Contingency and Necessity

[Joseph Geloso]

This is a shorter version of my post, "The Necessary Existent. . ."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/msg/377d59644b5f6499

Lion Of Judah wrote:

. . .

> But why can't there be an infinite regress in a chain of
> contingencies?

Contingency is relative to necessity. Thus, for an oak tree to grow, a
viable acorn is a relative necessity. The acorn itself is contingent,
of course, on a previous oak, which itself grew from an acorn, and so
on. This is an example of cyclic causality, and of course the whole
system is contingent upon certain necessities as well, like DNA, and
Earth.

Now of contingencies, I find two types at least, one being causality,
and another being the contingecy of any cyclic or recurrent causality
upon a larger system, which has been named hierarchical contingency.

Just as causes are logically prior to their effects, so are relative
necessities logically prior to their contingents. Thus in any search
for relative necessities, I may stop at any point that I am satisfied,
and idenitify that condition as the prime necessity. Prime necessity
here is the equivalent of first cause in a discussion of causality. If,
in the case of the oak trees, I am satisfied with the explanation, "the
ecosystem of the Earth," then I may assign to that the position of
prime necessity relative to the existence of oak. Without the Earth, or
at least some place like it, no oak could ever have come about.

However, if I then ask, "how did the Earth come about?," then obviously
I can no longer assign prime necessity to the Earth's ecosystem - I
must move it back, perhaps to the formation of planets in whatever ways
they were formed. In every case I must either be satisfied for my
purposes of requiring an explanation or I must continue the search, and
in every case, when my search is ended, I can assign to the foundation
of all these contingencies the position of prime necessity.

Now I must ask, what can we mean by an infinite chain of contingencies?
If by it we mean a chain of contingencies supported by no prime
necessity, then I submit, none of them could ever have come about. By
definition, the whole chain from beginning to end depends upon its
first link, and if there is no first link, then there can be no chain.
There cannot be the whole series of contingencies which depends upon a
nonexistent prime necessity.

On the other hand, if by an infinite chain of contingencies we mean one
where the prime necessity is infinitely far back, then, I submit, there
is a misunderstanding of what is meant by "infinite." 'Infinity' is not
the name of any number, no matter how large. If the prime necessity in
our chain of contingencies is a something definite, then it can be
counted. We have so far been calling the prime necessity prime, meaning
first, but we can just as easily call it the ultimate necessity,
meaning, last, and thus we have reversed the order of our naming of
contingencies. Then we can begin with the contingency we have at hand,
whatever it may be, and assign to that the first position in the chain.
Then whatever it is contingent upon receives the designation of second,
and then third and so on, for each link in the chain. Since each
contingency is something definite, consequently it can be counted, and
so we may, at least in principle, assign an ordinal number to each one.
But then, which ordinal shall we assign to the ultimate necessity? What
is the number of links in that infinite chain? If you answer,
"infinity," I must simply remind you that 'infinity' does not name a
number. I think I am right to insist that the phrase, "an infinite
number," is incoherent. But what else could we mean by "infinite
regress in a chain of contingencies" apart from "a chain of definite
contingencies composed of an infinite number of links?"

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/msg/dce80023153d7fc7

Thomas Robert Malthus wrote:

. . .

> Sophistry. You have in essence said "infinite regression cannot
> be the first cause". While this is true it avoids the fact that
> when "infinite regression" is used in answer to the first-cause
> question it is used to *negate* the question, not to answer it.

What an interesting technique! I was not aware that that avenue was
open to us. So if anyone presents me with a question I have no answer
to, I can just "negate the question," and be done with it? Or is that a
privelege you extend only to yourself?

> In fact it also negates the definition of causality that you
> assert when you say "by definition, the whole chain from
> beginning to end depends upon its first link". The ordinary
> definition of causality is that things come into being in
> response to prior events. That definition in no way requires
> that the chain of prior events be finite. The dependency upon
> the first link that you assert only exists when the first
> link is presumed.
> In short, you have not reasoned to a first cause; you have
> merely tried to (self-referentially) define one into being.

Nonsense. My argument above is based on the requirement of a prime
necessity in any chain of contingencies, which requirement is built
right in to the definition of contingency. Every contingent existence
is supported by some relative necessity, and if we are satisfied at any
given point and do not wish to pursue the matter further, then our
arbitrary stopping point can be assigned the designation, prime. If we
go farther back, then we move that designation farther back. In no case
is it possible that a chain of contingencies arises unsupported; if it
were to do so, then it could no longer meaningfully be called a chain
of contingencies, since, resting as it did on no necessity whatsoever,
but existing, the whole chain itself would have to be considered
necessary.

As you yourself said with regard to causality, "things come into being
in response to prior events." A chain of occurences is a set of
discrete occurrences, and if the relationship of each member of that
set is as a contingency, then it must be contingent on either some
other member of the set or on some occurence outside of the set. By
definition of logical priority, which must exist in every relationship
of a relative necessity to its contingent, there must be at least one
member of any set of contingencies only whose logically prior relative
necessity is outside the set.

(end quoted material)

[Whispers in the Storm]

"By
definition of logical priority, which must exist in every relationship
of a relative necessity to its contingent, there must be at least one
member of any set of contingencies only whose logically prior relative
necessity is outside the set."

Why? This certainly applies if the chain of contingent events is
strictly linear but what prevents a circular set of contingencies?
What logically leads you to reject that possibility?

[Joseph Geloso]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/msg/37719a10e184e155

droth wrote:
. . .
> To show that infinite regress is impossible, you would have to show that
> it is impossible for the last chain to cause the first chain (IE,
> making the entirety cyclic.)

Easily done.

An illustration is here appropriate:

http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pimage?53953+0+0+ggescher

In Escher's "Drawing Hands," we have a perfect illustration of a cyclic
causal chain of two links. Obviously, the principle could be extended
to include any number of drawing hands in a circle, including your
theoretical infinite circle. I call this a Mexican Standoff of
Causality or Contingency (the same argument can be applied to either.)

In a Mexican Standoff, each participant holds a gun to the other one's
head, threatening to pull the trigger, but knowing that if he does, the
other will also pull the trigger and the first one will die right along
with the second. The standoff remains until and unless the situtation
is resolved in some other way, as neither is willing to sacrifice his
own life to kill the other. If we want to use this as an analogy,
pulling the trigger would be the causal event, while being shot in the
head would be the antecedent to the cause. Neither will pull the
trigger until the other one shoots, so the standoff remains.

