Catholic Exchange

The Interior Life of Atheism

Recently I ran a series of articles on The Incoherence of Atheism.

As a result, I've received inquiries for advice from readers with loved ones tempted by atheism.  Not infrequently such inquiries center on what arguments are effective.

This is understandable. Arguments are important.  The existence of God is a philosophical, not a religious question.  My articles focused on a couple of these arguments.  St. Thomas has five.  Peter Kreeft points us to twenty four.  Beyond the purely philosophical arguments, evidence for the supernatural can be culled from every nation, language, people, tongue and religious tradition in the world.

Indeed, one standard rhetorical ploy of atheists is to say, "Christians arrogantly say their God is the true God but all these other religions can also point to claims of the supernatural and Christians denounce those as false.  So why can't I dismiss the Christian claims too?"

Two things are prompted by such an argument.  The first, at the intellectual level, is to point out that the Christian is quite free to believe that every religion in the world has gotten something right (some more than others).  You are even free to believe that adherents of other traditions have had real encounters with the supernatural (whether divine or demonic).  However, if you are an atheist, you have to believe, a priori, that 99.999% of the human race is absolutely wrong about the thing that matters to it most.  Christians have the luxury of being able to be humble before the facts.  When it looks for all the world like the apostles' behavior is best explained by the Resurrection, Christians don't have to resort to lame theories like psychedelic bread mold at the Last Supper to account for it.  When thousands (including atheists) witness the miracle of the sun dancing at Fatima, Christians don't have to attribute it to mass hallucination.  Atheist ideology has to take these desperate measures being constrained to so by its own ideology.

That said, it should also be noted that this tendency of atheism to cling to dogma in the face of countervailing evidence reveals something even more important about the cramped ideology of atheism. 

Consider: the French novelist Emile Zola said he just wanted to see one person dip a cut finger in the waters of Lourdes and be healed.  He got more than he bargained for.  Zola met a woman dying of tuberculosis, whose face had been half eaten away with the disease and who was spitting up blood from her infected lungs.  She washed at Lourdes and was presented to Zola immediately afterward, her face already covered in new, dry skin and her tuberculosis in dramatic retreat.  "Ah no!" said Zola, "I do not want to look at her.  She is still too ugly".  He left declaring, "Were I to see all the sick at Lourdes cured, I would not believe in a miracle."

 Whatever that is, it is not the voice of Reason.  Rather, it is proof that the artillery of the intellect is subject to the will.  That artillery can be ranged to defend against truth just as much as to defend truth.  For atheism is often, though not always, driven by anger, pain or disappointment.  Atheists (especially former believers) are quite often people who feel betrayed by God and who react by trying to punish him for the abusive relationship they were in, or the treacherous way their pastor dealt with them, or God's failure to live up to their childhood expectations.  Often they have very deep wounds.  And often those wounds are caused by us believers.  Not a few atheists are what they are because a Christian has behaved very badly.  Zola himself may be an example of this.  He was one of the few defenders of a Jewish officer named Dreyfus, who was wrongly convicted of treason and persecuted largely by French Catholics.

Indeed, atheism is a very diverse phenomenon.  Many atheists are, theologically, fundamentalists under the skin often having the most childish and literalistic notions of what Scripture says (Richard Dawkins is an especially egregious example here).  Some atheists are simply confirmed in cold hard pride.  Some are honest people who just can't, for the life of them, see what theists are talking about when they speak of their belief in and experience of the supernatural.  And that just scratches the surface of the various causes of atheism.

So it's important to have a handle, not just on the philosophical and intellectual reasons for theism, but also on this pastoral dimension as well.  Very often, when somebody says, "I don't believe in God" they mean, "I am very angry at someone who hurt me."  If that's the case with your loved one, then the pain beneath the atheistic temptation is the main thing that needs to be addressed.

(This piece was first published in the National Catholic Register.)

Comments

73 responses to “The Interior Life of Atheism”

  1. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I am a Christian and a Catholic. I must take exception to much of this article.

    I agree that many atheists are atheists because of the pastoral concerns Mark mentions and because of massive scandal throughout the ages by Christisians.

    But as a philosopher I take particular exception to Mark's earlier trilogy on the supposed Incoherence of Atheism. I argued much against those claims at that time.

    Here I must rejoin the effort.

    There are no rational arguments for nor proofs of God's existence.

    All the putative proofs mentioned by Mark are agreed upon by almost everyone not to be knock-down rational proofs but at best as pointing towards the theoretical possibility of God. St. Thomas even says the same of his own Five Proofs !

    That the supposed proofs do not make it as "proof" is not a matter of an atheistic recalitrant will, but rather owes to inherent limitations of the arguments. This limitation is grounded in the features and limitation of human language as has recently been richly elucidated by a strain of philosophy of language running from Wittgenstein to the current work of Donald Davidson.

    Probably no one reading this website has studied these philosophers, but at risk of oversimplification they may be taken as generally stating that it is impossible linguistically to "crawl out our finite skins" and our finite language so as to scale the heights of Mt. Olympus.

    That is to say it is a manifest impossibility for our language to refer to that which is beyond language's own finite-ness. Kant gestured at this as well but confined himself to the topic of knowledge rather than to the linguistics. But the point is the same. Language may pretend to contact God so to speak in argument and proof. It aspire and long to do so and to prove His existence.

     But there is no way to prove that language in its putative proofs has in fact done so, even if it claims to have done so.

    Why?  Because every attempt to say, " Look! I have transcended language finally! I have reached God in rational thought, linguistic proof !" is itself just another linguistic assertion made in the very language one claims to have transcended!  

    Furthermore, beholding astonishing or "impossible-without-belief- in- the supernatural " events like the sun dancing at Fatima and others throughout history do not constitiute proofs of the supernatural nor  proofs of the existence of God.

    In terms of Mark's reference to the behavior of the Apsotles's as explainable only or best by the Resurrection…his claim assumes too much.

     For it can also be explained by the Apostle's belief that Jesus was resurrected and can not be used as knock-down proof in the Resurrection as fact beyond doubt. Any intelligent atheistic or other listener to such a claim would of course  seize upon it as sophisty. And if the claim were driven too far as a proof, this would only further scadalize the faith.

  2. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Look around you. It is life, every breath, the very movement of it, every moment of life that sways in the trees, that flutters on a butterflies wing. That is the Love of God, that is the creation of miracles, the co-existing "proof". That we are here at all having this argument, thinking and taking into our lungs the cool blue atmosphere, with every breath we claim another miracle. You want proofs, pray then, pray and know your God because He will reveal Himself to you… know He is Christ, then you will believe, then you will have proof, then you will have what is known in the heart and mind, what is Truth for eternity, what we put the utterances of our voices to and sound out the word "faith" (in this "language").

  3. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Excellent article Mark – I saved it and will pass it out to my friends worldwide.

    As far as philosopher Iwall is concerned you must forgive me when I say something I read recently, that "There are those who have been Educated into imbecility."

    Sorry, but the "I'm Catholic but" folks crawl under my skin more than just about anything. It gets tiresome.

    AndyP/Doria2     Yonkers,  NY        HOSEA 4:6

  4. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    We have free will.  One CHOOSES whether to believe or reject the evidence for God's existence.  God is a knowable God – He seeks to make Himself known by His works and gifts. And we need to keep in mind that faith itself is a gift, one that – for reasons known to God alone – not all people are given.  

