Dishonest Apologetics

[anEvilAtheist]

If one goes on a quest to see what goes on the deepest part of the ocean he must commit to actually going there. I am not sure atheists actually go where God is. It’s like " I want to see what is at the bottom of the ocean but I want to stay on the surface."

Where do you think I should look? I have tried examining the reasons top apologists give for why people should believe in God and just haven’t found any good reasons. If you have suggestions for arguments that I might not have heard, I’d be happy to take a look. Though if you send me book recommendations, i can’t promise I’ll have a chance to read all of them.

But if I really look hard, and nobody has any good reasons to think God exists, then I have to conclude that there probably is no God (at least by the Catholic understanding of God). If God did not actually give people enough evidence to realize he exists, then it would seem evil to punish people for disbelief. Also, I can’t prove that there aren’t millions of crafty unicorns living in the U.S. who always manage to avoid detection, but I see no reason to believe in them. I’m always open to hearing new reasons to believe in God, but I think it makes sense to reject (at least tentatively) a belief if there is no reason to think it is true.

 

[buffalo]

Where do you think I should look? I have tried examining the reasons top apologists give for why people should believe in God and just haven’t found any good reasons. If you have suggestions for arguments that I might not have heard, I’d be happy to take a look. Though if you send me book recommendations, i can’t promise I’ll have a chance to read all of them.

But if I really look hard, and nobody has any good reasons to think God exists, then I have to conclude that there probably is no God (at least by the Catholic understanding of God). If God did not actually give people enough evidence to realize he exists, then it would seem evil to punish people for disbelief. Also, I can’t prove that there aren’t millions of crafty unicorns living in the U.S. who always manage to avoid detection, but I see no reason to believe in them. I’m always open to hearing new reasons to believe in God, but I think it makes sense to reject (at least tentatively) a belief if there is no reason to think it is true.

Say the rosary daily and go to Mass weekly for 1 year.

 

[Godfollower]

Thanks for your post. I’m glad you also oppose making bad arguments. I’ve heard some people say that they know a certain argument for God doesn’t quite work, but they still use it anyway in an attempt to kind of “trick” someone into belief. I strongly oppose stuff like this, just like I strongly oppose things like Zeitgeist that use lies to get people to abandon belief.

I don’t agree with your criticism of my criticism of Pascal’s Wager, so I’ll go ahead and criticize it. You say that the situations where God does not exist “don’t matter because they result in non-existence after death.” If this life is all that I will ever have, then every second is precious. I cherish every day that I get to spend with friends and family and all the wonderful things that I have the chance to learn about the world. If there is no God, I would rather spend my free time with those I love than praying to a non-existent being. An hour or two a week adds up to quite a lot over the course of a lifetime.

But as you point out, there are certainly other problems with Pascal’s Wager. I completely agree that one can’t always choose what to believe, and that God probably wouldn’t be convinced by someone’s attempt to fake it.

It makes me think of a hypothetical. Let’s say someone had a machine that could determine exactly what I believed and offered to give me one billion dollars if I could make myself believe that invisible pink unicorns exist by the end of the year. I just don’t think there is any way I could make myself believe that.

Sorry; I meant that, for purposes of analyzing Pascal’s Wager, those two options don’t matter because belief or unbelief won’t result in consequences afterward. Of course there could be effects during life, such as those you point out.

Your belief-detector analogy involving the pink unicorns is exactly my point with Pascal’s Wager, and it’s one of the reasons the whole convert-or-die threat seen in various religions is so immoral; they boil down to “Lie to my all-knowing God about your belief in Him, or I’ll kill you” – what an incredible lack of respect for your own deity!

If you were to take an apologetics course in a Catholic theology department, the section on “arguments for the existence of God” would include Pascal’s Wager – only to be followed up by a here’s-what’s-wrong-with-this-argument section explaining why an apologist should not use it.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I was just pointing out that both are acts of faith.

Well I guess it depends on how you define faith. You could say that I am believing on faith that I am not merely a brain in a jar. If this would be included in your definition of faith then I agree with you. But there are some very basic assumptions we have to make just to function in the world. If we did not think that our senses gave us a somewhat reliable indication of reality then there would be no reason why we should expect that committing murder would likely cause one to end up in jail, instead of causing one to become the king of Spain. So I accept that my senses may be very imperfect, but I think it makes more sense to believe that what my senses tell me is true, then to believe that they are always disceiving me, and the truth is always the opposite of what they tell me. So I guess this is my one important belief that is based on “faith”.

