How much freedom?

[Trurl]

In our society we curtail everyone’s freedom to some extent. If someone commits acts which are not “desirable”, we put the perpetrator in jail and thus we curtail his freedom to commit more undesirable acts. Generally we do not have the ability to “foresee” the future, but when there is reliable information about the intent to commit a crime (like a conspiracy to commit some mayhem), we do step in and prevent it. No one objects to this kind of arrangement, no one advocates seriously that criminals should be released, because keeping them in jail violates their “precious free will”.

Now, there is no good reason to curtail the freedom of those people who do not want to commit undesirable acts at the expense of others. Their freedom can be safely left alone. On the other hand, there is no good reason to allow murders, rapes, genocides and such. THAT freedom could be (should be, MUST be) taken away, and everyone will be better off.

Some people object to that, and assert that such a state of affairs would need micromanagement, which would somehow “interfere” with our freedom. Of course there is no need to interfere in every case. Since God is supposed to know what we are going to do he can simply “arrange” that the fertilized egg that would “spawn” an evil human being would join to those untold zillions which get flushed out from the women’s body, and no one would be wiser.

Now if someone is concerned that in such a state of affairs there would not be “enough” hellbound, the solution is simple (as usual). Only those people need to be filtered out who would act violently against someone else. Those, whose sin in nevertheless “mortal”, but not violent (like fornicators, practicing homosexuals, idolaters, masturbators and other assorted vile abominations ) could be allowed to go through, commit their hateful and disgusting acts, and at the end they could be turned over to the proper devils and demons as “hell-fodders”, to make sure that their screams of everlasting agony, and the smell of their burning body will supply an excellent counterpoint to the songs of praises coming from those few dozens, who pass the grade (according to Jesus only a few will find the narrow path!)…

But, jokes aside, what I mean is very serious. The amount of freedom to perform violent acts against others is not necessary. Most people don’t even contemplate to act violently against others, so it is safe to give them the freedom to do so. Only the freedom of potential and actual criminals must be curtailed. We do it as much as we can, which is not a whole lot, but a step in the right direction. (Maybe in the far future we can create a system, which will monitor the thought processes of the possible criminals and simply prevent them from actually carrying out their plans.) God could do it really efficiently, but it seems that he does not care, which is too bad (for the victims).

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Some people object to that, and assert that such a state of affairs would need micromanagement, which would somehow “interfere” with our freedom. Of course there is no need to interfere in every case. Since God is supposed to know what we are going to do he can simply “arrange” that the fertilized egg that would “spawn” an evil human being would join to those untold zillions which get flushed out from the women’s body, and no one would be wiser.

Some think that the genetics of an an individual alone do to control an individuals behaviour, though they can contribute to it. There are other factors and experiences that influence one’s behaviour. The same individual may be potentially nurtured to be a kind person or cruel person. So I don’t think filtering at the level of the sperm and the egg would be sufficient. If it were then one could assert that those that were formed from such combinations really didn’t have a choice in their behaviour and were victims of their own genetics. In other words the person wasn’t evil because of their own free will (that is something that has been seriously been explored).

(Maybe in the far future we can create a system, which will monitor the thought processes of the possible criminals and simply prevent them from actually carrying out their plans.)

…that would concern me. Especially if I were a victim of a false positive.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In our society we curtail everyone’s freedom to some extent. If someone commits acts which are not “desirable”, we put the perpetrator in jail and thus we curtail his freedom to commit more undesirable acts. Generally we do not have the ability to “foresee” the future, but when there is reliable information about the intent to commit a crime (like a conspiracy to commit some mayhem), we do step in and prevent it. No one objects to this kind of arrangement, no one advocates seriously that criminals should be released, because keeping them in jail violates their “precious free will”.

Now, there is no good reason to curtail the freedom of those people who do not want to commit undesirable acts at the expense of others. Their freedom can be safely left alone. On the other hand, there is no good reason to allow murders, rapes, genocides and such. THAT freedom could be (should be, MUST be) taken away, and everyone will be better off.

