FEEL FREE TO POST A QUESTION OR A COMMENT ON THIS SUBJECT WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE READ THIS BOOK.This book is not yet available
An atheist cannot prove that God does not exist, so that puts him in the camp of the agnostic. He simply doesn't know one way or the other. So then, what makes an atheist think what they have to say about life and God is of interest to anyone at all? The only thing that distinguishes them from others is not superior intellect, but a certain coldness of heart that shuts out facts about God. In reality, atheists' are deserving of our pity and prayers, not contempt.
Psychology has amply demonstrated that atheism is most often rooted in a bad "Parent/Child" relationship, usually between father and son. It becomes difficult to think of a loving God when a parent is supposed to live as a sign of that loving God, and there is emotional confusion in the heart of many atheists because of this problem. There is a wanting to connect with God but also an unwillingness for fear they may be rejected by Him.
At times, there is something more nefarious behind atheism, something that lurks around or within atheists, inspiring them in such a way that they want others to be blinded as they are. And it ends up as a classic example of, "The blind leading the blind" because in their "Misery they want company".
And who among us has not heard the atheists' mantra: "Religion is the cause of wars". Is that so? Let them consider that in the last century alone, over 170 million people died at the hands of atheists like Lenin, Stalin, and other such men. More people died in Cambodia during the rule of Pol Pot, the atheist, in just a few short years than Christians who harmed each other in over 2,000 years.
And what is the message of hope that atheists bring to the world? Just do good to others, peace on earth to those of good will without God in the picture because nothing matters in the end, anyway? Are we to settle for the idea that we should be happy because our lives served something bigger than ourselves, perhaps some evolutionary process? Are not atheists the same people who rebel against the fact of God because he is bigger than them, and their agenda? Of what good is atheism if our lives are meaningless and we are destined to die and be forgotten?
What gives an atheist the right to complain about religion? After all, they want to impact others with their views of life, do they not? "IF" in their need to tell us there is no God, why should anyone give a single whit about what they think or have to say? After all, according to them, there is no ultimate accountability for anything in the end anyway, so who cares what they have to say or think?
And who does not understand that atheists' are most often great lovers of their sin? The proud spirit cannot endure to be mocked, and atheists become irritated when a mirror is held up in front of them showing them what they are "not". They embrace atheism like a "drug of choice" hoping to escape the emptiness in their heart. They hope to escape the consequences of their sin as they drift off into the land of delusion thinking there is no accountability for this life. And in the end, Atheism becomes the opiate of the irrational.
And when they are done with their argument that a loving God cannot exist simply because evil and suffering exists in the world, let these giants in their own minds turn round and tell us what they see when they are done shaking their mighty fists towards the heavens. Let them tell us what they see when they turn their eyes back towards earth. Have they done the world any favors? Has the suffering they complained about in life disappeared? No! Is God still there for them to blame? Not in their minds, they've done away with God.
So then, who do they have a beef with now? After all, they rejected God because there is suffering in the world and a loving God would not permit that. Let them wake up from their stupor and see that all the suffering, sickness, and death in the world they complained about still exists and has been assigned to them by their material god because there is no one else to blame. The face of their god indeed has suffering upon it, but it's the face of dumb anguish that does not offer any hope for anything whatsoever. It is the face of a cruel god who mocks them and tortures them in their hearts and minds during the time he allotted for them to exist. Caught between their "joy of rebellion" and "confusion and love of sin", they are like masochists who are small minded people that enjoy watching others suffer as they try to instill doubts and fear into the souls of others.
Yet, they mock the suffering on a Cross that turned suffering and what seems like dumb anguish in our own crosses into something co-redemptive that St. Paul spoke about as we suffer with and in Christ. Atheists' are the people who slap the face of the Holy One. They strike His head with a reed, they pluck his beard, and put a crown of thorns on His head, and they are deaf to the cry of forgiveness. And they think they have a message of hope for the world? Let atheists be mindful that their god is coming like a killer asteroid on its way to meet them in destiny. And when their god greets them as the grim reaper, he will render one final judgment against all they think and do by obliterating them with a death blow, stomping them into the grave.
The fool in his heart says there is no God. Let atheists stop complaining about evil, suffering, and death in the world. Their task to make this a better world falls infinitely short of man's needs and desire to live with God for all eternity. Let them face the fact they will indeed meet the face of Christ at judgment.
For the one who believes in the God of Revelation, the facts about God that can be known with the light of reason become a stepping stone to belief in what He has revealed.
This trial will reveal the path of atheism which leads to damnation, and it will examine whether the "world" crowns its own by heralding and ushering in atheistic thought in order to blaze a path of rebellion for sinners. Atheists would turn the Salvific Greeting of "Peace on earth to men of good will" into "Chaos in the world for those of ill-will".
ALSO! A Multitude of Intercessors Want to Help in the Pro-Life Cause to end Abortion. Who are they and how do we obtain their help? Click HERE
PLEASE NOTE: You do not have to subscribe to "Posts (Atom)" to comment.
If the "Post A Comment" box is not already open, simply click on the word "COMMENTS" that follows the name of the last person that Posted a comment.
To prevent "SPAM" comments will be approved before posting.
Please don't mark this as spam just because it is a good argument. I am assuming that is the reason there are still no comments here, despite it being several months old. If I am wrong, I appollogize.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to argue against everything in this post, seeing as it would make my comment very long. Just things I have thought a lot about and I think are good arguments, or things I feel really strongly about.
For example, the section about war. You claim more atheists have killed people than religious people ever have. I don't know if this is true or not, and may well be. However, the point we(atheists) are really trying to make is that atheism was never the CAUSE of said wars/deaths, as opposed to religious wars.
That was just something I thought about a while ago, and decided to put here. The main thing I wanted to say is my answer to this question:
"Of what good is atheism if our lives are meaningless and we are destined to die and be forgotten?"
Why does atheism have to be of some good? We are striving for the truth, wherever it may lead. We would rather not know something than believe something that has a chance of being incorrect.
Some more comments:
You mention we have an "emptiness in our hearts". Why does this have to be true? Simply because our lives end at death, we are not allowed to have emotions and a meaning of life?
Other than this, I really can't think of a good counter-argument, a large portion of this being either random insults or religious dogma. If there is anything here I didn't mention, or anything in my comment that was hard to understand/badly written(even I can see that this is not written very well), please tell me and I will clarify it in another comment.
Hi Vlad,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time to write.
The reason there are no posts is because the book on atheism is not yet finished, but I will post your comments and respond.
I’d like to start by saying that a man’s actions can never be separated from a man’s view of morality and life. And the simple fact is this: the worst butchers in history have been by far atheists who live only for themselves and for power. The mere thought of God interferes with their plans and punishes them as they set about with the destruction of so many lives for their ill conceived goals that are so abusive to others. A man who is passionate for religion and considers what is good in the “other” is more of a man that a man who thinks only of himself. And to say that “atheism was never the CAUSE of war” does not exonerate the godless who were guided by selfish desires in their evil deeds by virtue of their atheistic lives.
Of course, this is not to say that all atheists live in such a manner, in fact, many atheists live a virtuous life according to the “Natural Law”, but no one can argue that many vocal atheists do not constantly claim that religion is the cause of war. We hear it all the time! And you do yourself no favor by arguing else-wise because the average man on the street knows this to be true.
And when you say “Why does atheism have to be of some good?”, what am I to understand you to be saying? Did you decide to be an atheist for no reason, or do you perceive it to be a good? That would be a yes or no answer! Hence, from what have you liberated yourself? If by “atheism” you mean a declaration there is no God as compared to an agnostic who just doesn’t know if there is a God then different considerations come into play.
Additionally, when you say you would rather “KNOW” something than “BELIEVE” believe something that has a chance of being incorrect, you fail to see the impediment in your position if I am correct in assuming that you are speaking in terms according to the scientific method.
And no, you cannot separate yourself from your emotions, nor should you ever try. They are there for a reason, but you do not server your emotions because you have not yet answered why you have them to begin with.
If I might suggest something for you to read, I would direct you to something I wrote for Chris Cuomo of ABC News Focus on Faith. Mr. Cuomo made some comments on Twitter to which I responded in the matter of religion. He invited me to comment often to him on Twitter and ABC News Focus on Faith. I would direct you to this link:
http://catholicseries.com/cuomo_power_of_personal_faith.html
Hi Vlad,
ReplyDeleteHere is something else that you may be interested in reading:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16800
Take care ...
This is not really a response to anything. Just kind of a message to think about, Catholics and Aethists alike.
ReplyDeleteSo, those people who call themselves Catholics/Christians believe in the Father, Son,and Holy Spirit. They also believe Jesus came down to this earth to save us from our own sin.
Aethists, in my mind, believe in nothing whatsoever, and believe everything happened in chance.
