Defending Against Atheism

[ricmat]

Scientists are philosophers, moreso than theologists. Theologists believe they have everything pertaining to the supernatural correct, so they brush aside any other philosophical ideas and narrow their view only to their belief. Atheistic Scientists’ philosophy is much broader as they do not begin with any preconceived faiths, and admit that they do not know, so they are able to delve deeper into possibilities that are more likely true based on their knowledge. And by the way, most Atheists are agnostics, they just might be too stubborn to admit it, or they just haven’t thought about it because they don’t really care.

Have you read the history of the Church with regard to Science? And I don’t mean the myths about Galileo.

The Church is the primary reason that the ancient science of the Greeks was preserved, and the reason that it developed in the West (and not elsewhere). Read “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.”

Religion is the search for Truth - which means scientific truth as well as the more absolute Truths of which science can only give us a part of (seen dimly, as though through a foggy window). The Church’s support to find scientific truth through the ages has been - well, overwhelming.

Religion for the most part was not handed down at one time, with instructions “Do not change, ever.” It was a gradual search for truth with the truth being revealed only sporadically over thousands of years (I’m talking about the Judeo-Christian religion here).

 

[ricmat]

Because it’s obvious that we have free will. I’ve never heard from any intelligent Catholic that the existence of free will proves God. Matter is not set on a fixed path. Quantum Physics has proven that it is impossible to predict exactly in what exact form and position any particle will be at any given time, which means that there is some small randomness to it that makes it so that we are not just machines. By the way, Calvanists don’t believe in free will, yet they believe in God.

But science still believes in cause and effect. Every effect must have a cause. Because quantum physics cannot predict exactly what the effect is, does not mean that the effect does not exist. Because we observe this as randomness, doesn’t mean that there is no cause and effect, only that we can’t figure it out, so we label it with the statistical term randomness.

Actually, free will doesn’t so much prove God as it does prove that Man is different than the rest of creation - all of which acts according to their “natures.” We can choose not to act according to any particular nature.

I’m not a Calvinist, so I won’t attempt to justify their beliefs. There are many religions with many contradictory beliefs. So they obviously aren’t all correct.

 

[MerryAtheist]

The “sun comes up, sun goes down” thing is a poor example.

If you want to use it, you should at least point out that at one time people thought that the sun was in orbit around the Earth. They were wrong, but the science at that time made sense.

The point I was making was that God is not observable, and can therefore only be said to exist based on faith. The Sun, on the other hand, is readily observable, and though our theories regarding the Sun (and other aspects of nature) may be modified based on better information, such changes remain based in observable, largely objective evidence.

So the “faith” that the sun will come up, that the moon will circle the Earth, that a rock will fall from my hand when I let it go, and all other aspects of the world around me, is not at all like “faith” in God.

I’m not sure where we went off on this tangent where “science” became synonymous with “atheism”, but I must say that the two are not the same at all. My atheism is a simple statement of non-belief in God. I have not replaced the Christian God with the God of Science, nor the God of Self.

I have no belief in any God.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

The point I was making was that God is not observable, and can therefore only be said to exist based on faith. The Sun, on the other hand, is readily observable, and though our theories regarding the Sun (and other aspects of nature) may be modified based on better information, such changes remain based in observable, largely objective evidence.

And evidence is only evidence because of the faith-assumption that what is observed repeatedly exists. This is very similar to faith in God.

I’m not sure where we went off on this tangent where “science” became synonymous with “atheism”…

I agree with you, it is a false association. I am a scientist. I am not an atheist.

 

[Ginger2]

Sorry, MerryAtheist,

My “sun up, sun down” was not in response to your statement. I should have clarified who I was responding to.

My point is that that analogy isn’t going to convince anyone that God exists, (unless of course God wants it to).

That’s why I say always start with prayer.

Concerning your statement about having physical proof of God’s existence like proof by sight:

Tell me, would you believe in God if you saw a burning bush that didn’t burn up?

You might at first, but as time went on you probably would begin to think you imagined it.

So visual proof is not much use without Faith.

 

[MerryAtheist]

Tell me, would you believe in God if you saw a burning bush that didn’t burn up?

To be perfectly honest, I don’t know what I would do in that situation. But I am open to the possibility of changing my views.

Let me try to be clear: I am not opposed to the existence of God. I am an atheist because I don’t think there is enough evidence to justify belief, and I don’t have the faith necessary to bridge that chasm. I cannot eliminate the possibility of my re-conversion in the future, but it does seem unlikely right now.

