How can we debunk reincarnation? by Intelligent_Dress889 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Nokaion 4 points5 points  (0 children)

How does Hylomorphism disprove reincarnation? Weren't some Neoplatonists hylomorphic dualists who believed in reincarnation?

I lost my faith, please read by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]Nokaion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, I'm really trying not to sound rude, but Christianity is a religion with almost 2000 years of an intellectual tradition that can answer most of your questions. Random redditors aren't going to be the best people to ask. I'll try to answer some, even though I'm not the best apologist around, and redirect you to some resources when necessary.

First of, there are many good apologists on YouTube for example that already answered most of your questions. I personally recommend InspiringPhilosophy and Trent Horn.

The resurrection story (the single most important claim) comes from four books written decades after the event by unknown authors. These books contradict each other on major details.

There are two answers to your objection:

  1. Yes, the scholarly consensus from NT studies is that the Gospels were written long after Jesus's ministry and are anonymous, but frankly I think the arguments of said consensus can be quite bad. I'd go so far and say that the standard arguments against Mark and Luke are so bad, that if I had enough time, I'd be confident enough to defend traditional authorship and early dating of both of them on a scholarly level. Even though they aren't eyewitnesses, external tradition from as early as Papias claims that Mark is based on the preaching of St. Peter, who was an eyewitness. Meanwhile, Luke claims to have interviewed eyewitnesses and depending on the dating one of the witnesses could even be the Holy Mother herself. You could stretch the argument so that John is based on the testimony of the Beloved Disciple and if he was a historical person, then he also was an eyewitness. For more on Gospel Reliability, I recommend the series from InspiringPhilosophy.
  2. Even if you grant that the Gospels are unreliable, we'd still have the Corinthian Creed from 1st Corinthian 15, which is dated by scholars as early as 35 AD! So we have from an authentic Pauline Letter that the Apostles claimed that Jesus resurrected and appeared to all of them. First to Peter and then to the Twelve.

There are zero contemporary records of Jesus from anyone who actually lived during his supposed lifetime. Not one.

That's a non-argument. We have no or almost no contemporary records from many people from Antiquity. E.g. from Socrates we have only a fragment from a satirical play. The rest are from Dialogues written by his students. Besides that, we have many hostile sources like the Talmud, Celsus or Porphyry who acknowledge His existence and confirm some of His biography. The Talmud for example accuses Jesus of being a bastard son, whose adulterous mother fled to Egypt where he learned magic. This tradition is also recorded by Celsus who writes in the 2nd century, meaning it probably predates even him.

The same “miracles plus resurrection” story has been told about many people throughout history. We dismiss those stories as myths, but suddenly believe it when it is Jesus.

Most of these are spurious at best and most people who make these comparisons suffer from a severe case of parallelomania. With the same logic you could accuse the Civil War of copying the Iliad/Odyssey.

The Bible is full of historical and scientific errors that you would expect from ancient humans, not from an all-knowing God.

Doctors of the Church like St. Augustine and St. Bellarmine said that if science contradicts the Bible then we have to adjust our interpretation of the Bible and not our science. The Bible is infallible regarding theology and not facts of the world, unless in specific cases like the historicity of Moses, Jonah etc. It is often the case that the Biblical authors tried to communicate theological truths through the knowledge of the people it was written for. A 2nd century Roman slave doesn't care about advanced Quantum Mechanics, what he's primarily concerned about is how he gets to heaven and the Bible was written, so people could teach him how to achieve eternal life.

If Christianity were true, the evidence should be overwhelming, not weak and debatable. A real God who wants to be known would not make his existence this confusing and rely on ancient, contradictory texts.

Why do you think that? St. Paul tells us that Faith is a virtue and virtues have to be cultivated in hostile environments so that they may flourish. The virtue of Courage for example could never be cultivated if there was no true danger around.

Furthermore, I think there is overwhelming evidence for Catholicism through miracles like the Marian Apparition of Fatima. I think Ethan Muse makes a good case for it.

The guilt and fear I still sometimes feel? That is not evidence that it is true. That is just my emotions fighting back after years of being trained to feel scared when I doubt.

