Gnostic Atheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Samwise21
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And this works both ways. There is also no excuse for persistent obstinacy.
Yep.

It reminds of of CS Lewis’ trenchant metaphor for atheists–the obdurate dwarfs who are recusant to evidence–in The Last Battle.

The dwarves are in paradise, but are insistent, irrationally so, that they’re in the dark, in a filthy stable.

“But it isn’t dark, you poor stupid Dwarfs,” said Lucy. “Can’t you see? Look up! Look round! Can’t you see the sky and the trees and the flowers? Can’t you see me?”

“How in the name of all Humbug can I see what ain’t there? And how can I see you any more than you can see me in this pitch darkness?”

“But I can see you,” said Lucy. “I’ll prove I can see you. You’ve got a pipe in your mouth.”

“Anyone that knows the smell of baccy could tell that,” said Diggle.

sigh
 
You also assume the principle of excluded-middle. Eastern philo bears no such rule. “God is subject only to western philo” is an interesting implicit axiom that is simply that - axiom. Free to accept or reject with no penalty to rationale.
If you notice, the Pope himself endorsed the principle of non-contradiction in the excerpt from “fides et ratio” I quoted. He said that believing the principle of non-contradiction has been a constant throughout all world philosophies.

See also : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction#Eastern_philosophy
More importantly, in order for contradiction to exist, it is incumbent on the presenter to show that the terms in question must be contradictory. They must show that if one is false, the other must be true. And that if one is true, the other must be false.
Which is what I did in each line that claims a contradiction of a trinitarian requirement.
“God must either be one or he must be three. He cannot be both”.
I can see the advertisement for the theology department now. “Do you think 1 = 3 is a reasonable proposition? Catholic theology may be for you!”
 
Yep.

It reminds of of CS Lewis’ trenchant metaphor for atheists–the obdurate dwarfs who are recusant to evidence–in The Last Battle.

The dwarves are in paradise, but are insistent, irrationally so, that they’re in the dark, in a filthy stable.

“But it isn’t dark, you poor stupid Dwarfs,” said Lucy. “Can’t you see? Look up! Look round! Can’t you see the sky and the trees and the flowers? Can’t you see me?”

“How in the name of all Humbug can I see what ain’t there? And how can I see you any more than you can see me in this pitch darkness?”

“But I can see you,” said Lucy. “I’ll prove I can see you. You’ve got a pipe in your mouth.”

“Anyone that knows the smell of baccy could tell that,” said Diggle.

sigh
I respect a person’s right to belief, no matter what that belief.
We are not talking about the right to belief here, day after day. We are arguing in circles for months on end without progressing from entrenched agendas.
The militant atheists here day after day tell Christians who our god is what we believe. And that disfavor is not reciprocated by Christians, for the most part. I do not see Christians setting up atheist straw men and attacking them. If anything, atheism is conveniently unassailable because it admits to a nothing.

And this is why I don’t come here for months. Bad for the soul.
 
I can see the advertisement for the theology department now. “Do you think 1 = 3 is a reasonable proposition? Catholic theology may be for you!”
Have you been in dialogue on a fundamentalist Muslim forum? For you seem to have taken their argument against the Trinity and run with it.

If we were saying “God is 1 God AND God is 3 Gods!”, then you (and fundamentalist Muslims) might have a point of objection to the Trinitarian dogma. This is clearly logically absurd.

Except…

that’s not what we’ve proposed. 🤷
 
I respect a person’s right to belief, no matter what that belief.
Yes, me too.

And I am a great respect-er of persons, even if I may have great scorn for their beliefs.
We are not talking about the right to belief here, day after day. We are arguing in circles for months on end without progressing from entrenched agendas.
The militant atheists here day after day tell Christians who our god is what we believe. And that disfavor is not reciprocated by Christians, for the most part. I do not see Christians setting up atheist straw men and attacking them. If anything, atheism is conveniently unassailable because it admits to a nothing.
And this is why I don’t come here for months. Bad for the soul.
Sometimes it’s better to consider that you’re planting seeds, and letting your words, your prayers and the Holy Spirit rest in the souls of those who participate here.
 
Have you been in dialogue on a fundamentalist Muslim forum? For you seem to have taken their argument against the Trinity and run with it.

