-255x255.jpg "Shutterstock")
Seeking certainty is a lifelong quest. To live life as we should, we must understand it. But sometimes when we seek certainty, we see what we want to see. And, sometimes we do this because we have already made up our minds. And when we see what we want to see, it leaves us with certainty, a certainty that relies not on truth, but on belief. It leaves us with certitude without substance, with a certainty that is more like silliness than real wisdom.
Now, the prominent “heralds” of atheism, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, all claim to have looked for God and not found him. They claim believing in God is a delusion, for “religion is man-made” as Hitchens tells us. And such belief is a plague for believers and unbelievers alike. Hitchens claims religion is “violent, irrational, intolerant.” And these delusions and plagues must be stopped for the survival of our species.
Well, there are two crucial issues at work in their rhetoric: the question of God’s existence and their moral criticisms. But how do they know God doesn’t exist? And how do they know their moral criticisms are truly moral? It all comes down to how these things can be known.
Regarding God, their criticism entails a relentless demand for “demonstrable” evidence. Often, they limit what may be known to the physical world of science. “Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence,” Dawkins states. And sensory evidence is the only form of evidence allowed. That is what they mean by “demonstrable” evidence. They want us to “show them God.”
Well, we know, God is not physical. So, we cannot “show them God.” But we can point to evidence of God’s existence as the uncaused causer or in the order, tuning and complexity of the universe. But, despite these compelling facts, the atheists think the case is closed. But it isn’t. For the debate is about knowing, just as much as it is about God.
Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. cast the debate about God as a conflict between science and faith or between reason and faith. This is a manifestation of their beliefs. They see these conflicts because they are atheists. But, Catholics do not see conflicts between faith and science or reason. We embrace a harmony of knowing, bringing together the physical and the mental, the senses and the mind. The division and conflict between reason and science and faith these atheists see arises from their beliefs about how we can know. For us, such conflict is absent.
For these atheists, “demonstrable” proof must come through our five senses. This is why they readily reach for science to defend their beliefs. And, if something is not observable directly through our senses or indirectly through technology, then that something is a mere mental phenomenon. And so, they often dismiss reason and logic, unless they are linked to science.
They do this because the scientific method stresses the gathering of evidence and the generating of hypotheses to explain the evidence. This certainly entails the use of reason. But, for them, reason is only valid when tied to observed evidence. And, while science relies on reason and mathematics, science also is grounded in philosophy. Catholic philosopher Edward Feser identifies such philosophical assumptions as “a physical world existing independently of our minds,” that “our senses are at least partially reliable sources of information about this world,” and that “there are objective laws of logic and mathematics that apply to the objective world.” These atheists seem oblivious to these philosophical assumptions in science.
While these atheists employ mental things such as reason and mathematics, they limit their utility to science. And by doing so, they severely reduce reason’s explanatory power, confining its usefulness to physical observations and experiments. By confining their arguments against God to science, they avoid philosophical argumentation altogether and implicitly diminish the power of reason.
On the other hand, philosophical argumentation uses reason to prove propositions much like mathematicians develop theorems in geometry that are irrefutably true. If certain premises are valid and the argument is logical, then the conclusion must necessarily be true. For, 2 + 2 = 4 is true, just as “there are 180 degrees in every triangle” is true. And these truths can be demonstrated through logic alone. So, how do you explain such mathematical and logical truths in terms of a materialist universe? As Feser puts it, “If universals, propositions and mathematical objections are eternal and necessarily existing entities that cannot plausibly exist apart from a mind, and such a mind could not … be a finite or limited mind like ours, it follows that they must exist in an eternal and infinite mind.”
We would call that mind “God.”
But, by distorting science and avoiding philosophical argumentation, the “heralds” do not afford a proper place to reason in their theory of knowing. And they can’t give any sound reasons for this without contradicting their theory. For they must rationally justify why reason can’t be used in and of itself, why reason is only valid when linked to tangible observations. If they use reason independent of science, they indulge in philosophical argumentation, proving the truth of reason’s principles. And, they tacitly make the case for intangible truths; for truths arising through reason and mathematics can only come from an intangible source outside the physical universe, as Feser notes. And it raises the possibility of an eternal mind behind the physical universe.
