Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Anthony Zarrella

Showing posts with label Anthony Zarrella. Show all posts

Sunday, March 11, 2018

With Zarrella et al. on Geocentrism

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Galileo and the Church (quora) · ... on Whether Geocentrism is Obliging? Debate with Anthony Zarrella · With Zarrella et al. on Geocentrism · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Anthony Zarrella on Metaphysics of Science

Q: What evidence can prove the Earth actually orbits the sun? It seems very unrealistic.
https://www.quora.com/What-evidence-can-prove-the-Earth-actually-orbits-the-sun-It-seems-very-unrealistic/answer/Richard-Muller-3
Richard Muller: Prof. Physics UC Berkeley, author "Physics for Future Presidents"
Answered Mar 3: According to the general theory of relativity, the Sun does orbit the Earth. And the Earth orbits the Sun. And they both orbit together around a place in between. And both the Sun and the Earth are orbiting the Moon.

General relativity allows the use of any coordinate system, and it is really a coordinate system question you are asking. Pick a system in which the center of the Earth is fixed; indeed, it can be a system in which the Earth is not even rotating about its axis. Then you can derive all the equations of motion in this system. In this system, the Sun is moving, not the Earth.

Of course, that is a very ponderous approach, and although the equations will work, in principle, they will be very awkward and tricky. So scientists never use them.

Why do we use a system in which the Sun is at rest (or in uniform motion)? Because then the equations are simple, intuitive, and (relatively) easy to solve. That is often the trick in physics: find a coordinate system in which the equations of motion are so simple that you can guess the right answer.

There is an irony here. The old Ptolemaic system in which the planets orbit the Earth in cycles and epicyles was actually a valid approach. We say that the orbits are elliptical, but an ellipse is an epicycle; it can be generated by moving a circle around another circle. So the revolution of Copernicus was actually a revolution in finding a simpler way to depict the motion, not a more correct way. But the Copernican approach allowed Newton to derive a very simple law of gravity. The glory of physics (as Feynman once said) is that we can describe a phenomenon in such a way that the answer is evident. (Feynman failed only with the connection between spin and statistics.)

So it is not wrong to say that the Sun orbits the Earth. It just leads to much more complicated equations that give you no good intuition for the behavior of gravity.
Answered at least three times: Look up α, β and γ
&lpha;
Anthony Zarrella
15h ago · 1 upvote: Quick question, Prof. Muller:

You say the mechanics work out even for a non-rotating Earth. I believe you of course, but while I can intuitively imagine how that works for orbits, is there also a self-consistent system that can explain the “equatorial bulge” without positing a spinning Earth?
Answered twice: A and B, given in inverted order.
B
Rūdolfs Treilis: 2h ago ·
1 upvote from Anthony Zarrella: Yup, the equatorial bulge and any other effect arising from non inertial forces can also be explained. In the reference frame where the Earth is stationary it is the rest of the universe that is spinning around the polar axis. It turns out that in general relativity such a configuration generates a gravitational dipole (similar to the electric analogue), which would be responsible for the bulging of the Earth in that coordinate system :)
Anthony Zarrella
1h ago: Huh, OK, cool!

Thanks for explaining.
A
Hans-Georg Lundahl
7h ago: Aether moving around Earth explains coriolis, equatorial bulge (unless it was a preadaption by God), and geostationary satellites.
Anthony Zarrella
1h ago: Apparently no aether required, according to the other commenter.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1h ago: I mistrust the idea of gravitation from stars doing it.
Anthony Zarrella
1h ago: Why?

If the scientific result is fully compatible with all Scripture and alleged doctrine (I say “alleged” because I know there are certain historical pronouncements that you regard as doctrinal and I do not), then why not trust the science?

I can see the reason you might reject the scientific explanation if it appears to conflict with anything doctrinal, but I fail to see any valid reason for attempting to preserve the validity of mere assumptions of prior generations.
Answered three times: I, II and III
I
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1h ago: Gravitation from stars I mistrust for scientific reasons.

You know the formula for gravitation?

(constant*)M*m : d^2

If stars are as far away as described, the inverse proportionality to squared distance will make stellar gravitation insignificant.

If on the other hand the stars are near, they are also smaller and have less mass.

And as to the former, one more problem is, I came to geocentric over distant starlight problem.

While I acknowledge Joshua 10:12 strongly argues geocentrism, I think it is more important as making the 7200 year old universe mathematically possible.

Also, there is no scientific impossibility in aether, both as luminiferous and for other purposes, unless you start out pretending Earth is moving through space, in which case Michelson Morley would have disproven luminiferous aether.

Michelson–Morley experiment - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment
Anthony Zarrella
41m ago: Yes, the gravitation of distant stars as a cause of the equatorial bulge is not viable. But I don’t think that’s what Mr. Treilis meant by a “gravitational dipole”.

As to Michelson-Morley… the whole point here is that it doesn’t matter whether Earth is moving through space or whether space is moving around Earth—the observations should be equivalent.

Think about it: Imagine standing in a room and spinning in place. Now imagine that you are standing still, but the whole room (including the air within it) and the whole rest of the observable world is rotating around you.

The point is that from your perspective, there will be absolutely no difference. Every possible observation or measurement you could make will be identical in both cases.

So, if Michelson-Morley proves no aether in a moving-Earth paradigm, it also proves no aether in a paradigm in which the whole of the universe moves about a fixed Earth. It only allows for aether if we presume a fixed Earth and fixed surrounding space, with other bodies moving through that fixed space.

In other words, if you assume you’re standing still while the room spins, but the air is standing still along with you. Then you’d notice a difference.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
5m ago: "But I don’t think that’s what Mr. Treilis meant by a “gravitational dipole”."

Oh, I thought you referred to the one given by Sungenis some time ago.

"As to Michelson-Morley… the whole point here is that it doesn’t matter whether Earth is moving through space or whether space is moving around Earth—the observations should be equivalent."

Not really. For daily motion, they are, and it seems light speed influenced by aether has been observed on that account.

For yearly motion it does matter - and this is the one where no aether influencing the light speed was observed - whether Earth is inside or outside what is moving yearly. If the Sun is what is moving yearly and not the Earth, then Earth is outside it.

"Think about it: Imagine standing in a room and spinning in place. Now imagine that you are standing still, but the whole room (including the air within it) and the whole rest of the observable world is rotating around you"

That is an exact parallel to the daily motion, on which light speed influenced by aether was observed.

Aether was denied due to lack of observation of supposed yearly motion.

"So, if Michelson-Morley proves no aether in a moving-Earth paradigm, it also proves no aether in a paradigm in which the whole of the universe moves about a fixed Earth."

You got wrong what part it was that was suppose to infirm aether.

Get the facts from Sungenis on that one.
II
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1h ago: “If the scientific result”

Why were you presuming in the first place that the idea I am rejecting is THE scientific result and mine isn’t?

God has not promised scientists even collectively the infallibility that bishops have.

Science is not dogma. That means, there can and should be alternative science positions. You were treating mine, gratuitously, as if it were a “science heresy” by that remark.
Anthony Zarrella
39m ago: I’m saying that all the scientific evidence supports the present scientific paradigm. I’m not saying scientists are infallible—but when all the evidence goes one way, it is unreasonable to assign equal credibility to a contradictory hypothesis.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
10m ago: "I’m saying that all the scientific evidence supports the present scientific paradigm."

Then do the logical moves about it.

Evidence A supports aspect a of the scientific paradigm, because ... evidence B supports aspect b of it because etc.

What you are doing instead is in practise treating scientists as infallible guides to what the evidence or, even worse all the evidence supports.

The one being unreasonable is you. You pretend on the one hand to study the evidence and on the other hand you allow scientists to do it for you.
Anthony Zarrella
1m ago: I’m not about to attempt to reconstruct the entire scientific paradigm from scratch, nor is it any argument that I’m unwilling to do so. It’s simply too much data for any single person to process.

But the greatest proof of the validity of the scientific paradigm is that it works.

When the scientific paradigm leads someone to conclude that this particular method will allow them to launch a rocket into space, and then they do that particular method… the rocket does launch into space. Can I explain to you every bit of scientific reasoning that went into it? Heck no. But I can point to the fact that it worked.

And when scientific observations predict that an eclipse will happen on such and such a day, at such and such a time, the eclipse does happen at that exact time—right down to the minute, and even down to the second. Can I personally reconstruct a system that allows me to predict the next eclipse? Not a chance. But I can point to dozens of past eclipses and the fact that all of them happened exactly on schedule.

It’s second-order evidence—evidence of the reliability of the scientific sources that I rely upon to interpret the first-order evidence for me.
Answered twice: a and b
a
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now: “I’m not about to attempt to reconstruct the entire scientific paradigm from scratch, nor is it any argument that I’m unwilling to do so. It’s simply too much data for any single person to process.”

If that were the case, it would be too much data for any single person to know if it is true.

Unlike Christianity.

You just blew your case.

The rest is saying “if A, then B” + “B” = “therefore A”

Are there other things than A for which we can say “if X then B”?
Anthony Zarrella
14m ago: “If that were the case, it would be too much data for any single person to know if it is true.