Now lets view it this way.The earth is part of the solar system. IT is the only planet (not sure about Mars, though) that can sustain life with water. Of course, people like me believe that God always was, and created everything.But, those who are Aethiests claim there was just a huge BANG, and we all came to be. Now, how can us living on this earth, being in the most perfect spot for live (if we were a fraction of an inch anywhere else, we would be incinerated) believe all of this happened by chance? It's unbeleivable to me.
Now this whole post wasn't just to rag on aethiesm, but to merely give them something to think about. I'm not a very intricate, smart person about religion. But, for all aethiests who will never change their mind, know that God is always watching, and has a plan for all.
One bible verse (can't remember which one) says that you shall be hot or cold, because the luke-warm God spits out of his mouth. Basically, either fight God with your life, or accept Him whole-heartedly.
Think about this, don't criticize it.
yes that is very true and the aethiest beliefs are not scientific at all.
ReplyDeleteHi Vlad,
ReplyDeleteI was directed to this blog from an atheist site that I belong to, and feel compelled to respond. I am not in the habit of trying to argue people out of their religion, and I will not do so here, but I do think it my responsibility to set the record straight about atheists.
You have made an assertion that I've heard time and again, that atheists must be unhappy people, with no purpose in life, whose choices stem from emotional trauma. Here's this atheist's story: I have a very happy, healthy relationship with both my parents, as well as with my husband and my own children. I live a happy, full life. Being an atheist means that I find meaning and happiness in every day, every small moment, because I know this life is the only one I have, so I had better make the best of it.
My atheism most certainly does not stem from emotional issues, and I find it laughable for anyone to assume that it does. I believe there is no god because I have looked at the world around me, examined the evidence (or rather, lack thereof), and based my decision on what SCIENCE can prove to me. I made my decision based on facts, not emotion or "faith." I have had people ask me "Wouldn't you be happier if you went to heaven and lived with your loved ones for eternity?" Well, of course, but wishing something to be true doesn't make it so. I could wish, or even *believe*, that I have a million dollars in the bank, but that doesn't make it so.
Therein lies the fault of your argument against atheists. You portray atheism as a choice; your premise is that god exists, we just choose to deny his existence because we are mad at him for all the suffering in the world. However, we are not *choosing* to not believe, science and reason *dictate* that we not believe. Saying that we *choose* to not believe in god is like saying that we *choose* to not believe in Santa Claus. There is no choice, only following what the evidence presents. I am not angry at god, any more than I could be angry at Santa Claus. You cannot be angry with something that doesn't exist.
I do not wish to take away anyone else's faith if they find comfort in it and are happy, I only wish to change the misconceptions about atheism. Many of us have no problem with you practicing your faith, as long as you don't try to impose it on us or our children.
Respectfully,
Jenni
Hello Jenni,
ReplyDeleteI will have to make my response to you in four or more segments because there is a 4,100 character limit per post. What follows is the 1st segment.
I'd like to offer some observations regarding your comments to Vlad.
You said:
"I could wish, or even *believe*, that I have a million dollars in the bank, but that doesn't make it so."
Well, you may wish or believe that you will not be judged by God for how you lived your life, but it does not mean that you will not be judged. If you are correct you will never know that you were correct, but if you are wrong, and I contend that you are in fact wrong, you will have eternity to regret it.
Furthermore, what you said about science tells me you do not understand the role and limits of science, and it is likely that you would not even know the elements of the scientific method without having to Google them.
You also make an argument against the existence of God because of the pain and suffering that is in the world. Well, now that you have dismissed God from your life, and you have lowered your fist that you had raised towards the heavens, look back at this world and see whether or not you have done away with the suffering in life that you complained about. It is still there, and if this material world be your God, then embrace the horror that you complained about when you reject God.
Also, you spoke of "faith" but it is clear to me that you do not understand its proper context, nor do you understand the distinction between "belief" in God and the "fact" of God.
One must first have a proper understanding of "Faith" to make this distinction. Technically, "Faith" is a "theological virtue", but in simpler terms, it is a response to the gift of what God offers and presents to us by means of "Revelation". This means faith is entirely dependent upon "Revealed Truth", and the object of faith is in what has been "Revealed", not our own fabrications. If one does not accept this premise we are not speaking about faith in the classical religious sense. As to "How do we get more faith?". Well, how open are you to what is reasonable, and are you willing to recognize the gift of faith opens the heart and mind to a deeper union with God?
You spoke of having personal belief in "something that can't necessarily be proven".
At this point we have to distinguish between what can be proven and what cannot be proven about God, and this draws us back to the distinction between two things:
1) The "fact of God" who is knowable in reason.
2) An assent to "Revealed Truth" which reason tells us is worthy of our assent and a credible thing to do.
To do this, we have to understand what is in play when we demand "proof" of something.
When we speak of "proof" we can only speak of something that is self-evident. Without self-evidence there is no such thing as empirical evidence. In fact, without self-evidence there is no scientific method. Even the data used in the scientific method must be "self-evident" without need of empirical evidence, or there is no such thing as the scientific method. Ultimately, self-evidence rules the day and is superior to any method. So, to "know" is fundamental to, and the object of, any demands of proof. Quite simply, when something is known, it is an absurdity to demand proof.
Part two for Jenni -
ReplyDeleteIt's important to make this distinction. Why? Because it's important to acknowledge that God can be known as a "self-evident fact" by means of reason alone which speaks of God as the "Creator". Keep in mind this is entirely different than knowing God by means of "Revealed Truth". And we must recognize the knowable "facts" about God as "Creator" as compared to "Revealed Truth", both come from the same God, meaning, God created man with reason which can know God as a fact with certainty, and God as the author of Revealed Truth. This is why both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas tell us "we must have a reason to have faith". In this manner we understand that Revelation validates the assent which reason gives to it.
You may ask, "What do I mean about knowing God as a fact in reason?"
Suppose that you were standing on a green at a golf course. Coming from behind you, a ball lands on the green and drops into the hole, but you didn't see who, or what, hit the ball.
Now, we know that a ball cannot launch itself for a hole-in-one. Something, or someone, had to hit that ball. The question would now go to you, "do you believe someone or something hit that ball?", or would it be a "Fact" that someone or something HAD to hit that ball?
We know as a fact that someone (agent) or something (agent) HAD to hit that ball, even though we didn't see the agent that hit the ball. Someone may "believe it was a person", and someone may "believe it was a golf machine that shot the ball out under air pressure", but it makes no difference. The fact remains, an agent had to hit or move that ball. In this example we see the difference between "Belief" and "Fact". Now, anyone who would deny the existence of the unseen agent as a fact would meet the definition of a completely irrational person. In fact, such a person would be rejecting the law of physics which states that "a body at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by another or an outside force".
Now, let's take this "fact" and notch it up as we consider the laws which govern the universe and we see that "cause and effect relationships" do in fact exist, as we've seen in the example of the golf ball. And at this point, let's consider "motion itself", and consider the golf ball once again. A golf ball has the same form, color, and weight, etc., with all the attributes of the ball whether it is at rest or is in motion. All that is measurable and observable about the golf ball remains the same at rest or in motion. Now, let's go backwards from the ball landing on the green to the "unseen agent that is other than the ball" that hit the ball, and then go backwards from there into a regression of cause and effect relationships. There cannot be cause and effect relationships existing unless there was a "first cause" that is uncaused from all eternity, a "prime mover" from all eternity that set into motion and maintains the laws of the universe and all motion within the universe.
Consider now, the unseen agent of motion, like the unseen agent that hit the ball. Motion is a self-evident invisible reality that is not measurable on the periodic table of elements. In the case of the golf ball it is not the form of the golf ball, nor is it any of the attributes of the ball. It is "other than the ball". In fact, motion is a power manifested through the form of the ball by the agent that moved the golf ball to begin with.
Part 3 for Jenni -
ReplyDeleteAt this point, it is not important to consider the intent, will, nature, attributes, and intellect of the agent that moves all things, but it is important to note that you could not regard this agent of motion as something to "believe in" just because the agent of motion cannot be seen, measured, or weighed on a scale. You would still know the agent of motion as a "fact". This agent (God) who moves all things must be a "fact" every bit as much as the "fact" that there had to be an agent that hit that golf ball. The agent is known as "a fact" in both cases.
So then, to what end does empirical evidence serve? To "know something as a self-evident fact". It's that simple! The demand, therefore, for empirical evidence as a proof for the existence of God via the scientific method has no standing because God can be known as a self-evident fact. The one who makes such a demand simply does not understand the impediment in their demand. And at this point, the person who knows of God "as a fact" can turn to the one who demands empirical evidence for the existence of God and say: "I want your "empirical evidence" for the "self-evidence" of your data for anything you do via the scientific method. Otherwise, the Scientific method does not exist anymore than the Tooth Fairy exists. And the "Tooth Fairy" cannot make demands of reality. And now you have a "negative" that cannot be proven by empirical evidence which means you must admit the superiority of self-evidence over methods". Where does this leave the one who demanded empirical evidence for God?