    There are, lamentably, many people who have been persuaded by the irrational and illogical 'science' of evolution that science is capable of explaining all.  They reject the arguments against this obviously nonsensical statistical improbability by comparing our current state of knowledge to the lack of knowledge two thousand years ago, and intimate that eventually science will reveal all.

    Science can only say – authoritatively – that either God exists, or He does not; 50/50.  Anything beyond that is merely opinion, because science is by definition a physically sensible discipline and can have no knowledge of any One or thing that is immeasurable by physical means.

     

  5. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    All the "proofs" of all the philosophers in the world can take us only so far. They can take us only to the edge of that deep, dark chasm where we can choose to stay where it is safe, or to make the "leap of faith". "Proofs" give us some reasons to believe that there is a loving God who will catch us in His strong arms before we disappear into the void, but it is faith alone that enables us to make the leap. That is where our free will comes into play. We choose: to stay, or to leap.

     One can blame the limits of our finite minds, or the limits of language, or anything else for the shortcomings of "proof", but I believe that it is God Himself who wants His children, in the end, to simply trust in His love for them. Faith and trust always involve risk — what if the object of my trust is not trustworthy? What if I am putting my faith in a dream? Atheists are those who, because of their woundedness or their pride or their fear, simply cannot bring themselves to make that leap of faith. They keep looking down into the darkness of the chasm and so cannot perceive the Light waiting on the other side.

     

    I have made the leap. I pray for those who are still unable to do so.

  6. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I was cruising with Mark’s article with gratitude that the God I love has revealed Himself to me and in several languages, I might add. He after all is the LOGOS, there is no intelligibility or any language without Him. Then I continued to the immediate comment and the turn was so abrupt that I almost hit the guard rail. Bkeebler, luckily helped me to regain control, thanks!                 

  7. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Can life come forth from purely non-living/inorganic thing? I say NO! It is impossible for life to proceed from non-living/inorganic thing. Scientists have never yet demonstrated that it can be done. If so, life must have come from something that has life of itself. This ultimate and Primary source of life I call God.

     

  8. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    In regards to the comment that our language is not good enough to absolutely prove the existance of God.  Let me just say that this is an example of the incoherence of atheism.

    Who cares if you can prove something absolutely?  All that is needed is proof enough to act.  Sure you don't know with absolute certianty that its safe to crossing the street or that your food isn't poisonous but you still walk and eat.

    The apostles witnessed Jesus do so many things and that were proof enough for them.  We can offer many proofs that are good but in the end it is a matter of Will just as the author said.

     

    I often pose the agrument that if you are an Atheist then you BELIEVE that God doesn't exists.  If that is the case then you must believe that the Universe is uncreated.

    Rarely do I get beyond this point because the atheist say "We don't believe or claim anything!"  This is hard to understand.

    If pressed and they agree then I say, "How can the universe have always existed since this is a contradiction?"  Further I go on to ask what is the advantage of being an atheist since there is no reason to believe in freewill from this standpoint?

    Sometimes this is the best argument to begin with.  Just point out Pascal's argument.  "Why not believe in God since there is everything to gain (heaven) and nothing to lose."  The atheist then says, "But I must live within the restrictions of the religion and therefore lose certain pleasurable experiences."  Then you can say, "but since you have no reason to believe in freewill you can neither add nor subtract from your pleasure in life."  This results in there being no practical advantage to being an atheist.

  9. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    There is one intelligent post thus far. It is by "sharocon" at 9:47am.

    The rest are either pious poetry – which is not without value – utter nonsense, or a combination.  

  10. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Iwall, I think you rather prove Mark Shea's point with your post. As he points out, the intellect can be recruited on the side of unbelief as easily as on the side of faith. The Catechism certainly says that we can use our reason to discern God's existence: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm#III

    III. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH

    36"Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".12

    I believe that trying to separate "language" from "human reason" here is splitting hairs. So if, as you claim, you are a Catholic and a Christian (though I dont see why you make the distinction) then your conviction should tell you that your reasoning is very likely at fault.  At least, I would tend to trust St. Thomas over Messrs. Kant, Wittgenstein and the current (or future) work of Donald Davidson.

  11. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Often, when those raised as Catholics get seduced by the glamour of the world, and want to go out and sin their hardest – and I was once such a case – it is necessary for them to declare God dead, for it is the only way to push their consciences, like inflated beachballs, below the waterline.  It takes tremendous energy and will to keep the beachball conscience underwater – but the allure of the world, the need for approval, and the desire for immediate gratification can supply that energy for long periods – even for a lifetime. 

    In many cases, no amount of well-reasoned, well-presented philosophy or logic, or even the Word of God can touch the hearts and minds of those seduced by the world – they are clearly and completely not interested.  Their hearts and minds are closed.  They need to come to a point of exhaustion.  What will bring them there?  The committed prayers and love and Christian witness of those who wish to bring them to wholeness. 

    This is not to say that we should not put logic, philosophy and the Word of God in front of them.  All is cumulative.  But do not expect logic in return, for we are a continent suffering an eclipse of reason.  It is an alluring world out there, offering points of happiness and gratification.  The answer to those caught in its tendrils is prayer, love, witness, the Word of God – and more prayer.

  12. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Victor: Acquinas does not believe his 5 proofs are proofs as certainly they are not. Besides do u even know the works of Wittgfenstein and Davisdson ? Doubtful.

  13. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    victor: Yes. Reason can neither prove nor disprove…precisely! So for those who claim there are proofs…to the flames with these specious claims.

  14. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Of course the reasons for the existence of God are not PROOF.  If it were proof, there would no longer be need for faith.

    However, it is also the case that it calls for a lot *MORE* faith to believe there is no God responsible for this universe than it does to believe there is.

    Also, lwall, I agree that there are no proofs of God's existence, but to say there are no "rational arguments" for God's existence is ridiculous.

  15. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    The "proofs" are not rigorous scientific proofs as would be defined by today's standards.  Nobody (not even this article) claimed they were.  They are "proofs" that show that a belief in *a* god is reasonable.  It is plausible. 

     

  16. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    pillar: The mere proffering of rational arguments is possible only if a host of underlying absurd presuppositions are granted. We can make internally coherent narratives, of course. But such arguments are premised on presuppositions which themselves are absurd to reason. The Incarnation, Resurrection, and hypostatic union are examples.

  17. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall,

    Are you saying that rational arguments in general are possible only if you grant some "absurd presuppositions", or that the argument for the existence of God/Christianity is possible only if you grant some "absurd presuppositions"?

    If the latter, then please name some of these absurd presuppositions.  If the former, I don't really care, since in practice 99.999% of people assume the existence/reasonability of rational argumentation.

  18. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Again, the "proofs" are regarding the reasonableness of the belief in "a god" (i.e…..not an atheist).  They do not, nor has ANYONE HERE CLAIMED that they are sufficient for belief in Christ as God. 

    That's the whole reason God actually sent his Son.  The fullness of revelation.  Without the fullness of revelation, man could never imagine, much less reason, the Truth of the Incarnation, Resurrection, etc. 

    And last I looked, the articles are regarding atheism.  Not non-Christianity.

