Ask a traditional Catholic

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
141

Perhaps it was unnecessary as a test. Perhaps it was necessary as an effective way of delivering the particular message.

Consider, too, the issue of free will that HSHP invokes.

What does it mean to have free will, in the same universe that contains an all-knowing entity? Isn’t it absurd to say that free will exists if your actions are known in advance of your taking them?

Let’s consider eenie-meenie-miney-moe. You know the process, right? For the past couple of years, my son (now age 6) has considered it a fair way to choose how starts a game or which of his friends gets to be first to do something. Why? Because it was unknowable, to him. Starting with a group and pointing to each member, in turn, while chanting enie-meenie-miney-moe produced what to him seemed a random result. There was no way to know who’d get the lucky pick.

Now, though, he’s begun to figure out what we as adults know: that enie-meenie-miney-moe doesn’t produce random results; that if you start at the same person, with the same number of people in the same order, you end up picking the same person. He’s also figured out how to move people around so he can determine who will get picked.

Now let’s consider craps. Literally. Craps, the dice game. 7 or 11 wins on the first throw; 2, 3, or 12 loses; any other number is “the point,” and must be rolled again to win, while if a 7 is rolled before the point, it’s a loss.

Now, the outcome of a craps roll is unknowable. We know what the odds are, of course, because that’s susceptible to mathematical analysis. We know there’s a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 7 on any given roll, so over the long haul we expect to see close to 1/6th of the rolls being 7, but any particular roll is unknown.

With me so far?

OK, why is a roll unknowable? We know the position of the dice in our hands. We could theoretically calculate the coefficient of friction of the felt on the table, the visocsity of the air, and the force and vectors imparted to the dice as we throw them, and KNOW how they’ll land. The fact that we can’t is not a problem of anything but poor technology and sensing, right? Just as my son didn’t have the tools to thoroughly analyze enie-meenie-miney-moe at one point, we don’t have the tools to thoroughly analyze craps. If we did, craps would become knowable to us (and casinos would lose a big source of revenue!)

So which is it? Is the dice throw unknowable, or simply unknown?

I trust the analogy is obvious. We have free will, because what we do, and how it will affect the world, is unknown. In fact, to us it’s unknowable, because we’ll never be able to achieve the level of comprehension necessary to calculate out all things and see where they take us.

But it’s not unknowable to God, who has the tools and analytical capability to know things are that are absolutely unknowable to us.

142

I don’t agree with Snarky_Kong’s characterization of this as the ultimate cop-out, but I do think the logic is flawed as it does not account for God’s alleged omnipotence. If I were omnipotent, I wouldn’t need to cut my nails; I’d fix it so they grew to the length I desired and then stopped. When I waited for a bus with a dog earlier today, I’m sure he wondered why the hell we watched four busses go by before we got on one that was just like the other four, but if I were omnipotent he wouldn’t have to wonder; I’d make the first bus go to the right place, or teleport us there. I have never heard a “you not understanding God is just like X not understanding you” analogy that still holds once we bring omnipotence into the equation.

143

There’s an Ashleigh Brilliant aphorism that I always found highly instructive:

What’s the purpose of creating the universe and everything in it? Why has this been done? Is there some reason that God cannot simply make everyone happy, and have all buses pick up all people and deliver them instantly to all destinations, while ensuring each has the correct nail length as well?

I don’t know. But “omnipotent” does not mean “can do all things,” lest we fall into the “Can God make a burrito so big He can’t eat it?” trap. God can do all things that are possible, and not things that are impossible.

What are the limits on “possibility?” We don’t know. Does making the first bus have room for you screw up something else somewhere else? We don’t know. What is the true scope of “omnipotence?” We don’t know.

See the problem?

144

I do, and if God were said to be some Q-like alien with incredible powers but still a creature of the same universe as I, I’d buy it (the explanation, not his existence). But God is said to transcend the universe, to have created it and written its laws and be able (if not very often willing) to alter them with naught but the merest thought. He is bound by logic, of course, but nothing else, so unless you’re saying that God is actually incapable of stopping fingernail growth or directing bus travel because those things are logically impossible (and we’re talking about the guy who made the rainbow here), I can’t buy the argument.

145

No, God is capable of stopping fingernail growth, no question about it. The question is: what else has to change because of that change? And if you say, ‘nothing’ – how do you know?

