Atheism seems more plausible. What else can I do to grow in certainty or find reasons to believe?

[808Catholic]

Sorry, I’m not much for sentimentalism: My heart doesn’t say anything – my heart pumps blood.

Yes, I tried silencing my thoughts and listening for God. No matter how many times I try this, the result is the same: My brain goes blank and I become drowsy. If I persist in this state, I start having those “beta-wave” unguided random thoughts that your brain kicks into when you’re falling asleep. If I persist in this state, I start to doze.

This was the consequence of when I tried “listening” before the Blessed Sacrament exposed back in Tennessee; here in Japan, where my only option is to sit before the Tabernacle, I always wake myself up before I get to that point, e.g. try asking God a new question and starting over my silence.

The priest has just asked me to leave the church grounds where the internet is, so goodnight … (Sunday 8pm JST)

I hope you found peace and slept well.

Emotions are part of what makes us human. Happiness, sadness, anger, etc are ways for us to express our mental state and may affect our spiritual state which is not emotional. For example, when I focus on the Eucharist, whether He’s in the monstrance or in the Tabernacle, I feel peaceful and safe. Neither “peaceful” or “safe” are emotions. Perhaps they may be described as a state of mind but they are not necessarily just a psychological condition produced by chemical processes in my brain. I attribute this state of mind to a spiritual condition caused by my being in the presence of God.

I’m in awe and wonder when I stop to admire a spectacular view. What makes me feel that way? Why do I hold on to memories that recreate those spiritual feelings? Could it be that I experience these things because God designed humans so that we could witness His Majesty and reflect on His Glory?

If I had a cold, I would assess my physical state as “sick.” If I had a brain injury, I would assess my intellectual state as “impaired.” How would I describe my spiritual state if I couldn’t commune with God (in prayer, in thought, via the Eucharist, etc)? Perhaps “dry” might be one way as many saints have described those periods when they felt disconnected and/or isolated from Christ. Sort of like the trial Jesus went through in the desert before He began His earthly ministry. If saints can experience a period of spiritual dryness, what about the rest of us?

Keep the faith; keep praying. Trust in God!

 

[ethereality]

You hear a lot of atheists saying how good it is to be good, and love your neighbor, forgive others, do unto others, obey the ancient commandments because they are ‘good’. etc.
And I like that. But then I have to ask…what exactly is your problem with anything offered in The Gospel of Jesus Christ???

I don’t hear a lot of that, but Blessed Teresa of Calcutta answers your question with her summary of Christianity, “Give until it hurts.” The dividing line is pain. Pain is what refutes Pascal’s Wager, as it focuses us on Jesus’ Gospel: You must lose your life to save it. Living as a Christian means suffering more than the world requires of you. Taking it a step further, it seems to me that being Christian means having a terrible life on earth. Fr. Larry Richards seems to disagree with this, that “God wants us to be joyful,” citing John 14, but Archbishop Fulton Sheen seems to argue that joy and suffering go together (I haven’t read much of his writings, but it seems he’s proposing a mind game that we choose to think positively amid misery while keeping God’s commandments, and this he defines as ‘joy’).

You should read more of the Gospel, Lion. Jesus Himself says more than once woe to those who are happy and comfortable now. And that is what the atheist wants: To be happy and comfortable now.

 

[ethereality]

Most of your reply has us tripping over definitions and arguing semantics, or talking past each other. I’d like to avoid that.

You said, “the absence of God I feel then tips the scale in favor of atheism.” Did you not mean that you feel the absence of God – that is, that your lack of a feeling of God’s existence is what decides the argument for you?

I was speaking loosely of my experience. I mean that experiencing a silence and absence of God is more evidence in favor of quitting the Church, and that, looking at all of my experiences – at least within memory – that the Church seems more plausibly wrong than right.

If “practical certainty” is engaged only in ‘experimentation’

No, I didn’t say that. All I mean is a belief strong enough to have confidence to act, like climbing a staircase or crossing a bridge after assessing it for stability.

