HOW IS AN ATHEIST CONSCIENCE FORMED?

[WhatIf]

QUOTE]But you did know because this is the way God created you.Its just that you couldnt see it.Like I said your mind was filled with doubt,lies and smoke. These are instilled by the enemy.Why is it that even the blades of grass praise God? Why is it that even the rocks will praise God.Thats because God is in control. God Bless.
I have a question for you. Have you thought of the difference between a baptised child and an unbaptised child? There is surely some difference. Do you think that may change a child’s ability to KNOW God. I don’t know. I was baptised as an Adult and I definitely good feel something very special happening during my baptism. A joy that not even the birth of my children can surpass.

It depends on your definition of know, but what I am saying is that some atheists are not directly or rebelliously denying God because of some sin they are committing, but they were raised without much of a chance to understand that God is everywhere. There is a difference in learning about a religion and God and believing in God and then willingly turning away and someone who never knew God existed, was never baptised and never taught.

 

[Carl]

WhatIf

Your posts were very thoughtful. One sentence threw me.

*Also, an Atheist could not commit a mortal sin, if he is unaware that his actions are sinful. *

If you go back and read post # 52 you would see that buffalo has nicely laid out the Catholic teaching on natural law. This means that we cannot escape having a conscience because God gave us an indwelling sense of right and wrong. The atheist may not recognize sin as a fact, but that does not mean that he doesn’t give in to the devil now and then right along with the rest of us and is eligible right along with the rest of us for final judgment.

In other words, he does not get a free pass on sin just because he is an atheist and denies its existence.

 

[Carl]

wolpertinger

So the best atheists can come up with is the ideal to which Christians themselves aspire - even if they not always practice it.

Exactly. Most Christians freely admit they are not saints … some with fear and trembling. Yet they have an ideal clearly set out in Scripture and the teachings of the Church, all of it originating with God…

What is the atheist ideal?

I have no idea. I suppose it is whatever each atheist wants it to be since he has no final authority other than his own whim to affirm the greatest of ideals.

If he does have any authority other than his own whim, I’d sure like to know who/what that authority is.

 

[Benadam]

Monarchy:

The golden rule is older than christianity, and is part of most religions, not just yours.

what is visible of Christ-ianity is that the first family from which we all share baggage of by the way. That’s why religions seem to all have a similar shade to them. They are colored by that baggage.Well not all but the ones brought up for being the most ancient. Imagine how the baggage of the first humans with the kind of consciousness like ours would color everyones behaviour at a level almost to sublime to reach. Those first humans spread out in the world making offspring colored by their ancestors particular view of reality not the truth but that family members take on what happened. the earth populates with nations who have distinct constructs of what reality is yet they all seem to have some commonalities at their core… it’s at the edges they bicker. The Golden Rule is one of them. That rule is the offspring of a previous rule that eeked out a path in the human heart for it, parented it I suppose. That rule is eye for an eye tooth for a tooth. which developed into treat others as you would have them treat you. tTheir is the origin of that moral rule.

 

[WhatIf]

Carl:

WhatIf

Your posts were very thoughtful. One sentence threw me.

*Also, an Atheist could not commit a mortal sin, if he is unaware that his actions are sinful. *

If you go back and read post # 52 you would see that buffalo has nicely laid out the Catholic teaching on natural law. This means that we cannot escape having a conscience because God gave us an indwelling sense of right and wrong. The atheist may not recognize sin as a fact, but that does not mean that he doesn’t give in to the devil now and then right along with the rest of us and is eligible right along with the rest of us for final judgment.

In other words, he does not get a free pass on sin just because he is an atheist and denies its existence.

I wouldn’t say that an atheist gets a free pass. If I thought that, then I may have less concern about my time in purgatory. I know this sin was forgiven because of my baptism as an adult, but I don’t know if I have made reparations for it. I agree that we all have a conscience, but will an atheist be judged along with the rest of us Christians. I think not, but then God judges and not me. It seems to me that those who knew what they did was sinful and knew about repentance and chose not to repent will be judge differently, that an atheist, that says “Oh, wow, you do exist God!” and falls to their knees and begs forgiveness for their unbelief. Don’t you think it is a much different situation.

I definitely felt a sense of right and wrong as an atheist child/agnostic teen. I tried to do right just as most of us do, but I didn’t know that doing right had anything to do with God. I thought I did right because my parents taught me right from wrong. Guilt helps us do right, even as atheists. We do have consciences, which I suppose is what you originally asked about in your post. I don’t know if this helps to answer your post or not, but here goes.

