Answering an Atheist (2 points I want help with)

[Bradski]

Actually it’s not a “slippery term” at all to those who hold to natural law and understand what morality is, versus “relative morality,” “moral nihilism” and “immorality” are.

I take it you might class yourself as one who holds to natural law and understands morality. In which case would you agree that you must always be right in knowing what is right or wrong? If that is indeed so, then we can always log on to the forum and ask you personally if we find ourselves in any doubt about any matter. If not, then how do we know?

 

[frangiuliano115]

Get “The Last Superstition” by Edward Feser. It provides sound answers virtually every atheist contention.

Great idea. How about “Answering the New Atheism” by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker. (refuting Dawkins ideas).

And I know that when speaking to atheists you can’t use scripture and they only want to speak about ideas and “logical” assumptions, but how about books like “Evidence that demands a Verdict” or “Who Moved the Stone?”.

Anyway, I read above that the friend of the original poster no longer wishes to discuss, so it’s over, I’d say, except for maybe recommending some reading. Which he probably won’t do right now. But you never know.

If you see the direction the posts have taken, this is pretty much what happens when trying to have a decent conversation with an atheist - it becomes really difficult to stay on the original point. Agnostics are more willing to listen to you since they feel you MIGHT be right; atheists just want to convince you that they’re right, so basically your only hope is to plant some kind of seed that would work particularly well for them and then get out till you hear from them again by their own desire. In fact if you continue for too long they’ll actually get mad at you and at that point you’ve lost already.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

I take it you might class yourself as one who holds to natural law and understands morality. In which case would you agree that you must always be right in knowing what is right or wrong? If that is indeed so, then we can always log on to the forum and ask you personally if we find ourselves in any doubt about any matter. If not, then how do we know?

I have no desire to enter into this discussion and can’t go back and read every single post so maybe I shouldn’t be here but just want to say one simple thing.

Your above comment proves that faithdance (I think) is correct. The very fact that we’d have to call on him/her to find out the correct answer if we’re in doubt about something proves that natural law and morality must exist and come from somewhere, someone, OUTSIDE of ourselves. Since we certainly cannot depend on faithdancer, or anyone else for the correct answer we seek.

We humans are not capable of deciding natural law or morality. It seems to me that this is the whole point proven by all these threads. Just look at all the differing opinions!

So WHAT or WHO is that outside entity that gets to decide? I think Dawkins refers to this as a “terminator”. (a cause).

Everything in nature is contingent on something. So something that is NOT contingent on something must have created that contingent thing (object, idea). Like an apple falls - it is contingent on a physical law. Who or What created that physical law? It had to be something/one outside of space and time and not working within our “system” to be able to do this since a system cannot invent itself.

This something or someone, we christians call God. Then God became a visible force for us in the person of Jesus Christ.

It’s not easy explaining christianity: God created everything. But where did God come from? I can accept knowing Christ and the resurrection (a lot of nonsense, isn’t it?)

It’s not easy being an atheist: Take a look at the universe. ANY SCIENTIST will tell you that something cannot come from nothing. Yet, that’s what atheists believe.

I prefer the first scenario.

God bless you

 

[Faithdancer]

I take it you might class yourself as one who holds to natural law and understands morality. In which case would you agree that you must always be right in knowing what is right or wrong? If that is indeed so, then we can always log on to the forum and ask you personally if we find ourselves in any doubt about any matter. If not, then how do we know?

I’m not always right at all in my own selfish ego, clouded by sin. However, the Holy Spirit is always right and natural law is always right and when I act according to natural law, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then I will do right every time. :extrahappy::tiphat:

 

[Faithdancer]

And I know that when speaking to atheists you can’t use scripture.
God bless

I know what you’re saying, frangiuliano, and there are many believers here who will agree with you. I’ve recently come to the conclusion, though, that if I don’t use Scripture, and moral theology, etc. then I’m not speaking from a position of* absolute truth.* So I’ve decided to use Scripture and Aquinas and St. John of the Cross, etc. in any discussion and I don’t worry about whether or not the atheist gets it. I’ve wasted too much time going round and round in the kind of circular, sophistry-laden “debates” that atheists seem to love. I believe that ultimately it is the Holy Spirit who will move them to repentance and not secular arguments.

 

[ahs]

Get “The Last Superstition” by Edward Feser. It provides sound answers virtually every atheist contention.