I want this confidence so that I can bear my suffering as a Christian, organize a weekly prayer group, teach my godson, etc.

It seems to me that Ned has argued that faith – effectively assuming this confidence – is a radically free act of the will. I don’t know if I can do this. I pray for more faith, but I’m in so much pain I can only manage one day at a time – so, no, I don’t think I can muster enough faith to commit to a weekly prayer group, for example.

In each of Jesus’ miracles – especially in the Gospel of John – we see that they are signs. Their purpose was to reveal Jesus as the Son of God. (In fact, as we read through the Gospels, we see that Jesus often told the person He healed not to tell anyone about it. In other words, its value as a sign was oriented towards its retelling following Jesus’ death and resurrection – that is, during the time of the Church and its evangelization of the nations.

Jesus himself talked about the value of His signs. At times, He refused to perform healings to those who asked for signs. He did not heal all whom he encountered – read John 5, and note that, of all those at the pool, He healed only one.

So, if He did not heal every physical infirmity, then we cannot proceed on the assertion that His ministry was healing for healing’s sake; we have to find another reason for these healings. I’m asserting that they served a higher purpose in the context of His ministry. Therefore, we cannot look at the fact of the existence of healings in Scripture and thereby presume that He will heal each of our physical ills.

This interpretation flies in the face of much of what EWTN argues, and depicts Jesus as more of a distant king and less of a concerned brother in suffering. It seems a gross hypocrisy or double standard for God to insist that we spend time helping everyone in need if Jesus didn’t do the same.

What would we think of a billionaire with pockets stuffed with money who refused to help the indigent he encounters? This is how you are depicting Jesus – moreover, you imply his healings were “token healings” for the sake of a religion, rather than for the sake of the people who were hurting. It’s quite disgusting. You’re also overlooking multiple passages like Matthew 4:23-25.

Even Paul complains that he had been given a physical ‘thorn’ and it was his role to bear it faithfully, if not stoically.

You anger me here, because this point is raised – and I must refute it – ad nausea: The difference is that St. Paul received private revelation explaining why he wasn’t healed. His prayer was answered with private revelation. I – or we – haven’t received such private revelation. I see no textual basis for you to declare that St. Paul’s private revelation was intended for everyone who hasn’t been healed after prayer. To the contrary, I see Jesus telling us to ‘persist in prayer without losing heart’ – your “thorn” here implies we should stop praying for healing.

Put another way, it’s capricious “cherry-picking” to declare that when Jesus says, “believe and you will receive it” that this message was meant only for the people He was speaking to, but when God tells St. Paul “I haven’t healed you because my grace is sufficient for you” that this message is meant for everyone. Rather, the Bible itself presents precisely the reverse message: When Jesus says that, the text does not indicate it was meant only for the disciples; whereas St. Paul makes explicitly clear that it was God’s message to him.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

I scanned a few of the inbetween pages a little quickly and I didn’t see the following mentioned, but I might have missed the discussion, so my apologies, if the following was already discussed.

There are other ways to approach Catholicism and God than just simple faith (which I mean in its profound sense)and which I gather from this thread doesn’t seem to be working for you.

One can approach Catholicism mystically or hermetically or through it’s works or socially or other ways that I can’t think of at 11:47 PM but I’m sure others on this site would be happy to list . I am not myself, a mystic, but I understand from the experience of St. John of the Cross (and other Catholic mystics) that if you follow a mystical path you will, in time, feel the joy of the presence of God in your daily life and (per this thread) get the certainty of His existence you seem to want., Unfortunately, that is not an easy path to follow: as I’m sure you know you must lead a humble, obedient, chaste, and poor life, and that’s just for starters. If you want the certainty of knowing God exists, and feeling his presence daily, you have to give up quite a lot to get it.