The one who demanded empirical evidence for the existence of God will only be able to say "there is no need for me to provide empirical evidence for my self-evident data because self evident reality is already self-evident". To which the one who admits and acknowledges the fact of God can say, "Then who are you to demand empirical evidence for the self-evident fact of God? There is no need for me to provide empirical evidence for the self-evident fact of God. Empirical evidence does not demonstrate self-evidence. It's the other way around. Therefore, the self-evident fact of God is established and there is no need to acquiesce or respond to your irrational demand."
If you want to consider empirical evidence, one cannot exclude the invisible reality of the agent of motion manifested through form in the universe in the scientific method. When you combine the law of physics and what it says regarding a body at rest, the existence of cause and effect relationships can only be a reality when you admit the fact about the invisible agent manifesting itself through the physical form. And no one in their right mind is going to say that cause and effect relationships do not exist. Therefore, no one in their right mind will deny the fact of God.
Part 4 for Jenni -
ReplyDeleteIn this example we can see the often noted atheistic comment which says "the believer must prove a negative to prove the existence of God which he cannot do" would have no standing as evidence in a court of law. That would be like saying the fact of motion is a negative that cannot be proven and therefore not known, and that would be to say it is impossible to know that someone or something had to move that golf ball as a fact. Ramp it up to all things in the universe now, and you see the atheist fails to distinguish between the "Fact of God" and "Belief in Revelation".
So, to the atheist who "declares there is no God" the onus is now upon him or her to prove their "positive" declaration that there is no God. His own declaration gives birth to his own "negative" that he must now prove which he cannot do, and he knows it! And it frustrates him! And he cannot "know" that there is no God. That would be the equivalent of saying "he knows the ball moved on its own". When the atheist is forced to admit he is merely an "agnostic" who can't make up his mind as to whether or not God exists, he cannot then turn to the person who "knows of God as a fact" and demand they prove the atheists' "negative" that God does not exist. Let the atheist prove his own "negative". The most we can say in tribute to the atheist when his time allotted on this planet is up would be this: On his tombstone the epitaph would read, "Here 'Lies' an atheist, all dressed up but nowhere to go!" In reality, he would have already met the "fact of God".
Let us not forget that people fail to acknowledge that a man can shut down reason and ignore facts that demonstrate the fact of God's existence for any number of reasons. In fact, atheism is often related to bad relationships between parent and child.
To be "logical", the atheist and the agnostic cannot have it both ways. If they declare God does not exist the onus is upon them to prove it, and they cannot dismiss their obligation to prove their own negative. In fact, the atheist and the agnostic have embraced the "opiate of the irrational".
Now, regarding "belief" and "fact". A "fact" is not a mere projection of the ego or a fantasy that morphs into something like belief in the tooth fairy. A tooth fairy cannot account for the fact of creation and self-evident cause and effect relationships and what they mean. So, Jenni, to hold a view that "belief without faith is mere superstition" it would be more proper to say "faith in what is not reasonable is superstition." The reasonable person assents "to the fact of God, and the God of Revelation", but not "tooth fairies". Assenting to Revelation is therefore not assenting to ones' own fantasies because Revealed Truth will never contradict reason. Even in knowing of God as a fact, reason tells us there must be things of God we cannot ascertain via reason alone. So, it is therefore reasonable to accept what the creator (fact) reveals of Himself as the God of Revelation.
So, when you ask, or assert, that man can live a virtuous life without "Revealed Truth or Religion", that is an argument that says virtue is not measured by anything outside of man and his conscience, and it is to completely ignore the "fact of God". It is an appeal to what is found only within man, namely, the Natural Law, that allows him to live a virtuous life. But all laws imply a law giver, so we are back to the God of fact, the very one who established knowable laws in the universe, and the God of Revealed Truth.
Part 5 for Jenni -
ReplyDeleteNow, let's look at "faith" which you mentioned. Can we view "faith" as a means to knock down narcissism or to serve as a motivation for virtue if God did not exist as a fact? What would anything matter if there is no accountability beyond the grave? You may not like the results, but it wouldn't matter. Like it or not, without God, yours is just one more "opinion". And you could not appeal to your subjective view of "faith" to make it the objective standard that is true for all to serve as a utility for the sake of ordered society and civility anymore than one could appeal to faceless greed as a standard in life regardless of the suffering it imposed on others. One could say the man who dies with the most toys wins. Wins what? After all, to the atheist, there is no accountability at death. No, without the fact of God, nothing matters.
And we cannot say that as individuals we are not that important in the big scheme of things without mocking the personal redemption offered to every individual. If we are important enough for God to redeem us, and we are, that should be enough for us to figure out we need to humble ourselves. This means "faith is not utility". Any atheistic government could adopt such a view of faith for purposes of utility, but it would not be respecting man from within or without, and it would not be respecting man in relation to his creator and redeemer. We would then have to move to this question, "What is authentic Revelation" as opposed to false revelation and false understandings of revelation? An example of a false understanding of reality, and therefore a false understanding of revelations which proceed from it, would be a "Pantheistic" notion of reality that fails to see the fact of a transcendent creator. All the attendant flaws bound to a concept such as pantheism, and it's inability to produce a valid means of redemptive suffering in concepts such as Karma, would be inherent to pantheism under the smoke screen that says "all is one" But this too is a subject for another day.
One may assume that "faith makes it easier to deal with troubles and suffering", and they would be right on spot with that, but, they would have touched on something known as "redemptive suffering", something the Apostle Paul speaks about which is for another day.
I would also point out it is not accurate for you someone to hold that "the more religious you become is because the more flawed you are". Religion does not make us flawed, it serves as a means for introspection where the light goes on and we see the dirt in the room that we did not see until the light went on in the room. No one is without sin, so belief in Revealed Truth gives birth to repentance which is a very natural thing, rather than something that makes us flawed.
And now, to address the premise of your position which is that you believe a person can live as an ethical humanist without faith by means of the Natural Law alone, divorced from any notion of the afterlife and accountability. If God is not given his due, if He is not acknowledged as a fact, He will call those who do not acknowledge this fact to account for it in eternity. The Apostle Paul pointed this out when he said no one is innocent regarding the fact of the Creator in light of what has been created.
These days, words are being redefined like a misappropriation of funds. There is in fact something that accounts for the dramatic loss of morality in recent decades which is more insidious than "Secularism". And like it or not, atheists are proponents of this demise.
Respectfully
Roger
I am the father of four sons, all baptized into our faith and raised in a loving, catholic home. We have always actively practiced our faith; in fact my wife of 33 years is a EM and lecturer, I am an usher and on the parish council at our church. We were active in boy scouts for years. Yet my 29 year old son is practicing a pagan religion, two middle sons went to a catholic high school are neutral, and now my youngest son who also attended a catholic high school claims ther is no proof of God, and is a self-proclaimed atheist. What can I do besides pray for my family?
ReplyDeleteHello Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI am truly sorry to hear that your son has entered into this kind of suffering, because that is truly what it is. Atheism is completely unnatural, so there is hope that he will look to God once he experiences the emptiness of atheism. Sadly, it is the plight of so many young people in our day. Be patient with him, and be there for him.
Also, consider letting the Lord use the suffering this causes you in a way that becomes co-redemptive. If you do so you it will help your son in the Lord's time and for the Lord's purposes. I've written a bit about this kind of suffering on this blog and I do hope that it helps you to know what to do, simply, to offer what you suffer to Christ and be one with Him in this. Let the Lord enter into it with you so that it does not become anguish, rather it will be a stepping stone for you, your son, and others to whom the Lord will help through your union with Christ.
Here is the link to it:
http://papacymatters.blogspot.com/2009/08/click-here-to-view-mr.html
Regarding atheism, I've written a bit about this on another blog on another of my blogs on this site. You may ask your son to consider it, and I do help it helps.
http://papacymatters.blogspot.com/2009/08/chris-cuomo-power-of-personal-faith.html
God Bless
I am not an atheist, but I am doing a paper on atheism and I must argue that just because Stalin was an atheist does not prove that atheism was a direct cause of the war whereas in religious wars, Religion is the cause for conflict. for example The French Wars of Religion between Catholics and Protestants
ReplyDelete-David
Hello David,
ReplyDeleteThere are many reasons for war, but Godless men live for self and lead their countrymen on a shortcut to chaos and misery for selfish reasons. But if we are to look at the empirical evidence for deaths due to war, last century alone 170 million people died at the hands of dictators and despots who have been Godless atheists. Those are the facts, David.
