Help with an athiest

[MPat]

Hi, I have an old friend from the military days that I’m chatting with online. Years ago his wife left him and he has a grown daughter that he loves very much. But he’s a very depressed person and has had previous suicidal bouts as recent as last year. He’s very intelligent and claims to have investigated “every” religion and he’s decided that atheism is for him. His fall back is that he’s a good and moral person (though Godless) and is certain only evil people go to hell. He sites people who go to church on Sunday yet sin all week as being worse than him… Anyway, he asked me a question this morning that I’m pretty sure is a trap: “the bible says to gather with other believers and rejoice. But what about those who abhor organized religion and prefer to worship alone. Are they not, too, sinning?”

My answer would tend to be this: If they obey God’s commandments (including Jesus’ eleventh commandment to love one another as I have loved you), have faith that Jesus is your savior, have a relationship with God (Pray) then my guess is you’ll be OK…

THanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut… He threw a ton of questions at me so I’ll put more on here. Thanks for the help

I guess you could try something like what is outlined in Feser’s blog post “Pre-Christian apologetics” (edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/05/pre-christian-apologetics.html)… But perhaps you might try some more simple approaches. Since many have been offered already, I’ll add a couple as well. You could point out the parable with Pharisee and Tax collector (showing that declarations “I am not like those bad men!” do not make the good result certain). Also, you could point out that Catholicism is not only beneficial after death. He is depressed, but the martyrs were able to go singing to their deaths (our pope also smiles enough to make his pictures good illustrations of that joy) - is he certain that religion has nothing to do with this difference…?

 

[ptisme]

ismailignosis.com/2014/03/27/he-who-is-above-all-else-the-strongest-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/

If he’s a rational Atheist- this argument is undeniable.

Aquinas’ logic is completely valid and sound, and is being defended and appropriated by modern Analytical Philosophy. There is a big problem with people being unable to understand Aquinas, because he presupposes an intimate knowledge of Aristotle, Logic, and Metaphysics. This is obviously a problem in modern society where the standard of education is abysmal and we are only in the business of educating to the level of slavery.

I will definitely use this. Right now I respond during the day and he responds at 11 pm when he’s done with work so dialog was slow. I spent today answering the concerns he has with the Catholic church in particular. He’s confused about sola scripture, confessing to a priest, tradition and any merits of listening to the opinion of the founding fathers. I spent today clearing up catholic misconceptions from his young days as a Protestant. Soon I hope to move on to the issue of weather there is a God and our purpose on earth and the creation of the galaxy and such…

 

[ptisme]

There is also the likely hood that he is not interested enough in the subject to wade through all that. If he’s not invested or interested in the Catholic faith, then what’s his motivation.

Many times followers of a faith think that because the topic/issue is important or critical to them, so others should likewise make it a priority.

If someone of another faith challenged a Catholic to read various things on their faith, and listen to arguments etc, most Catholics would simply say “no thanks”.

Does your friend enjoy discussing religion etc or is it not his thing.

Honestly, I can’t think of a single thing that one could say to actual atheist who is not intrested in the subjects of religion or philosophy that would “convince” them.

Either the spirit moves a person or it doesn’t. Most people are not converted by reason or logic. Not saying it never happens, but it’s not common. Most of the one’s I know who HAVE been converted that way were already interested in at least the subject in not in the particular faith itself.

If a person feels no need for a religion or a supreme being, it’s unlikely you will convince them they need one, life however may bring them to that conclusion on their own.

There’s a chance he will listen given he read my diatribe on suffering as it relates to birth control and abortion. Also, I consider that when you try to reason with a non- believer that may be God’s olive branch to them. Maybe it will get no where but it might start a spark that God can work with down the road… Perhaps you could join me in a prayer for him. Also if he converts it won’t be my doing but God’s.