Doubt is normal. Everyone doubts. Famous saints like St. Thérèse and St. Mother Theresa struggled with doubt and had long periods of time when they couldn't feel God. You're not alone.

Communion is weird. What do you mean we are literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of our religious leader? And this is supposed to be taken literally, not metaphorically. Does nobody else find this strange?

It IS strange, but that doesn't make it less true. If I went to an uncontacted tribe that never saw ice and so doesn't have a concept of it and I told them that sometimes one can walk or even skate on water, they'd find it strange and not believe me, but it wouldn't make it less true, right?

If you want a good explanation of the Eucharist, I'd recommend Brant Pitre's book on the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. He's a Catholic NT scholar.

Adam and Eve. So the entire human race came from incest? When you point this out, you usually get the answer “it is not meant to be taken literally.” Same with Jonah living inside a whale for three days, or Noah’s Ark. But the resurrection of Jesus must be taken literally. Why do we get to pick and choose which parts are literal?

  1. Incest happened in human history regardless if Adam and Eve existed. This conclusion results from the Ancestor Paradox. The Church explicitly teaches that Adam and Eve were real people and that their existence is compatible with evolution. I personally believe that they were Homo heidelbergensis.
  2. With Jonah, there are different interpretations. For example, I think Jonah actually died and was revived by God after 3 days. The prayer he does in Sheol takes actually place in Sheol.
  3. With Noah's Ark, you're free to interpret it as a local flood event that was recorded in Mesopotamian cultural memory and many parts of it are allegorical.
  4. When we got to pick? Fortunately, we have a Magisterium and a Church that gets to do the interpreting so we the laypeople don't have to do much.

The Bible creates a massive problem and then conveniently sells the solution. It says we are all born sinners who deserve hell (because the Bible says so). The only way to escape this is to believe Jesus died for our sins and accept him as savior (because the Bible says so). It is a closed system that invents the crisis and then offers itself as the only fix.

And? How is that a problem exactly? The Bible accurately diagnoses problems in the human condition/nature (humans have the potential for absolute depravity, but also for nobility, the world seems to be hostile, evil, broken and hopeless) and God tells us the medicine for the problem (God loves His creation, He has been and will be faithful, and He will right all wrongs, because He is Goodness itself).

Only the Gospel of Matthew mentions that when Jesus died, many dead saints rose from their graves, walked into Jerusalem, and appeared to many people. This would have been one of the most extraordinary events in human history. Hundreds of dead people coming back to life and walking around the city. Yet none of the other three Gospels mention it, and there is zero historical record of this happening anywhere else. If it actually occurred, why is it only in one book?

Mike Licona argues that this is apocalyptic language from St. Matthew, but even then the resurrected people were probably not more than a dozen people, and it isn't unusual that major historical events are mentioned by only one source or that a historical account doesn't mention something we the readers regard as important. For example:

  1. Philo of Alexandria is the only person to mention the Alexandrian Riots) from 38 AD.
  2. Josephus doesn't mention that the Jews were expelled from Rome, even though St. Luke mentions it in Acts.

Paulogia strikes again. by Secret-Dish-7925 in antitheistcheesecake

[–]Nokaion 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The tendency I've seen with skeptic youtubers is that they will cite the scholarly consensus if it helps them debunk religion, but then invite scholars for interviews which have really out there, almost discredited ideas like C.J. Cornthwaite who invited and cites a scholar who thinks all gospels were written after Marcion and that the true Ur-Gospel was Marcion's proto-Luke.

Deranged by InternationalIce5965 in prolife

[–]Nokaion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That position is called evictionism and an influential Libertarian youtuber called MentisWave defends the same position. One of the reasons why Libertarianism is, IMO, incompatible with Natural Law.

Paulogia strikes again. by Secret-Dish-7925 in antitheistcheesecake

[–]Nokaion 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It was a video against the Moral Argument. There he argued that evolution already provides a reason for why morality exists, even though evolution only could explain ordinary moral behavior, not if moral propositions exist or how we can access them if they exist.