Some people object to that, and assert that such a state of affairs would need micromanagement, which would somehow “interfere” with our freedom. Of course there is no need to interfere in every case. Since God is supposed to know what we are going to do he can simply “arrange” that the fertilized egg that would “spawn” an evil human being would join to those untold zillions which get flushed out from the women’s body, and no one would be wiser.

Now if someone is concerned that in such a state of affairs there would not be “enough” hellbound, the solution is simple (as usual). Only those people need to be filtered out who would act violently against someone else. Those, whose sin in nevertheless “mortal”, but not violent (like fornicators, practicing homosexuals, idolaters, masturbators and other assorted vile abominations ) could be allowed to go through, commit their hateful and disgusting acts, and at the end they could be turned over to the proper devils and demons as “hell-fodders”, to make sure that their screams of everlasting agony, and the smell of their burning body will supply an excellent counterpoint to the songs of praises coming from those few dozens, who pass the grade (according to Jesus only a few will find the narrow path!)…

But, jokes aside, what I mean is very serious. The amount of freedom to perform violent acts against others is not necessary. Most people don’t even contemplate to act violently against others, so it is safe to give them the freedom to do so. Only the freedom of potential and actual criminals must be curtailed. We do it as much as we can, which is not a whole lot, but a step in the right direction. (Maybe in the far future we can create a system, which will monitor the thought processes of the possible criminals and simply prevent them from actually carrying out their plans.) God could do it really efficiently, but it seems that he does not care, which is too bad (for the victims).

You need spiritual refreshment. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

 

[aragonjohn1]

freedom not as the ability to do whatever one wants in life (which is how most would define it), but rather as the ability to do what one ought to do. True freedom removes the roadblocks to doing good, and thus the person is free to do what he should

• google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&tbo=1&biw=320&bih=416&tbs=li%3A1&q=catholic+definition+of+freedom&oq=catholic+definition+of+freedom&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3…0j0i7i30j0i7i5i30j0i8i30l2.22761.24962.0.26143.9.8.0.0.0.1.439.982.1j2j1j0j1.5.0.les%3Behyp%2Ca%3D1%2Cb%3D1000%2Cn%3D5%2Ct%3D2…0.0…1ac.1.3SJ9EG0cV8E&mvs=0
• forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=65131

 

[snarflemike]

According to your plan, almost nobody would be born. We all inflict violence (mental, physical, emotional) against others. As Solzhenitsyn wrote, the line between good and evil goes through every human heart.

 

[JaKael02]

This thread didn’t really ask a question or a central point to discuss.

I’m confused.

 

[Trurl]

ThinkingSapien:

Some think that the genetics of an an individual alone do to control an individuals behaviour, though they can contribute to it. There are other factors and experiences that influence one’s behaviour. The same individual may be potentially nurtured to be a kind person or cruel person. So I don’t think filtering at the level of the sperm and the egg would be sufficient. If it were then one could assert that those that were formed from such combinations really didn’t have a choice in their behaviour and were victims of their own genetics. In other words the person wasn’t evil because of their own free will (that is something that has been seriously been explored).

What you say is perfectly true. We are all the products of nature and nurture, though the “percentage split” between them is a matter of debate. But that does not matter for the topic at hand. Classical theism painted itself into a corner with those “omnimax attributes” - in this case with omniscience. No matter what are the exact causes which will give rise to violent and antisocial behavior, God is supposed to see the end result, and prevent the “bad-boy-zygote” from implanting into the uterus wall, or even doing it more elegantly, prevents the “offending sperm” from entering into the “offending egg” itself.

ThinkingSapien:

…that would concern me. Especially if I were a victim of a false positive.

That is just a question of proper technology. And, of course with God there can be no false positives.

Linusthe2nd:

You need spiritual refreshment.