In "Drawing Hands," in order for one of the hands to draw, it must
first be sufficiently drawn itself to be able to hold a pen, and for it
to be so sufficiently drawn, the other would have to have been able to
hold a pen, itself. Such a beginningless series could never get off the
ground.

This illustrates the impossibility of a set of contingencies existing
by itself, with nothing contingent upon any element outside the set.
The same principle applies whether we view the totality of the set as
literally beginningless, or cyclic, or even as a web, and it applies no
matter what the number of elements in the set is, even if it approaches
infinity.

Addendum:

Another example of this princple is two men, each very strong and very
fit. Each weighs 180 pounds and each is capable of lifting 180 pounds
over his head. Either one, then, could easily lift the other over his
head. If they try at the same time to lift each other, why would they
not levitate?

[Whispers in the Storm]

The weakness of the "Drawing Hands" argument you've provided rests in
its adherance to human action - of course such a thing needs the first
person to get it started. But how, exactly, do you reach conclusions
about the laws of physics and chemistry from making observations about
human actions?

I would leave that addendum off of your argument in the future as it is
completely ridiculous - not being able to violate gravity has no
bearing whatsoever on the necessity or lack of necessity of a first
cause.

[Joseph Geloso]

Whispers in the Storm wrote:

> The weakness of the "Drawing Hands" argument you've provided rests in
> its adherance to human action - of course such a thing needs the first
> person to get it started. But how, exactly, do you reach conclusions
> about the laws of physics and chemistry from making observations about
> human actions?

I chose the "Drawing Hands" because it illustrates the fictional
"concept" of truly cyclic contingency. I am hard pressed to come up
with an example of cyclic contingency in physics or chemistry, even as
a notion. If you can come up with such a notion, I would be glad to
critique it. But if you can give no example of such a thing, then I
must observe that your objection is quite unsubstantiated.

To be clear: It is you who have made the positive assertion that a
truly cyclic chain of contingencies might exist. Thus the burden of
providing a solitary example of one rests on you. I did not provide any
"real" examples, only fictional ones, because it is my contention that
the whole idea is fiction. The Mexican Standoff example is not actually
a cyclic chain, but only provides a useful analogy to such a thing.

>
> I would leave that addendum off of your argument in the future as it is
> completely ridiculous - not being able to violate gravity has no
> bearing whatsoever on the necessity or lack of necessity of a first
> cause.

It was only given as an additional illustration of a notion which, I
fully agree, is completely ridiculous.

[Whispers in the Storm]

> I chose the "Drawing Hands" because it illustrates the fictional
> "concept" of truly cyclic contingency. I am hard pressed to come up
> with an example of cyclic contingency in physics or chemistry, even as
> a notion. If you can come up with such a notion, I would be glad to
> critique it. But if you can give no example of such a thing, then I
> must observe that your objection is quite unsubstantiated.

I'll have to do some exploring - I didn't really have anything in mind
but you seemed to champion linear chains of events over cyclic ones and
I really have no reason currently to reject an independent cyclical
chain of contingencies on a micro level and was wondering why you'd
rejected the possibility. Your analogies didn't seem very strong to
me, which is why I was asking how you made the jump from human actions
to physics. I mean, what about string theory, that if true supports
things popping in and out of existence seemingly without a cause? I
don't really know enough about the current particulars to offer an
opinion one way or another but it seems to open the possibility of
uncaused phenomenon.

> To be clear: It is you who have made the positive assertion that a
> truly cyclic chain of contingencies might exist. Thus the burden of
> providing a solitary example of one rests on you. I did not provide any
> "real" examples, only fictional ones, because it is my contention that
> the whole idea is fiction. The Mexican Standoff example is not actually
> a cyclic chain, but only provides a useful analogy to such a thing.

I actually hadn't entertained the thought until I read your post - then
I wondered why you were operating from the assumption that all
contingencies were linear in nature and I asked "why reject the
possibility of a cyclic set of contingencies" and then rejected your
rejections as inapplicable to the question at hand. I suppose it
doesn't really matter whether whether I've made the positive assertion
that cyclic chains exist or you've made the positive assertion that
cyclic chains don't exist since it seems that neither one of us knows
enough about chemistry or physics to really carry the debate anywhere
meaningful... the concept has sparked my interest though, so I'll
certainly be exploring the possibilities.

[Joseph Geloso]

Whispers in the Storm wrote:

> > I chose the "Drawing Hands" because it illustrates the fictional
> > "concept" of truly cyclic contingency. I am hard pressed to come up
> > with an example of cyclic contingency in physics or chemistry, even as
> > a notion. If you can come up with such a notion, I would be glad to
> > critique it. But if you can give no example of such a thing, then I
> > must observe that your objection is quite unsubstantiated.
>
> I'll have to do some exploring - I didn't really have anything in mind
> but you seemed to champion linear chains of events over cyclic ones and
> I really have no reason currently to reject an independent cyclical
> chain of contingencies on a micro level and was wondering why you'd
> rejected the possibility. Your analogies didn't seem very strong to
> me, which is why I was asking how you made the jump from human actions
> to physics. I mean, what about string theory, that if true supports
> things popping in and out of existence seemingly without a cause?

It would thereby violate the fundamental axiom upon which all of
science is built, namely Reason.

> I
> don't really know enough about the current particulars to offer an
> opinion one way or another but it seems to open the possibility of
> uncaused phenomenon.

There are none. Even hallucinations have a cause, brain fever for
example.

>
> > To be clear: It is you who have made the positive assertion that a
> > truly cyclic chain of contingencies might exist. Thus the burden of
> > providing a solitary example of one rests on you. I did not provide any
> > "real" examples, only fictional ones, because it is my contention that
> > the whole idea is fiction. The Mexican Standoff example is not actually
> > a cyclic chain, but only provides a useful analogy to such a thing.
>
> I actually hadn't entertained the thought until I read your post - then
> I wondered why you were operating from the assumption that all
> contingencies were linear in nature and I asked "why reject the
> possibility of a cyclic set of contingencies" and then rejected your
> rejections as inapplicable to the question at hand. I suppose it
> doesn't really matter whether whether I've made the positive assertion
> that cyclic chains exist or you've made the positive assertion that
> cyclic chains don't exist since it seems that neither one of us knows
> enough about chemistry or physics to really carry the debate anywhere
> meaningful... the concept has sparked my interest though, so I'll
> certainly be exploring the possibilities.

