Any suggestions to refute atheism

[reggieM]

For instance, a person as well-versed in the subject as you should know that evolution doesn’t deal with the origin of life.

As I asked Marcus in a related question, I’d like to see the proof of that. The only evidence I can see that this is true is that “some scientists” think that evolution does not include the origin of life. Have you studied and tested whether this is true or do you just take someone’s word for it?

 

[reggieM]

For a religion that claims to have the fullness of truth, a surprising number of its adherents don’t seem to care about getting the facts straight.

I’m surprised to see you say that Catholicism claims to have the fulness of truth about scientific matters. I think you advise people many times here to understand what they’re talking about before saying something on the topic. In this case, you’re very wrong about what the Catholic faith teaches.

 

[reggieM]

Back to some of Marcus’ points here …

Not all the NT is fiction, things are rarely that simple, Some of the letters of Paul were actually written by Paul, for example, and some of the things he described are also recorded elsewhere. The really fictional aspect is the total absence of any mention by Paul of the stories and characters in the Gospels. It is not plausible that Paul should take no notice at all of the earthly Jesus. The absence of any mention of these things anywhere else in the literate world at the relevant time is also strong evidence that they never happened.

The problem, as I see it, with the idea that the Gospels are “fiction” is that they were composed and promulgated by authors that had no knowledge or training of the techniques of literary fiction. If the Gospels are fiction, then the Evangelists are the greatest masters of the art of literary fiction that ever existed. The fictional creation of a character like Jesus alone, is an achievement that no other novelists have ever produced.

Considering that Shakespeare, Dante, Chaucer, Dickens, Tolstoy, Waugh … and many of the greatest novels of all time were inspired by the “fictional literature” of the Gospels, it would be clear that the Evangelists would be greater artists than all of those. The dialogue of Christ has echoed in the literary works of world culture for 2000 years. It’s impossible to consider this the work of fiction writers who were pretending to offer eye-witness accounts of events.

As for St. Paul’s silence on the life and stories of Christ - it is consistent with the fact that he did not witness any of them. He came only later to the story of the Gospels, and what he drew from them and taught to his congregations was the doctrinal teaching contained within the stories (although he it is not correct that he takes “no notice” of the earthy Jesus):

From Pope Benedict’s sermon, Oct. 8, 2008:

Paul speaks about Jesus’ Davidic lineage (Romans 1:3). He knows about the existence of some of his “brothers,” that is, blood relatives (see 1 Corinthians 9:5; Galatians 1:19). He knew what happened at the Last Supper (see 1 Corinthians 11:23). He knew some other things that Jesus said, regarding, for example, the indissolubility of marriage (see 1 Corinthians 7:10 with Mark 10:11-12) and the need for the community to provide for those who proclaim the Gospel — just as any worker deserves his wage (see 1 Corinthians 9:14 with Luke 10:7). Paul was familiar with the words that Jesus spoke at the Last Supper (see 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 with Luke 22:19-20), and he also was familiar with Jesus’ cross.

Secondly, in some of the phrases of Paul’s letters, we can see various allusions to the tradition found in the synoptic Gospels.

For example, the words we read in his First Letter to the Thessalonians, which tell us that “the day of the Lord will come like a thief at night” (see 1 Thessalonians 5:2), cannot be explained by referring to the Old Testament prophecies because the metaphor of the thief at night is found only in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. Therefore, it must have been taken directly from the synoptic tradition.

Likewise, when we read that God “chose the foolish of the world” (see 1 Corinthians 1:27-28), we hear a faithful echo of Jesus’ teachings on the simple and poor (see Matthew 5:3; 11:25; 19:30).

In addition, there are Jesus’ words during a moment of messianic rejoicing: “I give you praise, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned, you have revealed them to the childlike.”

From his experience as a missionary, Paul knows that these words are true, and that it is the childlike whose hearts are open to knowing Jesus. Also, his reference to Jesus’ obedience “to death” that is found in Philippians 2:8 cannot but recall Jesus’ total willingness to fulfill the Father’s will here on earth (see Mark 3:35; John 4:34).

Paul was, therefore, familiar with Jesus’ passion, his cross, and the way in which he lived the last moments of his life.

The cross of Jesus and the tradition regarding the events surrounding the cross are at the center of Paul’s kerygma (preaching).

Paul was also familiar with the Sermon on the Mount — another pillar in the life of Jesus — some elements of which he cites almost to the letter when he writes to the Romans: “Love one another. … Bless those who persecute you. … Live in peace with all. … Overcome evil with good.”