 

[ptisme]

Apparently in his quest for answers to combat his depression he’s investigated every major religion and has found no inspiration. I sense he’s turned to atheism for a few years now. This as a guy I knew 20 years ago in the service that I connected with a year ago on Facebook. Never really talked religion until yesterday when he posted to his feed: “you people do know there is a difference between abortion and birth control right?” In regard to SCOTUS and Hobby Lobby…

 

[freeRadical]

If all Catholics had that attitude; I wouldn’t be Catholic

My post was more tongue in cheek. An economist would have gotten it. It’s lonely being an economist.

 

[Mystophilus]

ismailignosis.com/2014/03/27/he-who-is-above-all-else-the-strongest-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/

If he’s a rational Atheist- this argument is undeniable.

With respect, no, it is not undeniable.

Being long (and sometimes repetitive), it is fairly likely to induce a teal dear reaction, but it is just the classical argument for the First Cause. This is a good argument, but it is only an argument for the existence of a First Cause, not for the sentience, let alone the absolute goodness of that First Cause.

A critical reader of it is perfectly capable of seeing that the First Cause could be a non-good God (the Watchmaker God, who just sets the universe up and then walks away) or even a non-sentient operating principle (like the fact that 2+2=4).

Edward Feser’s claim, in 5.4, that “the Unmoved Mover, as the source of all change, is the source of things coming to have the attributes they have” does not logically imply sentience, because “the ground or source of all qualities” does not need to contain the qualities which it produces: it merely needs to contain the capacity to produce the factors which produce the factors which produce the factors … (etc) which produce the factors which produce the qualities. The Sun is the point of origin for practically all of the energy on Earth, but it cannot send an email: it is a very far removed cause. Much like DNA, the First Cause could be an impetus to action whose ultimate results, having been traced through multitudinous intervening steps, are far more complex than it is: the First produces subsequent causes, all of whose dynamic interactions produce effects which are not the direct and simple results of the First.

Further, this all runs into the basic problem of Obvious, Simple Arguments: were such an old, simple argument (it is old, and, in philosophical terms, very simple, given that it can be expressed in only a few thousand words) undeniably, compellingly true, then any remotely-reasonable person would be required by their own reasonability to accept it. However, a considerable number of very reasonable people have been unconvinced, and remain unconvinced. They remain so because it is not ultimately compelling: there are alternative explanations (Watchmaker, non-sentient operating principle).

Of course, the same problem applies to the Obvious, Simple Arguments against the existence of God, which relates to something upon which Kant commented: it is better for God not to be provable.

 

[Mystophilus]

he’s a very depressed person and has had previous suicidal bouts as recent as last year.

If he is depressed, he might be incapable of hope, and thus of faith. Been there, done that. Not fun.

, he asked me a question this morning that I’m pretty sure is a trap: “the bible says to gather with other believers and rejoice. But what about those who abhor organized religion and prefer to worship alone. Are they not, too, sinning?”

There is this story from the Desert Fathers of the monks meeting together for the Eucharist, and then some of them stand up and denounce one of the younger ones, revealing that he took the community’s money and spent it on a prostitute. They demand that he must depart forthwith.

At that, the oldest, wisest, most pious and most respected monk rises from among them and sadly heads for the door.

“Father!” they cry. “Where are you going?”

“I, too, am a sinner,” he replies. “If he must go, then I must also.”

At this point, the monks remember that whole bit about Jesus coming to forgive sins.

 

[Richard_Feynman]

My post was more tongue in cheek. An economist would have gotten it. It’s lonely being an economist.

Don’t worry! I LOL’ed at your post! I’m not an economist though

 

[Kay_Cee]

I would ask him how he knows he is a good person? How does he judge this?

That’s a darn good question. Where does he get his concepts of good and evil from?

I would also ask if, when he’s judging this, he isn’t just a little bit biased in favor of himself.

 

[Skeptic92]

With respect, no, it is not undeniable.

Being long (and sometimes repetitive), it is fairly likely to induce a teal dear reaction, but it is just the classical argument for the First Cause. This is a good argument, but it is only an argument for the existence of a First Cause, not for the sentience, let alone the absolute goodness of that First Cause.

