V
Vonsalza
Guest
Congrats. You now understand more fully the ambiguity between knowing and believing.
- Status
O
o_mlly
Guest
Paul is saint in our Tradition. Perhaps in yours as well.William Blake is officially considered a Saint within the O.T.O.
Not only that, but we even boast of our afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance, and endurance, proven character, and proven character, hope, and hope does not disappoint, … (Rom 5:3-4)
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
There is no ambiguity. There is nothing arbitrary about it either.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Ah, forgive me then. I though you correctly deduced the answer for the question you posed with this:
The answer to your closing query is “you choose”.
Now, you’re free to employ whatever standard provided by the men in white coats or the men in funny hats so as to make your choices seem less capricious.
But the answer is still “you choose”.
This is fitting, as most in the Philo-game tend to agree that premises eventually boil down to axiom. So when you feel self-righteously sure of the unassailable inerrancy of your position, don’t forget the man that “knew” the Gettier-esque sheep was actually a sheep.
If you want any more, I’m charging tuition.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
V
Vonsalza
Guest
S
Samwise21
Guest
I happened across this blog by accident while reading up on polygenism. The link fooled me because it read ‘Unam Sanctum Ecclesiam Catholicam,’ but it’s really just another angry atheist blog.
unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2016/09/pope-francis-convinced-me-that-atheism.html
Maybe you guys have a few rebuttals to his so called ‘points?’
unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2016/09/pope-francis-convinced-me-that-atheism.html
Maybe you guys have a few rebuttals to his so called ‘points?’
R
reggieM
Guest
If you start from a position of traditionalism, as he does - then you encounter Pope Francis, the result will be as we see. He loses faith entirely.
But its the starting point.
Traditionalism, is contradictory. It holds within it a private, subjectivism - filtering papal documents on its own standard and not that of the Magisterium.
But contradictorily, it adopts papolatry, believing every statement of Popes is divine dogma.
To move from Catholicism to atheism on that basis shows a poor foundation in Catholicism from the start.
G
goout
Guest
Like most atheists, the blogger never understood the thing he claims to reject. You can’t rebut something that you don’t grasp. That is simply ranting.
He’s arguing with his mirror.
R
reggieM
Guest
If a person doesn’t actually pursue the evidence, we can confidently say that they don’t want to believe in God.
B
Bradski
Guest
I think that the only conclusion you can draw from that is a lack of interest. Just as you and I are not interested in studying Native American religions.
Although you probably would be had you been born to different parents.
R
reggieM
Guest
Perhaps yes. There are many atheists who have no access to evidence for God and never encounter anyone who will discuss that with them.
But I was referring to a personn who spends a considerable amount of time on a Catholic forum, for example. That is, someone who is given access to evidence, but never pursues it. Or someone who asks questions about God, but does not seek the answers from any source except atheistic.
B
Bradski
Guest
I think you might be short changing quite a few people. I believe that most people who self-identify as atheists have actually looked into the possibility of the existence of God but have simply found the evidence to be less than persuasive. If someone is convinced beyond reasonable doubt on any matter, then it does seem to be a waste of time going over the same arguments time and again.
If something new comes up, then I’ll want to hear it. But do you really think we all haven’t heard every argument that’s likely to be made?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
You probably have. Or at least close enough to it, and no doubt there may be a few that “stick” such as those from morality.
On the flip-side, it would be less than honest for a good Catholic to refuse to admit that the lack of unambiguous material evidence for God doesn’t “stick” to them somewhat. It obviously necessitates faith.
What really irks me though is when people reject in favor of “no” rather than “uncertain”. It’s methodologically incorrect in philosophy, science and statistics. If you apply the new atheist view of God to something like gravity waves, that would imply that gravity waves didn’t exist until they were proven to exist.
Obviously you see the nonsense there.
I’ll agree that all atheists I know have looked into the “God Question” and found the answers unconvincing. I’ve never met an atheist that was also a genuine ignostic or theological non-cognitivist despite explicit claims to so be.