My contention that truly cyclic causality is not possible is based on
my understanding of the nature of causality, which properly belongs to
the realm of metaphysics. (Logical priority of cause to effect is a
necessary component of any causal relation.) No coherent theory can
assert that Chemistry or Physics violates the principle of causality,
which is part of our reason. There may be, and there are, observations
that have been made which appear to challenge our preconceptions about
how that causality must proceed, and what its source may be, but to
assert that any event is truly acausal is to discard reason entirely,
which would immediately invalidate the very foundation of every science.

[Whispers in the Storm]

Ah - I see where you're coming from now. I don't know that I
completely agree... something feels a bit off but I haven't identified
what that is yet. I'll have to set aside several hours for some deep
thinking on this before I form a solid opinion.

[Observer]

I think that we miss the point with cause and effect reasoning..
Try evaluating the proposition using syncronicity (a causal
relationships) (tendencies of conditions to co-emerge) , and quantum
entanglement.

Psychonomist

[Observer]

[Joseph Geloso]

Observer wrote:
> I think that we miss the point with cause and effect reasoning..

What other kind of reasoning is there?

> Try evaluating the proposition using syncronicity (a causal
> relationships) (tendencies of conditions to co-emerge) ,

Give examples please? As I understand it, synchronicity means
meaningful or serendipitous coincidence, not reciprocal causality.

> and quantum
> entanglement.

Explain what you mean, in layman's terms, please.

[Observer]

Joseph Geloso wrote:
> Observer wrote:
> > I think that we miss the point with cause and effect reasoning..
>
> What other kind of reasoning is there?

Cause and effect reasoning locks the observers mind around a sequence
of events in a way that says situation two is always preceded by
situation one , in that situation one is the proximate cause of
situation two. 3 of 4, 4 of 5 at infinitum. Because the observer sees
this occur over and over again it is thought of as cause and effect.
Synchronistic evaluation of the same set of sequences determines only
that in my observation these sequences tend to accrue, but that there
is not necessarily a casual relationship between them. Though they may
be acasually related. Perhaps the former and the later have been
produced by quantum entanglement. (Relationships to occurrences in some
other part of an unknown field or fields of activity somewhere in the
multi-verse). In that field there may be a relationship of actions that
are entangled with our own time and space.
ergo a casual relationships with quantum entanglement.
quantum entanglement = the many that are so entangled that they are
virtualy one. The theory is that the entire multi-verse is thus
entangled

Psychonomist

>
> > Try evaluating the proposition using syncronicity (a causal
> > relationships) (tendencies of conditions to co-emerge) ,
>

> Give examples please? As I understand it, Synchronistic means

> meaningful or serendipitous coincidence, not reciprocal causality.

An other problem with our thinking is that we ascribe purpose to
events. I guess it makes us feel more comfortable.

[James Barlow]

Well done. Or as Nietzsche noted, "No one has ever seen a 'cause'!!!"

Observer <mayo...@gmail.com> wrote:

---

Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.

[James Barlow]

Hume has already shown why causality is a kind of chimera

Observer <mayo...@gmail.com> wrote:

---

Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.

[Joseph Geloso]

Observer wrote:
> Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > Observer wrote:
> > > I think that we miss the point with cause and effect reasoning..
> >
> > What other kind of reasoning is there?
>
> Cause and effect reasoning locks the observers mind around a sequence
> of events in a way that says situation two is always preceded by
> situation one , in that situation one is the proximate cause of
> situation two. 3 of 4, 4 of 5 at infinitum. Because the observer sees
> this occur over and over again it is thought of as cause and effect.

So we obtain the very principle of reason, which is actually how our
minds work, from experience? I don't buy it. In order for the very
first instance of ascribing a cause to an effect to arise, there must
be - a priori - something within us that seeks causes when we witness
effects. The most fundamental case of cause and effect there is is that
between noumenon and phenomenon, and we naturally assume that when we
see something (phenomenon) that there really is something there
(noumenon). To believe otherwise would be to assume that we are
hallucinating on a regular basis, but the problem with so assuming is
that the very conception of hallucination does not arise unless we
actually see something that turns out not to be there. In such a case,
we naturally wonder why. We may trace the cause to a brain fever or to
a trick of the light, but we are not satisfied to just accept that we
have seen something where in fact there is nothing.

Hume was a bullshitter.

> Synchronistic evaluation of the same set of sequences determines only
> that in my observation these sequences tend to accrue, but that there
> is not necessarily a casual relationship between them. Though they may
> be acasually related. Perhaps the former and the later have been
> produced by quantum entanglement. (Relationships to occurrences in some
> other part of an unknown field or fields of activity somewhere in the
> multi-verse). In that field there may be a relationship of actions that
> are entangled with our own time and space.
> ergo a casual relationships with quantum entanglement.
> quantum entanglement = the many that are so entangled that they are
> virtualy one. The theory is that the entire multi-verse is thus
> entangled

It is a convenient theory to espouse because it doesn't necessarily
make any sense. The phrase "quantum entanglement" is used by physicists
to describe God's simultaneity, when He does similar or complementary
things to pairs of particles separated by distance. Transferring the
burden of bringing into existence something from nothing to the
"multiverse" (right out of Marvel Comics) is akin to explaining the
Origin of Life on Earth by saying we were seeded by aliens. It fails to
give an explanation of Origins at all (since then the question is how
did these alien races arise?), it merely moves the problem -
conveniently - outside the reach of our observations. Basically, it's a
copout.

>
>
> Psychonomist
>
> >
> > > Try evaluating the proposition using syncronicity (a causal
> > > relationships) (tendencies of conditions to co-emerge) ,
> >
> > Give examples please? As I understand it, Synchronistic means
> > meaningful or serendipitous coincidence, not reciprocal causality.
>
> An other problem with our thinking is that we ascribe purpose to
> events. I guess it makes us feel more comfortable.

The acribing of purpose to events is entirely natural to us, since we
are rational creatures. Atheists, at least some of them, apparently,
are not so comfortable being rational creatures. They want to discard
reason when it naturally points them to God.

