For Those Who Are Skeptical About God's Existence

[anode]

I regard atheism as much a leap of “faith” as Theism, since the atheist’s position can never be verified by the scientific method. But that’s not why I’m posting.

I WANT to believe…to know by faith. I was reared to believe and I have believed, quite strongly at times, until the last couple of years. Now, for some reason the idea of an invisible Father in the sky who will admit those people who follow his rules on earth into some fantastic “Disney Land in the sky” seems childish and silly. In short, my life experience has taught me that a life as posited by the Christian Heaven is too good to be true. We’ve all heard the saying “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”

IF the First Cause that kick-started this earth into existence were to let me into his playground, it would by definition be disappointing. To live is to have hopes dashed and dreams crushed. That’s pretty universal.

I’ve even verbally said “God, come in” and “Jesus, the door is open”, but nothing happens. HOW do any one of You ask Jesus into your lives in a way that induces him to enter? Someone please answer. He pays no attention to me.

…or me, either. Or the people of Haiti. Or those murdered in the Holocaust. Or two close family members struck down in their prime with incurable cancer.

Remember that if you think that heaven is too good to be true, consider hell–it’s always there, hot and gaping, and waiting for you to burn for all eternity if you do anything unconfessed before your die that the Catholic church regards as a mortal sin, such as masturbation, for example. Belief will give you guilt and misery, compulsions to confess anything that might be a sin, including doubt, which most thinking people have when confronted with the endless ‘mysteries’ of Catholicism. If someone wanted you to try a new medical treatment for a serious disease you have, which completely would alter your life style, wouldn’t you ask what* scientific evidence *there is to support such a treatment, before you decided to try it? But the Catholic church expects you to believe in a cosmos of allegations- gods, infallibility, saints, ‘mysteries’, ‘sacraments’, guilt, sin, mortal sin, heaven and hell, with many obligations and duties and the assumption of a huge amount of guilt–all without a shred of evidence to support it. Does that make sense?

 

[itinerant1]

Or an atheist that understands that belief and knowledge are two different things.

Out of all the things i have came across when debating religious individual, this is the one that baffles me the most. I cannot fathom why so many individuals cannot grasp that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

It really is SO simple…

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.

From a practical perspective, I see little if any difference between the two, agnosticism being merely a fig leaf for atheism.

 

[itinerant1]

That is not what Dawkins meant, he was referring to the fact the we now have a completely naturalistic explanation of our origins.

There is a radical difference between a natural or scientific explanation of natural events and naturalism’s explanation of nature. The former lies within the bounds of methodological naturalism, while the latter is a characteristic of philosophical naturalism. Accordingly, Dawkins is speaking of philosophical naturalism, which he erroneously takes to be implied or neccessitated by methodological naturalism.

In the same vein, S.J. Gould says, “Darwin developed an evolutionary theory based on chance variation and natural selection imposed by an external environment: a rigidly materialistic (and basically atheistic) version of evolution.” (Ever Since Darwin)

What on earth does claiming “only science gives of reliable knowledge of reality” have to do with atheism? I know plenty of atheists, including myself, and i don’t know any that claim “**only **science gives of reliable knowledge of reality”.

Your denial/response is problematic, but you did say you know little or nothing about philosophy. Atheism and scientism does not have a neccessary connection, but one of historical contingency or accidental, and not essential. The phenomenon is related to what atheists can and do put their faith in. (See Auguste Comte’s scientism.)

[The two main themes discussed regarding scientism are as follows:

1.It is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;

2.It is used to denote a border-crossing violation in which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are inappropriately applied to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain. An example of this second usage is to label as scientism any attempt to claim science as the only or primary source of human values (a traditional domain of ethics) or as the source of meaning and purpose (a traditional domain of religion and related worldviews). --Gregory R. Peterson]

It just so happens when it comes to understanding the cosmos, science is the BEST method. There are not the same thing.

Natural explanations of natural phenomema are the specific and proper domain of the natural sciences. However, it does not follow that science is “the best” method in an unqualified sense. There are other ways of knowing than the “special experience” of the scientific method. Scientific knowledge is perinoetic, while philosophy gives dianoetic knowledge of nature or the cosmos. Theology also gives knowledge of the cosmos, a type of knowledge that is proper to theology.

Again claiming that reality is only physical or material had nothing to do with atheism, which is a term used to describe someone that does not have a theistic believe, nothing more.

Perhaps your denial/response is based solely on the meanings of the terms. “Materialism” and “atheism” do have different connotations. However, a materialist and atheistic view of the world are found together in the majority of atheists. There is an atheism that is thought out and an atheism that is not thought out. Perhaps you are thinking also of mindless atheism. Whatever the case may be, you are welcome to name some prominent atheist thinkers who are not also materialists. If you can’t find any, then you are welcome to explain what atheism and materialism always, or almost always, occur together in the same individual.

