St. Rita was born at Spoleto, Italy in 1381. At an early age, she begged her parents to allow her to enter a convent. Instead they arranged a marriage for her. Rita became a good wife and mother, but her husband was a man of violent temper. In anger he often mistreated his wife. He taught their children his own evil ways.
Rita tried to perform her duties faithfully and to pray and receive the sacraments frequently. After nearly twenty years of marriage, her husband was stabbed by an enemy but before he died, he repented because Rita prayed for him. Shortly afterwards, her two sons died, and Rita was alone in the world. Prayer, fasting, penances of many kinds, and good works filled her days. She was admitted to the convent of the Augustinian nuns at Cascia in Umbria, and began a life of perfect obedience and great charity.
Sister Rita had a great devotion to the Passion of Christ. "Please let me suffer like you, Divine Saviour," she said one day, and suddenly one of the thorns from the crucifix struck her on the forehead. It left a deep wound which did not heal and which caused her much suffering for the rest of her life. She died on May 22, 1457. She is the patroness of impossible cases. Her feast day is May 22.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
ronald dougherty
Science and Reason
Let us state at once that natural reason, left to its own devices, is adequate to attain certain truths concerning God and his nature...But it is most apparent that there is a knowledge of the divine nature infinitely beyond the grasp of the human understanding. This is a point which it is important to establish in order to silence the unbelievers who consider false all statements about God which our reason is unable to make. --Aquinas, paraphrased by GilsonI have noticed a certain trend in recent periodicals and comments by others that tend to confuse the role of science in our modern world. This is perfectly understandable when considering what strides science has rightly made and through what history it has come, but is for all that lamentably misapplied. In a word, we have made Science, known by its capital, as synonymous with Truth, and as a result, Faith has effectively been positioned as its opposite, its antithesis. What this implies on a social level must aggrieve us: what is seen as unscientific is therefore also seen as false. Those who embrace what is "false" can only embrace it by faith. What is "faith"-ful is thus seen as the typical Marxist/Frueudian "crutch", and religion is in a sad state therewith. Therefore let us consider the accurate relation of these ideas: science, faith, and true. To this cast of characters we must also add reason, logic, and philosophy. Together these weave a colorful tapestry, but the drama of their history is much more intriguing. For centuries, since St. Paul, Faith and Reason fought, arguing over which was primary in man. Augustine spoke of reason as the center of man, but then wrote of man such that he revealed the primacy of faith. After Augustine, centuries of Christian philosophers sought "Faith seeking understanding: that is, faith taken as a datum, a given fact within the individual's existence, then seeking to elaborate itself rationally as far as it can." (Barrett, 97) That is to say, Faith was sublimated into reason. Then came the powerhouse: St. Thomas Aquinas. By now Aristotle had been rediscovered, and philosophy swung about accordingly. He set out to define the boundaries of faith and reason: "our understanding [reason], using the testimony of the senses as its starting-point, can infer that God exists. But it is evident that the simple inspection of sensible things, which are effects of God and, consequently, infererior to him, are unable to bring us to a knowledge of the divine essence. There are, therefore, truths concerning God which are accessible to reason, and others which are beyond it." (Summa contra gentiles: Gilson, 18) Reason could understand so much, but at the end of reason, faith picked up. I wish to highlight some points in this. For one, notice that at this point, Science has not appeared. Second, that faith and reason are not contrary. For Augustine and Tertullian, the contest was not which was true, but which was primary in man. As Aquinas would state, re-interpreting a point an Aristotelian point, the end of philosophy was the end of an existence: the end of man was God, and thus non-reasonable and thus the realm of faith, but for that not untrue. But let us come back to Science, for that is the focus on this discussion. Scientific discussion is notably lacking because by Aquinas science (scientia. Latin, knowledge) had not become Science: it was simply vocabulary in the language of Philosophy and Theology.*1 But the age of Enlightenment (poorly named) urged the relatively minor and ill-trusted field of alchemy to expand and grow. The only real advantage the metallurgical study had was the ability of reproduction, or, in the professional argot, it was empirical. When others could absolutely reproduce the results on one experiment*2, its truth could be better assured. Proof (of truth) became the linchpin of Truth, and proof by reproduction. Slowly the age of positism grew, and Empiricism became Science and Truth was made contingent of Proof. The halcyon days of this dictum came in the Modern era (of the first half of the 20th century), which Science reigned supreme, even in the Church.