That is my honest view.

Now, let me ask you: Are you open to the possibility that you are wrong, and that God does not exist?

 

[Ginger2]

I cannot be open to a possibility that is impossible.

God has shown me proof. I have seen and heard. Just as much as we can say the sun exists because I have seen and felt - that is how I know God exists.

But before I KNEW, I made a choice to believe. Later I made a choice to submit.

All this was possible because I asked God SINCERELY to help me accomplish believing.

I did not ask God to prove to me, it is my freewill choice to believe. I asked that He help me because I am not capable of that kind of faith on my own.

So, I can testify that God still appears to human beings and speaks to them in much the same way He did in Biblical times. But just as He did in Biblical times, He does not appear to everyone.

 

[Ginger2]

Just so we are clear, I do not say these things to convince you. That would be a waste of time. I am just answering your question as you have answered mine.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Originally Posted by GuanYuWarGod
*I find atheism an invaluable tool in understanding Catholicsm and theology in general. *

I do not understand.

Do you mean that reading the works of atheists has helped you grow in your understanding of theology? I could believe that. As Chesterton said, it was not the writings of the Christian apologists, but the writing of the atheist apologists that convinced him to be Christian.

Or do you mean that accepting atheism has helped you understand theology better? This point cannot be debated, because we cannot measure our understanding of a thing unless we agree upon what that thing is we are measuring against. If there is no standard, there is no way to measure excellence in anything.

I am with GuanYuWarGod on this one. If you study atheism you find the world very lonely and cruel. You are all that counts. Yet you also find the human development counter to the plan. This makes no sense. The plan requires a quid pro quo minimum so no one should love you. Yet people do love, and give without the quid pro quo. Additionally they build and suffer for future generation which is anti atheism. In atheism the future does not matter at least after you’re gone. So how to understand this, well it seems clear there is more, more than me, more than quid pro quo, more future than past. None of that fits atheism, and thus atheism is rejected as an explanation.

 

[MerryAtheist]

Just so we are clear, I do not say these things to convince you. That would be a waste of time. I am just answering your question as you have answered mine.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

Now, let me make an observation which you are, of course, free to reject:

It seems to me, that a large part of the difficulty you find in relating to atheists arises precisely because you are not open to the possibility of being wrong. That unwillingness to consider other points of view, and to critically evaluate your own, is a primary element of any productive discussion. I can understand your reluctance to consider any alternatives (I was once as convinced as you seem to be). It’s not easy to do, and it can feel “sinful” (for lack of a better word) in some respects, but I think it is essential if one ever hopes to engage atheists.

Of course there is an element of danger in this method. I would have never abandoned my faith had I not been willing to critique my beliefs and consider other views. It could have gone the other way; I could have become stronger in my faith. That’s the risk one takes.

It’s the same in dialogue with non-believers: Those who engage in apologetics must be willing to enter the lion’s den, to think like the lions, and even risk becoming one.

 

[tdgesq]

As for the senses, that applies to us all.

So the atheist believes it on faith. Thank you for that admission.

Any christian who says that when he observes existence he feels that it verifies God all the more, faces the same problem, but even moreso.

No, the Christian doesn’t have the same problem. Both assume that the senses are reliable, but Christians have an explanation for why this makes sense while atheists do not. The philosophical realism of Aquinas gives an explanation for how it is we can apprehend that things exists as they appear to be, how we can know that other minds exist, and how the existence of universals is possible. Of course all of these explanations require that certain immaterial realities exist - the substance or form of things, the human soul, and universal forms.

But atheists are naturalists and materialists. They reject the reality of an immaterial existence for that of philosophical nominalism. If the world is the way that atheists suppose it to be, then there isn’t any justification for maintaining the reliability of the senses. In fact, it is far more likely that our senses are not reliable if atheists are correct. Yet they go about day after day acting as if they are. What great faith they must have.

Because if our senses are not reliable and we are in some kind of Matrix world like the movie, then the person who believes in God is wrong (it was not God who created the world, but the machine programmer), however the athiest would still be right (he didn’t believe it was God in the first place).

If the senses are unreliable and there is an all powerful computer programmer that created the world and not God then God doesn’t exist. Then the atheist would be right. How does that make the theist worse off again? I agree with you that God is necessary for the senses to be reliable, if that is what you are getting at.

