I Want Your Conversion Stories: Why did you convert from atheism to "Believer"

[jochoa]

This is true. I’ve looked at this thread and I can’t see any real good conversion stories from an atheist to a believer. By “good”, I mean stories that involve miracles like a locution - so maybe an audible voice from Heaven that exclaims “Go to Mass”. Or perhaps a visitation from Jesus/Mary. It seems to be more about feelings than anything.

I read thousands of miraculous stories and testimonies during my time as a Catholic: Satanists, Muslims, Jews, and so on and so forth converting to Catholicism/Christianity. I didn’t read many credible stories about atheists converting to Catholicism/Christianity. So that indicates to me that atheism is a pretty much a permanent state of things. Once you are atheist, there is no going back for the most part.

The challenge of Proving God’s Existence to anyone, especially an atheist, is one of my greatest desires.

However, in order to keep my proposal concise and clear, please state what points you think a Proposed Proof would satisfy?

 

[Windfish]

Like Al Moritz, I was never an atheist, but I was in danger of becoming one. What first put me off atheism were atheists. Most of the atheists I read were belligerently and obnoxiously immoral and unintelligent. I did not want to be associated with them, and I still think the biggest obstacle that atheists have to becoming theists are their moral and intellectual failings. What was most repugnant to me was their use of condescension, irony, and ridicule to avoid rational discourse and to intimidate their opponents - despite having absolutely no basis for such boldness. By now, everyone should know what I mean by that.

The “new” atheism is not so much an intellectual movement or proposition but a political attack on the authority that religion claims for itself in society. But even THAT is misguided since the Church has always appealed to nature and to reason - NOT TO REVELATION - for common dialogue with non-Catholics about morality, the rule of law, etc. Yes, as the Church of God, the Catholic Church does have authority, but the Church has never proposed a divinely revealed system of law to be imposed on everyone else in society. So the Church properly meets non-Catholics in the common arena of reason - the Church does not rest on its divine founding to rule the lives of the non-Catholics. The contrary is yet another strawman.

And so, I quickly saw that the pretension of rationality among atheists was just that, pretension. In fact, atheists accept many propositions and views that are positively irrational and anti-reason. How can anyone seriously deny free-will? Or seriously uphold materialism? Or moral relativism or nihilism? How can anyone seriously hold to those views given the internal contradictions they have? Hellaire Belloc wrote about modernism in the early 20th century, and he noted how modernists simply don’t care about the contradictions of their worldview. Atheists are inevitably and pitiably anti-reason.

After seeing that the emperor has no clothes, it came down to Judaism and Catholicism. Protestantism is simply not an option because even a cursory glance at the history shows that the early Church was the Catholic Church. Protestantism is simply another historical heresy. Ruling it out was easy. Islam was also easy to rule out. Mohammed does not even claim for himself any miracle except for the Qu’ran itself, and that’s no miracle. A miracle has to be irrefutably from God. And that’s where Catholicism wins out - it’s not even funny. It has a vast history of miracles that lend credibility to its authority, and the atheistic rejection of them, again, rests on condescension, irony, and ridicule rather than an honest investigation of the facts. Not impressive at all.

So that’s where I am at right now.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Thanks for your post, Windfish. I agree with practically all you say regarding atheism, the Church and morals, and Catholicism as the true religion.

If I would have become an atheist, it would have been only for the idea, not because of the ‘rationality’, or as you correctly say, the pretension of rationality, of most of its proponents, especially the New Atheists. And many of the arguments are really asinine and completely miss the point. For example, many atheists continue to bring up and be impressed with Russell’s teapot, but anyone with just half a philosophical education and capacity of conceptual thinking should see the irrelevance of the argument. Fortunately, one of the best explanations of its irrelevance that I have seen came from an young, bright atheist who together with me participated in a discussion. So there is some intellectual hope after all.

