https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017/09/christianity-and-supernatural-part-2.html?m=0
By Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) - September 10, 2017 Mathias Joseph Scheeben
The Supernatural was something very different than it is now. This is important because that original meaning, which Christian spiritually was predicated upon, is empirically provable and and can be shown to be real by simple scientific means. We have to understand the original concept, there are two thinkers who tried to restore the concept to it’s original form and we need to listen to what they tried to say. The first one was Matthias Joseph Scheeben (born, 1 March, 1835; died at Cologne, 21 July, 1888.) His major work was Nature and Grace. [17] Scheeben was a mystic who contemplated and studied divine grace and hypostatic union. He was also a greatly accomplished academic and was a fine scholar of scholastic theology. He studied at the Gregorian University at Rome and taught dogmatic theology at the Episcopal seminary.
at Cologne. Scheeben was the chief defender of the faith against rationalism in the nineteenth century. The generation after his death ( in Cologne in 1888) regarded him as one of the greatest minds of Catholic thought in his day. He left three major works: Nature and Grace (1861), The Mysteries of Christianity (1865), and the massive yet unfinished Handbook of Catholic Dogmatics. Among his major accomplishnents were defense of Vatican I's defense of infallibility, defense of religious freedom against Bismark's attempt to control the Catholic Church.
His books were repeatedly republished in Germany up into the 1960s and translated into other European languages, including English (the Dogmatics, alas, only in highly truncated form). Since the Second Vatican Council, though, he has mostly been neglected by theological teachers and students who have wrongly imagined the nineteenth-century Catholic tradition to be a period of anti-modern darkness….The Catholic world of a hundred or more years ago was quite right, I think, to see the Cologne seminary professor as perhaps the finest modern Catholic dogmatic theologian. His writings not only yield rare insight into the mysteries of Christian faith, they draw the attentive reader ever more deeply into the mysteries themselves. Scheeben is more important now than he has ever been. He can teach a theological generation that has sold its inestimable birthright how to restore and renew dogmatic theology.[18
The other thinker is Eugene R. Fairweather (2 November 1920-) an Anglican scholar and translator of Church fathers from Ottowa. MA in Philosophy form University of Toronto (1943) Ordained priest in 1944 and became tutor at Trinity college Toronto same year. He studied theology at Union theological seminary and earned his Th.D. in 1949. He had an honorary doctorate from McGill University. At the time he wrote his article “Christianity and the Supernatural” he was editor of the Canadian Journal of Theology and professor of dogmatic theology and ethics at Trinity College, Toronto.[19]Fairweather quotes Scheeben and bases part of his view upon Scheeben’s.
Fairweather’s view of the supernatural is contrary to the notion of two opposing realms, or a dualism. He uses the phrase “two-sidedness,” there is a “two-sidedness” about reality but it’s not a real dualism. The Supernatural is that which is above the natural in a certain sense but it is also working in the natural. There are supernatural effects in the natural realm that make up part of human life. Essentially we can say that “the supernatural” (supernature) is an ontology. Fiarweather doesn’t use that term but that’s essentially what he’s describing. Ontology is a philosophical description of reality. Supernature describes reality in that it is the ground and end of the natural. What that means is unpacked by Fairweather : an ordered relation of means to immediate ends with respect to their final ends. “The Essential structure of the Christian faith has a real two-sidedness about it, which may at first lead the unwary into a dualism and then encourage the attempt to resolve the dualism by an exclusive emphasis upon one or the other [side] of the severed element of complete Christianity.”[20] He explains the ordered relation several times through paring off opposites or supposed opposites: human/divine; immanent/transcendent; realm of Grace/realm of nature. All of these he refers to as “ordered relations.”[21] If this was Derrida we would call them binary oppositions. In calling them “ordered” he is surely saying one is ‘above’ the other in some sense. They are not necessarily oppositions because that’s his whole point, not a true dualism.
