3+1 "is" 4 but 3+1 "is not" 2+2 — Fooloso4

The comment seems irrelevant to this thread.

So, which of all of the above meanings of "is" are you against? — Alkis Piskas

I disapprove of statements that use "is" to purportedly make a statement about objective reality that hides the fact that the statement better qualifies as someone's experience of objective reality.

Not to any competent language user. — SophistiCat

There is some truth to your statement. (Notice how "is" makes that sentence about objective reality. I should have said "I partially agree with your statement.) So, if I say "This ice cream tastes good" most people know I mean "This ice cream tastes good to me." But someone might mistake "The floor is hard" as a statement about objective reality. See my next comment.

“If I say "the floor is hard, . . ." — Joshs

"The floor is hard" is a statement about objective reality. Compared to a diamond, the floor is soft. Compared to neutron stars the floor isn't much more than a wisp of smoke.

Getting rid of it altogether is surely an overreaction. — Banno

Agree. But being aware of how "is" tends to remove the speaker from the statement so the statement appears to be objective reality seems reasonable.

Perhaps some preacher somewhere said that, but I doubt it is the position of any conservative church. For them, I think homosexuality is a sin, not a mental disease. — T Clark

You may be correct but I used what the preacher said merely as one example of the fundamentalists' dormant mind. Many other examples could be given.

I'd say both solipsism and idealism derive from a common observation: that I directly experience only my physical sense data, my emotions, and my thoughts. So, I experience shades of green and brown; the green patches feel smooth; the brown patches feel rough. The idea of a tree arises in my mind. I do not directly experience the tree.

Solipsism: that's all that exists. There is no tree. The tree is just an idea in my mind. Nothing exists outside of me. Matter is no more than a thought in my mind.

Idealism: something exists outside of me which causes my sense data. What is that something? Materialists say its matter. Berkeley says it is God causing my sense data but other idealist answers are possible.

A = A is simply the most basic form of saying that ~A = A is false. It is the axiom that tells us that contradictions are always false. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Then why the roundabout way of stating ~A = A is false? Is it hat we don't want to introduce the "not equal" connective?

For example, there are no triangles outside actual triangular objects in trope theory. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And mathematically there are no actual triangular objects in the physical world, merely approximations.

Saying they are two different balls because they are in two different locations is not that helpful either. Relative location is a derived trait, one that changes with context. If such derived traits are part of identity then you would be a different person when you're north of your house than you are when you're south of it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Good point

The next thing is that the law of identity allows that a thing might be continuously changing, yet maintain its status as the same thing. This is very difficult to conceive of . . — Metaphysician Undercover

unless change is part of the thing's identity, as a whirlpool for instance, or the human body's continuous process of food intake and subsequent evacuation.

He wants to move past propositions such as, "the apple is red," that take the apple and its redness as existing outside of the perceiving mind. Identity has to be different because identity changes and grows more complete over time as our knowledge grows (as the dialectical progresses). And he doesn't want to look just at the apple as being a part of an individual subject's mind, since he is not a solipsist or subjective idealist, but how it is for all minds. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You might find E-Prime relevant to the above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime#:~:text=E%2DPrime%20(short%20for%20English,conjugations%2C%20contractions%20and%20archaic%20forms

That's phenomenalism as I understand it. — Tate

I think it also qualifies as representative realism because I'm leaving the existence of external, independently-existing object an open question.

Why do you have confidence the standard model if you learned about it through your senses? — Tate

Because for millennia human beings have worked to understand what they experience through their senses and the standard model is one result.

There are a lot more senses, which are recognized today as such, beyond the classic 5 ones: balance, weight, motion/movement/kinaesthesia, velocity/speed, spatial/orientation, body position, pressure, vibration, temperature, pain, and more ... — Alkis Piskas

I'd classify them as variations of the sense of touch.

Well, a tree is not an abstract idea so that we have an idea of it. It is an object, something concrete. So I would say that, independently of its name, i.e. the word "three", it exists in our mind as an image connected to various data (knowledge) we have about it. — Alkis Piskas

I'd say we have more than the image. We have the idea of a tree which tells us more than an image: tree begin as seeds, they grow slowly, etc. Whenever we learn something new about trees, we revise our idea of them.