Unlike Christianity.”

You’re the only one of us who is making this a contest between science and Christianity. I’m not.

And no—I trust people, so there are a great many things I can “know” without independently verifying.

I know that my great-grandparents immigrated from Naples and Sicily in the 20s—but I’ve never seen any records, I just trust that my grandparents are telling me the truth.

I know that if I drink hemlock, I’ll die—but I’ve never tested it, on myself or anyone else. I just trust that the information I’ve been given is true.

And the entire genesis of Christianity itself is based on trusting the reports of others. Recall, e.g., the crucifixion account in John:

But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth—that you also may believe.

Or the logic of patristic theology, for that matter: “There are teachings the Apostles taught that were not written down—but we have the writings of men who learned them from the Apostles, or from other men who were trustworthy and had themselves learned from the Apostles, and therefore we believe that these are valid apostolic teachings.”

“The rest is saying “if A, then B” + “B” = “therefore A”

Are there other things than A for which we can say “if X then B”?”

No, I’m saying that a reliable correlation between the predictions of a paradigm and observed reality demonstrates a high likelihood that the paradigm is accurate.

If just one prediction of science were demonstrated to be accurate, or even just a few, then that would be very weak evidence. But when the scientific method (and the human scientific community) consistently yields verifiable results in a variety of diverse instances, then there is no plausible reason to conclude that it is invalid.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now: "You’re the only one of us who is making this a contest between science and Christianity. I’m not."

Neither am I.

I consider in both cases, a system of doctrine is credible or discardable according to a mass of data which is available to a single person in overviewable fashion.

"And no—I trust people, so there are a great many things I can “know” without independently verifying."

I trust - usually - the raw data of scientists. If a linguist says "Latin vespa, English wasp, Lithuanian vapsva mean the same thing and come from PIE wospwa, which is also the case for Polish osa, I trust very certainly that all forms of attested languages are what the linguist says they are (in this case I am the linguist saying they are so, since I verified on online dictionaries). But that all came from PIE, that osa necessarily came from PIE wopswa and so on is in the order of conclusions. Not even of classification of data or resuming of them, but conclusions, and in this case going beyond the evidence.

"I know that my great-grandparents immigrated from Naples and Sicily in the 20s—but I’ve never seen any records, I just trust that my grandparents are telling me the truth."

So would I.

But they did not claim to conclude cumbrously to have lived in Naples and Sicily from very indirect evidence gathered in America of the 20's. They claimed to have seen that by direct observation, or a lot of them.

"I know that if I drink hemlock, I’ll die—but I’ve never tested it, on myself or anyone else. I just trust that the information I’ve been given is true."

This is called trusting tradition. The executioners of Socrates could observe it.

"And the entire genesis of Christianity itself is based on trusting the reports of others."

Key word : reports.

I also trust (most of) the scientists on (most of) their direct observations. That is a question of trusting reports.

I do not trust them for conclusions from these, since as philosophers they could be seeing it "with the wrong lenses."

"Or the logic of patristic theology, for that matter: “There are teachings the Apostles taught that were not written down—but we have the writings of men who learned them from the Apostles, or from other men who were trustworthy and had themselves learned from the Apostles, and therefore we believe that these are valid apostolic teachings.”"

And anything in this going beyond directly observable facts are mediated by Christ.

Not as one concluding as a human philosopher, especially not one asking us to take His logic on trust, but as one having observed, as God from eternity.

"No, I’m saying that a reliable correlation between the predictions of a paradigm and observed reality demonstrates a high likelihood that the paradigm is accurate."

That is one way of saying “if A, then B” + “B” = “therefore A”

"If just one prediction of science were demonstrated to be accurate, or even just a few, then that would be very weak evidence."

No, the side from which the demonstrations of accuracy come may be other than the side from which there is inaccuracy of theoreme.

"But when the scientific method (and the human scientific community) consistently yields verifiable results in a variety of diverse instances, then there is no plausible reason to conclude that it is invalid."

Big words. You are talking of "scientific method" when I am talking of angels and God reduced to executing what science would have predicted in absence of them. That part of scientific method has a name : atheistic methodology. It is not that part which gives reliable results.

You are acting like the peasants trusting the priest of Ceres.

[See other part of dialogue in the following:]
b
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now: “But I can point to the fact that it worked.”

Space craft have been launched. For you it is a certainty, since you are pretending that conspiracy tgheories are ridiculous. For me it is at least probable.

But have space craft been launched thanks to Heliocentrism, or would Tychonian orbits have worked as well?

A priest of Ceres says “I first sacrifice a goat to Ceres, than pour some blood on wheat grains, then you sow it”

Next few months the peasants saw a harvest. “It worked”

Well, perhaps the part of pouring a goat sacrificed to Ceres was not what worked even if the priest of Ceres wanted them to believe it.
Anthony Zarrella
8m ago: Due to heliocentrism? Probably not, no.

But due to an understanding of Newtonian physics, gravitation, combustion, materials science, aerodynamics, and a dizzying array of other scientific realms of knowledge? Yes. Without those, it wouldn’t have worked.

How can I be sure? Because we have plenty of records of all the failed attempts, plus analysis of what went wrong and what was changed in subsequent attempts to fix those problems.

(And yes, any conspiracy theory that requires more co-conspirators than could fit in an average-sized conference room is utterly implausible. And theory that requires more co-conspirators than could fit in a mid-sized sedan is highly unlikely.)
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now: "But due to an understanding of Newtonian physics, gravitation, combustion, materials science, aerodynamics, and a dizzying array of other scientific realms of knowledge? Yes. Without those, it wouldn’t have worked."

Would certainly show some plus for Newtonian version of gravitation over Aritstotelic.

None of gravitation only over angelic actions trump gravitation.

Also none of void over aether.

"any conspiracy theory that requires more co-conspirators than could fit in an average-sized conference room is utterly implausible."

Supposing a very passive co-conspirator had much choice.

See, it is always a question of how many do we need to bribe and how many can't keep silent if bribed. In a government conspiracy in a time with so much psychiatry there is also the option of enforcing silence by declaring someone insane.*
Anthony Zarrella
7m ago: “Would certainly show some plus for Newtonian version of gravitation over Aritstotelic.

None of gravitation only over angelic actions trump gravitation.

Also none of void over aether.”

First, I didn’t claim that that single example would prove every issue in dispute between us.

Second, again, I acknowledge that angels have more than sufficient power to override gravitation. My dispute is whether or not they regularly do so.

As an analogous example: God most assuredly has the power to curse someone with some noxious disease. But most of the time, if I get a cold, it’s because I was exposed to microbes from someone who was already sick—not because God decided I deserved a cold and exercised his immediate (or angelically mediated) divine will to give me one ex nihilo.

“See, it is always a question of how many do we need to bribe and how many can't keep silent if bribed. In a government conspiracy in a time with so much psychiatry there is also the option of enforcing silence by declaring someone insane.”

Leaving aside our continuing disagreement over psychiatry in general… that could be a plausible explanation, if you have some list that I’m unaware of containing all of the hundreds or even thousands of NASA scientists and staff who were suddenly whisked away to involuntary psychiatric treatment facilities in the months or years following the shuttle launches.

Plus all the Russians and Chinese who never disputed that we did actually launch rockets, even though they had both the capabilities to verify and plenty of motive to publicly catch us in a lie.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now: "First, I didn’t claim that that single example would prove every issue in dispute between us."

You confused (deliberately?) what was so.

"Second, again, I acknowledge that angels have more than sufficient power to override gravitation. My dispute is whether or not they regularly do so."

You do so regularly when you lift your feet.

"As an analogous example: God most assuredly has the power to curse someone with some noxious disease. But most of the time, if I get a cold, it’s because I was exposed to microbes from someone who was already sick—not because God decided I deserved a cold and exercised his immediate (or angelically mediated) divine will to give me one ex nihilo."

Not analogous at all, since having a cold is something occurring irregularly and with different frequencies.

Stars are moving all the time, our dispute is whether angels doing what gravitation can't is all the time the reason for their movement or whether their movements are all the time motivated by gravitation with angels just executing just that.

Hint : if I am right, the angel guiding the Sun was as miraculous - he did sth the observers had not at all expected - but a lot less mysterious to reason than if you are right.

"Leaving aside our continuing disagreement over psychiatry in general… that could be a plausible explanation, if you have some list that I’m unaware of containing all of the hundreds or even thousands of NASA scientists and staff who were suddenly whisked away to involuntary psychiatric treatment facilities in the months or years following the shuttle launches."

One getting in would be enough to scare the rest.

Plus most employees would not have had to be in the know in the first place.

"Plus all the Russians and Chinese who never disputed that we did actually launch rockets, even though they had both the capabilities to verify and plenty of motive to publicly catch us in a lie."

And no motive across scientists to disprove Aristotle?

Come on, scientific community are suckers for international cooperation. Mir and all that.

Also, did they really have the capability to verify rockets reached Moon with men?