  19. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Everytime Mark Shea posts his interesting and mature reflections, inevitably as death, Iwall’s comments will follow.
    I understand some readers are quite annoyed by the latter’s comments.
    But why bothering to reply to him?
    Leave the young fellow alone; perhaps he will get tired.
    That is the most charitable thing to do.
    The guy has clearly no hint of the kind of vanity he is conversant with. If you, being in your forties, have been there you know what I mean.
    Besides Iwall thinks he is a philosopher and a catholic…
    What are you gonna do?

  20. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    PillarOfTruth has it right by saying that if we have proof, we don't need faith.

    lwall, you are really no different than believers in God because you don't have any proof that God does not exist. Your atheistic belief requires faith too.

    For you to say without any doubt that there is no God, you would have to be God himself. Please allow me to explain:

    Do you posess all knowledge of the universe to know that God's existence is not possible? If so, you would be omniscient.

    Do you know that God is not hiding somewhere out in the cosmos? Say, behind one of the moons of Jupiter? If you were omnipresent, you would know this. 

    Do you posess all power in the universe such that no other being is superior to you? If so, you would be omnipotent.

    Faith is a gift that you have been given just like the rest of us. I pray you use it well.

  21. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    My apologies to lwall who does not claim to be an atheist. I just wanted to argue that those who claim there is no God must also have faith in thier beliefs. They don't have any proof either.

  22. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    reachrai: I am a philosopher and assis. prof. of philosophy. I am older than 40 y.o. I am a Catholic, a medical doctor, and consultan/ collaborator on past and in-progress publications in theology from a very respectable university. Thank you.

  23. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    reachrai: addendum – it is true that many of Mark's essays I find deserving of critical commentary which is not very well accepted on this site in general.

  24. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    factoti: Apology accepted. Perhaps u are in agreement with me and many others of the sublime absurdty of our Catholic beliefs and revel in that. Perhaps you find it pompous and intellectually soiling of the mind to persist in this recurring refrain of proofs, rational arguments, incoherence, and Mark's apparent incessant preoccupation with atheism.

  25. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall, I would rather say that our faith is sublime but not absurd. A better expression is to say that true Cathlolic faith is the most sublime to the believer and the most absurd to the nonbeliever. Just take the teaching on the Eucharist for example.

    I'm not offended strictly by the argumentation although I don't mind admitting I can get tired of all the deep thinking it requires. I do think we need to be careful of the way we couple our faith with our intellect. This kind of debate was part of the impetus that drove many of the Protestant reformers to leave the Church. They bristled at questions like, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Great thinkers like St Thomas Aquinas poderd such questions but he also gave the most comprehensive teachings on the Eucharist we have from any saint. I can only speak for myself here, but can we not become so distracted in argumentation that we forget the greatest of the three things Jesus said will remain at the end of time, which is Love?

    One disturbing item currenlty in the news is the claim that Bl Teresa of Calcutta was an atheist because in her personal writings, she perceived God to be absence from her life. Although she lived in the Dark Night of the Soul, she never lost her faith, never gave up hope, and never quit loving. This is the example I hope to follow. No I can't prove God exists, but I can't say he doesn't exist either. I'll take the gift of faith and keep unwrapping it as long as I am able.

    I can't say I agree that Mark has an apparent incessant preoccupation with atheism, but I do like his work. I personally found his book, By What Authority to be an outstanding read on the truths of Sacred Tradition.

  26. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    factoti, you hit the nail on the head:

    I can only speak for myself here, but can we not become so distracted in argumentation that we forget the greatest of the three things Jesus said will remain at the end of time, which is Love?

    You are not speaking for yourself, but for me as well.  I learned long ago that the intellect alone will never lead us to love.  It can lead us to desire to love…but it will never lead us to love.  I am one that is drawn more by the head than by the heart.  It is a constant struggle for me.  Christ is never going to ask me, "How well do you understand me?"  But he will ask me, "How well do you love?"

    In all honesty, I would rather it all be about the intellect and understanding.  That's easier.  It's much much much harder to love.

  27. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    IMHO, I believe Iwall is missing the essential point entirely. Not only Christianity, but Religion in general is being attacked in a bold and unprecedented manner in the last decade by so called Modern Atheists. These are getting an inordinate amount of media attention and are making millions in book sales. In the absence of any notable response by any credible Christian Philosopher in our generation, Mark’s views are very much needed and welcome. After all, previous generations had the likes of GK Chesterton and CS Lewis who were willing to take up the torch and defend the Faith even though they may not have been professional philosophers.

     Thank God we have a good down to earth philosopher like Peter Kreeft as indicated by Mark. There is also Prof. John Haldane, a philosopher from Scotland who was interviewed by Fr. Greoschel on EWTN last August on the subject of these New Atheists. You can listen to and download this interview via this link: http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/searchprog.asp

    Demeaning fellow Catholics for putting up a valiant effort in taking a stand against this vicious and insulting atheism is not appropriate particularly when it is done with an air of evident superiority. More solidarity not to mention humility and courtesy would be appreciated.

  28. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mark you need to be more charitable towards the atheists…ahm.   The atheist says: there is no God, the Baptist says: da hell there ain't! One summons the weight of great thinkers and philosophers. The other says, you'll find it in the "bahble". Now I would hate to have this choice but if pressed I would choose the latter. Like bishop Sheen said: (paraphrase)The shortcomings and the wounds of the shmucks among us when cut, will expose healthy red flesh with deep red flowing blood and it's obvious what remedy to take. When the wounds of a lot of the so called great philosophers are exposed, you'll see gangrene and cancer and there is no remedy. Tragically a lot of this cancerous philosophy is still with us.

  29. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    If one attempts to debunk and refute atheism by deployment of rational arguments and claims of its incoherence, one is bound to fail miserably while at the same time leaving our so called atheistic "enemies"  gloating over the spoils! One merely exposes a host of specious arguments and portrays an speccial intellectual incapacity that plays directly into atheists's hands.  

    When will [some of yo]u finally get with it!

    Fot the last time : our beliefs are nonsense and absurd.

  30. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall, you say our beliefs are nonsense and absurd. Why then do you profess the same beliefs? Are they nonsensical and absurd only to you? Or do you insist they are the same for everyone, including your fellow Catholics? I once heard Cardinal Francis Arinze use the term "weak human language" to describe how we can never fully communicate the mysteries of God. So I agree that we are limited by language we use to describe God. But so what? What about the person blind who from birth doesn't know what light is? How can you convince him to believe in such a thing if it is beyond his experience? Would you be able to describe light to him in a way he can understand it?

    Remember when Captain Kirk threatened a menacing foe with the Corbomite Device? For those who never watched Star Trek, he was bluffing that the Entreprise had a secret weapon that would return any destructive force from attacker with an equivalent destructive force. Well, my Corbomite Device is not deadly. It's only equivalent in denouncing any "proof" an athiest has. (See my post at 2:42 PM).

  31. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear lwall, I am really trying to understand where you are coming from, but can't.  I know you are well educated, but could you please help me understand (using language of a person with average intelligence like me) when you say our beliefs are nonsense and absurd?  That statement is nonsense and absurd to me.  Absurd means contrary to all reason or illogical.  There is plenty of evidence, proof, and rational argument to believe in God and our Catholic faith.  Are you actually saying the Word of God, all of the miracles of Mary (as evidenced by witnesses), the holy actions of our Saints, miraculous healings, the human eye in Juan Diego's robe, Padre Pio's stigmata, co-existence of nature, etc (you get the picture) are all nonsense or pious poetry?  To me, they can't be anything but logically divine.     Why are you Catholic if our faith is nonsense and absurd?  