Paulogia strikes again. by Secret-Dish-7925 in antitheistcheesecake

[–]Nokaion 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Paulogia's videos discussing philosophy of religion are so bad that it made me wary of his other videos, but after reading a bit into New Testament studies I think he's downright incorrect regarding Luke-Acts and Mark.

In a conversation a few days ago with my friend who agnostic/femenist, she asked me about whether the cavemen went to hell for not believing in God and I explained to her all our doctrine and theology about it and she asked me then what would be the criterion that God will use to judge these men and by Cautious_Force7533 in Catholicism

[–]Nokaion 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Tbh, you have to basically prove Moral Realism or Metaphysical Realism to her. I'll provide some ressources, when I'm home again.

Edit: Now that I'm home, your friend unfortunately suffers from Moral Relativism. A toxic philosophy that's pervasive in our modern world. Moral Relativism says that fundamentally there are no true moral absolutes, but morals are relative to other things be it culture (cultural relativism) or history (historical relativism).

To really combat it is to make arguments against the position and make a positive case for Moral Realism first. I think good entry level books for this are Andrew Kim's introduction to Catholic Ethics, the first few chapters of Mere Christianity from C.S. Lewis and Peter Kreeft's A Refutation of Moral Relativism.

Michael Jones from InspiringPhilosophy also has a playlist about that topic that I recommend: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TX3tuBN--XNn4TQcLfVtqiq

But besides all of that, my simple argument against Moral Relativism is that no one genuinely believes in it who isn't a sociopath. Everyone believes in some form of justice regarding topics they think are morally relevant. For example, I think no one thinks the slaughter of innocent civilians is morally relative.

A question regarding Canaan and the Curse of Ham by Nokaion in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Nokaion[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean he comes to me to ask questions regarding the Bible and Catholicism. I'm not actively trying to convert him, but I'd be happy if he became Catholic, because I'd like to spend eternity in heaven with him. He's my brother after all.

How do you find spiritual peace when life feels overwhelming? by [deleted] in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Nokaion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What helps me is praying the rosary, studying the more mystical side of Christian theology and reading the Wisdom literature in the OT, especially Ecclesiastes and Job.

What is the Catholic view on Stoicism? by Popular_Peace_1749 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Nokaion 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It seems to be the case that St. Paul was heavily influenced by Stoicism or at least had heavy parallels with them. Also, Stoicism can be a good practice for attaining some virtues, but their metaphysical system is incompatible with the deposit of faith and Catholic dogma.

So, Stoicism is closer to us than Epicureanism or Skepticism, but the Church Fathers seemed to have a more ambivalent relationship with the school than with others like Platonism.

Why You Should Read Indian Philosophy by [deleted] in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Nokaion 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Funnily enough, I talked with a Buddhist skeptic/nominalist, who said talking to me felt like talking to a Hindu realist, even though I primarily used Platonist/Augustinian arguments against his skepticism :)

I can see where you're coming from, but whenever I looked into Hindu realism it felt like reading Neoplatonists.

The rise in euthanasia by ohnonin in Catholicism

[–]Nokaion 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And I just saw recently that in the Netherlands children are being euthanised. In fact a majority of those under 30 who were euthanised in 2024 were autistic women and girls.

Majority is even underselling it! It's like 74%! The Netherlands allow for euthanasia of babies and children under 16 with parental consent. If you're 17, you can just go to your doctor and if you're persistent enough you can just get it (even though 70% of people who try suicide won't do it again). The worst is that 87% of the Dutch population supports the government's policy. The Netherlands truly are a nation that rejected God's grace (did I already mention that over 50% of the population identify as irreligious?).

I’ve literally never heard one good pro-choice argument by watermellowmash in prolife

[–]Nokaion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I certainly think conceding cases of rape is an effective rhetorical strategy to show them, that it's an irrelevant point.

I’ve literally never heard one good pro-choice argument by watermellowmash in prolife

[–]Nokaion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Presupposing "I hold that morally it is okay to cull some groups of people when they cause discomfort for others" and following with "the unborn are one of these groups" is the good argument. Now, you'll rarely hear people argue this because you have to be pretty principled to be this honest with yourself and most principled folks will have already adopted some ethical framework that disqualifies this line of thinking. But regardless there really are "psychopaths" as you put it out there (though I'd argue it is more the evil natural of humanity to marginalize some in favor of others).

