Has anyone ever been convinced by the 'proofs' of God's existence?

[Abba]

I was an atheist for most of my life, and I came to believe in God based on the First Cause, though it wasn’t through reading Aquinas directly. I don’t even remember exactly where I first came across the First Cause argument, and I think it was something that just gradually crept into my mind and took root. I’d be happy to tell my story, if anyone is interested, as it wasn’t a straight line from atheism to Catholicism; Orthodox Judaism was actually my first interest precisely because of the “name of God” in the Tanakh and the existence of the Jewish people and religion. It all kind of came together to convert me to belief in God, and eventually to belief in the Catholic Faith.

Peace and God bless!

I am all ears.

 

[neophyte]

Is there any recorded case in history of a non-believer in God being convinced of God’s existence by any one of the traditional proofs?

How about someone who didn’t want to believe it? Seems to me that would be a harder case.

That would be me.

 

[Abba]

Theists love to use Anthony Flew as an example, but his conception of God was vastly different from the way Christianity, or indeed even Judaism and Islam, conceives of God. For one, Flew believed that God was evil and God was the source of evil. He also believed that God didn’t intervene in human affairs. He believed in a “Jeffersonian God”, which seems to suggest he may have been a deist. It’s evidently clear from these facts that he can’t be used as the “shining beacon” of contemporary mainstream theism.

For the OP, a significant factor in St. Edith Stein’s conversion was when she translated St. Thomas Aquinas’ works. It was through this that she familiarized herself with Thomist philosophy and shifted away from Husserl’s philosophy. St. Edith Stein, today, stands as one of the most notable atheists to have converted to Catholicism. She is the patron saint for nonbelievers and atheists alike.

She would make a good patron saint for atheists - nice catch - and so would Saint Thomas the Apostle. But, they have not been declared patron saints of atheists by a Pope. I have actually prayed in the past that God raises up a great saint from the atheists. Huh, maybe he already has with Edith Stein.

Actually I think she tried to convert Husserl before she worked on the translations of Saint Thomas Aquinas. It seems that there were situations that were building up in her and directing her to be open, such as once she was impacted by a Catholic women who - well here is quote:

"During this period she went to Frankfurt Cathedral and saw a woman with a shopping basket going in to kneel for a brief prayer. "This was something totally new to me. In the synagogues and Protestant churches I had visited people simply went to the services. Here, however, I saw someone coming straight from the busy marketplace into this empty church, as if she was going to have an intimate conversation. It was something I never forgot. "

I believe it was Saint Teresa of Avila who had a great impact on her long before Aquinas.
Teresa Benedict of the Cross Edith Stein (1891-1942)
nun, Discalced Carmelite, martyr
vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/ns_lit_doc_19981011_edith_stein_en.html

 

[Ghosty]

I am all ears.

Well, alright then.

Like I said, I don’t remember any specific moment of learning about the First Cause argument, but over time I came to believe that if there were a God it would have to be self-explanatory, it couldn’t rely on anything else for its existence because then it couldn’t truly be called “God”, but would simply be the “biggest creature”. I didn’t believe that such a being existed (I hadn’t really thought through the implications of the First Cause argument fully), but this is what I believed it would have to be if it did.

At one point I was studying the history of the Jewish people because of my political interest in the Palestine/Israel conflict. I came across the argument that “God promised the land to the descendents of Abraham” and I didn’t find it very convincing, but one thing did strike me as odd: of all the ancient people only the Jews remained with a consistent chain of culture and religious tradition. What made this especially odd was that they were not among the more powerful or well established ancient groups. They should have been wiped out countless times, or assimilated, or what-have-you. The Pharonic Egyptians who had enslaved them no longer exist, the Babylonians no longer exist, the Persians no longer exist, the Romans no longer exist, but this odd tribe of goat-herders were still around and still kept their religion. I didn’t attribute anything supernatural to this at the time, but it did strike me as very unusual and worthy of looking into more deeply.

So I looked at the Jewish explanation of the oddity of their continued existence as a distinct people and that’s when my world started to turn upside down. They claimed that God had spoken to them, and had promised that they would always exist as a people. That was a profound claim, but it still could simply be chance. Then I read about what they called their God, or rather what their God had called itself: “I am that am”. All other religions of their day had gods that were identified with specific aspects of creation, or had origins of their own. Any gods that came close to such an all-encompassing name (perhaps in certain circles of Hinduism, for example) were almost utterly abstract and unapproachable. The Jews claimed a direct contact with this being, however, and that name stood out most of all: I am that am. A God that is its own existence, and is the root of all being.