Saying, "I guess it makes us more comfortable" is a dig at religion,
sort of like saying "religion is a crutch." That kind of remark is
designed to subtly undermine the credibility of the one who believes
the evidence of both his senses and his reason by alluding to the
seeking of comfort as a weakness.

[Joseph Geloso]

James Barlow wrote:
> Hume has already shown why causality is a kind of chimera

No, Hume sophistically tried to explain away causality, because he
didn't like the fact that reason led him to conclude there must be a
God. So absolute was his disdain for even the idea of God that he felt
it necessary to extend his skepticism even to the very foundation of
the sciences itself, namely reason. While it is undoubtedly the case
that we are not always accurate in what we ascribe as the cause of an
effect, nonetheless we are compelled by the force of reason itself to
admit that every effect does in fact have a cause.

> ---------------------------------

> Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.

> --0-687306443-1160114060=:6301
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Google-AttachSize: 2285
>
> Hume has already shown why causality is a kind of chimera<BR><BR><B><I>Observer &lt;mayo...@gmail.com&gt;</I></B> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>Joseph Geloso wrote:<BR>&gt; Observer wrote:<BR>&gt; &gt; I think that we miss the point with cause and effect reasoning..<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; What other kind of reasoning is there?<BR><BR>Cause and effect reasoning locks the observers mind around a sequence<BR>of events in a way that says situation two is always preceded by<BR>situation one , in that situation one is the proximate cause of<BR>situation two. 3 of 4, 4 of 5 at infinitum. Because the observer sees<BR>this occur over and over again it is thought of as cause and effect.<BR>Synchronistic evaluation of the same set of sequences determines only<BR>that in my observation these sequences tend to accrue, but that there<BR>is not necessarily a casual relationship between them. Though they
> may<BR>be acasually related. Perhaps the former and the later have been<BR>produced by quantum entanglement. (Relationships to occurrences in some<BR>other part of an unknown field or fields of activity somewhere in the<BR>multi-verse). In that field there may be a relationship of actions that<BR>are entangled with our own time and space.<BR>ergo a casual relationships with quantum entanglement.<BR>quantum entanglement = the many that are so entangled that they are<BR>virtualy one. The theory is that the entire multi-verse is thus<BR>entangled<BR><BR><BR>Psychonomist<BR><BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; Try evaluating the proposition using syncronicity (a causal<BR>&gt; &gt; relationships) (tendencies of conditions to co-emerge) ,<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Give examples please? As I understand it, Synchronistic means<BR>&gt; meaningful or serendipitous coincidence, not reciprocal causality.<BR><BR>An other problem with our thinking is that we ascribe purpose to<BR>events. I guess it makes us
> feel more comfortable.<BR><BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; and quantum<BR>&gt; &gt; entanglement.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Explain what you mean, in layman's terms, please.<BR><BR><BR> <hr size=1>Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=42974/*http://www.yahoo.com/preview"> Check it out.</a>
>
> --0-687306443-1160114060=:6301--

[NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda]

Joseph Geloso wrote:
> James Barlow wrote:
> > Hume has already shown why causality is a kind of chimera
>
> No, Hume sophistically tried to explain away causality, because he
> didn't like the fact that reason led him to conclude there must be a
> God. So absolute was his disdain for even the idea of God that he felt
> it necessary to extend his skepticism even to the very foundation of
> the sciences itself, namely reason. While it is undoubtedly the case
> that we are not always accurate in what we ascribe as the cause of an
> effect, nonetheless we are compelled by the force of reason itself to
> admit that every effect does in fact have a cause.

Yes, everyone who says they don't believe in God really has an agenda
against him deep down.

*rolls eyes*

[James Barlow]

"No, Hume sophistically tried to explain away causality, because he
didn't like the fact that reason led him to conclude there must be a
God."

  That is hilarious. So that Hume's dislike of the fact that reason led him to conclude there must be a God is the cause, whose effect was a sophistically trying to explain away causality. Was Hume aware of this, that reason led him to conclude there must be a God to the extent that he had to do away with causality?

   If only Hume were the only one who have had their doubts about the sord of childlike, medieval billiard ball notion of what constitutes causality!  Can YOU refute Hume on causality? Doesn't modern science itself subscribe to the idea that, "we cannot prove that x is the cause of y, but can only say that when x occurs, y happens"?  Or is all of science as hell-bent against the ancient version of causality because of an identical disdain of the way reason inevitably leads to God.

  We are in the realm of ideology here, not Truth.

-o

 

Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Observer wrote:

Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
>

> --0-687306443-1160114060=:6301--

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.

[James Barlow]

Yes it's just odd. Apparently there is no such thing as intellectual honesty or the search for truth. There is always this ad hominem stuff. Maybe Nietzsche was right when he said that the psychological origin of Xity is rancor and resentment.

-o

NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda <NinjaYadda...@gmail.com> wrote:

---

All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

[James Barlow]

Some othersonian reactions:

JG wrote:

"So we obtain the very principle of reason, which is actually how our
minds work, from experience? I don't buy it."

 

Why not? If there is no God, there is no other way for the principle of reason (?) to come into being.

 

"In order for the very first instance of ascribing a cause to an effect to arise, there mustbe - a priori - something within us that seeks causes when we witness
effects."

 

Why?

 

"The most fundamental case of cause and effect there is is that
between noumenon and phenomenon, and we naturally assume that when we
see something (phenomenon) that there really is something there
(noumenon)."

 

This is not a fundamental instance of cause and effect.

 

"Hume was a bullshitter."

 

Compared to who? St. Paul? Chesterton?

 

"The acribing of purpose to events is entirely natural to us, since we
are rational creatures. Atheists, at least some of them, apparently,
are not so comfortable being rational creatures. They want to discard
reason when it naturally points them to God."

 

Ascribing purpose to events may be natural to us, but does that entail....?


Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.

[Joseph Geloso]

Well, Hume, apparently, did.

[James Barlow]

Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Yes, everyone who says they don't believe in God really has an agenda
 against him deep down." 

   This view is contrary to Holy Faith.  Holy Church has ever held that if someone is following the light of reason, and due to the lights given him by God find it impossible by means of their intellectual conscience to believe in His existence, such a one can still be saved.

   This contradicts by intention the assertion made above.

-o 

Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Joseph Geloso]

James Barlow wrote:
> Yes it's just odd. Apparently there is no such thing as intellectual honesty or the search for truth.

