Atheists pursuing the truth (but still don't understand Catholicism)

[rose.gold]

So my boyfriend is an atheist. He struggles with understanding how God could possibly exist, and even if He does, evidence seems to prove to him that He would be evil.
This belief is partially due to him having a pretty screwed up childhood. He believes that if God was real and a loving God, He would’ve answered his prayers and saved him from these terrible things. He also thinks certain points in the Bible prove God is evil, such as when He commands the Israelites to destroy entire cities (killing everyone, including innocent children), allowing slavery and rape, and other bad things.

I want to point out that my boyfriend is a very logical person, he’s very smart, and he spends a lot of time pursuing the truth. It’s really important to him. I know he has read some Aquinas, but the atheist material he’s read seems more convincing to him. So still, he does not believe in God.

So, my question is: How could God send someone to hell if they don’t exactly have a reason to believe in Him? My bf has tried to make sense of religion, but he just can’t. He just doesn’t understand how God could be good (for the reasons listed above, and others I’m sure), if he exists at all. And why should he believe if it makes absolutely no sense to him? I just don’t get it. And I’m worried about his soul obviously. And believe me, I’m praying for his conversion. I pray everyday that God will lead him to the truth. But I guess I really just don’t understand how if he died right now, God could send him to hell, if he’s truly pursuing the truth, but just hasn’t yet arrived at Catholicism.

This might be confusing (I’m not the best with words lol) and if you want me to clarify anything, please ask! I just want some help understanding this. Thank you for any replies!

 

[Pattylt]

I’m an agnostic and never thought of God as evil but the problems you and he are struggling through are not new. The question you need to ask is, should I continue in this relationship? The differences may never go away, they could lead you away from the church and if you two ever have children, the differences could really explode if you want your children raised in the church.

Think long and hard about this. Your catholic faith may depend on it and you need to discuss the children issue long before you discuss marriage. There is always the possibility that he will come to the church. Statistically, it’s more likely you will never agree or you will lose your faith. Please, go slowly, think hard, discuss often and decide early rather than later…should we continue to see each other. Sorry, not the good news you are hoping for.

 

[rose.gold]

Thanks for the advice! I agree. We’ve had many many conversations about that actually. I’m very cautious about those issues. And so far everything seems alright. Let’s hope it stays that way lol. Thank you

 

[rose.gold]

Yeah I’m very curious about that. I haven’t read anything so far but I’m hoping to learn more.

 

[Pattylt]

It’s hard when two opposing religions or religious/atheist are attracted to each other. Many have made it work, though but they do so by just respecting each other’s beliefs and agreeing to keep boundaries in place…on both sides.

Obviously if he’s atheist, he doesn’t have your concern about hell…he doesn’t believe it exists. For you to continue to worry over his salvation…well, there’s no answer for it. It means nothing to him and if you can learn to let God decide, then maybe you have your answer!

I’ve known several mixed marriages and they worked because they respected boundaries with each other and don’t challenge them. They may discuss them, but not challenge. It seems to be what makes it work. They also decided all these boundaries before marriage…I definitely recommend that!

Continuing praying for him and take your concerns to him and God. Be mature in your thinking and good luck!

 

[Pattylt]

My only caution here is that often, atheists have investigated and studied the religions enough that invincible ignorance usually doesn’t apply. If there’s a loophole for still not believing or making sense, then there’s even hope for me! I just question it…

 

[Gorgias]

The concept of “invincible ignorance” states that if one has never heard of God, but still tries to live according to the proper principles, then one “MAY” attain salvation.

No. The standard isn’t “has heard”, but rather, “understands”.

It’s not “has someone talked to you about Jesus?” so much as it is “have you come to an intellectual understanding that this is true, but nevertheless refuse to accept it?”

My only caution here is that often, atheists have investigated and studied the religions enough that invincible ignorance usually doesn’t apply.