Other religions had a concept of an all encompassing, ultimate god, but they didn’t claim direct contact with such a being and it remained more of an abstract concept, much like my atheist imagination of what a god would have to be. Other religions were ancient, but none had such an unusual and unique pedigree as the Jewish religion, and none had remained so true to their original core despite massive upheavals. No other ancient group of people had made it through to modern times so steadfast in their ancient belief and identity. Most odd of all was that this concept of “I am that am” was so out of character for the kind of culture that the Jews were, namely semi-nomadic herders; it was a very abstract and advanced philosophical concept, certainly not something suited to the kind of life the Jews had led, yet they claimed this was their God, and that He had spoken to them. All of these “coincidences” combined made a very compelling, and disturbing for me, case that there was indeed a “First Cause” God, and that He had spoken to an odd group of nomads millenia ago and had promised their continued existence so long as they remained faithful to Him.

My atheism just couldn’t stand up to such a blast of mounting evidence. I thought more about the “First Cause” argument, about “I am that am”, and I had to admit that there simply wasn’t a reasonable atheist answer to it. There was nothing that I had found in my atheism that could answer the “First Cause” argument, and now I had come face to face with the fact that there were people who recognized this “First Cause” by name. This, combined with the “living testimony” of the Jewish people got me to drop my atheism very quickly and I began to study Judaism as I had become convinced that the “First Cause” was real, He had spoken to this people and proven it through their continued existence, and now I was driven to know more about this mystery of the universe that I had so easily ignored for most of my life. In studying Judaism I came to Catholicism (via interest in understanding the Messianic promises from Judaism), and eventually ended up where I am today. That’s a different story, however, and it took several years for me to settle into religion, and I suppose I’m still settling in and always will be.

Peace and God bless!

 

[fisherman_carl]

Is there any recorded case in history of a non-believer in God being convinced of God’s existence by any one of the traditional proofs?

I would say that yes people come to believe in God, not necessarily from a proof text, but from recognizing the hand of God in creation - the argument of intelligent design. They may not rationalize it to the degree of a proof text, but they definitely recognize the hand of God in nature and in themselves. The other argument of conscience is supported in the bible. People generally recognize that they are sinners and fall short of the mark. Their consciences convict them and lead them to repentance.

 

[yablabo]

Is there any recorded case in history of a non-believer in God being convinced of God’s existence by any one of the traditional proofs?

Aristotle became convinced of the unmoved Mover through his studies of Physics and Metaphysics.

– Nicole

 

[tonyrey]

The fact remains that Ant

Your education has been neglected…

 

[Abba]

Ghosty, thank you very much for sharing your journey.

Well, alright then.

At one point I was studying the history of the Jewish people because of my political interest in the Palestine/Israel conflict. I came across the argument that “God promised the land to the descendents of Abraham” and I didn’t find it very convincing, but one thing did strike me as odd: of all the ancient people only the Jews remained with a consistent chain of culture and religious tradition. What made this especially odd was that they were not among the more powerful or well established ancient groups. They should have been wiped out countless times, or assimilated, or what-have-you. The Pharonic Egyptians who had enslaved them no longer exist, the Babylonians no longer exist, the Persians no longer exist, the Romans no longer exist, but this odd tribe of goat-herders were still around and still kept their religion. I didn’t attribute anything supernatural to this at the time, but it did strike me as very unusual and worthy of looking into more deeply.

So I looked at the Jewish explanation of the oddity of their continued existence as a distinct people and that’s when my world started to turn upside down. They claimed that God had spoken to them, and had promised that they would always exist as a people. That was a profound claim, but it still could simply be chance. Then I read about what they called their God, or rather what their God had called itself: “I am that am”. All other religions of their day had gods that were identified with specific aspects of creation, or had origins of their own. Any gods that came close to such an all-encompassing name (perhaps in certain circles of Hinduism, for example) were almost utterly abstract and unapproachable. The Jews claimed a direct contact with this being, however, and that name stood out most of all: I am that am. A God that is its own existence, and is the root of all being.