But given this belief, when all of my experiences show that something is probably not true, it doesn’t make sense for me to believe that it is true. I believe labels because of experience, but my experience tells me that religion is probably false.

If Christianity is false, Mass being ineffectual will never be realized.

I agree, but the point is not to be able to say “I told you so” when it’s all over; the point is to get the most out of whatever life we do have.

 

[buffalo]

Well I guess it depends on how you define faith. You could say that I am believing on faith that I am not merely a brain in a jar. If this would be included in your definition of faith then I agree with you. But there are some very basic assumptions we have to make just to function in the world. If we did not think that our senses gave us a somewhat reliable indication of reality then there would be no reason why we should expect that committing murder would likely cause one to end up in jail, instead of causing one to become the king of Spain. So I accept that my senses may be very imperfect, but I think it makes more sense to believe that what my senses tell me is true, then to believe that they are always disceiving me, and the truth is always the opposite of what they tell me. So I guess this is my one important belief that is based on “faith”.

But given this belief, when all of my experiences show that something is probably not true, it doesn’t make sense for me to believe that it is true. I believe labels because of experience, but my experience tells me that religion is probably false.

I agree, but the point is not to be able to say “I told you so” when it’s all over; the point is to get the most out of whatever life we do have.

A Brain in a Vat

 

[anEvilAtheist]

So far… you mean.

Sure, anything is possible. But I could say the same about you. Maybe you could realize atheism is correct once you consider the arguments better. To me, saying something like that comes off as slightly condescending, but I guess when you believe you have truth on your side you think there is always a chance someone will come around and see the light.

My post was a whole thought, you have to try and keep all of it in mind as one thought; the beginning for many is when God calls a person, a ‘call’ quite often is just an attraction to Him. But if one finds no attraction towards Him, has no reason to want Him, and sees no reason to believe in Him, and is preparing themselves to abandon the effort then I do not see how one will find anything, regardless of how sincerely one thinks a test is made.
Its very interesting that we search for ‘a person’ who knows our thoughts, even before we know them; its difficult for us to continue to the end in the search, or to be prepared to continue, but that is what is asked. When the faith of the jews who were disciples of Christ was tested by Christ, saying to them that they must eat His flesh, He saw their thoughts, saw their confusion and reluctance. He did not give in and let the person dictate what the outcome was to be, He, rather, pushed home more forcefully to them the challenge that they must indeed eat His flesh. Their problem was that they were not prepared for His challenge, they gave up. The Christian God, if thats who you seek, may just challenge you also not to give up, because He knows you, the only way you can hope to prove Him wrong, that He won’t keep His promise to be found by you, is, if *you *do not give up. He knows your thoughts, He set the rules of ‘seek’ and the ball is in our court now. Do we take up the challenge, respond to it knowing we cannot fail, or do we give up like those disciples before we even start.

Well I certainly want to know him if he exists. I’d much rather spend eternity in heaven than hell if Christianity is true. But I can’t force myself to believe something without any reason to believe it, and I have not yet found good evidence. If you have any good reasons why I should believe God exists, let me know. In any case, I will continue to consider new arguments, but based on what I’ve seen so far, I think it is exceedingly unlikely that I will ever become a believer; just like you’re sure you will never become an atheist.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Say the rosary daily and go to Mass weekly for 1 year

The problem with this is it only makes sense if I have some evidence that Christianity is true. I am sure that you did not spend one year observing Muslim religious practices before concluding that Islam is not true. Without some reason to suspect that Catholicism is the religion most likely to be correct, I’d have no way to narrow down the religions I should focus on. If I was a Scientologist and said that the only way to realize that Scientology is correct is to go to their church every week and take their classes, you’d say that’s absurd.

A Brain in a Vat

I actually have come across this argument before. I remember finding problems with it the last time I looked at it. It’s a complicated argument though, so I’ll take another look at it and post what I think about it once I get the chance.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Sorry; I meant that, for purposes of analyzing Pascal’s Wager, those two options don’t matter because belief or unbelief won’t result in consequences afterward. Of course there could be effects during life, such as those you point out.

Your belief-detector analogy involving the pink unicorns is exactly my point with Pascal’s Wager, and it’s one of the reasons the whole convert-or-die threat seen in various religions is so immoral; they boil down to “Lie to my all-knowing God about your belief in Him, or I’ll kill you” – what an incredible lack of respect for your own deity!