As far as I know, no conspiracy theorist is even saying - and neither am I when entertaining this theory - that no rocket was launched up to higher layers of atmosphere and perhaps even some beyond.

My main reason for not entertaining this so much is, I have in a way abandoned Aristotle and Newtonian version of gravitation is quite enough for Geocentrism, even with angelic movers doing more than gravitation would have done.
III
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1h ago: “ I fail to see any valid reason for attempting to preserve the validity of mere assumptions of prior generations.”

I fail to see any valid reason to preserve the mere assumptions of this generation.

A Young Earth Creationism which did nothing beyond denying billions of years, but accepted each and every assumption behind them would be a truncated Young Earth Creationism - that is why I am a Geocentric.

And a Geocentrism …
Anthony Zarrella
38m ago: We’re not talking about “mere assumptions” of this generation—we’re talking about meticulously-gathered evidence.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
13m ago: The evidence may be meticulously gathered, but it is interpreted through mere assumptions.

How come you think prior generations had any mere assumptions without meticulously gathered evidence?
β
Fergus Hancock
Mar 4 · 2 upvotes: Kepler’s genius centred on his mathematical interpretation of the meticulous planetary observations of Tycho Brahe; finding a regular variation in Mars motion in the sky (once every 1.88 Earth years) was a convincing argument that Mars orbited the Sun, and not the Earth.

Brahe, by the way, was the very last high profile geocentrist astronomer. His argument was that stellar parallax (a very slight apparent motion of nearby stars compared to the galactic background caused by the Earth’s 300 000 000 km displacement to either side of the sun) could not be observed, so the Earth could not orbit the Sun.

Two predictions from two solar system arrangements! Giuseppe Calandrelli was the first to successfully observe the predicted parallactic shift in Alpha Lyrae, then Friedrich Bessell carefully observed and confirmed stellar parallax of ‘nearby’ 61 Cygni in 1838.

Success in science comes from forming experiments and models in order that they will provide for testable predictions. Once those predictions are confirmed or ruled out, it guides scientists into ways of thinking that tests the possible against the observable. In that way, Isaac Newton based his derivation of gravity from Kepler’s equal area law of elliptical planetary orbits.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now: Except, you know, the parallax discussed in the 16th C was one which would have shown is approaching or receding from diverse parts of a inner surface of a globe, the sphere of the fix stars.

The actual result is open to two interpretations : parallax in a universe with vastly different distances between the stars - as per current interpretation OR angels moving stars in a way having nothing to do with parallax.
γ: Lots of more comments on original answer. Look them up. On site.

However, I was today, 10.III.2018 wanting to log in again to verify if Zarella had answered more and if Fergus Hancock had answered. I saw a ban, not just on French quora where I had been baited to a Bunny-Bear infraction, but on English at same time. So, today I could not see if debate had gone on to another level or not.

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

... on Whether Geocentrism is Obliging? Debate with Anthony Zarrella

Q

Did the Pope just denounce Creationism? Isn’t accepting evolution equivalent to rejecting creationism? By creationism, I mean the idea that the world is 6000 years old.
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Pope-just-denounce-Creationism-Isn%E2%80%99t-accepting-evolution-equivalent-to-rejecting-creationism-By-creationism-I-mean-the-idea-that-the-world-is-6000-years-old/answer/Alec-Cawley

Context link

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'
Independent | Adam Withnall | Tuesday 28 October 2014 09:43 GMT
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

As to header in Independent : “Francis goes against Benedict XVI’s apparent support for 'intelligent design' - but does hail his predecessor’s 'great contribution to theology'”

Where exactly does “Francis” go against Intelligent Design?

It is not synonymous to and does not strictly of itself imply Young Earth Creationism, though they can be combined.

Ratzinger or “Benedict” was also no Young Earth Creationist, as seen by a document from 1993 or 1994. While he was a “cardinal”.

Quora Question Details Bot

Aug 8, 2017

Isn’t accepting evolution equivalent to rejecting creationism? And by creationism I mean the idea that the world is 6000 years old. I honestly have no idea what current Catholic thinking is.

[same link]

Paul Reid

Nov 19

The Catholic Church never held to Creationist ideas at any point in it's 1500 or so years. Creationism is a recent invention, by Protestants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

That is false.

An Answer:

Alec Cawley

Wessex man and European

Answered Mar 26, 2017

Generally speaking, the Catholic Church has not taken a position on scientific matters. The one exception was when Galileo deliberately goaded his one-time friend, who had become Pope, into a dogmatic position against the Copernical model of the universe. One of the problems with claiming to be an absolute authority is that it is very hard to back down once you have taken a position. So, having once taken that position, it took a very long time before the Church could admit it was wrong.

However, the Catholic Church has never taken such a forceful position on the Creation. It generally kept quiet while watching to see how the science developed. It implicitly accepted evolution in some form a long time ago. It explicitly accepted it, stating that evolution was the mechanism by which God had wrought his creation (you would have to check for the exact phrasing) about the middle of the 20th century.

The controversy about the heliocentric model was a blot on an otherwise fairly tolerant landscape, driven essentially by Galileo being an assertive and egotistic braggart, even if he was (fairly) right.

Anthony Zarrella

Apr 14, 2017

2 upvotes

“The one exception was when Galileo deliberately goaded his one-time friend, who had become Pope, into a dogmatic position against the Copernical model of the universe. One of the problems with claiming to be an absolute authority is that it is very hard to back down once you have taken a position.”

Actually, the Pope emphatically did not make any dogmatic pronouncement of the kind.

He made a judicial declaration that Galileo was not permitted to promote heliocentrism.

If he had actually dogmatically defined heliocentrism as false, then that dogma would be unchangeable (and would have led to a truly massive crisis of faith for Catholics when heliocentrism was actually proven). The Church would be nothing but a fringe cult by modern times, had that been the case.

This is merely a technical correction though - most of your answer is quite right.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

I would not consider you correct.

Urban VIII personally only did what you said, up to sentence, but then he sent the sentence to all the Catholic world - making it his, and involving the Church in condemnation of “the sun is immobile centre of the universe” (formally heretical) and “earth is moving around sun and also in a daily motion” (at least erroneous).

You maybe should buy from Pope Michael his reedition of nine papal decisions against Heliocentrism.

Anthony Zarrella

23h ago

“Urban VIII personally only did what you said, up to sentence, but then he sent the sentence to all the Catholic world”

Yes, as a judicial sentence, not as an infallible dogmatic decree.

“involving the Church in condemnation of “the sun is immobile centre of the universe” (formally heretical) and “earth is moving around sun and also in a daily motion” (at least erroneous).”

Remember, he only prohibited Galileo from teaching those propositions as settled truth—he did not prohibit him from discussing them as theory.

Does that sound like what a pope would do with formal heresy?

Moreover, infallibility, per Vatican I, applies only to matters of faith and morals. Scientific empirical facts are neither.

We don’t proclaim, “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth… and that the Earth is the center of the universe…” It’s not a dogma of faith, and has never been taught as such.

“You maybe should buy from Pope Michael his reedition of nine papal decisions against Heliocentrism.”

Sorry, but again, I view David Bawden as a formal schismatic at least, and possibly a material or formal heretic. I trust his imprimatur no more than I would that of Bishop Donatus Magnus.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

23h ago

"Yes, as a judicial sentence, not as an infallible dogmatic decree."

When does a judicial sentence become that?

1) It needs to involve the Pope
2) It needs to imply the Catholic world
3) It needs to be on faith or morals (for Pope to decide)

It did involve Pope Urban VIII, it was sent to the Catholic world, and it was about both exegetics and philosophy and therefore about the faith.

"Sorry, but again, I view David Bawden as a formal schismatic at least, and possibly a material or formal heretic. I trust his imprimatur no more than I would that of Bishop Donatus Magnus."

It is not by his imprimatur, he is reediting older books. Which already have imprimatur or imprimi potest from pre-Vatican II authorities. Note, I asked him about one book which had a post-Vatican II imprimatur and have so far no response to the dubia. Do you think imprimaturs expire even without direct revocation and putting on index?

"Remember, he only prohibited Galileo from teaching those propositions as settled truth—he did not prohibit him from discussing them as theory."

No longer true by end of 1633.

"Does that sound like what a pope would do with formal heresy?"

The actual distinction is between mathematical hypothesis and theory of fact.

If Galileo wanted (as per previous discussions) treat it as about a mathematical model making counting orbits easier but with no relevance to facts, Galileo had at one time been free to do so. At one time, no longer by end of 1633. It's like I don't believe in "i", but am fine with using it for computer modelling when formulas have "dimensions".

But if Galileo was so involved with Heliocentrism as a fact that he was willing to adapt exegesis to it - that was the rub.

"Moreover, infallibility, per Vatican I, applies only to matters of faith and morals. Scientific empirical facts are neither."

Is God existing a matter of faith and morals? Did Vatican I say that God can be deduced from empirical facts? Yes and yes. Therefore, sth being "empirical fact" has no bearing to make it immune from Papal infallibility.

Moreover, Heliocentrism is to this very day not verified as empirical fact. It is not on par with "grass is green" and hardly even on spectral theory of colours.