Ok, but this does prove there is anything we don't have access to — Richard B

We have indirect access to physical objects.

Ok, your eyes don't see sense data of trees, they see trees. — Richard B

My eyes only see light. If free-standing 3D holograms existed indistinguishable from real trees, my eyes would see exactly the same thing.

Please explain what direct access means. — Richard B

In means no intermediary. I take it I have direct access to what my eyes see, my mind thinks, etc.

We do, in fact, not experience reality past our senses — Christoffer

Yes.

We don't have to accept the illogical conclusion of reality only existing because of our perception of reality in order to accept the importance of differentiating perception versus actual reality. — Christoffer

And yes, again.

Is it reasonable to then conclude, “see, this proves that we can never know the actual/the real color of the table, the thing-in-itself.” — Richard B

It's reasonable to believe the table has no color independent of us.
A color-blind person does not see the table's color as we do.
An alien who sees in the infrared or ultraviolet or x-ray bands of the electromagnetic spectrum would see the table quite differently. Look at an infrared image of the table. Does the image show the table's "true" color? No, because the table has no true color independent of the perceiving being.

The question arises: how did we determine that our knowledge stops with experience? — Tate

Can I take this question in terms of Kant's thing-in-itself? Kant said we cannot know the thing-in-itself, only phenomena. I'm making a more modest claim: that what we know of the physical world is based on sensory input and ideas our mind creates in response. I don't deny the existence of the exterior physical world, only that we don't have direct access to it.

Hume was a phenomenalist. Why would exploring his ideas go in a different thread? — Tate

OK, what ideas do you have in mind?

I don't think that's what Hume was thinking. Would you want to explore his ideas more? By going through the logic of bundle theory? — Tate

I'd be interested but I think it should be in another thread.

I do not directly experience electrons/protons; but with my senses and some scientific theory, I can infer their existence indirectly. Similarly, I do not directly experience sense data — Richard B

I think this captures part of our disagreement. We have five physical senses and I'd say we experience the sense data from these sense directly. Question: do you believe we experience anything directly and, if so, what?

If you, and everyone else, experiences sense data directly, why do you explain what you mean by examples of illusions and other representations of reality? — Richard B

One reason I like posting here is to get feedback on my ideas. Perhaps I didn't write the OP as clearly as I could have. With hindsight, it may have been better if I had expressed my thoughts as follows.

We may think of a human being as having four parts: body, emotion, mind, and consciousness. Our body has five physical senses: touch, taste, seeing, hearing, and smelling. Our consciousness directly experiences three types of input: physical, emotional, and mental.

Our mind automatically processes visual sense data to create a visual picture of reality. Sometimes the picture is accurate in that it corresponds to reality. Sometimes the picture is inaccurate as in the case of an illusion, a mirage.

In the checker illusion, our eyes experience visual sense data directly (our eyes experience the same shade of grey from square A and B). Our mind automatically processes physical sense data to create a picture of reality. Our mind creates the idea of a check board with square A and B differing in color.

So, I'd describe experience of the physical world as consciousness aware of pictures created in our mind based on sense data.

You may recall that our eyes see everything upside down but flip the image so we see rightside up.
Here's a quote from https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/91177/how-our-eyes-see-everything-upside-down
So why doesn’t the world look upside down to us? The answer lies in the power of the brain to adapt the sensory information it receives and make it fit with what it already knows. Essentially, your brain takes the raw, inverted data and turns it into a coherent, right-side-up image.

It says that an object basically is its properties. There's no extra "object" out there that has redness, or softness, or whatever.
"Light" and "mind" wouldn't be exceptions to that. See what I mean? — Tate

Light and ideas are exceptional, in that we experience them directly.
We experience objects "out there" indirectly via our physical senses and our mind.