     

    PS   I read this today… something we should all keep in mind- "the point of real education is not just the transmission of data, but the formation of mind, heart and conscience in the light of truth. Knowledge unguided by wisdom, humility, charity and prudence is not a tool; it’s a weapon."

     

    lpioch- great comment- I can relate to that, too.  It is easier to have it all be about intellect and understanding.  It is harder to love.

  32. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    pattyk: Absurd means, among other things, contrary to common sense, reason, and logic. Outrageously so. Almost laughable.

    The Incarnation, Resurrection, and trans-subsatntaition are all of the above, hence, they are absurd.

    Although the concepts themselves are absurd, one is not insane nor worthy of denigration for believing in them. But they are not susceptible to rational proof. Certain editors on this website however think they are susceptible to rational argument.

    Given the above, I have taken great exception to arguments that pretend to convict and depict non-believers as incoherent, or interiorly disturbed, or stubborn and willful, or morally off- base,incapable of good, or as the "thorn in society's side", or as going to hell so the hell with'em. 

    Many of the arguments proffered by editors of this very website make  are seductive and appealing to the less well- read and bookish, but are specious and spurious through and through. The arguments do not serve the faith very well at all, but offend – and rightly so – those to whom they are addressed. The arguments do tickle the ears of certain readers, however.

    Underlying many claims to the miraculous are local legend and folklore. There is no proof of any supposed miracle, that is, that God has caused such and such to happen, for the same reason that there can be no proofs of God's existence.

    It is not crazy to believe in miracles just as it is not crazy to believe in the Incarnation and hypostatic union. It is believing in absurdity however.

    Folks who not believe are not evil, incoherent, willful, or necesaarily interiorly disturbed.

     There are no possible proofs of God. Human language is incapable of reaching God in a supposed proof. All attempted proofs fail as arguments…of course they must.

    I hope this clarifies.

     

     

  33. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    "The arguments do not serve the faith very well at all". your words Iwall. What faith are you talking about? "I hope this clarifies" clarifies what? that a God/Man walked the earth 2K years ago (historical fact) and told his followers, this is how you pray: "Our Father who art in heaven…" That's on record too. Praying, in Heaven, sounds like some kind of a god even to a pygmy mind. I know you read Iwall but do you pray? If you do, why? Are you not fully in control and in command of your mind and your life? Can you define in a short paragraph what it means to be a Catholic. I'm asking these questions respectfully. You can take it as rhetoric and not respond.

  34. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    goral: I would not take your comments as rhetoric and not respond.

    " The arguments" that do not serve the faith well refer to efforts at rational explanation of the precepts of our faith and to what Mark callsa  blatant obstinence of atheists in the face of compelling "facts" such as the sun at Fatima.

    Especially tedious and onerous are those "arguments" that try to place a rational obligation of sorts upon non-believers for their non-belief. 

    Our beliefs are not susceptible to rational proofs, and it only alienates and offends those to whom such arguments are addressed to accuse them of irrationality, incoherence, and interior unrest and to foist upon them what is actually non-sense.

    Non-believers are then variously,negatively depicted as I have above stated in my last post.

    This is very wrong!… both intellectually and morally.  

    I had hoped my last post might have clarified the confusion of one reader over what I am "getting at."

    So, also, do I hope this post clarifies. 

  35. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall, for anyone discerning the existence of God, Pascal's Wager is as good place to start as any. As you probably know, it basically considers the argument that its a better to bet that God exists than to bet God does not exist. It may be a simplistic but it's thought provoking nontheless. It's certainly not what I would call nonsense because it's an argument that is quite rationally developed.

    Still, while truly knowing something can only come from an individual experience, knowledge of God is a gift given through revelation and received with faith. While there may be no proofs of God, there are good reasons to believe.

    You offered the names of some authors whose works most of us don't know anything about. But have you ever read Fiedes Et Ratio by Pope John Paul II? You can find it here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

    This Encyclical Letter on the relationship between faith and reason is hardly nonsense and absurdity.

    You say that it's not crazy to believe in miracles but you equate the same as believing in absurdity. Well, according to Dictionary.com, the term absurd means "…contrary to all reason or common sense" and "utterly opposed to truth or reason." Further, the term crazy means "senseless; impractical; totally unsound." Tell me sir, how are these that much different? You're case is difficult to follow… 

    I invite everyone in this forum to read Fides Et Ratio first as Catholics and then as philosophers, amatuers though we me be.

  36. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Factoti, thanks for that JP2 link. Live long and prosper.

  37. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    LWall, thanks for the response, but I'm still left a bit perplexed, and probably always will be when trying to understand you.   The Incarnation, Resurrection, Trans substantition- outrageous and laughable!???  How could you be Catholic and reduce these as mere "absurd concepts?"  I know I am not as well read as you or bookish, but it is some of your comments and their self-righteous tone which seem to not serve the faith well.  Never have I gotten the impression from these articles that atheists are "going to hell so hell with 'em" and that they are evil, incoherent, disturbed."    We definitely think and see things quite differently!     

  38. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Iwall:  There are two posts from me saying the same thing.  I tried to rewrite the first one because it came off being a little too harsh – but both posts went through.  It is not my intention to be offensive, hence the softer second post.  I honestly feel you have something to say, and I would like to hear it.

    [Editor's note: Danny, I took them out so this doesn't become too personal.

    Lwall, Danny thinks you are trying to be "published" on CE through the posts and he suggests instead that you just write an article.

    Danny, Lwall is a published author in scholarly circles; I think you are mistaken that he is seeking publication in this venue. MK]

  39. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Our beliefs are absurd.  Depending on how you define that, sure I'll go along with it.

     

    Christian: God created the universe. We call it the Big bang.

    Athiest: It just came into being on it's own out of nothing. We call it the big bang.

    Christian: Humans are created in the image of God

    Athiest: humans in all their incredible complexity at the cellular level, the level of organs and systems, and at the human level, self-organized completely by random chance.

    Christian: The Word became flesh and dwelled among us

    Athiest: religion is the result of "memes" (what the heck is a meme anyway?  Has anyone seen one or measured it?)

     

    Now I must ask: Are not atheist beliefs just as equally absurd as our own?  I hardly think the faithful have a corner on absurd beliefs.

  40. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I know it's very late, but I wanted time to consider.  I hope you will, too.

    First, has anyone noticed how aroused we all get over Lwall?

    Secondly, to understand his point about "absurdity", try this: think about the Resurrection, Incarnation, Trinity, transubstantion, etc. as though you'd never heard them before—never heard of God before.  Absurd (as in illogical, beyond belief)?  Yes, Mr. Spock, of course they are.  (Hint: that's where the gift of faith comes in.)

    Thirdly, thank you, Lwall, for your abbreviated resume: it helps me understand you.  May I make a suggestion?  Try putting your thoughts into words you might use to address your Freshman class.  I am a well-educated woman, and I can't make sense of most of what you write.  Most of us are not as supremely-educated as you have the good fortune to be.  Unless your objective is to be misunderstood, try using English instead of Acadamia.

