OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 12:38:14 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What do the Eastern Othodox mean when they reject scholasticism?  (Read 17234 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #45 on: August 28, 2006, 11:18:54 PM »

Perhaps you should tell that to Papist. I was actually answering his post: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=9855.msg133668#msg133668.
So if you are trying to prove your intelligence, all you've succeeded in proving is your inability to follow a thread.
Are all Fins and Romanians as tesky as you? Wink

I simply think it's ridiculous for you, and others here, to be going on about the merits of the philosophy of religion when you clearly have no familiarity with the scholarship up to the present, nor interest in following citations. The resulting discussion can't help but be indulgent.

I'm neither Finnish nor Romanian.

Edited by Moderator
« Last Edit: August 29, 2006, 09:00:42 AM by cleveland » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #46 on: August 28, 2006, 11:33:20 PM »

I simply think it's ridiculous for you, and others here, to be going on about the merits of the philosophy of religion when you clearly have no familiarity with the scholarship up to the present, nor interest in following citations. The resulting discussion can't help but be indulgent.
Hmmm... I see well I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, and your assumptions about other's level of education.

I'm neither Finnish nor Romanian.
I see. So you're Just testy then? Cheesy

Edited quote - cleveland
« Last Edit: August 29, 2006, 08:59:35 AM by cleveland » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #47 on: August 28, 2006, 11:39:44 PM »

Hmmm... I see well I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, and your assumptions about other's level of education.

If you make clear mistakes, such as claiming that the ontological argument can still be attacked in such a fashion, why should I not assume you lack some level of education in the matter?

I should mention that I am the only one here so far who has referred to the literature. If others here can't do the same, we all just end up talking past each other. But I guess I didn't get the memo that the goal here isn't to reach a conclusion to the debate, but merely to just waste time and bicker.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2006, 11:42:00 PM by CRCulver » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #48 on: August 28, 2006, 11:49:28 PM »

But I guess I didn't get the memo that the goal here isn't to reach a conclusion to the debate, but merely to just waste time and bicker.
So, your opinion is valid because you name-dropped Swineburne which you say provides "98% certainty" (a statistic which you pulled out of somewhere where the sun doesn't shine no doubt)....And that's supposed to provide a conclusion to the debate as to whether philosophy can prove the existence of God? Well it may do so "98%" of the time, but perhaps this is part of the other 2%. Tongue
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #49 on: August 28, 2006, 11:59:49 PM »

So, your opinion is valid because you name-dropped Swineburne which you say provides "98% certainty" (a statistic which you pulled out of somewhere where the sun doesn't shine no doubt)....And that's supposed to provide a conclusion to the debate as to whether philosophy can prove the existence of God? Well it may do so "98%" of the time, but perhaps this is part of the other 2%. Tongue

I didn't "name-drop" Swinburne, I cited a specific book which, since it's OUP, is sure to be at anyone's university library and contains a support for the Resurrection. The 98% figure is Swinburne's, which can be found in the appendix where his complete use of the probability calculus is included.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #50 on: August 29, 2006, 12:10:40 AM »

I didn't "name-drop" Swinburne, I cited a specific book which, since it's OUP, is sure to be at anyone's university library and contains a support for the Resurrection. The 98% figure is Swinburne's, which can be found in the appendix where his complete use of the probability calculus is included.
Oh well, end of argument. "There's a 98% probability that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead". Perhaps that should be posted on Church signs throughout the world. That'll bring 'em in. Cheesy
Now try and prove the existence of God to me using the ontological argument. I dare you! Wink
You have a bit of time to come up with it because I'm just off to buy myself a new cell phone.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #51 on: August 29, 2006, 02:57:38 AM »

Oh well, end of argument. "There's a 98% probability that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead". Perhaps that should be posted on Church signs throughout the world. That'll bring 'em in. Cheesy
Now try and prove the existence of God to me using the ontological argument. I dare you! Wink
You have a bit of time to come up with it because I'm just off to buy myself a new cell phone.

Now this sounds like it could be fun...I get to play the Nietzschean. Grin
« Last Edit: August 29, 2006, 02:57:50 AM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #52 on: August 29, 2006, 03:56:09 AM »

Now this sounds like it could be fun...I get to play the Nietzschean. Grin

It not only would be fun, it would shut up those who want to argue in favour of the notion that the Absolute and Transcendant can be approached through deductive and emperical reasoning alone.
And why am I not surprised that you would want to play the Nietzschean? Cheesy
« Last Edit: August 29, 2006, 03:56:59 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #53 on: August 29, 2006, 08:58:04 AM »

Boy, did this topic devolve.