If you were to take an apologetics course in a Catholic theology department, the section on “arguments for the existence of God” would include Pascal’s Wager – only to be followed up by a here’s-what’s-wrong-with-this-argument section explaining why an apologist should not use it.

I’m glad to hear that professional Catholic theologians do not use the argument, but I mentioned it because it seems to crop up whenever God is being discussed. I wonder whether or not books intended for the average Catholic include the wager. There must be some place that everyone is getting it from. It’s just hard to have a fruitful discussion with a lot of believers about God because they get stuck on bad arguments and have not deeply thought about the arguments they are using.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

We got a little bit off topic with discussions of other religious arguments, but I was wondering if anyone else had an opinion about whether it’s ever justified to use invalid arguments to convince someone about whether God exists. I still haven’t heard from an atheist. I’d be curious if the atheists posting here agree with staying away from bad arguments and agree with me that the arguments I mentioned don’t work.

 

[CSUNGerrie]

To use invalid arguments assuming you know they are invalid I take it?
Hmm… interesting question. On the one hand, I say yes because it may get them on the spiritual path to God where they will eventually come across good arguments. However, I dont think it is right to start someone off using an argument that you clearly know is false. The truth is enough.

As for Pascal’s wager and the disrespect paid to God by coming to him through it… i would disagree. So many have been saved because our Lord stooped to conquer. I feel like I could turn to most Christians who dont like pascals wager and say, “so your saying you only believe in God because he sent his one and only son to die on the cross for you, that is really disrespectful.” But like I said, it seems that God may rejoice even if one of his lost sheeps come in through fear and trembling. In the story of the prodigal son, the father did not say, “hmmph… your only coming back because your starving.” Instead, he embraced his son with both his arms.

That story of the prodigal son has been one of the most powerful arguments I have heard. It is difficult to argue against Love like that. Ultimately, I feel that we do not come to know truth so much through answers and arguments that solve a problem. Problems only give us answers. It is through mysteries that we find life. Because mysteries question us. “What is Love, Who is God, Why is there pain in the world, What is the meaning of life” these are mysterious because they will question us instead of waiting for us to question them. And the other reason one can get to truth better through a mystery than through a argument to a problem is that, with a problem you get an answer. But with a mystery you get an answerer. Just like Job. He got no answers or nice, water tight arguments. Instead, he got an answerer which satisfied him more deeply than any possible answer. Or look at Christ. He gave very little answers because they were nothing in comparison of the gift of himself. He gave us a lover gift. A gift that touches the deepest yearning inside the human heart.

The way I think about it is this… say your on your death bed dying of cancer. You might cringe with pain and want answers for why you are dying. And a group of professionals consisting of a doctor, a philosopher, a biologist and a psychologist might give you several answers. But that will mean nothing. because once you have your answer, you realize it wasnt what you were really looking for. Whereas, if your mother, or wife, or brother simply sits by your bed side and holds on to your hand, that is far more precious than any answer you could have received. And in Christianity, we get this story about a God who so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son. That pierces the heart for in him we realize that what we wanted more than anything else was an answerer, a savior. What we wanted most of all was God.

 

[wxboss]

Where do you think I should look? I have tried examining the reasons top apologists give for why people should believe in God and just haven’t found any good reasons. If you have suggestions for arguments that I might not have heard, I’d be happy to take a look. Though if you send me book recommendations, i can’t promise I’ll have a chance to read all of them.

But if I really look hard, and nobody has any good reasons to think God exists, then I have to conclude that there probably is no God (at least by the Catholic understanding of God). If God did not actually give people enough evidence to realize he exists, then it would seem evil to punish people for disbelief. Also, I can’t prove that there aren’t millions of crafty unicorns living in the U.S. who always manage to avoid detection, but I see no reason to believe in them. I’m always open to hearing new reasons to believe in God, but I think it makes sense to reject (at least tentatively) a belief if there is no reason to think it is true.

EvilAthiest,

Firstly, I think you do yourself an injustice by adopting a user name like that. The fact that you have doubts and are posting on a Catholic forum and appear to be looking for a reasonable explanation does not make you evil, just inquisitive. So the recommendation I would give for your user name would be DiligentSeeker. It’s important that you don’t exaggerate what is true.