  41. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    When we ask, "Do you believe in God?" we typically mean Creator God.  Now God has many attributes, being Creator is but one.  Remember the tale of the blind people examining the elephant.  One reported on the trunk, another on a tusk, another on a leg.  Each thought to be in total contact, but were not.  We also have limited contact with God, and so know only part of what He is.

    Some of God's attibutes are that He is the source of Creation, Justice, Mercy, Consistency, Truth, Honor, etc.  Most "atheists" believe in justice, truth, etc.  Yet if all is explained by matter, energy, and time whence come these characteristics which presuppose free will?

  42. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    To All : Let's take a fresh breath and get some perspective.

    I initiated this commenatary so as to critically respond to what I feel is a recurrect theme if not a weird preoccupation by Mark regarding atheism. Review his earlier triology on Incoherence of Atheism and this last post on atheism.

    What I find so bothersome is his repeated efforts to refute atheism by rational argument. I will not rehearse his arguments. Suffice it to say that I and many, many oters find obvious holes in these arguments.

    Furthermore, there is an accompanying attitude in addition to his everpresent major conceptual flaw {see below} that I can only characterize as judgmental as in condemnatory of non-believers, divisive, and arrogant.

    None of the above serve the evangelical efforts of the faith well.

    The major flaw I refer to is his tacit and explicit assumption that the truths of Christianity are rationally arguable. And that those who do not see with the eyes of faith; those who just refuse to respond to reason are willful, incoherent, irrational…even detractors of the good, and areinteriorly bothered.

     

    The only redeeming facit of his last article is an acknowledgement of the "Christian" causes of atheism – I believe he refers to these as  the "pastoral dimension"-which the CCC also adreeses.   

    What is majorly flawed – besides the distasteful hint of an underlying hostility that seeps through his essays at times – concerns the mysteriouis nature of our revealed truths.

     As mystery, the truths of our faith are not possibly rationally graspabale by the human intellect, can not be made intelligible, can not be formed into a rational argument. Incarnation, Resurrection, hypostatic union, and trans-substantaition are all so sublimely above reason as to be absurd.

    It is particularly intelectually dishonest as well as pastoraly irresponsible to argue them as rational or susceptible to reason and furthermore to claim that only minds and hearts which  are rebellious,willful, sinister, irrational,incoherent, and somehow ( and this is just empirically false!) interiorly disturbed…only people who turn their face away from the most obvious facts -like the dancing sun at Fatima ( see the article above)- would embrace atheism.  

  43. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Add: One can not rationally argue the truth of Christian mystery. As mystery, it is forvever beyond human resaon. Thus. non-believers are not irrational nor incoherent in their unbelief.

    This is as clear as I can get.

  44. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Thanks, Cooky and Jerry for your comments of absurd pertaining to our beliefs. That helps a lot.   And lwall, I do, too, believe you have something to say, and I'd like to try to understand it, but using Freshman class English instead of Acadamia would definitely help.

  45. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall, you collapse atheism into lack of acceptance of the Mysteries of our faith.  That is not Catholic thought, as has been pointed out by others.  The Church teaches that the existence of God is rationally knowable.  According to Thomas Aquinas, having come to that point, one is left listening for that God to speak, since as you correctly point out anything beyond the mere existence of God requires revelation and cannot be merely rationally known. (However, once one is open to listening to God, listening to the apostolic authority of the Church is a rational step.)

    You say that the Incarnation. Resurrection, Transubstantiation etc. — distinctive truths of our faith — cannot be rationally apprehended. But none of those things are what Mark has been writing about.  He has been writing about atheism simply as rejection of the concept of the existence of God.

    Now if you believe in the Incarnation. Resurrection, and Transubstantiation yourself, since that belief (according to your own argument) cannot have been arrived at rationally, then you must believe in those things because you accept the authority of the Church which tells you they are true. The same Church says that the existence of God is rationally accessible as truth to the human mind. I here repeat a portion of the catechism that was previously posted in this discussion:

    36"Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".12

    Do you accept what the catechism says on this matter?

  46. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I understand Lwall's "absurdity" argument.  It has now been explained by OTHERS.  Basically, the Truths of the Christian Mystery are a stumbling block to the Jews and ridiculous to the Greeks (learned).  {sorry…internet not letting me look up my Bible passages right now, so this is merely a very rough quote}

    WHY NOT JUST SAY THAT?

    I think many get aroused by Lwall because he does not explain himself.  He first asserts people are "wrong" (without proof or explanation) or "ridiculous" or "asleep" (as in 'Wake up people') or some other written phrase that when read by many feels like an attack. 

    He is happy to point out people's errors, but rarely provides a solution.  I have yet to see his perspective of how best to approach atheists and try to bring them closer to Christ.

    I'm still not certain if this is his "teacher's" mode, and he's trying to draw the answer out from each individual – so that they learn through self-discovery or self-exploration – or if he really has nothing to add.  I'm hoping it is the former.  Although I would point out that none of us are voluntarily in his "class" and neither want nor need to be treated in a condescending manner.

    Lwall, I still think you could provide great insights and thoughts to CE.  But you have to decided if you're going to remain condescending (you do come off that way, whether or not you want to admit it or even see it) or if you want to do your best to EXPLAIN your perspective instead of "leading" us to where you think we ought to be.

    Basically, your online people-skills seem to be lacking.  This is my observation/opinion, but it seems to be ratified by the reactions of others as well.  If you feel that online people-skills are unnecessary, then people are going to keep "reacting" to your posts instead of getting something out of them.

  47. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lpioch : I have amply explained in common language the meaning of absurd, how it is that our beliefs are absurd as they are "mystery" and are contary to reason etc.

    I have precisley on more than one post detailed what I find demanding criticism in Mark's presentations.

    I do not understand why u have such difficulty with what I have written.

    Why not criticize my criticisms?

    Do u regard the major supranatural tenets of our faith susceptible to rational explanation and/or intellibility? Explain please.

  48. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall,

    I am actually trying to be helpful here, although it is in the form of critique.  I understood what you meant by "absurd" before your explanation, but that was because I already understood it.  But I see many people "react" to you on this site, and it is often because they do not understand what you write.  And I'm trying to let you know that it is in your approach that causes people not to dialogue with you, but merely to react to you.

    Can you not see that you come across in type as condescending?  Even if you do not intend to?

    I still cannot put my finger on WHY you seem to come across that way.  I suspect it may be because you are a professor, and you forget that the "audience" here on CE is NOT your classroom….nor is it your fellow professors and philosophers.

     

  49. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lpioch: I do not want a classroom. I often am asked to explain very,very basic concepts and words, however, such as "absurd" or " not intelligible" or beyond "rational explanation." 

    I have more than explained -over and over again – my criticism of Mark's presentation.

    Why this is so difficult or obscure to you really astounds me.

  50. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall, here is why your explanations are is so obscure. Speaking of very, very basic concepts and words, I'm still confused by your oxymoronic statement that claims one who believes in miracles is not crazy, yet he believes in something that is absurd. That's like saying, "You're not crazy if you think a man can drink poison and live, but it is an absurd thing to believe." What am I hearing????? Yell

    Have you never come across something unexplainable in the field of medicine? These things happen all the time don't they? Even if they aren't called miracles, do those who acknowledge their reality call them absurd? How about the girl born without pupils who can now see after the intercession of St Pio of Pietralcina? If she can see without medical explanation, and an examining doctor confirms this reality, is he a fool to believe what he knows to be true?