Regarding religious wars, if we tally the numbers of deaths in 2,000 years of Christianity where Christians have killed Christians, the Godless atheist Pol Pot killed more of his own people in Cambodia in just a few short years.
As I said, if we judge this matter on empirical evidence, it is the atheists that are the mass murderers.
God Bless
Mr. Trudeau-LeBlanc, you mentioned that atheism is "a kind of suffering", which I believe, is untrue. I am an atheist and I do not feel empty as a result of my belief, even though it may seem that way. I do remember why I became atheist, it was not for a lack of proof of God's existence at all. It was, because when I still did beleive in God, I went through a very tought period in my life. I found no comfort during that time from God, or the beleif that things would get better, because, for a time, nothing improved. As a result of these experiences, I became atheist. So in my case, atheism did not cause suffering, but was a result of suffering.
ReplyDeleteSincerely, D.D.
HELLO, MY NAME IS NITHEESH DAVIS FROM INDIA.I LIKED THE BLOGSPOT AGAINST ATHEISM.I THINK CATHOLIC FAITH SHOULD BE EXPLAINED WITH THE HELP OF SUMMA THEOLGIA OF ST.THOMAS AQUINAS.IT HELPED ME TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS LIKE EXISTENCE OF GOD, WHY WAS GOD SENT HIS SON TO THIS WORLD,HUMAN AND DIVINE CHARACTER OF JESUS CHRIST IN HIS LIFE.
ReplyDeleteHello Ntheesh Davis,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time to write.
God bless
3. Limitations
ReplyDeleteIn your example with the golf ball, a human employing logic and the scientific method would conclude that there must have been a cause to the effect (for a start). However based on what I said above, the human is not strictly justified in making that statement. When it comes down to it, the only reason he has to look for a cause, is that effects usually have them. Humans are not privvy to a fact which states "every effect has a cause" (aside from the weak fact generated from the scientific method). This might seem trivial, but this pedantic examination of the limitations of logic takes a very useful form in mathematics and physics.
In many areas of the physical world, especially on the small (quantum) scale, non-strict logic totally breaks down. Cause and effect become confused (see Bell theorm, and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox), and even the reality of objects is called into question (wave-particle duality, much of modern quantum mechanics). And since logic is a human idea, there is no guarantee that there is a rational "closed-form" solution to the universe that can be achived using logic and the scientific method. The best we can do is be aware of the weakness of our "facts", and the possible (probable?) non-universality our way of thought, and be prepared to abandon them if they don't work out.
4. Strict view
When thinking about a "First Cause", I think that by the rules of logic it can be said that strictly , there is no necessity for one. The big bang does not necessarily hearld the beginning of existence - why do reality and the universe need a beginning? In mathematics (pure logic), there is nothing wrong with an infinite series of events. Beginnings and ends are things that humans look for because we are used to seeing them around us. Even assuming a logical universe (and, even though there is evidence to support it, that still is an assumption) there is no need for a beginning, or a god to run it.
Nor would a beginning necessitate a god. What is incorrect about something coming from nothing? Unusual, definitely - but we have only experience and gut instinct to rely on.
Conclusion
There are many possible ways to explain our current state of being. Choosing the possibility that a powerful god created the universe and endowed it with the properties we observe it to have is not a logical choice. It's possible, but not required, nor is it necessarily the most likely (how would one measure the likelyhood of such an event?).
So from this perspective to say the universe is makes a god self-evident is incorrect. A leap of faith is required. The same goes for "strong" atheism - denying the possibility of a god is unwarrented.
Scientific ("weak") atheism is basically the statement that "there does not appear to be a god". I believe this is warrented based on the plausibility of an existence which does not need a god, and the simplicity and coherence of such an existence.
If you've read down this far, thanks very much. This was tough to write, and I don't think it came out as coherently as I wanted it, but hopefully it is legible. If you're interested in responding I'd like that.
Yours respectfully
Colm
Colm,
ReplyDeleteThanks for writing. There is so much I wish to say to you but I will ask you to do one thing for me. Name one thing that does not have a cause of necessity. I will give you an example. There are 2 Boeing 757's sitting on a runway. One was built by man and therefore had a cause. The other assembled itself from nothing because there is no necessity that it had a cause. Sir, logic itself follows cause in the very substance of thought. If you were closer to a phenomenological metaphysic the relationship of your very will to communicate with me is the cause of necessity for you to do so. Sir, please do not try to say thing happen just "because" without necessity. Please look at the very word "be-cause". It appeals to the fact of cause for being and causality.
I would ask you to come home to confession and receive the Lord in the most Holy Eucharist.
I know what you are looking for. Please come home.
Roger, as most thoughtful atheists will explain to you (and I'd be shocked if you hadn't heard this argument before, but you don't appear to have truly wrestled with it), your causality argument falls apart because your theology claims that God himself has no cause or assembler. Thus God is self-assembled in your beliefs, much like the 757 in your example.
ReplyDeleteNo scientific thinker will tell you that the existence of a creator is impossible. But, as others have done in these comments already, they will point out that there is no particular reason to believe in one. In fact, highly complex creator is less likely to simply come into existence randomly than is the world supposedly created by him, because the latter is less complex.
You cannot win a rational argument with the scientifically-minded. Most people will not hold your leap of faith against you as long as you do not use your beliefs to justify evil actions. Rationality cannot provide a justification for personal axioms, so yours are just as valid as anyone else's, even if you cannot prove them.
Admit that your belief cannot be defended on the basis of rationality and have done with it.
Hello Jesse,
ReplyDeleteI will have to answer in several parts because the text is too long ..
Part 1
I totally disagree with your assessment. You, as have other atheists, fail to make a distinction between what is self-evident and that which is of the nature of belief. Not only is the fact of God rationally defensible, atheism is completely irrational. I would like for you to tell me what motion is without describing form, color, mass, energy, smell, etc, i.e., anything measurable, which is very basis of your rejection of God. Please do not give me a formula for motion or such things because you cannot do so without form, etc. I ask you tell me what motion is without anything measurable through which motion manifests itself.
Also, the Declaration of Independence understands the distinction between self-evidence and the nature of "belief'. An objective reading of it shows you have no standing in your objection of the recognition of God, or the Creator, in law and in public life. Let me explain me give you an argument from the Declaration of Independence itself...
Separation of Church and State
A false argument which claims to speak of God or the Creator in public life is a violation of the
establishment clause and the separation of church and state needs to be exposed for the fraud that it is.
It is a false argument that the title of Creator or name of God at graduation ceremonies, in the educational system, and in myriad of court cases violates the establishment clause and the separation of church and state. This error comes from a prejudiced reading of the Declaration of Independence which needs to be exposed.
The Declaration of Independence states:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Part 2
ReplyDeleteThe Declaration does not state: “We hold these truths to be self-evident according to a religious creed, an interpretation of a religious creed, or according to any form of revealed truth” because these would presuppose faith according to a particular religious creed which is based upon a subjective acceptance of some version of revealed truth. Therefore, the Declaration does not establish our unalienable rights according to a particular religious creed.
In fact, the Declaration speaks of self-evident truths which stand on their own and inform us directly of what they are without the need for our will to assent to their being to make them what they are, and it does so without respect to any religious creed. Self-evident truths simply are what they are.
The Declaration speaks of the ‘Creator’ as a self-evident fact through what has been created and the rights we are endowed with from the Creator without respect to any religious creed.
As long as there is no injection or projection of a religious association onto the use of the title Creator or name of God it must therefore be that God and Creator are one and the same because only God can be the creator and only the creator can be God as a self-evident fact. This simple self-evident fact, recognized in the Declaration, does not depend upon and has no association to any particular religious creed.
The government has an obligation to recognize the Creator as does the Declaration without respect to Creed. If this were not the case the Declaration of Independence would itself be a violation of the establishment clause and the separation of church and state because it speaks of God as the Creator as self-evident truth without appealing to any religious creed. No one would be fool enough to say we should toss out the Declaration of Independence. Our response to such an absurdity would be "Don't tread on me!" Therefore, when groups like the ACLU claim the recognition of the Creator or God in law and in public life is a violation of the separation of church and state and the establishment clause, it is the ACLU who has projected and attached a religious identification onto the title of Creator or name of God when anyone wishes to speak of God in keeping with the Declaration itself.
Part 3
ReplyDeleteHerein lies their deception. The ACLU and other such groups are like ventriloquists throwing their voice around to put a religious identification onto the words in the mouths of anyone who dares to speak of God and the Creator in perfect keeping with the Declaration itself. The anti-God crowd does this in an attempt to shut down free speech in public life and to prohibit the government from acknowledging its obligation to recognize God, the Creator, in law. The ACLU and others of the same ilk are plundering our rights as citizens of the United States and the obligation of government with contempt for the first princilple of our constitutional republic which is to acknowledge God.