That’s the issue. You assert that God is bound by logic, and then proceed to imply that you understand all consequences of a particular change, presumably because you have deduced them logically. I’m suggesting to you that not only don’t you know – you CANNOT know.

And I’ll apologize to the OP at this point, because this discussion has obviously wandered a bit afield from the traditional Catholicism she wanted to discuss.

146

One of the many things wrong with this argumnet is that it supports an infinte number of explanations of the universe with no particular way of differfentiating among them.

For example, I could argue that the universe was created by an evil being that tried to create as much suffering as possible, and every time you pray to “God” he causes another evil thing to happen. Why he does this is unknowable, and he does it in such a way that it is beyond our understanding to differentiate from a just and forgiving god.

Or I could argue that you are all figments of my imagination, or it’s turtles all the way down, or…

Once you say that the fundamentals of the universe are unknowable, there are an unbounded number of possibilities and all are equally likely. I’m not impressed when you happen to choose one.

147

Agreed. I’ll see if I can formulate my thoughts into a Great Debates thread instead.

148

What’s your take on:

  1. the Concordat of Worms?
  2. The Lateran Treaty of 1924-is it valid? (dissolution of the temporal powers of the Pope)
149

Yes, you could. Which brings me back to my earlier statement:

I have additional reasons for choosing my explanation over the multitude of turtles on each others’ backs, or the extreme solipsism of “you’re all figments.” But it’s not evidence I can effectively convey to you, since it arises from experiences I’ve had that you have not. It’s evidence that convinces me, but it’s nothing I can show you. And you’re in the position of hearing me say, in essence, “Trust me; I’ve had this experience and I know I’m right.” This might be more convincing if there weren’t equally sincere-sounding people also telling you, “Trust me, I’m right” – and they are asking you to believe something different. So from your point of view, there is indeed no principled way to choose between explanations.

There is no way to solve this problem.

150

How am I supposed to get into an argument with you when you act all reasonable? :slight_smile:

151

Hey, I’ve been on both sides of this argument. I was brought up Catholic, fell away from the Church in college, considered myself an agnostic for several years, and then I found the Church again, by reason (again, “reason” meaning reasoning from my own experiential base, not reason by which all persons must reach the same conclusion). So I’ve been on the other side of the argument, believed the other side of the argument… and now I’m on this side. :slight_smile:

152

I’ve got a couple questions about the Bible and your thoughts on it:

  1. Do you believe that everything in the Bible happened exactly as it is written?

  2. If the above answer is yes, how do you reconcile the fact that no one was around to write down a lot of what happened? When the great flood came, and Noah and his family were the only human survivors, did they have the entire story of Earth’s creation up to that point memorized, or written down with them? And continuing on that fact, how can all of Earth’s animal species have fit on that ark? How could plants have survived? Did God just “re-make” the things that died, even though the Bible (to my knowledge) doesn’t say this happened?

  3. And if the answer to #1 is no, how do you justify that to yourself? How can you pick and choose what you do and don’t believe? I mean, if you chose not to believe that all of the Bible happened as it says, then why would you randomly believe that the parts of the Bible that admonish homosexuality and pre-martial sex are fully justified?

153

Not to derail the OP’s responses, but since I’m here…

No.

Because I believe that the part about Jesus choosing to appoint Peter as the first head of His church on Earth is true. (Why? Because subsequent events about the history of the church on Earth, as well as certain personal experiences I’ve had, serve as evidence for that truth; as I discussed above, the personal experiences I’ve had are not amenable to being shared as proof, but are plenty convincing to me).

Given, then, that Peter’s leadership of the Church, and subsequent leaders as well, is divinely authored, I can rely on the Church to be an unerring guide in what lessons we may take from the Bible. So there’s no “randomness” about it – the Church, and its tradition, is a guide along with scripture. My own informed conscience is a guide as well, on matters that may arise where the Church has either not taken a position at all, or has taken a position that it does not impose as necessary on the faithful.

For example, the Church believes that there was a divine event surrounding the appearance of Mary at Lourdes. But an individual Catholic is perfectly free to reject that interpretation without problem.

154

I have a problem with this argument.

I don’t see that it is reasonable to say that God and his motivations and actions are, on one hand, unknowable or even un-understandable to us, but then on the other that there are things that are perfectly understood to the point of the Pope’s ability for inerrancy. To me, those two things seem in contradiction; to accept the possibility that one might not understand the grand scheme of things but fully understand, with 100% certainty, a facet of it. To put it simply, if God is not bound by logic, then surely God is not bound by logic across the board.