Also, because they tacitly deny reason’s capabilities, they fail to harmonize the senses and reason. This error has nothing to do with science and everything to do with philosophy. But the “heralds” do not state their philosophy up front. They commandeer science injecting their philosophy with power and legitimacy. For instance, Dawkins’ materialist philosophy is implicitly evident when he describes the “universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
Notice his emphasis on sensory observation. Notice how he summarily dispenses with significant philosophical questions of order, meaning and morality by his appeal to materialism. And notice how he implicitly wraps this in science. Many of the “heralds’” followers are duped by their unsophisticated view of science and by its misappropriated rhetoric. And, in the process, they miss how the “heralds” distort science’s explanatory limits and authority.
When it comes to philosophy, these “heralds” are also less than rigorous. It is all too easy to form a philosophy if you leave out a whole dimension or diminish its value as like they do with reason. It is a much more difficult thing to incorporate a theory of knowing affording reason and the senses their proper and ordinate place; it is a vastly more difficult thing to show how the senses and the intellect harmonize and inform one another. But it is a more accurate, a more truthful thing to bring these ways of knowing together in pursuit of certainty.
This atheistic distortion of knowing is a part of the atheists’ problem in constructing an accurate worldview. For the scientific method represents a harmony of mental and sensory knowing, a blending of the intellect and the senses, an ordinate balance between the tangible and intangible. For science is a rational endeavor. But for Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, their view of knowing and of science leaves them without a robust and rigorous role for reason. And it leaves them no way to appeal to reason, as reason. Thus, their worldview becomes irrational, for they do not accept reason as a form of knowing independent of the senses. And their worldview becomes blind because it is without a clear, reasoned defense. In the end, their atheism seems like the myopic zealotry, the blind faith, they insist we have.
But what about their moral critique? Like science, their moral critique uses familiar words and distorts their meanings For example, Harris’ perspective is that “Christians have abused, oppressed, enslaved, insulted, tormented, tortured and killed people in the name of God for centuries.” This series of verbs are all words describing immoral actions. Harris uses them as rhetorical accusations, without establishing such moral distinctions as legitimate within his materialist worldview.
This tactic avoids the difficult task of explaining morality’s existence and nature. His rhetoric assumes common moral sensitivities without explaining where these come from, what each moral belief means or how these moral beliefs are applied. He avoids explaining the truth of morality and is impotent in describing its moral content.
What Harris and the other “heralds” do is borrow the language of morality, distort its teaching and emphasize the most popularly appealing aspects. This is why they cannot see the flagrant contradiction of supporting abortion while decrying the Crusades. This is why it is more often about individual rights than it is about love and its accompanying moral obligations and imperatives.
They also make no real case for the source of morality other than arguments from adaptation and primitive sociology. With this adaptive basis, morality has no real objective nature other than social expediency and cultural norms. Morality and its principles become mere social conventions without any basis in objective truth. So, because morality is culturally driven, it often is bent to the individual as the primary determinant of morality. As a result, any person is free to decide what morality is. Again, there is no real truth here, just opinion.
Also, if we are just matter and energy, morality is simply and solely biochemical — and so is the reason that explains it. So, even if morality is culturally determined, it really is biochemical at its core. And it is just here that morality, like reason, becomes another blind belief.
They also often criticize Catholic morality from two general vantages. First, they deride our prudery, control and guilt. Along these lines, they cast our morality as fear-and-reward driven. Second, they take exception to our many moral failings. They outline the persistence of slavery, the Inquisition and the Crusades as prominent but typical examples of Catholic morality. So, we are too moral. And, we are too immoral. Oddly, they think we are both.
Latent within this odd combination of criticisms is the unspoken desire to define morality in terms fitting contemporary sensibilities, a new morality whose foundation is the individual. And this thrust of contemporary morality dependent on individual preference diametrically opposes the Catholic view. In our Catholic moral view, morality is both timeless and timely — for the foundation of our morality is the very nature of God’s loving and perfect being. And his commandments to us are not arbitrary or the product of his whim. It is the very nature of his being and loving hope for us.
Unfortunately, these atheists’ worldview leaves them a universe that is matter and energy. And this materialist certainty they trumpet with such optimism devours all human experience leaving only what we can see, only what we can measure. Even things we experience as being real are just mere phenomena arising from the interplay of matter and energy. Nothing else truly exists but these.