Whatever that means… The word “spiritual” carries no meaning for me. If you think that I am not familiar with the catechism, you will be happy to hear that I read several parts of it, but I was quite unimpressed.

aragonjohn1:

freedom not as the ability to do whatever one wants in life (which is how most would define it), but rather as the ability to do what one ought to do. True freedom removes the roadblocks to doing good, and thus the person is free to do what he should

Sorry, my friend, I only speak English… I would like to find a Catholic-to-English dictionary, but so far I was not successful. Where is such a dictionary for sale?
snareflemike:

According to your plan, almost nobody would be born. We all inflict violence (mental, physical, emotional) against others. As Solzhenitsyn wrote, the line between good and evil goes through every human heart.

I really disagree with that. I know many people who never stabbed others in the back, who never poured a poison into someone else’s drink, who never threw a baby into a furnace or who enjoy torturing and raping women… (as a matter of fact I only know such people… and I know many) there are VERY few people who do any of these or anything similar to that. Percentage-wise… such psychopaths cannot be more than one or two percenatge of the population… and no one would miss them if they would never be born. But let’s suppose that you are right (for the sake of the discussion) and that only a handful humans would be born… so WHAT? Are we playing a “numbers game here”??? Quality beats quantity any day.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

freedom not as the ability to do whatever one wants in life (which is how most would define it), but rather as the ability to do what one ought to do. True freedom removes the roadblocks to doing good, and thus the person is free to do what he should

I know I’ve heard a few folks on my local EWTN station refer to the former as “hyper-freedom” as opposed to the latter true freedom. The stumbling block for me is who gets to decide what is good and what should be done. Is good following the demands of the state at all costs? Does good come from the Quran? Does good come from the bible – and if so is it one of the interpretations that strikes out against Catholicism?

Of course, I’m a civil libertarian so I believe more freedom (so long as it doesn’t infringe on others) is a very good thing .

 

[Trurl]

Mike from NJ:

Of course, I’m a civil libertarian so I believe more freedom (so long as it doesn’t infringe on others) is a very good thing

Indeed! And the freedom which infringes on others is NOT a good thing. I cannot fathom why do the christians (who are supposed be rooting for goodwill and love and caring for others) are in favor of letting all the bad guys go and do their horrible acts. Of course if the goverment would act according to THEIR ideas, and would not keep those evil guys in prison, they would be the first ones to scream against the “librul” people who allow the evil people to prey (hmmm pray and prey are soooo similar… one wonders why? ) on the “innocent” population. When the goverment can prevent an upcoming terrorist act and fails to intervene, they are the loudest to criticize the impotent officials who failed to protect the people. God could prevent all those actions, but they would never criticize God… what are they afraid of? Losing a few “brownie points” in heaven?

 

[JaKael02]

I know I’ve heard a few folks on my local EWTN station refer to the former as “hyper-freedom” as opposed to the latter true freedom. The stumbling block for me is who gets to decide what is good and what should be done. Is good following the demands of the state at all costs? Does good come from the Quran? Does good come from the bible – and if so is it one of the interpretations that strikes out against Catholicism?

Of course, I’m a civil libertarian so I believe more freedom (so long as it doesn’t infringe on others) is a very good thing .

That is an excellent question. It gets to the root of, “What is truth?” and “What is a distortion of truth or partial truth?”.

This is where you have to decide whether or not a supreme being created the big bang? If something existed prior to the big bang? What created that? Can something come from absolute “nothing”?

Then if you come to the point of accepting a supreme being creating the Universe, you have to determine whether or not that God cares about us, his nature, his involvement in mankind. Reason alone takes us so far, but these questions are best understood through Divine revelation.

is how we get from a God making the universe to Jesus Christ (God-man). From there, we see the Church he established. Then we can rule out religions that are not 100% true but have only partial truth and better come to know “What is truth?”.

