Questioning the faith

[Eponine]

Double-predestination. It is a theological conundrum that a number of theologians have tried to escape in the manner of Harry Houdini.

Do you know of any legitimate (logical) ways around that?

I've read several attempts by Calvinist apologists, but none of them really satisfied me- it seemed like they were all just declaring "we don't accept double predestination, it's against god's nature, therefore it doesn't exist". And yeah I know that a good apologist can find a way around anything...

The favorite chapter of Calvinists, Romans 9, definitely doesn't appear to eliminate the doctrine of double predestination...

20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Although, by the "anything god does is good, even if it seems bad to (or for) humans" philosophy, I guess there's nothing wrong with double predestination- nothing worse than creating any humans who were going to hell (because even if one doesn't believe in predestination, most people who take hell that literally believe that god has foreknowledge...)

[the silent speaker]

That's ridiculous. You want us to accept the possibility of a being which is simultaneously both: 1) omnipotent, and 2) limited by the rules you describe. The two are mutually exclusive.

God is omnipotent. We are limited by the rules I describe.

[slim da reaper]

What I see alot in real life is people having blind arrogant faith in science, anyone pontificating that here? Faith in "Science" is just as blind as faith in an omnipotent God. There is no unified Science, no Progress, no teleological universe. There's something very much in common in these two groups, they both have faith in their all powerful science or God, what happens when that faith is lost?

Playing with words and making up the meanings to suit your argument. That's fine. Long tradition behind it.

Any scientific enterprise can be as dirty as any human enterprise, for instance unnecessary animal testing simply to keep profits up. That's been raised and stopped in part with the cosmetics issue, the spraying of perfume in a mammal's eyes, but still it continues because of the huge benefits to humankind to combat and alleviate serious diseases. Ultimately though the way we treat others affects how we treat each other and ourselves. Even in a "perfect" animal testing scenario, where it happens only for work on serious diseases for humans, the profit margin will still be there. We need to move past the economic capitalist idealogy, even then animals will still suffer and definitely die for another species, so something deeper is wrong here. It's necessary for some other animals to die even in the perfect scenario so humans will not suffer, but it's a messy business just how much death of other animals can be justified?

I know why some people leap to defend a pristine image of science, it's the idea of Rationalism, that there's one Logos to be found and understood, however evolution by Natural selection tells you there's many ways to live successfully, that there's no chain of being, so man is NOT the apex of a chain. Defending science as humankind's sucessful search for the Logos proves humans are THE apex as we are the species who found and practice the mythical scientific method.

In one sense we are in a post-christian era, but the Chain of Being is well and truly still alive for many. The parallels between the faithful devotees of a unified idea of a pristine science have simply replaced the religious Chain with their secular one. It's the need for certainty that drives all this, that we human's know our place in the the grand scheme of things, we're at the apex, we nod at our secular priests, the scientists, we're not so haughty as to think individually we are omnipotent, but science yes that when fully understood will be omnipotent. And it is ours to wield, and that makes us Godlike.

Einstein said he depised authority and as a joke he was made one. He said a authority not THE authority.

The pedalogical paradigm that dominates the school system is the depositing of ideas, it is completely anti-dialogical why do you need dialogue if we're on the road of the Logos? just stick those ideas in people's heads. The Logos and it's consequence anti-dialogue has been the prop that has been used to justify authoritarianism since time began.

Fear is rampant, and if you dominate you get your own way by default, but what happens is we continue pushing Thanatos, death into the foreground and everything else is left in the background.

[Lord Mord]

silent speaker,

God is omnipotent. We are limited by the rules I describe.

That's ridiculous. To say that we are limited limits God, too.

1. God is omnipotent.

2. From this universal declaration, we may then derive that God is capable of making anyone understand anything.

3. Therefore, if God were ever incapable of making any person understand any one thing, then (1) is false.

4. Human beings are incapable of appreciating the sheer dimension of God.

5. Therefore, God cannot make them understand.

6. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

7. Now we conjoin: God is omnipotent and God is not omnipotent

8. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

Of course, if you want to take back proposition 4, and say that we are able to understand, then God can stay omnipotent. Then the problem becomes that he can do it, yet chooses not to.

[Guest Ro_]

What I see alot in real life is people having blind arrogant faith in science, anyone pontificating that here? Faith in "Science" is just as blind as faith in an omnipotent God. There is no unified Science, no Progress, no teleological universe. There's something very much in common in these two groups, they both have faith in their all powerful science or God, what happens when that faith is lost?

Far too lazy to look and see if I responded to this, and even if I did, it still pisses me off. What a fucking stupid thing to say. As if this "Science" thing is a religion that requires "Faith". IANAS (I am not a scientist) but I think its rather clear to anyone who has an education past 4th grade that there are wicked smart folks out there who can prove this newfangeled 'Science" thing.