Lets say we both are standing in front of a tree. I look at you and see you directly looking at and experiencing a tree. I don’t see you directly experiencing sense data. Is this not being objective? Whatever is occurring “inside” is not in my purview. Whatever is occurring “outside” is shared by both of us and thus we gain an understanding of what we are talking about. — Richard B

The point is I can directly experience only five physical senses.Based on what my senses tell me, I think of a tree.

Similarly, imagine a mirage. My eyes see light; my mind misinterprets what I see as water. Or imagine in a few decades, free-standing 3D holograms have been perfected so that the hologram appears exactly as a tree. Only when I pass my hand through the hologram do I realize it's not a genuine tree. My mind saw a tree until passing my hand through it showed the error.

I mentioned earlier all we can see on a computer monitor is light.
Check out the Adelson Checker-Shadow Illusion.
https://www.illusionsindex.org/ir/checkershadow
The squares A and B are exactly the same color. (I had to print the image and cut out the two squares to convince myself.) Our eyes see exactly the same color of squares A and B. But our mind creates the image where the squares appear different.

The point is we see only light; our mind does the rest.

From John Searle’s “Seeing Things as They Are” — Richard B

Searle disagrees. Can you tell me why in your own words?

but directly perceive only our subjective experiences. — Richard B

The OP doesn't mention "subjective experiences".

The OP points out we only have 5 ways of accessing the physical world: touch, taste, hearing, seeing, and smell. Can anyone describe another way to experience a physical tree?

We experience the tree via our senses, but it would be silly to conclude that therefore we do not experience the tree. — Banno

The issue is direct vs indirect experience. Physically, we can directly experience only the five senses. We directly experience the idea of a tree and indirectly experience the tree as a physical object. (An analogous situation is seeing a tree on a computer monitor. All we can see on a computer monitor is light.)

Think "brain in a vat". Or the movie, The Matrix. Both make a similar point.

How are maths and logic accomodated by this theory? — Wayfarer

I had the physical world in mind when I wrote the original post.We receive physical sense data via our five senses, then our mind accesses an appropriate idea which makes sense of the data.

As to maths and logic, our mind can access mathematical and logical ideas, too.

Remind me what the conclusion is again, if you don't mind. — praxis

A: I was getting to my point. “ . . . the Jews invented Yahweh; the later Roman Empire invented Jesus?” That seems like an obvious corollary to what you’ve been saying. — Art48

When it comes to God, God is plausibly required for there to be certain sorts of prescriptive law, the most obvious being moral laws. Moral laws prescribe, they do not describe. Thus there needs to be a prescriber. And plausibly that prescriber will turn out to be God. — Bartricks

I have some ideas about objective moral values but that would be the topic of another thread.

This is the old, traditional explanation atheists have used to explain the purpose of god. God as white lie. So? — Tom Storm

Characterizing an argument to dismiss it is not the same as addressing it, especially since there are 2000-year-old, traditional explanations still being accepted and discussed today.

There might be an error even here. Perhaps at least some of what you call "abstract objects" are things we do, not things we find. — Banno

Processes are not a problem. Swimming, runnning, etc. are universals.

Those with a background in philosophy may recognise what I am suggesting as deriving from philosophy of language. Instead of looking for the meaning of the terms we use, stand back and look at how they are used. — Banno

True, the language we develop has indications of what exists but if our interest is ontology, language is subordinate to reality. In the middle ages, language included much talk of "witches" but that didn't mean witches really exist.

'things we do', which is a set, and therefore an abstract object — Tate

I see problems with defining abstract objects in terms of sets because it seems you need a definition of the universal before you can decide what is or is not in the set. For instance, "American" is used to refer to people in the U.S. and also to anyone living in Canada, Chile, Cuba, etc. (i.e., North and South America taken as continents, not a particular country.) We need to understand the meaning of "American" before we can define the set.