    Do you call our faith absurd because the atheist says so or because you think so too? What troubles me is that you seem to argue so vehemently against our faith, yet you profess the same faith. When you call yourself Catholic but say our faith is absurd and nonsensical, I'm sad to say I can't help imagining a man shouting at himself in the mirror.

    I agree with some of the other posters in this thread that your tone is either offensive or sorely misunderstood. I believe in part that it's your use of pejorative terms like absurd or nonsense that your arguments are not taken kindly by your audience here.

  51. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Do you actually read what people write?

    Or do you go with your own assumptions of what people probably wrote?

    I have repeatedly said *I* understood you.

    But I am observing many that do not – mostly, it seems, because of the arrogance that comes across…your previous post of "Why this is so difficult or obscure to you really astounds me" is only most recent example. 

    In all honesty, I don't think you bother or care what other people understand or are struggling to understand.  Once someone questions what you mean (often in a sincere effort to get to understand what you are trying to say), the charge of MORON! may as well be slapped across their forehead.

    From here on out, I won't try to be helpful here.  Apparently it ain't working anyway.  If you don't want to really try to understand why people are having difficulty, then I guess let the chips fall where they may.

  52. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lpioch: Fine. Why are people having difficulty, you tell me.

    What is so difficult about inderstanding absurd as an accepted category which refers to any object of belief that is contrary to common sense and reason. Take the Incarnation. This is certainly contrary to common sense. It is contary to reason also, no? Of course it is.

     Same goes for the Resurrection, Trinity, trans-substantiation.

    One famous religious philosopher greatly extols the spiritual virtue of believing in these "glorious absurdities"! Further,he claims that he is a believer because of their absurdity.

     

    A well known Catholic theologian, Matthias Scheeben, writes wonderfully about the sublime nature of the Christian mysteries. If you can get your hands on his book, The Mysteries of Christianity, then read his introduction.

    There you will perhaps begin to glimpse the profundity of the absurd and the sublimnity of mystery. Perhaps you will cease being offended by the realization that in God's final and definitive revelation of  Himself to the human race, He could in no way disclose to us what the human mind could, in the end, concoct by its own intellection. Thus He sends us His own reality which infinitely transcends our reason.

    How DARE anyone -the editors on this site especially! – presume to cast these mysteries in the mold of a human rational argument, and worse yet, proceed to castigate and demean those who are not "convinced."

    It is only through sheer grace that we – you included lpioc! – are enabled to stand within and before these mysteries for one second! It is not because of your mind, your heart, your NOTHING. It is grace all the way down!

    When you realize this perhaps you will  cease attacking me in such an insulting and low-life, gutteral and disrespectful manner when at bottom your frustration is due only to your own ignorance, close mindedness, and defensiveness.  

      

  53. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall you wrote: Take the Incarnation. This is certainly contrary to common sense. It is contary to reason also, no? Of course it is.  Same goes for the Resurrection, Trinity, trans-substantiation.

    Not believing in those things would make one a non-Catholic, but it would not necessarily make one an atheist.

  54. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall, as I tire of this dialogue, I recall that you replied to an ealier post of mine wondeirng if I too reveled in the sublime absurdity of our Catholic faith. I have to say that I do not revel in your presumed qualities of our faith, be it sublime or absurd.

    I revel in the truth of God revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit; in His One, Holy, and Apostolic church.

    Amen and good night.

  55. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mary, are you misunderstanding Lwall, or am I misunderstanding you?  I don't see him claiming not to believe in the Incarnation, Resurrection, et al.  He seems to believe as strongly as any of us.  I see him claiming that the mystery of faith is quite unreasonable (from a philosophical point of view).  I also hear him insisting that non-acceptance of these irrational beliefs of ours does not make the athiest either willful, ignorant, nor evil.  I happen to disagree with his postion based on the first couple of chapters of Paul's Letter to the Romans (and, probably, my lack of formal training in philosophy), but that's my opinion.  He certainly is welcome to his, isn't he?

  56. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall,

    I think we all readily acknowledge that our faith is beyond proof and in some cases, contrary to the senses.  But we all acknowledge that we our beliefs are in fact just that: beliefs.

     

     Atheism too cannot be proven.  If it could, then we could all merely accept it.  However, there are some atheists who believe (wrongly) that they have proven the non-existence of God.  And this makes them incoherent.  Why, because they ultimately have their own faith yet deny it at the same time. 

     

    By the way, I suspect it may be comments like this that people are put off by:

    "Why this is so difficult or obscure to you really astounds me."

    (By the way, I've generally found that if people don't understand what I am trying to explain to them, the fault usually lies in my ability to explain.)

  57. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall,

    It is not that the term "absurd" is difficult to understand so much as it carries such a negative connotation in the modern English language.  If you tell someone that something they have said is absurd, then the hair on the back of their neck tends to raise just a bit.  It's all context.  
    By the way, you gave a perfectly acceptable alternative to "absurd" when you said, "This is certainly contrary to common sense."  Even St. Paul would agree with you as has been posted above (the reference "stumbling blocks for the Jews and folly to the Greeks").  
  58. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    cooky642,mkochan, and all : Yes! You are correct, Cookey642. 

    Mystery and the absurd are the appropriate characterizations of God's giving of Himself in space time.

    Contrast this literal giving of God's own self in finitude to the prophets,say, Jeremiah. Both the Incarnation and Book of Jeremiah are revelation.

    The later,a verbal translation of some aspect of God's will to the human race and Israel particularly by written word. ( Not to imply that Jeremiah did not also preach.) The messages and texts of Jeremiah are in themselves intelligible. There is nothing inherently unintelligible about the book as words, although the words are inspired by God. The words  can be read and understood more or less, quibbled about, accepted, rejected. There is nothing inherently opaque to the human understanding as words which display a logic, semantic meanings, metaphor, topical as well as escahatological motifs, etc.

    However, when we look at the former – that is, when we turn to God's giving God's Self and not just giving His inspired words to a prophet in space/time – we have now moved into a qualitatively and ontologically totally different entity. We are no longer referring to inspired words reaching a prophet who then sets down these words in writing.

    We are now referring to a paradoxical and unique event and to an ontologically new reality in time – "Behold! I am doing a new thing!"- which is utterly beyond human comprehension.

    It took many years for the early church even to begin expressing in human philosophically adorned theology just what and who Jesus of Nazareth was and is. True then as today, the concepts of hypostatic union, Incarnation, the paradox of the infinite-in-the finite, etc. fall short of rational explanation and theologizing. Yes, we as humans are compelled to theologize about these mysteries, but mysteries they remain all the while.

    That they remain beyond our rational grasp and remain forever mystery is only to be expected of a revelation whose essense is God Himself !  I assume that last statement requires no further explanation from me.

    Further, that mystery perdures even as we attempt to understand and give words to it…this phenomenon of "mystery- remaining -mystery" is salutary for our spirits! 

    The little ray of light we are granted as we participate in mystery ( through prayer, commentary/readings, Mass, and scripture study as prescibed by the Church) is salutary for our spirits. God's mystery as mystery, as something we can never capture, continually attracts and draws us deeper into Him.

