How are long-time agnostists made?

  • Thread starter Thread starter abcdefg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Regarding Pascal’s Wager, my only real point–badly put–was that the skeptic’s suspicion that there is no God is no more proveable or certain than the faithful’s belief that there is. That is, if you are truly a skeptic and do not think it is possible to really, really know what the objective truth is, then you don’t know that God does not exist either.

Now, I am 56 and my mother is 85 and has been a self-proclaimed agnostic all her adult life. Why, I ask, would someone go that long without making up her mind, finally? What a terrible intellectual and spiritual limbo to be in. Believe me, you do not want to see what that kind of fatal indecision has on someone rapidly approaching the end of her life.

So why not shed your intellectual pride, admit your poverty and embrace your faith. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
 
Wcknight wrote:

“I guess it boils down to whether one thinks the ‘Magisterium’ or teaching body of the Church has authority to decide what Catholics should believe. When I decided that the Catholic Church was right for me, I also decided to accept 100% that its main authority is correct and appropriately represents Christ or Christ’s wishes for His Church on earth.”
…
“I too still would like to 100% certain. The more I read about the saints the closer I get to that.”

What do you mean by “accept 100%”? I take it you aren’t yet 100% certain, otherwise you wouldn’t be getting closer to that. Do you mean that you are committed to behaving as if its teachings were true 100% of the time, without reservation?
”IF you wish to be Catholic, accept Catholic doctrine 100%. IF you wish to receive Communion, believe as close to 100% as possible that the host and wine become the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. To do otherwise would be wrong. St. Paul says " to eat or drink the Body and Blodd of CHrist unworthily is to invite judgement upon oneself ". I take that to mean if you receive Communion without believing, or if you are in the state of serious sin while receiving, then you are committing a very serious sin.”

What does it mean, “believe as close to 100% as possible”? Does that mean that one should try not to think critically about the Church or the Eucharist if one isn’t certain? Is that honest? How do you know if you believe enough? Does the Church take a clear position on this?

Thank you for sharing so much WcKnight.
Michael
 
Caroljm36 wrote:

*“Regarding Pascal’s Wager, my only real point–badly put–was that the skeptic’s suspicion that there is no God is no more proveable or certain than the faithful’s belief that there is. That is, if you are truly a skeptic and do not think it is possible to really, really know what the objective truth is, then you don’t know that God does not exist either.” *

For my part, I don’t say that it is impossible to know (given a reasonable definition of ‘know’) the truth. I just don’t know it. It isn’t the case that (apart from good evidence) theism is on an equal footing with weak atheism, anymore than a belief that fairies exist is on an equal footing with a lack of belief that they do. I do think that strong atheism (which makes the positive statement that there is no God) is on an equal footing (sans evidence from either side) with theism.

*“Now, I am 56 and my mother is 85 and has been a self-proclaimed agnostic all her adult life. Why, I ask, would someone go that long without making up her mind, finally? What a terrible intellectual and spiritual limbo to be in. Believe me, you do not want to see what that kind of fatal indecision has on someone rapidly approaching the end of her life.” *

I’m sure its tough. For my part, I can’t see how atheists and agnostics can be all that happy, though many of them claim to be. I’d love it if a (benevolent) God existed. I bet your mother would as well. But happiness isn’t the issue is it? Would you want to believe in God if there were no God?

”So why not shed your intellectual pride, admit your poverty and embrace your faith. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.”
**
You know, I have to strongly object to this. It is not ‘intellectual pride’ that keeps me from believing. I would love to believe and, I think, live a life devoted to God. I do admit my ‘poverty’ in so far as I admit that I don’t seem to have what I need to be happy. But when I did believe, honesty was a central virtue in my life, and I still try to cling to it. Given the evidence that I have now, it would be dishonest for me to be a theist, much less a Christian. Should we lie to ourselves? Is that what ‘intellectual humility’ consists of?

Michael
 
40.png
MichaelLewis:
Wcknight wrote:

What do you mean by “accept 100%”? I take it you aren’t yet 100% certain, otherwise you wouldn’t be getting closer to that. Do you mean that you are committed to behaving as if its teachings were true 100% of the time, without reservation?
”…". I take that to mean if you receive Communion without believing, or if you are in the state of serious sin while receiving, then you are committing a very serious sin.”

What does it mean, “believe as close to 100% as possible”? Does that mean that one should try not to think critically about the Church or the Eucharist if one isn’t certain? Is that honest? How do you know if you believe enough? Does the Church take a clear position on this?

Thank you for sharing so much WcKnight.
Michael
Click to expand...
 
Posted only the quote by mistake and took too long to change it.

I doubt anyone can be 100% certain about anything so unprovable as God or religion.

I still have some small doubts once in a while, but I think most folks have those doubts as well. I’m still sometimes afraid of dying, and that too I think is normal. It is an unknown and the fear of losing one’s self awareness and consciousness can be disturbing. However the promises of our faith does wonders in allaying those fears.

