This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
"the modern Congregation has been unfavorably compared to a "saint making factory." ... atheists Aroup Chatterjee and Christopher Hitchens were asked to testify against Mother Teresa in her 2002 hearings. Their objections were absurd; Chatterjee objected that Mother Teresa damaged the reputation of Calcutta and that her charity was not effective in reducing the sum total of poverty. Such worldly objections were noted and then studiously ignored by the Congregation."So much for skeptical examination of the evidence.
Same ol' supernatural superstition as of yore.I make this comment simply to demonstrate that there are people, massively increasing numbers of people who no longer subscribe to this phantastical conjuration of the mind. There is another way to think on this matter, and that is to treat it as it really is, nonsense.
"there are people, massively increasing numbers of people"Elijah said, "I have been very jealous for the LORD, the God of hosts; for the people of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thy altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away." ... And the LORD said to him, ... "Yet will I leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Ba'al, and every mouth that has not kissed him." (emphasis added)(1 Kings 19:10,18)Jezu, ufam tobie!
"You won't find a tougher, more skeptical audience anywhere than in a Vatican commission looking into a miraculous claim."So where's the evidence, and where's the skeptical audience, Bob?
Bob, quoting from the bible is synonymous to and has the exact same effect on rational thinkers as quoting from Harry Potter on the veracity of the existence of Voldemort. Magical incantations and godly recitations from the bible simply doesn't have the effect on me as it might on one of your impressionable and dupable fellow superstitionists.
"quoting from the bible is synonymous to and has the exact same effect on rational thinkers as quoting from Harry Potter on the veracity of the existence of Voldemort."I'm assuming that this comment is an attempt to include yourself within the class of folk that you consider to be rational? Unfortunately, either you don’t consider yourself to be rational or you hold others to a much lower standard of rationality than what rationality demands. Let me explain:Synonymity, or more forcefully in your own words, "exact same", is a representation of semantic identity. This means that your attempt at reasoning analogously would require that different referents have the same intrinsic meaning within themselves and toward their objects. However, Harry Potter is a fictitious character. Bob is not. As such, regardless of whether you consider the Bible to be a book of fantasy-fiction, your example is not actually one that is rational and nor should it persuade a rational person.Yes, yes. I understand what you were trying to say. However, you need to be more careful with your analogies. Really, if you can't offer an ape a banana without rejection, how are you ever going to convince a higher-order hominid?"Magical incantations and godly recitations from the bible simply doesn't have the effect on me as it might on one of your impressionable and dupable fellow superstitionists."Now, I realise that you might not be impressed by certain "godly recitations”, but here’s one that some on this forum might consider to be quite apropos:"Never give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs..." - Mt. 7:6 ISVApe.
Their objections were absurd; Chatterjee objected that Mother Teresa damaged the reputation of Calcutta and that her charity was not effective in reducing the sum total of poverty.If the writer means to imply that these were the only objections that Chatterjee raised then he is certainly mistaken. Read the last chapter of Chatterjee's book 'Mother Teresa - The Final Verdict' for his 'Deposition before the Committee for Beatification/Canonisation of Mother Teresa' and his account of the answers he gave when interviewed. You won't find a tougher, more skeptical audience anywhere than in a Vatican commission looking into a miraculous claim.The healing of Monica Besra, supposedly because of the intercession of Mother Teresa, has been shown not to be a genuine miracle. We know that because it was investigated by journalists with no connection to the Vatican. Where were all those tough and sceptical people in the Vatican?Most supposed miracles are not investigated by outsiders. B.Prokop, do you know of any miracle stories that were thoroughly and publicly investigated by people who had no connection to the Vatican and that withstood that investigation?
"B.Prokop, do you know of any miracle stories that were thoroughly and publicly investigated by people who had no connection to the Vatican and that withstood that investigation?"As a matter of fact, yes. The Resurrection of Christ.Jezu, ufam tobie!
So what about that tough skeptical audience, Bob?
I think Paul was pretty skeptical. In fact, he was downright hostile.And then there's this, from C.S. Lewis (in Surprised by Joy):Early in 1926 the hardest boiled of all the atheists I ever knew sat in my room on the other side of the fire and remarked that the evidence for the historicity of the Gospels was really surprisingly good. "Rum thing," he went on. "All that stuff of Frazer's about the Dying God. Rum thing. It almost looks as if it had really happened once." To understand the shattering impact of it, you would need to know the man ... the cynic of cynics, the toughest of the toughs..."Jezu, ufam tobie!
You know, it's rather funny how the self-styled skeptics (who are actually anything but) who like to trot out the tired old "wishful thinking" hypothesis to explain away the appearances of the Risen Christ, always seem to forget about Paul. Here is the furthest thing possible from a case of wishful thinking - in fact, Paul had every reason in the world to not see Christ. It forced him to repudiate everything he had so publicly championed, to admit that he was (in this own words) the greatest of sinners.Then there are Paul's letters. They blow a hole a mile wide in the absurd "mythologizing" theory. Paul's High Christology (e.g., "for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible ... all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Or this: "he [Jesus] was in the form of God" Or this: "Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him." etc., etc.), which is part and parcel of what even non-Christian scholars admit are the earliest parts of the New Testament to be written, conclusively show that there was no such "mythologizing" period Post-Crucifixion. The "story" that we have today is the same as proclaimed on the Day of Pentecost, A.D. 33.Jezu, ufam tobie!
