That is to say, the Louvain tradition was commissioned by Leo XIII to answer the challenges of skepticism a la Kant. Lonergan's magnum opus "Insight" turns out in the end to be an argument for the existence of God. In light of Victor Preller's work on Aquinas (which argues that Aquinas's Five Proofs were not meant to prove God's existence but to show the insufficiency of such proofs), should Lonergan be understood to be proving the existence of God as a response to Cartesian and Kantian epistemologies and not (goes the implication) by faithful extension of Aquinas historically understood?
205289
I've only been through "Insight" once, and read the "Verbum" articles years ago, so somebody might have a more detailed answer. \n\nLonergan does seem to have a Kantian agenda, though he doesn't directly engage Kant. The Kantian question is: by what right do we make metaphysical statements, such as "God exists." Lonergan argues by describing the process by which we makes true statements, though not in the same manner as Kant. His approach is more empirically oriented, looking at everyday experiencing and judging (whereas Kant was interested in the validity of those judgments necessary for Newtonian physics). From this basis, he argues that metaphysical judgments are possible; thus we can give an argument that God exists. \n\nIs this a faithful extension of Aquinas? Leaving aside whether or not Aquinas was interested in proving the existence of God in the modern sense, I would say yes. In fact, much of "Insight" sounds to me like a standard neo-scholastic epistemology manual. It's questionable whether his "turn to the subject" is a move Aquinas would have made, but I don't see that there's a contradiction between being a response to modern concerns and being a faithful extension of Aquinas.
195630
The argument is as logical for a big band happening "from nothing" as a God to exist "from nothing".\n\nI personally don't have a problem with there always having been matter in the universe and the big bang being more or less spontaneous.
401793
Your question cannot be answered.\n\nReason and faith are unrelated.  More, they are unrelatable.\n\nIt is a confusion of terms to consider the vernacular "belief", implying an awareness of facts which are subject to confirmation and disproof, with "belief" in the context of faith and religion, where the tenets are merely stated.\n\nEven within the technical arena, even within that most exacting of disciplines, mathematics, there remain elements that are the subject of belief without proof and without the possibility of proof (Kurt Godel).  \n\nFaith and reason are disjoint, and the tools of one are inadequate for a study or analysis of the other.  Therefore your question is improper, from a logical viewpoint, and the concept of a rational explanation of faith has no meaning.
206481
With Kant's claim that the mind of the knower makes an active contribution to experience of objects before us, we are in a better position to understand transcendental idealism. Kant's arguments are designed to show the limitations of our knowledge. The Rationalists believed that we could possess metaphysical knowledge about God, souls, substance, and so; they believed such knowledge was transcendentally real. Kant argues, however, that we cannot have knowledge of the realm beyond the empirical. That is, transcendental knowledge is ideal, not real, for minds like ours. Kant identifies two a priori sources of these constraints. The mind has a receptive capacity, or the sensibility, and the mind possesses a conceptual capacity, or the understanding.\n\nIn the Transcendental Aesthetic section of the Critique, Kant argues that sensibility is the understanding's means of accessing objects. The reason synthetic a priori judgments are possible in geometry, Kant argues, is that space is an a priori form of sensibility. That is, we can know the claims of geometry with a priori certainty (which we do) only if experiencing objects in space is the necessary mode of our experience. Kant also argues that we cannot experience objects without being able to represent them spatially. It is impossible to grasp an object as an object unless we delineate the region of space it occupies. Without a spatial representation, our sensations are undifferentiated and we cannot ascribe properties to particular objects. Time, Kant argues, is also necessary as a form or condition of our intuitions of objects. The idea of time itself cannot be gathered from experience because succession and simultaneity of objects, the phenomena that would indicate the passage of time, would be impossible to represent if we did not already possess the capacity to represent objects in time.\n\nAnother way to understand Kant's point here is that it is impossible for us to have any experience of objects that are not in time and space. Furthermore, space and time themselves cannot be perceived directly, so they must be the form by which experience of objects is had. A consciousness that apprehends objects directly, as they are in themselves and not by means of space and time, is possible--God, Kant says, has a purely intuitive consciousness--but our apprehension of objects is always mediated by the conditions of sensibility. Any discursive or concept using consciousness (A 230/B 283) like ours must apprehend objects as occupying a region of space and persisting for some duration of time.\n\nSubjecting sensations to the a priori conditions of space and time is not sufficient to make judging objects possible. Kant argues that the understanding must provide the concepts, which are rules for identifying what is common or universal in different representations.(A 106) He says, "without sensibility no object would be given to us; and without understanding no object would be thought. Thoughts without content are empty; intuitions without concepts are blind." (B 75) Locke's mistake was believing that our sensible apprehensions of objects are thinkable and reveal the properties of the objects themselves. In the Analytic of Concepts section of the Critique, Kant argues that in order to think about the input from sensibility, sensations must conform to the conceptual structure that the mind has available to it. By applying concepts, the understanding takes the particulars that are given in sensation and identifies what is common and general about them. A concept of "shelter" for instance, allows me to identify what is common in particular representations of a house, a tent, and a cave.\n\nThe empiricist might object at this point by insisting that such concepts do arise from experience, raising questions about Kant's claim that the mind brings an a priori conceptual structure to the world. Indeed, concepts like "shelter" do arise partly
526415
I agree completely: This quote sums it up for me:\n‘Nature, you say, is totally inexplicable without a God. That is to say, to explain what you understand very little, you have need of a cause which you understand not at all’  Holbach.\n\nThat's the reason I'm an athiest. And please guys, don't pray for me. Let the "rapture" get me ...