    If one is content to express this sublime mystery as a mere pithy formula – " I believe Jesus Christ is God and man", or " I believe Jesus Christ is true God' etc. – and without at the same time realizing the inadequacy of the words uttered, then one thereby robs mystery of mystery! One tacitly assumes by such phraseology that what is at essense beyond human intelligibility can nonetheless be put into rational, verbal formulae. [ To anticipate angry responses surely to come my way, the Creed points to mystery at all points. It is not a static formula to be recited without at the same time bathing in its mystery. ]

    In reciting formulas and proffering them as "reasons to believe" or as" compelling facts" or as enticing tid bits for converting atheists and non-believers, in doing so one at the same time offends his un-believing audience and rightly so. This justified offense and rejection informs much of  Mark Shea's vitriole against atheists. He castigates their unbelief as incoherent, as failing to yield before "the facts", as irrational, willful, ad nauseum. This is a nonsense appraoch and a nonsense intellectual stance. As before stated, it does not serve the faith well. It certainly does not convert. I wish he would change his tune.

    Rather than pithy formulas sans mystery, instead of beating people over the head by uttering unintelligible formulae that actually convince very few people these days, especially the well read, intellectual sorts Mark goes to war against then mercilessly disparages them for "not believing", why not try this on for size :

     " I believe in the Incarnation, that God Himself has given and continues to give Himself to the human race. I know this sounds outrageous. I know it is absurd and beyond all common sense and reason.  It is even outside the expectation of Isreal despite Israel's long awaited "Messiah" and "coming of the Kingdom."  No one in or outside Israel ever anticipated this saving New Reality, this Incarnation/Resurrection/ sacraments/Church. Yet, here I stand in faith, utterly grasped by it,able and willing to let go before its glorious, absurd, mystery. I am totally grasped by it, drawn into it, and forever changed by it……on my knees grateful for it. Come and see." 

  59. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Like I said, that may contrast non-Catholicism, but it does not contrast atheism. I don't know why you bothered to place my name in the salutation of this fine explanation since it in no way addresses the substance of what I have said to you on this board.

    So have you tried this on atheists yourself? How was it received?

  60. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan: I addresed you b/c your last post implied that I had previously suggested that not believing in the mysteries of our faith "makes one an atheist" or somewhow causes one to become an atheist.

    I hope I did not say such a thing, and doubt I did. 

     

  61. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    If I could make an analogy of Catholicism to a tree; there are trunk issues and there are branch and twig issues. We often get questions about the trunk and begin to explain the twigs.

    I took Mark Shea's article to be a good reflection on a trunk issue, not that it should be immune to criticism.  But much of the ensuing thread seems to cover several branches and ignore the trunk.

    Talking over peoples' heads is ineffective. You're a smart guy, lwall, you ought not feign such shock and surprise at its ineffectiveness.

    If, as lwall has repeatedly asserted in various ways, the deposit of Faith is "contrary to common sense" to a non-believer, then it leaves us to ponder, "How are we believers to fulfill the Great Commission and spread the Good News to all mankind?"

    Lwall has not told us his view on that, unless I missed it.

    My concern is we end up coming across as saying belief requires some "special gift" or "secret knowledge" which, of course, leads us to Gnostic heresy.

    Jesus says we must become like little children to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. So the good news must be able to be grasped and believed at that level. And if so, shouldn't we be able to refute atheism at that level?

    As I posted elsewhere, it reminds me of the argument against movement: Movement is not possible, since you can not move from Point A to Point B, unless you first get to the halfway point, let's call it Point C.  But before you can get to Point C, you must first get to the halfway point, Point D. And so on and so on. There is no end to the number of halfway points, therefore you can never move. But here's the thing — we know that we can, in fact move from Point A to Point B! So whether or not we can rationally refute the argument against it does not matter — we simply know that argument is false. Convincing someone clinging to that argument is as simple as walking across the room with them.

    Back to atheism.  While it is useful to be able to engage the atheist at various points in their familiar arguments, it is more useful to be pastoral. Whether or not we can rationally refute the atheist's argument that God does not exist does not matter — we know that the argument is false. Convincing someone, as I think Mark Shea is saying, is as simple as loving them.

    And as lpioch has said — that is much more difficult. 

  62. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall, when you get a chance you might go back and reread my posts. Just mine — because you are not isolating what I said from the comments of others. I even addressed a specific question to you that you never answered.

  63. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan: What question was that? lpioch: I have never read of Mark's wanting to love ateists into conversion! I think you are reading into himwhat u want. You are imagining things.

    What do u and others think u are objecting to in my posts?

  64. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall: I think you are the one reading things into what people write.  NEVER EVER did I say Mark was wanting to love atheists into conversion!

    I am now convinced, the assertions, claims, and annoyances you have with other posters are, in fact, true of you. 

    I do refuse to try to have a conversation with a brick wall.

    I understand you feel that way about us.  But at least we READ what other people actually write.

     

  65. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Here is my post that you did not answer:

    Lwall, you collapse atheism into lack of acceptance of the Mysteries of our faith.  That is not Catholic thought, as has been pointed out by others.  The Church teaches that the existence of God is rationally knowable.  According to Thomas Aquinas, having come to that point, one is left listening for that God to speak, since as you correctly point out anything beyond the mere existence of God requires revelation and cannot be merely rationally known. (However, once one is open to listening to God, listening to the apostolic authority of the Church is a rational step.)

    You say that the Incarnation. Resurrection, Transubstantiation etc. — distinctive truths of our faith — cannot be rationally apprehended. But none of those things are what Mark has been writing about.  He has been writing about atheism simply as rejection of the concept of the existence of God.

    Now if you believe in the Incarnation. Resurrection, and Transubstantiation yourself, since that belief (according to your own argument) cannot have been arrived at rationally, then you must believe in those things because you accept the authority of the Church which tells you they are true. The same Church says that the existence of God is rationally accessible as truth to the human mind. I here repeat a portion of the catechism that was previously posted in this discussion:

    36"Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".12

    Do you accept what the catechism says on this matter?

  66. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall,

    Please re-read the last paragraph of Mark's article.

    If addressing "the pastoral dimension" [in adddition to the intellectual and rational] is not to be read as loving them, then how are we to read Mark's assertion?

    Do you think he is saying we should lead atheists to a field of green grass?

  67. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan and all : To answer mkochan paragraph by paragraph.

    1. I do not "collapse atheism" into rejection of the Mysterisies. Atheism is a totalitarian rejection of mystery and the very idea of the supernatural. A fortiori, there is rejection of Christian mysteries.

    2. God can not be proven by rational thought. This is clear. God however can be known by the certainty of faith.

    3. I believe because of my personal experience in of Church, Scripture, and sacrament as well as community not because authority. 

    4. Mark rails on mercilessly how atheism is incoherent and other rational category denouncements. I do not think we come to know God and Christ by rational argument.

  68. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I'm sorry to keep repeating myself. Allow me to highlight the quotation from the Catechsim.

    36"Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".12

    Do you accept what the Catechism says on this matter? I ask because it sounds to me like you contadicted that when you said: "God can not be proven by rational thought. This is clear. God however can be known by the certainty of faith." However, I could be wrong because by "God" in that sentence you might not be referring to the mere existence of God, but instead to the Christian mysteries. So please do clarify.