One thing you might look into is Catholic Hermeticism (in the sense of Origen and Tomberg) which has its own costs and sacrifices but you might find those more (for lack of a better word, no derogatory implication intended, it’s late and my brain is working slowly) palatable than the road of the Catholic Mystic. Just be aware that the best Catholic Hermeticists (and that includes both the otherwise amazing Origen and Tomberg ) have at times held heterodox opinions, so be careful at which writings you look at, and what’s they’re saying.

If that doesn’t interest you, perhaps there’s another approach I didn’t list that might be more appropriate to you. But if what you are looking for is certainty without sacrifice, then you’re gong to look a long, long time.

Best

 

[eddie_too]

I cannot think of anything less plausible than atheism.

why on earth would anyone believe that only the physical world exists?

why would anyone ignore the history of mankind and all of the evidence that there is more to existence than the physical world?

why would anyone ignore the fact that NO evidence exists to support the atheist belief that only the physical world exists?

why would anyone ignore the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, His miracles and His Church, all of which demonstrate that there is more to reality than the physical world?

why would anyone accept the concept that there is nothing to hope for and that love is merely a chemical reaction when there is no support for such beliefs?

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

why would anyone ignore the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, His miracles and His Church, all of which demonstrate that there is more to reality than the physical world?

I can’t speak for the OP. But I was an agnostic/deistic for a long time, and in my case, it was unquestionably based on my pride in my belief that I knew better. So I never bothered to take the necessary (for me - at least, I know other people find God in different ways) deep look at the consequences of my (for want of a better word) narrow belief system. It wasn’t until I read Leff that I begin to get a sense of the moral contradictions inherent in agnosticism and atheism.

 

[ethereality]

if you follow a mystical path you will, in time, feel the joy of the presence of God in your daily life and (per this thread) get the certainty of His existence you seem to want., Unfortunately, that is not an easy path to follow: as I’m sure you know you must lead a humble, obedient, chaste, and poor life, and that’s just for starters. If you want the certainty of knowing God exists, and feeling his presence daily, you have to give up quite a lot to get it.

Perhaps that’s what I’m trying to do, after considering a simple argument: If the Church teaches that sin is separation from God, and one wants to find God, then one must avoid sin. (It’s foolish to seek God while continually doing that which separates one from Him.)

The problem though, is as you say (or as a priest said on EWTN yesterday), one must “embrace the cross” (the sufferings in one’s life). Hence Pascal’s Wager is false: Being Christian means a painful life (losing a substantial amount).

if what you are looking for is certainty without sacrifice, then you’re gong to look a long, long time.

This point (certainty requires sacrifice) relates to the above conversation and troubles me: namely, the phenomenon of hazing. When we make ourselves suffer enough for something, we convince ourselves it is true, “worth it”, etc. regardless of whether it actually is. Perhaps this relates to Christopher Hitchens’s concern when he ridiculed the saying “if you seek, you shall find” (though perhaps his attention was more focused on “self-fulfilled prophecies” and assuming what one must prove).

So I wonder whether the fact that I receive the Eucharist and try hard to tell myself it’s Jesus, and pray fervently for more faith, etc., places psychological strain on me such that, for relief, I will come to believe it.

So I feel placed back at my previous position that the only way to move from agnosticism to comfortable certainty is private revelation (or, perhaps equivalently, a large amount of grace from God). Of course, there’s something to be said for “right living”: Even if I personally suffer, it benefits society overall, and so isn’t necessarily something to be avoided. (So perhaps Pascal’s Wager can be rescued along these lines – though it still fails in an individualistic sense.)

I wonder also if this is “the way it has to be”: G.K. Chesterton comments in The Ball and the Cross that all Catholics are agnostics. Perhaps he is saying that none of us really know if the Church is correct, hence we all have faith, i.e. trust that she is, and we’re all waiting to die to find out.

---

eddie too, please spend more time with this thread and read more carefully: I think all of your questions so far have been answered.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

Hence Pascal’s Wager is false: Being Christian means a painful life (losing a substantial amount).