75249
Just don't sweat it, if God wanted you to understand God, you would! God has given us so much to learn about and so much to wonder about, if understanding God was important we would.\n\nTreseuropean,\n\nScience has never proven a thing, that is the nature of the scientific method it is not flawed.
492228
Yes, I read it and found it very interesting.  The reader should keep in mind, though, that the author does not claim to be anything but human, that is, he does not claim to be God made manifest in a human form like Moses, Jesus Christ, Mohammed, The Bab, and Baha'u'llah.  Therefore, his interpretation of what God is revealing to him is subject to error.  Only the Manifestations of God are perfect and flawless.  Even the highest saint is still human and subject to error.\n\nwww.bahai.org
167452
Strictly speaking, you have decided NOT to embrace the "undecidable" and NOT the "unverifiable".  Unverifieable, inherently implies the potential applicability of the scientific and/or logical verification process, which in turn could be a function of the Uncertainly Principle, time, knowledge, instrumentation, etc.  Whereas the situation at hand is by far much more hopeless than that; the very notion of "verifiability" does NOT even apply in this case.  Yes my friend those ancient desert-dwellers really knew how to screw us all with their creation of an undecidable god that can only be attained through the pure fairytale process of "faith".   And hence started the greatest conspiracy ever plotted against the human race, and which, in its many mutated forms, continues to this very day.   ... As for the pity part - well, how can I pity someone who has a great family, enjoys his life, and has otherwise had the courage to construct his own reality in accords with his moral will?    Besides, we do not much care for twice-removed guests like you DOWN HERE anyway. :-)
85337
I'm not sure he's lying.  I think he may just be that confused.  Given the number of people I've seen on here who are addamently convinced that the fact that they don't understand evolution means it's false, I wouldn't be surprised if he genuinely believes he's found a way to prove atheism is wrong.  I'm don't think it's so much a matter of malice (of course there are exceptions), but rather of ignorance.\n\n_____\nClearpigeon and askeutychus, there's a logical fallacy in there.  It's the part where you say that knowledge of God requires knowledge of everything.  That isn't true.  I know that objects fall towards the Earth, but I don't know all of physics.  Or maybe it only applies to thinks you know to be false.  In that case, I know that 1 + 1 doesn't equal 3 without having knowledge of all mathematics.\n\n_________\n>>>how can you be against something that you don't believe in?\n\nBy not speaking Greek.  In ENGLISH atheist means someone who believes that God does not exist.  There are a lot of words in English that are derived from words in other languages but to not take on the literal meaning of their roots.  It doesn't make sense to define an English word by its literal meaning in Ancient Greek and then expect that defintion to apply to the modern usage of the word.  And even if you did insist on translating it literally, it would be "without god," not "against god."  I think it's quite simple to be without something that doesn't exist.