Great idea. How about “Answering the New Atheism” by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker. (refuting Dawkins ideas).

And I know that when speaking to atheists you can’t use scripture and they only want to speak about ideas and “logical” assumptions, but how about books like “Evidence that demands a Verdict” or “Who Moved the Stone?”.

Anyway, I read above that the friend of the original poster no longer wishes to discuss, so it’s over, I’d say, except for maybe recommending some reading. Which he probably won’t do right now. But you never know.

If you see the direction the posts have taken, this is pretty much what happens when trying to have a decent conversation with an atheist - it becomes really difficult to stay on the original point. Agnostics are more willing to listen to you since they feel you MIGHT be right; atheists just want to convince you that they’re right, so basically your only hope is to plant some kind of seed that would work particularly well for them and then get out till you hear from them again by their own desire. In fact if you continue for too long they’ll actually get mad at you and at that point you’ve lost already.

God bless

Yeah, I probably won’t ask him to read anything just yet. I’ve not read any of those myself, and I probably need to. I had also thought about Trent Horn’s “Answering Atheism”. His answers are always so genuine and charitable…and calm on the radio.

I sent him a message just asking what made him jump the fence. He believed in God for a time, veered to Deism, and “rode the fence” for several years before “giving up hope”. I’d like to know what made him give up hope. What was he looking for, etc.?

 

[frangiuliano115]

I know what you’re saying, frangiuliano, and there are many believers here who will agree with you. I’ve recently come to the conclusion, though, that if I don’t use Scripture, and moral theology, etc. then I’m not speaking from a position of* absolute truth.* So I’ve decided to use Scripture and Aquinas and St. John of the Cross, etc. in any discussion and I don’t worry about whether or not the atheist gets it. I’ve wasted too much time going round and round in the kind of circular, sophistry-laden “debates” that atheists seem to love. I believe that ultimately it is the Holy Spirit who will move them to repentance and not secular arguments.

AMEN to that! Couldn’t agree with you more!


Two ways one could come to know God: Through reason, but only if one is serious and not just desireing to debate. Or, through a personal encounter with God.

They won’t accept scripture or saints teachings, though, because they believe it’s a lot of nonsense as I allude to in my other post. However, you never know when the word of God will have an effect.

And since you like scripture, here are a couple:

“Because that which is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them, For since the creation of the world His invisiblle attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”
Romans 2:19-20

“And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit and of the power.”
1 Corinthians 2:4 but keep going to 13 AND THEN:

“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.”
1 Corinthians 2:14

God bless you

 

[frangiuliano115]

Yeah, I probably won’t ask him to read anything just yet. I’ve not read any of those myself, and I probably need to. I had also thought about Trent Horn’s “Answering Atheism”. His answers are always so genuine and charitable…and calm on the radio.

I sent him a message just asking what made him jump the fence. He believed in God for a time, veered to Deism, and “rode the fence” for several years before “giving up hope”. I’d like to know what made him give up hope. What was he looking for, etc.?

Here’s what made him give up hope:

Mark 4:1-20 The Parable of the Sower

A friend of mine “tried” God many years back. She left because God didn’t deliver. She was listening to Joel Olsteen (?) and I’ve heard him and he has a very positive message but it’s very psychological and isn’t the christian message, or gospel, as far as I can understand him. So if you don’t get your prayers answered… (which he promises).

Also, each one has different experiences so who can know why he decided the whole “thing” wasn’t right for him. Maybe he just thought God wanted too much from him or maybe he felt his “freedom” was being taken away.

Also, for you I’d like to suggest some different books than for your friend.

Death on a Friday Afternoon - John Neuhause
Who Moved the Stone - Frank Morrison
Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis he was ptorestant but the book is great
A Father Who Keeps His Promises - Scott Hahn
The Lamb’s Supper - Scott Hahn

I’m not a librarian! But have read the above and they are great.

God bless you

 

[Faithdancer]

Yes, the Parable of the Sower is exactly on point!

 

[Gorgias]

Quite a slippery term is ‘evil’. Used commonly to describe something that one considers to be very wrong indeed. Stealing an apple is wrong, but killing a child to get her apple is evil. And there’s an infinite number of variations on that theme between the two extremes.

Hmm… so, at some point in the continuum, a thing goes from being merely ‘wrong’ and begins being ‘evil’? We’re using these terms differently, then.