A critical reader of it is perfectly capable of seeing that the First Cause could be a non-good God (the Watchmaker God, who just sets the universe up and then walks away) or even a non-sentient operating principle (like the fact that 2+2=4).

Edward Feser’s claim, in 5.4, that “the Unmoved Mover, as the source of all change, is the source of things coming to have the attributes they have” does not logically imply sentience, because “the ground or source of all qualities” does not need to contain the qualities which it produces: it merely needs to contain the capacity to produce the factors which produce the factors which produce the factors … (etc) which produce the factors which produce the qualities. The Sun is the point of origin for practically all of the energy on Earth, but it cannot send an email: it is a very far removed cause. Much like DNA, the First Cause could be an impetus to action whose ultimate results, having been traced through multitudinous intervening steps, are far more complex than it is: the First produces subsequent causes, all of whose dynamic interactions produce effects which are not the direct and simple results of the First.

Further, this all runs into the basic problem of Obvious, Simple Arguments: were such an old, simple argument (it is old, and, in philosophical terms, very simple, given that it can be expressed in only a few thousand words) undeniably, compellingly true, then any remotely-reasonable person would be required by their own reasonability to accept it. However, a considerable number of very reasonable people have been unconvinced, and remain unconvinced. They remain so because it is not ultimately compelling: there are alternative explanations (Watchmaker, non-sentient operating principle).

Of course, the same problem applies to the Obvious, Simple Arguments against the existence of God, which relates to something upon which Kant commented: it is better for God not to be provable.

You seem to be misunderstanding the argument. For one; this is not the Argument to a First Cause (although it does carry that implication) this is actually based on Avicennas Argument to a Necessary Existent. It does indeed imply that God is the Good, and God is sentient. This requires some knowledge of the Metaphysics involved- in that any spiritual substance must, necessarily, be a Pure Intelligence. The Philosopher goes through this in Metaphysics and the Angelic Doctor expands on it in his commentary on the same text.

Omniscience is tautology once you have established that God must be the creator of all that is, all that was, and all that could possibly be.

Also; this argument can not be used in support of the “watchmaker God” as per the first Thesis to the Unconditioned Reality. This thesis implies that God is the creator of all that is, in every instant. If the unconditioned reality were to stop willing creation into existence, even for a moment, creation would instantly annihilate.

The Absolute Goodness of God is based on the Transcendental Properties of Being. Which state that One, Good, and True are ultimately interchangeable with Being. To say that God is self-subsistent Being, is to say that God is self-subsistent unity, Goodness, and Truth.

 

[ptisme]

The discussion appears to be over. I went one by one down the line debunking his former Protestant misconceptions of the OHCAC and he responded by deleting the thread (I guess former anti-Catholic Protestants have that trait in common with current ones). Never even made it beyond first base with the discussion. I recall the story of the guy who dies in the flood after waiving off three rescue attempts……

PS, I apologize if I sound harsh regarding communication with our Protestant brothers and sisters but I have never met one personally willing to have an in depth biblical discussion beyond the first salvo after they’ve voiced their concerns re Catholicism… Just sayin’…

 

[schaeffer]

In my opinion, debating with an atheist is about as pointless as debating with a Keynesian economist.

I think the same can be said for debating with a devout Catholic, and I do not mean that in any negative sense.

People who are devout in their faith, who have truly embraced it body and soul, and have thought it out etc, are unlikely to be persuaded by discussion.

Unexamined or uninformed faith is a different case. Just like followers of any belief system there are different sorts of atheists.

Some won’t budge because they’ve thought long and hard and looked at many philosophies and that is where they’ve come to rest.

Some won’t budge because they are happy where they are and don’t see any value from making an effort.

 

[ptisme]

I think the same can be said for debating with a devout Catholic, and I do not mean that in any negative sense.

People who are devout in their faith, who have truly embraced it body and soul, and have thought it out etc, are unlikely to be persuaded by discussion.

Unexamined or uninformed faith is a different case. Just like followers of any belief system there are different sorts of atheists.

Some won’t budge because they’ve thought long and hard and looked at many philosophies and that is where they’ve come to rest.