And we are left with the certainty of one thing and a silliness beyond belief and proportion. Were it not for the seriousness of this atheistic view and its rising influence, it would be a laughable, ridiculous fiction. But it is promoted as a serious certainty, and there is no silliness in that. It is cause for alarm not amusement, a cause for confrontation not comedy.
To meet their challenges to our faith, we must equip ourselves with a thorough, sophisticated understanding of their beliefs and a rigorous, relentless defense of our faith. And we must meet their incursions at every turn, unmasking their rhetoric for what it is — a manipulation of our morality and a distortion of science and reason.
Former atheist Frank Cronin writes from eastern Connecticut. He has a master’s degree in theology from Regent University. His post-master’s studies include Harvard, Columbia and Holy Apostles College and Seminary. He was received into the Catholic Church in 2007.
Matthew Warner: Why the world doesn't take Catholicism seriously
Benjamin Wiker: Benedict XVI: Doctor of the Church
Comments
Post a Comment
I can’t believe no one is commenting on this. It was awesome by the way. Maybe they’ve all converted! :)
Just show ms me some darned evidence and I can start to think your god exists. No evidence, non existence. Insult me all you want but the 5 senses are all “god” gave us.
He wants us to to praise him, follow his rules, drink his blood, eat his body, but he isn’t of this physical world? And for not “knowing” him, I’ll burn in his hell. Certainly such a loving being deserves praise and glory.
As an Athiest, calling my non belief in an non proveable being as silly is insulting. There is much more evidence for Santa than Yawheh, so I’ll go out on a limb and say with more certainty than Santa doesn’t exist, that your god doesn’t.
I’m game, show anything that shows your god is more likely than Zeus and I’ll be less certain and silly.
Rover.
Of course! It’s silly to NOT believe in invisible superbeings! Why couldn’t I see this before?
A group of Agnostics/Atheists here in Grand Rapids Michigan recently put up a billboard questioning the existence of God and suggesting that one can lead a fulfilling life without religion. While that may be true, they are rather disingenuous in how they go about promoting their ideas. While they feign respect for all religions, their real aim is to ensure that no (other) religion sets the standards by which we are to live our lives. They actually suggest forming a consensus morality that takes input from all religions (and presumably non-religions as well), which should be immediately undesirable to most people in one important aspect - the only thing about a consensus that can be counted on is that it will change, and who wants to waste their life chasing a moving target?
Strangely, I have a difficult time getting many of them to actually commit to atheism. The true atheist has something significant in common with a Catholic, which is that each makes an unprovable claim about the existence of God, then espouses a worldview based on the belief that that claim is true. In practice most “atheists” are really agnostics, but in my view claiming to be an agnostic means you cannot really have an opinion about anything that hasn’t been demonstrated empirically. In other words, all an agnostic can agree with are the things that atheists and Catholics already accept equally because they are demonstrably true, and beyond that he has to be as skeptical of the true atheist’s claims as he is of the Catholic’s.
Just the title is meant to inflame and start a fight. I’m just not feeling the love. If your God loves all his creations (presumably, including the athiests), maybe write an article that brings us together instead of creating such division. just sayin’
Kevin Rahe - Yours is an excellent post. thanks.
Bertrand Russell on his deathbed when asked if he were wrong, what he would say when he meets God, thoughtfully replied, “Why didn’t he give us more evidence?” Well, as Peter Kreeft says (paraphrase), “Too much evidence and you would be compelled to believe in God; too little and you would never find him; He has given just enough so we can reasonably know He is there if you are seeking. People not seeking are both unreasonable because they are not seeking, only demanding proof, and unhappy because they have not found Him.”
studentLB, I don’t know who Mr. Kreeft spoke to, but in my experience athiests/agnostics are seeking truth. Many of us, instead of starting with the conclusion (that there is God) and trying to make our observations and experiences and sensibilities fit into that ‘box’, we decided to start with no conclusion and use our observations, experiences and sensibilities to come to our own conclusions. In my experience, many of us have few conclusions, because the universe is just too vast for our puny little heads to make sense of with any certainty.
For me, the only thing I can say with any certainty is that it is to all our benefit to spread kindness and to be humble rather than using inflammatory speech and judgements to put down people who have another point of view. I can also say with some certainty that this writer is not going to bring anyone to his faith using language and making accusations like he does in this article. It makes me wonder why he is writing it.
