[RD] Ask a Theologian V

[Cheetah]

You're quite right of course - I had a feeling that Gregory had written something like this but couldn't place it. I think though it's worth pointing out that what he recommends is the transformation of pagan practices, not their uncritical adoption.

But surely, transformation, rather than uncritical adoption, is precisely what yung and everyone else means when asking such a question?

Can I take it then, that you agree that such transformed practices were and have been readily adopted by Christianity (just as with other religions) throughout its existence?

 

[Hrothbern]

where are the shades between uncritical adoption and transformation ?
For example:
An old pagan traditional wisdom is that trees give strenght, and that holy trees can give the strenght to overcome diseases.
The tradition became to have a piece of cloth or rope, some ritual to bind that piece with your sick body and attach it, hang it in that holy tree, to get better from that binding your body to the life force of that tree.
So there were and for that matter still are trees full of mostly white pieces of cloth.
Now.. not all holy trees were chopped to build chapels upon. There were also chapels build alongside such a tree to sanction such a tradition. The Maria statue nearby that tree.
Maria the addition to an unchanged pagan tradition. More a blend imo than a transformation.

If you read the epistle of Gregory the Great, my feel from it is a very parental, caring attitude, avoiding polarisation and disruption in the minds of the people for the moment of change, of someone wise enough to know that a long harmonious process was better for everyone.
What I basically read is to find pragmatical harmonious solutions for the christianising.
Not that that always happened so. Especially when the Carolingian dynasty was challenged in its empire building with the cross, it became more the bloody sword with a cross in its wake. After the killing of the 80 year Bonifatius around 750 AD in Dokkum, the heartland of the Frisians, it became more close to a genocide in that area.

And as side story on the life force of trees, the story of Penelope testing whether the man coming in her house was indeed Odyssey (after 20 years):
Besides the practical cleverness of Penelope, my feel on the why Odyssey build his house, and especially the most important part of his family home, the matrimonial bed, on a chopped (big) tree, was to root the marriage, the family in the earth and give it the life force of the tree.

Summary: Book 23
Eurycleia goes upstairs to call Penelope, who has slept through the entire fight. Penelope doesn’t believe anything that Eurycleia says, and she remains in disbelief even when she comes downstairs and sees her husband with her own eyes. Telemachus rebukes her for not greeting Odysseus more lovingly after his long absence, but Odysseus has other problems to worry about. He has just killed all of the noble young men of Ithaca—their parents will surely be greatly distressed. He decides that he and his family will need to lay low at their farm for a while. In the meantime, a minstrel strikes up a happy song so that no passers-by will suspect what has taken place in the palace.

Penelope remains wary, afraid that a god is playing a trick on her. She orders Eurycleia to move her bridal bed, and Odysseus suddenly flares up at her that their bed is immovable, explaining how it is built from the trunk of an olive tree around which the house had been constructed. Hearing him recount these details, she knows that this man must be her husband. They get reacquainted and, afterward, Odysseus gives his wife a brief account of his wanderings. He also tells her about the trip that he must make to fulfill the prophecy of Tiresias in Book 11. The next day, he leaves with Telemachus for Laertes’ orchard. He gives Penelope instructions not to leave her room or receive any visitors. Athena cloaks Odysseus and Telemachus in darkness so that no one will see them as they walk through the town.

And as further side note: Greek philosophy, heroes and ancient Greek history does not give much room for women. The usual male warriors, trophy women and intrigues. But Odyssey is pictured differently by Homer.

 

[Plotinus]

But surely, transformation, rather than uncritical adoption, is precisely what yung and everyone else means when asking such a question?

Well, I'm not sure. People often talk about this sort of thing as if it were uncritical adoption, as when they claim that Christmas is just a pagan festival with the names changed.

QUOTE="Cheetah, post: 15273389, member: 24821"]Can I take it then, that you agree that such transformed practices were and have been readily adopted by Christianity (just as with other religions) throughout its existence?