Some won’t budge because they are happy where they are and don’t see any value from making an effort.

Regarding your point on atheists I concur with your sentiments. Regarding debating devout Catholics I have to disagree to some extent. In debating anti-Catholic Protestants I have found them to be very confident in their beliefs until you introduce them to scripture they aren’t completely comfortable with (James 2:24) when the discussion abruptly ends. My point being I would welcome the opportunity to be persuaded. Our beliefs, if founded in truth, can withstand ALL scrutiny.

 

[Mystophilus]

You seem to be misunderstanding the argument. For one; this is not the Argument to a First Cause (although it does carry that implication) this is actually based on Avicennas Argument to a Necessary Existent. It does indeed imply that God is the Good, and God is sentient.

Sections 1-4 are the Argument for a First Cause. 5.1-5.3 are then a claim for the transcendence of that First Cause, and 5.4 is a claim (not an argument) for the sentience and goodness of that First Cause under the undemonstrated assertion that “every creative principle contains and encompasses its effects”.

 

[ptisme]

I just got a PM from he. He deleted the thread because one of his atheist friends left a rude comment to a Christian friend of his. So he nixed the thread and defriended Mr Rude. He said we can continue through private messaging

 

[Mystophilus]

I just got a PM from he. He deleted the thread because one of his atheist friends left a rude comment to a Christian friend of his.

Sorry, from whom?

 

[ptisme]

Sorry, from whom?

One of his atheist friends made a rude comment to one of his Christian friends on the Facebook thread so he deleted the thread and cut ties with the rude atheist….

 

[ptisme]

Looks like he’s still open to discussion. Just got this from him:

“have a question about catholocism that I do not understand. I have asked several catholics and have yet to get an answer much beyond “that is the way it is”. This is with confession. The bible says in a number of places (and I paraphrase) that god says to bring your problems to me. I know the bible talks about some things being hidden from the general population, but prayer seems to never be mentioned as one of those. Why then do catholics have to go to confession and receive a penance from a priest who intercedes on the sinner’s part to a god who says all that has to be done is talk to god? I have read a number of articles on it over the last few days and all of them are written from the view of How Do I Confess Properly, not from why confession is required, rather than talking directly to god. One even said that a confessor was prompted by the priest with how the confession was to be conducted - opening words, etc. Those words, though were stated by him (and I quote) “Forgive me father for I have sinned…”. No capitalization to father, indicating your asking the Priest for forgiveness and not God. You comments would help educate and enlighten me and help me understand more than the pittance that I do now.”

 

[Mystophilus]

Looks like he’s still open to discussion.

Why then do catholics have to go to confession and receive a penance from a priest who intercedes on the sinner’s part to a god who says all that has to be done is talk to god?

This would be worth reposting as a separate topic, since Catholics can no doubt be of more help as regards Catholic theology here, but I can offer a few ideas: if God is omniscient, then God knows what we are going to pray before we pray it; as a result, prayer is not for God, but for us; repentance/absolution most probably works the same way.

 

[schaeffer]

Regarding your point on atheists I concur with your sentiments. Regarding debating devout Catholics I have to disagree to some extent. In debating anti-Catholic Protestants I have found them to be very confident in their beliefs until you introduce them to scripture they aren’t completely comfortable with (James 2:24) when the discussion abruptly ends. My point being I would welcome the opportunity to be persuaded. Our beliefs, if founded in truth, can withstand ALL scrutiny.

I’m sorry if I was unclear. I am not suggesting Catholics don’t care to debate or discuss, this forum is proof of that, I said that a devout Catholic is unlikely to be persuaded from their faith by such discussions. They see the logic and value of their faith. They’ve examined and tested it, and a discussion is unlikely to shake them from it.

As you say you welcome such discussion BUT are secure in your faith and it being able to stand up to scrutiny. Which is the point I was making. Debating a devout Catholic, IF the object was to sway them from their faith, is fairly pointless.

If the object of the debate was for lively and informative discourse, then it’s not pointless at all.