An Antidote to Atheism

[joemccarron]

I’m very glad to see this Catholic apologist website taking aim at what I think is the largest threat to spreading our faith. I think when we look at Europe and Canada we can see that Catholic faith is not giving way to Protestantism but to atheism and agnosticism. So I am glad to see this website is taking aim at these “New Atheists.” However I am hesitant to support something I know nothing about. Very little here addresses philosophical arguments against God’s existence or the types of arguments used by New Atheists.

For example the various tracts on science and religion will not be much help and may indeed hurt.
catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp
The fact that the church fathers said a day equals a thousand years and therefore decided based on scripture that Adam was created within 7 thousand years of the universe is going to play into their hands. I mean that helps Catholics deal with fundamentalists who want to insist on literal 7 days but it hurts our case for non-believers.

Does anyone know anything about this document? Who wrote it? What sort of philosophical arguments will it use?

 

[DavidFilmer]

The fact that the church fathers said a day equals a thousand years and therefore decided based on scripture that Adam was created within 7 thousand years of the universe is going to play into their hands.

That’s not what the Fathers said, and it’s not what the tract said.

Let’s review the tract:

The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact “that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4)

The Bible passage cited is only intended to illustrate that “time” doesn’t apply to God the same way it applies to us. It doesn’t literally mean a 1:1000 ratio.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

How are the arguments different with the “new” Atheists? Aren’t they still the same old ones that there is no scientific proof?

 

[joemccarron]

Well anyone who reads the tract I sited can read this:

"Cyprian

“The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years” (Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250])."

and

"Theophilus of Antioch

“On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth come from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it” (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

“All the years from the creation of the world [to Theophilus’ day] amount to a total of 5,698 years and the odd months and days. . . . *f even a chronological error has been committed by us, for example, of 50 or 100 or even 200 years, yet [there have] not [been] the thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books” (ibid., 3:28–29). "

They can also read the other church fathers quoted in the tract for themselves and make up their own mind if some of the church fathers said a day equals a thousand years and therefore would have thought based on scripture that Adam was created within 7 thousand years of the universe.

The point of the tract was to show fundamentalists that genesis wasn’t always viewed as a literally seven days. It serves that purpose. My point is that it is extremely rare that any of the tracts here are geared to answer atheists. Hence we really have no idea what would be in this publication.

What sort of position would people from catholic.com take against New Atheists? I’m interested in finding out because they are all very smart people but at this point I don’t really think we can do more than speculate. I wonder if they have any philosophers in mind to help them write this publication.*

 

[joemccarron]

How are the arguments different with the “new” Atheists? Aren’t they still the same old ones that there is no scientific proof?

The actual arguments are no different. Just the tone and level of obnoxiousness is ramped up with the “new atheism.” But there is not much here at catholic.com regarding the old arguments - no scientific proof - problem of evil - not rational to believe in things we can’t objectively verify - an extreme focus on old testament passages that make God and those he rewards seem mean - arguments attacking various philosophical arguments for Gods existence or that its rational to believe in God. etc. I’m not sure how the creators of this website would approach any of these arguments. Would they propose that any particular natural arguments for god’s existence should be persuasive?

These sorts of issues are the ones I have an interest in. So I’m curious what the responses would be.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Have you tried asking your question here? That forum is manned by staff of Catholic.com.

But I agree, the new atheists are becoming more and more belligerent, and most appalling; they consider Atheism a religion!!

In this world of entitlements and the individual as the supreme being, they feel their time has come.

 

[wasmit]

The actual arguments are no different. Just the tone and level of obnoxiousness is ramped up with the “new atheism.” But there is not much here at catholic.com regarding the old arguments - no scientific proof - problem of evil - not rational to believe in things we can’t objectively verify - an extreme focus on old testament passages that make God and those he rewards seem mean - arguments attacking various philosophical arguments for Gods existence or that its rational to believe in God. etc. I’m not sure how the creators of this website would approach any of these arguments. Would they propose that any particular natural arguments for god’s existence should be persuasive?

These sorts of issues are the ones I have an interest in. So I’m curious what the responses would be.

I too am interested in the issues you mention - the main hindrance for me getting into any religion is that there is no evidence for any of them (as far as i know).

I would classify myself as an atheist, but I have no idea what this “new atheism” thing is. I haven’t seen any sort of division that would indicate that there is a group that could be called new atheism (and therefore, “old atheism”).

