholic....
 
I haven't read the book, but if he is speaking of the existence of a spiritual world beyond that of the material, he is of course correct.  We err when we equate the two.  If he can realize that not all things have a material cause, he is one step closer to believing in God.
 
 
Quote:
in the past we have limited God through the catechism or dogma, etc.....and there is no limit to God....as there is no limit to the universe. I may get blasted for that statement but I believe it to be the truth....
 
Catholics believe that God is infinite, yet our understanding of him must be precise, because our finite intellects can err very easily.  It is incorrect to say that he has a body, for instance.  We must "limit" our notion of God in this way, because he cannot be God and have a body, for an infinite thing cannot have a finite part. 
 
The mystery of the Incarnation is just that- a mystery- something that we cannot comprehend.  Yet with revelation and reason, we can come to know certain attributes of Christ Incarnate, such as that he is true God and true man (something Catholics must believe as a dogma) even though it is an impossibility to understand something as being fully two different substances at the same time.  Catholics must define our understanding of God in this way, because we can only believe in what is true.
 
The universe, as a created thing, has to be finite, and therefore has limits.  We may not ever discover those limits, and we may not ever be able to comprehend it, but it is limited.  If it weren't, then you would have to posit that the universe was God.  You may do that, but then you will come to the other reductio ad absurdum that a material thing cannot be the Prime Mover, and so the Prime Mover must be something beyond that, that was uncreated, and something other than matter.  We call this Spirit. 

 
Those are all very good arguments, and very well thought out but I think where we limit God is in our perceptions....that indeed is "finite" and we only know the world through our perceptions/our experiences...Mr. Haisch, although a successful scientist, is definitely not a "materialist" as are the majority of modern day scientist. The world is not "material" as we now know through the discovery of quantum physics and God "materializes", according to Mr. Haisch, not just once through Christ but through all of us...all the time...a controversial statement but well worth looking into....
Reply
#12
Rule 13. When replying to a post, try to eliminate as much as possible any excess, unecessary quoting. If you are only responding to one line in someone's long post, just quote that one line. Avoid "me too" type replies. No one wants to click on a "New Post" only to see "me, too!" -- and such posting and clicking costs money.

[Image: rules.gif]

Reply
#13
Quote:Those are all very good arguments, and very well thought out but I think where we limit God is in our perceptions....that indeed is "finite" and we only know the world through our perceptions/our experiences...
 
Well it would be correct to say that we cannot limit God to the point where we utterly comprehend Him.  No.  But we can call Him by his attributes in a limited way, even if we only understand those attributes analogously.
 
Quote:Mr. Haisch, although a successful scientist, is definitely not a "materialist" as are the majority of modern day scientist.
 
Ok.  Well that's good.
 
Quote:
 The world is not "material" as we now know through the discovery of quantum physics and God "materializes", according to Mr. Haisch, not just once through Christ but through all of us...all the time...a controversial statement but well worth looking into....
 
I don't know anything about quantum physics, but that sounds dangerously like Hegel, and therefore at odds with Catholicism.  Matter is a creature, ie created thing, but God's Divine Providence controls everything that happens, aside from our freewill.  His grace works in us, but grace is not the same thing as "God."  Grace is the life of God- also an analogous understanding, because we cannot be God through grace in our souls the same way that Christ is God. 
 
This is why distinctions and precision in definitions is so important.   A word can signify many different nuances of the same thing.  Poetic language is fine, but you cannot use it for theology.
Reply
#14
I've just got to say it!  This sounds like Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and his "Hymn of the Universe" and the "Omega Point." 
 
http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1621&C=1535
 
I still think, and will probably continue to think, with no Index to contradict us anymore, that Fr. de Chardin was a great mystic, but certainly no saint.
 
So sue me---as they say in New York!
 
Reply
#15
Yes. Mr. Haisch makes no bones that he is at odds with Catholicism...he is at odds with all religions....he would be most particularly at odds with "traditional" catholicism claiming to have the "truth" which only stems from ego and leads to disagreements, disharmony and war, i.e. the state of our world today and his reasoning behind writing "The God Theory."
Reply
#16
bupanishad2012 Wrote:[url=http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1621&C=1535][/url]
 
I still think, and will probably continue to think, with no Index to contradict us anymore, that Fr. de Chardin was a great mystic, but certainly no saint.
 
 

 
We may not have an Index anymore, but we have 2000 years of doctrine to help us come to the conclusion that Teilhard's philosophies are not Catholic.
 
Reply
#17
 
 
"We may not have an Index anymore, but we have 2000 years of doctrine to help us come to the conclusion that Teilhard's philosophies are not Catholic."
 
Not to start a disagreement but "2000 years of doctrine"....that is a bit of stretch don't you think? After all this is only the year 2006....Catholics didn't have "Catholic doctrine" in the years 6 a.d.....Catholics didn't have the doctrine of Original Sin, which Teilhard rightly disputed,(my opinion of course) until St. Augustine in the late 4th century.
Reply
#18
alice Wrote:  Not to start a disagreement but "2000 years of doctrine"....that is a bit of stretch don't you think? After all this is only the year 2006....Catholics didn't have "Catholic doctrine" in the years 6 a.d

 
It is the way we Catholics speak of the history of the Church.  Yes, technically the New Testament Church is only 2006 minus 33 years old, and revelation and the Deposit of Faith was only completed with the death of the last apostle John at about 100 A.D.  The Church's doctrine never changes,  it is only defined.  If Teilhard had problems with Church dogma as already defined, then he was a heretic, plain and simple.  You may not agree with that, but for a Catholic it is a point which cannot be disputed.
Reply
#19
alice Wrote:Catholics didn't have the doctrine of Original Sin, which Teilhard rightly disputed,(my opinion of course) until St. Augustine in the late 4th century.

True, but the Church always had the knowledge that we were tainted by Adam and Eve's actions.  Even the Orthodox believe we suffer from their fall in our human weakness, etc.  And of course, even the Jews believe we're in this sorry state because of Adam and Eve, so there has always been something pointing back to their actions related to our current state.
 
St. Augustine just clarified in theological terms what the Church always taught.  That we're sinful because of our original parents. Original sin defines the method of transmission as spiritual whereas the Orthodox define it as more related to physical.  So in either case, the concept is still there and always has been.
 
From a philosophical standpoint, Original Sin makes more sense to me.  When the soul is weakened through sin, so is the body (by doing things that are bad for the soul as well as the body).  When the body is weakened, the soul can still remain strong.
 
Also, reference Aristotle and Aquinas.  The body can change without affecting the being of the soul, but if the soul changes (i.e., is stained with sin), then everything changes including the accidents and substance of the body.
 
Going back to quantum physics, if it turns out that consciousness affects reality (i.e., as an explanation of the Uncertainty Principle), then our mental/spiritual state would certainly affect our reality and how we interact with the universe and how it interacts with us.
 
 
 
Reply
#20
Quote: Going back to quantum physics, if it turns out that consciousness affects reality (i.e., as an explanation of the Uncertainty Principle), then our mental/spiritual state would certainly affect our reality and how we interact with the universe and how it interacts with us.
 

 
Quantum physics proves that reality is not objective no matter how much Bishop Williamson would like to believe otherwise. (He talks about that frequently so I thought I would take that jab...no offense intended.) Reality is subjective...it exists in our minds.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)