Supernature is working in nature. It’s not breaking in unwelcome but is drawing the workings of nature to a higher level. Fairweather describes it as the “ground and end of nature.” In other words it is the basis upon which nature comes to be and the goal toward which nature moves. Now it’s true that science removes the teleological from nature it doesn’t see it as moving toward a goal but that’s because it can’t consider anything beyond its own domain. Science is supposed to be empirical consideration of the natural realm and is practitioners often profess disdain for the metaphysical while inso doing keep a running commentary on metaphysics. Of course modern science become a form of metaphysics by infusing itself with philosophical assumptions and then declaring there is nothing beyond the natural/material realm. That is to say, when it is dominated by secularist ideology that is the direction in which science is cast. Be that as it may, theologically we can take a broader view and we see a goal oriented aspect to the natural. Supernatural effects draw the natural toward supernature. That is to say human nature responds to the calling of God in elevating humans to a higher level of consciousness. There is another example of the ground and end of nature. Fairweather doesn’t give this example, but I think it applies. This is Martin Luther King’s statement about the “arch of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.” Nothing in nature bends toward justice, if by “nature” we mean rocks and trees but there is more to the natural realm than just those aspects that science studies. Humans are part of the realm of the natural and it is part of our social world that we understand concepts of justice. Due to our own purposive nature we bend the arch of the moral universe toward justice.
Long before Dionysius spoke of huper hamousios “From an early period the concept of 'that which is above nature’ had been seized upon by Christian Theologians as an appropriate means of stating the core of the gospel...” [22] Origen...[185-254] tells how God raises man above human nature…and makes him change into a better and divine nature.”[23] John Chrysostom (347-407) speaks of humans having received grace “health beauty honor and dignities far exceeding our nature.”[24] That view has persisted even in modern times. “In the West the most concise expression of the idea is to be found in the Leonine prayer ‘grant us to be partakers of his divinity who deigned to become partakers of our humanity.’”[25] “In these and a multitude of patristic texts the essential point is just this, that God, who is essentially supernatural perfects with a perfection beyond creaturely comprehension. Nevertheless, supernature elevates human creatures to a true participation in divine life an indwelling of God in man and man in God.”[26] The important point here is that human nature is being raised to the higher level of divine. We can see this manifests itself through the experience commonly known as “mystical.” That I will take up shortly, First, let’s turn to Scheeben to document further the nature of the supernatural. Supernatural is the power of God to raise us to this higher level.
The Trace of God, by Joseph Hinman, on Amazon. The 200 studies in this book prove that Mystical experience is real, this article just proved that the original concept of SN is mystical experiemce. Therefore, SN is real.
Sources
[17] Matthias Joseph Scheeben, Nature and Grace, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009 (paperback) originally unpublished 1856.
[18] Bruce D. Marshall. “Renewing Dogmatic theology: Mathias Joseph Scheeben Teaches Us the Virtues Theologians Need.” First Things. May 2012. On line version:http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/04/renewing-dogmatic-theology accessed 11/8/2013 Bruce D. Marshall is professor of Christian doctrine at Perkins School of Theology.(c) 2012 Institute of Religion and Public Life
[19] Editor’s introduction to Eugene R. Fairweather, “Christianity and the Supernatural,” op.cit.
[20] Ibid, Fairweather,.237.
[21]Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23 ]Fairweather, ibid (239).
[24] ibid
[25] Fairweather quoting Leonine prayer, ibid.
[26] Ibid
Here Fairweather seems to contradict Saler who says there is no term in the writings of the so called “church fathers” that could be translated as “supernatural” until Cyril and Dionysius, here Fairweather says the Patristic texts God is suernatural. He is back reading the term based up the concept. The term isn't really used by his pre Crylian examples.
Sunday, April 28, 2024
what is the supernatural?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
"Mystical experience is real, this article just proved that the original concept of SN is mystical experiemce. Therefore, SN is real."
There's some serious equivocation going on here.
Mystical experience is a phenomenon that is recognized by psychologists. Yes, these experiences do happen, and they are fairly common. Yes, they are real. And yes, they are often associated with feelings of a divine presence, but not always. The divine presence is nothing more than a feeling that people have. The existence of the divine is not substantiated in any way, shape, or form by genuine empirical evidence. It's just a feeling that people have. The feeling is real. The experience of that feeling is real. The divine is not.
you are just gain saying the evidence. I offer good evidence of the truth f N and you want evidence to prove the evidence. Your assertions are not logical they are ideological.
"The divine presence is nothing more than a feeling that people have."
You have no proof of that. It's a pretty reason to think it is real because the effects are real. They are consistent. They fit the standards why which judge truth in experience.
"The existence of the divine is not substantiated in any way, shape, or form by genuine empirical evidence."
You repeat yourself so I repeat myself, experience of God's presence relts in concrete changes for the better for those who experience it. Thus that is reason to believe it's real substantiates the Devine.
It's not just a feelmg simceit results in concrete change.