Regarding Mr. Kreeft’s idea that athiests/agnostics haven’t found happiness - again, I don’t know who he talked to but that certainly is not my experience with athiests/agnostics. And if your faith helps you to make sense of life and death, then I am very happy for you. I’m also happy to live in a country where I can choose to view life and death in a way that makes sense to me.
It would make me very happy if we humans would focus more on things that bring us together rather than drive wedges between us.
To Rover, I would just like to point out that an insult is something that necessitates more than the five senses. You must COMPREHEND that someone is insulting you. You must use your mind. This is one of the points of this article, to prove that things can be known that are immaterial, perhaps not completely, but known just the same. We as human beings have a vast amount of immateriality, as proven by the fact that you were insulted. The Catholic does not deny that a vast majority of knowledge begins with the senses and the objective world. It simply goes beyond the physical, which as we all, to a certain degree, are immaterial, shouldn’t be too big of a gap to bridge.
Molly,
Yes, insults require comprehension from inputs from the senses. Insulting people because they don’t believe what you do with your very little evidence is childish and just begging for a fight. My senses tell me atheists were insulted, they don’t tell me there is a hint of god.
Molly,
Perhaps asking someone who is actively committed to atheism to reconsider the evidence in front of his/her eyes for God’s existence is a bit like asking a color blind person to see color. Maybe they just don’t have the tools to perceive it - their “cones” are either missing or damaged. Committed atheists are pretty rare - like the completely color blind. If they want to continue to believe there is no evidence for God, despite the vast majority of humanity throughout history that perceives such, then there’s little or nothing one can do to help other than to pray and model God’s love to them as best we can. For various reasons, the committed atheist’s mind and heart are currently disposed to perceive mere accidents and meaninglessness around them where almost everyone else easily perceives evidence of intelligence, purpose, order, design…and love.
Thankfully, unlike complete color blindness, the inability to see evidence for God’s existence may be temporary - as it is for many.
Mike, I see NO evidence of inteligent design? If my “cones are missing” and I am unable to see God, who made me so? Yup, GOD! God did an amazing job of hiding if he exists.
I am open to evidence, do what no one has done in 2000 years and give some credible evidence of your god. Not from a belivers perspective but from an outsiders.
No, Rover. We don’t know if God “made you that way” or whether you or others made you unable to “see.” God gave man free will. Since “the fall”, sin entered the world by man’s free choice and with it all sorts of disorders - physical, emotional, spiritual, psychological, etc. All men are given sufficient grace and ability to come to God if they so choose. But some, either by their free will choices and/or by circumstance, find themselves at a disadvantage. God judges in accord with the gifts and circumstances of each individual. To whom much is given, much is required. To whom less is given, less is required.
And fortunately, Rover, your life is not yet over. It’s not where you’ve been that matters, it’s where you’re going. God willing, you still have quite a bit of travel left in you. Who knows where you may eventually end up?
If you have a Bible, it would be worth reflecting on John chapter 9 and Mark chapter 8 and chapter 10, verses 46-52. See what it says about being born blind and other kinds of blindness.
Based on the comments you’ve made to these articles, I doubt you’re genuinely interested in seeing at this point in your life and that you’re drawn here just to argue. But if my impression is wrong, If you actually are genuinely interested in some credible evidence and are willing to open your mind and heart, then here are some recommendations to get you started:
The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright
And here is a series of audio tapes by Peter Kreeft on God’s existence:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/08_arguments-for-god.htm
Mike F, Very well put.
But reading the bible for evidence is fruitless. Too many contradictions, Jesus was crusified before Passover (mark), after Passover (john). Part of it is wrong. “He knew you before you were born”, that implies he knows what I’m about to say…No free will is possible he knows the outcome befor hand (Calvinism). It isn’t gambling if you know the dice will roll a 7. No evidence of predestination IMO.
You write “We don’t know if God “made you that way”“. You don’t KNOW that god made me that way? What good is your religion if you don’t know what God did and didn’t do?
The issue of suffering is interesting in that God DID make people with birth defects. He either, could have prevented them, couldn’t have prevented them, didn’t care, or worst of all, did it to “teach” them or their parents something. Which one is correct (all these answers have problems theologically)
This author calls out Atheists as “silly”. I am here because some theist is saying atheists are not quite as bright as us BRILLIANT Catholics that realize the truth claims in a 2000 year old book! He begins, in the title, by insulting just to get hits. I don’t resort to name calling, the author does.
