No Salvation Outside the Church

Catholic Answers ^ | 12/05 | Fr. Ray Ryland

[kosta50]

I am sorry if I misunderstood. However, I strongly disagree with your assertion that my choice was (a) my self-appointed goal, and that (b) it was logical to assume my choice was not random.

You also said: “Try just enjoying life.” I would ask “why is enjoying life better than not?” You said: “ I get up in the morning and go about my business”. I would ask “why is going about your business better than not?”

Notice I never said it was "better." So, how can this lead to a "hierarchy of values?" Some things I do are driven by "feels good." Some are influenced opportunistically. Some things are done out of habit. Things that "feel good' tend to be repeated and tings that "feel bad" tend to be avoided.

This is the basis for any conditioned response from a flat worm to a human. That's how living things respond. I don't know why, but that's how living things respond. This can be demonstrated repeatedly and with high degree of confidence. There are no better or worse things. There are things that benefit you finanically, physically, health-wife,  etc. and there ar things that hurt you physcially, financially, mentally, etc. The former as seen as "better" and the latter as "worse". Whether they are or not is not always clear; nor does it really matter.

Before, I said that ultimately we think we know what has value or we accept someone else’s, or we go about it unaware.

I hate to sound so stark, but fundamentally it all comes down to feels good-feels bad. Just because something feels good doesn't mean it's "better." 

[kosta50]

You included learning in your reply before, as your intent or goal, I asked “why is learning better than not learning?” You objected at this point. To attempt to overcome your objection: Is learning better than not learning? (to you).

Learning is interesting. Some people watch sports day in and day out, the same game reloaded, because they find it interesting. Is it better to watch sports or not? Better in what sense?

The same thing with learning? Better or worse in what sense? If you are learning all about astronomy and your final is in English literature, than astronomy will not be better for your academic achievement but it may feel 'better' while it lasts because it tickles your fancy, and is entertaining.

That's why I don't label anything as better or worse, or speculate if it matches my 'purpose.'

[kosta50]

Your are inquisitive, knowledgeable and look for truth

Much obliged. But you must understand I am inquisitive because I am NOT knowledgeable. I am hoping others will enlighten ME because I pretty much know that I don't know anything.

When I tested my own 'knowledge' of what I though I knew, including God, I could not say how I knew them to be true or even what they are.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply. I'm going out of order. And, again, I'm hoping in part to better communicate terms.

The same thing with learning? Better or worse in what sense? If you are learning all about astronomy and your final is in English literature…

Here, we're describing learning as a conditional value. It's value is dependent upon another. If our goal is graduate (assume that graduate is better than not), then passing the Eng. Lit. final is better than failing (another conditional value) and since learning Astronomy tonight is opposing passing the Eng. Lit. final, then learning Astronomy - tonight - is not better than learning Astronomy.

Here's the hierarchy I'm referring to: learning Eng. Lit. > Passing Eng. Lit > Graduating. Each of the subsidiary values are dependent upon the value of graduating. IF graduating does NOT have value, then the others lose their value.

Conditional values get their name by requiring certain conditions in order to be true.

Again, terms.

So choosing,we we are making choices we are, hopefully, following the logic of: IF I want X, I need to do/choose Y.

Each conditional value can be state as a "because". Shorthand summary in this case could be: Learning is better than not learning because I want to graduate.

But then we reach: Why is graduating better than not? Before I mentioned being frozen if all we had was logic and conditional values. Each time we examine a conditional value we logically find the value we make this conditional upon. If we "because" it, we find the next, then the next. Forever.

IF all we have are conditional values and make our choices purely logically. We never run out of the need for the next "why/because".

This is also a limit of logic or reason. Each "proof" is a reason. And we can ask of each new reason, "why?"

Until we come upon something unconditioned - or assumed or axiomatic, "self-evident", etc.. Which we in certain cases call absolute (or objective.) This is a "just because" (no reason needed).

Whether these absolute values exists, are true, can be known etc., are what we were looking at earlier. I took this road of illustration in hopes of better communicating what I felt I was not communicating well.

Now, your statement: fundamentally it all comes down to feels good-feels bad

To keep with the terms, can we say "feels good" is an absolute value"? Or is it conditional? Is it like learning above? Would you do something that feels bad because it fulfills a higher goal?

It's gets complicated; what does "feels good" mean? I get a shot that "feels bad" but taking care of my health "feels good."

But, take an extreme example: giving one's life painfully for another. Doesn't feel good and eliminates all future feeling good.

You can say he did because to avoid a life of feels bad if he didn't; the ultimate avoidance of "feels bad". But at least we are a level above pure survival instinct and sense gratification.