Is stealing an apple from a child evil? If she has more than she can eat and you are starving? And so on up to the point where all reasonable people would agree: Yes, that act is evil.

Is it the agreement that makes it evil, though?

So who makes the decision if an act is objectively evil? And if everyone agrees, does that make it objective because everyone agrees? We could hardly have a vote on it because we could all be wrong.

Quite correct.

As a Christian, I answer that morality is objective; that is, it does not find its definition from any created being.

(That does not mean that the definition is inaccessible to created beings; just that the definition is not created by created beings.)

As a Christian, I answer that God is the source of morality, and that we – as humans – have access to it. Not all access it perfectly; not all hear God’s voice to the same degree. But, we all have access to it, and are called to listen and hear it – and are called to grow in understanding what it says.

If you’re not sure, Georgias, how do you find out?

You’re talking about ‘conscience’ here, I think. I find out by searching my conscience. That doesn’t mean that my conscience has all the answers; my part in the project is to form my conscience properly, so that, as I make the decisions in each day of my life, I’m able to hear what it says better and better. (If I recall correctly, Aristotle says something similar – the more vicious and less virtuous a person is, the less able he is to perceive the vice in his life. But, by practicing the habit of virtue, he becomes more attuned to it, and more able to see what choices are ‘virtuous’.)

 

[Pallas_Athene]

You’re talking about ‘conscience’ here, I think. I find out by searching my conscience.

According to the teaching that I heard, we are obliged to follow our own conscience. Which sounds very rational - at first sight.

But then the qualification comes… We are supposed to follow our conscience only if our conscience is well-formed… And how do we know if our conscience is well-formed? Easy! If it agrees with what the church says, then and only then is our conscience well-formed, otherwise it is ill-formed. So why worry about this pesky “conscience”? When in doubt, follow what the church says. And forget about this nonsensical “conscience”.

 

[Gorgias]

According to the teaching that I heard, we are obliged to follow our own conscience. Which sounds very rational - at first sight.

But then the qualification comes… We are supposed to follow our conscience only if our conscience is well-formed

No; you’re mistaken. We’re always obliged to follow our conscience, well-formed or not! However, we also are obliged to form our conscience properly. It’s not an ‘either/or’ thing, it’s a ‘both/and’ thing.

… And how do we know if our conscience is well-formed? Easy! If it agrees with what the church says, then and only then is our conscience well-formed, otherwise it is ill-formed.

It’s not as illogical or nonsensical as you make it out to be. Are there authorities in whom you trust? Of course there are: science, for one. So, how do you know if your understanding is correct? If it matches up with the authority that you hold to be correct. If science says that gravity exists, you know you’re right if you recognize gravity; if you don’t recognize gravity, you look at the divergence of your understanding from the authority you trust, and move in the direction that the authority leads you.

It’s really not the oddity you make it out to be.

So why worry about this pesky “conscience”? When in doubt, follow what the church says. And forget about this nonsensical “conscience”.

So… why worry about understanding this pesky ‘science’? When in doubt, follow what scientists say. And forget about this nonsensical ‘understanding’ and ‘rationality’.

See how absurd your statements sound, when we apply them to the institutions in which you already believe? :sad_yes:

 

[frangiuliano115]

According to the teaching that I heard, we are obliged to follow our own conscience. Which sounds very rational - at first sight.

But then the qualification comes… We are supposed to follow our conscience only if our conscience is well-formed… And how do we know if our conscience is well-formed? Easy! If it agrees with what the church says, then and only then is our conscience well-formed, otherwise it is ill-formed. So why worry about this pesky “conscience”? When in doubt, follow what the church says. And forget about this nonsensical “conscience”.

The above could not be more true and I can say this being one who has taught the formation of the conscience.

We CANNOT depend on our concscience!

Killers are following their conscience for goodness sake.

Nuff said.

God bless you

 

[frangiuliano115]

No; you’re mistaken. We’re always obliged to follow our conscience, well-formed or not! However, we also are obliged to form our conscience properly. It’s not an ‘either/or’ thing, it’s a ‘both/and’ thing.

It’s not as illogical or nonsensical as you make it out to be. Are there authorities in whom you trust? Of course there are: science, for one. So, how do you know if your understanding is correct? If it matches up with the authority that you hold to be correct. If science says that gravity exists, you know you’re right if you recognize gravity; if you don’t recognize gravity, you look at the divergence of your understanding from the authority you trust, and move in the direction that the authority leads you.