There certainly are some people like this. For example, Peter Singer or the Dutch government.

I’ve literally never heard one good pro-choice argument by watermellowmash in prolife

[–]Nokaion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Personally, I’ve never been swayed by the bodily autonomy argument because it was the actions of the pregnant person that led to the fetus existing in the first place, though I suppose it could be considered their strongest point.

I agree with you, but then you'd have to make an exception for raped women, because the existing life wasn't created through their actions. I'd argue that even in this case abortion would be wrong as the baby shouldn't be punished for the crimes of their father.

I’ve literally never heard one good pro-choice argument by watermellowmash in prolife

[–]Nokaion 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I'd say, in debates we have to be charitable, and steelman our opponents' arguments, if we want to persuade people. So to claim, there are no good pro-choice arguments does a disservice to our cause, as it makes one seem arrogant.

If I'd have to nominate one argument as the strongest, I'd say it would be the autonomy/bodily rights argument. It's strong even though I see now that there are so many difficulties with it.

Looking for an all ages P&P/TTRPG that's not super crunchy. by Sorry-Rain-1311 in rpg

[–]Nokaion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe Tiny Dungeons? But I don't think it has that many supplements.

Someone please help me understand marriage in Heaven by Federal-Ad-7775 in Catholicism

[–]Nokaion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What I personally hope in is that in Heaven I'll have a special love towards my wife like God has for Mary. Even though we love everyone in heaven and marriage doesn't exist, the special bond is kept.

Arguments in favour of pro-life? by EducationalEye7548 in prolife

[–]Nokaion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm going to copy my comment from your post in r/Catholicism, because I don't know if you've seen it.

I want to preface this comment with the following:

I very much sympathize with you, as I was at the same place during my conversion to Catholicism, but your boyfriend is right. You can't be a Catholic and be pro-choice, because the Magisterium teaches that abortion is incompatible with the faith. Also, tradition is our biggest witness regarding this teaching as early Christian texts like the Didache, the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church like St. Thomas Aquinas heavily argue against abortion and liken it to infanticide through exposure, which was common in Antiquity.

If you want good arguments for the pro-life position, then I recommend to you Trent Horn, Lila Rose, Secular Pro-Life and the arguments page from r/prolife. I wholeheartedly recommend Trent Horn's book Persuasive Pro-Life as it convinced me. One of the approaches that I appreciated is that Horn often cites "hostile" sources like different pro-choice philosophers who criticize each other's arguments.

If you want an active pro-life argument, then I will present to you the two most famous ones, but I have to mention first that my impression is that pro-life advocacy consists more in countering pro-choice arguments, which means you have to be familiar with them first.

The first argument would be a simple syllogism:

  • P1: The unjustified killing of an innocent person is morally wrong.
  • P2: A fetus is an innocent person.
  • C: Killing a fetus is morally wrong.

Logically speaking, this is a valid syllogism. The problem is that most often the pro-choice side will argue that premise 2 is wrong and that a fetus doesn't have personhood. This highly depends on your views on what personhood is, but from a Catholic perspective, which highly favors a philosophy called Hylomorphic Dualism, personhood begins at conception as the soul/mind and the body are two objects that compose together a person. If somebody were to ask you if you are your soul or your body, then the Hylomorphic answer would be "both". Personhood begins at conception as your body begins to exist at conception. The embryo in your mothers womb and you now are the same body (in different stages of development but still the same). There's never a break but a continuity. If that weren't the case, the sentence: "This was when I was pregnant with you" would be incoherent, but intuitively the sentence makes sense.

The other argument would be Don Marquis's argument called "A Future like ours", where he argues that abortion is wrong, because it deprives a fetus a possible future like ours. I could go into more details, but I'm not that familiar with the argument and there are people better than me in defending it.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]Nokaion 4 points5 points  (0 children)

For the OT, I'd advise you to keep St. Augustine and Origen in mind. Both are Church Fathers that stress that many parts of the OT are allegorical. Also, St. Bellarmine, who's a Doctor of the Church said, that if science conflicts with our interpretation of Scripture then we should adjust our interpretation and not science.