What brought about the false argument which says to acknowledge God violates the establishment clause and the separation of church and state? There are many but we can look at the primary cause which is a failure to recognize the distinction between the Natural Law conscience and a conscience formed by a religious creed.
The Natural Law defines the parameters of our conscience which is the morality given to us by our Creator enshrined as self-evident facts that are included in the Declaration of Independence which are the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This Natural Law morality is completely independent from any morality based upon a religious perspective or creed.
Part 4
ReplyDeleteMan has an obligation to the Natural Law morality which is the basis of our judicial system. The Natural Law conscience and the conscience formed by a religious perspective are as objectively different in nature as oil and water which do not mix though one may confirm the other from a subjective perspective.
The failure to make this distinction has served the secularists well as the catalyst to put forward the prejudiced argument which says morality must be kept out of politics if we are not to violate the separation of Church and State.
For example, a person cannot be accused of being pro-life because they are religious. The pro-life person can step back and say ‘No, I have a Natural Law conscience and a conscience formed by my religion, but I appeal to my Natural Law conscience in my pro-life position.” Such a person is in good standing because they can appeal directly to the self-evident truth of life as enshrined in the Declaration itself for their pro-life position. They can argue their position without appealing to their religious conscience. Therefore, no one can accuse them of trying to impose a moral perspective regarding life issues based upon a religious perspective.
By trying to identify all morality as being associated with some religious perspective groups like the ACLU have been able to attack the Natural Law morality to create the vacuum of moral relativism which attacks the Natural Law morality of the Declaration of Independence itself.
What then is the folly of the secularist? They proclaim all morality comes from religion failing to see the Natural Law morality enshrined in the Declaration. Hence, we hear their cry that a violation of the separation of Church and State has occurred at the mere mention of the name of God or Creator at graduation ceremonies and the like. The secularists are in fact the ones who attach a religious association onto the title of Creator and God because they have issues with God. The Declaration of Independence gave birth to the Constitution. The ACLU should not be allowed to use the Constitution to shut down our unalienable rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence for the purpose of shutting down religion in this country. If is time the folly of the ACLU and the atheists be exposed for what it is.
Part 5
ReplyDeleteBy trying to identify all morality as being associated with some religious perspective they intend to achieve an absolute independence in temporal affairs from all that has to do with God, the Creator, from moral law in the Natural order. With their prejudiced reading of the Declaration of Independence they intend to take over God’s role for the purpose not so much of opposing religion but to annihilate religion all together. They are the ones who fail to respect the proper boundaries of the separation of church and state as they grasp at divinity for the purposes of dethroning God in the secular order.
One last thing Jesse, lose the arrogance to say I have not truly struggled with the issue of atheism. Your arguments are puerile, and you ask a person to lose rationality to embrace a vapid heart under the guise of calm rationality which is a cover for a trouble conscience which you are here to try to justify. I say to you, beg the Lord to give you back a heart then you will see. But don't go to the Wizard of Oz for it. You think there is a no God behind reality, but a fraud behind the curtains of the heavens. You are deserving of pity.
To conclude you said:
ReplyDelete"Roger, ... your causality argument falls apart because your theology claims that God himself has no cause or assembler. Thus God is self-assembled in your beliefs, much like the 757 in your example."
Let's disassemble the fallacy in what you just said for others to see.
You would not be fool enough to say that something comes from nothing, even science recognizes that is not the case. If you want to argue that it does you would be at best speaking of overlapping dimensions where manifestation of what is invisible to us at one point is now manifest at another instance, but it did not come from nothing. So, here is your dilemma:
You ran from rationality in your argument and tried to bait and switch the argument to one of belief. The basis of your argument is one of infinite regression so if I say “God created all things from nothing” you say “Who created God?”.
So, let’s look at what you are arguing for, from a rational perspective. Since you reject the existence of an eternal God who created all things, combined with the fact that nothing comes from nothing you are, therefore, arguing that all that exists simply existed from all eternity without a creator. You cannot have it both ways, Jesse. Either something is created from nothing or it existed from all eternity. Your position, therefore, allows for one conclusion ONLY which is: what exists existed from all eternity. But the very basis of your argument is that nothing can exist from all eternity without having been created which is your argument against the existence of God. If God cannot exist from all eternity then what exists cannot have existed from all eternity. Whether you like it or not, YOU just just cancelled out your own argument against the existence of God. To argue for the eternal existence of what exists stomps ugly on your own position of an infinite regressive argument against a God who existed from all eternity. In arguing against God you cancel out the atheist position. The mere existence of things demonstrates the fact that there has to be a creator who created all things from nothing because nothing comes from nothing.
Your real argument, your real problem, is a fight over who is going to be God. It is pride, it is a grasp at divinity. Who is going to be God? You, or God?
In fact, the existence of causal relationships stamps out, once again, your position and arrogance. There could be no such thing as causal relationships in the universe if your world view was correct because effect comes after cause, and since all would have had to c0-exist from all eternity, your position, lacking a creator, there could be no effect from a cause because the effect would have co-eternal existence which cancels out the causal relationships. The fact, the existence of causal relationships stomps out your position once again.
In your world of irrationality there could be no space, no distinct essence, entity, or anything else. No Sir, you are a most irrational person. Find yourself a priest and go to Confession.
I choose to pray for you.
"An atheist cannot prove that God does not exist, so that puts him in the camp of the agnostic. He simply doesn't know one way or the other."
ReplyDeletedictionary.com has its first definition of proof as: "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth."
On this definition, you're claiming atheists do not have sufficient evidence to establish that God doesn't exist, or evidence sufficient to elicit belief in atheism.
I'll assume this is the understanding you're working with, please correct me if I'm wrong.
I wonder under what circumstances you think evidence is sufficient to elicit belief?
There is a consensus in philosophy that belief is involuntary: that is, I cannot just choose to believe that my computer is a hallucination, or that it's not actually snowing. What I can control, to some degree at least, is whether I choose to place myself in circumstances within which I'd encounter certain evidence. Hence, it's generally thought to be epistemically irresponsible to neglect consideration of contrary evidence when discerning a position.
If this is right, and I suspect most will I agree I am, then your initial claim needs to be reformulated, but when it is it turns out to be extremely improbable:
(Reformulation): "An atheist never acquires the belief that God does not exist, so that puts him in the camp of the agnostic. He simply doesn't know one way or the other."
Now, you may choose to along with this anyways and say despite what atheists say or even what they might *think*, they truly don't have the belief that atheism is true.
However, the burden then falls to your shoulders to either (i) proffer a plausible understanding of belief which supports your claim and discounts atheist's, or (ii) give good reason to doubt that atheists know what they're talking about.
I can't imagine anyone being able to do either, so at this point I feel it's most reasonable to reject your initial claim and its reformulation.
Hello Steve,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time to write.
Yours is a perfect example of tautology. Sufficient evidence? What is your sufficient evidence for your position? Since you are speaking of sufficient evidence, regardless of degree, you are speaking of truth.
Provide the sufficient evidence for your position for the non-existence of God as "sufficient".
Understand that in appealing to "evidence" you must speak of self-evidence, that precedes any talk of evidence, even according to the scientific method. Self-evidence has no degrees, in fact, knowledge of all things, visible and invisible, depends on self-evidence, even regarding what you would consider to be degree or gray, otherwise degree or gray cannot be known.
Now, consider this! Before you try provide sufficient evidence against the existence of God prove for me the scientific method itself using empirical evidence !!! Please provide for our readers with the empirical evidence for the self-evidence in the data of any method. You cannot empirically prove the self evidence of the self-evident data, therefore, your argument of degree or "sufficiency" has no standing. In fact, you cannot even prove the scientific method. All you can revert to is self-evidence without appealing to method. Think about this, Steve :)
Provide the evidence, proof, or whatever you want to call it, for the non-existence of God. The Onus is on you :)
And before you speak of consensus in Philosophical thought you should be prepared to source that claim because I have studied Philosophy, formally, and I could not disagree with you more. You seem to think you can make assertions to have standing, but you will not get away with that here. So, before you source your material, again, prove the self-evidence in the scientific method as evidence without the benefit of empirical evidence which is impossible and the basis of your claim, since it is YOU who speaks of evidence. :)
Thanks for the reply:
ReplyDeleteI'm using the term evidence as it's used in Bayesianism, which is frequently used in philosophy of religion and science. William Lane Craig recently debated Lawrence Krauss on whether there is any evidence for God and he made this a main point: Bayes' definition of evidence is widely used in these fields.
This definition says that something is evidence for a hypothesis if that hypothesis is more probable given that something, than without it.
This notion formalizes as follows: P(H|E&K) > P(H&K), which translates as "The probability of [Hypothesis] given [proposed evidence] and [background knowledge] is greater than the probability of [Hypothesis] given [background knowledge].