Listenging to for hours or reading about a 10,000 year earth is a waste of time after learning the basic premise. Same is true for ID. Same is true for a flat earth. Same for the mormon religion. Same for every religion.
Bottom line. If you don’t want Atheists defending themselves, don’t attack them.
Meme, you write, “Just the title is meant to inflame and start a fight. I’m just not feeling the love. If your God loves all his creations (presumably, including the athiests), maybe write an article that brings us together instead of creating such division. just sayin’.”
If you’ve ever read or seen Hitchens, Dawkins and the other “heralds” of atheism, then this is very tame in comparison. This article is written to Catholics on a Catholic website in defense against the attacks of such atheists. You sought it out here. If you want to read some *really* hard-hitting love, try reading some G.K. Chesterton or….Jesus Himself.
Rover, you write: “Reading the bible for evidence is fruitless.”
The point of giving you those passages was to help you see the different ways that one can understand blindness from a theistic perspective— how blindness can occur and for what reasons. They were in response to your comment on this specific point. Why not read them?
I don’t think your other points were really germane to what I was writing. But free will and foreknowledge aren’t incompatible. Part of the resolution revolves around the difference between the laws and reality of the finite, created universe (including time itself) and eternity. God is “outside of time”. (There’s an old joke: What was God doing before the creation? Nothing. He didn’t have time.) Again, if you’re actually interested in understanding rather than just arguing, then there are some good books you can pick up. Of course, still, we shouldn’t be particularly shocked that certain things may not be within our intellectual grasp when we are talking about the infinite mind and intellect of God. If our finite minds could fully grasp God, then He isn’t really much of a God.
In regard to all the supposed contradictions in the Bible, again, there are Catholic encyclicals available regarding how to understand and interpret the Scriptures in their proper context as well as books and articles you could pick up. Doing so would be a sign that you’re genuinely interested in understanding rather than just arguing.
You continue: “You don’t KNOW that god made me that way? What good is your religion if you don’t know what God did and didn’t do?”
I don’t follow your point. As a child, there were many things I didn’t understand about what my earthly parents did or did not do and why. The value of their parenting (rules, guidance, etc.) wasn’t negated by that fact. We know enough. Temporal life is about developing our free will so that we become as trustworthy and loving as Christ - preparing us for life in heaven (and also helping others on earth toward that goal along the way).
You continue: “The issue of suffering is interesting in that God DID make people with birth defects. He either, could have prevented them, couldn’t have prevented them, didn’t care, or worst of all, did it to “teach” them or their parents something. Which one is correct (all these answers have problems theologically).”
You’re using terms in a confused way, Rover. God has an active and a passive will. Some things He actively wills and some things He passively allows. I don’t pretend to know why in all (or even most) circumstances - but I trust that He knows infinitely more than I do and I believe His love is perfect. Again, much of it has to do with the fact that He has given us free will and the interaction between all of these free wills is part of “the plan.” Remember, ultimately, it’s not about what happens to you or your circumstances here and now. It’s about how you respond. Some people respond to difficulties and suffering by choosing to harden themselves and becoming less loving. Others choose to become more compassionate and loving. I know and have personally witnessed this many times.
You continue: “This author calls out Atheists as silly. I am here because some theist is saying atheists are not quite as bright as us BRILLIANT Catholics ...He begins, in the title, by insulting just to get hits. I don’t resort to name calling, the author does….If you don’t want Atheists defending themselves, don’t attack them.”
I agree with the comment by “Franciscan”, above. And I don’t think I can agree with your characterization of what you’ve written here and to other articles in this series, Rover. In your previous comments, I think there’s more than a little that is patronizing and insulting to Catholics. Notice, also, that Cronin continues to single out the “heralds” of atheism - in particular, the materialistic atheists. Now, he’s mentioned them by name (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris). He’s responding to their attacks on Christianity. So I think you’re unnecessarily taking personal offense. Of course, also, this is a Catholic website addressing Catholics. Like Meme, you sought it out.