I continually see that theist philosophers have the better foundation of thinking and possess more intellectual nuance than their atheist counterparts. Just look at Edward Feser for example. While I myself do not agree with everything he says, it is clear that he is a much deeper and more informed thinker than any of the atheist professional and amateur philosophers whose arguments he so deliciously and consistently takes apart on his blog or in his books (of course, he gets attacked by atheists all the time, but they do not even understand his arguments and the nuances of thinking he presents). Or when it comes to scientists with philosophical arguments, I have not seen any atheist counterpart as impressive as Catholic physicist Stephen Barr. He shows depth of thought that simply has no competition among his opponents (just read his book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, the best book on science and religion that I have read, or his writings for First Things, available online). It is easy for me now to see theism as my intellectual home, there simply is no match for that on the other side, not by a long shot.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Or when it comes to scientists with philosophical arguments, I have not seen any atheist counterpart as impressive as Catholic physicist Stephen Barr.

Yes! I have an mp3 of one of his talks. He does seem to be very sophisticated in both his knowledge of science, philosophy, and theology.

Please post some links to free mp3 or written documents!

It is easy for me now to see theism as my intellectual home, there simply is no match for that on the other side, not by a long shot.

Well, the thing is, i have tried to be an atheist, because the idea of being my own God is quite tempting. I don’t have to live with the difficulty and fussing of a religious life. There has been times when i have been practically an atheist in the sense of my lifestyle; and even now, i have not gone to church for a quite a while (this is partly due to severe depression). But atheism cannot replace my innate hunger for objective meaning and value, and unlike the atheist i am not going to pretend that such a need is insignificant or that such a need can be fulfilled in what i certainly know to be a humanistic fantasy. Thus in the first place, in so far as God is a possibility, my belief in God is a practical choice in the sense that just like i need food to eat and survive, i to need to believe in that which is required in-order to fulfill the personnel dimensions of my being, not just my reason. That i happen to find that fulfillment in the metaphysical concept of God and Objective Moral Values, is simply a consequence of their necessary relationship to my personal requirements for existence. I need to believe that my life has value, and i find that the concept of objective moral values fulfills that. I need to believe that i exist for a reason, and i find that an intelligent creator fulfills that need. In so far as they fulfill my objective existential nature i have placed my hope in the existence of those things, and if its reasonable to hope for the fulfillment of my being than i do not perceive it as unreasonable to hope for the existence of God. I do not believe that one needs proof of god in order to justify having “hope” in God. When faced with nihilism, hope is not unreasonable, but absolutely necessary for my survival.

This does not mean i am closed to reason. Its very important for my faith to be reasonable; but my belief in God is first and foremost and accurate and consistent expression of my personal nature seeking absolute fulfillment. In so far as reason is concerned, if i were to find anything that a-prior contradicted the existence of God, then i would abandon that concept. I am open to a disproof of God, but if this where to happen, i would not see any reason to continue existence, since my personal existence is only fulfilled in the nature of God, and absolute fulfillment of my personal dignity is that which i seek.

The best arguments against theism for me, are only powerful in the realm or religion (to have a religion is not a requirement to believe in God) and its conflict with politics. The power of the arguments are purely political and moral, because they strike our moral sensibilities. I am quite tempted by Marxism as a political solution. However, even those arguments fail to persuade me against the Catholic religion.

When it comes to metaphysics/philosophy, atheism fails miserably. Out of nothing comes nothing. This is a stumbling block for atheism. In the debates i have been in, my opponents arguments usually end in the claim that the world might be irrational. Or, because they fail to understand the power of metaphysical principles, they think that they can hide behind the epistemological principles of science, claiming they don’t know, refusing to accept that the only way out for them is to say that physical reality popped out of absolutely nothing by itself. In other words, almost every atheist i have pushed on this subject ends up being an anti-rationalist.

Also i find there to be, especially on this forum, an absolute ignorance of the power of metaphysical epistemology among both Catholics and atheists. Some Catholics seem to be blissfully aware that metaphysics/philosophy is one of the most important aspects of the Catholic faith.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

At this point, only the philosophical argument from the Unmoved Mover keeps me from abandoning theism (the argument, even though it is based on quite different premises –act and potency, not necessarily physical ‘movement’ –, correlates well for me with the argument from science against a perpetuum-mobile like eternal matter, given the second law of thermodynamics). My theism hangs by a single philosophical thread, as it were, for a few weeks.