The aether is a medium for waves, both these concepts have links to the physical (water waves/ripples). — Agent Smith

You originally asked: " Can you give me an example, one will do, of a pure abstract object and by that I mean an (abstract) object that has no links whatsoever with the physical world?"
"no links" is vague. The aether doesn't exist; but you believe something which doesn't exist has links to the physical world? OK. How about the green pixies who built my home? They don't exist, either, but do they have links to the physical world because "built my home" is part of their description? And what about "the green pixies who did not build my home"? Do they have links to the physical world? If so, I don't understand what you mean by "have links".

there's a controversy with regard to whether math is invented or discovered. — Agent Smith

True and most working mathematicians say discovered; i.e., they accept Mathematical Platonism, which says mathematical objects exists "out there." True, our minds apprehend them but "triangles exist only in our mind" seems wrong. A geometry teacher is not trying to teach about what exists in his/her mind but the triangle "out there." Question: suppose I say triangles exist in my mind and they have four sides. How could anyone dispute what I say? Sure, triangles in another person's mind might have three sides but so what? Triangles in someone else's mind might have five sides. Clearly a definition of triangle is needed. Would you agree that definitions exist in the external world not only in our minds?

they view all objects as individuals — Richard B

If all objects are viewed as individuals, it seems that some types of knowledge would be difficult or even impossible. Yes, I could gain knowledge about this particular object but I couldn't apply that knowledge if I encounter a similar object later because I wouldn't recognize the two objects as being instances of the same universal.

Example: "Fire burns" uses the universal "fire" to describe a general law of nature. If I walk up to a camp fire and recognized it as an instance of the universal "fire" then I know it will burn me. But if I view everything as an individual, then the camp fire is an new object and I won't know it burns until it's too late.

Why would I need to hypothesize that inhabitants who use universals can perceive some Platonic realm, when I simply can appeal to our make up that favors detecting commonalities and creating language of universals vs detecting differences and name individuals? — Richard B

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. How do we create a language of universals without acknowledging the existence of universals?

Can you have an idea of "tree" without having first perceived more than one tree? — Harry Hindu

Sure, just as we can have the idea of a unicorn without ever having seen one.

What is the difference between the idea of the universal tree vs the particular tree? — Harry Hindu

A particular tree is a concrete object which we recognize as an instantiation of the idea of a tree. The idea of a particular tree is the idea, say, of the oak tree in my yard.

What does the idea of two look like in the mind independent of the scribble, "2" or "two" and independent of the observation of two particulars? — Harry Hindu

What does the idea of two look like? It has various properties: synonym for pair; the first natural number after one; the only even prime number, etc.

How do you know that you are holding the idea of 2 in your mind independent of these forms — Harry Hindu

Is the idea of "two" independent of observation of two particulars? Yes. I grant that empirical experience often leads the mind to ideas but I regard the ideas as pre-existing. Just as when I take a walk, I see a rock that was there before I saw it. Similarly, the idea "two" existed before anyone thought of it.

Of course, my perception of the rock may not be 100% accurate. Similarly, someone might believe 2 is not prime, or conversely prime but not the only even prime. In this case, they don't see the idea clearly and need to be educated.

But if "two" was my own personal creation, then who is to say I'm wrong if my "two" is not prime?

From where did we get the idea of two if not by first observing more than one thing? — Harry Hindu

My view is that ideas already exist in the mindscape, just as trees exist in the landscape. Seeing a pair of apples may awaken our mind to the idea of two, but the idea already exists. Any being which lacks the mental capacity will never perceive the idea "two." Imagine an earthworm, for instance, crawls over two pebbles. I doubt the idea of two ever enters what mind it has.

How did you come to experience the universal by observing just one pattern (a particular) of rough brown patches and smooth green patches? — Harry Hindu

See previous answer. All ideas exist in the mindscape. Some minds (like ours) access ideas to make sense of sensory input. We find an idea in the mindscape that fits what we observe.Newton found F=ma. Einstein found different ideas which better describe what we observe.

So, in my view, the idea 2+2=4 has existed for all eternity. We didn't invent it; we discovered it.Of course, the idea is independent of the symbolism. The Roman Numerals II + II = IV express the same idea.

Brief defense of universals, bolds added. — Wayfarer

Yes, thank you.

