AJ Philips,

If I tried to react to your reasoning I would probably, again “disappoint you”, “use wrong words”, or do other things you “pointed out” (OK, not accused) to me in your previous posts.

One last attempt: Frank Little, the former Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, used to answer persistent questioners (on matters of morals, but I think it can be applied also to more general questions about “truth”): “If you cannot understand any other answer only yes or no, then the answer must be YES full stop. (Or NO, whichever applies better to the question asked and/or makes you happier).

There are many questions, e.g. in theoretical physics and even more so in metaphysics and theology, that cannot be answered in the same way to satisfy both the layman/laywoman - religious or not, educated or not - as well as the professional physicist or philosopher respectively. I tried to illustrate the latter case in my article http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11303#191173.

George,

Sorry about the delay in reply but the weather hasn't been the best here in Australia, as you may have heard.

<<One last attempt: Frank Little, the former Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, used to answer persistent questioners (on matters of morals, but I think it can be applied also to more general questions about “truth”): “If you cannot understand any other answer only yes or no, then the answer must be YES full stop. (Or NO, whichever applies better to the question asked and/or makes you happier).>>

I'm not sure what the point is that you're trying to illustrate here. I don’t agree with Frank Little for starters. Whether or not one understands anything other than straight yes or no answers has no bearing on what the actual answer is.

Would he say this sarcastically perhaps, or are you suggesting - in a round-about way - that I only understand yes/no answers? If the latter is true, then I would point out that there is a difference between being able to see the shades of grey and proffering vague suggestions that only serve to obscure the issue, rather than achieve any further clarity - as should be the goal of answers.

And your, "One last time", makes it sound like I'm just not “getting” the fact that, to you, not all answers to theological questions are easy or can be expressed in layman's terms - as can be the case with metaphysics and theoretical physics - despite your repeated attempts to explain that.

Yes, I have always understood that. But by thinking in such a way, while simultaneously labelling yourself a "Christian", let alone a Catholic one, specifically, you are having your cake and eating it too.

To be happy to accept such a specific label, tied to such a specific doctrine, only to retreat to some vague and obscure ideas - that somewhat resemble theology - when the questions become too hard displays a lack of courage to accept the more rational answers and/or a desire to desperately avoid them at all costs.

Continued…

…Continued

This is how theology differs to theoretical physics and metaphysics, and it’s detrimental to your analogy. With theoretical physics and metaphysics, concluding that the presupposition (in theology’s case, God) is non-existent to begin with isn’t an alternative - let alone a more rational one.

While it’s true that some things don’t have simple answers, to take a story like the binding of Isaac, for example, and then brush-off its irreconcilability with an omnibenevolent god using the excuse that our ability to understand such things just mustn't be adequate (when we wouldn’t apply that line of reasoning to anything else), or to merely temporise by passing it off as a challenge (knowing full well that you'll never have an answer and nor will anyone else, and all while refusing to entertain the simpler and more rational possibilities), does not come across as honest inquiry - to put it mildly.

AJ Philips,

>>But by thinking in such a way, while simultaneously labelling yourself a "Christian", let alone a Catholic one, specifically, you are having your cake and eating it too.<<

That is a standard accusation from fundamentalists/literalists from both sides of the theist-atheist divide, that I have become used to.

>>while refusing to entertain the simpler and more rational possibilities), does not come across as honest inquiry - to put it mildly.<<

As I already wrote, I am not going to reciprocate in similar terms.

Neither am I going to contradict you: as there is no point in telling e.g. runner not to act as a self-appointed arbiter of morality, so is there no point in continuing this exchange of opinions with you if you keep on seeing yourself as an arbiter of rationality.

I can just keep on repeating that I am not trying to convert you, or to deny you the interpretation of the Scripture, that you find meaningful for your life.

So what I called “One last attempt” in my previous post, should have been called “The last attempt”.

George,

You’re developing a tone of anger in your responses and I’m not sure why.

<<That is a standard accusation from fundamentalists/literalists from both sides of the theist-atheist divide, that I have become used to.>>

You cannot, by definition, have a fundamentalist (let alone a literalist) atheist, and nor is there even an equivalent - which speaks volumes for atheism, in my opinion. This is an example of how you incorrectly equate theism and atheism.

If you could explain to me why this accusation is unfair/incorrect, then I’ll gladly retract it and apologise. As it stands now, though, all you seem to have done is insinuate that I am some sort of fundamentalist. However, I believe I had adequately justified my claim in my last post.

Anyway, ultimately, all I was trying to point out was the fact that the questions I posed were still fair and relevant, and that I wasn’t just being a little “slow”. It was not supposed to be an attempt to belittle, as the tone in your response above seems to imply.

<<As I already wrote, I am not going to reciprocate in similar terms.>>

Yes, I hadn’t forgotten about that; I don’t think I’ve ever asked you to either. Surely an articulate person like yourself could still find a way to respond, though. The irony here, however, is that you say this - seemly under the impression that doing so is rude - but are still happy insinuate some rather unkind things.

Continued…

…Continued

<<Neither am I going to contradict you: as there is no point in telling e.g. runner not to act as a self-appointed arbiter of morality, so is there no point in continuing this exchange of opinions with you if you keep on seeing yourself as an arbiter of rationality.>>

The difference (as well as the irony) being, of course, the fact that if you were to successfully contradict me, I would accept that I was wrong and acknowledge that (i.e. my idea of what's rational actually being rational, not about being an arbiter - although I’m sure one could easily confuse the two, initially, if what they hear proves a problem for their long-held beliefs).

Your implication here is unfair as I have never demonstrated otherwise and nor have you ever tried to see what the result would be. Not beyond the point we’re at now, at least. We get so tantalisingly close and then you start slinging mud.

It’s as disappointing as it is frustrating.

Frustrating because this is the point at which most theists will simply state they just have faith or that they believe, because they believe, because they believe. You, on the other hand, hint at something more that you just won’t let me in on in the fear that it may be perceived as an attempt to convert…

<<I can just keep on repeating that I am not trying to convert you, or to deny you the interpretation of the Scripture, that you find meaningful for your life.>>

I understand that. You’ve said that a few times in the past (though I have never expressed such a fear). I can only assure you that I won’t take it that way.