Now, seriously, I again invite you to pick up the book I mentioned by N.T. Wright and listen to the audio series by Dr. Peter Kreeft. If you’re genuinely seeking to understand, those are good places to start. There’s nothing in these (or in Catholic doctrine) about a 10,000 year old, flat earth.
Peace.
Mike F: you write “Of course, also, this is a Catholic website addressing Catholics”. You attack me as an atheist (article title) and then say “this is our playground you are playing on. I’m “taking unnecessary personal offense”. How condesending.
My parents lied to me about Santa and the Christian God. Now, both of them admit it.
Your arguements, although well rehearsed (i.e.
God has an active and a passive will [omg, what a cop out!]) but just appologetics. Nothing more, nothing less. I have read every word of both ot and nt (protestant versions, never seen a catholic bible with the extra stuff) and found nothing it it 2000 year old nomads wouldn’t have known.
The claim you have the truth is hollow. Freethinking will set you free. Be not afraid.
Rover Serton, what exactly is your definition “free?” Does it not include freely erecting walls that keep one safe, such as the walls ‘round Chesterton’s tall island in the sea that let the children frolic inside to their heart’s content with nary a concern about going over the cliff? Or is it only living on the edge with nothing at all to guide us that fits your fancy?
You are right about nothing being in the Bible that “2000 year old nomads wouldn’t have known.” That is why we have the Church which Jesus established to help us understand how His teachings apply to modern matters, machinations and madness.
Free is free will to do what we think is best for ourselfs. Read whatever you wish into that.
Men, since Paul, guessing what Jesus taught without ever meeting him. (Peter being the one exception apparenly, I don’t know if the second pope ever met Jesus).
Oh well, I’ve said enough from one Atheists view. I have no superstitions at all so I don’t understand yours.
Hope you all have the best Christmas ever!
Hi Rover,
Your response to me doesn’t give much evidence that you’ve achieved true freedom or even a relatively open mind, really. You don’t seem to be able (or willing?) to read and comprehend what Cronin (and then I) wrote fairly and objectively. Cronin was specifically writing in response to the “heralds” of atheism. If you insist on taking his response personally and perceiving of it as a completely unprovoked attack, it seems silly to me but you’re free to do so.
In regard to active and passive will, it’s really not that hard to understand to some degree if you have children. There are many things I allow my children to do but that I would rather that they not do. I recognize that they are unique individuals with free wills - they aren’t my personal automatons.
True freedom is when your will is perfected, freed from slavery to sin and becomes most fully harmonized with its created purpose. The very concept of purpose is non-existent to the atheist and therefore he is powerless to move toward true freedom.
In regard to the “extra books” in the Bible that Catholics have, I would say that Protestants (of which I was formerly one) are missing seven. The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament in use at the time of Christ, includes the seven O.T. books that Catholics call the “Deuterocanonicals” and Protestants call the “Apocrypha”.
I’m sorry that you were so deeply affected by finding out that Santa Claus doesn’t really bring kids toys on Christmas. I’m not a fan of parents telling their kids to believe in “Santa” for just that reason. But I think there are at least a few important things that we learn from the Bible that simple nomads didn’t know. God loves us. We are His children. He was willing to come down, subject Himself to our wills and even die on a cross in order to prove his trustworthiness, meekness and love. He wants us to be with Him for Eternity. But He’s won’t violate our free will in order to accomplish that. I think those are pretty important things - the kinds of things that the real St. Nicholas believed in and lived for.
God bless you and have a blessed Christmas, Rover.
Interestingly (I would say, Providentially), I just came across this article after I left the last comment. You might find it of some worth, Rover.
http://frdenis.blogspot.com/2011/12/slavery-of-desire.html
Hi Mike F. I read your link, So many Catholics I know support torture (as in waterboarding). They consider it moral. Oh well.
I was not going to post again but you wrote “True freedom is when your will is perfected, freed from slavery to sin and becomes most fully harmonized with its created purpose. The very concept of purpose is non-existent to the atheist and therefore he is powerless to move toward true freedom”. You make a very big and incorrect assumption when you say “The very concept of purpose is non-existence to the atheist”. I have purpose: to do my job well, to raise my kids well, to be a good citizen. It does beg the question: “What is the purpose of the theist?” Is it to praise God eternally? Do you also have the “purpose” of kids, job, citizen?
I’m sure you didn’t mean to, you seem like a very decent chap, but that was a very insulting sentence.