But universals do not exist in this sense; we shall say that they subsist — Russell, World of Universals

OK, if we require “exist” to apply to only things in space/time, then universals don’t exist but they subsist.
But if we make this requirement of "exist", then it seems “is” and “was” are fundamentally different.
In 1861, I could have said “Lincoln is president” and indeed Lincoln existed in space/time then.
But today, if I say “Lincoln was president” I speak of someone who does not exist today in space/time.
So "is" applies to things which exist, but "was" sometimes does not? Rather, "was" sometimes applies to things which subsist? I don't see any logical problem but if feels wrong to me to require "exist" to only refer to things in space/time.

Can you give me an example, one will do, of a pure abstract object and by that I mean an (abstract) object that has no links whatsoever with the physical world? It should exist only in the mind is what I'm saying. — Agent Smith

How about the following? "Luminiferous aether or ether ("luminiferous", meaning "light-bearing") was the postulated medium for the propagation of light. It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently wave-based light to propagate through empty space (a vacuum), something that waves should not be able to do."
The luminiferous aether is an abstract object that the universe fails to instantiate.

What could this mean “we don’t directly experience concrete objects” I see a tree, I go over to touch the leaves, smell the bark, hear the creaking of the branches, or taste the fruit it produces. How more direct can we get? — Richard B

Suppose you see a hurricane on TV. You directly experience the TV's light and sound; you indirectly experience the hurricane. Similarly, you indirectly experience the tree; you directly experience light, sound, touch, taste, odor. The idea is similar to the "brain in a vat" thought experiment (which was the basis for the movie The Matrix).

I have no further comment on abstract objects, but I do have something to say about all these purported "illusions" the mind creates. . . . Secondly, the generalization from such "illusions" is dubious - — Agent Smith

“Illusion” suggests what I experience is unreal, a misapprehension. It suggests something that occurs occasionally.

I have only five physical senses. Based on my sense input, ideas arise in my mind. My sense input is real. The idea in my mind really exists and is an attempt to model what is stimulating my physical senses.

The process occurs not occasionally, but rather at all times throughout my life, from when I acquire object permanence at a few months of age to death.to death.

I experience the properties of the unknown thing-in-itself one way; other beings (such as the color-blind person) may experience the unknown thing-in-itself differently. But that doesn’t mean I misapprehend the thing.

So, I don't think “illusion” is appropriate.

This way however, we may at least indirectly experience an abstract tree - through experience of concrete objects and their concrete causal associations in the brain. — litewave

Our five physical senses limit us to experiencing sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell. So, we don’t directly experience concrete objects. (I have no special “tree-sensing” sense with which I can directly experience a tree.)

The tree (which you refer to as the “abstract tree”) is an idea I experience in our mind; it what my mind really experiences.

A somewhat similar situation is that when you watch a TV or computer monitor, all you can see is light. But based on the light you see, your mind experiences ideas such as people, sand, ocean, clouds, etc.

T Clark: A good OP. Well-written, clear, and interesting.
Thanks.

T Clark: We overlay an abstract coating on the world as it is.
I’d say we overlay an abstract coating on what our senses tell us, but as to the thing-in-itself or the world as it is, we have only the indirect evidences of our sense data.

T Clark: This is all very philosophical and presumptuous, which, like "abstract" and "universal," often mean just about the same thing.
True I’m stating a philosophical position, but I wouldn’t call it presumptuous.

Bartricks: The mind is not a sense.
We see trees in the “landscape” with our eyes. We see ideas in the “mindscape” with our minds.

Bartricks: for minds alone have ideas
I’m taking the position that ideas exist independent of minds. Otherwise, if our minds create the ideas then if you and I discuss the number 2, we are discussing two different things: the number 2 that your mind creates and the number 2 that my mind creates. But if the number 2 exists independently, then we can discuss a single topic, i.e., the number 2.

NOS4A2: Isn’t the mind, too, an abstract object?
Just as sight is an abstract object but seeing itself is a sense, I’d say the mind can be thought of as an abstract object, but the mind in action, encountering thoughts, is a sense.

NOS4A2: If you experience the world through the five senses, what being and with what kind of senses do you experience abstract objects?