Am I a new atheist? I don’t know. I don’t know what a new atheist is.

As for atheism being a religion - I don’t know anyone that claims that (though some probably do). One would have to be pretty dense to say that atheism is a religion. It clearly isn’t.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Am I a new atheist? I don’t know. I don’t know what a new atheist is.

As for atheism being a religion - I don’t know anyone that claims that (though some probably do). One would have to be pretty dense to say that atheism is a religion. It clearly isn’t.

I think “new atheist” is really just a distinction without a difference. But some do indeed consider atheism a religion. Most atheists, including yourself, I presume, would have their own intellect be the final arbiter of all things knowable and not knowable in the Universe. (self-worshippers) An atheist therefore believes he knows that God’s existence is not possible in any scenario.

If you do not cherish your intellect as the final arbiter of all that is possible and impossible in this vast universe, and so therefore are undecided as to the possibility of God’s existence, then you are merely an agnostic.

 

[Squishy]

Agnostic, atheist. Why the need in having about a million ways to describe everything.

I would never consider God to be a reasonable guess for anything at present. However i would not discount him on that premis alone. The possibility of a god can always exist, even if its a tiny possibility. Untill such a time as we have an answer for God the universe and everything. Other than 42.

Does that me an agnostic or an atheist.

As regarding a cure for atheism. The main issue for people seems to arrise when science contradicts the teachings of the churches. For to long the church delt with physical matters, now as the physical sciences progress religion can be seen as back pedeling. Amending what it has taught in the past. This makes religion seem exremly falable.

The other issue at leaste for me is the idea of Faith. You just trust what the church teaches you. This i find extremly hard to accept. From an ‘empirical’ point of view the church is run by men. Who say that you just have to trust that god is telling them what to do. This is frightning for me. As from my point of view people in power like to stay in power. The vatican holds sway over more people than live in my country!

Lastly their is of course no evidence. I tend not to jump to conclusions about most things. And god for me is no different. Im content to not know the answer to a question, untill such a time as i can look at data and information and decide if i agree with someone or not. Or its something i can set out on my own to investagate. I still make guesses as to what i think is most likley. But i wont set the answer in stone and base my whole existence against a particular answer.

To sum up. I cannot accept the dominion of men over me on the word of a god who they are responsible for self perpetuating. I cannot accept a definitive answer to a question without having some way of independently verifying it.

I do not think we will see a ‘cure’ for atheism. But what we will see in the generations to come is people gradualy drifting away from the church. People will still hold the idea of god in their hearts (some will) But the idea of organised religion is a dying one. At leaste in my opinion

 

[AmbroseSJ]

To sum up. I cannot accept the dominion of men over me on the word of a god who they are responsible for self perpetuating. I cannot accept a definitive answer to a question without having some way of independently verifying it.

And yet, you can accept the dominion of scientific men, who say things that they do not have to prove to you personally or physically. They also try to self perpetuate their power of guidance over people, and it has been working admirably well.

Science is also extremely fallible, in that newer science is always overthrowing older science whenever new discoveries make it expedient.

We live in an age when people have devoted their whole mind to grasping the details of science, and yet have no philosophical or metaphysical understanding of life, and how everything works together. One science tries to explain everything in it’s own terms, stepping on the toes of nearby sciences (and even religion) with it’s theories.

The Church has no problem with true science, which restricts itself to empirical data and provable facts. But science has taken on so much more than that, by postulating how the universe was born, and all of its laws and constants appearing as some sort of purely physical cause-effect. They can not prove any of this of course, but the worshippers of science believe whatever the scientists say on pure faith. These same people are unable to accept the possibility of God’s existence because the scientists whom they believe and in whom they put their whole trust, do not think they should. You see how you are totally dominated?

Of course the scientists will disagree and say you have come to this conclusion on your own, but no, without the word of the scientists, you would never have come to their conclusions.

That’s what the Church objects to. It’s the ideology of the scientists that is wrong-headed. The idea that everything in the Universe can be explained with science, and what isn’t explained yet, is merely waiting for the technology to arrive. That is false. But it is also extremely convenient for the scientist’s point of view, and is their own form of infallibility.

 

[Eucharisted]

Most atheists don’t want proof of the supernatural - which would be the antidote for atheism - because they don’t actually care about God. They are closed to the possibility of God existing, for they have a misconceived idea about God, especially when it comes to the idea of “an angry, vengeful God”, and this strange misconception of God leads to their belief that their opinon in God not existing is so right that it cannot possibly be wrong. It is an attitude of arrogance, and it is dangerous, for these atheists would not believe in God even if He showed Himself to them.