Saying that Orthodoxy rejects scholasticism means nothing more than it rejects the Thomistic framework of modern RC theology. All of the rest of philosophizing, Orthodoxy does all the time.

And ontological arguments for God are dead as a herring. In the first place, they rely on the dubious assumption that human reasoning can force God into existence. In the face of "my thoughts are not your thoughts", this is an utterly untenable assertion. In the second, and far more critical place, they don't tell you anything about what God is like.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #54 on: August 29, 2006, 09:47:25 AM »

In the face of "my thoughts are not your thoughts", this is an utterly untenable assertion. In the second, and far more critical place, they don't tell you anything about what God is like.
Unless you're a Solopsist. Wink
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #55 on: August 29, 2006, 11:14:57 AM »

But you have to remember also that most of the Greek philosophers at that time were Platonic, so conversion to Christianity was so much easier than it is today when most people in the West are Aristotelian.  If St. Paul lived today and employed the kind of philosophy that Aquinas developed in the middle ages, I think he would have converted far less individuals.


Aristotle is the disciple of Plato. But why plato and not aristotle?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #56 on: August 29, 2006, 11:18:22 AM »

Boy, did this topic devolve.

Saying that Orthodoxy rejects scholasticism means nothing more than it rejects the Thomistic framework of modern RC theology. All of the rest of philosophizing, Orthodoxy does all the time.

And ontological arguments for God are dead as a herring. In the first place, they rely on the dubious assumption that human reasoning can force God into existence. In the face of "my thoughts are not your thoughts", this is an utterly untenable assertion. In the second, and far more critical place, they don't tell you anything about what God is like.
The Arguments from change, causality, motion, etc. do not force God to exist through human reason. That is silly, like anslem's argument. These other arguments deduce that God exists form reality.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #57 on: August 29, 2006, 11:40:25 AM »

I really hope that everyone in the thread can be kind to eacher. We can all disagree about philosophy and do so in charity.
Many blessings in Christ
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #58 on: August 29, 2006, 11:58:45 AM »

Aristotle is the disciple of Plato. But why Plato and not aristotle?

Aristotle took a different stance on several things than Plato and in general Platoism developed down a different path than Aristolianism.
Aristotle also took earthly items and tried to understand them more on an earthly plain while Plato was content to know the world through the divine.  Although, there are plenty of examples of differences, I'll quote Michael Fowler, Ph.D, University of Virginia

Quote
In contrast to Plato, who felt the only worthwhile science to be the contemplation of abstract forms, Aristotle practiced detailed observation and dissection of plants and animals, to try to understand how each fitted into the grand scheme of nature, and the importance of the different organs of animals.

Yet, it also must be understood, that Orthodoxy has never been content to define itself with a single philosophy.  Yes, we do build on many things, whether it be neo-Platonism or others.  However, Orthodoxy is not Thomism, Neo-Platoism, Aristolianism, or Liberalism.  Orthodoxy is Orthodoxy.
Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #59 on: August 29, 2006, 12:19:22 PM »

The Arguments from change, causality, motion, etc. do not force God to exist through human reason. That is silly, like anslem's argument. These other arguments deduce that God exists from reality.

Well, no they don't, because if they are arguments from "reality", then they are based upon empirical observations. And that is more or less true, but the problem then is that they are vulnerable to being trumped by reality as well. To be able to empirically assert a First Cause, you have produce it; otherwise, the best you can do is assert that there ought to be a first cause. And with causality not exactly working in quantum mechanics, the whole thing has become, in practice, rather dubious.

And again, the more serious problem is that these arguments don't tell you anything about God. You could just as well postulate that existence as a whole is the object of all these deductions, leaving you with a pan"theism" lacking will or indeed any other important divine attribute. Everything important that Christianity has to teach has nothing much to do with any of the Thomistic superlatives. An omnipotent first cause ground of existence, etc. who cares not a fig for human existence, for or against, need not be worshipped, nor even believed in.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #60 on: August 29, 2006, 12:23:22 PM »

Quote
In the face of "my thoughts are not your thoughts", this is an utterly untenable assertion. In the second, and far more critical place, they don't tell you anything about what God is like.
Unless you're a Solopsist. Wink

And you know yourself a lot better than most people do.  Grin Grin Grin
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #61 on: August 29, 2006, 01:12:59 PM »

Well, no they don't, because if they are arguments from "reality", then they are based upon empirical observations. And that is more or less true, but the problem then is that they are vulnerable to being trumped by reality as well. To be able to empirically assert a First Cause, you have produce it; otherwise, the best you can do is assert that there ought to be a first cause. And with causality not exactly working in quantum mechanics, the whole thing has become, in practice, rather dubious.

