Catholic Exchange

The Incoherence of Atheism, Part 1

Written by

Mark Shea

in

One of the many things I don't understand about atheists is their curious insistence on saying that religion is a purely natural phenomenon, coupled with their great outrage at religion.  It gets odder the longer you contemplate it.  On the one hand, God does not exist.  On the other hand, prodigious amounts of fury are spent railing at Someone who is not there.  On the one hand, religion is, like everything else, a product of nature evolved by a complicated interplay of genes and environment, just as the shape of pig's snout or the suckers on an octopus are evolved.  No Creator laid a finger on it.  We are, like everything else, artifacts of wind and weather and our allegedly "free" thoughts are simply the results of the motion of molecules in the brain.  And yet, when our brains think religious thoughts, we are reprehensible monsters and fools partaking in the Greatest Evil in the World!

That's weird.  It seems to me to be like getting angry at a hurricane or a crocodile.  If religion is simply "what the brain of homo sapiens naturally generates" under the shaping hand of the Blind Watchmaker of evolution, then what is the point of being angry about it?  You might as well get angry that the pancreas of homo sapiens generates insulin.

Of course, I don't think religion is the pure creation of the human brain.  I think it is a free and normal human response to the actual presence of the divine (and the demonic, and the purely natural).  In short, I think it an enormously complex phenomenon that cannot possibly be explained without recourse to the supernatural.  But since atheists have set themselves the task of trying to pretend the supernatural does not exist, and of ignoring all data that might suggest — sometimes extremely strongly — that it does, they have to play by their own weird rules and bide the consequences.

One of the consequences of their purely materialist view is that all human thought is, at the end of the day, purely a consequence of irrational biochemical forces in the brain, not of created rational spirit rooted in the Logos who is God.  Richard Dawkins, who has lately forgotten all about his job of promoting science and instead has become what one wag called "an atheist bag lady screaming at the traffic", in books like The God Delusion, revealed a charming innocence of education concerning this elementary corollary of his philosophical materialism in a recent debate with Irish Independent columnist David Quinn on Ryan Tubridy's Dublin-based radio show:

Dawkins: Free will is a very difficult philosophical question and it’s not one that has anything to do with religion, contrary to what Mr. Quinn says… but…

Quinn: It has an awful lot to do with religion because if there is no God there’s no free will because we are completely phenomena of matter.

Dawkins: Who says there’s not free will if there is no God? That’s a ridiculous thing to say.

Quinn: William Provine for one who you quote in your book. I mean I have a quote here from him. “Other scientists, as well, believe the same thing… that everything that goes on in our heads is a product of genes and as you say environment and chemical reactions. That there is no room for free will.” And Richard if you haven’t got to grips with that you seriously need to because many of your colleagues have and they deny outright the existence of free will and they are hardened materialists like yourself.

Tubridy: Okay. Richard Dawkins, rebut that as you wish.

Dawkins: I’m not interested in free will…

… and quickly changed the subject.

Here's the first problem guys like Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and the various "New Atheists" face:  they have staked their claim on faith in Reason, and most particularly, in Reason vs. Religion.  But their dilemma was summarized long ago by another conflicted atheist, JBS Haldane, who observed, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true… and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."  In short, they are assuming that the exercise of Reason is an intrinsically free act — in fact, an act that will liberate us from the enslaving chains of Religion — and that it tells us The Truth.  But their entire materialist philosophy is founded on the faith that our mental processes are as much a product of blind, irrational and material forces as everything else and therefore no more assured of revealing The Truth than any other chemical process.  And many of them, like Dawkins, either have never given this any thought or refuse (freely, I might add) to do so.

That leads to a second incoherence in atheistic thought, which we will examine next week.

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

Comments

  1. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mark, what in the world are you getting at here! Precisely, what do you see as "incoherent" in ( certain genres) atheists claims? That they are angry at God who they deny? Surely that is not your claim, is it? For we know that most atheists are angry because- actually this anger motif is overplayed and an unjust stereoptype!  – they are frustrated at what they regard as the human race's adherence to the patently incoherent myth of God as they see it because of religion's legacy of detraction from and impedance of human progress, its cause multiple wars, etc. It is not incoherent to be frustrated with a certain world view, is it?  Second, Mark, if I am reading you correctly, you seem to draw conclusions that are forced from premises which themselves are up for grabs and debateable. Example. (1). That the human capacity for reason presupposes free will. Why so dogmatic on this point, Mark? (2). Not only that, but the very concept of free will. Why presuppose it as a first step against the atheist position? One would argue, for example, " Since we have free will which is incompatrible with atheistic materialtistic reductionsim, then we must of necessity posit a cause of this free will who we call "God".  Ultimately, Mark, the free will question forces you into a slippery circularity { unless you claim that free will can be apodeictly demonstared and proven- which would distinguish you amongst philodsophers!). The circularity is : Since there is free will, there must be God; and since there is God,  there must be free will.  Interseting that Rene Descartes "proved" the existence of God in Third and Fifth Meditation without recourse to the free will question. Bishop Berkely did the same. Read the philosopher Baron d"Holbach on "determinism and free will." Pretty good argument. Also, the deployment of "materialistic philosophy" is just nowadays too cliche for any effective attack on atheism. Why? Most contemporary writers, e.g. Richard Rorty, eschew reductionsitic talk altogether! They are insouciant towards questions of " the ultimate nature of reality" – worries about "Is it all just matter, energy, spirit, etc. …For them such talk is  incoherent and ultimately pointless. John Locke made a humorous rejoinder when engaged in this very debate. Having been accused of a crass materialistic reductionism, he responded," Do you mean to tell me that the Almighty and All Powerful God you profess belief in can not make thinking matter?" ( paraphrase.) Thanks.