I did not say that. I only said that Hume's intellectual honesty
apparently ended when he considered the implications of causality.

> There is always this ad hominem stuff.

Against Hume? He has been dead and already judged for a few years now.
I'm not arguing with Hume, I'm merely assessing the damage he did to
philosophy.

> Maybe Nietzsche was right when he said that the psychological origin of Xity is rancor and resentment.

Nietzche couldn't sleep nights and resented people who could.

[Joseph Geloso]

James Barlow wrote:
> Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Yes, everyone who says they don't believe in God really has an agenda
> against him deep down."

The above is a false attribution. I did not say that, someone else did.

> This view is contrary to Holy Faith. Holy Church has ever held that if someone is following the light of reason, and due to the lights given him by God find it impossible by means of their intellectual conscience to believe in His existence, such a one can still be saved.

Bullshit. Show me the doctrine that says that.

[James Barlow]

This is funny stuff!

-o

Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:

James Barlow wrote:
> Yes it's just odd. Apparently there is no such thing as intellectual honesty or the search for truth.

I did not say that. I only said that Hume's intellectual honesty
apparently ended when he considered the implications of causality.

> There is always this ad hominem stuff.

Against Hume? He has been dead and already judged for a few years now.
I'm not arguing with Hume, I'm merely assessing the damage he did to
philosophy.

> Maybe Nietzsche was right when he said that the psychological origin of Xity is rancor and resentment.

Nietzche couldn't sleep nights and resented people who could.

> -o
>

> NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda wrote:
>
>
> Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > James Barlow wrote:
> > > Hume has already shown why causality is a kind of chimera
> >
> > No, Hume sophistically tried to explain away causality, because he
> > didn't like the fact that reason led him to conclude there must be a
> > God. So absolute was his disdain for even the idea of God that he felt
> > it necessary to extend his skepticism even to the very foundation of
> > the sciences itself, namely reason. While it is undoubtedly the case
> > that we are not always accurate in what we ascribe as the cause of an
> > effect, nonetheless we are compelled by the force of reason itself to
> > admit that every effect does in fact have a cause.
>
> Yes, everyone who says they don't believe in God really has an agenda
> against him deep down.
>
> *rolls eyes*

[James Barlow]

As you can see from what is written below, either Ninja or JG made the remark in question. Ninja the last and JG the second to last?

JB

Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:

---

Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com

[James Barlow]

Here was the posting as it stood:

NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda wrote:
> Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > James Barlow wrote:
> > > Hume has already shown why causality is a kind of chimera
> >
> > No, Hume sophistically tried to explain away causality, because he
> > didn't like the fact that reason led him to conclude there must be
a
> > God. So absolute was his disdain for even the idea of God that he
felt
> > it necessary to extend his skepticism even to the very foundation
of
> > the sciences itself, namely reason. While it is undoubtedly the
case
> > that we are not always accurate in what we ascribe as the cause of
an
> > effect, nonetheless we are compelled by the force of reason itself
to
> > admit that every effect does in fact have a cause.
>
> Yes, everyone who says they don't believe in God really has an agenda
> against him deep down.

Well, Hume, apparently, did.

Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:

James Barlow wrote:

---

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

[Joseph Geloso]

James Barlow wrote:
> Here was the posting as it stood:

Yeah. See the name just below? That's who said that. See below for
further replies.

Ninja Yadda Yadda wrote the line above, "Yes, everyone who. . ." Not
me.

>
>
> > This view is contrary to Holy Faith. Holy Church has ever held that if someone is following the light of reason, and due to the lights given him by God find it impossible by means of their intellectual conscience to believe in His existence, such a one can still be saved.
>
> Bullshit. Show me the doctrine that says that.

And still waiting for you to show me this doctrine in Catholicism.

>
> > This contradicts by intention the assertion made above.
> > -o
> >
> >
> >
> > Joseph Geloso wrote:
> >
> > NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda wrote:
> > > Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > > > James Barlow wrote:
> > > > > Hume has already shown why causality is a kind of chimera
> > > >
> > > > No, Hume sophistically tried to explain away causality, because he
> > > > didn't like the fact that reason led him to conclude there must be a
> > > > God. So absolute was his disdain for even the idea of God that he felt
> > > > it necessary to extend his skepticism even to the very foundation of
> > > > the sciences itself, namely reason. While it is undoubtedly the case
> > > > that we are not always accurate in what we ascribe as the cause of an
> > > > effect, nonetheless we are compelled by the force of reason itself to
> > > > admit that every effect does in fact have a cause.
> > >
> > > Yes, everyone who says they don't believe in God really has an agenda
> > > against him deep down.
> >
> > Well, Hume, apparently, did.
>
>
>
>
>
>

> ---------------------------------

> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

> --0-135832332-1160771007=:49141
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Google-AttachSize: 3414
>
> <div>Here was the posting as it stood:</div> <div>NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda wrote:<BR>&gt; Joseph Geloso wrote:<BR>&gt; &gt; James Barlow wrote:<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; Hume has already shown why causality is a kind of chimera<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; No, Hume sophistically tried to explain away causality, because he<BR>&gt; &gt; didn't like the fact that reason led him to conclude there must be <BR>a<BR>&gt; &gt; God. So absolute was his disdain for even the idea of God that he <BR>felt<BR>&gt; &gt; it necessary to extend his skepticism even to the very foundation <BR>of<BR>&gt; &gt; the sciences itself, namely reason. While it is undoubtedly the <BR>case<BR>&gt; &gt; that we are not always accurate in what we ascribe as the cause of <BR>an<BR>&gt; &gt; effect, nonetheless we are compelled by the force of reason itself <BR>to<BR>&gt; &gt; admit that every effect does in fact have a cause.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Yes, everyone who says they don't believe in God really has an agenda<BR>&gt;
> against him deep down.<BR><BR>Well, Hume, apparently, did.<BR><BR><BR><B><I>Joseph Geloso &lt;jose...@hotmail.com&gt;</I></B> wrote: </div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>James Barlow wrote:<BR>&gt; Joseph Geloso <JOSE...@HOTMAIL.COM>wrote:<BR>&gt; "Yes, everyone who says they don't believe in God really has an agenda<BR>&gt; against him deep down."<BR><BR>The above is a false attribution. I did not say that, someone else did.<BR><BR><BR>&gt; This view is contrary to Holy Faith. Holy Church has ever held that if someone is following the light of reason, and due to the lights given him by God find it impossible by means of their intellectual conscience to believe in His existence, such a one can still be saved.<BR><BR>Bullshit. Show me the doctrine that says that.<BR><BR>&gt; This contradicts by intention the assertion made above.<BR>&gt; -o<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Joseph Geloso
> <JOSE...@HOTMAIL.COM>wrote:<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda wrote:<BR>&gt; &gt; Joseph Geloso wrote:<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; James Barlow wrote:<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Hume has already shown why causality is a kind of chimera<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; No, Hume sophistically tried to explain away causality, because he<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; didn't like the fact that reason led him to conclude there must be a<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; God. So absolute was his disdain for even the idea of God that he felt<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; it necessary to extend his skepticism even to the very foundation of<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; the sciences itself, namely reason. While it is undoubtedly the case<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; that we are not always accurate in what we ascribe as the cause of an<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; effect, nonetheless we are compelled by the force of reason itself to<BR>&gt; &gt; &gt; admit that every effect does in fact have a cause.<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; Yes, everyone who says they don't
> believe in God really has an agenda<BR>&gt; &gt; against him deep down.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Well, Hume, apparently, did.<BR><BR><BR> <hr size=1>Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman1/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39663/*http://voice.yahoo.com">Make PC-to-Phone Calls</a> to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
> --0-135832332-1160771007=:49141--