Then, after some more study of the issues, I start to realize the impact of the cosmological fine-tuning argument. After a while I go, “You got to be kidding me! This completely demolishes the atheistic argument from evolution for nature not being designed”. I still feel that way and think it is a strong argument for the existence of God. I have encountered no objections, also in discussions on the web that I participated in, that in my view would diminish the argument as defended in my article:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

(Of course, my opponents think they have raised substantial objections, but that’s the nature of the game.)

I guess the fine-tuning argument forms a deep divide between theists and atheists. I think that once a theist has fully understood the argument in all its implications s/he cannot easily become an atheist anymore, whereas atheists, for whatever reasons they may bring forward, are not easily convinced of the merits of the argument.

Can you explain why the fine tuning arguments are so convincing to you? I always felt they were somewhat silly. I feel that it is putting the cart before the horse in the following way: we can observe that our universe is special *because *of its convenient parameters. Its convenient parameters were not necessarily chosen in order to allow their observation. In addition, it would be impossible for us to find ourselves inside a universe with parameters that do not allow life because they are, by their very nature, devoid of life. It would be like looking at the earth and concluding that we are alone before we knew anything about planets orbiting other stars.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Yes! I have an mp3 of one of his talks. He does seem to be very sophisticated in both his knowledge of science, philosophy, and theology.

Please post some links to free mp3 or written documents!

Here are a few links:

leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9608/barr.html

firstthings.com/article/2007/01/anthropic-coincidences-40

firstthings.com/article/2007/01/retelling-the-story-of-science-24

firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-design-of-evolution-22

firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-miracle-of-evolution—4

 

[Al_Moritz]

Well, the thing is, i have tried to be an atheist, because the idea of being my own God is quite tempting. I don’t have to live with the difficulty and fussing of a religious life. There has been times when i have been practically an atheist in the sense of my lifestyle; and even now, i have not gone to church for a quite a while (this is partly due to severe depression). But atheism cannot replace my innate hunger for objective meaning and value, and unlike the atheist i am not going to pretend that such a need is insignificant or that such a need can be fulfilled in what i certainly know to be a humanistic fantasy. Thus in the first place, in so far as God is a possibility, my belief in God is a practical choice in the sense that just like i need food to eat and survive, i to need to believe in that which is required in-order to fulfill the personnel dimensions of my being, not just my reason. That i happen to find that fulfillment in the metaphysical concept of God and Objective Moral Values, is simply a consequence of their necessary relationship to my personal requirements for existence. I need to believe that my life has value, and i find that the concept of objective moral values fulfills that. I need to believe that i exist for a reason, and i find that an intelligent creator fulfills that need. In so far as they fulfill my objective existential nature i have placed my hope in the existence of those things, and if its reasonable to hope for the fulfillment of my being than i do not perceive it as unreasonable to hope for the existence of God. I do not believe that one needs proof of god in order to justify having “hope” in God. When faced with nihilism, hope is not unreasonable, but absolutely necessary for my survival.

This does not mean i am closed to reason. Its very important for my faith to be reasonable; but my belief in God is first and foremost and accurate and consistent expression of my personal nature seeking absolute fulfillment. In so far as reason is concerned, if i were to find anything that a-prior contradicted the existence of God, then i would abandon that concept. I am open to a disproof of God, but if this where to happen, i would not see any reason to continue existence, since my personal existence is only fulfilled in the nature of God, and absolute fulfillment of my personal dignity is that which i seek.

Unlike you, I do not feel an immediate existential need for God, but i am certain that were I convinced by atheism at some point (extremely unlikely now, given my journey so far described in my first post on this thread) I would miss objective value. Where I would go from there, I don’t know.

I believe solely because I am rationally convinced that God exists, and that naturalistic arguments fail. Consequently I have faith, supported by historical and philosophical considerations, that God has most fully revealed Himself through the Catholic Church.

When it comes to metaphysics/philosophy, atheism fails miserably. Out of nothing comes nothing. This is a stumbling block for atheism. In the debates i have been in, my opponents arguments usually end in the claim that the world might be irrational. Or, because they fail to understand the power of metaphysical principles, they think that they can hide behind the epistemological principles of science, claiming they don’t know, refusing to accept that the only way out for them is to say that physical reality popped out of absolutely nothing by itself. In other words, almost every atheist i have pushed on this subject ends up being an anti-rationalist.