  2. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    The New Atheists (by which I'm referring to the latest flurry of books by Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) are, by and large, basically Old Atheists of the 18th and 19th centuries.  They have a touching faith in Science as revelator of all truth, and in their own deeply moral anger at sin.  Unlike guys like Rorty, they do not look into the Abyss and smile, they look into it and are enraged.  My point is that they do indeed think that philosophy points to an ultimate reality when it comes to morals and are incensed at the idea that atheism could undercut that.  Hitchens spends large portions of his argument saying that revelation adds nothing to human morals since it was not news that "Thou shalt not kill".  He assumes that the natural law is, in fact, binding on the conscience and makes his living lashing out in perfectly just anger at human corruption.  He does not seem to realize that people like Rorty exist.

    In short, they seem to be engaged in an unconscious sleight of hand.  They constantly tell us that humans are simply one more contortion on the ultimately idiotic face of time, space, matter and energy, while simultaneously drawing on some transcendant moral vision in order to blame humans (particularly religious humans in Hitchen's case) for the evils of the world.  They seem not to grasp that if everything is just due to the mindless interplay of matter and energy, then what we do is also due to the mindless interplay of matter and energy.  Rorty seems to me to be comfortably numb about all this.  These guys seem to me to be more human and so are still capable of rage.  I think that's good.  I just want them to think more deeply about their rage.

  3. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I believe that atheists are really angry with themselves because they don't have the courage to live their beliefs.  If all they have is this life, why are they compromising their belief by caring about anyone or anything.  There is absolutely no purpose in caring about "others".  Why do they have a need to convince anyone else to become an atheist?  What purpose would that serve other than to bolster their own selfish activity but certainly not any loyalty to one another.

  4. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    If atheists are right, then there is no moral difference between Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler.  After all, they were simply doing what the atoms of their minds made them do.  Using atheistic "reason", it is clear that neither had any control over their actions.  Of course, that's what makes atheistic "reason" so unreasonable.  As St. Paul said, if there be no resurrection, let's eat and drink for tomorrow we die.  Good ole St. Paul.  Now there's a man who could reason.

  5. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Personally, I think everyone has a religion of some sort, even atheists, whether they acknowledge it or not.  Atheists have simply made a god of their own intellects, if nothing else (which, technically, I guess, would make them pagans).  Furthermore, I think that there are "real atheists" and "pseudo-atheists."

    The real atheists are not hostile toward others who believe in God or gods; they simply don't believe in one or more themselves, but they are not offended by those who do.  Carl Sagan, at least in his public persona, fell into this category.  In fact, he stated in a PARADE magazine article prior to his death that he actually appreciated the prayers people offered for him in his final illness, even though he did not think Anyone was really there to hear them.  He realized those prayers came from folks who ultimately hoped the best for him.

    The pseudo-atheists are the ones who get shrill, derisive, write books, file lawsuits, etc., toward and about religious believers.  I think, deep down, they really think–or fear–that God exists, and they are just plain angry about it.  As far as they are concerned, He really makes a mess of everything, and those who profess His Name do terrible things to the world and other people.  In other words, as Mark implies, they don't think God should have given human beings free will.  It seems like the whole ACLU falls into this category!

  6. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Real atheists would have to be hostile toward others.  A real atheist would view others as obstacles to them getting anything and everything (money, power, etc) they want during their lifetime.  There is absolutely no reason for them to "get along" with anyone else unless it helps them attain their own selfish ambitions.  Otherwise they would have to be classified as "lukewarm atheists."  Anarchy is the logical result of a culture dominated by atheists.  Everyone for themself.

  7. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mark Shea: I appreciate your very excellent response to my post! I really enjoyed it. As I am sure you would agree, the face off between atgheism and us believers is interminable. Many of their arguments can seem so irritating the way in which scientific facts are usurped and squeezed into service. I am particularly irritated by Dennett and Dawkins myself. Yet, many of their arguments are almost persuasive yet lacking the power to convince. I do not wish to enter into this debate but only to proffer a few comments here and maybe see what you think. (1) I am not sure why you are so exorcised by their rage. So waht! (2) One's self-identity as just a piece of the space /time/matter/ energy continuum seems, empirically speaking, to bear little upon one's tendency to be good or to be moral. Nor does one's professed identity as a Christian bear taht much weight for engendering the same. There are ample biologistic and social causations tovirtually guarantee a modicum of good and moral behavior by most humans. I am uncertain of who would win a contest between atheists and Christians in this regard. Let's give up this pathetic plantive lament of " Oh my! But if we see ourselves as just a piece of matter then…." It does no work in the debate against atheists to make this appeal. I am sure you have experienced this,no? (3) What is of more concern in my opinion are those who have apparently no genuine, deeply lived moral sense at all. This group includes professed believers,atheists, and those who just don't give a damn about either. But no one here is being " incoherent." And if so, so what! As Rorty says quite seriously, ( paraphrase), " It's amazing how any damned fool thing can be made to seem reasonable…"

  8. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I don't see why anarchy is the logical result.  Seems like totalitarianism would be and that conclusion is borne out in experience.