And again, the more serious problem is that these arguments don't tell you anything about God. You could just as well postulate that existence as a whole is the object of all these deductions, leaving you with a pan"theism" lacking will or indeed any other important divine attribute. Everything important that Christianity has to teach has nothing much to do with any of the Thomistic superlatives. An omnipotent first cause ground of existence, etc. who cares not a fig for human existence, for or against, need not be worshipped, nor even believed in.

Actually, reason demands the existence of a first cause. It is not a matter of what we think ought to be, but rather a matter of wat reason demands. And actually, the Thomistic proofs prove one perfect, oniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God, who is completely good and these are things that are very important to Christianity. It separates us from the pagans who anthropomorphize God.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #62 on: August 29, 2006, 01:48:23 PM »

Actually, reason demands the existence of a first cause. It is not a matter of what we think ought to be, but rather a matter of wat reason demands.

Reason cannot "demand" anything; it is in human use of reasoning, that is, thinking, that the expectation is created. And if causality is not absolute, then it is human thinking-- reason, if you wish-- that must give way to reality. And causality is NOT absolute-- at least, it doesn't appear so to the physicists. The Thomist proofs are only as good as one's acceptance of Aristotlean commonsensical empiricism about the universe; but as that acceptance fails, the proofs fail as well.

Quote
And actually, the Thomistic proofs prove one perfect, oniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God, who is completely good and these are things that are very important to Christianity. It separates us from the pagans who anthropomorphize God.

Well, except that in the absence of direct evidence for God, one could just as well view the imputation of will and purpose upon the deity as anthropomorphization. And many of Christianity's critics say exactly that. The obvious point for moderns is that experience of the living God, with its evidences of His will and purpose, makes rational proofs derivative if not irrelevant. Encountering God is the best proof of His existence that can be obtained; after that, the Thomistic proofs are not so much wrong as they are unnecessary.
Logged
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #63 on: August 29, 2006, 05:46:34 PM »

Reason cannot "demand" anything; it is in human use of reasoning, that is, thinking, that the expectation is created. And if causality is not absolute, then it is human thinking-- reason, if you wish-- that must give way to reality. And causality is NOT absolute-- at least, it doesn't appear so to the physicists. The Thomist proofs are only as good as one's acceptance of Aristotlean commonsensical empiricism about the universe; but as that acceptance fails, the proofs fail as well.

Well, except that in the absence of direct evidence for God, one could just as well view the imputation of will and purpose upon the deity as anthropomorphization. And many of Christianity's critics say exactly that. The obvious point for moderns is that experience of the living God, with its evidences of His will and purpose, makes rational proofs derivative if not irrelevant. Encountering God is the best proof of His existence that can be obtained; after that, the Thomistic proofs are not so much wrong as they are unnecessary.

Amen! Wonderful post!

Pax
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #64 on: August 29, 2006, 11:53:56 PM »

Reason cannot "demand" anything; it is in human use of reasoning, that is, thinking, that the expectation is created. And if causality is not absolute, then it is human thinking-- reason, if you wish-- that must give way to reality. And causality is NOT absolute-- at least, it doesn't appear so to the physicists. The Thomist proofs are only as good as one's acceptance of Aristotlean commonsensical empiricism about the universe; but as that acceptance fails, the proofs fail as well.

Well, except that in the absence of direct evidence for God, one could just as well view the imputation of will and purpose upon the deity as anthropomorphization. And many of Christianity's critics say exactly that. The obvious point for moderns is that experience of the living God, with its evidences of His will and purpose, makes rational proofs derivative if not irrelevant. Encountering God is the best proof of His existence that can be obtained; after that, the Thomistic proofs are not so much wrong as they are unnecessary.

Physics will be shown to be wrong if it contradicts logic. Nothing can escape logic (greek: the Logos) because divine order finds it source in God. And if experience is all that proves the existence of God, how do I know that my Christian experience is anymore valid than one's muslim experience? Or one's Hindu experience? Or one's Pagan experience? I cannot measure God by my experience because I am not that important. I am not the measure of God. Rather, God is the measure of God, and reason and logic that flow from God are much better at determing what is true and not true than my personal experience.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #65 on: August 30, 2006, 12:03:06 AM »

I am becoming more and more concerned about my Eastern Bretheren on this forum. It seems that they believe we should accept God's existence based on blind faith. Such a faith seems dishonest to me. It seems that they believe God is irrational. That is impossible, because, first, God is not silly. Second, God created a rational universe. That means he posses rationality within himself.  So, I dunno what to say at this point. It is clear that everyone here is fiedist in epsitomology and feidism teaches that we believe in God just because. I cannot even begin to understand how a person can deny reason. Remember the words of St. Peter, the first Pope:
     "but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence." 1 Peter 3:15
Eastern Fiedism does not live up to this exhortation, and thus I will pray for you all. Many blessings in Christ
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #66 on: August 30, 2006, 12:52:59 AM »

Physics will be shown to be wrong if it contradicts logic. Nothing can escape logic (greek: the Logos) because divine order finds it source in God. And if experience is all that proves the existence of God, how do I know that my Christian experience is anymore valid than one's muslim experience? Or one's Hindu experience? Or one's Pagan experience? I cannot measure God by my experience because I am not that important. I am not the measure of God. Rather, God is the measure of God, and reason and logic that flow from God are much better at determing what is true and not true than my personal experience.