Of course. Although I think the degree to which this is true would vary very much time and place. As I said, some missionaries and wider Christian cultures have made it a matter of principle to reject anything even hinting at non-Christian religious beliefs or practices in other cultures. Think of the rites controversy in China, for example, where the Jesuits took a transformative approach but the Vatican ordered rejection.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Did medieval theologians really argue over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin? What was at stake for them in the answer to this question? If one person said "four" and another said "a thousand" what would that have meant to any other aspect of Christian theology? How did they think they could determine the answer to the question? What made one person's answer seem like a better answer than someone else's?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Did medieval theologians really argue over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin? What was at stake for them in the answer to this question? If one person said "four" and another said "a thousand" what would that have meant to any other aspect of Christian theology? How did they think they could determine the answer to the question? What made one person's answer seem like a better answer than someone else's?

Plotinus has addressed this before, but I cannot seem to find the posts.

It was not a disagreement between those who might say "four" vs "a thousand," but rather those who might say "one" vs "infinity."

"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" was just a fanciful way of stating the question of whether spiritual beings like angels occupied any physical space at all.

It was about whether angels had physical bodies like humans which where limited to existed at a particular time and place or were completely incorporeal (maybe even omnipresent) beings like God. It was generally accepted that two physical objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, but more controversial as to whether the presence of one spiritual being could exclude another spiritual or physical being.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Thanks. I did look at his index of previously answered questions before I asked and didn't see it there.

 

[sophie]

Thanks. I did look at his index of previously answered questions before I asked and didn't see it there.

It doesn't seem to have been a problem which Medieval Scholastics ever really argued over, but was, rather, a rhetorical smear employed by Protestant theologians to emphasize the absurdity of Medieval Scholasticism's tendency towards obscurantism and esoteria, which itself was a major critique of the Church by Early Modern humanist reformers (e.g. Erasmus and John Colet) as well as early Protestants like Luther.

 

[Farm Boy]

As in, do they perpetually argue over nedlesse points?

 

[Mouthwash]

If I understand Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism correctly, it argues that a mind which evolved purely by natural selection has no guarantee that anything it believes is reliable (as it would be built for survival rather than truth-finding). This results in radical skepticism, which would further mean that the human has no justification for saying that the theory of evolution itself is true.

This seems to ignore that accurate knowledge is robust while illusion is not. You could, conceivably, want to be eaten yet run away from dangerous predators because you don't think they will eat you. But evolutionary adaptions are tested across countless events and lifetimes, and severely inaccurate beliefs would have a much harder time accounting for every possible scenario than at least somewhat correct beliefs. The only illusions that could survive would be mostly 'in the background', which is what we find in curiosities like the color-shifting dress and other optical illusions.

So it seems that the thesis is refuted because truth and survivability often go hand in hand. Is this correct or am I not comprehending the argument fully?

I see - well I think the idea would be that there's a difference between using the functions of the human body for purposes other than those intended, and abstaining from using them at all. E.g. contraception is a method of subverting the function of procreation for another purpose. Abstinence is just not using that function. And that's not the same thing.

To pick this back up, a question is raised of how an activity justified through natural law, like sex, could be regarded as sinful or less righteous than abstaining from that activity. Do Catholics believe that there is some kind of 'spiritual law' which overrides natural law?

Why wouldn't one be obligated to carry out natural functions according to natural law theory?

 

[Agent327]

If I understand Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism correctly, it argues that a mind which evolved purely by natural selection has no guarantee that anything it believes is reliable (as it would be built for survival rather than truth-finding). This results in radical skepticism, which would further mean that the human has no justification for saying that the theory of evolution itself is true.

Most arguments against evolution (I'm not quite sure what an argument against 'naturalism' means) suffer from some sort of logical fallacy. This particular argument seems a variant on the 'evolution couldn't create an eye' position, where 'eye' is replaced with 'brain'. And yet early life forms had neither eyes nor a brain. Once you have life forms with a brain, there's no reason for it to evolve into a more complex brain, capable of logic. Or truthfinding.

But that's all beside the point: "the human has no justification for saying that the theory of evolution itself is true". Which is perfectly true. But it ignores the fact that anything scientifi isn't about truth. It's all about probabilities. It's only for the sake of convenience that we say 'the theory of evolution is true', whereas, scientifically speaking, it's just the most accepted theory, liable at any point to be replaced by a better one. For convenience's sake, we simply refer to the theory of evolution as 'true'.

