Gnostic Atheism

[Bradski]

It’s not simply saying “I’m sorry” or even simply “being sorry”. There’s an action that follows from it and that’s what brings Justice and Mercy together.

I literally snorted aloud at that. You seem to live in a different world to most people.

If someone raped and murdered my child, then how much would he have to do to recompense for that. And that’s a serious question. I would like an answer

In the meantime, here’s something to ponder. I am always being presented with a fatuous scenario in which the problem of evil is discounted by suggesting that an eternity in heaven can easily recompense for whatever horrors we suffer in this life.

I’ll be explaining that to the murderer as he pleads for mercy. ‘Don’t worry, buddy. If you truly are sorry (and he will be) then you’lll get a chance of eternal bliss.’

The lucky sod.

 

[PRmerger]

I literally snorted aloud at that. You seem to live in a different world to most people.

If someone raped and murdered my child, then how much would he have to do to recompense for that. And that’s a serious question. I would like an answer

This is indeed a profound problem for the atheist.

With the Believer, there is justice.

But for the atheist, the answer to you and your wife, for your hypothetically murdered child is: sorry, but there is no justice. A lifetime in jail for this murderer and rapist is nothing at all compared to the suffering we will endure.

 

[Vonsalza]

If someone raped and murdered my child, then how much would he have to do to recompense for that. And that’s a serious question. I would like an answer

Judgement isn’t yours or mine. The one that would have the answer doesn’t post on Catholic.com.

In the meantime, here’s something to ponder. I am always being presented with a fatuous scenario in which the problem of evil is discounted by suggesting that an eternity in heaven can easily recompense for whatever horrors we suffer in this life.

Well, that’s one way to look at it. The problems of Good and Evil exist, per some, due to the paradox of Free Will. raises hand

I’ll be explaining that to the murderer as he pleads for mercy. ‘Don’t worry, buddy. If you truly are sorry (and he will be) then you’lll get a chance of eternal bliss.’

The lucky sod.

If he repents, does his penance in purgatory and then enters heaven, he is a lucky sod. He and I both would thank God for it.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, that’s one way to look at it. The problems of Good and Evil exist, per some, due to the paradox of Free Will. raises hand

And the problems of Good and Evil exist for atheists too.

They have no explanation.

Nor do they have any satisfaction.

A cousin dies at age 12 of bone cancer and the atheist has to tell his child, “Yes, child, that is all that happens to him. I am sorry but there’s no satisfying way to tell you that this is fair or that there is any justice for him”.

 

[reggieM]

I wasn’t suggesting that atheists could or should simply dismiss all these supposed experiences out-of-hand (and I should probably say that the experiences I had in mind when I wrote that were of the “I had this indescribable feeling during worship service” and kind of thing that I hear about most often, more than the full-on apparition or audible voice kind of thing) or that they can all be handwaved away as “just psychological.” And I wasn’t suggesting that atheists shouldn’t go out and do their own research into these things and just passively examine only the cases that someone else brings to their attention.

First - I missed this response previously so thank you for taking the time to respond and sorry for my delay in getting back to you. Secondly - it’s good to hear that you are open to investigating and researching such things. Yes, I was talking about something more than a simple personal experience - however … we could actually discuss that also.
Keep in mind, my point here was defending the notion that one would virtually have to know everything in order to conclude, positively (gnosticly) that there is no God. It only takes one event of the millions available for research, to be true.

I do think that atheists should take a look at purported miracles and “experiences of God” and the like, but there’s a practical limit to this. There simply isn’t enough time for every nonbeliever to chase down every lead, read every story, and all the rest and then try to explain it not only to their own satisfaction, but to try to explain it to the satisfaction of any believer who might challenge them on it.

Yes, true. However, we have to accept that testimonial evidence through history has value. If people from every human era, generation and every culture - have all witnessed or even personally experienced similar encounters – something much more than calling it a “psychological phenomena” is needed. I would think, at the very least, a person would have to say “I don’t know why people have said they saw or experienced such things”. Thus, there couldn’t be a strong, positive support for the non-existence of God.