 

[anode]

I don’t think that you know many atheists.

Define “materialism” and “materialist”.

 

[itinerant1]

…or me, either. Or the people of Haiti. Or those murdered in the Holocaust. Or two close family members struck down in their prime with incurable cancer.

Remember that if you think that heaven is too good to be true, consider hell–it’s always there, hot and gaping, and waiting for you to burn for all eternity if you do anything unconfessed before your die that the Catholic church regards as a mortal sin, such as masturbation, for example. Belief will give you guilt and misery, compulsions to confess anything that might be a sin, including doubt, which most thinking people have when confronted with the endless ‘mysteries’ of Catholicism. If someone wanted you to try a new medical treatment for a serious disease you have, which completely would alter your life style, wouldn’t you ask what* scientific evidence *there is to support such a treatment, before you decided to try it? But the Catholic church expects you to believe in a cosmos of allegations- gods, infallibility, saints, ‘mysteries’, ‘sacraments’, guilt, sin, mortal sin, heaven and hell, with many obligations and duties and the assumption of a huge amount of guilt–all without a shred of evidence to support it. Does that make sense?

What doesn’t make sense is your mischaracterization of Catholicism. Clearly, you are not a person to consult on matters of religion.

Ironically, you uphold “scientific evidence” while having no evidence for your derogatory comments about the Church.

You said the Church expects one to believe in “gods”. Your statement is inarguably false.

You said there is no shred of evidence for what Ctholics believe. That is another false statement.

You asserted that there is and “assumption of a huge amount of guilt.” Another false statement.

You said belief give guilt and misery. False again.

If your post could be considered to be an argument, then the best that can be said for it is that it is nothing but a “straw man” argument.

 

[kimmielittle]

If someone wanted you to try a new medical treatment for a serious disease you have, which completely would alter your life style, wouldn’t you ask what* scientific evidence *there is to support such a treatment, before you decided to try it?

I have been there…have you? I can assure you, I wasn’t needing evidence. There are times - that we ALL will have…that require one to take a step in Faith. I put mine in my Doctors knowledge of my situation and his skill.

Very poor analogy.

 

[itinerant1]

I don’t think that you know many atheists.

Oh? That comes as a surprise to me since I have been around many atheists, especially in university philosophy departments, which includes both professors and students who were atheists. We often discussed and debated many issues, at a deeper level, related to atheistic beliefs. Several of my friends are atheists, also.

Define “materialism” and “materialist”.

I was using the terms according to their common philosophical meanings. Since you are unfamiliar with these terms, I would advise that you can consult any decent dictionary of philosophical terms. Try the one by Dagobert D. Runes . Also, the Catholic Encyclopedia on CAF has entries for many philosophical terms.

 

[Fran65]

Anode,

Regarding your confident assertions regarding who is going to Hell. According to the Catholic Church we (mere human beings) cannot know who is destined for Hell. The judgement of a soul is solely the province of God. We can advise people about behaviour, attitudes and beliefs that we know from theology and reason separate the person from God, but none of us know the condition of a soul at the point of death or that soul’s final destination. The world’s most vociferous and aggressive atheist may recant and seek God at the point of death, and God in His infinite mercy may welcome him home. We do not know. This is one of the great teachings of the Catholic Church - there is always hope.

 

[Bob4BVM]

Why don’t you try to clear your mind of belief. Then look at the world as an adult and not someone that has been “reared to believe”. Start with a blank slate, then draw new fresh conclusions. May i suggest you start with my fav series of all time…

youtube.com/watch?v=_3NAW1U-swc&feature=PlayList&p=372AB978696EBC6B&index=0&playnext=1

Sonny,
How shallow is athiesm …let’s see, maybe I can base my most important life decisions on what i see at u-tube (isn’t that just the latest version of the old boob-tube ? )…
Before you take this guy’s advice , consider the quote at the bottom of his posts. Anyone who really thinks science has all the answers and has such a shining record has a pretty limited world-view. Science has done us good for sure. It has also brought us the means to destroy ourselves and our planet.

 

[AlbertBall]

Science has done us good for sure. It has also brought us the means to destroy ourselves and our planet.

My guess will be it won’t the scientist that will destroy it, but some religious fundamentalists.

Oh and you might base you beliefs on what you see on youtube . However some of us prefer reason, logic and EVIDENCE.