    Anarchy presumes equal power among all members of a society.  Such is never the case, not in the animal, nor human world. Even if each person felt entitled to do just as he or she pelased, some would have the power to bend others to their will and some would be the ones bent.

  9. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Just an aside: the two categories of atheists referred to above have been referred to in a more formal sense as follows. The "real atheists" who are not hostile to believers have been referred to as followers of Atheistic Rationalism. Sagan was of this ilk. The idea is that of someone who sees no real harm that people invoke a god who does not and cannot exist, so long as reason is allowed into the fray. The "pseudo-atheists" who lash out have been referred to as followers of Atheistic Irrationalism. The idea here is that argument is an ineffective tool to use against believers (probably in no small measure because reasonable argument always points toward God); these folks tend towards the use of force to silence believers, while often maintaining that they are not using force at all. When Janet Smith is shouted down on some college campus in order to prevent her from giving her talk on chastity, the shouters are Atheistic Irrationalists. The whole goal is to prevent a coherent religious message from being offered in order to defeat religion by force.

    Lenin and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot had similar ideas, though the force they were willing and able to exercise was far more deadly. Indeed, Bolshevism is little more than Atheistic Irrationalism writ large. Its consequences are a murderous rampage which alone has killed more breathing humans than all religious wars throughout history, combined. Dawkins, in his work, simply dismisses atheism as a motivating factor in either Communism or Socialism, calling it mere coincidence that Communists and Socialists are almost always atheists – even though the historical record contradicts this point directly (what exactly is it about strangling the last king in the entrails of the last priest that these people fail to understand?).

    Pro-abortion eugenics is also an example of Atheistic Irrationalism writ large, for how does one arrive through reason at the conclusion that an embryo or a fetus is not human? If reason were ever admitted, abortion could not be allowed, and so the abortion movement is as much at war with Reason as with God. We should not be surprised at this as Christians, for we follow the Logos incarnate, and one of the appropriate translations of Logos (other than Word) is Reason. Jesus does not ask anything that is unreasonable; that he asks us to view abortion as murder is entirely reasonable. However, we can thank Descartes’s arguments for some of the excuses offered as valid reasons for the argued legitimacy of abortion: Descartes’s Meditations argue from thought in order to arrive at existence. In other words, he postulates (without proving) that thought is the precursor to existence, and so it is argued that those who cannot think (or feel pain or whatever) cannot be said to exist. Descartes himself would never have accepted this; he lived his whole life in orthodox Catholicism. He never questioned the existence of God. However, Atheistic Irrationalism denies the existence of God (again through postulate, for no proof is ever offered). Absent God, Cartesian philosophy is superimposed upon a vacuous framework, leaving thought as the only true mark of existence. Therefore, it is immediately concluded that one who cannot think is not human and can be disposed of.

    Atheistic Rationalism, however, is forced to draw a different conclusion, because the philosophy of the atheist postulates that we are the result of random action that has taken place over the course of billions of years. This postulate (which again, is never proven) requires the Rationalist to conclude that existence precedes thought, which is the exact opposite of the superimposition of Cartesian philosophy upon modernist (and post-modernist) touchy-feely philosophy. Since existence precedes thought, the mere fact that DNA in a cell identifies that cell as human is sufficient proof that the cell (which exists) is human. And if that cell is a unique cell, where its destruction would render an existing human devoid of life, then that destruction is rightly called murder. Convincing an Atheistic Rationalist that abortion is wrong is a fairly easy task. The larger problem, as Mark seems to imply, is that postmodern atheism is mostly of the irrational sort.

    Ironically (or perhaps not), Dawkins is simultaneously lauded as a great scientist (and therefore as a great thinker) and as an atheist. But his atheism, given its manifestations, must necessarily be of the irrational sort. And so, if we were to attempt packaging this school of thought, we might have to call it Rational Irrationalism (or perhaps Irrational Rationalism), which is a contradiction in terms. This contradiction is exactly why Dawkins fled from Quinn’s argument in the above exchange: following down that path would have required one of two courses of action. Either Dawkins would have to admit that he was wrong (because Quinn’s argument is reasonable and provable) or Dawkins would have to admit that his reasoning is irrational.

    It is no wonder that he changed the subject.

  10. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    It seems to me that the irrational athiests tend to want to deny any and all postulates (since to acknowledge a postulate is to acknowledge a belief system which then proves that their athiesm is a belief and not science).  Without postulates, they are left with unprovable reasoning and even circular reasoning.  Which is why they get so mad: reasonable people don't buy their circular arguments. 

    It's a tough position to be in.  Ironically, they have an unwitting faith (since they are unaware of their beliefs) and no reason.

  11. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    To stevepacitti: Why do you assume that atheists are angry? That's false. You also assume that atheits are necessarily immoral. There is absolutely no necessary connection between atheism and immoral, egoistic, or anti-communitarian values.

  12. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    To Howard S. Kelley: Utterly absurd to conclude that atheists are forced by their own convictions to see no moral difference between Mother Theresa and Hitler. It is equally absurd to hold that atheists do not see themselves as in control of their actions. If the answer resides in a supposed theory populary called on this forum "atheistic materialism" -such that all is just unthinking, deterministic matter and how that precludes free will, morality,  and blah,blah,blah – I remind you that most atheists hold no theory of ultimate reality at all.  Even if so, matter is capable of many things which look very unmatter- like anyhow such as quarks, indeterminacy, string vibrations,etc. Again, there is no necessary connection between atheism and moral values.