*3 Only now are we beginning to see the crumbling of this uncontested supremacy of Science in the rise of experiential-based religion and emphasis on mysticism. But we still feel the backlash on Faith. Where does it stand within this morass of Science? Nowhere, was the common response. Most are familiar with Marx's opinions on religion, and Freud had similar ideas. Opponents and proponents alike of this progression (of Science as supreme) agree on the debasing effects of the "big three", Marx, Freud, and Darwin. Dr. Richard Leakey, in his most notable work Origins, states without reservation "certainly the science based on Darwin's notion…has a legitimate claim to being the greatest intellectual and philosophical revolution in human history," thus trumping the Agricultural Revolution, a topic more along the anthropologist's line of inquiry. Faith became the means by which outdated, primitive ideas could be held to, but should not, and could not stand up to scientific scrutiny. A cursory glance through the letters to the "Chicago Magazine" in response to an article*4 should be enough to demonstrate how vehemently we have embraced this idea: "it is, by definition, impossible to 'square' conviction with critical thinking. Reason and critical thinking are based on demonstrable facts and evidence; 'conviction' is subject to no proof or verification. It is an indictment of our educational system…that we pander to those whose only rationale for their beliefs is that they are absolutely terrified of the phrase 'I don't know.'"*5 But here is where we fail. Science, which we must remember, is an artificial device. That is to say, it is made by man, a schema whereby we can, in our limited mental ability, process and interpret data from our senses. Like logic, it is an attempt by man to reach what we can consider Truth, which is wholly independent of man's ability to recognize it. It is an extension of Reason, that intellectual capacity of man to understand and categorize by logic all things of the universe. But only an extension, one that is limited by its empirical demands. The victims of this are uncommon bedfellows: the Church and philosophers. Because philosophers are freed of the burden of empirical proof, their conclusions are labeled "speculative" and therefore easily dismissed as minor, light. But we must remember that philosophy, too, operates under Reason, and its objective is just as easily Truth. So too the church, which seeks to balance the demands of Reason and Faith, particularly combined in that paradox, as Kierkegaard and Tertullian both perceived, of the incarnation. But what is the overall point? In our society today we must acknowledge that Science is not the sole interpreter, or indeed laborer towards Truth. When we understand that science holds no monopoly over Truth, we can see where the syllogism fails. That which is unscientific, ie cannot be rendered provable by empirical evidence, thus by observation and reproduction, is not, without due consideration, rejected as false. If Science does not hold the only way to Truth, then we must understand there are other pursuits that can bring us to Truth. Those inquiries which utilize Reason, for instance (both philosophy and theology), and Faith and revelation. God, which cannot, and will never be proven scientific (for this would be to betray the idea behind science*6), may still be True without proof. It is therefore also fallacious that we should turn our scientific attentions to the analysis of faith. While it is in the philosopher's interests to consider the relationship of Reason and Faith, it becomes impossible to consider empiricially the function or foundation of Faith. As a metaphor I would propose the idea of using one's eyes to study love. Love, and Faith, do not operate on biological or scientific operations or procedures, and it is impossible to use the sense to fathom love. In the idea of Faith, it is presumptive to consider otherwise. A scientific exploration of faith must find, by definition, an unreasonable, un-empirical phenomenon. It is due to this intrinsically flawed pursuits that we have constructed a faith-science conflict. Aquinas adequately demonstrates the dual nature of man that we guide ourselves by both Reason and Faith, but to construct a false conflict between Science and Faith is to deny this dual nature. It is rather like pitting the Holy Spirit against Jesus as one is ethereal and immaterial, the other being flesh and material. We must consider with significant skepticism those who would propose a faith-science conflict, and even more those who suggest a solution to this conflict. We must also consider with due skepticism those areas in Science that propose to be scientific. Philip Johnson has highlighted a crucial consequence to the uncontested supremacy of Science in very common (but often presupposed faith-based) disputes over war, the Church, education, and politics. Although he speaks about evolution (or, more specifically, origins of man), Johnson touches upon these other conflicts: "The very fact that science speaks so authoritatively in our culture tempts ideologues…to claim the authority of science as validating claims that in fact are not testable by experiment, and that may go far beyond the available evidence. In a word, the scientific method can be counterfeited, and the counterfeit may be certified as genuine by the most prestigious authorities in our culture." (Johnson, 37) In conclusion, allow me to state that this is only a cursory summary of these various points. But the final point must be made clear: Science is not the only approach to the investigation of Truth: and that which is not scientific must not be considered de facto untrue. If we can begin to understand that on a cultural level, then we will find our theological and philosophical pursuits better considered, our lives enriched by the acceptance and appreciation of those facets which cannot and should not be proved.