Other religions had a concept of an all encompassing, ultimate god, but they didn’t claim direct contact with such a being and it remained more of an abstract concept, much like my atheist imagination of what a god would have to be. Other religions were ancient, but none had such an unusual and unique pedigree as the Jewish religion, and none had remained so true to their original core despite massive upheavals. No other ancient group of people had made it through to modern times so steadfast in their ancient belief and identity. Most odd of all was that this concept of “I am that am” was so out of character for the kind of culture that the Jews were, namely semi-nomadic herders; it was a very abstract and advanced philosophical concept, certainly not something suited to the kind of life the Jews had led, yet they claimed this was their God, and that He had spoken to them. All of these “coincidences” combined made a very compelling, and disturbing for me, case that there was indeed a “First Cause” God, and that He had spoken to an odd group of nomads millenia ago and had promised their continued existence so long as they remained faithful to Him.

My atheism just couldn’t stand up to such a blast of mounting evidence. I thought more about the “First Cause” argument, about “I am that am”, and I had to admit that there simply wasn’t a reasonable atheist answer to it. There was nothing that I had found in my atheism that could answer the “First Cause” argument, and now I had come face to face with the fact that there were people who recognized this “First Cause” by name. This, combined with the “living testimony” of the Jewish people got me to drop my atheism very quickly and I began to study Judaism as I had become convinced that the “First Cause” was real, He had spoken to this people and proven it through their continued existence, and now I was driven to know more about this mystery of the universe that I had so easily ignored for most of my life. In studying Judaism I came to Catholicism (via interest in understanding the Messianic promises from Judaism), and eventually ended up where I am today. That’s a different story, however, and it took several years for me to settle into religion, and I suppose I’m still settling in and always will be.

Peace and God bless!

I too find that ‘I am that am’ or ‘I am that am’ extraordinary and I was impacted by it. It happened that one year I studied anthropology and linguistics. Some time after, it could have been months or years, I was re-reading Genesis and there it was " I am that I am." I was able to appreciate how it is the perfect response. ‘Yo soy quien soy’ God does not need to connect or associate his identity with anything in his creation to identify himself.

That’s an important point you bring to light, regarding that the Hebrews were a nomadic tribe and ‘I am that am’ is , well, pure wisdom. I can appreciate how it may have served a clue to you that their wisdom had another source and it may just be the one they were claiming - God himself. Beautiful!

Could you describe the state of your soul at the time you begin to question your atheism and look into the probability of the existence of God? Did you, for instance, have to put your pride aside or decide to deal with the social pressures that giving up your status as an atheist may entail, if you came to recognize the existence of God? What if anything were the things that you had to put aside that were obstacles to your progress and what were they and how and why did you put them aside? Or was it that you were in a stage that was open to finding the Truth?

Thanks,

Abba

P.s. I had to delete the first paragraph of your post so it could fit in this one. It’s a great story.

 

[Abba]

Ghostly, if you can respond that would be great. Otherwise, I understand posting can be very time consuming. I apologize for the sloppiness of my post. It happens when I do not take the time to edit. English is obviously not my first language.

---

I am just writing without restrictions, and since Edith Stein came up in the discussion, I went ahead and read a little about her. I found a prayer she wrote to the Holy Spirit. I think that we can do all the intellectual gymnastics possible in our search for God but, there comes a point in where we just have to humbly knock. I consider that it is not only intellectuals, Ph.D.s, Doctors, geniuses, nor extraordinary nor powerful people that know God exists. It is actually, mostly, very ordinary people. I think that we can express our faith with reason and rationally but, I am one of those who does not have a great appreciation for the thought that the existence of God can be proven necessarily through logical proofs. I don’t know about anyone coming up with a proof like x-z to the power of 3 = God, such as 1+2=3, and if you do not know nor understand the one that = God it’s just because you are a bozo and should believe. I think people through reason can become open to the possibility and come to wonder and that’s when the opportunity has to be taken to approach God as a child (humility is a key). “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.”- Mt 11:25

Edith Stein was a highly educated woman and I am sure she read the five proofs of Saint Thomas Aquinas long before she decided to translate some of his works. I think that it was when she started to search with her heart and soul that she found God. A formula proving the existence of God does not inspire a soul to write this prayer:

Novena Of The Holy Spirit
by St. Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein)

Who are you, sweet light, that fills me
And illumines the darkness of my heart?
You lead me like a mother’s hand,
And should you let go of me,
I would not know how to take another step.
You are the space
That embraces my being and buries it in yourself.
Away from you it sinks into the abyss
Of nothingness, from which you raised it to the light.
You, nearer to me than I to myself
And more interior than my most interior
And still impalpable and intangible
And beyond any name:
Holy Spirit eternal love!