Yes, atheists constantly confuse the physical ‘nothing’ of the quantum vacuum with the philosophical nothing. Again, atheism lives on philosophical ignorance. Well, atheists often dismiss philosophy, yet in doing so, they do not end up eschewing philosophy, which is not possible (naturalism is a philosophical view as well, not a scientific one), but they end up with bad philosophy.

Also i find there to be, especially on this forum, an absolute ignorance of the power of metaphysical epistemology among both Catholics and atheists.

Yes, that is true. For example there are both Catholics and atheists who object to the idea of God having created through evolution on grounds that this process would argue for an impotent God since He would have to ‘wait’ for billions of years and meanwhile ‘do nothing’. But they are unaware of metaphysical principles and of God’s nature. God lives outside time (after all, He created time in the first place), and everything can exist for Him in an instant – He does not have to ‘wait’, but knew at the moment of actualization of creation how it all would turn out. He therefore also does not need to have ‘patience’ in His creative process. Also, since by metaphysical necessity He sustains creation at every moment, He is not a deistic God – quite apart from his active involvement in the supernatural order that operates independent of the laws of nature (the creation of and influence on the human rational soul, His active guidance of the Church, the sacraments etc.).

And I have noticed that atheists who were former Catholics often lack in knowledge of metaphysical principles as well. Perhaps that is in part a reason why they have become atheists, because that lack of philosophical knowledge leads to a perceived conflict of science with religion when there is none, or to the misguided idea that science has made God obsolete. As my father, a scientist himself, is fond to say, philosophy is the glue that holds science and theology together.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Some Catholics seem to be blissfully aware that metaphysics/philosophy is one of the most important aspects of the Catholic faith.

Yes, Catholic theology is very much informed and determined by metaphysical principles. Without them, God becomes the anthropomorphic Skydaddy which is the false image that seems to be in many people’s mind.

I will pray for you that you find the strength to go to church again. I could not imagine living without the holy Eucharist. It is a mindboggling thought to come into the most intimate communion with the loving creator of this vast universe with its trillions of stars.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Can you explain why the fine tuning arguments are so convincing to you?

To answer that question in detail I have written the article that I linked to above. Please read it carefully, and in its entirety.

 

[Poof]

Bump because I want to hear more stories.

 

[InJesusItrust]

What inspired you to take that leap of faith?
Take this as an opportunity to inspire others.

If i see enough core material, i will try to put together an e-book (not to sell, just to share)

I saw contradictions and foolishness in my beliefs. Often an atheist will say people believe in God as a crutch for comfort. Yet at the same time they say that they make their own meaning in life. But then they have admitted they believe in something because it is comfortable: if you make your own meaning you’re admitting there is no objective meaning and you’re willing to pretend something is true (that you can make your own meaning) for emotional comfort. Then it hit me: no man can live a purposeless life. Even the man who denies objective truth has to make up his own truth. Yet most subjetivism followers make the objective claim that man invented God.

Then, as I grappled with nihilism, another thing occurred to me. What is wrong with reaching out to God when you need Him? Could it be possible that I was too proud to reach out to Him? (It is like a disabled man unwilling to take any help.) That I cared too much that other people would see me as weak? What if I groped in the dark and actually made contact with Him? Is it more foolish to believe something, to take a chance and reach for something which is potentially wrong, than it is to always ignore something what is true because you don’t want to risk being intellectually incorrect to other people? Am I really that proud of my intelligence and reputation?

The idea that made me grapple this question was the realization that I was stuck in a circular loop: I didn’t believe in God because I never experienced something to make me believe; I didn’t experience any such thing because I had no faith. The bible says that those who look will find Him but I never tried honestly looking. In the past I would pray, but not in a genuine quest to seek God but rather to test if He really existed. I realized I needed to have the faith of a mustard seed. I needed to grope in the dark and have faith that, if there was a God, He would help me. But not before I had that little faith and began looking. The only way to break out of that loop was to take the initiative and stop caring about what others would think. So I began searching.

I had a few mystical experiences that proved to me that Catholic Saints had genuine miracles. Not only have these experiences led me but reason lead me too. These experiences proved to me that the crucifixion was the most important event ever. After researching much I had to come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the One.