Is it possible for a Religious person to go full circle and become atheist

[Michaelangelo]

Our Lord said as much: if your foundation is sand, any big storm will wash it away. Faith that lasts has a rock as its foundation. Not all believers have that kind of faith.

As if rock somehow is not washed away even by the tinest trickle of water?

 

[PetraG]

I know a Satanist who has a remarkable understanding of Catholic theology. That’s because she was a religious for most of a lifetime. She said she hates God now. She told me how she devoted every day to prayer and serving the poor obedient to a strict rule of life. Then there came a point where she started thinking…nothing is happening. Where are the rewards of this life! The mystical heights? She felt she had …no She felt God had wasted her life because she had been getting angrier and angrier at God until she hates Him. To get back at God she became a Satanist.

I don’t count someone who hates God as an atheist. You cannot hate someone you believe is non-existent. There are satanists who hate God, and then there are satanists who hate religion because they believe it is all a fabrication. Those are two quite different reasons to be an enemy of religion. There are also atheists who don’t hate Christianity any more than they hate Greek or Roman mythology. They just believe it is a cultural construct rather than a concrete reality.

As if rock somehow is not washed away even by the tinest trickle of water?

It was a metaphor. There are structures built on rock that are still there many centuries later.

 

[Michaelangelo]

I had no problem with the scientific part of my faith. For me the problems started when I was introduced to the philosophy the theology was based upon. Even more so when they recognized how the philosophy simply wouldn’t match our scientific models. The last nail was when I started to study the origins of the new testament.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Michaelangelo:

As if rock somehow is not washed away even by the tinest trickle of water?

There are structures built on rock that are still there many centuries later.

And others that aren’t there centuries later. I do understand that it was a metaphor. My point is that even a tiny trickle of water destroys the mightiest rock.

 

[PetraG]

And others that aren’t there centuries later. I do understand that it was a metaphor. My point is that even a tiny trickle of water destroys the mightiest rock.

Not quite.
“Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock." Matt. 7:24-25

“God alone is my rock and salvation,
my fortress; I shall never fall.” Ps 62:3

 

[Neithan]

Edward Feser is a Roman Catholic philosopher known for his work on the philosophy of mind, natural theology and metaphysics. More recently he’s been writing about philosophy of science. He wrote a blog post a few days ago about some of the problems with extrapolating the scientific method into a metaphysical worldview. I’m curious what you think of his ideas.

And by all means please post some of what you learned from your study of New Testament origins in the Scripture forum. I really wish atheists started more challenging and interesting discussions here, I think that’s been lacking in the last few years. I commend you even for posting here at all; a lot of the popular atheism from a decade ago has dwindled into cultural apatheism.

 

[Pattylt]

The last nail was when I started to study the origins of the new testament.

That was the last straw for me, too. Once learned, you can’t unlearn it!

 

[Pattylt]

I really wish atheists started more challenging and interesting discussions here, I think that’s been lacking in the last few years. I commend you even for posting here at all; a lot of the popular atheism from a decade ago has dwindled into cultural apatheism.

It’s a challenge to do this as the flags tend to come flying out and the fear of suspensions lurk in the background. I, too, love to study scripture from a secular scholastic perspective but it tends to step on some sensitive toes.

 

[Neithan]

That is a serious problem for an apologetics forum. What relevance does this place have, then? Just for Catholics to critique each other? I see a lot of that. We’re not meant to close ourselves off and get all defensive. That’s something Pope Francis has talked about. The church is meant to be open and outgoing. Bp. Barron gave a good sermon for Pentecost yesterday and said how caustic so much Catholic commentary on the Internet is, and how that contrasts with the point of the church’s mission.

 

[Pattylt]

When I first joined CAF, I was surprised there wasn’t a debate section or special area where all ideas could be expressed without fear of censorship. Perhaps they had it in the past and it didn’t work well?

I do agree that it would be awesome, from my perspective, to have those types of discussions and just warn those that disagree or are upset by the discussion to just not be involved but NO FLAGS. Flags should be for inappropriate behavior, spam or obvious trolls but instead, far too many use it for comments they just don’t like. Often, the moderators will ignore a flag as inappropriate but I’ve also seen comments deleted because they don’t toe the Catholic line. I’m the guest here and wish to remain in good standing so I’m not going to start a thread that may bother others. It just is what it is.

 

[Freddy]

Excellent post! I believe it’s Chomsky that thinks language was a rapid development?