  13. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    To Stevepacitti 2nd post: Wow! why do you dogmatically assert that atheists "…would have to be hostile towards others"? Again, there is no necessary conceptual nor empirically verifiable reason to this assertion. Once again,there is no necessary connectuion between atheism and the good and the moral.There is no necessary connection to radical egotism either ! The explanation as to why -as a matter of fact and as empiraically verifiable- atheists do get along with others is that they enjoy fruitful relationships, social comminitarian life, social-political advancement and improvement, et.al…Again, these goods do not presuppose nor require a belief in God!

  14. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    To Homeschool's long post: Are the terms " Atheistic Irrationalism" and "…Rationalism" your own neologisms? Anyway, a few comments. There is no necessary connection between the ugly regimes of Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot and atheism just as there is no necessary connection between the hundreds years of Christian religious wars, Christian slavery practices, women's second class status, Southern racism. gay -bashing, etc.etc. Altghough there is probably some element of causation from atheism and religion respectively. Your use of Descartes is off point. First, thinking does not precede existence for Descartes. It is existence, that is, the only way in which he can affirm his own existence. Secondly to twist Descartes into defending abortion is wrong. You argue that because an embryo can not think, that D. would thereby be forced to regard the embyo as non-existent thus disposable. But res cogitans includes not only higher cortical functions – affirming, raesonong, willing -for Descartes it also includes sentience. Refer to Second Meditation in which he states, " What is a thing that ( thinks)? …has sensory perceptions."  We know clearly today that Descartes would regard embyos as thinking substance because they are sentient beings! You will have to un-enlist Descartes from the number of your recruits!  

  15. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall,

    For someone who doesn't want to enter the debate, you're doing a great job debating everyone on the thread!

    Which is, in some way, simliar to a non-believer who wants to convince believers to believe in the same non-belief as he does.

    Not saying you're an atheist, just that the technique — of denying one's particular identity then proceeding to identify oneself in exactly that particular way — is similar.

    Am I the only one who notices this? Maybe I just need to switch to decaf.

  16. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Just google "rational atheism" or "irrational atheism" to get at the terms. I also stated that Descartes himself would not have accepted the position that I attribute to irrationalism. The use of Descartes is quite on-point due to the slipperiness of definition in postmodernism. Postmodernism posits that "my" perceptions are the most valid ones (i.e. it is egocentric; anyone can substitute himself for that "my" and proceed accordingly). This includes "my" perception of definition. So in postmodernism, I can take Descartes's philosophy, attribute a convenient definition to his use of thought, and then draw the conclusions that come from that. I (not now the general "I" but I the writer) am not saying that this is valid use of Descartes, but it is a use to which Descartes's philosophy is put. I have actually had to argue against this, so it does exist. Whether it is widespread is another issue.

    You are right about there being no necessary connection between atheism and Stalin, et.al., just as there is no necessary connection between religion and war, et.al. However, one of the arguments used against believers is that our belief does connect us necessarily with the worst of sins committed by believers throughout history. It is almost a routine thing thrown at us. And it is similarly true that atheists routinely deny any connection whatsoever with such extreme applications of atheism as Bolshevism. However, this is an either-or proposition. We must either accept a connection on both sides (atheist and religious) or we must deny that connection on both sides. I'd be happy with honesty on both sides. But that is not what we get. Religious people are painted as evil war-mongers; atheists are painted as rational thinkers. And this presentation is false.

  17. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall:

     

    You misunderstand me if you think I am "exercised" by the rage of atheists.  Likewise, you mistake me if you think I believe atheists immoral.  My point is that they cannot, on their own principles, *account* for their deeply moral rage at evil (of which the evil acts of theists is a particularly prominent point for them).  On a purely materialist showing, the most you can say about the acts of theists against which Hitchens et al rail is that they were "different", not "wrong".  Yet Hitchen et al persist (often quite justifiably) in arraigning sin and evil as sin and evil, not merely as different configurations on the idiotic face of time, space, matter and energy.  My point is that this gives away the game: they are borrowing from the theistic worldview the notion of a transcendent being whose perfections we approximate (or wilfully fail to approximate).  They don't, of course, realize this is what they are doing.  But it is what they are doing nonetheless.

