"Had God been in a more joyful mood when He made the Ythrians than when He made man?" (p. 298)
Here we go again with meanings of "God." Literal or metaphorical? If literal, how anthropomorphic? A large invisible man who is in a good mood one day and a bad mood the next? I suspect, of course, that Nat's question is metaphorical, meaning: "Is it as if God had been in a more joyful mood...?"
But, if we assume a theistic doctrine, then how does God create the two species? Does He plan and initiate a universe in which such species must evolve? If so, then this is a single creative act. The idea that He could be in different moods for the different species must remain metaphorical or, if literal, then very anthropomorphic.
Such phrases invariably recur, especially in the works of a serious and reflective writer like Poul Anderson, but maybe we should just pass them by instead of commenting every time?
22 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
What I believe happens on every planet where intelligent races arises is that God sets in motion chains of events where evolution leads to one species becoming intelligent. Then, at a certain moment that species faces a test--and either Falls or does not. Ythrians are certainly not unFallen!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We see chains of events that can be explained by the laws pf physics and chemistry without requiring any intelligent intervention. The Ythrians' pride results from their biology, not from any collective choice that they have made or from any test that they have failed. Individuals make choices, not a species as a whole.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And this denial of the existence of the supernatural is another point where we cannot agree.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But, as I always say, it is the positive statement that has to be proved. It has to be proved that there is a supernatural, not that there is not a supernatural.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
If you want tangible evidence, things you can touch and see, the cures recorded at Lourdes by unimpeachable witnesses gives us evidence of the supernatural.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Some prima facie evidence, yes. This at last gets us away from mere assertions.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
There are many books about Lourdes, some by writers who wanted to debunk what was recorded there. Anyone is free to look them up and come to their own conclusions. The conclusion I drew was that the miracles recorded there were and are acts of divine intervention.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
I should have mentioned, given this is the PA Appreciation blog, that we see Anderson most extensively writing about the supernatural, God, in "A Chapter of Revelation." The story shows a disbelieving scientist compelled by overwhelming evidence to acknowledge the reality of God. One interesting thing seen in "Chapter" was how the miracle seen there was crudely blatant, not at all like the subtler miracles recorded in past ages when people did not need to be beaten over the head about the supernatural. One character even suggested, despite the chaos following that miracle, was that the world might be leaving rather than entering a dark age.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You do not believe in Catholicism because of Lourdes. You believe in Catholicism, I think, primarily because you were brought up in it and you regard Lourdes as confirming it. I do not accept Catholicism on philosophical and historical grounds and therefore classify Lourdes miracles, like many other phenomena, as not yet explained.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course! I see nothing wrong in believing in the truth of Catholic Christianity because of being brought up in the Faith. I also believe in its truthfulness for historical and philosophical reasons.
And I do not believe the historical/philosophical arguments you have against Christianity. Also, you keep insisting on the need for tangible evidence for Christianity--but when I point out the inexplicable, to atheists, events recorded at Lourdes people with your POV keep waving it away with the weak and lame rejoinder that they have not been explained. No, my view is that atheists don't want have to admit they might be wrong, that God is real, that everything the despised Catholics say is true. Because that would (or should) mean a complete reversal of their beliefs.
I did not mention the Protestants because there are so many thousands of different kinds of Protestants that there can be no generally unified Protestant response to such questions.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There is no weakness or waving away in acknowledging that, on the frontier of science, there are many as yet unexplained phenomena and, by the nature of the case, always will be. Knowledge is a growing but finite circle on an infinite plane.
No one wants to admit that they may be wrong and might have to reverse their beliefs.
I am convinced by philosophical arguments against monotheism and by historical arguments against acceptance of a physical Resurrection.
"...despised Catholics" is out of order. We have to debate with some measure of mutual respect.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree, because inexplicable events have been recorded at too many other places (such as Fatima or the miracles recorded for the causes of saints before canonization) to make me think their obstinate rejection by many atheists is not motivated by anything better than a desperate "waving away."
We cannot agree about those philosophical/historical arguments.