Here is the last part of Post #52 about natural law and combine that with the catechism paragraph 2125, especially what I’ve emphasized with bold lettering. Maybe it will make my point better.
2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. 61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. “Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion.” 62

Carl, perhaps I am wrong in saying that an atheist can not commit a mortal sin, but I think the judgment for their sins could be very different than for a Christian who was fully aware of their sins and did not repent. I mostly want to make the point that we shouldn’t assume atheists will go to hell. There is a lot to consider. Mainly, if their parents taught them that God did not exist, then this has to be taken into consideration or that doesn’t seem fair, does it?

I think it is because of natural law that those of us that were raised without a belief in God still feel the need to seek God. Eventually, after moving away from my Parents, I became aware of this need to seek the truth. What I was seeking is a shred of evidence that God has affected my life and therefore does exist. Of course, as they say, seek and you shall find. Find, I did and now I am Catholic. Thanks to reading the Catechism because it happened to be laying around my Mother-in-laws house and thanks to reading the Bible and thanks to other Christians who helped me continue seeking. Thanks be to God.

There are so many sins that get in the way, such as pride and anger. However, I think atheists are less accountable for their sins because they did not willingly sin against God and because they had external pressure from their parents. See paragraph 1860 below. It may speak to your point, but it also makes mine, I think, because I consider parents as external pressure. See what you think.
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

 

[WhatIf]

Carl:

otm

Following the Golden Rule doesn’t require any belief if God. And many people who don’t believe in God do follow the Golden Rule.

Many of the people who follow the Golden Rule do so because of the Judaeo-Christian heritage they participate in.

We should be grateful to the One who gave us that heritage. He was not Plato. He was not Aristotle. He was not Darwin. He was not Einstein. He was the one and only … Jesus Christ … the One whose birthday we soon celebrate in spite of attempts by atheists to obliterate his name from all public places.

You know, I am upset too by the attempts to make our society one that is absent of religion or at least absent of christianity instead of one that embraces freedom of religion as it should. When I was an atheist, though, I did not get angry about religious symbols and celebrations. I just didn’t like being put on the spot as a child about whether or not I believed in God because of the response it would get when I said NO.

I really think that some people somewhere have a political agenda and some atheists are helping them with their cause. Maybe it is to help with the Pro-life vs. Pro-choice debate. I don’t know, but it seems odd to me that the atheist seem angry. It makes me think that perhaps they are actually fallen away Christians. They have something in their past to make them angry about religion. I didn’t care if our money said IN GOD WE TRUST or if I sang songs that mentioned God. I thought it mean’t a lot to the Christians and it didn’t hurt me any, so why complain? How does a nativity scene on some public property hurt an atheist? It never hurt me as an atheist. We see stuff all the time and may not agree with it, but unless it is indecent or dangerous, what difference should it make? “My gut” just tells me that something is going on that is getting blamed on atheists, but is being organized by a different group. Perhaps a group like the ACLU. I don’t know. Yes, some atheists are causing problems, but I don’t think they represent the majority of atheists. I think most atheists just think some of the customs/traditions are silly, but not offensive and definitely no reason to sue. Just my thoughts.

 

[WhatIf]

Carl:

wolpertinger

So the best atheists can come up with is the ideal to which Christians themselves aspire - even if they not always practice it.

Exactly. Most Christians freely admit they are not saints … some with fear and trembling. Yet they have an ideal clearly set out in Scripture and the teachings of the Church, all of it originating with God…

What is the atheist ideal?

I have no idea. I suppose it is whatever each atheist wants it to be since he has no final authority other than his own whim to affirm the greatest of ideals.

If he does have any authority other than his own whim, I’d sure like to know who/what that authority is.

I think atheist and Christians, sadly, have similar ideals. The norms of society tend to influence each of us. The Golden Rule influences both of us. “Society” sends the message that we should have a boy and a girl and then stop having babies. It is not just atheists that use artificial birth control. Society says not to marry too young and preferably after college. That greatly increases the chance of choosing pre-marital sex whether Christian or not. I think most Christians ought to be open to marriage right out of highschool if it means their child is trying to avoid the sin of pre-marital sex and they think they’ve found the love of their life. How many of us Christians though, would rather turn away from the pre-marital sex issue and just encourage our children to graduate from college? How many of us, let our children know that it is ok to marry before college?