I disagree. One may “investigate” and “study” and nevertheless, still be mistaken in his conclusions. This could still constitute “invincible ignorance.”

If there’s a loophole for still not believing or making sense, then there’s even hope for me!

It’s not a “loophole.” It’s the question of whether a person is culpable for their lack of acceptance of the Gospel.

 

[Freddy]

Katolikuss:

The concept of “invincible ignorance” states that if one has never heard of God, but still tries to live according to the proper principles, then one “MAY” attain salvation.

No. The standard isn’t “has heard”, but rather, “understands”.

It’s not “has someone talked to you about Jesus?” so much as it is “have you come to an intellectual understanding that this is true, but nevertheless refuse to accept it?”

Then that is denial. As opposed to: ‘…has come to an intellectual understanding that it is true for many people but nevertheless is unconvinced that it is actually true’.

It would be the same position as you take to Hinduism for example.

 

[Gorgias]

Hold it. Understanding does not automatically lead to acceptance.

That’s the whole point: if you understand that it’s true, but you still refuse to accept it, then “invincible ignorance” doesn’t apply. After all, if you understand that it’s true, you’re not ignorant of the fact it’s true.

One can hear about Jesus, can have an intellectual understanding of the arguments, but still unable to accept them as true.

Let me be more precise, then: the standard isn’t “I understand the arguments”, it’s “I understand that they’re true.”

If one understand the reasoning as correct, then I cannot see how can one refuse to accept it?

Human nature. Trust me, there are things that people understand to be true but nevertheless refuse to accept them. COVID, for many, is a prime example.

If you are presented with a proof for the theorem of Pythagoras, and if you understand it, then it is impossible to reject it.

Apples and oranges. We’re not talking about mathematical systems, here.

Then that is denial.

I think that’s accurate, if I’m understanding what you mean here. It’s “I know it to be true… but I refuse to accept it nevertheless.”

As opposed to: ‘…has come to an intellectual understanding that it is true for many people but nevertheless is unconvinced that it is actually true’.

Right. I would say that this still is “invincible ignorance” – after all, it just says “I get that some folks think it’s true… but I don’t.” Which, as you point out, Christians would say about Hinduism.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Then that is denial.

I think that’s accurate, if I’m understanding what you mean here. It’s “I know it to be true… but I refuse to accept it nevertheless.”

As opposed to: ‘…has come to an intellectual understanding that it is true for many people but nevertheless is unconvinced that it is actually true’.

Right. I would say that this still is “invincible ignorance” – after all, it just says “I get that some folks think it’s true… but I don’t.” Which, as you point out, Christians would say about Hinduism.

Not being argumentative here, Gorgias. But aren’t you then saying that both examples are invincible ignorance?

Surely ‘I know it’s true but refuse to accept it’ is completely different to ‘I don’t think it’s true and therefore cannot accept it’.

 

[Dan_Defender]

OP what you are referring to is called the mystery of evil. Volumes have been written about it there’s no simple answer but I like this saying from Abba Anthony:
When the same Abba Anthony thought about the depth of the judgments of God, he asked, "Lord, how is it that some die when they are young, while others drag on to extreme old age? Why are there those who are poor and those who are rich? Why do wicked men prosper and why are the just in need? He heard a voice answering him, “Anthony, keep your attention on yourself; these things are according to the judgment of God, and it is not to your advantage to know anything about them.”

 

[Pattylt]

It’s not a “loophole.” It’s the question of whether a person is culpable for their lack of acceptance of the Gospel.

Well, wouldn’t that be everyone who has heard but still rejects the gospel? If they believed it true, they’d become Christian, right? What piece am I missing?

I’ve read and studied the gospels and the whole NT. I neither accept it nor believe it’s true. So, am I invincibility ignorant? Thanks…

 

[PickyPicky]

I’ve read and studied the gospels and the whole NT. I neither accept it nor believe it’s true. So, am I invincibility ignorant? Thanks…

Depends who you ask, I think.