Prove to me there is the existence of a god, not just any god, but YOUR god, without using the bible. Scientific proof mind you, not just my gut and heart tell me xyz.

P.S. Alot is actually two words: a lot.

[Stalker]

2. From this universal declaration, we may then derive that God is capable of making anyone understand anything.

You may of course if you like. Readers should be aware that the rules of logic doesn't permit it. Thought I should point that out since you listed in the style of formal logic.

[Galactus]

I think people are a bit defensive here, I don't think it's a stretch to say that a lot of people don't quite understand or grasp how science is supposed to work, (which doesen't even neccessarily prevent them from making important scientific discoveries) and/or that people often have an exaggerated, mistaken or misplaced faith in what science is or can do.

[Mme Erzulie]

Isn't the point of science that it's all there for anyone to verify? You might not understand it, but that's not science's fault. Science has no sacred secrets or dogmatic doctrines that are a priori. If you want to know why science makes a claim to something, you can read about the theories, explanations and logic that supports it. And it has a very strong power of predictability.

[The Pita]

silent speaker,

That's ridiculous. To say that we are limited limits God, too.

1. God is omnipotent.

2. From this universal declaration, we may then derive that God is capable of making anyone understand anything.

3. Therefore, if God were ever incapable of making any person understand any one thing, then (1) is false.

4. Human beings are incapable of appreciating the sheer dimension of God.

5. Therefore, God cannot make them understand.

6. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

7. Now we conjoin: God is omnipotent and God is not omnipotent

8. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

Of course, if you want to take back proposition 4, and say that we are able to understand, then God can stay omnipotent. Then the problem becomes that he can do it, yet chooses not to.

Woot wrong!

Change 4 to: Human beings are incapable of appreciating the sheer dimension of god, unless God himself makes them understand it. Because he's omnipotent, and he can do it, and nothing you've said implies that he can't.

[moot]

Any scientific enterprise can be as dirty as any human enterprise, for instance unnecessary animal testing simply to keep profits up.…

What's the point of arguing this? The question is not that I (or anyone who understands and participates in science research) can do Bad Things with science. The question is about having “blind faith” in science.

My argument is that there is no such thing.

I know why some people leap to defend a pristine image of science, it's the idea of Rationalism, that there's one Logos to be found and understood, however evolution by Natural selection tells you there's many ways to live successfully, that there's no chain of being, so man is NOT the apex of a chain. Defending science as humankind's sucessful search for the Logos proves humans are THE apex as we are the species who found and practice the mythical scientific method.

Again, your lack of comprehension about science and the people who use its methodology, or your projection of what you think science researchers think, is giving you away. There is only “a pristine image” of science that anti-scientists use for the purposes of their arguments.

Evolutionary biologists (even social scientists) do not believe that evolution == progress. There is no plurality of scientists who believe there is such a thing as progress in the natural world. I would think that only Creationists would believe such a thing.

Rationality is used to draw conclusions from evidence, yes. Perhaps you argue that belief in rationality is science’s “religion?” If you don’t believe in mankind’s ability to be rational, then how are you explaining God giving man Free Will? God doesn’t want us to use reason? He only wants us to obey based on faith? How does he expect us to make the thousands of decisions we are forced to make everyday (that aren’t prescribed in the Bible) — such as what bus to catch — without using reason?

The pedalogical paradigm that dominates the school system is the depositing of ideas, it is completely anti-dialogical why do you need dialogue if we're on the road of the Logos? just stick those ideas in people's heads.

The current pedagogical (I think that’s what you meant instead of pedalogical?) paradigm has nothing to do with science. You’re connecting two things that aren’t related.

And science is a dialogue. It is a questioning of previous knowledge in search of more refined knowledge. The community is all about dialogue. That’s one reason for peer review.

Generally, it sounds like you’re using big words to make up arguments for things no one is advocating for. Do what makes you happy, but you still have no clue about what science is or what scientists do.

I think people are a bit defensive here, I don't think it's a stretch to say that a lot of people don't quite understand or grasp how science is supposed to work, (which doesen't even neccessarily prevent them from making important scientific discoveries) and/or that people often have an exaggerated, mistaken or misplaced faith in what science is or can do.

Only people who don’t understand what science is would have an “exaggerated, mistaken, or misplaced faith” in science. If you understand, there is no faith whatsoever.

[LCOTNW]

Only people who don’t understand what science is would have an “exaggerated, mistaken, or misplaced faith” in science. If you understand, there is no faith whatsoever.

I have faith that science will eventually explain the mysteries of the universe. :D

[the silent speaker]

And *I* have faith that for every mystery science explains, it will be presented with seven more. :D

[Watcher]

Slim da Reaper did you build that entire strawmen yourself or did you have help?