The point I am trying to make, but perhaps not to well, is that Christians and Atheists both follow social norms. If we, as Christians, lived our lives as we should, then social norms would change. They would be more like it was nearly 100 yrs. ago or let’s say prior to artificial birth control being the norm.

So, I think the atheists ideal is to follow societies lead in many cases based on their income level or status.

 

[wolpertinger]

WhatIf:

I really think that some people somewhere have a political agenda and some atheists are helping them with their cause.

And this is different for theists?!

With the possible exception of a year or two in elementary school I was never a believer, but what led me to formally sever my religious ties was the undue influence Christian churches tried to exert in a hotly contested political (and military) issue.

I don’t know, but it seems odd to me that the atheist seem angry. It makes me think that perhaps they are actually fallen away Christians. They have something in their past to make them angry about religion.

There is anger on both sides and there is nothing odd about it, either. Indeed, many atheists are fallen away Christians in a technical or a literal sense, and there is plenty in their present to keep them angry about religion.

I didn’t care if our money said IN GOD WE TRUST or if I sang songs that mentioned God. I thought it mean’t a lot to the Christians and it didn’t hurt me any, so why complain? How does a nativity scene on some public property hurt an atheist?

Interestingly enough, there are some highly divise political and social issues that religious people firmly oppose, but can be framed as similar questions.

I believe that people’s opinions about political, economic, social, and religious issues tend to cluster. It’s not quite as simple as left/right, theist/atheist. or other convenient labels, but for anybody that feels strongly enough to engage in public discourse you can interpolate their unstated opinions from the ones they do with a good chance of calling it right. As far as I’m concerned, the reason why conflicts between theists and atheists are sometimes very bitter is right there; incompatible worldviews collide and religious faith or the lack thereof is used as just another wedge to gain the upper hand in a larger conflict.

To answer your questions, you gloss over an all-important point. What atheists specifically take exception at is the endorsement of theistic religion or even more specifically, Christianity, by the state. To put it this way, pragmatically minor but highly symbolic acts are used to contest what many atheists consider nothing less than a vital issue - to what extent can the Christian majority dictate their will on the non-Christian minority? In return, the theist side gets equally upset by what they perceive as the tyranny of a minority.

 

[WhatIf]

wolpertinger:

To answer your questions, you gloss over an all-important point. What atheists specifically take exception at is the endorsement of theistic religion or even more specifically, Christianity, by the state. To put it this way, pragmatically minor but highly symbolic acts are used to contest what many atheists consider nothing less than a vital issue - to what extent can the Christian majority dictate their will on the non-Christian minority? In return, the theist side gets equally upset by what they perceive as the tyranny of a minority.

What you call an endorsement of a religion may just be an expression of our religion. How can we have religious freedom, if we can’t even display a Christmas tree without it being hidden in order not to offend? Some groups have gone to the extreme on this. If the government said that all people must celebrate Christmas or decorate for Christmas or will not get the same treatment if they are not Christians, then that is an endorsement. I think by suing people for expressing their religion when they are doing it in non-harmful ways is wrong. Just the same, an atheist is expressing their “religious belief” by not participating in various events or by not decorating. That is fine. That is their right. If they feel strongly enough that a Christmas Party is offensive to them, then don’t go. Myself, I would’ve just went to the party and had a different idea of how we celebrate it. I would’ve thought of gifts and food and decorations and not given much thought at all to the birth of Jesus, if any. Is a person jealous, perhaps, at the fun that people have with the decorating ets. It is just downright extreme in my opinion to say that DECORATIONS are endorsing a religion. Just remember that when you take away the rights of one group (even if Christian), then you are jeopardizing the rights of other groups or perhaps “endorsing” another religion. For example, I’ve heard of nativity scenes banned, but not a menorah (spellilng??). That makes it seem more like an endorsement. By not allowing one, but allowing another, then the government has endorsed those allowed. If all were allowed, then there is no government endorsement. There is a difference in endorsement and expression and I think that difference applies here.

I can understand a group being upset if their request to display something was turned down without good cause. An atheist could probably choose its symbol of choice for the “holidays” and have it displayed on public property.

I don’t expect to change your mind, but I think the word endorsement is being used wrong. We have religious freedom in this country and we should be free to express and celebrate our religion as long as it doesn’t bring harm to others. Christmas decorations bring no harm to anyone, do they? Do you want religious freedom in this country? If so, how can it be expressed? Is it only in the privacy of our homes? That doesn’t seem very free to me.