It's important to note that just because E counts as evidence for H, it doesn't mean that E is *enough* to elicit belief in H. Generally at this point, the bayesian goes into the 'rationality threshold' or the probability value a hypothesis must take on the basis of some evidence in order for that evidence to be *enough*.
These probability values are merely numerical representations of our degrees of confidence. So, 1 = our greatest confidence (i.e., certitude), 0 = the least, and 0.5 represents ignorance. The rationality threshold is generally placed at > 0.5. That's what I take it as also.
So, then, I believe E is *sufficient* evidence for H iff (if and only if) P(H|E&K) > 0.5.
This probability, "P(H|E&K)", is known as the posterior probability of H, or posterior for short. A posterior is discerned by use of Bayes' theorem which is a method for calculating it.
Going over that would be far too lengthy for this post though. Suffice it to say that the relative probabilities involved in the theorem entail that whether P(H|E&K) > 0.5 will differ greatly depending on what else *you* personally believe. So, I think the sufficiency of evidence is a relative thing. Hence, why the same argument persuades one and fails to convince another.
As to whether belief is involuntary, I'm quite surprised you disagree. This thesis is advocated by philosophers of religion such as Alvin Plantinga, and Richard Swinburne. It seems to have originally been proposed by Hume. In any case, here's an argument for agreeing:
"If we could decide to "believe" where formerly we had not, and our decisions were immediately efficacious, we would know that our "beliefs" were the result of our decisions and not determined by how things are. But in that case we would not have any reason to suppose that what we "believed" was true and so would not really believe. That belief is involuntary has been convincingly argued by a number of writers, and the force of their arguments would seem to be conceded by perhaps the majority of contemporary philosophers." - Schellenberg, J. L. Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 2006. pp. 9-10
This is one of Schellenberg's *assumptions*, meaning he thinks it's safe enough to proffer without needing to delve into it.
Richard Swinburne says of this book "I consider this book one of the six or seven most important books on the philosophy of religion published in the last fifteen years." It was originally published in 1993, so his claim to a consensus on this is hard to brush aside.
As far as the evidence for atheism which elicited my belief in atheism (i.e., which was sufficient for me), I have space only to mention them, not to explicate them. The argument from divine hiddenness, the argument from inscrutable evil, and the failure of theistic arguments (which is implied by my first reference).
Steve, I had to re-post because my text exceeded the character limit so I have to post several times.
ReplyDeletePart 1
Well, let’s look at what Bayesian probability actually is so that other readers understand what is being said. It’s merely an interpretation of the concept of probability that belongs to the category of evidential probabilities. The Bayesian interpretation of probability can be understood as an extension of logic that enables reasoning with propositions, whose truth or falsity is uncertain.
Steve, from your point of departure it is impossible to conclude possibility, 1) because you failed to provide and prove empirical evidence of self-evidence as it pertains to possibility, 2) as it relates to causality which is self-evident and you cannot speak of it in terms of probability, 3) You can only speak of causality in terms of form which is self-evidence which addresses the matter of motion, but you cannot describe motion in terms of form, any attempts to do so will leave you describing only form and its attributes, 4) The form of motion is the principle of itself which is manifest through but other than the form, and that is self-evident reality which does not rest on probability, so hypothesis and probability is not relevant as to whether God is knowable as fact because the fact of God is knowable as self-evident in causality rendering your position irrelevant. In fact, this forces you into a position of infinite regress, or circular argument, when it comes to the self-evident fact of God in which you lose. Why do you lose? Let’s look at what you are saying but start with the self-evident fact that tells us nothing comes from nothing, and if things are still coming into being causality and fact of God is still in play or dimensions which we cannot see are mingling in some manner where what was not visible is now visible. A retreat into illogical madness is not an answer to the atheist dilemma.
So, let’s go now to why you lose in more detail. You rest in your own loop of infinite regress, and that reduces the argument between you and I to this … If I say “God created all things from nothing” you say “Well, who created God”? What are you really saying? You are saying that “nothing can exist from all eternity without having been created” and this cancels out your argument against God. Why? Because you argue that God cannot have existed from all eternity without having been created which means you have just contradicted yourself. And there is nothing of probability in this, both positions cannot be true, it is one or the other as a self-evident fact with no room of possibility for it to be otherwise, so Bayesian probability does not apply.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, you fail to make a distinction when it comes to matters of belief which is quite apart from the knowable fact of God in the light of reason alone. So, what is a surprise to you regarding my position in matters of belief reveals to me a self-evident absurdity in your position. Why? Because a proper understanding of belief is that belief is a choice that comes into play when God proposes to man by an action of God something of revealed truth which is quite other and not at all the same in nature as the knowable fact of God. You fail to make that distinction and are therefore locked in your own negative error in infinite regress regarding causality which is only one instance of your error. That is in fact why you are “quite surprised” that I disagree with you when you argue that belief is involuntary. In fact, belief is a choice and it is reasonable to assume (and here is where Baysianism probability counters you) that God who is knowable in reason as a self-evident fact is above the reason of man which means God can propose things for man to believe that are above what man can know in reason which is the only reasonable position to take, and therefore more probable, that God who reveals to man that which He wishes man to know is faithful and true in what He reveals since he is the author of contingent reality keeping in mind that in His case, existence is His essence and essence IS existence.
And I will point out that you failed to provide empirical evidence for self-evidence in the scientific method, and you failed to see that you have done so again regarding Baysianism which is also a method. So, I ask you to prove the data in the Baysianism method with empirical data which you will not be able to do which is why you were silent in the matter of my request. Your “probabilities” in the negative regarding God and hypothesis are puerile and are cancelled out. In fact, I find it odd that you would take Bayesinanism as your standard, particularly when you speak about God and probability. Swinburne was terribly mistaken in that he applied things of man to transcendent reality which is God. Big boo boo.
Consider the following which precedes our discussion as a reflection I would like you to consider:
Part 3
ReplyDeleteIf you follow great Christian tradition going back to the early apologists themselves, Richard Swinburne, in Was Jesus God? (Oxford University Press, 2008), takes up the noble and praiseworthy enterprise of providing rational arguments for accepting not only the truth that Jesus is truly God but also other central doctrines of the Christian faith. In so doing, he wishes to clarify and enunciate these doctrines so that the faith that accepts them is more reasonably founded.
The reader quickly perceives that Swinburne ardently desires to give a convincing rationale for why traditional Christian doctrines are true and thus why they should be believed. Was Jesus God? is, nonetheless, an essentially flawed book.
The book is divided into two parts. In the first part Swinburne, former Nolloth Professor of Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford, provides a number of rational arguments that “there is a moderate probability that there is a God of the kind worshiped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims.” Having set in place the probable existence of God and the type of God he is, he offers “a priori reasons” for why the central doctrines of Christianity should be accepted as true. By “a priori reasons,” he means “reasons arising from the very nature of God and from the general condition of the human race.”
While these reasons for belief in the Christian doctrines offer only “moderate probability” of their truth, Swinburne offers in part two “a posteriori reasons,” that is, historical evidence from the life of Jesus and from subsequent Church teaching that “makes it very probable that these doctrines are true.” In this review I will highlight a few of Swinburne’s a priori arguments, since his a posteriori arguments, for the most part, merely corroborate them.
Swinburne wants to argue for what he considers to be the traditional understanding of God. Here, however, major problems arise, because his understanding of these divine attributes is hardly traditional.
Part 4
ReplyDeleteGod is said to be omniscient, for example, even though “it is not logically possible for God to know infallibly beforehand what a free agent [a human being] will do.” Likewise, because God is omnipotent, good, and free, he will normally freely choose to do the best possible action, but God may have to choose arbitrarily between two equally good actions or, given adverse circumstances, may be unable to perform the best possible action. Following this pattern, Swinburne argues that God is eternal not in the sense of being timeless, but rather in the sense of being everlasting. God must live within time so that he can care for human beings who live within time. God, for example, “hears the prayers of humans at the same time as they utter them.”
It is impossible to address fully the erroneous presuppositions and ensuing false conclusions contained in this argument. Swinburne has no clear understanding of the analogy of being when applied to God, and thus he employs concepts and language about God univocally. For him, God’s personal manner of existence does not differ in kind from that of human beings, but only in degree. Thus, God’s manner of knowing, the mode of his power, the exercise of his freedom, the process by which he makes choices, the extent of his goodness, and the longevity of his life differs from that of human beings only because he possesses more (even if infinitely more) knowledge, power, goodness, and life than we do.
It is this conception of God that forces Swinburne to reconceive the traditional understanding of God and his divine attributes. The biblical Christian tradition conceives God as existing in a uniquely transcendent and so different kind of way from all else and therefore conceives the manner and exercise of his knowledge, power, goodness, and freedom in a different way. Swinburne has not written an apology on behalf of the Christian God, but an apology for a god of his own rational making.