And I have Christians recommending a dozen different books that I should read, along with re-reading the Bible (again) and going to church regularly and setting up some kind of prayer rule. All while I already have a job, a family, and a huge stack of books that I already want to read about stuff that I think is far more plausible than anything my religious interlocutors are recommending me.

That is undertstandable. If for example, someone told you that you had to spend the rest of your life researching everything in order to discover God - that would seem unreasonable, I would think. However, the point I was making is not that. It’s that “to conclude, definitely, that there is no God, one would have to look at all the evidence available”. And testimonial evidence - of significant events (I gave lives of 5 saints) - is something to look at. Plus, I’m not asking a person to believe - but merely to say “I don’t know why people said this happened and I am not certain that it did not happen just as described”.

Take for example, the documentation on Catholic exorcisms. I don’t think any one has said they know for certain, scientifically, how and why certain phenomena connected with exorcisms have occurred. The exorcist and the Church and the person suffering draw strong conclusions. But there is no parallel contrary evidence. Sure, one can dismiss it - but where is the science to support that? It just doesn’t exist. So - I wouldn’t say that’s enough to believe that a supernatural event occurred (necessarily - for me it’s far more than enough, but for skeptics, perhaps not unless they witnessed the exorcism) – but we’re just saying “I don’t know what happened there”.

How likely is it that this story about some miracle that happened in ages past is going to be easier to research and find evidence for than the past few dozen?’

Yes, but what you’re looking for in this case is the negative evidence. The proof that it did not occur as reported. That’s what you’d have to find in every case. If you found it in no cases that you researched? How could you say your belief that God does not exist is based on strong positive evidence? So, walking away from thousands of events where you have to say “I don’t know for certain what happened” makes it impossible to draw a tight conclusion.

This is not at all like saying there is a pink elephant living in pine trees. I look at every pine tree and see nothing. Nobody on earth ever said there was such a thing (except me right now). You ask me, and get negative evidence against my own testimony because I actually say I just made it up. Now - you have positive certainty that the thing does not exist.

 

[reggieM]

How long is a dog supposed to bark up a tree before it can decide there’s no squirrel in it?

The dog saw other dogs looking up in the tree. There are dogs running away with what looks like squirrels in their mouth. The dog smelled a squirrel. The dog saw chewed acorns falling from the branches. The dog sees branches and leaves rustling around. But the dog barks and barks and never sees a squirrel. Is that positive evidence that there is no squirrel in the tree?

And bear in mind, this is just me, and I’m not the sort of atheist who is confident enough to say that i know there’s no God. Someone in that postion would be even less inclined to put more time into researching something they already think isn’t true, I’d think.

On the first part - that is great to hear and I’m very glad you’re open to discussing and thinking about such things, and importantly - open to the possibility that God is there. It also sounds like you’ve done some work on the path of this discovery and that is very commendable, as I see it.
On the second thing, you’re probably right also - but that strikes me as a much bigger problem. The person who makes a hard-conclusion like that, I would think, would need to show that he or she has done much more research than simply to say they don’t think God exists and that’s enough.

As you said well, believers can point to a number of sources that can be explored. I do not see how all of those sources can be dismissed. I mentioned a few, and there are others:

The accounts of Jesus in the Gospel (miracles, resurrection, etc).
Miracles of the apostles in the new testament
The lives of the 5 saints I listed.
Here’s a site to investigate: miraclesofthesaints.com/
30,000 witnessing the Miracle of the Sun
Stigmata of Padre Pio - and his life as I already suggested looking into
A dozen or so most recent apparitions of the Blessed Virgin
Artifacts like the Shroud of Turin and Tilma of Guadalupe
There is a former atheist Randall Sullivan, who wrote The Miracle Detective. Doing what I suggested, investigating reported miracles.
There’s another guy on EWTN and Youtube calling himself The Miracle Hunter - no idea what that is, but it’s something to consider. Again - looking for negative evidence - proof-against the claim.

There’s a lot more that I can’t think of at the moment.

Just to restate (yet too many times I’m sure! ) - to state positively, in a Gnostic way, that there is no God – one would have to have solid, virtually irrefutable arguments against all of that.