Your statements about logic are illogical. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates that no axiomatic system, and this would include the axiomatic system that defines logic, is complete and that no such system can ever be demonstrated to be consistant with itself. Basically, the very axioms of logic itself contradicts even the mere assertion that logic is true (for the Incompleteness Theorem proves that logic can never be proven true, though it is at least theoretically possible that it could be proven false, that is to say inconsistant). I fear that experience is you best bet...and no, I wouldn't discount the experience of someone for the mere reason that they are not Christian.

I am becoming more and more concerned about my Eastern Bretheren on this forum. It seems that they believe we should accept God's existence based on blind faith. Such a faith seems dishonest to me. It seems that they believe God is irrational. That is impossible, because, first, God is not silly. Second, God created a rational universe. That means he posses rationality within himself.  So, I dunno what to say at this point. It is clear that everyone here is fiedist in epsitomology and feidism teaches that we believe in God just because. I cannot even begin to understand how a person can deny reason. Remember the words of St. Peter, the first Pope:
     "but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence." 1 Peter 3:15
Eastern Fiedism does not live up to this exhortation, and thus I will pray for you all. Many blessings in Christ

Well please, try to prove the existance of God to me using logic and please address the questions posed by Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, Tarski's Indefinability Theorem, and the subsequent developments in Computability Theory. I'm sure many of these theorems have philosophical equivalents, but I am more familiar with the Mathematics and Computer Science.

I submit to you that God is neither rational nor irrational, rather he is trans-rational. He is the source of both logic and illogic, though he is neither logical nor illogical. Ever read Proclus or St. Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite? You seem to like philosophy, perhaps you would appreciate their approach to the divine. How about Lao Tzu? 'The tao that can be described is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be spoken is not the eternal Name.' In any case, may I recomend Dionysius' Mystical Theology?
« Last Edit: August 30, 2006, 12:53:26 AM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Theognosis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #67 on: August 30, 2006, 01:36:46 AM »

I am becoming more and more concerned about my Eastern Bretheren on this forum.

I'm also concerned with your narrow-minded belief that the only way to determine God's existence is through logic.  You have not even answered my question as to how effective these methods are.

Quote
It seems that they believe we should accept God's existence based on blind faith.

Among many things, we know that God exists because of history, and that includes the revelation as witnessed and recorded by the prophets and apostles, i.e. Tradition.  Even Aquinas resorted to Revelation as his starting point (of course, to the dismay of his critics).

Quote
Such a faith seems dishonest to me. It seems that they believe God is irrational. That is impossible, because, first, God is not silly. Second, God created a rational universe. That means he posses rationality within himself.  So, I dunno what to say at this point.

You're the only one who's saying that.

Quote
It is clear that everyone here is fiedist in epsitomology and feidism teaches that we believe in God just because. I cannot even begin to understand how a person can deny reason. Remember the words of St. Peter, the first Pope:
     "but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence." 1 Peter 3:15
Eastern Fiedism does not live up to this exhortation, and thus I will pray for you all. Many blessings in Christ

We're not denying reason.  We are rejecting its excessive use and the illusion that God can be seen in mathematical symbols.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2006, 01:38:04 AM by Theognosis » Logged
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #68 on: August 30, 2006, 02:14:50 AM »

We're not denying reason.  We are rejecting its excessive use and the illusion that God can be seen in mathematical symbols.

Except for the ontological argument, and ultimately not really even that, theist philosophers of religion do not see God in "mathematical symbols", but in the reality of the created order. Which, hey look, is the same thing that the Church teaches: all things point to and glorify God. Just listen to the prayers for Vespers from the Psalms. If you burn with ire against the cosmological or design arguments, you deny the Church's own hymnography.
Logged
Theognosis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #69 on: August 30, 2006, 03:12:31 AM »

Except for the ontological argument, and ultimately not really even that, theist philosophers of religion do not see God in "mathematical symbols", but in the reality of the created order.

I don't consider the ontological argument a "reality".  It's mere abstraction. 