When Swinburne makes his a priori arguments for belief in the Trinity, he begins on firm ground, though one wonders if such arguments could be made if one does not previously know through revelation that there is a Trinity. He argues that if God is a God of love, then God must always be the Father who eternally begets the Son, and together they love one another in the Spirit.
Even here, however, Swinburne’s univocal use of concepts gives rise to false presuppositions which leads to erroneous conclusions. For example, since he conceives the three divine persons as like human persons, he wrongly postulates that conflict could arise between them just as it does between individual human persons. Having created a bogus quandary, he is now forced to offer an answer. “Persons caused to exist by another person have obligations to the person who caused them. So the Father, being perfectly good, will seek to avoid any conflict by laying down for each divine person his sphere of activity; and the others, being perfectly good, will recognize an obligation to conform to his rule. So there will be no possibility of conflict.”
Part 5
ReplyDeleteIn Swinburne’s conception, the Trinity consists of three independent individuals who must lovingly collaborate with one another in a properly regulated and ordered manner, but who could come into conflict. In contrast, traditional theology understands the Trinity as three subjects—distinct but not identical persons—who are the one God and so possess equally divine omniscience, goodness, freedom, etc., and who thus could never come into conflict. His conception is very close to, if not identical with, a social understanding of the Trinity, a collaborating society of equally divine individuals, an understanding not in accord with the divine persons being of one and the same nature.
When Swinburne makes his a priori argument for belief that the divine Son of God did become man, the manner in which he conceives the Incarnation bears little resemblance to the traditional Christian doctrine. He begins by arguing that it would seem that God has an obligation “to share in a human life of suffering” and so become man, and that “to be human is to have a human way of thinking and acting and (at least normally) a human body through which to act.” This is what took place within the Incarnation.
But how is this achieved? Swinburne turns to Freud for the answer. Freud showed that a person can have “two systems of belief to some extent independent of each other.” A mother may, on a conscious level, deny that her son is dead and unconsciously act as if he is dead. Similarly, within the Incarnation, the omniscient Son of God takes on a human mind with limited consciousness and knowledge.
“We thus," writes Swinburne, "get a picture of a divine consciousness and a human consciousness of God Incarnate, the divine consciousness including the human consciousness, but the human consciousness not including the divine consciousness.” The incarnate Son of God has a “divided mind,” similar to the mother of the dead son. Thus, it might be that “God Incarnate was not always conscious of his own divinity; but he would clearly need to be conscious of it some of the time in order to show his followers that he believed himself to be divine.”
Part 6
ReplyDeleteWhile it is incredible that he would employ a human mental pathology as the basic paradigm for conceiving the Incarnation, his articulation itself is not in accord with authentic Christian doctrine. In the Incarnation the Son of God actually came to be man and so exists as man, and in a human manner the Son of God came to know, and not merely to believe, that he was the eternal Son of the Father. Swinburne’s view allows no ontological oneness between the Son of God and his humanity. His conception is merely a form of adoptionism.
The heart of the problem may reside in Swinburne’s Platonic understanding of what it means to be human—a mind dwelling in and employing a body, a body that is ultimately not essential to being a human person. Because he thinks of the Incarnation as the Son adopting the mind of a man, he speculates that Jesus could fall to temptation and so fail to live a perfect life. If this happened, the Son would have to become incarnate again, and maybe even again. “Sooner or later he could likely have provided for us the perfect life which ones [sic] serve as our reparation.” Such a peculiar and unnecessary speculation, arising as it does from a false understanding of the Incarnation, does nothing to encourage the faith of unbelievers.
In this review I have only touched on a few of the most blatantly false or misconceived presuppositions that in Was Jesus God? give rise to spurious issues and erroneous conclusions. There are many more. To write an apology for the faith, one has to know the faith—the faith as it has been traditionally proclaimed and understood through the centuries. Only then is one adequately equipped to give rational arguments for why one should believe it.
Swinburne wants ardently to promote the faith, but the faith that he ultimately promotes is one that he has already predetermined, having previously configured it to conform to what he considers to be rationally believable.
That is why you fail, Steve, to understand that belief is in fact a choice, and not involuntary. i.e., predetermined. Atheism is irrational and is the opiate of the irrational. I recommend that you find your way to a confessional and come home to Catholicism. You will be welcome, your passion could help a lot of people, but as is, you are in need and worthy only of pity.
Part 1
ReplyDeleteThanks for the replies Roger:
Let me start with your 4 points that I cannot conclude possibility.
The first thing I’d like to say is that I’m not sure how this section of your replies relates to our discussion on your initial claim and its reformulation. I could grant your points and we’d still not have come to a conclusion as to whether your initial claim that atheists don’t have sufficient evidence for atheism, is a true claim, or whether its reformulation, that atheists don’t actually believe atheism, is true. However, I’ll interact with this section, perhaps I’ve overlooked something.
The 1st point you make is that I’ve failed to conclude possibility because I haven’t provided empirical evidence of the self-evidence of possibility. I just take my modal intuitions (e.g., that I could’ve slept in a second later than actually did this morning) as self-evident indications of possibility. I’m not sure if that qualifies as empirical evidence, but if it doesn’t, I'm not bothered.
Your 2nd point seems to be that I hadn’t offered empirical evidence for causality, and you remark that causality cannot be spoken of in terms of probability.
But, causality can be spoken of in terms of probability; because, it is: that’s the whole idea behind the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Physics, indeterministic causality etc. This would be the case even on determinism in which all events occur necessarily. We'd just say the probability of any given event is 1.0. Finally, I take my perceptions of causal relations as self-evident indications of causality.
Your 3rd and 4th points are confusing to me. For instance, in point 3 you say any attempts to describe motion in terms of form fail because they leave you describing form and its attributes, but you go on in 4 to describe motion in terms of form. Further, you seem to imply that self-evident reality exceeds the highest degree of probability; but, the highest probability is certitude, which is what you’re referring to when you talk about self-evidence.
There’s a difference between the truth-value of a proposition, and our confidence that a proposition has a specific truth-value. So, while it may very well be true that God exists, we can still have the least possible confidence in that proposition.
I don't think either the scientific method or Bayesianism is self-evident, but I don’t know how that effects our discussion.
As far as whether the principle ex nihil, nihil fit is self-evident: unfortunately, I and many others don't share this intuition. To say we’re retreating into illogical madness by not accepting this principle is to say the principle is self-evident; but, that’s precisely the question! So, this just begs the question against us. If God’s existence rests upon this principle, I don’t think atheism faces any challenge.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteYou say I “lose” because I’d ask “Well, who created God?” But, I wouldn’t ask this question.
This is known as Schopenhauer’s taxi-cab objection: the theist employs a causal principle just as one would hail a cab to go from point A to point B at which point the taxi is abandoned. I find this objection’s usefulness quite limited, I’d never use this against your arguments. Again, probability does apply because the certitude of self-evidence is numerically represented as 1.0.
You say belief is a choice 3 times, but I could find only one place where you give reason to agreeing with you, and that’s the definition of belief: “belief is a choice that comes into play when God proposes to man by an action of God something of revealed truth which is quite other and not at all the same in nature as the knowable fact of God.”
The atheist can’t accept this definition and remain an atheist. Further, I’m not sure many theists would accept this definition; I’ve never seen it in epistemology or philosophy mind where they discuss cognitive states like belief. Most importantly though, I didn’t see any objection to the argument I cited in favor of involuntary belief.
Regardless, assume that belief is a choice. We must change the reformulation which says (Reformulation): "An atheist never acquires the belief that God does not exist, so that puts him in the camp of the agnostic. He simply doesn't know one way or the other."
So, we have your initial claim that "an atheist cannot prove that God does not exist, so that puts him in the camp of the agnostic. He simply doesn't know one way or the other” its clarification by dictionary.com’s definition of proof as "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth” and finally the assumption that belief is a choice.
Since belief is a choice, your initial claim and dictionary.com’s definition of proof make for the following:
(Reformulation 2) “An atheist cannot choose to believe that God doesn’t exist, so that puts him in the camp of the agnostic. He simply doesn’t know one way or the other.”
I don’t see how this claim is defensible. So far, your initial claim, its first reformulation and its second reformulation don’t seem reasonable. I think you have to concede that atheists can choose to disbelieve in God’s existence since you think belief is a choice, unless you don’t think atheists can make this choice.
Hello Steve
ReplyDeletePart 1
I’m not sure why you divert away from claims that you make and persons that you reference, like Swinburne to make a point after his positions have been refuted, and yours along with his.
Provide empirical evidence of the self evidence of possibility! There is no room for you to move into the realm of possibilities in which there is only the certitude of self-evidence before you can even speak of possibility, and that relates to causal reality as well.