It’s really not the oddity you make it out to be.

So… why worry about understanding this pesky ‘science’? When in doubt, follow what scientists say. And forget about this nonsensical ‘understanding’ and ‘rationality’.

See how absurd your statements sound, when we apply them to the institutions in which you already believe? :sad_yes:

I usually agree with you on many things, but on this your reasoning is very convoluted.
How could you always be obliged to follow your conscience well formed or not AND have it formed properly; saying it’s not an either/or but a both/and?



If my conscience is not well-formed, why should I follow it? What if my conscience is telling me to do something my christian formation does not allow? Which do I follow? What I really believe to be so, or what christianity tells me? It can’t be both ways!

I’s say that people following their conscience, well formed or not, as you say, is one of the big problems in our society today. Too many don’t have a properly formed conscience!

Then you continue with your analogy using science and how I should follow science if I don’t understand gravity since science is the “authority”.

Well, OKAY, so conscience is under the authority of God - or our christian religion.

So, WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE??

God bless

 

[Gorgias]

How could you always be obliged to follow your conscience well formed or not AND have it formed properly; saying it’s not an either/or but a both/and?

Because it’s* your conscience*: at any point in time, it represents your best understanding of the law written into your heart. So, you listen to it. But, as you mention below, that’s not the end of the story…

If my conscience is not well-formed, why should I follow it?

Because you’re the one who formed it; it’s your conscience.

What if my conscience is telling me to do something my christian formation does not allow? Which do I follow? What I really believe to be so, or what christianity tells me? It can’t be both ways!

Aah… you’ve got it, after all!

Let’s suppose I want to rob a bank, and my conscience tells me “yeah, it’s ok. The world owes you a big paycheck. Go for it!”

And yet, something stops me. I think about it and conclude, “wait a minute – it’s not ok! That would be horribly wrong! I can’t do that!” And so I walk past the bank, without robbing it.

That is precisely an example of my conscience at work! It’s precisely an example of me forming my conscience!

You see, when I said “go for it!”, that wasn’t the end of the story. Somewhere, deep down, my conscience was trying to tell me “no… it’s not ok; you’ve made a mistake in judgment”. At that moment, when I’m actually listening to my conscience, my intellect kicks in. I affirm the things I’d been taught, and realize that the judgment I made was wrong; and so I correct it. In the process, I’ve just fixed a part of a conscience that wasn’t firing on all pistons.

I’s say that people following their conscience, well formed or not, as you say, is one of the big problems in our society today. Too many don’t have a properly formed conscience!

That’s right! Too many ignore the voice of their conscience! But, we still each follow that ‘little voice’ inside of ourselves, even if we’ve beaten it into submission and gagged it against telling us the truth that we don’t want to hear…

Then you continue with your analogy using science and how I should follow science if I don’t understand gravity since science is the “authority”.

Well, OKAY, so conscience is under the authority of God - or our christian religion.

So, WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE??

There isn’t one – and that’s the point I was making to PA! if PA says that listening to our conscience or forming it to fit an objective morality is nonsensical, then so is listening to any authority. That’s why PA’s point doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Because it’s* your conscience*: at any point in time, it represents your best understanding of the law written into your heart. So, you listen to it. But, as you mention below, that’s not the end of the story…

Because you’re the one who formed it; it’s your conscience.

Aah… you’ve got it, after all!

Let’s suppose I want to rob a bank, and my conscience tells me “yeah, it’s ok. The world owes you a big paycheck. Go for it!”

And yet, something stops me. I think about it and conclude, “wait a minute – it’s not ok! That would be horribly wrong! I can’t do that!” And so I walk past the bank, without robbing it.

That is precisely an example of my conscience at work! It’s precisely an example of me forming my conscience!

You see, when I said “go for it!”, that wasn’t the end of the story. Somewhere, deep down, my conscience was trying to tell me “no… it’s not ok; you’ve made a mistake in judgment”. At that moment, when I’m actually listening to my conscience, my intellect kicks in. I affirm the things I’d been taught, and realize that the judgment I made was wrong; and so I correct it. In the process, I’ve just fixed a part of a conscience that wasn’t firing on all pistons.