When someone comes along (as many/most would) and just dismisses and assumes some psychological phenomenon where there is no scientific evidence to support it - then they can’t have strong reasons for their atheism.

 

[PRmerger]

The dog saw other dogs looking up in the tree. There are dogs running away with what looks like squirrels in their mouth. The dog smelled a squirrel. The dog saw chewed acorns falling from the branches. The dog sees branches and leaves rustling around. But the dog barks and barks and never sees a squirrel. Is that positive evidence that there is no squirrel in the tree?

 

[reggieM]

:tiphat:

Thanks, PR!

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Sorry but I don’t see anything in the the link you provided that suggests justice and mercy are mutually exclusive.

If that is the case I cannot help you.

You state based on what the priest said 'you have two options: either discard the concept that “God is BOTH perfectly just and infinitely merciful”, or stick to your guns, and degrade God to the status of a “married bachelor”, who cannot exist, having two mutually contradictory attributes.

And that is the point. The priest did not explicitly say that, but it follows from the definitions.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

This might accurately describe much evangelical Christian thought on the matter. However, Catholics have this thing called “penance”. While I’m sure this still doesn’t satisfy your subjective demands, it takes more than “I’m sorry” for a Catholic to address their sins.

However, a sincere “I’m sorry” is an excellent start.

Hah! How many “Hail Mary”-s does it take to do this “penance”?

 

[TheCuriousCat]

The dog saw other dogs looking up in the tree. There are dogs running away with what looks like squirrels in their mouth. The dog smelled a squirrel. The dog saw chewed acorns falling from the branches. The dog sees branches and leaves rustling around. But the dog barks and barks and never sees a squirrel. Is that positive evidence that there is no squirrel in the tree?

Cute analogy, mind if I tweak it to make it a lot more like reality?

Notices a bunch of other dogs looking up at a tree. They are looking very excited, and every so often, one runs off as if he is carrying a squirrel in his mouth, but in fact it looks like his mouth is empty. He sees branches rustling, but then again, it is a windy day. He doesn’t smell anything at all.

Eventually, he asks another dog what is going on (these are very clever dogs), the dogs tell him there are squirrels in the tree, “Just look up there and you’ll see them.”
The dog looks up and up, barks, runs around, but still no squirrels.

“Are you sure?” the dog asks, “I don’t see them.”

“Oh, yes, I’m sure. I’ve had one already.”

“Do you see any right now?”

“Yes! There is one right there, and there, and there, and there! The tree is full of them!”

Still the dog looks and he can’t see a squirrel, and every so often he sees other dogs run off and appear to be eating sticks, wild grass, and a variety of things that look a little, at a big stretch, like squirrels

“I don’t think those are squirrels,” the dog says, “and I really don’t see any squirrels up there.”

“Well, you need to believe they are there before you can see them.”

“Uh… what?”

“You need to have faith in the squirrels. You can’t expect them to just reveal themselves to you. I know in my heart there are squirrels up there, and my life is better for it.”

“Shouldn’t it be pretty easy to see squirrels in a tree full of squirrels? I’ve eaten squirrel before, and they were never this difficult to detect. There were very clear indications that the squirrel was a squirrel.”

“Happy is the dog who believes in the squirrels without seeing.”

“Yeah, I’m going to go bark up another tree.”

“Ugh…you are just pig headed. We all see squirrels. You are so irrational.”

 

[KnowtheSilence]

I suppose the same could be said for an anti-vaxxer.

Imagine there’s an anti-vaxxer who isn’t “confident enough to say that [she] knows that vaccinations are harmful”, but isn’t willing to vaccinate her children.

She says she’s read all of the pro-vaccination (that is, all the medical) literature, but remains unconvinced.

Her attitude is: “There’s only so much you can do before you start to say to yourself 'how likely is it that this book on the -]Resurrection/-] Vaccinations is going to say something the past half-dozen haven’t told me? How likely is it that this story about some -]miracle/-]scientific study that happened in ages past is going to be convincing?”

Your response to her would be: well, you haven’t studied enough.