You could quite possibly spend more than a lifetime reading everything that every mystic, philosopher or saint has written in order to find the truth, but you must first pin down what it is that you are really looking for if you want any chance of actually finding it. Taking a trip from one part of the country to another (unfamiliar) part requires a map (among other things) and planning. A course of action is required ahead of time in order to arrive at a desired destination.

I was intrigued by your argument about ‘crafty unicorns’ inhabiting this country. You took what you thought to be an impossibility and raised a possibility from it. It was the notion that something unexplainable might actually exist even though the explanation for its existence might not satisfy what most people would require. One of the greatest proofs in my mind that we (humans) were created uniquely from everything else is contained in the fact that we inherited the ability to create from our Creator. Monkeys don’t erect statues to their honored ancestors. Birds don’t write concertos in tribute to their greatest singers. Only humans are given the capacity to create which leaves us with the question of why this particular talent has been given only to us?

I would really like to present you with an answer that would satisfy all of your questions. The truth is, that you and I are more alike than we are different. Both of us continue to question what we know and seek answers for what we still do not know. Personally, I believe that the reason we seek to know what we don’t know is due to an ideal that there is something beyond what we know which compels us to discover it. After all, if life and thought were nothing more than mere naturalistic and mechanical processes, then there would be no reason to question those processes.

As to your question about possible resources, my initial suggestion would be the book Orthodoxy, by G. K. Chesterton. While there are religious references littered throughout the book, it is by no means as saturated as the name suggests. Chapters such as; The Ethics of Elfland, The Maniac, The Suicide of Thought present good arguments not only about Orthodoxy itself but about the current state of humanity and contemporary thought in society (which is especially intriguing considering it was written almost 100 years ago).

I apologize if my response has been a bit haphazard, but it is late and I need some rest.

There is nothing wrong with questioning things, but true ignorance can not support itself too long under a multitude of questions. At some point, something begins to emerge.

 

[LilyM]

I agree with you that the penaties for being wrong are worse if Catholicism is true, but I wouldn’t trivialize the penalties of believing in Catholicism if it is false by comparing them to being wrong about a can of beans. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to spend an hour a week digging holes in the ground and filling them back in for the rest of your life. If Catholicism is definitely false, than going to mass is similarly ineffectual. It might have the side benefit of making you stronger, just like going to mass might give you a sense of community, but I think the benefits would not be worth the costs for most people.

What costs? If I dig holes up and fill them in again as a form of exercise it costs me no more than any other form of exercise would, and I get the benefits of improved health. In fact it costs me a lot less than many forms of exercise.

Unlike going to a gym, where I spend a fair chunk of change for the privilege of walking on treadmills, using stair machines and stationary cycles without the benefit of getting anywhere, unlike actual walking, staircases and bicycles. And, as I said, at the cost of the gym membership.

In terms of being Catholic? Or holding to any other faith, for that matter? What costs? There may be a few behaviours that I might otherwise legitimately indulge in that I would deny myself, sure. But so does any athlete, for example. Interestingly, a number of them hold to the old belief in abstaining from sex before a game/competition - so there may be a physical benefit to so doing.

So do people in certain professions - actors used to have to abide by morals clauses in their contracts. Public figures I am sure sometimes refrain from at least some extremely scandalous behaviours for fear of losing office that those whose position does not depend on popularity, can freely indulge in. Lawyers and doctors are more heavily scrutinised in terms of ethics and character than your average Joe as well.

Even in terms of accepting certain tenets - again, politicians have to accept the philosophical bases of the parties they are members of. Economists have to accept certain theories and principles as given, even when events such as the recent crash show us how ill-based a lot of them are. People versed in other branches of knowledge similarly.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

EvilAthiest,

Firstly, I think you do yourself an injustice by adopting a user name like that. The fact that you have doubts and are posting on a Catholic forum and appear to be looking for a reasonable explanation does not make you evil, just inquisitive. So the recommendation I would give for your user name would be DiligentSeeker. It’s important that you don’t exaggerate what is true.

Well I didn’t pick that username because I actually consider myself evil. I just thought that it would be eye catching, and some people might find it funny (especially since I’m not a troll). But the other part of it is that I am not ashamed of being an atheist and have no problem including the word “atheist” in my name. I don’t recall ever saying that I have doubts about whether God exists. I do not believe that we can know any fact with absolute certainty, but I would not say I have doubts about whether the sky is blue. I am always open to learning new things that contradict my old beliefs, but right now I am pretty confident that God does not exist.

