Questions about Natural Law and Theology

[qfnol31]

In response to that large post, God does will people to be damned, but this is not His contingent will. (I believe it's His anterior will, incorrectly called His passive will).

[cmotherofpirl]

God does not will people to be damned. We have free will, and can beaver dam ourselves with no problem at all.

[qfnol31]

I meant that it falls under His consequential will, not that He is the direct cause of it. God wills all things, and unfortunately I don't have my notes on the two types of will He has which discuss how it's not something He would like, but does allow it for the greater good of things.

Edited October 27, 2005 by qfnol31

[qfnol31]

[quote]Now God wills no good more than He wills His own goodness; yet He wills one good more than another. Hence He in no way wills the evil of sin, which is the privation of right order towards the divine good. The evil of natural defect, or of punishment, He does will, by willing the good to which such evils are attached. Thus in willing justice He wills punishment; and in willing the preservation of the natural order, He wills some things to be naturally corrupted.[/quote]

[quote]Hence it may be said of a just judge, that antecedently he wills all men to live; but consequently wills the murderer to be hanged. In the same way God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned, as His justice exacts.[/quote]

[Cam42]

I am not exactly sure where you are going with that whole Francis Bacon post.

The use of inductive reasoning rather than a priori reasoning is what is at issue with him. It is that move that sets him apart from Aristotle.

Induction is quite simply put bottom up philosophy. A given theory, based on real experiences, is struck; it is then tested rigorously and continuously; all experiences must support the theory. Some theories have been so thoroughly tested over years that they have become accepted facts of nature. However, even though they may be well tested and put to considerable use, theories always remain theories.

That is the problem with inductive reasoning.....there is not always a move away from the theoretical. It isn't so much this idea of God's will as contingent, but rather that the theory that is produced is simply that, an unprovable theory.

That is the ultimate problem with Modernism.....there is no way to prove it, unless faith is enacted. And that can't be done without being deductive in reasoning.

So, while your post is certainly long, I am not exactly sure where you were going with it. However, looking back to what I posted about Kant and Hume on the 1st page, we will see that the only real move that can be made in this instance is to simply apply the Ontological Arugment and move from there.

It is Anslem and then to a (much) lesser degree, Plantinga's ideas that will answer the question that son_of_angels has.

Again, Kant regarded himself as destroying the pretensions of knowledge in order to make room for faith. He points out that the very considerations which show that proof of God's existence is impossible, dispose equally of the possibility of disproof. And we ought to believe in the existence of a deity on moral grounds, as an omnipotent being who will ensure that in the long run the happiness of finite persons such as ourselves will be in proportion to their deserts. And that we must act dutifully for duty's sake; but we have a right to hope that such conduct will be rewarded in the hereafter.

Hume stated that all human knowledge is based on and confined to "impressions" of experience and "ideas" which are faint copies of these. And that all of our knowledge of matters of fact which are not a matter of immediate impressions of experience or of memory is dependent on the relation between cause and effect.

Again, as I stated:

[quote]It was Hume's failure (on either interpretation of the bearing of his thought) to justify causal reasoning which particularly impressed Kant; and he brought about his so-called "Copernican revolution" in philosophy largely to meet the difficulty. It was not the case, as previous philosophers had thought, that our minds must or could conform to a world existing prior to and independently of themselves; on the contrary, the world so far as we can know it must conform to our minds.[/quote]

Finally, as I said before,

[quote]The right conclusion is that the world shows signs of mental creativity, but (following common sense and materialist objections to idealism) that it is absurd to say that this mental creativity is human. The creativity is consequently to be attributed to a Mind other than the human.[/quote]

Couple that with the Ontological Argument of St. Anselm and skepticism cannot hold up. Precisely because there is a need for deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning, as proposed by Bacon and the modern philosophers can't prove (or disprove, as Kant puts it) anything. It is pure theory and nothing else.