Agnostics, on the other hand, are the type of people who think God’s existence cannot be proven nor disproven, given that God is Spirit and what is spirit cannot be proven or disproven by any instrument of man or of science. It is a complete attitude of indifference toward the question of whether or not God exists, a shrug of the shoulders for some and a loud snort for others. Not all atheists are agnostics, though, nor are all agnostics atheists. Those who believe in God can also be indifferent to the philosophical proofs of His existence.

 

[Squishy]

And yet, you can accept the dominion of scientific men, who say things that they do not have to prove to you personally or physically. They also try to self perpetuate their power of guidance over people, and it has been working admirably well.

They have to prove it empiricaly which is more than the religious men do.

Science is also extremely fallible, in that newer science is always overthrowing older science whenever new discoveries make it expedient.

Yes it is. It never pretends to be otherwise.

We live in an age when people have devoted their whole mind to grasping the details of science, and yet have no philosophical or metaphysical understanding of life, and how everything works together. One science tries to explain everything in it’s own terms, stepping on the toes of nearby sciences (and even religion) with it’s theories.

They mearly try to answer questions which may or may not be answerable. One field of science far more often uses the other fields to back up its own finding. Rather than ‘treading on the toes’ I personaly do not have a problem with people questing for knowledge that doesnt require FAITH in something unseen.

The Church has no problem with true science, which restricts itself to empirical data and provable facts. But science has taken on so much more than that, by postulating how the universe was born, and all of its laws and constants appearing as some sort of purely physical cause-effect. They can not prove any of this of course, but the worshippers of science believe whatever the scientists say on pure faith. These same people are unable to accept the possibility of God’s existence because the scientists whom they believe and in whom they put their whole trust, do not think they should. You see how you are totally dominated?

Your argument for your ‘true science’ would never get off the ground. People need to speculate and make theorys, before they can ever get down to testing things empiracly. Because without the original idea their is nothing to test. Do i think that the scientific model works. Yes i do. Do i accept the possibility of a god. Also yes i do. And so do most people who work in the many different fields of scientific reserch. But untill god can fit into an empirical model it will never be a working hypothosies.

Of course the scientists will disagree and say you have come to this conclusion on your own, but no, without the word of the scientists, you would never have come to their conclusions.

I did not know that any field of science has evidence of gods non existance. Perhaps you could enlighten us?

That’s what the Church objects to. It’s the ideology of the scientists that is wrong-headed. The idea that everything in the Universe can be explained with science, and what isn’t explained yet, is merely waiting for the technology to arrive. That is false. But it is also extremely convenient for the scientist’s point of view, and is their own form of infallibility.

Yes, because of course all progresses in science have come in a single generation. From conceptial hypothosies to hard evidence in the lab and in the field. The scientific model of looking at the world can wait on an answer. Mabey one will never come. Or mabey it will. I am willing to accept this. I would rather have the answer that can be backed up with proof than ancient superstition.

 

[Eucharisted]

Philosophical proofs for the existence of God

I would also like to add a curious exchange that took place between Richard Dawkins and a Christian, which I read in Times magazine. From memory, it goes like this (I don’t know if Dawkins has a Doctor title before his name, so my apologies if he dose):

Dawkins: Science dosen’t teach that God exists. Science teaches that everything in the Universe can be explained away naturally.
Christian: But what about the Big Bang? Where did that come from?
Dawkins: We don’t know yet.
Christian: But you don’t believe it was God?
Dawkin: The best that science can come up with is that the Universe came from something, and that something is infinite and inconceivable.
Christian: That’s God!
Dawkins: But how do you know it’s the Christian God? It could be a Hindu God, or an Islamic God, or any number of other gods. We just don’t know. And I think Christainity is harming mankind by demanding it is their God.

That’s all I can remember from the article. Conveniently, it gives me the chance to say something: We Christians don’t believe in a Christian God. We believe, rather, in God.