 

[Bob4BVM]

Why don’t you try to clear your mind of belief. Then look at the world as an adult and not someone that has been “reared to believe”. Start with a blank slate, then draw new fresh conclusions. May i suggest you start with my fav series of all time…

youtube.com/watch?v=_3NAW1U-swc&feature=PlayList&p=372AB978696EBC6B&index=0&playnext=1

Yeah, that’s what we need, new fresh conclusions…

Again, this fits:
“Deviating from faith, they are implicated in the darkness of perpetual blindness, although they have the day of Christ and the light of the Church before them; while seeing nothing, they open their mouth as if they knew everything, keen for vain things and dull for things eternal.”
---- Ambrose, Bishop, Father and Doctor of the Church, Saint; commenting in the 4th century on the “wise of the world”
…So much for “new fresh conclusions”… In our great wisdom, we are So Sure we have just invented a brand new way of thinking. Not.​

“The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:23,24)

 

[Bob4BVM]

I regard atheism as much a leap of “faith” as Theism, since the atheist’s position can never be verified by the scientific method. But that’s not why I’m posting.

I WANT to believe…to know by faith. I was reared to believe and I have believed, quite strongly at times, until the last couple of years. Now, for some reason the idea of an invisible Father in the sky who will admit those people who follow his rules on earth into some fantastic “Disney Land in the sky” seems childish and silly. In short, my life experience has taught me that a life as posited by the Christian Heaven is too good to be true. We’ve all heard the saying “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”

IF the First Cause that kick-started this earth into existence were to let me into his playground, it would by definition be disappointing. To live is to have hopes dashed and dreams crushed. That’s pretty universal.

I’ve even verbally said “God, come in” and “Jesus, the door is open”, but nothing happens. HOW do any one of You ask Jesus into your lives in a way that induces him to enter? Someone please answer. He pays no attention to me.

Sonny,
Please don’t give up on Him.
With the great noise and fog we live in , it’s easy to miss the answers when they come.
I’ve been EXACTLY where you are at. For years I asked, thinking there was no answer. I was wrong, I just failed to hear it. When it comes, and it will come, you will be glad you hung on, even by a thread of faith.
If you want to talk about it, you can PM me.
God bless you. He does- every day.

 

[AlbertBall]

Like i said, review the evidence and come to your own conclusions. If you can let go of the dogma, and view the evidence with an open mind you will gain an understanding of life that is impossible to have if you fill your mind full of myth.

It may be frighting at first, but i believe the truth is more important than what makes us “feel good”.

 

[anode]

I have been there…have you? I can assure you, I wasn’t needing evidence. There are times - that we ALL will have…that require one to take a step in Faith. I put mine in my Doctors knowledge of my situation and his skill.

Very poor analogy.

Your Faith in your Doctor may be sufficient for you to believe. But your belief doesn’t represent a convincing argument for anyone else to believe. In order to adopt your system of religious belief, one would require a great deal of objectively proven evidence, which is totally lacking.

 

[anode]

Anode,

Regarding your confident assertions regarding who is going to Hell. According to the Catholic Church we (mere human beings) cannot know who is destined for Hell. The judgement of a soul is solely the province of God. We can advise people about behaviour, attitudes and beliefs that we know from theology and reason separate the person from God, but none of us know the condition of a soul at the point of death or that soul’s final destination. The world’s most vociferous and aggressive atheist may recant and seek God at the point of death, and God in His infinite mercy may welcome him home. We do not know. This is one of the great teachings of the Catholic Church - there is always hope.

There may be hope, but not much, when one considers how much the RCC proscribes. I make no confident assertions regarding Hell, other than it doesn’t exist, except on earth. But Christian churches, including the RCC, are very focused on it. Many individual Christians don’t believe in hell, apparently, but that doesn’t alter dogma.

 

[Bob4BVM]

Like i said, review the evidence and come to your own conclusions. If you can let go of the dogma, and view the evidence with an open mind you will gain an understanding of life that is impossible to have if you fill your mind full of myth.

It may be frighting at first, but i believe the truth is more important than what makes us “feel good”.

My dear AlbertBall,
I can tell you my mind was open. I, like you, once scoffed at personal testimony of sprirtual experiences. Now it’s all changed… and if anyone has a better explanation for my own experiences than the obvious grace of God, I am all ears. So far I’ve had no takers on that.
You say it may be frightening to face the truth at first… **Let me tell you about frightening-**To this day I still **SHUDDER **whenever I think about how close I came to ignoring the simple, quiet, invitation I received to take a very small step toward inviting God into my life. An amazingly small thing on my part, but in my typical male pride, I came “that close” to just walking away from it. Instead, I somehow responded, and so did He. His grace was pure gift to me -unsought, unexpected. To say it was a surprise to my scientific/technical mind…would be a gross understatement, I was incredulous at first… ‘shocked’ is the best term I can think of to describe my initial feelings.