We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Not to go into all the details, but the only time I’ve been truly miserable (by which I mean over at least a year long period of time, obviously we all have some pretty bad days, or weeks) was when I was working 14 hour days as an attorney on Wall Street making very good money, supposedly on top of the world, in one loveless relationship and working hard to start another, and ignoring the dictates of the Church that I didn’t care for. Everything the modern man is supposed to want and do these days. I hated every second…

I’m currently poor as the proverbial church mouse, back in school, doing my best to keep to Catholic Values and haven’t dated in years and I couldn’t be happier. Poverty, Chastity and Obedience are a sacrifice but you get a lot in return. Happiness for one thing.

I wonder also if this is “the way it has to be”: G.K. Chesterton comments in The Ball and the Cross that all Catholics are agnostics. Perhaps he is saying that none of us really know if the Church is correct, hence we all have faith, i.e. trust that she is, and we’re all waiting to die to find out.

Haven’t read the book, but this is incorrect. As I noted, Catholic mystics have felt the divine presence and of course there have been visions and revelations. One can choose to ignore this fact or accept it. I, obviously, accept it, and as I commented to someone else, I don’t see the difference between accepting a Catholic mystic who writes about feeling the presence of God or a Physicist writing about the latest exotic particle experiment. The effort to get to the point where you can write about either experience is beyond most people yet the latter is valued far more than the former.

Take care.

 

[ethereality]

As I noted, Catholic mystics have felt the divine presence and of course there have been visions and revelations. One can choose to ignore this fact or accept it.

Are you not assuming that it is a fact? It seems instead a controversy: It seems to me “feeling the presence of God” (or not feeling it as in the case of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta) may be a matter of a physical brain state rather than a spiritual reality (i.e. the spiritual reality of God being “truly present” or “truly absent”).

 

[GaryTaylor]

may be a matter of a physical brain state rather than a spiritual reality (i.e. the spiritual reality of God being “truly present” or “truly absent”).

May be the reality you think is physical is supernatural, how do you know what you think is real isn’t an illusion itself. I think its about the same as telling someone ghosts are real,or they seen an Alien, brings a whole new perspective to real. One might easily say; “ah they are such and such” but thats not the case with the one who seen the ghost or the supernatural or in fact an angel, demon or Jesus Christ Himself. It might be where the first Catholic prayer came from; “God help me” is where you surpassed is he real, to pleaze really help me, thus humility to submission. Course thats clearly opinion nevertheless it puts truly present in some context also.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

Are you not assuming that it is a fact? It seems instead a controversy: It seems to me “feeling the presence of God” (or not feeling it as in the case of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta) may be a matter of a physical brain state rather than a spiritual reality (i.e. the spiritual reality of God being “truly present” or “truly absent”).

With respect to Catholic mystics that are acknowledged as such by the Church, it’s a fact. With respect to some guy on peyote who thinks he’s talked to God, it’s the peyote. The latter is an example of an altered physical brain state, the former is the actual presence of God gracing a person.

Now the reason (since you won’t accept it as a matter of faith) as to why in the case of the Catholic mystic it’s a fact and not a physical brain state requires an explanation of Catholic Hermeticism that I am, no humility involved in saying this, not even remotely intellectually equipped to offer you: it’d be like a freshman physics major explaining quantum mechanics (zero necessary depth, all surface). And were I intellectually equipped to offer such an explanation to you, no disrespect, but I’m not sure if you’d understand it; similar deal, freshman physics major lacking the necessary math skills trying to understand a professor teaching quantum mechanics.
As you can see, I used the analogy above deliberately.

Now, maybe I’m wrong about your background, so you’re welcome to pursue the reasons on your own: give Tomberg’s “Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism” a go (a discussion of the imagery based on Catholic Hermeticism that is found in the late-medieval Tarot de Marseille which simultaneously serves as a general introduction into the Catholic Hermetic tradition, nothing to do with cartomancy), And then maybe go to the beginning of Catholic Hermeticism and start reading Origen’s Contra Celsus or De Principiis.