In his letters, therefore, there is a faithful reflection of the Sermon on the Mount (see Matthew 5-7).

… In conclusion, St. Paul did not think of Jesus as a historian would — as a person from the past. He certainly was familiar with the great tradition regarding Jesus’ life — his words, his death and his resurrection — but he did not treat them as something from the past, but as the reality of the living Jesus.

For Paul, Jesus’ words and actions do not belong to some historical period, to the past. Jesus lives and speaks with us today, and lives for us. This is the true way to get to know Jesus and to embrace the tradition regarding him.

 

[Thing]

… My experience has been that the two things people have the most trouble accepting when it comes to biology is that we evolved from a common primate ancestor, and abiogenesis.

And happy accidents. As much as I think about it, I cannot figure out why Coco plants grow at 5000 feet and above, just where you need it. For the locals whose country is typically above 10,000 feet having an indigenous plant that alleviates the effects of altitude is a happy accident.
Or why citrus fruit grow in Mediterranean areas and just happen to be one of the best repellants for mosquitoes, which are the greatest pests for people living in mediterranean climates.
No reason for them at all, just very convenient and odd.

 

[reggieM]

Regarding evolution (and the errors of evolutionary theory do need to be refuted in order to refute atheism) here is a brilliant quote from a new book by James Le Fanu (This book just recently helped to convert the noted British intellectual, A.N. Wilson from atheism to Christianity):

Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves

When cosmologists can reliably infer what happened in the first few minutes of the birth of the universe and geologists can measure the movements of vast continents to the nearest centimeter, then the inscrutability of those genetic instructions that should distinguish a human from a fly, or the failure to account for something as elementary as how we recall a telephone number, throws into sharp relief the unfathomability of ourselves. It is as if we, and, indeed, all living things, are in some way different, profounder, and more complex than the physical world to which we belong . . . This is not just a matter of science not yet knowing all the facts; rather, there is the sense that something of immense importance is “missing” that might transform the bare bones of genes into the wondrous diversity of the living world and the monotonous electrical firing of the neurons of the brain into the vast spectrum of sensations and ideas of the human mind.

From the book review:

The triumph of science in explaining man’s unique place in the universe might seem almost complete. But in this lucid and compelling account, James Le Fanu describes how in the recent past science has come face-to-face with two seemingly unanswerable questions concerning the nature of genetic inheritance and the workings of the brain–questions that suggest there is, after all, “more than we can know.”

“Scientists do not ‘do’ wonder,” he writes in his introduction. “Rather . . . they have interpreted the world through the prism of supposing there is nothing in principle that cannot be accounted for.” But Le Fanu argues that there is nothing so full of wonder as life itself. As revealed by recent scientific research, it is simply not possible to get from the monotonous sequence of genes strung out along the double helix to the infinite beauty and diversity of the living world, or from the electrical activity of the brain to the richness and abundant creativity of the human mind. Le Fanu’s exploration of these mysteries, and his analysis of where they might lead us in our thinking about the nature and purpose of human existence, form the impassioned and riveting heart of Why Us?

It’s a tremendous insight – scientists “can measure the movements of vast continents to the nearest centimeter” and can (supposedly) trace the origin of the universe to a matter of seconds before the Big Bang – but remain baffled about the genetic differences between a human and fly, or how the (supposed) 2% genetic difference between man and chimpanzee results in the difference between human consciousness and animal – or even as he says, how science cannot “account for something as elementary as how we recall a telephone number”.

He concludes that “all living things, are in some way different, profounder, and more complex than the physical world to which we belong” (who can deny that?).

And therefore, science is “missing something”. This means the dominant evolutionary model that purports to explain the development of all of nature is simply false.

 

[CWBetts]

Was your biology instructor Ben Stein? Well, not having attended any of the same lectures as you, I’m not sure whether you were taught by people who didn’t understand evolution themselves, or you interpreted them incorrectly, but no, what you describe above would be what those in the biology game call magic. It is also not what you claimed in your earlier post. In your earlier post, you claimed that evolution teaches that everything started in a puddle of chaotic goo. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. The study of the origin of life is called abiogenesis.

But just for the sake of argument, let’s say you picked the right name for the theory, and claimed that abiogenesis claims that life arose out of a pile of chaotic goo, or that it suggests that life arose “just somehow”.

There is no way that I can cover all the work being done by biologists studying abiogenesis in one post, but I suggest that if you are at all interested in making true claims, you look to see what the scientists are actually claiming.