Quote
Which, hey look, is the same thing that the Church teaches: all things point to and glorify God.

Are abstractions real things? 

OA's do not also glorify God in my opinion; they serve to glorify the people who developed them and the human intellect in general.

Quote
Just listen to the prayers for Vespers from the Psalms. If you burn with ire against the cosmological or design arguments, you deny the Church's own hymnography.

Those arguments are mere creations of men.  They don't necessarily point to God; in some cases they accomplish the opposite.  Is it not uncommon for people to deny the existence of God because of logic?  The reality is that the supposed supremacy of logic has become the battlecry of atheists.

« Last Edit: August 30, 2006, 03:32:58 AM by Theognosis » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #70 on: August 30, 2006, 06:10:06 AM »

I am becoming more and more concerned about my Eastern Bretheren on this forum. It seems that they believe we should accept God's existence based on blind faith.
Actually, it's the opposite. We accept in Faith what is understood through "theoria" which literally means "to see the Divine".

Such a faith seems dishonest to me.
I guess it would. Theoria is just one of those things which cannot be explained, but it certainly carries infinitely more certainty that it's "western" counterpart of "Theory", which has come to mean simply "hypothesis"- the equivalent of "guess". Someone who is born blind can certainly deny or affirm the existence of the sun, but his opinion cannot possibly hold as much weight as one who can see.

It seems that they believe God is irrational.
I don't see how this follows. Simply because God doesn't fit in to our logic doesn't mean He is "irrational".


That is impossible, because, first, God is not silly. Second, God created a rational universe. That means he posses rationality within himself.
True, but God's rationality includes a Virgin who gives birth to a Baby Who is circumscribed in a manger and yet Who is the Uncircumscribable God, and Who dies in order to give Life....."Rational" by whose standards? Wink

Remember the words of St. Peter, the first Pope:
Actually, St. Linus was the first Pope, but I'm sure you've heard that before.... Wink

"but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence." 1 Peter 3:15
But we have provided you an "apologia" (translated above as "defence") for the hope that is in us- you just won't accept it; and neither did the persecutors of the first Christians. Their "apologia" did not change the hearts of their persecutors so that they were spared torture and death, in fact their "apologia" seemed to fuel even more hatred towards them, so I don't think the word "defense" in the sense of "legal defense" or "defending of an argument" is the exact translation for the word "apologia".
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
icxn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 251


« Reply #71 on: August 30, 2006, 08:25:16 AM »

I am becoming more and more concerned about my Eastern Bretheren on this forum. It seems that they believe we should accept God's existence based on blind faith. Such a faith seems dishonest to me...

Go read "Orthodox Psychotherapy" especially the last chapter on Orthodox Epistemology. Faith for us is not a [blind] mental consent as you imagine.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #72 on: August 30, 2006, 11:16:57 AM »

Your statements about logic are illogical. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates that no axiomatic system, and this would include the axiomatic system that defines logic, is complete and that no such system can ever be demonstrated to be consistant with itself. Basically, the very axioms of logic itself contradicts even the mere assertion that logic is true (for the Incompleteness Theorem proves that logic can never be proven true, though it is at least theoretically possible that it could be proven false, that is to say inconsistant). I fear that experience is you best bet...and no, I wouldn't discount the experience of someone for the mere reason that they are not Christian.

Well please, try to prove the existance of God to me using logic and please address the questions posed by Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, Tarski's Indefinability Theorem, and the subsequent developments in Computability Theory. I'm sure many of these theorems have philosophical equivalents, but I am more familiar with the Mathematics and Computer Science.

I submit to you that God is neither rational nor irrational, rather he is trans-rational. He is the source of both logic and illogic, though he is neither logical nor illogical. Ever read Proclus or St. Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite? You seem to like philosophy, perhaps you would appreciate their approach to the divine. How about Lao Tzu? 'The tao that can be described is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be spoken is not the eternal Name.' In any case, may I recomend Dionysius' Mystical Theology?
God is the source of the illogic? Wow. That would be the most pathetic god not worthy of any form of worship. That would be a god who creates a universe in which flying pigs pop in and out of existence for no reason at all. What a sad little God. NO! My God, true and living God is the eternal Logos, the most reasonable being from who order itself comes!
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #73 on: August 30, 2006, 11:31:59 AM »

Physics will be shown to be wrong if it contradicts logic. Nothing can escape logic (greek: the Logos) because divine order finds it source in God.

What you are calling "logic" here is not in fact logic per se; it's a commonsensical ontology which most certainly can be disproven by physics. The order you are claiming isn't in fact divine; it is the product of human observation and analysis.

Quote
And if experience is all that proves the existence of God, how do I know that my Christian experience is any more valid than one's muslim experience? Or one's Hindu experience? Or one's Pagan experience?