I was being a bit sardonic, with that "despised Catholics" bit. But it's still a fact that is exactly how many people, atheists or not, think about the Church.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
To accuse the other side of intellectual dishonesty is no way to conduct an argument. Sceptics are not desperate. They have a completely different world view which cannot be changed quickly or easily any more than yours can. "...obstinate rejection..." is another loaded term. Either side can use such language without proving anything either way.
Some atheists despise the Church but that is irrelevant to the rights or wrongs of an argument.
"I still disagree..." there is no attempt to get agreement here. That will not happen so quickly or easily.
You will find unexplained events in other religious traditions if you look.
Paul.
BTW, you could have been switched at birth with a baby that was to be brought up as a Mormon, Methodist, Maoist, Manichaean, Mahayanist etc. If you are the kind of person who accepts and later defends whatever ideas he was brought up with, then you would now be defending one of those other beliefs.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree, because some skeptics still strike me as desperate, nor do I think that always has to mean they are being knowingly dishonest.
I agree it should be irrelevant whether Person A despises Catholics when it comes to the merits or not of an argument. But many are like that, hostile for irrational reasons. I had in mind anti-Catholic works like John Foxe's ACTS AND MONUMENTS, Lorraine Boettner's ROMAN CATHOLICISM, or Jack Chick's infamous comic books. Even the notoriously vicious Maria Monk books are still being peddled by the bigots!
Briefly, I am a moderate dualist, as expounded by Mortimer Adler in books like THE DIFFERENCE OF MAN AND THE DIFFERENCE IT MAKES. Which means I don't believe in materialism.
And I don't believe those unexplained events in other religions are as solidly backed up as what can be found in Catholicism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We are not seeking agreement. Take it as read that we continue to disagree. When I say (IMO correctly) that positive, not negative, statements require proof, I am not necessarily asking for substantial proofs. I am just trying to clear up a logical point. (And I still don't think I've succeeded.)
Materialism is not reductionism. Consciousness is an emergent property.
Most Catholic apologists would start with the sense of sin and the need for redemption, not with medical records from Lourdes which, without a spiritual context, are indeed just unexplained phenomena.
I am open to evidence from all religions, not starting with the premise that one is right and the others wrong. That premise skews the whole discussion from the outset.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But you don't accept what I consider evidence (the Scriptures, Fathers, Tradition of the
Church, etc.), so I had to cite what skeptics will consider "inexplicable" events, such as the miracles recorded at Lourdes. And it's precisely that spiritual and theological context, Catholic Christianity, which explains what happens at shrines like Lourdes.
It's all very well to say you are open to evidence from all religions, but I've never seen any convincing reports of a Methodist (to use one form of Protestantism), Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or Shinto analogs of Lourdes.
Many Catholics are actually wary and skeptical when the "inexplicable" happens! Because fraud or merely error have been found when alleged miracles or apparitions of the saints were investigated.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, no, I do not accept the New Testament accounts as establishing that a physical Resurrection occurred. And if that were a proven historical event, then it would no longer be an article of faith. I do not look for Lourdes effects among other religions. I look for whatever they have to offer and I find Zen meditation more meaningful and helpful than Christian doctrinalism. This whole partisan argumentation strikes me as just wrong and inappropriate to the subject matter under discussion.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we are gong to have to agree to disagree. Because it's exactly that "partisan argumentation" which matters. That is, the unyielding claims of orthodox Christianity to the literal truth of what it believes and teaches.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am fairly certain that Catholic apologists start from our "sinful" (Biblical language) state and what needs to be done about it, not from Lourdes.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course, I agree. But that did not become the primary point of discussion in this combox.
And it's precisely the indisputable fact of how flawed, imperfect, violent, and proneness to folly which makes me so skeptical and distrustful of Utopian schemes and hopes.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
What we should do about ourselves and whether we need or indeed can receive divine help with this is the main question for spiritual paths and philosophies. I practice zazen because I have not found anything better yet. Telling others that one path is right and others are wrong seems completely inappropriate. We need each others' insights and criticisms.
Paul.
Post a Comment