  18. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    To Protect the Rock and Homeschool: Thanks for your responses. Now, I am a believer. The debate I wish not to enter concerns the question of rationality since the very concept of reason imports so much complex philosphical historical treatment that it is pointless to use little "sound bites" on a blog to defend, attack, or really even to discuss or deploy the term. The same goes for the notion of "incoherence" – the theme of Shea's article!- which can mean either illogically connected; or, inherently contradictory,self -refuting, or simply not holding  together very well as a whole piece of narrative cloth. Now which term(s) is meant by you and by Mark regarding the supposed incoherence of atheism, which afterall, is the theme of this article?  In what way is atheism incoherent or irrational? Mark Shea has already said that he is angered by them and by their anger at us and has offered reasons for his anger. But that does not shed light on his claim of incoherence. It is an annoying and abiding habit of this post to dodge the main theme. However, as to rationality and incoherence, I ask you to consider this much : are not atheists correct in claiming that our beliefs in Incarnation, hypostatic union, virginal conception, resurrection, and trans-substantiation are patently not rational? These  truth- claims are not rational if rational is said to mean verifiable, since none of the above claims are verifiable by any science whatever nor verifiable even in the most rudimentary meaning of the term ala Ayer et. al. To what genre or nuance of REASON would you gesture to argue that these beliefs of ours are rational?  I will eagerly wait to learn from you! We should readily admit their irrationality and say that we hold to these truths because we have been given a glimpse of them as perspicuously super-natural and super-rational realities. Is that retort itself ir-rational? Yes! So what! As to the issue of wars etc….it is just empirically irrefutable that the vast majority of wars and atrocities post A.D – not all of them certainly – have been fought by Christians either against other Christians or against non-Chritains and, at times, precisdely because of " religious reasons." Do you not think that we owe atheists some form of a plausible explanation for all this mess? I certainly do. Are they ( atheists) being angry and irrational to criticize us ? Not in my view. How would you proceed in proffering an explanation for the mess of the supposed Christain legacy? Point out that there are may goods  alongside the bad? There is something deeper here!  Besides, I know of no wars or mass atrocities fought specifically in the name of atheism, however some 20th century atrocities have been committed by atheists. I am afraid the ledger sheet overall is not in our favor. Now as to HOMESCHOOL'S view that there is a misreading of Descartes'Meditations by a certain postmodernist engendered egoistism, I will say first that one can not deploy postmodernism univocally as was done. It is such a variegated and nebulous term. Second, I know of no postmodernist writer of any genre who would say or whose conceptual commitments force him/her to say, as you suggest, that "Its all just about me and my private meanings, etc…."  Postmodernism, certainly in the genre of my favorite Richard Rorty, is virtually consumed with other-than-me concerns. Thanks.  

  19. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall,

    I don't think "rational" means "verifiable" as much as it means "showing evidence of clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice."

    A reading of the apologetics of Thomas Aquinas and Chesterton's Everlasting Man would be important to recommend to a serious atheist, both to understand the reasonableness of believing in God's existence as well as to articulate much of the underpinnings of western thought which goes largely unstated these days.

    As for an explanation of the supposed Christian legacy is, to paraphrase Chesterton, the Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.

    Someone (Mark Shea?) said atheistic arguments fall into two basic categories:

    1. Evil exists, so God must not exist.

    2. Things appear to be doing just fine without God, so God must not exist.

    The place is different for each of us, but ultimately we each get to the point at which, for the believer, no explanation is necessary and, for the non-beliver, no explanation is enough.

  20. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    To Protect: Thanks again. Obviously I can respond so quickly b/c I am exempt from my usual duties on this day. It is enjoyable. Fair enough about the meaning of " rational" as "clear and sensible thinking". Although there is much to be said for the verificationist meaning of rational. However, your qualifier "based on reason rather than emotion" despoils your rejoinder because it propels us back to the original concern, namely, what is meant by reason. Yours is a circular definition, no? Now, do you think the truth claims of Incarnation, Eucahrist, etc. are "rational" in the sense you have stated? If so I ask, " Excatly what 'evidence of clear and sensible judgment, based on reason…' is there to justify a rational belief in such?" The Chesterton quip, while arguably true, is just too thin of an explanation. We need thick apologetics that reach down to things deeper and are more explanatory. Besides, one would justifiably ask of Chesterton why and how is it that in two thousand years, Christianity has not been tried? It's been a very long time and has and continues to have millions of professed adherents and disciples. The atheists are correct to smirk at Chesterton's quip as an arrogant dismissal itself needing explanation. As to atheism types, there are other more sophisticated arguments that fall outside of Mark's two categories. These revolve around current linguistic philosophy ala Donald Davidson's work on"scheme-content" and a few precedent analogous tendencies in Wittgensteins "fly bottle" andview of language both of whom argue that our language can not and thus does not transcend our utterances, does notoutstrip or escape our finite categories and experience, etc……Thus, can not contact or latch onto any extra-linguistic reality such as God, etc…That's the claim.  

  21. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Thanks again. Obviously I can respond so quickly b/c I am exempt from my usual duties on this day. It is enjoyable.

    Actually, the same is true over here.

    For someone who doesn't want to enter the debate, you're doing a great job debating everyone on the thread!

    Here, I'll take the opposite side. There can be no conflict between Faith and Reason, for reasons that Pope Benedict went into in his address to the gathered assembly at Regensburg, among others. Personally, I'd much rather refine my arguments in this forum than in another, less amenable one. I have been known to be wrong, and I'd rather be pressed for my reasons than allow them to turn in on themselves. The last thing I could possibly have as an apologist and NFP teacher is a thin skin! So I will thank lwall for finding the shallows in my arguments and pushing me to deepen them.

    I ask you to consider this much : are not atheists correct in claiming that our beliefs in Incarnation, hypostatic union, virginal conception, resurrection, and trans-substantiation are patently not rational.

    I'm not certain it is completely reasonable (forgive me!) to state that our beliefs as outlined here are patently not rational. It is correct to state that Reason alone cannot account for them. I'll summarize one: trans-substantiation. One way of explaining this is that material consists of both substance and accident. This is not accident as in automobile accident but rather accident as in the paint is blue or yellow or white. At the consecration, it is the substance of the bread which changes. Through the action of God before the obedient celebration of the priest and the gathered assembly, the substance of the bread becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ (for Christ cannot ever be divided). The accident continues as bread, but the substance itself is Jesus. Now, to see and seek to understand this trans-substantiation, Faith is required. But given that Faith, Reason can help us to explore the reality of Christ that is present. In other words, Reason can build on Faith to deepen understanding. Take away the Faith, and Jesus is nevertheless present in the consecrated host; the one lacking in faith merely cannot perceive this reality.

