** It seems to me that the first is actually more “magical” than the second, which is merely rational manipulation of forces. Slap the label “natural” on those forces, and you have science and technology. Slap the label “supernatural” on those forces, and you have magick.
** Can God break his promises?
The distinction between “natural” and “supernatural” is arbitrary. Electricity would once have been considered supernatural, and “energy flow manipulation”, if it actually works (which I doubt) will be considered natural once it’s better understood.
The electromagnetic force, specifically. We also commonly invoke the gravitational force, the strong force, and the weak force. Additionally, we constantly invoke principles less fundamental: conservation of mass-energy, conservation of momentum, the laws of mechanics, chemistry, and biology, etc.
That is an excellent point. Now that I think about it in those terms, if any force is solely controllable by man, then yes, it must be “natural” as it is within our universe. So, if this so called “energy work” which is no doubt presently mystically described, turns out to be real, detectable and totally predictably manipulable by man, then yes it is natural and not spiritual.
Transubstantiation, on the other hand, is undetectable by definition – Isn’t that convenient? That is another reason why this debate will never be resolved. Arguments generally require logic to be applied to some evidence for resolution, while faith, in large part, is not vulnerable to physical evidence since it speaks to issues outside the physical realm.
I guess I’m saying that magick is either actually natural and possibly also merely magic (mere slight of hand). The Catholic Church on the other hand, makes no attempt to comment on the natural by itself, but only on the natural as it specifically interacts with the inherently undetectible but sometimes divinely revealed supernatural.
Indeed, just like a super advanced technology can appear magical, so can the teachings of religion, since neither are testable by ordinary technology.
I guess to some degree the whole religion vs. magick thing is just inter-supernaturalistic in-fighting. Mainstream religions try to distance themselves from practitioners of magick, but they are really just trying to differentiate themselves from those to claim to access the supernatureal in unapproved (by them) ways. Perhaps some of those ways are different in kind, and others are different in degree.
Good question. It kind of takes us back to the problem of evil/pain, doesn’t it? Another way of asking it is this: “Does God’s all-good nature make him incapable of having free will?” I suppose some believers would say that God can break promises, but He doesn’t? But is that really true when “not breaking promises” isn’t a part of one’s very nature?
We are quickly approaching “it’s a mystery” territory here.
** Several quibbles: First, by “detectable” I presume you mean “detectable by current methods”. Otherwise, the first two conditions are synonymous. Secondly, nothing is ever totally predictable. Nothing can be, inside the universe.
** And again, I note that the designation “physical” is utterly arbitrary. It is defined by interaction – if something cannot interact with any part of our universe, it is by definition not real.
The religious definition of the phenomenon in question inevitably leads to the conclusion that it is not a part of our universe – in short, it’s not real. Don’t try explaining that to a theologian, though.
** Ah, but the teachings of religion actually rule out the possibility that it’s merely a clever fraud. Miracles are not merely inexplicable events, they’re necessarily violations of physical law. As such, they do not occur.
It doesn’t matter whether our “ordinary” technology can produce an event at all. The event must be impossible to be a miracle – and so there can be no miracles.
** I quite agree, with your conclusion if not with their stance.
** Logic alone prevents free will. God’s presumed all-good nature further limits what is conceptually possible for Him to do.
It has been my experience that when a theologian breaks out the “it’s a mystery” defense, either he doesn’t understand his opponent’s argument or he’s aware, on some level, that his position is indefensible.
:rolleyes:
Well, I guess that answers my question.
So, I come home from class and find il Topo has done a far better job than I could of defining the difference between Transubstantiation and magick. Thanks.
Now, as to the question of whether God can break His promises…
the answer is, of course, no.
But then, God made a unilateral decision to make the promises He did out of a desire to reconcile mankind to Himself. He wasn’t manipulated into making those promises by any human agency. God chose the method and provided the means. Therefore, God is acting of His own will when He keeps he promises He made to mankind.
Unless of course you make the argument that God is all good because he chooses to be. Suppose He had the option of being malevolent but made a conscious decision early on in His career as Supreme Being that He was going to treat His creation with love and kindness. Then that would mean that God does have free will, and His goodness is a product of the exercise of that free will. Being infinite, that would mean that His goodness is also infinite, which I imagine would make Him incapable of becoming evil after making the choice to be good. But that would still mean that His inability to be evil (and thus His lack of free will) would be a product of His exercise of free will.
Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve heard or read any theological dissertations on what God was up to before He decided to create the universe. For all we know, He could have been a morally neutral being before He decided to start work on Creation.
I’m sure some Latin theologian has written something somewhere to address the issue of whether God has free will. I seriously doubt any self-respecting Greek theologian would open up a can of worms like this one.
** For all we know, He could have been a morally neutral being before He decided to start work on Creation.**
Not if you’re talking about the God that Christians worship.
“I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.” --Malachi 3:6
“Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.” --James 1:17
“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” – Hebrews 13:8
To say that God could have been morally neutral at one point before deciding to be good is saying that God was, at one time, not as perfect as He presently is. In that case, is God’s present condition today the utmost of perfection, or is He less perfect now than He will be, say, 10 billion years from now? Will God get “better” as time goes on?
The Bible doesn’t say what God was doing before He created the universe we live in, but it’s very clear that He was as good then as He is now, because He is absolutely perfect, always has been and always will be. There is no “getting better” with God because He is the definition of perfection.
Yet another great insght from the all wise and all knowing TVAA
Ya know, Teev, if you really feel the need to insult people’s religious beliefs, I’d like to direct you to a forum on this board called the BBQ Pit. The Pit rules allow for your nonsensical sarcastic little jabs at people’s heartfelt beliefs. If you’ve got som form of insect life residing in your rectal cavity about a partcular religion, or about religion in general, take it to the Pit.
See, this is Great Debates. It’s here so that people can engage in reasoned debate (which is a word you might want to look up in a dictionary, BTW, if you own one). It is a place where you present arguments based on logic/ reason and or factual evidence (which I note you are capable of doing, abeit on extremely
rare occasions), not for mocking people’s religious, philosphical or ethical beliefs for the sake of mocking them.
Finally, you might want to look up the SDMB Rules. IIRC, there’s something in them about not being a jerk…
As you’ve pointed out, GD is for reasoned debate. Little gems like your OP are utterly inappropriate for it.
To be perfectly blunt, you don’t have any clear idea of what the categories of “natural”, “supernatural”, and “occult” signify. As such, your responses to them are based in unreasoned habit and unthinking prejudice.
You claim not to believe in magic, and so your religious beliefs can’t possibly be magic no matter how irrational or inexplicable they are. Yet you reject equally mystical and equally well-supported beliefs that others hold because they’re “magic”. You accept the science and technology that surrounds you, even though you don’t actually understand it – you accept it as “natural” simply because you’ve always been exposed to it.
I am reminded of those people who reject meditation and biofeedback as “occult” practices. Many of them reject Catholic ritual and practice as similarly being “occult”.
I think you need to go take a good, long look in the nearest mirror. After that, do a bit of soul-searching. You seem to have misplaced yours.
Might want to try actually reading the OP. You know, context, content, that sort of thing. The question of whether, in light of the fact that in the workplace or school a person is likely to encounter situations that will conflict with his/her religious beliefs, a person’s religion can truly be a matter of privately held belief most certainly is subject to reasoned debate.
Right. A believing and practicing Catholic who prior to conversion actively engaged in occult practices would have no idea of these categories. I wouldn’t know that the term “natural” deals primarily with the physical universe and its phenemona, that “supernatural” (literally “above natural”) deals with the psychic/spiritual realm, and that “occult”, literally “hidden” in popular parlance at least, is used to describe practices designed to use psychic/supernatural forces bring about a perceivable result in the natural world.
**
Never claimed any such thing. You do know how to read, don’t you?
**
No, I choose not to engage in particular practices of other belief systems because they conflict of my own beliefs. I only “reject” them in the sense that I do not allow them to become part of my own belief system.
**
And, once again, you resort to personal insult. Yeah, that’s a valid tactic for use in reasoned debate.:rolleyes:
[Fixed coding. – MEB]
And little gems like your posts are wildly off-topic.
Thea’s OP was not about occultism or the dividing line between religion and magic(k) or about the logical validity of any particular faith or of religious belief in general. It asked a straightforward question: to what degree can a serious religious believer who must live in a population that is heterogenous religion-wise truly keep his beliefs “private.” The question is basically: what gives when religious faith rubs up against secular responsibilities?
That is a subject matter ripe for reasoned debate. The fact that you do not recognize it as such says more about your reading comprehension skills and seething hostility to religion than it does about Thea’s selection of forum.