What of conscience? Does not doing something that hurts your conscience, "feels bad" in this sense, tell us anything about humans? Does it tells us anything about non-conditional values? Is "feeling bad" the cause or the result?

Human values of honesty, charity, compassion… if they feel good, does this remove their value - objectively? If it feels good to someone to lie and steal and be cruel, are these then of equal value to their opposite? Is the truth of any value solely always subjective?

This may be your position. If so, I'd still appreciate your view of what conscience is.

I've gone on too long. Thanks.

[D-fendr]

I'm not being complete without including a definition of unconditional values. This is of inherent value. Value in themselves without need of condition.

The best way to phrase this is "all other conditions being equal, does it have value"?

In the case of learning before, we looked at various conditions that decide if it has value in this instance. In the case of unconditioned, we assume all these conditions are equal - no greater or lesser value either way. We remove these from affecting learning by assuming them to be equal, balance out, not affect the equation either way.

Then we ask: Does learning have value? Or: is kindness better than cruelty - all other conditions being equal.

If our answer is yes, we are saying it is an unconditioned, or absolute, or objective, value. Whether these exist, can be known, etc... this is helpful to more quickly identify and define what it is we're talking about.

[D-fendr]

I am inquisitive because I am NOT knowledgeable.

How's it go? "There are only fools who think they are wise and wise men who know they are fools."

Are you familiar with "The Cloud of Unknowing" Something you said earlier reminded me of it.

You said "We just exist. That's about all we know." The Cloud of Unknowing says something along the lines of that's all we need to know.

I can only hope so.

[kosta50]

Thank you for your posts. In will answer them out of order and piecemeal.

Regarding "unconditional value." Let me state that you can't even speak of value without a condition. Under certain conditions, learning can be of a value, but not under all.

Value makes sense only if it reflects a condition, and that makes it a relative, not absolute quality. Without someone to learn, learning becomes an oxymoron, ceases to exist. If the conditions for learning do not exist, neither does learning.

Then we ask: Does learning have value? Or: is kindness better than cruelty - all other conditions being equal

Even your question is relative. The concept of better or worse is a relative concept. I think they are meaningless questions, if they are to be answered in an absolute, conditionless sense.

If our answer is yes, we are saying it is an unconditioned, or absolute, or objective, value

I am sorry, why is an absolute value (if there were such a thing) "objective?" There is nothing objective about a value; rather I would say a value is always subjective. "One man's trash is another man's treasure" the old adage says.

Are you desperately looking for a rational way to justify or find God outside of traditional Church? The biggest believers, those who would literally die for their faith, could not tell you what God is or how do they know their belief is 'objectively' true.

In mathematics you can create a concept A and a concept B. They are meaningless and valueless and purposeless at this stage. Once you define them and give them a value (+/- or +/+, or -/-), they become operant concepts and their relationship can be established under certain conditions (i.e. f(x) = B^A).

Only then, depending on the purpose of the relationship under investigation (the set goal), can we speak of one being better or worse in a relatively 'meaningful' way. But by then we are way past anything absolute.

[kosta50]

Are you familiar with "The Cloud of Unknowing" Something you said earlier reminded me of it.

No, I am not. Most of my readings are in history, languages, and science. Philosophy and religion have historical and sociological value in my world. I read very little if any prose.

You said "We just exist. That's about all we know." The Cloud of Unknowing says something along the lines of that's all we need to know. I can only hope so.

Does that make sense to you? Why does it say that's all we "need" to know? How does the author know what we need? That's way too dogmatic.

[kosta50]

Here, we're describing learning as a conditional value. It's value is dependent upon another. If our goal is graduate (assume that graduate is better than not), then passing the Eng. Lit. final is better than failing...

I have no disagreement with your line of reasoning here except the implication that everything we do is done for a purpose or because it is perceived as "better."

Not only do we not know what will turn out to be "better" for us, but even on a short-term scale we may not even know why one would be better than the other. Some things have "equal" value, neither good nor bad, both desirable, etc. often leading to a dilemma.

The astronomy buff in my example may fail English lit and end up becoming a leading astronomer in which case failing English lit was much "better" than passing it. But his parents may have thought otherwise when he told them he flunked English lit.

Sometimes we set our goals not sure what we want. Many a college freshmen starts with one major and ends up going through half a dozen before the hormone-enraged bodies can settle on more long-term.

Some are not even sure they want to graduate, and others have no particular desire to stay in college because they could be making money in lucrative trades. Also, sometimes your major and your goal, even your marriage are decided for you, etc.

So, I hope you can see that placing values such as "better" or "worse" or doing things "just because" is not the real world we live in.

Each time we examine a conditional value we logically find the value we make this conditional upon. If we "because" it, we find the next, then the next. Forever

I disagree. We eventually reach a point of not knowing why. In such circumstances, some allow their fancy to fill in the lack of knowledge (i.e. religion, a priori assumption, blind faith) and proceed from there on to live in their world often ignoring the physical world around them.