The mind.Abstract objects are ideas.

“What does it even mean to "directly" or "indirectly" experience something?”

An analogy: Imagine indirect experience as watching a baseball game on TV, as opposed to being in the park. We don’t directly experience the tree; our senses play the role of TV.


“Then the two particular apples are also universals?”

Apple is a universal. A particular apple is an instantiation of the universal called “apple”.


“How did you come to know the number 2 if not by seeing the scribble, "2" and seeing two of something, like seeing two apples?”

We become acquainted with some universals by seeing particulars. We see two apples, two trees, two people and see an abstract similarity which we call “two”. The abstract similarity is a universal which we perceive with our mind, not our five senses.


“It seems to me that universals stand for all the existing things in that set . . . “

Without the idea of two, we cannot apply the idea of two to a pair of apples. Example, I define “xyz” as the set of all xyz things. Not a very useful definition.

Moreover, the set of all existing two things is constantly changing. If I eat one of the two apples, then the “set of all existing two things” has changed. If two atoms are crushed out of existence in some neutron star in another galaxy, the “set of all existing two things” has changed.


“Does the idea, "cat" exist in the same way as a physical cat?”

Ideas exist in the “mindscape.” Physical cats exist in the physical world.


“What are you talking about when you talk about your experiences. Are you talking about something abstract or something concrete?”

Experience is concrete. I physically experience rough brown patches and smooth green patches, which lead me to mentally experience a universal, i.e., the idea of a tree.

Bartricks: You have provided no argument. . . . What’s your case?

The original post is more of a person observation about the desirability and undesirability of two views: 1) we came out of the universe and are natural beings versus 2) we came into the universe from heaven or some other supernatural place and are supernatural beings, i.e., eternal souls.

As to evidence for view 1), sciences which address our origin support the idea we came out of the universe. For instance, the most abundant elements in the universe in order are: hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen. Helium is a “noble gas” that doesn’t combine easily with other elements. The most common elements in the human body in order are: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen.

As to evidence for view 2), there is none. The existence of the supernatural has never been demonstrated. True, many people find the idea of an eternal soul comforting, and many religions teach it. But in my view, none of that constitutes evidence.

Jack Cummings: I first became confused about the idea of life after death seeing this as conflicting.

Yes. Saint Augustine (presumedly) has been in heaven for about 1,500 years, in the company of God, enjoying the beatific vision. But if the world ends tomorrow, Augustine gets his body back. Is that suppose to make him happy? “Well, gosh, I thought I was happy before but now that I’ve got this old thing back, I know what happiness really is.” It’s absurd.

I believe Jews believed in the resurrection of the body, Greek believed in souls, and the Church merely threw both ideas in the pot with little regard for logical consistency.

Alkis Piskas: So, not only it is not impossible to knowingly sin, but we always know that we sin.

As far as I can see, you don’t address evidence in the original post but merely assert the contrary.

But if you believe we always know when we sin, then you should be able to say if stem cell research is a sin, capital punishment is a sin, abortion is a sin, masturbation is a sin, contraception is a sin, etc. Of course, you can give your opinion about such questions. But other people would disagree. And a few centuries ago, if you said burning witches or owning slaves was a sin, the great majority of Christians would have disagreed with you.

God has failed to make his will and laws known to us. So, we struggle to determine right and wrong. In the U.S. the struggle once led to a civil war, with both sides feeling that God was on their side.

Certainly, the clergy think highly of themselves.
But the great majority of Catholics don't care, or even know, what is in the catechism.

But you seem to be confirming the OP's view about "folk" versus theological views.
So, what is your point? The OP has:

Good people living forever in heaven and evil people living forever in hell is a common, widely held belief in Christianity. It’s fair, I think, to judge Christianity on its common beliefs, not the beliefs of a relatively small group of scholars. (Two billion Christians versus how many Christian theologians?)
It would be unfair to do otherwise.

What about that, if anything, do you disagree with?

They are simply two different views. That catechism view is the minority view.

Baker: Ordinary Roman Catholics are usually not fluent in the Catechism of the RCC; they have their own folk beliefs.