I think you would be fascinated to see just how well developed our understanding of the pre-biotic Earth is. For instance, did you know that non-living, organic compounds can form vesicles that have the ability to grow and reproduce themselves? You’ve no doubt heard of DNA and RNA, but did you know that in the pre-biotic Earth there were hundreds of other neucleotides, and some of them are capable of spontaneous polemerization? Do you know what any of that even means? If you don’t, you should learn before you write it off as “just happened somehow”.

I am not going to get another undergrad degree just so I can refute scientific mythmakers

 

[StAnastasia]

And happy accidents. As much as I think about it, I cannot figure out why Coco plants grow at 5000 feet and above, just where you need it. For the locals whose country is typically above 10,000 feet having an indigenous plant that alleviates the effects of altitude is a happy accident. Or why citrus fruit grow in Mediterranean areas and just happen to be one of the best repellants for mosquitoes, which are the greatest pests for people living in mediterranean climates. No reason for them at all, just very convenient and odd.

More arguments for design are that giraffes live where there are tall trees, and arctic hares change their fur colour from white to brown when the snow disappears. But most mindboggling of all is that fish live in the water!

 

[StAnastasia]

I just had a quick look at it. That really does look like a great resource. I was looking for something like this to point people to, so thank for drawing my attention to it! The one thing I couldn’t find though, was a discussion of abiogenesis. I haven’t found a really good site that explains the basics. My experience has been that the two things people have the most trouble accepting when it comes to biology is that we evolved from a common primate ancestor, and abiogenesis.

Sideline, I work with a woman who helps with that website, so if I remember today I’ll ask her why abiogenesis is not included. My best guess is that they wanted to restrict the site to evolution.

StAnastasia

 

[Thing]

More arguments for design are that giraffes live where there are tall trees, and arctic hares change their fur colour from white to brown when the snow disappears. But most mindboggling of all is that fish live in the water!

Do you mean that giraffes rub lemons on their bodies; you find nothing unusual in a shrub used for altitude sickness growing at altitude. Obviously I do not understand these things. I am not a pointy head.

 

[Sideline]

I am not going to get another undergrad degree just so I can refute scientific mythmakers

Fine, so don’t learn about evolution. There are plenty of subjects I don’t care enough about to get a degree in. Of course, I don’t claim I understand them either. I guess I just have a problem with claiming knowledge that I don’t have.

However, you should be aware that if you claim that evolution is a myth, and you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding, you are going to have people point out to you that you don’t understand it. It just makes sense.

If I go around this site saying Catholicism is wrong because Catholics worship Mary, then I should expect to be told I’m wrong. My desire to remain ignorant about what Catholics teach doesn’t give me an excuse to lie about what they teach. If I say gravity is bunk because balloons float, and gravity says everything drops, then I should expect people to tell me that I don’t understand gravity.

However, you don’t need to take a degree to figure out why you are wrong on this point. An excellent website has been posted, and there books written for students at the grade ten level that will clear up the errors that you are making.

 

[StAnastasia]

Do you mean that giraffes rub lemons on their bodies; you find nothing unusual in a shrub used for altitude sickness growing at altitude. Obviously I do not understand these things. I am not a pointy head.

No, I find nothing unusual about shrubs that are useful for countering altitude sickenss growing at high altitude. But what precisely is your point?

I find nothing unusual about thyme, oregano and rosemary growing in Italy where coincidentally, these spices are used in spaghetti sauce. I find nothing unusual in sharks – who rely on saltwater – living in the sea. I find nothing unusual about ski resorts being located on mountains where there is snow.

StAnastasia

 

[Sideline]

Sideline, I work with a woman who helps with that website, so if I remember today I’ll ask her why abiogenesis is not included. My best guess is that they wanted to restrict the site to evolution.

StAnastasia

I can understand that, it being a site on evolution after all.

 

[mozier]

If you were going to give a book to an atheist, in order to refute atheism, which book would you give and why?

I’ve read GK Chesteron’s The Everlasting Man and was impressed with his logic. If anyone has read Chesterton and someone else, which did you like better.

I don’t know if this has been suggested by anyone (I cannot go through all pages now), but Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “The Gulag Archipelago.” If this is what their perfect, no-god, atheist society is going to be like (as it was in the Soviet Union), then forget it.

 

[Sideline]

I don’t know if this has been suggested by anyone (I cannot go through all pages now), but Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “The Gulag Archipelago.” If this is what their perfect, no-god, atheist society is going to be like (as it was in the Soviet Union), then forget it.