Let us state at once that natural reason, left to its own devices, is adequate to attain certain truths concerning God and his nature...But it is most apparent that there is a knowledge of the divine nature infinitely beyond the grasp of the human understanding. This is a point which it is important to establish in order to silence the unbelievers who consider false all statements about God which our reason is unable to make. --Aquinas, paraphrased by GilsonI have noticed a certain trend in recent periodicals and comments by others that tend to confuse the role of science in our modern world. This is perfectly understandable when considering what strides science has rightly made and through what history it has come, but is for all that lamentably misapplied. In a word, we have made Science, known by its capital, as synonymous with Truth, and as a result, Faith has effectively been positioned as its opposite, its antithesis. What this implies on a social level must aggrieve us: what is seen as unscientific is therefore also seen as false. Those who embrace what is "false" can only embrace it by faith. What is "faith"-ful is thus seen as the typical Marxist/Frueudian "crutch", and religion is in a sad state therewith. Therefore let us consider the accurate relation of these ideas: science, faith, and true. To this cast of characters we must also add reason, logic, and philosophy. Together these weave a colorful tapestry, but the drama of their history is much more intriguing. For centuries, since St. Paul, Faith and Reason fought, arguing over which was primary in man. Augustine spoke of reason as the center of man, but then wrote of man such that he revealed the primacy of faith. After Augustine, centuries of Christian philosophers sought "Faith seeking understanding: that is, faith taken as a datum, a given fact within the individual's existence, then seeking to elaborate itself rationally as far as it can." (Barrett, 97) That is to say, Faith was sublimated into reason. Then came the powerhouse: St. Thomas Aquinas. By now Aristotle had been rediscovered, and philosophy swung about accordingly. He set out to define the boundaries of faith and reason: "our understanding [reason], using the testimony of the senses as its starting-point, can infer that God exists. But it is evident that the simple inspection of sensible things, which are effects of God and, consequently, infererior to him, are unable to bring us to a knowledge of the divine essence. There are, therefore, truths concerning God which are accessible to reason, and others which are beyond it." (Summa contra gentiles: Gilson, 18) Reason could understand so much, but at the end of reason, faith picked up. I wish to highlight some points in this. For one, notice that at this point, Science has not appeared. Second, that faith and reason are not contrary. For Augustine and Tertullian, the contest was not which was true, but which was primary in man. As Aquinas would state, re-interpreting a point an Aristotelian point, the end of philosophy was the end of an existence: the end of man was God, and thus non-reasonable and thus the realm of faith, but for that not untrue. But let us come back to Science, for that is the focus on this discussion. Scientific discussion is notably lacking because by Aquinas science (scientia. Latin, knowledge) had not become Science: it was simply vocabulary in the language of Philosophy and Theology.*1 But the age of Enlightenment (poorly named) urged the relatively minor and ill-trusted field of alchemy to expand and grow. The only real advantage the metallurgical study had was the ability of reproduction, or, in the professional argot, it was empirical. When others could absolutely reproduce the results on one experiment*2, its truth could be better assured. Proof (of truth) became the linchpin of Truth, and proof by reproduction. Slowly the age of positism grew, and Empiricism became Science and Truth was made contingent of Proof. The halcyon days of this dictum came in the Modern era (of the first half of the 20th century), which Science reigned supreme, even in the Church.*3 Only now are we beginning to see the crumbling of this uncontested supremacy of Science in the rise of experiential-based religion and emphasis on mysticism. But we still feel the backlash on Faith. Where does it stand within this morass of Science? Nowhere, was the common response. Most are familiar with Marx's opinions on religion, and Freud had similar ideas. Opponents and proponents alike of this progression (of Science as supreme) agree on the debasing effects of the "big three", Marx, Freud, and Darwin. Dr. Richard Leakey, in his most notable work Origins, states without reservation "certainly the science based on Darwin's notion…has a legitimate claim to being the greatest intellectual and philosophical revolution