The set of “real” that you accept is not as large as the set of “real” accepted by those who believe in the supernatural. Your set of the real = the observable portion of the Universe; religionists’ sets of the real include things both inside and outside of the observable universe. Your set is valid for science; theirs is valid for science and faith.
When you say something is “not real,” you are actually saying that it is not in your personal “reality set,” but you are doing more: You are trying to imply, through a blurring of set definitions, that because a thing is not in your personal reality set, it is therefore also not in some objective, all-encompassing “all-creation” superset. You have, by definition and not by proof or agreement, attempted to make your personal reality set equal to the all-creation superset alleged to exist by others (including myself), in effect defining supernatural phenomena out of existence by personal fiat. Now who believes in omnipotent beings?
Religion is only indefensible if you limit “defensible” to mean the ability to produce absolute evidence upon demand as with scientifically testable phenomena. You have so limited the issue, and I’m sure that works well for you. Others have not agreed to your limitations and definitions.
If you hate mysteries, then you may have problems in both realms of religion and science since neither provides all the answers to all the questions. At some point, someone is going to say, “I don’t know,” whether that someone is Pope John Paul II or Stephen Hawking.
{BTW, I do not speak for the Catholic Church. I’m a bad Catholic trying to be a better one.}
If we found that “psychic” phenomena actually occurred, then they would necessarily be part of the “physical universe and its phenomena”.
The distinction you’re making is a logically invalid one. The definitions you give don’t distinguish between chanting over a sacrificed chicken and running electric current through wires. Both are physical events that affect physical phenomena. At the moment, chanting and sacrificing aren’t able to do much more than get someone’s athame all dirty and their throat sore, as far as we know. If we later found otherwise, we’d establish a science of thaumaturgy.
** Let me be a little simpler for the comprehension-impaired:
You claim that the things you believe are not magic.
Capeesh?
** But they don’t conflict with your beliefs. You perceive that they do only because your sorting criteria are self-referential.
“Is this currently in the set of things-I-believe? No? Then it doesn’t belong in that set.”
** I cannot dispute your position unless I call your faulty logic into question, and I cannot do that without attacking the belief system you hold so dear. Cease taking your system personally, and this debate will necessarily become impersonal. Continue, and it remains personal.
** But Thea’s problem, stated in her OP, is not an example of such a case. I strongly suspect that such “energy work” is complete and utter rubbish, but there’s not actually anything in it that truly contradicts Thea’s beliefs. There are no invocations of sentient, spiritual powers that presumably would be demons. There aren’t any otherwise evil acts that contradict her moral beliefs. She’s reflexively rejecting something she’s not familiar with.
There are quite a few people who claim that meditation and exercise/martial arts like tai chi invite demons into the body. This is no different from the people who used to claim that midwives cast evil spells.
The problem is that they claim the things which aren’t observable are observable, since they affect things which we consider to be “material”. Since the material world is everything which interacts with some thing we accept as material and all the things that interact with it, such a phenomenon is thus also material.
The definitions they offer are logically defective. If I claimed that electronic transmission of information was supernatural and that communicating to you was an occult act, you’d think I was insane. If this “energy work” has a detectable effect on patients (which I doubt) it is no more supernatural than electricity is, even if it goes completely beyond what we currently understand.
** No, you completely misunderstand. As far as I know, ghosts and vampires might be real. But if they are, they’re not supernatural. I am not claiming that none of the things Thea and her ilk view are supernatural exist; I am saying that if they exist, they are not supernatural.
** Nonsense. No phenomenon can produce absolute evidence. There’s no such thing as absolute evidence.
** This is what the words mean. Thea is using the words improperly and thus reaching an invalid conclusion. My opinions of Thea (which are all quite negative at this point) have nothing to do with this problem.
** The problem is that the category of “mystery” is often used by theologians to contain logical inconsistencies: self-contradictory beliefs that they nevertheless claim are somehow true. When confronted with the inconsistency, they say “it’s a mystery”, and continue to assert it.
That’s okay. The striving is almost as important as the attaining.
Not asking this in an inflammatory way, but why? I don’t tend to have these kinds of conversations at work, but from where I have heard of them, the non-theists tend to be as eager to proselytize as the theists. But no one jumps on the non-theists, because “they are just being reasonable.” Just my observation…
Definitely agree with this.