So really, no truthfinding is involved here and the argument then misses the point entirely, because the only actual argument against evolution woudl be finds that contradict it. Since no such finds have occurred all 'argument' against evolution is moot. If one really wanted to 'argue' against evolution, one woud have to come up with a better theory.

 

[Mouthwash]

(I'm not quite what an argument against 'naturalism' means)

You should probably go ahead and look that up, because that's what this is. He's not making any sort of argument against evolution whatsoever.

 

[Agent327]

Good. Because his argument isn't 'evolutionary' either, as explained. (And I don't really have a problem with people arguing against isms. That's basically what they are for: argument.)

 

[Mouthwash]

Is it true that Aquinas said that if someone believes "to omit fornication is a mortal sin, when he chooses not to fornicate, he sins mortally"? I found this quote here and Google search doesn't retrieve anything other than that one article.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Is it true that Aquinas said that if someone believes "to omit fornication is a mortal sin, when he chooses not to fornicate, he sins mortally"? I found this quote here and Google search doesn't retrieve anything other than that one article.

That quote is probably made up, the Summa is incredibly famous and google search yielded nothing. Also, Aquinas thought that masturbation was worse than rape (allegedly), so probably not the authority on sex that you want to consult either way.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

@Mouthwash can you link to the Platinga argument? I'm interested

This seems to ignore that accurate knowledge is robust while illusion is not.

I do not think this is true, in fact the things we most strongly believe in tend to always have emotional or moral reasoning rather than logical reasoning. "Human life has value" is something most people decide to believe in, even though it is a purely subjective thought, while "the world is round and is billions of years old" is something a decent amount of people want to reject even though there is plenty of "evidence" for the contrary.

If you want to call ideologies "Illusions", since they are not factual, they are probably the most robust belief systems we have. It seems either way you flip it, the illusions are often stronger than "accurate knowledge", whatever that entails.

But evolutionary adaptions are tested across countless events and lifetimes, and severely inaccurate beliefs would have a much harder time accounting for every possible scenario than at least somewhat correct beliefs.

Not really true again. Humans believing we have something akin to free will is likely an evolutionary trait, yet it seems this is objectively not the case (this discussion would have to be had elsewhere). The belief of free will seems to be a strong coping mechanism and a tool for social cohesion rather than a "correct belief", again. The same goes for many beliefs, like taboos or stigmata. Beliving in "free" will and human agency despite overwhelming evidence otherwise is definitely a "severely inaccurate belief", it's genuine wishful thinking, and again, mostly emotionally fueled rather than rationally.

And yet early life forms had neither eyes nor a brain. Once you have life forms with a brain, there's no reason for it to evolve into a more complex brain, capable of logic. Or truthfinding.

I don't quite understand what you mean by that. Also, when you say "no reason for it to evolve.." you are kind of assuming teleological evolution, which is a logical fallacy. Evolution does not have "reasons" for anything, it just happens. Explanations are post-hoc.

 

[Truthy]

If I understand Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism correctly, it argues that a mind which evolved purely by natural selection has no guarantee that anything it believes is reliable (as it would be built for survival rather than truth-finding). This results in radical skepticism, which would further mean that the human has no justification for saying that the theory of evolution itself is true.

This seems to ignore that accurate knowledge is robust while illusion is not. You could, conceivably, want to be eaten yet run away from dangerous predators because you don't think they will eat you. But evolutionary adaptions are tested across countless events and lifetimes, and severely inaccurate beliefs would have a much harder time accounting for every possible scenario than at least somewhat correct beliefs. The only illusions that could survive would be mostly 'in the background', which is what we find in curiosities like the color-shifting dress and other optical illusions.

So it seems that the thesis is refuted because truth and survivability often go hand in hand. Is this correct or am I not comprehending the argument fully?

I think he's somewhat right as there are lots of cases where truth and reproductive fitness don't go hand in hand. Mainly in social settings, where being part of the group and maintaining cohesion could be better for fitness than being perfectly correct about everything. And we do have lots of cognitive biases and are susceptible to illusions and the like. But as I recall, his argument that selection could make perception so unreliable that you could be getting chased by a tiger while hallucinating that you're playfully running from a kitten or something (I forget exactly what his hypothetical was)--and that's something selection would reward just the same as having half-decent faculties--is nonsense.