[James Barlow]

It's in Karl Rahner (S.J.) and Vorgrimler's "Theological Dictionary," the compendium of Catholic definitions and dogmas. Also see the attached for a warm-up, although I am not sure if it is explicit there.

  It's a fairly ancient Catholic belief.

 

Re. the pope in question. I would not have declared him an heretic unless Holy Church had already done so. The case is fairly well-known (except among Catholics of course)>

-o

Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Holy Church has ever held that if someone is following the light of reason, and due to the lights given him by God find it impossible by means of their intellectual conscience to believe in His existence, such a one can still be saved.

Bullshit. Show me the doctrine that says that.

---

Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

[James Barlow]

Then, correct me if I am wrong, on the one hand you do not believe that everyone has an agenda against God under such circumstances, but you would hold that...what? What with regard to Hume do you exactly hold (but I prefer to look at his actual argumentation rather than question his motives). Next: you disagree with the assertion in Catholic soteriology re. unbelievers and their unbelief, that they cannot 'merit' salvation. I think I responded with another post and to your offlist with a document authored by Rahner.

-o

Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Here was the posting as it stood:

NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda wrote:
> Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > James Barlow wrote:
> > > Hume has already shown why causality is a kind of chimera
> >
> > No, Hume sophistically tried to explain away causality, because he
> > didn't like the fact that reason led him to conclude there must be
a
> > God. So absolute was his disdain for even the idea of God that he
felt
> > it necessary to extend his skepticism even to the very foundation
of
> > the sciences itself, namely reason. While it is undoubtedly the
case
> > that we are not always accurate in what we ascribe as the cause of
an
> > effect, nonetheless we are compelled by the force of reason itself
to
> > admit that every effect does in fact have a cause.
>
> Yes, everyone who says they don't believe in God really has an agenda
>
> against him deep down.

Well, Hume, apparently, did.

Joseph Geloso wrote:

James Barlow wrote:
> Joseph Geloso wrote:
> "Yes, everyone who says they don't believe in God really has an agenda
> against him deep down."

The above is a false attribution. I did not say that, someone else did.

> This view is contrary to Holy Faith. Holy Church has ever held that if someone is following the light of reason, and due to the lights given him by God find it impossible by means of their intellectual conscience to believe in His existence, such a one can still be saved.

Bullshit. Show me the doctrine that says that.

> This contradicts by intention the assertion made above.
> -o
>
>
>
> Joseph Geloso
> wrote:
>
> NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda wrote:
> > Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > > James Barlow wrote:
> > > > Hume has already shown why causality is a kind of chimera
> > >
> > > No, Hume sophistically tried to explain away causality, because he
> > > didn't like the fact that reason led him to conclude there must be a
> > > God. So absolute was his disdain for even the idea of God that he felt
> > > it necessary to extend his skepticism even to the very foundation of
> > > the sciences itself, namely reason. While it is undoubtedly the case
> > > that we are not always accurate in what we ascribe as the cause of an
> > > effect, nonetheless we are compelled by the force of reason itself to
> > > admit that every effect does in fact have a cause.
> >
> > Yes, everyone who says they don't
> believe in God really has an agenda
> > against him deep down.
>
> Well, Hume, apparently, did.

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2｢/min or less.

> --0-135832332-1160771007=:49141--

[Joseph Geloso]

James Barlow wrote:
> It's in Karl Rahner (S.J.) and Vorgrimler's "Theological Dictionary," the compendium of Catholic definitions and dogmas. Also see the attached for a warm-up, although I am not sure if it is explicit there.
> It's a fairly ancient Catholic belief.

It is not a Catholic belief at all. The Catholic belief is "No
salvation outside the Church."

>
> Re. the pope in question. I would not have declared him an heretic unless Holy Church had already done so. The case is fairly well-known (except among Catholics of course)>
> -o

The Church condemned him, not to Hell, and not for heresy. The Church
condemned his inaction, his derliction of duty as the Supreme Pontiff
to solemnly define a doctrine that was in question.

>
> Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Holy Church has ever held that if someone is following the light of reason, and due to the lights given him by God find it impossible by means of their intellectual conscience to believe in His existence, such a one can still be saved.
>
> Bullshit. Show me the doctrine that says that.

Rahner is no Pope. He is a theologian, and he treads on dangerous
ground, interpreting Church Dogma in his own peculiar light. Just
because a theologican publishes his opinion, that does not make it
Catholic Dogma.

Here is the Catholic Doctrine on the subject:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in
various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must
recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and
from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of
their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not
repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the
plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In
the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing
to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful
God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant
from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He
who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as
Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to
salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of
Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive
by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the
dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps
necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have
not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace
strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst
them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*)
She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they
may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have
become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for
a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there
are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to
final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the
salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord,
"Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the
missions with care and attention.

[James Barlow]

Thus below we have it that those who "yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace striveby their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the

dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps
necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have

not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God" ...I think that what Rahner is saying is pretty clear in terms of this and other more ancient formulae.