 

[Squishy]

Philosophical proofs for the existence of God

I would also like to add a curious exchange that took place between Richard Dawkins and a Christian, which I read in Times magazine. From memory, it goes like this (I don’t know if Dawkins has a Doctor title before his name, so my apologies if he dose):

Dawkins: Science dosen’t teach that God exists. Science teaches that everything in the Universe can be explained away naturally.
Christian: But what about the Big Bang? Where did that come from?
Dawkins: We don’t know yet.
Christian: But you don’t believe it was God?
Dawkin: The best that science can come up with is that the Universe came from something, and that something is infinite and inconceivable.
Christian: That’s God!
Dawkins: But how do you know it’s the Christian God? It could be a Hindu God, or an Islamic God, or any number of other gods. We just don’t know. And I think Christainity is harming mankind by demanding it is their God.

That’s all I can remember from the article. Conveniently, it gives me the chance to say something: We Christians don’t believe in a Christian God. We believe, rather, in God.

He has a PHD in biology

Can you tell me what you mean by
We Christians don’t believe in a Christian God. We believe, rather, in God.

Philisophical arguments are great. Im still somewhat of a novice. But all the proofs are able to be refuted in someway or another. But philosophy is definatly the home of god. When he starts trying to walk in the natural sciences without empiciral shoes. Hes going to get hurt.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Philisophical arguments are great. Im still somewhat of a novice. But all the proofs are able to be refuted in someway or another. But philosophy is definatly the home of god. When he starts trying to walk in the natural sciences without empiciral shoes. Hes going to get hurt.

you have some refutation of all the proofs huh?

nothing comes from nothing, i would love to hear your refutation.

the natural sciences, empirical shoes. nice rhetoric but it ignores the necessarily non-physical nature of first cause.

what can be shown to exist by logic, is as valid as any other phenomenon that is shown by logic.

i.e. electrons etc. exist by logical deduction from observed phenomenon, it is no different in the case of non-physical first cause. remember, mathematics is just another branch of logic.

i await your refutations.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Philosophical proofs for the existence of God

I would also like to add a curious exchange that took place between Richard Dawkins and a Christian, which I read in Times magazine. From memory, it goes like this (I don’t know if Dawkins has a Doctor title before his name, so my apologies if he dose):

Dawkins: Science dosen’t teach that God exists. Science teaches that everything in the Universe can be explained away naturally.
Christian: But what about the Big Bang? Where did that come from?
Dawkins: We don’t know yet.
Christian: But you don’t believe it was God?
Dawkin: The best that science can come up with is that the Universe came from something, and that something is infinite and inconceivable.
Christian: That’s God!
Dawkins: But how do you know it’s the Christian God? It could be a Hindu God, or an Islamic God, or any number of other gods. We just don’t know. And I think Christainity is harming mankind by demanding it is their God.

That’s all I can remember from the article. Conveniently, it gives me the chance to say something: We Christians don’t believe in a Christian God. We believe, rather, in God.

dawkins appeals to comparative theology here. sad bit for an athiest, to admit there is someones god, just not G-d.

ok then, how about converging messianic prophecies? thats empirical, testable mathematically undeniable, unique proof, that it is the Judeo/Christian G-d.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m very glad to see this Catholic apologist website taking aim at what I think is the largest threat to spreading our faith. I think when we look at Europe and Canada we can see that Catholic faith is not giving way to Protestantism but to atheism and agnosticism. So I am glad to see this website is taking aim at these “New Atheists.” However I am hesitant to support something I know nothing about. Very little here addresses philosophical arguments against God’s existence or the types of arguments used by New Atheists.

new atheism is the old atheism, with a twist, spread through the university system and the media. i.e.

i like the idea of calling it, discovery, or history channel atheism. its based on random hypothesis of various physicists, presented as fact by the erstwhile educational channels.

new atheism seems based on a misunderstanding of what we really know as compared to what we think may be. case in point is QM. more than eleven different interpretations, yet someone invariably touts the last one they saw on the telly as all but fact.

dawkins predecessor Dr. Flew changed his mind after a lifetime of atheism

i think that is a powergul testimony to atheism weakness

 

[Squishy]

you have some refutation of all the proofs huh?

nothing comes from nothing, i would love to hear your refutation.

the natural sciences, empirical shoes. nice rhetoric but it ignores the necessarily non-physical nature of first cause.

what can be shown to exist by logic, is as valid as any other phenomenon that is shown by logic.

i.e. electrons etc. exist by logical deduction from observed phenomenon, it is no different in the case of non-physical first cause. remember, mathematics is just another branch of logic.

i await your refutations.