I was intrigued by your argument about ‘crafty unicorns’ inhabiting this country. You took what you thought to be an impossibility and raised a possibility from it. It was the notion that something unexplainable might actually exist even though the explanation for its existence might not satisfy what most people would require. One of the greatest proofs in my mind that we (humans) were created uniquely from everything else is contained in the fact that we inherited the ability to create from our Creator. Monkeys don’t erect statues to their honored ancestors. Birds don’t write concertos in tribute to their greatest singers. Only humans are given the capacity to create which leaves us with the question of why this particular talent has been given only to us?

I respectfully disagree with your statement that the ability of humans to create is strong evidence of God. If God does not exist, it seems very plausible that we evolved to the level of intelligence that allows us to do things like create. And while you don’t see other animals building cars or making computers, there are animals who create things (dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1180052/Karta-ingenious-orangutan-escaped-cage-short-circuiting-electric-fence-stick.html).

I would really like to present you with an answer that would satisfy all of your questions. The truth is, that you and I are more alike than we are different. Both of us continue to question what we know and seek answers for what we still do not know. Personally, I believe that the reason we seek to know what we don’t know is due to an ideal that there is something beyond what we know which compels us to discover it. After all, if life and thought were nothing more than mere naturalistic and mechanical processes, then there would be no reason to question those processes.

I think that one possible reason we search for explanations for things is that trying to better understand the world helped our species survive. I don’t really follow your argument that there would be no reason to question those processes. Would it be possible to expand on it?

As to your question about possible resources, my initial suggestion would be the book Orthodoxy, by G. K. Chesterton. While there are religious references littered throughout the book, it is by no means as saturated as the name suggests. Chapters such as; The Ethics of Elfland, The Maniac, The Suicide of Thought present good arguments not only about Orthodoxy itself but about the current state of humanity and contemporary thought in society (which is especially intriguing considering it was written almost 100 years ago).

Thanks for the recommendation. I’ll check it out.

There is nothing wrong with questioning things, but true ignorance can not support itself too long under a multitude of questions. At some point, something begins to emerge.

I guess I’ll find out.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

What costs? If I dig holes up and fill them in again as a form of exercise it costs me no more than any other form of exercise would, and I get the benefits of improved health. In fact it costs me a lot less than many forms of exercise.

Unlike going to a gym, where I spend a fair chunk of change for the privilege of walking on treadmills, using stair machines and stationary cycles without the benefit of getting anywhere, unlike actual walking, staircases and bicycles. And, as I said, at the cost of the gym membership.

Well, if people actually preferred digging holes to other forms of exercise, then you’d see a lot more people digging holes. But even if the difference is not huge, the fact that no one actually does this shows that there are other things they’d rather be doing with their time.

In terms of being Catholic? Or holding to any other faith, for that matter? What costs? There may be a few behaviours that I might otherwise legitimately indulge in that I would deny myself, sure. But so does any athlete, for example. Interestingly, a number of them hold to the old belief in abstaining from sex before a game/competition - so there may be a physical benefit to so doing.

So do people in certain professions - actors used to have to abide by morals clauses in their contracts. Public figures I am sure sometimes refrain from at least some extremely scandalous behaviours for fear of losing office that those whose position does not depend on popularity, can freely indulge in. Lawyers and doctors are more heavily scrutinised in terms of ethics and character than your average Joe as well.

Even in terms of accepting certain tenets - again, politicians have to accept the philosophical bases of the parties they are members of. Economists have to accept certain theories and principles as given, even when events such as the recent crash show us how ill-based a lot of them are. People versed in other branches of knowledge similarly.

I focused on the time spent at mass because that is the most clear-cut example. However, it’s also possible that you could be worse off due to following Catholic moral teachings. For example, I think that married people should be able to have sex as much as they want, and should not be prohibited from using contraception. I don’t really think your analogy works, because all of those are examples of willingly sacrificing in order to attain a desirable outcome. But if God does not exist, then there is no purpose for which you are sacrificing, and it doesn’t make sense.

 

[VociMike]

Another atheist argument that I think is logically flawed is the statement that because evolution can explain why people have religious beliefs, those religious beliefs must be false. If God exists, he could simply have made us this way in order to make it easier to realize that he exists. So it shows why people might believe in God even if he doesn’t exist, but it does not show that God is merely imaginary.