495508
You miss, however, that I never said free will implied deity, only that lack of free will implies lack of deity.\n\nEstablish this in formal logic in the following manner:\n\nA = A deity exists\nB = Free will exists.\n\nIF (A) THEN (B).\n\nNotice that I use IF, not IIF (if, not, if and only if).  I assert that Deity is sufficient cause, but not necessary cause.  There could be a scientific principle of which we are not yet aware that could create free will without the necessity of a deity.\n\nHowever, since I establish deity as a sufficient cause (really, what kind of deity would create perfectly deterministic if stochaistic thinking beings?), if free will can be disproven, then deity is disproven by modus tollens:\n\nIF A THEN B. (axiom)\nNOT B. (given)\nTHEREFORE NOT A. (modus tollens)\n\nThis can be shown to be Modus Ponens via the contrapositive:\n\nIF A THEN B. (axiom)\nIF NOT B THEN NOT A. (contrapositive).\nNOT B. (given)\nTHEREFORE NOT A. (modus ponens)\n\nThis also means that the deific hypothesis is testable -- it can be falsified.  Show that there is no free will, and you show that there is no deity.\n\nHow to test free will?  Can free will exist?  We've already discussed this in some detail.  If you suppose the three axioms of science are valid (and to invalidate any of the three, you invalidate the ability to have any knowledge at all: Math & Logic are valid, observations are valid if based on direct sensation or math & logic, the supernatural either does not exist OR does not interfere with the natural), then free will can rationally be discounted.  Such discounting can be done as follows:\n\nThe mind is an emergent, if still not understood, property of the physical and energetic nature of the human being.  (nonsupernatural causation -- a soul would be supernatural).\n\nThe state of any physical system can be stochaistically determined from its previous state and the current inputs.  However, the past is 'past' and therefore it is determined.  The consequence is that I can predict the next state with great precision but in a few thousand states, the precision may be nearly nill, and within a million states, it is as close to zero as you can get.  (mathematical principle).\n\nThe stoichasm is a consequence of quantum randomness.  If quantum randomness is redefined as an input to the process (ie: I'm going to kill that guy but a virtual electron/positron pair form in my brain with the cascade effect of me changing my mind), then the stoichaism is removed.  The situation is now deterministicly based on the current state and the inputs.\n\nDeterminism is incompatible with free will.\n\n-----\n\nI agree that to have perfect knowledge of state and inputs is impossible.  However, the feasibility of a computation does not change its computability.  RSA encryption starts with taking two prime numbers of significant size and multiplying them together, then ditching the primes.  The security of RSA is based on the infeasibility to factor the multiple.  But I can give you an algorithm, perfectly deterministic, for factoring that number:\n\nN = P*Q.  Discard P & Q.\nMAX = sqrt(N).\nfor COUNTER 1 to MAX:\n.. if N / COUNTER is integer\n.... P = COUNTER\n.... Q = N / COUNTER\n.. endif\nendfor\n\n100% guaranteed this algorithm will work.  It just happens that it'll take 10^85 years to run it on a 4096-bit key.\n\n\n-------------\n\nCogito Sum, I in no way object to your choice to reference me as you have.  Quite the contrary, I consider it a significant honor and compliment that you consider my view sufficiently curious to bring it up specifically.\n\n------------\n\nAs I understand your added comment (sorry for delay, went to lunch), you are saying that since I cannot know the state of your mind without you reporting it, I cannot perform the calculations at all.  However, this overlooks the idea that whether you or I can detect it, the state DOES exist.  For example, if I fill an olympic sized swimming pool w
206498
It's as rational as anything else.  Do you actually think the Special Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics make sense?  They don't seem to, but they're both true.  A better question might be, is Christianity rational to YOU?  So much of reality is perception based.  The Roman Catholic Church has committed countless atrocities throughout history, but it has also led many people to a greater peace and awareness.  Looking for absolute truth?  I advise against it.  "Those who believe they have the truth will never seek it."  Our journey is just beginning.
599855
I believe in God by reason and revelation. Reason: this world is so perfectly balanced it could not be an accident. Can you look at a beautiful sculpture and say it happened by accident? No, someone created it! Revelation: the Bible!\nAnd yes I attend Mass at a Catholic church often. I would definitely call myself Christian.
553169
Voltaire voiced a truism.  Presently there are many examples of his adage.\n\nAnd I agree that God is a necessity, whether there really is one or not - we need a God. \n\nMan needs to believe there is a super being to keep him in line,  to prevent pandemic anarchy/lawlessness, powerlessness and hopelessness \n\nLet's show how it works in the political realm. \n\nTo further his own agenda,  Bush found it necessary to fabricated a reason for the 'war' with Iraq.\n\nHe conjured up reason after reason until the public no longer remembers the earliest lies, but defends and swears by one of the lies.\n\n\nSame difference - Man creates what's missing even when it can be proven that it's not there..