Edit: On re-reading this, it comes across as (for want of a better term) “snarky”, it wasn’t intended that way. It seemed to me, from your comment, that you’ve accepted the axiom that “there is a scientific explanation for everything” when there isn’t, and that’s just not something I have time to debate right now, perhaps someone else can give you a better, less “snarky” reply.

Cheers

 

[edarlitrix]

I have been in a similar situation as you for some time, at least a parallel situation of darkness—intellectual and emotional, esp. as regards Christianity/God. I would just like to share my own response to my situation and thereby shed light on your own (or cast a shadow upon it), just as your own interaction with your crosses has shed light on my own existence.

I would begin by saying that there is an element of choice in the human condition that must be confronted whether God exists or not. That element has to do with how we shape the clay that is given us: namely the feelings and thoughts that our brains secrete as a liver secretes bile. We all experience pain and darkness at some point during our lives; some of us more so than others. What causes pain to one person does not always disturb another person: If I step in a pile of chicken poop with bare feet, I will frown slightly, laugh, and then wash my feet off. If someone else steps in the pile, she might panic and even cry (perhaps an extreme reaction)—the same event causes more pain in her than it does me. The point I make here is that neither of us really chose how we felt—it was assigned to us. By its very nature, my brain was very “chill”—but its very nature, the other person’s brain freaked out. Almost with mathematical regularity, if you cause pain to someone, his response will be to try to remove the pain. It is an instinct—and a good one, as it keeps us from sitting in poison ivy and torturing our glutei maximi. But, it can be overused and misapplied. You may not choose to be angry and depressed at your situation, but you can choose what to do once you are angry and depressed. Will you reinforce your depression with particular thoughts? I might reinforce my intellectual and sexual frustration with such thoughts as, “It is all futile; I shall never marry and I shall never find truth; I have lived long enough to see this (actually not quite), and if I refuse to accept this I shall be miserable forever, but I will be miserable either way, so I might as well kill myself.”

One might say that pain is a kind of “ticket”—if you keep it, you can get into God’s presence. If you throw it away, or at least throw away its healing intention, you will not be able to bear God’s presence: simply because pain is a way of annihilating the selfishness inherent to our nature. The selfish one experiences God (the consuming fire per Hebrews 12) as a hideous burn; the selfless one, the pure in heart (who are most like God—if you can stomach that notion—is God really pure in heart?) experiences God as a light, perhaps as an insect is drawn to light. Pain can make you even more selfish, but the key is to let it totally kill you—at least who you were before it came. It is not a one time death, but a continual rebirth of agony and an adaptation of the mind to assimilate to the agony such that there is no longer a tug-of-war, but a serene acceptance of the pain. It is obviously extremely difficult, just as it is extremely difficult to stick one’s hand in a fire and let it burn without pulling it out. It is like a quote from Lawrence of Arabia, who snuffed out a candle with his fingers. “Doesn’t that hurt?” someone asked him. “The trick is not minding when it hurts,” he replied.

I would disagree and agree with your assessment of Pascal’s Wager—if you think only in terms of the preparation for eternity, of course choosing God is the most painful option. But the aftermath, of union with the Beloved, which was impossible before—for you were either a caterpillar or a caterpillar disintegrating and being reformed in a chrysalis, not capable of drinking the nectar that is God—is worth the pain necessary to attain it. It is really like an earthly romance to some extent (not that you are familiar with that; neither am I)—but in the sense that in order to attain the woman of your dreams, you must become vulnerable, you must risk unimaginable pain of heartbreak, disappointment, rejection, misunderstanding, etc. etc. everything you could possibly dread must be risked, everything you fear must be encountered—if you want, you can avoid all of this pain, but at the cost of never holding her in your arms.