But really it’s a pointless question to ask, a hopeless question even for the athiest (but remember, moreso for the theist).

You call it a pointless question because your atheistic ontology doesn’t have any way to account for why our senses would ever be reliable. So you choose to believe it on faith, without any reasons to support it. But you see, as a Catholic, I am required to give a rational account for what I believe. I am not allowed to accept things on blind faith like atheists do.

For your paragraph on experience and predicting the future. Of course seeing the sun rise and set constantly gives us reason to believe that it will rise and set again tomorrow. It might not be an absolute given, but it’s sure as hell damn likely. Scientists thrive on predicting the future (and uncovering the past) based on past experiences.

It makes it not one whit more likely. That nature has been uniform in the past does not make it any more likely that it will be uniform in the future under the materialistic world view. That is Hume’s problem of induction. Are you saying that there is some universal law out there that governs and will cause the future to continue to be like the past? There isn’t any justification for such governing laws for the atheist. All he can say is that well, it’s always worked that way in the past, so I’m going to assume it will stay that way in the future. He doesn’t know why it will, he’ll just take it on faith that it will. So the entire scientific method is now grounded upon faith.

Atheistic Scientists’ philosophy is much broader as they do not begin with any preconceived faiths, and admit that they do not know, so they are able to delve deeper into possibilities that are more likely true based on their knowledge.

Wrong! That is what this whole thread has been about! Atheists have faith in many many things to even be able to start doing science - the reliability of the senses, that the future will be like the past, that some laws hold universally. None of these things can be accounted for under their materialistic view of the world. Atheists don’t question their own presuppositions, because if they did, they wouldn’t be atheists anymore.

 

[Ginger2]

MerryAtheist,

I understand what you are saying and that is why I don’t engage atheists - at least not for the purpose of swaying them to my way of thinking.

I have experienced atheists who try to engage me, but what I have discovered is that they are not asking questions to find out what I believe and why.

They are mocking Christianity. I learned this a long time ago. One such person gave me a specific example of how the Gospels didn’t agree with each other. (This happened at my kitchen table)

I got my Bible and read the verse from each Gospel demonstrating they all said the same thing.

Her response was “Well, what about this…” I looked it up in my Bible and she was wrong again.

Her response was, “What about this…” At that point, I realized she wasn’t asking questions to find answers. I stopped talking to her about religion -even when she brought it up.

Another atheist did something similar. She would ask a question beginning with, “How do you know…” and when I would start to answer she cut me off before I finished the first sentence.

Both the above women are believers now. It happened after I stopped talking and started praying.

You said, “…you not open to the possibility of being wrong.”

Why when I have seen concrete proof, would I continue to doubt?

You don’t doubt that the sun warms the Earth because you physically can see and physically feel the sun, correct? Do you ever doubt that the sun is real?

 

[clmowry]

It started with anger over the way the sex scandals were handled.

My questioning the actions of the Church leadership, while alone not enough to make me lose faith, did prompt me to seek answers to other, more fundamental questions, like “Where does the authority of the Church come from and why did they fail so badly in this case?”

In my searching for answers, I did a LOT of reading and soul-searching, and I eventually came to believe that the Church was not, in fact, founded by Jesus. While this may not seem like a big deal (I am convinced one can have this view and still be a catholic), it was a big turning point for me because it showed me just how much of Catholicism I had accepted uncritically. After that “revelation”, I began to question everything from the teaching authority of the Church, to major dogmas (Mary, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, etc.). My research wasn’t based on just non-catholic sources, either, I read many catholic apologetical works along with the Catechism, and I believe I weighed all the information fairly before coming to the decision that, for me, Catholicism no longer made sense; it no longer had relevence for me.

Upon losing my faith in the Church, I began questioning my belief in Christianity using the same methods of researching both sides. Again, the result was a loss of faith in the Jesus story.

What followed was the inevitable examination of the question of God. The big question: Does God Exist? Again, after a rational examination of all the arguments pro and con, I was forced to realize that, while I could not prove with 100% certainty that God did not exist, the arguments in favor of God did not measure up to the arguments against, at least in my mind.

All the decisions to believe in God, Christ, the Church etc. must be based on faith. I was forced to conclude that I no longer had that faith (if indeed I ever had it in the first place).

Therefore, I became an atheist.

I don’t claim to “know” or even “believe” that God does not exist. I only claim to have no belief in his existence based on what I know and have learned about the world.

