Dishonest Apologetics

[anEvilAtheist]

If you do not discount the possibility that there is something outside the known physical world, why would you discount the possibility that that something that is outside the known physical world is the God of the Bible?

I don’t think there is good evidence in favor of the Bible being true and the Christian God existing. I think Christianity, like all other religions, is man-made. Given the sheer number of claims that the Bible makes about God, even if there was something supernatural, I think the chances are infinitesimal that it would happen to be the God of the Bible. I also think that there are apparent contradictions between benevolence and evil, hell, and non-believers that make me think the Catholic God is even less likely.

 

[Zlatan]

Im not an atheist but I tend to agree with you some Christians do have some dishonest apologetics, (especially evangelicals when it comes to evolution)

 

[benedictus2]

WOW!

You know, you can go on looking at science for proof of the existence of God but you need to look at God for proof of the existence of science! LOL!

Good one Cinnette!

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t ‘know’ that what I embrace is the truth. It’s merely where the evidence has led me.

But you said: " But even if atheism was worse, I think it is better to embrace the truth.". You therefore presume that Atheism is truth. You say this is where evidence has led you but in your previous posts to counter evidence from science you have brought up a lot of speculation which no one would call evidence.

So it seems when the evidence may be against atheism it is okay to debunk the evidence with speculation so that you can hold on to Atheism.

 

[mary1173]

Yes indeed, my argument (because its not really mine) has never been successfully refuted; consider this:
-Have you posted this questioning post on web forums of each and all world religions? If your answer is no, please list which religous forums you have posted this exact question to.
-Have you found you have only posted this exact question on a Catholic forum?
-Are you aware that Catholicism teaches that God alone leads a person to Himself.
-Are you here because you find some attraction in some part of Catholicism; or an attraction in debating Catholicism - which you might not find with debating atheists, or pagans or sun worshippers or hindus etc.
-You are aware that you must be strictly honest with yourself; that does not mean you need to answer anybodys questions, just your own.
-No doubt you know that a central tenet of Christs teaching, and Catholicisms, is that old familliar ‘seek and you shall find’.
-Catholicism is therefore the simplist of ‘religions’ to prove to oneself. Its founder, ‘God’, states categorically that anyone who seeks Him will find Him. In other words, the Almighty Creator of the Universe has given you a cast iron guarantee that you will find Him if you look.

To recap; A man is called to God by God. Gods ‘call’ to man is often a sense of attraction to what is His. If one finds oneself on Catholic websites reading and debating, one may wish to consider if there is something there. Then, with a strictly honest answer to oneself, if in the affirmative, it is a simple matter of clasping ones courage in both hands and casting out into the deep; seeking, with the guarantee of finding.

You took the words right out of my mouth! One only need be called by God to want to know Him, to love Him, and to follow His commandments. Accepting God’s existence is not a contest to physically find Him…But to know Him on a Spiritual level
Have a great day!

 

[Cinette]

Yeah, I didn’t realize you were talking about Lourdes. The problem I have with Lourdes is that we have no way of knowing if the number of unexplainable remissions …

I have read that there are many thousands of people who have been to Lourdes and claim that it changed their lives. There are miracles yes, but there are countless healings: physical, spiritual and psychological. Not every healing is made public submitted to scrutiny and authentication. You speak of remission… If a person who has been in a wheelchair for decades gets up and walks, is that misleading? And those who see after a lifetime of blindness? I wonder what you would consider a miracle?

Whenever I have knowledge of an event or occurrence I have noticed how the reporting in the newspapers differs radically from the truth. I have come to the conclusion that unfortunately the Media is not to be trusted. There are dishonest journalists who invent stories. There are, of course, some excellent journalists and often they are tarred with the same brush as their dishonest colleagues. So I say to myself maybe I can believe about 30-40% of what appears in the media. The dilemma is which 30 or 40%? So I might discount or reject some of the truth while embracing some untruths which means I get to believe only 20% of the truth of what I read because I have no way of knowing which is truth and which is opinion or fabrication.

Faith is a choice also. I choose to believe because of trust and also the evidence I have of God’s existence, although Faith itself is a mystery. One just believes without proof. Faith is also an emotion – it is love. It is intangible. For me the evidence is creation – all the things I see and observe and experience. The transformation in my life and the lives of those I know is further evidence.

So it appears to me Atheist that your atheism is also your choice in a way (not entirely but to an extent). I mentioned Padre Pio and you have chosen to believe the negative and not the positive. I am being polite in my choice of words when I say negative!

My husband was sent some articles from American Atheist with which he was rather disappointed because he examined them critically. He feels that media practitioners are mostly atheists because of a certain rebellion which captures one as one travels into adulthood. Just as some people are religious without a thorough examination of what is at stake, journalists and many intellectuals also base their atheism on insufficient evidence basing their atheism on a superficial examination. Of course, he says that there are many atheists who perform a thorough examination and continue to be atheists. He says that Karl Marx was not one of them in spite of his genius. Marx said that “Religion was the opium of the people” but his examination was superficial.