We naturally must ask at this point: why couldn’t we be in God’s presence from the beginning? Why do we have to go through unimaginable pain in order to attain unimaginable ecstasy? and how do we even know we will find ecstasy around the bend—perhaps it will only be unimaginable pain, like Prometheus’ liver pulled out for eternity. Although in regards to that, one could say that some temporary experience he has of unimaginable ecstasy will last forever with just as much a subversive tone, and not be proving much. This may point out the biggest flaw in the hypothesis, though, that it seems unnecessary to put us through so much agony for something we aren’t even sure about. Indeed, why could we not instantaneously recognize our soulmates and marry them on the spot? why does it have to be a journey of discomfort, confusion and doubt? (although some get it easy, arranged marriage anyone?)

 

[edarlitrix]

Of course, these may be the ramblings of an “advanced” hominid trying to make sense of a seemingly cruel world (only cruel inasmuch as it provokes my brain to want to kill itself or sit festering uselessly in my bed)—and none of what I say is going to help a baby who dies as it is raped by some pervert, or a deer run over by a car and twitching for several minutes—but truth be told, if the alternatives presented me are waiting or never receiving, I will wait. It makes me burn with anger and depression at times, with tears and desperation, with an urgent impulse to jerk the wheel of my car and hit a tree never to wake again—but the choice is mine in the end. Will I react to my pain by letting it submerge me in an acid bath of wrath and cold-hearted numbness and bitterness? or will I let it strip my selfishness away as one pulls pieces of an eggshell away to make a beautiful mosaic (whatever beauty is)? Sometimes I don’t care; I just want what I want and I want it NOW. But, the desire does not create its own fulfillment. Though we want more, we cannot always demand more, but learn to accept that we cannot see our own eyeballs. It is foolish to drive oneself mad over what one can do nothing about.

As for intellectual reasoning leading one to conclude atheism as more plausible—we must ask what is more important: Having true beliefs, however irrationally we came to hold them; or having false beliefs, yet come to hold them rationally—(the best of all would be true beliefs, rationally held)—in terms of virtues and vices of the intellect per Aristotle (who because he is in the public domain, you can read for free—Nichomachean Ethics —you’ve probably already read this and thrown it against the wall). Would you like to create yourself into an unvirtuous thinker, despite believing the truth? Or would you prefer to be a virtuous thinker even though you miss the mark in the end? For it is possible, simply by being a victim of circumstance, to miss the mark because you lack the time and resources to make a fully informed decision about whether God exists. It is also possible to wander into atheism and later come back to God, having found the treasure in the field that had been buried for so long from your sight—and it is possible to wander into theism and revert back to atheism for the same reason. I personally have wandered far enough from a confident Christianity to seriously say I am more of an agnostic yet theistic truth-seeker. There was a time it would have been like skinning me alive to wander outside the fold of my youth, from Christianity—but if I am to be honest with God and myself, I cannot really call myself a Christian at this point. Sometimes one must lose oneself to find oneself. I was in RCIA for a year or two, and had to think about whether I wanted to join it again this year. Here is what I told the coordinator of the program: I have realized that as a pilgrim who has started a journey after God and truth, to become Catholic so soon would be to end the pilgrimage before it began. The journey might come full circle and I finally decide to become Catholic—return to the beginning, so to speak—or I might not. Becoming Catholic, or whatever I become, will be the start of a new journey. “Once you were a child. Once you knew what inquiry was for. There was a time when you asked questions because you wanted answers, and were glad when you had found them. Become that child again: even now.” - the White Spirit, ch. 5 of The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis.

Your doubts and troubles about God’s existence are not unique to theists; even atheists have/had doubts and troubles about God’s non-existence (C.S. Lewis being one, Michael Shermer another)—in fact, most atheists who become theists (I suspect, perhaps an ignorant suspicion) undergo a crisis of “faith” in the same way that theists who become atheists undergo a crisis. What I am trying to say here is this: though perhaps intellectually one can perceive the world through the lens of a deist without experiencing too much cognitive dissonance (a god exists who does not care about the world very much if at all)—when it comes to the problem of evil, one is forced into the decision that Pascal speaks of: “enough darkness for those who do not wish to see, and enough light for those of a contrary disposition”—will you risk the uncertainty and plunge onwards into seeking this God who is largely unknown to you at this point, or feels very unknown—or will you abandon this tiny seed of hope in favor of following what appears, at this point, to be the intellectually correct path—atheism or deism. Will you wait to see if some new insight arises, providing you with sufficient consolation for the time being to keep seeking God? or will you turn in another direction altogether? “I have waited long enough.”