[Galactus]

Only people who don’t understand what science is would have an “exaggerated, mistaken, or misplaced faith” in science. If you understand, there is no faith whatsoever.

Yes, that's what I said.

The problem is, a lot of people don't understand science. You pretty much have to be a philosopher to tangle out the implications. And not all scientists are philosophers, alas.

[moot]

Yes, that's what I said.

The problem is, a lot of people don't understand science. You pretty much have to be a philosopher to tangle out the implications. And not all scientists are philosophers, alas.

Okay, I see what you mean. What was bothering me (what always gets under my skin) is when people who don’t know what their talking about criticise what they know nothing about, or make sweeping, asinine statements that are illogical and inconsistent even with their own world view.

Science is not inherently anti-religion or anti-spiritual. And the scientific community is by no means an organised cabal of atheists intent on exterminating all religious/spiritual ideas. Have you ever had a conversation with a theoretical physicist?

Nor is the scientific community anywhere near homogenous about anything. Just like every other group of humans, they argue over everything. Including methodology, statistics, ethics, ideology, and philosophy, to name only some of the Big Things.

If I seem “defensive” it’s only because someone needs to be. What would people say if I made sweeping, inaccurate, and uneducated comments about their religion? Surely someone would want to point out my ignorance and explain some information I may not have been aware of.

As someone educated in science, I automatically offer more information when it appears that someone is lacking any. As someone educated in science, I welcome correction of my false assumptions.

[LCOTNW]

And *I* have faith that for every mystery science explains, it will be presented with seven more. :D

and thank goodness for that, otherwise what would the next generation do for dissertation topics?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Do you know of any legitimate (logical) ways around that?

I've read several attempts by Calvinist apologists, but none of them really satisfied me- it seemed like they were all just declaring "we don't accept double predestination, it's against god's nature, therefore it doesn't exist". And yeah I know that a good apologist can find a way around anything...

I am not sure of how many ways there are around double-predestination. From what I recall, the Reformed Book of Confessions has a number of 'Calvinist' treatises or chapters dealing with reconciling predestination, grace, free will, and divine sovereignty. Double-predestination is fairly rationally coherent with God's humanly attributed omnipotence, but it is rationally incoherent with humanly understanding of God's benevolence and mercy. The easiest way out of the double-predestination paradox is to deny hell's existence and not double-predestination's or, perhaps my personal favorite, simply declare the full nature of salvation and predestination a mystery known only to God. I was impressed when even John Calvin said something along these lines. Although he stressed the God's grace of predestination for the elect and living a sanctified life, he also commented that one cannot say who is to be saved and who is damned, because that would be making a divine presumption reserved for God. The fact that a wretched atheist like myself can be deemed worthy of salvific redemption by God before I do anything worthy of redemption is of some small comfort.

Although, by the "anything god does is good, even if it seems bad to (or for) humans" philosophy, I guess there's nothing wrong with double predestination- nothing worse than creating any humans who were going to hell (because even if one doesn't believe in predestination, most people who take hell that literally believe that god has foreknowledge...)

The problem of double-predestination is really a problem of centuries of expanded and convoluted theological tradition: hell, observable injustice in the world, God' omnipotence and omniscience, etc.

[Galactus]

Isn't that the Catholic position too? "We have Revelation and Church tradition to tell us what to do to be relatively certain of salvation, but we really don't know if God might not save other people, too. But you should do thigns our way just in case, because that's the *guaranteed* road to salvation."

[Lord Mord]

Stalker,

You may of course if you like. Readers should be aware that the rules of logic doesn't permit it. Thought I should point that out since you listed in the style of formal logic.

I don't see how that follows. Why wouldn't logic permit it?

Start with a universal statement like: "All jeans are made from denim."

Then find a specific unit of the type described: "(x) is a pair of jeans."

Then, from the universal, apply the description to the specific unit: "(x) is made from denim."

1. Universal statement: "Anything which is omnipotent has no limits."

2. Next: "God is omnipotent."

3. Therefore: "God has no limits."

Now apply the statement that was recommended, that God isn't limited, but humans are.

4. You might say: "Any one who might consider making humans understand the dimensions of God will find they are limited from doing so."

5. From the universal, employ a specific example: "God might consider making humans understand the dimensions of God."

6. Therefore: "God will find he is limited from making humans understand the dimensions of God."

Therefore: "God has no limits, and God will find he is limited."

What's the logical problem here?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Isn't that the Catholic position too? "We have Revelation and Church tradition to tell us what to do to be relatively certain of salvation, but we really don't know if God might not save other people, too. But you should do thigns our way just in case, because that's the *guaranteed* road to salvation."

More or less, though is that really all that surprising?