And I know the Church is careful about ruling something a miracle,… No - the Church has a responsibility to propagate truth always. So I don’t think the fact that there’s an elaborate process for declaring something is a miracle is proof that it is a miracle.Again one has to make a distinction between miracles and healing - healing is a process and can take time and intervention of doctors (one prays that the Doctor or Surgeon’s diagnosis is correct etc.) A miracle is BOOM! You have the result of a test which is negative over time and then suddenly the prognosis is positive - you will not die after all and all tests and x-rays deny the existance of your disease! Your cancer is gone, you are no longer Disbetic, your heart is strong, whatever…

I’ve definitely done some research on him. But given the countless books that have been written about him, I’m sure I’ve only scratched the surface… I like your honesty and the fact that you do not ignore these things. Believe it or no I left the Church and turned my back on God for 27 years and was simply not interested. You at least seek the truth and I commend you because you will find the truth. You will be blessed with the gift of faith.

But it’s really hard to know who is honest and who isn’t in the modern world, let alone decades ago. You can say that again. There were a lot of seemingly good people who thought Padre Pio was a fraud. Even Catholic sources acknowledge that a lot of church leaders at the time thought he was a fraud I have spoken to many people about PP. It was said that when a miracle was about to take place there would be a strong purfume of roses in the air. This is a curious thing. Some years ago a baby was stolen from her Mother from the Maternity Ward in a hospital here in South Africa. There was a big search on. Someone from our Parish who knew the grandparents told us that they said that they smelt a strong perfume of roses (no roses in the garden - it was winter) and about a week later the child was found. I am not sure but it might have been about 2 years since the baby was stolen. Now you can think what you like but this happened. The grandparents said a novena to Padre Pio asking for his intercession. We Catholics believe in intercession - we believe in the Communionof Saints. We are a “peculiar” lot we are. : nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word1228.htm .

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t think there is good evidence in favor of the Bible being true and the Christian God existing. I think Christianity, like all other religions, is man-made.

But this does not answer my question.

You said that you do not discount the possibility that there is something outside the knowable physical world.

So I asked, why would you discount the possibility that that something that is outside of the known physical world is the God of the Bible?

On what basis do you discount the possibility that the God of the Bible is the something that is outside of the known physical world?

I think that for you to discount this you would have put it through some reasoning process and I am wondering what that reason could be.

Given the sheer number of claims that the Bible makes about God, even if there was something supernatural, I think the chances are infinitesimal that it would happen to be the God of the Bible.

Where do you base this “I think”? What are the claims that the Bible makes about God that makes the chances infinitesimal?

I also think that there are apparent contradictions between benevolence and evil, hell, and non-believers that make me think the Catholic God is even less likely.

I this is going beyond the scope of this discussion. Before we can speak about whether the Catholic God is likely, you have to first concede that God is likely at all.

That is why the discussion gets confusing, because we jump from God creator to the God of the Bible which requires a great degree of faith.

Nonetheless, you seem to be making a distinction between the God of the Bible and the Catholic God? Am I reading that right?

 

[Cinette]

In a little book “The Universe and Dr Einstein” I found this quote by Einstein:

“My religion,” he says, “consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

 

[benedictus2]

And I know the Church is careful about ruling something a miracle, but I would expect that regardless of whether God and miracles exist. If there is no God, the Church would still want to avoid declaring something a miracle and having it later disproven because that would make them look bad. So I don’t think the fact that there’s an elaborate process for declaring something is a miracle is proof that it is a miracle.

The elaborate process is not the proof that it is a miracle. What the elaborate process does is rule out the possibility that what has occured is explanable by natural law and natural processes as verifiable by current scientific knowledge.

A miracle is simply something that defies the laws of nature. One of Padre Pio’s miracles was concerning a young girl born without pupils. Through his intercession the girl was able to see but still remained without pupils. She can see without the faculty of sight.

 

[benedictus2]

In a little book “The Universe and Dr Einstein” I found this quote by Einstein:

“My religion,” he says, “consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

Yes, the most brilliant scientific mind believes in God.

 

[Cinette]

The elaborate process is not the proof that it is a miracle. What the elaborate process does is rule out the possibility that what has occured is explanable by natural law and natural processes as verifiable by current scientific knowledge.

A miracle is simply something that defies the laws of nature. One of Padre Pio’s miracles was concerning a young girl born without pupils. Through his intercession the girl was able to see but still remained without pupils. She can see without the faculty of sight.

*Yes! * I remember that. It is amazing and, of course, would fall in the category of miracle and not healing.

 

[benedictus2]

Im not an atheist but I tend to agree with you some Christians do have some dishonest apologetics, (especially evangelicals when it comes to evolution)

Just wondering what these dishonest apologetics regarding evolution that you are talking about. Can post them here.?

 

[Surfmeister]

Yes, the most brilliant scientific mind believes in God.

I think this illustrates clearly the problem of dishonest apologetics. Einstein, from looking at all sources, didn’t believe in God as we know Him. I don’t understand the desire to get Einstein in the theist camp. Does it somehow validate your belief if ‘brilliant’ people believe? Lots of ‘brilliant’ people believe in God. I think it would be ‘smarter’ to quote ‘brilliant’ people who actually DO believe in God, not someone who believes in the power of the Universe or the god of Spinoza or whatever the heck Einstein believed in (and it wasn’t the Judeo Christian God, that’s for sure.)