You said YOU proved it. Then show the evidence. The fact is that so-called mystical experience IS a feeling that you have, and the psychology community agrees with that. Ask them. Read scientific material on the topic. There's plenty of it. And I'm not talking about the religionist Hood and his M scale. I'm talking about real science.
you have no idea about divine presence, when you say stuff like " Divine presence is ..." that's ideology talking. It's not science it's not fact it's ideology.
The fact which is well proved people who have the experience score here on self-actualization testes then those who don't have the experience. It doesn't if it's feelings they are concrete measurable effects.
"The fact which is well proved people who have the experience score here on self-actualization testes then those who don't have the experience. It doesn't if it's feelings they are concrete measurable effects."
Do you think that proves the divine? Psychologists have noted a correlation between peak experiences (whether or not they involve "the divine") and psychological well-being. That tells us there is some kind of beneficial psychological effect. It does not indicate that "the divine" is what causes those effects.
What if someone has a mystical experience involving fairies? Would that prove that fairies are the cause of any beneficial effects that follow that experience? No, it would not. Yet this is your argument. It's laughable. No serious scientist would buy an argument like that.
yes that indication of the divine, First, there are psychologists who believe that, Hood does. not all psychologists are atheists. Hood is not a Christian but he believes God is real.
Secondly, your statement "do you believe this proves.." No I don't believe in proof. Only mathematics and whisky have proof. That is why I introduced rational warrant. it doesn't prove god but it warramts belief.
Three, you have to take a lot of things together. There are different versions of the argument they prove different things. The episteme judgment argument says that the experiences fit the criteria by which we decide the truth of experiences. Thus we can trust religious expectance as a representative of reality.
A more direct argument says the positive results with no negatives is above what should be expected from naturalistic phenomena, That in itself is warrant.
But do I say people who have this experience are more self-actualized therefore God must exist? no i never said that.
"First, there are psychologists who believe that, Hood does."
- I'm sorry, Joe, but it is not a scientific hypothesis. While religious scientists may believe in God, the majority of the scientific community does not, because the evidence simply does not support it. And even Hood does not jump to the conclusions that you do. I already pointed out to you that out of all those scientific papers you rely on in your own analysis, not a single one of them says that there is divine involvement in mystical experience. What they actually do (in some cases) is to show correlations that may point you in that direction if you are inclined to believe that stuff. But they don't demonstrate any kind of causal mechanism that would merit a scientific conclusion that there really is a divine presence.
"No I don't believe in proof. Only mathematics and whisky have proof. That is why I introduced rational warrant."
- Do I have to remind you of your own words again? "Therefore, SN is real." You are not expressing merely a reason for belief. Those words are in the form of a logical conclusion, otherwise known as logical proof. The validity of the argument is what's in dispute.
"The episteme judgment argument says that the experiences fit the criteria by which we decide the truth of experiences."
- The criteria by which YOU decide the truth. I'd like to see where these criteria come from. But you didn't mention the most important criterion you go by: Does it fit what I believe? It is painfully obvious that you limit your analysis to a small subset of the information that is available, and you completely ignore the work of the greater scientific community that doesn't lead you down the path of religious belief.
"A more direct argument says the positive results with no negatives is above what should be expected from naturalistic phenomena, That in itself is warrant."
- Are you suggesting that the correlation is 100%? That people who have mystical experiences never have anything bad happen in their lives? What makes you think that? The papers you cite don't say that.
"But do I say people who have this experience are more self-actualized therefore God must exist? no i never said that."
- You said: "Therefore, SN is real." Sounds pretty definitive to me.
"First, there are psychologists who believe that, Hood does."
- I'm sorry, Joe, but it is not a scientific hypothesis.
so what? we are talking bot belief
While religious scientists may believe in God, the majority of the scientific community does not, because the evidence simply does not support it.
they don't know the evidence, what you think is science is ideology.
And even Hood does not jump to the conclusions that you do. I already pointed out to you that out of all those scientific papers you rely on in your own analysis, not a single one of them says that there is divine involvement in mystical experience.
that is not true, but you ignore my answer, I;ve said this before. It doen't matter what they conclude I am drawing conclusions from their data.
What they actually do (in some cases) is to show correlations that may point you in that direction if you are inclined to believe that stuff. But they don't demonstrate any kind of causal mechanism that would merit a scientific conclusion that there really is a divine presence.
sort of like warranting a belief du!
"No I don't believe in proof. Only mathematics and whisky have proof. That is why I introduced rational warrant."
- Do I have to remind you of your own words again? "Therefore, SN is real." You are not expressing merely a reason for belief. Those words are in the form of a logical conclusion, otherwise known as logical proof. The validity of the argument is what's in dispute.