 

[wolpertinger]

WhatIf:

What you call an endorsement of a religion may just be an expression of our religion. How can we have religious freedom, if we can’t even display a Christmas tree without it being hidden in order not to offend? Some groups have gone to the extreme on this. If the government said that all people must celebrate Christmas or decorate for Christmas or will not get the same treatment if they are not Christians, then that is an endorsement.

You are missing the point. The public display of religious symbols on state-owned property is an endorsement of a particular religion by the state.

I think by suing people for expressing their religion when they are doing it in non-harmful ways is wrong.

The target of these lawsuits are not people, but The People, which is a very significant distinction.

Just the same, an atheist is expressing their “religious belief” by not participating in various events or by not decorating. That is fine. That is their right.

Frankly, this is an disingenuous statement. To make this absolute clear, few atheists care about Christmas celebration as such, except perhaps to the sheer bombardment that results from the commercialization of this holiday. That is not what the lawsuits you refer to are about, though.

To use another example, take the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance. In many US states public schools are required by state law to have students recite it. Personally, I consider a pledge as a solemn promise that must be given only after fully understanding of what the promise entails, thus the pledge as practiced in the US is nothing less than a misguided perversion. However, it is naïve to say that students can simply not participate; the reality is that there is no escaping the pressure to conform and ostracizing by peers and teaching staff.

Just remember that when you take away the rights of one group (even if Christian), then you are jeopardizing the rights of other groups or perhaps “endorsing” another religion.

What is taken away is not a right to begin with…

For example, I’ve heard of nativity scenes banned, but not a menorah (spellilng??). That makes it seem more like an endorsement. By not allowing one, but allowing another, then the government has endorsed those allowed. If all were allowed, then there is no government endorsement.

The government should treat all religions equally. I remember a lengthy discussion on another Christian forum that exemplifies exactly what atheists are offended at. Start with the first post of LyricTenor. Please note that this poster was gleeful about secular displays being vandalized and proud about how the town subverted an adverse ruling handed down by the court. If all you get from this thread is that a single atheist spoiled the fun, then it is futile to continue this discussion.

There is a difference in endorsement and expression and I think that difference applies here.

I disagree for the reasons stated repeatedly above.

I can understand a group being upset if their request to display something was turned down without good cause. An atheist could probably choose its symbol of choice for the “holidays” and have it displayed on public property.

See what happens in the external thread mentioned above.

I don’t expect to change your mind

No, you will not. Nor am I hopeful that you will understand the nature of my objection.

Do you want religious freedom in this country? If so, how can it be expressed? Is it only in the privacy of our homes? That doesn’t seem very free to me.

Sigh. Isn’t it obvious by now? The only thing atheists ask for is that the state not endorse any particular religion, even and particularly the one held by the majority of citizens. Neighbors displaying Christmas symbols in their yards, nativity scenes and all, doesn’t bother me in the least. The same in City Hall, a court house, or any other property owned by the state is a different matter.

 

[Carl]

WhatIf

I like very much the main thrust of your posts. They are well reasoned. You seem to me the kind of person who could work well in a ministry to atheists, as you are doing in this forum.

One point you made interested me.

*“My gut” just tells me that something is going on that is getting blamed on atheists, but is being organized by a different group. Perhaps a group like the ACLU. I don’t know. *

If you do any more research on this subject, I wonder if you will find that the ACLU and atheists have very much in the way of common cause. Virtually every attempt to remove the name of God and any reference to our Judeo-Christian tradition from the
public eye is supported by the ACLU, especially in court. It would be interesting to see a statistical breakdown of religious/atheist preference for the ACLU members themselves. Does anybody know of one?

I know I opened the door on the matter of Christmas symbols, but I hope we can agree to close it quickly and get back to the forum topic … which is how the atheist conscience is formed.

WhatIf, I think you have a strong point in holding some Christians accountable for turning other Christians toward atheism. Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised if most atheists are not former Christians. Yet we are all responsible for our own actions. We can turn ourselves back to Christ by overcoming the anger in our hearts toward those who have hurt us deeply. We can forgive them their trespasses, and in doing so find in them the hidden Christ that we may all learn to love.

 

[Carl]

WOLPERTINGER

*You are missing the point. The public display of religious symbols on state-owned property is an endorsement of a particular religion by the state. *

Does this apply to religious names as well as symbols? Must we also change the name of St. Louis to Louis and San Francisco to Francisco?

But I digress. Please, folks, can we get back on topic?

 

[Carl]

Incidentally, Imprimartin has started a new thread, Christmas Is Bad?, where we can go if we want to continue talking about Christmas.