Honesty to oneself and in everything we do is very important. No one gives up that honesty to believe in God. We aree free to question and examine any aspect of our faith as we need to. (We can not impose our beliefs on others if they do not conform to Church doctrine. That would be wrong.)

What I have found is that the more I investigate any doctrine, the more I have found it to be true.

Faith is believing in something that can not be proved. The existence of Love can not be proved. Yet I know it exists, I have experienced it, it surrounds my life and those around me. I can’t touch it or see it or show it in some mathematical or physical equation. but I can not and will not deny it is here.

God is Love, in it’s purest form. I see God in the complexity and simplicity of His creations, in the beauty of nature, and in the vastness of the universe. I see God in my children and wife, in my friends, extended family, and folks I meet. Most of all I see His hand in the charity and goodness of folks who reach out to help victims in need such as those in SE Asia.

What is all boils down to, is love. The main question you will be asked and your whole life will be judge on, when the curtain finally closes is, “Did you love ?”

And that is what Christianity and God is all about.

Christ’s Peace
 
. Do you mean that you are committed to behaving as if its teachings were true 100% of the time, without reservation?
”
Does that mean that one should try not to think critically about the Church or the Eucharist if one isn’t certain? Is that honest? How do you know if you believe enough? Does the Church take a clear position on this?

Thank you for sharing so much WcKnight.
Michael
How much to believe ?

The short answer is that we must believe all that is contained in the Apostles’ Creed (which if you really analyze it encompass a whole lot more that it’s literal text, since it includes believing in the holy Catholic Church…which implies a lot more).

As I said, I don’t think anyone can be 100% certain. BUT I don’t think anyone has to be and I doubt everyone is 100% certain.

We should always be examining our faith, as children, we may accept everything before us, but as adults our goal is always to look for the Truth. The best way to do that is to read up on the Church and many of the saints.

The saints have a special relationship to God, and miracles in their lives were commonplace. IF anyone knew what the Truth was all about, they certainly did.

wc
 
The real presence of the Eucharist:

Some interesting (and sometimes disturbing) stories about the Eucharist:

During my readings, I have come across a few stories about events during mass. Some of those include, a host turning into a beating human heart (in Japan, it was examined and is still around somewhere) and hosts that have bled.

wc
 
WcKnight wrote:

*“As I said, I don’t think anyone can be 100% certain. BUT I don’t think anyone has to be and I doubt everyone is 100% certain.

We should always be examining our faith, as children, we may accept everything before us, but as adults our goal is always to look for the Truth. The best way to do that is to read up on the Church and many of the saints.”*

Ok, but are you sure that that is the Church’s position? Does the Catechism (Or some other authoritative church source) speak to the meaning of ‘belief’, the degree of belief necessary to be a Catholic/partake in the Eucharist, or the permissibility of doubt? I was under the impression that doubt was a sin. Can you (or anyone else) clear this up for me? (I think I’d like to start a thread on this topic. Should I post it in “Apologetics”?)

Thanks WcKnight.
Michael
 
40.png
wolpertinger:
And if there were a god, there wouldn’t be any foxholes in the first place.
Click to expand...

Is atheism a self-enclosing world-view in such a way that, if one is an atheist, no theism is possible to vindicate as worthy of a reasonable being? (“atheism” meaning here, “non-theism”; not, “a religion or outlook on life not approved of or held by the questioner”)​

IOW, is atheism of such a character, that, on atheist premises, theism is impossible or absurd or irrational ? Is it a rejection of theisms, while recognising that theism may suit others than oneself (“subjective” atheism, for lack of a better term) - or, a dismissal of all theisms as incoherent and absurd (“objective” atheism) ?

Or would it be better to distinguish between different types of non-theism, in some other way ? ##
 
**
40.png
MichaelLewis:
The conscious is only obviously “less than” the unconscious from *our *
Click to expand...
perspective. We shouldn’t assume that there is some objective ordinal ranking of things. I would grant that conscious systems are complex, but why do you think that they need to come from a more complex system or even an equally complex one? There is more to an oak than there is to an acorn, after all. As David Hume suggested, we in fact regularly observe the more complex growing from the less complex in nature, so why not assume that that modal describes the universe as a whole, rather than the design modal which we see far fewer examples of?
I can’t see why we should assume that the originator of the universe or any part of us is immaterial. (Do we really have much of a grasp of what that would mean anyway?)**
**## This reminds me of the suggestion that horses would think God was a horse if they were given to thinking about theism 🙂 **
**It occurs in Cicero’s “De Natura Deorum”, “On the Nature of the Gods”. Which is an imaginary dialogue by Cicero, somewhat in the style of Plato, between three Romans, each of them advocating different types of theism. It’s fascinating as evidence for ideas about a God or gods in the last century BC. **
IMO, Christians should read these authors more ##
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top