    You might reasonably assert that the atheist simply denies the reality that he cannot perceive through the senses, which brings us back to Descartes. If sensory perception (or thought by any other name) is the basis of existence, then the inability to perceive through the senses risks being perceived as a lack of existence. Logic defies this perception: The original might be written as “If I can perceive through the senses, even at a rudimentary or primitive level, then I exist.” The contrapositive (equivalent to the original) might be “If I do not exist, then I cannot perceive through the senses.” The converse (not necessarily true) is “If I do not perceive, then I do not exist.” However, the subtleties of contrapositive vs. converse are often lost on the postmodern ear. This last one I know to be true (though perhaps not universal) because I was once an atheist steeped in postmodernism (my college degree in linguistics still reeks of it). However, I should have been more careful. To say that postmodernism is often egocentric because it proceeds from a subjectivity of thought is true; to say that it is always egocentric is an incorrect generalization.

  22. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    HOMESCHOOL : I admire your comitment to intellectual honesty and wanting your claims and arguments to be solid. Your musings about Descartes were amusing! Actually, Descartes could never allow the conditional " If I do not exist…" in the contapositive. For one's utterance of " If I do not exist" is self-referentally refuting. It is the cogito precisely! It proves one's exitence. Pertaining to trans-substantiation you better should say that the accidents white, wheat taste, round, and slightly firm/ crisp continue to inhere in a substance ( classical Aristotelian metaphysics, as you know, requires that since accidents have no independent existence they must rely upon "inhering" in a substance for their existence), albeit not the substance appropriate for these accidents – which of course would be bread substance) but continue as existents nonetheless by inhering in a substance which is utterly inapproptriate for themselves, namely, the substance of the glorified Christ who, as God, alone can permit or cause this break with mere finite reality. It is not correct to say that " the accident continues as bread." All that being said, now consider the repudiation of substance altogether by Bishop Berkeley and Hume and watch what happens to the theory of trans-substantiation! So returning to basics…is it rational to believe in the Incarnation and Christ's Real Presence in the host? Not at all! Is Incarnation or  they are possible and existentially possible given " God".  Are there reasons or a reason for my believing so ? Yes again. But what I refer to reasons are better described not as resaons so much as causations. A better way of getting at all this then  is to jettison the reason and rationality question entirely. Similarly, I wish Mark Shea et. al. would get off the "atheists are incoherent " kick also. It is bettter to ask not about the reason or rationality of my belief but the causation of my belief. Here I speak of real primordial things such as mystery, the irreducible riddle of time,origins, and eternity.. Things that are pre-rational but existentially unavoidable unless you are a philosopher in which case you might dedicate your professional life to articulating why it is non-sense to speak of these things! I was one of them at one time. But now I can speak of mystery as Matthias Scheeben speaks of its necessity. I can speak as Kierekgaard …that I believe because it is absurd.

  23. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Correction : line twelve has a partially deleted sentence. It should read, "Are Incarnation and Real Presence possible? Yes. Not only logically possible ( logical as in not stating a contradiction), but existentially possible given God…."  Thanks. 

  24. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    When I get back home, I'll find a quote or two from Belloc's Characters of the Reformation, which calls out Descartes's role in underpinning the progressively more anti-Catholic character of Western philosophy as it proceeds through the Enlightenment and into modernism (Belloc was thankfully saved from confronting postmodernism). But to paraphrase Belloc's arguments, it is not Descartes himself nor even his own philosophy on its own merits but rather the way that other philosophies have built themsleves upon Descartes's initial framework to divorce themselves first from Catholicism (a step Descartes never took) and then increasingly from traditional understandings of Christianity itself. And while it is true that Descartes would never have pondered the contrapositive of his procession from thought (again, broadly understood) to existence, he might well have entertained the contrapositive as it pertains to, say, a rock. It is the musings of postmodernism (and likely of the modernism that Belloc and Chesterton both dealt with) that have extracted this from Descartes to apply it in a fashion that Descartes would never have sanctioned.

    As for the notion of argument, I am forced to recall the introduction to my copy of Chesterton's Orthodoxy (ISBN: 0-7607-8631-3, published by BArnes & Noble, Inc.): "The first biography of Chesterton was published anonymously by his brother Cecil in 1908; it is informative that this first of many life stories was an attack on [GK's] politics…. Cecil and Gilbert knew how to argue, and they were more than willing to demonstrate publicly" (page ix). It is worth noting that collegiality does not require the absence of incisive criticism. What it really requires is the absence of ad hominen attacks (i.e. the absence of attacks upon the person of one's discussion partner). Even incisive criticism is (or should be) perfectly acceptable, provided it is directed at the argument and not the person. Another confusion of modern times is the confusion of these two; too many of us are ready to believe that a harsh criticism is directed at us personally when it is merely directed at the argument. It need not be understood this way. It should not be understood this way.

