The Enlightenment Culture and Creative Reason

Originally posted by cavan
these florid, bombastic diatribes of patronizing right wing catholic christianizing are in itself the very reason people are deserting the church. i wonder if god's rottweiller has ever heard of ockram's razor?

the pope should remember the church is for the people, the laymren, they are it's very foundation not the intellectuals and academics. if he set ...[text shortened]... if can pontificate all he likes but, it ain't gunna bring them back.

padmasambhava, anybody?

Originally posted by cavan
these florid, bombastic diatribes of patronizing right wing catholic christianizing are in itself the very reason people are deserting the church. i wonder if god's rottweiller has ever heard of ockram's razor?

I'm sure he hasn't. But I'm pretty sure he knows all about Ockham's razor, though - being an accomplished philosopher and theologian in his own right.

The pews may be emptying in the West, but the Church is going from strength to strength in the East and in Africa. Oh, and there is no shortage of people returning to the Church or converting from other denominations in the West as well. Have you seen how many people turned up for the World Youth Day in Cologne last month? If you looked at the mainstream media, you wouldn't have seen much.

But when was the last time a million under-30s turned up for an orthodox religious event?

EDIT: "florid, bombastic diatribes" from a "patronizing" author? Very ironic.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
"The radical detachment of the Enlightenment philosophy from its roots becomes, in the last analysis, contempt for man. Man, deep down, has no freedom, we are told by the spokesmen of the natural sciences, in total contradiction with the starting point of the whole question."

Contempt for humankind predates the modern age. Look to the Cynics, or ...[text shortened]... s."

I wholeheartedly agree with this. It's obvious. (But he doesn't mention women.)

On the point of the natural sciences, the Pope reasons like dj2becker. Nor does he seem terribly up to date with his science, since he apparently labours under an outdated mechanistic view of things discarded by quantum mechanics.

Not quite. Even quantum mechanics can lead to the view that man has no freedom - he is at the mercy of the probabilistic equations that describe the interactions between the particles that compose his body. As no1 likes to say in FULL CAPS - "THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS".

Choice is an illusion under this view. Decision is an illusion under this view.

The deterministic view of the world is translated into a probabilistic one under QM. But it still leaves man with no freedom.

The Pope is spot on.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not quite. Even quantum mechanics can lead to the view that man has no freedom - he is at the mercy of the probabilistic equations that describe the interactions between the particles that compose his body.

Choice is an illusion under this view. Decision is an illusion under this view.

So...these equations supposedly determine whether I decide to get a credit card from bank A or G? You're confusing me terribly,

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
So...these equations supposedly determine whether I decide to get a credit card from bank A or G? You're confusing me terribly,

At the macro level, yes.

Why is it confusing?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
At the macro level, yes.

Why is it confusing?

You'll have to explain how my choice between a number of options is predetermined according to quantum mechanics. Also how would believing in God make my choice between 2 credit cars somehow more free? You've lost me.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You'll have to explain how my choice between a number of options is predetermined according to quantum mechanics. Also how would believing in God make my choice between 2 credit cars somehow more free? You've lost me.

You'll have to explain how my choice between a number of options is predetermined according to quantum mechanics.

What quantum mechanics does is to limit energy states of particles to certain fixed levels, which are governed by a particular probability distribution. Solving the equations to provide these probabilities is extremely difficult for systems involving more than two or three atoms; solving them for macro-level systems of molecules (such as human beings) is virtually impossible.

In theory, however, they can be solved. Which means that, theoretically, human beings are limited to a fixed number of choices (in terms of actions) with a fixed probability distribution.

So, for your choice of credit cards, the theoretical macro-level solution for the QM equations for each of your atoms (as well as all those atoms you interact with) would provide a certain probabiliy for choosing card A over card B (say, 60%-40😵. Now, it's not necessary that you will choose card A because it has a higher QM probability - but over the course of a lifetime that involves possibly millions of decisions, you will largely choose those that obtain from the QM equations with the highest probability. What you will not be able to do is to systematically choose to reject the "tendencies" (i.e. high probability solutions) provided by QM.

Indeed, what you think of as "choice" and "decision" under such a viewpoint becomes nothing more than the roll of a biased dice.

Also how would believing in God make my choice between 2 credit cars somehow more free?

God would be an entity not bound by the probabilities of QM. Hence, God would neither be limited to choosing from the fixed levels provided by QM, nor would He be bound by the probability distributions. Through the concept of "grace", man is not bound by those distributions either. So, you become 'free' to systematically reject the probability distribution in the long run.

Still lost? 🙂

LH

LH, I can't reply & quote your posts today; only yours.

Your explanation is clear; Samuel Beckett gives you the nod;but since I only need to choose a credit card once, I fear it is neither here nor there. That is to say, I am unconvinced.

The entire future of the universe hinges on which credit card I choose.

Given an individual who lives by quantum theory (if such a thing is possible) & one who abides in grace, would one be affected by probability and the other not? I'd like to hear more about this effect of grace, which exempts one from the hazards of contingency.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
LH, I can't reply & quote your posts today; only yours.

Your explanation is clear; Samuel Beckett gives you the nod;but since I only need to choose a credit card once, I fear it is neither here nor there. That is to say, I am unconvinced.

The entire future of the universe hinges on which credit card I choose.