"I think Paul was pretty skeptical. In fact, he was downright hostile."Yeah, so hostile that he built a major religion based on what he was hostile to.And Lewis' "hard boiled atheist" friend thought the evidence in support of the gospels was surprisingly good? Seriously? The only people I know who agree with that are died-in-the-wool blinkered believers. So what evidence was he referring to.But once again, Bob, you divert from the question at hand. What evidence does the church council examine in support of modern day miracles? What kind of skeptical analysis do they do?
"What evidence does the church council examine in support of modern day miracles?"You seem to think it is your right to make others do your own homework. But what I find far more interesting is that you wrote the following: "while ignoring any and all information that they don't find favorable". Hmm.. So you must know what this ignored information is. What is it? And where is the evidence (I know you love that word) that it was ignored?You make such unfounded accusations all the time without ever (not even once!) producing the least shred of evidence to back them up. This is exactly like the time you accused the Early Church of altering the Scriptures. Yet after months of asking you to point to the smallest, most insignificant example of such alleged alteration... nothing. So tell me why we should expect some different result here? You have a track record on this - and let me tell you, if it were a credit score, your number would be zero.You made the accusation, now back it up. Where is this ignored evidence?Jezu, ufam tobie!
Did you read the article, Bob? It's right there. READ IT. Buy you're the one who made this claim: "You won't find a tougher, more skeptical audience anywhere than in a Vatican commission looking into a miraculous claim." Instead of demanding that it's up to me to disprove you (and I have already pointed out very good evidence that they are not in the least skeptical), you should provide something to back up what you say. Did you ever hear of something called burden of proof? You make a claim, you need to back it up.Now up to this point, all you have done is try to divert to other issues or place the burden of proof on me. This is worse than arguing with a five-year-old child. At least the child will eventually be open to learning things that can expand his understanding.
Skep, what in the world are you talking about? Have YOU read the article? Nowhere does it say that there was any information ignored. In fact, it goes to great lengths to say the exact opposite. So I'll repeat your own advice - READ IT!Now you made the accusation that the Church is ignoring evidence in the canonization process. So you must know at least a single example of such ignored evidence. Please don't tell me you're just making up such accusations out of thin air with nothing to back them up! So show us this ignored evidence. Until you do, no one has any reason to take anything you say at all seriously.Jezu, ufam tobie!
March 26, 2015 5:08 PM
Here's another good quote from the article that you obviously have failed to read:"Are modern canonizations to be questioned? Ultimately, it is the opinion of most theologians that canonizations are infallible, at least in their final determination - that is to say, the fact of the canonization, not necessarily the integrity of the evidence, procedure, methodology, etc. What we are witnessing is not saints who are not really saintly, but saints whose level of sanctity is much lower than that expected by previous generations, as well as less able to stand up to scrutiny of secular detractors. Whereas nobody could doubt the miracles at Lourdes, which even converted atheists, not even the husband of the woman Mother Teresa healed believes in the legitimacy of the miracle, nor do the doctors. Yet, because of the loss of the Promotor Fidei's role, these objections do not ultimately need to be resolved. In the old days, the Promotor Fidei would attack or scrutinize even the good deeds of candidate; now, even questionable issues are ignored."
Ape: "However, Harry Potter is a fictitious character. Bob is not."I can see your literalist confusion. 'Quoting from Harry Potter as from the bible' doesn't mean quoting from Harry Potter per se, but rather from the Harry Potter books/series. The comparison is, quoting from the bible is as equally fictive as quoting from the Harry Potter series. Both are unquestionably fanciful. Quoting from the bible is as inconsequential and meaningless as referring to an Astrology manual for an update on quantum mechanics.But then again, Bob does live in a fictional world filled with devils and satans, and angels, and gods, and malevolent disembodied agents and other things that go bump in the night.
Hey, Skep! Congratulations, you finally got a base hit. Your batting average is no longer 000, but rather 001!!!I have to confess that I was mostly bored by Victor's link (I found the author's style rather turgid), and inexcusably just skimmed the second half, thus missing entirely the section you quoted above. With egg on my face, I must admit that its author does say that some evidence is ignored.But... (and this is a very big "but"), what you still seem to have failed to notice is that the author of this piece is not arguing against miracles, or against examining the evidence for them. He just wants it done like it used to be (i.e., "better"). He is no friend of your position that there is no evidence - just that we must always examine it carefully.And that's been my position all along (as you can see if you go back over my postings). I never once argued for ignoring evidence, but rather praised people who did carefully and dispassionately examine all the evidence we have. A far, far cry from your ideologically motivated claim that there isn't any to be examined.But yes, you did catch me in an oversight. I did not see that passage. Again, congratulations.Jezu, ufam tobie!
"Bob does live in a fictional (sic) world filled with devils and satans, and angels, and gods, and malevolent disembodied agents and other things that go bump in the night."But at least I am not possessed by them, Linton.Jezu, ufam tobie!
Skep, HERE is another link that might enlighten you a bit on the canonization process.
Bob, Heschmeyer's article was certainly no enligthened treatise on the canonization process. The following commentary section clearly shows bitter schisms among the proletariat.
"Your batting average is no longer 000, but rather 001!!!"Now, if only you would listen to some small fraction of what I say, the average might go up a bit more. But I'm not holding my breath.Case in point: "what you still seem to have failed to notice is that the author of this piece is not arguing against miracles, or against examining the evidence for them." But I never said he was arguing against miracles or examining evidence. You see, I actually read the article. And believe it or not, I am capable of understanding what a Christian writes.
Post a Comment