A Question for Converts to Catholicism from Secular Viewpoint

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arizona_Mike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Arizona_Mike

Guest
In the pages of my alma mater’s college newspaper was this recent article, which describes the surprise conversion to Catholicism by the former president of the campus Secular Free Thought Society of ASU, a group skeptical of religion (and as as one member candidly notes, actively hostile to it).

statepress.com/2012/09/27/from-atheism-to-catechism/

It’s of interest to me because this obviously intelligent young man, who we can presume was conversant with all the arguments and claims against the existence of God and the Christian worldview, was not converted by any intellectual or philosophical argument, but through a mystical experience that came while reading the Litany of the Sacred Heart.

Bob Seidensticker, an atheist blogger, recently posted a blog where he looked at three recent converts to religious belief from Christianity (including Catholic convert Leah Libresco) and made the argument that the intellectual arguments that led to their conversions did not result in mass conversions of atheists, so they couldn’t have been “good” reasons for conversion - or something like that. (patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/10/how-could-an-atheist-convert-to-christianity/)

My own reversion to the Catholic faith from agnosticism was a combination of what I would characterize as a gradual series of intellectual engagements with apologetic arguments, interspersed what I would come to see as directly empirical events - mystical, if you will - that directed me over the edge into faith. I think God wants all of us to approach him, and will probably present us with what will work best for our conversion - whether we accept it or not.

I think it is a teaching of the Church that there is no argument that can force a nonbeliever to believe - there ultimately must be an extension of faith from the believer.

For those of you who converted (or reverted) to Catholicism from a secular (atheist/agnostic, or what have you) belief - how many of you experienced a mystical conversion experience that directly or in part led to your conversion?
 
I’d say mine was more intellectual than mystical. I came to firmly believe in God through a college philosophy class. I came to call myself a “devoted Christian” after a sort of intellectual/mystical epiphany that I owe God my existence.

Then I started to study the denominations of Christianity, in which I became Catholic as a result of, well, reading the Bible (particularly John 6) and realizing that Catholicism made the most logical sense.

Basically, if it were left to the “mystical” experiences of my life (which weren’t expicitly Church related), I assure you that I wouldn’t be Catholic. I’d say my intellectual growth had more to do with it. Perhaps that’s how God intended it for me though, since I’ve always had a more reason-based, “realist” perspective.
 
When I came back, I first came into a “general” form of Christianity. What led me there was a bit of a mystical experience, I guess, since it felt like one of those “ah ha!” moments. I guess my argument against wasn’t really that strong, it was more that I just didn’t care to believe. But over time and thinking about God through a lens of science, I eventually came to the conclusion that there had to be a God, or at least I was fairly certain of it, but still wasn’t 100% sure. Through all this, I still identified myself as a Catholic, merely because it was how I was raised, though I didn’t really believe in much outside of God. In reality, I was merely a deist.

Upon entering a protestant (denominationally accepting) campus ministry, for the sake of friends and curiosity. Though, having talks about God or Christianity made me uncomfortable (I think because of the lack of knowledge). Over time and hanging out with people, with whom I really enjoyed the company, I started to learn the protestant side of Christianity and understood enough to, and wanted it enough, to call myself a Christian, but there were some things that they talked about that didn’t add up, or didn’t make sense to me as I understood God, the free will of man, and relationships.

Being an observer most of my life, or a wallflower if you so prefer, I became aware of patterns of human behavior and felt I began to “understand” people. This is how I learned how different relationships work, and allowed me to notice of one wasn’t functioning right (or so I feel). And the way things were described in this ministry in regards to the relationship with Christ and God as a whole, just didn’t add up entirely.

And because I still would identify myself as Catholic (because of how I was raised), after a time in the ministry, I would get asked questions from time to time about views from a Catholic perspective. It was at this moment that I realized I didn’t know the whole picture. This is where the “ah ha!” moment kicked in, and I felt a strange desire I had never felt before. This was, and still is, a mystical experience, at least for me, to have the desire to learn more about faith. Over time, after questioning things to my brother and some of our close friends who are Catholic who went through a similar experience, I learned more about Catholicism and how it differed from protestant teaching. Some of it I understood, other parts I needed more time to mull over. After a time, I eventually wound up listening to CAL podcasts, especially the Q&A Open Forum and Q&A for Non-Catholics. These really helped because of how quick, yet intelligent the answers were. Over time I learned more, and then read The Essential Catholic Survival Guide, after which I felt content in being Catholic.