R
reggieM
Guest
I agree that there are some atheists who have taken the effort to understand and look further. In my experience, they are the rare few. Speaking in general terms, most do not do what I suggested: That is, someone who is given access to evidence, but never pursues it. Notice, I’m talking about pursuing the evidence.
In your response, you state that youv’e “heard every argument”. But hearing arguments is a lot different than actively pursuing evidence.
There’s a major difference between Catholicism and atheism in this regard.
There is really nothing to pursue with atheism. It does not offer a positive claim - so there’s no evidence to look for.
With Catholicism, there is a lot of evidence to investigate.
At the very basic point - you have many people who believe that they encounter God in the answer to prayer or even deeper communication with God. This is known to the believer, but it is evidence for the existence of God. How would you pursue that?
At the very least, you’d need some explanation for why people (like me) claim to have encountered the reality of God.
Beyond that, there are other believers that have manifested their belief in God.
For example, I have never met an atheist who read and researched the life of Jean Marie Vianney, for example. Or seriously, pursued the evidence in the life of St. Pio of Pieltracina, St. Joseph Cupertino, St. Francis Xavier, St. John of the Cross. Have you read any or all of those biographies? If not, then you haven’t pursued the evidence.
Then there is the Fatima events, the Tilma of Guadalupe, the Shroud of Turin. That’s more evidence that requires an explanation. It’s not enough to say “it’s not persuasive”. You need counter-arguments for these things. I’ve never encountered an atheist that had strong refutations of those manifestations. In most cases, evidence is dismissed without any research and study. I have read of one atheist who actually studied Catholic mystical events and miracles and eventually converted from atheism - so some do take it seriously.
But how much understanding do you have of the material I presented above?
B
Bradski
Guest
Very little. But one doesn’t need to study the lives of every saint and investigate every miracle and read every philosophical and theologicl treaty on Christianity to reach a decision.
It would be like me suggesting that because you haven’t investigated every claim for alien abduction then you ‘haven’t pursued the evidence’.
I’ve been discussing Christianity with Christians for very many years. My shelves (and Kindle) are full of books on the subject. And they would include those written by Trent Horm Fesser, Templeton, J. Wallace and many others. You might think this a big call, but I would say that I know more about Christianity than the majority of Christians.
Now you may well lnow some atheists who haven’t done the hard yards. Who haven’t studied theology. Who haven’t spent years discussing and debating the arguments. But tell me seriously how many Christians you know who have done likewise. I know a lot of Christians (excepting some of those on this forum) and none of them, and I literally mean none of them, have done any meaningful ‘pursuing of the evidence’ whatsoever.
So what is good for the goose is not, it seems, goose for the gander. I have to study every minor miracle and come up with concrete evidence that it did not happen and read every biography of dozens of obscure saints and refute every argument they may have made. Seriously? I wonder if you are as demanding of your fellow Christians. Surely they need to read about St Pio et al before they can be sure that what they experience isn’t simply a case of seeing what you ally want to see and hearing what you expect to hear.
It seems to be generally accepted, from you as from almost all others, that if you believe, then there’s not much point in doing any serious investigation into the matter: ‘Hey, I’ve already arrived at where I want to be. Why do I need to check if it’s the right place?’
And you have the temerity to suggest that I haven’t bothered.
R
reggieM
Guest
Nobody can read all of it. The process of learning is on-going. A person with a great deal of interest in religion (as it seems you have) would normally pursue the evidence on an on-going basis. If there’s openness to the topic - why not? If there is hostility against it, then the “decision” will close down further research. So, that’s what I notice. A decision against God comes along with hostility towards religion. It’s not an open and interested search for God but rather a hostile position against God - and often that position is defended against the evidence,
Given you’d be hard pressed to tell me about the Augustine, Newman, Pascal, Garrigou-Lagrange, Chesterton, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Councils and saints of the alien abduction world - even still, if I spent every day reading and discussing alien abductions on a forum dedicated to it, why wouldn’t my research and investigations be on-going? Someone recommends I look into a reported case - why not check it out? I can’t see where any hostility to that could enter-in.