It has been 5 years since that day, and in spite of many problems health and otherwise, I can easily say it’s been the best 5 years of my life. God’s love is there, absolute. As much a part of the universe as the stars and the planets and you and me. When you find that out for yourself, you will experience a freedom and happiness that you cannot even imagine, at least it is beyond anything I thought possible in this life.
So you see, there is a bit more to ‘reality’ than what we can see and touch. I cringe to think I almost missed it. **THAT is Frightening, Albert !/**I]

 

[AlbertBall]

My dear AlbertBall,
I can tell you my mind was open. I, like you, once scoffed at personal testimony of sprirtual experiences. Now it’s all changed… and if anyone has a better explanation for my own experiences than the obvious grace of God, I am all ears. So far I’ve had no takers on that.
You say it may be frightening to face the truth at first… **Let me tell you about frightening-**To this day I still **SHUDDER **whenever I think about how close I came to ignoring the simple, quiet, invitation I received to take a very small step toward inviting God into my life. An amazingly small thing on my part, but in my typical male pride, I came “that close” to just walking away from it. Instead, I somehow responded, and so did He. His grace was pure gift to me -unsought, unexpected. To say it was a surprise to my scientific/technical mind…would be a gross understatement, I was incredulous at first… ‘shocked’ is the best term I can think of to describe my initial feelings.

It has been 5 years since that day, and in spite of many problems health and otherwise, I can easily say it’s been the best 5 years of my life. God’s love is there, absolute. As much a part of the universe as the stars and the planets and you and me. When you find that out for yourself, you will experience a freedom and happiness that you cannot even imagine, at least it is beyond anything I thought possible in this life.
So you see, there is a bit more to ‘reality’ than what we can see and touch. I cringe to think I almost missed it. **THAT is Frightening, Albert !/**I]

How did you verify that the experiences were from god?

 

[Bob4BVM]

How did you verify that the experiences were from god?

By their fruits in my life. Drastic positive change. Immediate and humbling.
Most obviously from outside of myself. I have absolutely zero alternate explanations.
That leaves me with only 2 supernatural explanations: God or satan.
If this was the work of Satan, it was his biggest screw-up of all time.
Sorry if that seems a bit much. I know the change I have experienced.

 

[itinerant1]

Like i said, review the evidence and come to your own conclusions. If you can let go of the dogma, and view the evidence with an open mind you will gain an understanding of life that is impossible to have if you fill your mind full of myth.

It may be frighting at first, but i believe the truth is more important than what makes us “feel good”.

Let go of dogma? View the evidence with an open mind? Such advice coming from an agnostic or atheist only causes me to raise an eyebrow.

Most of what everyone claims to know of history is actually based on faith. Faith is belief in what one does not see. Historical knowledge is a matter of faith. We were not present in 1492 to witness Columbus sailing across the ocean. Yet from the historical evidence, which includes written accounts from various sources such as Columbus’ diary, we believe what is said about his adventures. Our acceptance of the truth of the situation is actually a matter of faith.

Accepting the existence of subatomic particles is a type of knowledge based on faith. We infer their existence from experimental effects. Inference is the key. Likewise, with Christianity, we believe based on the reliability of the evidence, which includes numerous writings, personal testimonies of witnesses, and so on. If this history cannot be believed, then no history should be believed.

However, the atheist draws an arbitrary line, one which is not based on the reliability of the evidence or questions about what can be properly inferred from that evidence. The atheist does not have an open and objective mind in regard to certain kinds of historical evidence simply because he is a dogmatist. There is no more rigid dogmatism in the history of culture than that exhibited by the avowed atheist.

 

[Bob4BVM]

Let go of dogma? View the evidence with an open mind? Such advice coming from an agnostic or atheist only causes me to raise an eyebrow.

Most of what everyone claims to know of history is actually based on faith. Faith is belief in what one does not see. Historical knowledge is a matter of faith. We were not present in 1492 to witness Columbus sailing across the ocean. Yet from the historical evidence, which includes written accounts from various sources such as Columbus’ diary, we believe what is said about his adventures. Our acceptance of the truth of the situation is actually a matter of faith.

Accepting the existence of subatomic particles is a type of knowledge based on faith. We infer their existence from experimental effects. Inference is the key. Likewise, with Christianity, we believe based on the reliability of the evidence, which includes numerous writings, personal testimonies of witnesses, and so on. If this history cannot be believed, then no history should be believed.

However, the atheist draws an arbitrary line, one which is not based on the reliability of the evidence or questions about what can be properly inferred from that evidence. The atheist does not have an open and objective mind in regard to certain kinds of historical evidence simply because he is a dogmatist. There is no more rigid dogmatism in the history of culture than that exhibited by the avowed atheist.

Thx itinerant1,

Good to turn the argument around like this,
So many assumptions by athiests try to place the burden of proof on the believer.
Very well said, thank you !