I jumped big hurdles here, but that is the idea. Thoughts?

 

[Bill_7154]

The way I put it is that I am, I presume, for 100% of the laws that 98% of the population are for (give or take, I’m sure there are exceptions).

Laws restrict freedom. They are pitched to us as ‘promoting safety’ but they restrict freedom.

I am for laws that address violent behavor and also theft/property crimes. Most other laws I think should be re-examined as every person on the planet has their own pet law based on some tragedy that happened to them or one of their loved ones. They mean well, but they are one of 20 million tenticles that are strangling the freedom of peaceful citizens who are not interested in harming others and are interesting in cooperating with the police to help prevent people from harming others (and their property).

As an example: I bet there were only a handful of laws that pertained to operating a motorized vehicle when cars were first invented. Now I bet there are litterally THOUSANDS of laws that pertain to owning and operating motorized vehicles. And they are going to continue to pile up more and more and more on this issue and any issue you pick. Enough is enough already.

Gov’t serves itself when it does this. It seems to exist to make laws and then enforce them.

Didn’t God settle this a long time ago? Whiping out the laws in existance and handing down 10 laws to follow? How many do we have to follow now, 100 million? More? How many in the tax codes alone? It’s beyond ridiculous and the sickest part is that people march along like they are following the pied piper, willingly paying for the making and overseeing and refining and re-refining and enforcing of all these laws.

I have heard it said "If government passed a law where everyone needed a ‘walking license’ 1/2 the population would be lined up at city hall the next week with money in hand ready to purchase theirs… ridiculous, but it speaks to the truth.

Part of life is risk. I am comfortable accepting risk for my freedom. If others want to go somewhere and make a country where they live by a billion laws and have their lives micro managed and pay for the priveledge far be it for me to stand in their way. I support you in doing so. Just don’t subject me to that nonsense.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Bill_7154]

Here’s the worlds smallest political quiz, really the very smallest:

Do you believe that a product or service should be provided at the barrel of a gun?

If you answer Yes, your political.

 

[Steve80]

(Maybe in the far future we can create a system, which will monitor the thought processes of the possible criminals and simply prevent them from actually carrying out their plans.) God could do it really efficiently, but it seems that he does not care, which is too bad (for the victims).

God does care, and that is why Jesus came as Redeemer. One of the biggest mistakes people make when contemplating why God allows certain things to happen, is that they believe God is somehow limited to human intellect. To think that we could understand as God does, or that His capabilities are somehow limited to human logic, concedes the fact that we cannot even fathom God’s enormity. I think we have all done this at one point or another, questioning God in His infinite Wisdom, not realizing we are thinking as men do and not as God does (which is not possible).

We miss details of objects five feet in front of us. There are times we can’t recall what we said to someone five minutes ago. And I have no idea why my neighbor likes listening to Journey so much. But God knows each and every one of us infinitely more than we know ourselves; all 7 billion of us. He knows the past, present, and future, of every aspect of the universe, from the smallest atoms to the largest galaxies. While it’s not possible to think as God does, nor should we try, it is possible to trust in Him. He has given us everything we need for salvation.

 

[Trurl]

God does care, and that is why Jesus came as Redeemer.

Apart from the fact that this is only what you (and many others) believe and not some FACT, it does not mitigate the actual FACT, that God does not intervene HERE and NOW. None of the “guardian angels” come to the rescue of the hungry or the sufferers. There is no sign of this CARE here and now. You can say that “here” and “now” does not matter in the “greater scheme of things”. That all this suffering is honkey-dorey, that it will be irrelevant in the hereafter. But that still does not explain why God does not CARE about us in this existence.

Many posters have said that “IF” this were the only existence, and “IF” there was no continuation in some “after-life”, then we (the atheists) would be perfectly right. However, they cannot give any proof, or even some slight evidence that there is a “continuation”. It is all blind faith, as in Hebrews 11:1. You are more than welcome to believe it without any evidence, but we (poor, dirty, down-to-earth) empiricists do NOT accept it.