"We don’t proclaim, “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth… and that the Earth is the center of the universe…”"

We also don't proclaim "... who ascended to the Father, assumed His Blessed Mother there, who is there Queen with His Kingship, and who thence shall return to judge the living and the dead" - and yet, Assumption is either dogma or fidei proxima (I seem to have cleared Pacelli from a doubt on that encyclical which didn't concern the main point).

There are lots of dogmata that are less solemn than the articles of the faith and yet are necessary to propose once the other alternative has been proven to lead to damnable errors, like Heliocentrism and Acentrism did with Giordano Bruno.

Anthony Zarrella

23h ago

1 upvote from Hans-Georg Lundahl

Without getting into a rehash of the entire geocentrist debate, I’ll just point out a few things:

1) Infallibility does not merely need to “involve the pope” and “imply the Catholic world”—he must propose something as a doctrine to be definitively held by all the faithful. Popes of that era knew quite well how to anathematize heresies—so I feel confident that if heliocentrism had been intended to be so anathematized… well, Pope Urban VIII could have very easily just said, “Anathema sit.”
2) God’s existence can be derived from empirical facts, but is not itself an empirical fact (in the sense that I’m speaking of—i.e., God cannot be measured and tested by instruments and experimentation, nor can He be directly observed with the senses [a few special prophetic instances notwithstanding]).
3) A re-edit of a text requires a new imprimatur (or perhaps it’s a nihil obstat—I admit I get the two confused sometimes), because the editing process can introduce error. Regardless, my point was that I would go to a source other than Bawden, if I wished to read historical papal proclamations.
4) Heliocentrism is verified to as great an extent as could practically be wished. We’ve sent people into outer space who have directly observed the Earth’s rotation and the orbits of the planets, and we’ve launched unmanned instrumentation that has given even clearer data. Either heliocentrism is verified or there is a vast conspiracy, consisting of hundreds of thousands of scientists, dedicated to pretending that it is (and you know how I feel about conspiracy theories).
5) Giordano Bruno was condemned primarily on the basis of Christological heresies and possible pantheism. The fact that he also rejected geocentrism has no clear connection to that.
6) My point regarding the Creed was not that only those truths contained in the Creed are doctrinal. But geocentrism simply has never been taught in the same way as those doctrines. It’s not even in the pre-Vatican II Catechisms, unless I’m greatly mistaken.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3h ago

"Popes of that era knew quite well how to anathematize heresies—so I feel confident that if heliocentrism had been intended to be so anathematized… well, Pope Urban VIII could have very easily just said, 'Anathema sit.'"

On your view, condemnation of errors of Berengarius of Tours was not yet infallible?

It is I think in Denzinger.

"God’s existence can be derived from empirical facts, but is not itself an empirical fact (in the sense that I’m speaking of—i.e., God cannot be measured and tested by instruments and experimentation, nor can He be directly observed with the senses [a few special prophetic instances notwithstanding])."

Heliocentrism is not an empiric fact. I do not believe it can be derived from them, and it certainly is not in itself.

Accept Geocentrism as an empiric fact, that is ONE from which you can derive the existence of God, it is basically Prima Via, with a physically different version in Abraham's argument according to Josephus Antiquities.

"A re-edit of a text requires a new imprimatur (or perhaps it’s a nihil obstat—I admit I get the two confused sometimes), because the editing process can introduce error."

Not if it simply reprints text as such.

Also, under new canon law, imprimatur is not strictly required, is it?

"Regardless, my point was that I would go to a source other than Bawden, if I wished to read historical papal proclamations."

Very mistrusting. If it weren't part of a psychiatric superstition, I would from popular usage consider that attitude "paranoid." Note, once again, popular sense, not DSMH sense.

"We’ve sent people into outer space who have directly observed the Earth’s rotation"

We directly observe the universe rotating around us. 7 billion pairs of eyes trump a few cameras and a few astronauts.

In other words, the argument is as good as "I flew around a tower in a chopper, and the tower was turning around its axis, I observed that". In Geocentrism, the men on the Moon (if any) were in a situation definitely comparable to the chopper.

Your explanation for why 7 billion pairs of eyes can be discounted works exactly other way round for why a few pairs of eyes can be so.

It would be God's providence which of the views is the more common one.

" and the orbits of the planets"

You have heard of Tycho Brahe? Galileo's first judge, Cardinal Bellarmine, had.

"Either heliocentrism is verified or there is a vast conspiracy, consisting of hundreds of thousands of scientists, dedicated to pretending that it is (and you know how I feel about conspiracy theories)."

Some conspiracies are easier than others, like a vast conspiracy to ignore Geocentric arguments, or to ignore Tycho Brahe, because arguing with Dichotomy between Ptolemy and Modern Science is easier.

So, that kind of vast conspiracy is as easy as Martin Luther launching one, which lasts to this day.

"The fact that he also rejected geocentrism has no clear connection to that."

It has if you study the philosophy of Prima Via.

"But geocentrism simply has never been taught in the same way as those doctrines. It’s not even in the pre-Vatican II Catechisms, unless I’m greatly mistaken."

Will have a look at the Trentine one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

I did look on Catechism of Trent, here is from First Article:

4 The words " heaven" and " earth" include all things which the heavens and the earth contain ; for, besides the heavens, which the Prophet called " the work of his fingers," 5 he also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty : and that they may be " for signs and for seasons, for days and for years," 8 he so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course, that nothing varies more their continual revolution, yet nothing more fixed than that variety.

By Celestial bodies, Earth is not meant.

Edit - here is more:

The earth, also, God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundation, and " made the mountains to ascend, and the plains to descend into the place which he had founded for them." That the waters should not inundate the earth, " he hath set a bound which they shall not pass over, neither shall they return to cover the earth." 6 He next not only clothed and adorned it with trees, and every variety of herb and flower, but filled it, as he had already filled the air and water, with innumerable sorts of living creatures.

Lastly, he formed man from the slime of the earth, immortal and impassable, not, however, by the strength of nature, but by the bounty of God. His soul he created to his own image and likeness ; gifted him with free will, and tempered all his motions and appetites, so as to subject them, at all times, to the dictate of reason. He then added the invaluable gift of original righteousness, and next gave him dominion over all other animals By referring to the sacred history of Genesis the pastor will make him self familiar with these things for the instruction of the faithful.

Saturday, February 3, 2018

Anthony Zarrella's Answer

I was challenged by Robson in a debate to ask him, so, here is the answer:

OK… well, I certainly lack sufficient time to try responding to the entire issue under debate. But with regards to the specific question you’re asking, you have the right of it. God made no statement which was materially false. Giving a command or instruction which one does not sincerely intend to be carried out cannot be a “materially false statement or representation” for the purposes of a fraud statute. Moreover, the portion of any valid fraud statute which your interlocutor did not faithfully quote (likely because he was simply pulling from a legal advice site, not from the statute itself) is that the false representation must be made with the intent to unlawfully deprive the other of “something of value”—in other words, God could only be held to have committed “fraud” against Abraham if His alleged “deception” caused Abraham to surrender something of value (or was intended to do so). In fact, the “thing of value” Abraham was being asked to surrender (Isaac’s life) was the very thing God never intended to take. Mere falsehood, without intent to profit, is not fraud.

More generally, materiality depends on context—a given fact or statement can be “material” to a particular matter while simultaneously being immaterial to a related matter (e.g., the matter of how many beers you’ve had is a material fact if you’re charged with drunk driving, but it’s immaterial if you’re charged with tax evasion). But that’s something I mention only for completeness—it’s not relevant here.

I’d also like to point out that Mr. Robson has very deftly led you down a chain of fallacious tangents.

The original question was whether you could be guilty of inducing someone to do evil even if you never sincerely intended that they do so.
As an initial example, Mr. Robson pointed out that, in my home State of Massachusetts, you can be convicted for selling fake drugs. This is true, but irrelevant for a key reason:
- The statute which he cites is a separate statute—that is, you can’t be found guilty of drug trafficking for selling fake drugs, there merely happens to be a separate statute under which you can be found guilty (distributing a counterfeit substance). So, it is simply not an example of a case in which you can be guilty of inducing a crime even if you planned it such that the crime would never be committed.
The federal statute is similarly irrelevant and also not even applicable—it punishes the sale of “misbranded pharmaceuticals”, meaning selling aspirin as ecstasy would be illegal, but selling sugar (a non-pharmaceutical substance) as cocaine would not be.
And then, he takes a further step away from the original point by bringing in fraud liability. Even if he could argue that God had committed fraud (obviously false, but arguendo…), it would not help his case about whether God is guilty of “tempting Abraham to sin” because that dispute hinged on the original question of whether a person can be held liable for inciting a crime without any intent that the crime be committed—the fact that such a scenario might lead to criminal liability for something other than incitement to the crime in question is… well, ironically, immaterial to the dispute.

Also, I do agree with your assessment that, as God is the Author and Sustainer of life, and as He is perfectly free to decree an end to any life He so chooses, it would not have been sin for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac at God’s express command, even if God hadn’t intervened at the last minute to stop him. Whatever the principal may lawfully do, He may lawfully instruct an agent to do, and that agent may lawfully obey.