  69. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan: By te phrase " natural light of reason" is not meant " by rational proosf." If one reads further in the CC, it becomes clear that "light of reason" refers to a convergence of considerations which together would lead to a cretainty of God's existence. This convergence of say argument from design as with St. Thonmas and argument from morality and beauty are reminisecent of Cardinal Newman's thesis of the same ilk.

    Now it seems crucial not to misread the CC as saying that "light of natural reason" means" a proof" from reasonm as with St. anselm's ontological proof, or Descartes "proofs" in Meditations 3 and 5, or the "proof from design" arguments. Not one of tese so called proofs stands alone as knock down, drag out "proof."

    I think "light of natural reason" as used by CCC also includes what Tillich refers to as " ontological reason" or the " depth of reason", or what  Schleirmacher refers to as "religion as feeling", or what Kierkegaard means by "passion and interiority", and also what the CCC itself refers to by the phrase "longing for the infinite."  

     

    All attempted stand -alone proofs utterly fail.

    There is no sense in hammering people over the head with futile and lame "proofs".

     No sense in denigrating our fellow brothers and sisters ala Shea because upon hearing or even "witnessing" the testimony of the sun dancing at Fatima, they remain unconvinced! 

  70. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall, Shea did not denigrate anyone all he said was that atheists offer a lame reason for a miracles such as the dancing sun and the Resurrection when they resort to "mass hallucination," or "bread mold" as an explanation.  He didn't say anything at all about the atheists who witnessed the dancing sun and weren't convinced, if there were any. He just said that atheists were among the witnesses.

    There is no such thing as a stand-alone proof anyway. No proof is ever offered in that way.  Since atheists are not being presented with a stand-alone proof but instead with life, the universe and the entire panapoly of evidences (what you call "convergence of considerations") and proofs together, their refusal to believe is without excuse and they are morally culpable for it.  On that Scripture is clear, though the exact degree of moral culpablity is, of course, up to God who reads the heart.

    I might add, that since the actions of Christians can wound a soul and turn it away from God, the Bibe is equally clear that we are morally culpable for that as well.

    When you say: "Now it seems crucial not to misread the CC as saying that "light of natural reason" means" a proof" from reason" [emphasis mine], I do not know what you are talking about since I have never heard or read anyone make that claim, nor has Mark ever made it to my knowledge.

    Anyway, thank you for explaining yourself more fully.

  71. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan: Upon re-reading Mark's trilogy I think it will be quite clear that he indeed derogates and denigrates- as in makes black -the beliefs and arguments of atheists and, especially, the beliefs and even the persons of Dennet and Dawkins who, he suggests, might be "mutants doomed to extinction" and "evolutionary dead ends."

    An assortment of barbed quips peppers the trilogy, a trademark of Shea's sophomoric style meant to tickle the ears of a certain readership. Through and through, the atheist position is denigrated by Mark as incoherent and self-contardictory. One might have hoped that Shea is just making a detached and objective analysis from a philosphical perspective as with response/rebuttal papers one hears at meetings, for example. It is abundantly clear that this is not the case! 

    I had previosly responded to tye trilogy by showing point by point how his criticism of the atheist position was itself open to vast criticism since grounded upon metaphysical assumptions that are rightfully up for grabs. I called it then, as I do now, a type of intellectual dishonesty not to have faced that criticism on this site. 

    In short, the text evidence is quite against your contention that "Shea did not denigrate anyone." 

    And this denigration continues in " The Interior Life…"  where atheists are said to exhibit a peculiar tendency to "cling to dogma in the face of counterveiling evidence" which criticism directly followed the paragraph about miracles at Lourdes and the sun dancing at Fatima. Check the text.

     Atheists are said to be "constrained" by their own willful "ideology", that is, to interpret so- called " conterveiling evidence" of miracles and sun dancing by merely naturaistic explanations. He then queries momentarily from whence this tendency of the atheist, and he concludes that "Whatever it [ the tendency] is, it is not the voice of Reason." So again and again the atheist is portaryed as incoherent and irrationallly stubborn before the facts. Is this not a form of denigration?

    And furthermore this "tendency" merely exposes what, for Mark, is the atheist's root problem : their intellect is subjected to an injured, angry, or disappointed will ( disappointed that is by some negative experience of Christianity which is pastorally true and of ?genuine concern for Mark?) . Or else, they just can't hear what the supernatural is all about. Or they are just " confirmed in cold hearted pride."

    mkochan, face the facts please. Be honest. There is unbecoming  denigration going on here.

    Whatever it is you are saying in your post about proofs, I am not sure what you mean. It was you who proffered a CCC quote extolling reason as capable of proving and knowing with certanty God' existence. What did you intend by drawing my attention to this quote if not to rebut my conterclaim that there are no proofs by reason. I gave you examples of "proofs by reason " that fail. What are your examples of proofs that make it?

    Further, you confuse me in first proffering the CCC quote as a challenege and refutation of me, then in your last post withdrawing from your own confidence in proofs, no?  I thought you were going to show me that not only did the CCC contradict me but also that you were going to give me an example of this "certain knowledge" of God through the "light of natural reason" since you stand by the CCC yourself.l

     Do you in fact have such an example from natural resaon? 

    In my state of dizziness about your last two posts, let me at least try to clarify my own perspective: You, Mark, and other posters are quite confirmed, it seems to me, in depicting non-believers as somehow willfully and/or intellectually obtuse as well as spiritually and morally culpabale. Much atheist's "refusal" to believe, according to Shea, ? yourself, and a host of posters, somehow in your opinions has to do with refusing to see the facts and counterveiling evidences. Non-believrs just refuse to accede to rationalility and to proofs.

    I reject that theisis for the reasons I have repeatedly stated, namely, there are no rational proofs of God's existence. Further,I do not think most atheists willfully refuse to accede, or are all morally culpabale, or take their posiiton as atheists because of deep seated anger and hurt. I believe there are very cogent and powerful rational resaons not to believe, and I believe we should be aware of these. See below.

     But the greater force of my rejection of your and others's perspective concerns more importantly the "fact" that our very own Christian beliefs themselvse are patently not susceptible to rational proofs. For the very object of our beliefs transcends reason altogether. Thus the negative reaction of many non- elievers to certain believers repeatedly pounding their heads about proofs, rationality, etc. when our beliefs are, in an important sense, wonderfully absurd. Attempts to paint black – namely,to disparage non-believer's intellect, will, moral sense, etc.ad nauseum – who are not in a state of faith and grace is distasteful and obnoxious. And, as I previously stated, this does not serve our faith nor our evangelical efforts well. It is counterproductive.  

    One last …. CCC 2125 refers to GS 19,3 as diminishing the imputability of atheism as a function of an individuals "intentions" and the "circumstances", where circumstances include the turn-off type of bad witnessing for the faith [ as with the articles posted on this site under our present discussion]. " Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of athesim".  

  72. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Lwall, I was quite clear that no one has claimed that the "light of natural reason" means "a proof" [emphasis mine, but the singular is yours] from reason."

    Also the moral culpability of atheists — which is quite different from that of theists who may not hold to our Chirstian beliefs is no invention of my own, or Mark's, is scriptural, and is Catholic teaching. Imputability cannot be diminished unless there to begin with.

    Hopefully you understand that Mark's articles were not written to "witness" to atheists, but on the substance of your last point we all agree so let's end it there.

  73. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    mkochan: sounds goood to me. Have a good rest of the holiday weekend.

Leave a Reply