Yeah, good post. And here’s a good article that discusses the subject and has some (name removed by moderator)ut from Pinker (recommend his ‘The Language Instinct’). Also a rather depressing account of Tom Wolfe’s book which is an attempt to discredit Chomsky. I’ve been a huge fan of Wolfe but his apparently risible book ‘The Kingdom of Speech’ has tarnished his reputation in my eyes (I’ll have to reread The Right Stuff to remind me how good he is when he sticks to what he is good at).

Is Chomsky's Theory of Language Wrong? Pinker Weighs in on Debate

Critics have bashed linguist Noam Chomsky for more than 50 years, but his claim that language is innate endures

blogs.scientificamerican.com

 

[Michaelangelo]

Not quite.
“Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock." Matt. 7:24-25
With enough force applied on that house it will fall. Regardless if it is wind or water acting on it. Physics 101.

“God alone is my rock and salvation,
my fortress; I shall never fall.” Ps 62:3

The stability of the foundation is not the only factor to consider when claiming that a house will be able to resist outside forces acting on it. So I fail to see the point of using that section of this song as support in this case?

The problem with using metaphores like this is that one has to be quite specific about the conditions surrounding the model. A rock is not as resistant as one intuitively might think since even a tiny trickle of water will destroy a rock, given enough time. Or if one want to shorten the time needed, simply increase the volume of water per unit of time per unit of rock.

 

[Michaelangelo]

I will take a look at the blog post you linked. And yes, I know of Feser from before. I was a part of the church for quite some time and have a academic mindset so I tend to study all the time. There is always something that interest me.

I agree that there is a painfully large proportion of atheists who are severly lacking a deeper understanding of what it is they’re rejecting. While at the same time there is a similarly painful proportion of theists who’s belief is only founded on rituals, superstition or a chase for emotional experiences, sometime all three, while lacking any deeper understanding as well.

 

[PetraG]

The stability of the foundation is not the only factor to consider when claiming that a house will be able to resist outside forces acting on it. So I fail to see the point of using that section of this song as support in this case?

The problem with using metaphores like this is that one has to be quite specific about the conditions surrounding the model. A rock is not as resistant as one intuitively might think since even a tiny trickle of water will destroy a rock, given enough time. Or if one want to shorten the time needed, simply increase the volume of water per unit of time per unit of rock.

Listen, I’m as picky about analogies and metaphors as anybody I know.

My point is that the rock that Our Lord was talking about is a fundamentally different kind of rock than the kind you mean. Yes, the structure built upon a secure foundation can fail even when there is nothing wrong with the foundation: for instance, if the structure is not correctly attached to its foundation. Most of the time, though, even in real life, a structure that fails even though it was built on a naturally-occurring granite outcropping is not failing because the rock eroded. No. Provided it does not have cracks in it, the granite is not the weak link in that situation. The structure is going to be gone long before any change to literal granite is even perceptible.

As for the foundation that is referred to by the psalmist and by Our Lord, that is a rock that will not be moved.

 

[PetraG]

I will take a look at the blog post you linked. And yes, I know of Feser from before. I was a part of the church for quite some time and have a academic mindset so I tend to study all the time. There is always something that interest me.

I agree that there is a painfully large proportion of atheists who are severly lacking a deeper understanding of what it is they’re rejecting. While at the same time there is a similarly painful proportion of theists who’s belief is only founded on rituals, superstition or a chase for emotional experiences, sometime all three, while lacking any deeper understanding as well.

Yes. The problem that concerns believers most is the concern that we mislead someone into unbelief because we have incorrectly represented the nature of our foundation. If we’re essentially selling fire insurance, is it wrong for someone to smell a sales job and reject that? No. God has not deputized anybody to be running an extortion racket. If someone were to sell Christianity in that way, it would be the person spreading the false gospel who would be liable to judgement, not those who correctly rejected it. Is God going to judge someone wanting because he or she correctly rejected a false gospel, even when it was meant to be the true one? Of course not. No, any judgment would fall on a person who was falsifying the gospel, or else would be given the mercy of God’s knowledge of our unintended frailties.

God can read hearts, and knows who is changing the gospel to suit their own weakness or their own ambition. God knows whose ignorance was invincible and the one whose pride was the thing that would not be vanquished. It is not for us to concern ourselves with how someone who rejects the Gospel is going to be judged. It is for us to be concerned about whether or not the Gospel we communicate is the truth. If we communicate falsehood because it is attractive, because it keeps backsides sitting in the pews on paper, we would stand liable to judgment. Those are people who are being lead to believe they are following the truth when in fact they are being sold a weak substitute that will not be able to sustain them. If we communicate falsehood that drives people away because they have a working BS meter, though, well, that is on us and not on them, too. If we communicate the truth and they reject it, that is between that soul and God, for only God knows whether or not the person is culpable or only the victim of invincible ignorance, an ignorance that sincerely seeks truth but awaits the grace to accept it.