  As for "no salvation outside the Church," modern Roman ecclesiology and soteriology has stated expicitly that this does not mean 'outside the Roman Catholic Church' but that, in some mysterious way known only to God and because Christ redeemed all of humanity, the Church is in an ultimate constitutive sense all of humanity. There is little dispute about these things. And one can be sure that Rahner wouldn't elaborate on Catholic doctrine in such a way that he would contradict it. He is the most influential catholic theologian of the 20th century, a Jesuit.

Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[James Barlow]

Further, Rahner and Vorgrimler's "Theological Dictionary" is the standard reference for Catholic terms and what they mean, used by seminarians all over the world in a variety of languages over the course of the past forty years. His concise definitions of terms therein are standard interpretations of Catholic thought in terms of Vatican II documents and the whole history of the Church fathers.  He is hardly winging it with a free-lance effort here.

Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Joseph Geloso]

James Barlow wrote:
> Thus below we have it that those who "yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace striveby their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the
> dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps
> necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have
> not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God" ...I think that what Rahner is saying is pretty clear in terms of this and other more ancient formulae.
> As for "no salvation outside the Church," modern Roman ecclesiology and soteriology has stated expicitly that this does not mean 'outside the Roman Catholic Church' but that, in some mysterious way known only to God and because Christ redeemed all of humanity, the Church is in an ultimate constitutive sense all of humanity. There is little dispute about these things. And one can be sure that Rahner wouldn't elaborate on Catholic doctrine in such a way that he would contradict it. He is the most influential catholic theologian of the 20th century, a Jesuit.

Note the phrase in the above, "not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge
of God." This clearly points to the hope that one day they will indeed
possess explicit knowledge of Him. It is more directed toward not
despairing of souls who initially reject the Gospel for any number of
reasons than anything else. It is certainly not meant to imply that one
can explicitly and with finality reject the Gospel and still be saved.

And nowhere in the Second Vatican Council do we find the phrase
"anonymous Christian." That is all Rahner, and it is him improvising
and interpolating his own opinions onto the text. For the opposite
point of view, try this link:

http://www.catholicism.org

For my own part, I think Rahner and his ilk represent a too-liberal
view, and perhaps Saint Benedict Center represents a too-conservative
view. But it is always safer to be conservative, and in particular,
when souls are at stake, it is criminal to be too liberal. We may
certainly believe that "God works in mysterious ways." But we are not
authorized to invent loopholes in the Gospel in order to rationalize
for them their rejection of it in those who reject it. If anything, we
are then called to redouble our efforts and to find better ways of
explaining the Gospel to those who may be rejecting it because it was
ill-presented. Calling them "anonymous Christians" is tantamount to
saying, "Oh, we tried to present the Gospel to them, and they rejected
it, but it's O.K. anyway because they are 'anonymous Christians' and
God is going to save them without their acceptance of the Gospel." That
is giving up on them and in effect judging them as unworthy of explicit
Faith. And Our Lord never elucidated any means of salvation outside of
explicit Faith. So Rahner is on thin ice, and maybe he has already
broken through and is drowning.

> ---------------------------------

> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

> --0-1160769983-1160837191=:21401

> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> X-Google-AttachSize: 5349
>
> <div>Thus below we have it that those who&nbsp;"yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace striveby their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the<BR>dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps<BR>necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have<BR>not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God" ...I think that what Rahner is saying is pretty clear in terms of this and other more ancient formulae. </div> <div>&nbsp; As for "no salvation outside the Church," modern Roman ecclesiology and soteriology has stated expicitly that this does not mean 'outside the Roman Catholic Church' but that, in some mysterious way known only to God and because Christ redeemed all of humanity, the Church is in an ultimate constitutive sense all of humanity. There is little dispute about these things. And one can be sure that Rahner wouldn't elaborate on Catholic doctrine in such a way that he would contradict it. He is the most
> influential catholic theologian of the 20th century, a Jesuit.<BR><BR><B><I>Joseph Geloso &lt;jose...@hotmail.com&gt;</I></B> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>James Barlow wrote:<BR>&gt; It's in Karl Rahner (S.J.) and Vorgrimler's "Theological Dictionary," the compendium of Catholic definitions and dogmas. Also see the attached for a warm-up, although I am not sure if it is explicit there.<BR>&gt; It's a fairly ancient Catholic belief.<BR><BR>It is not a Catholic belief at all. The Catholic belief is "No<BR>salvation outside the Church."<BR><BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Re. the pope in question. I would not have declared him an heretic unless Holy Church had already done so. The case is fairly well-known (except among Catholics of course)&gt;<BR>&gt; -o<BR><BR>The Church condemned him, not to Hell, and not for heresy. The Church<BR>condemned his inaction, his derliction of duty as the Supreme
> Pontiff<BR>to solemnly define a doctrine that was in question.<BR><BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Joseph Geloso <JOSE...@HOTMAIL.COM>wrote:<BR>&gt; Holy Church has ever held that if someone is following the light of reason, and due to the lights given him by God find it impossible by means of their intellectual conscience to believe in His existence, such a one can still be saved.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Bullshit. Show me the doctrine that says that.<BR><BR>Rahner is no Pope. He is a theologian, and he treads on dangerous<BR>ground, interpreting Church Dogma in his own peculiar light. Just<BR>because a theologican publishes his opinion, that does not make it<BR>Catholic Dogma.<BR><BR>Here is the Catholic Doctrine on the subject:<BR><BR>http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html<BR><BR>16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in<BR>various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we
> must<BR>recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and<BR>from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of<BR>their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not<BR>repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the<BR>plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In<BR>the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing<BR>to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful<BR>God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant<BR>from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He<BR>who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as<BR>Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to<BR>salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of<BR>Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive<BR>by their deeds to do His will as
> it is known to them through the<BR>dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps<BR>necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have<BR>not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace<BR>strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst<BR>them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*)<BR>She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they<BR>may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have<BR>become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for<BR>a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there<BR>are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to<BR>final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the<BR>salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord,<BR>"Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the<BR>missions
> with care and attention.<BR><BR><BR> <hr size=1>Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman1/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39663/*http://voice.yahoo.com">Make PC-to-Phone Calls</a> to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
> --0-1160769983-1160837191=:21401--

[Joseph Geloso]

James Barlow wrote:
> Further, Rahner and Vorgrimler's "Theological Dictionary" is the standard reference for Catholic terms and what they mean, used by seminarians all over the world in a variety of languages over the course of the past forty years. His concise definitions of terms therein are standard interpretations of Catholic thought in terms of Vatican II documents and the whole history of the Church fathers. He is hardly winging it with a free-lance effort here.