I'm going to reject the word "valid"; it begs the question.

And while we're begging the question, the answer is that the ontological "proofs" don't help to resolve these issues. Indeed, with Buddhism dropped into the mix, they actually confound it further, because (for instance) Buddhism is happy enough to say that causality is an illusion too. But leaving that aside, Islam has no problem with postulating about Allah what the ontological "proofs" say. It is the common heritage of semetic monotheism. This is really the crucial point. You can be a Unitarian and accept the properties which the ontological proofs attribute to God; therefore, the proofs are of no religious importance.

Quote
Rather, God is the measure of God, and reason and logic that flow from God are much better at determing what is true and not true than my personal experience.

But reasoning and application of logic are not done by God, but by those fallible humans; therefore the "proofs" are not privileged over other kinds of human discourse, but indeed are subject their mutual criticism.
Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #74 on: August 30, 2006, 11:43:14 AM »

Keble,

It sounds like papist is arguing man's application of logic to be a more reliable and objective alternative to pursuing the truth than personal experience. I'm interested in seeing you deal with the issue within this comparative context.

« Last Edit: August 30, 2006, 11:44:48 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #75 on: August 30, 2006, 12:39:01 PM »

Keble,

It sounds like papist is arguing man's application of logic to be a more reliable and objective alternative to pursuing the truth than personal experience. I'm interested in seeing you deal with the issue within this comparative context.


Absolutely. You see the problem with personal experience is just that: it is personal experience. Some one can have a vision of what they believe to be buhddah or muhomed, but in reality it is just a demon decieving that person. Heck, eve Joseph Smith claimed that he had a vision of God and of an angel called Moroni. However, we know that such visions would be deceptions because they are not in line with reality. In fact, they may even be demonic in nature.  Yet, we know that some people have had a true vision of Christ, for example, St. Paul. Yet how am I to determine that the false visions are false, and the true visions are true simply by experience? Should I just go with my gut feeling? Well, sometimes when I am driving around, I have a gut feeling that I am going the right way and that I am not lost, that is until I turn down a road that happens to be a dead end. Grin Thus my guy feeling, my experience was decieving. So you see, feelings, what we think are visions, really any experience cannot measure truth.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #76 on: August 30, 2006, 01:33:47 PM »

God is the source of the illogic? Wow. That would be the most pathetic god not worthy of any form of worship. That would be a god who creates a universe in which flying pigs pop in and out of existence for no reason at all. What a sad little God. NO! My God, true and living God is the eternal Logos, the most reasonable being from who order itself comes!

If God is not the source of all things, then what is the second Pre-Eternal source? What Pre-Eternal deity created illogic if not the One God? The posistion that you advocate is one of ditheism (or polytheism, perhaps); for you state that there exists things (and as any student of human behaviour or physics can tell you irrationality and illogic most certainly exist) which do not have their source in the One, therefore we must conclude that either there is a Second Eternal Being OR that these things must be the cause of themselves, if the latter is the case then these things may exist ontological separate from the One, thus making them self-sustaining and possessing of being in and of themselves, thus making them co-Divinities. So either way, what you are advocating is ditheism (or potentially polytheism if you cannot name only one source from which all things that do not come from the One come).

Absolutely. You see the problem with personal experience is just that: it is personal experience. Some one can have a vision of what they believe to be buhddah or muhomed, but in reality it is just a demon decieving that person. Heck, eve Joseph Smith claimed that he had a vision of God and of an angel called Moroni. However, we know that such visions would be deceptions because they are not in line with reality. In fact, they may even be demonic in nature.  Yet, we know that some people have had a true vision of Christ, for example, St. Paul. Yet how am I to determine that the false visions are false, and the true visions are true simply by experience? Should I just go with my gut feeling? Well, sometimes when I am driving around, I have a gut feeling that I am going the right way and that I am not lost, that is until I turn down a road that happens to be a dead end. Grin Thus my guy feeling, my experience was decieving. So you see, feelings, what we think are visions, really any experience cannot measure truth.

And any so-called 'proof' you give about the existance of God can be dismissed with ease, for example it is theoretically impossible to give a proof that can escape the incompleteness theorem, using the principles of said theorem I can tear to shreds ANY proof that claims absolute veracity, be it mathematical, philosophical, theological, or otherwise. There is actually one, and only one, belief system that is justified by logic and that is not Christianity nor any other type of theism, nor is it atheism, it is agnosticism: since no definitive proof can be given for or against a deity, logic dictates that you simply state you do not know whether or not one exists.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #77 on: August 30, 2006, 01:37:14 PM »

Your statements about logic are illogical. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates that no axiomatic system, and this would include the axiomatic system that defines logic, is complete and that no such system can ever be demonstrated to be consistant with itself. Basically, the very axioms of logic itself contradicts even the mere assertion that logic is true (for the Incompleteness Theorem proves that logic can never be proven true, though it is at least theoretically possible that it could be proven false, that is to say inconsistant). I fear that experience is you best bet...and no, I wouldn't discount the experience of someone for the mere reason that they are not Christian.