I think your willingness to try to diagnose where honest misunderstanding is most likely to arise is likely to be a very fruitful avenue of evangelization. When the language we use is not comprehended, it does not help to just repeat the same thing, only louder. We have to look for words and actions most likely to overcome the problem in comprehension or any other unseen barriers to accepting the message. That requires understanding what the listener has interpreted the earlier messages to have been saying and why the listener is impeded from accepting the truth.

 

[Padres1969]

Maybe in your circles. In mine it’s not only very common to see Religious become atheist, or occasionally agnostic, it’s actually far and away more the norm than an atheist becoming religious.

I mean I can go down the list of folks I know who were religious but now atheist and it encompasses a near majority of my friend group and family. My aunt, brother, sister, two uncles, several cousins, several of my good friends. All were raised religious or were religious into adulthood but have all renounced religion. In fact I can only think of one friend who went the other way and was pretty much an atheist but now is a hardcore Christian, and it took his son nearly dying of a heart defect at his first birthday to make that happen.

 

[Neithan]

For many of the academically minded or intellectual atheists who have rigorously investigated arguments for God’s existence, and rejected it, evangelization cannot take root until their intellectual issues are resolved. As Aquinas noted, grace builds on nature, but does not replace it. When natural theology is rejected, there is no firm foundation for faith. Given how much time they may have invested in arriving at atheism, they may not have enough time to work their way back out of it.

 

[Neithan]

Yes that’s because of the nominally Christian culture, where many more were Christians than atheists; so there will probably be an asymmetry of conversion/deconversion for a long while yet… unless we suddenly see a mass improvement in catechesis and exemplary personal holiness.

 

[PetraG]

For many of the academically minded or intellectual atheists who have rigorously investigated arguments for God’s existence, and rejected it, evangelization cannot take root until their intellectual issues are resolved. As Aquinas noted, grace builds on nature, but does not replace it. When natural theology is rejected, there is no firm foundation for faith…

I don’t know that I’d put boundaries on grace to the point that I’d say “under X circumstances, evangelization cannot take root.” Personal stories vary so much in terms of what the apparent causal and precipitating factors lead to (or impede) conversion. Having said that, yes, there are certain circumstances under which a person on a mission to find and conform themselves to objective truth would understandably face practical barriers. Yes, I’d agree with that.

We need to pray, we need to inform ourselves of our own faith, but as I think you’re pointing out we also need to listen to each person and what their current and past experiences and perceptions are and have been. Sometimes, sure, someone hears the truth and understands it and they just do not buy it. Sometimes, though, people make different sense out of the same words. They don’t hear the intended message, but some different message. Sometimes people have feelings or experiences that they do not believe are being heard and that gets in the way of accepting Good News based on love.

Given how much time they may have invested in arriving at atheism, they may not have enough time to work their way back out of it.

Invincible ignorance is a state in which a person honestly seeking to know and conform themselves to the truth is held back at the present time by no fault of their own. Of course all of us also hold ourselves back not only in our relationship with God but even in our understanding of ourselves and others on a human level because we are too invested in some narrative framework that we have built up as we tried to make sense of the world. This is something that grace can melt in a remarkably short amount of time, including instantaneously, provided the person is more devoted to the truth than to a system the person substitutes for the truth.

 

[Freddy]

Yes that’s because of the nominally Christian culture, where many more were Christians than atheists; so there will probably be an asymmetry of conversion/deconversion for a long while yet… unless we suddenly see a mass improvement in catechesis and exemplary personal holiness.

I agree. I think that the vast majority of Christians are culturally Christian. That is, brought up as such in a Christian environment rather than coming to it after a long investigation of all possible belief systems. Hence it’s a lot easier to reject, especially when you move out of the home environment.

I was brought up in a quite conservatively minded society in a small town (Dylan Thomas’s ‘lovely ugly town’). Racism and homophobia was the norm. Church 4 times on a Sunday. The whole of the family’s social life was centered around the church. And then when I moved to London…well, let’s just say I realised how restrictive my upbringing had been.

And the internet has had a huge influence on belief. At one time you accepted what you were told because there was extremely limited access to information. It would have taken me all day at the local library to find a small fraction of what I need to know to check the veracity of any given claim whereas I now have it literally at my fingertips.