 

[benedictus2]

I think this illustrates clearly the problem of dishonest apologetics. Einstein, from looking at all sources, didn’t believe in God as we know Him. I don’t understand the desire to get Einstein in the theist camp. Does it somehow validate your belief if ‘brilliant’ people believe? Lots of ‘brilliant’ people believe in God. I think it would be ‘smarter’ to quote ‘brilliant’ people who actually DO believe in God, not someone who believes in the power of the Universe or the god of Spinoza or whatever the heck Einstein believed in (and it wasn’t the Judeo Christian God, that’s for sure.)

My statement was not “apologetics”. I was not Einstein believes in God therefore it must be so.

It is a mere statement that a brilliant scientific mind like Einsteins has arrived at a belief in God and was not meant to be proof of God’s existence. If you can show that that is what I meant, please do so.

And neither did I say that the God Einstein believed in is the Judeo Christian God. You really ought to read the post properly before you reply. There was very little to read in my post so it is amazing that you came up with such conclusions based on one statement.

 

[Surfmeister]

Why bring Einstein up at all if not to use his ‘belief’ as a persuasive argument for believing?

 

[benedictus2]

Why bring Einstein up at all if not to use his ‘belief’ as a persuasive argument for believing?

If you go back to my post, you will know that I was commenting on what Cinnette wrote.

My point exactly about reading before you reply.

 

[Surfmeister]

I did read, and I think you’re both using Einstein’s ‘belief’’ to indicate that ‘if this smart person believes, then it is smart to believe’, and I think it’s a fallacy and dishonest. Your irritation with me is understandable, and I’m sorry if I’ve touched a nerve, but I have to point out what I consider to be an argument that harms and minimizes belief, rather than endorses and supports it.

 

[benedictus2]

I did read, and I think you’re both using Einstein’s ‘belief’’ to indicate that ‘if this smart person believes, then it is smart to believe’, and I think it’s a fallacy and dishonest. Your irritation with me is understandable, and I’m sorry if I’ve touched a nerve, but I have to point out what I consider to be an argument that harms and minimizes belief, rather than endorses and supports it.

No we did not say that at all. You are making way too many assumptions. I can’t speak for Cinnette but I was not saying that it is smart to believe because Einstein believed. I am just making an observation that despite Einstein being a brilliant scientist (so would more lilkely be inclined to atheism and it’s consequent demands for physical proofs) , it is quite heartwarming that he believes in God.

And here again with this post, you are jumping to conclusions. You ought to learn to ask for clarification for the writer’s intent rather than ascribing intentions which do not exist.

If you go back to the thread and read my posts, you will find that I am very far from using the line of reasoning you are currently ascribing to me.

And I agree, my irritation with you is understandable. No more than that, it is perfectly justifiable.

 

[Cinette]

I think this illustrates clearly the problem of dishonest apologetics. Einstein, from looking at all sources, didn’t believe in God as we know Him. I don’t understand the desire to get Einstein in the theist camp. Does it somehow validate your belief if ‘brilliant’ people believe? Lots of ‘brilliant’ people believe in God. I think it would be ‘smarter’ to quote ‘brilliant’ people who actually DO believe in God, not someone who believes in the power of the Universe or the god of Spinoza or whatever the heck Einstein believed in (and it wasn’t the Judeo Christian God, that’s for sure.)

I agree that whether Einstein believed in God or not is not all that material to an argument on religion. Richard Dawkins spends a number of pages telling us that, like him, Einstein did not believe in God. Because Einstein said: “…the presence of a superior reasoning power…” I felt it sufficiently significant to mention it, coming from one whose opinion on any subject, should be given due consideration.

I do not agree with your perception.

As I see it, Einstein, perhaps the most prominent scientists of all time, a genius, finally acknowledges, and does not deny, the existence of God. Sure he had not developed his idea of God but what is significant is that he did not deny God - can’t you see that?:ehh::ehh:

 

[Surfmeister]

No we did not say that at all. You are making way too many assumptions. I can’t speak for Cinnette but I was not saying that it is smart to believe because Einstein believed. I am just making an observation that despite Einstein being a brilliant scientist (so would more lilkely be inclined to atheism and it’s consequent demands for physical proofs) , it is quite heartwarming that he believes in God.

And here again with this post, you are jumping to conclusions. You ought to learn to ask for clarification for the writer’s intent rather than ascribing intentions which do not exist.

If you go back to the thread and read my posts, you will find that I am very far from using the line of reasoning you are currently ascribing to me.

And I agree, my irritation with you is understandable. No more than that, it is perfectly justifiable.

“…it is quite heartwarming that he believes in God.”
But did he? My research indicates that he didn’t. “It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere… Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
– Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science,” New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930”
In fact, Einstein often referred to God-belief as childish. I wouldn’t bring him up as a supporter or believer of God and/or religion.