  25. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Homeschool: Not at this moment but in a later post I will continue to explain why the locutions rational and incoherent are inappropriate locutions for either (1) explaning ourselves to ourselves as believers in the absurd; and (2)  attempting  to refute, convert, or critique atheism. And especially how the concepts of mystery and ontology and His divine action exerted upon man's finite ontology( vix. that of God's ontology qualifying man's ontology) does allow us a qualified reasonable belief and a supernatural faith in all the fundamental tenets of Church. However, if one does not begin with the primordial and existentially experienced ( experienced as opposed to argued) concepts of mystery, God-as possible, and most importantly, God as possible as the super-eminent ontological reality then,without this starting purchase, one invariably slips into irresolvable arguments centered on reason, reason's nature, coherent vs. incoherent… all of which are but mired in the limitations of our finite mind and thereby are impotent to prove or make reasonable what it wishes.  How unreaonable and dogmatic we look to others as we try to argue from this supposed perspective of reason, reasoableness, logic, etc. as if God's final revelation of His reality and will to the human race were, in the end, something which man could make his own, that could become part of man's finite ontology susceptible as,l other aspects of his finite world, to rational explanation. As with Scheeben, a poor recommendation for deity is that god who reveals himself not as mystery but as such that man can understand Him, empty Him of mystery, etc. That's the risk of the rational approach, and it never succeeds alone in conversion.  On the other hand, consider this : God's super-eminent ontology has entered into this, our finite ontology ( by way of the perpetual Incarnation ) and is powerfully present to our finite ontology. God has thereby entered into and assumed the lesser  ontology, taken it int Himself and thereby qualifiying our finite  ontology radically. This divine action which is possible only because God is super-eminent ontology allows my finite ontology to participate in His ontology albeit fragmentarily. My reason, sentiments, and entire self iare thereby qualified too. By this divine action in and of Christ, I am now capacitated beyond my finite ontology ( this is the only sensible meaning of transcendence). I know experientially and incorrigibly that I am a new being, new because God's own self, His ontology, as mystery that was present to me only partially and from afar, but now present to me fully and immanently. Now do I "see" the things of faith : Incarnation, Resurrection, Eucahrsist…they are beliefs for me not because they first seemed reasonable, plausible, or possible to my finite mind. But specificlly and only because I know them as true because I incorrigably know them as having come to me from beyond myself and beyond my ontology through Christ and sacrament. Super-eminent ontology of God suffusing Himself in human ontology, thereby lifting and qualifying my finite ontology including its reason which now knows absurd and paradoxical things! And this only because of God's loving move towards me ,Who has given the human race a glimpse of His Being through His Son who is perfectly adapted just for this purpose. I know because of mystery, and I know only in the mystery but I know without degrading the mystery to the status of finite reasonableness or coherence. Mystery and ontology are the starting and ending points. I am the alpha and the omega, no? An aside….You did not address the points of my last post in your last post. Why? Also, what is this thing about ad hominem? It can't be directed towards me, HONMESCHOOL. Must attend to day long duties now. Later.   

  26. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    addendum: As the enlightened prisoners returning to the cave in Plato's Republic  came across as insane to the others, so do we when attempting to explain what we now see particulary when we insist upon how reasonable in all really is. Of couse it is all reasonable, but only from the perspective of one's qualified ontology. We must risk appearing insane and unreasonable; as those who have experienced  what it is like outside the cave! This is the only honest and only reasonable platform from which to proclaim Him. Thanks. 

  27. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    If you two part-time philosophers are still lurking, then perhaps you can answer this for me.

    Can moral truths exist outside of a belief system?  In other words, can reason alone sans all beliefs, all postulates, all assumptions, arrive at any moral conclusions whatsoever?

    From what little I have of atheists of the ilk mentioned by Mr Shea, it appears to me that they deny any and all beliefs.  I can't wrap my head around how such a position could ever arrive at any moral truths whatsoever.  Am I missing something here?

  28. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I'm out of town on vacation myself, but I'd be in deep water even if I was home with reference books!

    This is a great learning thread for me!

    Obviously Chesterton's quip is not thick and deep, but his writings are. Likewise Aquinas. It's not very feasible to post 5,000 word excerpts of theirs on the net, is it?

    Perhaps this is addressed by some of the philosposhers mentioned above which I have not studied. In a world of existence where everything must be verifiable by objective evidence, how does one explain, for example, the concept "mercy is more useful than justice," or even, "I love my mom."

    There is a level at which we can not "know" unless and until God speaks and reveals Himself. Once He does so, then we must either accept or deny that He has. Is that not reasonable?

    Gotta run. Blueberry pancakes! Woo-hoo!

  29. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    To GaryT: FYI, I am not a part-time but a full- time philosopher. Now, yes, you are missing something very significant! In fact, your posted question manifests this very gross deficiency, which is ( for you) that moral truths –  [granted there is such a thing: recall Nietzsche's et. al. serious quip that there are no moral facts, only moral interpretations of facts! ] – can not be purely natural. Human beings sans belief in God have always and continue to originate moral belief systems! You not imply, but I would guess, strongly believe that moral truth means " a belief concerning human goods and human flouishing, do's and don'ts, which beliefs are grounded in God and have been revealed to man by Him."  If this is what you mean by, " Can moral beliefs exist outside a belief system" and " atheists…deny all beliefs.." then you are sorely mistaken. For you have unwarrantedly required that moral truth must presuppose a belief in God. So for you, moral truths must mean "moral-theological-revealed- truths." This present discussion and your question turn upon what we mean by moral, obviously. I am pointing out to you that the term "moral" encompases a much wider scope than "revealed religious  morality". Your apparent restrictive view of "moral truth" is a peculiar and embarrassing myopia of Christians who mostly believe just as you do. But it's not too late. Read some stuff!  e.g., a summary of the British philosopher J.S. Mill, summary of David Hume on Morality, or the same for Kant's Critique of Practical Reason if you dare, or some some selections from Richard Rorty…get informed. Know of what you speak, or at least know that you don't know before settling your opinuions, OK? Thanks. I wi