 

[Mouthwash]

That quote is probably made up, the Summa is incredibly famous and google search yielded nothing. Also, Aquinas thought that masturbation was worse than rape (allegedly), so probably not the authority on sex that you want to consult either way.

It's about the role of conscience and belief more than sex. If I mistakenly believe that a mortal sin is in fact obligatory - to the point that *not* performing it would be a mortal sin - and I don't perform it, do I sin mortally?

@Mouthwash can you link to the Platinga argument? I'm interested

It's a really famous argument, you don't need any special link for it.

I do not think this is true, in fact the things we most strongly believe in tend to always have emotional or moral reasoning rather than logical reasoning. "Human life has value" is something most people decide to believe in, even though it is a purely subjective thought,

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

while "the world is round and is billions of years old" is something a decent amount of people want to reject even though there is plenty of "evidence" for the contrary.

By those who don't make it the focus of their attention and just go by what their preacher tells them. Most people who actually take the effort to study the subject concede that the Earth is old, even if they had a commitment to Biblical literalism beforehand. Besides, that's not the throughgoing skepticism that Plantiga is talking about.

If you want to call ideologies "Illusions", since they are not factual, they are probably the most robust belief systems we have. It seems either way you flip it, the illusions are often stronger than "accurate knowledge", whatever that entails.

Not even slightly true. Beliefs about the external world are much more fundamental (most people know that touching a hot stove will burn them).

Not really true again. Humans believing we have something akin to free will is likely an evolutionary trait, yet it seems this is objectively not the case (this discussion would have to be had elsewhere). The belief of free will seems to be a strong coping mechanism and a tool for social cohesion rather than a "correct belief", again.

That is a strange claim, since there is so little evidence of the concept prior to the rise of the (Biblical) ideas of sin and punishment. A few commentators like Aristotle bring it up but they seem to consider it a minor issue in the theory of mind rather than something important.

The same goes for many beliefs, like taboos

Lol.

Beliving in "free" will and human agency despite overwhelming evidence otherwise is definitely a "severely inaccurate belief", it's genuine wishful thinking, and again, mostly emotionally fueled rather than rationally.

You're confusing wishful thinking and intuition.

 

[Truthy]

@Mouthwash can you link to the Platinga argument? I'm interested

I think the main place he makes the argument is ch. 12: "Is Naturalism Irrational?" of his book "Warrant and Proper Function". I also scrounged around and found a PDF of the chapter if you want it (found it buried in an email chain, but haven't found a copy of it publicly online).

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I find it kind of difficult to engage with people who think "Lol" is a reasonable answer in a debate

I think the main place he makes the argument is ch. 12: "Is Naturalism Irrational?" of his book "Warrant and Proper Function". I also scrounged around and found a PDF of the chapter if you want it (found it buried in an email chain, but haven't found a copy of it publicly online).

yes, please. thank you very much for that.

 

[Agent327]

And yet early life forms had neither eyes nor a brain. Once you have life forms with a brain, there's no reason for it to evolve into a more complex brain, capable of logic. Or truthfinding.

I don't quite understand what you mean by that. Also, when you say "no reason for it to evolve.." you are kind of assuming teleological evolution, which is a logical fallacy. Evolution does not have "reasons" for anything, it just happens. Explanations are post-hoc.

It seems pretty clear there are several things you don't understand. First off, literally everything I stated is fact-based. So there is no assumption of any kind, certainly not a teleological one. Secondly, you confuse my description of evolution as 'having reasons', rather than what I said, which is 'there's no reason to assume'. And yet, as your answer shows, you assume things that aren't there. Thirdly, you state that evolution 'just happens', which is possibly the most inaccurate description of a process imaginable. and you top it off with 'explanations are post-hoc', which is both a most clichéd truism as well as not explaining explanation at all. Obviously, without something happening first there cannot be an explanation. Like an organism not being able to walk if it hasn't evolved legs.