To you and yours, the best Christmas ever!
Rover.
Rover,
So I assume you understand the distinction between passive and active will now and see that it isn’t just a silly cop out? I also assume you also have a little more understanding about what the Catholic Bible has 73 books rather than 66? Yes? And based on your comment, I don’t think you understood why I pointed you to that article. It had to do with the inter-relatedness of true freedom and objective morality - something alien to materialist atheism.
When I wrote about “purpose” in my last comment, I meant objectively speaking. To the materialist atheist, there is and can be no objective “purpose” or “meaning” to anything. It simply is what it is. “Meaning” and “purpose” become purely subjective. My point was that if you are just an accidental product of existence, then you have no objective purpose, Rover. And therefore you have no hope of being perfected and made truly free to serve your purpose. You can make one up to make you feel better about your purposelessness and meaninglessness (under the materialist atheist view), I suppose. But objectively purposeless and meaningless you remain.
Personally, I believe you possess great objective value, purpose, dignity and meaning. After all, I believe you were created by God, in His image. I object to the denigration and devaluation you (and any human being) suffer under atheism.
From a theistic perspective, simply put, our purpose is to know, love and serve God. But the reality of how that simple vocation plays out for each individual here on earth is infinitely varied. Each of us is a unique creation - never to be repeated again by God. There will never be another Rover Serton. In what exact capacities and and in which ways you were designed to know, love and serve God is the great mystery and adventure. Even greater is the mystery of what is in store for us in eternity with God. Earth is our testing and proving ground.
Now, for Christmas, why don’t you get yourself a couple of nice gifts for yourself—The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright and also those tapes by Peter Kreeft on God’s existence. You might also enjoy and benefit from reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. If you’re not willing to make a serious effort to learn, then all of this discussion isn’t really worth more of our precious time (both of us). I’ll be praying that your sight is restored, Rover. I believe that’s part of my purpose, too.
Now, based on history, I suspect you’ll want to have the last word. :-)
God bless you and Merry Christmas.
Fred, This is so condesending I can hardly belive you wrote it, I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt:
“But objectively purposeless and meaningless you remain.
Personally, I believe you possess great objective value, purpose, dignity and meaning. After all, I believe you were created by God, in His image. I object to the denigration and devaluation you (and any human being) suffer under atheism.”
Books and tapes about your fiction, although they might be NICE to be true are not very good Christmas presents to myself (although it would help fund the apologists). I’ll just give to the food bank.
Good luck in life,
God-incidentally, there’s a great article Jennifer Fulwiler (another former, committed atheist) just published at NCRegister about meaning in life from an atheistic perspective:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/certainty-and-silliness-of-atheism/
The link above isn’t correct. This is the correct one:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/if-atheism-is-true-does-life-still-have-meaning
Rover,
I thought it important to respond to your last post. No personal offense was intended. I believe theism logically leads to the devaluation of human beings (and everything else, really) - you included. According to materialist atheism, we are all mere, accidental, meaningless products of the physical universe. Therefore, logically, your existence or non-existence (or of anything or anyone) is objectively meaningless. It is neither “better” nor “worse” that you exist or do not exist. What is, simply is. The concept of objective “value” or “meaning” itself does not exist within the materialist atheist framework. Conversely, the message of Christianity is that you were intended by the all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the universe and made in His image and likeness. You are loved by God. You have inherent dignity, value, meaning and purpose.
So, why not use your freedom to read “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis, “The Resurrection of the Son of God” by N.T. Wright and listen to the tapes on some of the proofs for God’s existence by Dr. Peter Kreeft that I mentioned—as a start? Based on what you’ve written here, I’m confident that there are some things you haven’t really had the opportunity to learn and study about the Christian faith. I don’t think you would find them a waste of your time. At the very least, they would help you better understand what you don’t accept about Christianity and why. My hope, however, is that you would approach these with a genuinely open mind, sincerely considering them rather than merely approaching them from the get-go as something to be refuted.
God bless.
Thanks Fred, I appreciate the clarification.
There are 2000 plus gods of history, 33,000 different christian sects, Where to begin? Even if you said The Catholic God, you have many different beliefs on what that means. If God wants to be known, some group would have a consistent story.