  30. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    To Protect: Thanks for the post. To give a quick comment –  I too must hustle to attend to things – if you or anyone must have justifications or commands from on high to realize that mercy is more useful ( useful here is an interesting choice of words, very pragmatist sounding! ) than justice, or if you need to explain  *( ?) I love my Mom"mind, there is something already seriuosly wrong! Most humans embrace mercy and love their Mom and we are correct in looking askance at those who do not. We don't accuse them of violating moral theory, do we? Part of the trouble with moral theory historically is seeking such justifications in some "theory of moral justification." Would you need to consult a moral theory to know that , yes, you should jump overboard to save your drowning spouse instead of some an anonymous person ? This question is posed in philosophy classes, perhaps you know. It is not without nuanced responses but in general serves to point out that not all moral behavior needs justification; that moral values such as mercy and love of Mom are biologistic/social , and for that alone it is just fine morally speaking.

  31. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    TO All ATHEIST- DEPRECATORS:  Just learned that an 80 y.o. atheist in New York City has donated 22.5 million dollars to the Archdioese of New York Scholarship Fund. This will educate appr. 3,000 children! He stated that the value of giving and of education in order to improve the lives of others ( these 3,000 ) and improve this culture at large knows no pedigree. He stated that he harbors no prejudice against religious institutions or individuals. He further stated that any religious prejudice is " abhorrent." God knows what prejudice this man has probaly endured at the hands of supposed Christians. I read on this very post and this  website all sorts of ant-atheist sentiments. I read that atheists can not be moral, have no "reason" to be moral, could only fight everyone in a mad rush to self-centered fulfillment, and would even engender "anarchy.' When is the Christian world going to grow up! By the way, I am a believer and a Catholic Christian.  

  32. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall,

    Thanks, again, for your thought-provoking posts!

    As a believing Catholic Christian, what do you make of our Blessed Lord's departing comments to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them all that I have commanded you"?

    How can we read this and not address atheism with the reasonableness of belief? 

  33. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Are u suggesting that we are commanded to convert atheists? Yse, as with all the non-converted. And are you suggesting that we employ what u term " reasonableness of belief" in doing so? That of course depends on your meaning of "reasonableness of belief", no? so unpack that phrase a little and we can go from there.

  34. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    lwall,

    thanks for your comments but I'm afraid you misread way too much into what I said.  I do not equate "belief system" with "divinely revealed truths from God".  A belief could be a belief in an idea, even one's own idea.  For instance Mill believed in utility.

    The point I was trying to ask, although obviously very poorly, is if it is possible to make any moral statements using 100.000% reason alone and no beliefs in anything (i.e. an idea, divine revelation, etc.).  I just don't see it, since I don't see how to prove with reason alone what is "good" and what our ultimate end is.

    For instance, the statement "killing innocent people is wrong" does not require a belief in God to accept this as true, but it does require a belief that human life has some intrinsic value.  History has shown us that not everyone ascribes to such a notion.  There have been many who have argued the reverse.  (for example "People must die so mother nature can live")

    Or take for instance the atheist who gave lots of money to the Catholic school system (I saw this as well).  I presume he believes there is value in education. 

    By the way, I have read a little Mill and Kant.  I am always struck by how people summarize philosophers by saying "so and so believed X".  In other words, it always seems to start with a belief in something.

  35. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    One more thing: I don't accuse all atheists of being unreasonable.  My point is that if in fact all arguments of reason (or for that matter any proof system) must be built upon some unprovable things, then any athiest who claims to use "reason alone" is fooling himself.

    I realize it is perfectly "reasonable" to claim to be an athiest and believe that no God created the universe.  But is still starts with a belief that there is no God.  In other words, their reasoning must be built upon something.

     Sorry for calling you a part-time philosopher, I didn't realize you did it professionally.  Thanks for your time spent here.

  36. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    TO GARY AND ANYONE: You don't see morality as possible unless undergirded by certain prior beliefs, an idea or revelation, in something….Well of course the actions, visions, sentiments of all morality presuppose that their object is valuable, good.  That's the underlying belief: that these goods, for example, more freedoms, greater diversity, widespread education, elected and honest government, peace, widespread imaginative identification with others, solidarity..are indeed good things. One's moral "sytem" the attempts to maximize theses goods.  The point is all that most current moral anti-theory   assumes the worth of these goods and eschews, for the most part, efforts to further demonstrate why hese goods are good. Can reason alone genertate a moral view that is worthy, you ask? Doubtful, since we now know from modern neurophysiology that there really is no such entity a "reason alone."  It seems that all cerebral rational circuits and centers are intimarely connected to circuitry of sentiment, emotion, and imagination. Kant, a supposed expositor of a morality of reason anticiapted this intuitively by acknowledgeing a sui generis "moral feeling" that moves the will as the will is confronted with the force categorical impeerative.

  37. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Also, what is this thing about ad hominem? It can't be directed towards me.

    Indeed not. It was intended as a general observation because I myself have experienced, and have seen in others (at least in external expression), a tendency to equate disagreement with a departure from collegiality. My point was to observe that collegiality itself includes room for very incisive, publicly expressed disagreement, which of course includes all thoughts expressed in this particular discussion.

    I apologize for the lack of clarity. 

Leave a Reply

More posts