I’m not sure why this omniscient assertion should reassure anyone. (I hardly dare put you to a proof… “all”?)
Those who feel that they are in an intellectually superior position (having seen through all the flim-flam) frequently come across as though they are belittling others (or others’ belief systems). It would be fair to say that TVAA thinks that TVVA is right and that you are ludicrously wrong.
People mocked Copernicus’ beliefs, honestly believing that they knew better. TVVA is in a similar position. Do not let it trouble you.
Children always do this - whatever the subject. It’s a rare teenager that has his or her own worldview completely sorted, independantly of parental views.
Spoonfeeding is an unpleasant word for what parents do when they honestly pass on their knowledge to their children. It is not so unusual that parents with religious beliefs would pass those beliefs on as fact. This is, after all what they believe to be true, just as many parents would pass on, as a “fact”, poorly understood explanations of the Big Bang.
It is unusal for me, to hear (coming from the UK) that your daughter feels as though she cannot express her atheist views. In the UK, the opposite would be the case. (We do not have a “Bible Belt” as such.)
If there is a God, who is able to change natural physical laws, then the “impossible” can happen. What you are saying is, “there is no God.” And you are presupposing that natural laws are immutable.
“Imposible”, after all, is merely a word that people use to describe something that they do not believe could happen. We do not fully understand everything in the universe. What we consider to be “impossible” happens, from time to time. You dispute that such impossible occurances could ever involve the intervention of a deity. But your comment, “The event must be impossible to be a miracle – and so there can be no miracles.” is pointless (or at least proves nothing), because you presuppose that there is no God, whereas Thea presupposes there is a God.
If I understand RC doctrinal stance correctly, it would be more correct to say that God would not break his promises, rather than saying he could not. Surely if you are presupposing an omnipotent God, that by definition means that he can (in theory) do anything.
Free will intact.
Not sure why the concept of God particularly requires a free will, mind you.
I hate to call you on this Thea, but that’s hardly non-sarcastic or on topic, is it?
Not if we say that these phenomena occur in an alternative, non-physical (ie spiritual) universe. You are only allowing for the existence of physical things. Surely your thinking is not that narrow?
** Don’t be silly. I actually am belittling Thea and her belief system.
Thea thinks she is right. I am right. There is a significant and non-trivial difference.
** But Copernicus did know better. (Not a whole lot better, as history has shown, but still.) The belief of his opponents that they were correct was irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how convinced Thea is, either: she’s still wrong.
I disagree – Thea’s wrongness should trouble her. That’s what induces people to become right.
** Those people should be stopped at all costs. There’s enough ignorance in the world already.
** No, foolish one. God cannot change the rules He uses to change lesser rules – otherwise He couldn’t change them. Nor can he change Himself, for precisely the same reason.
** No, “impossible” is a word we use to describe things which cannot happen. We can be mistaken – our models might not match the reality of the universe. Nevertheless, regardless of what we think, there are still things which are actually impossible.
** Thus showing that our ideas about the world are wrong.
** No. Thea fails to understand the nature of natural law.
Something is not supernatural because we have a long mental list of events that we attribute the label of “supernatural” to. We cannot decide whether something is supernatural by appealing to such a list.
Something is supernatural if it is not a possible outcome of the workings of the natural world. If an event takes place within the natural world, it is therefore not supernatural. Claiming that things that cannot take place in the natural world take place in the natural world is logically inconsistent.
Imagining a god that is somehow outside of the universe yet can sense and affect it is logically inconsistent. If it can interact with the universe, it’s a part of it.
** Don’t even get me started. That position is not only logically inconsistent, it’s obviously so.
“Existence” is not a word which can be meaningfully applied to other universes from the perspective of our own. Something “exists” if it’s part of the universe. Other universes by definition could not interact with anything in this universe. If they did, they wouldn’t be other universes!
Ah, my mistake. I did not realise you were a troll. (I’m new here.) I do not argue with trolls. It is pointless and they are prone to attack without warning (or provocation, even).
You may draw whatever inaccurate conclusion you wish from that.
Blink
PS It’s been a good long while since anyone called me “foolish”. Cheered me right up, that did! Still not going to argue with you though.
That is another reason why this debate will never be resolved. Arguments generally require logic to be applied to some evidence for resolution, while faith, in large part, is not vulnerable to physical evidence since it speaks to issues outside the physical realm.