Are you not the sweet manna
That from the Son’s heart
Overflows into my heart,
The food of angels and the blessed?
He who raised himself from death to life,
He has also awakened me to new life
From the sleep of death.
And he gives me new life from day to day,
And at some time his fullness is to stream through me,
Life of your life indeed, you yourself:
Holy Spirit eternal life!

Are you the ray
That flashes down from the eternal Judge’s throne
And breaks into the night of the soul
That had never known itself?
Mercifully relentlessly
It penetrates hidden folds.
Alarmed at seeing itself,
The self makes space for holy fear,
The beginning of that wisdom
That comes from on high
And anchors us firmly in the heights,
Your action,
That creates us anew:
Holy Spirit ray that penetrates everything!

Are you the spirit’s fullness and the power
By which the Lamb releases the seal
Of God’s eternal decree?
Driven by you
The messengers of judgment ride through the world
And separate with a sharp sword
The kingdom of light from the kingdom of night.
Then heaven becomes new and new the earth,
And all finds its proper place
Through your breath:
Holy Spirit victorious power!

Are you the master who builds the eternal cathedral,
Which towers from the earth through the heavens?
Animated by you, the columns are raised high
And stand immovably firm.
Marked with the eternal name of God,
They stretch up to the light,
Bearing the dome,
Which crowns the holy cathedral,
Your work that encircles the world:
Holy Spirit God’s molding hand!

Are you the one who created the unclouded mirror
Next to the Almighty’s throne,
Like a crystal sea,
In which Divinity lovingly looks at itself?
You bend over the fairest work of your creation,
And radiantly your own gaze
Is illumined in return.
And of all creatures the pure beauty
Is joined in one in the dear form
Of the Virgin, your immaculate bride:
Holy Spirit Creator of all!

Are you the sweet song of love
And of holy awe
That eternally resounds around the triune throne,
That weds in itself the clear chimes of each and every being?
The harmony,
That joins together the members to the Head,
In which each one
Finds the mysterious meaning of his being blessed
And joyously surges forth,
Freely dissolved in your surging:
Holy Spirit eternal jubilation!

My half a cent worth.

 

[Deborah123]

Well, alright then.

“Like I said, I don’t remember any specific moment of learning about the First Cause argument, but over time I came to believe that if there were a God it would have to be self-explanatory, it couldn’t rely on anything else for its existence because then it couldn’t truly be called “God”, but would simply be the “biggest creature”. I didn’t believe that such a being existed (I hadn’t really thought through the implications of the First Cause argument fully), but this is what I believed it would have to be if it did…”

I haven’t posted on here before but very much enjoy the site. I read your post with great interest, sorry I edited it for my reply, as it mirrored much of my own thinking (I am currently converting to Judaism).
A really good read, thanks!!

 

[Arizona_Mike]

It was part of my journey back from agnosticism, yes.

I was rather poorly catechized for a number of reasons (my own fault, really) and lost faith as a teenager. A series of events, which are rather difficult to explain, began to lead me back towards a faith in Christ as an adult. The writings of Aquinas and the apologetic writings of various other authors were a big part of continuing that journey, as it led me to realize that many of the intellectual pretensions and objections to belief I had formulated over the years were either naive, misunderstandings of actual Church doctrine, or were simply unsupportable and fallacious.

I believe that God wants communion with each of us, and if we can’t quite bring ourselves to the full extension of Faith through our own blindness and pigheadedness, He will keep trying to reach us. I thank God for the branch He extended to me when I needed it most.