 

[sealabeag]

If they believed it true, they’d become Christian, right? What piece am I missing?

Not necessarily. Someone can know something is good and true and reject it anyway. I might prefer my sin to God.

I’ve read and studied the gospels and the whole NT. I neither accept it nor believe it’s true. So, am I invincibility ignorant? Thanks…

Probably not invincibly ignorant, as you have heard the message of Jesus. But only you and God can really know that, He knows your heart!

 

[kapp19]

Invincible ignorance has layers which correspond to certain expressions of religiosity.

Furthermore, faith comes by hearing, and by grace…

Last, one cannot desire what one does not believe in.

 

[Gorgias]

Not being argumentative here, Gorgias. But aren’t you then saying that both examples are invincible ignorance?

Surely ‘I know it’s true but refuse to accept it’ is completely different to ‘I don’t think it’s true and therefore cannot accept it’.

Correct. “I have an intellectual understanding of the words coming out of your mouth, but I don’t believe what you’re saying” could fall under ‘invincible ignorance.’ On the other hand, “I understand what you’re saying, and I believe it to be true, but I nevertheless refuse to enter into the Church or stay in it” would not be ‘invincible ignorance.’

But understanding an argument does not imply that the argument is accepted as true.

Look at what I wrote: “if you understand that it’s true”. Not just “I understand what you’re saying.”

But that is different.

That’s why we’re on this tangent.

The problem is that someone is exposed to the arguments, understands them, but does not find them convincing.

Right. That’s “invincible ignorance”, we’d suggest.

I don’t understand the example. Please explain.

There are those who understand that COVID is a pandemic, that they can catch it and transmit it, and can take measures to limit infection/transmission … but refuse to accept this, and so, do whatever they please (like… hang out at a beach with a crowd of friends).

Well, wouldn’t that be everyone who has heard but still rejects the gospel?

No. There are a number of gating criteria, wouldn’t you say?

• never heard the Gospel
• heard the Gospel but not understand it (error in transmission or reception)
• heard the Gospel proclaimed accurately, understands the proclamation, rejects the argument.
• Heard the Gospel proclaimed accurately, understands and believes the proclamation, but nevertheless still rejects it.

The last person is not invincibly ignorant. The others, putatively, may be.

I’ve read and studied the gospels and the whole NT. I neither accept it nor believe it’s true. So, am I invincibility ignorant?

It all comes down to whether you’re culpable for your rejection, right? And that’s between you and God.

Depends who you ask, I think.

And, at the end of the day, God’s the only one who makes that judgment…

Probably not invincibly ignorant, as you have heard the message of Jesus.

Again: the standard isn’t hearing.

 

[sealabeag]

Again: the standard isn’t hearing .

According to who? I’d like to see Church teaching that backs that up. I can hear, but reject.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Again: the standard isn’t hearing .

According to who? I’d like to see Church teaching that backs that up. I can hear, but reject.

According to the Church. It’s in Lumen gentium (#14) and is quoted in the catechism (#846):

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

So… if you know that this is true, and yet refuse to be part of the Church, then there’s a big problem.

Notice that the statement isn’t “whosoever has heard”. This refers to something that you know is true (and not just “you know that someone has told this to you”).

 

[sealabeag]

Obviously those who know that Jesus and the Catholic Church are true but reject them cannot be saved. But the question was vincible vs invincible ignorance. And I would say that simply hearing the Gospel makes one no longer invincibly ignorant, regardless of accepting it as true or not.
Unbelief can be a sin too, that is, hardening one’s heart to the truth. That is different to someone who genuinely just cannot accept the truth, for whatever reason, of course.

 

[Gorgias]

And I would say that simply hearing the Gospel makes one no longer invincibly ignorant, regardless of accepting it as true or not.

OK, let’s accept that for the sake of argument. What Church document can you cite, which makes the claim you’re making here?

Well, that would be sheer stupidity.

Or, to keep us on track, vincible ignorance.