530629
How many times can it be said... "I don't understand the cause ... therefore it must be God" is NOT an argument.\n\nIn any case, most of what you say is getting increasingly better understood. Somehow I don't think you'll click on the link below and read what's there... but here's hoping
60041
I am a Catholic, but of an Eastern Church.\n\nOne fascinating aspect of the Antiochean Orthodox are their hymns.  They date from the first century, when pastors complain that their hymns are from the fifties, they could take a lesson from the hymns of the actual fifties.\n\nI find the Buddhist use of negation a powerful tool for thinking about issues.  The scientific method is a philosophical method that says you cannot show things are true, rather you can only show things are false.  The rest is tautology.  This really is a powerful method and limits discord and division really.\n\nThe Jain idea of ahimsa is really agape made practical.\n\nTwo components of Wicca are interesting.  The idea of a Book of Shadows, which is an individual recording of that which is useful, meaningful etc.  In essence, you write your own scripture.  That leads to the second component of Wicca, and why I don't believe it will last more than two more generations, is that it is a very idividualized religion.  There isn't a lot that is mandatory, and hence little to object to. It opens itself up to syncratic thought, but it doesn't then have the problem of followers not fitting the orthodoxy.  Very few people are really orthodox, though many believe they are.  Wicca purposefully bypasses the problem\n\nI love the Cargo Cults, it proves that religion is such a deep part of human existance, and that real knowledge and religion can be completely disconnected.  Just a note, I believe intelligent design is a Cargo Cult, a comment that will likely bring screams of blasphemy down on me.  Nonetheless, it has all of the features of one.\n\nIslam is fascinating in its absolute insistance upon submission to the will of God.  Most people don't realize that the United States and Islam are really philosophical mortal enemies.  Submission really requires a complete surrender of freedom.  It is philosophically an anti-freedom religion.  The whole goal is to eliminate anything against the will of God and to bring the world back to God.  Certain radicals have decided to do this violently, but that isn't really the point.  The United States is the pure autonomy, do what you want state personified.  The government is designed to create a laizze faire environment, even if that has partially disappeared since the crisis of the Great Depression.  Protestant Christians from the US often mistake Americanism for Protestantism.  Christianity has a submission element to it as well, just not as pronounced.  It also has the balancing passages that proclaim that if the Father has given us free will, why should we take away the freedom of others.\n\nTao is interesting.  If you abolish good and evil and look at balanced and unbalanced you get a different view of the world.  It is a fundamentally different question to ask if you are in line with what is natural for you and are you doing it in a healthy (balanced) way.\n\nOne thing interesting I think about my own part of the Catholic Church is that our service is a reduced down version of the Liturgy of James.  The service has changed little since it was given at Antioch.  We still have the lines, optional when out of times of persecution, "The doors, the doors, in Wisdom be attentive!"  Reminding the doorkeeper to watch for Roman soldiers, but also that what is going on inside is far more important and so to be attentive.  The only real changes our service has was the adding of "air," to the line where we pray for "all who travel by sea, air and land," with the coming of flight.  There was a change in the year 750 to move the prayers of the faithful from after the scripture readings to before in order to put ourselves in prayer before God as the first action.  There was an insertion called the hymn to the Only Begotten added in the 400's I believe.  There was a shortening by John Chrysostum in the early 300's and a shortening (taking it to about 1 1/2 to 2 hours) by Basil of Ce
229971
Its a good question. I don't think CSLewis was being particularly pluralist. He may have just been talking about the catholics. At the time he was writing there was lots of controversy about whether catholics were christians.\nIn his book 'mere christianity' he says that he believes that following Jesus is the only was of serving God. \nOf course, the narnia books are fiction so maybe its just a damn good story.
85884
:}  No one can know anything for a fact beyond any doubt..\n\nEven our very senses fool us. There are dreams and mirages. We’ve all thought we heard saw or smelled something that was inaccurate.\n\nThoreau in Walden Pond, Presented the idea that we could know that we exist because if we did not we could not question whether we did or not.\n\nHaving established that nothing, beyond perhaps our own existence, can be established with absolute certainty, we must proceed to behave as if those things for which there is significant evidence, in fact exist and work as the evidence would suggest they do.\n\nWhile this procedure at times will lead to error, for the most part it is necessary to pursue this line of reasoning, called inductive logic, if we are to conduct normal life functions.\n\nIs there a god?  I use the same process. So for my purposes Yes, as far as my data goes in allowing  me to analyze the information, the preponderance of evidence suggest that God is a certain fact.  \n\nThen using the scientific method it simply remains to see if the predictions I make based on this hypothesis come to be\n\nAnd they have.\n\nI'm 100% sure \n\n\n\nOne additional fact \nMy salvation depends less on my faith than on his faithfulness!