If any of you could offer up a brief prayer of thanks to St. Thomas Aquinas tonight on my behalf, I’d appreciate it and I think he would too.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Hi y’all,
I’m new here and not in communion yet (in RCIA presently), but the traditional proofs definitely tipped the scales for me- necessary though not sufficient factors so to speak. I’ll try to explain briefly.
When I first became interested in the Church I was, as my screen name implies, an atheist. For some reason (God’s grace, I now believe) I took an interest in Catholicism and found a trove of fascinating history and philosophy that differed greatly from my “superstition and heretic-burning” concept of the Church. The problem was, I just couldn’t believe the whole God thing. And I tried- I read loads of modern religious philosophy: Plantinga, Swinburne, ect. I always came back to “Well, they make good points, but so do the atheists. It just isn’t enough to sway me.” Later on, however, I read over Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition, the Christmas (or Festivus) present to get your intelligent atheist friend. Feser connected a crucial dot that I didn’t even know existed. The reason, I learned, modern philosophy is so frenetic and able to argue all sides with equal conviction is that it lacks exactly that element that makes Aquinas’ arguments intelligible: the four causal principles of Aristotle; more specifically, the teleological principle. With this understanding, everything snapped into place. Philosophically, I could now believe that philosophical arguments could be verifiably true or false. No more Humean navel-gazing of the “what is self?” variety. I could believe with certainty what everyone knows but philosophers love to pretend they don’t: I exist as a body and mind, the world is not an illusion, causality exists, etc. Theologically, the icing on the cake, the Five Ways came to seem, if not completely decisive, than at least more compelling than the arguments against. The fifth way, after all, is the teleological argument, and isn’t even intelligible unless one subscribes to an Aristotelian notion of causation. Coupled with my “judging by fruits” belief that that the Church has been a thing of great good (to put it mildly) in the world, I was ready to take the next step.
This might all seem pretty abstract (and way longer than I intended!) but it really is one of the major factors that lead me to put down the books and march over to RCIA classes. Hope this helps.

 

[PermanentMarker]

Thank you for your post, FormerAtheist.

I have been frustrated with many atheists I have encountered online. I and others have made this comparison before, but “new” atheists are like Protestant fundamentalists. Both are bigoted. Both are irrational. Both are wicked. Just in different respects.

If you were of the “new” atheist variety, how did you ever overcome such obstacles?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I suppose the traditional arguments for God could appeal to anyone who is open-minded and looking for a way to find the idea of God a reasonable prospect.

But for those who are fleeing from God, especially those addicted to scientism, I think the traditional arguments would not be very persuasive. Immanuel Kant demonstrated the dialectical game of proofs for God and the rebuttals to those proofs.

Belief is primarily located in the will. Once the will decides to positively train itself on God, the intellect is freed to open up avenues for traveling down that road.

 

[tonyrey]

I was convinced by Aquinas’s five proofs. Of course my conversion story is more complicated, but the proofs played a big role. I first came across them in Dawkins book the God Delusion. His ‘refutations’ were so poor that it made me try to refute Aquinas myself. I failed and here I am.

Good for you! Dawkins is so rabid he is unwittingly making quite a few converts to “evil”!
Of course in his amoral universe he is not justified in using the term “evil”.

 

[scameter18]

Hi y’all,
I’m new here and not in communion yet (in RCIA presently), but the traditional proofs definitely tipped the scales for me- necessary though not sufficient factors so to speak. I’ll try to explain briefly.
When I first became interested in the Church I was, as my screen name implies, an atheist. For some reason (God’s grace, I now believe) I took an interest in Catholicism and found a trove of fascinating history and philosophy that differed greatly from my “superstition and heretic-burning” concept of the Church. The problem was, I just couldn’t believe the whole God thing. And I tried- I read loads of modern religious philosophy: Plantinga, Swinburne, ect. I always came back to “Well, they make good points, but so do the atheists. It just isn’t enough to sway me.” Later on, however, I read over Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition, the Christmas (or Festivus) present to get your intelligent atheist friend. Feser connected a crucial dot that I didn’t even know existed. The reason, I learned, modern philosophy is so frenetic and able to argue all sides with equal conviction is that it lacks exactly that element that makes Aquinas’ arguments intelligible: the four causal principles of Aristotle; more specifically, the teleological principle. With this understanding, everything snapped into place. Philosophically, I could now believe that philosophical arguments could be verifiably true or false. No more Humean navel-gazing of the “what is self?” variety. I could believe with certainty what everyone knows but philosophers love to pretend they don’t: I exist as a body and mind, the world is not an illusion, causality exists, etc. Theologically, the icing on the cake, the Five Ways came to seem, if not completely decisive, than at least more compelling than the arguments against. The fifth way, after all, is the teleological argument, and isn’t even intelligible unless one subscribes to an Aristotelian notion of causation. Coupled with my “judging by fruits” belief that that the Church has been a thing of great good (to put it mildly) in the world, I was ready to take the next step.
This might all seem pretty abstract (and way longer than I intended!) but it really is one of the major factors that lead me to put down the books and march over to RCIA classes. Hope this helps.