If we were saying “God is 1 God AND God is 3 Gods!”, then you (and fundamentalist Muslims) might have a point of objection to the Trinitarian dogma. This is clearly logically absurd.

Except…

that’s not what we’ve proposed. 🤷
I know. I was talking about the God described on Ed Feser’s website. I have since noticed that Feser is basically repeating CCC #253 and 254. So if you believe a god OTHER than the one described by the CCC, perhaps you should remove the “Catholic” descriptor from your profile as well.

Edit: To be fair, I have no idea what god Vonzala was talking about when he said God can be 1 and 3 at the same time and in the same respect.
 
I know. I was talking about the God described on Ed Feser’s website. I have since noticed that Feser is basically repeating CCC #253 and 254. So if you believe a god OTHER than the one described by the CCC, perhaps you should remove the “Catholic” descriptor from your profile as well.
You are correct. And very Catholic when you say this. 👍
Edit: To be fair, I have no idea what god Vonzala was talking about when he said God can be 1 and 3 at the same time and in the same respect.
Vonzala said God can be 1 and 3 at the same time and in the same respect?

I’ve been keeping up with this thread and haven’t seen V say this.

Can you please cite what you’re referencing?
 
The militant atheists here day after day tell Christians who our god is what we believe.
I don’t accept the adjective “militant”, but I can say that we understand what your God is supposed be. We simply put up a mirror for you to see. And then you start to scream that this is a distortion, a caricature! The trouble (for you) is that a caricature actually enhances the important features, and the observers can readily recognize the features, much quicker than from a portrait. But, of course the person, who is the object of the drawing will not accept the similarities… just like when you hear your own voice on a recording, you are astonished… “is that MY voice?”. Yes it is your voice, even if you cannot recognize it.
 
No group of people has “dibs” on being kind, loving, trustworthy.
True, but I’ll say this. A difference with Catholics and atheists, for example - Catholics have standards of behavior (agree with those standards or not) that they’re expected to live up to. In other words, you can reference Catholic morality and then see – does this person live up to the dictates of his religion? We have an example to follow also - the life of Jesus. “Is this person reflecting Jesus’ way of life?” Now you can at least measure against something.

For atheism there is no such thing. Yes, we can say loving, kind, trustworthy – but the standards for that come from somewhere else. For example, an atheist living in a non-Christian country may have different values than an atheist living where there are mostly Muslims, for example.

What we would call “the Natural Law”, we (Catholics) believe is the same for everyone. Thou shalt not murder – is not going to be a highly unique moral norm. But there are other areas where this is different.
And logically-speaking, an atheist could say … “I have my own moral norms”. This may be very good (as it probably is for most) but also very bad.
Just curious: “how would you know that all those signs actually came from God?” Is it possible that you conditioned yourself to see everything that is “good” must have come from God, and everything that is “not good” came from some other source? You need to do some serious soul-searching for this…
Certainly a good question and good insight. How would I know some of this?
The answer is simple, but explaining and illustrating is far beyond what I can do.
The answer? Like any exploration, experiment, discovery, area of learning – it’s a matter of observation, testing, validating, questioning and recognizing repeated, distinct patterns.

The key element is prayer. We could start there. Are prayers really answered? How would you know?

The reason I can’t explain illustrations and stories is, first - I don’t like getting into it at that level.

“How do you know your wife really loves you?”

Can you answer that? Can you give me all the ways you’ve discovered this to be true? How do you really know those things indicated her love for you?

Obviously, nobody is going to do that. The spousal relationship is intimate and over a lifetime, one learns about the love between both. You can’t even think about talking about it. “Oh, she gave me a nice anniversary gift once. I’m 100% sure that means she loves me.” No – it’s a daily thing.

So, for me. It’s a daily thing. Why? Because I pray every day and I have been doing so for many years (decades). I attend Mass frequently.
Prayer, not just for me, but for millions of people - is a two-way conversation.
We experience and “hear” God, teaching us, guiding us, giving us wisdom we could never have on our own.

How do you hear God? Are you saying you hear voices out of heaven?

No, although things similar to that have happened (I’ve had many inexplicable mystical experiences over a long number of years … but I"m not talking about that).