God bless,
Carl

 

[Benadam]

Carl:

WhatIf

I know I opened the door on the matter of Christmas symbols, but I hope we can agree to close it quickly and get back to the forum topic … which is how the atheist conscience is formed.

After participating in this thread, I would say an atheists conscience is formed by their moral environment and perhaps that would be limited or distorted by the atheists current construct of reality.

I believe there is no moral environment without a moral theology to form it.

That leads me to wonder how much of the information recieved by conscience is voluntart versus involuntary.

 

[Lisa_N]

WhatIf:

You know, I am upset too by the attempts to make our society one that is absent of religion or at least absent of christianity instead of one that embraces freedom of religion as it should. When I was an atheist, though, I did not get angry about religious symbols and celebrations. I just didn’t like being put on the spot as a child about whether or not I believed in God because of the response it would get when I said NO…

Whatif I am really enjoying your posts. They are very thoughtful and well reasoned. You seem to have had a very similar background and upbringing as I did. When I was a kid there was a LOT of Christianity in our schools. Although school prayer had long since been dispensed with, I learned the Doxology in grade school and most of the Christmas carols as well. I was even an angel in the Christmas paegent although I am sure my parents thought I was improperly cast. The point being, although they were militant atheists, they didnt seem to think I would suffer irrepairable harm by singing Hark the Herald Angels Sing or putting on crepe paper wings and proclaiming “Fear not for behold…” Something I didn’t realize was in the Bible until much later in life.

The point being that like you I did not share my family’s atheism with many people because of the reaction. Some of my friends knew I ‘didn’t believe in God’ but they basically accepted my difference and we went on to playing horsies or whatever we were doing.

Why there is the sudden abject terror of having a Christmas carol sung at school or a nativity scene in the town square? Good grief WITH those very things in place we’ve seen a decline over the years in church attendence. So militant atheists can hardly point to the great influence that such trappings have had in indoctrinating the innocent.

WhatIf:

You know, I am upset too by the attempts to make our society I really think that some people somewhere have a political agenda and some atheists are helping them with their cause. Maybe it is to help with the Pro-life vs. Pro-choice debate. I don’t know, but it seems odd to me that the atheist seem angry. It makes me think that perhaps they are actually fallen away Christians. They have something in their past to make them angry about religion. I didn’t care if our money said IN GOD WE TRUST or if I sang songs that mentioned God. I thought it mean’t a lot to the Christians and it didn’t hurt me any, so why complain? How does a nativity scene on some public property hurt an atheist? It never hurt me as an atheist. We see stuff all the time and may not agree with it, but unless it is indecent or dangerous, what difference should it make? “My gut” just tells me that something is going on that is getting blamed on atheists, but is being organized by a different group. Perhaps a group like the ACLU. I don’t know. Yes, some atheists are causing problems, but I don’t think they represent the majority of atheists. I think most atheists just think some of the customs/traditions are silly, but not offensive and definitely no reason to sue. Just my thoughts.

I think you are exactly right and as I read Woltprenger’s response, his anger is so obvious. He makes your point. THere is something else going on, another agenda, or some reason for the recent upsurge in hostility. Maybe it’s a smokescreen for something else.

Lisa N

 

[Carl]

Benadam

I would say an atheists conscience is formed by their moral environment and perhaps that would be limited or distorted by the atheists current construct of reality.

Could you give us a concrete illustration?

Carl

 

[Gratias_Grace]

Carl:

The conscience of a Christian is formed by Christian values taught to a child and reinforced throughout life by his family, his church community, and to a certain extent people in other church communities, not to mention the courts of law.

How is the conscience of an atheist formed from childhood onward?

---

Hey Carl!

I have not had the opportunity to read all the posts on this thread. I hope I do not repeat something that someone else already has pointed out a lot of times.

I don’t think that there are big differences in how the conscience is formed. God laid the condition for our conscience inside us before we were born. However, we have to be nutured by our parents spiritually. When parents fail to pass on the faith in God, the child will not have learned to put God in his/her center.

Most religions (and the modern religion they call atheism) agree about that it is wrong to steal, to murder and so on. The child that grows up in an atheistic home will learn almost all af the ten comandmensts (because they are universal) except **" Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." - “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain” - “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy”. **

When they grow older perhaps they will have problems with **“Honour thy father and thy mother” ** (They are thaugt that they are their own center). Some will also laugh of the comandment: "Thou shalt not commit adultery"

It is useful to see that when the commandments about how to hounor God is not given to the child , the grown up persen may have problems with how to relate to Gods human creatures.