Sounds very similar to myself. I came to the Church as an atheist about three years ago, in a similar way you did, through reason and philosophy, though ultimately through an act of will by the grace of God. Congratulations, and welcome home.

 

[tonyrey]

I have been frustrated with many atheists I have encountered online. I and others have made this comparison before, but “new” atheists are like Protestant fundamentalists. Both are bigoted. Both are irrational. Both are wicked. Just in different respects.

There is no valid reason to believe an atheist is necessarily evil…

 

[tonyrey]

Hi y’all,
I’m new here and not in communion yet (in RCIA presently), but the traditional proofs definitely tipped the scales for me- necessary though not sufficient factors so to speak. I’ll try to explain briefly.
When I first became interested in the Church I was, as my screen name implies, an atheist. For some reason (God’s grace, I now believe) I took an interest in Catholicism and found a trove of fascinating history and philosophy that differed greatly from my “superstition and heretic-burning” concept of the Church. The problem was, I just couldn’t believe the whole God thing. And I tried- I read loads of modern religious philosophy: Plantinga, Swinburne, ect. I always came back to “Well, they make good points, but so do the atheists. It just isn’t enough to sway me.” Later on, however, I read over Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition, the Christmas (or Festivus) present to get your intelligent atheist friend. Feser connected a crucial dot that I didn’t even know existed. The reason, I learned, modern philosophy is so frenetic and able to argue all sides with equal conviction is that it lacks exactly that element that makes Aquinas’ arguments intelligible: the four causal principles of Aristotle; more specifically, the teleological principle. With this understanding, everything snapped into place. Philosophically, I could now believe that philosophical arguments could be verifiably true or false. No more Humean navel-gazing of the “what is self?” variety. I could believe with certainty what everyone knows but philosophers love to pretend they don’t: I exist as a body and mind, the world is not an illusion, causality exists, etc. Theologically, the icing on the cake, the Five Ways came to seem, if not completely decisive, than at least more compelling than the arguments against. The fifth way, after all, is the teleological argument, and isn’t even intelligible unless one subscribes to an Aristotelian notion of causation. Coupled with my “judging by fruits” belief that that the Church has been a thing of great good (to put it mildly) in the world, I was ready to take the next step.
This might all seem pretty abstract (and way longer than I intended!) but it really is one of the major factors that lead me to put down the books and march over to RCIA classes. Hope this helps.

We’re doing well. You are the second convert who has appeared on this thread today. Welcome to our philosophical community! Your experience will stand you in good stead here…

Your last point is one of the most significant reasons for being a Christian. Even on scientific grounds the fertility of a theory is of prime importance, although of course faith goes far beyond science or philosophy for that matter.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

**There is no valid reason to believe an atheist is necessarily evil… **

Ah … but …

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” Their deeds are loathsome and corrupt;
not one does what is good.The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if even one is wise, if even one seeks God. All have gone astray; all alike are perverse. Not one does what is good, not even one. Will these evildoers never learn?
They devour my people as they devour bread; they do not call upon the LORD. They have good reason, then, to fear; God is with the company of the just. They would crush the hopes of the poor, but the poor have the LORD as their refuge. Psalm 14

 

[FormerAtheist]

Thanks for the warm hellos everyone.
tonyrey, I don’t think PermanentMarker was saying all atheists are evil, just the “New Atheist” variety. I agree with this in the limited sense that they make no attempt to take on serious arguments for theism, using fanatical sects and third-rate thinkers as their strawmen. In this way, they mislead those looking for compelling reasons to believe or disbelieve. I’m not sure he’s putting sincere atheist thinkers like Quentin Smith or your average Joe atheists in that camp.

Your last point is one of the most significant reasons for being a Christian. Even on scientific grounds the fertility of a theory is of prime importance, although of course faith goes far beyond science or philosophy for that matter.