You ignore the beginning of my post.
IN CATHOLIC SCHOOL, I was taught 1) if you died with an unforgiven mortal sin, you went to hell forever, 2) a child over the age of reason (i.e., 7 years old) could commit a mortal sin, 3) intentionally missing Mass on Sunday was a mortal sin.

I didn’t learn the above from kids on the street. I learned it from nuns and priests. If fact, most Catholics do not believe intentionally missing mass, using contraception, etc. are mortal sins that could send them to hell.


Baker: I asked you which Roman Catholicism you think is the right one. I think this is the question you need to answer in order to address the OP.

They are simply two different views. That catechism view is the minority view.


Hanover: There's nothing interesting in defeating the weakest form of a position.

There’s something very interesting in defeating the most popular, widespread form of a position, a position that motivates people’s votes.


Hanover: I should reject Christianity because under close analysis it doesn't provide adequate answers . . .

OK, different Christian denominations have contradictory view about how to get saved. Jesus and/or the Bible don’t provide an adequate answer.

Baker: “Art48 What do you think is true Catholicism?
That which is declared in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, or that which is held by a considerable variety of people who claim to be Catholics? Or something else altogether?”

I don’t know what Catholicism is true. My point is that there are at least 2 types of Catholicism: that of the average Catholic and that of the Catholic theologians. Each type could probably be broken down further. See response to Agent Smith below.


Bitter Crank: “If you somehow manage to follow the plainly spoken teachings of Jesus”
I don’t find the teachings plainly spoken. Neither do Christian denominations; that’s why there are so many of them. Even about the supremely question of how to be saved, denominations disagree.


Agent Smith: “Folk religion is basically an introductory course to religious doctrine.”
In Catholic school, I was taught 1) if you died with an unforgiven mortal sin, you went to hell forever, 2) a child over the age of reason (i.e., 7 years old) could commit a mortal sin, 3) intentionally missing Mass on Sunday was a mortal sin.

Do you know of any Catholic theologian who accepts those teachings? Any theologian who says “Yes, poor Johnny Smith skipped Mass last Sunday and suddenly died. Poor kid is now in hell begin torture, forever.” Or, “Mr. Jones was a decent enough person. But he only went to Mass on Christmas and Easter. Now he’s suffering incredible torments with little Johnny Smith.”

In my experience, theologians often teach something quite different that what I learned in Catholic school, not merely a more nuanced version.

I like sushi: Note: ‘physics’ as a ‘habit’ of the universe? How is that any different to physics as ‘laws’ of the universe?

Laws are prescriptive; habits are descriptive.

When I taught in college, students would generally take more or less the same seat every class. Some students would sit in the exact same seat throughout the semester. That was their habit. But there was no law that said where they had to sit.

Additionally, law suggests a law giver, perhaps a God outside the universe that constructed the universe to act in certain ways.

Habit suggests that the universe merely does what it does, without any external law giver.

Hanover,

Thanks for your response. Some comments.

As to your first paragraph, pointing out that the views of theologians are “subtly nuanced” does nothing to explain what points of the OP are, in your view or in the view of theologians, incorrect.

As to the remainder of your post, I can only guess what the point is. It points out a conflict between universalism (all will be saved) and the view that only some will be saved. Universalism does contradict the first point of the OP. But universalism is a minority view among Christians; it’s not normative. What the large majority of Christians believe is that people ultimately end up in heaven or hell.

So, as far as I can tell, your points are:
1) Theologians have a more subtly nuanced view than the OP presents.
2) The uncommon, non-normative view of Christian universalism contracts point 1. of the OP.

Did I miss anything?

Hanover: a literalist caricature

I claim Christianity says that eventually there will be only heaven and hell.
If that is not correct, please tell us 1) where it’s incorrect and 2) what is the correct view.
Prediction: you can’t.

It is not I who invented the theology you call distasteful and unlikely.
A search for truth involves pointing out problems and flaws in belief.
I can think of no better way to employ my time than searching for truth.

Full path to shadow illusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Checker_shadow_illusion.svg