I still study, because I don’t always remember every argument, but I’m trying to. But at the very least, I remember why I believe.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
In the pages of my alma mater’s college newspaper was this recent article, which describes the surprise conversion to Catholicism by the former president of the campus Secular Free Thought Society of ASU, a group skeptical of religion (and as as one member candidly notes, actively hostile to it).

statepress.com/2012/09/27/from-atheism-to-catechism/

It’s of interest to me because this obviously intelligent young man, who we can presume was conversant with all the arguments and claims against the existence of God and the Christian worldview, was not converted by any intellectual or philosophical argument, but through a mystical experience that came while reading the Litany of the Sacred Heart.

Bob Seidensticker, an atheist blogger, recently posted a blog where he looked at three recent converts to religious belief from Christianity (including Catholic convert Leah Libresco) and made the argument that the intellectual arguments that led to their conversions did not result in mass conversions of atheists, so they couldn’t have been “good” reasons for conversion - or something like that. (patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/10/how-could-an-atheist-convert-to-christianity/)

My own reversion to the Catholic faith from agnosticism was a combination of what I would characterize as a gradual series of intellectual engagements with apologetic arguments, interspersed what I would come to see as directly empirical events - mystical, if you will - that directed me over the edge into faith. I think God wants all of us to approach him, and will probably present us with what will work best for our conversion - whether we accept it or not.

I think it is a teaching of the Church that there is no argument that can force a nonbeliever to believe - there ultimately must be an extension of faith from the believer.

For those of you who converted (or reverted) to Catholicism from a secular (atheist/agnostic, or what have you) belief - how many of you experienced a mystical conversion experience that directly or in part led to your conversion?
Click to expand...
Coming from atheism/agnosticism mine was first based upon my rejection of life being “purposeless”. Because if life is purposeless, and if you accept the fact that there is a real possibility that life, or the universe in general, need not exist at all, there there is no reason for life to exist unless it was created for a purpose. And given the amount of order and purpose in the universe I agreed with the notion that for there to be order required a mind to create the order and hold it in existence.

The other was later, when I began to accept the more spiritual aspects of reality, I was stuck in a rebellion with the purposelessness of death. My conclusion was if there is such a thing as “spirits” or “souls” then death cannot be the end of human existence.

What came to my mind was not an audible voice, not even an interior voice in my head, but was just a prompting, and idea that seemed to come from something other than myself, in which responded, “not for you.” I guess you could call that a “mystical” experience, but I don’t know if it was necessarily God or an angel. I’m not really sure where it came from. I know it didn’t come from me. But it did give me hope that there was life after death. Not too long after I joined the Catholic Church.
 
I came from the secular viewpoint. For me, it was a culmination of the feeling like there was something missing when i went to the Protestant services, and feeling so out of place there. I couldn’t understand why. After i pulled up stakes and left the Protestant church i’d attended as a guest for several months, i walked up to the Catholic Church not far from it, and it was like this was it. This was everything i thought church should be, and i guess you could say the rest is history. 🙂
 
Thanks, all. I’m interested in how secularists, who you would think would be amenable to conversion by intellectual persuasion, often seem to have a strongly mystical aspect to their conversion - often in conjunction with other factors.

I’m also curious how many began the process of conversion after the birth of a child. For myself, the appearance of a new life was so awe-inspiring, so different, that I think it began to lead me to consider things that I had consciously avoided thinking about.
 