Mr. Robson may call that “special pleading”, but I would argue that it follows naturally from any proper understanding of what it truly means for an entity to be God. Atheist arguments against God’s morality typically make the mistake of seeing “God” as merely a super-powered ruler, separate from and unconnected to His human subjects. But in fact, He is the Cause, Ground, and Guarantor of all existence, including each breath we take and each instant of life we are granted—and a humanist paradigm has literally no framework in which to account for such a scenario.

Monday, January 29, 2018

I posed a Question on Quora : If God had been a policeman and Abraham a criminal, would God have been guilty of "conspiracy to crime" or "provocation to crime" even if intending fully to stop Abraham from killing Isaac, under current US law?

My Q: If God had been a policeman and Abraham a criminal, would God have been guilty of "conspiracy to crime" or "provocation to crime" even if intending fully to stop Abraham from killing Isaac, under current US law?
https://www.quora.com/If-God-had-been-a-policeman-and-Abraham-a-criminal-would-God-have-been-guilty-of-conspiracy-to-crime-or-provocation-to-crime-even-if-intending-fully-to-stop-Abraham-from-killing-Isaac-under-current-US-law
Context link: Continuing with Dave Robson
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/01/continuing-with-dave-robson.html
A I
James Fame: former Consultant
Answered Jan 24: Absolutely not. The Constitution states, “No ex post facto laws shall be passed”. Since the alleged crime happened about 3600 years before the United States was born, I don’t think our laws would apply.

Besides, it is likely that the statute of limitations would also exempt God from prosecution.

Then there is the matter of jurisdiction. “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof”. I think he can charge you, but you can’t charge him.

Of course it is possible that it would be an interesting case. I hear the other side has most of the lawyers.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sat: “I hear the other side has most of the lawyers.”

Brilliant! Wonder how Anthony Zarrella sees that one!
A II
Roger Van Allen Shelton Jr.
Answered Wed: I don’t know how legal stuff works. But I’d assume the answer is yes. But only if a crime had been carried out. Usually if a conspiracy charge is served, a crime has been committed. It doesn’t always have to be the crime “planned”.

EXAMPLE:

A guy goes into a tough bar with the intent to hire someone to kill his wife. He finds a shady individual, offers him $1.000 to kill her, but says $500.00 now, and the other $500.00 when she’s dead. No crime has been committed. However, once he hands the first $500.00 is transferred from one person to another, a crime has been committed. A contract had been agreed upon and the wheels are set into motion for a murder. The dollar amount isn’t even important. He could give the would be assassin $1.00 and the crime has taken place.

People talk all the time about committing crimes. They even detail out how they’d do it if they were going to do it. But no crime has been committed until action has been taken in the direction of committing the crime.

A person can talk all day long about how they’re going to rob a bank, even detailing which bank and how they’re going to rob it. But until they enter that bank and notify the teller that a robbery is taken place, no crime has been committed. And also, if a bank robber tries to rob a bank, but changes his mind after telling the teller he/she is being robbed, even if he doesn’t take a single penny, he’s committed a crime.

As far as God and Abraham is concerned… Abraham believed fully and without doubt that God wanted him to murder his child. Because Abraham’s beliefs, God would have been charged with a crime, I’m just not sure what crime specifically.

There have been way too many cases where women got involved with men, but had children from previous relationships. The new man in the woman’s life indicated to her how much better their lives would be without that extra “baggage”. Some of these men have even suggested the woman make these children disappear or he would leave her and find another woman without children. So, those women murdered their children just to keep this man they desperately love. IDK if the boyfriend is charged with the murder of the children, but in my honest opinion he should be, as if he himself had killed them.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sat: “ But only if a crime had been carried out.”

So, since Abraham did NOT kill his son, God should not be charged?
A III
David Aldred: Catholic, family man, web guy.
Answered Jan 24: Logically, but meaninglessly, yes.

Since your question is predicated on premises of which one is false and one highly questionable, the conclusion is meaningless. That’s basic logic.

A similar question: if water was dry, woudl all dinosaurs be yellow? Again, the answer is ‘yes’, since a false premise can logically imply anything.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sat: Thank you!
A IV
Bruce R. Bain: former Retired Wire Rope Rigger at Union Supply Company
Answered Jan 24: The question indicates a lack of knowledge of theology.

Religious doctrines when studied, reveal that God is subject to no law.

Oddly, people frequently assume that their conceptions of laws or commandments can be used to judge God, which is of course, unfounded by any fact in theology.

Furthermore, such propositions engage in complications. In this inquiry for example, what is obvious to the rational person is that there is a presumption that “God exists”. The difficulty with that is that no argument for the existence of God accompanies the inquiry in the context of law.

Such a consideration is illustrative of fundamenatal errors, because when the violation of a law is considered, it must be also considered that “the accused” is factual or fictitious, and to accomplish this, there must be objectively identifiable premises.

In order to consider “God” in the context of “current US law” it must be shown that God exists as a citizen of the United States of America. That has not been accomplished. Because if God is not a citizen of the United States, God is not subject to US Law.

Were the actions of God considered in the case of an International Court, there would have to be an argument (or evidence) of the existence of God in order to prosecute the case.

Any such court would need to show that God’s existence, as well as identifiable commandments by God, are subject to International Law.

It is an enterprise rife with complications and difficulties in any prosecutorial domain.

A court presuming to question God as a matter of jurisdiction would be regarded as the Folly—of—-the—-Ages.

Of course, all of the issue beginning with the designation if shows that the entire affair is merely speculation rather than fact.

Speculation hardly constitutes an evidence.

Neither will U. S. Law as a system of jurisprudence ever show itself authoritative in jurisdiction over God.

(Of course, I am not an attorney, but from what I have read and studied, it would be unlikely that any court in the U.S. would regard Isaac as a U. S. Citizen whose right to life had been violated.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sat: Thank you!
A V
Therion Tiberius Ware: VOD engineer in broadcast TV. (2003-present)
Answered Sat: Q: If God had been a policeman and Abraham a criminal, would God have been guilty of "conspiracy to crime" or "provocation to crime" even if intending fully to stop Abraham from killing Isaac, under current US law?

Ha! Presumably God is a corrupt cop then, seeing he demands the sacrifice. The best interpretation of the Abraham/Issac story is that God wished to graphically illustrate to Abraham how far he would be willing to go in the service of his God.

Which is to say, all the way!

These days one imagines Abraham would be sectioned fairly quickly.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
7m ago: God may have had a reason to make the demand than rather than now.

As to then, God stopped him from actually killing.

Monday, December 18, 2017

On the Transhumanist and Psychiatric part of debate (continued from previous)

Continued from previous:

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1h ago

"The problem is that we don’t know nearly enough about human genetics to do this reliably."

Is this the only problem?

Suppose "we" could take out a fetus with a known genetic disease (hereditary on genes, or due to trisomy). Suppose we could remove the faulty gene or superfluous chromosome. Before we could do that we would probably be able to engineer what sex (as God did with Eve and with Christ, basically).

Would there not be a problem in the manner that the fetus being human had an immortal soul and God had created it for another genome and perhaps caryotype than "we" would be allowing it to keep.

While the genome might inherently be better as a genome, it may be less fitted for the soul God created.

"If we tweak the genes of a crop of corn and it turns out to produce corn that’s sickly and bitter-tasting, it’s just a failed experiment, but we as a society don’t tend to be too fond of the idea of people becoming “'failed experiments.'”

Are you sure? How many mental diagnoses are experiments in stamping as "folly" what is not so and hoping to allow the person to "grow" from the extra therapy which would remove that bit.

And society seems to be getting on very well with psychiatry, right?

"Also, some philosophies would hold that it’s immoral to “play God” in this way even if we could make it work reliably—but that’s a moot point for now."

Between you and him, well, your concern, you could perhaps gain some from being less shy of defending the faith. I suppose you are confirmed (at least in novus ordo, with whatever doubt some sedes may consider that involves) and the Holy Spirit seems to be in the sacrament of confirmation given so the at least layman can defend and spread the faith (near pun in Latin : diffundere et defendere fidem).

Anthony Zarrella

1h ago

“While the genome might inherently be better as a genome, it may be less fitted for the soul God created.”

You know better, Hans… the soul is not a separate entity that is “intended” for a particular body—the soul is the form of the body (in Aristotelian/Thomistic terms). Catholicism isn’t mind-body dualist.

If your argument held, it would inveigh against any sort of corrective surgery whatsoever.

Cleft palate? Better leave it alone, since God must have created a soul for a body with a cleft palate.

Lasik vision surgery? Better not—God must have intended that person to be near-sighted.

Malformation of the spine? Leave it alone—God’s plan must require a hunchback.

“Are you sure? How many mental diagnoses are experiments in stamping as "folly" what is not so and hoping to allow the person to "grow" from the extra therapy which would remove that bit.”