One of the biggest mistakes people make when contemplating why God allows certain things to happen, is that they believe God is somehow limited to human intellect. To think that we could understand as God does, or that His capabilities are somehow limited to human logic, concedes the fact that we cannot even fathom God’s enormity. I think we have all done this at one point or another, questioning God in His infinite Wisdom, not realizing we are thinking as men do and not as God does (which is not possible).

This is the fifth officer from the Tale of the Twelve Officers (here…)

 

[JaKael02]

I am for laws that address violent behavor and also theft/property crimes. Most other laws I think should be re-examined as every person on the planet has their own pet law based on some tragedy that happened to them or one of their loved ones. They mean well, but they are one of 20 million tenticles that are strangling the freedom of peaceful citizens who are not interested in harming others and are interesting in cooperating with the police to help prevent people from harming others (and their property).

Bill,

With a 100% non-christian society, can you have a peaceful - functioning - moral society? It seems that if a society can not police itself, then it needs more laws/rules/regulations to control the population.

Opinion? -James

 

[JaKael02]

However, they cannot give any proof, or even some slight evidence that there is a “continuation”. It is all blind faith…

Trurl, you dont’ come across as very happy. Sorry if we offended you on this forum.

Catholicss don’t adhere to blind faith. Natural reason alone can convey there is a superior power in the universe. Blind faith is supersitition. Faith AND Reason can arrive at a higher level of knowledge than just emperical evidence alone.

Are you an ex-Catholic or Christian? Kindly - James

 

[Trurl]

Trurl, you dont’ come across as very happy. Sorry if we offended you on this forum.

Catholicss don’t adhere to blind faith. Natural reason alone can convey there is a superior power in the universe. Blind faith is supersitition. Faith AND Reason can arrive at a higher level of knowledge than just emperical evidence alone.

Are you an ex-Catholic or Christian? Kindly - James

Dear JaKael.

Don’t worry about my happiness. No one has offended me. Yes, I am and ex-christian, but I lost my faith many decades ago.

Faith and reason can never be reconciled. If reason is sufficient, faith is not needed. If faith is needed, it cannot be reasonable. The catechism states: “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” - which is very interesting. The first time I saw this, I became very excited. At last, finally, these is purely rational way to know that God exists and - observe! - no reference to “faith”, just reason. And then I tried to find the “meat”… just HOW can we know it? And there was nothing else. An empty statement… Then I looked further, and saw a horrible logical error. It says “from the created world!”. I don;t know who was the person who wrote this, and who was the person who proofread it, and who was the person who finally gave the stamp of approval… but I can tell you, all of them are intellectual “midgets”. To allow such a logical error to escape is beyond the pale. I hope you see the error… unpardonable!

 

[TimeEntrance]

In our society we curtail everyone’s freedom to some extent…

I’ve no beef with atheists or even with atheists in and of themselves being active members of any Catholic, Protestant or other religious online discussion board.

Though, I get the impression there are a lot of atheists that do a fair amount of de facto missionary work and proselytizing.

I say that because I don’t go on Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, pagan, or atheists online discussion boards to try and persuade non-Catholics that all roads lead to Rome. That doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with any people from those backgrounds.

But this is what I think is more important: Most (not all - because some atheists “keep to themselves” and don’t care what others believe) atheists arguments I see regarding the religious belief in a God being wrong seems to assume a religious or Christian person believes in God because they intellectually reasoned God exists.

Here’s the problem. Some of us believe in God because we’ve had experiences of and from God.

It’s hard to explain. I think of it as being somewhat analogous to losing your virginity. To me the atheist just hasn’t lost their virginity.

So, fortunately for me, I was sitting down when this occurred, but I was almost knocked unconscious when a Catholic priest, who is said to have several gifts of the Holy Spirit, gently touched my hand. Energy from the Holy Spirit moved up my arm in what felt like a circular and swooshing motion. It was overpowering but no violently. It was like a gentle overpowering is probably the best way I can describe it.