As a general Catholicism question I would ask whether again the inerrancy of the Pope means that, to a certain extent, he lacks free will that others have, in that he is incapable of proclaiming as inerrant that which is not?

155

But why not? Why can’t we assume that God’s plan includes giving us a guide, a human guide, who would point the way towards what God wants, and left us with a representative of that human and a system to continue that representation from generation to generation? How is that in tension with the idea of other attributes or motivations from God being unknowable to humans?

That’s a fair question. But remember how I’m suggesting free will be viewed – all our actions, present and future, are calculable, but we can’t possibly calculate them.

So take that, then, in what sense you will. The Pope cannot proclaim as infallible that which is wrong, so in a sense, he lacks free will.

156

It’s perfectly possible. The problems are twofold; firstly that if we cannot say for certain we know the motivations of God, we cannot know (to the point of the possibility of inerrancy) that his plan does include such a guide, and secondly that again if we don’t know his attributes or motivations we cannot be sure we can recognise that guide.

I agree with your view; i’ve argued it myself in the past. Someone with a time machine would be able to predict our choices with 100% success (assuming they didn’t go around changing things), yet that alone wouldn’t make those choices unfree.

However, this suggests that rather than the Pope being unable to use his free will in such a way, rather he is simply a person who can be known for certain by God to simply choose not to. Rather than an inability, it is simply an option he will never select. That’s a reasonable explanation, but it simply moves back the problem and means we need to ask how it is that the correct man is elected to the position. I’m sure my knowledge of Papal elections pales to yours, but the Church doesn’t necessarily elect by acclamation - indeed the process of secret ballots itself implimented by Popes implies that Cardinals can and will make the wrong choice at times. A Pope whose choice of inerrancy springing from nature cannot be guaranteed, and thus in some cases it must be forced upon them.

157

We can’t. I am of the belief that this is the best bet, but the evidence that propels me to that conclusion is not evidence anyone else can see. I could be wrong, of course - the victim of hallucination or delusion. No question. But I am convinced that I saw/felt/experienced something that told me Jesus was God on Earth, and He chose Peter, and ensured that Peter and his successors would teach enerringly when they said they were teaching unerringly.

Maybe. Or maybe he feels a sharp stabbing pain in his temple whenever he so much as considers promulgating an error. Doubt it. But don’t know.

Not necessarily, because it assumes that God - in His “Holy Spirit” persona - isn’t ever going to guide the Pope. In fact, that’s exactly what happens. The Pope’s failure to ever promulgate error as infallible doctrine is caused by God nudging him to make sure that it doesn’t happen - thus my “stabbing pain in the temple” humor above.

There have been wholly unworthy men to serve as Pope - adulterers, poisoners, and the like. God doesn’t guarantee a worthy, holy man in the spot – He just ensures that even such a man cannot damage the teaching of truth.

158

It just seems to me that when people say that God works in mysterious ways (or an equivalent), they only seem to apply it to those things they do not believe they know the answer to. It doesn’t seem to get included as a factor when talking about things they do believe they know. I can understand taking uncertainty into account and still believing. I do it myself. But I can’t understand taking uncertainty into account on one issue and then saying something is certain on the other. If someone accepts that God does some things we can’t understand, it should be assumed that all the things they believe they understand about what God does are actually wrong; uncertainty within the belief as well as outside of it.

To me, just as an acceptance that we may not be right about whether God exists or not means we can’t ever say with 100% that he does or not or in what form, an acceptance that God is in some ways not understandable means we shouldn’t be able to say with 100% confidence that he must act as we believe. Inerrancy as a belief in a framework isn’t compatible with a belief that that framework could be misinterpreted.

Does that imply that in some cases, free will is subsumed in favour of enforced goodness?

159

Sure. I absolutely acknowledge I may be mistaken about God’s very existence, not to mention His intentions and guidance if He does exist.

I have a working theory, though, that seems to be consistent with the best interpretation of the evidence I can make. So I go with it.

Sure. :slight_smile:

160

I guess i’m just having trouble phrasing what I mean. Would it be accurate to say that you both believe that the Pope (under certain conditions) can make statements which are certainly true and also that those statements are not certainly true?

Well, then I need to learn more about Catholicism. I don’t suppose you would know of a site that lists that which is inerrant? I had a look on the Vatican site and the Catholic Encyclopedia but I couldn’t find something like that.