 

[edarlitrix]

I will go ahead and share a journal entry that sort of demonstrates what approach I have taken at this point to the question of God’s existence.

I know not where to begin—with contradiction—with impatience and perpetual avoidance—to desire you and yet never finding you—it is all one can keep from losing all desire for you whatever—it is as though you want not to be found—we must keep the flame alive somehow—
the allegory—how is it that our deepest desire is for you, and yet we strive continually to avoid you? It is not as absurd if I consider how I feel about ___—I desire him very much, it pains me to wait for him—and yet I find the reality of him terrifying—I secretly struggle to avoid him, feeling a dreadful mad desperation like a cornered animal at the thought of seeing him in the flesh—I want to postpone meeting him for eternity—yet I want to see him NOW—and I am a contradiction—we fear you and desire you all at one—like a flame in the cold. So I must wait for you—if our alternatives are wait and you will receive, or else go away empty-handed- we must wait. Yet the pain of waiting—it torments us, drives us insane—we want it now—we will die—we want you so much—we will die from longing—who can live with a desire so hopelessly unfulfillable in this life? We burn with emptiness—who will satisfy the Mother Teresas of this life? It cannot be done—the unspeakable horror of perpetual desire—the thirst forever unquenched—we become desperate, filling the void with things unreal. But we cannot be full- we must lie there and moan—we fade away in the midst of waiting. Or is what we desire in the midst of us?

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

I would begin by saying that there is an element of choice in the human condition that must be confronted whether God exists or not.)

The human condition is impossible to understand without Christ: that suffering has a purpose, that what you see is not all that there is, that we are all made in God’s image and thus, contrary to Brad Pitt, all unique, different and beautiful snowflakes.

I would suggest that both you and the OP consider hypnotherapy. The both of you appear to be setting yourselves up to fail by constantly whispering to yourselves and your subconscious things like what I quote above. I would suggest whispering positive things to your subconscious and you will find that your doubts will fade away. As I mention in another thread, Satan can only whisper, he can’t compel, but if you listen to his whispers it will change you.

 

[ethereality]

I find myself back at this same point, now seven months later. Should I read all the responses in this thread again? If they did not help me seven months ago, why would they help me now?

I do not see how I can encourage others to become Christian, or remain Christian, when it seems more likely false than true. It seems to me that we must be agnostic until we personally experience God, and that we cannot reason our way to the faith. The Catechism states,

III. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH

36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”. 14

I wonder what they mean by knowledge and certainty, because in my experience this has not been the case: Every argument I have seen rests on uncertain premises, or is simply false. It would have been nice if the authors of this Catechism would have simply given us one of these arguments by which we can have certain knowledge. They say that if one cannot use reason, that we can simply accept the Church’s teachings to have ‘firm certainty’, but this is a certainty by assumption, which is actually closing oneself off from reason, is it not? “It’s true because I want to believe that it’s true.” So ultimately this section frustrates me, and is not helpful. I understand that, technically, the Catechism is intended for the bishops, not specifically for laymen: I would like to see a bishop make use of this section to help skeptics, doubters, those with keen intellect who see problems with Christian apologetics.

 

[thenobes]

I find myself back at this same point, now seven months later. Should I read all the responses in this thread again? If they did not help me seven months ago, why would they help me now?