Note: Maybe, like St. Paul, he also heard Our Blessed Lord say to him, “It is hard for thee to kick against the goad.” (Acts 9:5)

My Testimony
 
Very good folks and inspiring as well. The same reasons also probably inspire people to a deeper conversion after they have been " in the water " for awhile. 👍👍

I think another interesting thread would be, " Why I am an atheist. " But if you start it, better run it past a moderator first. 😃
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Very good folks and inspiring as well. The same reasons also probably inspire people to a deeper conversion after they have been " in the water " for awhile. 👍👍

I think another interesting thread would be, " Why I am an atheist. " But if you start it, better run it past a moderator first. 😃
Click to expand...
We are talking about secularists, here. :rolleyes:
 
Arizona_Mike said:
For those of you who converted (or reverted) to Catholicism from a secular (atheist/agnostic, or what have you) belief - how many of you experienced a mystical conversion experience that directly or in part led to your conversion?
Click to expand...
Mystical first; the intellectual understanding came later. Tho I don’t know if my state of disbelief at the time would be called agnostic or lapsed Protesant. 🤷
 
Michael_Francis said:
Don’t bother. Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads
Click to expand...
Understood, Michael. This is honestly not a thread attacking atheism, or discussing atheist arguments, which is my understanding of the ban. It’s a discussion of the conversion process, which is something I think we can all discuss.

If we are interested in apologetics and the New Evangelism with which Pope Benedict has tasked us, we should look at the process of conversion from Protestantism, other faiths, or a secular lack of faith, whether that is agnosticism, atheism, antitheism, or simple religious disinterest. This certainly seems within the scope of courteous apologetic discussion. There would seem to be, from my experience, and many others, a different route to faith from a secular convert, as opposed to a Protestant, or a Muslim, or any other starting point, and I think it would be worthwhile to examine it, if we are to live out our faith in an apologetic context.

A simple mention of "“atheism” should not result in closing down a thread, or the many posters who identify themselves as atheists in their signatures would close any thread by the simple act of posting on it, which I doubt anyone would want.
 
The_GreyPilgrim said:
Coming from atheism/agnosticism mine was first based upon my rejection of life being “purposeless”. Because if life is purposeless, and if you accept the fact that there is a real possibility that life, or the universe in general, need not exist at all, there there is no reason for life to exist unless it was created for a purpose. And given the amount of order and purpose in the universe I agreed with the notion that for there to be order required a mind to create the order and hold it in existence.

The other was later, when I began to accept the more spiritual aspects of reality, I was stuck in a rebellion with the purposelessness of death. My conclusion was if there is such a thing as “spirits” or “souls” then death cannot be the end of human existence.

What came to my mind was not an audible voice, not even an interior voice in my head, but was just a prompting, and idea that seemed to come from something other than myself, in which responded, “not for you.” I guess you could call that a “mystical” experience, but I don’t know if it was necessarily God or an angel. I’m not really sure where it came from. I know it didn’t come from me. But it did give me hope that there was life after death. Not too long after I joined the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
That kind of parallels my experience. Even as an agnostic, I held that there were moral absolutes - I accepted that Good and Evil existed as other than societal constructs or civil necessities, and believed in a consciousness that existed independent of the brain (although I couldn’t bring myself to term it a “soul,”) and allowed that consciousness “probably” survived after the death of the body in some form… I recognized that nothing disappears without a trace in the universe, and so reckoned that the consciousness probably survived in some manner as well.

I’m not sure how I was able to maintain such ideas without acknowledging the source of an ultimate moral code, or how I could account for an independent consciousness and not allow for an independent consciousness far greater than my own. I think I made a decision not to think too much about such things for fear of where it would lead.

The birth of my children, and how precious their lives were, I think led me to consider whether something so precious could cease to exist.
 
Thanks again for those posting. It seems most feel that a combination of reasoned study of the faith and some kind of direct mystical experience was involved for most of us (maybe “inspiration” or “epiphany” is a better term than “mystical,” which can sound too otherworldly or odd to many, although I think real “mysticism” is probably rooted more in reality than much of what we consider the prosaic world).

I was reading a book by Father Robert Spitzer where he quotes the Blessed John Cardinal Newman on the sources of faith being (what we would term now) holographic - a combination of mutually supporting beliefs and experiences (probably including divine inspiration) from different fields or ways of knowledge that we accept, as a whole, as supportive of faith.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
Thanks, all. I’m interested in how secularists, who you would think would be amenable to conversion by intellectual persuasion, often seem to have a strongly mystical aspect to their conversion - often in conjunction with other factors.