This is an interesting topic, because I don’t agree that evolution does explain religious beliefs. In one sense, people can explain anything by inventing some evolutionary explanation. Thus for example one can come up with evolutionary arguments showing that monogamy has evolutionary advantage, and one can come up with evolutionary arguments showing that promiscuous sex has evolutionary advantages. Well, which is it? And it’s easy to come up with a long list of similarly contradictory behaviors that can be “proven” through evolutionary arguments.

But I find it hard to believe that believing in non-existent beings, and devoting great time, treasure and talent to these non-existent beings, can offer evolutionary advantages that cannot be gotten in other less costly ways. And I would invoke Occam’s Razor here to bolster my argument that belief in non-existent beings is not the most efficient or logical explanation for the behaviors that are said to follow such belief.

Another argument that just doesn’t work is Pascal’s Wager, which says that an atheist loses nothing if he accepts Catholicism and has everything to gain if it turns out to be true. Because of this, an atheist should supposedly try to believe. One problem is that religion isn’t completely costless (going to mass, giving money to the church). So in order for the wager to work, there must be some evidence that Catholicism is true, otherwise we should give all our money to anyone who walks up to us on the street and says that he will somehow give us infinite happiness in exchange. Since there are many contradictory religions, someone would have to consider every possible religion, and pick the one with the most evidence. It would take more than one lifetime to thoroughly consider the evidence for the many thousands of religions (and only considering the most popular is not good enough). So this does not really work as a way of deciding what to believe, and it really all comes down to whether the evidence for Catholicism is enough to conclude that it is probably true. Pascal’s Wager is an attempt to get people to accept weaker evidence, but it only works if people already have good enough evidence to convince them that Catholicism is probably true, in which case the wager is not needed.

Two thoughts here. First, if there is some God who desires to make himself known to us, we must assume that he has arranged things so that it would not take more than one lifetime to do so. Otherwise that God is simply incompetent.

As for Pascal’s Wager, it must be understood to be simply a starting point. I don’t think anybody should become a Christian because of Pascal’s Wager, but I do think that it can get people thinking about the consequences that follow if the Christian view is true.

Finally, regarding the question of evidence, I find that atheistic arguments on that score to be especially weak and one-sided. What atheists don’t realize, or actively deny, is that their position is every bit as much based on faith (belief in things not proven) as the theistic (Christian, since that’s what I believe) position.

Let me explain. Both Christians and atheists must account for the existence of the world (that is, for everything). The existence of the universe, life, human beings is the starting point. Christians offer an explanation, a First Explanation, and they offer evidence (whether you accept that evidence is another question, but the fact is that they do offer evidence).

But atheists offer no such First Explanation for the existence of the world. They simply take it as a given. They take it as a matter of faith. They offer no evidence that the existence of the world has a “natural” First Explanation, but at the same time the challenge the evidence that is offered by Christians. Thus atheists display a stark double standard on the evidence question.

And not the least of that Christian evidence is the fact that people who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the teachings and workings of God Incarnate allowed themselves to be brutally persecuted and often killed rather than recant that eyewitness testimony. Where is the logic in such behavior, if they had just made it up?

 

[VociMike]

Thanks for the recommendation. I’ll check it out.

If you’re open to reading recommendations (as it sounds you are), I’ve got to mention one of my very favorite books, C.S. Lewis’ “Surprised by Joy”. It is his spiritual autobiography from “cultural Christian” childhood to atheist adulthood to the conclusion that God exists, a conclusion that left him “perhaps the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England.” How could anybody not want to read such a tale?

The book is not at all preachy as you might justly fear. It is simply a fascinating story on many levels. If you take pleasure in meeting other unique minds, you’ll take pleasure in reading Lewis’ story.

 

[AndyF]

Another argument that just doesn’t work is Pascal’s Wager, which says that an atheist loses nothing if he accepts Catholicism and has everything to gain if it turns out to be true. Because of this, an atheist should supposedly try to believe

What’s wrong with stacking the cards?. You do that every day as a protection. You stop running and turn to a walk when you approach a cliff’s edge. We hope to place things in our favor to lessen risk.

Since you seem to be interested in a one on one with others, one thing atheists can never explain, that is, based on atheistic precepts they have in common, is what benefit does it give him to waste limited finite time on a forum here? Isn’t the reason “stacking the cards”?. So we can agree there is a risk isn’t there.?