And this occurred when I doubted something like that could happen to me and I believed God just didn’t care enough about me - or did not love me - to make Himself known to me in such away. I say that because prior to that I had two different priests, on two separate occasions, visiting my city, that were said to have gifts from the Holy Spirit. Standing in line to have hands laid on me, in both separate events (separated by years too), I was very disappointed and disheartened when nothing happened to me. I wanted to feel something. And it didn’t help that women were falling down in the line when the priest laid hands on them. One of the priest even looked at me in very hostile and disproving way after he touched my head, though he understood something very sinful and evil about me or in me. He was right I’m sure.

At any rate… it surprised me - and was unprepared for it - when many years later in Florida, in a Catholic Community for addicts and the fallen, that in a private meeting with a friend of the Community (from outside of Florida), I was touched and overcome by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Priest also told me I was oppressed by several demons. When I asked if he meant metaphorically or literally he said literally.

More interesting is some of the addicts that had demons cast out of them from this priest reported to one another physical sensations I’ve had myself for some years. (e.g., needle or finger wide/size feelings on the stomach like something is being pressed or penetrating you - entering or existing you)

One addict - and without him really recounting his story but just telling me that “If I told you…” - had tears swelling up in his eyes, when alone with me, remembering when the priest cast his oppressing demons out of him. I was told by another addict that was vocationally educated as a nurse and a trusted friend of this other addict, that said addict was physically attacked, grabbed around the throat and choked, by one of the demons as the demons were being cast out of him.

So, for some of us we know God from experience.

I’ve had few other experiences too. Which might sound like “a lot” and therefore self fulfilling or a result of emotional delusions, bear in mind they were only a few, and given the number of days I’ve lived on earth they might account for 1/100,000,000,000 of my life. So, a very tiny portion.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Dear JaKael.

Don’t worry about my happiness. No one has offended me. Yes, I am and ex-christian, but I lost my faith many decades ago.

Faith and reason can never be reconciled. If reason is sufficient, faith is not needed. If faith is needed, it cannot be reasonable. The catechism states: “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” - which is very interesting. The first time I saw this, I became very excited. At last, finally, these is purely rational way to know that God exists and - observe! - no reference to “faith”, just reason. And then I tried to find the “meat”… just HOW can we know it? And there was nothing else. An empty statement… Then I looked further, and saw a horrible logical error. It says “from the created world!”. I don;t know who was the person who wrote this, and who was the person who proofread it, and who was the person who finally gave the stamp of approval… but I can tell you, all of them are intellectual “midgets”. To allow such a logical error to escape is beyond the pale. I hope you see the error… unpardonable!

Dude faith and reason are NOT opposed
Me speaking from prior experience as a former atheist like me it takes much more faith to disbelieve in beauty than to believe in Beauty

Without faith there would be no schools, hospitals, universities, or most charities, etc…

There are currently many centers of faith and reason and in fact one of the primary teachings of the church is to learn faith and reason

Fr. Spitzer is one of the many modern proponents of faith and reason
He has debated many people who believe in science and non-science and has also founded many centers for faith and reason

Among them the magis institute

• magisreasonfaith.org/
• magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Why_Believe_in_God%3F

He was also involved in the creation of Cosmic origins ( a documentery about new proofs proving the existance of Gods beauty in creation )

• magisreasonfaith.org/cosmic_origins.html

Yes God continues to move and be with people chiefly through various forms of beauty and the littlest ones amount Y’all ( and in a few instances were someone unknowingly desired God and He came or when someone needed him and by the grace of suffering or Beauty came to Him or when someone with a hardened heart opened it a little)

Shalom
God bless you on journey

 

[aragonjohn1]

Response continued…

Looking back at the past century, you had enormously talented and knowledgeable Catholic apologists like G.K. Chesterton, who debated Clarence Darrow and completely dominated him, as those who witnessed the debate attested. Darrow came in to the debate apparently thinking he was going to debate his fundamentalist grandmother, and never quite recovered once he realized he was debating one of the most thoughtful and witty Catholics of the 20th Century.