Call it escapism, or whatever, it provides certain amount of comfort because that's one of the things they most often site (peace, no fear, being loved, etc.) directly or indirectly. They also find others who share their beliefs (more or less) and find more comfort in numbers. It becomes a "reality" even if it is illusionary. How far is that from psychosis?

To keep with the terms, can we say "feels good" is an absolute value"?

No. What feels good for me may not feel good for you.

But, take an extreme example: giving one's life painfully for another. Doesn't feel good and eliminates all future feeling good.

Doing what's 'right' is not the same thing as 'feels good.' We don't ask for sacrifice because it feels good but because we believe it's the right thing to do. Two different and unrelated concepts.

We tend to do what feels 'good' to us. That is by no means necessarily 'good' for our health, wealth or life goals. We usually do what we feel is 'right' when it comes to our wealth, health and life goals.

A woman (and this is just a random example and not a gender=specific truism) may really love being with one guy because he 'feels good' but ends up marrying someone who is not even close but who will provide the 'right' kind of environment and lifestyle for her children to grow up in.

What of conscience?

Conscience is a learned value. It's determined culturally and otherwise.

Human values of honesty, charity, compassion… if they feel good, does this remove their value - objectively?

I don't understand your question? Where is the 'objectivity' in these values?

If it feels good to someone to lie and steal and be cruel, are these then of equal value to their opposite?

If lying serves a purpose to get you off the hook, it may feel 'right'. If being compassinate will get you nothing but grief and ingratitutde, some people may have doubts about compassion being the 'right' approach. Is stealing 'wrong' under any circumstance?

Is the truth of any value solely always subjective?

Yes, they are man-made values. You will not find them among animals and the physical universe in general. Someone may argue they are "not of this world" (and that's a loaded concept!).

[Semper Mark]

“If the other guy in the dispute was given a warning, consider yourself warned as well.”

Don't blame them. It was my fault, I'm the one who made it personal.

[Semper Mark]

I asked: “Are you a believer?”

You replied: “I don't have to be. The world exists. Something caused it to be here. What that something is I don't know.

It only took you 21 words to say NO!

I said: “If you'll get alone with God and His Word and pray, He'll reveal Himself to you. He promises us as much.”

You said: “Is that a fact or something you a priori assume to be true?”

Don't trust me, or anyone else for that matter.

Try Him for yourself. He's true.

[kosta50]

It only took you 21 words to say NO!

I tried to give you a precise answer to an imprecise question so that you would know where I stand. I could have just said yes and mislead you, since obviously I do believe in some things.

Don't trust me, or anyone else for that matter. Try Him for yourself. He's true

How do you know that, Markos? Being dogmatic about it is not helping make your well-intentioned advice credible. It sounds like "you will do it and you will like it." Not very convincing.

Imagine if someone were trying to get you to come to Buddha using your technique? "Just be one with him, pray to him and you will find him." Come on, get real, would you follow that kind of "advice?"

Besides, where are you getting the idea that you can just up and come to God when you are ready? Most of your fellow believers ould aree that faith comes first and that it is God who comes to you, not vice versa. They would say it happnes on God's time, not yours.

[kosta50]

oud aree=would agree

[Semper Mark]

I didn’t realize that I had a technique. But the difference is, is that Buddha wouldn’t be there when you got there anyway.

Besides, what’s wrong with being dogmatic?
Would you rather that a witness be spineless and
be blown about by every wind of doctrine?

[Semper Mark]

“It sounds like “you will do it and you will like it.”
Not very convincing.”

No. What I mean by “try” is, to put Him to the test, the same way you've been trying me.

“Besides, where are you getting the idea that you can just up and come to God when you are ready.”

“They would say it happens on God's time, not yours.”

“For he saith: In an accepted time have I heard thee; and in the day of salvation have I helped thee:
Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.”
2 Corinthians 6:2 Douay-Rheims Bible

It seems as though God's time is NOW!

[kosta50]

But the difference is, is that Buddha wouldn’t be there when you got there anyway

How do you know that?

Besides, what’s wrong with being dogmatic?

It basically says "it's true because I say it is."

Would you rather that a witness be spineless and be blown about by every wind of doctrine?

No, all you need is compelling evidence. Don't believe me when I say don't touch the hot stove top? Okay. Go ahead and touch it then!

Now where is your compelling evidence? A book? I got dozens of books for you.

[kosta50]

What I mean by “try” is, to put Him to the test, the same way you've been trying me.

Try whom? God? Where does the Bible say you should test God?

2 Corinthians 6:2...

Is Paul God? Why do you believe a man?