Again, Catholicism is not fatalistic. There is no dogma of the Church which forbids attempts to fix perceived problems out of a morbid fear that God might not want them fixed.

That’s purely your (apparent) philosophy—not that of the Church, neither modern nor ancient.

“Between you and him, well, your concern, you could perhaps gain some from being less shy of defending the faith.”

I merely don’t choose to make points of contention when they are unnecessary to the completeness of my answer.

I never hesitate to defend the dogmas of the faith when they are at issue—but when my point can be adequately made without causing any conflict between my faith and the beliefs of others, I do so.

Think of Paul’s “altar to the unknown god” sermon on Mars Hill—he deliberately attempted to work within their existing paradigm, because he hoped he would more readily reach them that way. Several of the Saints have done likewise.

There is nothing in Catholic doctrine or even small-t tradition which demands that we always seek out maximum friction between our beliefs and those of the rest of the world.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

35m ago

"You know better, Hans… the soul is not a separate entity that is “intended” for a particular body—the soul is the form of the body (in Aristotelian/Thomistic terms)."

Nevertheless, the human soul is separable, since a thing not inherent in the fact of there being a body, and the spiritual soul is created by God in the moment of conception.

This means, if you tinker with the genome after that, you are offering an immortal soul the genome it was not meant for. Supposing the tinkering involves survival of original human organism (otherwise one could be asking whether clones have no souls or whether a new conception has occurred after a murder).

"If your argument held, it would inveigh against any sort of corrective surgery whatsoever."

Not quite, since correcting one body part is clearly less intrusive than "correcting" the whole genome.

"Cleft palate? Better leave it alone, since God must have created a soul for a body with a cleft palate."

God may have created that soul for the moment the cleft palate was gone - or the surgery may fail, and the "uncleaving" of the palate may result in the patient choking.

"Lasik vision surgery? Better not—God must have intended that person to be near-sighted."

I am, somewhat.

I see a meaning to it.

"Again, Catholicism is not fatalistic. There is no dogma of the Church which forbids attempts to fix perceived problems out of a morbid fear that God might not want them fixed."

Yes, there is. Christ is God. And Christ said sth about "perceiving" problems which aren't there.

Like Pharisees saw a probable proof of demonic possession in the disciples not washing the hands before each meal - when it suited them.

Christ also said sth about forcing someone to submit to a correction not wanted, like [Matthew 23:15].

It is a dogma that Christ knows better than shrinks, therefore that, if shrinks are behaving like Pharisees, they are wrong.

Fatalistic is not the point. It is more obeying shrinks which in my experience shows fatalism.

"Think of Paul’s “altar to the unknown god” sermon on Mars Hill—he deliberately attempted to work within their existing paradigm, because he hoped he would more readily reach them that way."

He started a talk from the unknown god, he did not end it on that note.

"There is nothing in Catholic doctrine or even small-t tradition which demands that we always seek out maximum friction between our beliefs and those of the rest of the world."

I was presenting it as advice, therefore as a matter of prudence, not directly of doctrine.

You seem less shy of seeking friction with me ...

Anthony Zarrella

7m ago

“Nevertheless, the human soul is separable, since a thing not inherent in the fact of there being a body, and the spiritual soul is created by God in the moment of conception.”

You make three distinct claims here:

The human soul is separable
The soul is not inherent in the fact of the body
The soul is created by God in the moment of conception

The third I assent to unreservedly—it is the dogma of the Church.

The first is strictly true, but according to St. Thomas it is not natural for the soul to be separate from the body, and such separation is a violent thing. It is for this reason that even once saved and sanctified after death, we are not truly whole until the bodily resurrection on the last day.

The second is a matter of hot debate among theologians. It is generally considered true (though not a formal dogma) that no human body ever is produced or does exist in a living state without a soul. The debate is over whether this is simply a necessary fact (such that the soul is constitutively necessary to life and therefore “allowing life without a soul” is something self-contradictory and therefore not possible even for God) or whether it is simply that God is voluntarily precommitted to providing a soul for every life that in fact comes into being.

Regardless, though strictly separable, the human soul cannot be meaningfully discussed as distinct from and independent of the body of which it is the form.

“This means, if you tinker with the genome after that, you are offering an immortal soul the genome it was not meant for.

[. . .]

God may have created that soul for the moment the cleft palate was gone”

Yes, and by the same token, He may have created a given soul in anticipation of the genetic defect being fixed. Why is He fully capable of incorporating the fixing of the cleft into His plan, but somehow incapable of doing the same with, say, the elimination of an extraneous third copy of chromosome 21?

“I am, somewhat.

I see a meaning to it.”

As am I—and personally I have no problems being somewhat near-sighted.

But merely because one person feels that he is meant to live with a particular difference or challenge does not mean he is competent to adjudge that all people with that same challenge are divinely foreordained to bear that challenge for life.

“Like Pharisees saw a probable proof of demonic possession in the disciples not washing the hands before each meal”

Not that I recall—they saw it as proof of impiety, but not demonic possession.

[He seems to have been correct at least about Matthew 15]

“Christ also said sth about forcing someone to submit to a correction not wanted, like [Matthew 23:15].”

I see nothing at all about “unwanted correction” there. Christ is admonishing the Pharisees for being eager to gain converts only to lead those converts into the same errors as themselves—but there is nothing about “forcing” anyone to do anything, or correcting something that doesn’t need correcting.

Also, Jesus healed plenty of demoniacs who didn’t want to be healed. We may be able to infer that the person whose will was being suppressed by the possessing demon did want to be healed—but we could likewise infer that the mentally ill person would want to be healed if they were in their right mind.

“It is a dogma that Christ knows better than shrinks, therefore that, if shrinks are behaving like Pharisees, they are wrong.”

It is a dogma that Christ knows better than anyone—the Church, however, has no dogmas that are specifically hostile towards mental health professionals. Again, that’s you, not the Church.

If you don’t feel that you need a shrink for something people are pressing you to get help for, that’s your call. But you’ve no cause to extrapolate outwards and conclude that no one needs a shrink or that no shrinks are correct in their diagnoses and advice.

“I was presenting it as advice, therefore as a matter of prudence, not directly of doctrine.”

And I was telling you that I see it as imprudent.

“You seem less shy of seeking friction with me ...”

Yes, because I know that, with well-known exceptions, we have a common foundation of beliefs. We can argue about what Catholic dogma truly recommends, because we both (again, with known exceptions) agree on what Catholic dogma is and on whether it is correct and binding.

But you’ll notice that I do apply the same principle to you. On those areas in which we know we don’t agree, I steer clear of the issues unless they somehow become directly relevant to the matter at hand. I don’t go out of my way to find excuses to challenge your sede/Bawdenite beliefs if I can just as easily make my point by referencing pre-Vatican-II sources whose authority we both respect.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

"The first is strictly true, but according to St. Thomas it is not natural for the soul to be separate from the body, and such separation is a violent thing."

A good reason not to separate the soul from the body type God intended by its genome.

"The second is a matter of hot debate among theologians. It is generally considered true (though not a formal dogma) that no human body ever is produced or does exist in a living state without a soul."

Probable enough. If this is true, clones are not soulless.

If it is true, also, either a soul is given a body not the one God made it for, in genetic tinkering, or one body is killed and another procreated artificially when the genome is changed.

Either way, the genetic tinkering would be a very evil act.

"But merely because one person feels that he is meant to live with a particular difference or challenge does not mean he is competent to adjudge that all people with that same challenge are divinely foreordained to bear that challenge for life."

You have kind of nailed a key difference between corrective surgery and genetic tinkering.

The former is made after someone has felt uncomfortable about, for instance, being nearsighted.

God can certainly have his plan for anyone born with a chromosome less (21 or other) than he was procreated with. But one plan could be to tell us, it was wrong to do so.

If you truly want to have neither killing nor too many with Downs, the natural and totally unviolent way is to encourage girls to marry young, since risk is increasing with age of the mother.

_____________

"Christ is admonishing the Pharisees for being eager to gain converts only to lead those converts into the same errors as themselves—but there is nothing about “forcing” anyone to do anything, or correcting something that doesn’t need correcting."

Actually, while Communist inspired Russian Orthodox have done the first reading, "making a proselyte" is, in Judaism (which is heir to Pharisees) a much more complex process than just gaining a convert.

It involves, as with Sturgeon's [Spurgeon's?] disciples, a kind of moral transformation, and therefore "making a proselyte" involves some moral pressure.

Confer verse 4.

I am also checking the comment on the verse, here:

"Because whilst a Gentile he sinned without a perfect knowledge of the evil, and was not then a two-fold child of hell; but after his conversion, seeing the vices of his masters, and perceiving that they acted in direct opposition to the doctrines they taught, he returns to the vomit, and renders himself a prevaricator, by adoring the idols he formerly left, and sells his soul doubly to the devil. (St. Chrysostom)"

It is called "getting with the game".

"They that teach that it is sufficient to have faith only, do make such Christians as blindly follow them, as these Jews did their proselytes, children of hell far more than before. (St. Augustine, lib. de fide et oper. chap. xxvi.)"