The brilliant Father Frederick C. Copleston more than held his own in a famous 1984 debate with Bertrand Russell that was broadcast on the BBC in 1948. You can hear part 1 here: youtube.com/watch?v=-BWFpBTqSN0. Debating Russell was a considerably more arduous intellectual endeavor that arguing with Dawkins.

Other 20th century apologists who took on atheist claims included some pretty hard-nosed Catholics who held the line against the rise of communist, fascist, and liberal-secular atheism in the middle and latter half of the last century, like Frank Sheed, whose Catholic Evidence Guild did street-corner apologetics in England, training a cadre of Catholics who would set up on a street-corner or in Hyde Park and vigorously defend Catholic beliefs against all comers (they are still active today, and have a chapter in New York - if you think debating an atheist in a formal debate on a secular campus is hard, imagine doing it in front of a hostile crowd in Hyde Park or Central Park - yet they won many converts through their works) - see his classic works, “Theology for Beginners,” “Theology and Sanity,” and especially “Catholic Evidence Training Outlines: A Classic Guide to Understanding & Explaining the Truths of the Catholic Church,” which was the training manual for his street-corner apologists. The Australian priests Fr. Charles M. Carty and the appropriately-named Fr. Leslie Rumble had an enormously influential Catholic apologist show for years that broadcast from Sydney and answered all viewers’ questions and arguments against Catholic doctrine. Their answers to thousands of questions are available on-line and are a great resource for Catholic apologists (go to radioreplies.info/ for 6,863 questions they received and responses. If nothing else, you realize the claims of the “New Atheists” are really nothing new, and that most were old-hat and easily dismissed back in the 1950s by the good Fathers Rumble and Carty.) William F. Buckley was enormously influential as a debater and through his books, newspaper columns, and as host of “Firing Line” on PBS in defending Catholicism and Christianity in general against the secularization of culture. Other apologists whose works were used in apologetics training in the 1950s through 1970s include Father G.H. Duggan’s “Beyond Reasonable Doubt,” Father William G. Most’s “Catholic Apolgetics Today: Answers to Modern Critics,” and “College Apologetics: Proofs of the Truth of the Catholic Faith.” All of these books are highly recommended and although many are out of print, are available on Amazon at very reasonable prices.

Current Catholic apologists of note include Professor Edward Feser (author of the excellent “The Last Superstition”, which approaches the claims of the new atheists from an Aristotelian-Thomist perspective), Professor Peter Kreeft (his “Handbook of Christian Apologetics,” written with Ronald K. Tacelli, is in my opinion the best single-volume work for refuting the claims of the new atheist movement), Scott Hahn (whose book “Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkin’s Case Against God” is essential reading for the Catholic apologist), Father Robert J. Spitzer (his recent book “New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy” is an excellent refutation of the philosophical claims of Steven Hawking); Patrick Madrid (author of “The Godless Delusion: A Catholic Challenge to Modern Atheism”); Dominican priest Father Thomas Crean (author of “God is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins”); Prof. Diane Moczar is strong on defending the history of Catholicism, see her “Seven Lies About Catholic History,” “Islam at the Gates,” and “Ten Dates Every Catholic Should Know.” Fr. Thomas D. Williams is a frequent commentator for CBS-TV as their Vatican analyst - his recent “Greater Than You Think: A Theologian Answers the Atheists About God,” focuses specifically on Christopher Hitchen’s book and is a short, very readable apologetic work that I would recommend to any Catholic who has been exposed to the mix of half-truths and outright lies that characterize the atheist movement today.

Shalom
God bless