I commend you on what you’ve pursued thus far and that is very good to see. At the same time, Catholicism is not a matter of knowing about things, but rather knowing God Himself. So, the person who knows God, communicates with Him, receives grace, inspiration, spiritual insight and even supernatural power from God - knows much more than the person who has never embraced the reality of God. So, I wouldn’t say that you know more about Catholicism than those who practice it. It’s like saying you read more books about basketball than Michael Jordan did (or more about soccer than David Beckham, etc). Catholicism is about doing something. The goal is to become a saint. God assists us with grace to reach towards that goal.
I don’t know who you’re talking about but yes, there are many people who don’t take an interest. At the same time, just about all of the Christians I know (that is, serious about their Faith) pursue the evidence continually. By that, I mean - prayer and reading the sacred Word and receiving the sacraments which infuse supernatural power. They pursue evidence in this way - to seek the Will of God. So, just because a person believes God exists, doesn’t mean the search is over. We continually test, experiment, learn. That’s why faith grows stronger. God validates His presence and power in our lives. He pushes us to take leaps of faith - and when He is there to catch us, we gain confidence – not only in his existence, but in His real presence in our lives.
I didn’t say every one, right? No need to exaggerate. As I said, it’s on-going. There are atheists who study the shroud alone – for years at a time, primarily because they don’t have a good argument against it. I’ll repeat - on-going research into a topic that you’re interested in (Catholicism) would indicate a willingness to explore and learn more. Why close it off?
Just curiously - which saints lives have you studied thus far?
As I said above, a direct experience of God - answering prayer, guiding, teaching, strengthening, building moral values in the soul of the person – all of that is more essential and valuable than reading books. Although, I do recommend friends to read of St. Pio, the Fatima miracles – and much more. And I think believers are willing to learn more. CAF is exceptional, but we see the interest here. Agreed, there are many Catholics who need to do much more in this area.
R
reggieM
Guest
As stated - no, it’s not a question of arriving at a certain place and then stopping. The search intensifies. We want to know God - Himself. We want to actually be transformed by Him, to live in union with His Will. So that He communicates to us, guides us, teaches us and builds “a new creature in Christ” in us. That not only continually validates that we are in the right place (or actually, in times of testing and trial that God allows - causes us to question, wonder, search in darkness for a while), but enables us to grow in knowledge and confidence.
A person who has experienced miracles, experienced answers to difficult prayers, experienced healing – in ways he could never have done himself, has been involved in the process of serious investigation.
Knowledge from books and studies is valuable and has a necessary value. But it’s only one part. The search for God requires an effort from within the person - from conscience. You’re searching for holiness and for God who is living and present.
B
Bradski
Guest
This is not a valid line of reasoning. You are suggesting that only AFTER you have decided that God exists can you actively pursue further knowledge. You are not in any way in investigating the veracity of your claims. Where are the books that refute your beliefs? Where is the search to discover if what you believe is true?
You’ve given no indication at all that you are interested in that line of thought. Yet you expect it of me. Well, of course, you might say. ‘That’s because I am right and you are wrong’.
And here’s a link to an alien abduction forum. Let me know how you get on. I won’t be joining you. I don’t believe in nonsense. But if you feel you should pursue the truth…
alienabductionhelp.com/phpBB3/index.php
R
reggieM
Guest
No, I didn’t say that. It seemed you were saying that there is no additional knowlege to gain after you believe God exists and I said that the search goes on.
I read atheistic works all the time, if that’s what you’re talking about. I woudn’t say there is anything new there. I have the opportunity here. I think you’re trying to refute my beliefs.
As I explained, there is no positive evidence for atheism that I can pursue. I believe you’d even accept that atheists don’t even read or study most of the Catholic literature out there. You referred to St. John Vianney as an obscure saint (or something like that), but there are signficant biographies of him and hundreds of other saints where there is simply no refutation from the atheistic side given.
But back to the point, atheism just denies that God exists and there is nothing more to it than that.
Ok, you compare the Catholic religion to alien abductions and send me to their forum. I see about 4,000 posts there. There are what, 7 million posts here on CAF?
You then say, you’re not going to join that forum because you think it is nonsense. I’d suppose that’s the same attitude you’d take here. You’ve decided that belief in God is nonsense so you’re not interested in it?
- Status