I’m also curious how many began the process of conversion after the birth of a child. For myself, the appearance of a new life was so awe-inspiring, so different, that I think it began to lead me to consider things that I had consciously avoided thinking about.
Click to expand...
Why do you say that you “would think” secularists would be open to conversion by intellectual persuasion?

You seem to suggest that secularism, which I take it you are using in the usual way as a synonym for disbelief, predisposes one to being interested in or open to intellectual persuasion.

The presuptions and assumptions underlying secular unbelief are no less emotional/irrational than any other set of beliefs and in accepting that it is somehow different ( open to intellectual persuasion ) one is simply accepting it at its own self referential value.
 
Aboveallbereal said:
Why do you say that you “would think” secularists would be open to conversion by intellectual persuasion?

You seem to suggest that secularism, which I take it you are using in the usual way as a synonym for disbelief, predisposes one to being interested in or open to intellectual persuasion.

The presuptions and assumptions underlying secular unbelief are no less emotional/irrational than any other set of beliefs and in accepting that it is somehow different ( open to intellectual persuasion ) one is simply accepting it at its own self referential value.
Click to expand...
I use secularism as a synonym for a methodological materialism, which prides itself on a soi-disant “scientific” viewpoint. If one were to try to craft an evangelical approach to someone who prides himself on being more “scientific” than the religious believer, one “would think” that an approach based on logical argument might be effective, yes? Yet in practice, it doesn’t seem enough. The secularist needs to be open to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as well. I say this with some humility, as one who has been there.

I would agree with you, however that such modes of secular belief are based on emotional precepts, as well as irrational ones. But this is not a thread about the merits of a secular mindset (see the warning above), so we won’t be going down that road.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
That kind of parallels my experience. Even as an agnostic, I held that there were moral absolutes - I accepted that Good and Evil existed as other than societal constructs or civil necessities, and believed in a consciousness that existed independent of the brain (although I couldn’t bring myself to term it a “soul,”) and allowed that consciousness “probably” survived after the death of the body in some form… I recognized that nothing disappears without a trace in the universe, and so reckoned that the consciousness probably survived in some manner as well.

I’m not sure how I was able to maintain such ideas without acknowledging the source of an ultimate moral code, or how I could account for an independent consciousness and not allow for an independent consciousness far greater than my own. I think I made a decision not to think too much about such things for fear of where it would lead.

The birth of my children, and how precious their lives were, I think led me to consider whether something so precious could cease to exist.
Click to expand...
I must say that’s pretty incredible that you were an agnostic yet held that there were moral absolutes. Many agnostics I know would say that it is impossible to know whether or not there are any moral absolutes, or that moral absolutes are simply imposed upon us by society.

And, yes, its was my children as well, my experiences as a father, the experience of true sacrificial love, that led me down the path past my own ego-centric materialistic ideology.
 
The_GreyPilgrim said:
I must say that’s pretty incredible that you were an agnostic yet held that there were moral absolutes. Many agnostics I know would say that it is impossible to know whether or not there are any moral absolutes, or that moral absolutes are simply imposed upon us by society.
Click to expand...
I would chalk that unlikely moral absolutism up to the early infusion of the Holy Spirit through Baptism in the Church, and receiving the Gospel and the Catechism as a child because of my mother and grandmother, God bless their souls. I think it helped me hold on to some properly basic beliefs throughout my life even though I adopted a lot of really foolish ones in adolescence.

I also witnessed some examples of absolute moral evil in my life, and extreme moral righteousness, which made me realize that moral relativism was not at all useful as a tool to analyze human behavior or morality.

I fumbled around with the problem of the idea that “goodness” or “the good” can only be a property or value of a reasoning person, and can’t exist independently, as if it were some silver loving cup with the word “GOODNESS” engraved on the side in curly letters, that resides in some other metaphysical realm. I realized on some level that goodness as a moral precept, if it is an absolute, has to derive from an ultimate law-giver, and that would have to be a person, not an abstract value. I just preferred not to think about it too much. Because that would mean **I **was not the ultimate moral authority, and that I couldn’t do exactly as I wanted and still consider myself as “good”…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top