I was questioning this atheist on Morality and he responded…
''I don’t think I should question your belief wither, but YOU should! It only makes sense.
Different societies think differently. In Muslim countries ruled by Sharia law, atheists (among gays, etc) are executed. This tells you that there are NO morals already. We just make them up as we go along. The Christian case is slightly different, and that is because Christianity has had a longer history of being questioned, and being in the spotlight by critics of all time, who millions of them have lost their lives as well (executed by the church, or backed by it, like the Holocaust, witch hunts, crusades, etc). Hence, another proof that even currently at this very moment religions are making up morality as it fits them (accepting gays to boost their ceremonial revenues).’’
I don’t know much about Sharia law and so fourth. Could anyone please help me in responding?
Thank you in advance! And God Bless everyone on this Pentecost!
Laudetur Iesus Christus.
Dear “lemonbeam:”
It is difficult to respond to such a person, because he does not appear to be asking a question. Both his philosophy and his history are so distorted that it is even difficult to say what he advises – however, it does not seem that he is asking a question.
One must be careful when speaking to such people. When a person seems focused on “criticizing” the Church there is a risk that he is seeking merely to tear the faith apart and not to understand or appreciate it. St. Augustine, interpreting Christ, identifies such people as the “dogs” to whom holy things should not be given:
Now, in this precept by which we are forbidden to give what is holy to the dogs, and to cast our pearls before swine, we must carefully require what is meant by holy, what by pearls, what by dogs, what by swine. A holy thing is something which it is impious to violate and to corrupt; and the very attempt and wish to commit that crime is held to be criminal, although that holy thing should remain in its nature inviolable and incorruptible. By pearls, again, are meant whatever spiritual things we ought to set a high value upon, both because they lie hid in a secret place, are as it were brought up out of the deep, and are found in wrappings of allegory, as it were in shells that have been opened. We may therefore legitimately understand that one and the same thing may be called both holy and a pearl: but it gets the name of holy for this reason, that it ought not to be corrupted; of a pearl for this reason, that it ought not to be despised. Every one, however, endeavours to corrupt what he does not wish to remain uninjured: but he despises what he thinks worthless, and reckons to be as it were beneath himself; and therefore whatever is despised is said to be trampled on. And hence, inasmuch as dogs spring at a thing in order to tear it in pieces, and do not allow what they are tearing in pieces to remain in its original condition, “Give not,” says He, “that which is holy unto the dogs:” for although it cannot be torn in pieces and corrupted, and remains unharmed and inviolable, yet we must think of what is the wish of those parties who bitterly and in a most unfriendly spirit resist, and, as far as in them lies, endeavour, if it were possible, to destroy the truth. But swine, although they do not, like dogs, fall upon an object with their teeth, yet by recklessly trampling on it defile it: “Do not therefore cast your pearls before swine, test they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” We may therefore not unsuitably understand dogs as used to designate the assailants of the truth, swine the despisers of it. (Augustine on the mounts 2067:69.)
It might be better to discuss with him the basis of objective reality. He seems to correctly sense that the hints of morality which are discernable in nature are not sufficient to fully distinguish the truth. Hence, he begins to understand the need for “authority” in morality. “Authority” as used by the Church is based on the Latin word from which it derives and means both power and authorship. It does not mean a scholarly “authority” in the sense of knowing about something because one has observed or studied it, but rather a power to make a thing, the responsibility to make a thing happen.
Since you say that he is an “atheist,” I assume that your friend is likely to be a “materialist” and therefore to underestimate the importance of persons. He likely thinks of the cosmos as a machine or a happenstancial pile of material things. This is, of course, to some degree correct. However, he is also likely to be a “naturalist,” that is to limit his thinking to nature and to exclude both preternatural and supernatural things from his considerations. Thus, he appreciates the problem of meaninglessness in the material universe (when one ignores man’s role as the intending element of material creation). However, he ignores the very solution to the problem, by denying man’s preternatural capacities. This is the weakness in his thinking.
If you can help him see that the existence of man himself is evidence of a “trans-natural” capacity in the world, you can begin to lead him to appreciate the problem that he is considering in more detail. God willing, this will lead him to a position where he can ask an authentic question about the faith and you can begin to answer him without risk of sacrilege.
Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.
John Hiner