That’s right! Too many ignore the voice of their conscience! But, we still each follow that ‘little voice’ inside of ourselves, even if we’ve beaten it into submission and gagged it against telling us the truth that we don’t want to hear…

There isn’t one – and that’s the point I was making to PA! if PA says that listening to our conscience or forming it to fit an objective morality is nonsensical, then so is listening to any authority. That’s why PA’s point doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

Many problems with your thinking.

1. HOW do I form my own conscience??
2. What if I went through with robbing the bank? What went wrong with your conscience concept??
3. WHERE does that little voice come from?
4. What if I DON’T HAVE a little voice?

God bless

 

[davidv]

Many problems with your thinking.

1. HOW do I form my own conscience??

By pursuing truth.

1. What if I went through with robbing the bank? What went wrong with your conscience concept??

Nothing. The person made an incorrect judgement.

1. WHERE does that little voice come from?

Our nature. It is a part of what makes us made in God’s image. It is the law written on our hearts.

1. What if I DON’T HAVE a little voice?

Not possible. The voice is there whether we listen to it or not.

God bless

Likewise

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It’s not as illogical or nonsensical as you make it out to be. Are there authorities in whom you trust? Of course there are: science, for one.

Naturally.

So, how do you know if your understanding is correct? If it matches up with the authority that you hold to be correct.

Only provisionally. There is a difference between the two realms. In science you can invest the time, money and equipment and verify for yourself if the authority was right or not. Obviously most of us do not have the necessary wherewithal to do it, so we trust the authority - PROVISIONALLY. But as soon as the authority is proven incorrect, it ceases to be an authority. But for you, the demonstration is impossible.

If science says that gravity exists, you know you’re right if you recognize gravity; if you don’t recognize gravity, you look at the divergence of your understanding from the authority you trust, and move in the direction that the authority leads you.

Here is where you committed an error. Trusting authority is only an epistemological shortcut. One does not trust the authority, because the authority declares that it is the only arbiter of “truth”, one trusts it because it can demonstrate what they say. Authority is not self-declared, it must be earned, and even then it should be open to being questioned. That is the fundamental difference between the two areas. Can the church demonstrate the existence of heaven and hell? Can the church give you the necessary tools, so you can verify its teachings for yourself?

Side note (and it is NOT a snide note): When we ask for this demonstration, the only answer we get: “Blessed are the ones who have not seen, yet believe”. I hope you see how inadequate this “answer” is.

So… why worry about understanding this pesky ‘science’?

Because we do NOT hold the authorities “infallible”, even if the authority WOULD declare its own infallibility - which it never does.

 

[frangiuliano115]

By pursuing truth.

Nothing. The person made an incorrect judgement.

Our nature. It is a part of what makes us made in God’s image. It is the law written on our hearts.

Not possible. The voice is there whether we listen to it or not.

Likewise

Whenever we follow our own conscience, as gorgias says, we run into trouble because some of we humans DON’T have a conscience or it is a misdirected one.

As catholics we believe that our conscience must be formed. When a baby is born he is taught right and wrong as he grows up. This is one way of forming a conscience. If one is born in the wild and never exposed to anything and then brought into civilized society, he will not fit in because he has not been taught. So he WOULD rob that bank if he felt like it because he has no conscience.

Do you think seriel killers have a conscience? Do psycopaths have a conscience?

You say the voice is there whether we listen to it or not. The voice is not always there, it has to be put there. You might be referring to the natural law in men’s hearts. Not every man believes in the natural law or is willing to adhere to it.

Your first answer is “by pursuing truth”. Who’s truth? What if my truth doesn’t agree with your truth?

Your second answer is “Nothing. The person made an incorrect judgement”. So now robbery, and thus sin, is an incorrect judgement. Like some believe that they made a “mistake” not that they sinned.

The nature idea. You really think we have a conscience by nature? We’re going back to Adam and Eve. We were originally made in God’s image, but we are now owners of the sin nature as explained in the book of Romans due to the fall. So unless we’re believers and want to follow God and want to know what HIS idea of a conscience is - it just won’t work.

And regarding that little voice again: I don’ think Assad or Bin Laden, or Khadafi, or Hitler, or Stalink or that guy that robbed the bank, etc etc etc had that little voice. Well, okay it was there using your theory but they didn’t listen to it. They didn’t listen to it because they had NO CONSCIENCE.

God bless

 

[ahs]

According to…

My friend, did you forget about me?! Post #36 is still patiently waiting a reasoned response.