I will try to keep these simple and brief. They probebly will be because my philisophical resorces are somewhat limited. I will try to add who made the counter argument as much as possible. And if their is more than 1 I will only choose the easiest to type.

St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument
Necessary nonexistence

Another rationale is attributed to Melbourne philosopher Douglas Gasking (1911–1994),[22] one component of his proof of the nonexistence of God:

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument
Infinate regresion. I couldn’t find something suitably short to copy but the argument here hinges on the universe requiering something to set everything in motion. This is fair enough. But if you place something in that slot by the very nature of the argument you then have to explain how that came about. If you accept that its possible for that ‘being’ not to require a first cause its also possible to accept the universe does not require a first cause.

The Teleological Argument
Argument from design. If everything that ‘appears’ to work towards and end, the designer of this would be working towards an end. So would require the same explanation.

As i said, im really not much of a philisopher, I hope i answered the question suitably. St Aquines’s arguments have been around for a long time. All have been argued against by much more competent people than me.

I think that Emmanual Kant is probebly the most famous of those who argued against them. Just for future refrence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I will try to keep these simple and brief. They probebly will be because my philisophical resorces are somewhat limited. I will try to add who made the counter argument as much as possible. And if their is more than 1 I will only choose the easiest to type.

allow me to deconstruct these for you.

St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument
Necessary nonexistence

Another rationale is attributed to Melbourne philosopher Douglas Gasking (1911–1994),[22] one component of his proof of the nonexistence of God:

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

not an actual premise, i can imagine more marvelous achievements, how bout 2 worlds, etc

1. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
2. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

opinion

1. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

opinion, but if the creator didn’t exist, it couldn’t have a handicap.

1. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

oxymoron

1. Therefore, God does not exist.

statement not based on the trailing premises.

this arguement is little more than semantical word games based on opinion, and an oxymoron.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument
Infinate regresion. I couldn’t find something suitably short to copy but the argument here hinges on the universe requiering something to set everything in motion. This is fair enough. But if you place something in that slot by the very nature of the argument you then have to explain how that came about. If you accept that its possible for that ‘being’ not to require a first cause its also possible to accept the universe does not require a first cause.

what?

as nothing physical can cause itself, the first cause must necessarily be non-physical.

first cause, being non-physical would not be subject to time or any of the physical laws, meaning it needs no cause itself

infinite regression is also a violation of some basic laws of physics

thats a simplistic argument from what i call youtube atheism.

The Teleological Argument
Argument from design. If everything that ‘appears’ to work towards and end, the designer of this would be working towards an end. So would require the same explanation.

i dont understand your refutation here

As i said, im really not much of a philisopher, I hope i answered the question suitably. St Aquines’s arguments have been around for a long time. All have been argued against by much more competent people than me.

I think that Emmanual Kant is probebly the most famous of those who argued against them. Just for future refrence.

aquinas has yet to be seriously assaulted. by that i mean that most refutations are easily dismissed, just as the ones you put forward were.

dont feel bad, inm no great philosopher either, i am much more familiar with first cause than any other arguement, but i hope you dont base your atheism on such flimsy grounds.

remember, nothing comes from nothing.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Your argument for your ‘true science’ would never get off the ground. People need to speculate and make theorys, before they can ever get down to testing things empiracly. Because without the original idea their is nothing to test. Do i think that the scientific model works. Yes i do. Do i accept the possibility of a god. Also yes i do. And so do most people who work in the many different fields of scientific reserch. But untill god can fit into an empirical model it will never be a working hypothosies.

No one said anything about “true science” not speculating or making theories.

God will never fit into an empirical model, that is not debatable. Unless atheistic scientists think they have discovered him.

There are also no “proofs” for God. There are strong arguments in God’s favor, but there are also strong arguments against God. Therefore the existence of God will always be indeterminate using pure science or rational thought.

In this world, only Faith can bridge man to God.

But this is not a blind irrational faith. It is based on solid concrete evidences that accumulate over time within the lifetime experience of any individual, or as John Henry Newman would call it, a preponderance of antecedent probability that in the mind of an individual reaches a point of certitude.

This evidence is not always the same for various individuals, as many emotional, psychological, and intellectual forces come into play.

But rest assured that God has placed his image and likeness within the soul of every person. God directly creates the individual soul, and breathes his life-giving spirit into each one.

This is something else that can never be proved by Science, yet few people want to be called soulless, even atheists.