The HOW-question is best answerd: The christian conscience and the atheists consience are formed in the same way, but the matter of substance will not be the same in aeraes relevant to God as the center of life.

G. Grace

 

[Benadam]

Carl:

Benadam

I would say an atheists conscience is formed by their moral environment and perhaps that would be limited or distorted by the atheists current construct of reality.

Could you give us a concrete illustration?

Carl

I’m not sure if I know what you mean but I’ll try
I’ll illustrate using a statement mad in this thread.
The explanation I give is conjecture and is only my explanation of the operating dynamics of a reality construct on perception.
keep in mind I’m no expert. I’ll begin by introducing a statement made by an atheist.

The USA would not even exist, if all Americans would have followed the christian heritage

This statement is obviously a distortion of the prevailing moral environment. This persons conscience is informed through a construct of reality that has distorted the image of organized religion. Possibly to relieve anxiety of an injustice or pain inflicted by an object identified with a religion or in order to preserve the image of a parent or some other authority figure. Anxiety is caused every time the CR conflicts with reality. This forces a process to seek
reconciliation between the two realities. The statement I use for illustration shows that reconciliation was found in the habit of dissociating personal morals from any influence from an organized religion. The prevailing moral environment was the subject of the dialogue the comment was part of and the reality presented was that the moral environment is formed by organized religions. So the prevailing enfluence of the moral environment must be dissociated as well. Thus the moral environment must be redefined and in the statement illustrated the foundation of that environment as well
Thus:.

The USA would not even exist, if all Americans would have followed the christian heritage

I’ll try and give an illustration of how an atheist could have a conscience formed by the moral environment alone with no alteration.

an atheist’s conscience formed purely by environment could be a possibility if a person born in an orphanage was not exposed to morals peculiar to any one source. If it were possible to care for that child in a way that perfectly resolves the anxieties inherent as conscious awareness develops, that person could become a walking testimony to the ‘law’ of that culture.

As long as that conscience is informed faithfully and the light offered by it were not violated. The only distortions that would occur to that persons construct of reality would be in response to the moral errors of the culture if at all. Except for unknown genetic enflunce ( if genes have enfluence) the correctness or incorrectness of that persons conscience would reflect the moral correctness of the culture.
our construct of reality is our conscious experience at birth. It is built when fulfillment is experienced and reconstructed if fulfillment is frustrated. If something fulfills, dat good, it adds to what is already there, if something doesn’t, dat bad, it reconstructs in order to redefine a false reality and make it true or to redefine a true reality and make it false. It is pretty much complete before we ever become confident with making up for ourselves what is right or wrong.

So, when we speak of what forms a conscience we have to keep in mind that the information that it recieves is colored by the unique structure of that person’s construct of reality.

. A consruct of reality is built on life as it is experienced within human relationships. We are born with a construct of reality that builds on it’s self as conscious awareness increases

 

[buffalo]

Carl:

Well done, buffalo!

Your explanation, however, answers the question of final authority only from the Catholic point of view. The atheist doesn’t have to buy it since he does not believe there is a creator of the natural law. Rather, the natural law for him seems to rise out of itself and expresses itself in what he might call common practice or common sense. Whereas you would refer him to God as the source for answering all disputes over the law, he can refer you to no one at all. He might, as has been done above, vaguely refer to individuals or groups as the final authority, but that does not get us around the problem of dictators and fascists who also comprise individuals and groups. Likewise, the atheists might say the majority should rule as the final authority. But what good is that if the majority in any given instance is clearly wrong?

The best any atheist in this forum has come up with is the Golden Rule, which is at the heart of Christian tradition (even when not always practiced, it is the ideal to which Christians aspire).

I’m still waiting for an atheist to explain his final authority on matters of right and wrong. Is it the Golden Rule and only the Golden Rule? Then why shouldn’t atheists be celebrating Christmas right along with the rest of us?

The atheist doesn’t have to believe something in order for it to be true. He wouldn’t recognize the term “written in his heart”. He will look for some material reason for it.

We know that it is true as God has revealed it to us.

 

[buffalo]

WhatIf:

I read a post that implied Atheist would not have salvation. I think differently. I think it is quite possible that a person could live life as an atheist and possible still go to heaven, if he never recognized God’s call to him and at the moment of his death, when he realized there is a God, if he says yes and acknowledges God’s existence and loves him, then he may be saved.

At this moment he would cease to be an atheist and be Catholic.