Given an individual who lives b ...[text shortened]... like to hear more about this effect of grace, which exempts one from the hazards of contingency.

Happens.

I think the person who lives by QT and the person who abides in grace would be equally under the influence of QT if it is the true theory, and equally under the influence of grace if God exists (although the person who abides in grace is more likely to be receptive to it).

I suppose the idea of grace was inspired by my listening to a talk on concupiscence on the telly this morning. 🙂

What is at the center op the Popes' lecture, among other things, is the following:

The present ideology of freedom will lead to less freedom (my short recap).

In his lecture the Pope tries to give the reasons for the contradictions in the present version of enlightenment culture.

"It is evident that this canon of the Enlightenment culture, less than definitive, contains important values which we, precisely as Christians, do not want and cannot renounce; however, it is also obvious that the ill-defined or undefined concept of freedom, which is at the base of this culture, inevitably entails contradictions; and it is obvious that precisely because of its use (a use that seems radical) it has implied limitations of freedom that a generation ago we could not even imagine. A confused ideology of freedom leads to dogmatism, which is showing itself increasingly hostile to freedom."


Do you agree ? Do you disagree ?

It would be interesting if you, the threads' readers, would be willing to address the heart of this lecture and give your comments.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
however, it is also obvious that the ill-defined or undefined concept of freedom, which is at the base of this culture, inevitably entails contradictions; and it is obvious that precisely because of its use (a use that seems radical) it has implied limitations of freedom that a generation ago we could not even imagine.

it is also obvious that the ill-defined or undefined concept of freedom, which is at the base of this culture, inevitably entails contradictions

Contradictions...such as?

it has implied limitations of freedom that a generation ago we could not even imagine

Implied limitations...such as?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by cavan
[b]these florid, bombastic diatribes of patronizing right wing catholic christianizing are in itself the very reason people are deserting the church. i wonder if god's rottweiller has ever heard of ockram's razor?

I'm sure he hasn't. But I'm pretty sure he knows all about Ockham's razor, though - being a ...[text shortened]... ious event?

EDIT: "florid, bombastic diatribes" from a "patronizing" author? Very ironic.[/b]

sorry if i sound so down on your church, i just find high ground moralizing from men who have sex with children a little hard to except. i guess theres a million people who don't read the paper or maybe they just don't care

Originally posted by cavan
sorry if i sound so down on your church, i just find high ground moralizing from men who have sex with children a little hard to except. i guess theres a million people who don't read the paper or maybe they just don't care

Originally posted by cavan
sorry if i sound so down on your church, i just find high ground moralizing from men who have sex with children a little hard to except.

Quick fact check exercise for you - first find the % of priests who have faced allegations of abuse*. Then compare this to the % for the general population.

* Minor point, but the majority of allegations dealt with abuse of adolescents, not children.

i guess theres a million people who don't read the paper or maybe they just don't care

There are a million people sensible enough to realise that the concept of the Presidency does not collapse if a Nixon spies on his opponents, or a Clinton lies on the stand.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by cavan
[b]sorry if i sound so down on your church, i just find high ground moralizing from men who have sex with children a little hard to except.

Quick fact check exercise for you - first find the % of priests who have faced allegations of abuse*. Then compare this to the % for the general population.

* Minor po ...[text shortened]... Presidency does not collapse if a Nixon spies on his opponents, or a Clinton lies on the stand.[/b]

oooh. adolescent were they? then that must mean it was ok to abuse them cause they're almost consenting adults.

i think i'd find it hard to find those true %'s cause the church does such a mighty fine job of covering these things up and they only come clean when they have to. and believe it or not alot of these abused" former adolescents" feel to embarrased or traumatized to come forward( i wonder why?) so we shall never know the true extent of the devastation of lives ruined

as for your presidency analogy. does it still excuse what they did?

Originally posted by cavan
oooh. adolescent were they? then that must mean it was ok to abuse them cause they're almost consenting adults.

i think i'd find it hard to find those true %'s cause the church does such a mighty fine job of covering these things up and they only come clean when they have to. and believe it or not alot of these abused" former adolescents" feel to emb ...[text shortened]... vastation of lives ruined

as for your presidency analogy. does it still excuse what they did?

oooh. adolescent were they? then that must mean it was ok to abuse them cause they're almost consenting adults.

No, but there is a difference.

i think i'd find it hard to find those true %'s cause the church does such a mighty fine job of covering these things up and they only come clean when they have to. and believe it or not alot of these abused" former adolescents" feel to embarrased or traumatized to come forward( i wonder why?) so we shall never know the true extent of the devastation of lives ruined

The same could be said of the same stat for the general population. After all, most abusers are family members of the victims. Indeed, a victim would be more embarassed if they were violated by a member of their own family. So that statistic for the general population is only going to be more unreliable than that for priests.

So, did you look it up?

as for your presidency analogy. does it still excuse what they did?

No, but it explains why a million people can still turn up at WYD.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
What is at the center op the Popes' lecture, among other things, is the following:

The present ideology of freedom will lead to less freedom (my short recap).

Let's hear more about this present ideology of freedom that the Pope assumes. As far as I can tell, people are free to do as they please within the limits of the law. Hasn't that always been the case? What am I missing?

Are his comments confined to Europe?