It’s nice to be able to say “there isn’t an Authority over me”. But it would be wise to find out first,…just in case. So logic would suggest to cover all bases …just in case. The problem with this is that the Authority is demanding and expects us to have a life long commitment to his will, which includes worship, and everything will be judged based on what we have done throughout life. This is not to say that those who come to a decision to obey at the last second can not be accepted, but it sure would increase the odds if one found out and obeyed earlier.

The next thing is debating. There are two realities we deal with in this world, the experiential (see,hear,touch,experience,etc) and the mystical. Catholics debate the mystical on informational data they have received from above, and only such data that can even be understood on this plane of existence, the explanation itself being, “as good as it gets” (love that Nicholson phrase!,). So asking someone to prove some arguments are pretty well mute, and we also go by anything God says is the bottom line.

So I can’t see the reasoning. A person who by his own admission finds it a waste of time to believe and wastes it in other ways doesn’t seem to make sense. I think the only recourse is to (“believe,so that you may understand”, Aug.), which is logical in both ideals, and, which I can honestly say you are on the right track being here, and you cannot be faulted for that reason.

Andy

I

 

[Thing]

Sure, anything is possible. But I could say the same about you. Maybe you could realize atheism is correct once you consider the arguments better. To me, saying something like that comes off as slightly condescending, but I guess when you believe you have truth on your side you think there is always a chance someone will come around and see the light.

Well I certainly want to know him if he exists. I’d much rather spend eternity in heaven than hell if Christianity is true. But I can’t force myself to believe something without any reason to believe it, and I have not yet found good evidence. If you have any good reasons why I should believe God exists, let me know. In any case, I will continue to consider new arguments, but based on what I’ve seen so far, I think it is exceedingly unlikely that I will ever become a believer; just like you’re sure you will never become an atheist.

But you already have a reason to continue exploring Catholicism. Very simple; here - you - are.
Did you expect to be smitten from heaven with a bolt of lightening. The best evidence for anything is simply finding yourself in the middle of it. And here you are in the middle of a Catholic Apologetics forum; would you be here if you did not want to be here.
Why are you not on an Islamic website forum or a scientology web forum, or a protestant web forum, there are probably more protestants in the US than Catholics.

Nobody is suggesting you try and force yourself to believe something you don’t, I would’nt bother with that at all, I am suggesting only you consider why you picked on Catholicism, and why you’d bother thinking about God or religion in any case. 'Cause I don’t know why you’d bother if you were not interested somehow. And that very interest in itself is a reason to continue, because that interest is something real, which can be persued, just on its own merits.
And as I said before, Christianity comes with a built-in guarantee that you will succeed.
So I see a reason for you to continue, if you wish.

 

[wasmit]

We got a little bit off topic with discussions of other religious arguments, but I was wondering if anyone else had an opinion about whether it’s ever justified to use invalid arguments to convince someone about whether God exists. I still haven’t heard from an atheist. I’d be curious if the atheists posting here agree with staying away from bad arguments and agree with me that the arguments I mentioned don’t work.

I label myself as agnostic.

The arguemnts in the OP obviously contain logical fallacies, and are therefore false.

I would not use arguments that I know are wrong, because it is dishonest. I have probably used arguments that are invalid, but I do not see that they are invalid. I would stop using a particular argument that is shown to be wrong.

If someone is persuaded by your invalid argument, they will eventually find out that the argument is wrong, and resent you and the cause you are arguing for. Ignoring the dishonesty aspect, this tactic(lying) just doesn’t work.

It frustrates me when a person’s argument is shown to be false, but they ignore the criticism and keep using that argument that they know is wrong. e.g. Kent Hovind.

 

[wasmit]

I was intrigued by your argument about ‘crafty unicorns’ inhabiting this country. You took what you thought to be an impossibility and raised a possibility from it. It was the notion that something unexplainable might actually exist even though the explanation for its existence might not satisfy what most people would require. One of the greatest proofs in my mind that we (humans) were created uniquely from everything else is contained in the fact that we inherited the ability to create from our Creator. Monkeys don’t erect statues to their honored ancestors. Birds don’t write concertos in tribute to their greatest singers. Only humans are given the capacity to create which leaves us with the question of why this particular talent has been given only to us?

Orangutan creates ladder. See news story.