Well please, try to prove the existance of God to me using logic and please address the questions posed by Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, Tarski's Indefinability Theorem, and the subsequent developments in Computability Theory. I'm sure many of these theorems have philosophical equivalents, but I am more familiar with the Mathematics and Computer Science.

I submit to you that God is neither rational nor irrational, rather he is trans-rational. He is the source of both logic and illogic, though he is neither logical nor illogical. Ever read Proclus or St. Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite? You seem to like philosophy, perhaps you would appreciate their approach to the divine. How about Lao Tzu? 'The tao that can be described is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be spoken is not the eternal Name.' In any case, may I recomend Dionysius' Mystical Theology?
Then you and I worship two very different gods. My Lord is the unchanging, eternal perfect Logos who creates and orders the universe, a God of order, reasonable, rational and superrational, but never irrational or illogical. An illogical god is one that creates a disordered universe, a universe where flying pigs pop in and out of existence for no reason. Wait, uncaused flying pigs would still be too ordered for an illogical god. An illogical God is even sillier than that. Such a God is not worthy of worship. Throw out the rules of reason and not only do you get rid of the law of sufficient reason (the father of causality) but also the law of non-contradiction. Thus, God is and he is not. He doesn't exist and he does. Heck, nothing makes sense in the world of an illogical god, and since our minds can only know things that are rational, then we would not be able to know such a silly god. Such a god is not worthy of worship. A pathetic shadow of our true God.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #78 on: August 30, 2006, 01:40:51 PM »

If God is not the source of all things, then what is the second Pre-Eternal source? What Pre-Eternal deity created illogic if not the One God? The posistion that you advocate is one of ditheism (or polytheism, perhaps); for you state that there exists things (and as any student of human behaviour or physics can tell you irrationality and illogic most certainly exist) which do not have their source in the One, therefore we must conclude that either there is a Second Eternal Being OR that these things must be the cause of themselves, if the latter is the case then these things may exist ontological separate from the One, thus making them self-sustaining and possessing of being in and of themselves, thus making them co-Divinities. So either way, what you are advocating is ditheism (or potentially polytheism if you cannot name only one source from which all things that do not come from the One come).

And any so-called 'proof' you give about the existance of God can be dismissed with ease, for example it is theoretically impossible to give a proof that can escape the incompleteness theorem, using the principles of said theorem I can tear to shreds ANY proof that claims absolute veracity, be it mathematical, philosophical, theological, or otherwise. There is actually one, and only one, belief system that is justified by logic and that is not Christianity nor any other type of theism, nor is it atheism, it is agnosticism: since no definitive proof can be given for or against a deity, logic dictates that you simply state you do not know whether or not one exists.
Illogic is not a thing in and of itself. It is a lack of what does flow from God, i.e. Logic. Illogic is like a hole; a hole in the ground is not a thing in and of itself, it is a lack of dirt. Illogic is not a thing! Gosh. It is simply a preson failing to use his brain!
Please, do share the amazing law of incompletenenss. I am waiting to be amazed.
Just curious. How do you know that Christianity is true and not Buddhism?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #79 on: August 30, 2006, 01:47:39 PM »

And any so-called 'proof' you give about the existance of God can be dismissed with ease, for example it is theoretically impossible to give a proof that can escape the incompleteness theorem, using the principles of said theorem I can tear to shreds ANY proof that claims absolute veracity, be it mathematical, philosophical, theological, or otherwise. There is actually one, and only one, belief system that is justified by logic and that is not Christianity nor any other type of theism, nor is it atheism, it is agnosticism: since no definitive proof can be given for or against a deity, logic dictates that you simply state you do not know whether or not one exists.
So you claim to KNOW that you can use REASON to show that you can KNOW that you can't KNOW anything from REASON. Sounds a bit absurd to me. Grin
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #80 on: August 30, 2006, 01:50:33 PM »

"The knowledge beyond the power of reason":

Revealed Truth

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/ReardonReason.php
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #81 on: August 30, 2006, 01:56:37 PM »

[quote author=Αριστοκλής link=topic=9855.msg134004#msg134004 date=1156960233]
"The knowledge beyond the power of reason":

Revealed Truth

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/ReardonReason.php
[/quote]
Wow. this article is PATHETIC. Even Muslims know better than this.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #82 on: August 30, 2006, 01:59:47 PM »

At least you read it! That's a start...