in human history," thus trumping the Agricultural Revolution, a topic more along the anthropologist's line of inquiry. Faith became the means by which outdated, primitive ideas could be held to, but should not, and could not stand up to scientific scrutiny. A cursory glance through the letters to the "Chicago Magazine" in response to an article*4 should be enough to demonstrate how vehemently we have embraced this idea: "it is, by definition, impossible to 'square' conviction with critical thinking. Reason and critical thinking are based on demonstrable facts and evidence; 'conviction' is subject to no proof or verification. It is an indictment of our educational system…that we pander to those whose only rationale for their beliefs is that they are absolutely terrified of the phrase 'I don't know.'"*5 But here is where we fail. Science, which we must remember, is an artificial device. That is to say, it is made by man, a schema whereby we can, in our limited mental ability, process and interpret data from our senses. Like logic, it is an attempt by man to reach what we can consider Truth, which is wholly independent of man's ability to recognize it. It is an extension of Reason, that intellectual capacity of man to understand and categorize by logic all things of the universe. But only an extension, one that is limited by its empirical demands. The victims of this are uncommon bedfellows: the Church and philosophers. Because philosophers are freed of the burden of empirical proof, their conclusions are labeled "speculative" and therefore easily dismissed as minor, light. But we must remember that philosophy, too, operates under Reason, and its objective is just as easily Truth. So too the church, which seeks to balance the demands of Reason and Faith, particularly combined in that paradox, as Kierkegaard and Tertullian both perceived, of the incarnation. But what is the overall point? In our society today we must acknowledge that Science is not the sole interpreter, or indeed laborer towards Truth. When we understand that science holds no monopoly over Truth, we can see where the syllogism fails. That which is unscientific, ie cannot be rendered provable by empirical evidence, thus by observation and reproduction, is not, without due consideration, rejected as false. If Science does not hold the only way to Truth, then we must understand there are other pursuits that can bring us to Truth. Those inquiries which utilize Reason, for instance (both philosophy and theology), and Faith and revelation. God, which cannot, and will never be proven scientific (for this would be to betray the idea behind science*6), may still be True without proof. It is therefore also fallacious that we should turn our scientific attentions to the analysis of faith. While it is in the philosopher's interests to consider the relationship of Reason and Faith, it becomes impossible to consider empiricially the function or foundation of Faith. As a metaphor I would propose the idea of using one's eyes to study love. Love, and Faith, do not operate on biological or scientific operations or procedures, and it is impossible to use the sense to fathom love. In the idea of Faith, it is presumptive to consider otherwise. A scientific exploration of faith must find, by definition, an unreasonable, un-empirical phenomenon. It is due to this intrinsically flawed pursuits that we have constructed a faith-science conflict. Aquinas adequately demonstrates the dual nature of man that we guide ourselves by both Reason and Faith, but to construct a false conflict between Science and Faith is to deny this dual nature. It is rather like pitting the Holy Spirit against Jesus as one is ethereal and immaterial, the other being flesh and material. We must consider with significant skepticism those who would propose a faith-science conflict, and even more those who suggest a solution to this conflict. We must also consider with due skepticism those areas in Science that propose to be scientific. Philip Johnson has highlighted a crucial consequence to the uncontested supremacy of Science in very common (but often presupposed faith-based) disputes over war, the Church, education, and politics. Although he speaks about evolution (or, more specifically, origins of man), Johnson touches upon these other conflicts: "The very fact that science speaks so authoritatively in our culture tempts ideologues…to claim the authority of science as validating claims that in fact are not testable by experiment, and that may go far beyond the available evidence. In a word, the scientific method can be counterfeited, and the counterfeit may be certified as genuine by the most prestigious authorities in our culture." (Johnson, 37) In conclusion, allow me to state that this is only a cursory summary of these various points. But the final point must be made clear: Science is not the only approach to the investigation of Truth: and that which is not scientific must not be considered de facto untrue. If we can begin to understand that on a cultural level, then we will find our theological and philosophical pursuits better considered, our lives enriched by the acceptance and appreciation of those facets which cannot and should not be proved.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