[qfnol31]

I was hoping to give a brief introduction about whence these men come. I wanted to show that some of their beginning philosophy is wrong and that needs to be addressed prior to any investigation into their works.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Oct 27 2005, 05:38 PM']I was hoping to give a brief introduction about whence these men come.  I wanted to show that some of their beginning philosophy is wrong and that needs to be addressed prior to any investigation into their works.
[right][snapback]772264[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That may be all good and well, but I think that it is safe to say that son_of_angels knows what he is asking. That is why I (for example) skipped Philosophy 101, in this post and cut to the chase.

There isn't really a need to explain the very basics of Kant's or Hume's philosophy? Giving the very allusion to what they are getting at, is sufficent.

If not, it will take a full academic semester to get through this thread, and to be honest, I don't think anyone would be reading it.

However, if we simply get to it, and forego the whole "Introduction to Kant and Hume;" we will be able to not only answer the question that son_of_angels has, but also show the inherent error in both Hume and Kant, without all the "backstory."

[qfnol31]

I guess it's because I'm studying all that right now that I think the backstory is important...they build on each other.

[Cam42]

I understand the want for you to get all the backstory in, but it just is waaayyyy too much overkill.

We don't need to know the foundations of Kant and Hume, in order to know that they are incorrect.....we can gather that from looking at the argument itself.....

[qfnol31]

Oh, okay...I was just hoping to bring a fuller understanding of their position and why they're wrong in their approach as well...

[dspen2005]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Oct 24 2005, 06:16 PM']Okay, the voice of the Skeptic (especially through the philosophers Hume and, to a lesser extent, Kant) has been whispering doubts into my ear, though I hold to my faith as strong as I possibly can.

Nonetheless, it seems that the existence of God, since he exists, is not such that it must exclude the possibility of anything, since "with God all things are possible," and the fact that a being who is ACTUALLY all powerful would likewise be able to cause anything which he would will to occur, likewise for that thing to occur.  It seems a mystery to discuss the notion of Preference with God, because, as I know my preference exists within the limits of certain first motives and, if the Spirit is actual, divine inspiration.  Hence the Preference of God, like any form of preference (by the definition of the word) must have a Cause.  How can God, who is the entire causality of everything have an accident, namely preference, which is itself requiring of a Cause higher than himself, or does he?

Nonetheless,  it would seem that since God exists, anything which has the feasible reality to exist or to occur, or even that which does not, likewise may well occur, depending on the particular will of God.

Here is my question.  If science can explain empirically every phenomena in creation, barring perhaps a first cause or those things, like Math, which exist beyond empirical possibility,  is it then possible for us to conceive of a religious devotion to a God bound up in the stuff which any man with a microscope may thence worship? Is there any reasonable cause for prayer?

Considering that most scientists, and reason itself, would tell us that our realm of knowledge cannot stop growing except through our own deaths and destruction, will not every strange occurrence be eventually explained in terms of science/reason.  Moreover, considering that our mind itself is something sensible and affected by experience, is it not then likely that the notion of a "personal relationship" or even "inspired relationship" with God is false?

I do not believe the Holy Spirit is not at work within us, nor that miracles are impossible, but would any philosophy/theology persons like to respond to my plight.
[right][snapback]769417[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

what i am getting from your question is a question about pantheism -- i may be reading it wrongly, though. (if so, please inform me of my misunderstanding).

Problem 1: It isn't just the First Cause that science cannot explain empirically -- it is also questions of certain brain functions that science cannot explain. From this, it does not follow that we can worship that which we see in the microscope, believing God to be "bound up in the stuff". This belief is pantheism -- belief that God is IN everything. Even if you could explain "everything" empirically through science, how would you, then, make the leap to worshipping it?

By what inference are you making the assertive question about explanations of everything in the terms of science and reason? NO. We can't assume that over time we will be able to do that -- because to do so would be to cast an unfair wrench into the discussion. We can't make inferences about things for which there is no paradigm for .

Are not our personal relationships experiential in nature? so, if our minds are appealing to the sensed-physical world, and the relationships therein, why would our relationship w/ God be false?

this is interesting... we should keep this convo going.