By “hearing” I mean …
  1. The timing of things
  2. What is called “signal graces” in the awareness of external signs
  3. Words that “hit home” or have an unusual impact from other people, or reading (especially the Bible)
  4. Unusual, unpredictable, unplanned - sometimes impossible - situations
This we call “discerning the spirit”. There are very good books on this subject, dealing with the details on how this works at a practical level. Is this God calling me? Or is it my own imagination?
Over the course of years, testing, praying, questioning and watching – a very high level of certainty can be had.

This is why Jesus calls us to faith. Eventually, we will see God speaking and making Himself known to us personally. Once we see that, we then have to Trust Him in the dark hours, when it’s hard, when there’s temptation. Otherwise, Jesus would just be saying “have blind faith, you’ll never have any validation that what you’re doing is meaningful, but just do it anyway”. No – very few people would go for something like that. What happens instead, is that people do find validation for their trust in God.

Trust is the test of our love. That’s what helps us overcome our own self-love, and go out of ourselves, finding God, knowing Him better - actually having a friendship with Him. He is real - truly communicating. For the individual who finds this - it’s irrefutably certain.

That’s how a saint, like St. Francis, for example - sold everything he owned and just lived with nothing but prayer to God. Total trust. He took a huge risk - huge leap of faith. What if God just let him die of starvation? But he took Jesus’ words seriously “Ask and you shall receive”.

So, the very same idea you presented, Vera, regarding trust of a person. We can (and must) do that with God. It’s experimental. “Ok, I will pray to the Blessed Virgin, a novena, and see what happens”. Then we just take a look.

For me, there’s the negative proof which I’ve had too many times. Of course, answered prayer is not instantaneous. It’s not magic. You have to work, build virtue, be patient, grow little by little. There are times when it just takes endurance. But faith tells us “Something great is going to happen - I just have to keep praying and watch”. And it does happen. Something very great that we never could have imagined.

But I’ve lacked the patience - that’s for sure.

“I’m just tired of this. I don’t want to pray any more. I’m just going to live like everyone else - not sins, but just forget about God.” Then what? I’ll just say for me, I will never do that again. Lesson learned - the hard way. 🙂
 
True, but I’ll say this. A difference with Catholics and atheists, for example - Catholics have standards of behavior (agree with those standards or not) that they’re expected to live up to. In other words, you can reference Catholic morality and then see – does this person live up to the dictates of his religion? We have an example to follow also - the life of Jesus. “Is this person reflecting Jesus’ way of life?” Now you can at least measure against something.
For a defense of the universality of secular moralities see:

youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo
 
I’m already of the opinion that the stance is at best illogical, but I was wondering what some of you guys make of this.
In his book* The Discovery of God* Henri de Lubac seems to hit the nail on its proverbial head.

The present age we live in has simply lost the taste for God. “Man prefers himself to God.”

It follows that atheism has not so much to do with the lack of proofs but rather with the desire not to have God proven. The atheist ego is too big to suffer God, an Ego bigger than his own. The atheist does not see God precisely because he has plucked out the very eyes by which he could see God. One of those eyes is humility. The other eye is an open heart.

Perhaps the atheist fears God too, much as a child might fear a giant?
 
So what’s the problem? You’ve asserted that reasonableness isn’t required for you to believe something.
False idea of Christianity.

Logos (from the Greek): the reason-ability of God. See Benedict’;s Regensburg address for more.
In Christianity God is not arbitrary or completely distant. God has mystery, and mystery is not the same thing as random arbitrariness. God reveals himself in a way that human beings can approach with reason.

Belief incorporates (another loaded word referring to the Incarnation ;)) …
belief incorporates reason and also works hand in hand with it. Faith and reason are part of the “holos” or the whole person (Catholic).

Belief (or “faith”) is a commitment of the whole person to another person (in this case “God”).
Faith is not mere assent to ideas, or reason, or logic. Neither is faith ignorant leaps of superstition. It is neither “mere” quality.

Faith is the integrated yes of the “whole” person.

Respectfully but honestly: the atheists here don’t understand the thing they debate day after day after day.
 
You’ve asserted that reasonableness isn’t required for you to believe something.
I’m sorry - we’ll have to just disagree.
I spelled out my view in considerable detail.
Your lack of substantive reply was noted. That’s the best we can do for now.