On the other hand, no Catholic Dogma mentions "anonymous Christians" at
all. This is a strange new doctrine that Rahner has invented. It waters
down the Gospel, and makes simple acceptance of the Gospel optional
rather than necessary. In blatant contradiction to Rahner, the words of
Jesus Christ are,

Mark 16:15. . . . Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to
every creature.
16:16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that
believeth not shall he condemned.

I really don't see how Rahner assumes the authority to contradict that.

> ---------------------------------

> Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.

> --0-137990448-1160837372=:97806

> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

> X-Google-AttachSize: 4637
>
> Further, Rahner and Vorgrimler's "Theological Dictionary" is the standard reference for Catholic terms and what they mean, used by seminarians all over the world in a variety of languages over the course of the past forty years. His concise definitions of terms therein are standard interpretations of Catholic thought in terms of Vatican II documents and the whole history of the Church fathers.&nbsp; He is hardly winging it with a free-lance effort here. <BR><BR><B><I>Joseph Geloso &lt;jose...@hotmail.com&gt;</I></B> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>James Barlow wrote:<BR>&gt; It's in Karl Rahner (S.J.) and Vorgrimler's "Theological Dictionary," the compendium of Catholic definitions and dogmas. Also see the attached for a warm-up, although I am not sure if it is explicit there.<BR>&gt; It's a fairly ancient Catholic belief.<BR><BR>It is not a Catholic belief at all. The Catholic belief is
> "No<BR>salvation outside the Church."<BR><BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Re. the pope in question. I would not have declared him an heretic unless Holy Church had already done so. The case is fairly well-known (except among Catholics of course)&gt;<BR>&gt; -o<BR><BR>The Church condemned him, not to Hell, and not for heresy. The Church<BR>condemned his inaction, his derliction of duty as the Supreme Pontiff<BR>to solemnly define a doctrine that was in question.<BR><BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Joseph Geloso <JOSE...@HOTMAIL.COM>wrote:<BR>&gt; Holy Church has ever held that if someone is following the light of reason, and due to the lights given him by God find it impossible by means of their intellectual conscience to believe in His existence, such a one can still be saved.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Bullshit. Show me the doctrine that says that.<BR><BR>Rahner is no Pope. He is a theologian, and he treads on dangerous<BR>ground, interpreting Church Dogma in his own peculiar light. Just<BR>because a theologican
> publishes his opinion, that does not make it<BR>Catholic Dogma.<BR><BR>Here is the Catholic Doctrine on the subject:<BR><BR>http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html<BR><BR>16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in<BR>various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must<BR>recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and<BR>from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of<BR>their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not<BR>repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the<BR>plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In<BR>the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing<BR>to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful<BR>God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant<BR>from
> those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He<BR>who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as<BR>Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to<BR>salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of<BR>Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive<BR>by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the<BR>dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps<BR>necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have<BR>not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace<BR>strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst<BR>them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*)<BR>She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they<BR>may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have<BR>become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the
> truth of God for<BR>a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there<BR>are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to<BR>final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the<BR>salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord,<BR>"Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the<BR>missions with care and attention.<BR><BR><BR>
> <hr size=1>Get your own <a href=" http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43290/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains"
> >web address for just $1.99/1st yr</a>. We'll help. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=41244/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/"
> >Yahoo! Small Business</a>.
>
> --0-137990448-1160837372=:97806--

[James Barlow]

Usually I hear the end of Mark's Gospel quoted by Lutherans against Catholicism.

Whatever one may think of "Rahner's doctrine," the Catholic view that those who pursue their intellectual conscience and are unable to believe may still be saved is a well-known Catholic view, except, of course, it is little-known to Catholics themselves.

  

Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Further, Rahner and Vorgrimler's "Theological Dictionary" is the standard reference for Catholic terms and what they mean, used by seminarians all over the world in a variety of languages over the course of the past forty years. His concise definitions of terms therein are standard interpretations of Catholic thought in terms of Vatican II documents and the whole history of the Church fathers.  He is hardly winging it with a free-lance effort here.

Joseph Geloso wrote:

Get your own > >web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. > >Yahoo! Small Business.
>

> --0-137990448-1160837372=:97806--

---

[James Barlow]

I don't know if "it is criminal to be too liberal" or not. Perhaps such matters ought best be left to God.  It is absurd, for instance, to hold that one cannot be saved unless one believes everything the Catholic Church teaches, when the Catholic Church itself does not exactly believe this.

   There are good reasons for not holding everything true that the Church teaches. Papal infallibility is just one such reason, if it is true that popes have been deposed for not upholding the faith, have been anathematized and put out of communion with the Church. This means they die out of communion with the Church, as one such allegedly infallible pope has.

  It is a serious claim.  I doubt many Catholics know, or would even believe this to have ever been the case, factual though it is. I trust most of them are conservative, too.

Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Thus below we have it that those who "yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace striveby their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the
dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps
necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have
not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God" ...I think that what Rahner is saying is pretty clear in terms of this and other more ancient formulae.

  As for "no salvation outside the Church," modern Roman ecclesiology and soteriology has stated expicitly that this does not mean 'outside the Roman Catholic Church' but that, in some mysterious way known only to God and because Christ redeemed all of humanity, the Church is in an ultimate constitutive sense all of humanity. There is little dispute about these things. And one can be sure that Rahner wouldn't elaborate on Catholic doctrine in such a way that he would contradict it. He is the most
> influential catholic theologian of the 20th century, a Jesuit.

Joseph Geloso wrote:

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

> --0-1160769983-1160837191=:21401--

---

[Observer]

Dig intended.

Religion is not a crutch . A crutch helps a person with an affliction.
Religion is an affliction.

That kind of remark is
> designed to subtly undermine the credibility of the one who believes
> the evidence of both his senses and his reason by alluding to the
> seeking of comfort as a weakness.

I live a very comfortable and joyous life partially because I am not
burdened with the scourge of religion, and have for decades. And as I
reach the latter years of my life I am quite content to dissolve into
nothingness.

Psychonomist