Now, back to you:

"Also, Jesus healed plenty of demoniacs who didn’t want to be healed"

Demoniacs are quite another league than "mental illness", precisely as a man who gets scary by being clean is another thing than not washing one's hands before each meal.

"but we could likewise infer that the mentally ill person would want to be healed if they were in their right mind."

Except that these days so much latitude is given to judging when someone is not so.*

"the Church, however, has no dogmas that are specifically hostile towards mental health professionals."

A good reading of the Bible has, as they are today - and the Bible is dogma with the Church.

"If you don’t feel that you need a shrink for something people are pressing you to get help for, that’s your call. But you’ve no cause to extrapolate outwards and conclude that no one needs a shrink or that no shrinks are correct in their diagnoses and advice."

Again, a fundamentally flawed dichotomy. Shrinks are quite definitely over-used.

Also, why are you considering there is "something" people are "pressuring" me to get help for? If you consider there is something you would even advice me to get help for, it shows you have too great a latitude in the word "mental illness". Like Pharisees comparing eating without washing hands (when outside and no water is offered) to being the state in which someone being clean is a scary surprise.

"Yes, because I know that, with well-known exceptions, we have a common foundation of beliefs"

I am sometimes wondering whether it is broader with me or with people like the questioner.

Anthony Zarrella

1h ago

“A good reason not to separate the soul from the body type God intended by its genome.”

You’re either equivocating on the term “separate” (using it before to describe actual severance and now to describe a mere incongruity) or else pressing a metaphysics which has not been established (that is, that genomic alterations actually produce a new body rather than an alteration to an existing body).

“If it is true, also, either a soul is given a body not the one God made it for, in genetic tinkering, or one body is killed and another procreated artificially when the genome is changed.”

Or the body God always intended it for was the one with the corrected genome—just as you suggested that perhaps God sometimes prepares a soul with the intention that a cleft palate will one day be corrected.

“You have kind of nailed a key difference between corrective surgery and genetic tinkering.

The former is made after someone has felt uncomfortable about, for instance, being nearsighted.”

Not necessarily. I’ll keep coming back to the cleft palate example—corrective surgery is often performed on infants.

Would you argue that this is counter to the will of God, and that these infants must be allowed to suffer until they are old enough to discern for themselves whether they are meant to seek a remedy?

I’m certainly aware of no doctrine or even informal teaching to that effect…

“God can certainly have his plan for anyone born with a chromosome less (21 or other) than he was procreated with. But one plan could be to tell us, it was wrong to do so.”

Maybe. Or maybe not.

We could always speculate that God’s plan could be to teach us not to correct some perceived problem. But it seems folly to me to make a categorical assumption that a certain problem is not to be fixed merely because the means of fixing it involves new technology and alteration of things we once were unable to alter.

If I recall correctly, there were some groups of fundamentalists decades ago who thought the same about vaccines—that it was impious to vaccinate, because if God wanted someone to contract polio or smallpox, we’d be wrong to interfere.

There still are groups today, “Christian Scientists” among them, who believe in shunning all medical care in favor of prayer alone—believing that if God wills that they get better, then medicine isn’t necessary, and if He doesn’t, then medicine will be ineffective and also disobedient.

But neither of those has ever been the position of the Church.

“Actually, while Communist inspired Russian Orthodox have done the first reading, "making a proselyte" is, in Judaism (which is heir to Pharisees) a much more complex process than just gaining a convert.

It involves, as with Sturgeon's [Spurgeon's] disciples, a kind of moral transformation, and therefore "making a proselyte" involves some moral pressure.

Confer verse 4.”

Verse 4 likewise appears to be about hypocrisy not coercion, and I don’t see how “some moral pressure” would change anything.

You appear to be greatly stretching the text to urge your needed meaning against the most plain and obvious meaning.

“I am also checking the comment on the verse, here:

"Because whilst a Gentile he sinned without a perfect knowledge of the evil, and was not then a two-fold child of hell; but after his conversion, seeing the vices of his masters, and perceiving that they acted in direct opposition to the doctrines they taught, he returns to the vomit, and renders himself a prevaricator, by adoring the idols he formerly left, and sells his soul doubly to the devil. (St. Chrysostom)"”

Yes?

Again, I’m not seeing anything affirming that the key error is “correcting those who are unwilling”. I’m still seeing that the problem is leading converts astray by hypocrisy, or even prompting apostasy via moral revulsion.

The lesson is not to make converts when one’s own conduct is drastically off the mark—not that one oughtn’t seek to help those who don’t feel they need it.

“"They that teach that it is sufficient to have faith only, do make such Christians as blindly follow them, as these Jews did their proselytes, children of hell far more than before. (St. Augustine, lib. de fide et oper. chap. xxvi.)"”

Again, teaching that the converts were better off unconverted because their teachers were rotten, not because they were unduly pressured.

“Except that these days so much latitude is given to judging when someone is not so.”

Perhaps so—but abusus usum non tollit.

“A good reading of the Bible has, as they are today - and the Bible is dogma with the Church.”

The Bible is dogma, of course. The Bible as interpreted by Hans is not necessarily.

If a given interpretation of the Bible is neither affirmatively mandated nor even ratified or approved by the Magisterium, then it is not thereby conclusively invalid, but it is mere private interpretation and entitled only to the weight assigned to it by your own discernment.

Personally, I see nothing which specifically vilifies mental health professionals.

“Again, a fundamentally flawed dichotomy. Shrinks are quite definitely over-used.”

Perhaps so, perhaps not.

Regardless, I don’t see any issue on which you could claim the backing of the Faith for your own personal opinion of the matter.

“Also, why are you considering there is "something" people are "pressuring" me to get help for? If you consider there is something you would even advice me to get help for, it shows you have too great a latitude in the word "mental illness".”

I don’t assume there is anything you need help for. I inferred, from your hostility towards the profession, that you had had some negative history with either actual or urged mental health interventions, whether or not such interventions were in fact needed or justified.

No assumptions made from or about your mind or character—merely an inference of probable events from facts and opinions stated.

If you prefer, you may take my statement as employing the “impersonal ‘you’”—i.e., “If a person doesn’t feel that that person needs a shrink for something people are pressing that person to get help for, that’s that person’s call.”

“I am sometimes wondering whether it is broader with me or with people like the questioner.”

Reading between the lines, I suspect you and the questioner do agree more closely on evolution than I do with either one of you. S/he appears to be asking the question as a weak-form reductio against evolution.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

"You’re either equivocating on the term “separate” (using it before to describe actual severance and now to describe a mere incongruity)"

I am saying one of the things would happen, either actual severance in the case the tinkering constituted killing and creation of a new person, or incongruity with a pre-made severance from what would have been congruous, since God's intention.

"or else pressing a metaphysics which has not been established (that is, that genomic alterations actually produce a new body rather than an alteration to an existing body)."

I was, as said, open to both possibilities.

Either a new body, an embryo dies and another ensues, or a very radical - too radical - alteration.

"Or the body God always intended it for was the one with the corrected genome—just as you suggested that perhaps God sometimes prepares a soul with the intention that a cleft palate will one day be corrected."

If it had been it would not have been that genome.

You are dangerously close to advocating eugenics, if it could only be done safely.

Already the fact we don't know it involves no killing and after that new person (as second person of two homozygotic twins is a new person, but without survival of first) makes it unsafe - but even if it were safe, it would not be right, because it is a kind of eugenics.

"Not necessarily. I’ll keep coming back to the cleft palate example—corrective surgery is often performed on infants.

Would you argue that this is counter to the will of God, and that these infants must be allowed to suffer until they are old enough to discern for themselves whether they are meant to seek a remedy?"

I would argue that between birth and when they come so to speak of age, parents have authority.

"We could always speculate that God’s plan could be to teach us not to correct some perceived problem. But it seems folly to me to make a categorical assumption that a certain problem is not to be fixed merely because the means of fixing it involves new technology and alteration of things we once were unable to alter.

If I recall correctly, there were some groups of fundamentalists decades ago who thought the same about vaccines—that it was impious to vaccinate, because if God wanted someone to contract polio or smallpox, we’d be wrong to interfere."

And the best argument I can find against certain anti-vaxxers is, the cases of "autism" involved are false diagnoses.

I have heard a rumour of fetal cells involved in vaccines - if correct that would make vaccination a kind of cannibalism, there was an Orthodox woman who refused vaccination on that ground.

You know, the best general argument on this one is, I don't think God wants doctors to be too much in charge.

"But neither of those has ever been the position of the Church."

I'd like to know if antivaccination was condemned promptly or left to individual or per see judgement at first (after it was invented).

"Verse 4 likewise appears to be about hypocrisy not coercion, and I don’t see how “some moral pressure” would change anything."

Without coercion or pastoral, no one would be in a position to impose. Especially heavy burdens.

I may also have recalled a parallel text which for the moment I do not find.

"You appear to be greatly stretching the text to urge your needed meaning against the most plain and obvious meaning."

I am making the argument I have been making for years, and I could at worst have made an error of memory when first making it. I'll try to look it up.