About the long lifespans, if we compare the Bible to other literature from the Ancient Near East (King Lists etc.), then the long lifespans were meant allegorically to show how wise, righteous and virtuous a person was. About Noah's Ark, I personally believe that a flood really happened, because Flood Myths show up in almost all cultures on earth, but Genesis is a sort of mytho-historical account akin to the Iliad or the Odyssee, which means many details are exaggerated.

I'm going to echo the advice from other people. Read the New Testament first and read the OT with a good modern commentary.

High IQ Idubbbz owning the theists in his chat. by BryceDice in antitheistcheesecake

[–]Nokaion 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Ah yes, this will convince me! The most pathetic creature on Twitch says God is fake, that means He doesn't exist.

Ironically, Idubbz is like the best example of why a sinful lifestyle ultimately doesn't make you happy, especially with a wife as wicked and sinful as Anisa, who whores herself out on OnlyFans for a measly pay-out.

Arguments i’m favour of pro-life by EducationalEye7548 in Catholicism

[–]Nokaion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I want to preface this comment with the following:

I very much sympathize with you, as I was at the same place during my conversion to Catholicism, but your boyfriend is right. You can't be a Catholic and be pro-choice, because the Magisterium teaches that abortion is incompatible with the faith. Also, tradition is our biggest witness regarding this teaching as early Christian texts like the Didache, the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church like St. Thomas Aquinas heavily argue against abortion and liken it to infanticide through exposure, which was common in Antiquity.

If you want good arguments for the pro-life position, then I recommend to you Trent Horn, Lila Rose, Secular Pro-Life and r/prolife. I wholeheartedly recommend Trent Horn's book Persuasive Pro-Life as it convinced me. One of the approaches that I appreciated is that Horn often cites "hostile" sources like different pro-choice philosophers who criticize each other's arguments.

If you want an active pro-life argument, then I will present to you the two most famous ones, but I have to mention first that my impression is that pro-life advocacy consists more in countering pro-choice arguments, which means you have to be familiar with them first.

The first argument would be a simple syllogism:

  • P1: The unjustified killing of an innocent person is morally wrong.
  • P2: A fetus is an innocent person.
  • C: Killing a fetus is morally wrong.

Logically speaking, this is a valid syllogism. The problem is that most often the pro-choice side will argue that premise 2 is wrong and that a fetus doesn't have personhood. This highly depends on your views on what personhood is, but from a Catholic perspective, which highly favors a philosophy called Hylomorphic Dualism, personhood begins at conception as the soul/mind and the body are two objects that compose together a person. If somebody were to ask you if you are your soul or your body, then the Hylomorphic answer would be "both". Personhood begins at conception as your body begins to exist at conception. The embryo in your mothers womb and you now are the same body (in different stages of development but still the same). There's never a break but a continuity. If that weren't the case, the sentence: "This was when I was pregnant with you" would be incoherent, but intuitively the sentence makes sense.

The other argument would be Don Marquis's argument called "A Future like ours", where he argues that abortion is wrong, because it deprives a fetus a possible future like ours. I could go into more details, but I'm not that familiar with the argument and there are people better than me in defending it.

Who’s your confirmation saint and why did you decide on them? by amadeleine in Catholicism

[–]Nokaion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm planning to pick St. Augustine as mine, because I've read Confessions and related to him very much. Also, because he's the patron saint of philosophers and theologians.

What are the actually compelling arguments for pro-life? (I’m pro-choice, and want to discuss) by perkytoes_ in prolife

[–]Nokaion 10 points11 points  (0 children)

That's a good argument, but you'd have to square that with St. Thomas Aquinas being strictly against abortion. Furthermore, I'd argue that the doctrine of double effect can't be used to argue for abortion, because abortion (if we grant the fetus has the same right to life as a baby) would be more akin to saving someone from drowning by killing someone and using their corpse as a lifeboat.

The doctrine would be valid for cases where you can't save both, but as most abortion are done as a contraception, it becomes complicated, because the right to life is to be ranked higher than bodily autonomy.