But then you’d have to hope that they never read about the inquisition, and the abuses of the Popes in the medieval period, because if that is what happens in your perfect Catholic society, then forget it. Of course, you could argue that the Catholics killed fewer people than the atheists. I always find, “But we are less genocidal than they are!”, to be a great argument.

You know, when I first started posting on Catholic Answers Forums, there was a section in the rules telling people not to post arguments based on historical atrocities because they were fruitless. That was really good advice. People should listen to that.

 

[reggieM]

More arguments for design are that giraffes live where there are tall trees …

It’s an argument for design that giraffes eat grass and that baby giraffes are not taller than many other animals. The idea that the giraffe’s neck grew through the need to reach taller trees is one of those nice fictional stories that evolutionary theory provides. Evolutionists have replaced that story with another one now.

 

[reggieM]

But then you’d have to hope that they never read about the inquisition, and the abuses of the Popes in the medieval period, because if that is what happens in your perfect Catholic society, then forget it.

One of the best arguments for refuting atheism can be found in your reply itself. The argument is that atheists are not and apparently cannot be consistent with atheism itself and yet still condemn various moral actions. You speak about “abuses” and later talk about “atrocities” but those terms are meaningless in an atheistic context. There can be nothing to condemn if atheistic-materialism is true.

The argument works like this – the assumptions are:

(1) That atheistic naturalism is true.

(2) One can’t infer an “ought” from an “is.”

If these two things are true, nothing exists from which we can infer any moral principle.

This leads to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with what the Inquisition, or the Holocaust was or did.

If the second assumption is correct (and it is asserted as a part of atheistic-materialism) there is nothing in the natural world from which we can infer an “ought.”
In the first assumption, there is nothing that exists outside of the natural world - the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there’s nothing in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action.

This merely illustrates the logic behind the slogan “if atheism is true, all things are permitted". The “ought” in the concept refers to moral commands that must come from nature alone. But nature does not provide those moral commands.

This is actually very simple logic. There is nothing that atheists can condemn as being impermissable in terms of the natural world. One cannot infer an “ought” from an “is”. In the natural world, we just have an “is” – therefore, there cannot be any ought that binds human behavior emerging from the natural, material world (which is claimed by materialism to be all that there is and the force which developed all life on earth).

 

[StAnastasia]

It’s an argument for design that giraffes eat grass and that baby giraffes are not taller than many other animals. The idea that the giraffe’s neck grew through evolution is one of those nice fictional stories that evolutionary theory provides. Evolutionists have replaced that story with another one now.

The giraffes with longer necks survived at a great rate.

 

[reggieM]

The giraffes with longer necks survived at a great rate.

The myth that giraffes grew necks to reach taller trees has been refuted.

 

[buffalo]

But then you’d have to hope that they never read about the inquisition, and the abuses of the Popes in the medieval period, because if that is what happens in your perfect Catholic society, then forget it. Of course, you could argue that the Catholics killed fewer people than the atheists. I always find, “But we are less genocidal than they are!”, to be a great argument.

You know, when I first started posting on Catholic Answers Forums, there was a section in the rules telling people not to post arguments based on historical atrocities because they were fruitless. That was really good advice. People should listen to that.

It is a fantastic argument. The argument succeeds because of the value human life has for Catholics. To atheist regimes human lives are utilitarian.

Here is the point - Catholics though not perfect often fail, but they get up over and over again to try to meet the proposition.

 

[reggieM]

WINNING BY A NECK: SEXUAL SELECTION IN THE EVOLUTION OF GIRAFFE
ROBERT E. SIMMONS AND LUE SCHEEPERS
Department of Zoology. Uppsala University. Villavägen 9. S-752 36 Uppsala, Sweden

Submitted October 14. 1994: Revised January 10. 1996: Accepted January 18, 1996
Abstract.—A classic example of extreme morphological adaptation to the environment is the neck of the giraffe (Giraffli camelopardalis). a trait that most biologists since Darwin have attributed to competition with other mammalian browsers. However, in searching for present- day evidence for the maintenance of the long neck, we find that during the dry season (when feeding competition should he most intense) giraffe generally feed from low shrubs, not tall trees: females spend over 50% of their time feeding with their necks horizontal: both sexes feed faster and most often with their necks bent; and other sympatric browsers show little foraging height partitioning. Each result suggests that long necks did not evolve specifically for feeding at higher levels. Isometric scaling of neck-to-leg ratios from the okapi Okapiajohnswni indicates that giraffe neck length has increased proportionately more than leg length—an unexpected and physiologically costly method of gaining height. We thus find little critical support for the Darwinian feeding competition idea.