Same for the 6000 year old Earthers.

And the Holocaust deniers.

And the 911 Truthers.

… And the people who think the evidence for the Resurrection is on par with the evidence for the Holocaust or the efficacy or vaccines.

 

[PRmerger]

… And the people who think the evidence for the Resurrection is on par with the evidence for the Holocaust or the efficacy or vaccines.

No one has proposed that they are on a par, KtS.

I am just wondering what you would say to the Young Earther who says: been there, done that. Read all the books. Not happening. Still a Young Earther.

What say you to this?

 

[PRmerger]

No one has proposed that they are on a par, KtS.

I am just wondering what you would say to the Young Earther who says: been there, done that. Read all the books. Not happening. Still a Young Earther.

What say you to this?

NB: it is acknowledged that at some point you must shake the dust off your feet and leave the conversation with someone who is recusant but if one is of the mindset of maintaining a dialogue with someone, what is the response to someone who says the above?

 

[KnowtheSilence]

The dog saw other dogs looking up in the tree. There are dogs running away with what looks like squirrels in their mouth. The dog smelled a squirrel. The dog saw chewed acorns falling from the branches. The dog sees branches and leaves rustling around. But the dog barks and barks and never sees a squirrel. Is that positive evidence that there is no squirrel in the tree?

That may be the way you see it. To me it’s more like the dog saw other dogs looking up at the tree. Two of the other dogs insist that there is a squirrel in the tree, but they’re arguing over whether it’s a gray squirrel or a red squirrel, even though they both say they’re looking right at it. Another says it’s a chipmunk. A few others say it’s a bird of varying kinds. Another is chewing on what is clearly a stick that fell out of a tree, but he insists he caught the squirrel. Meanwhile, the first dog doesn’t see or smell anything, but it does notice the branches rustling every now and again, but it really looks like it could just be the wind.

I’ll give some more substantial replies to the rest if your posts after I’ve poked around a bit with the stuff you linked to.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

No one has proposed that they are on a par, KtS.

I am just wondering what you would say to the Young Earther who says: been there, done that. Read all the books. Not happening. Still a Young Earther.

What say you to this?

Ask what they’ve read and why they found it unconvincing.

 

[PRmerger]

Ask what they’ve read and why they found it unconvincing.

So that’s what we’re doing with you.

 

[Vonsalza]

Hah! How many “Hail Mary”-s does it take to do this “penance”?

I’m going to assume (maybe stupidly) that there is some element of genuine inquiry trapped under this obviously baiting and juvenile response.

Penance generally requires restoration when possible. If someone suffers a material loss by my sinful act, part of my penance (not all) would likely be the restoration of their loss if that’s possible.

I recall one candid fellow who was sharing his experience with penance after he confessed to his priest that he was cheating on his wife. Part of his penance was informing his wife of the fact.

Anecdotal, yes. But penance for a grave sin requires a bit more than a few spoken words. See your priest for more info.

 

[minkymurph]

If that is the case I cannot help you.

I agree.

And that is the point. The priest did not explicitly say that, but it follows from the definitions.

I can honestly say this is the first time in my life I have ever heard it said justice and mercy are mutually exclusive - in any forum; legal, religious, political, philosophical, or anything else. For this reason I have just googled it, and the only arguments I could find that endorse the view justice and mercy are mutually exclusive are those proposed by atheists. I tried google scholar and that search threw up authoritative journals on restorative and social justice, but they appear to be arguing justice and mercy should not be mutually exclusive.

Conclusion - justice and mercy are mutually exclusive in terms of the atheists definitions - no one else’s.

Of course if someone can point to an authoritative source - and by authoritative I mean not an internet blog or article written from a religious perspective by someone religious or an atheist for the purpose of arguing there is no God and religion is wrong, I’d be happy to consider it.

 

[PRmerger]

Conclusion - justice and mercy are mutually exclusive in terms of the atheists definitions - no one else’s.

Yep, pretty much.

And that’s because of my oft-repeated mantra: scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.

In order to remain adamantine about one’s atheism one needs to view things, (esp Scripture) with a fundamentalist lens.