A believer and a non-believer

[KevinK]

Take two people.

Person A is an illiterate, low intelligence peasant living in a poor Third World country who has never gone to school and is consumed with day-to-day survival. Nonetheless a Catholic missionary evangelized her and she basically believes everything she was told and attends mass regularly. Had a Mormon or Muslim reached her first she would embrace that belief system.

Person B is a highly intelligent educated person in a developed country who diligently seeks to examine the claims of Christianity. She reads copious apologetics books, speaks to believers, asks questions, attends church services and prays. Nonetheless she is unable to will herself to believe.

Does Person B have more moral culpability despite her best efforts compared to Person A who is highly impressionable and just believed whatever she was told?

 

[Gorgias]

Person A is an illiterate, low intelligence peasant living in a poor Third World country who has never gone to school and is consumed with day-to-day survival.

‘Illiterate’ =/= “low intelligence”
‘peasant’ =/= “low intelligence”
‘poor’ =/= “low intelligence”
‘third-world’ =/= “low intelligence”
‘fighting for daily survival’ =/= “low intelligence”

So… which are you trying to say? “Low intelligence”, or “illiterate, poor peasant”?

Had a Mormon or Muslim reached her first she would embrace that belief system.

I’m not sure I’d jump to that conclusion. Basically, what you’re saying is that this hypothetical person is merely gullible.

Person B is a highly intelligent educated person in a developed country who diligently seeks to examine the claims of Christianity.

You realize that I could make the same claim about “educated”, “first-world” =/= “intelligent”, right?

So, there’s a weakness to your thought experiment. Are you distinguishing between levels of intelligence? Or between disparities in culture? Or maybe even differences of wealth and poverty? Or, perhaps, in education levels – or even systems of education? Which is it? There’s too much going on here to reach a reasonable answer.

Does Person B have more moral culpability despite her best efforts compared to Person A who is highly impressionable and just believed whatever she was told?

Culpability is culpability, isn’t it? If you’re culpable, you’re culpable. Period.

 

[Genesis315]

We know that “without faith it is impossible to please God” and the Church defines faith as the submission of intellect and will to God the revealer (ie to believe what He has revealed based on His authority). Faith is also a grace. We need the grace of God to do this. And, in His infinite wisdom, God sends His grace to different people at different times (see the parable of the workers in the field, called at different hours) and even in different ways–even “in ways known only to Himself,” as the Church puts it. And since God “desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth”, we know He does this for all at some point, even if only at the “eleventh hour.”

Generally, we need more information than what you provide (which is why our particular judgments require an omniscient and perfect judge, and why Christ tells us not to try and do that ourselves). Person B may have some obstinate sin that is causing an impediment to grace. Or, perhaps, if this person does not have such an impediment, God has simply not provided that grace yet. But, He has promised “Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find,” so eventually, if this person has a clear and upright conscience, this person will ultimately come to faith and be saved.

The same would apply to person A. She could have a sinful disregard for truth that leads her to carelessly believe whoever comes along, or God’s providence could have provided her with the means of faith through the missionary that came and the grace she would receive through the sacraments would help develop and nurture that faith. If the Mormons came first (who worship a creature, rather than the Creator), but she did desire the truth with an upright conscience, again, God would ultimately provide her with the grace to place her faith in Him that is necessary for salvation.

So, I guess to answer your question, it depends. I think too often in these kinds of scenarios we can forget to take into account God’s providence and grace.

 

[Edward_H]

Remember the widow with two mites.

She gave everything she had.

That’s the benchmark…how much and well and selflessly do we love…

A supposed intellect - as you’ve described - can become a saint…or can let their supposed intellect fan their own vanity and pride.

 

[KevinK]

Too much info in thought experiment. Attempt is to contrast an impressionable person believing Christianity due mostly to gullibility vs. someone who tries very hard to look at evidence and spends a great deal of time with an open heart but ultimately is not convinced. Should the ignorant, gullible person get more credit than the serious truth seeker?

 

[Gorgias]

Should the ignorant, gullible person get more credit than the serious truth seeker?

is the “ignorant, gullible person” not a serious person?

Too much judgment going on in this thought experiment.

However, it sure sounds like a recapitulation of Jesus’ teachings vis-a-vis the learned and the ‘little ones’. Jesus praised the simple faith of children – and recommended that we be like them! – and rebuked the wise in their pride and rigidity.

By that example, in Jesus’ own words (!), we see the answer to your question: yes – the sophisticated non-believer is held to their refusal to believe, while the simple believer is held up as a model.

 

[MPat]

Take two people.

Person A is an illiterate, low intelligence peasant living in a poor Third World country who has never gone to school and is consumed with day-to-day survival. Nonetheless a Catholic missionary evangelized her and she basically believes everything she was told and attends mass regularly. Had a Mormon or Muslim reached her first she would embrace that belief system.

Person B is a highly intelligent educated person in a developed country who diligently seeks to examine the claims of Christianity. She reads copious apologetics books, speaks to believers, asks questions, attends church services and prays. Nonetheless she is unable to will herself to believe.

Does Person B have more moral culpability despite her best efforts compared to Person A who is highly impressionable and just believed whatever she was told?

Replace “believing Catholic faith” with “accepting evolution”, “accepting that Americans landed on the Moon”, “accepting that Earth is round”, “accepting that Holocaust happened”. Will you still want to say that person B is better than person A?

Person B is a highly intelligent educated person in a developed country who diligently seeks to examine the claims of Christianity. She reads copious apologetics books, speaks to believers, asks questions, attends church services and prays. Nonetheless she is unable to will herself to believe.

Let’s look at adverbs and adjectives: “highly intelligent”, “educated”, “developed”, “diligently”, “copious”… Where’s “honestly”? Where’s “humbly”?

For no amount of dishonest research is going to make the “researcher” innocent of, um, dishonesty.

There is another point: just as lots of good honest research is going to confirm that Holocaust did happen, lots of good honest research is going to confirm truth of Catholic faith. And just as having performed lots of research on Holocaust and claiming that it didn’t happen is evidence for lack of honesty, so is having performed lots of research on Catholic faith and claiming that it is false.

There is a reason why Holocaust Denial is a crime in many countries.

Does Person B have more moral culpability despite her best efforts compared to Person A who is highly impressionable and just believed whatever she was told?

See Luke 12:48 - “But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.”.

For that matter, your disrespect for poor people from Third World countries seems to be worthy of note…