An open mind to an all powerful being with no material evidence. I can’t honestly do that. Extrordinary claims of truth (or anything) requires extrordinary evidence.
Thanks again and Merry Christmas!
P.S. You said theism in your first sentence so I thought we were in complete agreeement! I bet you ment atheism.
Be well
Rover
Rover Serton said:
I believe the evidence you’re seeking is found in the doctrine of the Church itself, by virtue of it being right. Atheists and agnostics ask for material evidence, but I don’t believe they are prepared to accept it even if it hits them in the face. The problem is that they approach the matter backwards - they want to see proof that God exists before they’ll accept the teachings of His Church, when in fact they should start by trying to show those teachings to be unreasonable. If they succeed in that, then their disbelief is validated. But if they find the teachings to be reasonable, then and only then would I be convinced that they are prepared to accept the evidence of God’s existence.
The path to God is different for each of us. For some of us it involves the testimony of others, for some it’s reading the Word of God and for a blessed but not exactly rare few, it’s witnessing a miracle. For others it must start with human reason.
I omitted one important point in my prior comment. Concern yourself only with the Church’s teachings that concern the behavior of people and what it says about that behavior being right or wrong. I wouldn’t ask someone to accept teachings that presume the existence of God in order to merely convince me that they’re prepared to accept the existence of God. :-)
Kevin: you write: The problem is that they approach the matter backwards - they want to see proof that God exists before they’ll accept the teachings of His Church, when in fact they should start by trying to show those teachings to be unreasonable.
Can you name anything in life that you buy before you know it works? That is exactly what you suggest. Your truth claim hs no substance. It is true because what you belive says it is and your Church confirms it. All the other 2000 gods have exactly the same truth claim.
Unreasonable teachings….Kill your kids for talking back. Women marry your rapists. Eat human flesh, drink human blood. Burn forever if you don’t love me. Kill all the first borns. Suffer in pergatory even if you are going to heaven. Jeez, where to begin with unreasonable.
Rover Serton said,
I’m not saying buy it before you know it works. I’m inviting you to examine it fully before you buy it. Unlike practically anything one would buy, there are no secrets about the Church that cannot be discovered before one is “in.”
The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that we should do any of those things.
Those aren’t teachings that I could expect you to find reasonable before you believe in God, and so they aren’t part of those that I said I would need you to accept in order to convince me that you’re truly open to accepting evidence of the existence of God.
Kevin, I think we’ve about hit an end here but I would like to have you reply on your statement:
I’m not saying buy it before you know it works. I’m inviting you to examine it fully before you buy it.
Could you do that with Budism? Flat earth? Examine it fully is an impossible quest. Even the pope is still examining.
All those things I say are unreasonable are in your text (minus pergatory), it is a construction.
Merry Christmas!
Rover.
Rover Serton said,
The purgatory comment is a hint that you’re looking at the wrong text. You need to pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The text you must be referring to is The Holy Bible, which is collection of books that the Church believes were divinely inspired, which was assembled by the Church in a discernment process that we believe was also divinely inspired, for the purpose of supporting the Church’s teachings. If you think that the Bible contradicts Church teaching or that it fails to support Church teaching the way she says it does, there are only two possibilities: 1) You are wrong; or 2) the Church made a mistake in including the offending tome in the Bible in the first place.
Kevin, WOW. You place the Catechism above the bible! “The text you must be referring to is The Holy Bible, which is collection of books that the Church believes were divinely inspired, which was assembled by the Church in a discernment process that we believe was also divinely inspired, for the purpose of supporting the Church’s teachings.” Assembled by the Church to SUPPORT the Churchs teaching? I’ve seen the Goalpost moved by appologists before but you have moved the Goalpost, put it on a soccer field and are using a wiffleball.
“the Church made a mistake including the offending tome in the Bible”! Priceless.
I’m out of this thread.
Happy Holidays,
Rover.
I didn’t place the Catechism “above” the Bible - I only suggested that it’s a better book for the task at hand, which is understanding the Catholic Church’s teachings. The Catechism enumerates the Church’s teachings in a straightforward, topical and easily-referenced manner, which makes it a far easier tool to use for some purposes than the Bible itself, which requires discerning what is allegorical from what is meant to be taken literally on top of the difficulty of finding all the various passages that support a particular teaching.
Sorry to burst your bubble about the origin of the Bible, though!
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.