I have no idea how to debunk scholasticism by using scholasticism as some are trying here. You either "get it" or you don't. You don't.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2006, 02:06:26 PM by ΑριστÎÂà » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,423


« Reply #83 on: August 30, 2006, 02:09:32 PM »

Wow. this article is PATHETIC. Even Muslims know better than this.

I've heard that a lot of Fr. PHR's articles are pathetic...but it is because he slants them so heavily with his former Episcopalian ideas.  Wink But all this is hearsay of course...
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #84 on: August 30, 2006, 02:11:55 PM »

[quote author=Αριστοκλής link=topic=9855.msg134010#msg134010 date=1156960787]
At least you read it! That's a start...

I have no idea how to debunk scholasticism by using scholasticism as some are trying here. You either "get it" or you don't. You don't.
[/quote]
Thank God my mind has not not been darkened and I don't get it. Thank God that my mind has not been conformed to this world and its existential and subjectivist ideas and I still see the objective and rational clearly. Grin
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #85 on: August 30, 2006, 02:12:53 PM »

It sounds like papist is arguing man's application of logic to be a more reliable and objective alternative to pursuing the truth than personal experience. I'm interested in seeing you deal with the issue within this comparative context.

The question is not so abstract.

In the first place, in the context of the existence of a particular material object, it is untrue. The only acceptable evidence traces back to personal experience, directly or through the proxy of various apparatuses. After that comes testimony, and reason has a part in its evaluation. But without observation, we have only speculation.

Also, we again are not talking about logic and reason in the abstract. Causality, for example, is empirically derived phenomenology; it is not a principle of logic at all, but an observed property of the natural world. And therefore, appeal to the "first cause" argument relies upon acceptance that causality works universally in the way that we perceive it to be working in ordinary existence. Now the physicists no longer accept this as an axiom, because it appears that on a small enough scale, there are uncaused events. That alone is good enough for a refutation, but even before that, one is not compelled to believe that causality is universal.

And again (and this is the most important point, and the one that nobody seems to be willing to step up to) identifying a First Cause, etc. with the LORD God is not a done deal. For example, in pagan systems it is possible to believe in a First Cause-- which is not a deity, although there are (they perceive) deities. Or one can take an extreme pantheist position and thus have a "god" who is utterly impersonal. It is ironic that Christianity in particular is dependent upon personal experience and testimony-- that is, the witness of the apostles to the Risen Jesus. You cannot prove that with an ontological argument, so why bother with them?
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #86 on: August 30, 2006, 02:15:34 PM »

I've heard that a lot of Fr. PHR's articles are pathetic...but it is because he slants them so heavily with his former Episcopalian ideas.  Wink But all this is hearsay of course...

True, many priests I know make this complaint. My response, "Well, what have you published?", if I'm feeling feisty.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #87 on: August 30, 2006, 02:16:21 PM »

Thank God my mind has not not been darkened and I don't get it. Thank God that my mind has not been conformed to this world and its existential and subjectivist ideas and I still see the objective and rational clearly. Grin

If that is all you need, good for you.  Smiley
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,418



« Reply #88 on: August 30, 2006, 02:20:09 PM »

Absolutely. You see the problem with personal experience is just that: it is personal experience. Some one can have a vision of what they believe to be buhddah or muhomed, but in reality it is just a demon decieving that person. Heck, eve Joseph Smith claimed that he had a vision of God and of an angel called Moroni. However, we know that such visions would be deceptions because they are not in line with reality. In fact, they may even be demonic in nature.  Yet, we know that some people have had a true vision of Christ, for example, St. Paul. Yet how am I to determine that the false visions are false, and the true visions are true simply by experience?

BECAUSE THAT IS BLOODY WELL THE WRONG QUESTION!!!!  Angry Angry Angry

Here you are, going on about personal experience, and yet anyone with the slightest objectivity in the matter can see that every word you say is colored by your experience of being a Roman Catholic! Thomist proofs of God's existence don't do a thing towards distinguishing between Mohammed and Paul; as far as the religiously uncommitted is concerned, one is a much a tale as the other.
Logged
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #89 on: August 30, 2006, 02:48:05 PM »

Thomist proofs of God's existence don't do a thing towards distinguishing between Mohammed and Paul; as far as the religiously uncommitted is concerned, one is a much a tale as the other.

Swinburne's developments of the traditional proofs hold that if God exists, it follows that He is One in Three Persons. It's certainly not limited to general, unspecified theism versus atheism.
Logged
Tags: scholasticism philosophy Aristotle 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.154 seconds with 72 queries.