I’d never thought of it this way. Thank you for clarifying a concept that’s always been somewhat nebulous in my mind. And thank you for the welcome to the Church.

If you were of the “new” atheist variety, how did you ever overcome such obstacles?

I’m not sure I qualified as a “new atheist”. After all, I was an atheist for about 13 years, long before Dawkins started “philosophizing”. But let’s define our terms. As Feser, John Haught (God and the New Atheism), and Keith Ward (Is Religion Dangerous?) point out, the NA’s are just the Old Atheists with worse arguments and an absurd predilection for arguments of the following type:

1. If evolution is true, there is no God.
2. Evolution is true.
   :. There is no God.
   Obviously, premise one is a bit debatable, but you won’t find many arguments for it by the NA’s. Another defining feature of the NA’s: they don’t tend to take their arguments to logical conclusions. I’ll let John Haught argue this point for me:

Along with Nietzsche and Camus, Sartre realized that most people will be too weak to accept the consequences of the death of God. However, anything else would be escapism, cowardice, and bad faith.
By contrast…[NA’s] want atheism at the least possible expense to the agreeable social circumstances out of which they sermonize

What are the consequences of the end of religion? Dawkins, et. al, think things would be about the same as they are now, just with fewer suicide bombings and crusades. Sartre and Nietzsche knew that the upheaval of the metaphysical foundation that has sustained every culture that has ever existed would be drastic, maybe disastrous. They just thought it was intellectually honest.
So no, I’ve never put much stock in the Dawkins crowd. If you have friends who are in the thrall of these folks, I’d recommend the books I mentioned above. Alvin Plantinga is good too, and a lot of his responses to atheistic naturalism are available online. If they aren’t yet willing/ready to read the opposition, encourage them to at least read stuff by smarter atheists. Nietzsche was a better philosopher than Dawkins, and I doubt your friend will want to follow his atheist premises to Nietzsche’s logical and evil conclusions. Remember: your friend thinks he is just being reasonable. His worldview is just yours, without all the hocus pocus. He is wrong. If he’s in the NA camp, he is, philosophically speaking, a scientific materialist (or naturalist). Remind him that he actually embraces (however reflexively) a well-formed philosophy that has counterarguments and internal difficulties to account for.
Once your friend has seen that there are serious theists poking serious holes in his naturalist worldview, he needs an answer to the following question: why would any thinking person believe in God? This makes no sense to him. He’s not in denial about God’s existence. He’s not willfully ignorant, just ignorant. Now’s the time to hit him with something like Keith Ward’s God, A Guide for the Perplexed, N.T. Wright’s Simply Christian, Mere Christianity (I have to say, this one didn’t “take” for me at this stage in the journey. It has taken for countless others though), and of course, Chesterton.
Your friend thinks that the history of the Church is a horror-show of oppression, crusading, and superstition. His views are influenced by simple narratives concocted by Protestants and anti-religion Enlightenment thinkers trying to rally the masses. No serious historian thinks in these terms. Thomas Woods

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

would be a good antidote. Christopher Dawson is great too. Fr. John McCloskey highly recommends Warren Carroll’s four-volume Christendom series, though I haven’t had a chance to look at it. Your friend has a “science uber alles” mentality, so point out all the Jesuit contributions to science and the fact that Georges LeMaitre, who proposed the expansion of the universe and the big bang theory and was a peer of Einstein’s, was a Monsignor.
Top it off with some real-life accounts by some real-life Catholics. Let them see that the faith is a living thing. I’m a lit nerd, so I’d give him essays, letters, and occasional writings by Flannery O’Connor (my favorite, but then I’m also a Southern boy), Evelyn Waugh, and Shusaku Endo. John Zmirak over at CrisisMag is one of my personal favorites.
Most of these are popular works. Your friend is reading pop-atheism, so I assume these books are on par with his desired reading level, but if he’s an academic type, you could go with stuff like Thomas Molnar’s Theists and Atheists: a Typology of Non-Belief for philosophy or any Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. To end, I’ll mention one of my absolute favorites that is only tangentially related, but sure helped me- Thomas Fleming’s The Morality of Everyday Life. Sorry for being so long-winded, but I think you can safely say you’ve done your part to sew the seeds if you follow this game plan. Hope this helps.