I do not see how I can encourage others to become Christian, or remain Christian, when it seems more likely false than true. It seems to me that we must be agnostic until we personally experience God, and that we cannot reason our way to the faith. The Catechism states,
I wonder what they mean by knowledge and certainty, because in my experience this has not been the case: Every argument I have seen rests on uncertain premises, or is simply false. It would have been nice if the authors of this Catechism would have simply given us one of these arguments by which we can have certain knowledge. They say that if one cannot use reason, that we can simply accept the Church’s teachings to have ‘firm certainty’, but this is a certainty by assumption, which is actually closing oneself off from reason, is it not? “It’s true because I want to believe that it’s true.” So ultimately this section frustrates me, and is not helpful. I understand that, technically, the Catechism is intended for the bishops, not specifically for laymen: I would like to see a bishop make use of this section to help skeptics, doubters, those with keen intellect who see problems with Christian apologetics.

I look at this problem of understanding if there is a God from the point of view of the necessity of the existence of external imperatives of a spiritual nature.

To show this, first note that within each of us we feel an absolute sense of justice, of good and evil. If this were only a subjective feeling, there is no ultimate reason for us to do good or avoid evil. It would be just a whim on our part. There is no way to determine if we or others are correct in our positing of a moral system.

The reason for this is that judging the “correctness” of a moral system is in fact appealing to a higher “moral system” of value judgements. But this higher moral system can be questioned, and must rely on an even “higher” authority. By “higher” I really mean prior or preceding.

Thus a moral system relies on judgements which are either:
1. circular, which would be illogical,
2. in an infinite chain, meaning the initial premises could not be known, and thus the validity of the derived moral codes unknowable, and also the final moral code unreachable,
or
3. deriving from some finite source, unknown place in us. Because, if it were known, we could attempt to find a “higher”, “prior”, authority or moral code to judge it, and so it could not be the source. And because if it were infinite, it could not be known.

No. 3 means that the ultimate source of the moral code is unconscious, and cannot be proven to be more than a whim. And so we have no basis of knowing the truthfulness or correctness of our moral code.

However, if the source of a moral code is external, then this whim may cause us to reason to a moral code which coincides with this external source, and then our moral system is valid, if this external system contains the validity within itself that we ourselves lack. Thus goodness itself must be the source of the moral code, if the code is actually to exist. The question is, what is that which is goodness itself? Is it God? Well the Christian system says YES it is.

peace
steve

 

[Randy_Carson]

I find myself back at this same point, now seven months later. Should I read all the responses in this thread again? If they did not help me seven months ago, why would they help me now?

I do not see how I can encourage others to become Christian, or remain Christian, when it seems more likely false than true. It seems to me that we must be agnostic until we personally experience God, and that we cannot reason our way to the faith. The Catechism states,
I wonder what they mean by knowledge and certainty, because in my experience this has not been the case: Every argument I have seen rests on uncertain premises, or is simply false. It would have been nice if the authors of this Catechism would have simply given us one of these arguments by which we can have certain knowledge. They say that if one cannot use reason, that we can simply accept the Church’s teachings to have ‘firm certainty’, but this is a certainty by assumption, which is actually closing oneself off from reason, is it not? “It’s true because I want to believe that it’s true.” So ultimately this section frustrates me, and is not helpful. I understand that, technically, the Catechism is intended for the bishops, not specifically for laymen: I would like to see a bishop make use of this section to help skeptics, doubters, those with keen intellect who see problems with Christian apologetics.

Are you saying that every philosophical argument for God is based upon one or more faulty premises?

Could you give an example or two?

And if you see problems with Christian apologetics, could you give a specific example? For starters, let’s focus on the resurrection since that is the heart of the Christian faith.

 

[PRmerger]

So what can I do? Are we not supposed to know the Church is correct?

I think you may have some unrealistic expectations about what degree of certitude and assurance you can have with faith.

Imagine you have been dating someone for a while and you’re fairly certain she’s* the one.

If you apply all of your doubts that you are experiencing regarding your faith to this relationship, you’ll never make the leap into a commitment.

As Peter Kreeft says:

“Perhaps such a person misunderstands what faith is, and
thinks of it as some irresistible mystical experience, or some
sudden, undeniable light of certitude. Instead, it is like pledging
your loyalty to a king, or a friend, or a spouse: it is a choice.”

*Please insert correct gender accordingly