"The lesson is not to make converts** when one’s own conduct is drastically off the mark—not that one oughtn’t seek to help those who don’t feel they need it."

When it comes to demonic possession, there is a point. But when it comes to "washing hands" - and I think such errors are being made by psychiatry today - there is no point.

I'll give you Ellicott on Matthew 15 (while he was probably a Protestant, what he says rings right):

(2) They wash not their hands when they eat bread.—St. Mark (Mark 7:3-4), writing for Gentiles, explains the nature of the tradition more fully. What the Pharisees insisted on was not cleanliness as such, but the avoidance of ceremonial pollution. They shrank not from dirt, but from defilement. If they had been in the market, they might have come in contact with the heathen or the publican. If they ate or drank out of a metal or earthenware cup, the last lip that touched it might have been that of a heathen, and therefore that too needed purification. The pride which led them to stand aloof from the rest of mankind showed itself in this, as in all their other traditions. Indifference to their rules in peasants and fishermen, as such—as belonging to the crowd whom they scorned as the brute “people of the earth”—they could afford to tolerate. What shocked them was to see the disciples of One who claimed to be a Prophet or a Rabbi indulging in that indifference. According to their traditions, the act of which they complained stood on the same level as sexual impurity, and exposed those who were guilty of it to the excommunication of the Sanhedrin, or great Council.

There are people whose excitement in conflict or momentarily uncomfortable position is really pushed "in malam partem" in the interpretation, because of a conflict of values with the person.

"Again, teaching that the converts were better off unconverted because their teachers were rotten, not because they were unduly pressured."

I agree this comment does not per se support me, I gave it for complete honesty.

"Perhaps so—but abusus usum non tollit."

What if 1 in 10 who is in a ward should be there?

What if judges and those locking up as shrinks impose therapies on the wronged party as if it were the wrong party of a conflict?

What I have seen, this is rampant. In other words, we are dealing with a situation in which "Catholics" in the diocese of Paris can take me as "megalomaniac" (as in mentally ill) for claiming to be a writer and preferring to get paid for it over taking another job and losing the time to write, and as "paranoid" for believing Creationism and Geocentrism. POssibly some of them are also so inhto conspiracy that they believe me to be a mind control ultra victim and are using similar tactics to crack me up, so they can start my "recovery" from sth which was not there in the first place.

In so far as they have some symptoms going their way, it may be the failed attempts on their side.

In US, it seems while a certain John Todd may certainly have been ripe for prison, unless the rape was a false charge, putting him in a mental ward would be a way to prevent hearing him to make disclosures about Illuminati.

For instance, I do not believe his claim that he was paying C. S. Lewis conspiracy money. It would have involved him doing so at about 14 or younger, since that is how old he was when CSL died, but I would want to know if he made it up or was lied to (for instance, someone getting somehow presented to him as C. S. Lewis). Of course that mix-up is compatible with him having a demonic possession and missing (having missed before he died) an exorcist for the presence of shrinks - demons being among other things shrewd liars.

But it would also have cleared certain things up if he had before a court been heard for calumny and if freed the charge had rebounded on the network he had been into and which had been fooling him. If that were the case. A bit like I suspect other people defecting from such things have been lied to about what things were, brought to believe the wishful thinking of their power hungry (and in reality a bit more power starved than they would admit) superior conspirators.

When his story was classed as part of a mental disease, we can neither hear him on what he could substantiate, nor on what he would have been either lied to or lying about.

So far - and on the official version, it is too late. Henry Makow has at least made some publicity for an alternative story.

There are minor conspiracies involving incompatibilities on work places and getting "awkward" colleagues out of the way in which conspiring with psychiatry is even more rampant, than in this fairly rare case.

"Personally, I see nothing which specifically vilifies mental health professionals."

I have seen too many behave like pharisees.

Or back up people of higher social standing who were.

"Regardless, I don’t see any issue on which you could claim the backing of the Faith for your own personal opinion of the matter."

Insofar as my judgement on the fact is correct, I have the backing of the faith for what is immoral about it, even if I might have misplaced the Biblical references some earlier on, and not been corrected about Matthew 15 to now, we'll see if I find another reference backing me better.

"I don’t assume there is anything you need help for."

Thank you!

"I inferred, from your hostility towards the profession, that you had had some negative history with either actual or urged mental health interventions, whether or not such interventions were in fact needed or justified."

Correct. But a negative history I had would not necessarily be someone urging me to get help with something.

I could be judging from what has been done to family, to at least one dear friend, and from something in my past.

In fact, there is no one in particular urging me to get help about:

feeling like a writer (when I write loads, on diverse subjects and with advanced response to other debaters)
being a Geocentric
being an Evolutionist
believing "Pope Francis" is not Pope
wanting to get support in the form of some readers getting interested enough in something to start getting involved in edition (I think evolution favouring big editors like Harmattan are unrealistic, personally)

But I have more hints raining at me in a week than I can count. Hints like dropping the contact, like suddenly having no time, like seeing an URL under which I specify what language I write in and pretending I had written sth in an unknown foreign language and so on.

I take that as hints, both that they would prefer me to "get help", and that they don't quite respect it is "my call", and also they do not quite dare to argue with me about it. Could it be some secularist prefers having me under (undercover or very discreet) psychiatric observation, as long as I don't give up? Could be.

C. P. Snow felt WW-II could have been avoided if Hitler had been forced under psychiatry in time. Some secularists feel that "fundies" by the fact of even believing Apocalypse, as literally upcoming, could provoke the road to Harmageddon and if not Biblical Apocalypse with Doomsday, at least the kind of thing Dave Consiglio would consider Apocalyptic (including not vaxxing early enough and not reverting climate change early enough).

You get the point?

"No assumptions made from or about your mind or character—merely an inference of probable events from facts and opinions stated."

This is interesting. Your inference presumes that a lot of people at present not in psychiatric coercion in closed wards, people you meet on the street, or over the web, can be hating psychiatry after first (or closely second hand) experience, while everyone else might be presumed to endorse it.

BOTH parts of this are highly interesting. Both how direct experience, in people capable of expressing such a thing, however much bias there is in that, can bring people to hate it, and how everyone NOT having such experience as a default position would endorse and heroise it.

A kind of interesting marketing strategy for a - interesting, not necessarily good - product might be involved.

Btw, I do know some people have good experiences of psychiatry, and I consider for instance that teens tutored by someone of their own faith and sufficiently sympathetic to their type or patients recovering from deep depression are generally fairly well treated. But I don't see these as the majority of people in a ward or people supposed to get therapy (sometimes on court orders, for juvenile delinquents or for suicide attempt survivors).

"I suspect you and the questioner do agree more closely on evolution than I do with either one of you."

True enough. But that is for the other subthread.***

* If I take a comment by Ellicott here ...:

(2) They wash not their hands when they eat bread.—St. Mark (Mark 7:3-4), writing for Gentiles, explains the nature of the tradition more fully. What the Pharisees insisted on was not cleanliness as such, but the avoidance of ceremonial pollution. They shrank not from dirt, but from defilement. If they had been in the market, they might have come in contact with the heathen or the publican. If they ate or drank out of a metal or earthenware cup, the last lip that touched it might have been that of a heathen, and therefore that too needed purification. The pride which led them to stand aloof from the rest of mankind showed itself in this, as in all their other traditions. Indifference to their rules in peasants and fishermen, as such—as belonging to the crowd whom they scorned as the brute “people of the earth”—they could afford to tolerate. What shocked them was to see the disciples of One who claimed to be a Prophet or a Rabbi indulging in that indifference. According to their traditions, the act of which they complained stood on the same level as sexual impurity, and exposed those who were guilty of it to the excommunication of the Sanhedrin, or great Council.

... the problem is, many items of modern "health care" are about "avoiding pollution" (like "fascism, xenophobia, pedophilia, believing in magic" and a few like there, and seeing someone (at least with more than popular instruction) who insists on what group such and such considers as a pollution as "not in his right mind". This was incorporated into the next comment.

** I suppose to under one's own pastoral. C. S. Lewis making converts and sending them to Anglican, Catholic or Presbyterian clergy while not always living an ideal life (a possibly or probably invalid marrige, using condoms in it) is hardly an argument against his apologetics. Also, when the Catholic Church called Henry VIII defensor fidei for "Defense of the Seven Sacraments against Luther", it was not saying he would be adequate as father confessor.

The problem with hypocrisy seems to involve mainly a problem with a pastoral of social pressure rather than going to the priest.

*** See previous.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Pages

Sunday, March 11, 2018

With Zarrella et al. on Geocentrism

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

... on Whether Geocentrism is Obliging? Debate with Anthony Zarrella

Saturday, February 3, 2018

Anthony Zarrella's Answer

Monday, January 29, 2018

I posed a Question on Quora : If God had been a policeman and Abraham a criminal, would God have been guilty of "conspiracy to crime" or "provocation to crime" even if intending fully to stop Abraham from killing Isaac, under current US law?

Monday, December 18, 2017

On the Transhumanist and Psychiatric part of debate (continued from previous)

About Me

Fighting Totalitarian Takeovers