Indeterministic causality speaks of causality nonetheless, and since your example is that of sleeping one more second has nothing to do with intent because there is no causality without a cause, in this case, certitude as to a bodily function regarding why you slept one more second. That is like saying if you stopped breathing in your sleep there was no definitive reason as to why you stopped breathing at exactly the time you stopped breathing. There is no possibility in that. You are mixing apples with oranges and negating intent in causality as regards free will which is a choice you make even when you calculate possibility. Are you now predetermined to calculate possibility? If so, that is certitude with no room for possibility.
Possibility is inherently dependent upon that which is absolute in the same way that error is known only in relation to what is true. Your perceptions of causality are subjective on the one hand but only in relation to the objective which measures whether or not you are in conformity with reality.
Quite the opposite regarding points 3 and 4. I spoke of the form of motion which is the principle of itself without regard to form which is the point you missed. Furthermore, there is no possibility without the certitude of the self-evident in which there is no possibility, only certitude which is why you fail to understand the point of motion and ultimate uncaused causality.
Furthermore, there is no discussion of a truth-value proposition and how it differs from confidence if the confidence is measured by the value of a truth proposition that has no certitude due to possibilities. So, you reduce the certitude of God as the ultimate cause who has no beginning to the possibility of confidence in that proposition which is why you failed to understand the point of infinite regression.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteSteve, it was you who brought Bayesianism and Swinburne into this discussion, not I, and both times you retreated from speaking of them, as well as the necessity of empirical evidence to validate your position of possibility without which there is not discussion of possibility. It directly effects our discussion.
I have no issue with certitude in the self evident, it is you who does, not I, and that is why the point of ex nihil, nihil is necessary for you and others to reconsider. I would never send you to the store and expect the right amount of change back from the money I gave you to buy the bread if you have delved into the madness of something coming from nothing. It is insanity, sir, and those who share your view are teetering on the edge of it as well. When the veil of time is pulled away and you face the end of your life, whenever that time will be, you will face a life lived without meaning or purpose, and you will be faced with the terrible fact that you missed the meaning of life having embraced the madness of irrationality.
You cannot say that the principle of causality regarding being and nothingness begs the question because that means the converse is equally true which is the same as saying that being gives cause to nothingness indeterminately and in both cases you cannot escape the word “cause”. And in this atheism is vanquished.
And, yes, I say again, you do lose, and though you do not admit it, you would are faced with the argument of infinite regress regarding causality in the end. And the taxi objection fails because you never got into the cab to get to point B. Rather than getting out of the cab after point B, you fail to see that you have “arrived” at certitude in causality which is self-evident.
Of course an atheist would have to abandon atheism if he accepts the principle of belief, and the reason that you do not yet see it is because you choose not to see, or have a prejudiced attitude regarding absolutes. And if you have never seen it in epistemological/philosophical studies I suggest you read more. For instance, in the phenomenological metaphysic, try to explain the nature of relationship with possibility. If you appeal to possibility there is no such thing as relationship and you may as well erase the letters on your keyboard which correspond to an absolute as to the result when you hit a key to express what is within you. Your position is that there is no absolute relationship between the keys on your keyboard and your fingers, all is only indeterminate possibility which is like saying a gorilla sat down at a keyboard and accidentally typed out the entire encyclopedia Britannica with a thesaurus and Webster dictionary along with a spell check. It is insanity to hold to your position. It is absurd and you have no argument in favor of involuntary belief.
Don’t ask me to assume because that removes possibility in the assumption, were to you to have it your way I could not be certain I assumed as you want me to do. There is no reformulation in what I have said. What you are missing in your reformulation (you fail to see that is what YOU did) regarding belief is that there must be a REASON for belief, not probability, because probability is not pertinent to the unthinking. You have now entered into the realm of the substance of thought itself and the errors in your thinking is driving you backwards away from the obligation of your will to assent to what is knowable as self-evident without room for possibility, in this case, the FACT of God knowable in causality. So, your reason for disbelief is no more valid than saying the tooth fairy is the cause of all things.
Part 3
ReplyDeleteAgain, I have not reformulated anything. My position has not changed an iota. I will not concede that atheists have a reason to formulate, a priori, inductive, empirically, or otherwise, to disbelieve in the existence of God because it is not a matter of belief. It is a self-evident fact of causality. Rejecting fact that is knowable is not disbelief, it is a choice to be blinded by irrationality.
Sir, there is a Boeing 747 sitting on a runway with all of the design involved in its existence, and I say to you, Steve, nothing caused it to be. You would say I am a madman. You cannot even make your argument that man designed it in the realm of indeterminate causality because design with intent could not fit in your world view, hence, you would be the madman who said nothing designed and built the 747 and your pilot is actually “Pontius Pilot”, and you are in a tailspin going straight down.
I never cease to be amazed at how obsessed atheists are with God.
ReplyDeleteHello Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more. Why do they bother? After all, if they are so convinced let them just shut up. Who cares, there is no meaning to life for them, ultimately.
All these arguments wouldn't have influenced me at all when I was an agnostic.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I noticed, though, when I was an agnostic, was that all of the religions had prayer. I thought that was odd. Why was that? What were all these people doing?
Well, I thought they were all mumbling to themselves and deluded.
Let me say this:
If you're an atheist, it's because you don't pray.
You can't find God. A human being lacks the capacity to find the Lord of All.
God must find you. You must allow yourself to be found.
You see ... what happened was ... I started reading the Bible, not believing any of it, but with a kind of openness to it. And after about a thousand pages in, well, I thought it was a really very interesting ancient document.
And then one night on a walk, God found me.
Since that night, twenty years ago, it has been difficult for me to doubt that God exists.
And no - that night, it wasn't a feeling, but a perception. It was a perception that continues now in my prayer life.
Well. There are many questions people have.
Why suffering? for example.
That question is really these questions:
1) Why are we mortal?
2) And why are we free?
And if you wonder why there is evil, don't ask a person - ask God. Here was his response, intuited in prayer, to me:
We are not on earth to work, to use our talents, and to enjoy ourselves. Yes, you must work, use your talents, and enjoy yourself - but this is not why you are on earth. "You are on earth to become like me," says the Lord. And you will never become like me if your life was only about working, using your talents, and enjoying yourself.
In the way of the cross, the way of suffering and sorrow, we find joy at the end. At least, this is what has been said by some who have walked this way.
Well. Think what you will. I don't have all the answers.
We're not saved by what we know, or don't.
An atheist's way may be the way of darkness, and this, also, might be a way of the cross.
>"Religion is the cause of wars". Is that so? Let them consider that in the last century alone, over 170 million people died at the hands of atheists ... More people died in Cambodia during the rule of Pol Pot, the atheist, in just a few short years THAN CHRISTIANS WHO HARMED EACH OTHER in over 2,000 years.
ReplyDeleteHey, weren't the goalposts over THERE before?
Also, doesn't Roger Trudeau-Leblanc's unwillingness to connect with Thor show his fear that he may be rejected by Thor? Why does he continue to wave his mighty fist at Thor?
Hi Anonymous,
DeleteWell, there is nothing that says you cannot live in a bubble. By the way, you may want to connect to the dialogue before you tell anyone to connect to Thor. By the way, I've formally studied the Greeks for years, have you?
Perhaps you should unplug from MTV and understand reality is not as you see it.
Shouldn't you be settling some molestation lawsuits instead of writing this garbage?
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous,
DeleteSo, I take it you think that bad priests represent Catholic teaching in their behavior? You will not find any serious Catholic defending the evil perpetrated by these bad men, nor should there have ever been a cover-up. I don't think we have seen the end of how bad it was, but no Catholic will leave the Church because of some bad apples.
By the way, did you know that Protestant Pastors, teachers, aunts and uncles, and others have molested children at a far higher rate than Catholic priests? Why are you not out in the streets holding your signs of protest at the teacher unions meetings, or why don't you stand outside the doors of the major TV Networks to complain about these others?
No, you like to complain about the Catholic Church because you have issues in conscience like all other atheists. You talk of accountability but you cannot live with it in your own life. You attack those who remind you of the conscience you are trying to silence. Atheists are obsessed with God. You will have no rest in this life or the next unless you finally yield to God in this life.
All the best to you!
I normally would not allow such vile language, but there are probably many like yourself in the world of atheists who think the English vocabulary revolves around 4 letter words. Didn't your mom ever wash out your mouth with soap? This is but one resource for the sake of citation, here you go ...
ReplyDeletehttp://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm
All the best to you (reality is tough to deal with, ey?)
You guys pray for me, I'll think for you
ReplyDeleteCatholics can think for themselves, thank you. Atheism is the opiate of the irrational. But, Catholics do pray for you and all the world.
ReplyDelete