I do not regret leaving the Church. The world and the universe are subjects of great wonder and curiosity to me, far beyond what I ever felt towards my faith. And my brief life is even more precious to me now that I know it is the only one I’ll ever have.

Anyway, that’s the short version of my apostasy.

Well at least I think you’ve gotten to one of what in my opinion are the only two logical conclusions. Either Catholicism is the Truth or there is no God. (At least not one who cares what goes on on this planet.)

That said, I also believe there is only one Truth and if you keep searching for the truth you will find Him.

I would submit that you can only stay an atheist if you’ve stopped searching for the Truth.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

…WRONG! Atheism is nothing more than freeing one’s self from delusion and opening up one’s self to the natural experience, hence free will.

All those titles like book club member and prayer warrior don’t mean much do they?

Wow.

Well at least you chose an appropriate screen name.

Chuck

 

[tdgesq]

Because it’s obvious that we have free will.

So your answer is to beg the question. Okay. Here you go. God exists because it is obvious that he exists. I’ll accept your argument if you’ll accept mine.

I’ve never heard from any intelligent Catholic that the existence of free will proves God. Matter is not set on a fixed path. Quantum Physics has proven that it is impossible to predict exactly in what exact form and position any particle will be at any given time, which means that there is some small randomness to it that makes it so that we are not just machines. By the way, Calvanists don’t believe in free will, yet they believe in God.

You need to go back and actually read your own posts and my response. I didn’t argue that free will proves the existence of God. I argued that in an atheistic and materialistic view of reality, there can be no such thing as free will. You prove my point with your arguments above.

Show me where there is any scientific evidence that the apparent randomness of the position of quantum particles gives human beings free will. Here’s a hint: there is no such evidence. So you have faith that someday science will come up with such an explanation? Lol! By the way, since when has randomness had anything to do with free will? Let’s take your statement at face value for argument’s sake and assume that randomness at the quantum level somehow translate into randomness in our brains. Acting randomly is free will? So some random neuron fires in my brain making me act a certain way, and therefore I am free. Wow. Thanks for showing us all how believing in your non-scientific view on this “frees” us from the bonds of our theistic delusions.

Most of you haven’t learned at all to think for yourselves and you’re so locked up in your POV that there’s really no point in trying to argue/convert so many of you at the same time on these forums.

If learning to think for oneself means what you’ve been doing here, believing in things on blind faith, then I’d rather not. The feeling is mutual. I’m not trying to convert you, just to show how self-contradictory your arguments are for the benefit of others.

And if you didn’t notice, I didn’t mean for that thread to be an argument thread, I only wanted to see what people thought about the videos I posted but some jerk had to come mess it up!

Am I the jerk? As I recall I encouraged Christians to view the videos because I thought it would strengthen their belief that atheism is irrational.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

Originally Posted by GuanYuWarGod
*I find atheism an invaluable tool in understanding Catholicsm and theology in general. *

I am with GuanYuWarGod on this one. If you study atheism you find the world very lonely and cruel…

Now I am supremely confused!

GuanYuWarGod is saying here that atheism is a good tool (it is not only just good, but invaluable, meaning a tool of immeasurable value, an essential tool) for understanding Catholicism and theology in general.

Now you are saying you agree with this, but that studying atheism leads one to conclude that the world is very lonely and cruel. Are you saying that this is a good thing?

Thank you.

 

[steveandersen]

Now I am supremely confused!

GuanYuWarGod is saying here that atheism is a good tool (it is not only just good, but invaluable, meaning a tool of immeasurable value, an essential tool) for understanding Catholicism and theology in general.

Now you are saying you agree with this, but that studying atheism leads one to conclude that the world is very lonely and cruel. Are you saying that this is a good thing?

Thank you.

It sounds like they are using it as a reverse barometer.
If atheistic writing portrays the world as cold and lonely then that is one more comforting thing about faith?

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

It sounds like they are using it as a reverse barometer.
If atheistic writing portrays the world as cold and lonely then that is one more comforting thing about faith?

Makes sense to me. Right with what Chesterton said.

 

[homeric]

If anyone can give me some links for appropriate websites, or just give me assertions for theism (I deal with atheists on a day-to-day basis) I would be very appreciative.

God Bless

An excellent way to spark intelligent dialog with atheists is to ask them to carefully read and evaluate Aquinas’ Third Way:

“The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.”

Source

 

[irish1]

How do I respond to an athiest who contends that religion was invented by people to deal with their fear of death?