dog
By the experience of many of the aspects of the divine that are written of in scripture and accounts of the saints. Many of them I knew nothing of until after the experience I would come across an account of it in some text. These include Bliss, Ishwara, (God as light), Aum, the vibration of God's voice that creates and maintains the creation, the joy and the peace which is beyond the senses and of which there are no words to describe. There is nothing of the world that can overflow the consciousness or so satisfy the soul as the awareness of Reality that lies beneath the appearance of creation. In that experience one is assured of the reality of spirit and the transitory nature of what appears to be substantial and real but is in reality only a dream in the mind of God dreamed to express His glory. It is an intelligence so vast and profound that no mortal mind can comprehend even a single drop of the ocean of Its Being.
we all
we all are flesh and bones in the insidewe all are like you with different upbringings! we all bleed bloodwe all don't know the begining, future or it's end!!!!we all knoe we're all dying...we all don't know are meaning until we create one....we all have emotions even when we don't express them and only humanity can hold back humanityWhy trust anyone? or Why trust good or evil?
Saturday, June 27, 2009
chicken or egg
can tell you about the tree for sure. Objects do not really make sound in the first place. If a tree falls, it only makes vibrations. The ears pick up the vibrations and turn them into what we know as sound. So sound really only exists in a person's ear. So if a tree falls with no ears around, then it doesn't make a sound, it only makes vibrations. If there are people there, it still doesn't make a sound. Only our ears would produce the sound for us.The thing about the egg will not be known. If a person goes by the Bible, then the chicken came first, because God created the animals first. If you believe in other creation theories, then maybe you believe the egg was first. That is all I know about the egg thing.
punk rock
I'll tell you about punk rock: punk rock is a word used by dillitante's and heartless manipulators about music that takes up the energies and the bodies and the hearts and the souls and the time and the minds of young men who give what they have to it and give everything they have to it and it's a term that's based on contempt, it's a term that's based on fashion, style, elitism, satanism and everything that's rotten about rock'n'roll. I don't know Johnny Rotten but I'm sure... I'm sure he puts as much blood and sweat into what he does as Sigmund Freud did. You see, what sounds to you like a big load of trashy old noise is in fact the brilliant music of a genius, myself . And that music is so powerful that it's quite beyond my control and when I'm in the grips of it I don't feel pleasure and I don't feel pain, either physically or emotionally. Have you ever felt like that? When you just couldn't feel anything and you didn't want to either? Do you understand what im saying sir?
celts
Celtic civilization was far more advanced than people realize or choose to realise! For instance they introduced soap to Europe - up to that point people would rub themselves down with oil and scrape it off with a stirgil. Salt was another innovation - their salted hams were famous in classical times. Chain mail was another invention that the Romans used, and the Celtic falcata was a unique and feared weapon that was responsible for the Romans strengthening their shields and ensured that Spain resisted Roman domination for 200 years. Even after the Celtiberian leader Viriatus was crushed the Celtiberians were still resisting for many years afterwards. Not only did the Celts take Rome, but the gladius hispanicus was originally a Celtic shortsword before being put to devastating use by the Roman legions. The Romans were better organised, even after they left Britain to fend for itself, the Celts there managed to survive in Scotland, Wales, Cumbria and Cornwall. They were able to rally against the Saxons, the Picts and the Irish. Even the Irish king Niall of the Nine hostages was forced to raid France in search of easier pickings.The only reason that the Celts fell under Roman domination was the fact that they fought amongst themselves and were rarely united
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)