You asked “What’s the problem with atheism being unreasonable” – I’ll take that as an acceptance of the fact.
 
Respectfully but honestly: the atheists here don’t understand the thing they debate day after day after day.
I have to draw the same conclusion.
In this case, they think Catholics have not even thought about the mystery of the Trinity at all over the past 2,000 years? Like they’re raising new insights?
 
False idea of Christianity.

Logos (from the Greek): the reason-ability of God. See Benedict’;s Regensburg address for more.
In Christianity God is not arbitrary or completely distant. God has mystery, and mystery is not the same thing as random arbitrariness. God reveals himself in a way that human beings can approach with reason.
Respectfully but honestly: the atheists here don’t understand the thing they debate day after day after day.
So then what is your take on this assertion:
If you are using logic to prove that the doctrine on the Trinity is false, then your approach fails for reasons I’ve given… The teaching cannot be falsified by human reasoning since it transcends reason.
I.e. “Reason doesn’t apply to Catholic beliefs when reason is used to show a Catholic belief is false.”

Is this an accurate assessment of Catholic beliefs, or is it a “God has parts like a car” heresy?
 
In his book* The Discovery of God* Henri de Lubac seems to hit the nail on its proverbial head.

The present age we live in has simply lost the taste for God. “Man prefers himself to God.”

It follows that atheism has not so much to do with the lack of proofs but rather with the desire not to have God proven. The atheist ego is too big to suffer God, an Ego bigger than his own. The atheist does not see God precisely because he has plucked out the very eyes by which he could see God. One of those eyes is humility. The other eye is an open heart.

Perhaps the atheist fears God too, much as a child might fear a giant?
That’s a good point.
Some short while ago, after prayer - I had a sense that God was giving me an experience of what atheism is like at a personal level.
It seemed God was calling me to do something I really did not want to do!
I struggled with this. I simply couldn’t accept it. But the calling continued.
I came up with excuses, arguments, reasons. Nothing changed.
Finally, I started getting angry. “This can’t be!” Then - even worse, I started thinking that I could just ignore the calling. :tsktsk:
Well, thankfully Our Lord did not change and He remained patient. It took a while and I finally accepted. Then peace was restored.
But I noticed – when I was running, arguing, fighting, ignoring – I was going through all of the symptoms we notice with our atheist friends. Hundreds of arguments, but they’re all empty. They miss the elephant in the room. It’s a lot of noise. Why?

So, I think it’s more than just argumentation.
Some atheists are more open than others. Some don’t want to be atheistic.
 
I’m sorry - we’ll have to just disagree.
I spelled out my view in considerable detail.
Your lack of substantive reply was noted. That’s the best we can do for now.

You asked “What’s the problem with atheism being unreasonable” – I’ll take that as an acceptance of the fact.
If you’ll recall, I started this whole discussion by asserting that I am strongly atheistic with respect to the Catholic God, not all gods.

Indeed, to even be Catholic, you yourself have to be strongly atheistic with respect to a large number of other gods (e.g. 天照大神 and 愛染明王). If all strong atheism is unreasonable, then this is yet another area in which your beliefs are inconsistent.
 
So then what is your take on this assertion:
I.e. “Reason doesn’t apply to Catholic beliefs when reason is used to show a Catholic belief is false.”
Cute.

Empirical science is the only means we have of knowing the truth. Right?

Q: How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?
A: Are they big angels or small angels?

I understand, many would like to know the spatial, physical and material dimensions and components of God.

“Ok, you say infinite. But, I mean, how big is He? No answer? Ha - just as I expected. Deluded Catholics can’t even give me one decent measurement here.”

“Ok, wait - got it now. Can God make a rock so heavy that He can’t put his arms around it? Huh? Hahah – caught you Catholics in a contradiciton!! If God was everything you claim, he could definitely put both arms around any size rock. Even a really big one!”

There are a lot more difficult arguments like this that Catholics are simply befuddled by.

And the Trinity? 1.2 Billion Catholics believe it and it has been part of Catholic teaching (formally) since Nicaea, taught by Christ in the New Testament – but I guess there are just a lot of gullible people out there.

It’s too bad St. Pope John Paul II never got to see your syllogism. That really would have opened his mind to the truth of things! 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top