I am expressing my opinion it's based upon everything I know and have experienced,
"The episteme judgment argument says that the experiences fit the criteria by which we decide the truth of experiences."
- The criteria by which YOU decide the truth.
Not all truth, the trust of experience.
I'd like to see where these criteria come from. But you didn't mention the most important criterion you go by: Does it fit what I believe? It is painfully obvious that you limit your analysis to a small subset of the information that is available, and you completely ignore the work of the greater scientific community that doesn't lead you down the path of religious belief.
no that's just your ploy for ignoring the facts. Like now. You did not deal with criteria of epistemic judgement you just changed the subject.
"A more direct argument says the positive results with no negatives is above what should be expected from naturalistic phenomena, That in itself is warrant."
- Are you suggesting that the correlation is 100%?
no reason why tht should be an issue but takes us away from the point which your ploy
That people who have mystical experiences never have anything bad happen in their lives? What makes you think that? The papers you cite don't say that.
now you are making up what I said so you can attack something you can beat.
"But do I say people who have this experience are more self-actualized therefore God must exist? no i never said that."
- You said: "Therefore, SN is real." Sounds pretty definitive to me.
You took out all the other stuff to make it sound like that.
"so what? we are talking bot belief"
- I'm hearing a mixed message.
"they don't know the evidence, what you think is science is ideology."
- So your claim is that science is based on ideology, but religion is based on evidence.
"It doen't matter what they conclude I am drawing conclusions from their data."
- But haven't you ever asked yourself why they don't make those conclusions?
"sort of like warranting a belief du!"
- Not exactly. Science is a rigorous process, based on both objective evidence and logic. It's conclusions are subjected to examination and testing. And they are always open to falsification.
"I am expressing my opinion it's based upon everything I know and have experienced"
- It's fine to do that. But you try to make it sound like science.
"no that's just your ploy for ignoring the facts. Like now. You did not deal with criteria of epistemic judgement you just changed the subject."
- I didn't change the subject. I asked you where your criteria come from.
"no reason why tht should be an issue but takes us away from the point which your ploy"
- You said "no negatives", which implies a perfect correlation. And you went on to say that this couldn't happen under the assumption of naturalism. It must be divinely caused. That's the point you made. I merely pointed out that it's not true. The data does not show anything like a perfect correlation.
"now you are making up what I said so you can attack something you can beat."
- I asked you if that's really what you are saying, because that's what it sounds like,
"You took out all the other stuff to make it sound like that."
- Of course I did. I focused on the culmination of what you said. You are presenting it as a logical proof.
This is a rather weak attempt to find above contradiction https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2024/01/six-degrees-of-separation-between.html
so what? we are talking bot belief"
- I'm hearing a mixed message.
"they don't know the evidence, what you think is science is ideology."
- So your claim is that science is based on ideology, but religion is based on evidence.
I id what you think i science is ideology. your use of science in the theological realm
"It doen't matter what they conclude I am drawing conclusions from their data."
- But haven't you ever asked yourself why they don't make those conclusions?
I know why because they are nt doing apologetics. J have spoken wth the researchers many believe in God. but thy are not doing apologetics. that is significant to me that can't imagine thinking for yourself but you only regurgitate what others say
"sort of like warranting a belief du!"
- Not exactly. Science is a rigorous process, based on both objective evidence and logic. It's conclusions are subjected to examination and testing. And they are always open to falsification.
science cannot make commentary on belief in God. Science can't make metaphysical assumptions
"I id what you think i science is ideology. your use of science in the theological realm"
- Science is a methodology. It is a way of discovering how things work. It can be used with or without any underlying ideology. People who try to use it to advance their ideology are typically engaging in pseudo-science.
I know why because they are nt doing apologetics.
- It's because the evidence doesn't justify it. That would never pass peer review.
"science cannot make commentary on belief in God."
- So why do you try to employ science to substantiate your "warrant for belief"?
"Science can't make metaphysical assumptions"
- Science can and does make metaphysical assumptions. But not religious ones.
The fact which is well proved people who have the experience score higher on self-actualization tests then those who don't have the experience. It doesn't if it's feelings they are concrete measurable effects.
The results of these experiences tell us nothing about the origin of these experiences.
Saying that positive results point to benevolent agency as a cause, is an assumption based upon your beliefs.
You say "what you think is science is ideology". The claims you make for the evidence pointing to God are just as much ideological.
Post a Comment